Tuesday, 20 May 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Prime Minister) —I wish to advise the House of the following ministerial arrangements. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will be absent from Australia until 26 May 1986 on a visit to Japan. In his absence I will be acting as Prime Minister. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) will be absent from Australia until 24 May. In his absence the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) will act as the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) will represent the Acting Minister in this House. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) will be absent from Australia until 22 May. In his absence, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) will act as the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) will be the Acting Minister Assisting the Treasurer. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) will be absent from Australia until 4 June. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) will act as the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) will be absent from Australia until 23 May. In his absence the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) will act as the Minister for Resources and Energy. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) will be absent from Australia until 24 May. In her absence the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) will act as the Minister for Education. As a matter of courtesy I wish to advise the House that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism is unwell today and will not be present during Question Time. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order. Will the Acting Prime Minister tell us who is in charge of the economy? Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I suggest that the honourable member not raise frivolous points of order. Mr CARLTON —Will the Treasurer reaffirm that the promised personal tax cuts will come into effect on 1 September 1986? Mr KEATING —The Government has made it quite clear that the tax cuts will be paid in this calendar year. The question of their timing was raised last week at the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes meeting and will be discussed at the future meeting. The more general point is that this question comes from the Opposition which has refused to pass the tax Bills to raise the revenue. The hypocrisy of the Opposition is that it is now concerned about the tax cuts but it says categorically that it will refuse the passage of all the Bills, all the revenue raising measures, to pay for them. Now those opposite are worrying about the tax cuts while the Leader of the Opposition says that we should have a wage freeze and cut wages. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I note with pleasure that Mr Ernie Bridge is the first Aboriginal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in Western Australia. Did the Minister last week meet with the Western Australian Premier, Mr Burke, and the Western Australian Minister for Housing, Sport and Recreation, Consumer Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Bridge, to discuss a joint Commonwealth-State program to provide land, infrastructure and the services necessary to raise the health and living standards of Aboriginal people in Western Australia? If so, can the Minister advise the House of the outcome of those discussions? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Last week I met with the Premier of Western Australia and Mr Bridge, the Minister for Housing, Sport and Recreation, Consumer Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs. The outcome of the discussions was most successful. There is an agreement between the Government of Western Australia and the Federal Government which involves a package of $100m expenditure over the next five years. That $100m will go partly towards the purchase of land and partly towards the provision of infrastructure and support services on Aboriginal land. It has been agreed by the Western Australian Government that it will give a secure form of title-a lease-to Aboriginal people for 99 years in respect of all those areas of land which have been traditionally occupied by Aboriginal people. This agreement probably has regard to the longstanding neglect and the appalling conditions under which many Aboriginal people in Western Australia live. It is a very formidable arrangement because the additional $100m over five years is over and above existing State and Commonwealth expenditure. The proposals will be worked out by the formulation of a Commonwealth-State task force which will sit down with relevant Aboriginal communities and work out with those communities their actual needs on the ground and then proceed to implement measures. Needless to say, these proposals have been warmly responded to by Aboriginal leadership in Western Australia. It is a matter of regret that the only condemnation of the proposals which are aimed at lifting the living standards of probably the worst housed group in Australian society-unfortunately many in it live below Third World conditions-comes from the somewhat shortsighted and short visioned Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hassell. Mr CARLTON —Does the Treasurer still adhere to the view he expressed at his Press conference on Friday, 16 May, that all issues, including in particular wages policy, the current 3 per cent productivity case and the possible deferral of tax cuts, will be `on the table' for discussion at the special meeting on the economy in the first week of June? Mr KEATING —What will be under discussion is those matters which affect the general problem of the balance of payments and internal economic conditions, and I made that quite clear on PM and at the Press conference. I said that everything that relates to macro-economic policy, economic outlook, et cetera, is up for discussion. What needs to be understood is that this Government is running an incomes policy; it has an accord with the trade unions. The welcome development is that employers are seeking a more tripartite discussion than the discussion which is normally held within the framework provided by the accord partners. That is, of course, a very welcome development but what needs to be appreciated is that with a centralised wage fixing policy and an accord-with that cast of policy-there is a requirement on the Government to involve itself from time to time in the way in which those areas of policies impact. That happened under accord mark 2; it is happening now. It is the kind of flexibility which is the very essence of the accord; it is the kind of flexibility which allows discussion. That is in marked contrast with the totally confrontationist approach of the Opposition, which will not speak to anybody, not the trade unions and not business. It would run the economy by handing down tablets from Parliament House and publishing statements in Press boxes as if that were a substitute for policy. In fact the very essence of this Government's policy is a consultative one. One would have thought that after 3 1/4 years that basic message would have penetrated even the minds of members of the Opposition. Mr FREE —My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for Resources and Energy. Is the Minister aware of calls for the closure of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's establishment at Lucas Heights following the Chernobyl accident? Will he outline to the House the functional and structural similarities and differences between the Lucas Heights and Chernobyl reactors? Mr BARRY JONES —It should be pointed out that the construction of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's research reactor, HIFAR, is entirely different from that of the power reactors at Chernobyl. Firstly, HIFAR uses heavy water rather than graphite as the moderator. The only graphite contained in HIFAR is a neutron-reflecting layer that is outside the reactor vessel itself. So, the problem that arose specifically at Chernobyl could not occur in this situation. The graphite layer, which is essentially a protective layer, is not exposed to sufficient fast neutron flux levels to give rise to any possibility of graphite ignition. While the Chernobyl reactors do not have secondary containment buildings engineered to prevent uncontrolled releases of radioactivity, the HIFAR containment building represents one of the safety systems of the reactor and is tested every six months to see that it retains its integrity. This is very important to get some idea of the relativity between the size of HIFAR and Chernobyl. HIFAR operates at a power level of only about one three-hundredth of the Chernobyl reactor type-that is to say, a capacity of 10 megawatts thermal compared to 3,000 megawatts thermal. Unlike them, it is not a pressurised system, so one does not get the situation of a blow-out, in effect. Conceivably, one might get a blow-in, but it is not a pressurised system. Other significant differences include the fuel requirements. The core of HIFAR contains about four kilograms of uranium while the Chernobyl reactor type contains 204 tonnes of uranium. They also have different operating temperatures. HIFAR operates at about 50 degrees Celsius; Chernobyl operates at 270 degrees Celsius. In view of these differences the Chernobyl accident does not have safety implications so far as the Atomic Energy Commission's HIFAR reactor is concerned. There is no risk of any similar accident at Lucas Heights. Of course, they said that at Chernobyl too. I must say that the system at Lucas Heights is operating at a very low scale. We believe that there is no justification for calls to close down HIFAR or the research establishment at Lucas Heights, which is primarily concerned with research projects. It is not part of a power system; it is not contributing to a power grid. That is something that is not really understood. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Treasurer whether he still adheres to the view expressed at his Press conference on 16 May that the economic summit-that is or is not a summit; that may be one but may not be-will be the most important discussion of economic issues since the 1983 National Economic Summit Conference? What is the nature of the meeting? Will the decisions taken at that Summit be the basis of Government decisions on all the matters on the table? Mr KEATING —The question allows me to clear this point. I was asked a question which I will repeat here. The transcript states: Mr Keating, would you expect this proposed meeting to be the most comprehensive examination of the economy since the last Summit? Those words were not said by me. They were put into the question put to me, despite the reporting of it which we have seen for days now. Mr Howard —It is the media now, is it? Mr KEATING —No. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I have a very high regard for the media who mostly try to get things right. Sometimes things go wrong and they get repeated. It is as simple as that. The answer stated: I wouldn't say- I meant to say `I wouldn't say that'- I think as far as `the most comprehensive discussion of the issues since the Summit' probably, but we are not trying to suggest this is a Summit meeting-it is a small meeting. There is no way one could draw from those remarks the-- Mr Howard —It is a small meeting now, is it? Mr KEATING —The Committee is one of the two bodies set up by the 1983 Summit. There is the Economic Planning Advisory Council and the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes. It meets every two months. Obviously Opposition members have not known of it-I do not know whether they are uninterested-but I assure them that my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and I have been attending. In that body we discuss prices and incomes developments and general macro- economic developments. The Confederation of Australian Industry, the Business Council of Australia, the professional bodies, the States and the Commonwealth are represented there. It will be another meeting of that body. It is in its very essence an advisory body. I would make it clear that, when the accord was renegotiated around the discount last October, those discussions which took place between the Government and the ACTU came back to Cabinet for its endorsement, as every other matter would and should. Mr MARTIN —Can the Minister for Aviation inform the House whether it is the Government's policy to retain Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd in free public ownership or to sell them off, as has been suggested in some quarters? Mr PETER MORRIS —I can assure the honourable member that the Government's policy is that both Qantas and Trans Australia Airlines will remain in full public ownership. The Opposition's proposal is that they be sold off to a group of privileged Australians rather than that they should belong to all Australians, as is the case at the moment. The record shows that both organisations, given greater independence, responsibility and freedom by this Government, have substantially improved their financial performance. Both make a major contribution to the aviation industry. Qantas, in particular, is in effect a major export industry earning some $900m a year in foreign exchange. I am aware that it is the Opposition's policy that both TAA and Qantas should be sold off. In effect, what the Opposition has now resolved is a reversion to privatisation. The Leader of the Opposition in recent weeks has been making it very clear that privatisation is on the back burner-it is no longer a priority with the Opposition. The fact is that privatisation is a major priority with the Opposition, particularly in respect of its aviation policy. In effect, what the Opposition is about is flogging off valuable public assets, pilfering public assets, to finance the gigantic deficit it would propose and the grandiose schemes. I should mention also that the Opposition's latest policy proposal is that the two-airline agreement, for which, as the honourable member is well aware, the Opposition was responsible in an agreement created five years ago to this month, should be terminated and that the Opposition would enter into negotiation with the parties to the agreement to try to have it amended. In addition, the Opposition tells us that, first, the major airports-that valuable real estate and those valuable operations-should be formed into a myriad of public companies, then one would put in some private enterprise, and then the good bits could be sold off, but only to the Opposition's mates. Mr Howard —You are the expert on mates-terrific! Mr PETER MORRIS —It is terrific, it is wonderful, because a member of the Opposition is so concerned about this dangerous policy on that side of the House that the Opposition has most responsibly made available to me a full copy of its policy. One could say that it has fallen off the back of a jumbo, but it did not. It arrived carefully secreted in a large envelope addressed to me and I produce it for you to have a look at, Madam Speaker. Everything I have quoted today is from that document. The document shows the deep hatred and division among those who sit opposite. It shows that there are those in the Opposition who, at a time when the Opposition thought it was coming up out of the black hole, have determined that it will go straight back in again. They will do anything to make sure that the honourable member for Bennelong's hold on the leadership will be a short one. They recognise the irresponsibility of the current leadership and, as I said, this document shows the division and hatred that exist among those who sit opposite. I thank the honourable member opposite who made this document available to me. Government members-Name him! Mr PETER MORRIS —I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would like to know who he is. I thank Opposition members for that. We have no reason to believe other than that the document conveyed to me is a genuine document. In those circumstances, Opposition members have done the public a service by releasing it at this early date so it can be exposed for what it is. Mr N.A. Brown —My question is directed-- Mr Robert Brown —Is this an apology to your Leader? Mr N.A. Brown —Government members can have our industrial relations policy now, if they like. My question is directed to the Treasurer. I remind him, by way of introduction, of two parts of the Commonwealth's submission to the present national wage case. In the first part it was said, with his approval: . . . the improved competitiveness of Australian firms has resulted in the import competing sector enjoying an improved market share. The second part stated: On this basis Australia would substantially retain last year's improvement in competitiveness. That would be a good outcome . . . I ask the Treasurer: In the light of the appalling trade figures that prompted him the other day to say that we do have a problem with our external trading position, has the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission been presented with an entirely false statement of the Government's assessment of the economy, and will the Commonwealth now, while it has an opportunity to do so, go back to the Arbitration Commission tomorrow when the national wage case reopens and give to the Commission a true picture of the Australian economy? Mr KEATING —The points referred to in the honourable gentleman's question in respect of the Commonwealth's submissions are entirely correct. I do not know what his point is. Of course the Australian economy is much more competitive than it was. The Opposition has a fundamental misunderstanding of the term `competitiveness'. In the last sitting week I referred to the fact that Australia had the worst terms of trade, and I said, as reported in Hansard: No recognition has been given to the fact that we now have the worst terms of trade in the world that we have ever had. There were guffaws from the Opposition as though this was some concession on my part that we had the worst terms of trade. The simple fact of the matter is that members of the Opposition did not understand the difference between the balance of payments and the terms of trade. They thought that I was referring to the balance of payments. In their ignorance they laughed and guffawed, as they did not understand the point. The Deputy Leader does not understand the difference between the terms `competitiveness' and `terms of trade'. Competitiveness is a measure of Australia's performance in terms of our domestic outcomes in prices-our exchange rate-and on our competitiveness index we are more competitive now than at any time in the last 23 years. That is a fact of life. But competitiveness only gives us the opportunity to improve our current account. Mr Porter —What about inflation? Mr KEATING —Members of the Opposition asked the question; I presume they want an answer. The competitiveness gives Australia the opportunity to deal with its current account imbalance, but it is the magnitude of the falls in export earnings which is the problem. We forecast in the last Budget that import volumes would slow; and they have. We forecast that export volumes would increase; and they have. However, as import volumes have slowed, export earnings have decreased more rapidly. That is because of the dramatic decline in prices for the commodities that we export. I will make that point perhaps more starkly by just running through the prices for those commodities. Between 1981-82 and March 1986 coal export prices, measured in United States dollars, fell by around 25 per cent. Between 1980-81 and the first five months of this year wheat prices fell by around 29 per cent. Between 1981-82 and the first five months of 1986, wool prices fell by around 21 per cent. Between 1982 and early 1986 iron ore prices fell by around 20 per cent. Between December 1983 and early 1986 alumina prices fell by 27 per cent. Between the March quarter of 1984 and the March quarter of 1986 aluminium prices fell by 34 per cent. Between 1984 and April 1986 beef prices fell by 24 per cent. Between 1982-83 and early 1986 barley prices fell by 52 per cent. In early 1986 sugar prices were around 51 per cent below those achieved over the period 1978-79 and 1980-81. That gives an indication of the dramatic and rapid decline in our produce earnings which has now impacted on our current account. This is no commentary whatsoever on the strength of the Australian domestic economy. If Opposition members want the figures from the Treasury Round-up, not from the Treasurer or the Government-for those Opposition members who cannot decipher statistics I will put them in simple terms. In the six months to December 1985, that is until Christmas 1985, non-farm gross domestic product, the non-farm economy, grew at an astounding rate of 7.7 per cent. Gross domestic product grew at 6 per cent and gross national expenditure-demand-grew at 6.7 per cent. So what we have is an entirely healthy economy. The problem is that it has been too healthy and that is why last October we induced the slowing by lifting interest rates. But we have seen this dramatic slide in the terms of trade. The Government is facing this problem. I just make the point that the former Treasurer in 1982 was running around complaining like a little boy that the world had left us behind. Do honourable members remember his expression-that the world had left us behind? If we had the same terms of trade now as he had in 1982, we would have a current account deficit under $9 billion and therefore it would not be an issue. Let me put the story another way. During this last year earnings from Australia's exports of oil, which by value are the second strongest after coal, have diminished from $250m a month to $50m a month. The figures for oil are just slightly larger than those for wool. It is the equivalent of taking the totality of our wool earnings right out of our current account. That is the magnitude of the speed of the decline in prices. To trivialise the problem as honourable members opposite seek to do is to sell this country down the drain and not to face the problems. The week before last the Leader of the Opposition made a speech to the National Press Club and never even once referred to the terms of trade problem. He totally misunderstands the nature of the problem. He said: The massive devaluation of the Australian dollar over the last eighteen months symbolises the policy failures of the Hawke government. Let there be no mistake, this devaluation represents a dramatic fall in the living standards . . . That is the level of comprehension of Opposition members of the size of the problem. This Government has said, as it must do, that these terms of trade are not of our making. They are not the responsibility of the Government, the trade unions or the business community. This is a national problem which the Government must face. The Government will face the problem instead of doing as the previous Government did. When the economy was collapsing in 1982 it published a Budget forecast which never mentioned the collapse in the economy. It put out a Budget in 1982 which it knew was deceptive and untrue. This Government is telling the truth and will always tell the truth. Mr PUNCH —Has the attention of the Minister for Trade been drawn to a Press statement issued last Friday by the honourable member for Dawson in which it is claimed that the Hawke Government has massively reduced export incentives? Can the Minister inform the House whether this is, in fact, true? Mr DAWKINS —I think it is possible to measure the desperation of members of the Opposition by the extent to which they will resort to deception and dishonesty. Mr Porter —Oh, come on, Dawkins. You-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Barker. If he continues to interject I will name him. Mr DAWKINS —It was claimed last week by the honourable member for Dawson that export incentives had fallen from a figure of $260m in 1982-83 to $100m for the coming year, 1986-87. But what members of the Opposition failed to point out under those circumstances was that included in the $260m in 1982-83 was $155m under the old export expansion grants scheme. That was the scheme, the abolition of which was announced in July 1982 not by this Government but, of course, by the former Prime Minister. It was a budgetary decision of the now Leader of the Opposition to eliminate that scheme and, therefore, reduce expenditure in this export incentive area by $155m a year. It stretches the credulity of all of us, I think, to suggest that the honourable member for Dawson was unaware of this fact when he put out that statement. It reveals that he is not only untrustworthy, as we know, but also either ignorant or dishonest. Opposition members-Withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister must not reflect upon members of the House. He will withdraw his comment. Mr DAWKINS —I withdraw. Madam Speaker, I gave you a choice. I am not quite sure whether you are asking me to withdraw the reflection on him that he was either ignorant or dishonest-- Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will withdraw both reflections. Mr DAWKINS —Madam Speaker, I will withdraw whichever one you like. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw unequivocally the words he used. Mr DAWKINS —I withdraw all the words unequivocally, but I still say that the House is left with a clear choice when such lengths are gone to by a member of the Opposition to quite clearly cloud the truth of which he is well aware. He was a member of the House when the decision was made. He knows that the statistics he put out last week were precisely wrong. This does raise an important question because this year the Government will spend some $187m on export incentive schemes and next year we will spend much less than $187m for the very good reason that we have reviewed the export market development scheme which was inherited, we have improved it and it will run in the future at a cost of about $100m a year. As a result of that it will be a better scheme and will provide better assistance to genuine exporters than the old scheme did. This raises a more serious question because if members of the Opposition believe that we can cure the current account problem confronted by this country by throwing money at it they are precisely wrong. That is not the way in which we are going to improve our trade performance. As the Treasurer has quite rightly said, it is a result of having an economy which is more competitive and having industries which are more competitive both with imports and on markets overseas. Let me say that the members of the Opposition are not the only ones who are making unreasonable demands of the Government. Only the other day a representative of the Software Industries Association said that it is the Government's responsibility to find the products, create the mechanisms and help set up the deals to improve export performance. That is not the role of government; that is the role of business and industry. The only thing that Australian business and industry have to recognise is that it is their responsibility to improve their performance in marketing on overseas markets and the domestic market as well. I give the House an example of the cost to Australia of the poor export performance of Australian industry. If we now had the same share of the Asia-Pacific market that we had 20 years ago, we would be exporting an extra $13 billion worth of products and we would not have a current account problem at all. The Government is perfectly happy to support, and will continue to do so, for genuine exporters, but industry and business must understand that they have a key responsibility in this area. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Treasurer to the answer he gave to the previous question from the Opposition in which he said that we basically have a healthy economy. I also remind the Treasurer of his statement to this Parliament on 20 March this year, when he said: The fact is that the Government's policy settings this year have been totally correct. I remind the honourable gentleman that he told John Laws last week on the famous radio interview: If this Government cannot get the adjustment, get manufacturing going again and keep moderate wage outcomes and a sensible economic policy, then Australia is basically done for. We will just end up being a third rate economy. I ask the honourable gentleman: Which Paul Keating are we expected to believe? Mr KEATING —This question, more than any other I have been asked by the Leader of the Opposition, has shown one thing: The longer he is away from the knowledge base of the Treasury, the more inept he looks as anyone with any economic understanding. All I can say is that as Treasurer he must have rehearsed his lines and not understood them. He so lacks a fundamental understanding of the various things which are not in conflict in either of those statements as would require me to give him an education in basic economics, which I thought he had. All of the comments that we have heard for a long time indicate that when there is no Treasury minute under his nose he is mute in economic matters. God help him if ever he became Prime Minister; God help all of us. Let me make the point that the Australian economy has been entirely robust. Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr KEATING —You laugh, but what do you call-- Mr Howard —They do not believe that, Paul. Look at them! They don't believe that. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will heed the Chair and cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —The level of interest in what is probably the most important economic issue for a long time is appalling. If the economy is not robust at 7.7 per cent non-farm growth, whenever would the adjective `robust' be appropriate? The policy settings in that respect were adjusted by lifting monetary policy in October to shave the domestic demand, which was running too strongly at 6.7 per cent. I am making an entirely different point when I say that when our national income is cut, as it has been by a decline in the terms of trade, Australia's general standard of living will in some way have to decline as well. The only way we can maintain a standard of living at the moment which is either static or improving, with a decline in national income, obviously is for someone else to finance it. That financing comes out in the current account deficit. In other words, our standard of living would be propped up by $12 billion or $13 billion and that is over time unsustainable. So with the backdrop of those declines in commodity prices, oil prices and the rest, despite the fact that the depreciation is working to cut import volumes and lift export volumes, it cannot work fast enough to deal with the backlog caused by 30 years of coalition neglect of the manufacturing sector. When honourable members opposite were in government they destroyed the manufacturing sector. They were quite happy to jump on the last gasp of the lucky country resource boom in 1981. They blew the balance of our manufacturing industry out the door with a crazy wage explosion over which they had no control. As usual, it has been left to the Australian Labor Party to pick up the bits. Having picked up their deficit imbalance, we now have to pick up their current account imbalance and fix that. So we have to remodel manufacturing industry. What is being suggested by the Opposition now is that the 20-year trend decline in manufacturing and manufacturing exports will be reversed in the year from March 1985, when the depreciation first started, despite the fact that in the meantime prices have gone down massively as well. All I can say to honourable members opposite is that they should grow up and think about the problems. Mr KENT —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to the large military action against Tamils in the Jaffna area of Sri Lanka? Will the Minister convey to the Sri Lankan Government our alarm at the mounting casualties amongst innocent civilians who have become the target of the military operations? Mr BEAZLEY —The Australian Government is concerned that the communal situation in Sri Lanka continues to inflict violence and social disruption on large numbers of the people of Sri Lanka. The Government has expressed that concern on numerous occasions. It did so most recently at the last session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. The Australian delegation, in its statement to the Commission on 5 March, urged all in Sri Lanka to eschew violence and renew their efforts towards a peaceful political solution. We are concerned at the current impasse in negotiations between the Government and Tamil representatives aimed at reaching a political solution to that communal problem. We have made it very clear that we support India's mediatory role in what is clearly a delicate and difficult matter. In late April a high level Indian delegation visited Sri Lanka to hold discussions with all parties to the conflict. Although no breakthrough was achieved, it is heartening that both the Sri Lankan Government and the leader of the Indian delegation described the talks as useful. The Indian Government is now considering in detail the proposals put for a settlement by the Sri Lankan Government. On the one hand we are concerned, therefore, about reports of innocent Tamil civilians being victims of military activity. The Sri Lankan Government is reported to have launched a new offensive in the peninsula. One the other hand, we are equally concerned at reports of Tamil extremist behaviour, including recent bombing attacks in Colombo in which civilians have been the unfortunate victims. I understand too that during the visit of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to Sri Lanka last May he discussed the communal problem with many people, including the President of Sri Lanka. Since the visit he has written to the Australian High Commissioner and had him take up these matters with Sri Lankan officials. So the Government is concerned about the situation there. I think the Minister for Foreign Affairs is doing all that is possible, with the normal tools that are available for diplomatic influence. I reiterate, in answer to the honourable member's question, that we have those concerns. Mr CARLTON —I refer the Treasurer to an answer he gave in this House on 13 November last year concerning State funding, when he said that to reduce State grants is to `go back to the old, squalid policy of deflation-just deflate the economy and tear the guts out of it so one can handle inflation because one does not have any other policy, or handle external imbalances because one has no other ideas'. I ask the Treasurer: Does he now accept the need for cutting State funding and, if so, does this mean that he has no other policy and no other ideas on how to tackle the problems facing our economy? Mr KEATING —That was an earth-shatterer! The context of that question was not as it was stated. The point is simply this: All I have said about this issue is that, in the face of what is now a clear trend decline in the terms of trade, which started in October in earnest-- Mr Howard —Which you didn't know about then. Mr KEATING —There was some modest decline in the terms of trade, dummy-of course there was. We all knew that. I am talking about the marked deterioration since October. The obvious thing is that if the public sector borrowing requirement were to be maintained at its current level in the face of this difficulty the prospects for a more speedy repair of the current account imbalance would, of course, be harmed. If we wish investment to proceed, if we wish to continue the underpinning of the renaissance of Australian manufacturing by a higher level of investment, obviously the thing not to impede is private sector activity. Therefore, to facilitate that stronger level of investment and private sector activity, the first and obvious place for some diminution of demand is the public sector, the Commonwealth budget and, of course, in this circumstance, the States. All we are saying is that if the requirement to rein in the public sector is to continue to fall upon Commonwealth Ministers, in the end there will be a disproportionate diminution in services from the Commonwealth level to the States, and there is more of a requirement now on the State sector authorities to moderate the ambition of their capital programs. That is what we are saying and it is not an exceptional thing to say. It is in the context, I am sure, of moderating the demand of the public sector that the States will recognise the force of that argument. I am confident that, when we meet the Premiers, they will understand that, they will understand that the Commonwealth is required to do as it is doing but that other things in the economy may need to be done also-and those are the things which will be discussed at the meeting the week after next. Mr TICKNER —Has the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs seen reports that Chilean authorities have taken action against officials of the leading Catholic Church human rights organisation in that country? I ask the Minister to comment on those allegations. Mr BEAZLEY —I am aware of the reports to which the honourable gentleman referred concerning action taken against two officials of the Catholic Church's human rights organisation in Chile-the Vicarate of Solidarity. The officials have been charged with providing assistance to an injured person wanted by the Government in connection with a shooting incident in which two men, including a policeman, were killed. On the information available to me I would not wish to comment on the legal aspects of this case except to say that in Santiago there is a difference in interpretation of what transpired, with the Vicarate emphasising the humanitarian nature of its involvement. I do wish to say, however, that the Australian Government has always regarded the Vicarate's work in Chile as constructive, courageous and commendable. I have the greatest admiration for those involved in the defence of human rights, particularly in difficult circumstances such as those found in Chile today. The Government is disturbed by reports that the Government of Chile is using this opportunity to intimidate the Vicarate and to undermine its credibility among the Chilean people. Given the nature of its operations it is essential that the confidence of the Vicarate's work should be respected, as it has been in the past, and the Government will ensure that the concern expressed today will be communicated to the Chilean authorities. We will continue to follow the issue closely. The Clerk-I have received from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That this House censures the Treasurer and the Government for: 1. having deceived and misled the Australian public about the real state of the Australian economy for at least the past 12 months; 2. the chronic loss of confidence and instability created by the public displays of disunity and point scoring between the Treasurer and the Prime Minister; 3. the intemperate language of the Treasurer in explaining his latest diagnosis of the Australian economy; and 4. the Treasurer's failure to fully inform the Australian people of the Government's current views of the economy and the policy response it proposes. Mr Young-It would be the wish of the Government to facilitate debate on such a motion. Motion of Censure Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.52) —by leave-I move: That this House censures the Treasurer and the Government for: 1. having deceived and misled the Australian public about the real state of the Australian economy for at least the past 12 months; 2. the chronic loss of confidence and instability created by the public displays of disunity and point scoring between the Treasurer and the Prime Minister; 3. the intemperate language of the Treasurer in explaining his latest diagnosis of the Australian economy; and 4. the Treasurer's failure to fully inform the Australian people of the Government's current views of the economy and the policy response it proposes. The core of this motion is not a criticism of the fact that now, at long last, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) may have come to realise the seriousness of the situation in which the Australian economy is now placed. That is not the core of this motion. The core of this motion is the way in which the Government, and in particular the Treasurer of this country, has systematically, deliberately and, on occasions, maliciously misled the Australian public about the health of the Australian economy over the last 12 months; and we still have that here today. We had here today a graphic demonstration of that with the Treasurer still maintaining this incredible fiction that he can go on a radio program, talk about a banana republic, talk about the country basically being done for unless certain goals are achieved, and talk about the need for sacrifices, and yet, in the face of all that, he can come into this House and have the unbelievable gall to stand up in front of all of us and say that the economy is basically healthy and that there is nothing at all wrong with it, that it is robust, that it is performing brilliantly, and that the Government will preside over the renaissance of Australian manufacturing industry. The central charge of the Opposition is not that we are disputing that there may, in fact, be things wrong with the Australian economy; it is not the extent to which the Treasurer's remarks were interpreted by some commentators last week as a desperate effort to hammer some economic sense into his recalcitrant colleagues. That is not the charge of this motion. The charge of this motion is that the Government has, over the last 12 months at least and certainly on occasions over the last three years, grossly misled the Australian public about the state of the economy. The whole of this man's economic case against the Opposition, and which he put to the public, was conceived in deceit and he has carried those marks of deceit over the last three years. He perpetuated for two years, until it became discredited, the notion that he had inherited a huge Budget deficit, when the three deficits this man has brought down have all exceeded, in money terms, the deficits over which the Fraser Government presided. Having been caught out misleading the public on that, he is now trying to invent a 1986 version of the big deficit lie of 1983. The 1986 version is that in some way this Government has inherited the current account deficit. This is unbelievable gall. He is now asking the public to believe that, despite the fact that the average current account deficit under the Fraser Government was 3.7 per cent of gross domestic product and that under him it has climbed to 6.2 per cent, he inherited the current account deficit from the Fraser Government. The gall of this man is unbelievable. He said that it is not the Government's fault. He said it is the fault of the world, the fault of the Fraser Government, the fault of the business community, and the fault of the media commentators. The only thing he has not blamed is the reception over the telephone between Beijing and Canberra. It is pretty clear that the message got through. He has been pulled into line. Last week he was the Rambo of the Government's economic policy. He was up and going. He was going to knock all the characters into line. The Treasurer was going to get Hawke, the trade unions and the business community and bang all their heads together. He picked up the newspapers anxiously the next morning. He saw that some commentators said: `Weren't you brave, Paul, for telling everybody the truth? Weren't you courageous for at long last coming clean and saying what a terrible predicament we are in?' But along comes the pride of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). That brings me to the second charge that we make against this Government. Over the last seven days what has become more important is not the real situation with the Australian economy, not what ought to be done about the crisis facing it and not what policy changes ought to be brought about, but whose pride matters most. Over the last seven days we have had one of the most petulant displays of power rivalry between two senior politicians that this country has seen. The Treasurer's attitude is: Hang the consequences for economic policy and the confusing signals being given to the market. He forgets that he has cost people thousands of dollars with his ludicrously flamboyant language in describing our difficulties. He forgets all about that; he thinks it does not matter. What really matters to the Treasurer is whether in the eyes of the people whose adulation he craves he is seen as being strong and tough in standing up to the Prime Minister. What matters to the Prime Minister, is whether, particularly when he is overseas, he is seen as being in charge. The question of where we are, what we should do and what are the right policies is put completely and utterly into limbo. Culminating in today's Question Time, we have been treated to the most erratic pronouncements on the state of the Australian economy that any Treasurer has given us. The Treasurer ran to panic stations on the Laws program last week. I listened to most of the interview. The Treasurer used the most self-indulgent language to try to get a message across. I thought: `We have the message clear. The Treasurer has at long last realised that the J curve will not work-as we said and as Senator Button has kept saying and is still saying-and has tried to use a few shock tactics against some of his friends'. That line was assiduously put out by his minders in the corner office after the announcement was made. The message was: `Keating is taking over. Hawke's away. The Treasurer did not have to ring him. He does not have to bother with trifling things like ringing Prime Ministers. Heaven's above, he is an important Treasurer. He struts the world stage. He does not have to worry about ringing the Prime Minister who, heaven's above, is only the Prime Minister and, what's more, is in Beijing'. That approach lasted for about 48 hours. It was `Tough Keating-Paul to the rescue again', but something happened. The message got through to the provinces of China. The Messiah, the captain of the ship, was not terribly amused at all by the great headlines. There was a hasty conference and then a different message started to come across. I understand that the briefing of all the newspapers that sent the Treasurer raving mad was actually done by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister could not trust the briefing even to some of his beloved minders. He had to do it himself. The Treasurer last week allowed it to be represented that he had finally decided to cut the painter with past policy and that he was really going to tell the Australian public how it was. He was going to have the most important economic meeting since the March 1983 National Economic Summit Conference. He was going to get everybody together and hammer some sense into their heads. He is now, meekly like a lamb, retreating into the same deception that he has practised on the Australian public over the last three years. We had an unbelievable performance at Question Time today. The Treasurer could have summed it all up by saying: `Please, Madam Speaker, for heaven's sake, blame anybody but me, because it has nothing at all to do with me. I am only the Treasurer. I have only presided over the Australian economy for the last three years'. The truth is that there has been something radically wrong with the economic policies of this Treasurer for at least 12 months and for most of the time that he has been Treasurer of this country. He is very fond of talking about inheritances and economic legacies. If I had the time I would talk about the economic legacy of the days when the present Prime Minister was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. If ever a man in the history of this country were responsible for fracturing the understanding that used to exist between labour and management, it is the Prime Minister who occupies the Lodge at present. Under his leadership of the ACTU, militancy and defiance of the national interest became the order of the day. Let us look at the Keating legacy for the Australian economy. Let us examine what this self-appointed world's greatest Treasurer has done for the economy that he extols as being basically robust and healthy-a superbly performing economy. Let us look at what he has given us. The Treasurer has given us an inflation rate which is now 9.2 per cent. Do honourable members know what Japan's inflation rate is at present? It is 1.8 per cent. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average is 3.8 per cent. The industrial economies of Japan, the United States of America and West Germany are all heading towards zero rates of inflation this year. Against that, this Treasurer is presiding over an inflation rate of 9.2 per cent. But let us not worry; ever nimble, he has an answer for that. His answer is that the inflation rate basically does not matter. He says that what really matters are the comparative wage increases in different countries. Mr Keating —That is right. Mr HOWARD —It is very strange that the Treasurer should say that. Having said that, and having confirmed it with his interjection, he seems to have forgotten page 67 of last year's Budget Papers. I remind the Treasurer that those Budget Papers said in black and white that this country faced a severe terms of trade constraint. This is the problem that we have only just discovered! In the mind of the Treasurer, if it had not arisen in the last few months we would all be in heaven, in economic nirvana, and everything in the garden would be rosy. We would have a renaissance all over the land, manufacturing would be blooming, our exports would be flourishing and everything would be absolutely marvellous if it had not been for the dreadful, nasty, petulant and irrational terms of trade. Yet his own Budget Papers last year said that we had a major constraint with our terms of trade. Something else in those Budget Papers was very interesting. I would like the Treasurer to listen very carefully to what is stated on page 67 of the same Budget Papers. We all agree that the great problem is that we have a constraint with our balance of payments. Mr Keating —Do tell. Mr HOWARD —The Treasurer agrees. That is good. I am glad that he has done that. The Budget Papers state: `The balance of payments constraint therefore really comes back to the inflation constraint . . . '. They are the Treasurer's words. When the 9.2 per cent figure came out he said `Forget about inflation; inflation has nothing to do with it', but his own Budget Papers say that the balance of payments constraint is basically the inflation constraint. Not only has the Treasurer presided over an inflation rate which has made this country destructively uncompetitive and which ought to make him hang his head in shame when compared with inflation rates under the Treasurers and Finance Ministers of other developed countries, but also in relation to his pride and joy-the unemployment level-he has presided over an unemployment level for young Australians which is the worst that this country has seen since the Great Depression. It has now soared to 23 per cent. The stark reality is that the unemployment rate for young Australians has gone up since the Prime Minister launched Priority One. That is hardly surprising, given the phoney waste of money represented by Priority One. So the problems go on. Not only do we have a very indifferent performance on the unemployment front and a very high rate of inflation, but also we have a basic problem with business investment. The new mythology coming from the Treasurer and the ACTU is that this is not the fault of the accord or the Government's policies; it is really the fault of the business community. I will tell the Treasurer why Australian business will not invest as much as he and I would like it to. It will not invest because the after tax rate of return in this country is not good enough to attract investment. What is more, instead of making it better, the Treasurer will make it worse because from 1 July this year he will not only cripple small business with a fringe benefits tax but also increase the rate of company tax to 49 per cent. At a time when our competitors-the very people whom we have to lick hollow if we are to have the manufacturing renaissance that he craves-are reducing their corporate tax rates to rates such as 35 per cent, what is the Treasurer doing? He is increasing company tax to 49 per cent; he is again kicking Australian business in the stomach with ridiculous additional taxes and imposts. I again tell the Treasurer that if he wants Australian business to invest he has to give it the only thing that any self-respecting businessman understands, and that is a decent after tax rate of return on his investment. The Treasurer can talk about profit shares, consensus and mini-summits but until he gives people an investment climate that encourages them to invest he will not get that happening. That is the stark reality that the Treasurer has to stare in the face. He has to get down high real interest rates, the worst we have had in 50 years, and he must get an inflation rate that makes it more attractive for people to invest in this country. He has to provide a wage system which is flexible enough to accommodate the different levels of affordability of Australian industry and he has to abandon the centralised wage fixation system on which he is addictively hooked. The Treasurer will work himself up about the centralised wage fixation system when he replies but the truth of the matter is that the alternatives are becoming more and more acceptable to the Australian community as each month goes by. One by one the Treasurer's own mates are deserting him on flexible wage outcomes. Senator Button has already left him and Charlie Fitzgibbon left the Treasurer behind three months ago. The whole of the Australian business community knows-the Treasurer knows in his heart if he is honest-that the Government will not be able to tackle the current account imbalance which we have at the moment unless it gets more flexibility into the wages system. Last week I thought that the Treasurer may have come to that realisation. A lot of people thought, when he did the Laws interview, that he was bravely signalling to some of his recalcitrant mates: `I might have been wrong. I was wrong about the J curve. I should have listened to John Button, I should have listened to the Business Council and I should have listened to the alternative streams of advice. I realise that one cannot hope to survive in a competitive trading environment if one has such a rotten inflation rate. I realise that it is not good enough to have wage outcomes lower than the rate of inflation. I have to have wage outcomes that are better than those of my trading competitors in order to sell my goods'. We thought that the Treasurer may have come to that realisation. I thought: `Let us give a few marks to Paul Keating. At least he is courageous enough to stand up to Hawke. At least he is courageous enough to stand up to Kelty, Crean and all the other mullahs who have been pushing the country around. Maybe he has finally summoned the courage to stand up to the economic dinosaurs in his own party and reach across them and appeal to the Australian public'. All I can say is that the Treasurer has been a miserable, rotten, disappointment since then because he has compounded his three years of deceit about the state of the Australian economy. He has compounded his three years of deceit by creating a false dawn about his change of heart. I thought that the Treasurer had learnt something from those three years and that he had become a little more adaptable and a little more flexible in his attitude but, of course, the reality is that he has not. The Treasurer, by his performance today, has demonstrated that he has been very meekly brought into line by the Prime Minister. The Treasurer has really blown a great opportunity because three or four days ago the Prime Minister looked supremely irrelevant. He was stranded in the provinces of China and the Treasurer was calling the tune. All the hot-shots in the financial world were saying: `Keating has finally summoned his courage and he will pull this Prime Minister into line'. Why did the Treasurer blow it? Why did he throw away the marvellous opportunity that he had? The Prime Minister was stranded; he was totally irrelevant to the situation and yet the Treasurer allowed him to ring him and tick him off. Today he meekly came into the House and said: `It is just going to be one of those normal, ordinary meetings that we have in relation to prices and incomes'. It was a very wimpish performance by the Treasurer. The reality is that this Treasurer and this Government deserve to be censured in the strongest possible terms by this House. They have misled the Australian public about the state of the economy; they still refuse to come clean. They say what the state of the economy is and what they propose to do about it. Nobody shares the guilt for that more than the person who sits at the dispatch box for the Government, because he is the person who conceived the Government's economic strategy and deceit. He has presided over that deceit and despite what I thought might have come from him last week he has retreated into weakness. He still refuses to face reality and he still deserves to be censured by this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr Carlton —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.11) —What a hollow, shabby and trivial speech! In the face of the problems which this country faces, what a dishonest exposition of the problems we have from the man who destroyed a decent economy in the five years he was Treasurer! The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is totally incognisant of all the influences of which he speaks. He is not even able to comprehend or understand the term `terms of trade', he cannot distinguish between it and the term `balance of payments'. He does not understand what the word `competitiveness' means in economic terms. In the face of that economic illiteracy from the Opposition we get what is now an apologia for its failure at Question Time to pinpoint or crack one basic fact that the Government proffers in defence of its case. Let me go through the propositions. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Government maliciously misled the public about the state of the Australian economy. At Question Time I offered to him-I again offer to him-the Australian national accounts from the Australian Statistician, which show that the non-farm economy grew by 7.7 per cent in the half year to Christmas, and gross domestic product by 6 per cent. He has seen the fantastic levels of growth in respect of employment-11 per cent over a period of three years-which have no parallel in the Western world. He has seen the highest level of participation in the economy in recent memory. If we had had the same level of participation when he was Treasurer we would have found that the true unemployment rate in his reign was nearly one million, an unemployment rate of over 12 per cent. By a higher participation rate we have taken 200,000 of the hidden unemployed, mostly women, and given them jobs. We have a more fully employed economy and we have done that while we have reduced the Budget deficit from nearly 5 per cent of GDP to 2 per cent. So on what basis has the Government maliciously misled the public about anything? No basis. At the first opportunity to comment after the current account figure became available I made a comment. Mr Carlton —No, you did not. You made it the next day. Mr KEATING —Precisely, I made a comment the next day because I do not normally comment on good current accounts figures and I do not normally comment on bad current accounts figures and that is the reason why I made no statement on the day the figures were released. I do not crow about the good figures and I do not crow about the bad ones. However, I referred to the matter the next day. The next charge was about a sharp difference in language. I am supposed to be saying one thing and meaning another; I am saying one thing on the Laws program and something else here. The Leader of the Opposition knows that we are speaking about two different things. We are talking about the health of the Australian domestic economy and the lack of health of our international trading prospects and our current account. Instead of being so honest as to say that, he tried to imply that the weakness of our external accounts is a commentary on the weakness of the domestic economy. If that is the sort of traffic in dishonesty he wants to continue with, all I can say is that he will be short-lived as a believable, credible politician in this country. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is the third time that the Treasurer has used the word `dishonesty'. I respectfully submit that in relation to the Leader of the Opposition that is unparliamentary and ought to be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — I think that if the honourable member for Denison had listened to his Leader's speech he would have heard him accuse the Treasurer of being-- Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I did listen to him. He is entitled to use the term he used but the Treasurer is not entitled to use the term `dishonest'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member would have heard the Leader of the Opposition on two occasions refer to the Treasurer as being deceitful. I was tempted to bring the Leader of the Opposition to a halt. I ask the Treasurer to continue. Mr KEATING —The next charge that we had grossly misled the Australian economy was conceived in defeat. I offer in evidence only the national accounts of the Commonwealth of Australia to disprove that. I will not make any claims about the state of the economy. The Leader of the Opposition said then that we had the gall to say that the Hawke Government had inherited the current account deficit. I have now made interventions after Question Time on four occasions. On four occasions I have tabled the current account numbers for 1980-81 and 1981-82. On those four occasions the Leader of the Opposition has stood up and said that black is white. I ask honourable members to let me table those figures yet again. I table the Budget Papers for 1985-86 and ask honourable members to look at page 46 where they will see that the current account deficit for 1981-82 was 6 per cent. That is the problem. It has been an underlying 6 per cent for a long time. Why does the Opposition make the miserable mistruth that somehow it has all just happened now? That has been so for years because the Opposition destroyed the manufacturing sector. The Opposition put all its faith in some notion that the Japanese would be asking for some contracts for coal. The Opposition could not manage a tart shop. Unless a contract was being shoved in its hands it had no investment whatsoever. That is why we say that when for the first time we made some demand on the Australian economy, when imports started to grow again, the current account deficit figure bounced straight back out to 5 per cent. Of course, that is an underlying condition. It is now compounded by the deterioration in the terms of trade. What a pathetic, miserable, useless point that is. I turn to the next point. We were accused of running to panic stations. The Leader of the Opposition fails to distinguish between frankness and panic. There is no panic. We are telling the people the problem. It would have been nice if he had told the public when he tabled the Budget in 1982 that we were headed for the first negative growth in 30 years, an economic collapse, the doubling of unemployment in 12 months and a $9 billion Budget deficit, but we got no such frankness from him. We are supposed to say: `That is all right, little Honest John, but you can have a shot at us when we have all the goodies in the market-place for everybody to read about and know'. The next charge was that the J curve will not work. What that means from the self-professed free-marketeers is that a 30 per cent price change on the Australian dollar-50 per cent against the Japanese yen-will not change imports and exports. Is that what honourable members opposite are saying? Is that their proposition? Mr Tuckey —Yes. Mr KEATING —Okay, that is what they are saying. So much for the faith in the market of honourable members opposite. I indicated at Question Time that we have already seen a 7 per cent decline in imports in three months and a pick-up in export volumes. However, that has been masked and shrouded by this massive decline in our export prices. It is not that the J effect is not there. It is being asked to do too much. It simply cannot cope with a decline in terms of trade which it started with in March 1985. It is now dealing with different terms of trade. Honourable members opposite are asking of the J curve something which it is incapable of performing alone. It is impossible that the J effect will fix the Australian economy after 25 years of policy neglect. It cannot do that. It has to have some other policy help. So much for that miserable, pathetic point. The Leader of the Opposition made the point that inflation is at 9.2 per cent while the average inflation rate for member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is 4 per cent. The Australian inflation rate for the year to March 1985 was 5 per cent. It would have stayed at that or declined but for the fact that we had a 30-odd per cent depreciation which induced an increase in domestic prices. The consumer price index simply is measuring that increase temporarily. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. He knows that the point he made is entirely spurious. He knows that with the discount the inflation rate will track back to 5 per cent. Why did we have a 30 per cent depreciation? We had a 30 per cent depreciation because the Leader of the Opposition overvalued the exchange rate for years because he never had the decency or the sense to have an incomes policy. Why did he overvalue the exchange rate? He did so because he wanted downward pressure on local prices. What was the other reason we had a 30 per cent depreciation? We had a 30 per cent depreciation because the Opposition, when in government, wrecked our manufacturing and import competing base and structure. That is why there is a depreciation. That is why the inflation rate is back at 9.2 per cent. However, the Leader of the Opposition knows that it will track back to around 4 or 5 per cent, very close to the OECD average. We have already got the discounting arrangements for that in place. In economic terms what sort of rational point was that? I have made the point often that what matters is the comparative wage outcomes. Our outcomes for this year are at 6 per cent. The forecast of a similar wage restraint coming up is as good as some of the most flexible labour markets in the world. We are getting our flexibility in the aggregate. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. It is entirely stupid and inane to make points referring to the measurement of imported prices on the CPI when the only measurement of competitiveness is the underlying level of wages and cost. The Leader of the Opposition said that I should hang my head in shame in regard to the CPI. He should hang his head in shame for the five years of irresponsibility and neglect of his constitutional responsibility to run a decent economy. He has left this Government and me with the problem. We have to deal with the fact that we do not have an import competing sector or a decent manufacturing structure. Now we are relying on wheat, wool and minerals. That is not enough. As we try to cope with that is he saying that I should hang my head in shame? My goodness me! Let us refer to unemployment for young Australians. Fancy this character, the Leader of the Opposition, talking about unemployment! As I have already said the hidden level of unemployment when he was in Government was 200,000. He had nearly one million Australians out of work. The Leader of the Opposition now has the damned hide to get up and talk about youth unemployment of 23 per cent. We have created 11 per cent employment growth. We have created 700,000 undisputed jobs. The Leader of the Opposition has the damned hide to get up and talk about unemployment! My goodness, that is the thing about the Liberals, they have hides as thick as an elephant's. It is not possible to shame them ever. It would not matter what happened. The next charge related to investment. The Leader of the Opposition said that the after-tax rate of return was not good enough. This is an accusation from the man who destroyed corporate profits. This is from a man who destroyed corporate Australia. This is from a man who sent his supporters scurrying back to their bunkers looking for any policy to get them out. Honourable members opposite should know the facts. The gross operating surplus in the gross domestic product in their last year in office was 12.7 per cent. It is now 15.5 per cent-the highest level since the middle 1960s. Honourable members opposite have the hide to talk about spinning a good profit in-a good after-tax rate of return. Do honourable members opposite think anyone out there believes them? Do honourable members opposite think that the captains of business believe them? Do honourable members opposite think they believe those protestations about the need for profits? Profits were smashed in 1974 and 1978. Honourable members opposite were never able to lift them. Mr Howard —1974? Mr KEATING —That is right. That was the first wage explosion. Honourable members opposite were never able to lift profits ever. They had to wait for us. The Leader of the Opposition then said that we had to abandon the system of centralised wages. What would we put in its place? We have had a 3.8 per cent increase in award wages in the last year. Does the Leader of the Opposition think that in the face of 7.7 per cent non-farm growth we would have had a 3.8 per cent wage increase under his system and that workers would not be ringing up for an extra $20 a week and getting it? The outcome has been 3.8 per cent. The Opposition says that we ought to abandon the centralised wage fixing system and go back to what we had in 1981. That was an international disaster. Do honourable members opposite really think that that will make any impression on the problem? That is absolute nonsense. Honourable members opposite say that we need more flexibility. Of course, we need more flexibility. Who is going to argue that point? Of course we are getting more flexibility in the aggregate. That is the very essence of the prices and incomes accord. That is why we have a structure to discuss wages. There is always the miserable point made by the coalition about confrontation. If the Government discusses wages and prices with business and labour the coalition believes that we have lost our sovereignty or something. The fact is that that is how one manages a decent economy. That is how we get agreement about wage restraint for a start. That is the very thing honourable members opposite did not do. I remember when we were negotiating the accord mark 2-when it came out it was a great triumph of course-we were accused of bowing to pressure from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We were accused of getting our instructions from the ACTU. Honourable members opposite do not understand that a centralised wage structure is a structure that cuts across the market and requires intervention and discussion. That is the essence of the accord. Honourable members opposite do not seem even to comprehend that point. The Opposition then made inane points about the role of flexibility and the need for labour markets. In every point referred to by the Leader of the Opposition there was not one decent, strong, rational, economic argument. It was all petty parliamentary debate-small-time punk stuff coming from a punk Opposition. That is all we can expect. That is why the business community showed the Opposition the door at the Business Council meeting when it unveiled its labour market policy. Instead of attacking this Government and its consultative mechanisms, I say to Opposition members that they should have another meeting at Thredbo. Get the snow bunnies together again, the wets and the dries. Go and have another meeting. Every time they have such a meeting, they elect a new leader. They ought to elect a new leader; they need one, because nobody in corporate Australia or in the trade unions takes them seriously. When we at least talk about the depth of the problems, I am appalled that Opposition members cannot even rise to the occasion and say: `Okay, there is a problem. What is the best way out of it?' Opposition members make these miserable attacks on the Government. We reject the Opposition's censure motion for what it is-a piece of petty politicking which is beneath contempt, beneath the dignity of Parliament. Most of all, it sells the Australian people entirely and completely short because the Opposition takes the cynical view that they do not matter and anything that is directed to them is good enough. Well, it is not good enough and we reject it out of hand. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.26) —In case anybody who might be listening to this broadcast does not understand, I point out that that was the Treasurer of Australia (Mr Keating) introducing an entirely new concept into economic management. The central thrust of his response to the Opposition's censure motion is that we are talking about two different things. On the one hand, we are talking about the health of the domestic economy and, on the other hand, we are talking about the weakness of the external account. This is the first Treasurer in Australia's history-I say this as he leaves the chamber, refusing, as usual, to debate the issue-to say that when one is talking about the domestic economy on the one hand and the weakness of the external account on the other, one is talking about two different things. This is the Treasurer who says that it does not matter if the inflation rate in Australia is 9.2 per cent and the inflation rate overseas is a great deal less. Since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was speaking earlier, I have checked out with the Treasury the very latest figures of overseas inflation. Our inflation rate of 9.2 per cent now compares with a figure in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of 3.1 per cent, our major trading partners 2.9 per cent, the United States of America 2.3 per cent, Japan 1.1 per cent, Germany 0.1 per cent-and the Treasurer says that there is no link between domestic inflation and our international competitiveness and the terms of trade. We will look at that matter later. If the Treasurer's main response to what we are talking about is that there is no link, how on earth do I respond to any housewife or any person running the household accounts who comes into my office and says: `Listen, we are having terrible trouble meeting our bank repayments, we are having terrible trouble because of high interest payments and high inflation at 9.2 per cent'? Do I say: `Listen, madam, you don't have to worry because you have got a very healthy domestic economy. You can spend as much as you like inside your own household. All you have got is a weakness on your external account'? The Treasurer tells us that if we have a weakness on our external account-in other words, are in hock up to our eyebrows-if we owe money all over the place, if we cannot meet our interest payments, if we are going down the tube, all we have is a weakness on our external account and it has nothing to do with the health of our domestic economy. The Treasurer referred to some ancient history. He referred to the national accounts for the last quarter of the last calendar year. What did they show? They showed excessive levels of growth in an overheated economy. They showed exactly the same sort of symptoms one would get in household accounts if one had borrowed too much and spent more than one had earned. Maybe one feels good when overspending, but by God, the day of reckoning is around the corner. What have we got? The gravamen of the charge by the Opposition against the Government is that this Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have been going around telling fibs to the Australian people about the state of the economy. They have been saying it up until very recently. Let me quote. On 20 March the Treasurer said: The fact is that the Government's policy settings this year have been totally correct. The Government's strategy has been entirely appropriate. On 3 April the Treasurer said to the Australian people: We are convinced that the policy mix which has underpinned our achievements-particularly the policies of the prices and incomes accord and our overall approach to fiscal and monetary policy-are the right mix for Australia. I contrast those remarks with what he told John Laws last week. Could anybody understand the tirade from the Treasurer in the House this afternoon? I do not think anybody listening could possibly have understood it; it was far too complicated. We were told by the Treasurer, in March and in April, that everything was perfect, but then a few days down the line the Treasurer said in a radio program to John Laws: Well, the fact is it isn't `business as usual'. Because Australia cannot pay its international way, without borrowing $12 billion a year to do it . . . The problems are more intractable. This is our fourth year of office. You bet they are more intractable. After four years in office of this mob, of course they are intractable, and they are intractable because of deliberate policy decisions by this Government when it first came into office. He went on to say to John Laws, a month or so after he had told everybody that everything was all right: . . . we must let Australians know truthfully, honestly, earnestly, just what sort of an international hole Australia is in. It is the prices of our commodities-they are as bad in real terms since the Depression . . . If this Government cannot get the adjustment, get manufacturing going again and keep moderate wage outcomes and a sensible economic policy then Australia is basically done for. We will just end up being a third rate economy. He said: Well then you are gone. You know you are a banana republic. John Laws said: Well it is pretty serious isn't it? He asked the question that every ordinary person listening to the program or listening to this debate over the radio would ask: `Well, it is pretty serious, isn't it?' Yes, John Laws, we ask that question too, and the Treasurer replied: It is the most serious problem we have faced. Anybody could be excused for believing that there was some trouble when the Treasurer of Australia took the trouble to go into a radio program, only a month after he had told us that everything was marvellous, and tell the commentator, Mr Laws, that we were in very serious trouble. Would he possibly have got through the rest of the program if he had told all the listeners that he was talking only about a weakness on our external account and it had nothing to do with the health of our domestic economy, if he had said: `You can all relax, you will all get your tax cuts when they have been promised. You can all continue to spend up big. You can all stay in your jobs. Everything will be wonderful. Interest rates will go down. Yes, it is only the weakness on the external account'? The Treasurer would have been laughed out of the studio by Mr Laws, and quite properly too. We allege, and we have the proof for it, that this is no immediate new crisis. This is no new situation suddenly come upon the Government, no sudden catastrophe. If this is a crisis, it is a crisis entirely of its own making. It is not misadventure, but deliberate policy; nor is it unexpected. The Government has been warned time and time again over the last 12 months-indeed since the policy positions were put in place in 1983-that this whole policy would lead to economic disaster. I do not care what the Treasurer has quoted out of the national accounts for the last quarter of last year. I look at the actual balance sheet of Australia as we know it from the facts that we read in the monthly bulletin of the Treasury that he has waved before us. We note that the balance of payments-that is, our capacity to buy abroad what we want and not go broke-is the worst since the Korean war of 1951-52. Interest rates are at their highest levels since the Great Depression and are sending farms, small businesses and home owners broke. Our inflation rate, as I said before, is over three times that of the average of our trading partners and about ten times that of West Germany or Japan. Unemployment fell a little, but has stuck at 8 per cent and is rising again. Youth unemployment rose again last month, going over 22-23 per cent. The housing and motor industries, despite what was in the last quarter of the national accounts the Treasurer brought in here, in the first quarter of this year were going down the chute and are still going down the chute. Taxation is the highest it has ever been. It is over the trilogy limit set by the Government itself. The deficit, after three good years, according to the Government, is still $5 billion. Our overseas borrowing is up to $70 billion and heading towards $100 billion-well above South American levels. Around 40c of every dollar we earn overseas is spent on repaying interest and capital overseas. We spend more in our national Budget on interest charges than we do on our national defence, or on health or education. The Treasurer would not tell us whether we would get on time the income tax cuts promised last year, so those income tax cuts are in jeopardy and all households will suffer if that promise is not kept. The dollar is shaky, particularly after the outburst on the Laws show last week, and private investment is a shambles. Private investment, which would create jobs, has not risen to the levels reached before the last recession, and it is unlikely to increase, just because of threats by this Government or by the head of the trade union movement, Mr Crean, who says that business should invest. Hell's bells, if honourable members opposite were businessmen, would they invest? If they had to face a capital gains tax, a new fringe benefits tax and an entertainment tax; if interest rates were the highest they had been since the Great Depression; and if they had to contend with industrial practices which meant that they had one hand tied behind their backs, would they happily invest just because the Australian Council of Trade Unions head was telling them to? In particular, would they invest if they had been deceived by the Government, if they had been told by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that everything was wonderful and then a month later were told that they were down the chute? What sort of climate for investment is that? This Treasurer destroyed more investment decisions in Australia last week, on the John Laws program, than the Government has destroyed over the whole of its term of office. That interview alone was enough to destroy jobs in Australia. Mr Fitzgibbon —You don't believe that yourself. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member talks about belief; I will quote the Prime Minister to him. This is what the Prime Minister said to the National Press Club on 5 March: We don't have to come to the Australian people and say `Trust us'. We'll do it because we have got the runs on the board. That is the way we have operated successfully to this point. We will do it again in preparation for the 1986-87 Budget. That is not Hawke from Peking or from Tokyo, in total disarray; that was Hawke at the National Press Club saying: `Trust us, we will handle everything; the economy is on course and everything will be superb'. That is absolutely untrue. Let me nail one complete nonsense that the Treasurer raised in attacking the Leader of the Opposition. This is an important point, because the Treasurer has been saying for some considerable time that it was the Opposition parties, when in government, that destroyed Australian manufacturing industry by overvaluing the dollar. That is the charge; the Treasurer has made it time and time again. He says we do not understand the economics of this. Let us examine the basis of this claim that we, by overvaluing the dollar, destroyed manufacturing industry. Mr Robert Brown —You did. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member for Charlton will know, because he does know his economic figures if not his policies, that when this Government came to office it devalued the dollar by 10 per cent. Over the succeeding months, under its management of the dollar, the dollar rose again to the level it had been before the Government devalued. From that point it remained at that level, for a full 13 months, under the float. In other words, the Government devalued the dollar by 10 per cent, managed it up 10 per cent, it was flat for 13 months, and the only reason it came down was a lack of international confidence in the policies of the Hawke Government, because of the MX missile crisis. The Prime Minister made an MX statement. There were three sets of bad inflation figures, a 3.8 per cent wage increase and a bad balance of trade, all coming together with the MX crisis, and after 13 months of free float the price of the dollar slid by 25 per cent from what it was at before Fraser left office. The Government was responsible for that. So the Treasurer, wherever he is-skulking in his office instead of being in the House-should not dare ever again to say in this House or outside that we destroyed manufacturing industry because of an overvalued dollar, because the dollar kept its value after we left office, in a free float, for 13 months before he destroyed it. The Treasurer should not say either that we do not understand what terms of trade are about and that we do not understand what competiveness is about. There is a link between the domestic economy and the external economy. If there is a weakness externally, it has its grounds in the weakness internally. When the Government came to office it benefited from the wages pause, from the breaking of the drought and from the upward movement in the external economy, but it did two fatal things in regard to economic policy: It set in place a high spending, high borrowing regime instead of being careful, while times were improving; and, secondly, it locked us in disastrously to a prices and incomes policy which gave automatic indexation of wages against price increases. In those two deliberate acts of policy it set in train the disaster which is now falling in on it. It is of the Government's own creation. It is no surprise; we drew its attention to it at the time of the National Economic Summit Conference. The die was cast when it set up those initial policies. On those grounds we censure the Government; on those grounds we say it is responsible for its present difficulties and we reject the sugggestion that there are no links between the external account and the strength of the domestic economy. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.41) —Anyone who has listened to Parliament today during Question Time and this debate would realise why the Opposition is the Opposition and is likely to remain so for a very long time. Members of the Opposition have proved conclusively today that they deserve to be in opposition. They have no understanding of economic matters. The fact that when in government they put this country into the worst recession for 50 years is still very much in the minds of the Australian public. The evidence is that they have learnt nothing in the three years since. This Opposition shows an absolute inability to understand basic economic matters. We have opposite not only a failed previous government but also a failed opposition-an opposition which is incompetent and incapable of understanding basic economic matters. There can be no doubt whatsoever that while this Government has been in office there has been a tremendous recovery in the Australian economy. No one could deny that, except those who refuse to face the facts; that is, all those opposite. Everyone else knows that there has been an almost unparalleled recovery of the Australian economy, that we have had in the last three years under the Treasurer (Mr Keating) who is now the subject of censure, and under the Government which is now the subject of censure, a rate of growth in the economy which the previous Government could not get within cooee of. The previous Government had real growth in the economy of 2.3 per cent; we have had growth in the economy running at over 5 per cent-more than twice as fast. In the last three years we have had employment growth of 10 1/2 per cent; the previous Government had employment growth of one per cent per annum. We have had it running at over 3 per cent per annum, and 5.4 per cent in the last 12 months. They are incredible rates of growth that those on the other side could only sit back and dream about when they were in government. That is the context in which we are having this debate. We are having a debate in which an opposition which as a failed government produced the worst economic results for 50 years is criticising a government which has produced the best results for 50 years. That is the absurd situation we have before us. Added to that is the fact that the Treasurer is being criticised for pointing to a problem which we now have, and which he has explained already in this debate and about which I will say a few things. To build a bit more on the recovery under this Government, not only do we have these incredibly good figures in terms of economic and employment growth, including reductions in the level of unemployment from 10 1/2 per cent to under 8 per cent, but also we have had a tremendous correction of fundamentals such as real unit labour costs. Real unit labor costs had an index of 107 1/2 when we came to office and that index is down to less than 100, which means that real unit labour costs are at lesser levels than they were in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That is essential in order to attain the capacity and incentive to invest. The flip side of that is an increase in profit share, and of course that has happened. Profit share is higher now than it was at any time under the Fraser Government. That is because there has been a strong recovery and a reduction in real unit labour costs. It is not just a matter of producing good macro outcomes. It is a matter of producing good basic underlying criteria which provide the basis for sustained recovery of the economy. That is what has been done. The inflation rate fell from 11 per cent when we came into office to 5 per cent. Sure, it has now gone back up to 9 per cent, but that is because of a devaluation. It was always known that that would push up the inflation rate. That is nothing new. We must expect that that will happen. The point is that one then has to have a policy mix which squeezes out that inflation-which does not build it back into the system and thus destroy our competitiveness. As the Treasurer said, our international competitiveness is at its strongest level for a couple of decades. In the crucial area of international competitiveness, we have produced an extraordinarily good result. The fundamentals have been addressed by this Government. We have not been concerned just to get a burst of growth and then hope that everything after that would be all right. We have been concerned to get strong sustained growth and to maintain the underlying basic elements for the continuance of strong growth. That has been done to an extent that has not been achieved by previous governments, certainly not for a very long time. That has been done as a result of the prices and incomes accord. During his address, the Leader of the Opposition said that we have a centralised wages system which is bad and which should be thrown away and replaced by a flexible wages system. We have been through that debate before and there is no time to go into it again at any length today. But let me say that, without the accord, we could not have had the results that we have had to date. There was no possible chance without the accord that we could have had three years of strong growth in the economy, three years of unparalleled employment growth and a wages outcome that was far less than that which prevailed under the previous Government. That is the reality. Over the period 1976-77 to 1982-83 under the previous Government, the average award pay rise was 10.3 per cent. In the last two full financial years the figure has been 5.3 per cent and 5.4 per cent. During this financial year there has been one increase of 3.8 per cent. There will probably be another increase just at the very end of this financial year, some time in June. So basically for this financial year we will have an even lower rate of growth in award rates than in the previous two years. That shows that we have addressed, as I mentioned previously, the real unit labour cost factor in a way that the previous Government could never do. It means that the nominal increase in costs has been greatly reduced. It is true to say, as the Treasurer said in a previous debate, that when one is comparing what is happening here and what is happening overseas, one cannot look just at the inflation rate to see what is happening to our basic underlying costs. One has to look at the level of wages. The rate of increase in wages here is about as low as that in any other country in the Western world at present. That is the stark reality. The Opposition has to face up to that instead of talking absolute rubbish about better outcomes and a more flexible wages policy. The reality is that this country needed a policy which would give sustained growth, bring down inflation, address the fundamentals and, in particular, produce wage outcomes conducive to that strong growth and its continuance in the future to the extent allowed by international factors, to which I will refer in a moment. That is what has been done. I must say that the trade union movement deserves enormous credit for the fact that it has been prepared to be so responsible while this Government has been in office. It is too easy to rubbish the trade union movement, to point to one or two groups and say that they are irresponsible. The fact is that overwhelmingly the trade union movement has been 100 per cent responsible over the last three years. It has adopted a wages policy which has produced for many of its members a lesser wage outcome than they might otherwise have been able to get by just going hell for leather in the field. But the union movement did it because it realised that it was in the interests of the whole economy, of getting an increase in the number of jobs and of reducing the level of unemployment. The adherence of trade union members to that policy is a matter of enormous credit to them. The continuance of the accord in the future will demonstrate that continuing concern. Of course, we have now reached a point where there is a problem, to which the Treasurer has had the audacity to point. The Treasurer has actually had the gall to tell the Australian people that there is a problem on the international account that has been brought about by the fact that we have the worst terms of trade for decades, that we have had a very severe decline in the prices that people are prepared to pay for Australia's major exports-so much so that some of those exports, such as oil, have virtually been wiped out-- Mr Hodges —He has been deceiving the public for months. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The honourable member for Petrie will cease interjecting. Mr WILLIS —Our oil exports have gone from $3 billion a year-- Mr Hodges —Metal prices have been down for four or five years. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Petrie will cease interjecting. Mr WILLIS —Our oil exports have gone from $3 billion a year to a virtual dribble, because at current prices it does not pay to export oil. A tremendous hole has been blown in our exports because of that factor. Mr Hodges —You had no contingency plan. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Petrie continues to interject, I will name him. Mr WILLIS —The fact is that the decline in the terms of trade is not of the Government's making. When the Treasurer said the other day that we had had an enormous reduction in our terms of trade, this idiot Opposition laughed and guffawed as though it was our fault. But we do not determine the international price for oil, for wool or for coal. Those prices are determined on world markets. Those prices are low largely because other Western governments have not been as successful in getting their economies moving as we have been with ours. Therefore, the international demand for those commodities is not as strong as it would otherwise be. Of course, other factors come into it, such as increased suppliers in some areas and the policies of the European Economic Community. But, nevertheless, that is a fundamentally important point. Our economy has been growing faster than those of the rest of the world. Now it is becoming more difficult for that to happen because of the decline in our export prices. Of course, that imposes a constraint on us as the severity of the decline in the terms of trade continues and, through such things as the oil price factor that I mentioned, starts to blow holes in our export capacity. Certainly, that is a factor that creates additional problems for us. It is a particularly unfortunate coincidence that this is happening at a time when we are seeking to make an adjustment through the J curve approach. But, nevertheless, that is something that we as a nation have to face. It requires adjustments to be made, and we as a government will make those adjustments and will discuss them with the appropriate parties to get as much unity as possible about them. None of that is the incorrect thing to do. The Treasurer was absolutely right to say to the Australian people that we have a severe problem that has developed not because of anything that they have done or that the Government has done but because of what has happened in international markets, and that we have to make appropriate adjustments. The Government is now considering those adjustments. The discussion the other day at the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes that led to so much discussion in the Press was a discussion in that context, in which all parties agreed that there is a severe problem and showed a great interest in discussing it further. That is why there will be an additional meeting, with a slightly expanded representation in the parties that will attend it. It is the sensible thing to do. Of course, we are again being criticised about that both by the media and by the Opposition. All that we have done by calling that conference is to accept the request from the employers at the meeting to have such a discussion so that they can have a substantial input into policy formulation by this Government. We would have been incredibly stupid and impolite if we had not acceded to that request. We did accede to that request and we will have that discussion in a couple of weeks time. In no way does that make it a summit conference. The word `summit' was never used by the Treasurer or by me. It was used simply by the Press, which blew this matter out of all proportion. It will be a sensible, tripartite discussion because the employers in this country have said to us: `We believe that there is room for more tripartisanship. We want to be more involved in the policy making and to have a tripartite discussion'. We said okay, that they could have that-and they will have it. Their contributions will be closely listened to in the context of the Government's deciding on the appropriate policy response to the present circumstances. It is a nonsense to accuse the Government or the Treasurer of misleading the Australian people. On the contrary, the Treasurer should be congratulated for telling the Australian people, albeit in flamboyant language which probably ensured that it received coverage, that there is a severe difficulty that has to be overcome and that the Australian people will have to adjust to that. We cannot just go on as though there is not a problem. That adjustment will be made one way or another. That is an unfortunate reality, but it is a reality. This Government will not turn its back on reality. We will continue to pursue policies that face the realistic situation and that will ensure that this Government remains in office for a long time. I am sure that the Australian people want a government which says to them `This is the situation', and which does not, as the previous Government did, hide the bad news when it comes. I have before me an article from the West Australian of 11 March 1983 headed `Howard: We held back deficit news'. That is what the previous Government did. The article states: The outgoing Treasurer, Mr John Howard, revealed yesterday that Mr Malcolm Fraser knew last week- that is, before the election- that a big blow-out was likely in next year's Federal Budget deficit. Of course, the previous Government hid that from the Australian people until after the election. It would not face the Australian people with the realistic situation, it sought to deceive the Australian people. But the Australian people are not stupid; they saw through the previous Government, wiped it out quite thoroughly and put in a government which they knew would have some answers. In particular, they elected a government which had some answers to the fundamental problem to which they wanted solutions. They wanted a government which was able to address realistically the unemployment problem so massively created by the previous Government; which could produce sustained economic growth; and which could deal with the unions in a constructive way instead of a head kicking, confrontationist way which no one in the Australian public really wants to see happen. They wanted to see a principled, civilised process, and that is what they are getting through the accord and through tripartite approaches which we are pursuing and of which the process the week after next will be a further development. We totally reject this absurd censure motion. It has been moved with a great lack of gusto on the part of members of the Opposition. They were wiped out at Question Time, they have been wiped out for the last three years, they have been wiped out in this debate and they will be wiped out in this House for a long time to come. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Howard, J. W. Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. 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 Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W. Goodluck, B. J. Watson, DavidHall, Steele Webster, A. P. Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Dawkins, J. S. Mildren, J. B. Dubois, S. G. Milton, P. Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. 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. Macphee, I. M. Hurford, C. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hayden, W. G. Lloyd, B. Cohen, B. Smith, W. L. Darling, E. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —On behalf of the Prime Minister and for the information of the House, I present a report of the Aboriginal Women's Task Force entitled `Women's Business'. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to sub-section 63m (3) of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority for 1984-85. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members I present the summary of proceedings of the fourteenth meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers held on Norfolk Island in May 1985. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members I present the draft summary of proceedings of the seventeenth meeting of the Australian Environment Council held on Norfolk Island in May 1985. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to sub-sections 10 (3) and 10a (2) of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Act 1953, I present the 1984-85 annual report of the trustees of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Trust, together with the Auditor-General's report and audited statement of assets and liabilities, statement of activity and statement of sources and applications of funds for the trust fund. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —For the information of honourable members I present a statement on the expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for March 1986. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to sub-section 76a (4) of the National Health Act 1953, I present the Operations of the Registered Health Insurance Organisations annual report for 1984-85. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members I present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on pharmaceutical products. The report has already been circulated to all honourable members. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —by leave-It has been my practice as Minister for Communications to make major policy statements setting out guidelines for development of the Australian broadcasting system. On 15 November 1983 I set out our policies regarding satellite related broadcasting services and ownership of the satellite system; on 10 November of the same year I made a statement on implementation of the supplementary licence scheme; on 10 October 1984 I defined our approach to regional commercial television services. These statements were designed to keep the public and the Parliament informed on Government intentions and proposed actions relating to particular areas of the broadcasting system. Generally speaking they have been well received and have received bipartisan support. On this occasion I wish to spell out the Government's intentions as they relate to the future development of regional commercial television services in the next decade. Interested parties will recall that in February last year I directed the Forward Development Unit of my Department to identify options for future development of commercial television. Again in May 1985, after extensive consultations with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), I announced that equalisation of commercial televis- ion services was the Government's highest priority in broadcasting policy. Subsequently, in July, after months of intensive discussions with the industry, the FDU's report, `Future Directions for Commercial Television', was published. There was then a period of several months during which the public and interested organisations commented upon the options set out in that report. My statement today is to announce the Government's decisions as a result of that long consultative process. Strategic Goals Firstly, I should state the aims of the exercise. In the decade 1986-1996, the Government wants to achieve three strategic goals: (1) provide services in most regional areas comparable to those in the capital cities-this is what we call equalisation; (2) create larger, more viable markets in regional Australia by means of aggregation; and (3) prevent extension of existing regional monopolies; that is, encourage competition. It will be seen that these goals do not always lead in the same direction at the same time. There should be no surprise in this. As the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has wisely remarked, there are inevitable tensions between the major objectives of broadcasting policy and `every strategic planning decision . . . in- volves an implicit weighting of these objectives. Moreover, the weighting accorded to each objective may well change over time'. The purpose of my statement on 23 May 1985 was to note just such a tension between objectives. By that time, the discussions between the FDU and commercial licensees were well advanced and the broad outline of possible approaches was known. But it was clearly not possible to achieve the goals of equalisation, aggregation and competition in commercial television immediately and simultaneously. Accordingly, I acknowledged that equalisation could not occur immediately all over Australia, but that it was our highest priority. Equalisation I am very pleased indeed to be able to announce that the goal of equalisation is well within our reach. There are 50 commercial television stations in Australia serving more than 90 per cent of the population. In 1984, we made provision for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and a commercial television service to reach that 2 per cent of people in remote areas who had no television at all, and the fruits of that initiative are already evident. It is now possible for children in the outback, living hundreds of kilometres from schools, to turn a switch and enjoy the same Play School as their cousins in the cities. Isolated families now have access to ABC news and current affairs, weather and sport, in real time-at the same time that these services are available in State capitals. The real bonus for the many hard working people whose vital business requires them to live in remote areas-the farmers, miners, police officers and public servants-is the they can sit down after a hard day's work and be entertained. The ABC services reached their final form on 26 January this year-Australia Day. One of the remote commercial television services will also be coming on air during 1986. At about the end of next year, even the most isolated Australians will have access to a choice of radio and television services for the first time in the history of this country. We have not forgotten the regional areas. Although they have been able to receive ABC television and one commercial television service for some time, the 35 per cent of Australians who live in regional Australia have not enjoyed the same variety or range of programs that has been available in out great coastal cities. Those of us who live in major metropolitan areas take for granted the fact that we can choose between five services-ABC, the Special Broadcasting Service and three commercial channels-except in Perth. But in Ballarat, Bendigo, Tamworth or Tumut, there is only one commercial service and on average that service is available seven hours per day less than in the metropolitan areas. The record of commercial television licensees is very good but, try as they may, they cannot show on one channel all of the most popular programs broadcast in the metropolitan areas. If they do show them, they will often do so months, even years, after their initial broadcast in the cities of origin. The regional licensees acknowledge this problem and accept that they share with the Government the responsibility of addressing it. So we will be asking for their co-operation in meeting our time-table for equalisation of regional commercial television services. This time-table is not uniform across the country. On the east coast, in the three most populous States of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, we expect to achieve three commercial television services early, generally around our target date of 1988. In the less populous States, development is expected to be slower and in small, isolated areas only two services may initially be available. However, nearly all Australians living in regional areas can expect at least one extra service by 1990 and most will have two. By then we will substantially have achieved our equalisation goal-the goal of progressively making basic broadcasting services similar to those in major metropolitan areas available to all Australians. Aggregation Let me turn to the second goal of aggregation-the process of creating larger, more viable markets in regional Australia. My Department has identified two mechanisms for moving towards equalisation. The first, which was recommended by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in its 1984 Satellite Program Services report, is to aggregate or combine existing markets in order to provide a sufficient population base for three competitive services. The second mechanism may be called multi-channel services or MCS. This would allow non-competitive, regional licensees to provide up to three services within their existing markets instead of only one. The proposals regarding these two mechanisms have been widely discussed by the industry and interested parties since publication of the FDU report in June 1985. The debate about which mechanism is most appropriate has centred on assumptions regarding regional advertising revenue. Regional Television Australia-RTA-which represents regional commercial licensees, claim that the advertising revenue of regional stations will not increase at all between 1986 and 1996. Since it can be demonstrated that some stations in quite large markets would have difficulties in moving directly to aggregation with such limited resources, RTA argues that its members should be allowed at least 10 years of MCS operation before aggregation occurs. It would be easy to dismiss this argument as mere self interest. However, regional licensees will be required to make substantial investments in order to achieve equalisation, and the Government has considered their proposition very carefully. We have also commissioned an analysis of regional markets and we have consulted with a wide range of parties experienced in the industry. Two major points emerge from this process. Firstly, while it is true that zero revenue growth would make regional stations vulnerable under the aggregation approach, they would be just as vulnerable under the MCS approach. Secondly, a nil growth scenario is unrealistic and pessimistic. Historically, the growth of regional stations' real revenue has been well above this mark, ranging between 9.3 per cent and 13.9 per cent per annum from 1974-75 to 1983-84. The quite modest assumption that long term revenue increases in real terms by an average of 4 per cent is sufficient to provide a financial base for aggregation in most markets. Competition Competition is our third goal. The Government has decided to endorse equalisation of commercial television services in regional areas and to adopt an aggregation process under which licensees themselves make the choice between aggregation and MCS. It will be necessary for me, as Minister for Communications, to publish an indicative plan of approved markets on the basis of which investors and affected licensees will make decisions related to equalisation. A draft of this indicative plan will be submitted for consideration by the Government by 31 July 1986 and then published in order to allow public and industry comment. A final plan will be submitted by 31 October 1986. If no licensee in an approved market chooses aggregation, all licensees will be granted MCS permits. However, if one licensee in the market chooses aggregation, all other licensees in that market will also be obliged to aggregate; that is, serve the whole of it. This should be regarded as prima facie evidence that the aggregation involved is viable. Attached to the printed version of this statement is a chart of the decision-making process involved. It encourages individual licensees to opt for aggregation as long as such a course meets their perception of market realities. It allows individual licensees to take the initiative in their area and provide either MCS or aggregated services as quickly as possible. It also ensures that all markets nominated to move to aggregation do so no later than 1996. There is provision for a licensee to use MCS in areas which are so isolated that they cannot be included in an approved market. MCS also provide a technique for moving from the status quo to aggregation in thinly-populated States. Tasmania may have to be treated as a special case. Following this process, the Government expects licensees to know their equalisation paths by 31 January 1987 and to commit themselves to their implementation plans throughout 1987 and 1988. These, of course are the latest times, and services can be expected to begin progressively through 1988, especially in major population centres. MCS permits will be reissued in approved markets only until 1996, by which time three competitive services are required throughout such markets. Legislative Changes It will readily be seen that the Government contemplates substantial structural adjustments in the commercial television industry. This will also require major legislative change. Supplementary Television Licences Firstly, let me mention the matter of supplementary television licences. When we took office, in March 1983, we inherited a scheme for allowing the grant of an extra licence to commercial radio or television licensees, subject to an ABT inquiry process. The aim of the scheme was similar to that contemplated under equalisation and since it was already in place, I announced in November 1983 that I would accept applications for supplementary licences. Unfortunately, this scheme has proved to be expensive for applicants, unwieldy for the Tribunal and unproductive for everyone concerned, particularly the viewers. Two years later a great deal of money has been spent but not a single licence has emerged. I do not make that observation critically. At the time the supplementary licence scheme was created most of us, including my Department, the industry and the present Opposition, welcomed it as a brave attempt to break the log-jam in broadcasting and to establish new services. However, we now need to replace the scheme with a more productive and streamlined approach. Accordingly, the Government has decided that provisions for supplementary television licences should be deleted from the Broadcasting Act. I intend to write to the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and other interested parties suggesting that the only television inquiry yet commenced-that relating to Canberra-be deferred pending legislation. In the light of the equalisation policy I have just announced it will become redundant. Let me make it clear that this observation does not necessarily apply to supplementary radio licences. The legislation was originally directed to radio and it may well prove to be useful in that area. I will ensure that this is one of the matters addressed by the study of commercial radio being conducted by my Department's forward development unit. Legislative change will also be necessary to facilitate the indicative plan. The Government has decided to empower the Minister for Communications to authorise multi-channel services by use of supplementary television permits, each allowing the provision of an additional service. There are a number of detailed matters associated with these permits which will be of interest only to licensees and will be discussed with them through their industry organisations. However, it should be noted that the permits: (a) will not be available for metropolitan areas other than those in Tasmania; (b) will be issued for one year only and will require annual reissue; (c) will allow for one or two new services in any one area; (d) will require the holder to commence transmission at times to be set by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and under similar undertakings; (e) will involve program standards similar to those for commercial television licences; (f) will not be capable of being transferred or sold; (g) will incur licence fees on gross earnings earned through the permit(s) and the main licence. Consolidation and Conversion of Licences Two other machinery measures are required; namely, consolidation and conversion of existing licences. There are several areas in which the same company owns 100 per cent of two contiguous licences, a situation which arose largely because one of the licences had too small a market to stand alone or because earlier legislation did not allow for translators. Since at least eight of these pairs of licences are building blocks for aggregation into the same approved market, the Government has decided to amend the Broadcasting Act to allow them to be consolidated into single licences. A schedule of these pairs is appended to this statement. The second machinery measure concerns conversion of licences. It will be necessary before proceeding to aggregation to convert all old system Broadcasting and Television Act licences to new system, service-area based Broadcasting Act licences. Licensees are normally, and quite properly, protected against arbitrary changes to either their service areas or their technical conditions by provisions for extensive notification and consultation. However, this is a once-only situation with no substantive effect. The initial transfer of licence conditions will not affect licensees' rights and the Government has therefore decided to allow automatic conversion. Financial Matters In order to encourage licensees to opt for and implement aggregation at an early stage, the Government decided, in December last year, to exempt from sales tax all ultra high frequency television transmitters purchased specifically for equalisation. This should result in a saving for licensees of some $10m. Further, we have also decided that if licensees opt for aggregation, we will rebate their fees paid under the Television Licence Fees Act of 1964. The rebate will operate between 1986-87 and 1989-90 when they would be undertaking substantial capital investment. These rebates will be calculated on a tapered scale falling from a maximum of 100 per cent in the first year to 25 per cent in the last, and are expected to cost the Government some $22m in forgone revenue. There will be provision for ABT monitoring and reports on progress towards aggregation at licence renewal inquiries. The Government has also agreed to a co-ordinated capital works program to upgrade Commonwealth transmitting stations to accommodate equalisation and two other major programs-the ABC second regional radio network and clearance of band II television channels in order to provide for commercial FM radio services. It should be noted that equalisation alone will require expenditure on capital works by the Government of $16m spread over a six-year period, and expenditure of $3m for upgraded resources in my Department and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal over the next four years. It is proposed to recoup the $16m from rentals paid by commercial licensees. Networking The FDU report identified a series of options for regulating the distribution of commercial television programs. Subsequent investigations reveal that the alleged restrictive practices which these measures were designed to meet may well be covered by the Trade Practices Act 1974. Accordingly, although it is not the Government's intention to pursue the question of regulations regarding networking at this time, I invite commercial television licensees who feel that they have suffered loss or damage as a result of restrictive trade practices to seek injunctions, damages or orders to redress the situation. Companies and/or licensees involved should also note that the Trade Practices Commission or the Attorney-General are able to take action for injunction or pecuniary penalties. The maximum pecuniary penalty is $250,000 in the case of a body corporate. The Government will be monitoring the situation with interest. Ownership and Control The Government accepts that changes in the ownership and control rules will be necessary as a consequence of the equalisation process. Some relaxation of current ownership and control rules would assist equalisation by, firstly, facilitating early aggregation; and, secondly, allowing the development of larger regional groupings. Accordingly, the Government has noted that my Department is making a detailed study of ownership and control legislation and will report by the end of July. It has also agreed that we will address the ownership and control issue no later than 31 October 1986. Planning Matters The initial development of television services in Australia took place entirely in the very high frequency-VHF-band. However, in more recent times we have needed increasingly to use the ultra high frequency-UHF-band for new services. Not only are many translator stations now UHF, but also the Special Broadcasting Service will be a wholly UHF network. Without wishing in this statement to canvass the complex technical details involved in frequency planning, I should make it clear that considerable use of the UHF band will be essential in order to achieve equalisation. Indeed, the Government has decided to use UHF channels for each of the two new commercial television services in any given area. Television development will therefore be analogous to the development of radio in the last 10 years, where most new ABC, commercial and public services have been in the FM band. In most cases we expect the existing ABC and commercial television services to remain on the VHF frequency they are currently using, so that the typical situation will be a uniform mix of two VHF and two UHF services, sometimes with an SBS service also on UHF. In particular areas, where the existing VHF services have to be cleared to make way for the development of new radio services, all television services may be provided using UHF. Planning of UHF will be in accordance with world standards, so that the frequency spectrum can be developed in an orderly way and Australian consumers are not required to buy non-standard receivers. Since 70 to 80 per cent of homes have sets capable of receiving UHF, and video cassette recorders can also be used for UHF reception, the Government believes that only 10 per cent of homes presently need a downconverter to receive UHF and this percentage will progressively decrease. Alternatively, as new services are introduced over the next five years, householders should make certain that their new television sets have UHF capability. An outdoor UHF antenna, costing about $100 to $160 professionally installed, will probably be required for good reception of the new services. While covering planning matters, I should also refer to our priorities in the immediate future. As I said in May 1985, equalisation is the Government's highest priority in broadcasting policy. To achieve it in the timeframe we have set will require a major commitment of the Commonwealth's resources. As a consequence, no new projects will be undertaken until technical specifications for the equalisation program have been completed. My Department will complete projects which are already well advanced. It will also continue to devote resources to urgent major matters, such as essential relocation of facilities, the ABC second regional radio network and clearance of band II. However, it will not be possible to consider planning related to new proposals. The policy aspects of new proposals may be considered, but detailed planning will have to await substantial completion of planning related to equalisation. Conclusion Only a very brave Minister would claim to foresee the future of broadcasting more than a short period ahead. There are too many complexities, too many human factors, and too many technological developments with potential to affect the broadcasting system for us to speak with certainty. Nevertheless, we are able to foreshadow the main milestones for the next ten years and we do plan to control our own destiny so far as that lies within the power of government. I said in my statement last year that we saw the need to talk with broadcasters with the aim of maintaining stability while accommodating necessary change. This has been done. Again, I am happy to report that the responses from both broadcasters and the public have been helpful and co-operative. Together, we are now able to contemplate what to many seemed only last year an impossible dream-the progressive equalisation of television services in Australia. Mr MOORE(Ryan) —by leave-On behalf of the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) I take up the statement by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and say that it is a very brave Minister indeed who claims to foresee the future of broadcasting more than a short period ahead, to quote the Minister's statement. That is very true indeed when one applies the context of his statement to some of the rhetoric of the past. I will just try some. On 2 February 1984 the Minister for Communications said: . . . it is almost eleven months since Labour came to power and I was appointed Communications Minister. In looking back at those eleven months it is my strong belief that in keeping with the Government's objectives in communications we have made several noteworthy and progressive decisions . . . . . firstly . . . we have implemented the supplementary licence scheme and have already received numerous inquiries from broadcasters and others. That was encouraged when on 16 April 1984 the Minister said: There is a need for licensees to get their applications in early otherwise a log jam in handling them will develop and frustration set in so the Government is looking for early applications and is keen to ensure that these are processed and new services established quickly. The response to that was quite considerable. The Minister invited interest in supplementary licences from all the regional independent associations. I am reliably informed that many dozens of groups were formed-some public, some private, some in partnerships, which are very strong in Queensland and Tasmania, but generally across the nation-and people put their cases together to apply for supplementary licences, having received the very strong endorsement by the Minister in February and April to do so. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent by these people in the process of seeking supplementary licences, the policy the Minister just a minute ago referred to. Eighteen months ago, at the pressing of the industry, the Minister was urged to look at the process of these supplementaries because there was a log jam, no decisions were being effected, and the inquiry process was bogging down in legalities, with costs to the syndicates concerned. He refused to instruct the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to intercede and to stop the process. The ABT said it would not stop it. It said it could not stop it because the Minister was not prepared to instruct it to do so. As a consequence of that complete mess-up, a bungling of considerable proportion, at the invitation of the Government people across the nation have incurred legal and associated costs running into millions and millions of dollars. Today, without one licence having been allocated under that scheme, we are tossing that scheme out the window without a word. Three and a half years after the scheme was introduced millions of dollars have gone down the drain. What a record of incompetence in this whole area. The Minister and the Government ought to be ashamed. The opportunity to bring in people from outside and to break up some of the basic monopolies in the communications field was lost, passed up by the Government. I wonder why. It is because for the whole time there has been basic conflict between the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about communications. The Minister originally stood, basically, for regional television and for outside interests. What did the Prime Minister stand for? He was pressured by the major magnates around Australia, the major owners of the television stations or, to put it more directly, the television networks. Conflict of interest has bedevilled the whole policy making procedure in communications. A choice had to be made between the wishes of the Prime Minister, backed by the networks, and the wishes of the Minister, backed by the regional stations. The substantial policy that came out today is hallmarked by the choice that had to be made between the Prime Minister's wishes, and the wishes of the Minister for Communications at that time. The policy is studded with many inconsistencies, the first of which relates to supplementary licences. The prime matter in this statement relates to equalisation. The Opposition thinks that equalisation is an appropriate policy, but I again point to the twists and turns of the Minister. In April 1985 the Minister said that equalisation policy was a long term policy, yet three weeks later, on 25 May, he had changed his mind. He said that equalisation `now had the highest priority'. It must be some decision making process that goes on in the Minister's mind in the handling of this portfolio! As a consequence of those decision making processes we now have a total switch, in response no doubt to the pressures outside. After the bungling of the supplementary licences and the continuing saga of the extra licence for Perth-after two years of inquiry into whether Perth should be granted a third television licence and millions of dollars having been spent by the applicants-today, there is no decision. This is a fantastic performance! The cost of the inquiry is such that many of the applicants have packed their bags and gone home. This is quite a record! Mr Peter Fisher —That's right. The same with Mildura radio. Mr MOORE —The same thing has happened in many other areas, as the honourable member said, but to me the Perth hearings stand out as an example of the Government's mishandling of the communications portfolio and of the continuing conflict between the Prime Minister and the Minister in this area. The Minister, having said that equalisation was a long term policy, three weeks later says it must be given priority. This is a total switch around. To achieve this the Government set up within the Department of Communications a committee called the Forward Development Unit. It was charged with looking at the various options of bringing about equalisation. It was noticeable that this committee was attended by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Its submission was very enlightening. It drew attention to the fact that it feared that, under the particular equalisation programs that had been urged by the Government, localism would suffer. This fear was not confined to the ACTU; it was also expressed by the Australian Consumers Association. The ACTU expressed grave concern about the fact that neither the aggregation nor the alternative of multi-channel services could meet the objectives embraced in respect of the media. In a submission to the Forward Development Unit of the Department, the ACTU said last year that it was worried about the impact of equalisation on localism, concentration of media ownership, and Australian product and employment. That worthy body, about which we have heard so much in recent days in regard to financial matters, had its submission overruled. So we continue down the track of the development of equalisation. The path chosen did not include any attempt to go to the consumers, the people affected by the services will be equalised for their own good. There has been no consultation, that I am aware of, with people of the bush, or the people for whom this new policy was devised. The ACTU had a few words to say, and no doubt the proprietors had a few words to say. Mr Blunt —No one asked them what they really wanted. There were no surveys. Mr MOORE —As the honourable member for Richmond said, there were no surveys taken in his area, or in other areas, in relation to these services. So the consumers, the people about whom the Minister says he is so concerned, were totally ignored. It was the interests of the union and the particular owners of the major television stations that were taken into consideration. The choice between aggregation or the multi-channel services was made and the decision was made on how we were to go about it. When one looks at the background one sees quite clearly the conflict between the Minister and the Prime Minister. Aggregation is backed by the major networkers; therefore, it is the choice of the Prime Minister. Multi-channel services are backed by the regional television stations; therefore, they are the choice of the Minister. What has happened? In this statement the Government talks about equality of action. We go to an area and draw a line around it-a line yet to be declared-and if no one in that area says that he wants aggregation we can have a multi-channel service. That is regarded, in the statement, as a `test of viability'-they are the words used. I put it to the House that where there are a number of operators in a defined area there is more than a financial consideration, in terms of viability, in saying that one particular operator stands out against the rest. Only one operator has to stand out; not the majority. We are in an aggregated situation from that point. There would be all sorts of ways and means by which that one operator could be motivated. He could be motivated because he is at the bottom of the pole, and he would have a throw for existence. It could be that he is a nominee, a dummy or blind, for another interest. There are a number of other areas in which one station in an area could be used for this particular purpose. Only one has to stand out. Having achieved aggregation in that way we then look at the other considerations. There are special financial considerations written into the statement which, in my view, very much impinge upon the choice of the people within the defined areas as to whether to go to aggregation or to stay with multi-channel services. Multi-channel services will be expensive in the first place, and they have a maximum of 10 years. Not only do they suffer those disabilities, but also the Government is offering, in this statement, precise incentives to go to aggregation. On top of that-this seems strange to me-it having taken nearly three and a half years for this statement to be made, the areas will not be defined and announced until about October and the people in those areas will then be given three months-November, December, January; and December-January is hardly the hardest working period on Australia's work calendar-to make a decision on what they propose to do. It has taken the Government three and a half years to make up its mind, and three months is allowed for the people operating in these districts to make up their minds about what they will do-and that time has the Christmas and New Year period thrown in. The working period of those outside the Government would certainly tend to confirm the view that private enterprise moves more quickly than does government enterprise. This hybrid approach has its pluses and minuses. There is no doubt in mind that the market will ultimately determine the winner and the availability of frequencies will ultimately decide the winning process. My bet is that aggregation will ultimately be the most popular process and through that process networkers will fare particularly well. Hence the probable substitute. A couple of matters come from this. Once again, radio is the poor cousin. It has been pushed to one side by the lack of ability of the Department. The Minister's statement says that no new projects will be brought on until equalisation is concluded. There is no date for that. At the same time, radio interests have not been able to expand their services in the way they require. It is claimed that this is due to the fact that the Department does not have the manpower to service those requests. I have a telex from one of the FM applicants which says: Since November 1983 you have continued to support independent radio licensing and encourage intending applicants to take part in the process. Despite the most unreasonable series of delays many groups around Australia have accepted your word and continued to invest risk capital. Based on the expenditure of only 40 applicants we estimate conservatively that over $2m has been spent in response to your public statements. Despite that telex sent to the Minister today, in the statement there was a total rejection of considering radio interests until we are equalised. Once again, money spent by the entrepreneur, the risk-taker in radio, must be added to the fiasco of supplementary licences, over which, once again, millions of dollars have gone down the drain over many years. Not a finger was lifted by the Minister, until this very day, to stop the processes for supplementary licences. The statement says that he will now write to the ABT to inform it officially to stop the inquiry. The other matter of concern relates to ownership. Tucked away in the concluding parts of this statement, on page 11, the Minister says: The Government accepts that changes in ownership and control rules will be necessary as a consequence of the equalisation process. Some relaxation of ownership and control rules would assist equalisation. That is quite unusual in putting together aggregates and means that certain mergers of licences must mean that changes in ownership will occur within the aggregated areas. What is missing, significantly, is that the final sentence says: It has also agreed that we will address the ownership and control issue no later than 31 October 1986. At long last a decision will be made as to who is the winner-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or the Minister for Communications. A date has been given but following the tax debacle there is no reason to believe that that date will be held to. If it is, it will be interesting to see from this very extensive statement who is the ultimate winner, the person who controls communications policy-the Minister who represents the broader interests, I believe, or the Prime Minister, who quite clearly represents the major network owners. 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 petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that persistent rumour 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: Ensuring 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,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 Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Persistent rumour suggests 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 House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women by: Ensuring no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Reviewing 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 therefore humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Fife,Mr Hodges 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 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 Tim Fischer,Mr Maher and Mr Ian Robinson. 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 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 Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House of Representatives their concern at any change to the Australian Flag without first holding a Referendum to assess the opinion of the citizens of Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that no changes be made to the Australian Flag without reference to the citizens of Australia in the form of a Referendum. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will very pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, The petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Government throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 5. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Government throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 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 Ewen Cameron. 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 weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal Members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Coleman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (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 Coleman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) The ready availability of X-rated videos including pornographic and violent material; and (b) The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Orionia Family who arrived in Albany in January this year, have had their vessel S.V. Orionia taken away from them by an arbitrary Federal Government decision and now have been given 14 days to leave Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government grants residency status to the eleven members of the Orionia Family to allow them to stay and rebuild their lives in Albany. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the practice of strip searching of women prisoners in Armagh Gaol, Northern Ireland. We are appalled that the prison authorities have demanded: Women prisoners in Armagh Gaol to be strip searched up to 32 times more frequently, on average, than women prisoners in Britain. Individual women prisoners in Armagh to be strip searched up to 28 times in one month. The occasional participation of male prison officers in forcing women to undergo strip searches. The insistence that menstruating women remove their sanitary towels and tampons, in order to facilitate strip searches. The strip searches currently being practised are violent, degrading and humiliating. They are a blatant violation of human rights, clearly contravening Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Your petitioners gravely feel that the employment of strip searching in the North of Ireland, by the British Government is designed not for security purposes but to dehumanise and violate the basic dignity of these women prisoners. Your petitioners view the British Governments strip search policy in Ireland as an extension of Britain's war effort presently being conducted to prevent Ireland becoming an Independent 32 County Irish Sovereign State. Your petitioners humbly call upon the Australian Government to lodge a protest with the British Government, calling upon the British Government and the Northern Ireland Office to discontinue the practice of strip searching women prisoners in Armagh Gaol in Northern Ireland immediately. by Mr Howe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That 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 Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of Victoria 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 Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. That numerous provisions exist in industrial legislation and awards which purport to provide special protection to women workers but which have been shown to be detrimental to their achievement of equality in employment. Noting the relevant provision in Article 11 of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women to which Australia is a party your petitioners request that urgent action be taken to ensure that these legal barriers to equality be removed. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray by Mrs Kelly. 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 in Parliament assembled. We strongly object to recent interest rate rises on Building Society home loans. We further object to the inequality of Federal Government subsidies only being granted to Bank home loan borrowers, who were already on a lower interest rate than Building Society home loan borrowers. These subsidies are derived from taxes contributed to by Building Society borrowers and as such we ask for equal access to any subsidies offered to home loan borrowers. As existing Bank home loan borrowers have been subsidised on interest charges above 13.5%, we feel 15% to be a realistic figure above which Building Society home loan borrowers should be subsidised. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lindsay. To the Honourable the leader and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia: the petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with mismanagement of the Otway forests in Victoria, and we pray that: The Constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant public expressions of concern, e.g. petitions by some action, e.g. referendums or committees of inquiry. by Mr Mildren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that under the guise of ceasefire the Government of Sri Lanka has largely militarised Tamil regions and has now resorted to airship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seem even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to: 1. Intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka to desist from airship attacks and seeking a military solution; 2. To offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programmes, to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; 3. Abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation of any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; 4. As a member of the Commonwealth, persuade the Government of Sri Lanka to pursue a political solution which will allow the Tamils to live in peace and dignity. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and of the South West African People's Organisation of Namibia (SWAPO) should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your petitioners therefore pray and urge Australian Government provision of: 1. Official recognition of the ANC and SWAPO as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia; 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the ANC and SWAPO to promote the anti-Apartheid cause in Australia; 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the ANC and SWAPO to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibia and South African refugees who are victims of Apartheid; 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the ANC and SWAPO education departments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Scott. 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable 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 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 is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Free,Mr Hicks and Mr Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bills of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, not in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Page electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke 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 Bills of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, not 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 Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. 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 Bills of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of Dawson respectfully shows that the proposed capital gains tax: penalises small business and farming enterprises, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation, will freeze existing investment patterns, and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will abandon its illconsidered capital gains tax proposal. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's `White Paper' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as `Capital Gains tax after death' Gift tax Increased Company Tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development, they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future, they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets, they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gain tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's refusal to pass onto motorists, farmers and small businessmen, and the community as a whole, the full effect of the drop in world oil prices will decrease Australia's competitiveness as a trading nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Act immediately to adhere to the oil world parity pricing policy, and give the full flow-on of the drop in world oil prices to the Australian public and the business sector. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully request that: The world's resources be redirected to the relief of human suffering, starvation, poverty and disease. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Stop spending taxpayers money on self promotion through high cost high profile but superficial policy on nuclear disarmament and make a genuine bi-partisan commitment to positive and practical policies designed to achieve progressive world-wide nuclear disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of Dawson shows that the proposed Bill of Rights: overlooks basic rights concerning union membership, education, and private property, is a basis for massive intrusion into State responsibilities, establishes a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission with powers similar to a Court but without accepted legal procedures and protections for the accused, and provides no avenue of appeal against decisions of the HR&EOC. The petition further shows that fundamental protection of human rights is already to be found in the Courts, in tolerance, in fair play, belief in democratic institutions, and in support for rule of law. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament will not allow the Australian Bill of Rights Bill to pass into law. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully sheweth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your Petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of the North Coast of New South Wales, Australia respectfully sheweth: That the community of Grafton and the Clarence Valley desire the retention of the A.B.C. Radio Studios in Grafton for the Second Regional Radio Network and pledge total support of Grafton City Council's submission on the Green Paper entitled `Discussion Paper-Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation'. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will sympathetically look at the problems of all these people in northern New South Wales and that the responsible Minister will take the necessary action to ensure the retention of the A.B.C. Radio Studio in Grafton and heed the submission of Grafton City Council in response to the Green Paper entitled `Discussion Paper-Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. 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 that: The total disallowance by the Hawke Labor Government of tax deductibility for entertainment and hospitality expenses will unfairly penalise Australian business and cost thousands of jobs for young and unskilled people. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Abandon its total ban on entertainment expenses and allow tax deductibility for legitimate and necessary expenses. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: that the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. that consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. that unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Slipper. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act 1953. Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of electors of the Division of Port Adelaide shows-that we the undersigned believe there is a real need for the existing Post Office at Exeter and it should not be closed down. We urge the Government to keep the Exeter Post Office open for the benefit of all those people in the community. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Young. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —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 gross misrepresentation by the Government of the true state of the economy until the Treasurer's radio interview last week, and the resulting rapid deterioration in Australian living standards. 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)(4.58) —Mr Deputy Speaker, this-- Motion (by Mr West) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Dawkins, J. S. Mildren, J. B. Dubois, S. G. Milton, P. Duncan, P. Morris, AllanEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. 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. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. 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. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Watson, DavidHalverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hurford, C. J. Macphee, I. M. Hayden, W. G. Sullivan, K. J. Cohen, B. Lloyd, B. Darling, E. E. Smith, W. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That, in accordance with section 4 of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act 1986- (a) the Honourable Sir George Hermann Lush, the Honourable Sir Richard Arthur Blackburn and the Honourable William Andrew Wells be appointed members of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, and (b) the Honourable Sir George Hermann Lush be appointed the Presiding Member. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of the resolution agreed to by the House of Representatives. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Assent to the following Bills reported: Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Bill 1986 Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill 1986 Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1986 Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Community Employment Amendment Bill 1986 Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Amendment Bill 1986 Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill 1986 Trade Practices Revision Bill 1986 Oil Companies (Stock Loss Reimbursement) Bill 1986 Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1986 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1986 Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Meat Chicken Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1986 Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1986 Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Amendment Bill 1986 Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SPENDER —Yes, although only very mildly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SPENDER —When the names of the three commissioners of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry were announced I said that it was a very sensible appointment-and certainly it was. I was reported as saying that it was `splendid'. I do not believe that I used the word `splendid'. If I did, so be it. What I had in mind, of course, was to say that it was sensible. Mr Hand —Splendid Spender. Mr SPENDER —I thank the honourable member on my left hand for the interjection that he has so kindly made. Debate resumed from 2 May, on motion by Mr Uren: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(5.08) —Local government can breathe a breath of relief because it has escaped the threatened Budget knife of the Federal Government. Most councils can now go on functioning at a level to which they have been accustomed. I think the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) was particularly lucky in getting his submission through Cabinet before the dawn broke about the financial situation of the nation. If that submission had not got through a couple of weeks ago and had still been languishing on the bottom of the Cabinet agenda paper, as it had for so many months, the outcome of the Government's response to the report of the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finances would have been substantially different. Although local government has been allowed to continue with its present level of funding, it does have serious reasons for concern. Many councils will be worse off under the proposed legislation. The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill substantially discriminates against the States of Tasmania, Western Australia and, to a lesser degree, Queensland and parts of New South Wales. These States will lose as much as 11 per cent-in the case of Tasmania-of their funding over the next three years under the Federal Government's proposal for local government funding. This great decrease in the funding to many local councils prompts one to ask whether the Federal Government's prime reason for the Self inquiry was to create equalisation between local councils and the States or whether it was to curb their expenditure. The Government is attempting to abolish the personal income tax sharing scheme and replace it with a short term measure that maintains untied grants and real levels of funding for two years. It will then tie the size of local government grants to the changes made in Commonwealth general purpose grants to the States. In other words, if a State does badly, so too will local government in that State. It is shortsighted of the Government to say that the two should be bound together in this way. In many cases the needs of the States for funds are quite different in nature and priority from those of local government, which is much more in touch with the needs of the constituency. However, the Opposition recognises that this binding will alleviate many of the tensions that have emerged between the second and third levels of government in Australia. Since the introduction of the PITS method local government in some years has gained from windfall increases in personal income tax collections. State governments have responded to the faster growth in funds for local government by passing on some of their traditional functions and placing even greater pressure on the councils. The Government intends to allocate money to States for local government on a per capita basis. This change gives preferential treatment to Victorian and South Australia and takes money away from the others. As I said before, the big losers are Tasmania and Western Australia. Tasmania will lose nearly 11 per cent of the money it presently receives. New South Wales will drop 3 per cent and Western Australia slightly less. This new system of allocating money to the States for distribution to local government fails to take into account the physical size of some States which must provide services to bigger slices of the country. Nor does it account for, firstly, the cost of revenue raising in some States; secondly, the differing rates of economic development; thirdly, the emergence of new responsibilities in some States; fourthly, sparse population and remoteness; and fifthly, distances from major sources of supply. The rapidly growing States of Queensland and Western Australia have greater pressures on them to provide services. This new method of distribution will impose even greater burdens on many of the councils in these States. State local government grants commissions have conducted some dry runs to work out the effects of the new allocation guidelines within the States. The outcome was surprising. The principles which were used by the grants commissions are not known and there is uncertainty within local government circles about what will be acceptable. Councils providing services to people living in the country and inner metropolitan areas will get less while councils on the fringes of cities will find themselves getting a bigger piece of the action. From 1 July 1988 local government will have to cope with the possibility of getting less. At that time the guarantee period of maintaining allocations at real levels will run out. The Government will then vary the amount of money given to local government grants commissions in each State by percentage changes in general purpose payments to the States. The wording used by the Minister in his speech last week has confused some councils and their representative organisations because he said that performance was tied to the changes in the general purpose payments. However, the Bill says that it includes financial assistance grants, identifiable health grants and general purpose capital assistance from year to year. Why in this case is the Government trying to pull the wool over the eyes of some councils? What is it trying to hide? Is it just trying to sneak through the House something which will rob local government of some of its current entitlements? The inclusion of health grants in the calculation is unusual. It has no bearing on the provision of services in local government. Has the Minister intentionally set out to contradict himself or is he just confused? He must tell the people of Australia why he has said one thing but now proposes to do another. Under the PITS arrangement local government found the size of its grants increasing substantially in some years, while State governments had to be content with a share of a more slowly growing total tax pool. In some years the situation was reversed. Because competition for grant money is fiercely competitive tension between State governments and local government councils started bubbling to the surface. As State governments are responsible for local government they are able to get their way rather more easily. Over a number of years there has been a tendency for the States either to cut traditional financial support or to pass on extra burdens to the councils. An example of this sort of action is that some States now require local government authorities to collect money for fire services. The proposals in the Bill are likely to reduce these tensions because both tiers of government will find themselves on more common ground in their relationship with the Federal Government. Horizontal balance should be improved by the Bill, which guarantees all local authorities at least 30 per cent of the funds available to each State on a straight per capita basis. This will ensure that the more wealthy councils gain a share of the general purpose financial assistance grants while requiring the local government grants commissions in each State to help poorer councils that do not have access to easy money. However, no attention has been given to the hot issues in the Self committee report on rate pegging. This is a totally unaddressed subject within the Minister's remarks. Why is that the case? It is the case because in the State of New South Wales in particular, the Minister's own State, the Labor Government goes to some pains to peg the level of local government rates applicable in certain areas and does so with a political motive in mind. Because of that I am not surprised that the Minister has been unable to address himself to the recommendation in the Self committee report that rate pegging be eliminated. To do that in his own home State would put him in considerable trouble in a machine which does not like him at the best of times. Because of those circumstances, I am not surprised that the Minister has ducked for cover. After all, re-endorsements are more important than principles. The second matter that is unaddressed in the Self committee report is the question of rate exemptions, another area in which the Minister, as Minister for Administrative Services, and therefore the nation's landlord, would be very aware of the enormous amount of money it would cost the Federal Government in terms of rates if the exemption were lifted as recommended by the Self committee report. Indeed, probably the State Government of New South Wales could be found guilty; its ownership would be taxed in the normal process. Therefore, on two counts the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has been found wanting in relation to his responsibility to answer the recommendations in the Self committee report on two matters which tie him very closely in terms of his own State. The third matter which causes concern in this Bill is that there will be no review of the process until 1992. That is a long period to enable the processes to go into action, and there will be no general response until that period has elapsed. After that point it is proposed that there be a three-yearly review. As we all know from the conduct of government inquiries into various operations, there is a time lag. Therefore, a three-yearly review strikes me as inappropriate because there will be an 18-month time lag in finding the information. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to extend the review to a five-year review. Mr Hodgman —Does that mean that Tasmania will be chopped 11 per cent every year? Mr MOORE —No, it does not quite mean that, but it certainly means that the honourable member for Denison understands the problems and is once again fighting for the interests of Tasmania. It is no wonder he repels the hordes there so consistently. The process the Opposition would expect of the Government is that if there is to be no review until 1992, the Minister concerned-I do not think the present Minister will be there at that time-will be looking at the operation of the Self committee report on local government before that period and will be well versed, and certainly be on a basis of having frequent communication with the State grants commissions to ensure appropriate funding and conduct of such operations. So come that review in 1992, the most advantageous result can be expected. I return to the matters in the Bill, having dealt with the items that were delightfully glossed over. The Bill maintains the local government grants commissions for each State set up by the Fraser Government in 1976. However, a number of requirements are imposed upon those bodies which give the Government more power in the allocation of general purpose grants to local government. The main objective of the general purpose grants from the Government is to correct the horizontal imbalance that exists between the wealthy and poorer councils. The Government fails to give any clues on how local government grants commissions should go about doing this. In spite of this lack of specific guidelines, the Commonwealth Grants Commission has conducted a number of dry allocation runs. The Government must come clean and let the States and local government know what principles it expects the State grants commissions to use. The Bill says States are required to submit the principles to be used in achieving greater horizontal balance by July next year-1987-but no mention is made of consultation with local government. This seems to be a recipe for further problems with the Government and the States ignoring the possibility of input for the groups most affected by the changes, that is, local government. The fact that each State is allowed to submit different allocation principles for approval by the Minister is a refreshing step as it acknowledges that local government has different needs from State to State. However, if a State fails to submit its guidelines to the Government or submits guidelines which the Minister finds unacceptable, the Minister will have the right to impose guidelines or principles of his liking. In Committee, the Opposition will be moving an amendment to make the purposes of the Bill clearer. The Bill also provides for a review after three years of operation for each of the local government grants commission, but the Opposition would be happier if reviews were held every five years. Clause 9 (8) of the Bill gives the Minister the power of unilateral intervention in the operation of the local government grants commissions. This may not be the intention of the Bill, but the Opposition would like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister whether he would consider amending the Bill to give the States the chance to comment on and discuss any proposed changes to the allocation principles before the Government unilaterally intervenes. Local government grants commissions will be required to hold public meetings. This is to be commended because a long-standing criticism of these bodies has been that their findings have not been easily understood. Public meetings are to be encouraged if they foster a greater understanding within local government circles about how and why decisions are made. Care must be taken that the local government grants commissions do not make token attempts to increase understanding. If they do, the exercise will be pointless and irrelevant. It is vitally important that commissions be committed to openness in their hearings, deliberations and findings. Triennial reports on methodology should also be easily understood. The Bill incorporates the Northern Territory's local governments under the umbrella of the Commonwealth Grants Commission for the first time. The Opposition welcomes this move which recognises the vital role played by local government in the Northern Territory in the provision of services to people living in remote areas of Australia. Recently I had the opportunity of meeting some members of the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory. One could not find a more committed and useful body of people-people who really are living within their community and are a product of it. They espouse their cause with a genuineness that is most refreshing compared with some other people I have met in public life. This is a move in the right direction for the recognition of the Northern Territory as a State in its own right. In government the coalition will maintain the distribution of untied grants to local government by grants commissions. After the 1989 review we would investigate options for a percentage of total tax to go to local government. Of course, such an investigation would involve consultation with the Australian Council of Local Government Associations. The coalition in government would also maintain road funding separate from general purpose revenue grants. At the same time we will negotiate with the States and with local government to reach an acceptable formula to protect the funding of arterial and local roads. In government the coalition will encourage States to maintain their input into local government, to distribute revenue fairly within their State and not to impede the revenue-raising capacities of councils. We would also seek to maintain the independence of members of the grants commissions and to ensure proper representation of local government on the commissions. In conclusion, the Opposition will not be opposing the Bill. However, we will be seeking changes to the legislation that will prevent the Minister having the power unilaterally to change the allocation guidelines used by the local government grants commissions. The Bill is the result of many compromises and its effects will not be known until after three years of operation, or indeed longer. I am sure that many councils will find themselves worse off under the Bill which the Minister claims continues the bipartisan approach to the question of local government. But given the problems facing the Government because of its inability to curb spending, the Bill reaches a degree of balance which appears on the face of it to satisfy most of the concerned parties. I commend the Bill. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(5.25) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill is extremely important legislation as far as this Government's commitment to local government is concerned. I noticed that the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) said in his second reading speech when the legislation was introduced: As a Minister in the Whitlam Government I was associated with the development of the first Bill which provided for Commonwealth financial assistance for local government. The Grants Commission Act 1973 was an historic breakthrough in inter-government financial relations. It created the precedent for direct Commonwealth involvement in the field of local government. In his usual modest way, the Hon. Tom Uren said he was associated with the development of the legislation. To a very large extent he was the architect, the initiator, the innovator of the legislation. He made reference as well in that second reading speech to the time when he will cease to be Minister, at the end of this current term. Many people in local government throughout this nation will be very disappointed when that occasion arrives because of the commitment the Minister has given to local government and to the capacity of local government to fulfil the sorts of responsibilities which for too long it was denied the financial resources to fulfil. Tom Uren believes in regional government; he believes in democratic processes, government processes, being exercised by people on the ground, in the field, within their regions. He has done a remarkable job, and many people endorse that view. For example, I have from the President of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, Alderman Cec Black, a letter which states: Dear Mr Uren, Attached for your information is a letter to the Prime Minister thanking the Government for its recommitment to a program of general purpose assistance for local Government. You and your officers are to be warmly congratulated on this result. I have also a letter from Councillor D. G. Ross, the President of the Local Government Association of South Australia, which says: Dear Tom, Please accept my sincere thanks for all that you have done for us on the General Revenue Sharing question. I believe that your considerable personal effort really turned what seemed to be the inevitable tide. A letter from the Local Government Association of New South Wales in conjunction with the Shires Association of New South Wales, representing the totality of local government in that State, is signed by the President of the Local Government Association, the President of the Shires Association and the Secretary of the Local Government and Shires Association. It is endorsed absolutely by those three dedicated and competent local government officers in New South Wales and it says: Dear Mr Uren, On behalf of Local Government in NSW we write to express our appreciation about the recent Federal Government decision giving an on-going commitment to untied funding of local government, as contained in your Statement to the House of Representatives on April 10th. I could go on quoting from those letters and from other letters of the same kind which have swamped the Minister's office since the announcement he made concerning what amounts to a significant introduction of the most important immediate proposals of the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance. Tom Uren will be long remembered-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! Mr ROBERT BROWN —I am sorry; the Minister will be long remembered after he retires from his portfolio as a person who probably has made the greatest significant contribution to local government of anyone at Commonwealth level. He gave effect to much of the belief in local government of the former Labor Prime Minister, the Hon. Gough Whitlam. As we all know, Gough Whitlam pursued doggedly the right of local government to participate in Commonwealth income tax and to be provided with financial assistance directly from the Commonwealth. In fact Gough Whitlam, together with the Minister, initiated a referendum during the term of the Whitlam Government which sought from the Australian people approval for the Australian Government, the national government, to provide assistance directly to local government. Those people on the Opposition benches who now purport to be the friends of local government were responsible for the defeat of that initiative; so coming into this chamber and participating in debates of this kind does not sit very comfortably with them. In fact, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) said that an 11 per cent grant revenue disability has been imposed on local government as a result of changing the formula. He suggested that this present Government is robbing local government of its just entitlement. What does local government itself think about that? The evidence is there, in these eulogies from local government of the present Minister and what he has done for local government. I refer to the decade 1970-71 to 1980-81. In 1971-72, only $1.9m was paid in direct Commonwealth grants to local government. So before the Whitlam Government less than $2m went from the Commonwealth to local government. As a result of the Whitlam Government's initiatives, overnight that amount jumped to $53m in 1972-73. By the last year of the Whitlam Government it had reached $270m, or $345m if we included road grants. What a magnificent result. I was personally involved in local government at that time, and I know what it meant. I say to the Minister at the table, in a fraternal way: `Tom, I know what it meant; I know how local government benefited from that lifting of the status, the prestige, the capacity of local government to do these things that were expected of it'. Mr Price —So do others on this side. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As my honourable friend indicates, so do others on this side. Prior to 1972 local government was unquestionably the most neglected and the most impoverished level of government in Australia. It was financially incapable of even reasonably fulfilling its legitimate responsibilities. It gave meaning to that expression used so frequently-public squalor surrounded by private affluence. The incapacity of local government caused the blight of our urban areas. In many areas even the most basic of services were not supplied. That was the situation in 1971-72, after 23 years of conservative government. We know that conservative parties and conservative governments have continued to resist accordingly to local government the recognition, the respect and the capacity it should have to carry out its responsibilities. Let me refer to a couple of significant cuts that occurred as soon as the Fraser Government came into office in 1975. In the year before the Fraser Government the regional employment development scheme was allocated $93m. In the first year of the Fraser Government that was slashed to less than half a million dollars, and the following year that scheme got nothing-not one cent. How about the growth centres program? It was reduced from $3.6m in the last year of the Whitlam Government to $2.6m in the first year of the Fraser Government, and then to nothing-not one cent. The area improvement program was slashed from $15m to half a million dollars in the first year of the Fraser Government. After that it received nothing-not one cent. Mr Peacock —Quite correct, too. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Kooyong might say that about some of these other programs as well. I refer to the national sewerage program. The honourable member shakes his head, as well he should, because he knows that the people concerned about local government in his electorate and in mine are listening to see the relative attitudes of the Government and the Opposition to these matters. Let us look at the national sewerage program. I hope that all of those people in the unsewered areas throughout this nation are listening. In the last year of the Whitlam Government $25m was allocated under the national sewerage program. In the first year of the Fraser Government $9m was allocated-and then nothing, not one cent. Under the regional organisations assistance program $138,000 was allocated-and then nothing, not one cent. Under the Australian assistance plan $286,000 was allocated-then nothing, not one cent. After two years of conservative government not one cent was allocated to any of those programs. So neither we nor the Australian people will allow Opposition members to masquerade as supporters and friends of local government. Let me assert absolutely that they are nothing of the kind. The Australian people know that Opposition members are nothing of the kind. People involved in local government throughout this nation know absolutely that they are nothing of the kind. I indicated that this legislation picks up some of the most important proposals from the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance, which was probably the most significant inquiry into local government needs that has been undertaken in Australia for very many years. It was a major inquiry. It came out with very major proposals. I am delighted that this Government has shown itself to be so responsive in picking up most of those proposals. There is and has been a problem with the adequacy of revenue grants to local government-particularly, as I have already indicated, under the previous Government. But local government has now been given the sort of assurance that it has sought. It will be assured in future not only of the maintenance in real terms of the allocation it received in 1985-86 but also that that will be indexed, either in terms of the consumer price index and inflation to ensure that the level is maintained or related to an index based on the revenue sharing grants which go to State governments. Whichever is the greater, that will be the benefit that in future will accrue to local government. Of course, local government rejoices in this added commitment to guarantee that it will have the capacity increasingly to carry out all of those things that rightfully are its responsibilities-those things that on the ground, out in the field, in the regions, in the cities and in the villages throughout Australia local government is best equipped to carry out. Because of the constraints of time I will finish by referring to the fact that there has been some criticism that the 2 per cent of personal income tax formula was not applied this year for local government. We replaced that with a guarantee that local government would retain in real terms the amount that it received in the previous year plus a real growth element of 2 per cent. That represented a very substantial increase in the total funds going to local government. Of course, that occurred within the context of the State governments at the Premiers Conference in May 1985 agreeing to take no increase in the real value of their grants. So local government did better than State governments to the extent of that 2 per cent real increase. That meant that local government received a 9.9 per cent nominal increase in its general grants. The total value of those grants went from $486m in 1984-85 to almost $535m in this current year. There are many things that I would like to say about local government and the debt that local government owes not only to successive Labor governments but also particularly-everyone recognises this, as they should-to the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, who is at the table. He is a great friend and ally to local government. In the period of the Whitlam Government he was responsible for ensuring that local government did not collapse when it was on the verge of collapsing. As I have said, it was the most impoverished level of government in Australia. It is now increasingly being given the sort of recognition to which it is entitled. As a result of that, local government will increasingly be able to play the type of positive and constructive role that it is capable of playing and it will give to those people who participate in local government the opportunity to express in a real way their aspirations for their regions and their areas. It will give to them the capacity to put into place the sorts of improvements that they want to see achieved within their communities. I commend the Government and the Minister. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(5.40) —I hope that the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), who is at the table, was wearing at least a metaphysical raincoat during the contribution of the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) because the speech certainly sounded to me like a very wet funeral oration for a Minister over whose burial he was presiding. The honourable member for Charlton, having rationalised the toings and froings of Labor governments over the years, and their treatment of local government, I just remind him, if he needs reminding, that it is the Hawke Government that has deprived local government of at least $52m-it could be more-to which it was entitled and would have received under the agreement that the Fraser Government made with local government. Had that agreement been honoured by the Hawke Labor Government, in the last year local government would have received at least $52m more. It is this Government, of which the honourable member for Charlton spoke so highly, that has deprived local government of that $52m with which local government could have done something about sewerage, and perhaps flushed away the honourable member. We also heard of the Whitlam Government's initiatives. Thank goodness the Fraser Government wiped the regional employment development scheme, which was a monument to inefficiency and waste, as indeed is the community employment program becoming under the Hawke Government. I believe that this year the waste and inefficiency that has gone on under CEP will be recognised, as was the waste that had gone on under the RED scheme recognised by the Fraser Government when the Hawke Government cuts back the amounts of money that in many cases have been simply poured down the drain in the name of creating so-called employment. I would like to say, though, that when I was shadow Minister for local government in this House the Minister was the soul of courtesy to me, and he has certainly been the soul of courtesy to me as a back bencher. In general terms I support the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill. It is in line with the recommendations of the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance and in that respect I shall not be critical of it. However, there are a number of points that I wish to raise, both in relation to the overall financing arrangements and in particular in relation to my own electorate of the Northern Territory. The Minister has told us that it is intended that the principles for the purpose of allocating funds between local councils will be drawn up by the States and submitted to him for approval. The Minister further warns us that any State which submits principles that do not conform with the Minister's view of the world will see its principles determined for it by the Minister. It is clear from that that the Minister has total control over the principles to be adopted, yet we are asked to pass this Bill without having any clear idea of what principles the Minister will adopt. It is also clear, at least to me, that such principles should be first worked out through negotiation with the States and incorporated into the Bill so that everyone knows exactly where he stands. This is an important point. The way this legislation is prepared allows the Minister to change the principles, to adjust or disapprove the principles put to him by a State or Territory, at his whim. Further, it is quite within the power of the Minister to refuse to make local government money available because of some argument over such principles, or to insist that a State or Territory administers funds according to principles that it did not design and does not believe most appropriate for the local government bodies within its borders. As such, the adage that `the Commonwealth has the money, the States have the power, and local government has the problem' can be rewritten. The Commonwealth has the money and the power and both local government and the States will have the problem. Nor is this the only problem created by this legislation for the States, the Territory and local government. Whilst the Minister pays lip service to the principle of fiscal equalisation adopted by the Whitlam Government and, as he says, improved upon by the Fraser Government, the fact is that the adoption of a strict per capita basis for funding is a step in a completely different direction, because if, as the Minister tells us, each State's share of the total grant from 1989-90 is equal to that State's share of the Australian population, this Government has walked away from the very principles of both the Whitlam and Fraser governments to which the Minister has been paying tribute. Clearly, such a formula will disadvantage certain States and it will certainly disadvantage my own electorate. I am sure that I will gain support from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) at least on this point. If funds are to be equally distributed between local governments, again on a strict per capita basis, as the Minister states, this constitutes a second attack on the principle of fiscal equalisation, because the facts are that in the Northern Territory and in States such as Queensland and Western Australia, to name but two, there are local government areas which will suffer considerably through the diseconomies of scale, isolation and population distribution, which are the realities of their areas of responsibility. For instance, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your own State, the Shire of Sandstone, has, I think, a population of 312 people, with 22 ratepayers or thereabouts, yet it covers a huge area of remote Western Australia in which a tremendous amount of work needs to be done on building essential roads for communication purposes. Further, the legislation will create a massive administrative headache for places such as the Northern Territory as it will have the unenviable task of trying to distribute available money equally across the entire population. As the Minister is well aware, the nature of the Northern Territory means that funds will have to be equally distributed in areas in which the nearest thing to local government is a progress association or community council. In such circumstances the distributive process will not be an easy task. I am advised by Northern Territory Treasury officials that they envisage a new mini- bureaucracy in order to deal with the difficulties of distribution of local government funds strictly in accordance with the principle of equal treatment on a per capita basis. I raise these points not because I wish to oppose the Bill but because it is essential that the Minister understand the special difficulties that will be created in a place such as the Northern Territory if the same principles are applied there as will be applied, for instance, in a populous and urbanised State such as Victoria. On a completely different matter, I note the Minister's enthusiasm for the success of the local government development program, which he says has resulted in some 400 projects spreading the best ideas and practices throughout the local government system. Mr Uren —Even at Palmerston. Mr EVERINGHAM —There has always got to be one good one, Minister. I am always wary of schemes that allow for the further intrusion of the Commonwealth into State level or local government level matters and it would seem that events prove my fears justified. It would be appropriate, perhaps, if the Minister wishes to maintain his self-styled reputation for spreading the best ideas and practices, if he were to rein in his colleagues' ideas and practices at around State election time. I have in mind the extraordinary debacle that occurred during the recent Tasmanian election campaign. I draw the Minister's attention to a story that appeared in the Canberra Times on 17 January this year. I will quote a couple of extracts from that story. The article states: Local Hobart councils have been caught on the hop by the speed of the Federal bureaucracy in its attempt to find projects for the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, to announce in Tasmania's State election campaign. The story continues: The warden of Clarence, Cr Paul Calvert, said . . . his council had been offered $100,000 under the Natural Areas Enhancement Scheme on Monday and told to find a suitable project by Wednesday. `Sometimes you bash your head against a brick wall for years trying to get that sort of money,' he said. `Now an election comes along and they want to give it to you in two days'. The Brighton Council Clerk, Mr Geoff Stagg, had a similar experience, after a visit from officers of the Departments of Local Government and Employment and Industrial Relations. Mr Stagg said: `They told us they had $50,000 for us to spend . . . but we were asked to provide details of the project, the number of people we would employ, their salary rates, and what work they would be doing all within 24 hours'. I believe that even honourable members opposite would agree that this sort of project funding is neither in accordance with the high principles expressed in this House by the Minister, nor the best way to go about spreading the best ideas and practices to local government in Australia. In fact, I suggest it confirms that there is more than one Minister in this House who has adopted a unique moral stance in the administration of his portfolio. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(5.51) —It is indeed a pleasure to be able to speak on the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill because I not only represent my electorate in this place, but also at the moment am a continuing practitioner in the municipal field as a local councillor. When the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) indicated that he was a bit embarrassed by the comments of the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) about the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), I think he was a little peeved because there were no such eulogies about him when he was dismissed as the shadow spokesman for local government. Indeed, the letters that the honourable member for Charlton read out from the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, the Local Government Association of New South Wales, the Local Government Association of South Australia, and their praise for the Minister, are indeed deserved; but I do not wish to embarrass the Minister any further or make him blush any more. I would like to read a relevant letter that was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). This was from the President of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, who happens to be a former mayor of the City of Darwin. It states: Dear Prime Minister, The ACLGA wishes to place on record Local Governments appreciation of the Government's decision to accept the broad thrust of the Report of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance and to provide a real terms minimum guarantee in respect of funding for the next two years with the prospect of real growth should the State Governments' recurrent and capital general purpose arrangements provide for such a betterment factor. Your decision on the funding level is especially welcome given the widespread recognition of the fact that the 1986-87 Budget is being framed in a difficult economic climate. I would also like to read comments from the Municipal Association of Victoria, which greeted the announcement and the reaction of the Government to the Self inquiry with some relief. It followed the rumours that there was intense lobbying to abolish direct financial assistance to local government and have it absorbed in general revenue grants to the States. The MAV stated: The link between personal income tax collections and general revenue grants to councils was effectively severed in May last year and only optimists believe that this will be restored in the foreseeable future. This was stated in news and views of MAV Insight. It continues: . . . the protection of the program and its financial base in real terms is a big win for local government. The municipality of Broadmeadows in my electorate wrote to me recently after the Minister's announcement. The letter states: Council welcomes the Minister's announcement that the value of Commonwealth assistance to local government is to be maintained in real terms for the next two years. This is important and it is an important recognition of the growing role that local government is playing. It is a recognition of the principle of partnership that local government, State government and Federal Government can work together in a whole host of functions. In the Australian Municipal Journal it was recognised that the nexus between financial assistance and the sharing of personal income tax had been broken earlier. The article states that at the Premiers' Conference in 1985: The States accepted a new arrangement dispensing with revenue sharing and in return were guaranteed growth in real terms only. Willingness by the States to change from revenue sharing has a substantial effect on local government because local government's case for revenue sharing was built on `following the States' policy. There appears to be an agreement and a recognition that the principles of this legislation-that is, a guarantee of financial assistance rather than the principle of revenue sharing-is the way we are to go. I wish to highlight several important aspects of the legislation. Each State is required to provide to the Minister before 1 July next year the principles which the State has formulated to put in place the concept of horizontal equalisation. This is the so-called component B of the grant and will be in addition to the 30 per cent that will go to each local government unit based on its population. This is an important aspect because it is in this area that financial assistance from the Federal Government can best be used to bring some sort of equity to municipalities and to the hopes and aspirations of people living in various communities. In the two municipalities covered by the electorate of Scullin, the financial assistance from the Federal Government, or untied grants, is significant when compared with the rate revenue raised by the municipalities. The City of Broadmeadows receives a Federal grant of $2.8m compared with a rate revenue of $12.1m. The Shire of Whittlesea receives $1.67m from the Federal Government and has a rate revenue of $10.7m. The guarantee of continuing Federal funding is very important to those municipalities because they are the types of municipalities which are experiencing the concern of the widening gap between the rich and the poor, high levels of unemployment, especially among young people, and increasing proportions of aged people in their populations. Both municipalities have a large ethnic mix in the communities, which bring with them different hardships in providing essential services. Other roles are developing for local government, especially in Victoria. Public housing is one area in which local governments units are providing a new service. Local government has a very important role in providing services for things which in the 1970s were described as quality of life issues. There has already been recognition, both in the Self report and the Minister's statement, that local government has an increasing role, especially in the area described as human services. Human services covers a wide variety of functions; recreation and welfare being the principal high priorities. To a certain extent, specific subsidies are attracted through the State governments from the Federal Government for different services. It is true to say that there has been criticism by local government that in certain respects the specific subsidies have not kept pace with demand and are not now meeting the same proportions as they did when they were first offered. That is a disappointing aspect, but it is something with which local government has learnt to live and for which it will continue to lobby to remedy. Victoria has a highly refined role for local government in the welfare area. Local government is involved in a wide range of services such as infant welfare, pre-schools, immunisation, housing for the elderly, elderly citizens' centres, housing for pensioners, youth workers, welfare officers, et cetera. Under the home and community care program local government will become even more involved in essential services which affect the daily lives of residents. In the provision of those services there is a need to get away from the limiting factors of rates revenue. It has always been discussed in local government circles that rates revenue in certain degrees does not equate to a person's ability to pay but is on the basis of the value of the property. (Quorum formed) I thank my colleagues for coming into the House. They show a distinct regard for local government by coming in to listen to this debate. It is disappointing that so few members of the Opposition have bothered to do so. That is indicative of the extent of concern for local government. As I was saying before I was interrupted, local government has always had problems with its rate raising ability because it does not bear any relation to a person's ability to pay situation such as in which landlords decide to flow on the full extent of the rates to those on lower incomes who are forced into rental accommodation. Local government has in no way come up with any sort of concept raising rates based on an ability to pay. In that area there are and have been problems. Anybody who has bothered to look at the reports of the Victorian grants commissions would see that they have tried to explain how they have gone about their equalisation process, although one might need to have a PhD in mathematics to understand some of the formulae. I am glad that the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) acknowledged that at least there will be public consultation, with the grants commissions being asked to hold public hearings. Despite what has been said, in preparing the principles that will be used for the horizontal equalisation concept, the States have been asked to consult with local government. I believe that will be done in States such as Victoria. The Victorian Government has indicated that it is willing to consult on a variety of matters, and it will be interesting to see the types of concepts to bring equity to funding across the board to local government that are presented when the grants commissions report back to the Federal Minister before next year. The Victorian Grants Commission in particular has supported the present round of restructuring that is being attempted by the State Government. It is interesting to quote from an interview with Professor Self in April 1985, published in the New South Wales Local Government Bulletin. Professor Self said: It's easy to say that to give local government more money is to make it more effective. But that's a little too simple. We have got to think of getting what money there is to work for the right purposes. I believe that in the State of Victoria the present round of restructuring, supported by the Local Government Grants Commission, is an attempt to get that money working better. I have no hesitation in commending this legislation to the House. I am pleased to do so because it has been well received by local government and is an important recognition of the role of local government as a partner, as one of the three spheres of government. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(6.05) —Lord Rosebery, the eminent English statesman and former Prime Minister, has said of local government that it is the highest form of personal involvement one can have in the political arena. I, like Lord Rosebery, have a great respect for local government and the service it provides on the personal and local scale. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) in his second reading speech also spoke of his pride in being involved with local government and with the development when he was a Minister in a former government of the original Grants Commission Bill which provided untied Federal funds to local government. I share with him his attitude towards giving people a greater say over the governing of their lives. I agree that the evolution of local government authorities from being responsible for road works to multi-factional and multi-functional authorities demonstrates a healthy aspect in our democratic process. I join with the Minister in encouraging the continuity of this development. The Minister's commitment to his portfolio can be recognised in his successful defence against any cutback in funding to local councils. From the few years that I have spent in this place, I know that it is not very often that honourable members from the Opposition side of the House are generous enough to convey congratulations to a Minister. I say to honourable members opposite that they would all do well to follow the example of the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, who is at the table. He always has time to reply to correspondence and to give a reasoned and responsible answer. His example is one that honourable members opposite could very well follow with some advantage to themselves and, certainly, with great advantage to the nation. Over the last few days, I have been most interested to watch as a bystander the goings-on between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and senior Ministers. I offer some advice to the Prime Minister. He will have to wait until he comes back from Beijing. He should have forgotten about those senior Ministers-those academics. He would have been better off contacting the Minister at the table, with his sound common-sense approach. The Minister would not have made the mistake that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) made by causing such hullabaloo in trying to build himself up. The Minister would have taken, as is his practice, a level-headed approach. The Prime Minister should take him into greater confidence and he should sort out those academics. Mr Peacock —Do you think he will take your advice? Mr McVEIGH —The honourable member for Kooyong raises a very sensible question. I think that the Prime Minister would do well to accept my advice. In practical terms, when it comes to hard work and common sense, all the other Ministers would be knocked up carting water bags to the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. The Prime Minister might very well take notice of the comments that I have made. Obviously, the Minister has worked very hard. The commitment now exists to guarantee in real terms funding for the councils for the next two years. After that time, funding will be in proportion to funding for the States under the provisions of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill 1986. While this proposal represents an increase in money terms for some States-namely, Victoria and South Australia-it represents a loss in relative terms for States such as Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia. Unfortunately, the disabilities of the large States with regard to size and sparseness of population will no longer be recognised when funds are handed out. If a particular State government receives substantially less in general purpose payments, so will local government in that State, and that will further compound the problem. I also have some hesitation with regard to the Minister taking away some powers of the States to distribute funds as they see fit. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said that the Grants Commission will be required to observe principles established under the Act for the purpose of allocating amounts among local councils. One realises that every council will continue to receive benefits from the program. Under this legislation councils will receive a 30 per cent share of the funds available to each State on a pro rata population basis. Is it not somewhat contradictory for the Minister to impose this restriction when he spoke so highly of giving the people at the local level more say in how their funds are used? We must remember that each State is the intermediary between the Federal and local levels of government. It would be prudent for the Federal Government to be seen to be impartial when the allocation of funds is made as well as in the methodology used to determine the amount given. I now turn my attention to areas where I believe the Federal Government can assist in making local government more efficient and relevant to its constituency. Lately, there has been much giving and taking away by the Government in the fuel pricing area. While I, like all Australians, welcome the reduction in fuel prices, I must say that the proportional rise in excise taxes dampens the spirit of the reduction. It is a fact that our local councils are exempt from payroll taxes in all States. However, on the Federal level, they are not afforded an exemption from fuel excise. Would it not be sound economic sense for the Federal Government to allow this exemption to our local councils? After all, they are paying excise on fuel used to carry goods over roads which they have basically constructed themselves. Not only would this give them financial relief but it could also serve to hold local rates and charges down. Some concern has been expressed in the electorate of Groom that changes in the funding of local government from personal income tax will result in a works reduction and a consequent increase in unemployment. The Commonwealth, through the community employment program grants, has helped to give young people a job, especially in localities where employment is difficult to secure. I seek an assurance from the Government that CEP funding will continue, even with these changes in financial arrangements. To me, it is also realistic to suggest that local government be given more responsibility to administer and select suitable CEP projects without any Federal Government intervention and regulation. Surely, people on the spot are better equipped to deal with problems as they emerge. Given that the CEP has been operating for some years, this is surely a reasonable proposition to advance, especially if the Commonwealth is sincere in promoting local government as the third tier of government. We are all aware of local government's responsibility, in most instances, for water and sewerage supply and maintenance. However, I was surprised to learn from an answer to a recent question on notice from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) that the natural disaster relief arrangements do not cover water and sewerage supply services. The Minister, in his response, maintained that any costs incurred because of a natural disaster would be recovered by charges on users either directly or indirectly through general rates. In other words, no Commonwealth assistance under the NDRA is available for the restoration of such facilities. I call upon the Government to reconsider its position on this matter, as water and sewerage facilities are just as vital as roads to local authorities and to people after a natural disaster. I am proud to say that I represent seven of the top shires in the State of Queensland and in the nation of Australia. I reiterate Lord Rosebery's statement that local government service is the highest form of personal involvement one can have in the political sphere. It is unusual for those who participate in local government to be the recipients of praise as, most of the time, they are subjected to brickbats for doing their thankless jobs. To redress this imbalance in the case of my local councils, I wish to record in the national Parliament my personal compliments to all shire chairmen and clerks in my electorate of Groom as well as to their principal officers. There is no finer body of men than Councillor Tom Newman and his clerk, Mr W. Brown, of Camgooya Shire Council; Councillor Col Littleton and Mr Bill Pickering, his clerk, of Crows Nest Shire Council; Councillor Stan Ruthenberg and Mr Bernie Mead, Clerk, of Gatton Shire Council; Councillor Alec Williams and Shire Clerk Ross Phipps of Rosalie Shire Council; Councillor Rusty Pitt and Mr Graham Reid, the Clerk of Laidley Shire Council; and Alderman Clive Berghofer, Mayor of Toowoomba, and Mr Ian Farr, Town Clerk of that city. Mr Peacock —You regularly tell us how outstanding they are. Mr McVEIGH —I am glad of that interjection from the honourable member for Kooyong, who, like all of us, has a close association with local authorities. I am glad that he acknowledges the efforts I have made over the years to indicate to the whole of Australia the quality of the shire chairmen and their ability to select top quality staff. After all, that is the hallmark of great leadership. It is interesting to note that the reason why these councils are successful is not only the great leadership of the chairman, mayors and clerks but also the fact that the shires operate as a team. As the honourable member for Kooyong knows, that makes a region a very successful region. In singling out those leaders, it would be unfair of me not to mention all the men and women who offer backup support to these councils. We all know the great work the indoor staff do and the people outside do-those rough and tough jobs such as collecting garbage. If people think they are not important, I refer to the inconvenience and the great health risks when the garbage people, quite rightly in many instances, strike. I pay tribute to all local authority people, from the leaders down to those who do the humble jobs, because in the final analysis local authorities, like other governments, are great only if the people involved do the small things well secure in the knowledge that automatically the big things will be done well. I am proud to represent such people in the national Parliament. It is with great pride that I salute them as people, as workers and as moulders and chisellers who shape the basic disposition of this great nation. I support the Government in its initiative in this Bill. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(6.17) —I do not think this legislation will make the front pages of the major Australian newspapers tomorrow morning. Probably we will see some of the usual issues that find their way into those forums once again trotted out for further public exposure. I say that with some regret because I believe the legislation that is before the House will bring about quite an important and fundamental transformation of the financial relations between the Commonwealth Government and local government throughout Australia. For that reason I think it deserves far more media attention than it is likely to get. I would like to compliment the contribution by Opposition members because I always welcome contributions from the Opposition which implicitly and explicitly reject this obsession which seems to permeate the Parliament at present to urge further and further draconian cuts in public expenditure. It is refreshing to see the Opposition realise that, indeed, so much of the public expenditure that does occur is essential to maintain the quality of life that Australians have come so rightly to expect. I also welcome the contribution by the Opposition, particularly the somewhat parochial contribution of the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), because he, like other speakers, has championed the role of local government, which of course is part of the public sector, and he recognises that the public sector plays an important part in delivering services at the local level. In my contribution to this debate I would like to range over relevant matters in a broad way, as have other speakers. First of all I would like to set the scene for this legislation and implicitly recognise the transformation that has occurred in the last decade and a couple of years between Commonwealth and local government relations. The Whitlam Government, of course, was the pacesetter in this particular area. The Whitlam Government first allowed local government representation at the 1973 Australian Constitutional Convention. In 1973 the Grants Commission Act was amended to enable the Government to provide special assistance to local government and in 1974 the Whitlam Government proposed a referendum to give local government direct access to the Loan Council. As the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) has pointed out, because of opposition-that opposition came in part from the Opposition parties at the time-regrettably that referendum was not passed. The present Federal Government, under the leadership of the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who I might say enjoy a very close personal relationship with matters pertaining to local government, has set a commendable record of reform. This Government has established the Office of Local Government, whose primary purpose is to inform local councils about the schemes which impact upon and the funds that are available for local government. For the first time in the entire history of this Parliament we have a Federal Minister who is responsible for local government and for initiating action at the Federal level in support of local government. I venture to say that that initiative will now enjoy bipartisan support. I cannot imagine any future government of any political persuasion ever abolishing that very important position. This current Government has increased local government funding by the order of 50 per cent. It has strengthened the position of the Commonwealth in its co-ordination role of local government matters and it has provided specific money in the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement for public housing programs to be undertaken by local government bodies and by other community bodies. The Government has also encouraged local councils to act regionally, by giving high priority to funding projects which have the combined support of several local councils. Like the honourable member for Groom, I add a parochial note and commend the Illawarra region of councils for the co-operative initiatives which have been, of course, strongly supported by this Government. Importantly, as it relates to the legislation before the House, the Hawke Labor Government established a National Inquiry into Local Government Finance. I will deal further with this initiative in a moment. The Government has also given representation to local government on the Economic Planning Advisory Council and it has launched a series of national awards for innovations in local government. It has continued to pursue the constitutional recognition of local government and that, of course, is a cause which I know the Minister holds very dear. Before I deal specifically with the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill 1986 and with the Self inquiry which led to the legislation coming before the House, I briefly make reference to a couple of matters that have been referred to in debate. I commend the honourable member for Charlton on his contribution to this debate. He talked about the impact of cuts in Federal Government programs as they relate to sewerage, transport, roads, community services and employment creating schemes. Those cuts occurred under the Fraser Government. That, of course, was a time of great hardship for the people of Australia and I make this call in the House tonight that I strongly oppose any return to those very dark days of Federal funding, whether it is by this Government or any other government, because Federal funding to these important programs is quite integral to the quality of life of Australians. People have to realise that if they jump on the bandwagon and reduce government expenditure, what they are really doing is voting for poorer roads, for their hospitals being in a worse condition, for our schools to be run down, for local councils to be funded at a reduced level and for community services to sink to a standard below that which is acceptable to Australian society in 1986. People have to realise that if they support the John Howard and the Liberal Party-National Party philosophy they are effectively voting for and supporting a reduction in the quality of life of Australians. Let me be quite clear. (Quorum formed) As I was saying before the Opposition deliberately attempted to obstruct the progress of debate, the speech by the honourable member for Charlton was an important contribution to the debate in this chamber. He was saying that the cutbacks there were made under the Fraser Government in important areas such as sewerage works, transport, roads, community services, and employment creating schemes amounted to dark days for Australian federalism. We must never, under either a conservative government or a Labor government, become obsessed by reductions in government expenditure to an extent that will mean a reduction in the quality of life of the Australian people. I urge all members of parliament, particularly my own colleagues, to bear in mind those lessons brought to us tonight by the honourable member for Charlton. It is appalling that when we are debating such an important piece of legislation as this, which effects a transformation in the relations between the Commonwealth and local government, there are apparently only two members of the Liberal Party in this chamber. As far as I can see not one single member of the National Party cares enough about his local council to be bothered coming into the chamber. Mr Peacock —Your speech has driven them out. Mr TICKNER —I am not surprised that the honourable member for Kooyong interjects to protect the National Party because he, like other members of the Liberal Party, is embarrassed by the National Party's contribution. Above all else, it will be the National Party-even more than the Opposition; even more than the Opposition Leader-that keeps the Liberals out of government. I shall refer to a number of specific matters before I turn to the provisions of the Bill and to the Self inquiry. Reference was made in the course of the debate, I believe by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), which suggested some opposition to the policies of the New South Wales Government on rate pegging. In other words, the proposition was that local government ought to be able to determine the level of its own taxation. I, for one, have no quarrel with that position. I have a very consistent position. I believe that if the local rates of a council are too high the remedy is at the ballot box, and that council will not be re-elected. The fact is that if local government is going to deliver services at the local level, if it is going to enable local communities to participate in local affairs, it will take money to do it. Both local services and participatory democracy cost money. I hope that those who support the role of local government in the Australia Federal system will recognise that fact and have an honest debate about the level of funding to local government. We cannot on the one hand oppose some artificial level of local government taxation, and on the other hand be the national champions of massive cutbacks in funding. It is an inconsistent position. Mr Hodgman —Why are you cutting Tasmania's grants by 11 per cent? Why do you hate Tasmania? Mr TICKNER —I am glad that the honourable member for Denison interjects. When the Government introduced legislation into this Parliament after the May economic statement and proposed minor cutbacks in the level of funding under the first home owners scheme, the first Liberal to rise in this place and oppose that cutback and champion the cause of government expenditure was the honourable member for Denison. He comes into this place tonight and has the hide to interject and again display the same double standards he consistently displays almost every single time he speaks in this Parliament. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr TICKNER —Before the dinner suspension I was speaking on the legislation before the House, which I firmly believe will establish a new basis for relations between the Commonwealth and local government that will endure for many years to come. My remarks have been interrupted a number of times by unnecessary calls for quorums by the Opposition. I seek to make a number of other points in the limited time available. The legislation was preceded by the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance, the Self inquiry. It was extremely wide-ranging and received over 300 written submissions. A major conclusion of that inquiry was that the Commonwealth general purpose support for local government should be continued, but improved in certain important respects. The inquiry found that there was a considerable degree of imbalance in local government finances because of local government's narrow revenue-raising base and its expanding functions, particularly in community services. The inquiry also found considerable inequities among councils in their revenue-raising capacity and basic expenditure needs. It took the view that the main objective of Commonwealth assistance should be to strengthen local government by achieving greater equity in the financial capacities of councils. Finally, the inquiry recognised that the Commonwealth has a legitimate interest in the general effectiveness of local government and the vitality of local democratic initiatives. It is those concerns which this legislation is designed to meet. The provisions of the Bill that have been outlined in the debate thus far clearly demonstrate that it will achieve all that the Self inquiry believed was important for financial reform in Commonwealth and local government relations. Before I conclude I will make three other brief references. The first is that while the Self inquiry is to be welcomed there is a need for further initiatives at the Federal level to boost local government. I call on the Minister and the Government to seriously consider a national inquiry, in conjunction with the States and local government, into the powers and functions of local government. People fail to realise just how inadequate are existing laws controlling local government. When I was an alderman on the Sydney City Council I proposed to the Council that initiatives be taken to establish community food co-operatives for people in that local government area who simply could not afford the basic cost of food. When the very established firm of solicitors in Sydney, Dawson Waldron, inquired into the Council's powers to conduct such an activity it found that not only was such an initiative outside the Council's powers, but also for 30 years the Council had conducted a meals on wheels service-an activity which is quite common to councils around Australia-without proper legal authority. At the Federal level we ought to look at conducting an inquiry to explore new initiatives and open the horizons of local government in areas such as community services, housing initiatives, planning, local democracy and a whole range of untapped potential for local government involvement. Given the Minister's on the record commitment to working in conjunction with local government and the States, we are in a very good position to take that sort of initiative. The second matter is that we should take initiatives to fund federally a range of public education and awareness courses for the public local government representatives and local government employees because one of the tragedies of local government is that local elected representatives often operate in isolation without the benefit of sharing knowledge gained by people in other local government areas. The final point I make in speaking strongly in support of this very important legislation is to highlight the potential of local government in developing the quality of Australian democracy. We in Australia are particularly privileged compared with people in most other countries, especially considering our record in human rights and our record in democracy. Subject to a number of notable and serious exceptions, we have a proud record in that area. However, I believe that local government is at the forefront, and ought to be at the forefront, of developing the quality of democracy in Australia. In so many areas of human endeavour, in education, employment and community involvement, people are powerless to control and participate in determining matters affecting their future. Decisions are taken by other people and by higher authorities. I have no doubt that as our democracy evolves in Australia we can do better. We can evolve a much more participatory democracy, and local government is at the forefront of such initiatives. I would hope that all members of this Parliament, even those who are not members of the Australian Labor Party, would share the philosophy-I do not believe that all do-that we ought to be striving to give people as much control over their own lives and decisions that affect their future as is humanly possible. Local government is at the forefront of the drive for democracy and people's control of their future. For that reason, I believe that this Bill plays an important role in that future. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(8.07) —I am pleased to rise as an Opposition speaker in support of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill and to follow the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) in the comments he has just made about local government and the role that it can play in being the foundation of democracy in Australia. While I gladly compliment what I have no doubt were the well intentioned remarks of the honourable member for Hughes and endorse much of what he said, I must say that he has made the same mistake as members of Federal and State parliaments have made for decades-by unintentionally belittling the role of local government. Whilst he closed by paying a tribute to local government and to the role it can play in being, as it were, at the foundation of our democracy, he made the error, earlier in his speech if I may humbly say, of referring to the role that we as the Commonwealth can play in providing some of the initiatives for local government. The honourable member for Hughes, as have previous speakers on both sides of the House and previous parliaments, made the mistake of once again supposing that there is some sort of fount of wisdom here in Canberra that is denied to people who form the third tier of government in provincial Australia. I must restate the fact that I find that in local government bodies all around my electorate-I have no doubt that this applies all around the electorate of Hughes and across the nation-decisions are made without the immediate information base that we have here in Canberra and without all of the media coverage that we have in Canberra, but they are made just as wisely and just as much with the interests of every ratepayer or taxpayer at heart. The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill implements some of the recommendations of the report of the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance. In the debate this afternoon and this evening the legislation has received bipartisan support. It takes one step further the concept of personal income tax grants initiated by the Whitlam Government. Of course, as we would maintain the grants were much too much identified with the parliament of the day and they were tied grants. The PIT concept was picked up by the Fraser Government, which subsequently introduced the 2 per cent requirement and gave the opportunity, through the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations, for local government to have even more independence in the way in which the grants were spent. I feel that the danger in this debate is that we could fall into the trap of being unintentionally patronising in our attitude to local government and fail to recognise that there are plenty of people in the community who can willingly determine how resources collected at the Federal level can best be spent at the local level. The Self inquiry alludes to that. Indeed, the Self inquiry poses some of the problems that we have had difficulty dealing with here in the Parliament. It is a problem of how we can equitably distribute to local governing bodies the funds that we intend to make available to them. If, for example, as the Self inquiry outlines and as the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) has freely acknowledged, we make a simplistic per capita grant, we in fact still disadvantage some groups. Everyone acknowledges that in whatever granting system is applied there has to be some weighting to overcome one particular area of inequity and that that weighting, inevitably, creates another area of inequity. The legislation before the House is an interim measure to determine a more equitable way to redistribute personal income tax sharing and general revenue sharing money. In a nutshell, this legislation replaces the present method of personal income tax sharing with a short term measure of maintaining untied grants at real levels for two years. After a three year phasing-in period allocations to the States for distribution to local government will carry a formula based on each State's population. From 1988 payments to local government will be further affected by a percentage change in Commonwealth general purpose payments to the States. I believe that there are some fundamental problems which local government faces and which the legislation before the House fails to address. The first of those problems is the dilemma that local government cannot escape because of its narrow revenue-raising base. Worse than that, not only is local government's revenue raising base narrow but also it is effectively limited to capital taxation areas. So it is that in rural areas of Australia the raising of money through capital taxation, further exacerbated by the Government's decision to introduce a capital gains tax, makes it even more difficult for local councils equitably to raise the funds they need to discharge the responsibilities they have been given. I recognise that there are constitutional difficulties in addressing this matter. I do not pretend to have some automatic solution to the problem before the House; however, we have not dealt, either in debate or in the legislation before the House, with the fundamental problem local government faces-that is, that it raises its money from a base which in itself is effectively a capital gains tax. The second problem which I think local government faces and which is not dealt with by the legislation is the attitudinal one to which I referred earlier. There is an implied lack of confidence in the capacity of local government to deal with its own problems. That lack of confidence is not in any way minimised by the legislation currently before the House. None of us in this Parliament, on either side, intends to belittle local government. None of us intends to walk into local government areas with an air of arrogance in our attitude to what is seen as the third tier of government. However, it is inevitable, if we suggest that we have the solution to the problems of local government, that we are seen as implying that there is in this place a measure of wisdom that is denied local governing bodies. I contend that that simply is not so. Furthermore, we face the problem, to which the Minister and the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has alluded, of finding that the more generous the Commonwealth is in its handouts to local government the more the States feel they can step back in regard to their responsibilities to local government. What is well-intentioned legislation proves not to be as constructive as at first we had hoped. In dealing with the Self report, and in view of the short term nature of the legislation before the House, we might well ask ourselves why we, as the Commonwealth Government, should bother to look at the way in which local government is funded in this nation anyway. The nation already has over 700 politicians to manage the affairs of Australians. Why do we need local government? We should bear in mind that, in spite of the multiplicity of State governments, in spite of the number of politicians currently involved in the management of the bureaucracy, we have a more centralised form of government than exists in the United Kingdom or the United States of America. If we are to make a democracy work, we need desperately to raise the profile of the third tier of government at the expense of the profile currently enjoyed by the State parliaments and by this Parliament. Why? Because local government provides, as Labor members have already admitted, the greatest opportunity for electoral participation and for electors-ratepayers in the case of local government-to call on their elected representatives to be accountable. After all, local councillors live in an even more uncomfortable environment than do Federal parliamentarians because it is even more difficult for the local councillor to escape accountability to his ratepayers than it is for the Federal parliamentarian to escape accountability to the well-intentioned taxpayer. Furthermore, local government has a capacity to ensure that its responsibilities are discharged efficiently. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) has already alluded to the fact that it does not matter how high local government rates go because, after all, the elector will determine whether he is prepared to tolerate an excessively high level of rating. That is a fair enough argument in itself and I would not challenge it, but I put to the Parliament that it is possible for local government to be the most efficient deliverer of services simply because the elector is so aware of any wastage that may occur within the province that is immediately his responsibility. In my own area I note that a council at the hub of the electorate of Wakefield has introduced a system whereby it currently has its graders running on a 12-hour shift every day by employing grader drivers on a two-shift basis, by arrangement with the employees, so that expensive capital equipment is kept running during the day and people work the hours that suit them. There is an illustration of a council taking what has been an ineffective, inefficient way of grading roads and making it more efficient to please the ratepayer-more effectively than we as a parliament would be able to do because of the implications that would apply immediately to all other areas of the Public Service. I am conscious of the time constraints, but I would make two other statements about what I see as essential in the role of local government. The first is that local government must be local. That may sound a repetitious thing to say, but local government is unique in that it gives the opportunity for local people to say: `We would like our community to have a particular characteristic, a particular flavour, a particular rating technique, a particular planning technique or particular ways in which it controls dogs, vermin, weeds or whatever'. The local community can say these things through local government. It must have a local emphasis. If that is the case, the second point is that the one thing local government cannot tolerate and ought constantly to be on guard against is uniformity. Uniformity runs counter to all that local government is about. The more that we as the Federal Parliament impose our views on local government, the more we allow State parliaments to impose their views on local government and-I say this with great respect-the more the Australian Council of Local Government Associations allows itself to impose its views on local government, the greater is the risk that local government will become uniform and assume the colour and flavour of the State and Federal administrations. It is essential that Australia, the vast democracy that it is, retain the right to have regional identity. That right is best preserved by keeping a strong local governing body. Many have said that the role of local government is the role of worrying about rates, rubbish and roads. I noted that the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) earlier tonight rightly said that a greater component of social welfare, a greater component of human services, was coming into local government, and I take his point, but that component ought to be introduced only if the people who live in a particular local governing area want that to be the emphasis of their community. On the subject of roads, I put it to the House that there is a desperate need in local governing areas to have a more realistic look at the way in which we go about our road funding. Those honourable members who happen to live in the luxury of the other side of the House and in the luxury of urban electorates will not know what it is like to have a rural electorate in which there is currently a real deterioration in the quality of the roads and no way to address that deterioration because the rate base is being eroded by economic decline in rural areas. I am conscious of the time, so I want to conclude by saying I believe that local government remains the one area of government that can most efficiently deliver the demands that a community has for economic redistribution. Local government is the one area of government that allows people to dictate most easily to its administrators the services they want. I note with concern that over the past 10 years there has been a 33 per cent increase, relative to gross domestic product, in the growth of Federal government, a 36 per cent increase in the growth of State government and a 19 per cent increase in the growth of local government. I put it to the House that the emphasis is in the wrong area, and what we need is a greater appreciation of the role that local government can play in reducing the demands that the State and Federal governments need to make on the taxpayer and his dollar. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(8.22) —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of this important legislation, the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill, and to acknowledge the role of local government in Australia's federal system. Local government is an integral component of our federal system of government yet its importance and achievements are often overlooked by many people in the community who too often think of local government as no more than our garbage collection service or the body responsible for the upkeep of our roads and footpaths. In fact, most Australians take no active interest in the affairs of local government, which is a pity. For evidence of this one need look no further than the generally small turnouts at council elections. It makes one realise that the role of local government is both underestimated and generally misunderstood by the majority of Australians. The interest of many Australians in local government affairs is aroused only when their garbage is not collected or when a pothole appears in a local road. It could be argued that Australians react to all levels of government in the same manner-that is, unless a government's actions affect them directly, they have little interest or understanding. Yet it would not be too much to claim that the activities of local government have more bearing on the day to day lives of Australians than do the activities of either State or Federal governments. In my electorate of Grey there are over 18 city, town and district councils as well as progress associations serving their respective communities with distinction. They not only pick up the garbage and maintain the roads but also provide and maintain many of the recreational and cultural assets of their communities. They also contribute to the welfare of the community through the provision of child day care centres, homes for the aged and general municipal, social welfare and health services, to name just a few. Many of the councils in my electorate serve remote regions and communities with a population dispersed over large areas. In these instances the provision of services to communities is often a difficult and onerous task. It is with a degree of pleasure and pride that I can say that all of the councils in my electorate provide a high standard of service to their communities under, in some instances, very difficult circumstances. I also feel some pride in stating that it was the Hawke Labor Government that gave recognition to the important role of local government with the establishment in March 1983 of the first Commonwealth portfolio with specific local government responsibility. I take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) on his handling of this very important portfolio. On a recent visit to the electorate of Grey the Minister met with representatives of most of the councils in the electorate. He impressed all those he met with his understanding and knowledge of their communities and their problems. I have received a number of letters and phone calls from these councils expressing their thanks to the Minister for his concern and understanding. I am delighted to see the Minister at the table tonight. In recent times the role and nature of local government have changed with increasing community demands and expectations. The general community has demanded an improvement in the quality and range of local government services. It is an ongoing concern of this Government that local authorities should be equipped to respond to this demand. The effectiveness of local government in providing both old and new services efficiently and equitably is a major concern of this Government. To this end financial assistance to local government has increased by more than 50 per cent under the Hawke Government, reflecting its recognition of local government as an important partner in the federal system. It is also estimated that the Commonwealth Government will provide more than $1 billion to local government authorities in 1985-86. More than half of this amount-$537.6m to be exact-will be provided in united grants to local government authorities in this period. This expansion of Commonwealth expenditure on local government has allowed it to expand its range of functions and activities to a degree unprecedented in our history. In most instances these activities are orientated to the particular requirements of the community they serve rather than being services imposed on the community by distant bureaucrats in State capitals or in Canberra. This is the beauty of local government. It is close to the ground. It knows the needs of its community and it understands the constituency it serves. Indeed, as Professor Peter Self observed in the introduction to the report of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance, local governments `are the decentralised operational units in a network of government institutions on which the community relies for many of its basic requirements'. Historically, the potential of local government to involve itself in a wider range of essential activities was first recognised by the Whitlam Labor Government in the early 1970s, after many years of neglect. Speaking in 1971 Whitlam observed: In modern society the role of local government is increasing. There are few aspects of our environment or our development, our culture and our welfare which can be adequately tackled without involving local government. Whitlam went on to say: Ours will not be a modern society until we permit local government to widen its role; it will be unable to do so as long as the financial squeeze on local government persists. At the time Whitlam was mocked and criticised by those whose vision extended only into darkened tunnels of self-interest. Is there anyone today who would argue that local government should not increase its role in the provision of services to its community or that the Commonwealth should not provide as much assistance as possible to achieve this? This Government has shown a willingness to involve local government organisations in a genuine partnership with both the Commonwealth and State governments. To this end the Hawke Government has committed itself to raising the status of local government and to strengthening the capacity of local government to meet the new demands placed upon it. The importance placed on local authorities by this Government ensured that local government was represented at the economic and tax summit conferences and also on the Economic Planning Advisory Council. Through these avenues local government has made a valuable contribution in the development of national policies and programs, particularly in the areas of community development and economic reconstruction. These past contributions have been valued by this Government and future contributions are looked forward to as the partnership between the Commonwealth and local government continues to flourish. One aspect that I wish to single out for special mention is the Hawke Government's community employment program. Without the input and co-operation of local government this particular program would not have been the spectacular success that it has been. There are a number of small minded people on the other side of this House who gain a perverse pleasure from criticising the community employment program. They call it a waste of money and try to belittle its achievements. I wish they had the courage to go to my electorate and say this to the many hundreds of people who have gained employment as well as valuable skills and experience through the CEP. I wish they had the courage to confront the dozens of communities in my electorate which have benefited from new facilities and services provided from CEP funds. An integral component of the CEP has been the role played by local government authorities. Since its inception in 1983 the CEP has provided $337.6m to councils throughout Australia for services such as local roads, water, information, parks and gardens-the list goes on. I wish members of the Opposition would have the courage to explain to the councils in my electorate how the CEP is a waste of taxpayers' money. It is to their credit that the majority of local councils in my electorate have recognised the very real benefits offered to their community by the CEP. Their willingness to embrace the scheme has contributed to its success and by doing so they have improved the quality of life for countless thousands of constituents in my electorate. The success of the community employment program is indicative of the measure of confidence that local government has shown in the Hawke Government. We have taken local government authorities into our confidence and they have responded magnificently. There are a number of other areas in which this Government has shown its willingness to expand the effectiveness of local government. This Government established the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance, headed by Professor Self. This provided the first opportunity to comprehensively reappraise local government tax sharing since the introduction of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. This Government is also moving towards having local government recognised under the Australian Constitution, a move long overdue. It is expected that this important step, taken at the 1985 Constitutional Convention in Brisbane, will be followed up by both the Premiers Conference and the newly appointed Constitutional Commission. All of these actions show that the Hawke Government is committed to supporting and strengthening the role of local government. Let me pay tribute to the many thousands of Australians who are involved in local government activity. All too often we ignore the fact that the efficiency of local government in meeting local needs depends largely on the unpaid labours of a host of elected members who seek no more than the satisfaction of a job well done and the approbation of their fellow citizens. I can only speak for the councils in my electorate-I am sure that the same could be said for the vast majority of councils in Australia-when I say: `The job that you do deserves our highest praise and admiration, for without you our communities would be much the poorer'. It is my wish that the constructive partnership between the Commonwealth and local government continues to grow. It is my belief that under the Hawke Government it will continue to do so. Finally, I acknowledge the very positive contribution made on behalf of the Local Government Association by the Secretary-General, Jim Hullick, and the South Australian President of the Association, Des Ross, in supporting this legislation. The Local Government Association is very fortunate in having people of this calibre representing the Association. It gives me great pleasure to commend this legislation to the House. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(8.34) —I rise in support of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill despite some misgivings about the future of local government, particularly those with rural municipalities. As the House is aware, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) has introduced this legislation to replace the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act introduced by the coalition Government in 1976. I ask the Minister: Why the haste? More particularly, I ask: Why the lack of time to allow members to consult their local government authorities? Such an action in itself must cause concern and the Hawke Government's credibility and intent must be seriously questioned. I remember the Whitlam years as well as the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), who spoke before me, when the Whitlam Government created the precedent for direct Federal involvement in the funding of municipalities. It was certainly a historic development and a milestone in Commonwealth involvement in local government. But, like so many other matters in the years between 1972 and 1975, all was not as it seemed. We very soon saw the extension of this proposal into one for the formation of regional government as a means of undermining the State governments, which at that time were generally of a different political content. The judgment of the Australian people in 1975, however, put an end to that nonsense and allowed the coalition in 1976 to introduce personal income tax sharing arrangements as a central element in a federalism policy. Under the new arrangements provided for in the Bill introduced in 1976, the then Government provided $140m in untied general purpose assistance grants to the States for distribution to local government. That was an increase of 75 per cent over the level of general purpose assistance provided to local government in the previous years, 1975 and 1976. Those funds ensured that local government authorities throughout Australia had sufficient funds to effectively undertake their important functions. In 1977-78 and each subsequent year the amount of general purpose assistance provided to local government authorities constituted a given percentage of the previous year's personal income tax collections, so that the level of general purpose assistance provided to local government in any year was known with certainty very early in that year. More importantly, the amount of such assistance grew as personal income tax collections grew. It should be emphasised that the coalition Government regarded the figure set then of 1.52 per cent as a minimum percentage, and a guarantee was given that the total entitlement to local government would be no less in absolute terms than in the previous year. Importantly, the assistance provided consisted of two separate components-a weighted per capita component, commonly referred to as element A, and an equalisation or topping-up component, referred to as element B. The weighted per capita component, element A, was required under the Bill to comprise a minimum of 30 per cent of each State's allocation of the total level of assistance, although each State was free to distribute a greater percentage in this form if it desired. The States were free also to determine whether to distribute this proportion of assistance as a straight per capita grant or to include a weighting for other factors, such as area or population density. Ultimately it was left to the States to determine the detailed criteria to be adopted in the assessment of grants to individual local government authorities. This initiative was a new deal for local government. It resulted in a substantial increase in funds, particularly early in the financial year when liquidity was tight. Of course, over that time the percentage has grown from 1.52 per cent to 2 per cent and the allocations have grown from $140m in 1976 to $540.9m in 1985-86. This has been an extremely successful initiative and program. It has given local government the flexibility to meet specific needs and, importantly, to develop priorities. These arrangements are now to be changed. Basically, this Bill establishes a new basis for the provision of funds. It removes the linkage whereby grants were tied to a percentage of personal income tax receipts. Instead, the Bill provides for a base level of funding that is equivalent to the level of funding received by local government in the States and the Northern Territory in 1985-86. This provides a base figure of $540.9m. The Bill provides also that the payment for local government in 1986-87 shall be this base figure, multiplied either by the increase in the consumer price index for that year or by the percentage change in Commonwealth general purpose payments to the States, whichever is the greater. The payment calculations for 1987-88 shall be the same as those for 1986-87, and for all subsequent years payment calculations will be based simply on the percentage change in Commonwealth general purpose payments to the States. This is the important issue within this legislation. In the words of the Minister, we have been told that local government will be treated no less favourably than the States in terms of periodic adjustments-to the funding level of the program. Of course, we know what the world's greatest Treasurer has told us this week about the future of funding to the States. After he has led the country to the highest ever interest rates, the highest ever debt and an inflation rate which is well above the rates of our competitors, it is no wonder that local government is worried about its future in relation to its funding. Under this Bill each State's share of the total grant from 1989-90 onwards will be equal to its share of the Australian population. In the two years before 1989-90 the shares of each State will be gradually changed from the present relativities basis to a population basis. As a result of these changes, Victoria and South Australia will increase their share of the grants. The other States will reduce their share but in such a way, we are told, that there will be no reduction in money terms in the payment to any of these States from one year to the next. I believe that as the less populated States have developed and have become economically viable, it is reasonable that my State of Victoria should receive a more appropriate share of the taxpayers' dollar. But I challenge and query the result of the redistribution of funds within each State. It is right that the ability of disadvantaged councils to raise revenue and provide services should be enhanced, but I am concerned that allocations will be based on some vague assessment of the average standard performance of local authorities in a State. The criterion is how the prime objective of this change in and redistribution of funds will affect the more needy councils. I wonder what the Minister meant when he stated in his second reading speech: . . . the grants received by any council will be at least the amount it would have been entitled to if 30 per cent of the funds available to each State had been distributed among local councils on a straight per capita basis. My electorate of Mallee has 18 local government authorities. Three of them are city councils; the other 15 are rural shires with many small populations and townships, but with a vast network of roads and the requirement for a network of community services equal to those in the larger metropolitan areas. Federal funding has helped these councils to meet their social responsibilities to the young, the aged and the disadvantaged. It has enabled rural people to share in the benefits of our economy and to receive some equality in service with larger regional centres in the metropolitan areas. Unfortunately, while Commonwealth governments of all political persuasions have taken this action in relation to local government, State government activities, through rationalisation of State functions, have tended to affect the efforts of local government. Today, the administration of local government is very difficult. Its problems reflect the great social and economic problems of our time. I refer to just one shire in my electorate, the Shire of Wycheproof. In the centre of the Mallee region, it is presently confronted with difficult financial circumstances caused by poor seasons, increased production costs for primary producers and small business, high interest rates and, of course, depressed commodity prices. Yet in this shire State Electricity Commission of Victoria offices have been closed and rail services are being reduced or are under threat of closure because of the greed of State governments and the inefficiencies of Vic Rail. School enrolments are being reduced, with further rationalisation possible if the implementation of a Victorian report, the Blackburn report, results in the removal of year 11 and 12 students from some towns and, of course, a subsequent reduction in the number of teachers. A snowballing effect is occurring in regard to the availability of health services, particularly those communities in Victoria served by bush nursing hospitals. While Commonwealth governments over the years generally have tended to expand regional services into my electorate, particularly in the area of social security and the Commonwealth Employment Service, they are not entirely blameless. Just at this moment we are fighting the removal of an Australia Post district office from Mildura to Bendigo, some 400 kilometres away, the removal of which would result in a reduction in the level of community services and, of course, the disadvantage of decreased public relations with that very important Commonwealth Government instrumentality. I can give other examples, varying in degree, of municipalities throughout western Victoria-no doubt they exist throughout rural Australia-similar to the one I have pointed out involving the Shire of Wycheproof. One of the problems at present in Victoria is the proposed amalgamation of shires. The shires are being dictated to by a Victorian State Government hell-bent on destroying their independence and, most importantly, on destroying their non-political nature, under the guise of rationalisation and efficiency. Of course, any amalgamation which is dictated and which is without the agreement of shires will simply bring about massive rural shires, the removal of the personal relationship between councils and the people and, of course, an enormous threat of higher local government rates, particularly where rural shires are amalgamated with urban shires. That is why this legislation is so vital to our future. We must have continuity and a certainty of funding for local government. Local government is the hub of our communities and the dynamo for employment schemes, for the provision of services and for co-operation between State and Federal governments. The local municipalities are the united force of the very fabric of our society. For many years, the maintenance of the roads network was the main role of rural municipalities. This is still a vital component of councils' activities but governments have demanded or forced them into a wider role in the social and cultural lives of their communities. It is, therefore, no wonder that this legislation is being queried. I put it no stronger than that. It is a continual fight with government to retain services in rural townships and cities. Any reduction in the growth of Federal funds will be disastrous and will result in an increased exodus of people, particularly the young and the skilled, and, of course, a reduction in the overall standard of living. This Government has already indicated its priorities in relation to roads. In two successive Budgets the Labor Government has reduced Federal road grants by over 10 per cent in real terms and we know there will be a continuing decline until 1988, when the Australian Bicentennial road development program ceases. Local government bodies are well aware that Commonwealth road finance, as a proportion of Budget outlays, has fallen from 2.12 per cent in 1983-84 to 1.8 per cent this year. These reductions have taken place despite the knowledge that local government is responsible for 85 per cent of the total national road length. As I said at the outset, I support this legislation. Of course, there is no other option. However, I challenge the Government, through the Minister, to fully demonstrate its commitment to the continual development and maintenance of a balanced and equal society. Recent good rains throughout my electorate-throughout most of Australia, in fact-have raised the confidence of people in rural areas. They wish to continue to make a significant contribution to the economic growth and wealth of this nation. We want a stimulation in employment that can most effectively be provided by and through local government, and a turnaround from the welfare regime into which so many of my people in recent months have been unwillingly, but of necessity, placed. No other instrument of government policy is more essential than local government funding that has, as its objective, an equity in the capacity of local authorities to provide a satisfactory level of service, opportunity and stability. Many hundreds of dedicated, community spirited people have over the years served their local communities without any monetary reward, but with the satisfaction and responsibility of improving the lot of the citizens in their communities. This Parliament must continue to give these councillors, their administrative staff and their field staff its full support in meeting the grass roots, day to day needs of the Australian people. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(8.50) —The Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, has always shown a strong commitment to raising the status and strengthening the capacity of local government to deal effectively and equitably with the concerns of people where they live. The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill is evidence of the Hawke Government's commitment to that principle. This Bill replaces the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 as the basis upon which general purpose financial assistance is provided by the Federal Government to local governments in the States and the Northern Territory. This Bill provides that the level of funding will be based on the amount local government was eligible for in 1985-86 under the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, plus a relatively small adjustment to cover the inclusion of the Northern Territory. The Bill further provides for a base figure of $549.9m which will be multiplied in 1986-87 and in 1987-88 by either the increase in the consumer price index for that year, or by the percentage increase in Commonwealth general purpose payments to the States, whichever is the greater, and in all subsequent years will be increased by the percentage change in Commonwealth general purpose payments to the States. So local government, therefore, will be treated no less favourably than the States in terms of periodic adjustment to the funding level of the program. This Bill is an historic landmark in the history of Commonwealth and local government relationships. For the first 70 years since Federation, the Federal and local government spheres of Australia each maintain close relationships with State government, but not directly with each other. There was a constitutional basis to the separate paths followed by the two spheres of government. Local government was not a party to the compact which established the Federation and was not acknowledged in the Constitution. The local government Acts of each State pro- vided the legal basis for local authorities and local government was conceived as a State responsibility. During the interwar years two decisions had important financial implications for local government, although the Federal government was pursuing broader economic objectives: In the first case relief of unemployment and economic development, and in the second case, co-ordination of borrowing. Road grants to the States commenced in 1922. Section 96 of the Constitution permitted the Commonwealth to provide conditional finance assistance to the States. As the sphere of government with the major responsibility for road maintenance and construction, local government was the recipient of grants passed on by the States. The Federal Labor Government elected in 1972 held a different view of local government's place in the federal system. It proposed that the Commonwealth should provide financial assistance specifically for local government so as to promote financial equality between individual local governments and regional groupings of them. Prior to 1973 no Commonwealth assistance was provided to the States specifically for passing on to local government, although there were, and continue to be, a number of Commonwealth programs under which local government bodies are among the bodies eligible for assistance. With the passing of the Grants Commission Act 1973 the Commonwealth Grants Commission was given the task of assessing equalisation grants to local government bodies throughout Australia. Local government was to receive the support it had long sought and for which it had lobbied hard. The breakthrough in 1973 established an important principle. For the first time a Federal government accepted some of the responsibility for general assistance to local governments so that in this way some greater equalising of benefit and of costs might be achieved. This new Federal commitment marked recognition of longstanding claims from local authorities. It also marked a win for those seeking to reduce the pressure of rates incidental to property and to increase the relative contribution from the common purse, or the central pool of taxation. Wherever the property tax is used for local government there is said to be conflict between the ratepayer and the taxpayer. In other words, it is sometimes said that there is conflict about the extent to which local rates on the one hand and general taxes through grants on the other should be used to fund local governments. Those who want more money to come through grants funded from general taxes argue that local services increasingly benefit people who do not pay rates or who use the various parks, beaches, playgrounds, streets, roads and so on, even though they are neither residents nor ratepayers in the area. As local government services extend into the general welfare field and as people become more mobile the case seems stronger for grants from governments that receive taxes from the widest sources. Under the Grants Commission Act 1973 regional organisations were set up which represented and acted on behalf of local government bodies within each region. The organisations could apply for a grant payable via the States under section 96 of the Constitution to enable the organisation or one or more of the local government bodies it represented to function at a standard not appreciably below the standard of other regional organisations or other local government bodies. Such equalisation assistance was provided on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. These arrangements were replaced in 1976 by the present tax sharing arrangements. Under the provisions of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 local government and the States were entitled to a fixed share of net personal income tax collections from the previous year. This initially was 1.52 per cent but it rose to 1.76 per cent in 1979-80 and to 2 per cent in 1980-81. The total amount was distributed among the States on the basis of recommendations by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Of the amount received by each State, a minimum 30 per cent was to be distributed to local government bodies on a per capita, or adjusted per capita, basis. The remainder was to be allocated among local authorities on the basis of their respective financial needs. This mechanism had led to two major areas of contention-the adequacy of the allocation between the States and the allocation among the individual local authorities. The lack of consensus among the spheres of government, and political parties, about the national standing of local government has been a major influence on Federal-local government relations. Nevertheless, there is now greater interdependence between local government and other spheres of government, and this is expressed in several ways. First, local government has become increasingly important as a delivery system for an expanding range of services, and its roles in community and economic development are receiving greater recognition. Secondly, local government has become increasingly dependent on Federal assistance. It is now accepted that the Federal Government has a significant responsibility for funding services delivered locally through both general purpose and specific purpose grants. Thirdly, local government has established itself as a national participant in the Federal system. However, its bargaining position remains unequal to its aspirations to becoming a full partner in the Federal system. Local government is also under pressure to provide more community services such as libraries, parks, improved roads and drainage, community centres and, in country areas, sewerage and water supplies. The difficulties experienced by local government in coping with the demands of a regional growth area almost exhaust the financial capacity of ratepayers. Local government in Townsville is one such example. In the period 1966 to 1984, the population of the Townsville region has increased from 63,000 to about 106,000, or at an average annual rate in the 18-year period of about 3 per cent. Townsville has developed significantly in the past two decades to become a regional centre for industry, commerce, finance, public administration, both Federal and State, education, recreation, community services and tourism. The existing physical infrastructure of the Townsville region is under stress to cope with the increased demand of usage and higher community expectations. The influx of people to the Townsville region is primarily due to the expanding industries of public administration, defence, finance and community services. For example, the armed services personnel now amount to 8.2 per cent of the regional labour force. The forward prediction of population movement and growth, which formed the basis of design and augmentation of services, has become increasingly difficult. It has therefore become desirable to design works facilities-for example, water supply dams, water purification and sewerage treatment plants-so as to be capable of staged construction for future expansion to ultimate design capacity. High interest rates, shorter life of loans available to local authorities and decreasing State and Federal subsidy rates have made it essential for the costs of capital works to be measured against the community's capacity to pay for them. Regrettably, local government in Queensland has been slow to respond to the personal services issue. In part, this is due to the lack of perception and encouragement from the Queensland Government. Professor Self, the Chairman of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance, has frequently observed that while local government is growing in new directions-notably human services-it is important to promote human services as appropriate to a community, that is, on a local government basis. Councils in North Queensland, such as the Townsville City Council led by Alderman Mike Reynolds, Thuringowa City Council led by Alderman Dan Gleeson and the Hinchinbrook Shire Council led by Councillor Jack Williams, have positively responded to personal services and have been disadvantaged with respect to local authorities in other States which receive considerable State government revenue and support for their personal services. It is obvious that the priority of personal services is expected to increase over the next decade as local government contributes to the changing structures of communities in matters such as employment, housing, recreation, leisure, cultural activities, welfare and other personal-based services. Of equal importance to the principle of general revenue sharing through personal income tax distribution is the necessity to upgrade the whole concept of specific purpose grants and thus ensure that programs of a social and community base are adequately funded. This is of the utmost importance if local government in the Townsville region is to fulfil an expanded role in such areas as arts, culture, recreation, welfare, housing, child care, services for the aged and urban public transport. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) stated in his second reading speech: The new Act will result in a redistribution of funds provided under this program to the more needy councils. Therefore this Bill ensures that every council in Australia will continue to receive a grant at least the equivalent of 30 per cent of the available funds distributed on a per capita basis. The Bill maintains the Local Government Grants Commission in each State recommending allocations among councils. Equalisation grants will be calculated by these States grants commissions on the basis of principles drawn up by the States and approved by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, having regard to the objective of equalisation to average standards. Importantly, this Bill allows a five-year phasing in period to accommodate the new arrangements and a review thereafter by Commonwealth, State, Territory and local government representatives. Above all, this legislation confirms local government's status as a genuine partner in government and as such its legitimate claim on the general tax dollar. I congratulate the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services on his unswerving dedication to the betterment of local government in Australia. History will treasure his accomplishments. What of the future for local government? Dr Michael Jones, in his book Local Government and the People-Challenges of the Eighties, wrote: Local government will face more challenges in the next decade than at any other time in its history. Rapid social and economic changes will impose exceptional and unusual pressures. Tax revolts against all levels of government will reduce local resources. A more educated, realistic, sceptical public, disrespectful of authority, formality and ceremony will impose new demands on local accountability. Local government will face a number of serious crises. The responses will determine the future of Australian local democracy into the next century. I am confident that upon the solid foundations laid by the the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services the future of local government in this country is assured of success. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(9.04) —I rise to speak on the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill in my capacity as a recently appointed member of the Canberra Committee on Local Government. For those members of the Parliament who may not be fully aware of this group of members of parliament, it comprises members nominated by local government in their own State to the Australian Council of Local Government Associations to constitute a bridge, a point of liaison, on matters impacting upon local government. I am pleased at the confidence the Local Government Association of New South Wales and the Shires Association of New South Wales have placed in me in nominating me as the New South Wales representative to the Canberra committee. In that capacity I hope that I will be able to contribute positively to the discussion of Bills of this sort and to ensuring that the views of local government, as they are made known to me, are also shared with colleagues. The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill 1986 replaces the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976 as the basis on which general purpose financial assistance is provided to local authorities throughout Australia. In that context the objectives of this Bill are to allow for the allocation of funds to local government in such a way that it equalises local government's ability to undertake its functions in respect of certain average standards of performance of other local governments in a respective State. In achieving that objective, the Bill states that each council will receive at least a minimum grant which will be not less than that which local government would have been entitled to if 30 per cent of the State's funds were allocated-that is, for local government-among local government bodies on a per capita basis. The level of funding will be based on the amount local government was eligible to receive in 1985-86 under the former legislation-that is, the so-called PITS legislation-plus a relatively small adjustment to include the Northern Territory, which has been added recently. For 1986-87 and 1987-88 the base amount will be escalated by a change in the consumer price index or a growth factor which is the same as that growth factor used for the States of Australia when funds are allocated by the Commonwealth-whichever is the greater. From 1987-88 onwards adjustments, if any, to the base amount will be on the same basis on which the funds made available to the States are treated by the Commonwealth-presumably after the Premiers and Commonwealth negotiations. The Bill provides for allocations among local governments to be made by a local government grants commission in each State and the Northern Territory based on the principles to be determined by each State and the Territory and approved by the Commonwealth Minister. These principles are to be phased in over a five-year period. That is the nature of the Bill we are dealing with and the principal purposes which, it needs to be understood, we are discussing in this debate. I would like to comment in much the same way as did the shadow Minister for Northern Development and Local Government, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), when he said that local government was lucky to have this Bill in place before the more public knowledge of the extent of our economic difficulties became a matter for very considerable concern and before that was evidenced in the more recent statements of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) during this last week. I thing that local government has been very responsible. I think that the Federal Government has been very lucky in a sense to have had local government responding very positively, in my opinion, to its legislation. As has been mentioned, I think, by other members, Alderman Cecil Black, the President of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, accepted the announcement of the Minister concerning the implementation of the Self report on the basis of this Bill and the proposals that I have mentioned. Of course, he welcomed the decision by the Government to accept the broad thrust of the Self report, to which honourable members have referred previously. However, I notice that in one of the papers prepared by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations and distributed in March commenting on the way in which funding ought to take place, the following comment on fiscal policy appeared. The pamphlet stated: The ACLGA recognises the need for the government to weigh up many factors during the process of budget formation, including commitments to the trilogy, the Accord and provision of tax cuts. Should more fiscal restraint be necessary, the ACLGA accepts that such restraint should be imposed equitably. Those comments from local government were very generous. Having regard to the difficulties we now face and the Treasurer's comments as to the likely outcome of this year's Premiers Conference, I think local government has been particularly generous in the way in which it has responded to these specific proposals. The ready acceptance by local government of the two-year guarantee, thereafter accepting that it will be funded on exactly the same basis as the States, may well in the longer term future leave it with a very difficult row to hoe. Having regard to the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance report and its principal recommendations, one has to ask whether after the two-year period local government, being tied to the arrangements for State funding, will be as satisfied that the conclusions of Professor Self and his recommendations as to the need for continuing general purpose support for local government will have been properly recognised. I suspect that the Government will have to be very harsh in its funding cuts for the States. I take the Treasurer very much at his word, but I was making these comments even before he spoke. Few of us who look at the situation the Government now faces can seriously believe that there will not be quite severe restraints on Commonwealth spending and that the impact will flow on to the States themselves. The two-year guarantee of an increase based on the consumer price index is a particularly good position to be in, but thereafter local government may well find its position very much less stable than it would now appear to be. Nevertheless, local government representatives have made it clear that they welcome the way in which the Government has proceeded to implement the Self committee recommendations, and the shadow Minister has also indicated that the Opposition supports this Bill. I want to make some general comments on the way in which this debate has proceeded. Having regard to the way in which the shadow Minister responded and the way in which the Minister introduced this Bill, I was somewhat surprised at the vitriol heaped up on the Opposition, particularly by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) when he spoke in the debate earlier today. He wanted to make it appear that only the Australian Labor Party gave any form of commitment and support to local government. Mr Saunderson —Quite right. Mr RUDDOCK —The honourable member says: `Quite right'. I would ask him to look at the Minister's speech and then to ask himself whether that is an appropriate way to treat this discussion. It is quite obvious, and on the record, that the Fraser Government was just as interested in the way in which local government was assisted in carrying out its tasks and functions. It was equally concerned to ensure that local government was as free as possible to implement those decisions that it saw as important to its own community, with the greatest amount of responsible support being given to it by the Commonwealth in financial terms. I said that I was disappointed at the amount of vitriol that the honourable member for Charlton heaped upon the Opposition because the Minister in his second reading speech said: To the credit of the Fraser Government, our initiative- that is, speaking of the former Whitlam Government's initiative in 1973- was built upon and improved through the introduction in 1976 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act. The main improvements related to the provision of funds for every council and the introduction of a system for allocation of funds by local government grants commissions in each State. This Bill introduces some changes designed to bring stability, clarity and accountability to the allocation of untied grants to local councils. Fundamentally, it represents continuation of a bipartisan commitment to the development of local government. They were the Minister's words, and I do not think it helped in this debate at all for the honourable member for Charlton to heap as much vitriol as he did upon the Opposition in relation to its support for local government. The extent to which it is possible, to achieve bipartisanship is an important objective and one which it is desirable to achieve wherever possible. That is not to say that there is not room for good and healthy debate, but it should be carried on with that objective in mind. I therefore want to take the opportunity during this debate to draw upon some of the comments of the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance, particularly as its recommendations impact upon my own State and upon situations of which I am very much aware. Honourable members have already emphasised the extent to which local government is involved in a range of undertakings. One of the reasons that we have seen, over a period, the Commonwealth assisting in the funding of local government is that local government has traditionally relied very much upon a rate base; that is, a base whereupon those people who own property are taxed for their local services, which are provided more generally to the community as a whole rather than to ratepayers in particular. The report, particularly in its early stages, details for each State the amount of funds raised by councils and it indicates outlays on a per capita basis. I must say I am looking at tables so perhaps these figures are rounded somewhat because of the way in which they have been prepared for the purposes of this report. However, we find that in New South Wales for the 1981-82 period roads were supported out of rates to the extent of $55 per capita. The general public services of councils and administration are funded to the extent of $35 per capita; recreational and cultural facilities were supported to the extent of something of the order of $25 per capita; environment protection and sanitation-I think a very interesting title for the wider range of activities in which local government is involved beyond sewerage, drainage and waste disposal-involved $15 per capita; education, health and welfare was supported to the extent of $6 per capita; and housing and community development was funded to the extent of $8 per capita. That gives us some indication of the range of activities in which local government is involved and the extent to which funds raised from ratepayers-a class of people in the community who contribute to the provision of those services-benefit other people who do not directly contribute rates. One of the reasons that we have seen the development of sharing through income tax is to ensure that there is a wider base of contribution to all those wide-ranging services. It needs to be understood that the Self report raised some other very important matters, and they apply particularly to New South Wales. I refer to rate pegging and charges that are made by the State Government on local government itself. One interesting facet that needs to be understood in the context of this debate is the extent to which in New South Wales in particular-I understand it does happen in certain other States-local government is required to pay charges to the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board, to the Metropolitan Waste Disposal Authority, for the new sewerage works program for county councils, and for flood mitigation, control of noxious weeds, and aerodromes. I do not think it mentions the New South Wales Board of Fire Commissioners, which is another body for which levies are made. These are the sorts of charges made, and we have seen in New South Wales that, coupled with those charges made on local government by the State Government, the rate that the local councils themselves are able to levy is fixed by the State Government. So we have had the possibility of a council being faced with a fixed rate that it can charge, a limitation on the amount of money it is getting from the Commonwealth, and the State Government taxing local government in addition. Of course, there is no limitation on the extent to which the State can impose those charges and local government ends up being in a squeeze play. The report of the Self committee made some very firm recommendations that Commonwealth funding ought to be made conditional upon the States' removing this rate pegging and also limiting their charges on local government. I am disappointed with the Minister's response to the Self committee report, particularly as it relates to New South Wales. I understand that New South Wales is an important power broker in the context of the Government but I am disappointed that, with the emphasis being put on local government, the Government has not been prepared to take up this issue particularly as it relates to the New South Wales Government. It is a serious matter that needs to be addressed in the context of the squeeze that will be on local government and State government funding after this two-year moratorium. The problem of rate pegging coupled with the charges that can be made on local government in New South Wales will be of a very significant order. The problems that local government will therefore face will in my judgment be very much more considerable as a result. In the time available I want to raise two other matters that have been put to me by the Local Government Association of New South Wales and the Shires Association of New South Wales. There is a concern about the need for the Government in its consideration of roads funding to be aware of the increase in road usage which has far outstripped funding and spending by local government. In New South Wales particularly there is concern that the Australian bicentennial road development program funds must be maintained after 1988 or our roads will degenerate further beyond repair. The associations are making major submissions to the independent committee of inquiry on the distribution of Federal road grants. Honourable members ought to be aware of the concern in New South Wales that funds be made available for that purpose. They have raised with me the issue of the impact of the fringe benefits tax. I do not raise this as a member of the Opposition but as a New South Wales representative nominated by local government. Local government is concerned that the fringe benefits tax will unfairly shift the burden from employees to local councils and their ratepayers and that there will be significant additional charges that local government, particularly in New South Wales where rate pegging is involved, will not be able to accommodate and that as a result services will diminish. I have had pressed upon me-it is a matter in which I know the Minister is interested and he knows my support for him in this-the issue of constitutional recognition by 1988 for local government. I would like to counsel the Minister to continue to press upon his colleagues the proposals that were advanced-- Mr Uren —Will you press your colleagues too? Mr RUDDOCK —I do that from time to time, Minister. I was at the Australian Constitutional Convention and I took an interest in that issue, and continue to do so. I will press my colleagues, and I ask the Minister to press the Government. One final matter that I want to raise is the concern about the possible abolition of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. There is a good deal of concern in local government that that body may be at risk. The Minister should be aware that local government supports it strongly, believes that it has performed an excellent role and that it ought to have an opportunity to contribute in concert with the States, meeting with Commonwealth representatives, to the development of policy and the consideration of policy initiatives. Local government shares the concern of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who will speak later in this debate, that it may even be shifted from Hobart. I draw that matter to the attention of the Minister and ask him to take a special interest in it. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(9.24) —I rise with some pleasure to speak on the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill and in doing so I will make a few comments about the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren). I know from a recent experience I had of taking him to my electorate and of his talking to the local government representatives there that his stature within local government is still very tall. They remember the Minister as someone who was innovative. For the first time, he gave proper recognition to local government and lifted local government to the level it should have had within the three tiers of government. As the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), said, the Minister has acknowledged that to some extent the Fraser Government continued that recognition. It is a pity that the current Opposition during the recent constitutional conference did not carry on that tradition and support the proposition to move for constitutional change, for proper recognition of local government within the Constitution. That is one of the major steps that will give it a proper base from which to operate as the third tier of government. It will give it standing within the Constitution and rights which it currently does not have. The honourable member for Dundas gave some warning to local government about being a little short-sighted in accepting only two-year guarantees for current financing. I think it is probably drawing a long bow to expect people out in the community to believe that, if our economy is in such dire straits that it requires restraint by the Commonwealth and the States in some respects, there is no requirement for restraint by local government. I am sure local government recognises its responsibility, in the same way as everybody else does. If there is a problem that affects Australia, to some extent everybody has to contribute towards the solution of that problem. This Bill amends the current Act, which was based upon personal income tax sharing arrangements. I do not think there is anybody in the local government arena who does not recognise the difficulties that existed under the Act. Personal income tax varied from year to year by substantial amounts. This always created problems for local government; it was faced with a situation of an increase of only 2 per cent or 3 per cent in one year and the next year a jump of 20 per cent or 30 per cent. In many instances when local government was in a trough and needed the money most it did not get it and when the money looked like coming it was in a period when perhaps it did not really need to have it. Local government was faced with the problem of trying to argue for increases which were substantially greater than those that might be going to the States and in the years when it was getting less of trying to argue for the same as the States. This new financial arrangement will place finances in a far more stable situation. It certainly ensures that local government is treated in exactly the same way as the States. For the first two years of financing, that is 1986-87 and 1987-88, local government will have the option of two methods of financing. It is guaranteed either the consumer price index for those two years as a minimum, or the growth factor on which the States are treated, whichever is the greater. In other words, it is in a no lose situation. Local government may in fact be better off than the States, but certainly it will be no worse off than the States. The first two years financing is something which is of advantage to local government as against the States. The Labor Government has been very active in strengthening local government. As I said earlier, from the response the Minister had out in my area, which covered some nine councils, that has been widely recognised by local government. The Bill is the culmination of a lengthy inquiry, which also made a number of other recommendations we will be looking at later, but it really relates to financial arrangements. In the long term, as a result of the new financing arrangements the needier councils will get better payments. The States, which have done badly because of various financing arrangements, will do better because the funds will be based on population. In particular South Australia and my State of Victoria will benefit from this. The Government has been careful to ensure that these changes in the financial arrangements will not adversely affect those States which may in the long term be worse off under the arrangements. The transfer of the financing will be done in such a way that there will be no loss in money terms from one year to the next. Of course, knowing in advance the procedure under which the arrangements will occur and the basis on which the increases will occur from year to year will ensure that those councils and local government groups in each State will be able to plan properly for the financing; something which they have not been able to do in the past. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, the Commonwealth has provided grants to local governments of approximately $1 billion. The series of innovations, such as the national award for innovation amongst local governments and the new schemes we have launched, along with our move at the Australian Constitutional Convention to recognise local government in the Constitution, have been warmly welcomed by local government bodies. It is important also that the Government has maintained its responsibility in terms of the principles of funding under the Bill to ensure that it occurs as we wish. If a State refuses to draw up principles, or those principles are not in accord with the desires of the Commonwealth, the Minister has the power to draw up principles for that State. The Minister has the power also to monitor the method by which the payments will be made and to ensure that he is satisfied that the funds are allocated in accordance with the approved principles. At the same time, local government will be able to maintain at least 30 per cent of the funds, so that funding will be received by local government irrespective of need; in other words, every council will receive funds. The distribution of funds will ensure that needy councils will receive an increase. That is fundamentally important to us because we want to ensure that those councils which suffer, whether because of the make-up of the community, isolation, or environmental problems, will be able to receive funds in accordance with need, so that there will not be just a general shelling out of funds simply because a council has a certain population. I commend the Bill to the House and I am pleased to have been a participant in the debate. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(9.33) —The electorate of Gippsland is distinguished by two major features; its size and its diversity. Modesty prevents me from adding the quality of its representation to that list. It is an extraordinarily rich part of Australia. It has a number of industries which are a microcosm of the Australian economy; timber, fishing, coal, oil, gas, dairying, grazing, tourism and a number of associated service industries. A number of immense responsibilities are conferred on a great many local government authorities which oversee this massive area of the south-eastern part of Victoria. The eastern part of the electorate comprises the cities of Sale and Bairnsdale and the shires of Omeo, Orbost, Maffra, Rosedale and Tambo, which is centred on the towns of Lakes Entrance and Bruthen. In the south-that very rich and picturesque area of mostly dairying, combined with some fishing and tourism-are the shires of Alberton, centred on the town of Yarram; South Gippsland, based on Toora and Foster; Woorayl, based on Leongatha; and Korumburra. All of those shires are contained wholly within the electorate of Gippsland. Several other shires and cities also touch upon parts of my electorate. I refer to the Traralgon Shire, the Morwell Shire, the Shire of Narracan which is based on Trafalgar and Yarragon, the Shire of Warragul and the Shire of Buln Buln, which has as its centre the town of Drouin. One can see immediately that these local government authorities have as their primary responsibility the fostering and development of a very important part not just of Victoria but of Australia. Immense responsibilities have been handed to local government authorities by successive State governments and, to a lesser extent, by Federal governments. Not only do these shires and other municipalities have as their basic thrust the responsibilities related to the infrastructure of water, sewerage and roads but also, over the years, they have developed responsibilities relating to the development of sporting, art and cultural facilities as well as recreational and social welfare facilities. Furthermore, they are responsible for child care centres, health centres, libraries and kindergartens. The point is-a point that seems lost on the Victorian Labor Government and, sadly, this Federal Labor Government-that these imposts are not properly allowed for in the funding arrangements. We have been told that in all probability this will be the last presentation of legislation by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren). That may or may not be the case. Many tributes have been made to him by colleagues, mostly on his side of the House but also from this side of the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know better than anyone, it is often forgotten in the turbulent world of politics, with the passions, anger and often bitter debate raised in this forum, that there are people, crossing political alliances, who are deeply committed to bringing about a better Australia. Whatever differences, and there are many, that I have with the political philosophy of the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, I do not doubt, and I doubt whether anyone else in this chamber would doubt, his sincerity and commitment to his oath of office. Nonetheless, I hasten to add that that will not prevent me from saying to the Minister and to his colleagues, who heralded his time during the Whitlam years, that there are still a great many municipalities that shiver at the thought of that era-the era that promised regionalisation. The Minister and many of his colleagues may have forgotten that word and that concept. I believe that the plans are still in a drawer. I can tell the Minister that throughout Gippsland and many other parts of Australia the spectre of regionalisation has raised its head time and time again when the Minister has referred to it, not so obliquely, in a number of his addresses to local government meetings and conventions. While from time to time the Minister may dream of regionalisation, at this moment this debate on finance is taking place against the backdrop of forced amalgamations in the State of Victoria. This is a problem that has confronted a number of States under Labor administrations, but it is one which in recent days in Victoria has raised its ugly head in the fiercest form. I stress the words `forced amalgamations'. Where amalgamations between shires or town and shire municipalities occur on a voluntary basis and are to the benefit of the ratepayers, nobody could have any argument with such amalgamations. But where, flying in the face of any logic or properly documented argument, amalgamations are forced upon people against their will by a central Labor government, that is utterly wrong and harmful to the most basic and most valued principles that we hold in relation to local government. However hard we as Federal members try, we will never understand the feelings, aspirations and desires of ordinary Australians in the same way that local councillors understand them. The forced amalgamations program of the Cain Labor Government has been highlighted by its indecent speed, its failure to consult, the veil of mystery that has been drawn over the whole process, its utter disregard for the wishes of the people, its total inability to sustain any argument of economies of scale and its total refusal to answer the many detailed questions put as to why forced amalgamations are being imposed throughout Victoria. Moreover, the Cain Labor Government will not answer the most damaging charge of all-that it is destroying the most important principle of a local authority remaining close to the people. Mr Fitzgibbon —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! I warn the honourable member not to take a frivolous point of order. Mr Fitzgibbon —Mr Deputy Speaker, I respectfully suggest that the speaker is not being relevant to the subject under discussion. He is intruding State matters-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr McGAURAN —A classic example of the ruthless enforced amalgamations under way at present in Victoria is the merger of the Shire of Traralgon with the City of Traralgon. Mr Uren —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. With due respect to you, I would like to know which aspect of the Bill relates to the Victorian Government's amalgamation of municipalities. I am asking in what way this speech in regard to Victorian amalgamations of councils is relevant because, as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Federal Government has no authority whatsoever over the amalgamations of councils in any State. The honourable member is going on painting the old hack about the divisions in Victoria. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the Minister has made his point well, but to date there has been a very free-ranging discussion on this Bill. Many issues are raised which stray a little from the actual letter of Bills in debate, particularly the type of Bill we have before us. At this stage I do not think the honourable member for Gippsland has strayed any further than have other honourable members on both sides of the House. At the same time, I ask the honourable member for Gippsland to finish with that subject as quickly as he can. Mr McGAURAN —As always, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be guided by your wise counsel. I conclude on the example of the forced amalgamation of the Shire and City of Traralgon. The Minister for Local Government in Victoria, the Hon. Jim Simmonds, put in place last year a referendum in which he required ratepayers of both the shire and the city to vote. The combined result-not of separate referendums-of the votes of the ratepayers of both the city and the shire was to determine whether or not an amalgamation continued. Approximately 75 per cent voted against amalgamation. I stress that it was not 75 per cent of the Shire of Traralgon nor 75 per cent of the City of Traralgon; it was 75 per cent of the combined vote. The Victorian Labor Government rejected the result of that referendum. This is a classic case of the will of the people being overridden by a politically inspired campaign to deprive them of their legitimate democratic rights. I know that this is a matter which should, in all probability, concern the Federal Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. There must be a number of aspects of this financial Bill under which the Minister can bring pressure to bear, even if it be only moral pressure, upon his colleagues in the Labor Government of Victoria to honour the choice and the vote of the people. There are a number of other aspects of local government which concern the shires of Gippsland. Paramount amongst them is the issue of road funding. How many times do members of the Opposition have to raise this issue before it is finally taken heed of by the Government? The whole infrastructure of our road network throughout Australia is crumbling. There are a number of shires within my electorate which spend almost their total allocation on road funding merely on maintenance, not on reconstruction or on new roads or bridges. It is an utterly intolerable situation which State and Federal Labor governments have allowed to worsen during their term of office. There are special problems associated with a number of shires in Gippsland, particularly south Gippsland, which has heavy rainfall, a shortage of road materials and heavy usage by timber and milk trucks. Numerous submissions have been put forward to the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Morris) and his colleague the Minister at the table, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, seeking to rectify the imbalance that presently exists. I recently received a letter from the Shire of Woorayl in which the shire engineer, Mr Keith Godridge, made a plea on behalf of his council. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard this letter from the Shire of Woorayl in which a submission is made for further road funding from the Government. It is very important, Mr Deputy Speaker, because he makes the point that there has been too much toing and froing from State and Federal Ministers, too much apportioning of blame, and not enough attention to the problem. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I believe that the letter has not been approved. Mr Uren —I have no objection. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is outside Madam Speaker's guidelines and I am afraid that the letter cannot be incorporated. Mr McGAURAN —If the letter is not to be incorporated in Hansard, I seek leave to table it. Leave granted. Mr McGAURAN —I thank the House for leave to table that important letter. It will be on the record for honourable members to inspect. It is true to say that many of the problems of the municipalities of Gippsland relate more to the State Government than to the Federal Government. For instance, the Shire of Orbost is slowly being strangled by the Victorian State Labor Government as the State Labor Government destroys the timber industry in that area and throws any number of people on to the scrap-heap of unemployment. Government members interjecting- Mr McGAURAN —How Government members can interject and make light of such an important topic is quite beyond my understanding. The conservation movement made up of radical greenies has an undue influence over the State Labor Government. So much so that not only is a proper integrated harvesting process being denied to east Gippsland but also, under the banner of the Land Conservation Council, the existing timber resources are being drastically reduced. The effects upon the Shire of Orbost in both personal and financial terms will be catastrophic. I invite any Government member to visit that area with me and I will display to him, firstly, the proper management of our forests. The true conservationists live in the area and work in the forests, and those forests are being properly managed. Secondly, I will point out the number of communities that are wholly dependent upon the timber industry for their very existence. In the far eastern Shire of Omeo the extension of national parks has caused enormous problems to a great many people. Mr Fitzgibbon —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I question the relevance of the timber industry and timber workers to this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr McGAURAN —The Shire of Omeo, situated in the Australian Alps, would be known to many people who pass through to Mount Hotham and would be known as an area for camping, fishing and hunting. The fact is that people live and work in those shires. The shires cannot be preserved in some sort of glass cage just for the occasional visitor. State Labor governments have to take account of the livelihoods derived from those areas. For instance, there is a marble quarry just within the boundaries of a national park near Benambra within the Omeo Shire. I have been there. The marble quarry is situated in a desolate area. The area could be part of the craters of the moon as it is so barren. Yet the State Labor Government will not allow that marble quarry to be developed simply because it is marginally within the boundaries of the so-called sacred national parks. It is superb quality marble. Mr Milton —I take a point of order. I have been listening very patiently to the honourable member for Gippsland. I assert that his comments relate to environmental matters. They have nothing to do with the content of this Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to rule accordingly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member is speaking to a Bill about local government. As far as I have been able to determine he is very much within that area-but I will listen further. Mr McGAURAN —If this marble quarry were permitted to be developed-and there are no environmentally sound reasons not to develop it-its marble could have been supplied to the new Parliament House. It is of world quality and could compete with much of the Italian marble which sadly we are using in the new Parliament House, very much like the New Zealand wool which this Government is tolerating to be used in the new Parliament House. I have touched on a few of the areas of concern to shires in my electorate. So long as we have a socialist government centred in Melbourne which has as its primary concern those within the confines of the metropolitan area, these far more distant and, in some cases, relatively isolated shires will continue to suffer. Any government of any persuasion whether State or Federal has a paramount responsibility to ensure that the third tier of government-local government-not only be sustained and preserved but also further enhanced. Sadly, despite the great work and determined efforts of shires within my electorate, the welter of interference and restrictions imposed by the State Labor Government and, to a lesser extent, the Federal Labor Government which by no means is much less culpable has meant that shires will continue to struggle for their basic rights. The most remarkable aspect is that those who would force matters upon rural shires do not live there, do not understand them and will not take heed of those who represent the areas. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.53) —Mr Deputy Speaker, honourable members, my fellow Australians-and tonight I speak particularly in some sadness to my fellow Tasmanians because this legislation will have a very major and tragic impact upon our State-I refer to the second reading speech of the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren). I will read four quotations from it then analyse them against the history and credibility of the Hawke socialist Government. I would like to read into the Hansard what the Minister said in his second reading speech on the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill: I am particularly pleased to be able to introduce this legislation, which consolidates past achievements and lays the foundation for future progress. I am sure that I will be permitted to interpose that I welcome into the chamber the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), a former distinguished warden of the municipality of Clarence in Tasmania and recently appointed as the Tasmanian representative on the Canberra Local Government Committee to which the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) referred. The honourable member for Franklin represents Tasmania on that very important Committee and works- Mr Moore —And very well too. Mr HODGMAN —He represents it very well and works in closely with local government. It is particularly fitting that he was one of the greatest wardens of the Clarence municipality. It was from the position of warden that he was elected to this honourable House with a record-breaking swing of 17.2 per cent in the 1975 Federal election. That record has never been equalled and will never be beaten. I come back to the speech by the Minister. This is the second quote I want to read into Hansard: This Bill introduces some changes- I will come to some changes in a moment- designed to bring stability, clarity and accountability to the allocation of untied grants to local councils. He continued: The Hawke Government- surprise, surprise, the Minister of all people missed out the word `socialist'- is active across a number of fronts in strengthening local government capabilities- I will come back to `strengthening'- and in fostering co-operative inter-government relations. The next passage I want to read is the mystery passage in the second reading speech-the honourable member for Franklin drew this to my attention earlier this evening-where the Minister stated: Each State's share of the total grant will, from 1989-90 onwards, be equal to that State's share of the Australian population. In the two years before then, the shares of each State will be gradually changed from the present relativities to a population basis. As a result of these changes Victoria and South Australia will increase their share of the grants. The other States-- the Minister said, airy-fairy- will reduce their share but in such a way that there will be no reduction in the payment to any of these States in money terms from one year to the next. Finally, in his concluding paragraph the Minister stated: This Bill provides important advances on the arrangements that were introduced under the Whitlam Government . . . He continued: It will provide continuity and certainty for an important element of local government finance while at the same time providing for a more equitable distribution of funds than has previously occurred. In this 1986 banana republic, thanks to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services on this local government Bill did not bother to tell the House, the Parliament or the people of Australia that one of the aspects of this legislation was to chop funding for local government in Tasmania by 11 per cent. That is a disgraceful situation. If I may say so quite bluntly, if that is what the Hawke socialist Government talks about when it talks about a more equitable distribution of funds, if that is what the Hawke socialist Government means when it talks about fostering co-operative inter-government relations, if that is what the Hawke socialist Government talks about as being good for the people of Tasmania, then it has news coming to it very, very fast. The Municipal Association of Tasmania did not mince words in dealing with this legislation. I read what was reported in the Mercury on 15 May last, under the heading `Municipal body lashes out at $2m funding cut': The Municipal Association of Tasmania yesterday protested at the Federal Government's plan to cut local government funding in Tasmania by $2,000,000 a year. That $2m a year may not seem much in Canberra, but for local government in Tasmania $2m is a very substantial amount. The article continued: At a meeting of the association it was decided representations should be made to the Federal Government to change its decision. The secretary of the association, Mr Len Armsby, said the association was `totally opposed' to the move. `We are being short-changed. It is a lot of money in terms of local government. . . . `The cut will hurt a lot. Mr Moore —Hear, hear! Mr HODGMAN —I thank the shadow Minister for his support for Tasmania. Mr Armsby continued: The first reduction comes into force in 1987. . . . Previously the Federal Government gave 3.2 per cent of the national total . . . That was under the Fraser Government and was carried on-- Mr Moore —And you were a Minister. Mr HODGMAN —When I was a Minister some 3.2 per cent of the total money allocated was paid to Tasmania. Under this legislation the amount will be reduced to 2.8 per cent. Mark those figures. Mr Goodluck —They hate Tasmania. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Franklin is quite right. Why does the Government hate Tasmania? Mr Moore —They have no seats. Mr HODGMAN —It does not have a single seat and it is not likely to get one for a very long time. With rigged boundaries, the lot, the Government could not pick up even a single seat in Tasmania in the last election, and it will be a long time before it gets one. If the Government thinks it can treat Tasmania, the smallest but the finest State, in this manner-- Mr Robert Brown —We're taking yours. Mr HODGMAN —It is all right for the honourable member, macroeconomic expert though he might be from the academic areas of New South Wales, to say that. Tasmania is the smallest but the finest State. The Minister says that this legislation is more equitable. He is going to chop us by 11 per cent. I come back to the Mercury newspaper statement: Mr Armsby said the Federal Government's decision would hit the pockets of all Tasmanians. He said rates would have to rise or services would have to be cut. That is by courtesy of the Hawke socialist Government. The bandicoot and the ferret have combined to turn this country of ours into a banana republic and to make the cinderella State of Tasmania poor and deprived. If the Government thinks it is going to get away with it it is in for a very big shock. Finally, Mr Armsby is reported as saying: The man in the street is going to have a lesser service or higher rates. I am aware of the constraints of time, but I have to say this, and I say it quite bluntly: On behalf of the five Liberal members of the House of Representatives in this national Parliament I call on all Tasmanian senators, particularly Tasmanian Labor senators to stand up and be counted. Mr Goodluck —Are they here? Mr HODGMAN —They are not here this week, but they will be back. We wait to see whether they are prepared to vote for the State they have been elected to represent or whether they will crumble under the Hawke nulla-nulla and the weight of the Caucus decision. The position is set out very carefully in the Bill. Clause 7 is the death warrant for Tasmania. It is the kiss of death. My electorate of Denison comprises the cities of Hobart and Glenorchy. The honourable member for Franklin has the municipality of Clarence-virtually of city status-all the southern municipalities and part of the city of Glenorchy in his electorate. The plain fact is that we will not stand by silently and see Tasmania short changed; we will not stand by and see Tasmania raped, which is what the Government is doing to our little State. An 11 per cent cut in funding is a crime against Tasmania. I ask the Minister why he does this? I draw his attention to clause 7 of his Bill. This financial year Tasmania receives 3.1700 per cent of the national total, but for the year commencing 1 July 1987 the figure plummets to 3.0049 per cent. In the financial year commencing 1 July 1988-our bicentenary year-what will the Government do to local government in Tasmania? The figure drops to a miserable, miserly, mean 2.8398 per cent. It is disgraceful. It is a crime against the smallest State. Why does the Government pick on the little ones? Why does the Government not have a go at some of the big fat ones? Why does it not get stuck into New South Wales where Wran spends money as though it is going out of fashion? The Government picks on Tasmania because it has a Liberal government, because all five members of the House of Representatives are Liberals and because the people of Tasmania can see right through the Hawke socialist Government. This is a Government on the way out. The Treasurer does not need to talk about banana republics. This country is virtually bankrupt because of a bandicoot and a ferret whose economic mismanagement is a national crime. As I said the other night, if the Treasurer were an accountant he would be in gaol, behind bars. Why does the Government pick on Tasmania? I appeal to the Minister. It is all right for the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), from the richness of the Hunter Valley, cocooned from the real world, who is trying to interject. The money spent by Canberra floats up his way, the streets of his electorate are paved with gold; but in little Tasmania we battle. We have always had to battle. We pay our way. Per capita we have the highest export income of any State in Australia. If the whole of Australia were doing as well as Tasmania in export industries this country would be miles ahead. The shadow Minister for Finance confirms what I say. The Government can ridicule us, it can walk all over us, but it will never defeat us. I appeal to the Minister, in the closing minutes of this shabby debate, to change his mind on what he is doing to Tasmania. Certainly I suggest that he pick up the amendment to be moved by the shadow Minister for Northern Development and Local Government. Certainly, I appeal to the Minister. There are many people in our State who have served with the Minister in time of war and who reckon that he is not a bad sort of bloke. Even at this late hour I ask the Minister for a special Tasmania clause to ensure that our State is not reduced in funding. I call on every Tasmanian senator-Liberal, Independent, Australian Democrat, Labor-to stand up in the Senate when the Bill reaches that House in 10 days' time and vote for Tasmania. I warn those Labor senators that if they bow to the Hawke-Keating-Uren nulla-nulla, if they crumble and if they betray Tasmania, we will harry them from now to the next election day when we will see them removed from this Parliament. If they are not prepared to fight for Tasmania, they do not deserve to be here. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services)(10.06) —in reply-On the whole this has been a particularly interesting and rewarding debate. There has been unanimity across the chamber, with a couple of exceptions. I am particularly pleased that the Parliament has received this historic piece of legislation involving untied grants and the sharing of funds between the Australian Federal Government and local government. The first breakthrough came in 1974 under the Whitlam Government when we made $56m available. Then in 1976 an improved piece of legislation was put forward by the Fraser Government. I regard the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill which is now before the House as an improvement on the Fraser legislation. From that sum of $56m, this year the base amount will be a base sum across the board of $540.9m. In the coming year there will be a minimum of untied grants to local government of some $578m. If one takes tied and untied grants together, local government will receive well in excess of $1 billion. That represents a great deal of progress, and honourable members in all parties recognise the progress that has been made. They appreciate that local government requires such sharing. I think it can be said that there is a general understanding in this House of the needs of local government, although there have been certain criticisms in this debate, some expressed more aggressively than others. I wish to deal with the subject of State relativities. This matter was raised by the shadow Minister for Local Government, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), and also by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). The share basis in a number of States has been changed. Possibly honourable members have not clearly understood the position. They have failed to recognise that the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance recommended that the distribution as between the States contained in the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act should change. The Committee felt that if it were not practical for the Commonwealth Grants Commission to undertake a study to recommend new State relativities, those relativities should revert to simple per capita distributions. I ask Opposition members to note that I am now talking about the recommendations of the Self committee and I hope that the honourable member for Denison is listening to my words. The Commonwealth Grants Commission has been consulted on this matter and has indicated its belief that the results of such a review would not justify the time and effort involved. Further, in a review conducted in 1979 the Commonwealth Grants Commission concluded that a per capita distribution should be the basis upon which the inter-State distributions should occur because of simplicity and predictability. The Commission also considered per capita distributions to be consistent with equalisation principles. This does not support the view that the Government has ignored equalisation principles in setting State relativities. The Government has accepted the view that a State's share should be based on population shares. We are concerned, however, that any changes do give the States time to adjust and that they be predictable for planning purposes. We have therefore incorporated in the legislation a gradual change in State relativities-I emphasise that they will be gradually changed-towards the use of actual population distribution by 1989-90. It is expected that this phasing-in will avoid the possibility of any State receiving a reduction in funding from one year to the next. I want briefly to answer another matter. The honourable member for the Northern Territory said that there has been a cut of $52m in local government funding this year over last year. That is the amount I stated on Budget night, but because taxation revenues have not risen to the level that we expected and because inflation has been slightly higher than we estimated, the loss to local government this year has not been $52m; in fact, it has been reduced to $26m, However, I might say that although the States this year have received only what they received last year in real terms, local government has received the same amount in real terms plus 2 per cent. In other words, the increase to local government was just about 10 per cent, so it did better than the States. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), in a very thoughtful contribution, suggested that had the economic conditions in relation to the deficit and the current account been known before this legislation was put before the Parliament, I probably would not have been able to get as good a deal for local government as we have achieved. After all, all local government authorities have recognised this and most State local government associations have already sent letters of congratulations to me. It was intimated in debate that the States may not in fact receive in real terms the amount that they received this year. Of course, the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-I am not letting any secrets out of the bag-has made such statements publicly, but I have been able to achieve for local government authorities the objective of enabling them to receive in real terms for the coming year what they received this year. It has to be understood that the arrangements relate to a triennium, and there will be two years to go. Local government has a guarantee for that triennium, but in the three years after that local government will receive no less than the States. I believe that in that way local government will do particularly well. The honourable member for the Northern Territory also said that the State share for the Northern Territory based on population only will damage the position of the Territory. The fact is that the Northern Territory will have its grants increased from the $2.5m it is receiving this financial year to at least $5.4m in the coming year. That increase has been achieved as a result of an agreement between myself, as Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The Territory is prepared to transfer moneys from its general purpose funds into local government. I repeat: Whereas local government in the Northern Territory received $2.5m last year, in the coming year it will receive $5.4m. So we can see that it will receive a greater amount in the coming year. There are a couple of other points that I wish to make in reply to honourable members. One relates to the issue of regionalisation referred to by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Uren-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services)(10.15) —in reply-I will not delay the House for very long. I just wish to reply to the honourable member for Gippsland, who talked about regionalisation. He talked about the Whitlam era and said that we forced local government areas into regions. What the honourable member does not understand is that the regions in Victoria were set by the then Hamer State Liberal Government. We distributed funds through the Commonwealth Grants Commission according to regions set down by the Hamer State Liberal Government. A number of regions have been set up under our Administration but those have all been voluntary regions. I stress that while I am responsible for local government regions will be on a voluntary basis. The whole concept of the policy of our Administration is for the evolutionary development of local government, with the growth of government coming from the people. That is why I have spoken with great pride for the evolutionary development of local government. In a world of free market forces, in a world of centralism-I have been an anti-centralist all my life-I am pleased to see greater authority being vested in and greater decision-making being made at the grass roots level of local government. That is why I have great pride in the democratic process which is evolving in this country. I believe that the centralists, whether they be in Canberra, in Macquarie Street, Sydney, in Melbourne or in Brisbane, will be defeated because people will have a greater say in their lives. I am, therefore, particularly pleased that the House will accept this proposal. I have intimated that in Committee I will accept the amendment to be moved by our colleague the honourable member for Ryan, the shadow spokesman. I shall also put forward a slight amendment to rectify a few errors in the drafting of the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 5-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 6 (Determination of final factor). Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services)(10.19) —I move: Clause 6, page 5, lines 1 and 3, omit ``capital assistance grants'', insert ``capital assistance payments''. An underlying principle of the Government's decision of continuing general purpose financial assistance to local government was that local government should fare no worse than the States in terms of changes to its level of funding. The amendment is necessary to clarify the relationship between the increases in the general purpose funds to local government and the increases in general purpose assistance to the States. The effect of the change is to include the loan component of the general purpose capital assistance payment to the States in the calculations that are made of the State factor as well as the capital grants, identified health grants and financial assistance grants. By amending this Bill in this way, local government will be assured that percentage changes in its funds from year to year will be at least those given to the States by way of general purpose assistance as was the Government's intention. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 7 and 8-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 9 (Principles of allocation by States amongst local governing bodies). Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.22) —I move: Clause 9, page 9, after sub-clause (8) insert the following sub-clause: ``(8a) In reviewing, under sub-section 8, principles applicable to a State, the Minister shall, after the relevant State Minister has consulted a body or bodies representative of local government in the State with respect to the proposed review, consult with the relevant State Minister.''. I thank the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) for his co-operation in this area and add my compliments about his work over very many years in the area of local government. I do not think there will be many honourable members in the House tonight who were here when the Minister was the Minister for Urban and Regional Development in 1973. I have no doubt that the decades will show that the contribution made by Tom Uren to local government has been significant. He is a person who genuinely has a great feeling for local government. It is a level of government that I personally feel has been vastly underestimated by most of us and something which I did not have much of a feeling for until recent times. The sort of person that I have met in local government is more direct, more involved, and more sincere than I have met in any other level of politics. Because of that I am greatly impressed that Tom Uren has made this contribution. We on this side of the House have been able to continue our support for local government in Australia. The amendment we have moved tonight is important to the continuing development of that relationship. A couple of other points are worth mentioning. Firstly, the contribution made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), who is not in the chamber at present, was worth while, and we thank him for it. Secondly, it was my error not to mention the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations earlier in the debate. The Opposition supports that organisation. It appears to me to be one of the few real groups which allow local government associations to meet with their peers on an equal basis. There is no doubt that local government associations throughout Australia are beholden to State governments. Through this Council they are able to put their case. From the relatively few meetings I have attended I am able to justify their position. They are able to hold their own under reasonable grounds against their State Ministers who encroach, impose and direct in large measure against their will. Because of that the Opposition indicates its support for the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. We will seek, in government, to maintain it. We would seek through that to do whatever we can for the development of the local government cause throughout Australia. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services)(10.25) —I indicated that the Government is prepared to accept the amendment moved by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). As the Minister responsible, I would have consulted the responsible State Minister before finalising any review of the principles. I would have expected the State Minister, in turn, to have consulted the local government association in his or her State. The amendment proposed by the honourable member for Ryan has the effect of formalising those steps and the Government is prepared to accept it. I wish to make a few comments in regard to the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations, referred to by the honourable member for Ryan, as I have had a long association with that body. It has done a great deal to build bridges between the Australian, State and local governments. It has played an important role in getting an understanding between the elected representatives and the bureaucracies of those organisations, which has been to the benefit of all governments. I say to the shadow Minister that it does not come under my direct responsibility, it is under the responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), and I will pass on to him the Opposition's expression of moral support for that organisation. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.27) —I follow the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) in paying a compliment to the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) for the manner in which the debate has been conducted. While I have not had the long association with him in the local government portfolio that the honourable member for Ryan has had, I am more than happy to be identified with the remarks of the honourable member for Ryan. In the Committee stage I point out that the amendment the Minister has graciously accepted is all about consultation and, as the Minister has said, decentralising the decision-making process. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the Minister's words when he refers to himself as anti-centralist and to the pride he feels in what he has termed the evolutionary development of local government. I must say that I see a certain inconsistency in anyone sitting on that side of the House who voted for an increase in the size of the Parliament and, by implication, an increase in the centralist nature of this Government, and who still claims to be identified wholeheartedly with the aspirations of local government and decentralisation of power. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services)(10.28) —I wish to reply briefly to the comment that anybody who voted for an extension of the size of this Parliament must be in favour of greater centralism. I am the father of the House and I can say with some personal experience that the sad thing I have found about centralism in my time is that greater power is going both from the Opposition back benches to the front bench and from the Government back benches to the front bench. The Executive is taking greater authority, both in the Opposition and in the Government. If we are to be more independent and ensure that there is not a growth of centralism within the Parliament, the back bench members of parliament have to stand up for their rights and make sure that there is not a growth of centralism. I thank the Chairman for his latitude. The CHAIRMAN —I would like to add my warm regards to the Minister on the passage of this legislation, which builds on the landmark work he did in this area in a previous Labor Government. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mr Uren)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.31) —The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill does a grave injustice to Tasmania. I cannot accept an 11 per cent cut in funding to local government in my State. The plea that I put on behalf of my State has not been accepted by the Hawke socialist Government. Government members-Ha, ha! Mr HODGMAN —I do not regard it as a laughing matter and I can assure honourable members opposite that in Tasmania it is not regarded as a laughing matter. I invite them to read the views of the Municipal Association of Tasmania. The attitude of this Government will ensure that for decades the Australian Labor Party will not win a Tasmanian seat in the House of Representatives. With rigged boundaries or whatever, it will not succeed. Because of the total failure of the Government to address this massive 11 per cent cut in funding for local government in Tasmania-a cut of over $2m per annum-I will now vote against this legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Motion (by Mr Uren) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.32) —In February 1982 a member of Australia's defence forces, Corporal Charles Edward Percy, collapsed and died while on duty at Singleton in New South Wales. Corporal Percy served this nation as a member of the Australian armed forces for the periods 25 June 1969 to 24 June 1972 and 27 February 1973 to 2 February 1982-a total of nearly 14 years which included active service outside Australia. The problems that have arisen since Corporal Percy's death are a bureaucratic nightmare of the worst kind. Their effects on his widow and their young children, Christie and Rowan, have been totally cruel and unnecessary. It was only following about four years of departmental stupidity and buck-passing that I was finally approached on behalf of Mrs Percy in an effort to have the situation brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities. The facts surrounding the case are quite simple. On 31 December 1982 Mrs Percy received notification that her claim for compensation under the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act 1971 had been considered and liability had been admitted. Mrs Percy received a lump sum payment of $32,000 as compensation, with each of her two children receiving $1,750 to be held in trust. Her payment was used in May 1983 as a deposit to purchase a family home in Caboolture-a necessary expenditure which in no way could be called an extravagance. On 27 January 1983 Mrs Percy received a letter that set in motion the tangled web of inefficient interdepartmental mismanagement in which she is now well and truly enmeshed. This communication from the Department of Defence stated simply that a delegate of the Repatriation Commission has allowed her claim in respect of her husband's death. Five months later the Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation contacted Mrs Percy and outlined that in view of the decision from the Defence Department its earlier determination was incorrect and should be revoked. Nine months later the determination was indeed revoked. By July 1984 the Department of Defence had outlined to Mrs Percy that the moneys paid to her in 1983 were now to be repaid. In August 1984 Mrs Percy approached the Department of Defence for the repayment to be waived and set out a full explanation of her use of the moneys paid to her. It took the Department of Defence some 18 months, until March 1986, to advise that the moneys paid to her in good faith had, in fact, to be repaid. From my subsequent representations on behalf of Mrs Percy, I have since learnt that the Department of Defence put forward two submissions to the Department of Finance in support of a waiver for Mrs Percy. A letter I received recently from the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), stated: The initial submission was declined by the Department of Finance on the grounds, that with the exercise of the discretion to waive recovery of an overpayment, there is usually a presumption that the moneys have been spent beyond recall and it would be inequitable and/or cause hardship to pursue recovery. However, in this case the erroneous payment enabled Mrs Percy to establish a substantial equity and an appreciating asset and effectively replace the burden of rent with a shorter term burden of mortgage repayments. Surely this is a sick joke. What would have happened had Mrs Percy over the past four years managed to spend the full amount of compensation in an irresponsible manner? What if she had squandered it? Would she now be penalised? Perhaps not, as the money would have been spent beyond recall. Although her husband served his country and died while serving his country, she is now to be penalised because she spent the compensation awarded to her in good faith and in a manner to safeguard her family's future. The Department of Finance also rejected an approach that repayment be waived because it would cause financial hardship to my constituent. Once again, because Mrs Percy has been careful with the money granted to her and has used it to protect her family's future, she is to be penalised. The Department of Defence has now exhausted all avenues of appeal to have the moneys waived. Mrs Percy's last hope is for my personal appeal on her behalf to be taken up by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). Mrs Percy should have this money waived. To repay it would cause her a great deal of hardship and would deprive her children of a home. Does the Department of Finance want Mrs Percy thrown out on to the street? She should not be penalised for what has happened. She did not have any control over these happenings. The treatment she has received is a national disgrace and, indeed, an outrage. I ask the Government to reconsider my constituent's plight as a matter of urgency. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.37) —Last evening I attended, among other things, two naturalisation ceremonies in my electorate-one at Burwood and one at Concord. All members of this House attend such ceremonies. I assume that about 2,000 people in the electorate of Lowe are naturalised each year. As honourable members know, State and Federal members of parliament, aldermen, representatives of the Ministers fraternal and perhaps somebody from the Adult Migrant Education Services attend and everyone makes a speech and congratulates the new Australians, the people who have become citizens by choice. But nobody ever explains the rights and duties of an Australian citizen. There is often an assumption that they can serve on a jury or they can obtain an Australian passport. Someone will say they can vote if they send in their card. But many of these people have been in Australia for only two years, some for only six months if they are married to an Australian and some of them have no understanding of our federal system, particularly if they have come from, say, the United Kingdom, Ireland or Europe. They all have various degrees of knowledge of our federal system. I raise this matter tonight because last night, while looking at the Australian Constitution for other reasons, I thought I would talk about the Constitution at the two ceremonies. Several people approached me afterwards and indicated that they had very little knowledge of the Constitution. Yet in my speech I had explained to them that if an amendment to the Constitution were proposed, they would henceforth be part of the Australian voting electorate and they would have a vote on proposed changes to the Constitution. I suggest that at naturalisation ceremonies, every candidate should be given a copy of the Constitution by the mayor or by the departmental officer who administers the oath. I feel this would be a very small cost. Several weeks ago I was very impressed when pupils from a primary school from my electorate-Homebush Primary School-were down here and I found that they had a complete understanding of the federal system, the different tiers of government and how they interrelated. I also believe that copies of the Constitution should be provided free at all schools. In some States the Federal system, the State system and the municipal system-the three tiers of government-are explained to pupils in the primary level, and in other States they are dealt with at the secondary level. Once in the school years, pupils should have the opportunity to study the Constitution. In it we have the whole basis for the establishment of our Commonwealth-the basis for establishing this Parliament. One of the provisions in the Constitution states that we will be paid a salary. The Constitution also deals with the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. We have the only reference to compensation for the resumption of private property. There is no constitutional right to private property, but the Constitution contains a provision that if the Federal Government takes one's property one will get compensation on just terms. There is provision for the appointment of the justices of the High Court of Australia and for their removal. A very important section states that there will be trial by jury for any indictable offence under the Commonwealth law and that one will have the right to trial by jury as guaranteed by the rule of law. That is the basis of our society. As Mr Justice Murphy said today in a speech: `In many of the States there is an attempt to whittle away the right to trial by jury'. This is something that cannot be done under Commonwealth law, but I believe that our Parliament has a duty to assist the political education of the Australian people-education in the democratic processes and in the whole functioning of Parliament. That is why we have Hansard, broadcasting and all of the promotional activities such as giving pamphlets to people who come here as tourists or visitors. This is the treaty which the Australian people approved to set up the Commonwealth and which they have varied on very few occasions. It should be recognisable and known by the Australian people. I commend to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), if necessary, as a bicentennial project, the launching and distribution of copies of the Australian Constitution in the schools and to new citizens-Australians who are citizens by naturalisation. I know that Budget restraints exist and that finances are restricted, but I make the suggestion and ask that it be considered. I commend this proposal. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.42) —Last Friday I visited the Hunter region. The purpose of my visit to that area was twofold: Firstly, to support the National Party of Australia candidate for the seat of Hunter, Mr John Turner, who-- Mr Tim Fischer —A very good candidate. Mr SHARP —As the honourable member from Farrer has pointed out, he is a very good candidate whom we all look forward to having in this House after the next election. The other purpose of my visit to the Hunter region was to visit, wearing my hat as the chairman of the coalition's drugs task force, the Hunter Drug Advisory Centre and the Lower Hunter Drug Advisory Service. I had hoped to speak to the two people who are in charge of those services, the first being Mr Raol Walsh and the second being Ms Lyn Agnew. But unfortunately when I visited those two centres I was told by those two people respectively that the Minister for Health in the New South Wales Parliament had advised them not to talk to me. This development, which took place during the week, is, of course, very disturbing. I understand that this ban was placed upon me by the Minister for Health, Mr Unsworth, because he believed that I was going to make my visit a political event. The media, when it became known that the ban had been placed upon my visit to this area, naturally took some interest in it. He told the media that I was going to take with me our candidate for the seat of Hunter, John Turner, and that I was also going to be holding public meetings at these two centres and would be addressing crowds of people. I say to the House that neither of those two things are true. They are quite untrue. John Turner, our candidate for the seat of Hunter, was elsewhere in the electorate campaigning with the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) in an effort to unseat the existing member. Also, I had no intention whatsoever of holding a public meeting in either of those two places. In fact, my intentions were to try to gather the information and advice from these two people who are both working at the street level of the drug problem so that we in the coalition may better put together the sorts of policies that are necessary to ensure that we go to the people with adequate policies that deal with that problem. However, when Mr Unsworth first placed his ban upon me the pressure from the media became quite apparent. The day before I was due to arrive in the Hunter region Mr Unsworth relented a little and allowed me at least to have the same rights as any other citizen. He enabled me to visit or go inside the doors of the drug advisory services and to ask one question, that question being: `What services are provided?'. Unfortunately, the two people whom I asked that question told me that on any other question their lips would be sealed and that they could not answer my requests. I was particularly disappointed that I could not speak to Mr Raol Walsh from the Hunter Drug Advisory Service because he is well known as one of the leading lights in drug education, which, of course, is one of the main ways we will overcome the drug problem. I also believe that the New South Wales Minister for Health, Mr Unsworth, was trying to put a spoke in the wheel of democracy because if democracy is to work properly it is necessary to have an effective opposition. If there is to be an effective opposition it must have effective policies. If our Opposition is to have effective policies it needs to gather advice and assistance from experts working at the street level of the drug problem. That is why I was visiting the services. Unfortunately, Mr Unsworth was trying to stop the due process of democracy. I ask the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) whether he supports the bans that were placed upon me by Mr Unsworth. If so, does that indicate that there is a new strategy by the Australian Labor Party to deny the Opposition access to government experts? If he does not support the ban will he ask Mr Unsworth and other State Ministers for Health to ensure that I have full co-operation from government employees in the future? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.47) —During a recent visit to the House of Commons in London I was fortunate to obtain a copy of the report of the Environment Committee entitled `Radioactive Waste' which was made available to the public in the United Kingdom in January 1986. The report makes interesting reading. I found it particularly intriguing that the Environment Committee came to conclusions and made recommendations which were at odds with many of its observations in the report. Since the nuclear power plants in the United Kingdom have been operating for some time, it is very important to appreciate the problems which radioactive waste is causing in that country. A few quotations from the report will illustrate what I mean when I refer to recommendations which were at odds with the body of the report. The first is in the preface to the report. The Committee reported as follows: In short, the United Kingdom government and nuclear industry are confused. On the one hand, bold announcements about prospective new disposal sites are issued. They are then withdrawn, left hanging in the air, or modified ad hoc. On the other hand, a very large proportion of radioactive waste goes on being produced unquestioned and a sequence of different studies shows that the United Kingdom is still only feeling its way towards a coherent policy. For an issue which is of such great public concern, this is regrettably inadequate. The Committee went on: What should we do with radioactive waste? . . . Even if nuclear power production were to halt tomorrow the problem of the management and disposal of existing radioactive wastes and those arising in the future from other sources still needs to be faced. Nevertheless, it has to be recognised that, if no satisfactory and publicly acceptable means for the safe disposal of radioactive waste can be found, the continuing production of such waste and, consequently, the nuclear power policy will be put into question. Having made all those qualifying statements, the Committee went on to say: For longer lived wastes, one might envisage storage above ground for up to, say, 100 years, while research and development is carried out on potential disposal sites; followed by a period of consignment of wastes to the depositories, where they are monitored and checked for say another 50 to 100 years; and so, finally, 100-200 years after the waste arising, the facility would be sealed and closed, assuming its performance met the design criteria. The periods we suggest here are not meant in any way to be prescriptive but rather indicative of the kind of approach we have in mind. Having heard that from the Committee one would have thought that it would have said that there were no safe disposal methods, but instead it states: We are convinced that safe final disposal routes are available in the United Kingdom. Indefinite storage presents unacceptable risks. On the other hand, any chosen disposal facility will require protracted periods of storage in the facility prior to final closure. Obviously the Committee was confused about the whole problem of radioactive wastes. If I get the opportunity later I will refer to other parts of the report which reveal the problems which were being faced. In the meantime let me point out that despite the Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine the Soviet authorities are stating that they will continue to build new nuclear power stations. Mr Tim Fischer —Why did it take Russia 48 hours to let the Western world know? Mr MILTON —Perhaps the honourable member should listen to what I have to say before he comments. Such statements are completely irresponsible in the light of the inadequacy of the technology which can protect future and present generations of the human race from the dangers of radioactivity, accidents and waste from nuclear power stations. However, I do not wish to attack only the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in this matter. In this respect the wild assertions from the Western nuclear powers that their nuclear power stations are free from such potential problems are ridiculous. The accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in the United States of America is an example of the technical problems with which the nuclear power industry in the United States is beset. It is only a matter of time, I regret to say, before another such serious nuclear power station breakdown occurs in the United States of America or elsewhere in the Western world. It is not enough to say that these power stations are protected by layers of concrete and other absorbing material. The fact remains that the nuclear industry is vulnerable to technical deficiencies whether in the USSR, the United States of America or elsewhere. No amount of political posturing by the nuclear industry in the Western world will hide that fact. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.52) —I start by congratulating the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) on his suggestion, which I think is an excellent one, concerning the more substantial distribution of copies of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia not only to schools but also to persons who become Australian citizens upon naturalisation. If the honourable member looks-I am sure he has looked on many occasions-at the preamble in the Constitution he will see the words that there shall be one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown. It was basic and axiomatic that that meant that the six independent sovereign States came together in a commonwealth-that is that each of them would give and take a little in the interests of the Commonwealth of Australia. Mr Goodluck —What has happened to Tasmania? Mr HODGMAN —I am grateful for the presence in the chamber tonight of the honourable member for Franklin and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). I know that the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) are listening to what I am saying because my complaint tonight is about the very unfair treatment that Australia's smallest but finest State is receiving from the Hawke socialist Government. Following the 1983 Federal election the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a commitment to the people of Tasmania that notwithstanding the fact that they had seen fit to elect five Liberal members to the House of Representatives Tasmania would get a fair deal from his Government. He repeated that promise following the 1984 election. However, I have to say that Tasmania is being shortchanged very grievously. In every electorate of my State-there are just five of them-I can point to instances where the Hawke socialist Government has misappropriated public funds which ought to have come to my State. I draw the attention of the House to the Premiers Conference last year and remind the House and the people of Tasmania that without any justification whatsoever the Hawke socialist Government, which is supposed to be a government for all Australians and that includes Tasmanians, proposed to cut funding for Tasmania by $46m. That proposal was strongly contested by the five Liberal members from Tasmania in this House and by our Liberal Senate colleagues. Notwithstanding the fact that the then Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, the then alternative Premier of Tasmania, Mr Wriedt, said he thought Tasmania could handle a cut of $46m, to his very great credit, the Premier of Tasmania, the Hon. Robin Gray, MHA, supported by the five Tasmanian Liberal members of the House of Representatives and all the Tasmanian Liberal senators-and, I might say in passing, supported also by Senator Harradine-fought the proposed cuts. In the event, Tasmania was robbed of only $20m, not $46m. That was $20m which should have come to our State in 1985-86 and which was stolen from us. At about the same time, despite the protests of the honourable member for Braddon, supported by the other four Tasmanian Liberal members of the House of Representatives, the Government reneged on a firm commitment in relation to the Wynyard Airport that involved a promised $6m expenditure. That was the promise. What has been delivered? An amount of $1.2m has been delivered. Where is the balance? The people of Wynyard, the people of Braddon, the people of Tasmania, have been robbed and shortchanged by the Hawke socialist Government. We then had a promise concerning an area in which the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) was very involved. I refer to the promise of Federal funding for the upgrading of Tasmanian fishing ports. The electorates of Lyons and Franklin were to be the beneficiaries of a commitment in excess of $4m for that upgrading. Madam Speaker, this was not just for the benefit of those in the fishing industry but also to save lives. You know that there are certain ports in Tasmania, and St Helens is a classic example, where the situation is extremely dangerous and in respect of which the Commonwealth made a commitment which the Hawke socialist Government breached. We have had the situation in recent times of the abrogation of the continuation of the Port Arthur restoration program. The Hawke socialist Government has reneged on a commitment for the final stages of that restoration, involving an amount of $5m. Tonight we have seen local government in Tasmania robbed, with a cut of over 11 per cent-$2m a year to be chopped off the appropriation for local government. Our State is not prepared to take any more of it. The honourable member for Franklin, the honourable member for Braddon, the honourable member for Lyons, the honourable member for Bass and I will fight this Government tooth and nail. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) are not to believe that we will remain silent while time and time again Tasmania is robbed. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(10.57) —I would like to take a few minutes to reply to some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp). He said that he visited the Hunter electorate to talk to some people there about drug matters. The people he visited are excellent people but they are also very busy and they are far too busy to waste valuable time talking to National Party lightweights who are engaged in party political exercises. Not only did the honourable member for Gilmore not even have the courtesy to inform me that he was coming into my electorate, he also did not have the courtesy to inform the New South Wales Minister for Health. I make the very interesting point that people who are elected to the Federal Parliament are paid to represent the people of their electorate in this Parliament. Tomorrow, another member-not so lightweight as the honourable member for Gilmore but, nevertheless, still a political lightweight-the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who is supposed to represent the people of the electorate of Dawson in this chamber, is coming to the Hunter electorate for party political purposes. Members of the National Party love to tell the Remuneration Tribunal how hard they work and how sincerely they represent the people of their electorates. They ask for increased salaries and increased travel allowances. What do we find? We find that National Party members delight in missing Parliament and neglecting their duties entirely, running around the country supporting a candidate who spent $100,000 at the last election but who ran a tired, tired third. Where he will run this year is up to the estimation of honourable members opposite. However, I assure them he will do no better because he has no credibility whatsoever in the Hunter electorate. I respectfully suggest that the honourable member for Gilmore and the honourable member for Dawson should go back to their electorates and ask the people whether they want them to represent their own electorates in Parliament or to absent themselves from Parliament in order to go junketing around the country for party political purposes. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of new telephone exchange building for Telecom Australia at Dalley Street, Sydney. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 20 May 1986: Bankruptcy Act-Rules-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 95, 96. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulation Statutory Rules 1986, No. 92. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 93. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 89, 91, 94. Defence Act- Defence Force Regulations-Declaration of defence practice areas, dated 8 April 1986. Determinations-1986- No. 20-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 22-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 23-Temporary Rental Allowance. Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 88. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Order-1986-No. 6-Export Meat (Amendment). Fisheries Act-Plan of Management-No. 6-Northern Prawn Fishery (Amendment). Health Insurance Act- Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 87. Statement of particulars of Ministerial determination made pursuant to section 106AA, dated 30 April 1986. National Health Act-Principles formulated under sub-section 39A (6), dated 15 May 1986. Norfolk Island Act-Regulations-1986-No. 5 (Census and Statistics Ordinance). Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1985-19 May 1986. Statutory Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2) 1985-Section 7 and Bankruptcy Act 1966-Section 41, made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2) 1985-7 April 1986. Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986-22 May 1986. Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Acts 1986-22 May 1986. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations listing fees and charges for purposes of Health Authority Ordinance, dated 30 April 1986. Ordinance-1986-No. 7-Legal Practitioners (Amendment). Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 90. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1461) Mr Blunt asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What journals, digests, files, periodicals and the like are produced by instrumentalities within the Minister's portfolio. (2) For each publication (a) when was it established, (b) which section within the Minister's portfolio produces it, (c) how many staff are involved in its production and for what percentage of time are they involved, (d) how often is it produced, (e) by whom is it printed and what is the print run, (f) what is the circulation and to whom, or where is it circulated, (g) who has editorial control, (h) what are its stated objectives and (i) what are the printing, staff and administrative costs associated with its production. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Title: Admin Review (a) Established 1 July 1984 (b) Administrative Review Council (c) Two officers-less than 5% of their time (d) Published quarterly (e) Printed by Canberra Publishing and Printing Co.-1750 copies. (f) 1500 copies distributed free of charge to Members of Parliament, academics, government bodies, legal and welfare agencies, and individuals mainly within Australia, but also overseas. 250 for sale copies are placed in AGPS bookshops. (g) The Editor is the Director of Research, Administrative Review Council Secretariat. An Editorial Committee comprising some members of the Council and other persons oversees production. (h) Objective: To inform government, private organisations, and individuals about developments in Federal administrative law and procedure. (i) Printing cost is about $600.00 per issue. Staff and administrative costs are not recorded in a way that would enable the details sought to be readily identified. They are met from funds provided to meet the staff and administrative costs of the Administrative Review Council. Title: DPP bulletin (a) Established in mid-1984 (b) Director of Public Prosecutions (c) Two staff are involved-a Personal Secretary and a Clerical Assistant-each for 2 hours for each issue. (d) Published fortnightly (e) Produced by photocopying within the DPP Office from a typed original. 750 copies produced. (f) Copies are distributed to all staff of the DPP Office, Attorney-General's Department, media, some members of the Government and some members of the Opposition in the Commonwealth Parliament. (g) Editorial control rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions. (h) Objective: To provide a vehicle of communication from the head office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and between regional offices. (i) Cost for photocopying and postage is approximately $200.00 per issue. Salary and administrative costs are not recorded in a way that would enable the details sought to be readily identified. Those costs are met from funds provided to meet the staff and administrative costs of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Title: The Reporter (a) Established as the `Newsletter' in October 1973. Format changed and renamed the `Reporter' in September 1979. (b) Australian Institute of Criminology (c) Four staff members involved in production-less than 1% of their time. (d) Published quarterly (e) Printed by private enterprise printing firms on quotation. Print run is 2000 copies per issue. (f) Copies distributed to criminal justice and related personnel, and to the media, in Australia and overseas. (g) Editorial control rests with the Director of the Institute. (h) Objective: To disseminate information regarding the activities of the Institute, and matters relevant to crime prevention and treatment of offenders. (i) Printing costs $4,800 per year; Staff and administration costs $12,720.00 per year. Title: The Information Bulletin of Australian Criminology (a) Established in March 1974. Production terminated in June 1982 due to staff shortages and resumed in June 1984. (b) Australian Institute of Criminology (c) Five staff members involved in production-1.26% of their time. (d) Published quarterly (e) Printed by the Institute Printing Section-print run 1400 per issue. (f) Copies distributed to personnel in the criminal justice area and related fields, researchers, and libraries in Australia and overseas. (g) Director of the Institute has editorial control. (h) To disseminate information regarding recently completed work and current criminological research in Australia together with information on past and forthcoming conferences and seminars. Also includes bibliographical articles of the Institute's library. (i) Printing costs $3,600.00 per year; Staff and administrative costs $23,550.00 per year. Title: Reform (a) First published January 1976. (b) Published by the Law Reform Commission. (c) Number of staff involved varies-80 to 100 staff hours per quarter. (d) Published quarterly. (e) Typeset and printed by various firms of commercial typesetters and printers on quotation. These vary from time to time depending on cost and workload considerations. (f) Circulation 2000 copes per quarter. This includes 500 subscribers and a free list of 1500. Recipients include government departments, members of parliament, civil liberties groups, members of the judiciary, law reform agencies throughout the world, law societies, legal aid, legal publications, political organisations, libraries attached to universities, major public libraries and overseas libraries, overseas bodies including government departments, universities etc. (g) Editorial control is exercised by an editorial committee which usually consists of the President of the Commission, the Secretary and Director of Research, some Commission members and Commission staff. (h) Objective: `Reform' is a quarterly bulletin of news, views and information about law reform in Australia and overseas. It helps co-ordinate the work of law reform agencies. It helps to make the work of these agencies known as widely as possible. It is an aid to the education of students of law at secondary and tertiary levels. (i) Costs are: $ Staff and administration costs 150 hours @ $12 (includes editorial committee time)... 1 800 Typesetting and printing costs... 3 300 Postage... 1 300 Total costs per quarter... 6 400 Title: Human Rights (a) Established August 1982 (b) Promotion and Information Branch, Human Rights Commission. (c) 50% of duties of 1 staff member. (d) Bi-monthly. (e) Printed by Canberra Times (Published by AGPS). Print run 9000. (f) Distributed to: Community Information Centres Consultative Committees Diplomatic Offices in Australia Government Agencies/Departments/Authorities Government Ministers Parliamentarians HRC Commissioners/State Offices Industry/Employer/Companies, etc. Judges/Courts Local Government Non-government Organisations Parliamentary Committees/Inquiries Political Parties Private Individuals Researchers/Consultants Australian Territories Government (ACT-Norfolk-Christmas-Keeling) Trade Unions/Employee Staff Associations (g) The Director of Information, in the Human Rights Commission has editorial control. (h) Objectives: (i) to provide information on the latest developments in the human rights field both nationally and internationally; (ii) to provide a forum for discussion of human rights issues; (iii) to educate the Australian public to recognise and observe human rights; and (iv) to provide information on Human Rights Commission publications (discussion papers, occasional papers and reports). (i) Printing costs: $200 per issue. Staff costs: $3,500 per issue. Administrative and postage costs: $5,875 per issue. Title: AFIT Bulletin (a) The AFIT Bulletin was established in May 1984 with the publication of No. 1. (b) The Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. (c) The writing and production of the AFIT Bulletins involves two staff-the author and editor-for less than 5% of their total work output. (d) Irregularly-so far there has been one issue in 1984 and one in 1985. (e) Issue No. 1 was produced in-house. Issue No. 2 was printed by a commercial printer after receiving quotations. No. 1=500 copies; No. 2=2000 copies. Future issues will have 2000 copies. (f) The circulation is to selected addressees on the Institute's mailing list. The list covers addressees within Australia and in various overseas countries notably Europe, U.K., U.S.A. and Japan. (g) The Institute exercises editorial control through a Publications Committee consisting of the Director, the Deputy Director (Research), the Deputy Director (Policy Implementation) and the Head of the Family Information Centre. (h) Objective: To provide relevant and timely information to government and government departments, to policy advisers, and other interested bodies on the impact of policies on the economic well-being of Australian families. (i) Issue No. 1 was produced in-house at a cost of $1 000.00. Issue No. 2 was printed commercially at a cost of $2 000.00. Staff and administrative costs were not recorded in a way that would enable the details sought to be readily identified. Those costs were met from funds provided to meet the staff and administrative costs of the Institute. Title: Diary of Social Legislation and Policy (a) Established in 1980 as an annual service. However, it has not been produced since 1983, but it is intended that future issues will be made at appropriate times and when resources are available. (b) The Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, in association with the Social Welfare Research Centre, University of NSW and the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne. (c) Two staff were involved for 2 days each, and one for five days. (d) Produced annually. (e) Printed by commercial printers on quotation. Print run is 1500 per issue-500 to each of the three institutions for distribution. (f) The Diary is sent free of charge to IFS Board of Management members, and to FIC Library Exchange Partners. The remainder are sold on direct orders from individuals or to library supply agencies or through bookshops for the price of $2.50 each. (g) Editorial control is exercised by the three institutions as co-publishers. (h) Objective: To summarise the legislative and administrative changes made by the Commonwealth Government in the areas of social security and welfare, employment, family law, immigration, housing and health, and the main changes at State levels in the fields of social security, welfare and adoption. (i) Printing cost is approximately $1 900.00 per issue, shared between each of the three institutions. Sales revenue substantially covers the costs of printing and postage. Staff and administrative costs are not recorded in a way that would enable the details sought to be readily identified. Those costs are met from funds provided to meet the staff and administrative costs of the Institute. Title: IFS Discussion Papers (a) This series started in September 1980. No issues have been produced since October 1984, but it is intended that future issues will be made at appropriate times and when resources are available. (b) The Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. (c) Only one staff member is involved in production, and the work for each issue involves not more than seven days work. (d) Production is irregular; Nos. 1 and 2 in 1980; Nos. 3 and 4 in 1981; Nos. 5 to 9 in 1983; Nos. 10 to 12 in 1984. (e) Printed by various printers under quotation. The print run is 3500 copies. (f) The circulation for the series is as follows: until July 1984, copies were sent free of charge to all persons registered on the IFS mailing list. since August 1984 copies are sent free to Family Court personnel, Family Law Council members, FIC Library Exchange Partners, indexing, abstracting and review services; the IFS Board of Management. since 1984, all remaining copies of Numbers 1-11 of these papers are being sold on order to individuals and to bookshops and library suppliers at $1.50 each. No. 12 is retailed at $2.50. (g) The Institute exercises editorial control. (h) Objective: To disseminate information on family issues as `think pieces' which do not represent an Institute view. (i) The cost of printing each issue is $1,680. Sales revenue substantially covers the costs of printing and postage. Staff and administrative costs are not recorded in a way that would enable the details sought to be readily identified. Those costs are met from funds provided to meet staff and administrative costs of the Institute. Title: IFS Newsletter (a) The first Newsletter was published in September 1980. (b) The Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. (c) Two staff are involved, spending together approximately 15 working days per issue. (d) Presently published three times per year. (e) Printed by Globe Press under quotation. The current print run is 7500 copies per issue. (f) The Newsletter is sent free to all addressees registered on the IFS mailing list. The list at August 1985 contained 7046 addresses in every State of Australia and many overseas countries. (g) The Institute exercises editorial control. (h) Objective: Dissemination of information to government, researchers, helping professionals and the interested public about the Institute's research activities, and results and findings of its studies and projects. (i) The printing cost per issue is $3,500. Staff and administrative costs are not recorded in a way that would enable the details sought to be readily identified. They are met from funds provided to meet staff and administrative costs of the Institute. Title: Occasional Papers (a) This series was started with Occasional Paper No. 1 in May 1983. The last issue, No. 5, was in September 1983. It is intended that further issues will be made at appropriate times and when resources are available. (b) The Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. (c) These papers are written by Institute researchers or as pieces of commissioned research. The staff involved in their production are the author and the editor. To prepare the manuscripts for this series involves editorial staff approximately 5-7 days per issue, depending on the length and complexity of the work. The author's work is part of the normal duties of research staff. (d) Irregularly. (e) Printed by a commercial printer under quotation. The print run for each series was 2000 copies. (f) The circulation was to selected persons registered on the IFS mailing list. The list includes persons from all States of Australia and many overseas addresses. (g) The Institute exercises editorial control. (h) Objective: To present research on a variety of subjects pertinent to the Institute's research program. The series carries works not emanating from its major projects, thus many of these papers are the result of commissioned work. Some will be literature reviews of specialised subjects. (i) The cost of printing was $3,000.00 per issue. Staff and administrative costs are not recorded in a way that would enable the details sought to be readily identified. They are met from funds provided to meet the staff and administrative costs of the Institute. Title: Policy Background Papers (a) The Policy Background Paper series began with issue No. 1 in April 1983. The last issue was printed as No. 5 in June 1984. It is intended that future issues will be made at appropriate times and when resources are available. (b) Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. (c) Each issue involves the author and the editor and requires approximately 5-10 days editorial work depending on the length and complexity of the paper. The work of the author is part of the normal duties of research staff. (d) Irregularly. (e) Printed by a commercial printer under quotation. The print run for each of these Papers was 3000. (f) Circulated to Family Court personnel, Family Law Council members, the IFS Board of Management, FIC Official Exchange Partners, indexing, abstracting and review services; and selected target groups specific to each paper. For example the Policy Background Papers Nos. 1 and 2 were sent to all invited delegates to a series of Family Impact Seminars on Child and Family Services from all States and Territories; and No. 3 was sent to all Marriage Guidance Councils and counsellors registered on the mailing list. (g) The Institute has editorial control. (h) Objective: To describe current policy and arrangements in Australia, to examine the issues that arise as a result of specific policies and to look critically at alternative policy options. Policy Background Papers will serve as comprehensive and concise discussions of important policy areas without necessarily advocating any one particular set of policy prescriptions. (i) Printing cost for each issue was $3000; staff and administrative costs are not recorded in a way that would enable the details sought to be readily identified. Those costs are met from funds provided to meet the staff and administrative costs of the Institute. Title: Selected Reading Lists (a) The first Selected Reading List was produced in November 1981. To date 17 SR Lists have been produced. (b) The Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. (c) One person is involved for approximately three days per issue. (d) Irregularly-8 were produced in 1981; 2 in 1982; 4 in 1983; 1 in 1984; and 2 in 1985. (e) Up to 1984, the SR Lists were printed under quotation; since 1985 they are produced in-house using the Institute's photocopying facilities. Production run is 3000 copies. (f) Distribution is free to any person who makes an information request about a particular topic in the Family Information Centre. They are not circulated through the mailing list. (g) The Institute of Family Studies exercises editorial control. (h) Objective: To assist inquirers wanting information about relevant publications in their area of interest. (i) The cost of these Lists is $650 per issue. Staff and administrative costs are not recorded in a way that would enable the details sought to be readily identified. Those costs are met from funds provided to meet staff and administrative costs of the institute. Title: IFS Working Papers (a) The IFS Working Papers were established with issue No. 1 in February 1981. (b) The Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. (c) The authors produce these papers as part of their normal workload. The preparation of the manuscript is done by an editor and takes an average of 7-10 days per issue. (d) Irregularly-3 were produced in 1981; 2 in 1982; 3 in 1984; and 2 in 1985. (e) The papers are printed by commercial printers under quotation. The print run averages 4000 copies. (f) Circulated to registered IFS mailing list subscribers until 1984, after which they were sent to selected groups, eg. all Family Court personnel, the Family Law Council, the IFS Board of Management, the FIC's official Exchange Partners, indexing, abstracting and review services, as well as to specific groups with special interest in the topic under discussion. (g) The Institute of Family Studies exercises editorial control. (h) Objective: To provide a way of publishing information gathered on those areas critical to the Institute's research projects. (i) The average cost of printing each Working Paper has been $2000. Staff and administrative costs are not recorded in a way that would enable the details sought to be readily identified. They are met from funds provided to meet staff and administrative costs of the Institute. Title: NCSC Manual (a) Established in October 1981. (b) National Companies and Securities Commission. (c) The number of staff involved varies. The total time involved is 14 staff weeks per year. (d) Three prints of amendments per year. (e) Printed by Victorian Printing Pty. Ltd., 3 George Street, Blackburn, Vic. 3130. Print run 1150. (f) 1128 copies distributed free of charge to government bodies, educational institutions, Parliamentary and State libraries, press, stock exchange, solicitors, accountants, private organisations, overseas securities organisations. The distribution list includes Australian and overseas addresses. (g) Members of the Commission exercise editorial control. (h) Objective: for the guidance of persons professionally engaged or responsible interested in corporate affairs and the securities industry. (i) Printing costs-approximately $20,000 per year. Staff costs-approximately $12,400 per year. Administrative costs-approximately $2,145 per year. Title: Trade Practices Developments Bulletin (a) December 1978. (b) Guidance and Information Section, Consumer Protection and Information Branch, Trade Practices Commission. (c) 3 staff involved for a total of 10 months per year. (d) Bi-monthly. (e) Printed by Trade Practices Commission in-house; Print run 1400 copies. (f) 1200 copies distributed throughout Australia and to several overseas addresses. (g) Guidance and Information Branch exercises editorial control. (h) Objective: To inform interested readers of current developments in trade practices law and administration. (i) Costs-printing, $1800; Staff and Administrative, $25000. Title: Information Bulletin (a) First issued in July 1982. (b) A.C.T. Corporate Affairs Commission. (c) 2 officers-Clerk Class 8 and Clerk 2/3-about 1 1/2 hours each per issue. (d) Printed as needed; to date there have been 20 issues. (e) Photocopied in the Commission's Office; Print run 400 per issue. (f) Distributed to all staff of the Commission, and to Accounting and Legal firms in the A.C.T. (g) The Commissioner has editorial control. (h) Objective: to provide information on significant changes to operations of the office. (i) Printing costs: $30.00 per issue. Staff costs: $40.00 per issue. Mailing Costs: $100.00 per issue. Title: AGIS (Attorney-General's Information Service) (a) First issued in 1975. (b) Attorney-General's Department, Central Office Library. (c) 2 full time and 2 part time staff are involved in production. The part time involvement varies from issue to issue. (d) Published fortnightly (e) Printed by Government Printer; print run of 1,000. (f) Circulated to all legal officers within the Department, and to all Legal Aid Officers. Copies are forwarded to all law libraries (i.e. in Supreme Courts, Parliaments, Law Schools of Universities, Law Societies) and to other law-related institutions. (g) Librarian Class 2, Current Awareness sub-section and the Principal Librarian exercise editorial control. (h) Objective: to provide a current awareness (indexing and abstracting) service in the field of law. (i) Printing cost is currently $1,050 per issue. Staff and administrative costs are not recorded in a way that would enable the details sought to be really identified. They are met from funds provided to meet the staff and administrative costs of the Department. Title: Legal Aid Clearinghouse Bulletin (a) First issued in 1980 (b) Attorney-General's Department, Central Office Library (c) 3 persons are involved on a part time basis in production. The time each officer is involved varies from issue to issue and averages about 66% of the time of 1 officer, about 40% of the time of the second officer and about 20% of the time of the third officer. At the same time staff extract details for inclusion in the Legal Aid Bibliography. (d) Published every 2 months (e) Government Printer; print run of 500. (f) Circulated to legal aid and community justice centres. (g) Librarian Class 2, Current Awareness sub-section and Principal Legal Officer, Legal Aid Branch exercise editorial control. (h) Objective: To disseminate information on Legal Aid; i.e. book reviews, case digest, notify and report on new research, publish articles, and index and abstract others. (i) Printing cost is currently $1,165 per issue. Staff and administrative costs are not recorded in a way that would enable the details sought to be readily identified. They are met from funds provided to meet staff and administrative costs of the Department. Title: Legal Aid Bibliography (a) First issued in 1979 (b) Attorney-General's Department, Central Office Library (c) Material for this publication is prepared in conjunction with material for the Legal Aid Clearinghouse Bulletin. The staff time shown for that publication includes the time involved in producing the Legal Aid Bibliography. (d) Published annually. (e) Printed by Government Printer; print run of 600 (f) Circulated to legal aid and community justice centres. (g) Librarian Class 2, Current Awareness sub- section, and Principal Legal Officer, Legal Aid Branch exercise editorial control. (h) Objective: To provide an annual bibliography of all legal aid publications. (i) Printing costs is currently $1,834 per issue. Staff and administrative costs are not recorded in a way that would enable the details sought to be readily identified. They are met from funds provided to meet the staff and administrative costs of the Department. Title: Minder (a) First issued April 1984 (b) Office of Consumer Affairs, Attorney-General's Department (c) Two staff are involved fully for 2 weeks on each issue-1 x Journalist Grade A1, and a Clerical Administrative Class 9. (d) Printed quarterly (e) Printed by Pirie Printers, Fyshwick, A.C.T.; print run 10,000 per issue. (f) Circulation is free of charge to schools, media groups, Members of Parliament, Senators, community groups, libraries, businesses, and consumer groups. (g) The First Assistant Secretary, Office of Consumer Affairs, exercises editorial control. (h) Objective: to provide information about Commonwealth initiatives that affect consumers or are of interest to consumers and also to provide information that is of national interest. (i) Current costs: Setting up and printing $2,500 per issue; mailing cost $1,500 per issue; staff costs $2,100 per issue. Title: Memoir (a) First issued in August 1985. (b) The Equal Employment Opportunity Sub- section of Attorney-General's Department. (c) One Clerical Administrative Class 8 staff member is involved for 3-4 hours per issue plus a typist for about 2 hours per issue. (d) Produced monthly. (e) Printed by the Government Printer. The print run is 3,000 copies. (f) Circulated all branches of the Department and information copies forwarded to Statutory Authorities within the portfolio. (g) The Equal Employment Opportunity Co-ordinator has editorial control. (h) Objectives: to provide information on Equality, Management, Occupations, Industrial Democracy and Reforms. (i) Printing costs: $1,400 per issue. Staff costs: $300 per issue. Distribution costs are not recorded in a way that would enable the details sought to be readily identified. They are met from funds provided to meet the administrative costs of the Department. Title: Client Information Manual (a) April 1984. (b) Information and Public Relations Section, Attorney-General's Department. (c) 3 staff for about 5 weeks. (d) One issue only to date. To be revised and amendments printed as necessary to meet changes in responsibilities of Divisions of the Department. (e) Printed by Government Printer; print run 300. (f) All government Departments and Authorities. (g) A Deputy Secretary has editorial control. (h) Objective: to assist Commonwealth agencies in their dealings with Attorney-General's Department and thereby assist the Attorney-General's Department to respond efficiently to the needs of agencies. (i) Printing Cost: $440. Binders: $1050. Staff Costs: $6700. Administrative costs are not recorded in a way that would enable the details sought to be readily identified. Those costs are met from funds provided to meet the administrative costs of the Department. Title: Consolidated Press Releases (a) First produced in 1973. (b) Information and Public Relations Section, Attorney-General's Department. (c) 2 staff are involved-4 weeks each per issue (d) Produced annually, but has been produced more often in some years dependent on the number of press releases issued. There have been 15 issues since 1973. (e) Printed by the Government Printer; print run 500. (f) Circulation is to all addressees on the Information and Public Relations Section mailing list, Section Heads and higher level officers in the Department, libraries of State and Central Offices of the Department, and to State Attorneys-General. (g) The Director, Information and Public Relations has editorial control. (h) Objective: to provide a consolidation of press releases by the Attorney-General. (i) Printing Costs: $2621. Staff Costs: $4000. Administrative costs are not recorded in a way that would enable the detail sought to be readily identified. Those costs are met from funds provided to meet the administrative costs of the Department. Details of some other publications which are not considered to be covered by the terms Question 1461 have not been included. (Question No. 1556) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: (1) What are the (a) employee and (b) employer contributions to superannuation schemes for the employees of his Department and each of the authorities and companies under his control. (2) Are lump sum payments permitted in part or whole from the schemes. (3) Are the schemes funded; if so, what is the ability of the scheme to finance future requirements, if not, how are these future superannuation requirements to be met. (4) What was the Commonwealth's contribution to each scheme for 1984-85. (5) When was each scheme introduced and what changes have been, or are expected to, be made. (6) Are all employees covered and is it compulsory. (7) How many public servants, within each scheme (a) are members of the scheme and (b) have decided not to join the scheme. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Department of Aviation employees and employees of the Independent Air Fares Committee (IAFC) Secretariat are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) and as such are required to contribute 5 per cent of their salary for superannuation purposes as basic contributions. They may elect to contribute up to an additional 5 per cent of their superannuable salary as supplementary contributions. Employees of the Australian National Airlines Commission (TAA) contribute 5 per cent of their superannuable salary to the respective superannuation schemes. Qantas employees contribute 10 per cent of pensionable salary based on age at commencement and time of salary adjustment. (b) Government Departments are not required to make employer contributions in respect of their staff who are members of the CSS. However, the Australian Government Actuary has calculated that an employer contribution of 21.5 per cent of superannuable salaries would be required to fund the employer-financed benefits for new entrants to the CSS. Employer contributions by TAA are considered Commercial in Confidence. However contributions are made in amounts recommended by Actuarial advisers in relation to each of the Superannuation Schemes. For employees who are members of the CSS TAA pays the Commonwealth 7.75 per cent of their superannuable salary. Qantas contributes 25% of pensionable salary based on age at commencement, time of salary adjustment, service and classification. Additional contributions are determined actuarially as required to underpin benefits promised, currently 1.15 per cent of pensionable salaries. (2) The employer-financed benefit under the CSS is generally a non-commutable indexed pension the amount of which is dependent on age, length of service and salary at retirement. In certain limited circumstances, however, the employer-financed benefit may be paid as a lump sum. TAA schemes basically provide for lump sum payment at retirement the exception being employees who are contributors to the CSS. Qantas-yes. (3) The CSS is not a funded superannuation scheme in respect of employer-financed benefits. All employer-financed benefits are paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Employee contributions are paid to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund which is managed and invested by the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. Employee-financed benefits are therefore funded up to the date of retirement. At the time of retirement the employee's accumulated contributions are transferred to the Consolidated Revenue Fund which thereafter meets the benefits attributable to those contributions on an unfunded basis. TAA schemes are funded and on Actuarial advice each is regarded as able to finance its future requirements. Again the CSS is an exception. The Qantas scheme is fully funded and on Actuarial advice is regarded as able to finance future requirements. (4) Information on Commonwealth expenditure and offsets to that expenditure for the CSS as a whole for 1984-85 is available at pages 71 and 72 of Budget Paper No. 6, Portfolio Program Estimates 1985-86. It is not possible from the available data to readily isolate the Commonwealth's actual expenditure in respect of the former staff of the Department of Aviation or authorities within the Aviation Portfolio. Qantas-Nil. (5) The CSS was established by the Superannuation Act 1922. The last major changes to the scheme were introduced in the Superannuation Act 1976. Two of the more important changes made at that time were the conversion of the basis of contribution from the purchase of units of pension to a percentage of salary arrangement and the conversion of the benefit structure from a combined employee and employer-financed benefit to one where the employer and employee-financed benefit are determined separately. Any changes to the CSS require legislation which would be a matter for the Parliament at the appropriate time. TAA schemes date back to 1946 and have been progressively modified to meet changing conditions. The Qantas scheme was established in 1939 and has been progressively modified to meet changing conditions. (6) Membership of the CSS is compulsory for officers employed in a permanent capacity under the Public Service Act, other than certain fixed term appointees to the Senior Executive Service. After completion of a qualifying period of service, temporary employees employed under the Public Service Act who are likely to continue to be employed for a further period of 3 years may elect to joint the scheme. All TAA ground staff have eligibility after 12 months although some elect not to take up membership. For crew, superannuation is compulsory after completion of probation. All full time Qantas employees are covered on completion of 12 months service; the scheme is compulsory. (7) (a) All permanent officers of the Public Service working for the Department of Aviation and the IAFC Secretariat plus temporary employees who qualify and elect to join. TAA has advised that these details are considered Commercial in Confidence. Qantas-Nil. (b) Contributions are compulsory for permanent public servants as per question 6. TAA has advised that these details are considered Commercial in Confidence. Qantas-Nil. (Question No. 1665) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) What is the expected life of the rock phosphate mining operation of A grade deposits on Christmas Island. (2) Does the Government have plans for the future of Christmas Island workers at the end of that period; if so, what is the estimated cost of the plans. (3) Have any investigations been made into processes by which the apatite rock phosphate C grade deposits could be used for making fertiliser; if so, what are the results. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The mining operation on Christmas Island has recently been reviewed. Present indications are that there is little A grade material remaining which can be mined and sold at a profit, as costs have been consistently increasing while prices rise very slowly in the highly competitive international phosphate market. (2) The Government, whilst agreeing that it would not support an uneconomic mining operation, recognised that there would be major difficulties in an early closure of the mine and established a Working Party on the Future of Christmas Island. This Working Party, after wide consultation on both the Island and the mainland, proposed a number of ways in which costs could be reduced to re-establish profitability. The Government agreed to defer the close-down of the mining operation to enable these cost cutting measures to be implemented and to allow for the establishment of mechanisms to support an orderly wind down of the operation when this becomes necessary. Retraining and resettlement schemes have been established for those mine employees who choose to leave the Island now. Proposals for alternative industries which go ahead may provide employment for some of the workers on the Island. If all workers and their dependants need to be resettled and retrained, plans have been made to cater for this at an expected cost of $7m. (3) Apatite contains virtually no alumina or ferrous oxides, both of which are found in significant concentrations in Christmas Island C grade. An active research program has revealed two beneficiation processes for Christmas Island C grade material. One process for the production of Tri Sodium Phosphate has reached the trial stage and results are encouraging. The other process is still in the developmental stage and no results are available as yet. Market penetration of any phosphatic high analysis fertiliser produced by these means will depend largely on normal competitive forces. (Question No. 2591) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) Have any postal customers requested compensation from Australia Post for losses caused by the NSW postal dispute which finished in October 1985, if so, (a) how many requests were made, (b) what was the total amount of compensation sought and (c) what was Australia Post's response. (2) What decisions have been made by (a) the Government and (b) Australia Post on whether Australia Post should pay such compensation and under what circumstances compensation would be payable. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based in part on advice received from the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) Thirteen requests (b) The total amount of compensation sought was $24,206.66 (c) Compensation was paid in one instance only. (2) (a) and (b) All decisions made by Australia Post concerning the payment of compensation for financial losses caused by delays arising from the NSW postal dispute were made within the framework of postal legislation. There is currently no proposal to extend the compensation provisions of postal legislation to enable compensation to be paid for losses arising as a consequence of delay in delivery of postal articles. (Question No. 3006) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What special projects have been assisted by the Government since March 1983 which are designed to overcome discrimination against women as artists. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Federal Government assistance since March 1983 to projects designed to overcome discrimination against women as artists has been provided in the following ways: In 1983 the Australia Council published ``Women in the Arts'', which highlights women's career obstacles in the arts. This report arose out of the 1982 New South Wales Women and Arts Festival which was partly funded by the Australia Council. In May 1984 the Council issued ``Women in Arts: A Strategy for Action'', designed for arts organisations and the Council itself. In September 1985 the Council established a Women and the Arts Advisory Committee to advise it on strategy implications, to monitor policies and programs for their impact on women and to identify additional steps needed to assist women in the arts in Australia. A major priority is the development of more affirmative action initiatives to assist women in the arts to overcome career obstacles and develop an increased confidence in their abilities. Film Australia established a Women's Film Unit in 1985, following the success of a Women's Film Unit funded under the Community Employment Program at Film Australia from January to December 1984. A second Women's Film Unit, funded by the Community Employment Program and sponsored by the Australian Film Commission, operated in Melbourne for 12 months to the end of 1985. In addition, the Commission has administered the Women's Film Fund, which supports the development and production of films by and about women, since 1980. In January 1984 an on-the-job training scheme for women film technicians to upgrade their skills was established by The Australian Film and Television School. (Question No. 3108) Mr Halverson asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) How many overseas-based freight aircraft unload cargoes consigned from overseas to Australian destinations each year. (2) What percentage of these aircraft, having unloaded their original cargoes in Australia, return empty to their point of origin. (3) What legislative and administrative restrictions apply to the back-loading of overseas-based freight aircraft once they have unloaded their original cargoes in Australia. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Using 1985 as a reasonably typical year for air freight operations, I am advised by my Department that there were 367 pure cargo flights into Australia by overseas-based aircraft. 291 of these were scheduled services by airlines such as Air New Zealand, Flying Tigers, Lufthansa and Japan Air Lines. The remaining 76 were charter flights. (2) Of these 367 flights, only 27 (7%), all of which were charter flights, returned empty to their point of origin. A number of the scheduled services, including 57 operated by the U.S. airline Flying Tigers, operated empty from Australia to countries other than their point of origin. A number of those flights which departed empty from Australia were to points in Asia where cargo was uplifted for carriage to the United States or Europe. (3) All outbound cargo charter proposals by foreign-based third country airlines, that is airlines based in other than Australia or the charter destination, are offered to Australian domestic freight operators on the basis of their being given preference to operate the flight if able to match the charter price and date of operation. On the condition that no domestic operator expresses interest in the operation, outbound flights are approved if (i) the flight complies with the single entity policy, i.e. the cargo must be homogenous and be consigned by a single consignor to a single consignee, or (ii) the flight complies with the ``own use'' charter policy, i.e. where the entire capacity of aircraft is chartered by a company, individual or organisation to carry its own produce, or (iii) the flight is carrying livestock under the livestock charter policy, or (iv) the flight is carrying primary produce under the primary produce export charter policy which I brought to the House's attention on 15 November 1985. (Question No. 3132) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) What was the background to staff and student unrest at the National Institute of Dramatic Art (NIDA) in late 1985. (2) Has the Joint Staff/Student Committee of Inquiry reported; if so, what are its principal recommendations. (3) Has the NIDA Board of Directors established an independent committee of inquiry into the structure of Institute. (4) Have any retaliatory measures been taken against (a) students or (b) contract staff involved in the dispute; if so, what was the nature of the measures. (5) Has NIDA been successful in obtaining replacements for (a) the Head and (b) other staff in the design department. (6) Is he able to say whether there are major differences in student representation in NIDA governance and that of the University of NSW. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I have been advised by the National Institute of Dramatic Art that: (1) Some students at NIDA in 1985 believed their workload excessive and claimed poor communications within the school were a contributing factor. (2) The Joint Staff/Student Committee made and interim report to the Board of Directors which resulted in the establishment of a Structure Review Committee. (3) The Structure Review Committee is composed of representatives of the Board of Directors, Boards of Studies, Staff and Students. An external consultant has been appointed and his report is due in May 1986. (4) No retaliatory measures have been taken against students or staff. (5) NIDA has successfully replaced the Head of Design and Design staff. (6) There are differences between student representation in NIDA governance and the University of New South Wales governance which reflect the relative size and function of both institutions. This matter will, however, be addressed by the Structure Review Committee. (Question No. 3141) Mr Price asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in The Sydney Morning Herald of 11 February 1986 concerning Telecom offering to provide more detail in monthly billing of telephone accounts. (2) Will residential customers now be able to request monthly billing, if so, is this a change in policy from that previously announced. (3) When and how will Telecom inform residential customers that they have the right to request monthly billing. (4) What instructions have Telecom issued to accounts staff to encourage customers who have difficulty in paying 3 monthly accounts to opt for monthly billing. (5) Is there an absence of publicity surrounding residential customers rights to opt for monthly billing; if so, (a) does this discriminate against pensioners and the poor and (b) is this consistent with Telecom's social charter. (6) When will monthly billing be available at the exchanges servicing the constituents of the Electoral Division of Chifley. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from Telecom Australia, is as follows: (1) Yes. However, the inference in the article that residential customers will automatically be placed on monthly billing upon application is not correct. (2) No. Telecom's new billing system provides for residential customers generally to be billed quarterly which is the case in the billing system now being phased out. In some cases, however, Telecom may apply monthly billing for credit control purposes or to enable customers to receive monthly call statements where provision of such on a quarterly basis is not acceptable. In Telecom's new billing system the frequency of bill and statement issue is co-related. As the honourable member has been advised in the past, market research has indicated that the majority of residential customers prefer quarterly billing. Universal monthly billing for this category of customers would introduce substantial additional processing costs for Telecom which would need to be taken into account during future tariff reviews. (3) Not relevant in view of the preceding response. (4) No instructions of this nature have been issued. As indicated in the response to Question No. 2, monthly billing may be instituted at Telecom's discretion for credit management purposes and this would feasibly impact upon people experiencing difficulty in settling bills on a quarterly basis. (5) The preceding answers address this question but there is a general awareness in the community of other facilities which may assist the financially disadvantaged in budgeting towards telephone bills e.g. savings account at banks and other financial institutions, use of Stamp Cards, the lodgement of prepayments. (6) The new billing system embodying monthly billing for business customers will be available at exchanges located in the Electoral Division of Chifley by the end of 1987 when Penrith Telecom District, covering most of Chifley, is scheduled to be changed over to the new system. (Question No. 3328) Mr Staples asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 March 1986: (1) Will Australia's over-the-horizon radar (OTHR) development be made available to (a) the USA, (b) New Zealand, (c) Japan, (d) Canada, (e) NATO and (f) any other country; if so, under what (i) conditions and (ii) defence agreements. (2) Will OTHR be suitable for peaceful purposes, in particular, (a) research and rescue, (b) disarmament monitoring and (c) data collection for meteorology and primary industries. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australia's over-the-horizon radar (OTHR) development, JINDALEE, is an experimental radar. The knowledge gained with it is being used to determine what form of operational radar is best suited to Australia's environment and requirements. Following this, any proposed use of this Australian technology by another country would depend on how closely their needs match Australia's and the extent of any redevelopment that may be required; the relevant conditions and defence agreements would be determined at that time. The development of our JINDALEE OTHR has been assisted by a bilateral cooperative arrangement with the USA under the US/Australia Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperative Research and Development (1968), and its general principles have been presented in The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP) to the USA, the UK, Canada and New Zealand. (2) Yes. The JINDALEE OTHR is already providing wind velocity data to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Its use for the other purposes mentioned by the honourable member has not yet been assessed. (Question No. 3329) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 12 March 1986: (1) What are the proposals for Buckland Hill, Mosman Park, WA. (2) What is the progress of negotiations with the WA State Government and/or the Western Australian Development Corporation on Buckland Hill. (3) Has a price for the sale of the land by the Commonwealth been agreed upon; if so, what is it. (8) Has a date for the handover of Buckland Hill been agreed upon; if so, what is it. (5) What conditions relating to the use of the land is the Commonwealth proposing to impose on the purchaser. (6) Has consideration been given to making (a) all and (b) some of Buckland Hill a (i) regional and (ii) bicentennial project park. (7) Will he provide copies of documents relating to the negotiations between the WA State Government and/or the Western Australian Development Corporation and the Commonwealth Government. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The old Leighton Battery site on Buckland Hill has been declared surplus to Commonwealth requirements and offered to the State for purchase. In 1985 the Commonwealth and Western Australian Governments agreed in principle that the site should be developed to provide a mix of public and private housing, institutional use and public open space. (2) Negotiations have been proceeding for some time with the Western Australian Development Corporation which has been nominated by the State as its agent in the acquisition and subsequent development of the site. Detailed proposals for the site were received earlier this year from the State Government and these are currently under consideration. (3) No. (4) No. (5) Any land use conditions would be mutually agreed rather than imposed. Throughout the course of the negotiations I have sought to maximise the area to be devoted to parkland to an extent consistent with overall development objectives and other important community needs such as public housing. As a general rule the Commonwealth does not seek to impose conditions on the future use of property that it sells off, unless such conditions are necessary to protect the national interest. Land use planning and zoning matters are primarily State and local government responsibilities. However the Commonwealth will seek a price for the property that is commensurate with its intended use. (6) The State Government's original proposal for the site envisaged a development incorporating, in part, a coastal regional park. Later proposals from the State have modified this concept considerably. I am advised that no formal consideration has been given to the site as a bicentennial project park. (7) Consistent with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and after considering the views of the State Government and the Western Australian Development Corporation I would be prepared to release documents relating to the negotiations. In fact my Department has recently done this to fulfil an FOI request from West Australian Newspapers Ltd. (Question No. 3332) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 12 March 1986: (1) Is it a fact that, since 1 March 1986, there has not been a representative on the AUSSAT Board residing in regional Australia. (2) Should the AUSSAT satellite system be controlled by a Board solely made up of members from metropolitan areas; if not, will he consider appointing a member from regional Australia to the Board. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. AUSSAT's Articles of Association do not specify representation from any particular interest groups. (2) As AUSSAT has begun to provide services on a commercial basis, the membership of the Board reflects the skills and experiences required to guide the activities of AUSSAT in its commercial phase. It is not relevant whether members of the AUSSAT Board are residents of metropolitan or non-metropolitan areas-what is relevant is that people appointed to the Board have expertise and experience to guide the commercial activities of the Company. The AUSSAT satellite system has the capabilities to provide services to any part of the nation. What public or community services are provided by the AUSSAT satellite system are matters of Government policy and the design of the satellite system reflects the policy objectives of the Government. In defining those policy objectives the Government, of course, consults as widely as possible with interested groups in the community while AUSSAT also maintains close relationships with existing users of its satellite system. (Question No. 3384) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: What action has his Department taken on possible incentives for Australian exporters (a) to insure with Australian insurance companies and (b) for the establishment of a local reinsurance market, as a means of reducing Australia's invisibles deficit. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The Department of Trade is working with Austrade to develop the international competitiveness of the Australian insurance industry. This has included raising with State Government officials the possibility of exempting international classes of insurance from ``front-end'' taxes such as stamp-duty and fire service levies. Australian exporters and buyers of insurance would then probably be more inclined to direct business to competitive Australian insurance companies. My Department also ensured that representatives of the Australian insurance industry participated in the series of workshops arranged to follow-up the Report of the Joint Shipping Task Force. These seminars provided an opportunity for Australian insurers to advise major Australian exporters of the benefits of placing their business locally. (b) As at 30 June 1985, 30 reinsurance companies were licensed to operate in the Australian market including two small Australian-owned companies. The Report of the Trade Development Council Panel 75 on Invisibles Trade recommended further examination of the possibility of the establishment of a regional reinsurance market in Australia, including consideration of any tax concessions to bring such a market into operation. The Trade Development Council made similar recommendations on the establishment of an offshore banking centre in Australia. A Working Party of Federal and State officials developing and reporting on proposals for an appropriate legislative framework for an Australian offshore banking market has, in the course of its deliberations, considered the Trade Development Council's offshore banking recommendations. The findings of this Working Party, once available, could provide guidance for the establishment of a regional reinsurance market in Australia. Generally any concessions providing for such activities must not represent an avenue for tax avoidance, provide undue sectoral assistance or threaten other policy objectives in relation to the financial sector. (Question No. 3385) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) What (a) foreign tariffs, (b) quota restrictions, (c) export incentives, (d) bounties, (e) non-tariff barriers and (f) general protective measures has his Department identified as restricting the export of Australian merchandise, commodities and services. (2) What is the cost to Australian industry of each measure. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Department of Trade considers that measures both of a tariff and non-tariff nature on products and services of export interest to Australia are likely to have a restricting effect on the level and/or remuneration of those exports. However, it is virtually impossible to quantify the precise trade effects of many non-tariff measures (NTMs) because of their imprecise nature and application by Governments and in some cases because of overt and covert commercial practices in some countries which limit fair competition. It should be noted that a number of NTMs such as quarantine, health and safety standards are often legitimate. Nevertheless, they can be, and increasingly are, designed to protect domestic markets either directly by limiting imports or indirectly by way of raising the price of imports. Ultimately, fine judgments are sometimes required to distinguish an NTM which is merely a trade barrier from a legitimate import requirement. Often what is considered a legitimate import requirement by one country is viewed as a non-tariff barrier by another country. While the GATT has been successful in cutting tariffs from an average of 40% or more at the time of its formation to between 4% and 5% on industrial products at the end of the Tokyo Round cuts, there is however a growing use of NTMs in the world trading system. These trade restrictions, often referred to as the ``new protectionism'' take various forms including so-called voluntary restraint agreements, quotas, licensing arrangements, minimum import price schemes, export franchises etc. There are a number of estimates, including by research groups, academics and international organisations which suggest that from one-third to as much as one-half of world trade is affected by NTMs. For instance the GATT Secretariat in 1984 estimated that NTMs restrict more than 40% of world trade. UNCTAD in 1984 identified over 20,000 instances involving 2,000 types of NTMs operating in 42 countries. The UNCTAD list has been expanded since then. There has also been a rapid escalation in the use and levels of subsidies, particularly on exported agricultural produce. Subsidised agricultural protection in Europe alone has cost Australian farmers more than A$1 billion a year in recent years (BAE estimate). Australia's exports to markets in the USA, Japan and the EC for products such as steel, beef, sugar, dairy products and fruit are now subject to non-tariff measures. In addition, some Australian exports of industrial raw materials and other inputs are indirectly affected by trade barriers erected against the exports of Australia's overseas customers. So far, no internationally accepted nomenclature or measure of NTMs has been developed. GATT and UNCTAD have produced two completely different systems of classification. Overall, the problem of classification is symptomatic of the desire of many trading countries wishing to avoid focussing international discussion on the analysis, negotiations and trading rules for such measures. Resolving or ameliorating the problems caused by resort to NTMs is clearly not easy. The Government, however, considers that such a fundamental issue which pervades a wide spectrum of Australia's export interests should be addressed effectively in the new round of multilateral trade negotiations, expected to start later this year. As part of the process of preparing Australia's negotiating position for the new round and to assist the marketing efforts of Australian exporters, the Department is continuing to monitor NTMs and is compiling a comprehensive listing of trade barriers and trade distortions affecting Australian exports based on a range of sources, including Australian industry, overseas market intelligence collected by Trade Commissioners and other overseas representatives, and published and unpublished material produced overseas by Governments, industry organisations and international bodies. (Question No. 3420) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 18 March 1986: (1) Further to his answer to question No. 666 (Hansard, 23 May 1985, page 3132) concerning staff numbers in statutory authorities under his control, do the figures agree with those shown in the personnel section of the relevant annual reports of the Australian Wheat Board; if not, why not. (2) What was the increase in staff numbers in the Australian Wheat Board in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85. (3) What were the salary classes or grades of the extra staff in each of those years. (4) Why were the extra staff necessary. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The figures printed in Hansard last year are based on financial years, to provide a wider basis for comparison of the 9 authorities involved. The Australian Wheat Board (AWB) annual report figures are for crop years ending 30 November in 1980 and 1981, and 30 September in subsequent years. (2) Based on information from the Board's annual reports, staff numbers increased by 11 in 1983-84 and 48 in 1984-85. (3) and (4) The Government intends that statutory marketing authorities (SMAs) be given as much autonomy as possible in the conduct of their affairs in line with commercial principles. As part of a comprehensive policy framework to increase SMA efficiency and effectiveness, it is proposed to remove any requirement for an SMA to obtain the approval of the Public Service Board to terms and conditions of SMA staff appointments. In regard to the AWB, legislation is currently before Parliament with a view to implementing this and other SMA policy reforms. Consistent with the Government's policy decisions in regard to SMAs generally, the management of staffing is a matter for the Board of the AWB. In this regard the 1983-84 and 1984-85 financial years cover a period of significant growth in the amount of AWB offshore borrowings, increasing emphasis on technical support in sales promotion and the introduction of new computing equipment and software. (Question No. 3439) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 March 1986: Has his Department provided the same exemption for ultralight aircraft under the Air Navigation Regulations as was provided for gliders at a similar stage of their development; if not, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. The current policy of my Department is that for ultralight aircraft below a maximum empty weight of 115 kg no airworthiness requirements apply. However, for the heavier ultralight aircraft, airworthiness requirements are applied consistent with the intended use of these aircraft, which is for recreational and sport activities. In the early years of development of gliding in Australia, from approximately 1949-57, airworthiness requirements were applied to all gliders. Those requirements were: the then internationally agreed design standards, in the case of machines manufactured overseas or locally built to overseas designs; or equivalent Australian requirements for machines of Australian design. (Question No. 3510) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether the International Committee of the Red Cross has not been allowed into Kabul, Afghanistan, since 1982. (2) What representation has he made to the Soviet Union on this matter. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I understand that the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) has not been permitted to maintain an operation in Afghanistan since 1982. However an ICRC representative recently visited Kabul to discuss the possibility of a further role for the ICRC in Afghanistan. The ICRC has since reported that principles were worked out for an operation involving protection for prisoners and assistance, in particular medical aid, for Afghanistan. We have been monitoring the situation and welcome this development which we hope will lead to renewed and beneficial co-operation between the ICRC and the relevant Afghan authorities. In this situation it is not necessary at this stage to consider the question of representations to the Soviet Union, but the Australian Government's support for the humanitarian work of the ICRC in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and its condemnation of Soviet actions in Afghanistan, are clear and well known. The honourable member will be interested to recall that the previous Conservative Government to this Government made no representation on this matter. (Question No. 3511) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Was the decision to appoint the UN Human Rights Commissioner's Special Rapporteur strenuously opposed by the USSR and Afghanistan; if so, did those States declare they would not be bound by any conclusion of the report. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The resolution appointing the Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan was opposed by the USSR as a member of CHR and spoken against by Afghanistan which as a observer did not have voting rights. The conclusions of a report by a Special Rapporteur are not binding on members of the Commission so that aspect of the question does not arise. (Question No. 3512) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether the Afghan Government has refused to co-operate with Special Rapporteur Felix Ermacora, who was appointed by the UN Human Rights Commissioner in 1984 to investigate human rights abuses in Afghanistan. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government of Afghanistan has declined to cooperate with Professor Felix Ermacora, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on Afghanistan, thereby preventing him from visiting Afghanistan to investigate the human rights situation in that country. (Question No. 3570) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: 1. Did the Government decide to increase aid to the Philippines from $16 million to $25 million. 2. Is the extra $9 million to come from additional funds allocated to the overall aid budget or will it come from existing aid budget allocations. 3. If the latter, from what areas of the aid budget will it come from. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. I announced to the House on 14 March that Australia's aid to the Philippines would increase to an estimated $25m per annum in 1986/87. 2. & 3. The final form of next year's aid budget is yet to be determined. (Question No. 3573) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: On what basis is Australia's 1% of official aid allocated to the support of projects and programs initiated by non-government organisations below the OECD median range of 5 to 6%. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The official aid allocated to the support of projects and programs initiated by non-governmental organisations is about 1.2% of the 1985-86 aid budget. There is no official OECD average of aid through NGOs but the figure of 5-6% is around the median for those OECD countries which report on their use of non-governmental channels. I announced on 28 November 1985 that further increases in subsidies for project of NGOs were justified, though further long-term growth in these subsidies would need to be commensurate with the capacity of NGOs to mobilise public support and to deliver the increased allocation. (Question No. 3574) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: What percentage of the aid budget is allocated to the support of projects and programs initiated by non-government organisations. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The percentage of the aid budget allocated to the support of projects and programs initiated by non-government organisations (NGOs) is about 1.2%, i.e. about $11.9 million. (Question No. 3680) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: What (a) amount and (b) type of citrus juice has been imported from each country which exports citrus juice to Australia in each of the last three years. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is set out in the following table: AUSTRALIAN IMPORTS OF CITRUS JUICE, 1982-83 TO 1984-85 Country of Origin 1982/83 Quantity Value 1983/84 Quantity Value 1984/85 Quantity Value kg $ kg $ kg $ Orange Juice Belize... 16,351 25,656 - - - - Brazil... 9,604,881 19,602,056 12,417,252 24,440,191 7,081,109 24,131,832 Cayman Island... - - 50,232 72,209 - - China PR... 20,081 50,060 - - - - France... 664 372 - - - - Germany FR... 32,235 41,009 50 207 121 1,378 Israel... 38,282 76,826 45,190 98,763 60,379 169,646 Italy... 332 451 - - 118 619 Japan... - - 30 58 8 242 Mexico... 357,262 662,217 240,442 450,623 25,526 70,486 NZ... 92 118 - - 1,040 3,398 Netherlands... - - 35 154 236,158 922,769 S. Africa... 9 8 75 226 - - Singapore... - - - - 13 7 Spain... 15,780 32,277 45 265 17,100 25,442 UK... 6 9 245 395 - - USA... 1,189,713 2,637,670 1,076,486 1,693,596 214,368 619,380 Yugoslavia... - - 3,871 5,697 - - TOTAL... (a) 11,276,542 (a) 23,138,283 13,833,953 26,762,384 7,635,940 25,945,199 Grapefruit Juice Brazil... 27,393 83,289 9,365 14,066 - - Cayman Is... 36,523 112,051 100,033 270,628 - - Israel... 501 3,610 6,090 9,080 - - Italy... 664 902 746 9,793 - - Netherlands... - - 12 60 - - UK... 21 232 - - - - USA... 61,873 123,121 58,431 95,271 8,418 44,513 TOTAL... 126,975 323,205 174,677 398,898 8,418 44,513 Lime Juice Brazil... - - 21,355 65,028 - - Ghana... - - - - 9,463 50,753 Italy... 648 1,777 782 2,936 29 374 Jamaica... 6,071 12,829 3,308 5,223 - - Japan... 14 45 - - - - Mexico... - - 5,083 12,610 56,675 260,929 Switzerland... - - - - 551 1,283 UK... 70,013 316,438 73,496 300,141 12,581 52,116 USA... 6,322 9,357 20,857 43,493 27 103 TOTAL... 83,068 340,446 124,881 429,431 79,326 365,558 Lemon Juice Argentina... - - 64,449 66,780 - - Brazil... - - 32,664 86,275 - - Cayman Is... - - 109,404 285,678 - - Finland... - - 0 1 - - France... 12 32 - - - - Germany FR... 741 6,528 91 7,633 31 271 Hong Kong... 12 17 - - - - Italy... 26,533 59,682 5,171 84,558 1,630 28,682 Japan... - - - - 7 202 S. Africa... - - 1,239 1,986 - - Singapore... - - 6 76 - - Switzerland... - - - - 275 642 USA... - - 281,099 443,845 115 1,859 TOTAL... 27,298 66,259 494,123 976,832 2,058 31,656 Mandarin Juice S. Africa... - - 38 113 - - TOTAL... - - 38 113 - - Citrus Fruit Juice nes excl. mixtures of juices China PR... 367 620 . . . . . . . . Germany FR... 77 539 . . . . . . . . Japan... 46 134 . . . . . . . . NZ... . . . . . . . . 457 946 S. Africa... 11 9 . . . . . . . . Singapore... . . . . . . . . 13 7 Taiwan Pr.... 79 183 . . . . . . . . UK... 66 732 . . . . . . . . USA... 110 141 . . . . 344 1,203 TOTAL... 756 2,358 . . . . 814 2,156 All Citrus Juice Argentina... . . . . 64,449 66,780 . . . . Belize... 16,351 25,656 . . . . . . . . Brazil... 9,632,274 19,685,345 12,480,636 24,605,560 7,081,109 24,131,832 Cayman Is... 36,523 112,051 259,669 628,515 . . . . China PR... 20,448 50,680 . . . . . . . . Finland... . . . . 0 1 . . . . France... 676 404 . . . . . . . . Germany FR... 33,053 48,076 141 7,840 152 1,649 Ghana... . . . . . . . . 9,463 50,753 Hong Kong... 12 17 . . . . . . . . Israel... 38,783 80,436 51,280 107,843 60,379 169,646 Italy... 28,177 62,812 6,699 97,287 1,777 29,675 Jamaica... 6,071 12,829 3,308 5,223 . . . . Japan... 60 179 30 58 15 444 Mexico... 357,262 662,217 245,525 463,233 82,201 331,415 NZ... 92 118 . . . . 1,497 4,344 Netherlands... . . . . 47 214 236,158 922,769 S. Africa... 20 17 1,352 2,325 . . . . Singapore... . . . . 6 76 26 14 Spain... 15,780 32,277 45 265 17,100 25,442 Switzerland... . . . . . . . . 826 1,925 Taiwan Pr.... 79 183 . . . . . . . . UK... 70,106 317,411 73,741 300,536 12,581 52,116 USA... 1,258,018 2,770,289 1,436,873 2,276,205 223,272 667,058 Yugoslavia... . . . . 3,871 5,697 . . . . TOTAL... (a)11,514,639 (a)23,870,551 14,627,672 28,567,658 7,726,556 26,389,082 (a) includes reimports (Question No. 3714) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: (1) Which General Aviation and Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan aerodromes have the Rescue and Fire Fighting Service. (2) What are the criteria for the provision of this service at these aerodromes. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) General Aviation aerodromes which have the Rescue and Fire Fighting Service are Archerfield, Bankstown, Jandakot, Parafield and Moorabbin. Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan aerodromes which have the Rescue and Fire Fighting Service are Cairns, Devonport, Port Hedland, Proserpine, Tamworth and Wynyard. (2) Both Cairns and Port Hedland are designated International Airports and are in accordance with the requirements of Annex 14 to the Convention of International Civil Aviation provided with a Rescue and Fire Fighting Service. In the assessment of domestic aero- dromes for the provision of Rescue and Fire Fighting Services, an annual figure of 150,000 persons on board scheduled aircraft is used. The corresponding figure for general aviation aerodromes is 175,000 persons. Proserpine does not meet the 150,000 persons on board benchmark but a Rescue and Fire Fighting Service is provided because of the frequency of jet operations. (Question No. 3776) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: What (a) were the amounts paid to and (b) projects undertaken by Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their associated companies or principals of those companies, for work on behalf of the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86 to the date of answering this question. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Amounts paid were: (i) Nil; (ii) $5,000 to Monahan Dayman and Adams (Vic) Pty Ltd; (iii) $21,222.15 to Monahan Dayman and Adams (Vic) Pty Ltd; $59,000 to ANOP; (b) Monahan Dayman and Adams (Vic) Pty Ltd was commissioned to develop a submission for a possible community awareness program. ANOP was commissioned to prepare an attitude and communications research study. (Question No. 3799) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 17 April 1986: (1) Did the Government, in co-operation with the Australian Scientific Industry Association, plan to send a scientific and technical Trade Mission to Singapore in May 1985; if so, did it take place. (2) Was the Trade Mission deferred; if so, to what date. (3) Was the Trade Mission cancelled; if so, why. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Following an approach by the Australian Scientific Industry Association, the Department of Trade had planned to stage a series of seminars and displays in South-West Asia in May 1985. The promotions were to be held in Trade Commissioner Showrooms in Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok and Singapore. The promotions were designed to offer Australian manufacturers of scientific instruments a prime opportunity of promoting direct to end-users, Government officials and potential agents in four major markets during one visit to the region. (2) See answer to part (3) below. (3) Planning was cancelled in March 1985 due to lack of industry response. Only four firms expressed interest in taking part in the exercise, and it was considered that the promotions were not viable on this basis. The Department, and subsequently the Australian Trade Commission, have continued to liaise with firms in the industry, and the Australian Scientific Industry Association, on a range of export promotion activities tailored to the specific strengths of Australian firms. These activities include Trade Commissioner Showroom promotions in Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok in August and September 1986 (with 15 exhibitors in each) and organisation of Australian national groups in major international trade shows such as Milan MAC, Interkama in Dusseldorf and the Pittsburgh Conference on Analytic Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy. (Question No. 1391-1418) Mr Rocher asked all Ministers, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) How many consultants has the Minister engaged under the terms of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. (2) What is the name of each consultant. (3) What specific project is each consultant undertaking. (4) What qualifications does each consultant have to undertake the project concerned. (5) For how long has each consultant been engaged. (6) What is the salary or fee paid to each consultant. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Hon. R.J.L. Hawke AC MP, Prime Minister (a) Mr T.C. Dusseldorp (i) Period of employment-From 10 April 1985 until 28 February 1986. (ii) Salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 4. (iii) Qualifications-Mr Dusseldorp has a Bachelor of Social Science degree from Portland State University and a Bachelor of Law degree from the University of New South Wales. His working experience included periods as a freelance writer, film producer, and project manager and consultant to the Law Foundation of New South Wales. Immediately prior to his engagement as a Ministerial Consultant, he was Executive Director of the Work Skill Australia Foundation and of the H V Evatt Memorial Foundation. (iv) Specified Tasks-Provide advice to the Government and particularly the Prime Minister and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs on the development and implementation of policies and programs to meet the special needs of youth now and in the foreseeable future. In consultation with Ministers, departments and agencies, and as appropriate with employer, union and youth organisations, identify major problems facing youth in particular in: labour markets; wages; education retention; transition from school to work; access to tertiary education and training; apprenticeships and other in-house and technical training; and social and health programs (e.g. homelessness, drugs, crime). Review and evaluate the effectiveness of all relevant Commonwealth policies, administrative and financial arrangements including: current training schemes; income support systems; departmental responsibilities; and budgetary measures. In the conduct of evaluations and the provision of advice, be required to supervise and take responsibility for the work of groups of officers including Senior Executive Service officers and other consultants employed in the Office of Youth Affairs and to develop effective networks to co-ordinate advice on youth matters provided to the Cabinet from other Commonwealth departments and agencies, State and local government bodies and private organisations. Be responsible for supervising the management of the Office of Youth Affairs. In consultation with Ministers and relevant agencies, be responsible for advising on and implementing agreed public information programs and presentation arrangements for the Government's youth policies and programs taking into account attitudes and views of youth, including their own perceptions of the problems and possible solutions. Carry out other related tasks as directed. The Honourable Lionel Bowen mp, Attorney-General (a) Mr J.R. Young (1) Period of employment-From 22 April 1985 for two years as a part-time consultant. (ii) Annual fee of $20,000. (iii) Qualifications-LL.B. (Hons) (Melb), Barrister at Law, Supreme Court of NSW; formerly Legal Officer, Premier's Department, NSW (Anti-Discrimination Board) Feb 1983-June 1984: variously Legal Research Advisor and Ministerial Advisor to Shadow Attorney-General (Hon L. F. Bowen) June 1976-1980; Legal Advisor to Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs (Hon L. F. Bowen) 1980-May 1982. (iv) Specified Tasks-Advise the Attorney-General on: constitutional law and general constitutional issues, including the Constitutional Convention; human rights law, including particular questions such as racial discrimination; aboriginal land rights and associated legal issues; national companies legislation and related legal questions; and various aspects of Commonwealth/State relations. Consult with Department officials on the preparation of legislation and explanatory material. Research and drafting of speeches. Represent the Attorney-General at and advise Government Members' Legal and Administrative Policy Committee. (b) Mr G. J. Crough (i) Period of Employment-From 14 May 1985 for two years as a part-time consultant. (ii) Annual fee of $20,000. (iii) Qualifications-B.Ec (Hons) (Sydney). Mr Crough has been employed at the University of Sydney, engaged in both research and teaching in economics and related fields for ten years, and has written numerous articles and books on subjects including the Australian banking and financial system, international corporations and corporate responsibility; active in consumer movement, formerly Senior Private Secretary to Minister for Trade/Attorney-General (Hon L. F. Bowen) 1983-1985; Ministerial Advisor to Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs (Hon L. F. Bowen) 1982-1983. (iv) Specified Tasks-Provide advice on consumer affairs and trade practices matters, and other issues as may arise. Research and drafting of speeches. Represent the Attorney-General at, or attend with him as advisor, Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers. Advise Attorney-General concerning copyright in relation to computer industry and high technology. Advise Attorney-General on matters of taxation policy and reform. Liaison with National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council and advise generally concerning authorities and bodies in consumer affairs and trade practices areas. Senator the Honourable John Button, Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (a) Dr G. N. Evans (i) Period of Employment-From 4 June 1985 for a maximum of three years. (ii) Salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 3. (iii) Qualifications-Experience in science and technology as a professional scientist and experience in developing policy and liaising with industry and other sources in industry matters. (iv) Specified Tasks-Formulation of policy advice to the Minister on portfolio matters, both on the initiative of the consultant and on request from the Minister. In this task the consultant would be expected to gather information and views from whatever sources necessary, including departmental and industry sources. Such advice would be expected to encompass both political and non-political analysis of portfolio matters, as necessary. Monitoring and critique of advice to the Minister from any other source as required, or on the consultant's own initiative. Liaison and contact work on the Minister's behalf, both with departmental officers and outside interests. Participation in policy formulation bodies such as task forces and inter-departmental committees as required, and/or provision of briefing on such work. The Hon Ralph Willis MP, Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (a) Ms H. J. Fellows (i) Period of Employment-From 20 August 1985 to 19 August 1987. (ii) Salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 4. (iii) Qualifications-BA (Hons) Monash; extensive, high level experience in the industrial relations field, including Principal Advisor to the Victorian Government and Chairman, Conciliation and Arbitration Boards with the Victorian Industrial Relations Commission. (iv) Specified Tasks-To provide an advisory function for the Minister on industrial relations issues, including: The Government's consideration of the Hancock Report into industrial relations system; and Wages policy development. The Hon P. J. Keating MP, Treasurer (a) Dr D. B. Hughes (i) Period of Employment-From 24 June 1985 for two years. (ii) Salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 4. (iii) Qualifications-B.Sc (Econ) London, AM, PhD (Princeton); Formerly Reader in Economics, Flinders University; Author of 6 books and numerous journal articles. (iv) Specified Tasks-Develop policies and advise the Treasurer on economic and monetary conditions: Represent the Treasurer and the Government at high-level discussions associated with the development, implementation and review of these policies. Participate as the Treasurer's representative on the Joint Economic Forecasting Committee: Be responsible to the Treasurer for appropriate interpretations of current developments at all times in relation to this forecasting framework. Direct independent investigations of problem areas as the consultant perceives the need. Attend as adviser at peak council meetings, including the Economic Planning Advisory Council and the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes. Be responsible for keeping continued contact with business and unions over the progress of the Prices and Incomes Accord. Be responsible for evaluation and co-ordination of data inputs to budgetary measures: Participate, as required, in expenditure review and budgetary processes, including statistical and economic advice to Ministers. The Hon Michael J. Young MP, Special Minister for State (a) Ms G. Raby (i) Period of Employment-From 22 July 1985 to 29 November 1985. (ii) Salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 2. (iii) Qualifications-Bachelor of Economics with seventeen years of government experience in a wide range of public policy areas; the consultant has been responsible for the development and analysis of policies both at the Federal and State government level and has worked on programs requiring co-operative effort by all levels of government. The Consultant was seconded from the NSW Public Service where her position was Executive Director of the NSW Family and Children's Services Agency. (iv) Specified Tasks-The Consultant was employed to assess the appropriateness of current arrangements and processes for producing drugs policies at Federal and Federal/State levels. Specific issues: The Department of the Special Minister of State's representation on the Standing Committee of Officials to service the Ministerial Council; Chairmanship of a sub-committee on law enforcement; Development of initiatives announced at the Premiers' Conference; Relationship of international initiatives to domestic strategy; Methodology for evaluation of elements of national strategy on drug abuse; Effectiveness of existing arrangements. Senator The Hon Peter Walsh, Minister for Finance (a) Dr C. A. Emerson. (i) Period of Employment-From 6 March 1985 initially for a period of one year. Re-engaged under a new contract dated 24 October 1985 for a period of six months. (ii) Initially, salary equivalent to Clerical Administrative Class 10. From 24 October 1985, salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 1. (iii) Qualifications- Bachelor of Economics, University of Sydney, 1973-1975. Economics (Honours), University of Sydney, 1976. Master of Economics, University of Sydney, 1977. Economic Research Officer, United Nations, Bangkok, 1978-1979. Consultant to Government of Papua New Guinea, 1980. PhD in Economics, Australian National University, 1980-1983. Postdoctoral Fellow, Australian National University, 1983. Author of various articles on economic matters in professional journals and newspapers. (iv) Specified Tasks- Undertake research projects at the Minister's direction. Provide high-level policy advice on a range of technical matters associated with the Minister's portfolio. Liaise directly with Department of Finance officers at the Senior Executive Service level. Research and policy advice on taxation, macroeconomic and industry policy issues. Drafting Ministerial statements and speeches. Analysis of economic statistics. Liaison with Caucus Committees dealing with Finance portfolio matters. Additional duties from 24 October 1985: Undertake work on a wide range of more general economic policy matters. In particular, work in close co-operation with senior officers of the Department of Finance on technical aspects of taxation reform. The Honourable Bill Hayden mp, Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) Mr R. J. D. Nagle (i) Period of employment-From 17 April 1985 for a maximum of three years. (ii) Salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 1. (iii) Qualifications- 1983-84-Press Secretary, NSW Minister for Sport and Recreation (Michael Cleary) 1983-Planning and Research Unit, NSW Department of Industrial Relations 1981-83-Press Secretary, Leader of the Federal Opposition (Bill Hayden) 1976-81-Press Secretary/Senior Private Secretary, NSW Minister for Consumer Affairs (Syd Einfeld) 1975-Press Secretary, Federal Minister for Housing and Construction (Joe Riordan) 1971-75-Feature writer/Editorial writer/Features Editor/Assistant Editor, the Australian 1968-71-Managing Editor, The Bangkok Post 1964-68-Parliamentary Correspondent/Feature writer/Features Editor, The Australian 1961-64-Federal and State Gallery reporter/State political reporter, The Sydney Morning Herald 1957-61-Political and diplomatic reporter, Reuters News Agency (UK) 1950-57-British Army (iv) Specified Tasks- Draft the principal speeches given by the Minister in international and other fora. Conduct a review of the public affairs policies of the Department of Foreign Affairs and provide the Minister with recommendations for achieving greater effectiveness in the field of public affairs. Direct the broad management of media relations associated with the office of the Minister. Advise on public affairs and media policy issues as required by the Minister. Senator the Honourable Susan Ryan, Minister for Education (a) Mr D. J. Ashenden (i) Period of Employment-From 2 March 1985 for a maximum of three years. (ii) Salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 1. (iii) Qualifications- Mr Ashenden ba (Hons) Dip Ed Dip T, has had experience in a wide range of academic disciplines relevant to the formation of policy in education. He has teaching experience and has been a lecturer at Colleges of Advanced Education. He is author of many academic publications and has prepared papers for academic conferences and seminars at several universities. He has been involved with film and video scripts used by schools. Mr Ashenden has held several consultancy and advisory positions. (iv) Specified tasks- Draft Ministerial speeches. Prepare a series of discussion papers on educational issues as directed by the Minister. Prepare specifically papers on credentialling, alternative means of education participation, curriculum. Complete other short term tasks as directed by the Minister. (b) Mr W. Hannan (i) Period of Employment-From 28 March 1985 to 27 June 1985. (ii) Salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 1. (iii) Qualifications-Mr W. Hannan ba, tptc, has had extensive experience in administration and policy development in education and was formerly a Councillor of the Curriculum Development Centre. He has considerable teaching experience and is the author of textbooks, works on general educational questions and theatrical works. Over a fourteen year period he has edited various teacher union publications. He has addressed school conferences and seminars on curricular issues. He had a leading part in many major initiatives including the application of audio-lingual methods for the teaching of foreign languages. (iv) Specified Tasks- Assist, under the direction of the Secretary, Department of Education, in the drafting of a major statement on the Commonwealth's education policies, especially in the following areas: Interpretations of the concept of `equity' and its implications for policy; The concept of `standards' and its implications for policy; and The elucidation of the nature and extent of national concerns in education. The Honourable J.S. Dawkins mp, Minister for Finance (to 12 December 1984) (a) Mr W.P. Butler (i) Period of Employment-From 4 September 1984 to 12 December 1984. (ii) Salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 6. (iii) Qualifications-Former Deputy Secretary in the Australian Public Service, followed by 4 years as a business consultant (iv) Specified Tasks-Provision of Commonwealth assistance to Tasmania following the High Court decision on the Franklin Dam. The Hon. J. S. Dawkins MP, Minister for Trade (from 13 December 1984) (a) Mr W. P. Butler (i) Period of Employment-13 December 1984 to 3 September 1987. (ii) Salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 6. (iii) Qualifications-As above. (iv) Specified Tasks- To undertake and perform under the supervision of the Minister such tasks as are from time to time specified by the Minister. To undertake and perform under the supervision of the Secretary, Department of Trade, such tasks as are from time to time specified by the Secretary, with the Minister's consent, e.g. Reviews of the Trade Commissioner Service, the Export Market Development Grants and the Trade Development Council; and Oversight of the America's cup infrastructure funding program. (b) Mr G. A. Mawer (i) Period of Employment-From 25 February 1985 for a maximum of three years. (ii) Salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 4. (iii) Qualifications-Assistant Secretary in the Public Service with extensive policy co-ordination and development experience. (iv) Specified Tasks-Examination of existing and proposed programs aimed at the needs of Australian youth with a view to integration, rationalisation and development. (c) Mr A. P. Steedman (i) Period of Employment-Initially, from 1 July 1985 to 30 September 1985. Re-engaged under a new contract dated 1 October 1985 for a period of 1 year. (ii) Initially, salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 1. From 1 October 1985, equivalent to SES Level 2. (iii) Qualifications-B. Ed in media and communications A1 Grade Journalist. Former editor of newspapers and magazines, many of which directed to a youth audience. Experience in marketing and the production and direction of television programs. Former Federal MP. (iv) Specified Tasks-From 1 July 1985: To study and report on the feasibility of a national television program to provide information, media access and entertainment for young people and to be produced largely by them. The study will include, without restriction as to other matters: Availability of airtime by all stations Desirability of using commercial or public channels The most appropriate time slot A range of program directions and options The needs of the target audience The personnel, production houses, talent, etc., best suited for such a program The concept of access television and how to make it work. From 1 October 1985: Assist with development of the Priority One campaign, involving explanation of and consultation on the program with community groups and State Governments. Participate in a review of Youth Media Strategy, including mechanisms by which the broader youth population will be able to express their views on the strategy and its implementation. Liaise with youth groups and youth media. The Hon. Kim C. Beazley MP, Minister for Defence (a) Mr R. J. Cooksey (i) Period of Employment-From 19 February 1985 for a maximum of three years. (ii) Salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 2. (iii) Qualifications- BA (Hons in Government) University of Sydney. Prior to accepting the consultancy Mr Cooksey was a lecturer in Political Science at the Australian National University. Mr Cooksey specialises in international relations and strategic studies. As a lecturer at the ANU he has taught courses in these and other areas of political science. His publications include articles on Australian foreign affairs and defence, in which he has made significant contributions to public debate. (iv) Specified Tasks-To undertake a review of Australia's defence co-operation programs with our South-East Asian and Pacific neighbours and a review of our policy on the export of defence equipment and materiel to other countries. (b) Mr P. Dibb (i) Period of Employment-From 1 March 1985 for a maximum of three years. (ii) Salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 5. (iii) Qualifications- 2nd Class Hons-Economics and Geography, Nottingham University. Prior to accepting the consultancy Mr Dibb was a Senior Research Fellow at the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. He had held this position since 1981. Between 1970-1980 Mr Dibb worked in the Joint Intelligence Organisation in the Department of Defence. For six of those years he held the positions successively of head of the National Assessments Staff (1974-1978), and Deputy Director of JIO (1978-1980). From December 1980-November 1981 he worked in the Strategic Assessment and Policy Branch of the Department of Defence. Mr Dibb's considerable experience in defence matters was well recognised both in Australia and overseas. His main area of work at the ANU covered three areas: Analysing Australia's strategic environment, particularly developments in the Asia-Pacific region and their implications for Australia. Australian defence policy, its strengths and shortcomings. The global strategic situation. (iv) Specified Tasks- To undertake a review of the content, priorities and rationale of defence forward planning in the light of the strategic and financial planning guidance by the Government. To advise on present and future force capabilities and on the present and future balance between resource elements such as manpower, activities, operating stocks, facilities and equipment-where appropriate that advice should indicate priorities for changes to particular defence force elements within various time-frames. To advise on whether strategic guidance by Government can be made more explicit for the purposes of future defence forward planning. Advise where appropriate on such matters as: In the light of strategic guidance, the relative priority to be given to preparations for responding to various levels of threat, and their significance for defence preparedness and force expansion; The appropriateness of existing military command arrangements; The significance of the Reserves as a component of the force structure; In the light of the Government's defence policy for Australian industry, ways in which Australia's defence industry capacities should be enhanced; and Any other matters which have an important bearing on the desirable future direction of Australia's defence capabilities. In developing the above advice the consultant should look as far forward as practicable. An appropriate time-frame could be the next ten years, in which decisions will need to be taken that will shape major defence capabilities to the year 2000 and beyond. The Honourable Chris Hurford, M.P., Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (a) Ms M. Horder (i) Period of Employment-From 1 July 1985 for 6 months. (ii) Salary equivalent to minimum of Clerical Administrative Class 11. (iii) Qualifications-B.App.Sc. (Applied Geography) CCAE 1976. Ms Horder has considerable experience in the field of community and ethnic affairs, including chairing the ACT House of Assembly's public inquiries into the implementation of the Galbally Report in the ACT and Ethnic Broadcasting in the ACT. (iv) Specified Tasks- Undertake a detailed study in western Sydney of the information on ethnic communities which should be available to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Examine and assess the adequacy of existing information flows and existing channels of communication between ethnic communities and the Minister. Recommend Any appropriate improvements which could be made within existing resources; and Any further improvements which may be warranted, having regard to likely constraints on available resources. Reporting requirements: 1. Within three months; report on A: The nature and extent of information flows from ethnic communities to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, including through: (i) peak ethnic bodies, especially Ethnic Community Councils; (ii) political structures, especially Federal parliamentarians; and (iii) the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and other Government bodies. B: Extent and degree of satisfaction with these information flows, and with existing channels of communication, including: (i) in ethnic communities; (ii) amongst Federal parliamentarians; and (iii) within the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, especially the Sydney Regional Office. 11. Within six months; A: Report on the nature and extent of any information which should be available to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, but presently is not; B: Recommend: (i) any appropriate improvements which could be made within existing resources; and (ii) any further improvements which may be warranted, having regard to likely constraints on available resources; and C: Provide any other appropriate advice on matters within the terms of reference. The Hon Brian Howe MP, Minister for Social Security (a) Mr P. L. Raskall (i) Period of Employment-From 8 March 1985 until 30 August 1985. (ii) Salary and expenses of office allowance equivalent to SES Level 2. (iii) Qualifications-12 years work in University of Sydney, Council of the City of Sydney, Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education, Australian Government, and Housing Commission of NSW; publications on impact analysis, welfare allowances, taxation policies, distribution of income and wealth, effect of unemployment on public finance, etc. (iv) Specified Tasks-To work on the implications for Social Security pensioners and beneficiaries of proposals to change the tax system. (b) Dr A. Burbidge (i) Period of Employment-From 27 March 1985 for a maximum of three years. (ii) Salary equivalent to maximum of Clerical Administrative Class 11. (iii) Qualifications-The qualifications of Dr Burbidge to undertake the project concerned are MA on Housing Melbourne's Low Income Families; PhD on Income Support Policies for People in the Labour Force; 12 years work in Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, Department of Social Security, Centre for Urban Research and Brotherhood of St Laurence, and Institute and Family Studies; publications on housing, welfare services, guaranteed incomes, poverty, tax-transfer options, etc. (iv) Specified Tasks-To work on income security policies and programs and on their connections with policies and programs in Taxation, Education, Community Services and Housing. The Honourable Peter Morris MP, Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (a) Mr T. E. May (i) Period of Employment-From 2 April 1985 for a maximum of three years as a part-time consultant. (ii) Annual fee of $50,000. (iii) Qualifications-Mr May has had wide experience in the transport, building, communications and construction sector, especially as an industrial adviser. He had played major roles as a senior executive in the public and private sectors through his positions of Commissioner on both the Australian Telecommunications Commission and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) and his directorships of several large companies. Additionally he chaired the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. This Inquiry was established to undertake the first comprehensive review of the road freight industry. (iv) Specified Tasks-Recognising the Government's policy to retain TAA as a wholly Commonwealth-owned enterprise: Review existing arrangements for economic regulation of domestic aviation in Australia and report to the Government on possible options for the future; Have regard to, and report upon the impact of, the following matters insofar as they relate to domestic aviation- the public interest; the role of East-West Airlines; the role of other regional airlines and commuter (Supplementary Airline Licence) operations insofar as they impinge on the major trunk and regional routes; import of aircraft; capacity control; pricing control, including public interest considerations of passing on costs; access by Qantas to carriage of domestic passengers; the role of large aircraft charters; Commonwealth/State powers in respect of economic regulation; implications for the air freight sector; economic regulatory arrangements for domestic aviation in overseas countries, and any conclusions which may be of relevance to Australia; Commonwealth/State/Territories tourism policies; the economic efficiency implications of each option; and the Government's proposed general review of business regulations; Also have regard to maintaining the safety of air service operations-but not to make recommendations on operational/safety matters; and undertake such other related tasks as are referred by the Minister for Aviation (b) Mr J. Scully AO (i) Period of Employment-From 24 June 1985 until 23 September 1985 as a part-time consultant. (ii) Daily fee of $304. (iii) Qualifications-Mr Scully is a former Secretary to the Department of Trade and has been a senior public servant since 1966. He was appointed Secretary to the Department of National Resources on its creation in 1975 and the Department of Trade in 1977. He retired in October 1983. Mr Scully served as a panel member of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry from September 1983 to August 1984. (iv) Specified Tasks-To examine the need for any changes in international air freight policy in respect of the export of primary produce. Specific aspects to be examined include: Australia's primary requirements for stable, adequate and efficient international air freight services, provided at reasonable cost to shippers; the assessment of transport requirements of primary producers to gain access to regional markets; the analysis of existing international air freight policy and its appropriateness in meeting the needs of shippers, and/or recommendations for change; the role of Qantas and other international scheduled operators in the carriage of international air freight from Australia to various specific markets, and the extent to which non-scheduled operators could cater for any scheduled capacity shortfalls; the capability of the existing domestic aircraft fleet to operate international freight charter services, and opportunities for the domestic airlines to participate in the carriage of such traffic; whether specific areas such as North Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia have particular problems with international air freight services which would require special consideration; and any cross subsidisation of freight rates involved between imports and exports. Account if to be taken of the Government's obligations under bilateral air service agreements and the Two-Airlines Agreement and the Government's commitment that Qantas remain Australia's sole designated international airline. The Hon. John Brown MP, Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (a) Mr R. G. Groux (i) Period of Employment-From 6 May 1985 until 1 November 1985. (ii) Salary equivalent to minimum of Clerical Administrative Class 8. (iii) Qualifications-Necessary expertise and managerial skills. (iv) Specified tasks-Assist and advise the Minister on a variety of takeover procedures and new entities to be set up such as the National Sports Centre and setting up of the Sports Aid Foundation. Provide advice in the area of the Australian Government Publishing Service, Government Bookshops and EXPO. Senator the Hon. A. T. Gietzelt, Minister for Veterans' Affairs (a) Mr R. W. Thorburn (i) Period of Employment-From 1 July 1985 for a maximum of three years on a part-time basis. (Deceased 30 January 1986). (ii) Annual salary of $30,000. (iii) Qualifications-Management consultant with extensive experience in local government; former director, Sutherland Shire Hospital Board; former Sutherland Shire Councillor; former honorary officer, NSW Ambulance Transport Service; former Federal MP and, inter alia, member of Caucus Health and Welfare Committees. (iv) Specified tasks-To analyse the treatment services provided to eligible beneficiaries through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and to make appropriate recommendations on the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of treatment service delivery. The information provided in the above answer is correct as at the date of the question. Dates of cessation are shown where these have occurred subsequently. The honourable member may also be aware that my Department produces an Annual Report on Consultants engaged under Section 4 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. The Report is a requirement of the Act, and is tabled in both Houses of the Parliament. The information provided is very similar to that requested by the honourable member. (Question No. 2190) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 14 October 1985: (1) What sections of the (a) Hume Highway and (b) F5 Freeway have been upgraded, in part, or in whole, using Federal finance. (2) Which sections of the roads have had to be repaired within 12 months of upgrading. (3) What was the cost of (a) the original upgrading and (b) the repairs of each of these sections. (4) What was the name of (a) the original contractor and (b) the repair contractor, and at whose cost were repairs carried out. (5) Were any penalties (a) sought or (b) imposed for poor quality construction. (6) Have any sections had to be repaired a second time; if so, (a) which sections, (b) by whom and (c) at what cost. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since the Federal Government assumed responsibility for the National Highway system in 1974, all construction and maintenance works have been eligible for full funding by the Federal Government. Major National Highways works completed since 1974 on the Hume Highway/F5 in New South Wales and the Hume Highway in Victoria are: New South Wales freeway from Kennys Hill (Campbelltown) to Aylmerton four-lanes from Aylmerton to Mittagong second carriageway from Medway Rivulet to Black Bobs Creek dual carriageways from Illawarra Highway junction to Uringalla Creek second carriageway between Uringalla Creek and Marulan second carriageway between Marulan and Narambulla Creek bridge over Main South Railway Line at North Goulburn four-lane divided road in Goulburn between Union and Bradley Streets between Landsdowne Street and Finlay Road dual carriageways between Two Mile Creek and Dunderalligo Creek (south of Yass) Gundagai deviation including interchange and approaches to new Sheahan Bridge dual carriageways at Tumblong Deviation Stages I and II new carriageway at Kyeamba Range (south of Tarcutta) reconstruction of northbound carriageway from Table Top to Eight Mile Creek reconstruction of Mate Street, Albury Victoria Wodonga bypass second carriageway from West Wodonga to intersection with Murray Valley Highway dual carriageways on the southern outskirts of Wangaratta second carriageway south of Baddaginnie to north of Violet Town Violet Town bypass second carriageway from Violet Town to Balmattum widening and resheeting through Euroa second carriageway from south of Euroa to north of Avenel major deviation to bypass Avenel and Seymour widening to freeway standard and resheeting of southbound carriageway from south of Tallarook to north of Broadford widening dual carriageways to freeway standard on Beveridge section construction of third lane on northbound carriageway from Somerton Road to Glenbarry Road construction of third lane on southbound carriageway from Glenbarry Road to Barry Road. The Federal Government has also funded many other minor projects, too numerous to mention, as well as maintenance works on the Hume Highway in the past 11 years. (2), (3), (4) and (6) State Governments are the construction agencies for national Highway works, and are accordingly responsible for the supervision of work and the administration of contracts. They have only been required since 1983 to notify the Federal Department of Transport of any potentially serious structural failure on major, new construction works fully funded by the Federal Government. No potentially serious structural failures on the Hume Highway have been notified to the Federal Department of Transport, under this requirement. Premature repairs within the contract liability period of a project (usually 12 months) are carried out by the original contractor at his own expense. As this is primarily a matter of contract administration the Federal Government does not require notification of such instances, and accordingly I am unable to supply you with this information. However, in 1976 the Federal Government was advised of a major structural failure on the Hume Highway in Victoria. The pavement of the Wallan-Broadford section began to fail shortly after opening to traffic. This was due to the incorporation of unsuitable materials in the base ultimately resulting in rapid deterioration of the surface. The repairs costing $1.18 million were paid for and carried out by the Victorian Country Roads Board. (5) Normally, if construction does not meet the specification it is rejected, and the contractor is required to repair or replace the defective work at his own cost. (Question No. 2244) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) Is Qantas or any other international air cargo carrier permitted to carry international cargo from the entry port (e.g. Sydney) to other international airports in Australia (e.g. Perth) in containers (a) which are unbroken or (b) which were broken and then repacked. (2) Has this always been the policy; if not, when and why was it changed. (3) Can an international carrier transport air cargo across Australia which is being sent out of Australia from Perth via Sydney and which requires consolidating in Sydney. (4) Is this aspect of international air freight as it affects primary produce exports within the province of the current review of international air freight policy relating to the export of primary produce. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Those international scheduled carriers which have the necessary traffic rights to serve more than one Australian port may carry international cargo from the port of entry on to the other port(s) served subject to customs and quarantine regulations. These rights are embodied in bilateral air service agreements, which do not usually differentiate between passenger and cargo traffic rights. Cargo carried in accordance with these arrangements may be in containers which are unbroken or broken and repacked. Air freight policies or arrangements make no distinction between cargo in broken or unbroken containers. (2) Yes. (3) Yes, providing the scheduled carrier has the necessary traffic rights to serve Perth and Sydney. Air India, British Airways and Qantas currently carry international passengers and cargo on the Perth-Sydney sector. (4) The Report of the Review of International Air Freight Policy relating to the export of primary produce has been released, and revised policy guidelines were announced on 8 November 1985. Carriage of international cargo between Australia's international gateways was not identified as a factor inhibiting the development of export markets for Australian primary produce. (Question No. 2973) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Are there any drugs, chemical sprays or other noxious products which are either banned from sale in parts of the United States of America or the European Economic Community and which are currently available in Australia. (2) Are there any similar products banned in Australia but which are exported to other countries. (3) If any such products are exported, where are they exported to and by whom. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Therapeutic substances which have been banned in parts of the United States of America or the European Economic Community (EEC) are normally subject to independent review by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee to ascertain the benefits offered by the specific product versus the risks identified. Other substances, such as agricultural chemicals, are also subject to independent toxicological assessment. Substances that are considered to present a health risk may be banned or severely restricted. The use of the term `banned' in the honourable member's question can vary in meaning and application from country to country. The United Nations, as part of its work on the International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals, is attempting to produce a list of substances `banned' in member countries but has not been able to adequately define what is meant by `banned'. Substances often quoted as being banned in the USA or EEC, may in fact be only severely restricted with some remaining legitimate uses. It is not possible to maintain a record of every restriction placed on every chemical in use in the USA or EEC. Regulatory authorities maintain liaison with each other through various channels and do take cognisance of a decision by another authority to ban or restrict the availability of a particular chemical. (2) and (3) Australia is a signatory to the WHO export certification scheme and as such, drugs banned in Australia would not be exported without the expressed need of the importing country in the full knowledge that the product in question has been banned in Australia. In relation to other substances, no formal agreement exists. Both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations Environment Program are currently considering proposals to introduce a similar scheme. A voluntary scheme does operate for some substances such as food additives. Against this background no examples of products referred to in part (2) of the question can be identified. (Question No. 3124) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) It is a fact that claimants under the Export Market Development Grants Scheme with earnings in excess of $20m in a grant year are excluded from the scheme. (2) Is he able to say whether many accountants are advising their clients to build into their computers a warning device to stop them exceeding exports of $20m so that they can avoid the $200,000 fine they would then incur by expanding their exports; if so, will he take steps to remove this export disincentive. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. In introducing these amendments the Government considered that at a time when there is a pressing need to contain Government expenditure, the EMDG scheme should be directed more towards assisting the committed small to medium sized exporter. The Government believes that firms with annual export earnings in excess of $20m should have achieved self-sufficiency in their export marketing endeavours. However, claimants excluded by this provision in a particular year are entitled to claim in subsequent grant years should the level of their export earnings fall to $20m or below. (2) I am advised that the Australian Trade Commission, which now administers the EMDG scheme, has not detected any instances of accountants advising clients to restrict their export earnings to $20m or below in order to preserve their entitlement to EMD grants. To describe not meeting the conditions of a government grant as somehow imposing a `fine' is a particularly strange way to view public finance. The cost of removing the condition would be $24m per annum which would increase the budget deficit by that amount. (Question No. 3126) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) What total exhibition space is it anticipated will be available in the Australian War Memorial at 1 June 1986. (2) What was the cost of providing safe staircases to facilitate access to and operation of the exhibition areas. (3) Has poor initial design work caused increased costs; if so, will the War Memorial charge the National Capital Development Commission for the additional costs incurred. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has advised that the Director of the Australian War Memorial has provided him with the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) At June 1986 the total exhibition space will be 6457m2. Of this 5777m2 will comprise permanent exhibitions and 392m2 will provide for temporary or changing exhibitions. The remaining 288m2 of permanent exhibition space will house the proposed naval gallery expected to open later this year. (2) and (3) As part of an extensive refurbishment and upgrading program at the War Memorial completed at the end of last year, two staircases were to be provided, one on the eastern side and one on the western side of the building. When the eastern staircase had been substantially completed, the War Memorial Council expressed the view that it would need to be widened if it were to cope adequately with the large numbers of visitors during peak holiday periods or with any emergency situation. The National Capital Development Commission, which was the construction authority, did not share this view and as a consequence the Council made arrangements with the Department of Housing and Construction to demolish and re-build the staircase. The total cost of the staircase component of the building program was $91,000. (Question No. 3173) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: Did the Australian Bicentennial Authority provide support for Australia's participation in the International Garden Festival held in Liverpool, England in 1984; if so, what was the (a) nature, (b) value and (c) reason for the support. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is yes. The following are the details, based on advice provided by the Australian Bicentennial Authority: (a) The nature of the display was a bed of Australian flora arranged in the shape of the Bicentennial logo. The display was placed next to the Australian Government display. A talking post was installed next to the bed to inform visitors about the display. The display was also accompanied by a descriptive display board, Bicentennial flags and brochures for distribution. (b) The total cost of the Authority's involvement was $8,521, which included the cost of the display-its construction and maintenance, freight, storage, insurance, advertising, brochures and audio tapes. (The use of the talking post was free). (c) The purpose of the display was to advertise the Bicentennial. Some 3 million visitors attended the Festival over a period of 5 1/2 months. Australia Week was held during this period and helped to focus visitors attention on the display. The Australian Government display was arranged by the then Department of Home Affairs and Environment at a cost of $40,000. In addition Qantas provided some support and Australian horticultural organisations contributed plants. (Question No. 3192) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 14 February 1986: (1) Has the proposed education campaign for trade unions on the adverse effects of industrial disputation on international trade received Cabinet endorsement. (2) How will the campaign be run. (3) What sum will be spent on production of the campaign and the actual campaign itself. (4) Will the campaign cite any examples of actual situations where industrial disputation has had an adverse effect on Australia's international trade; if so, which examples. (5) Which trade unions will be subjected to the campaign. (6) Are there any projections of the likely effectiveness of such a campaign; if so, what are the details. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) A series of seminars for trade unionists and representatives of industry will be undertaken. The seminar program is approved and controlled by the executive of the Trade Development Council (TDC). The TDC was restructured in 1985 with new membership and a new Charter. The TDC Charter is as follows: 1. The Trade Development Council will be a consultative body with tripartite membership. It will provide the Minister for Trade, and through him the Government, advice on substantive trade policy issues. The TDC will also be a forum in which matters of concern to business or unions can be examined and brought forward for the Minister's attention. 2. The members of the TDC will be appointed by the Minister for two year terms with the option of a further term. Members will be appointed so as to represent a wide range of interests, but appointments will be made on the basis of the personal contribution they can make. 3. Membership will not exceed fourteen people. The Secretary of the Department of Trade and the Chairman of the Australian Trade Commission will be ex officio members. At least four members will be appointed to represent unions with the other members being drawn from business, industry and academia. 4. The Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson, the Secretary of the Department of Trade and two other members, one from business and one from the union movement, will form the Executive which in consultation with the Minister will be responsible for the management of the Council's affairs. 5. The Minister will convene at least four meetings each year at which he will preside. The agenda for such meetings will be as approved by the Minister after considering appropriate suggestions from the Executive. As far as practicable the agenda for such meetings will traverse substantive, current policy issues. 6. Other meetings may be convened by the Minister or the Executive following consultations with the Minister. 7. Members of the TDC will be available for consultation with the Minister as required. 8. The Minister may form specialist committees for particular purposes in consultation with the Executive. Additional people may be co-opted by the Minister to these Committees. 9. In particular, the GATT Consultative Group and the EC/Australia Trade Advisory Council will be established within the TDC. 10. The TDC may, with the approval of the Minister, invite up to four distinguished visitors from overseas to undertake programs of discussion with the business community and the union movement. 11. The TDC will be serviced by a Secretariat within the Department of Trade. The Executive of the TDC will direct the work program of that Secretariat. 12. TDC will operate within a budget allocation approved by the Minister each year within the Department of Trade appropriations. Membership of the TDC comprises the following people: Dr B. W. Scott, Chairman; Mr F. E. Peterson, Deputy Chairman; Mr R. G. Ansett; Mr J. G. Campbell; Mr. L. Carmichael; Mr I. A. Deveson; Mr T. R. Eastwood; Mr C. L. N. Harvey; Mr J. K. Horwood; Mr J. Maitland; Mr P. G. Pak-Poy; Dr J. Sloan; Dr V. FitzGerald, Ex Officio; Mr L. MacAlister, Ex Officio. The seminar program has been developed and implemented by the Secretariat to the Trade Development Council (formerly the Business Union Consultation Unit). A summary of the functions of the Trade Development Council Secretariat (TDCS) is set out below: Provide necessary support services to the TDC and related groups. Implement an education program aimed at increasing union and business awareness of the importance of expanding Australia's export trade by increasing our competitiveness and improving our image as a reliable supplier. Undertake necessary publicity in support of the education program. Advise on the composition of overseas missions mounted by the Department of Trade and assist in arrangements for the mission members. Undertake research into trade and related issues at the request of the TDC Executive or the Minister. Disseminate information about Government policy initiatives and facilitate access to relevant Departments and Authorities. Assist unions and business with the preparation of the trade related segments of their own education programs, including the provision of appropriate information. Provide an education and information service on trade related matters to unions and business in relation to their participation on tripartite bodies. Liaise with the AMC Secretariat and the Industry Councils. The trade union education program was commenced in March 1985. The following details demonstrate the penetration that the seminars have achieved: Eleven National Seminars of 3 to 5 days duration. Over 350 senior National and State union officials have attended from 40 unions in manufacturing, building and rail industries, representing 1.241 million members. Nine members of the ACTU Executive have attended, including the Secretary and Senior Vice President, plus six Industrial Officers. Twenty-five major corporations and seven industry organisations have been represented. Over 60 senior Public Servants from ten Commonwealth Departments, plus six senior State Public Servants from three States have participated. This is in addition to personnel from TUTA and TDCS. A range of State and Commonwealth Ministerial advisers, academics, consultants and journalists addressed the seminars. The Ministers for Trade; Industry, Technology and Commerce; and Defence addressed the seminars. As well as the National Seminars, five State Seminars were held, attracting over 260 participants. Additionally, the TDCS participated at independently organised seminars at the request of the Trade Union Training Authority and trade unions. Through this involvement the TDCS was able to extend the education program to a further 450 union officials. Industries covered by the Seminar Program include: metals and engineering electrical, electronics and information industries forestry, paper, printing and publishing aerospace rail processed food building and construction chemicals and plastics textiles, clothing and footwear automotive iron ore coal bauxite, alumina and aluminium stevedoring seafaring electricity The TDCS has also provided briefing for unionists undertaking overseas study missions. (3) It is not possible to identify the complete cost of the seminar program as a separate item within the TDC budget. The seminar program is only one of a number of activities in which the TDC is involved, although most of those activities tie into the seminar program. As well as the TDC Secretariat resources, the seminar program has drawn on the combined resources of the business community, a number of Commonwealth Departments and the Trade Union Training Authority. To date, the unions have paid a fee of $100 per participant at each of the National Seminars. (4) Yes. The example of the disputation arising in the Pilbara region in Western Australia in relation to proposed changes in the taxation and fringe benefits will be cited. However, it is not the aim of the seminar program to become involved in direct instances of disputation. The program is concerned with the whole range of issues which have retarded Australia's export performance. While disputation is seen as a factor in Australia's export performance, there are other issues related to the structure of Australian industry and its competitiveness which get to the heart of the matter. (5) Potentially all ACTU affiliates may be involved in the campaign, with special emphasis on those directly involved in export related industries. (6) No. Any assessment would involve pure value judgments. The objectives of the program are likely to be realised in the longer term and evaluation should not be based on short term criteria. (Question No. 3283) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: Does he or the Secretary of his Department have the power to provide a dispensation in relation to the need to pass 4 theory subjects for a senior commercial pilot's licence; if so (a) what is the power and (b) how many times and in what circumstances has it been applied. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Yes. The Secretary may exempt applicants from the requirement to pass three of the theory examinations, provided an applicant can produce acceptable evidence that he has passed equivalent examinations of at least equal standard. The fourth subject, `Air Legislation' must be passed in Australia by all licence applicants. The syllabuses for overseas and military examinations are evaluated against Australian civil aviation standards. If they are assessed as being to a lower standard than the Australian equivalent then either no exemption will be granted or evidence of significant relevant practical operational experience would be required before an Australian licence could be issued. A resume of these requirements entitled `Guide for the Recognition of Foreign Pilots Licences and Military Qualifications is available from all Regional Offices of my Department. In the case of an expired licence where a pilot's theory credits have lapsed through the effluxion of time, he or she will normally be allowed to sit for one composite examination rather than each of those passed originally. (b) I am advised that approximately 20 Senior Commercial Pilot Licences are issued each year consequent upon a consideration of either overseas or expired Australian qualifications. The majority of these involve the revalidation of expired licences. (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 amended 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 proscribes 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. 3342) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: Further to the answer to questions Nos 3216 to 3243, what: (a) was the stated purpose of each overseas trip made by employees of the Minister's Department and of all Statutory Authorities that report to the Minister in 1984-85; (b) was the classification or job description of each officer making each trip; (c) was the duration of each trip; (d) were the countries visited during each trip; and (e) was the estimated cost of each trip, with the air fare component identified separately. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: OVERSEAS TRIPS UNDERTAKEN BY EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT Trip 1: Officer-Dr. V. Fitzgerald (a) To participate in an IBM study tour and to discuss economic and budgetary policy issues with government officials; and to hold discussions with Canadian officials on fiscal and economic policy and economic prospects, budgetary reform, Public Service reforms, academic research and government expenditure. (b) Deputy Secretary of the Department (SES, Level 6). (c) 18 August to 15 September 1984. (d) United States of America and Canada. (e) Estimated total cost $12,007.00 (including airfares). Airfares $7,471.90. Trip 2: Officer-Mr R. Humphry (a) To meet with officials of the UK Treasury, the UK Government Accounting Standards Committee, the UK Civil Service Computing Development Organisation and joint management unit servicing the Cabinet Office and Treasury; and to Paris to attend an international forum on harmonisation of accounting standards conducted by the OECD. (b) First Assistant Secretary, (SES, Level 4), Financial Management and Accounting Policy Division. (c) 6 April to 6 May 1985. (d) United Kingdom and France. (e) Estimated total cost $9,158.72 (including airfares). Airfares $4,557.40. The Department of Finance paid $3,041.32 in allowances and $318 towards airfares. All other costs were met by the Australian Society of Accountants. Trip 3: Officer-Mr A. S. Podger (a) To attend an OECD meeting in Paris and to visit the Department's Regional Office in London. (b) Assistant Secretary, (SES, Level 2), Social Welfare Branch, Social Security Division. (c) 22 October to 5 November 1984. (d) United Kingdom and France. (e) Estimated total cost $6,354 (including airfares). Airfares $4,514. All costs were met by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Trip 4: Officer-Mr A. S. Podger (a) To attend a meeting of the OECD Working Party on Social Policies in Paris and to meet with UK Treasury Officials in London. (b) Assistant Secretary, (SES, Level 2), Social Welfare Branch, Social Security Division. (c) 7 June to 23 June 1985. (d) France and the United Kingdom. (e) Estimated total cost $6,338.39, (including airfares). Airfares $4,239.40. The Department of Finance paid $859.47 in allowances. All other costs, including airfares, were met by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Trip 5: Officer-Mr R. Caldwell (a) To liaise with overseas posts regarding accounting and banking matters. (b) Director, (SES, Level 1), Regional Office, Sydney. (c) 21 April to 12 May 1985. (d) Japan, Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore and Brunei. (e) Estimated total cost $7,220.93 (including airfares). Airfares $2,896.00. Trip 6: Officer-Mr O. Winder (a) To discuss accounting operations and other financial arrangements at overseas posts. (b) Assistant Secretary, (SES, Level 2), Accounting Operations Branch, Regional and Accounting Operations Division. (c) 13 May to 22 June 1985. (d) United States of America, United Kingdom, Belgium, Italy, Poland, Kenya, South Africa and Mauritius. (e) Estimated total cost $12,028.93 (including airfares). Airfares $5,880.00. Trip 7: Officer-Mr K. Whalley (a) To visit the Amdahl Corporate Headquarters in California, to attend the Amdahl User Group Conference in Washington and to discuss a computer network upgrade with officers of the Department's Washington Regional Office; to examine the Canadian Parliament's Office Automation Project in Ottawa; to discuss the computer network upgrade with the Department's London Regional Office; to establish contact with the Nixdorf Company; and to examine a Nixdorf Office Automation Project. (b) Assistant Secretary, (SES, Level 2), ADP Branch, Regional and Accounting Operations Division. (c) 4 June to 15 July 1985. (d) United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany and Norway. (e) Estimated total cost $13,965.37 (including airfares). Airfares $5,842.00. Trip 8: Officer-Mr T. Kanaley (a) To partake in an ADAB investigative mission to access and recommend on a framework for the development of and expanded bilateral aid program to Indian Ocean Island States. (b) Clerical Administrative (Class 11) Budget Development Branch, General Expenditure Division. (c) 21 October to 18 November 1984. (d) Island States of Comoros, Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles. (e) Estimated total cost: $8,084.27 (including airfares). Airfares $5,017.00. All costs were met by ADAB. Trip 9: Officer-Mr N. MacLean (a) To conduct an audit of the Department's Washington Regional Office; to visit a number of computer company headquarters; to attend an Amdahl User Group conference in Washington and to examine the Canadian Parliament's Office Automation Project in Ottawa. (b) Computer Systems Officer Grade 5, ADP Branch, Regional and Accounting Operations Division. (c) 11 April to 18 June 1985. (d) United States of America and Canada. (e) Estimated total cost $16,057.43 (including airfares). Airfares $5,182.34. Trip 10: Officer-Mr A. Forner (a) To assist Mr MacLean with the audit of the Department's Washington Regional Office. (b) Clerical Administrative (Class 11), Operations Management Section, Regional and Accounting Operations Division. (c) 11 April to 21 May 1985. (d) United States of America. (e) Estimated total cost $11,828.48 (including airfares). Airfares $4,749.20. Trip 11: Officer-Mr G. Miller (a) To participate in an aid project planning and review mission carried out by ADAB. (b) Clerical Administrative (Class 9), Aid Section, Defence and Government Division. (c) 18 May to 8 June 1985. (d) Burma. (e) Estimated total cost $4,534.82 (including airfares). Airfares $3,131.00. Trip 12: Officer-Mr A. Harris (a) To engage in discussions with UK Treasury officials in London and to attend OECD Technical Co-operation Service meeting in Paris. (b) First Assistant Secretary, (SES, Level 4), General Expenditure Division. (c) 14 June to 2 July 1985. (d) United Kingdom and France. (e) Estimated total cost $7,912.06 (including airfares). Airfares $4,952.00. The preceding information is in respect of short-term travel commenced during 1984-85; it thus excludes officers travelling to (or returning from) a long-term overseas posting or interchange. OVERSEAS TRIPS UNDERTAKEN BY EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERANNUATION FUND INVESTMENT TRUST (OSFIT) Trip 1: Officer-Mr D. Fitzpatrick (a) In conjunction with the Mary Street project evaluation team to investigate developments in ``intelligent'' building design (on behalf of the Grosvenor Place project). (b) Director (Clerical Administrative Class 10). (c) 14 April to 14 May 1985. (d) United States of America, Japan and Hong Kong. (e) Estimated total cost $7,111.80 (including airfares). Airfares $2,500.00. All costs were met by Grosvenor Place Pty Ltd. Trip 2: Officer-Mr M. Kovac (a) To finalise arrangements relating to granite supply for Grosvenor Place project. (b) Investment Manager (SES Level 1). (c) 13 December to 23 December 1984. (d) Italy. (e) Estimated total cost $3,522.90 (including airfares). Airfares $2,500.00. All costs were met by Grosvenor Place Pty Ltd. Trip 3: Officer-Mr M. Kovac (a) To finalise arrangements relating to granite supply for Grosvenor Place project. (b) Investment Manager (SES, Level 3). (c) 10 April to 22 April 1985. (d) Italy, Britain, Singapore. (e) Estimated total cost $4,616.00 (including airfares). Airfares $2,500.00. All costs were met by Grosvenor Place Pty Ltd. Trip 4: Officer-Mr R. Hammond (a) To conduct negotiations with the Hilton Hotels. (b) Chairman. (c) 12 January to 21 January 1985. (d) United States of America. (e) Estimated total cost $5,890.00 (including airfares). Airfares $4,530.40. All costs were met by Kern Property Trust. Trip 5: Officer-Mr J. Bell (a) To attend an owner's association meeting. (b) Director (Clerical Administrative Class 11). (c) 14 November to 18 November 1984. (d) Hawaii. (e) Estimated total cost $3,475.00 (including airfares). Airfares $2,820.00. All costs were met by the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. (Question No. 3361) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: Further to the answer to questions Nos 3216 to 3243, what (a) was the stated purpose of each overseas trip made by employees of the Minister's Department and of all statutory authorities that report to the Minister in 1984-85; (b) was the classification or job description of each officer making each trip; (c) was the duration of each trip; (d) were the countries visited during each trip and (e) was the estimated cost of each trip, with the air fare component identified separately. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Purpose of Visit (b) Classification/ Job Description (c) Duration of Trip (d) Countries Visited (e) Total Cost Air Fare Com- ponent $ $ Extension of Attachment to United States Veterans' Administration. Senior Specialist-in-Charge 6 months July 84 to Dec. 84 United States 9,963 Paid in 83/84 financial year ($3,000) To Study Vietnam Veteran Counselling Services in Canada and United States. Investigate Geriatric Care and other Treatment Arrangements, Extended Care and Home Help Services and Relationships between Ex-service organisations. Attend World Veterans Federation Conference in Athens. Member of Repatriation Commission (Includes wife of Member) 3 weeks October 84 Greece, United Kingdom, Canada, United States 18,240 13,586 Attend Meeting of the Collegium Internationale Chirurgiae Digestivae in Amsterdam. Visit Medical Institutions in Hong Kong and Paris. Consultant (Surgery) 5 weeks September- October 84 The Netherlands, France, Hong Kong 7,274 3,500 Attend 70th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Visit Medical Institutions in the United States. Consultant (Radiology) 4 weeks November- December 84 United States 7,871 3,000 Visit Veterans' Administration Hospital and Stanford University at Palo Alto, California. Senior Specialist-in-Charge (Anaesthesia) 4 weeks January 85 United States 8,037 3,200 Study Systems and Techniques of Psychogeriatric Care in various centres of United Kingdom Senior Specialist-in-Charge (Psychiatry) 7 weeks April-May 85 England 7,311 2,500 Attend International Meeting of American Thoracic Society, Los Angeles USA and visit Medical Institutions London and Hong Kong. Consultant (Chest Diseases) 4 weeks May-June 85 United States, Hong Kong, United Kingdom 11,928 6,000 Attend Combined Scientific Meeting of Australian and Canadian Societies of Anaesthetists and visit Medical Institutions. Consultant (Anaesthesia) 4 weeks May-June 85 Canada 10,728 5,705 Visit United States Hospitals to study hospital information systems and use of Microcomputers; discussions with staff and users of Amdahl systems on operation of central processor as a separate machine, the possibility of mainframe support for the UNIX operating system, new developments in mass storage devices and support for office automation initiatives. First Assistant Secretary (Level 3) 4 weeks April 85 United States 13,472 8,306 Attend Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine Conferences. Specialist (Medicine) 4 days November 84 New Zealand 810 810 paid air fare only Attend Standards Association Conference, (International Electro-Technical Commission). Biomedical Engineer 3 weeks August 84 Netherlands 750 (partial costs) Nil air fare AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL Attend the Tenth Triennial Congress of the International Association of Arms and Military History and hold discussions with Museum Directors in North America. Director (Level 4) Statutory Office Holder 7 weeks August-October 84 Denmark, USA, Canada 18,561 6,974 Attend International Association of Sound Archives conference and present keynote address. Assess potential acquisitions for the Memorial and undertake research for the Memorial Curator II 6 weeks August-October 84 Italy, UK, Singapore 5,237 3,629 To acquire aircraft components to enable further restoration of Memorial aircraft Curator I 10 days September 84 Papua New Guinea 3,015 1,146 To acquire aircraft components to enable further restoration of Memorial aircraft Curator II 10 days September 84 Papua New Guinea 2,735 1,146 To initiate discussions on displays for the Memorial and inspect displays at the N.Z. Army Museum Senior Exhibitions Designer 3 days December 84 New Zealand 1,110 804 Attend UK museum management and administration seminar. Study role of volunteers and lecturers in museums in the Netherlands and FRG. Participated in Visiting Professionals Program at Smithsonian Institution Washington DC; examine museum branch annex system developed by the US Army Clerk Class 9 10 weeks January-March 1985 UK, Federal Republic of Germany, Netherlands, USA 16,227 4,621 Attend International Assoc. of Transport Museums Conference and negotiate acquisition of aircraft for Memorial Curator I 12 days June 85 New Zealand and USA 6,141 4,884 OFFICE OF AUSTRALIAN WAR GRAVES Inspect new construction and maintenance work Technical Officer 6 days November 84 Papua New Guinea 2,554 1,300 Inspect new construction and maintenance work Technical Officer 10 days March 85 Papua New Guinea 2,743 1,300 Inspect new construction and maintenance work Technical Officer 14 days Apr.-May 85 Papua New Guinea 3,100 1,300 Inspect new construction and maintenance work Technical Officer 16 days June 85 Papua New Guinea 2,800 1,300 Inspection and maintenance work Horticultural Officer 20 days Sept.-Oct. 84 Papua New Guinea 4,000 1,300 Inspection and maintenance work Horticultural Officer 14 days Jan.-Feb. 85 Indonesia 3,600 1,600 Inspection with Head of Commonwealth War Graves Commission and discussions with Government authorities Acting Director, War Graves 8 days Apr. 85 Singapore and Indonesia 4,832 1,300 (Question No. 3371) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) Has the Commonwealth Employment Service conducted, or is it conducting, a survey of public or client opinion of its activities and services; if so, (a) who conducted the survey and (b) what was its cost. (2) Will he provide a copy of the results. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) conducts surveys of public and client opinion of its activities and services. As no time frame has been specified and as the resources required to extract information over several years would incur considerable cost, my response has been confined to the current financial year and beyond. (a) During 1985-86, 5 surveys have been, or are being undertaken by the CES. Details of those surveys are as follows: a study to assess community attitudes to the CES among 15 to 18 year olds and adults 18 years and over. This survey was conducted by Brian Sweeney and Associates (Aust.) Pty Ltd as part of a comprehensive market segmentation analysis, product development and communications strategy on the Australian Traineeship System which Brian Sweeney and Associates undertook on a consortium basis with the Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd; a study by Banks Research Pty Ltd to assess the characteristics of CES clients and potential clients and their occupational information needs in relation to products and delivery systems; a limited survey of 2,000 job seekers undertaken in the CES Nepean (NSW) zone to assess client perceptions of CES procedures and services. This survey was undertaken by 3 CES Occupational Psychologists working full-time in the zone; a Tasmanian research project is being conducted over March, April and May 1986 to ascertain employer perceptions and opinions of CES services and procedures. 66 employers from a sample of 1,000 businesses will be surveyed by Tastech Developments Pty Ltd; and the Northern Territory Office of my Department is conducting a survey of employers in the Territory to determine attitudes to, and reasons why employers use, the CES. In July 1986 a number of questions on experiences with, and opinions of, the CES will be asked as part of the large-scale Australian Longitudinal Survey administered by the Bureau of Labour Market Research. (b) The Sweeney survey cost $18,750; Banks Research has been contracted at $225,000, Tastech has been contracted at $20,000 and the cost to the Northern Territory office is expected to be $1,700. The survey of job seekers in the Nepean zone was achieved without any additional real cost to the CES. Accurate costing of the CES related questions, which form a small section of the large scale Australian Longitudinal Survey, is not possible. (2) Yes. (Question No. 3387) Mr Duncan asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) Did the Public Service Board intend to undertake a review of departmental attitudes towards smoking in (a) public, (b) work and (c) staff recreation areas in 1985; if so, has the review been conducted. (2) When will the review be conducted if it has not yet been conducted. (3) Is it a fact that this issue has the potential to become a matter for industrial disputation; if so, will he take urgent steps to resolve problems involved. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) On 21 March 1986, the Public Service Board distributed to all departments and statutory authorities staffed under the Public Service Act a questionnaire designed to assess progress towards implementation of the policy guidelines recommended in the Board's memorandum on `Smoking in the Workplace' dated 20 December 1984. This survey focusses on actions to discourage smoking in the workplace, and there is scope for agencies to indicate initiatives taken in public and staff recreation areas. (3) The results of the Board's survey will form the basis of a report to Joint Council (the senior joint management/union consultative body of the Australian Public Service) at its meeting in June 1986. Additionally, the Public Service Board has recommended to departments and statutory authorities that its policy guidelines be implemented through joint consultative machinery within their respective agencies. In these circumstances, there would appear to be minimal potential for escalation of this issue into industrial disputation. (Question No. 3398) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) Further to the answer to my question No. 2774 (Hansard, 11 February 1986, pages 102-3) concerning payment of taxi fares for an officer of his Department, why could not the person concerned have driven herself to work. (2) Is the work referred to no longer necessary; if not, is someone else performing the work. (3) If someone else is performing the work, is that person using taxis at departmental expense. (4) When did her Section Head approve the use of taxis for the person referred to in question No. 2774. (5) Was there someone else available to perform the work; if so, would they have required taxis at departmental expense and what would have been the cost. (6) Why did it take from 15 November to 9 December 1985 for arrangements to be made for the officer to work solely on day shifts. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The answer provided to part 2 (f) of Question No. 2774 indicated that after becoming aware of the situation on 15 November 1985, more senior management in New South Wales arranged for the officer to drive her own vehicle to the Sydney Metropolitan area, with transport by taxi being provided for the remainder of the trip. It was considered that had the officer been required to use her own vehicle for the full trip there were unacceptable risks of danger to her due to parking difficulties. (2) There is an officer performing the work. (3) Yes. (4) Officer-in-Charge approval was given on 4 November 1985. (5) No. (6) The transfer of the officer to day shift on 9 December 1985 was not related to the issue of the use of taxis. The transfer occurred as a result of the scaling down of night shift requirements. (Question No. 3409) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) Is it a fact the converters or packagers of Australian orange juice could substitute Brazilian concentrate, pay 25 per cent sales tax and still compete favourably with the Australian product. (2) What cost calculations are use to provide this information. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Australian producers of oranges are currently in a position where they can compete on price with imports of orange juice concentrate. Orange juice concentrate is an internationally traded commodity. Imports from Brazil currently represent about 94 per cent of total imports of orange juice. In 1984-85, the world price was high owing to crop failures in Florida, which is one of the major sources of supply. In that year the average value for duty for Brazilian orange juice was about $3.45 per kilo of TSS (total soluble solid). Recently, the average value for duty price of Australian imports of concentrate has fallen to about $2.70 per kilo. The Government currently imposes a tariff which has a nominal rate equivalent to about 30 per cent on imports of concentrate in order to protect the local manufacturers and, in addition, juice which has an Australian content of 25 per cent or more receives a sales tax concession. Assuming one kilo of total soluble solid is equivalent to 9.6 litres of single strength juice, then the landed duty-paid price of imported orange juice is about 41 cents per litre of single strength juice. In order to be competitive with imports at this landed duty paid price, Australian producers would have to be able to supply oranges at about $130-140 per tonne. While this price is historically low, efficient producers appear to have been able to meet this challenge. In assessing prices paid to producers two issues should be borne in mind. First, this market is extremely volatile and it is difficult to make assessments about longer term competitiveness based on the current low prices which have only operated for a short time. Second, the estimates of the level of competitiveness between domestic producers and imports which have been provided here are conservative in that they do not include any allowance for the sales tax incentives which assist domestic producers. When the sales tax arrangements are taken into account, domestic production costs could be even higher than the figures suggested here and still continue to compete effectively with imports. Further evidence of the ability of the domestic producers to compete is the fact that local producers have increased their proportion of the total domestic orange juice market. In 1983-84 domestic producers had less than half the domestic market. By 1984-85, they had captured over two thirds of the market. (Question No. 3417) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: Why are ultralight aircraft restricted to a 500 foot ceiling outside controlled airspace in view of the fact that other sports aviation categories such as gliders, balloons, gyrocopters and hang gliders are allowed up to 5000 feet. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Ultralight aircraft are generally restricted to a 500 foot ceiling to keep them separate from other traffic which is not generally permitted to fly below that level. However ultralight operations above 500 feet are possible for training and other purposes provided certain safety related conditions are met. My Department believes it is important to keep most ultralight flying, where at this time there is not a demonstrated level of skill, airmanship or understanding of the rules of the air, separated from normal traffic. Some other sports aviation activities are permitted to operate above 500 feet because of progress made in pilot training and awareness by their relevant national bodies. Similar developments should be possible in the ultralight area and my Department will be working with the Australian Ultralight Federation and other airspace users to see what additional general operational freedoms can be agreed as the sport develops in this country. (Question No. 3435) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 March 1986: Are there delays of up to 5 months of Departmental approval of road projects submitted by the States under (a) the Australian Land Transport Program and (b) the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program: if so, what action is being taken to overcome the delays. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There have been isolated instances where the approval of individual road projects submitted by the States and the Northern Territory under the Australian Land Transport Program and Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program have been delayed. The delays have generally been due to the projects proposed not complying with the previously advised National highway priorities of the Federal Government, or insufficient information being provided to enable a proper assessment to ensure they comply with the legislation. A streamlined system of project approval has been adopted under these Programs which is designed to minimise administrative workload. Under these arrangements formal approval for individual projects may be sought well ahead of planned commencement. The arrangements have recently been reviewed and discussed with the State Road Authority. (Question No. 3440) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 March 1986: Will he grant an en route rating for instrument meteorological conditions to pilots who hold a Class 4 Instrument Rating; if not, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. The training and qualification requirements for a Class 4 Instrument Rating are specifically designed to qualify a pilot to fly at night in visual meteorological conditions. They do not qualify a pilot to fly in instrument meteorological conditions and as a consequence my Department has no plans to extend the privileges of the Class 4 rating to accommodate en route instrument flying. There is, however, a comprehensive Aviation Regulatory Proposal on instrument ratings circulating within industry for comment at this time which includes reference to an en route rating but this is not associated with the present Class 4 rating. (Question No. 3441) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 March 1986: (1) What level of United States pilot's licence would qualify the holder for exemption from the full process of gaining an Australian senior commercial pilot's licence under sub-section 66 (1) of the Air Navigation Regulations. (2) Which prerequisites for the issue of an Australian senior pilot's licence are not required to be met by the holder of the United States pilot's licence. (3) Will these requirements be changed. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There is no level of United States pilot licence which, by itself, would qualify the holder for exemption from the full process of gaining an Australian Senior Commercial Pilot Licence. (2) Credits may be granted against all of the theory examination requirements, with the exception of Air Legislation, provided certain conditions are met. (3) No. (Question No. 3442) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 March 1986: (1) What is the procedure for civil aircraft requesting use of military airspace, especially in times of inclement weather, to gain a more direct and safe track into or out of major airports. (2) Is it a fact that civil aircraft are being placed in marginal visual meteorological conditions by not being granted access to military airspace; if so, will this situation be allowed to continue. (3) Will he extend access to restricted military airspace to civil aircraft by allowing requests to military control over the aircraft's radio as circumstances may require and without detailed written or telephone requests. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Procedures vary depending on location and type of airspace or as notified in Aeronautical Information Publications (AIP). At some locations a civil aircraft will merely call the military authority and request an airways clearance while at others, more formal notification is required. Procedures that are determined as applicable to individual restricted areas remain standard and do not vary according to weather conditions. (2) No. It is the responsibility of a pilot-in-command to plan and conduct the flight in accordance with the route forecast relating to his planned route. (3) As a general rule, unheralded interruptions over any operational frequency should be avoided. In any event the establishment of two way communication in this manner would not necessarily guarantee issuance of the desired clearance because military tactical commitments to airspace usage would necessarily have precedence. (Question No. 3443) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 March 1986: (1) Is it a fact that the training of commercial pilots requires them to complete their flight test in an aircraft with a motor developing more than 180 horsepower and equipped with a constant speed propeller and retractable undercarriage; if so, why. (2) Is it also a fact that some trainee pilots have no immediate need for the extra endorsements required to fly a constant speed equipped, retractable type aircraft; if so, are these trainees discriminated against by having to outlay money to gain qualifications that they will not necessarily use. (3) Is it also a fact that the requirement for testing on a particular aircraft places considerable financial strain on flying training organisations which are required to purchase or lease and maintain a sophisticated aircraft of the type outlined so as to be able to offer the service of training to commercial standard. (4) What are the benefits of conducting flight tests in such aircraft and are they sufficient to offset the problems for trainees and training organisations. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, because an aircraft with these minimum design features is typical of those which a commercial pilot would commonly be required to fly on commercial operations at the lower end of the charter spectrum. (2) The immediate needs of commercial pilots after qualifying will vary from person to person. A pilot engaged in commercial operations would commonly be required to fly an aircraft with these minimum design features. It is not necessarily discriminatory to require all trainees to achieve the necessary minimum standard for a particular class of licence. (3) Most syllabus requirements involve expenditure and flying schools should take this into account as part of their planning to offer commercial flight training. The aircraft specified for CPL flight test is by no means sophisticated and represents nearly the least complex of the aircraft types used in charter operations. The specification was developed at this level partly in response to commercial operator requirements and was adopted following consultation with the industry. (4) The benefits of conducting flight tests in such aircraft is that the newly qualified commercial pilot has proved that he can conduct operations safely and efficiently in a type of aircraft that is typically used for commercial operations. As such he will be readily employable by at least the smaller commercial operators without the need for significant further training. These benefits would appear to offset any possible problems in the industry. (Question No. 3737) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 April 1986: (1) What cost sharing arrangements does his Department have with the Department of Defence for facilities used by RAAF at joint user aerodromes. (2) How are these facilities treated in the Cost Recovery Program. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Cost sharing arrangements at joint user aerodromes are in accordance with an interdepartmental agreement reached between the Departments of Defence and Transport in 1974. The agreement broadly provides for each Department to provide and maintain, at its own expense, the common user areas and facilities of its aerodrome. In cases where particular facilities are required the costs associated with their provision and maintenance are borne by the Department initiating the requirement. (2) The Cost Recovery Program of the Department of Aviation includes only costs borne by the Department of Aviation. Costs incurred by the Department of Defence on facilities for the use of RAAF aircraft are not included as attributable costs for the purposes of the aviation Cost Recovery Program. The continued appropriateness of these arrangements was recently considered by the Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost recovery and that Committee reported that it saw no need to change the present arrangements at joint user aerodromes. (Question No. 3768) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: What (a) were the amounts paid to and (b) projects undertaken by Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their associated companies or principals of those companies, for work on behalf of the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86 to the date of answering this question. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The situation remains unchanged since my answer to Mr Blunt's question, upon notice, No. 2063 of 9 October 1985. (Question No. 3769) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: What (a) were the amounts paid to and (b) projects undertaken by Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their associated companies or principals of those companies, for work on behalf of the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86 to the date of answering this question. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See answer to Question No. 2064 which appeared in Hansard of 12 March 1986 (page 1252). (Question No. 3802) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 April 1986: (1) Is he withholding a grant of up to $27,500 to the Australian Ultralight Federation (AUF) which has been set aside for the use of that organisation; if so, why. (2) Is it a fact that he or his Department refused to make this $27,500 and another grant of a similar amount promised for release in May or June 1986 available until the current AUF President, Mr George Markey, steps down; if so, is it because Mr Markey is, in the eyes of his Department, a strident critic and too difficult to work with. (3) Did a senior officer of his Department, in a telephone call to the Secretary of the AUF on 27 March 1986, state this as the reason for the non-issuing of the $27,500 grant; if so, what action has he taken to ensure that (a) the threat is withdrawn, (b) an apology is issued to both the AUF and Mr Markey and (c) the grant promised to the AUF is paid immediately. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Ultralight Federation was advised in September 1985 that up to $55,000 would be made available to it for the 1985-86 financial year subject to satisfactory operational performance and financial justification. My Department has requested financial details from the Federation to allow consideration of what level of assistance from the Commonwealth would be appropriate. Some of the required information has yet to be provided by the AUF. The question of further payment to the Federation will be considered when all of the necessary information is available to me. (2) No. (3) No. (Question No. 3866) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) When will the staff of the Federal Airports Corporation move to the Sydney headquarters of the Corporation. (2) How many staff will be affected by the establishment of the Federal Airports Corporation, especially in regard to their relocation. (3) What are the anticipated costs of this reorganisation and the likely time span it will take to relocate and resettle these staff. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The decision on the timing of the establishment of the Head Office of the Federal Airports Corporation is a matter for the Corporation, once appointed, to decide. (2) An interim assessment is that some 1500-1600 staff of the Department of Aviation are currently employed on functions which will transfer to the FAC. The numbers of staff who will be required to relocate will be dependent upon the numbers of staff who accept offers of FAC employment and the organisational structure which the FAC adopts. (3) The matters raised by this question cannot be sensibly addressed until the Corporation has been established. (Question No. 3960) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: Is it a fact that (a) the current single age pension is $102.10 and (b) current male average weekly earnings are $413.90; if so, does this indicate that the single age pension is 24.7% of average weekly earnings. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Yes. (b) No. The single age pension rate of $102.10 has been payable from the beginning of May 1986, whereas the earnings figure of $413.90 relates to November 1985 (the latest available). Average weekly earnings figures are published every three months and the relevant May 1986 figure will not be available for some time.