Tuesday, 3 June 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr REITH —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer him to his appointment of David Solomon as a media consultant to the Constitutional Commission and I ask: Why did the Commonwealth enter into a contract with Scribe Pty Ltd rather than with Mr Solomon personally? In view of his departmental advice that `it is likely that the appointment will come under intense public scrutiny by the media and the Senate Estimates Committee', was advice sought to ensure that the contract was not a means to avoid paying income tax and, if so, what was the advice? Further, what savings in income tax can Mr Solomon expect from this scheme? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have no idea what saving Mr Solomon could expect by using his own company. That would be known only to Mr Solomon, I would think, at this stage. Let me make the point that the question of Mr Solomon being appointed was discussed yesterday, and I said that I thought he would be a most suitable media consultant. It appears that the consultancy was entered into in accordance with arrangements made by Mr Solomon, using his own company. One of the questions was whether it was an appropriate course of action to adopt, and I would think that it was. If the consultancy was through his corporation, what is wrong with that? Mr Solomon was appointed as a media consultant in his own right to one of the committees and he would be getting the appropriate committee fee. The consultancy arrangement, as I have mentioned, had the approval of Sir Maurice Byers. It was really a matter for the Commission, but I recommended it. Mr Reith —Recommended? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, because of his particular capacity. I made a recommendation because of his particular expertise; I was not opposed to it, if one wants to put it that way. What we want to talk about here is the Commission itself being able to make its own decision-which it did-that it would employ Mr Solomon as a media consultant. The fact that he used a corporation is no strange matter. I am wondering what sort of arrangement was made with Malcolm Fraser when he was asked to do his consultancy. Perhaps the honourable member would like to ask a question about that. Mr Reith —I am asking you about your appointment. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am telling the honourable member that the appointment was made in that way. The consultancy agreement was in accordance with the normal arrangements made through the Department of Finance. It is also one of the issues which, apparently, is specifically exempt from what is called the classes of consultancy when dealing with tendering procedures relating to journalists and specialist writers. They were the issues, so I do not see why the honourable gentleman is so concerned as though something wrong had been done here. Mr LINDSAY —Is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs able to provide the House with any information regarding community comments received in response to the immigration program for 1986-87, which he announced nearly eight weeks ago? Mr HURFORD —I did ask for community comments when I announced the program on 10 April, and I am pleased to say that there has been a wide-ranging list of views presented to me, but overall I am even more pleased to say that the views have been positive and supportive. The editorials in both the mainstream Press and ethnic Press have been supportive; individual members of the Opposition have approached me. It is a little more difficult to tell what the official Opposition approach is, but that is not very different in this area from many others. There is a clear support for a modest increase-not for any massive increase-and also support for the new category, the independent and concessional category, which brings in people whom this country needs. That is where the extra numbers will come from-young, educated, employable, adaptive, mobile people. My recent trip overseas shows that there are people in those categories from all over the world who want to come to this country. We have had excellent support for this policy because it is part of our medium and long term development program. However, I have to say that not all the comments have been supportive. A few spokespeople have articulated a genuine concern that there is in many minds-and I am not referring to the predictable Dr Bob Birrell who wants us selfishly to preserve this country for a few lucky whites, in spite of all those factors of our relationships in the region and so on. I am not referring to him; I am referring to the genuine concern that we might neglect the unemployed who are here in this country if we bring in too many people from overseas. On behalf of the Government, I pledge that that will not be done. We shall not take pressure off ourselves to get on with those training and retraining programs. Our record is very good and we shall continue with those policies. On the contrary, modest increases in the economic area help us to continue to create jobs and to help those among the unemployed. They also help us to maintain at the present level the humanitarian part of our program for refugees and family reunions. In conclusion, we are not bringing in people here en masse, as one headline erroneously suggested. Our increased numbers are of carefully selected people, and all the research shows that that is where the net benefits are to this country. It is not a policy of numbers for the sake of numbers. If it were that, we would be doing the politically easier thing and bringing in family reunions only, which socially we would love to do. But we cannot afford to do that if we want to keep immigration adding to this country's wealth. It is a policy of bringing in, I repeat, modest, absorbable, increased numbers in categories this country needs, and that needs to be understood well. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Attorney-General: Why has the Government caved in to Caucus and backed away from agreeing to Mr Justice Stewart's recommendation that police phone tapping powers be extended to cover all serious crimes? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Mr Justice Stewart's recommendations were that perhaps the question of extending the powers ought to relate to matters such as crime other than narcotics. That is the way the recommendations were-- Mr Spender —Or serious crime. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He did not use the words `serious crime'. He just said that it should be extended to other matters which would relate to the criminal area. We went through the concept of sending draft proposals to the various State governments; and the Leader of the Opposition will be surprised to learn, as I was, that Queensland does not wish the powers to relate to serious crime, nor does Tasmania, nor does Western Australia. In the circumstances, I took the matter back to Cabinet on that basis. Whereas I was of the view that perhaps they did want to extend it to serious crime, the State governments have decided otherwise. Mr PUNCH —Will the Minister for Aviation inform the House of the ramifications of the leaked Liberal Party policy on aviation for airports across Australia, particularly for Sydney, where it is proposed that taxpayers' funds will build another runway before the airport is semi-privatised, as per paragraph 82 of that policy? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question, and also for his efforts on behalf of his constituents in that region. His attempts to protect them from the environmental impact of airport operations are well known and they have been well supported. I do not propose to release at this time the number of the document I have received. I understand that, after deliberation, the Leader of the Opposition, given that he has to put on such a brave front on this issue, has preferred, in his relations with the Press, to call off the whole competition he set up last week. He does not want the name released at this time, so it is a matter that we will take into consideration and, when appropriate, it will be released. It is interesting that in respect of this policy, having locked this Government into the two-airlines agreement and the contractual obligations that go with that, we are now told in this document that it was all wrong, that it should never have been done and that it should now be undone. This is the policy of honourable members opposite. We have a contractual obligation to carry it through and we will uphold that obligation on an impartial and proper basis. Turning to airport management, what we are really seeing here, and what the honourable member has properly drawn attention to, is the selling off, once again, of profitable assets, valuable public assets. The idea is that, in Sydney, the Opposition would sell off only the profitable airports. First, it would set up a Federal airports corporation-one does not rush into these things, one establishes them first with taxpayers' money, gets them on to a profitable basis and, when that is done, sells off only the profitable ones, not the ones running at a loss. That is the program that is under way. That spells disaster for local communities. It would mean that airports would be handed over to private ownership. Naturally, under a private corporation, the objective has to be the maximisation of profits and returns for shareholders. In the case of Sydney Airport, have no doubt about what that means. It means, I say to the honourable member, open slather, around the clock operations and mayhem for people living in the regions of those major airports. Let us put this all on the record, because this is what it is all about. Along with that would go a loss of jobs within the corporations. There would be a loss of jobs for people employed in TAA, because if the Opposition ever had the chance it would flog that off as well; similarly in respect of Qantas. Honourable members might well ask themselves why it is that the Liberal Party is so fascinated with airports. I will tell honourable members why. It is because our major airports are also major holders of very valuable land. We all know about the obsession of the Liberal Party for land dealings and land holdings. If honourable members look at the major airports, they will understand what I am talking about. If one looks at the situation in this way one can see, after Tullamarine Airport has been sold off, this headline: `Elliott moves to take over Tulla'. Tullamarine would be renamed `Fosters International Airport'. In Sydney what better than `Edelsten grabs Mascot'? This is what it is really all about-handing over valuable public assets to the private sector, and forget the public interest. I am sure that the honourable member would like to see Mascot Airport become `Edelsten International Airport', for instance. What we are getting down to, now, is piracy of public assets and the selling off of valuable public property. That, in the view of this Government, is an irresponsible approach to the provision of airport services and the administration of aviation policy. I conclude on this note: The reason that policy is now unavailable for public discussion is the dissatisfaction within the Opposition parties with that policy. It underlines the deep division-in fact, the continuing disintegration-of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition puts on his brave front; he is bound to do that. However, the fact is that the number of the document and the document will be made available at the appropriate time, not at the time the honourable member requests. Mr HUNT —My question is to the Prime Minister. In the light of the Prime Minister's assurances to the farmers at Canowindra that he would have another look at the adverse impact of the fringe benefits legislation on farm employers and employees, has the Prime Minister concluded his review with the Treasurer? Since the legislation is well advanced in the Senate, will the Prime Minister now indicate to the House what changes will be made in order to remove the adverse impact on farmers and employees especially in regard to farm employee accommodation? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. The investigation has not been completed. I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave yesterday. Should it be the case that out of that investigation it emerges, in our judgment, that something is needed to be done, it would be done at the earliest opportunity. Mr SNOW —Is the Acting Minister for Trade aware of Press reports concerning the outcome of the meeting of Trade Ministers in Seoul last weekend? Will the Minister inform the House of the outcome of that conference in terms of Australia's interests in a proposed new round of multilateral trade negotiations? Mr KERIN —I am aware of newspaper reports and also the cables that have come from that meeting. I am pleased to say that the Seoul Trade Ministers meeting has substantially progressed the Government's objectives of having the serious problems facing international agricultural trade placed squarely on the international trade agenda. This meeting was attended by Minister Dawkins and by Ministers and officials from 21 other countries and from multilateral organisations, including the European Economic Community and its member states, Japan, the United States of America, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Discussions on agriculture by the Trade Ministers in Seoul have advanced considerably on the results obtained at the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ministerial meeting and the Tokyo Summit. In Seoul it was a widely held view that agricultural trade reform should not only be an integral part of the new negotiating round agenda but should also be treated as a matter of priority. The discussions in Seoul have made substantial progress in building a consensus for the launching of the new trade negotiating round in September this year. Great determination was expressed by nearly all Trade Ministers present in Seoul to achieve these objectives. However, I would be remiss if I gave the impression that there were no continuing problems. There remains a reluctance in Europe to address the question of agricultural trade reform on any priority basis. The Australian Government will be strenuously pursuing its efforts to build a momentum for agricultural trade reform and to achieve a successful launch of the new trade round in September. Following the Seoul discussions, the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, proceeded immediately to Vancouver to participate in a ministerial meeting of the big five wheat exporting nations-Argentina, Australia, Canada, the United States and the European Community. The meeting has been convened to address the crisis in world wheat trade and is the first such meeting for seven years. I will be going to Europe and the United States on 15 June to pursue Australia's agricultural interests further. I can assure the House that the Government is doing its utmost to ensure that Australia's interests and concerns are addressed. I can also assure the House that Minister Dawkins has also been doing an excellent job over there, and I am very pleased to get cables from Seoul such as this one, part of which states: In view of the seriousness of the problems concerning agricultural trade and policies, there was a widely-held view that the trade in agricultural products should be an integral part of the agenda of the new round. Members of the National Party of Australia might think that this is something to jeer, hoot and laugh about, but this Government regards the matter as very serious. This Government regards it as the most serious thing we can do for agricultural trade in the longer terms. The Opposition should be ashamed of the nonsense that it carries on with. Mr WILSON —Can the Treasurer confirm the assurance given by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment that support for the film industry will not be cut in this year's Budget? If so, can he also confirm that in this year's Budget the manifestly inadequate support now given to Australian families will not be cut by the taxation of family allowances, the introduction of a flat rate allowance that reduces assistance to families with more than one or two children or the abolition or reduction of the spouse rebate? If the Minister cannot give this assurance, why is it that the Government does not have the same commitment to the economic viability of Australian families as it has to the film industry? Mr KEATING —I thought that all the areas mentioned by the honourable gentleman were those that the Opposition would have to cut to pay for the extravagant promises which it has made consistently and which now total about $5.5 billion. Now we find that the Opposition has actually decided that it would, upon taking office, repeal the fringe benefits tax, so another $700m has to be added to that figure, taking the total now to about $6.7 billion. In the middle of all this the Leader of the Opposition says that he will not be questioned on where expenditure cuts may fall. He says that that ought to be the preserve of his Party and that at some appropriate time he will announce it. In the meantime he tries to masquerade as some sort of a responsible person on economic policy while trying to placate great sections of the electorate with promises now totalling the better part of $7 billion. Frankly, if the Government even for a moment were to suggest that that sort of policy were appropriate for it there would be cries from many sections of the community-the business community, the media and everyone else-insisting upon a sensible and responsible policy. Yet in this stupid question the member of the Opposition tries to nominate every area of expenditure policy that he can possibly think of and wants to elicit an answer from me on where the Government's expenditure cuts may fall. This Government faces its responsibilities for the macroeconomy and the Budget. It will do so on this occasion as it has on the previous three occasions. Whatever cuts need to take place will take place with concern for all the constituencies mentioned by the honourable member, particularly Australian families. It always amuses me that some honourable members in the Liberal Party talk about Australian families but forget that they sent 600,000 of them into poverty with unemployment. Apparently those opposite think that the unemployed are Martians or something like that and do not come from Australian families. The enormous improvement in the lot of Australian families as a result of this Government's policy is manifest for all to see. Those opposite have been arguing that the Government's policies of accommodating levels of growth and employment ought not to be sustained and that we ought to adopt a different policy. By adopting a different policy we would leave many thousands of families in unemployment. Because of the 670,000 jobs created by the Government 670,000 families have been clawed from poverty. That ought to be an important statistic, even in the mind of the honourable member. Ms McHUGH —Is the Minister for Health aware of the decision taken by the Australian Medical Association at its recent Federal Council meeting to stop bulk billing pensioners and other health card holders? As these people are amongst the most disadvantaged in the community, can the Minister advise the House what the effect of the AMA decision will be? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the decision made by the Federal Australian Medical Association that it will no longer recommend to its members that they bulk bill pensioners and other disadvantaged people. I first of all make the point that such a decision is quite unwarranted and unjustified because what it means is that one of the most affluent groups in our society is prepared at this time to place larger burdens on one of the least affluent groups in our society. Moreover, it is totally inappropriate at present. This Government has just recently announced a major and very generous increase for general practitioners in most States. Of course, the GPs are the doctors who mostly do the bulk billing. In addition, at this time we are asking the whole community to bear restraint. Yet here we have a very affluent group which is not prepared even to continue a practice which it has been following for the past 15 years. It is not prepared to bear its share of the restraint that we are calling on all the community to bear. I am very glad to say that some of the more responsible members of the medical profession are backing away very quickly from this proposal. I am glad to note that in Queensland the President of the local Australian Medical Association has reassured pensioners that the current bulk billing concessional arrangements will continue in that State, and I hope that responsible leaders of the profession in other States will take the same decision. One of the two points made by the AMA in trying to justify this extraordinary decision is the increase in the number of health care card holders and beneficiaries in the last 15 years. It claimed that holders of health care cards now represent some 23 per cent of the population. That is an exaggeration. As at December 1985 the figure was only 15.1 per cent and, even when dependants are allowed for, it does not pass above the 20 per cent mark; nor has there been any significant rise in recent years. The AMA also argues that no other group in the community is expected to subsidise disadvantaged people to this extent. I have to point out that no other group in the community has its income underwritten by the public in this country in so generous a way as does the medical profession. We hear some heckling noises from the honourable member for Barker and other Opposition members. I thought that at least on this issue we could have a bipartisan position and that all members of the Parliament would be prepared to bring their weight to bear on the AMA to rescind the policy that it has adopted. Mr SLIPPER —Will the Minister for Social Security acknowledge that there are now more people claiming unemployment benefits than there are actually looking for work? Will the Minister outline to the House whether any adequate procedures are followed by his Department to ascertain the eligibility of applicants for the dole and other social welfare payments? If no adequate procedures are followed, does this mean that the Government will accept total responsibility for massive social welfare fraud which is costing Australians millions of dollars every year? In view of the huge social welfare bill under this Government, amounting to over $17.8 billion, what improvements does the Minister propose for the administration and payment of unemployment benefits and other social welfare payments to reduce the cost of these to the taxpayer? Mr HOWE —Substantially this is the same question as was asked from our side of the House yesterday, and answered completely by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. But let me say that this question flows from a set of attitudes, which exists in the Australian community and is reflected no more strongly than in the National Party of Australia, which seeks to denigrate those people who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed and therefore to be dependent on social security payments, which have been paid at a level which can be described as no more than adequate. The honourable member similarly has recently denigrated those people on the supporting parent's benefit, many of whom represent the poorest people within the Australian community. It seems to me that it does nothing for the social security system in this country and nothing for the debate about social policies for people constantly to make unfounded assertions, usually outside the Parliament, about the extent of social security fraud. This Government has done more than any previous government to tackle the problem of overpayments, and the questions about eligibility raised in the Parliament recently reflect the provisions of the Social Security Act and indeed the policies of the previous Government. So if there have been problems in terms of social security fraud and overpayments, let me say that this Government has done more to tackle those problems than any previous government. I think the core of the honourable member's question, insofar as it has serious content, goes to the question of the discrepancy between the number of people measured as being unemployed and the number of people on the unemployment benefit. We are talking about two different definitions of unemployment and two different methods of collecting statistics. On the one hand we have a sample survey of Australian households; on the other, we have a measure of the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit via the social security system. There are reasons for that discrepancy which can be seen in terms of the growth that has occurred in recent years in part time employment. It is possible for someone to be unemployed as measured by the Australian Bureau of Statistics but, at the same time, to be working part time. That can occur simply because the means test allows people to work part time, and I think there are good reasons for encouraging that. If we want to get the unemployed back into work, I believe we ought to be adopting transitional strategies. That is one of the reasons. Another is that we have seen in recent years a very large increase in the length of time for which people are unemployed. That is a serious problem that at the moment flows through to the social security system. There is a core of people who have been unemployed for a very long time. The group of long term unemployed that are most difficult to assist are those people in the over-50 age group. Unfortunately, while I believe that the Government's record with respect to employment growth has been magnificent, in terms of the reduction of unemployment for that older age group we have seen very little improvement. Many of those people who are receiving the unemployment benefit, if asked by the ABS whether they have actively sought work in the previous month, are unlikely to answer positively because those people often represent a very discouraged group of people whose opportunities to achieve work are very limited. The discrepancy to which the honourable member refers is a problem which clearly the Government needs to look at and think about. It is a matter of concern to the Government and it is a matter we have been looking at in recent weeks, but I would say that it is not a matter which can be explained by some easy assertion that it is caused by some massive fraud on the social security system. There are complex reasons for the existence of that discrepancy, and I think the honourable member does nothing for the House by making the unproved assertions which underly his question. Mr STAPLES —My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State. Is there any evidence available to support the belief that cocaine and its derivatives will be a major illicit drug problem for the Australian population? If so, what is the Australian Government doing about it? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for his question. During my trip last year to receive briefings on the problems of drugs throughout other countries, I was somewhat staggered by the amounts and figures that were given to me in the United States concerning drug trade. United States authorities told me that the cocaine trade alone in the United States is worth something in the vicinity of $US40 billion and that it was presenting a momentous problem to them. An additional problem was that there is a new clientele of drug takers as far as cocaine is concerned. Well educated, reasonable well off people had come to believe that cocaine was in some ways a fun drug, and a drug from which they would not suffer later. Attitudes towards cocaine have hardened. Certainly my colleague the Minister for Health, the Prime Minister and I have done our best in Australia, from the drug summit and onwards, to see that Australian people are never under the misapprehension that there is any fun or any benefits to be gained from becoming addicted to the drug cocaine. The American market has become oversupplied. Drugs are becoming more readily available, on the figures that have been made available to us in Western Europe. As I said when I returned from overseas last year, there is no reason at all why Australia should not become a target for the people who are trying to peddle these drugs around the world. There is no evidence now that we are experiencing a situation similar to that experienced in either the United States or Europe. The seizures of these drugs by Federal agencies in this country have gone up only slightly, from just under 9 kilos in 1983 to just under 12 kilos in 1985. Mr Spender —It just shows how much they are missing. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member interjects with his usual brilliance. It might do him good to know that when I talked to the United States Attorney-General and asked him about the problems the Unites States was confronted with, he said: `Mr Young, it would be good if I could tell you that we are winning the war, but I cannot tell you that because I just do not know'. The honesty of that answer can be repeated here: We just do not know. When governments are dealing with this sort of trade and are up against these sorts of problems, they can only do their best. The investment by the United States in more law enforcement is absolutely enormous, but it still cannot prevent container loads of drugs from being landed in some of its major ports. That is the sort of problem the United States is up against. This sort of debate is not helped by the stupid intervention of the honourable member for North Sydney. Most of the cocaine that is detected in Australia involves airline passengers, international mail, and sea and air cargo. But absolutely essential to our fight against the drug trade in this country has been our dependence on the building up of good intelligence. All countries are going down this path, which is something we have to do also. This Government realised a long time ago that our reliance on intelligence in fighting this fight is of the utmost importance. In working overseas, as I did with the liaison officers from the Australian Federal Police who have now been placed in most of the major countries around the world, I was extremely pleased to see the open door attitude towards our police, especially in Washington and Los Angeles, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the drug intelligence agencies. Our police have a completely open door as far as information on the operations of any of the major drug rings around the world are concerned. All intelligence, whether from North America, Western Europe, Asia or the United Kingdom, is readily available in Australia by virtue of our investment in our intelligence officers overseas. We will continue with that. We have not reached the end of those sorts of investments. It is important that we build on them. We will expand the liaison officer services, Recently we placed an officer in Honolulu in order to bring back intelligence from that area. We shall involve ourselves increasingly in conferences, training programs and liaison visits to enhance effective co-operation and awareness among law enforcement agencies of the Pacific region. Already the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police has been doing that. We are confronted with a very major problem, as are other countries. Thankfully it has not reached the stage here that unfortunately it has reached in the United States and some other countries, but we can take measures to try to reach the stage where we can assure our people that everything possible is being done. In addition to the law enforcement measures we may take, we have to continue with our emphasis, as is being done by the Minister for Health, on education-that is, to tell the people of Australia that there is no fun associated with becoming involved in the drug industry in this country and that there is no fun in becoming addicted to any of these drugs that might be sold on the illegal market. Madam Speaker, a document was prepared for the ministerial council last week, and I am quite happy to table that document for the information of honourable members. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the answer he gave to the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia in which he said that the Government's investigation of the impact of the fringe benefits tax on farmers had not been completed. Is it a fact that he wrote yesterday to Senator Chipp, the Leader of the Australian Democrats, on this matter, and is it a fact that in that letter he said, inter alia, that account had been taken in the draft legislation of important concerns of rural producers? Did he also go on to say: `There is no question of the Government moving to defer adoption of the draft legislation now before the Senate'? Why did the Prime Minister not tell the House of those matters when he answered my colleague's question? Mr HAWKE —For the very obvious reason that if the Leader of the Opposition would apply his mind to it he would see that the answer I gave today is totally consistent with what I wrote to the senator. Mr CAMPBELL —I address my question to the Minister for Defence. In view of the fact that in the event of any local conflict the only ally that we could rely on would be New Zealand, and the fact that New Zealand's army is currently looking at replacing its rifles, will the Minister consider offering to the New Zealand Government at cost the weapon chosen by the Australian Army? If so, would any economies of scale derived from its additional order be passed on to it? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his totally unexpected question on a matter that is important. I preface my answer by saying that I do not actually agree with his assessment of New Zealand being the only reliable ally we have. To move on to the substance of his remarks, I think it is very much in the interests of New Zealand to have commonality with us in this item of equipment. New Zealand took a decision quite recently to acquire from us the Hamel gun and I thought that was a very useful decision on its part. I hope that it will follow that up with a decision in regard to the Steyr rifle. Substantial benefits will certainly flow to New Zealand should it choose to do so, not least of which will be an opportunity to bid in to and, given the strength of its industry, probably acquire a substantial portion of the manufacture of the plastics for the rifle. That constitutes something like 25 per cent of the rifle's value and, given that its order is only around 15 per cent of what would be the total of our two orders, that in itself is a fairly substantial initial inducement. I would think that the commonality and that inducement ought to be very attractive to it. We are, of course, in a bidding process. There is some very hot competition between the Steyr rifle produced by us and the Colt. It is a situation which we have to play very carefully indeed. I understand that to some extent we are addressing that in the downwards movement of prices. Whether we are actually giving it at cost I am not absolutely certain, but that is the situation at the moment. I will take a look at what the honourable gentleman has said and I will make a determination based on a substantial concern on our past to see New Zealand in a situation where it has commonality with us with regard to this rifle. There is always one substantial problem that one can get into when one gets into bidding in a situation such as this, and that is that some parties may decide that they may like to buy themselves the advantage of winning the contract and can bid on a basis that is effectively irrespective of costs. I do not think, however, that we are in a position and that the minimum we would require in any sale to New Zealand would be that we ought to be able to cover costs in that process. We will conduct ourselves in the negotiations in a manner that is appropriate to a country which is anxious to see this level of commonality achieved between us. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian delegation to the 1985 session of the Conference on Disarmament, held in Geneva, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Commonwealth Schools Commission report on Commonwealth programs and policy development for schools. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 78 of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1983, I present a report on financial assistance granted to each State in respect of schools assistance programs administered by the Commonwealth Schools Commission for 1984. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the eagerly awaited Industries Assistance Commission report on luggage, handbags and similar containers. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the National Research Fellowships Advisory Committee on fellowships awarded for 1986. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Meteorology Policy Committee for 1985. Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is the Industries Assistance Commission report also connected with the Industries Assistance Commission report on textiles, clothing and footwear? Mr BARRY JONES —It is analogous. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I table copies of amendments to the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill and the Australian Capital Territory (Consequential Amendments) Bill and the explanatory memorandum which the Government proposes to move in the Senate. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for De- fence) —I present the report to the Minister for Defence by Mr Paul Dibb entitled `Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities', and seek leave to make a ministerial statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr BEAZLEY —I am very pleased to table today the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities by Mr Paul Dibb. Mr Dibb has worked directly for me as a ministerial consultant. His review is not a statement of Government policy, but an independent analysis of major defence policy issues facing the Commonwealth at this time. The Dibb review will now become a basic input to the development of a government white paper on defence policy, which will lay down our plans for the Defence Force over the next decade and beyond. General Papers In preparing his report Mr Dibb has consulted closely with the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Defence. The Chief of the Defence Force, General Sir Phillip Bennett, and the Secretary to my Department, Sir William Cole, have responded favourably to Mr Dibb's conclusions on Australia's strategic environment and to his proposal for a national defence strategy for Australia, and they broadly agree with his specific recommendations on force structure, though with some differences on details such as numbers and timing. Overall, they consider that Mr Dibb has done an excellent job-and I heartily agree. The Dibb review is an intellectually complex and rigorous analysis of the defence needs of this nation in the light of our strategic circumstances. This kind of analysis has rarely featured in the defence debate in this country, because public discussion of defence here has almost always been concerned solely with the broad foreign policy environment of defence decision-making. One fundamental conclusion is that the contribution of all three Services is seen as essential to our defence effort. There is a strong emphasis on maritime and ground force capabilities in credible contingencies. There is a proper regard given to the enhancement of our capacity to deploy air power across the vast distances of our continent and its approaches. And the potential for reserve forces to make a major contribution to our defence effort is clearly established. Defence Fundamentals When Mr Dibb was commissioned to review Australia's defence capabilities, he took as his starting point the strategic assessment endorsed by the Defence Committee. He then examined the three essential elements of our defence planning environment. These essential elements are not new; they reflect long term historical trends and underpin basically bipartisan attitudes to our defence requirements. The first of them is that Australia should aim for defence self-reliance-the ability to defend ourselves from within our own resources from direct threats to our sovereignty and interests. Secondly, sound defence planning should be based on realistic budget parameters. Australia's experience has been that peacetime defence expenditure has never consistently exceeded 3 per cent of gross domestic product. Mr Hodgman —Shame! Mr BEAZLEY —Indeed, for most of Australia's peacetime history, defence expenditure has been well below this, including during the time of the hero of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), Sir Robert Menzies, when it was about 1.5 to 2 per cent of GDP. Thirdly, we recognise that low level military threats to Australia could emerge relatively quickly, but it would take many years for any country other than a super-power to equip itself to attempt a major military assault on Australia. On these foundations Mr Dibb has produced a rigorous and disciplined analysis of our force structure requirements. Self-Reliance Australians have a right to expect that their nation is able to defend itself. That is at the core of nationhood, and it has long been an Australian aspiration. Just 50 years ago this year, John Curtin told this House: The people of Australia would expect this country to be capable of defending itself should the occasion arise. He went on to say: A greater degree of self-reliance in Australia's defence is essential. In that speech in 1936 Curtin predicted the events between December 1941 and March 1942. He foretold that Britain, fighting for its life in Europe, would be unable to send its Navy to defend Australia from the Japanese, and that without that fleet the inevitable fall of Singapore would lay Australia open to peril. He concluded: The dependence of Australia on the competence, let alone the readiness, of British statesmen to send forces to our aid is too dangerous a hazard on which to found Australia's defence policy. In 1936 Curtin's policy was hotly debated and rejected-to Australia's great cost. But today self-reliance is beyond debate. A self-reliant Australia is an expectation both of the Australian people and of our allies. It has been required by our principal ally, the United States of America, since the early 1970s. This requirement has been reiterated by successive United States administrations. In a major defence policy statement in November 1984, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said: We have learned that there are limits to how much of our spirit and blood and treasure we can afford to forfeit in meeting our responsibility to keep peace and freedom. So while we may and should offer substantial amounts of economic and military assistance to our allies in their time of need, and help them maintain forces to deter attacks against them we cannot substitute our troops or our will for theirs. The previous Government recognised the relationship between self-reliance and a sound contribution to alliance relationships when it said in its 1976 White Paper-and I could not put this better myself: This self-reliant posture derives essentially from our own national interests and responsibilities. It also accords with our status as an ally of the US, for by accepting our local responsibilities we can contribute to the alliance relationship and to the US global effort. Mr Peacock —That is not what you are saying. Mr BEAZLEY —That is both what I am saying and what the honourable member said. The ability to defend itself is the absolute minimum that any self-respecting country should contribute to an alliance. Australia can scarcely pretend to contribute to the defence of broader Western interests if it cannot even defend itself. Indeed, as United States Secretary of Defense Weinberger said at the National Press Club in April: Defense of a country's own borders and own airspace and the sea around it, obviously, is a prime attribute of sovereignty and, of course, has to be one of the first priorities of any country. So a policy of self-reliance contributes to the strength of the alliance, and Australia makes a further substantial contribution to Western security, as well as to international stability, by hosting the joint defence facilities and through a range of other co-operative activities such as regular visits by ships of the United States Navy. Equally, the alliance with the United States contributes to Australia's ability to defend itself. Mr Dibb concludes that a self-reliant defence of a continent the size of ours demands access to intelligence, high-technology sensors and military equipment. For much of this the United States is the best source by far, and for some it is the only source. This is an important conclusion, and one which should not be overlooked in our thinking about the defence relationship with the United States. Our United States alliance will remain a significant deterrent to any potential aggressor. Any nation contemplating the use of force against us would have to reckon with the help, including possibly the direct military assistance, which the United States might provide to Australia. That possibility would inevitably be a major complication in the plans of any would-be attacker, and thus it serves as a powerful deterrent. Our relationship with New Zealand is also of particular importance because of our common history and traditions, our proximity and our shared strategic concerns. Under ANZUS we have co-operated effectively with both the United States and New Zealand for many years to preserve our strategic environment. This co-operation continues with both parties, despite the difficulties in the Unites States-New Zealand bilateral relationship. Nonetheless, we look forward to the resumption of full trilateral co-operation under ANZUS when this becomes possible. We continue to value our excellent relations with all countries in our region and particularly with the members of the Association of South East Asian Nations and of the South Pacific Forum. Our good relations with our neighbours is a major enhancement of our security, and we value the contribution which good defence relations can make to the development of a broader understanding and harmony between ourselves and our neighbours, particularly under such programs as the defence co-operation program and the five-power defence arrangements. Mr Dibb points out that such defence relations offer political benefits which exceed, often, their direct military value. I believe there is no fundamental difference between this Government and the Opposition parties over the doctrine of self-reliance and what this means for our alliances. The coalition Government's White Paper in 1976 was based explicitly on a self-reliant defence posture. In a key paragraph, that White Paper said: A primary requirement emerging from our findings is for increased self-reliance. In our contemporary circumstances we can no longer base our policy on the expectation that Australia's Navy or Army or Air Force will be sent abroad to fight as part of some other nation's force . . . We believe that any operations are much more likely to be in our own neighbourhood than in some distant or forward theatre. We agree. But despite this broad agreement on these basic issues, a clear conception of Australia's real defence needs in an era of self-reliance did not emerge from the coalition's seven years of government. There were a number of reasons for that. One was the coalition's failure to establish a reliable financial basis for defence planning. Australia spends about 3 per cent of GDP on defence. We spend more on defence than on any other Commonwealth responsibility except social welfare and health. This year the defence bill is over $6.5 billion-almost 10 per cent of total Commonwealth outlays. This is a huge investment of Australia's national wealth, and of the wealth of individual Australians. Defence costs every man, woman and child in Australia over $400 per year. Because such vast sums of money are involved, it is impossible to plan responsibly for defence without realistic financial guidance. Such guidance must respect the economic and political limits to the levels of defence spending which can be sustained in peacetime. The last coalition Government twice proposed major expansions in defence spending, in 1976 and 1980. In both cases, the proposed high levels of expenditure on which defence planning was based simply could not be sustained, and on both occasions defence spending fell back to below previous levels within a year. The effect on defence budgeting of this glut-and-famine approach to spending levels has been very damaging. Indeed, the levels were set at about 5 to 7 per cent of GDP and about a 2.5 per cent real increase on average was achieved. In one year, in one instance, we had an increase of about 5 per cent at real levels of defence expenditure and the next year there was negative real growth. An effective and efficient defence force cannot be developed by making grandiose commitments when international crises make defence spending popular, and then slashing spending the next year as defence concerns recede. Yet that was the record of the previous coalition Government. More fundamentally, the coalition Government simply failed to put into practice the philosophy espoused in its 1976 White Paper, because it would not tackle the hard issues involved in developing a self-reliant force structure. Comprehensive force structure planning was neglected and all too often procurement decisions reflected political and financial expediency. The protracted wrangle over replacing the aircraft carrier perfectly reflected its indecisiveness and lack of vision. In such an atmosphere it is not surprising that competing force structure philosophies flourished within the defence community. When this Government came into office it sought detailed advice on our future force structure. But we found that there was no agreement, even on the scale of war we should be preparing to fight. Defence Planning The difficulties which the defence establishment has faced in resolving these issues are indicative of broader problems which Mr Dibb found in Australia's defence planning. One specific problem identified by the review is that each of the three services continues to do much of its initial force structure planning in isolation. This can lead to narrow and competitive views of Australia's defence needs. I am pleased to announce that the Government has decided to tackle this problem by appointing a Vice Chief of the Defence Force directly responsible to the Chief of the Defence Force for co-ordinating military planning. This officer will be equal in rank to the chiefs of the individual services and his appointment will mean that, increasingly, planning by the separate services will be fully co-ordinated. As well, the Secretary to my Department and the Chief of the Defence Force are examining other ways to streamline force structure planning. I am also pleased to report that Mr Dibb's work has done much to reconcile different views within the defence community on some of the fundamental issues in our defence planning. In particular, the Chief of the Defence Force and the Secretary to my Department have advised me that they accept and support Mr Dibb's conclusions on the level of contingency which should have priority in our defence planning. Threats and Warning Mr Dibb has endorsed the judgment that major threat to Australia's security-other than in the context of global war-would take some 10 years to develop. This judgment has been endorsed by successive defence committees and has been accepted by successive governments from both sides of this House for over a decade. It is based on an expert technical assessment that no country, other than a super-power, has the capability now to mount a major attack in the face of Australia's existing defence forces, and that it would take at least 10 years for such a capability, as opposed to the politics of it, to be developed. Mr Peacock —That is not what you are saying. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member says that that is rubbish. As Foreign Minister he presided over or was influential in Cabinet discussions which would have come to the same conclusions on a successive strategic basis. But the capabilities to mount low-level attacks of various sorts against Australia already exist or are in prospect. Such attacks could be mounted with quite modest forces of a sort and level maintained by most countries for their own legitimate purposes. Such low-level attacks would not threaten Australia's national survival, but they would nonetheless be serious emergencies. Mr Dibb has found that this range of low-level military contingencies would pose more acute defence problems than is generally believed or has been accepted by previous governments. A campaign of maritime harassment, and raids in remote areas, could severely test our present defence capacity. He recommends that these lower level contingencies should receive more attention in defence planning than they have in the past. This is not a prediction of military threat. I want to emphasise that Australia enjoys good relations with its neighbours, and no country is likely to develop hostile intentions towards us. Before any country could develop an intention to attack us, relations would have to deteriorate dramatically and fundamentally. But because circumstances and intentions can change relatively quickly, our forces need to be prepared to cope with credible levels of conflict. These can be set by considering the limits of regional military capabilities. An important corollary of these judgments is that we would receive considerable warning of any effort to increase military forces to the point where they would have the capability to mount a major attack against Australia. Australia would have time to expand and develop its forces to meet higher threats as they developed. The challenge posed by the concept of warning time is to develop a defence force which could meet low-level threats arising with little warning, and yet could also be expanded fast enough to meet a higher level threat should a potential adversary begin to develop the necessary capabilities. This challenge has not been adequately met in the past. The concept of a `core force' has been developed on the basis of warning time, and Mr Dibb notes that it provides a useful set of basic principles on which to define the capabilities required for high-level conflicts. But he sees, in addition, the need for a strategic concept focused on dealing with lower levels of conflict within our neighbourhood. In the area of assessment of threat, this represents the most substantial change between the previous Government's emphasis essentially on core force and our emphasis on not only core force but readiness as well. Defence Strategy for Australia Force planning needs a clear overall conception of how Australia's defence forces would meet a threat before it can be decided in detail what sort of forces are needed. In articulating that strategic concept Mr Dibb has made a most important contribution to improving our defence planning. To bridge the gap between strategic guidance and specific force structure proposals, Mr Dibb has developed a defence strategy for Australia which he has called a `strategy of denial'. I want to make it perfectly clear that this has nothing to do with Fortress Australia, as some have suggested before they have seen anything of the Review's contents. Mr Dibb's defence strategy embraces three key features. The first is a focus on the specific geographical features of Australia and its surroundings. The second is a concept of layered defence which takes advantage of our geography. Thirdly, there is a need for a clear understanding of the levels of threat we may face. The Chief of the Defence Force and the Secretary to my Department endorse these basic principles. Strategic Geography Mr Dibb argues that our unique geographical environment should play a central role in Australian defence planning. He argues that the vast maritime areas which surround Australia-known to strategists as the sea-air gap-and the remoteness and harshness of our northern areas critically determine the military options of both attack and defence. Australia's huge distances contribute to its security, particularly from major attacks, because only the super-powers could project and sustain large scale military force on to its shores. But in lower levels of conflict, the effects of distance work less in Australia's favour. Although the sea-air gap remains a formidable barrier to forces of any size, our vast northern areas mean that a major Australian defence effort could be needed to find and repel small attacking forces. Mr Dibb concludes that our defence forces need to be structured specifically to exploit the strengths and to guard the weaknesses inherent in our strategic geography. To provide this geographic focus for our defence planning, Mr Dibb has indicated an area of Australia's direct military interest. The characteristics of this area should be the overriding determinants of the capabilities required in the ADF. Broadly speaking, this area of direct military interest covers the whole of Australia's land mass, and extends some 1,000 nautical miles beyond it in all directions. That area is around 10 per cent of the earth's surface and it covers distances equal to those from Sweden to Afghanistan or from Finland to the Suez Canal. I noticed in a Press release today that I have been accused of inventing a Maginot Line. Some Maginot Line! If Switzerland decided to take on such a challenge it would describe its area of direct military interest as extending from Finland to the Suez Canal-or it would be like Sweden taking on an obligation in Afghanistan. That gives some idea of the areas covered. Australia's area of direct military interest is not, of course, the limit of our strategic concerns. Mr Dibb identifies a broader area which he calls our `sphere of primary strategic interest', which extends throughout South East Asia, the eastern Indian Ocean and the South Pacific. As I have said, those boundaries are rather like those outlined in the 1976 White Paper. We have important strategic relationships in this region which we should develop and strengthen. The area involved takes in almost a quarter of the surface of the globe. I defy anyone to describe this as an isolationist approach for a country with a population of only 16 million. To go outside that and describe that policy as isolationist renders honourable members opposite a joke. Mr Peacock —It is a policy of retreat-right into a shell. Mr BEAZLEY —It is a shell which covers 25 per cent of the entire globe. The definition of Australia's area of direct military interest does not preclude the possibility of Australian forces being sent further afield, in either fighting or peacekeeping roles. That, of course, would be a matter for determination by the government at the time. What Mr Dibb proposes is that priority should be given to developing those capabilities which best enhance Australia's capacity to deny an enemy substantial military success against us within our area of direct military interest. That is the Australian Defence Force's prime national task, and that should determine its organisation and equipment. But forces designed to do that job will be capable of making a contribution further afield as well, should the need arise. Layered Defence Mr Dibb proposes that our strategic geography can best be exploited by a system of `layered defence' within our area of direct military interest. The first layer-and Australia's most important defence planning concern-is to prevent any hostile force crossing the sea and air gap. For this we need good intelligence and surveillance as well as air and sea forces capable of interdiction. Closer in-the second layer-a range of capabilities is needed to defend our off-shore resources and the coasts themselves, including air defence, mine counter-measures and appropriate naval ships. Lastly-in the third layer-we need highly mobile land forces capable of operating across the north to protect population, military installations, infrastructure, and industry. It is important to point out that under the strategy which Mr Dibb has proposed, each of our three Services has a vital role to play at all levels of contingency. Force Structure I turn now to Mr Dibb's specific proposals about the force structure which its strategy requires. I will not attempt here to go through all his recommendations, but I want to identify some major issues and, where appropriate, to indicate the Government's intentions. The issues here focus on the classic question of how much is enough. At a time when Australia is at peace, and expects to remain so, these are not easy matters to resolve. Defence has to fit into national Budget strategies, like everything else. Defence planning has to be very rigorous, and our defence dollar needs to be spent wisely. Let me emphasise first that Australia already has substantial military forces. Our intelligence and surveillance systems are the most advanced in the region. Our strike and interdiction capabilities include some of the most potent equipment available anywhere in the region, and we have well trained maritime and land forces that are being progressively re-equipped with modern weapons and support systems. The high priority for intelligence and surveillance capabilities recommended by Mr Dibb accords with the Government's thinking, and is reflected in current programs. Mr Dibb gives special attention to the over-the-horizon radar project which offers the very real possibility of allowing continuous monitoring of the great expanses of our sea and air approaches. We are looking at ways in which this program can be accelerated and expanded. The review notes that the further development of over-the-horizon radar may have implications for other systems such as airborne early warning. I am on record as favouring the acquisition of airborne early warning aircraft. Mr Dibb's advice is that an early decision on acquisition is not required. Instead, studies should go ahead in parallel with the further development of over-the-horizon radar. Those studies are proceeding and the capability will be considered by the Government as the White Paper is prepared in the next few months. The introduction of the highly capable FA18 marks a major improvement in our air defence capacity. I accept Mr Dibb's advice on our need for aerial refuelling, particularly to provide the FA18 with an improved capacity to provide air cover for surface ships. Planning for aerial refuelling is continuing on this basis. The review gives careful attention to our strike forces. Our 23 F111 aircraft and six submarines are unmatched in regional terms, and we have formidable strike potential in other forces such as the Orion and FA18 aircraft. The review concludes that the F111 force should be retained until the mid-1990s, when decisions about its long term future will be required. The review endorses the new submarine program, which will introduce new highly capable submarines into the force structure in the 1990s. The potential of mine warfare against Australia is given particular attention in the review. Mr Dibb observes that we have a major force structure deficiency in the much-deteriorated state of our mine countermeasures force. Although some progress is being made, this is an area where we have unacceptable vulnerabilities. I am determined to remedy this as quickly as possible. I observe here that this experience illustrates the need for setting clear force structure priorities. Arguments can be found to acquire many capabilities. Some would argue for another fleet underway replenishment ship. Some would argue for more fighter aircraft and more tanks, all equipped with the latest in electronic combat systems and weapons. But these arguments have to be set against clear deficiencies in our capacity to handle credible contingencies-at a very low level of warning time-such as an effective mine countermeasures force. Similar considerations apply to our requirements for surface ships. Mr Dibb starts with the fundamental issues: For what purposes do we need surface ships, of what kind, and how many? He rigorously examines the demands of Australia's maritime environment. Mr Dibb identifies important roles for surface ships in lower levels of conflict. But he notes that there are some concerns about the vulnerability of surface vessels in higher levels of conflict, particularly when the very high costs of modern highly capable surface combatants are considered. He concludes that our surface fleet may become deficient in its capacity to handle a range of maritime contingencies if it is limited on the one hand to higher capability destroyers which can be afforded only in small numbers, and on the other to small patrol boats whose capabilities are essentially limited to peacetime tasks. Mr Dibb therefore proposes introducing substantial numbers of a new class of light patrol frigate in the 1990s. The light patrol frigate should be able to provide an effective maritime presence in credible contingencies in more exposed or distant waters, and to contribute to the protection of important focal areas and our shipping. This proposal represents a major advance in thinking about maritime priorities. These new frigates should be capable of carrying a complex modern weapon fit, including Harpoon missiles, a gun, air defence systems and a helicopter. This is no brown water ship. Vessels like it are readily identifiable in North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces, although ours would need to be tailored specifically to meet Australian requirements. The outcome would mean, if the Government were to adopt Mr Dibb's maximum suggestions, a substantial increase in the business end of the surface fleet. From 12 highly capable-if, in some instances, aging-warships, we could go as high as 17. These ships would be in two categories: The first category would be heavy destroyers of the FFG/DDG variety, the capabilities of which were substantially enhanced by the Government's decision to acquire Seahawk helicopters, which, as I pointed out in the House previously, are perfectly compatible with operations of an American carrier battle group. The second category would be a class of light patrol frigate which would replace aging destroyer escorts and some of the less capable patrol boats. Mr Dibb identifies a real role for the Army, and he comprehensively refutes those who would do away with ground forces and rely solely on our air and naval forces. Mr Dibb concludes that low level conflict would be a formidable problem for our ground forces. The first priority for ground force planning would be forces to deal with raiding groups in a range of low level conflicts. The emphasis would need to be on light but adequately armed forces, highly mobile, able to operate over vast distances, and needing the minimum of logistic support with concentrated protective forces in key areas. But Mr Dibb also notes that the possibility of fighting a conventional land battle in Australia is not so entirely improbable that we should not retain some limited skills and expansion capacity against such an event. The appropriate forces for such circumstances should be developed within the framework of a force giving priority of manning and equipment to the needs of lower level, more credible contingencies. An important recommendation of the review is the need to upgrade substantially the tactical mobility of our ground forces by expanding the utility helicopter force. This is the single most expensive equipment addition to the current program that the review recommends. Mr Dibb also identifies a need for the Army to be provided with adequate ground mobility and firepower. While the current M113 armoured personnel carrier may not be ideal it is generally adequate in the short term, perhaps with some modifications. In the long-term program for the replacement of the M113 there is time and scope for practical experimentation with different vehicle types, particularly in the north of the continent. There may also be a place for specialised mobility vehicles. Mr Dibb sees a reduced need for armour and mechanisation of our ground forces, and considers that artillery should be constrained. I emphasise that he does not propose doing away with these capabilities. Rather he proposes limiting the resources applied in these areas, and that the reserves should take a greater role in maintaining the expansion base elements. I note that there are some reservations in the Defence Force about the practicability or timing of some of these capability adjustments. Similarly, practical considerations may limit the speed with which the proposals for basing of major Regular Army units in the north can be implemented, although options are being considered for a smaller unit. These differences should not obscure the major contribution that has been made to our understanding of the role of Australian ground forces. Mr Dibb has confirmed our northern areas as the priority area for ground force operations; he has examined the nature of the conflict that could be expected there; and he has drawn attention to the huge logistic problems of dispersed operations across a vast and harsh northern hinterland. The Dibb review confirms the central role of airpower in the defence of Australia at all levels of conflict, and it endorses the RAAF's basic structure and capabilities. But the review calls for these resources to be more directly focused on the specific strategic requirements of Australian defence. To this end he recommends the development of more air bases in the north, for example, and the acquisition of air to air refuelling for the FA18's. The review also confronts the airforce with the vital challenge of developing a comprehensive surveillance system involving an optimum combination of over the horizon radar, airborne early warning and ground-based radar. I mention now some other issues raised in the review. The review does not propose any radical changes to the existing command and control system, but notes that the trend is for the joint command structure under the Chief of Defence Force rather than single service operations. This trend is already reflected in the move towards functional command arrangements, and will be assisted by the appointment of a Vice Chief of the Defence Force. Other command and control proposals-the question of control of the battlefield utility helicopters and the establishment of a northern command-are already being examined within Defence. Reserves Mr Dibb makes a number of major recommendations about the reserves, designed to give them more central and challenging roles in the ADF. Mr Dibb proposes that the Army reserve should take over from the regulars some of the heavier weapons-including tanks and artillery-which are maintained primarily to provide a base for expansion. This would entrust the reserves with a vital and exciting role. But that does not mean that the reserves will only have a role in remote, high-level contingencies. It is also proposed that the Army reserve should be given specific responsibility for the security of vital installations in our north. Mr Dibb has concluded that this task would be a major undertaking even in the type of low-level contingency which could emerge with little warning. Mr Dibb envisages that individual reserve units in southern States should be allocated specific towns and installations in the north which they would be deployed to defend in an emergency. Reserve units would deploy to exercise regularly in their allocated area of responsibility, giving them greater familiarity with their wartime tasks, and increasing their sense of purpose. Similar recommendations are made for the Air Force and Navy reserves, in relation to which Mr Dibb recommends a substantial expansion. In the Air Force, Mr Dibb proposes that reservists take over specific roles in aircraft maintenance and airfield defence. In the Navy he proposes that reservists should take over the operation of mine counter-measures vessels, which, as I have said already, is one of the key areas of defence in plausible low level contingencies. The Government is very concerned to strengthen the role of the reserves in the ADF, and I believe Mr Dibb's proposals are an excellent guide to how this could be done. As a start, I agree with Mr Dibb's endorsement of the long-standing proposal that limited call-out of the reserves should be possible in situations short of a declared defence emergency. I intend to take legislation to this effect to Government. When implemented it will do much to increase the value and flexibility of the reserves as an integral part of the ADF. These new tasks and directions for the reserves will require a greater training effort, and we will be considering increasing the number of days training each year. We will also consider an increase in Army Reserve numbers from the current figure of 23,000 to a new ceiling of 26,000 by 1988, instead of the present ceiling of 30,000. Mr Dibb has examined the readiness and sustainability of our forces, and exposed some deficiencies in our capacity to measure these. He points to the need to ensure that key military forces are properly ready to pre-empt or respond to credible low level situations arising with little warning. An important consideration here is the need for a proper stockholding policy, which has been badly neglected in the past. We do not need large stocks of all items, but we do need to ensure that the forces required to respond at short notice are properly equipped and can sustain operations. Specific funding will be allocated to ensure that some current deficiencies are remedied as part of the effort to improve the readiness of our reaction forces as Mr Dibb recommends. If one suggests changing the level of threat that is addressed from one of long term warning time to one of immediate warning time and confronting changing political circumstances, the question of readiness becomes vital. It is the custom of many defence commentators in this country to run up a shopping list of capabilities, without regard to their cost or practicability. Mr Dibb's review was not intended to be a cost cutting exercise, and has not been conducted as such. But he has costed out his proposals responsibly. His work on resource implications was not intended to provide a definitive financial prescription for the future. Rather, he was concerned to demonstrate the affordability of his proposals and to illustrate a way ahead for their implementation. The figure has come in at roughly 3 per cent real increases, which he compares reasonably favourably with the historical circumstances of 2.5 per cent under successive coalition governments and about 3.3 per cent under our Government. As Minister for Defence, I have been impressed by the quality of this review. Mr Dibb has taken the broad principles of strategic guidance, refined them into a defence strategy and applied these concepts to our force structure in a comprehensive and balanced way. It is of course possible to suggest different approaches and to quarrel with some of the lines of argument used and the conclusions reached. But I believe that most will acknowledge this review as a significant intellectual achievement that should make a major contribution to the way in which Australians think about defence. It is not my purpose here to provide a final Government decision on the conclusions and recommendations of the review, although I have already indicated my acceptance of its broad approach and its main principles. I now intend that there will be the opportunity for discussion and debate on Mr Dibb's work, both in the parliament and outside. I understand that the Australian Government Publishing Service intends to have copies of the review available in its bookshops around Australia within a few days. Mr Dibb himself will undertake a round of speaking engagements as part of the process of discussion and debate. The public version of the review is essentially the same as the classified version presented to me. Classified material has been removed, including some technical details on equipment performance and some material on intelligence matters. The public version does include, however, a full and comprehensive discussion of all the major force structure issues. It should now be clear that the Dibb review is a very complex, rigorous document. It demands deep study, and I hope those who participate in the debate will give it the detailed attention it deserves. Defence policy raises fundamental and serious issues for this country. Defence expenditure is now at the highest levels for peacetime, and constitutes a large financial burden for a nation facing some economic difficulties and many competing demands. Mr Dibb has developed his proposals within responsible financial limits. Yet his advice on the defence program provides for new submarines, a new class of surface vessel, many more helicopters for the Army, new surveillance and early warning systems, a revitalised mine counter-measures force and an improved capacity to sustain air and ground forces across the north. The House has a right to expect that those who disagree with Mr Dibb will do more than mouth slogans. Where there is disagreement with this report we deserve to know what specific programs would be implemented instead, how these are justified by our strategic circumstances, and how much they would cost. When I appointed Paul Dibb in February last year, I said that I regarded his review as the most important appraisal of our defence capabilities since the end of World War II. The result has more than met my hopes. I conclude by formally recording my thanks to Mr Dibb and his team for their outstanding effort. I present the following paper: Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities-Ministerial Statement, 3 June 1986. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) speaking for a period not exceeding 48 minutes. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.36) —The Opposition does not accept the basic tenet of the recommendations of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. We are concerned that the parameters within which the report has been prepared-- Government members interjecting- Mr SINCLAIR —I am very interested to see that two of those masters of the Left are the first to interject during my contribution. This report is predicated on the restraints which the left wing of the Australian Labor Party imposed on the Government. It is not based on what is in Australia's interests. It is entirely constricted, because honourable members opposite such as the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) and the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) owe allegiances not to their electorates but to a philosophy and ideology that is really ridiculous in 1986. It is in that climate that such gentlemen lay constraints on the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), denying the Minister and Mr Dibb the opportunity to make recommendations that would have been in Australia's best long term interests. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Leader of the National Party will address his arguments to the Chair, not to the honourable member for Hotham. Mr SINCLAIR —It is important that those two gentlemen opposite understand that it is the restraints that they have imposed on Mr Dibb which have so adversely affected the basis on which this report can be considered. The left wing of the Labor Party does not want Australia to be defended. It is quite prepared to see Australia without any capability to defend itself within a world embrace where there is peace instead of bellicose verbosity such as the idiocy we constantly hear from the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest that you might take action against the honourable member in regard to the gesture he has just made, which is totally unsuited to the character of this Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The right honourable member will proceed. Mr SINCLAIR —I regard the behaviour of those two gentlemen opposite as being illustrative of the difficulties that the Labor Party has in government. It can control economic policy no more than it can conduct a proper debate on defence policy. While the Left holds the reins those who might well want to co-operate more fully with the United States of America in a world embrace are constricted in so doing. We need to understand that the fundamental problem with this Dibb report is that, essentially, what it says is that, under a Labor Government, no longer will Australia be able or prepared to play its part in trying to secure world peace. No longer will Australia be able to look at that wider horizon and work within the ANZUS embrace towards ensuring some reasonable peace in the world. The communist affiliates of those gentlemen opposite, who are now leaving the chamber, adopt an attitude for propaganda purposes and not because they seek peace. On this side of the House we are concerned that there is an ability to mount an effort not only to protect Australia but to protect Australia's interests. Mr Kent —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I heard rightly, the cheque book cheat called me a communist affiliate. I demand that that be withdrawn. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw that remark. Mr Kent —You withdraw yours first. Mr SINCLAIR —You mean that you have no friends in the Communist Party? Mr Kent —I am more correct in my remarks than you have been in yours. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw that remark. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The right honourable gentleman and the honourable gentleman were so busy yelling at each other across the chamber that I did not hear the remarks of the honourable member for Hotham. I would point out to the honourable member for Hotham, however, that the interpretation he put on what the Leader of the National Party said was not correct, and I do not believe that there was a point of order in what the honourable member for Hotham raised. I did not hear what the honourable member for Hotham said. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask that it be struck from the Hansard record, in those circumstances, if you did not hear it, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take strong exception to being maligned by an individual like that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Hotham made remarks which were offensive, I ask that he withdraw them. Mr Kent —I withdraw. Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear! Go back to the Embassy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison has persisted in interjecting throughout this debate not only on the Minister for Defence but on his colleague. I warn the honourable member for Denison that if he interjects again I shall name him. Mr SINCLAIR —The Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities is essentially an overview, as the Minister for Defence has said, of Australia's force structure, but it is one set within very serious constraints. It is those constraints that we need to examine before looking at the recommendations of the Dibb report itself. The first and most significant recommendation is the one that sets down the terms of reference. All of us on this side of the House have for some time been concerned about the impact of manpower restrictions and how they impede the ability of the Services to operate. For example, it may be well known that at the moment we have fewer than 50 fighter pilots; there are only 11 Orion crews; and HMAS Yarra was withdrawn from commissioning earlier because of lack of crews. There has been the closure of facilities, for example, at HMAS Moreton and the amphibious squadron to ease manpower constraints. We know that there are very serious restrictions that affect the general capability of the Services. That applies right across the three Services, and particularly in the Navy. None of those matters has been addressed. The first of those areas that has been totally ignored is the problem of manpower. There is no suggestion in the report, other than with respect to the Reserves, that there be any change in the manpower capability of the Defence Force. I regard that as a serious deficiency. What in essence the force structure relates to-and I shall come to the recommendation in a moment-is an analysis of how Mr Dibb would see the Australian Defence Force structure, without saying how it is to be operated. Unless one begins from a basis of looking at one's manpower and determining what the manpower numbers are, how one is to be able to maintain morale, to retain those in middle and senior executive office who at the moment are leaving in increasing numbers, the whole of the rest of the scenario collapses. Frankly, this report fails abysmally in that respect. The second constraint applies more in Mr Dibb's conclusions themselves. I find it remarkable, looking at the opening part of the Dibb report, to see the setting that he has laid down as the basis for his conclusions. I quote from page 1 of the Executive Summary: Australia is one of the most secure countries in the world. He then deals with our geographic position. He continues: Australia faces no identifiable direct military threat and there is every prospect that our favourable security circumstances will continue. He continues: It would take at least 10 years and massive external support for the development of a regional capacity to threaten us with substantial assault. Measured in that way, one would say that perhaps Mr Dibb had been consistent over the course of his academic career and that those views were such that he has at no time expressed contrary views. Yet in only June 1985 in the Journal of the Royal United Services Institute of Australia, Mr Dibb was reported as saying: Beyond the ten year warning time, however, predictions are hazardous. It may be that Australia will remain free from threat, as it has for 40 years now. But it would be unwise to plan forward on this basis- that is including the 10-year basis- even if no specific contingency is identifiable upon which we can concentrate our force development. He then said in an article entitled `Australia cannot plan for a no-threat future' in the Pacific Defence Reporter of February 1983: The warning time for some political and strategic events is extremely short. Seemingly, we are often surprised by the unpredictable or irrational act of a nation state. It is not an easy matter for any country to have an accurate appraisal of how foreign states perceive the world. Indeed let us look at the Minister's Labor predecessor, Mr Scholes. He said on 17 October 1983 in the Age newspaper, as reported by Mr Simon Balderstone-- Mr Bilney —What does this have to do with it? Mr SINCLAIR —What does this have to do with it? That is an interesting comment. That is the great respect that a former Labor Minister for Defence has from his own colleagues. He regards the comments by the predecessor of the Minister at the table as having no relevance as to whether the 10-year theory is accurate. I think that itself says something for the respect that the members of the Labor Party have for those who serve in their Ministry. That I agree with him is more because of the general lack of capability of all those on the Labor front bench rather than singling out this Minister alone. I quote: Mr Scholes said that most assessments of Australia's position agreed that the threat of major attack was low, and would develop only after some time. But he queried the notion that a warning time would be of a `reasonably long order'. He said the theory of a long warning time took account of what had happened in the past, not the initial reactions of those who would be involved. It would be highly unlikely for a Government to make big preparations on a wartime footing-such as taking powers and diverting resources-on what have been assumed as first warnings. `Perceptions will be of that day and the conditions preceding them, so it is unlikely that a warning time exists'. I put to the House that the second of the restraints that apply within the parameters of the Dibb defence report is the scenario that 10 years is a reasonable time within which one can develop a defence capability. The third area that worries me even more is the interpretation that had been applied by Mr Dibb to our responsibilities within the Western alliance. Mr Peacock —He writes them off. Mr SINCLAIR —Of course there are difficulties within which we can play a full and equal role with countries such as the United States of America, but, as the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) has said, essentially Mr Dibb has written off those wider responsibilities within the Western alliance. I do not believe any review of Australia's defence capabilities can be accepted by any responsible government, unless that wider role is at least considered and not just dismissed out of hand. While there is a financial cost, and while I would accept that force structure cannot be predicated only on the degree to which we might commit forces within some type of peacekeeping role, for us not to be able to play a role is to deny Australia an opportunity to use our defence forces as they should be used as an instrument of our foreign policy, as an instrument to try to secure and maintain peace in this region and with our allies to try to ensure that there is no development of a military threat in any one of those areas that directly affects Australia's immediate interests and responsibilities. So in that area, too, I find the Dibb report deficient. It is also interesting in the apologia that the Minister has given for the Dibb report today that he seems to feel that, whatever else the concept of denial developed by Mr Dibb represents, it is certainly not a matter of Fortress Australia. I will return to that matter, because I believe that the very nature of the restraints Mr Dibb seeks to impose by the scenario around low level threat, which is the new basis around which core forces, or the forces themselves, have been structured, is going to impose necessarily an ability to do no more than have a Fortress Australia concept. I shall do that as I go through an analysis of what the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has said. First, turning to the historical analysis the Minister made, it is worth noting some of the problems that Labor has always generated when in charge of the Defence Department. I was interested in the reference to Mr John Curtin. It is true that Mr Curtin made comments in 1936 about Australia's need for defence self-reliance. There is little doubt that, on both sides of this House, there is an emphasis on self-reliance. However, as I have tried to assert, there is a difference in our interpretations of self-reliance and the degree to which, for example, in our 1976 White Paper, in John Curtin's 1936 comments, and in the comments of the Minister and Paul Dibb about self-reliance, we mean the same thing. Indeed, when John Curtin's comments were made-the Minister neglected to say this-they reflected a radical change in Labor Party thinking. That thinking bore significant responsibility for Australia's lack of preparedness before World War II. It was the Labor Party, led by Matthew Charlton, which in 1924 threw in its lot with the MacDonald Labour Government in Britain and endorsed defence cuts as a gesture to peace. Charlton spoke for five minutes and completely abandoned self-reliance in defence. It was a Labor government, led by Mr Scullin, which within a month of taking office in 1929 abolished compulsory military training, and which in its 1930 Budget cut defence spending by 15 per cent, slashing all three Services and closing the Royal Australian Naval College at Jervis Bay and the Royal Military College at Duntroon. Under the Scullin Government defence spending fell to half of the level under its predecessor, a Liberal-Country Party Government, as it was then. When Labor left office in 1932 the Navy was at its lowest strength since Federation and the defence structure as a whole was at its lowest level for 20 years. It was Mr Curtin who in 1938, two years after the speech to which the Minister referred, opposed the Government's borrowing program for the defence build-up after Munich, and moved that it be funded internally. It was largely as a result of that that in 1939 Australia was so inadequately prepared. It is because we do not want that to happen again that members on this side are concerned that we do not get Australia's defences back to the state of ill-preparedness that sadly affected us in 1939. It is important that we look at a number of the other elements contained in the Minister's speech. I believe that there are many elements of the report that honourable members on this side see as having validity. We have some concerns, however, and if one starts by looking at the financial basis, which seems to me to be one of the difficulties within which Mr Dibb operated, one finds one of the inevitable flaws in the Minister's arguments-if his answer in this House the other day is to be accepted. The Dibb report comments about the degree to which the Government will be successful, providing that the 3.1 per cent real growth in spending can be allocated this year, yet we all know that the Minister has already foreshadowed that there will be only a 1.5 per cent increase as a result of expenditure cuts. Mr Beazley —I did not. Mr SINCLAIR —That is the text of what the Minister said to me the other day in an answer he gave. If he now denies that, I am delighted. So there will be at least a 3 per cent real growth in defence spending this year? Mr Beazley —We are about three months short of the Budget. Mr SINCLAIR —I thought the Minister had agreed with the comments made. I am delighted to know that there will be a 3 per cent real growth in defence spending. I will be interested to see whether or not his colleagues within the Left of the Labor Party allow him to prevail to that degree. If he does, I am delighted, but I suggest that variability in defence spending is something that both sides of the House find it difficult to avoid. While I see little merit in going back over statistics, I think it is worth while commenting- Mr Beazley —I'll bet. Mr SINCLAIR —I am quite happy to do so, if the Minister would like me to, because he has nothing of which to be proud in his record. The first thing that should be said is that within the Budget allocation, if one is to look at the financial basis of spending, one has to address matters apart from the quantum of funds provided. In my view, any analyses of how funds are spent within defence must involve not only the quantum of money available but also the way in which it is spent. On this side of the House we are looking seriously at the extent to which there can be greater financial delegation provided to those who exercise responsibility within the defence forces. We believe, secondly, that there must be greater flexibility in transferring within divisions defence-allocated funds from the Budget. Thirdly, we believe that there has to be an ability to carry money over from one defence year to another where funds are not spent or where there is a program which for one reason or another may suffer if money is spent earlier in order to avoid that inevitable crunch in spending prior to 30 June. The fourth area that concerns the Opposition, again within the allocation of money within the Defence Department, is the degree to which, for example, in the area of responsibility for housing and construction there is a constraint on efficiency by any base commander in the way in which he is able to get repairs and other maintenance programs undertaken. All those are matters within the financial basis affecting individual elements within the Defence Force. None is addressed within this recommendation by the Minister, and none is capable of being ignored, if one is to get value from what will always be an inadequate defence vote in a period of relatively quiescent military activity in our region. As to the aircraft carrier plan to which the Minister has referred, I find one of the more serious conclusions that has come out of that analysis by the Minister and the Dibb report is the degree to which there are such serious limitations imposed on naval operations without adequate air cover more than about 800 miles from the Australian coastline. Indeed, the Dibb report refers to the extent to which there will be a need for land-based air cover for surface naval vessels. Even with airborne refuelling, the range of the F18s, according to a former Chief of the Air Staff, is only about 800 nautical miles. In other words, the degree to which we are able to mount any sort of military effort with surface vessels beyond Australia's coastline will be very seriously limited by the problems of refuelling aircraft that are land based. While on this side of the House we went through some agonising decisions about the degree to which an aircraft carrier was or was not affordable, it needs to be understood that, if there is no integrated air support for surface vessels of the Australian Navy, the ability for Australia to operate, even in providing the force denial that Dibb represents, is going to be significantly limited. It is on that basis that I see some very real problems; for example, in mounting even a reasonable defence of Christmas Island. We need to understand that we are talking not only about a wider role of the degree of self-reliance in this region, we are also concerned that there should be an ability for Australia to lodge forces and to maintain them, if it becomes necessary, in territories for which we are certainly responsible and in which we believe it is necessary that we maintain and exercise our defence responsibilities. Looking at the South Pacific, the region of which Australia is part, one could consider, for example, the circumstances of the Solomon Islands. We have been trying to help the residents there as a result of a recent cyclone and there are still elements of the Australian defence forces there. Our ability to operate anywhere in that vicinity will be virtually nil as a result of the adoption of this report, other than in very limited and secure circumstances. Mr Peacock —The ASEAN countries will regard it as isolationist. Mr SINCLAIR —I am sure that, as my colleague has said, the ASEAN countries will regard this policy as isolationist. It is that element that worries the Opposition about the general strategy of denial. There are certain merits in the terms of some of the recommendations. I certainly agree with the appointment of a vice-chief of the defence forces. I put to the Minister, however, that in this report to the House today the role of that vice-chief is a little uncertain. There was a suggestion at one stage that he was to be in charge of procurements and that he would essentially try to resolve the differences between the Services about who was going to get what, and where. At another stage the Minister gave him a far more significant role. I note that at the end of his speech he was talking about setting up a new joint force command of the north. All those measures seem worth while, but I trust that the Minister will identify exactly what are the responsibilities of the new vice-chief. However, for my money I certainly believe that we need to strengthen the office of the Chief of the Defence Force; but in so doing we need to understand that there are fundamental problems in the balance between the civilian and military elements of the Defence Department. For a long while I have been concerned about the degree to which those wearing uniform seem to fall constantly into an impossible position when seconded to Canberra, where the committee system is the way to avoid decisions and where the responsibilities of the uniformed personnel seem to be constantly negated by the operations of a bureaucracy which tends to overpower almost any sense and sensibility that many of those in uniform would seek to follow. I worry, therefore, that in the appointment of this new Vice-Chief of the Defence Force not sufficient attention has been given to the way in which defence, in both the civilian and military arms, should and could function more efficiently. I believe at this stage that any parallel between the number of senior service personnel today and 10 or 15 years ago would suggest that there are too many generals and admirals and far too few Indians. I think there are far too many bureaucrats. Therefore, in the structure of what is to be a changed Defence Force there could well have been some addressing by Mr Dibb of the problems that will arise not only in the exercise of command but also in the structure within the Department. Also, I believe that in the general concept of lower level contingencies, the Minister has picked up one area which certainly needs attention. As most honourable members would know, the Kangaroo 83 exercise was largely set by those of us on this side of the House. The whole scenario of Kangaroo 83 was exactly the concept that Dibb has now addressed-the problems that would occur when the defence forces were called on to face a lower level contingency. The Kangaroo 83 basis is certainly a scenario for which the defence forces have to have an ability. Our problem is not that they should not develop an ability in that area, but that it should be the only ability. There are many other areas where the Defence Force must be able at least to maintain some core capability. I fear that in the changing of the constraints within which there is to be planning for the future, to place entire emphasis on these lower level contingencies is really to restrict the Services in meeting so many of the other events for which they should be capable. As the Minister said-at page 14 of his statement-the core force was developed to try to enable a build-up in whatever areas the Defence Force might feel necessary. There is very little concept within the Dibb report of the basis of his rejection of the core force concept. While at times I have had reservations as to whether the core force was an adequate basis, it is notable that Mr Dibb has said that it was developed on the basis of having a warning time and to enable a reasonable breadth of capability within the Defence Force. Once we have disposed of that core force and we provide a capability to meet only a lower level contingency, I do not believe that we will have the broad ability-for example, certainly because of changes in the Army-to enable a build-up if any significant defence threat should emerge. The strategy of denial, which is the core of the Dibb concept, is one that the Minister seems to have been pursuing for some time. In this place I have expressed my concern about any type of Fortress Australia concept. While the Minister asserts that denial is not a Fortress Australia, he does it on the basis of that large area of country that is represented by what he says is the thousand nautical miles which fall within that ambit of his strategy of denial that is set down by Mr Dibb in his report. While I accept that there is certainly a difference between the concept as enunciated by Mr Lance Barnard, a former Labor Minister for Defence, and that enunciated by Mr Beazley, the present Labor Minister for Defence, I think the problem in the strategy of denial is that it involves defending Australia only after an attack has been launched on Australia or Australian territory. The difference in our understanding and our belief of what we should do about that is that if we are to deter an enemy, if we are to stop an enemy, we want to be able to make sure that he knows that he will be so hurt by the time he launches an attack that he will not want to launch an attack on us at all. We think deterrence is better than a strategy of denial. I do not believe that a strategy of denial is anywhere near as effective, in the uncertain and insecure strategic situation which we face in this part of the world, as a strategy of deterrence. A deterrent strategy ensures that we build up our core force and our overall defence capability so that anybody who is looking at any sort of attack on Australia knows that not only will there be a denial of a lodgment but that there will be repercussions, a strike capability, and an ability to ensure that he will be hurt. I should have thought that in the International Year of Peace that would have been a concept that would have had appeal even to the Australian Labor Party. It would have been far better if, looking at the structure of the defence forces, the Government had said: `We don't want our Australian defence forces ever to have to fight a war. We would prefer that our Australian defence forces were strong enough that no enemy would want to launch an attack against us'. That concept is not part of the Dibb recommendations. It is important that there should be a capability of ensuring, in our strategic situation, that there is an ability to deter any aggressor. For that reason, I do not believe that the strategy of denial has as much validity as it should. As I commented earlier today, I think that relying on strategic geography, the areas of direct military interests and the sphere of primary strategic interests, is to set up a Maginot Line in another concept. The Minister talked about the distance of that area and he spoke about the enormous stretch of ocean that is embraced in the general primary strategic interests sphere. Essentially, the Minister is saying that there is a line behind which we will fight the war. It is that strategic concept that is our worry. One does not fight an enemy by saying; `If you come across this line we are going to tread on your toes'. We believe the Government should be saying: `If you dare to come anywhere near any of those interests that affect us, or our allies, or come near an area associated with interests that are certainly significant to Australia, we will be able to attack you and will be able to hurt you'. That is where the deterrent capability comes in. The deterrent mentality, as distinct from the Maginot mentality, is one that relates specifically to being able to hit back at any enemy that might start developing a threat against us. It is particularly important that we understand that all of this concept is developed at a time when the Soviet Union has developed its forces in this part of the world to a far greater degree than it has ever done. One of the other fundamental failures in the whole of the Dibb report is the degree to which Mr Dibb barely refers to the problems in regard to the Soviets. It is true that the original facilities at Cam Ranh Bay were established largely by the Americans. Since then, the Soviet fleet there has grown to be by far the largest naval force outside the continental Soviet Union. So far as the Soviet Pacific fleet as a whole is concerned, the Armed Forces Review of August 1985 said that it comprised between 700 and 800 military platforms, including two Kiev class carriers, 150 amphibious warfare ships, 120 submarines, including Typhoon class vessels, several hundred maritime aircraft, including long range bombers that are quite capable of flying to Australia and returning. The whole concept of the Dibb report ignores the degree to which the Soviet Pacific fleet is intruding in this part of the world at a time when the political influence of the Soviet Union is also growing. We are not saying that the Soviet Union, or anybody else, will invade Australia tomorrow. But it is necessary that we comprehend that the involvement of the Soviet Union in this part of the world has introduced an entirely new element of defence security. Vanuatu is prepared to become the first South Pacific island nation to give port access to the Soviet Union's tuna fleet. Kiribati is preparing to extend its fishing agreement with the Soviets to allow Soviet fishing boats unrestricted access to its maritime zone. All these are not anything more than stepping stones towards change, but to set up some sort of belief that our strategic geography will insulate us totally from an aggressor is completely false. Indeed, to do so ultimately will make us even more dependent on the United States than we have been before, and all at a time when because of what has happened between New Zealand and the United States and problems within the ANZUS arrangement, the whole of the ANZUS agreement is not nearly as secure a protection in this region as it was a few years ago. I am concerned that the Minister again has fairly lightly dismissed the climate of what should be done to get New Zealand back into ANZUS. I do not believe that that is helpful. It is of interest that on the very day that the Dibb report came out a report called `A Vulnerable Country-Civil Resources in the Defence of Australia', edited by J. O. Langtry and Desmond Ball of the Australian National University, has been published. In it, Dr Tom Millar speaks about our strategic situation. He emphasises how wrong it is to assume that Australia will always have good warning of any attack. He points to the very disturbing aspects of global and regional climates. All these issues are fundamental, yet the Dibb report essentially passes them over. The concept of the strategy of denial and the belief that we can get behind some imagined line, whether in the area of direct military interest or the sphere of primary strategic interest, I believe, is neither effective nor adequate. I am fascinated to hear from the Minister that both the Chief of the Defence Force and the Secretary to his Department have totally endorsed the Dibb report. Unfortunately in our circumstances we do not get the opportunity to cross-examine them. If they have endorsed the report, I assure the Minister that many other senior officers working beneath those gentlemen certainly do not accept the Dibb report as a valid basis for forward planning. As far as considering the contents of the force structure is concerned, it is obviously difficult in a relatively short time to cover all the elements of a 176-page report. We on this side of the House do not accept the Minister's advice on airborne early warning aircraft. In our view the nature of the Australian coastline and the fact that there so easily can be undetected intrusions, undetected even by Jindalee, mean that it is absolutely essential that airborne early warning aircraft be acquired for the RAAF at the earliest opportunity. The Dibb report refers to the F111 and suggests that a full upgrading will not take place. The F111 aircraft and submarines essentially are the elements that we see as being the core of our deterrent capability. Therefore, we believe that it is essential that the F111 within forward budgetary allocations be fully upgraded to have a ground-strike capability as well as a maritime-strike capability. For that reason we do not accept that recommendation by Mr Dibb. Mr Dibb has commended the Government's decisions on submarines. I am disappointed that the Minister is not now in the House. It is interesting that the whole of this report has been treated by him as a publicity exercise. In a totally unacceptable way, the Dibb report was published before it was tabled in the House. The Minister had made public Press statements and had given the report to the Press hours before members of the Parliament had had a chance to read it. This indicates that the whole program is not a serious consideration of defence but was really laid down by the Government to try, if it could, to allay the forces of the Left. I am sure that, as a result, the program has fundamental flaws. Although the Minister is still not in the House, I want to talk about submarines. I hear that the project definition study on the submarine program is falling way behind time. There are now serious doubts about whether the two projected tenderers will be able to supply the right vessels. I have said on behalf of the Opposition parties that when we come into government we will immediately review the whole submarine program. It is our view that the Oberons could have been well and truly upgraded. That would have given them at least another 10 years of life. It would seem that because of the delays in the PDS program the Oberons will have to be upgraded anyway. The real problem with the submarines lies not in the equipment but in attracting personnel to serve in them. I mentioned briefly before problems about manpower. It is appalling that under the Labor Government we are now in a position in which volunteers cannot be recruited to serve in the submarines. The reason they cannot be recruited is that the manpower policies pursued by the Government run totally contrary to giving those in the services fair terms and conditions of service which are equal to those that apply in the civilian community; certainly they are way below those that apply in the bureaucracy. As far as the submarine program is concerned, the Minister needs to address serious difficulties in terms and conditions of uniformed personnel. The whole section on submarines in Mr Dibb's report identifies one of the fundamental flaws. The program is not proceeding as it should. We on this side of the House look towards having a two-ocean navy, which would certainly ensure that we would need either another fleet oil replenishment vessel or a tanker so that we could have ships at sea, not only in the Pacific but in the Indian Ocean at the same time. That is not possible now, nor is it recommended in the Dibb report. The siting of a new submarine base in Western Australia might well be a sensible proposal. Indeed, the HMAS Stirling developments were initiated, not by the Minister but by us, with exactly that possibility in mind. On surface ships, the light patrol frigates are an interesting development. We do not necessarily oppose them. I only hope that the Government does not try to put everything on them. When I read the Dibb report it seemed to me that Mr Dibb wants to make them just about as fully equipped as a battleship. That is the problem. If we make the vessels what they are not they will not serve the purpose for which they were designed. We are concerned that the DDGs, the Charles F. Adams class destroyers, will go out of service in the mid-1990s and there is no recommendation in the report on how the surface ship flotillas can operate effectively, other than to say that there will be a new generation of light patrol frigates. For that reason I would prefer to see the Royal Australian Navy's problems solved by looking at a replacement for the DDGs rather than by giving priority to light patrol frigates. I accept that they may well be a preferable vessel for the replacement of the Fremantle class, which I regard as being unable to sail in many conditions that prevail around Australia's coastline. Quite often the conditions are such that, if they were bigger vessels, they would be able to stay at sea and fulfil their responsibilities. As to the Army, a great deal needs to be said. I am afraid that the whole concept of this report in transferring from a broadly-based army to a light mobile one seems to be a fancy developed by the Minister on his trips to the United States. I do not believe that any comparison between the United States army and the Australian Army is valid. The US army is an enormous military machine. To try to generate within Australia only a light mobile capability is again to deny the flexibility in army operations that would be essential to having a deterrent capability. I do not like the idea of cutting down the artillery or tank sections in the way Mr Dibb suggested. He seems to be trying to remove the overall ability the Army has had to expand in any area when necessary. Mr Dibb's decision on the M113 armoured personnel carriers typifies the haste with which he has tried to ensure that there can be no moving away from the Dibb concept. When in government, we started what was known as the Waler project, which was designed to help Australian industry and introduce a new element of mobility. We were looking at wheeled as well as tracked vehicles with light armour which would be able to move around the north of the continent. It is not possible for the M113 APC to do that. It is an old vehicle which, in my view, is certainly past its effective lifetime. On occasions, even the Minister and Mr Dibb have been known to comment that it is suitable for training but not really suitable for operations. In that climate, the Waler project should have proceeded. I find it fascinating that the Minister in his statement today said that there may be a place for specialised mobility vehicles. That is exactly what we were headed for and one of the reasons why I could not understand the scrapping of Waler One. He talks about the utility helicopter force. I note that he has not finally reached a decision on the Dibb recommendation that control of that force should pass to the Army. The important thing in a small service such as Australia's is not who commands it but that the forces can live and work together. For far too long my concern with the forces has been that they still see each other so much in rigid divisions, each separated from the other. It is important that they work together. If there is to be a change in responsibility, it can be only on the basis of the established preferred operability. I do not think that will necessarily be so just by changing responsibility from the Army to the Air Force. The reserves have been given a quite significant mention within the report. Some of the elements of the change in responsibility for the reserves, certainly the limit of call-out, the Opposition will support. However, much more needs to be seen of how they will operate in the circumstances that the Minister has suggested. For example, we totally endorse trying to expand training time. At the moment the training time is far too short. But it needs to be understood that there will be a cost in it. I trust that the Minister will be able to provide the funds necessary to enable that to be undertaken. I like the idea of the proposed reserve forces exercising in northern Australia. The expansion of the size of the reserves is another valid objective. But that cannot be done without at the same time maintaining a reasonable structured permanent force. The difficulty is that in the whole of the section relating to the reserves the report has not properly analysed the way in which the regular Army, as we see it, can fulfil its functions. Indeed, it is our view that the regular Army suffers perhaps the most from the recommendations of the Dibb report. With regard to northern defence, let it be said that much of the Minister's and Mr Dibb's initiatives began on this side of the House. Under my predecessor, Sir James Killen, the development of the naval facilities at Darwin and Cairns was facilitated. Then under my stewardship we developed Tindal and Derby, the Air Force base in Western Australia. We were moving towards another in Cape York. We believe they are all absolutely essential to develop Australia's northern defence capability. I like the idea of transferring a permanent Army unit to the north and of looking at Nor-force, which is an element that contains a combination of permanent and reserve personnel, to see how that concept can be developed around Australia. But that northern part of the Minister's program does not emanate from the Australian Labor Party but from this side of the House. The Dibb report marks an interesting and important stage in defence thinking within the Government. It changes significantly the direction that the Australian Defence Force will take in its planning and in its force structure. We believe that some of those elements are unrelated to the strategic environment in which Australia is placed. We believe that the report has not addressed the fundamental interests of Australia and that the recommendations largely placate those from the left wing of the Labor Party, who really do not want a defence force at all. To change the Defence Force in the way that the Minister seeks will be to Australia's detriment. The inability of Australia to be able to mount an adequate deterrence in the uncertain and insecure climate of the 1980s and into the 1990s greatly worries those on this side of the House. If there is to be a fair and open debate on the subject of the Dibb report, I trust that those who are concerned about the wider role that Australia must play in defence, and those who have a view about a more capable defence force, will exercise their opportunity to express their opposition to the report. We see the Dibb report as restricting Australia's defence capability, not expanding it. We see it rather as an excuse and not a reason for changing the defence of Australia. We are concerned that the end result will not enable Australia to reject any aggressor. At a time when sadly there are so many elements of insecurity and uncertainty we believe it would be better if the Government tried to develop an adequate deterrent capability rather than one based on force denial. Debate (on motion by Mr Charles) adjourned. 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 sheweth 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: Ensure no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Review the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceed with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. by Mr Blunt,Mr Halverson,Mr Hicks and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. The present Australian national flag is not distinctively and uniquely Australian and is confused with other national flags. 2. The people of Australia have never had an opportunity to express their views on an appropriate Australian national flag in a referendum. 3. The present Australian national flag does not properly represent Australian as a sovereign, independent nation. 4. The present Australian national flag falsely proclaims Australia as a colony, homeland, protectorate, dominion or government department of Great Britain. 5. The first condition in the flag competition of 1901 required that the design should show Australia's loyalty to the British Empire. The British Empire no longer exists. 6. A public opinion poll held in 1984 using the Gallup Method revealed that 52% of Australians surveyed wanted a competition for a new design for the Australian flag. 7. There is no inherent link between Australia proclaiming a unique and distinctive flag and the political issue of Australia moving to a republican form of government. 8. The adoption of a truly Australian national flag would serve as a focal point for Australia's bicentennial celebrations in 1988. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: (a) Appoint a Committee of the Parliament with representatives from both Houses and all parties to invite and consider proposals for the design of a new Australian national flag, and (b) Require that Committee to make recommendations on the form of a minimum cost referendum at the time of the next general elections, in which the electors will be given the opportunity to vote for a flag from a selection of at least three designs which will include the present Australian national flag and the winner of the Ausflag-Bulletin-2MMM.FM competition of March 1985. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr John Brown,Mr Steele Hall,Mr Hurford and Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Cadman and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable, The Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Cowan,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Sharp. 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 Halverson,Mr Reith and Dr Watson. 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: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. 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 humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government 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 Blunt. 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 Blanchard and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Burr. To the Honourable, the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concern to Australian citizens asks that: 1. The Australian Government exert pressure on Moscow to- (a) Allow the International Atomic Energy Commission full expert investigation of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and its human consequences; (b) Allow Australian Ukranians to send medical aid to family and friends in Soviet Ukraine; and (c) Allow free communication between Australian and Soviet Ukranians. 2. The Australian Government- (a) Launch a public appeal to help the Chernobyl victims; (b) Support the removal of Russian nuclear weapons out of Ukraine; (c) Support the decolonization of the USSR so that captive nations like Ukraine and the Baltic states are not exploited for Soviet Russian nuclear purposes. And your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mrs Kelly. 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 and Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects 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 Shipton. 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 assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: (a) The film ``Hail Mary'' (i.e. ``Je Vous Salue Marie'') has been registered by the Film Censorship Board for public exhibition with a Restricted Classification; and is due to be screened in the forthcoming Sydney Film Festival. (b) The film is a blasphemous and pornographic attack on Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph and the Archangel Gabriel, as such it is extremely offensive to the undersigned. (c) The film therefore breaches regulation 13 (1) of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations. Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives call upon the Attorney-General, as the Minister responsible, to prevent the exhibition of the film in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly and Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth that the film `Hail Mary' is blasphemous and gravely offends our religious beliefs and those of the vast majority of Australian Christians. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Parliament will respect the will of the undersigned and have the blasphemous film `Hail Mary' banned in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. 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 the legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we request that the Government of Australia consider the possibility of giving aid to the Karen civilian refugees at present fleeing from Burma into Thailand as a result of military action in the border areas. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. In view of the fact that Australian Governments, since the Pearson Report of 1968, have committed themselves to meeting the 0.7% GNP target for Overseas Aid, which at present is 0.49%, and Because it is an important expression of the humanitarian concerns of the Australian community that at this critical time of shortage, Food Aid to Africa be continued, and Considering that development programmes in developing countries are difficult to carry out where basic education levels are low, and Mindful of the fact that Voluntary Aid Agencies have an aptitude for grass roots level development, an area which the Government has difficulty in reaching, concluding therefore that Official Aid could thus be complemented and supported by an increase in the level of funding to these Agencies, Your petitioners humbly pray that the Australian Government: (1) move to a 0.7% GNP target level for Overseas Aid funding, and announce a plan to reach this by the year 1991, (2) continue Aid to Africa at an increased level, (3) make more funds available for Development Education, (4) implement the recommendation to the Government that assistance to Voluntary Overseas Aid Agencies be doubled. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned petitioners, as in duty bound will humbly pray. That a public inquiry be conducted and a diplomatic approach be considered for the migration of the Nicolae MALAN's family: wife Elena and children: Nicolae and Elena, to be allowed into Australia. by Mr John Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Bill of Rights is not supported by the people of Australia, and calls on the Government to: Delay proclamation of the Bill until all matters of contention are settled by national referenda, and that: (1) Matters of States rights, property rights, rights of the newborn, the right not to belong to unions, among other issues, have not been submitted to the people of Australia to decide, and that: (2) No Australian Bill of Rights should depend on any foreign convention for its basis in Australia law. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned showeth that there is widespread public concern about the provisions of the Bill of Rights, and especially the dangerous powers to be vested in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, and the failure to protect vital rights such as the right to own private property. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (i) that the Hawke Labor Government not proceed with the Bills enacting the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. and (ii) that we the people be given the opportunity to express our opinion on the Bill of Rights in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established to work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement Action Programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. 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 certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights. That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education. That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate. That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we are deeply disturbed by the secrecy surrounding forthcoming information from Soviet authorities about the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in Ukraine. We are horrified at the failure of the Soviet government to immediately notify both foreign governments and its own population of the extent of the dangers posed by the accident. We are shocked at the apparent inaction on the part of the Soviet government in failing to take precautionary health measures in immediate and surrounding areas. We are disturbed that no reports are being issued forth from the Soviet Union about the treatment of children with anti-radiation medication, as is the case in Poland-an obviously less affected area. We are deeply distressed at the obvious scant concern of the Soviet government for adequate safety precautions operative at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor site and at other similar installations throughout Ukraine-thus exhibiting a low regard for human life. Your Petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian government join with other governments at the United Nations in demanding that Ukraine be declared a nuclear free zone. 2. The Australian government pressure the Soviet government to make public all available details on the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster. 3. The Australian Government pressure the Kremlin to connect phone calls from Australia to Ukraine so that concerned Australian citizens may enquire as to the welfare of their relatives in Ukraine. 4. The Australian Government pressure the Soviet government to close down all nuclear plants of the Chernobyl type until the cause of the accident has been determined and rectified. 5. The Australian government pressure the Soviet government to allow an inspection of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor plant by the Vienna based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 6. The Australian Government pressure the Kremlin to allow international teams to make on-site inspections of all Soviet reactors for safecy standards. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud; (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the United States Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the 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. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Rotary Youth Bank/Waverley Employment Resource Centre should be fully funded by the Commonwealth Government in Australia in its own right as a highly successful Employment Training Scheme, giving the unemployed of all ages the opportunity to be counselled, trained, and directed into the workforce. The consistently high level of 76% employment placement rate of participants over 24 months deems this scheme unique and worthy of Government endorsement and funding. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will with the utmost of urgency both endorse and fully fund on an annual basis the unique and highly successful Rotary Youth Bank/Waverley Employment Resource Centre Employment Training Scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Mayer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the U.S.A. by declaring our wild horses protected from industry and indiscriminate slaughter. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office at Marsfield be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal and banking requirements, or even to collect registered, certified letters and parcels. Many of us are pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. The nearest Post Offices are about 2kms away with no convenient public transport. Also for those of us who work during the week, this is the only Post Office open on Saturday mornings where we can collect our parcels, do our mailing and other services it provides. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Marsfield Post Office. 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 the Parliament assembled. We the undersigned hereby petition for a referendum on the question of the introduction of the Australian Bill of Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Saunderson. To the Honourable Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such move, on the evidence of its impact upon the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Mallee electorate respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 President and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of New South Wales 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 Ruddock. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman 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 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 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. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's total disallowance 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 Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's 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, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: There is an urgent need to up-grade and extend the facilities at the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Provide the necessary capital funding for the Northern Rivers CAE to ensure North Coast students have access to a tertiary institution capable of providing them with the skills they will need to meet the challenges of the future. 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 Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth: 1. That in its present form the Australian Bill of Rights 1985 does not represent the reasoned opinions of public opinion. 2. The Bill denies more rights than it upholds. 3. That one day's debate in the House of Representatives was insufficient time for our elected representatives to debate legislation which will control our lives indefinitely. Your petitioners therefore pray: (a) That the Bill lay before the House to allow reasoned debate by the electors of Australia. (b) That our elected representatives be allowed to consider the Bill without haste. (c) That any divisions on the Bill be recorded by a conscience vote by Members and not on Party lines. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of the division of Lilley shows that there is an area of Commonwealth land surplus to the re-development of the Brisbane Airport site. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government give favourable consideration to entering into negotiations with the Brisbane City Council in order to provide parkland for the people of Nudgee and surrounding areas. We believe that the nearby residential area is deficient in parkland due to its development prior to the time when provision of parkland by the City Council became a condition of approval for the sub-division of land. Further development of adjoining areas following the opening of the new airport and Gateway Bridge can only make the situation worse. The land to which we refer is situated at the end of Buchanan Road, Nudgee, Queensland, and we believe that part of it would be ideal for use as parkland. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Gwydir respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. That consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. That unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985. Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner. Whereas the present government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia. Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid, (i.e. set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia. Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 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 3 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 citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right of 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. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —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 urgent need for a change in Government economic and taxation policies to revive business investment. 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)(4.32) —Today the Opposition once again is trying to engage this Government in debate on the economic crisis facing this country. We have asked the Treasurer (Mr Keating) whether there will be a full statement in this House, followed by a debate on the economic crisis, which he finally acknowledged in his banana republic remarks on a radio station. The Treasurer said that he would make no statement. When the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) came back from his overseas trip around the Chinese provinces, we asked him whether he would make a statement in the Parliament on the economy, and he denied us that request. We understand that the Prime Minister, having also made remarks about the economy on a radio program, is next week to make a television broadcast, an appeal to the nation, but that will be in the week after the House of Representatives, which represents all the people of Australia, has closed down. Today we raise in this House the problem of private business investment-a very serious problem for Australia and one now acknowledged by the Treasurer to be serious. We have put down a matter of public importance, but the Treasurer is not coming into the House to debate the issue. He has sent into the House the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford). For those who do not know what the Minister Assisting the Treasurer does, he is the person who has the unenviable task of replying to all the letters about taxation. All I can say is that the Minister, who is at the table, must be having a very torrid time at the moment. If Australian Democrats are getting 600 calls a day about the fringe benefits tax, what on earth must this poor assistant Minister be getting in the Treasurer's office in his melancholy task of replying to all those infuriated people in the Australian community. Now he is being sent into this place by the Treasurer to respond to an economic debate. It is disgraceful; it is not good enough. I do not know whether all honourable members realise it, but last week we had two full days of debate on critical taxation measures. We had six major Bills. On the second day we had two Bills bringing in a new capital gains tax. Scores of honourable members spoke in both those debates but in neither debate, covering 275 pages of taxation legislation, did the Treasurer appear to respond to those who spoke. He did not even come in to respond to the people who spoke on his own side. On the first day, there were four Bills, he sent in the assistant Minister and on the second day, when we debated the capital gains tax all day and all night, the Treasurer did not even come in at the end to sum up. That is not acceptable. He is not here today to open this economic debate. He is failing in his responsibilities to this House. By denying the House a statement on the economy to debate, he and the Prime Minister are failing in their responsibility to the Australian people. Why are we concerned about investment? We are concerned because without private fixed investment in industry and in enterprise this country cannot grow. It cannot employ its citizens. It can never get away from the problem of having a 23 per cent unemployment rate among its youth. Private business investment is essential for the future of Australia. What is happening to private business investment under this Government? What are the facts? The national account figures, released last week, show that fixed investment for the last three quarters-that is, the first three quarters of the current financial year-was down by 8.3 per cent. Additionally, the survey of intentions of the business community, which is a critical factor in trying to work out what the investment for the year ahead will be, showed that the trend was flat. For the first time since the last recession there was no upward trend. It is a very serious sign when the forward intentions of business investment show no upturn. If the trend is followed through, there will be in the year 1986-87 a further substantial decline in private fixed investment. This country has a problem in that over the last three years it has had a Treasurer promoting rapid internal growth in the economy basically through government spending and borrowing. Throughout that recovery, unlike the recovery under the Fraser Government, private fixed investment, which is the main basis for secure employment and economic growth for the future, has not recovered to the levels it enjoyed before the 1982-83 recession. This is a very serious matter, and the Treasurer has been saying all along that everything in the garden is lovely, that the economy is growing at a very fast rate, that people are spending and buying things, and that employment has risen-although unemployment has not really dropped much, and it is starting to go up again. However, throughout the whole of this period the people who needed to invest to make that lasting and sustained improvement have not been investing. I refer to the private business community. We have now got to a quite extraordinary point because the Treasurer, with his big spending and big borrowing policies, has been handling our economy like the driver of a car who has been careering around a cliff road at around 100 kilometres an hour and suddenly comes to an S-bend. Mr Beale —Not a J-curve? Mr CARLTON —Not a J-curve, but an S-bend. Suddenly he starts crying foul and says that private business is not investing. He makes all sorts of excuses. `If the S-bend were not in the road we would not be in trouble', he says. `If conditions were the same as those enjoyed by the previous Government, I would not be made to look such an idiot now that the economy is in terrible trouble.' That is basically what has happened to this Treasurer. In today's Australian Financial Review there is a very disturbing article on a report from the National Institute of Economic Industry Research and the Australian Chamber of Manufactures. Nobody questions the validity of the findings of this report, called `Economic Focus'. It is a highly respected commentary on the state of the Australian economy. What it says is very chilling. The article states: The report claimed total investments in 1984-85 was only adequate for an annual growth rate of 2 per cent. That is government plus private investment. A 2 per cent annual growth rate is not enough to reduce employment. It is not enough to feed all of Australia in the years ahead. Worse than that, the article continues: However, private business investment was sufficient for a growth rate of only one per cent . . . The forecasters estimated that private sector capital stock growth has fallen from around 6 per cent in 1968 to just under 2 per cent last year. These are very chilling figures. Unfortunately, the Opposition has to say that it has been pointing out over the last three years that the growth that has been achieved by this Government-certainly we welcome the growth-has been achieved by high government borrowings and by what is, in some respects, an unhealthy, expansion of home building beyond the capacity of Australia to keep it up. Sustained growth in the economy and jobs depends on private investment. How do we get private investment? It is very simple. People will invest their money and take a risk if, after tax, they get a decent return on it. It is very simple indeed. Why would anybody bother putting his capital into a venture and taking a risk when after tax he did not get at least a little more than he could get in interest from a bank or building society or some other secure investment which earned interest? That is the fundamental equation. All the talk by the Treasurer and the Australian Council of Trade Unions about forcing business to invest is a lot of nonsense if the after-tax return to the investor is not seen as reasonable by that investor. That is the fundamental point. We are trying to invite private investors to invest in Australia. What are the kinds of things that would inhibit them from investing? I would think that they would be concerned about the highest interest rates since the Depression, higher than anywhere else. They would be concerned about the stability of the dollar, which keeps going down every few months and looks like going down again. They would be concerned about rising labour costs under the prices and incomes accord. They would be concerned about the rate of inflation being three times the rate of our competitors. Would they not be concerned about the excessive regulation and government interference being further pushed on this Government by the ACTU? Would they not be overwhelmed by our taxation system, by 625 pages of new tax legislation in the last three or four weeks, a capital gains tax, a fringe benefits tax, a foreign tax credit system, a resource rental tax-taxes as high as the sky in addition to the taxation burden that already existed? On top of that, company tax is increasing from 46 to 49 per cent. Some welcome to the investor! Some welcome to those who might be asked to risk their money through the taxation system! Then there is the industrial climate. Are Simon Crean, Bill Kelty and other such people providing a warm and welcoming climate for the business investor? What about the strike we had the other day by workers complaining because wages were not rising high enough and quickly enough? The ACTU hauled everybody out for a day's strike-hardly a welcome for anybody whom we might want to invest in Australia. What is to be done about this situation? That is what we are interested in. Everybody knows what has to be done about it. The first two things we have to do are to cut government spending and start getting our balance of payments in some sort of order. Heaven forbid, do we not have to hold off on this wage case? We are about to give people a wage increase and a so-called productivity increase when the country is simply going broke. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is about to make a decision on the basis of a crook submission from the Government. The submission that the Commission has before it from the Government says that everything in the economy is all right. Not a single thing has been said to the Commission about our disastrous balance of payments problem and all the problems, allegedly new, that the Treasurer now finds with our economy. The Government has not given the proper case to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and is now fudging the whole idea of Budget cuts and a hold-off in wage increases. I used to follow Mr Gregory Hywood's remarks on what the Treasurer used to do when he was in charge of the economy, but I notice that Mr Hywood now talks to the Prime Minister's minders about what is happening in the economy since the Prime Minister took over from the Treasurer the management of the economy. This is what the Prime Minister is about: An article by Mr Hywood-I do not doubt its accuracy-which is headed `PM eases way for a deal on pay', states: The high pressure `summit' environment established by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, has been killed in favour of a more controlled event focusing on the Prime Minister and comprising the big sell and the backroom deal. In other words, the Prime Minister is not prepared to face up to what he must do, which is to cut government spending before 1 July-we are almost past that date-and to ask the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission directly, by government submission, to hold off these wage increases as we are going broke. Instead he is going to do back room deals. The article by Mr Hywood continues: The real work will be done after the fanfare of the address, when the Government has the opportunity to go underground and reach some agreement with the ACTU on the next national wage case and beyond. What is going on is more sinister. The article continues: It all adds up to a laborious decision-making process. From the time Mr Keating cried `banana republic' to an eventual Cabinet decision could take up to two months. And that does not include any time for implementation . . . But the Government knows- honourable members should listen to this- that its handling of the crisis could quite possibly determine whether it can win the next election. It fully realises that the process by which the Government deals with the matter is secondary to the outcome. If the Government pulls off a deal with the ACTU it will be seen to be back in control. In other words, it does not matter that we are going broke. It does not matter that the ACTU is getting its way with the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It does not matter that the Government has failed in its responsibility to cut Budget spending. It all has to look right. It all has to look as if the Prime Minister is in control through back room deals and television performances. That is not good enough. We demand that the Government go back to the basics, do the right things on the economy, take economic management away from this grandstanding Prime Minister, get down to the hard work, make the decisions and not do back room deals which will take two, three or four months to come into operation. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.47) —For the first four minutes of a 15-minute speech, the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), spent his time on what could not be described as anything else but a filibuster. There was no substance whatsoever in what he had to say in his personal attack on the Treasurer (Mr Keating). On six of the last 10 occasions when a matter of public importance has been debated in this House-I think those are the statistics-the Treasurer has been in the chamber answering the debate. No man who has taken on the job of Treasurer has been more diligent in coming into the Parliament and answering for the Government. I was shadow Treasurer in 1976 and 1977. I had two years in the job, probably longer than the present incumbent will have in the job. During that time, matters of public importance used to get some attention in the Press. They do not get it now because the currency has been so debased by the stupidity of the arguments put up by the present Opposition. The currency of matters of public importance was also debated in earlier years by the then Government. The late Sir Phillip Lynch, who was the Treasurer when I was the shadow Treasurer, never used to come into the chamber and answer these debates in the way that Paul Keating has done so regularly. He used to get a back bencher to stand up and answer the debate. That was the sort of treatment given to matters of public importance in those days. But not so with the present Treasurer. He has been diligently coming into the chamber and doing his duty. Instead of getting on to the substance of his speech, we had a lot of nonsense from the present shadow Treasurer. He spent over 25 per cent of his speech-four minutes of the 15 minutes allotted to him-in weaving this nonsense about the Treasurer not responding to these debates. I might just add that it is about time the shadow Treasurer learnt of the duties of the Minister Assisting the Treasurer. Certainly there is a lot of correspondence involved, there is a lot of deputising for the Treasurer at meetings of bodies such as the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes, the Economic Planning Advisory Council and so on. As a member of Cabinet I am quite competent to respond to this debate; in fact, if I may say so, honourable members are very lucky indeed to have me here to do so. The central premise of this proposal from the shadow Treasurer is wrong. The fact is that, under the Hawke Government, investment has already been revived from the collapse that the coalition caused. I will not suggest that there is not a long way to go, I do not pretend that investment is as good as we want it to be; but, by heavens, it is clear that we are on the right track. Let me go through some of those facts. Business fixed investment fell in real terms when the present coalition Opposition was in government. In 1982-83 it fell by 13.9 per cent and in 1983-84 it fell by 10.4 per cent. This Government turned around that slump to a positive 4.7 per cent increase in real terms in 1985-86. I repeat: Of course the Government would like it to be better, of course we want more investment; but the current private investment statistics must be seen in perspective. Let me apply a proper perspective to this particular problem. I have two points I want to make. The first relates to the fact that there was a decline in business investment in recent quarters. The December and March quarters were indeed disappointing. In those quarters the decline was due to a natural and anticipated response to the tightening of monetary policy in 1985, a tightening which, as the shadow Treasurer knows, was addressing a problem that needed to be addressed. However, despite that decline, there was still real growth in business investment this financial year. That is worth repeating: In spite of all those factors-I will come to the height of interest rates in a moment-there was still real growth in business investment this financial year. A very important factor is related to that, and this is my second point. Investment in mining and manufacturing is up sharply. Let me give more details. In nominal terms, seasonally adjusted mining investment went up 47.2 per cent between the December quarter 1984 and the March quarter 1986. On the same basis, manufacturing investment went up 36 per cent. Next, I want to refer to investment expectations. Last week's figures of investment intentions show that in this country business was expecting 1986-87 expenditures on investment to increase in nominal terms by 14 per cent on the corresponding expectations for 1985-86 made a year earlier. From those figures the following points have to be deduced. Firstly, after allowing in the standard way for realisation experience on these expectations over the past decade, this indicates for next financial year another year of not just nominal increase but another year of real increase of the order of 5 per cent. Secondly, the increase will be more heavily directed to plant and equipment, with new non-residential building falling a little from its current very high level. Thirdly, again in 1986-87 the lead will be taken by mining and manufacturing, where it is most needed to reduce the current account deficit. Lastly, compared with the 14 per cent nominal increase expected for all private industry that I mentioned earlier, I repeat that mining is up 47 per cent and manufacturing is up 19 per cent. They are figures that need to be remembered by members of this House. Attention needs to be drawn to them because it will help expectations if they are more generally realised in the business community. I said earlier that we are not happy, nevertheless, with the present situation. We are addressing particular problems-the terms of trade and so on-and a new package of policies is being put together. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has announced that he will address the investment issue further in his speech next week. We do not need this failed Opposition to lecture as about what is needed. We do not need a proposal such as this, put forward as a matter of public importance, to know that we want more business investment. Of course we do. Every spokesperson for the Government has pointed out that more business investment is required. If, God forbid-it is my duty to point this out in a political chamber such as this-the Opposition were in government, what changes could we expect it to make? What are its prescriptions to revive business investment? I was not impressed at all, nor would any listener have been, by the list we heard the shadow Minister read out in this debate before I rose to my feet. Its policies on the economy are like pre-sliced Swiss cheese-thin and full of holes. Let me go through those policies. The Opposition would have us do away with the prices and incomes accord and institute a free labour market based on theoretical pie in the sky dogma. It ignores the fact that under the accord we have created almost 670,000 jobs, we have reduced the unemployment rate from 10 per cent to 7.9 per cent-and this reduction has been achieved despite the increase in the number of people now participating in the work force, that participation rate having gone to record levels. We have had three years of strong, positive real growth in the economy. We made no excuses for our main objective being the creation of jobs. Of course it has brought us problems with the balance of trade and the balance of payments-when one first gets that growth, one sucks in the imports-but we are addressing those problems separately. I repeat: We do not have to have a proposal such as we have before the House now from the Opposition to tell us that we want more business investment. We do not have to listen to only the shadow Treasurer in these matters. I have some quotes here from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) which, in an economic debate such as this, need addressing as well. On 29 May, just a few days ago, he presented his magical formula for ridding Australia of its problems. He said: . . . we must recognise the constraints the international community places upon us and, where necessary, work that little bit harder to achieve our goals. If the Opposition were in government, it would solve all of our problems by just going out and exhorting us to work that little bit harder-not generally, but only where necessary. We do not need that sort of lecturing we want some specific policies put before us. We have not had them today and we are not getting them from this intellectually barren Opposition. Earlier on, when the Leader of the Opposition addressed the Australian Finance Conference held in Canberra, he recalled speaking at a similar function in 1979 when he was Treasurer, on which occasion he said: . . . there was a need to deregulate Australia's financial system. What happened? He did nothing about it when he was in government. We have at least done the job of making sure that the financial system is streamlined in order to be in a position to help the economic growth that is taking place, just as we have had the courage to address the immigration problem to make sure that people whom this country needs-young, talented, mobile and adaptive people-are coming into this country, meeting the medium and long term needs of this country. That is all completely consistent with the attitudes of the present Government in getting on with the development of this country. We had nothing like that from the previous Government. We had nothing until the Hawke Labor Government was elected in March 1983. The second thing the Leader of the Opposition recalled having said was stressing the need for fundamental taxation reform. What happened? Precisely nothing happened until the Hawke Labor Government was elected. The third thing he recalled saying was that there was a need to free up Australia's labour markets and wage fixation systems. Nothing happened, about that either, thank goodness, and nothing like what the Opposition advocates is likely to happen while governments retain a responsible attitude to the labour market. That will be for a long, long time because we intend to stay in office, and the Australian people will make sure that we do not have these shocking experiments which would bring such industrial disputation, as would be the result of the Opposition's labour market policies. The Government already has in place a whole range of policies that have improved the investment climate. In my last few minutes let me go through some of those policies. The fundamentals have been corrected. In contrast to the wage blow-out for the Fraser-Howard years, real unit wage costs have fallen significantly, by 5.1 per cent in 1983-84 and by 1.7 per cent in 1984-85. Next, the profit share has been restored to its highest level since the late 1960s. Under the Fraser-Howard Government the profit share collapsed to only 12.7 per cent of gross domestic product in 1982-83. Under this Government the profit share was restored to 15 per cent of GDP in 1984-85. The shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar, made the point that return is very important for investment. Mr Carlton —After tax. Mr HURFORD —The honourable member now says `after tax'. I am very glad. We addressed this problem of tax reform. It is not fair or accurate for the Opposition just to bleat about an increase in the company tax rate from 46 cents to 49 per cent. This increase, of course, is as a result of the introduction of the imputation system at a net cost to the revenue of $250m. The imputation system is the most fundamental reform to the corporate sector and it will help in the general increase in investment in this country. Unfortunately, my time in this debate is coming to an end. I point out that we recognise also that the rate of interest is very important. I concede that interest rates are a determinant of the rate of investment. Late last year, largely because of the depreciation in the exchange rate, interest rates increased to high levels, but they are now coming down, and that is another reason why we can be sure that not only will we have a real increase in business investment but it will be in those areas which will be of great benefit to the Australian economy and which will help us continue on that growth path which the Hawke Labor Government has achieved. The real private consumption expenditure will increase as well. Overall, that we find that this matter of public importance is a waste of time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(5.02) —The economic collapse which is now evident in Australia and the crisis in investment in Australia are not matters simply for party political point scoring. They are too important for that, and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) recognised that by admitting that our arguments about the investment crisis, about the currency being debased and about the contraction of the economy are true. It is a tragedy for all Australians that, as a result of government policies, this once lucky country is becoming a land of lost opportunities, and that is happening because of the foolish policies this Government has pursued over the past three years. The Government has been given every opportunity to build up the Australian economy. Never before has there been a government which started off in such fortunate circumstances. It benefited from the reflationary Budget in 1983; it benefited from the wages pause; and it benefited from an international recovery which brought down inflation rates and interest rates around the world and which has been sustained throughout the three years of the present Government. Further, the Government benefited from the breaking of the drought. After three years the Government has failed to capitalise on those advantages. It has failed because its economic strategy has been naive. Its economic strategy has been wrong and it has put the politics of sectional interests before the broad interests of the Australian community. Its policies have made the Australian economy uncompetitive, especially in the manufacturing and service sectors. The Government has created financial chaos through a strategy of overspending during an economic upturn-a strategy of rapid economic growth based on government spending and the creation of jobs in the public sector. I point out that this Government has created 23,400 Commonwealth Public Service jobs in three years and 46,000 State Public Service jobs in that time. What are the consequences of this misguided economic strategy? Clearly-and this is what the debate is all about-one of the major consequences has been the collapse in private investment, which, as the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) pointed out, has declined by some 8 per cent over the last three quarters. How dramatically that compares with the optimistic projections in the last Budget of 1985, when we heard that investment was going to turn upwards and continue to increase this year. But it is not doing so-it is going down. Why has investment been going down? One has only to look at the document that the Business Council of Australia produced this very afternoon to find the explanation. The Business Council said: . . . high interest rates, concern about new tax imposts on business, the poor outlook for commodity prices and for labour cost increases relative to our competitors all being contributing factors in the decline in investment. That body is representative of businesses, which are the source of investment. They will not invest because of our high level of taxation and because the Government is increasing company tax from 46 per cent to 49 per cent. As the honourable member for Mackellar pointed out, the Government has introduced a new fringe benefits tax, which could cost business anything up to $2 billion. It has introduced the capital gains tax-a tax against investment and wealth creation. It has introduced negative gearing as well as a whole range of different taxes, all militating against the great objective of investment and economic growth. Look at the Government's performance in the wages and labour costs area. Australia has full wage indexation. The Government boasts that it is proud of full wage indexation, and yet the consequences of that are that it is making Australia uncompetitive. We are the only country in the Western World that has persisted with full wage indexation. We have a wage fixing system that does not take into consideration the capacity of business to pay or the international situation generally, and the consequence of that is that business will just not invest. Interest rates are critical to capital accumulation and, according to the Economist magazine, Australia has the highest interest rates of all countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. All of this has been caused, of course, by the Government having to compensate for its policy failures in the taxation and wages area. I should also refer briefly to the fact that only recently, in the last week or so, the Government's so-called Business Regulation Review Unit has exposed the fact that business is suffering under some $80 billion worth of regulations imposed by government. The Government puts up the totally feeble defence, which we heard from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, that none of these things are really the fault of the present Government. The Government claimed that the Fraser Government overvalued the Australian dollar and that that is why investment in the manufacturing sector is not as great as it should be. For a start, it is rubbish to go back so far in history to try to justify policy failures. Apart from that, one has simply to look at what happened to the trade-weighted index during the present Government's term in office. In March 1983, when this Government came to power, the trade-weighted index was actually lower than it was in February 1984-just a year after the Government had assumed office. So much for that argument. The Government argues that the terms of trade have been a major cause for the decline in Australia's economic performance and indeed in its investment prospects. Certainly that has been a problem, but the Government should have been aware of that problem all along. The community has been aware of it, the Treasury has been aware of it and the Government has been told about it again and again. In the Budget Papers last year the Treasury wrote: A marked deterioration in the terms of trade is expected, reflecting primarily the relative weakness of world prices for our commodity-based exports. Why did the Government not take any notice of that? Why was the Government not concerned about that? Why did the Government make optimistic and absurd predictions about the J-curve and then suddenly abandon those predictions, those optimistic forecasts, only in recent weeks when it had to face up to the reality of the failure of Australia's balance of payments? The Treasurer himself must have received the confidential reports of the Treasury-because we have all received them-about the balance of payments situation next year. The Treasury forecasts that next year our balance of payments deficit will be $11.5 billion and our international debt will be $100 billion. If that is so, the cost of servicing that debt will be 40 per cent of our total export earnings. The Government has ignored all these warnings-warnings from people on its own side, warnings from people in the business community, warnings from the Public Service-and it has claimed that everything is well. The Treasurer has come into the House, week in and week out, boasting and crowing about the performance of the Australian economy. If ever there was an example of pride coming before a fall, that is a very good example. The community has been treated with contempt by the Government as the economy has slowly sagged. The latest argument the Government, in particular the Treasurer, is putting forward on investment is that because business has now achieved record profits it is its responsibility to go out and invest regardless of the investment climate, regardless of the capacity business judges it will have to get a return on that investment. That argument is strongly contradicted by the Economic Planning Advisory Council in its latest assessment of Australia's investment. It produces something called the ratio of incentive to investment-some people call it the Q-ratio. I think that the Q-ratio as well as the J-curve should enter into the vernacular of Australian economics. That ratio now shows, as it falls to 0.71, that it is more profitable for businesses to invest in the money market than it is to invest in capital. They get a bigger return there, because of the high interest rates the people on the Labor benches have created, than from investing in the productive future of this country. That is an indictment of this Government's policies; it is the fundamental reason that investment is not taking place and that growth will soon fade away. The Economic Planning Advisory Council has been making these points to the Government again and again, but it has been consistently ignored by the Government. One wonders why EPAC was set up in the first place if it is to be ignored. It is a matter that perhaps should be referred to the Waste Watch Committee. In conclusion, I believe that the Government should act, and act now, to postpone the national wage case at least for six months; to abandon the 3 per cent productivity deal; to abandon its anti-business, anti-investment tax package, and to abandon it immediately; to relax foreign investment restrictions; and to try to recover for Australia those opportunities which have been so sadly lost as a result of this Government's policies over the last three years. The chickens really have come home to roost for this Government. Its strategy of big spending, of doing what the Australian Council of Trade Unions wants, has led to loss of business and loss of growth. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(5.13) —The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) issued the injunction at the beginning of his speech that the state of the economy is not an issue on which one should engage in party political point scoring. He then proceeded to do just that. His contribution was interesting for what it did not contain rather than for what it did. What it did not contain has become something we witness every day in this House, and that is an alternative policy strategy. The whingeing Opposition can come in here and attack, like some economic fifth columnist, the economy of this country; yet nowhere do we see any viable or sensible alternative being proposed. If one has regard to, for example, the contribution on the fringe benefits tax package, it is worth looking at a few figures. In the last two years the operating surplus of companies in this country is up 50 per cent-that is, it has added $8.5 billion to a total sum of $26 billion of operating surplus. In the context of unincorporated enterprises, that figure is up 32 per cent-some $5 billion to $20 billion. The total increase of $13.5 billion has generated increased tax of only $3 billion, and of course that is adjusted by the lag of one year that is implied in those figures. After tax, there is an increase of about $10 billion in their profits, including $6.5 billion for companies. The total package to which we are referring in this debate on this matter of public importance in 1987-88 takes only three-quarters of a billion dollars from those companies, but the impact of that must be considered against the beneficial effects of the imputation package that is a central and integral part of the whole package of some quarter of a billion dollars net. Figures of that sort clearly indicate that we cannot look at these matters in an economic vacuum. It is important in the context of the proposals that we appreciate, as I reiterate, that they are revenue-neutral. We are not taking from anyone in the Australian community one dollar which is not being redirected towards ordinary taxpaying Australians. I emphasise the word `taxpaying'. It is not a popular term in the Opposition's lexicon. Opposition members tend to the view that ordinary taxpayers should continue, as they did under their regime, paying an ever increasing proportion of the tax burden of this country. I categorically reject that as a policy approach, as does the Government. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the shadow Treasurer, adverted in colourful language to what he described as certain `chilling' figures. The central premise of the Opposition's matter of public importance is fundamentally wrong. The fact is that under the Hawke Government investment has already revived from the collapse that the coalition parties caused. This is a matter not of rhetoric, but of empirical fact. It is one, I suggest, that even the economic illiterates in the Opposition will be able to work out-that is, that business fixed investment fell in real terms by some 13.9 per cent in the year 1982-83, and in real terms by 10.4 per cent in 1983-84. Under the Hawke Government those large drops have been turned around to an increase in real terms of 4.7 per cent in 1985-86. When one comes to these tax debates one needs to come with clean hands. A rudimentary perusal of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and McCabe-Lafranchi reports will indicate just how bereft the Opposition is in trying to occupy the high moral ground on these issues. During its period of government under the tutelage of the then Treasurer, Mr Howard, tax avoidance was significantly higher in this country than it was in the United States of America, the United Kingdom or, for that matter, any other comparable Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country. I stress that the whole package must be seen as just that. It is a package and, as I have indicated, is revenue-neutral. The essence of the package not only is directed towards reimbursing companies through imputation and other changes, but also is fundamentally about the reduction of marginal rates in terms of pay as you earn income earners. To that extent, whenever anyone gets up in this House, or indeed outside this House, and bleats about one particular aspect of the package, I think it is important that all PAYE income earners-that silent majority who have shouldered an ever increasing burden of tax revenues-appreciate the inevitable reality that is a corollary of those suggestions. To the extent that members of any vested interest group advocate breaches of Commonwealth laws or a cruder form of attack on these measures, whenever they do so they are simply arguing, from a vested interested position, that ordinary PAYE income earners should not be given the opportunity to have those marginal rates reduced. It is worth remembering that the Opposition already is up to some $5.5 billion in promises, and now, as a result of editorial pressure, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is showing all that courage and integrity he promised by buckling to a bit of pressure and indicating that the fringe benefits tax package will be repealed! If that were to be the case, were he ever to have that opportunity-I do not think he will ever get it-that would give a figure of some $6.2 billion that the discredited Opposition would have to find from somewhere. In the previous Government he was unable to get $250m from his razor gang exercise some years ago. The reality is that the ordinary PAYE taxpayer would be footing the bill as in the past. That will not happen. It will not be allowed to happen because this is essentially a government about decency and fairness in the tax system. It is worth looking at some figures I dug out which were prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and appeared in `Employment Benefits Australia' August 1985, Catalogue No. 6334.0. Its salutary comments are worth noting. In terms of fringe benefits availability to wage and salary earners, I ask the Opposition to weigh this information. Employers and the self-employed generally enjoy a greater access, almost by definition, to fringe benefits; they are much less available to wage and salary earners. Among wage and salary earners employment fringe benefits are heavily biased towards employees already receiving relatively high incomes. Among the highest paid 11 per cent of wage and salary earners-I add that the major component of this figure comes from the self-employed-only one in six receives private transport fringe benefits, that is, an employer-provided car; one in seven receives an entertainment allowance; one quarter have their private telephone costs paid or subsidised by their employer; only one in 12-remembering that this is only the top 11 per cent of wage and salary earners-enjoys employer-provided or subsidised housing; one in 12 has medical or hospital costs paid or subsidised by the employer; only one in 13 has holidays paid for-and the one fundamental here is whether the taxpayer should subsidise any of these costs; one in 20 has club fees paid as a fringe benefit-for goodness sake, club fees subsidised by the ordinary taxpayer of this country; and one in 26 receives shares in the employer's firm as an employment benefit. Of the 74 per cent of wage and salary earners who earn below average weekly earnings only one in 20 receives subsidised travel; one in 50 receives an entertainment allowance, and less than one in 17 receives a telephone benefit. I could go into considerably more detail, but the essence of the case I am making should be clear from those figures. It is worth noting, in winding up my contribution, that the issue here is not the protest by anyone in this community about particular components of the fringe benefits tax package. The issue is fundamentally about the first major reform of our taxation system for many many decades. The issue is fundamentally about equity, about decency, and about fairness. It is about removing, to some extent at least, the ever-increasing burden that has been carried by the ordinary, honest, pay as you earn taxpayers of this country. It is all right for the honourable member for Mayo, who chose his parents very carefully, as did my colleague the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown). They have always had access to the rorts; it has been an accepted part of their lifestyle. They expect the ordinary taxpayers of Australia to subsidise the garnering of the benefits they get from the system. That will not continue under this Government, and should not continue under any government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 251st report of the Committee relating to the Finance Minute on Report 228, Advance to the Minister for Finance 1982-83, and ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr CONQUEST —Report 251 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts considers the Department of Finance Minute relating to the Committee's 228th report on the Advance to the Minister for Finance for 1982-83. The advance to the Minister for Finance is a provision authorised by the annual Appropriation Acts and is made available to the Minister. In 1982-83 amounts of $125m, $100m and $50m respectively were provided for this purpose in Appropriation Acts No. (1), No. (2), and No. (3). As a general principle, the only amounts which should remain a charge to the appropriations for the Advance to the Minister for Finance at the end of the financial year are urgent and unforeseen expenditures which arise between the time of preparation of the additional Appropriation Bills and the close of the financial year. In its examination, the Committee seeks to ascertain whether or not expenditure from the Advance conforms to this general principle. The Committee received statements relating to 111 items of expenditure. Supplementary material was obtained concerning 10 items. Three items were selected for public inquiry. These were: Department of Aviation-office requisites and equipment; Department of Defence-pay and allowances for the Army Reserve and Cadets; and Department of Transport-fuel, light and power. As a result of its public inquiry into the management and control by the Department of Defence of payments to the Citizen Military Forces, Regular Army Emergency Reserve and Officers of Cadets of the Australian Cadet Corps, the Committee found some disturbing deficiencies. Overuse of the training day allocation arose because responsible officers were not able to line up actual training days worked and payments made or due with the overall planned number of training days per head. The control problems which permitted the excessive use of training days arose from, and were aggravated by, the lack of adequate and timely information on expenditure trends. The recently computerised pay system facilitated prompt payments of amounts due, resulting in a faster than expected rate of payment, but did not provide management with information for estimating purposes. The Committee notes that since its inquiry a number of actions have been taken to improve management and control and that the item continues to receive close scrutiny. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the report of the Committee entitled `Gone with the Winds-Inquiry into meteorological services', together with copies of the minutes of proceedings, the transcript of evidence and submissions authorised for publication. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MARTIN —by leave-The meteorological services inquiry, `Gone with the Winds-Inquiry into meteorological services', was undertaken as a result of a joint request by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) and the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). The Committee was originally requested to investigate the provision of public weather services from a number of weather service offices located in remote provincial centres. These offices were threatened with closure as a result of a withdrawal of funds for their operation by the Department of Aviation. The Ministers understandably wanted to allay the public protest which arose when the proposals became known to the communities affected and they requested a speedy solution. The completion of the inquiry and the tabling of the report today represent somewhat of a record for the Expenditure Committee and are due to in no small part to the dedication of the members of my sub-committee and the support from the Committee secretariat, who in 57 days completed an around Australia inspection tour of 10 weather service offices. The total proposal called for the closure of 10 weather service offices, ranging from Cairns, Mt Isa and Rockhampton in Queensland; Port Hedland in Western Australia; Alice Springs; Hobart and Launceston in Tasmania; the meteorological briefing office attached to Essendon Airport; Tamworth in New South Wales; and the Civil Aviation office here in Canberra. In addition, there was a proposal to open an office in Jandakot, just south of Perth. As a result of Government endorsement of the recent report of the Bosch Committee on Aviation Cost Recovery, the Department of Aviation has commenced the implementation of a number of cost saving measures, including a reduction in meteorological services provided to aviation. In practice the closure of 10 WSOs would have represented a saving of some 7 per cent in total charges over a three-year period. However, in the Committee's opinion, short term cost-cutting measures which lead to a reduction in real benefits to the Australian community, particularly in remote areas, do not provide the answer. In fact, short term saving measures may well result in increased costs in the long term. For example, severe deterioration of basic support infrastructure and the delayed introduction of new technologies may incur major long term financial penalties. These comments apply equally to the Department of Aviation and the Bureau of Meteorology. In its whirlwind tours of inspection, the Committee investigated the services provided at all 10 WSOs. At a number of locations, including Cairns, Rockhampton, Launceston and Port Hedland, the WSO provides a valuable public weather service to the local community. Members of the public who attended the seven public meetings we held commented on the value of the services to the farming community, to sporting organisations, for marine safety and general media distribution. I mentioned the whirlwind tour of inspections. This was a particularly apt description when referring to the Committee's visit to Cairns on the eve of tropical cyclone Winifred crossing the coast just to the south. This first hand experience of a community under threat increased our sympathy with all residents along Australia's northern shores who at some time will experience the devastation associated with tropical cyclones. The value of the warnings provided by the tropical cyclone warning centres of the Bureau of Meteorology was obvious. However, what was also obvious was the lack of up-to-date equipment in all the offices visited. In Cairns, where we expected to find the latest in radar surveillance, the weather watch radar was, in fact, over 20 years old, with antiquated communications facilities. The technical officers employed in the weather service offices in Port Hedland and Rockhampton, as well as in Cairns, all played an important role in the dissemination of advices to the local communities as well as a personal involvement in the local emergency service. The Committee commends the officers involved and considers closure of these offices would prove detrimental to the Bureau's ability to provide such a vital public service. The Committee views with grave concern the general run-down state of the Bureau's facilities and recommends an urgent upgrade of the tropical cyclone warning service, including an investigation of the use of all-weather satellite communication facilities. The unreliability of communications systems was one feature consistently criticised by local residents. Upgrade of the Bureau's data and forecast transmission facilities would, it is thought, reduce delays in Bureau products reaching the threatened communities. On-line transmission of radar scans to the remote cyclone warning centres in Perth and Brisbane is considered essential, with the Bureau to investigate the possibility of direct transmission of these scans to local communities or emergency services in the same way as satellite photographs are currently transmitted via television. The Committee saw ample evidence to support the claim that the Bureau's basic infrastructure had, through a shortage of funds, been allowed to deteriorate to a level where its future viability must be under a cloud. The Committee recommends endorsement of the Bureau's accelerated capital re-equipment program, which, it noted, would also result in further savings to the Department of Aviation. The full implementation of the automatic regional operations system-AROS-is one obvious area where there is enormous potential for the Bureau to increase productivity and to reduce the number of mundane labour-intensive tasks currently undertaken by qualified staff. In the Committee's opinion, the remote WSOs located at Mt Isa and Alice Springs provide an essential input into the Bureau's already depleted operational infrastructure and should be retained accordingly. In this context, I would like to make a brief mention of the functions performed by the technical officers (meteorology) who staff the weather service offices. As a result of a longstanding demarcation dispute between the technical officers and meteorologists employed by the Bureau, the TOs are currently not responsible for the issue of any forecasts. However, the Committee was repeatedly told of the value of local knowledge to the issue of an accurate forecast both by local communities and by Bureau management. In the Committee's view, a further centralisation of the Bureau's forecasting service should be avoided. Closure of all 10 weather service offices would result in further contraction of the service to capital cities, all located along the coastal fringe. In view of the important role played by the technical officers, the Committee recommends that they be given responsibility at least for the provision of short period forecasts for selected provincial centres. Despite the fact that the Committee recommends the retention of six weather service offices-those at Cairns, Rockhampton, Mt Isa, Port Hedland, Alice Springs and Launceston-at the remaining sites of Hobart, Essendon, Canberra and Tamworth the retention of the Offices could not be justified, and it recommends closure by December 1987 in the case of the first three and for Tamworth by June 1988. Although the Committee anticipated there would not be a need to consider the provision of aviation briefing by the technical officers at the weather service offices, in fact a number of submissions and petitions were made on the subject. The Committee also heard evidence from pilots, particularly in remote areas, who stressed the value of the service. However, the Committee concludes that the closure of the briefing function is consistent with the Department of Aviation stated policy for the centralisation of pilot briefing with emphasis on high volume capital city aerodromes. I can do no better than to quote from the evidence received, that voice-to-voice briefing was as good as face-to-face briefing. Instead, a recommendation is made for the Bureau to investigate the feasibility of the development of a television aviation briefing service which would be available to the non-commercial aviation industry, whether located near a WSO or not. On this same point the Committee notes in its findings that for the Department of Aviation's centralisation policy to be successfully implemented, the Government must provide levels of investment necessary to modernise the airways system. Similarly, the lack of supporting technology in the Bureau of Meteorology's current centralised system is recognised as making a significant contribution to the problems the Bureau is currently experiencing. Finally, the Committee found that the Bureau, whose Head Office is located in Melbourne, is disadvantaged in its dealings with other government departments, including its own Department of Science. It recommends urgent consultations with the Department of Aviation to produce a revised formalised and binding working arrangement between the two agencies to avoid similar problems in the future. To limit the adverse effect upon the Bureau of the current 1985-86 shortfall in funds, it further recommends that the capital allocation for 1986-87 be increased to offset any cuts in the Bureau's capital re-equipment program. In summary, I would like to thank all members of my Sub-committee, in particular the current Chairman of the Expenditure Committee, the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), the previous Chairman, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), who both braved the storm on our inspection visit to Cairns, and the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) for his dedication to this inquiry at 5 a.m. Also I thank officers of the Secretariat, in particular the Committee Secretary, Mrs Sue Harlow, Mr Peter Ratas and Miss Penny Maher, who managed to produce the report in the timely fashion required. Finally, the Committee is particularly grateful for the services of two advisers, Ms Bettye Dixon and Mr Brian Whiteley, seconded from the Bureau of Meteorology and the Department of Aviation. Both officers are a credit to their respective organisations. Mr BEALE(Deakin) —by leave-I join the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) in paying tribute to the work of the officers of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure secretariat and those seconded from other departments in their preparation of the meteorological services inquiry. The honourable member for Macarthur has, in his statement, covered the general aspects of the inquiry. I would like to supplement his comments and make some observations on the net financial impact of the Committee's recommendations. As the honourable member mentioned, in August 1985 the Government endorsed the general strategy of the Bosch Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery on the Department of Aviation. Accordingly, the Department has embarked on a general cost saving campaign. The Department made a proposal to cut the costs of aviation meteorological services by the progressive closure, over a three-year period, of 10 weather service offices around the country. The locations proposed to be closed included Alice Springs, Cairns, the civilian part of the Weather Service Office at Canberra , Essendon, Hobart, Launceston, Mount Isa, Port Hedland, Tamworth and Rockhampton. In addition, the Department of Aviation announced plans to increase its efficiency and to reduce costs by rationalising certain of its services. These plans included the establishment of a centralised briefing service based on three flight information regions Australia-wide with concentration on the high volume capital city aerodromes. The plans also included the establishment of a new weather service office south of Perth and the strengthening of other offices at secondary capital city aerodromes such as Moorabbin near Melbourne, Bankstown near Sydney, and Archerfield near Brisbane. The Department of Aviation determines its requirements for meteorological services for civil aviation within Australia. The Bureau of Meteorology provides the majority of these services and in turn charges the Department for their provision. The Department then recovers the cost from the aviation industry by means of air navigation charges. The total charge in 1984-85 for meteorological services was approximately $15m, representing some 11 per cent of air navigation charges. In the broader context, only 60 per cent of all attributable costs are recovered by the Department from the aviation industry in the form of air navigation charges, aviation fuel tax, rents and concessions. The shortfall, amounting to some $189m in 1984-85, is paid from Consolidated Revenue as a subsidy. Currently the Bureau of Meteorology staffs 17 weather service offices Australia-wide for civil aviation purposes only. A further three weather service offices provide a joint user service for defence and civilian aviation use. These facilities are at Darwin, Townsville and Canberra. All offices are staffed by Bureau-trained technical officer (meteorology) personnel and, in the case of civil officers, the Department of Aviation pays the costs of salaries and a fixed overhead charge. Table 3.2 in the meteorological services inquiry report indicates that closure of the 10 weather service offices, would result in the progressive saving to the Department of Aviation of some $1.817m by mid-1989, with a staff reduction of 27 technical officers and three observers. The opening of the office south of Perth and the strengthening of a number of capital city secondary aerodromes is estimated to involve the employment of an additional seven technical officer staff over this period and accordingly there would be a reduction in those savings down to about $1.4m. The original terms of reference of the inquiry required the Committee to investigate the provision of non-aviation services by the weather service offices proposed for closure and the method of charging. The Committee found that the volume of non-aviation services provided by each weather service office varied markedly. At offices such as Hobart, Canberra and Essendon, located adjacent to major regional forecasting centres, the volume was insignificant and the Committee recommended closure, with completion of closure by December 1987. This represents an overall saving of $456,000. In addition, the volume of services provided by the Tamworth office was not considered sufficient to justify its retention and the total savings therefore increased to $576,000. The Committee pointed out the need to define clearly the term `savings' and to identify the true beneficiary. The Committee understands that the original savings of $1.4m would not have been passed on to the aviation industry as a reduction in air navigation charges but would have been used by the Government in accordance with its stated policy to reduce the total charge considered attributable to the aviation industry. The Committee concluded that the $576,000 identified above would also be used to reduce attributable costs. The Committee recommended the retention of the other six weather service offices, both to provide a valuable public weather service to local communities and to avoid further deterioration of the Bureau's infrastructure and increased centralisation of its operational organisation, with the cost of the service-some $1.1m-to be recovered from Consolidated Revenue. In this respect I pay tribute to the representations made by my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), who at all times maintained that the retention of the weather service office at Alice Springs was entirely justified, essentially on the grounds that the Bureau's infrastructure should be maintained. The Committee found during its inquiry that the Bureau's operating infrastructure had been allowed to deteriorate to such a level that its ability to provide forecasts in the future was questionable. It concluded that any savings to costs attributable to the aviation industry which resulted in a further deterioration of the Bureau's infrastructure and provision of services were not true savings when viewed in the overall context. In particular, a curtailment of services to remote provincial centres, including a reduction in infrastructure supporting the already deficient tropical cyclone warning services available to northern Australian communities, should be avoided. The initial proposal by the Department of Aviation to close 10 weather service offices would have meant a saving of $1.8m. This figure was reduced to $1.4m by allowing for strengthening of briefing services provided to secondary capital city aerodromes. These figures would have represented a saving in costs attributable to the aviation industry and would have been used to reduce the $189m shortfall currently funded from Consolidated Revenue. However, the Expenditure Committee recommended that any savings to aviation should not be made at the expense of the already depleted Bureau of Meteorology infrastructure or public weather services provided to remote provincial communities. The retention of six weather service offices to avoid further deterioration of services requires $1.1m to be provided from Consolidated Revenue. Accordingly, as a result of the Expenditure Committee's deliberations, a reduction in expenditure of $576,000 is recommended, while at the same time the Committee recommends maintenance of those weather service offices providing service to their local communities. I commend the report to the House. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks) —by leave-As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, on the tabling of this report, I would like to thank all members of the sub-committee, the Secretariat and the specialist advisers who prepared this report. The speed with which the report was expedited is a reflection of the expertise of all those involved and owes much to the work of Betty Dixon of the Bureau of Meteorology and Brian Whiteley of the Department of Aviation, who were engaged to provide the inquiry with the specialist insights of their respective departments. Mr Adrian Scott, the Acting Secretary over the past two months, has also been instrumental in the preparation of this report. It is pleasing to see that those people are present in the House this afternoon. The report is one of many which the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure has undertaken within the last six months. Since 30 November 1985 the Expenditure Committee, through 8 sub-committees, has conducted 29 public hearings, 10 private meetings and 15 inspections, and has witnessed one cyclone. The report now tabled took up 11 of those public hearings and meetings, four private sessions and 12 inspections right around Australia, including witnessing the aforementioned cyclone. The Committee has concluded that the need for the inquiry arose from a conflict between the newly allocated policy of the Department of Aviation for centralisation of its aviation briefing services, on the one hand, and the need of the Bureau of Meteorology to avoid further centralisation in its operational organisation, on the other hand. In finding 13, the Committee recognises this conflict and suggests ways of settling the problem. If the centralisation policy of the Department of Aviation is to be successful the Government will need to increase levels of investment to modernise the present airways system in order to avoid the very problem from which the Bureau of Meteorology is suffering with its centralised system; that is, a lack of the necessary support technology. Basically this report is a review of the decision of the Department of Aviation to close down 10 weather service offices. These offices provide information not only to the aviation industry but also to other elements in the community. In response to the concern of these other users at the closure of services the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) and the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) requested the Expenditure Committee to explore other avenues. As a result, the sub-committee has found that the closure of all 10 stations would be counterproductive in the long term. The cost savings represent reductions in expenditure only within the Department of Aviation, while the services provided would still need to be maintained for the sake of those other users. The potential savings would therefore be a false economy when the other key users of the offices have been highlighted. Thus the sub-committee has found a demonstrated public need for the retention of the services of the weather service offices at Alice Springs, Cairns, Launceston, Mount Isa, Port Hedland and Rockhampton. Further, as these stations provide a service to the community at large, they should be funded from Consolidated Revenue and such funding should begin in the 1987-88 financial year. The public need in the other four centres of Canberra, Essendon, Tamworth and Hobart is not felt to be great enough to continue operation. Again, I thank those involved in the report, especially the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), the sub-committee Chairman. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —by leave-I join with my colleagues the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) and the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) in what they have said in support of the tabling of the report of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, and I endorse everything that they have said. I also wish to make special mention of the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), who is present in the chamber at the moment. As honourable members will know, the honourable member for Bass has just been appointed to the Committee. I suspect that his interest probably was generated when he saw the Committee at work in Launceston earlier this year. The people of Launceston should be very appreciative of the efforts of the honourable member for Bass in ensuring that the weather service office in Launceston has remained open. I am sure his efforts were very much appreciated by his constituents. In the course of the inquiry, the general rundown and condition of the Bureau of Meteorology's equipment, including technology supporting the vital tropical cyclone warning system, were obvious cause for grave concern. The committee felt it would be remiss if it did not acknowledge the need for an urgent upgrade of the tropical cyclone warning service and endorse the Bureau's accelerated capital re-equipment program. Meteorological services impact on virtually every Australian and every sector of the economy. They contribute to the prosperity of primary and secondary industry and to the safety and quality of life of the general community. It is easy to take the Bureau of Meteorology for granted but in fact it does affect the lifestyle of every Australian almost every day. Of course, one of the potentially greatest contributions to the meteorological services to Australia is in the provision of effective fire, cyclone, severe storm and flood warnings. Damage and loss from bushfires, cyclones, storms and floods approach something like $500m a year and may exceed $2,000m, with the loss of hundreds of lives in a bad year. The potential for loss is increasing as population density and investment in fire, cyclone and flood risk areas of Australia increase rapidly. A large part-at least 10 to 20 per cent in some circumstances and as much as 50 per cent-of this loss and damage and most of the associated loss of life is avoidable, given effective modern warning systems. So by any measure the money that is invested by the Government in the Bureau of Meteorology is a cheap investment. As we travelled around looking at the facilities of the Bureau of Meteorology, it concerned me greatly to see how antiquated they are in many cases. I dare say that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, would be the first to endorse this. In fact he went so far as to come into the House, I think it was last year, with a valve from one of the pieces of equipment with which the Bureau is still persevering. The equipment was so obsolete that the Bureau could no longer buy spare parts for it. It behoves this Government-and I am sure the Opposition will support it-to upgrade the equipment of the Bureau of Meteorology. It is vitally important and should have the highest priority. I dare say the Minister will agree that the cuts in resources to the Bureau commenced in the 1970s. The results of recent neglect are becoming more obvious in the form of failed equipment and industrial disharmony. The Bureau's capital re-equipment plan calls for an increase in capital spending from its present level of $3.5m to around $7m. The replacement and upgrading of the basic systems and equipment which support the Bureau's basic operating infrastructure are an urgent requirement. The Australian Science and Technology Council has recently stressed the urgency for an upgrade in capital funding, pointing out that unless the re-equipment program is accelerated immediately the Bureau will become locked into a permanent state of obsolescence from which it will be very difficult and costly to recover. During the inspections the sub-committee was made aware of the age of some of the radar supporting the tropical cyclone warning services. I wish to make special mention of the dedication of the Chairman of the sub-committee, the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), who in fact was so dedicated to this inquiry that he took those members and staff of the sub-committee who were willing to witness a cyclone, and brought them back too, which I guess is- Mr Leo McLeay —And do not forget that they got cold feet in Townsville. Mr HAWKER —I gather some of them got cold feet in Townsville. The sub-committee was made aware of the age of some of the radars supporting this service. Unless the accelerated re-equipment plan is implemented, the age of over 45 per cent of all Bureau radar systems will be in excess of 20 years well into the 1990s. Even if the re-equipment program of over $7m is undertaken, much of this old radar will continue in service for many years. I understand from the Bureau's estimates that, even if the $7m program is implemented, it will take well into the 1990s before the percentage of radar equipment aged 20 years and over will be reduced to below 40 per cent. That is extremely serious. I would like to touch on one other matter which the sub-committee noticed on its way around. I refer to the demarcation dispute between professional meteorologists and non-professional technical officers. This has in fact existed since the end of the Second World War. It reached the surface during the late 1970s and resulted in meteorologists being given responsibility for the origination of all forecasts and staff positions within the capital city regional forecasting centres. After this, technical officers were restricted to performing an interpretative function, under the guidance of meteorologists, within the regional forecasting centres. Technical officers are therefore employed at weather service offices remote from the regional forecasting centres. In recommendation 7 of the sub-committee's report, it alludes to this problem but, as it is really outside the terms of reference, and I suggest probably outside the expertise of the sub-committee, we make only a passing reference to it. Nonetheless, it is a quite serious problem and, as we noticed on our visits, it does often lead to some quite unnecessary duplication of services. I suggest that when the Government takes on board this report it ought to do some further investigations into this problem because it is quite serious and should be addressed. It is something that should have been addressed some time ago. In conclusion, I wish to endorse the words of the honourable member for Macarthur, the Chairman of the sub-committee, and at the same time commend him for his efforts. But I would like also to place on record my appreciation of the support of the secretariat, in particular Mrs Harlow and the acting Secretary, Mr Scott, Mr Ratas, Miss Maher, and our two consultants, Ms Betty Dixon from the Bureau of Meteorology and Mr Brian Whiteley from the Department of Aviation. I cannot overstate the importance of accelerating the capital re-equipment program for the Bureau of Meteorology. It is extremely serious that this has not been addressed before. It is something from which all Australians will benefit. In fact, if one looks at it from the point of view of an investment, it is an extremely good investment. With better forecasting services there could be considerable savings of both life and property when the disasters that are a pattern of our life in Australia strike. With better warnings and better forecasting, the relatively small amount spent on upgrading the Bureau's facilities would be more than repaid by the benefits to the whole community. I appreciate that the Government has some Budget difficulties, but I will not allude to them other than to say that, despite those difficulties, I think the Government should place this upgrading of the Bureau's equipment high on its priority list. The community will reap the benefit and the cost will be, relatively, a lot less than the benefits accrued. The benefits will be for all Australians, not just those in a particular area. I too commend the report to the House. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure I present the report of the Committee entitled `Footprints in the Sand: Inquiry into civil coastal surveillance co-ordination', together with copies of the minutes of proceedings, the transcript of evidence, and the submissions authorised for publication. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LEO McLEAY —by leave-I have pleasure in presenting this report to the House. The topic of coastal surveillance has been the subject of a number of reviews in recent years. The most substantial of these was the Beazley Review of Australia's Peacetime Coastal Surveillance and Protection Arrangements, which was undertaken during 1983 and presented to Parliament in early 1984. The recommendations of this review resulted in substantial changes to the organisation of civil coastal surveillance in Australia, and by undertaking this inquiry the Committee sought to ascertain whether these changes had been fully implemented, and to what extent it had improved the organisation of coastal surveillance. Overall, the Committee found that the majority of the Beazley review's recommendations had been implemented. The evidence presented suggested that the operation of the littoral patrols had been running satisfactorily and that the geographic focus of the current program was fulfilling the requirements of the agencies involved in coastal surveillance. In particular, the user agencies were satisfied with the amount of surveillance undertaken by defence forces and civilian aerial contractors, indicating that the perceived threats are being met with sufficient resources to ensure that Australia's sovereignty is protected. The co-ordination of civil coastal surveillance is a complex operation involving many interests. The coastal surveillance patrols are on the lookout for many things, including breaches of quarantine, foreign fishing vessels, illicit drugs, illegal immigration, as well as protecting Australia's interests in the territories off the coast. Altogether, 14 Commonwealth agencies have some level of interest in these operations. As well, State governments and the Northern Territory Government have a large role in these operations. The Committee examined closely the Coastal Protection Unit, which was tasked by the Beazley review to co-ordinate civil coastal surveillance operations. In the Beazley review it was proposed that the Australian Federal Police should staff the CPU, and that the ministerial responsibility for coastal surveillance should be vested in a Minister already responsible for a significant element of the protection regime, namely, the Special Minister of State. This change was designed to ensure that the one organisation was responsible for both the organisation of surveillance and the response and enforcement operation. The intended result was to be a greater level of detection of illegal drug entry from the north of Australia. The evidence presented to the Committee suggested that the creation of the Coastal Protection Unit had not dramatically increased the level of drug interdiction through coastal surveillance operations. Representatives of both the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs Service pointed out to the Committee in testimony that the current program of surveillance provided little benefit to those two agencies in their task of interdicting drugs at Australia's northern coastline. Indeed, in the answer given in this House earlier today to a question raised by the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) indicated that the main element that the Government relied upon in the fight against illegal drug importation to Australia was intelligence gathered from both within Australia and overseas. He also indicated that drug imports into Australia tended to come in shipping containers rather than across the northern barrier of Australia. In particular, however, in evidence to the Committee, the Australian Customs Service witnesses stated that no prosecutions of drug offenders had eventuated due to coastal surveillance sightings since the creation of the Coastal Protection Unit. The statistics provided to the Committee support this point. In 1984-85 there were 82,500 sightings from coastal surveillance, which resulted in 28 responses from law enforcement agencies. Of those 28 responses there were nine prosecutions, none of which was drug related. Eight of those nine prosecutions related to foreign fishing vessel infringements. The Committee formed the view that the current coastal surveillance operation is mainly serving the interests of the quarantine program, as well as helping to monitor the movement of foreign fishing vessels. The Committee was reminded of the necessity of this surveillance in terms of the possible consequences should an exotic plant or animal disease be allowed to enter Australia. Regulation of the licensed foreign fishing vessels is also important to ensure that Australia's natural resources are not over-exploited. In view of the lack of evidence suggesting that the organisation of coastal surveillance is benefiting the law enforcement agencies in their efforts to prevent illegal drug entry, the Committee recommended that this task be undertaken by the Department of Transport. As this Department already co-ordinates much of the present communications systems of coastal surveillance and arranges the contracts for the civilian littoral patrol, it would therefore seem appropriate that control over coastal surveillance be vested in it. The Committee felt that the Australian Federal Police should have a role in coastal surveillance, especially in the enforcement capability. It is obvious that the AFP and the Australian Customs Service should be the agencies involved when a response operation is required. If our recommendations are implemented by the Government, the Department of Transport will be responsible for overall coastal surveillance operation, and a senior Australian Federal Police officer and a senior Australian Customs Service officer would be placed with the Coastal Protection Unit in Canberra for the purposes of ensuring that the organisation of any response operation can be carried out efficiently and effectively. I point out again that, from the statistics given to the Committee in evidence, of the 82,500 sightings there were only 28 responses. I do not think that necessitates the tying up of police and resources to run what is effectively a clerical and administrative function in Canberra. As the law enforcement agencies will still be responsible for any response operation in the north of Australia, the Committee felt that the three regional coastal protection units should continue to be staffed by the AFP. The Committee commended the recent joining of forces between the Customs Service and the Federal Police in northern Australia and suggests that an ACS officer be stationed at each regional coastal protection unit to consolidate the existing arrangement. While the Committee appreciated the numerous interests that needed to be represented when coastal surveillance activities were discussed, it nevertheless considered that the current arrangements were being hampered by the coastal surveillance standing interdepartmental committee being too large. In order to enhance the system, the Committee felt that a streamlining of the various interdepartmental committees involved would improve the efficiency of the organisation without losing sight of the various interests that were required to be represented. The Expenditure Committee also addressed the issue of funding of coastal surveillance operations, and suggested a means whereby the majority of the costs would be shared by the relevant agencies on a user pays basis. The Committee took particular note of the use of defence resources for coastal surveillance operations. While the standard of service provided by defence naval and air patrols was considered to be excellent, the high cost of the service was detailed to the Committee. Although the principle of user pays is desirable for an activity such as coastal surveillance, the high sophistication of defence equipment for coastal surveillance operations, along with the considerable amount of `dead legging' undertaken, made the Committee cautious when examining the cost recovery of the use of defence assets. Accordingly, the Expenditure Committee recommended that users be required to pay only for defence costs that are directly attributable to the conduct of coastal surveillance activities. I found the Committee's inquiry into coastal surveillance both rewarding and interesting. All members of the Committee who took part in the investigation found that there were many things concerning northern Australia of which members of the national Parliament should be aware. One of the most interesting things is the fact that people in the north tend to think differently from those of us in the more heavily populated parts of the south. In the presence of the Australian Federal Police in that part of Australia there is an element which, of necessity, is a public relations exercise. There is a feeling by people in that part of Australia that there is massive drug smuggling, but the Committee was at great pains to try to find evidence of it. Evidence we received from the Federal Police, the Customs Service and State police forces indicated that there was very little, if any, drug smuggling into the north of Australia intended to reach markets in the south. As I said, of the prosecutions that arose out of the 82,500 sightings, none was for drug-related offences. In evidence that the Coastal Protection Unit gave to the Committee-one would have thought that it would be trying to prove that it had had something to do with drug-related offences-it was unable to indicate to the Committee at any stage that it had been instrumental in any prosecutions regarding drug-related matters. If nothing else, part of the work of the Committee has put to bed the myth that there are massive drug imports across Australia's northern barrier. As the sub-committee Chairman, I thank my fellow members of the Committee for their efforts in the inquiry. I also thank the Committee Secretariat, particularly Mrs Harlow, the Committee's secretary, who did most of the initial research and oversight, together with Mr Tom Duncan, who was the sub-committee secretary responsible for the ongoing conduct of the inquiry. The work of Peter Ratas and Penny Maher, in doing all the little things that are required to keep an inquiry on the road, was of great assistance to us. The Committee has produced a worthwhile document. I commend the report to the House. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks) —by leave-Coastal surveillance is often thought of as an anti-drug smuggling operation. Notwithstanding the threat to Australian society posed by the illegal drug importation, the Committee, in its report, was given evidence to suggest that the relationship between drug interdiction and coastal surveillance was not as strong as perceived by the public. As noted by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) in his speech, the statistics presented to the Committee illustrate that drugs constitute a very small proportion of any response effort undertaken as a result of coastal surveillance sightings. The Committee considered the issue of cost recovery for use of defence services and noted the high cost involved in using these resources. Other possible options for coastal surveillance were discussed. The Committee was attracted to the concept presented by the Bond Corporation of a multi-purpose craft and recommended its further examination to determine its feasibility. As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I would like to thank the members of the Committee, especially the sub-committee Chairman, the honourable member for Grayndler, for his work on this report. The staff of the Committee Secretariat are also to be commended for their efforts. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the report of the Committee entitled `Review of the Auditor-General's Efficiency Audit into the Installation and Maintenance of Airways Facilities by the Department of Aviation', together with a copy of the minutes of proceedings and submissions authorised for publication. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs KELLY —by leave-I have pleasure in presenting this report to the House. It is the work of a number of honourable members of the Expenditure Committee who sat on the sub-committee which I had the privilege of chairing. I take this opportunity of thanking the Committee staff and, in particular, Mr Adrian Scott, who is currently acting as the Committee Secretary, and who was in the past Secretary to the Committee. I also thank Mr Brian Whiteley, from the Department of Aviation, who has assisted with certain of the technical aspects. The installation and maintenance of airways facilities might at first glance seem a rather dull subject, involving engineering and workshop considerations and not much besides. This is, in fact, far from the case because of the responsibilities involved and the consequences that could attend any breakdown of service. For example, if we were unlucky enough in this country to experience an accident similar to that at Manchester where a Boeing 737 caught fire on take off, we would confidently expect that our fire vehicles would be serviceable and able to tackle the emergency efficiently and effectively. We would be certain that any shortcomings would be highlighted in both the media and in this Parliament, as dire examples of government inefficiency in the management of the nation's airways system. I have mentioned airport rescue and firefighting services as one example. The same considerations would apply to such diverse services as airport lighting, navigation aids, particularly those used for bad weather approaches, radar services for the control of air traffic to avoid collisions, ground-to-air radio communications, and so on. All these services are important-vital even, in some cases-to the extent that breaks in service simply cannot be tolerated. The first step in establishing a safe airways system is to determine the standards that shall apply to the requirement for services. It is worth noting that Australia was one of the pioneers of this methodology in the 1950's. Once the requirement is known, it is then a matter of determining the degree of maintenance which needs to be applied to maintain that level of service. Maintenance is of two types: Preventive to reduce the risk of failure and maintain a level of performance; and corrective maintenance, to correct faults, in some cases as they occur. In many critical areas there is a need for back-up or duplicated equipment and systems known as secondary equipment, which can take over and ensure continuity of service in the event of a breakdown of the primary equipment. All this sounds very much a commonsense tinplating of the system to ensure continuity. The real difficulty lies in assessing the precise level of facility serviceability that must be achieved to enable cost effective operation, avoiding gold plating the system, but at the same time ensuring a secure and economic service. This involves a consideration of statistical performance, maintenance practices and the criteria to be adopted for the assessment and purchase of new or replacement equipment. Then, and most importantly, come the technicians who will install and maintain the equipment. Decisions need to be made on the levels of staffing required for each individual service, the recruitment and training of technicians to meet these needs, and so on. Finally, there is the counting of the nuts and bolts required; that is, the level of stores holdings needed to ensure that spare parts are immediately available whenever and wherever they are required. It is essential that stock holdings are kept at a well judged level, otherwise we could end up with millions of dollars lying around on shelves-an absurd situation and evidence of very expensive housekeeping. These were the criteria that the Auditor- General's team adopted against which to test the Department of Aviation's performance in the management of the airways system. I suspect that when the audit began in 1981 there were some quite serious shortcomings in the Department of Aviation's management of the system, particularly in the stores area I have just mentioned. As it happened, the audit took quite some time, not being concluded until 1984. However, from recent discussions with the Department of Aviation it appears clear that the thrust of the Auditor-General's recommendations have been, or are, in the process of being met. This is salutary, particularly at a time when proposals are being made for a large scale modernisation of the airways system which will carry Australia's air commerce into the twenty-first century. In any event, we have learned enough from earlier efficiency audits to be in a position to comment on the efficiency of the audits. The Committee is doing this as a form of constructive criticism since we see the audit system as being a useful and effective instrument to test the administrative efficiency of the Government's departments and instrumentalities. Certainly we hope to develop the practice to a point where efficiency audits become as much a part of the system as, say, the Budget process. It will be something to be undergone routinely and will lead ultimately to a situation, we trust, where the administrators of the Government's business will initiate policies that are cost effective as a matter of course, as part of their day to day business. In conclusion, on behalf of the Expenditure Committee I thank the Auditor-General and his staff for the very considerable dedication they have devoted to this task, to the Department of Aviation for its constructive and patient co-operation, to the honourable members of the Expenditure Committee and to the Secretariat, headed by Mr Scott. I also make particular reference to all the members of the Committee who helped with this sub-committee report under the secretariatship of Mrs Harlow and under the sub-committee secretariatship of Mr Adrian Scott. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —by leave-The matter before us which relates to auditing, the cost of operations and other issues related to the Department of Aviation is something in which I took considerable interest as a one-time member of the Standing Committee on Expenditure. Unfortunately, other pressures made me an inadequate member of that Committee. That is why I resigned and sought a replacement. Nevertheless, in the early stages of that inquiry, chaired by the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), I had discussions with people such as Dick Smith whose original comments in this area created a large amount of the interest and the subsequent reference to the Expenditure Committee. I congratulate the Committee and its then Chairman. I wish to make a few comments regarding that matter-- Mrs Kelly —This is not it. Mr TUCKEY —This might not be it, but it seems to have some relevance to it because the Committee looked at the auditing side of the Department. It is that side which I specifically want to talk about. The Committee looked at auditing and at costs. Also the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) told us recently that he was going to go to full cost recovery on the airlines system. That is of particular concern to people in general aviation-the poor side of the aviation industry-where competition is not controlled in any way such as it is with our major airlines because of the two-airline policy and matters of that nature. The major complaint that the general aviation industry has in regard to the costs imposed upon it in full cost recovery has nothing to do with the right of the taxpayer to protection and to have such costs met by those who apparently are making a profit from using the services to which those costs apply; it is that the industry has no input whatsoever into the determination of those costs. It cannot dictate the costs that must be charged against it. This is the concern the industry has and this is why it objects so strongly. If some of the efficiency auditing that the honourable member for Canberra has just referred to is to be upgraded, that will be of some assistance. A program by the Department to try to reduce the cost of our aviation services would also be welcomed, but it is still not enough. The area that I thought the report might look at outside of efficiency is, of course, the continuing provision of controlled airspace, particularly on the east coast. It is interesting to me, as it would be to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are a Western Australian, that twin jet aeroplanes have been operating in Western Australia outside controlled airspace at quite high density operation for well in excess of a decade. They do not require the controlled airspace and towers at airports that I perceive from my travels are provided on the east coast, such as the tower at Coffs Harbour, which I think has two jet services a week. I am told that two very senior air traffic controllers, one from Canberra and one from Sydney, have applied for jobs at Coffs Harbour, it being a rather attractive retirement destination. One might wonder whether the tower there has been built as a retirement benefit for officers of the Department or whether it has been built to protect people and to save their lives. Mr Smith was at pains to point out in his complaints when we talked about the costs of the operations of the Department of Aviation that very large airports in the United States of America-I think he mentioned Anchorage, Alaska, which is an extremely busy airport and one that is subject to extremes of climatic conditions-do not have the level of air traffic control that is imposed on much lesser airports in Australia. It is all right to cite the occasional accident-the honourable member for Canberra referred to one in her address-but the reality is that there always has to be a cost benefit. If one wants to impose that level of cost, one should not impose it on small aircraft operators such as those in the general aviation industry. We know that in Western Australia airports outside the major airports have operated without these levels of control. They have operated very successfully with what is known as flight service. I have flown aeroplanes for many years. I held a private licence up until 1976. I still hold a student pilots licence and I still fly frequently. I know the sorts of services that are necessary. I was at Waverley, just outside Newcastle, the other day waiting to take a private aircraft back to Canberra and I noticed the operations of the Royal Australian Air Force. It was interesting to watch the RAAF flight controllers despatch aircraft. One can say that it is the military, but I guess those fellows in those aeroplanes want to live just as much as do the pilots of civil aircraft and their passengers. Those flight controllers despatched those aircraft at great speed, having lined them up so that as soon as one left the ground another commenced its run. I suggest that the Department might look at that in addressing the problem of costs associated with operating aircraft. The Department seeks full cost recovery and the Committee has addressed this in its inquiries. It is just one aspect of the amount people are paying for levels of safety that we believe are necessary. In fact, similar levels of safety can be achieved in other forms of aircraft operation without incurring that huge cost. If the Government of the day wants to deliver that huge cost, that is its decision. I am here to represent the operatives, particularly those in general aviation, and I say: Do not put that cost on them. They are not obliged to meet the standards of safety that a particular government wants to impose on them or to accept the inefficiencies that a government might introduce in the name of safety. This is most important. It is a question of who pays. I point out too that there is a substantial effect on safety when one overpressurises the cost structure of small airline operators. They start to cheat on their maintenance. I stood in this place not very long ago and drew attention to what I thought was a matter too serious to be ignored. What is happening around the countryside is that as one imposes cost pressures on the general aviation industry many of the lesser operators seek means to cut their costs. That can result in substantially more dangerous operations than are caused by a lack of controlled airspace somewhere up the northern New South Wales coast when, in fact, that controlled airspace is not imposed in other places. I welcome the tabling of this report as it does in some way refer to some of the problems associated with the costs, cost accounting and efficiency auditing in the Department of Aviation. But I use this opportunity to put a word in for the general aviation industry and to ask that it not be burdened with the cost of what a department considers are reasonable safety standards that are not practised in other sectors around the world or even within Australia when we look at our other airline operations. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Transport Safety, I present the report of the Committee on passenger coach safety, together with copies of extracts of minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs DARLING —by leave-Madam Speaker, in tabling this report on passenger coach safety I would like first of all to emphasise the point that as Chairman of the Committee I am speaking for all members of the Committee and also that a tremendous amount of work has gone into the compilation of the report and the inquiries that were conducted beforehand. Following my tabling statement I would like particularly to mention those who assisted in the compilation of the report. Allegations were made by the Transport Workers Union of Australia and by long-established coach companies that cost-cutting measures were adversely affecting safety. These allegations led to the establishment of the inquiry but, in the main, they were found by the Committee to be unfounded. While there will always be operators who neglect maintenance, the majority were found to conduct efficient and safe services. The previous House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety was most concerned that the safety of an important public transport sector was in question and undertook an examination of the passenger coach industry following a request from the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). The Transport Safety Committee then took over the inquiry in the present Parliament. The Committee found that statistical data on accidents involving coaches is entirely inadequate. At present, the data is poorly collected and there is an obvious need for improved, uniform collection techniques to be adopted by all States and Territories. The Committee believes that long distance express coach figures should be collected separately, as should those for urban buses, school buses, tourist services and charters. In some States, at present, bus accident figures are lumped in with other heavy vehicles. This does not allow a sufficiently accurate monitor to be kept on bus and coach safety. Despite the inadequacies of the existing data, the Committee was able to determine that coach travel in Australia is a comparatively safe form of road transport. We are delighted to bring down this result of our inquiries. In so many instances when committees such as ours bring down hard recommendations it does not result in friends flocking around. Some noses can be put out of joint. However, on this occasion it gives us particular pleasure to be able to say that our investigations point to coach travel in Australia being a comparatively safe form of road transport. Despite allegations of dramatically declining safety standards by some operators in the long distance express coach industry, the Committee found no statistical evidence to support the claims that coach accidents are increasing, or to support the view that the operating practices of some companies are contributing to an increase in crash frequency. However, serious complaints of mechanical deficiencies were made against a small minority of companies. While the Committee could not find further evidence to substantiate these claims, they could be a cause of the discontent. I shall give some figures: For all bus travel in Australia in 1983, the fatal crash rate was 3.9 per 100 million vehicle kilometres travelled while the fatality rate was 0.11 per 100 million passenger kilometres travelled. The fatal crash rate in 1981 was 0.19 per 100 million passenger kilometres travelled for coaches, compared with 1.35 for cars and 4.2 for trucks. These figures, despite the inadequacies mentioned, clearly show that bus and coach travel is a relatively safe form of road transport. The Committee believes that the safety of significant public transport modes is particularly important in the coach travel sector, which has shown substantial growth in the last five to six years. Although claims were made that the strong competition in the coach industry was reducing the mechanical safety of vehicles, the Committee found that inspections by regulatory authorities did not substantiate these claims. A study by the Bureau of Transport Economics has shown that the industry is highly competitive and that over the last five to six years several newcomers to the industry have taken a large segment of the market from the established companies. Fare discounting has been a feature of the competition introduced by the newer entrants. The attractive prices together with newer, more comfortable coaches being used led to a marked growth in the coach sector of the market. It would not be too much to say that travelling around Australia by coach will be the travel mode of the future-certainly for the large number of people who are finding it impossible to pay for air fares. Many of the complaints received by the Committee were about poor booking, timetabling or comfort provisions such as air-conditioning. These are important aspects of coach travel, and we acknowledge this, but are outside the terms of reference of the inquiry, which are confined to safety. The Committee examined the mechanical safety of buses and found several areas where improvements could and should be made. The standard of tyres fitted to new coaches should be covered by an Australian design rule and replacement tyres for all motor vehicles should be covered by mandatory product safety standards under the Trade Practices Act. There should also be an Australian design rule to cover the roll-over strength of buses. This is a complex area and there is a need to relate our standard to those developed in Europe and North America. The strength of bus seats and their anchorages continues to be a concern. The Standing Committee on Road Safety in a report on heavy vehicle safety in 1977 drew attention to deficiencies in seat strengths. The Committee believes seat strength design standards should be completed without further delay. The Committee examined the fitting of seat belts to coaches and found that their benefit in coaches is not as great as it is in cars, due to the different way buses behave in crashes. We found that well padded, energy absorbent seats will provide an effective passive restraint in most coach accidents. However the front row of passengers do not have such a protective barrier in front of them and therefore require seat belts, as does the driver. People sitting in the centre of the very back row can also be in a vulnerable position, but, of course, not in the same situation as those at the front of the bus, who could be catapulted into the windscreen. Many claims were made that competition in the industry has led to cost cutting by reducing the level of maintenance and thereby lowering safety. This allegation was particularly levelled at discounters and newer entrants to the market. This is a central claim which led to the setting up of the inquiry and which needed examination by the Committee. As stated earlier, these claims were not supported by available coach accident statistics. This does not mean, of course, that maintenance is not being overlooked in some instances, nor can it be concluded that a lack of maintenance necessarily results in an accident. Of course ongoing poor maintenance procedures can have the effect of reducing passenger safety and increasing the likelihood of an accident occurring, and we do not take this lightly. But it is recognised that heavy vehicles clock up much greater distances and are often subject to much more gruelling conditions of use than the average car. There is therefore a higher expectation of wear or failure of vital components that maintain the functional integrity and safety of the vehicle. This underlines the need for an effective maintenance program. Downtime costs money and downtime due to accidents costs more, whether it be in direct costs to the operator, the effect on future business or through increased insurance costs. It is good management practice to maximise the utilisation of vehicles and a key to this is a maintenance program carefully planned and carried out. Cost cutting on maintenance rarely saves money other than in the very short term. There will always be the temptation for an operator to ignore the rules and jeopardise the safety and the reputation of the industry. It is therefore necessary that check procedures be employed which detect and deter such operators without unduly hindering the majority of operators who comply with the law. The Committee strongly believes that compulsory vehicle maintenance programs and regular inspection procedures, reinforced by random checks, will help to ensure that vehicles are maintained in a safe, roadworthy condition. Driving skills obviously play an important role in ensuring the safety of passenger coach travel. At present there is no legal requirement in Australia that coach drivers undertake specific training. The Committee feels that driver training prior to entry into the industry, together with the introduction of the graduated driver licensing scheme, will promote the concept of the progressive development of attitude, knowledge and skills needed for safe driving. Present variations in State and Territory transport regulations only serve to hinder the effective operation of coach services. These pointless inconsistencies are all too evident where a service crosses several State boundaries in one trip, as many a driver of such coaches can testify. The Committee fully supports standardisation between the States of licence classifications, driver tests, driving hours and speed limits to facilitate a consistent and effective approach to traffic regulations. The Committee believes that the speed limit differential which presently exists between coaches and other vehicles should be eliminated. This is just one of the measures which is outlined in the Government's fast-tracking package. The initiative of the States is required to introduce such a reform. Members of the Committee were delighted at the various points made in the Government's fast-tracking package and feel that this is one of the results of having a Minister for Transport who, people on both sides agree, regards road safety as a top priority. The introduction of the fast-track package will help to ensure safe operating practices within the coach industry. This includes the Interstate Road Transport Act which provides for an operator licensing system and the elimination of vehicles operating on `IS' plates. It is unacceptable that some passenger coaches are avoiding regular registration inspections by being registered on `IS' interstate trade plates. Provisions for random checks on roadworthiness and monitoring devices, such as tachographs, will greatly assist the promotion of a safe industry. It is important that timetables drawn up by bus companies are such that they can be met without breaking speed limits and driving hour regulations, and without jeopardising the safety of passengers. Official timetables must not require a driver to exceed the speed limit to maintain the schedule. The Committee has recommended that timetables be approved by regulatory authorities to ensure compliance with regulations on speed limits and driving hours. Committee members individually spent quite a lot of time on this area, and no doubt one of the Committee members may comment on this a little later. There was general agreement by witnesses that the present restrictions on driving hours are adequate and offer a reasonable standard of safety, provided that they are properly enforced. However, the Committee was told that many drivers are presently exceeding limits on driving hours, and that the major enforcement tool for monitoring driving hours, the log book, is largely falsified. This is obviously unacceptable. Log books would appear to be inadequately enforced as blitzes have revealed numbers of drivers without them. A number of long distance drivers carry more than one log book and tend to falsify their driving hours to comply with the regulations. Almost unanimously witnesses prefer the tachograph. Tachographs are less susceptible to effective tampering. If introduced in conjunction with the operator licensing scheme recommended in the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry report, another excellent report under the auspices of the Minister for Transport under the Interstate Road Transport Act, tachographs should result in stricter adherence to driving hours. Under the new system of operator licensing, operators whose buses frequently exceed driving hour limits will be able to be penalised by having their licences suspended or revoked. Much of the evidence taken by the Committee, particularly that given by members of the Transport Workers' Union of Australia and coach companies, concentrated on the relative safety merits of two-up driving and staged driving. The Committee heard so much evidence regarding the merits of these two ways of dealing with long term driving. Claims were heard that two-up driving is unsafe and that it produces a greater level of fatigue in drivers than does stage driving. However, the Committee found that the evidence on this subject was based on individual experience and resulted in a clear division on which was the safest. Some drivers prefer two-up, others staged driving. Furthermore, research evidence on driver fatigue was inconclusive. The Committee therefore concluded that there is no clear safety disadvantage on one coach driving system over the other. The Committee looked at school bus safety and found that, despite limited data being available, there was no evidence of substantial safety problems in this area. However, as data collection in this area was even worse than that seen regarding coaches, it is not possible to reach any solid conclusion. Several aspects were identified as warranting improvement. Better monitoring of school buses would prevent overcrowding. Warning lights activated when school buses are setting down or picking up would improve child pedestrian safety in these situations, as would painting school buses in distinctive colours. Limiting the speed of other vehicles passing a school bus where the warning lights are activated might also improve this area of pedestrian safety. The Committee therefore recommends that the Federal Transport Minister through the Australian Transport Advisory Council, encourage State and Territory governments to investigate safety aspects of school bus runs and where appropriate to take action to ensure they meet the highest standards of safety, which is the least we should expect when looking at conveyances in which young people and children are passengers. The Committee finds that, overall, coach and school bus safety is relatively high in road safety terms. The statistical evidence, although limited in many aspects, supports this finding. However, a number of aspects have been identified as problem areas where improvements can and should be made. As coach travel increases in popularity, it is essential that safety standards are monitored and maintained. Before I conclude in the tabling of this statement, I wish to acknowledge the efforts of a number of people in this House who have contributed to the report. Mr Tim Fischer —Whose name is on the report? Mrs DARLING —I refer first to the honourable member for Farrer, who is calling across the chamber, who resigned from the Committee on 18 September 1985 and was replaced by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). I acknowledge the enthusiasm of the honourable member for Farrer and the Committee was sorry to see him depart from its ranks. I would also like to name all the members of the Committee. They put in many hours on work that cut across party political boundaries to try to come down with a definitive answer to what is needed to ensure the utmost in standards for passenger coach safety and the safety of school buses. I refer particularly to the Committee's Deputy Chairman, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who acted as Chairman when, due to illness, I was prevented from being with the Committee, particularly in the last weeks when this report was being formulated. I thank the honourable member for that, and I would point out that it was his contribution and the contributions of other honourable members that helped bring this report to a proper conclusion. I refer also to the honourable member for Mayor (Mr Downer), the honourable member for Greenway (Mr Gorman) and the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis). The two members last mentioned have a particular interest in this area of coach safety and will speak later to the report. I mention also the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb). I have mentioned the honourable member for Gippsland and the honourable member for Ballarat. These people are all expert in their own way in the area of road and transport safety and they gave their time unstintingly. I also acknowledge the work of the Secretary to the Committee, Mr Alan Kelly, and the research officer, Jenny Ellis, who worked long and hard on the compilation of this report. I also thank Monica Telesny, who, while not having a particular input to this report, as she is with the ultralight inquiry, has nonetheless given us much support. I thank also, the officers of the Federal Office of Road Safety for their assistance and the officers of the Bureau of Transport Economics, who undertook a review of the long distance coach industry, which was invaluable. Having acknowledged the assistance and work of all these people, I shall leave further comments to the Acting Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Franklin. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —by leave-I compliment the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), who is the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Transport Safety. Regrettably, she was ill during the time we compiled the majority of the report. However, it is great to see her back fit and well again. I acknowledge the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), who is in the chamber tonight, and the former Chairman of that Committee, the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), who did so much untiring and unselfish work for the Committee. I sometimes think that the cynics of politics believe we do not do anything and they seem to knock us about certain things. The Committee members have all worked together in a bipartisan way, disregarding our political differences in trying to bring down a report that will be helpful and valuable to the people of Australia. Mr McGauran —To save lives. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, to save lives. That is what we worked in conjunction to do and that is what we hope we have achieved. Some people say that it will not be of any benefit. Some States, because of their selfishness and petty jealousy, will say that they are not going to use the report, but as members of the Committee we know that we worked in the hope that it will help to save lives, and that is what we did it for. I hope that the Minister for Transport, with whom I have had differences over the years, but with whom I am getting on better lately-- Mr McGauran —He still hates Tassie. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, he probably still hates Tassie-no, he does not. I know that he will bring forth these recommendations in the same forceful way as he usually does. I hope that the States will pick up the good ideas and bring down recommendations that will be beneficial. To members of the secretariat-Alan Kelly, Jenny Ellis and Monica Telesny-I say thanks for all their help and assistance. I know that it is sometimes difficult to bring down a report so quickly, but those people did a dashed good job. To Jenny Ellis, who is going overseas, we wish all our very best. She should be proud of the job she did, because it did not take very much correcting. We usually go into a committee room to find that certain members are nit-picking about a dot or a sentence-one would think that they were trying to write English to perfection instead of bringing down a report-but on this occasion the report was brought down quickly. This report is of great interest to me. Passenger coach safety is not as fashionable as air travel, but I place a lot of emphasis on bus coach safety. I also place much emphasis on the drivers of coaches. I sometimes think they are underrated because they do not have the slick professionalism of pilots. However, they have a grave responsibility. One of those responsibilities is to drive those people who can ill afford to travel by plane. The purpose of this Committee was to bring down a report which it was hoped would help with the safety of buses. I do not want to say much tonight. I will leave it to my colleagues to fill in the details, as I know they will. I will not mention the names of all the Committee members as they have already been mentioned tonight. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) is pointing to himself-not that he wanted me to mention his name, but he did a dashed good job. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), the honourable member for Greenway (Mr Gorman), the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb), the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) did a good job too. The honourable member for Farrer, who was in the New South Wales Parliament, brought his professionalism into the very early stages of the Committee, which was great. The one thing I want to touch on tonight is that one has to be practical about these sorts of things. The bus industry is reaching perfection because people know that to compete they have to have good buses, good drivers and good tyres. They have to do a good job to compete, and that is what they appear to be doing. We have brought down recommendations that will drive out the fly-by-nighters and the operators who do not reach that perfection, because we do not want our children or our elderly parents travelling on buses that are not safe. Mr McGauran —We don't want to go on them, either. Mr GOODLUCK —Of course we do not want to go on them either-I agree with that point. However, we must make absolutely certain that passenger bus safety is held to the highest level and maintained. That is the reason why we have brought down these recommendations. I do not want to touch at length on school bus safety, but many parents worry about their children every day. Some become a little paranoid, I must admit. Some believe that everything is wrong with the school bus system. However, we have briefly looked at that system and have found that the number of accidents is very low. However, that does not mean that they do not have to reach perfection or adhere to recommendations. Later, no doubt we will have a good look at the school bus system in Australia, and, if buses are not up to scratch the concerned parents of Australia can rest assured we will make certain that they come up to scratch. I know that the Minister will agree with that. There is another matter upon which I would like to touch briefly. I am a practical person, I hope. I have been involved all my life in the motor industry-the indentation of my overalls are still on my back-and I know what most people are concerned about. I spoke with drivers eye to eye, and they told me that their biggest problem is caravans on the road. I suggest to the Minister that one day we have a look at caravans. Some of the idiots who tow them should not be doing so and some of the people who own them should not own them. Some of the people who are able to tow them on our roads should be tested to make absolutely certain that they are not going to make driving difficult for the drivers of passenger coaches driving along our highways. I thank the Chairman of the Committee for the job she did and I am glad that she is feeling better. As I have said on many occasions before, this may not be the most classic committee-sometimes I think, as I have said before, that a lot of people are eager to get on to the fashionable committees because they think it is a rung up the ladder-but we should feel proud that we are members of a committee that did something to save lives in Australia. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —by leave-The Standing Committee on Transport Safety has been an illustration of how bipartisan politics can work at their best. I pay particular tribute to the Chairperson of the Committee, the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), and to the Deputy Chairman, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) who, because of the illness of the chairperson during the last couple of months, chaired many meetings in various parts of Australia and, might I say, brought his own particular brand of humour and good sense to those meetings. They were always very enjoyable, productive and worthwhile meetings. I also pay particular tribute to the staff members-Alan Kelly, the hard-working secretary; Jenny Ellis, the Committee's research officer, and other people have commented about how well the report was prepared; and Marie Ferris and Chris Lowry, who did the typing. Although this Committee was considering safety, a related issue which was perhaps a hidden agenda item was the economic problems being faced by the coach industry. It was felt by some people that some of the long-established companies were being forced out by new companies. It was argued that, because competition was so tight, corners were being cut on safety and mechanical aspects. The Committee saw no evidence of this or of unsafe practices. If these allegations were valid it would be expected that lower levels of safety would be reflected in accident statistics since the entry of these operators. As stated earlier, these claims were not supported by available coach accident statistics. Of course, this does not mean that maintenance is not being overlooked in some instances, nor can it be concluded that a lack of maintenance necessarily results in an accident. Ongoing poor maintenance procedures can only have the effect of reducing passenger safety and increasing the likelihood of an accident occurring. Given the number of coaches in operation and the number of people using them-I stress that more and more people are using coach transport-coach travel is safe. Of course, it is up to the operators of coach companies to keep up the high standards and it is also up to governments-both State and Federal-to ensure that they do this. The Committee received complaints about such administrative things as poor booking, poor timetabling and even air-conditioning. As the chairman stated, these are important aspects of coach travel but were outside the terms of reference of the inquiry, which was confined to safety. Companies which failed to provide these services are unlikely to attract repeat customers or their friends. The very nature of discounting requires operators to maximise the number of passengers carried per trip. Repeat passengers are an important market segment. Because of the strong competition in the industry, it is in the best interests of operators to maintain their vehicles in good condition to ensure that they remain on the road. It is not economically viable for companies to operate with poorly maintained vehicles and thus take the chance of losing business or incurring considerable costs in the event of a breakdown while carrying passengers. The Committee heard some instances of this. Regardless of how well maintained a coach is-and all the evidence was that most coaches are very well maintained-it can only be as effective as the road conditions over which it travels allow. For this reason, I believe that this Government deserves credit for the amount of money it is putting into roadworks throughout Australia, especially on national highways. Other road users also cause problems. I reinforce what the honourable member for Franklin said about caravans. Time and again when the Committee asked what was the main factor contributing to or likely to contribute to accidents it received the answer that it was caravans, the inexperience of some drivers of caravans and the way some of them were towed. This Committee or another committee really will have to look at this matter. There was much debate about two-up versus staged driving. Before I was a member of this Committee I had always thought that two-up was a particularly Australian game. However, in this instance is is not. The Committee spent many hours listening to evidence and trying to evaluate the various arguments that were put for two-up and staged driving. I came to the conclusion-and I think it is one which many members of the Committee share-that it is up to the individual. For some people it is appropriate and they can deal with two-up driving; others cannot deal with it. I am pleased that the Committee did not make a hard and fast recommendation on this matter because it is up to the individual how he approaches the matter. I pay a particular tribute to bus drivers. While I was a member of this Committee I made some coach trips and also spoke to many of the coach drivers who pull in at the motel I stay at in Canberra and to the passengers. I found the drivers to be very friendly and helpful and to have a very high degree of skill. I worry about driving hours, although the Committee states that they were adequate. Members of the Committee have heard me say this before. I worry about the 12-hour driving stint between capital cities. I see my friend the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) smiling; he has heard this before. I make the point about a driver who leaves Melbourne at, say, 7 o'clock in the evening, drives through peak traffic conditions, drives all night and arrives in Sydney. I did this trip one night. The coach driver leaves Goulburn at about 5.30 or 6 o'clock in the morning and he drives through heavy traffic. Driving skills are most needed on the road from Goulburn to Sydney. The driver has to be most alert then. I say `he' not in a sexist way but because most of the drivers are male. I worry whether, after an 11 or 12-hour driving shift, he is alert enough. I wish to make a couple of final points. I hope that this report contributes to increased safety on the road. The Committee found that overall coach and school bus road safety is relatively high. Perhaps it will not be too long before we see members of parliament travelling by coach from Sydney and Melbourne to Canberra for parliamentary sittings. I assure my honourable colleagues that it is a comfortable and very safe way to travel, but I doubt whether we will see much of it because of time constraints as it takes a little more time than air travel. I hope that all members of the Parliament will read this report. I commend it to the House. Mr DOWNER(Mayo) —by leave-In just one or two minutes I would like to make a couple of points about the report of the Standing Committee on Transport Safety. The first point is that the report has shown the passenger coach industry in Australia to be extremely safe. It is an industry which has grown almost exponentially over the last few years. It is a deregulated industry. The consequence of having an open market, the consequence of having a free market, if you like, and the consequence of having only intelligent regulation of that market have led ultimately to a very efficient market-place. I am glad that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is in the House because he may note the success of the passenger coach industry and will transpose that success, I hope, in the year ahead to the civil aviation industry. The second point I want to make related to two-up driving. There was some controversy about whether this should be banned. That position was put by the Transport Workers Union of Australia in a rather bombastic and arrogant way. The Committee has concluded that two-up driving is completely safe. Of course, it depends on the individual driver. For some it is satisfactory; for some it is not. Ultimately, the Committee concluded that it was safe and that the contentions of the Transport Workers Union seemed to be based on arguments other than facts. Finally, I would like to thank all those associated with the report. Others have mentioned them all but I mention the hard-working people in the secretariat of the Committee, in particular Alan Kelly and Jenny Ellis. Mr GORMAN(Greenway) —by leave-It is my intention not to repeat all that has been stated in relation to the report of the Standing Committee on Transport Safety. Other members of the Committee have already covered the points very well. I have enjoyed working on the Committee, most members of which are in the chamber. The secretariat, especially Alan Kelly, with whom I have worked on a previous committee, has been most helpful in its endeavours. When I first heard the statement on two-up driving in the Committee I was a bit like my comrade, Colin Hollis. Mr McGauran —Your what! Mr GORMAN —I said: `My comrade'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Greenway will refer to the honourable member by his title. Mr GORMAN —The honourable member-- Mr Hodgman —Comrade member. Mr GORMAN —Or comrade member, if the honourable member wishes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Greenway should refer to the honourable member as the honourable member for Throsby. Mr GORMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. With all these interjections I could probably speak for about 20 minutes, but I do not intend to take that much time because other members wish to speak. It has been my great pleasure to work with the Chairperson under the direction of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), who is one of the best Ministers for Transport that this country has produced. That should be said and said quite often. The two-up driver operation-even though there was strong opposition from the Transport Workers Union of Australia-has a place against the staged operation. Those two operations can work hand in glove. Both systems will benefit the travelling public by keeping competition at its utmost and keeping cost of interstate passenger transport at a reasonably low level. For that reason, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for my being allowed to make that statement. I thank honourable members, one and all. Debate resumed. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(8.42) —The Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities is probably the most comprehensive and far-reaching independent defence document ever presented to the Australian Parliament. Paul Dibb questions every aspect of our defence planning and capability. Generally, Australia's defence capabilities come out of this Review fairly well, although Dibb points to a number of deficiencies in our force structure and planning and recommends some sweeping changes to the Army and the Royal Australian Navy in particular. It should be pointed out that in the speech of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) in reply to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) earlier this afternoon the right honourable member went back to the old forward defence posture-although I am not quite sure what he was talking about. Mr Peacock —Oh, you admit it has changed-`the old forward defence'. Mr CHARLES —That is what the right honourable member was talking about, not what this Government is talking about. This Government is talking about self reliance for Australian defence, which those opposite cannot comprehend. Mr Downer —Fortress Australia. Mr CHARLES —It is not `Fortress Australia'-nothing like that. This afternoon we saw from the right honourable member for New England a display of pure political posturing as he did not have anything to say in 48 minutes. It is a pity that we cannot have a decent bipartisan approach on defence. Admittedly there will be differences in certain areas, but in general thrust it is a pity that we cannot have a bipartisan approach. We cannot have that particularly when there is the political posturing by the right honourable member for New England that we have seen for three years now. Going back before the right honourable member's time, the previous three decades of conservative government saw pure political rhetoric and stop-start defence spending which put Australian defence and its Defence Force structure into turmoil. This has been going on for the last four decades. The right honourable member for New England even reverted to the old adage that became a very good and funny movie when this afternoon we went back to the 1950s idea-the Russians are coming. That was the new threat put forward by the right honourable member for New England-that the Russians were coming over the horizon once more. The Australian people may have bought that idea once, 30 to 40 years ago, but they are a little more sophisticated today and will no longer buy that balderdash. It is about time honourable members opposite joined the 1980s in their thinking on defence matters. The Review is a much more threat-orientated document than have been many of the past papers presented to this Parliament. It looks at three basic levels of threat, which the right honourable member for New England did not appreciate-from very low-level threats to much higher levels of activity. The Review states on page 2 of the report: If Australia is to have better defence planning we need a clearer understanding of the levels of threat that we could credibly face. All too often in the past many commentators, and on occasions governments, have suggested all sorts of defence spending and new or extended capabilities for our forces without really examining the question of what we are defending Australia against or what type of defence posture we really need. Sudden surges in spending, as I have already said-for example, after the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union which was purely for political posturing-have not helped the long term planning and structure of our defence forces. In Australia we have a history of very little informed and good debate on defence matters. The lack of public debate on this important issue is of some concern. The Review points this out on page 176. I urge all honourable members and people interested in defence matters to read the whole document, all 176 pages. On page 176 the Review states: Unlike many other Western countries, Australian governments have not published regular reviews about our defence policies. (The last Defence White Paper was published almost a decade ago.) The main question facing defence planning is how Australia should direct its spending priorities over the next decade so that the force structure more demonstrably reflects our unique requirements. These requirements-that is, what is to be defended and how-need to be defined more clearly than they have been in the past. The Review calls for a layered strategy of defence. It also points to our most important defence planning concern; that is, to ensure that any enemy would have substantial difficulty in crossing the sea and air gap immediately to Australia's north. Australia possesses a number of geographical advantages, with one of the major ones being the enormous moat effect that surrounds our entire country. Thus there would be great communication and supply problems for any aggressor, firstly in crossing the substantial sea and air gap to our north and, secondly, in maintaining his position and well-being if he were to succeed in any lodgment. The review places emphasis on the need for good intelligence and surveillance. Dibb recommends that additional resources be given to these areas, with the aim of obtaining two additional over the horizon radars-the Jindalee program-by the early 1990s and moving to add another two by the middle of the next decade, thus giving Australia five over the horizon radar systems spread across the northern part of Australia within the next 10 years. I agree wholeheartedly with these recommendations as they are very important in the overall program that Dibb puts forward. When this is coupled and co-ordinated with the long range of our maritime patrol aircraft and the promising new technology of towed acoustic arrays, Australia should have the desired level of intelligence and surveillance required to perform what is a very difficult task of monitoring our vast coastal areas, particularly those to our north. Dibb also recommends progressive improvements in intelligence technology for the Joint Intelligence Organisation, with an additional $10m to be spent in that area over the next five years. Our next layer of defence is the denial of sea and air supremacy to any aggressor in the regions to our north. One of the best ways of demonstrating our military advantage is the possession of a potent strike capability. The Review supports the retention of the F111s until the mid-1990s, when decisions about the long term desirability of another strike aircraft will be made. Dibb supports the acquisition of the FA18 aircraft. Those two types of aircraft, together with our long-range Orions, form a considerable strike and interdiction force. It is quite obvious that the Review is looking several years down the track and hopes that a replacement strike plane for the F111 will come onto the market-more than likely it will be a variation of the existing multi-role FA18. When the FA18s receive their refuelling capacity, which is also recommended, it should give Australia a capability that is not exceeded in our region. In fact, we would then have a very potent strike capability. The new Australian submarine program is also endorsed. Contrary to the garbage we heard from the right honourable member for New England this afternoon about the project going off-line and there being a potential disaster, it is on-line and it will be a resounding success. It is a pity that the Opposition cannot support a truly Australian project. We have seen two major companies being formed by overseas interests to tender for this extremely important program. It is the biggest program-one for six conventional submarines-that we have ever undertaken in this country. When they are built, they will be the best conventional submarines in the world and they will be wholly made in Australia. It should be pointed out that that would never have occurred under a conservative government. The submarine program is proceeding well and I hope that is will be extended as it moves into full operation. One of the Review's major recommendations is for a new class of patrol boat or frigate. Dibb calls it a light patrol frigate of about 2,000 tonnes standard displacement. It would complement our FFGs and guided missile destroyers, with its most valuable characteristics being range, sea keeping, endurance, good surveillance and local command, and control and communications capabilities. It should also have a helicopter platform and be able to operate the new Seahawk anti-submarine warfare helicopter that is being acquired for the FFGs. The review initially requests eight of these new vessels, with possible expansion later. Another recommendation of Dibb is that these new vessels should be built in Australia, and I am sure the Hawke Government will have the required foresight and strength to carry through these important recommendations. A few other important points of the report relate to mine counter-measures. Dibb has found that this is an area in which Australia has a great deficiency. This deficiency in our force structure is really a scandal when we look at the possibility of low level threats that could come upon us very quickly in the mine area. We would virtually have to start from scratch because our mine counter-measures are virtually nil; they are very poor indeed. I am pleased that this afternoon the Minister for Defence said that this is a high priority and that the Government will move to correct this deficiency at a very early stage. The northern Australian capabilities have been talked about at great length in the report. The report recommends an additional airfield in the Cape York Peninsula and a naval facility on the north-west coast as well as a regular Army unit to be based in Darwin or Tindal. Those recommendations are in addition to that relating to over the horizon radar and surveillance. In addition to the new Army attachment in the Darwin-Tindal area, the report recommends new Royal Australian Air Force facilities and naval facilities that will spread right across the continent from east to west. The package that Dibb has put forward is a very comprehensive package that looks at the various threat levels, both the high threat level, which we would obviously counteract with our very good strike capability, and the very low level contingencies that could come upon us very quickly. Dibb also points to the urgent need for a highly mobile land force. In fact, the mobility of the Army is mentioned at length by Dibb. He complements this with an enlargement of our tactical helicopter force. On page 140 of the report he states: The Review recommends that, as a step in improving tactical mobility, we acquire more helicopters. This should be based notionally on another 36 for a second company group lift, but with these numbers to be subject to more detailed consideration in the light of the needs of credible contingencies. Force structure priorities support an early decision on these additional helicopters. We have seen various figures mentioned but up to 100 helicopters for the Army could be seen in the not too distant future. That is another recommendation with which I entirely agree. This report is about self-reliance. It brings to Australia for the very first time a comprehensive defence document that looks at a whole package-at where we should be going, at the force structure that we need for Australia across the range of threats that we could envisage now, in 10 years time and in the foreseeable future. As I have said, it envisages new submarines, a new class of surface vessel-the light patrol frigate-more helicopters for the Army, surveillance and early warning systems, mine counter-measures and an improved capacity to sustain air and ground forces across the northern part of Australia. The self-reliance policy in defence matters that this Government has put forward is sustainable. It is the only way to go. It is a pity that the Opposition cannot endorse it as well. The Australian people will endorse it because, contrary to what the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) may say in a few minutes, our allies will endorse it too when they see that Australia is looking after its defence and will not have to rely on other people for our defence measures, although we will obviously call on our good friend, the United States of America, from time to time when necessary. I commend the report to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(8.57) —Let no one be fooled: Acceptance of the Dibb report of the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities in its totality involves a fundamental reordering of Australia's defences in a way that has clear foreign policy implications. I want to speak tonight about some of those implications. In my view the Dibb report is a flawed document. Its acceptance will further weaken our relationship with the United States of America and jeopardise, not enhance, our future security. There are three concepts crucial to the Dibb report. The first is that Australia faces no identifiable direct military threat and that these favourable security circumstances will continue. The second is that it would take at least 10 years, and massive external support, for the development of a regional capacity to threaten us. The third is that global war between the super-powers is most unlikely and provides no basis for planning our force structure. I reject those assumptions and their implicit isolationist consequences. Acceptance of all three judgments is essential. The acceptance of the first, second and third is essential to the integrity of the recommendations put forward in the report. Like a three-legged stool, if one leg is unable to carry its weight, the entire structure will collapse. For example, the first assumption is totally dependent on the second and the third in the same way as the third is dependent on the first and second. Taken together or individually, each concept has the potential fundamentally to change Australia's current alliance defence policies. They raise questions of the utmost seriousness about the credibility of and, perhaps so far as the Government is concerned, the underlying motives associated with the report. In terms of accuracy alone, the premise that we face no identifiable military threat has been denied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who is on record as stating that, in hosting the joint facilities as part of our contribution to ANZUS and our policy of deterrence, we are at risk. It is a risk that we accept, but he identifies it. Notwithstanding that, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) tells us that there is no identifiable threat. Let us look at the region to which the Dibb report and the Government take such a benign approach for I fail to see the tranquil environment on which they base their assessment. The maintenance of Western interests, as opposed to Soviet ones, in the South Pacific has been steadily eroding since 1983. Soviet interest has grown and continues to do so, as have openings by Cuba and Libya. Additionally, the West Irian-Papua New Guinea border remains a potential trip-wire. Thailand remains under pressure as a result of the Vietnamese domination in neighbouring Cambodia and Laos. The potential for major internal disruption remains very much alive in the Philippines and the threat there of internal communist insurgencies continues to grow, not recede. Over and above those factors, the Soviet military buildup in Vietnam has been continuous and the Soviet's material support for Vietnam's invasion and occupation of Cambodia continues unflagging. Improvement and expansion of Cam Ranh Bay's military facilities and the large Soviet combat presence stationed there, the construction of new naval facilities, barracks for more Soviet troops and expanding intelligence gathering facilities certainly do not support Labor's romantic notion that Vietnam is uncomfortable with the Soviet presence or wants to be enticed to the West. In what can be described only as a perverse turn of logic, Dibb seeks to turn the success of the wider Western alliance's defensive strategy of deterrence-which includes ANZUS and draws benefit from the fact that its area of influence is not clearly defined-into justification for, firstly, withdrawing as a basis of planning elements of our current force structure that contribute to the wider collective deterrence effort but have to date reduced the likelihood of global conflicts; and, secondly, reducing, under the rubric of self-reliance, the area of direct Australian military interest to the 1,000 nautical miles Maginot Line. The Minister for Defence drew attention to this first point, which embraces the desire of the United States for a high degree of inter-operability with US forces and, in particular, joint exercises, in his speech today and also in his recent speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. In the latter speech he spoke of `on-going awkwardness' in United States-Australia bilateral relations; of our wish `to focus on activities relevant to our national defence, while the United States wants to encourage us to do more in support of our common interest in deterrence of the USSR'. We did not hear that today, and I will quote more of it later. Thirty people who turned up to the Minister's luncheon in New York heard it. The Minister said one thing in New York, about the strains with the Americans, but he would not tell Australians; he would not tell this Parliament. That can be seen in the language he used today. It is all glossed over by the Minister in his report to the Parliament. He says one thing in New York and another here. At root, this Government, in accepting this report, with the Maginot-type line that has been drawn, wants us to retreat into a shell. It might be in relative terms a large shell; it is a retreat nevertheless. It appears that the real world is too much for this Government to cope with. It is all too complicated. It is a behind-the-moat policy that can only restrict our ability to take military initiatives if needed to defend this nation and give support to a more meaningful contribution to the Western alliance. It is predicated on looking at Australia and its narrow environs alone, quite detached from the rest of the world. Fundamental elements such as inter-dependence, the whole global picture, are denied by simply redrawing the area behind which we will retreat. Notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding what we know about the world today, Dibb has projected in this report Soviet actions as being essentially defensive, not aggressive, and certainly not opportunistic. In this, dare I say it, Mr Dibb and the Government ignore both history and all the lessons that flow therefrom, and the obvious facts of today. The Soviet Union's strategic and ideological interests are minimised in this report and described as only `a by-product of super-power rivalry'. There is a great tendency on the part of this Government to talk constantly about the super-powers' rivalry, to equate the Soviet Union and the United States, and to do so in more than just defence terms-the equation of the sort of equal moral footing that results from putting the two together. This side of the House will not accept that the Soviet Union can be put on an equal moral footing with the United States. It has not and it never will. To do so is to undermine Western alliance interests, interests that by now we know are all too routinely ignored by this Government. They are not just interests of the day; they are values and concepts of democracy and freedom under the rule of law that have taken centuries to establish and develop in the democracies to which we subscribe. Yet, with the stroke of a pen, the Government will put the Soviet Union on an equal footing, morally and otherwise, with the United States. The Minister for Defence has argued his case in this debate and also at Question Time on the basis of President Nixon's so-called Guam Doctrine. The Liberal and the National parties do not reject the Guam Doctrine. What we reject is the Minister's distortion of the Guam Doctrine. The Guam Doctrine was to encourage greater rather than less effort by individual countries in sharing the burdens of alliance defence. It did not and does not argue that greater self-reliance for its own sake and in the stead of an alliance is what ought to be pursued. It did not and does not provide justification for shouldering fewer alliance responsibilities under the claim of so-called self-reliance. We are all in favour of self-reliance, but in association with our alliance obligations-not at the expense thereof. That is the difference between us. We will become more and more self-reliant, but in so doing we will not jettison the obligations we have under our alliance arrangements. In the allegedly secret speech to the Council of Foreign Relations in New York on 8 May this year by the Minister for Defence he took issue with the use of words such as `isolationism' and `Fortress Australia' to describe his Government's strategic policy. As I said, it was an interesting speech. Thirty people turned up and were told of the possibilities for discord with the United States-possibilities we were not told of today. No wonder it is reported that senior United States Administration officials are concerned with the Government's insular, selfish and basically delinquent views. No wonder terms such as `isolationism' and `Fortress Australia' are being used to describe the report. The Dibb report robs us of the ability to take opportunities, even modest military contributions, in support of diplomatic interests beyond the end of our collective Australian noses. I turn now to the so-called 10-year no-threat assessment, which is crucial to the Dibb report and the Government's new defence strategy. The 10-year no-threat assessment is an historically flawed way of approaching a country's basic defence policy. Maurice Hankey, the long-serving British Secretary of Cabinet between World War I and 1938, described the 10-year no-threat policy as `living in a fool's paradise'. He argued that it institutionalised inertia within the Services and policy departments to a degree that made them incapable of recognising what was happening in Germany in the lead-up to World War II. We ought to learn from these mistakes. I have confined most of my remarks in my brief speech tonight to the foreign policy implications of the Government's acceptance of the Dibb report. I repeat: Adoption of the report in its totality can only exacerbate relations with the United States and our neighbours in the Association of South East Asian Nations who unquestionably will see it from their perspective as a retreat into isolation. In regard to the Government's so-called policy of self-reliance, we want self-reliance, but not on the terms in which this Government is putting it forward-at the cost to alliance relationships. The Government's so-called policy of self-reliance has disturbing parallels with the New Zealand Government's retreat from ANZUS and its treaty obligations, and that is not putting it too highly. The Government's policy is similar in nature, intent and consequence to what the New Zealand Government is doing. The report says that Australia should adopt a strategy of denial. The only denial I see is this Government's denial of reality. A denial of international strategic reality is no basis for a defence policy. The Dibb report-and the Government's acceptance of it-subtly undermine Australians' perceptions of the United States. We ought to resist its language, the language of non-alignment. We ought to resist the language of the Minister, fearful that the report he commissioned will be seen for what it is. He quotes us time and again to support his argument about self-reliance. Of course we are in favour of self-reliance, but we are not in favour of the pursuit of self-reliance such as would jeopardise our most fundamental defence treaties. That is what this document will do. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(9.12) —It is always a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) in a debate of this kind. I am sorry that I have to disagree with him on some of the matters he has raised. The first thing I would like to talk about is the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. A document of this kind, with its broad-brush, wide-ranging scrutiny of Australia's defence capacities and obligations, is not something that honourable members can take on board in a short period. I congratulate the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) on commissioning Mr Paul Dibb to carry out an independent review of Australia's defence capabilities. We do not often do things of this kind. The government of the day invited Lord Kitchener out to Australia in about 1910 or 1911, but by and large we have listened to the advice of our Department of Defence. I am not saying that the Minister for Defence and other Ministers have not been well advised by Australia's serving officers and our Department of Defence over the years. However, it was a stroke of genius on behalf of the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, to commission Paul Dibb to bring down this document. It is important to raise the standard of defence debate in the Parliament. I have been a member of parliament for some while and have listened to and participated in many defence debates. They tend to be extremely superficial, dealing with the particular issue of the day. Nobody really considers the long term problems of Australia's defence. The debates tend to be related to Indonesian confrontation, red arrows coming down from China-although that is no longer fashionable-and whatever the events of the day might be. The latest scenario in this exercise has been the problems we have had in regard to the differing view of our good friend New Zealand on its obligations to the ANZUS alliance. I have read the document with care. I would like to read it again, because I do not pretend to have taken its significance on board in the time available to me. Honourable members ought to understand exactly what this document is. It is a response to the Minister for Defence by his consultant, Mr Paul Dibb. It is a very interesting response. It is the work of a person who has had a long association with intelligence and who has a close association with senior people in the Australian Defence Force. He has given us many things to consider, a lot of meat to chew over. Opposition members have reacted as if the Dibb review is now Government policy. The Minister for Defence, in his statement today, indicated that he would bring down a White Paper at the end of this year, taking this report into account. The purpose of this report is to foster a better informed level of discussion on defence in the Australian Parliament and the Australian community than we have had for some time. We would all agree that we do not have many White Papers on defence. The last White Paper was brought down in 1976 by our good friend, the former member for Moreton, now Sir James Killen. That White Paper arose out of a good deal of work that was done in the days of the Whitlam Government. It was our purpose to bring down a White Paper on defence. Unhappily, by divine intervention or whatever, we were not able to achieve that worthwhile objective. It was interesting to see much of the work that we had previously done come out in the White Paper brought down by the Fraser Government in 1976. So, whatever the pluses and minuses in the Dibb report, the Government's official statement on its attitude towards the defence of Australia, our capacities and our responsibilities will be brought down by the Government towards the end of this year in a White Paper. Mr Hodgman —Will we see it in the Budget? Mr CROSS —Honourable members will indeed. What they will see in this year's Budget is likely to be an indication that there will be some cut-backs in defence expenditure, as there will be in all areas of Australian expenditure, to take into account the present difficult economic circumstances. Whatever happens in this Budget, it will be quite clear that the Hawke Government has been spending a greater proportion of our gross national product on defence and making more handsome increases in our defence expenditure than our predecessors did. When this Government came to office, the then Chief of Defence Force Staff, Sir Neville McNamara, said to us: `You are taking over a Defence Force in good repair. It is well led and our men and women are well trained. But we need to have a more stable commitment by government'. When one looks at the record, one finds that in the defence White Paper of 1976 the government of the day said that the Defence Force could expect an increase in defence expenditure of 5 per cent per annum for five years. The government of the day never carried that out. It was all put to bed. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1980 the whole program was dusted down again and another commitment was made to the Defence Force of a 7 per cent increase in defence expenditure per annum for five years; and we all know what happened to that. One of the positive things about the Dibb report is that it addresses realities. It addresses realities about our position in the world, about our capacity to defend Australia and about the problems we have in finding the necessary money in our Budget. One of the things Paul Dibb suggested in his report is that an increase of the order of 3 per cent per annum, or 3 per cent of gross national product being spent on defence, is about what we can expect in times of peace. Mr Hodgman —It is not enough. Mr CROSS —I would agree with that, too. I would like to see more being spent on defence. At a time when the prices obtained by our very efficient rural industries for their products are decreasing and when our mining industries are finding it hard to trade on world markets, we all must live with the realities. I believe that when the Budget is brought down in August, the people of Australia will agree that, while defence has had to bear some measure of the restraint necessary for us to get Australia back on track, the burden imposed on defence is not unreal because that burden will be carried by other departments across the board. I would like to respond to some of the things said by the honourable member for Kooyong. I am pleased that he is in the chamber. He said that the Dibb report was a flawed document, that it weakened our relations with the United States, that it had isolationist consequences and that it ignored the growing Soviet interest in the Pacific, and so on. I repudiate all of those suggestions. The Dibb report said that we ought to have the capacity to respond to our areas of concern. There is one map in the report. I like maps and I am sorry that there are not more in the report. If one looks at that map-- Mr Hodgman —It cuts out Tasmania. Mr CROSS —No, it does not. If one looks at the map in the report, the line goes around the proposed area of interest, goes west of the Maldives, east of Tonga, its takes in a healthy slab of Antarctica and it goes just north of Taiwan, so it includes part of China. With very great respect to a country of 15 million people, even taking into account the capacity of our-- Mr Peacock —Are you going to put a fence? Mr CROSS —No; I am in the business of building bridges, not walls or fences. One would have to say that the area of interest defined in this report is not an isolationist area. Anybody who looked at 15 million Australians with our capacity would have to say that it is a very ambitious task. The report is not a case of `Fortress Australia'. In the last few weeks in the period before the Dibb report was available to members of the Parliamentary Labor Party, I was interested to see articles in the Bulletin and some of our newspapers about what was in the report, and then to find out when I read the report that those stories were entirely false. This is a Labor government and it was a Labor government that established the American alliance. I was only a small boy when John Curtin, in February 1942-I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would remember that because you also were a small boy in those days-appealed for help to the United States without any inhibitions. He was criticised by the predecessors of the people who sit on the other side of this Parliament because at that time patriotism was judged by the British connection. He made that appeal to the United States and in all of those years since then, at every national conference of the Australian Labor Party, one will see that the Australian-American Association and, since the 1950s, the ANZUS Treaty, have been a fundamental plank of our relationships with the United States and with the world. This is not an isolationist government. We believe that principally we have a responsibility to be able to defend Australia and its territories. I make the point that our territories extend out to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, down to the shores of Antarctica and well out into the Pacific. That is not `Fortress Australia'. That does not look only at Fraser Island, Cape York, Shark Bay and the southern parts of Tasmania. That is a very, very substantial part of the world. If one reads the Dibb report one will see that it takes into account very well our alliance commitments. While most of the attention focuses on ANZUS, we are also, of course, associated with a number of other alliances. There was the five-power treaty with Britain which dealt with the defence of Malaysia in earlier days. That relationship remains in place. We also have the ANZAC pact with New Zealand. I suppose it might shake a few people into reality to be reminded that a pact with New Zealand was entered into during the Second World War. We have a defence association with New Zealand that remains, irrespective of the fact that at the moment we do not agree with contemporary New Zealand thinking about the visits of what are at the moment conjecturally nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered vessels. We are not an isolationist government. Mr Hodgman —Papua New Guinea. Mr CROSS —I am sure the honourable member has read the report and knows that that is one of the areas of particular concern mentioned in the report. We are concerned to develop and maintain good relations. It indicates that we have particular responsibilities to the alliance associations I have mentioned and to Papua New Guinea. One other point made in the report is that at the moment we are particularly fortunate in that we have good relationships with Indonesia and with other nations in our part of the world. It is very important that we should all work to keep it that way. We do not think that Indonesia offers any threat to us or to Papua New Guinea. On the other hand, it should be obvious to the people in the Government of Indonesia that we offer no threat to them. When one goes to Indonesia they say that they regard themselves as protecting us because they are our barrier on the north. It is very important that we all maintain and develop those foreign affairs relationships which are the desirable alternative and supplement to a defence policy. The basis of the Dibb report is to look into the future. It is not a short term document. With great respect to those who may speak in the debate, we have not yet had time to digest what is in the report. I freely admit that I have not yet digested what is in the Dibb report. There is a lot of meat in it. I hope that when we receive the Government's White Paper at the end of the year, which will be an earnest of the Australian Government's policy, approved by Cabinet and very carefully considered by the Government, we will take on board what Paul Dibb has said to us because there are a lot of messages in this report for the people of Australia. He is suggesting to us that we have a limited amount of money to spend, we have a well trained and well led Defence Force; we ought to look at our priorities and not go down the track of merely replacing the capacities we have replaced in the past-aircraft carriers or whatever that capacity might be. He is saying that we ought to look at our strategic environment, our alliance commitments and the extent of Australia's commitment in our part of the world, and that we should plan very carefully to ensure that we spend the defence dollar to the best advantage. I congratulate Paul Dibb on the report he has rendered. I congratulate the Minister for Defence, because I think this report is a major contribution to thinking in this Parliament and in the Australian community about the defence of Australia. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(9.27) —Back in 375 AD a famous Roman, Flavius, said: `Let him who desires peace prepare for war'. The Dibb-Beazley report of the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities is a soft option and cop-out. Over the past three years we have seen the Hawke socialist Government all but destroy the economic viability and defence potential of this great nation by a system of inflation, extravagant spending programs and salary increases, by the creation of a massive overseas debt and by establishing a link with the trade union movement that inhibits and stultifies decision-making processes. Today the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) tabled a report that is designed to ease some of the Government's financial burdens. Simultaneously the Government is creating an environment to lower Australia's defence capabilities and its capacity to react to emerging threats by reducing our defence forces to levels which cannot guarantee the level of support required in any emergency. At the same time, the Government is lulling Australians into a false sense of security by emphasising that there will be no perceivable threat for 10 years or more. In my opinion that takes the lucky country's luck a mite too far. As an example, I merely urge honourable members to reflect on the events of the last two or three weeks when there was a sudden chilling in relationships between ourselves and our nearest northern neighbour, Indonesia, when, because of a very small article in the Australian free Press, a tirade of abuse filtered down south with a potentially awesome significance. Fortunately, a great deal of activity behind the scenes has tended to ameliorate that problem over recent weeks. It was very disappointing, indeed, today to note in the Australian Financial Review a further report stating that the Indonesian armed forces' principal newspaper has taken up the cudgels again with the same vehemence we saw reflected in the Press over the preceding several weeks. The Minister has called for proper, extensive, well-informed and adequate debate. So much for facilitating well-informed debate when, in the final days of the current parliamentary session, we are debating this and the Minister received the report on 24 March 1986. Over recent weeks, as part of our reflections and ceremonies associated with Anzac Day, we have had a chance to assess the huge costs that previous wars have had on the Australian environment, its wealth and the lives of Australians. The Dibb report should prompt much wider consideration and debate on Australia's present and future defence capability. With the tabling of the Dibb report we now have an environment for ensuring adequate debate on the vital issue of defence-that is, if the Government is prepared to provide the time and openness to do so and if we can tempt the Australian public out of its traditional slumber and lethargy. The time is right, the issues are there, but in the light of the Government's attitude today the great debate appears to be as forlorn as was the National Economic Summit of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of 1985 and the phantom economic summit of June 1986. However, I am heartened by the comment made by the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) that we can expect a White Paper on defence, perhaps as early as late this year, and we certainly look forward to further debate. There is a desperate need to have such a debate for the crucial reason that the fundamental assumption to be adopted by the Government appears to be totally suspect and one which would commit this country to a variety of long term defence decisions with potentially disastrous consequences. Only by maintaining a credible Defence Force can we have any hope of ensuring that Australia does not suffer any repetition of the destruction and losses of past wars. Today we have a clear indication of the Dibb direction. We now know what it means in terms of force structure and strength-a strategy of denial rather than a forward looking strategy with presence and capacity to be based overseas and the willingness and capability to operate effectively with our allies. According to Mr Dibb, we are fortunate not to have any perceived threat for 10 years or more-a prognosis obviously shared by the Minister for Defence. Mr Dibb observes that we can defend ourselves without American support. From whom could we defend ourselves? Would it be the New Zealanders, Tasmanians or even those in the emerging micro-states off our eastern seaboard-although, hopefully not all together. Fundamental to this report is the notion, revolutionary in terms of Australia's traditional assumptions on defence, which tends to place primary responsibility for the defence of this country on the Royal Australian Air Force and associated high technology radars. The Royal Australian Navy and the Army are allocated subservient roles, essentially in support of Air Force operations. Armour is relegated to the reserves or is mothballed. Over time, our naval forces are relegated to small brown-water ships, with six submarines in the Navy serving a multi-ocean role. We go it alone at whatever the cost. The risks are enormous. We seem to have lost sight of treaties, alliances and the usefulness of allies. Our region and our neighbours assume a much lower level of significance. Ominously, we also seem to ignore the thrust of recent history. With this concentration on continental defence we ignore the potential use of military force as a logical extension of national strategy in order to assist in the preservation of peace and stability in our region. We should also recall, whatever the temptation to resist, that air power on its own has never contained the spread of military conflict. It was unsuccessful throughout Europe from 1939 to 1945. It could not stop the North Koreans in the 1950s, the North Vietnamese in the 1960s and 1970s and, latterly, the British in the Falklands. Air mobility and the ability to interdict are natural supplements to well protected and highly trained ground forces which must always either hold the ground or retake it. Our de facto withdrawal from ANZUS is given additional impetus. It represents a defence strategy unrelated to the real world and means that Australia is pulling out of the ANZUS Treaty by stealth. We have allowed the New Zealanders to create a situation whereby they opt out of ANZUS, due principally to their oft-stated desire to disallow nuclear capable ships into their ports. What do we do? Nothing! We take no initiatives to redress the situation; as has occurred so often, we sit back and allow events to pass us by. The report curtails any potential for power projection by Australia in our region except in all but the smallest form of involvement. We merely sit behind our moat and abandon our neighbours. What Dibb is really saying is that we want no part of United States policy in the region, and we appear to have no regard for the Pacific as an area. Under Dibb's proposals we will not have a navy that can operate beyond our coastline. I agree in principle with one comment from Mr Dibb, namely, that our foreign policy, aid programs and defence policy should be co-ordinated carefully with our regional states, including New Zealand, so as to discourage Soviet naval visits and other military access to the South Pacific. This leads me on to what are Russian pretensions in the South Pacific region. What is the Dibb report's rosy view of Soviet intentions? The facts are as follows. Vanuatu is prepared to become the first South Pacific island nation to give port access to the Soviet Union's tuna fleet. Kiribati is preparing to extend its fishing agreement with the Soviets to allow Soviet fishing boats unrestricted access to its maritime zone, and to study proposals to give unrestricted port access. These are but the first steps of growing Soviet expansionism in an area very sensitive to Australia's national interests. What can we expect to follow therefrom? We will see Russian requests to build one or several airfields designed principally, or ostensibly, in the early days to allow frozen fish and tuna to be exported directly to the Soviet Union. These poor, emerging micro-states are vulnerable and uncommitted. They look to Australia and the United States for leadership, but having regard to past United States involvement in the area, where tuna fleets have been operating for many years without paying recompense to Pacific neighbours, Australia's leadership in this regard is essential in future. Also, recently we have seen significant developments in the Soviet Pacific fleet. It was once its smallest fleet but over the past decade it has become its biggest and most important. Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam is now the centre of the largest concentration of Soviet naval units outside the continental Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, with about 30 units at any one time, and frequently as many as 60, including surface ships, nuclear-powered submarines and auxiliary units operating in the South China Sea. As recently as November last year Royal Australian Navy units shadowed what the Defence Minister described as the most powerful Soviet surface attack group ever to enter Pacific waters. In relation to regional realities, the Defence report 1984-85 describes the region as one of the most stable in the world, and refers to steady economic growth, the cohesion of the Association of South East Asian Nations, and Thailand's skill at managing the Cambodian border situation as being factors involved. That analysis neglects Australia's off-shore islands and its resources base and assumes an intrinsic stability in the region. A factor identified specifically is that economic growth of the ASEAN nations is showing much less encouraging trends. Singapore's growth rate has fallen rapidly since 1984 and, notwithstanding significant short term efforts to turn that trend around, we must put a question mark against Singapore in the short term. A decline in its economic performance could certainly trigger apprehensions and upheavals in the population. A similar downturn is being felt in Malaysia, combined with emerging and potentially threatening fundamental Muslim activity. Further, obvious problems are emerging for the new Philippine Government of President Aquino. As the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) mentioned previously, the threat to the Philippines is not reducing in the light of the new government. Rather, it is increasing and will potentially, over the next few months, reach staggering proportions. Declining oil prices are putting very significant pressure on the Indonesian economy. I alluded a little earlier to Indonesia's problems with Australia. Its latest budget has cut spending by 7 per cent. It has enormous problems, it being a 2,000-island archipelago, and is potentially a significant threat to Papua New Guinea. In addition, the Islamic resurgence, to which I have already alluded, in Malaysia and elsewhere is creating problems for those countries. Thailand, troubled by internal instability, is threatened by an expansion of Vietnamese power in Indo-China, notably in Laos and Cambodia. There is clear potential for destabilisation of some of the main ASEAN nations, especially if economic growth rates continue to fall, which Australia cannot afford to ignore. There is no doubt that Mr Dibb has produced what must be seen as the first step in establishing a comprehensive evaluation of Australia's defence preparedness. There is much to be done now and in the future, and we look forward with rising excitement to the White Paper scheduled for tabling later this year. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(9.42) —When listening to the contribution of the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) to this debate, I had the feeling constantly that we had read different reports. Perhaps the conclusion is that the honourable member has not read the Dibb report-the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities-at all, because many of his remarks either seemed not to relate to it or betrayed a total ignorance of what it contained. He referred to the report as having recommended a cost-cutting exercise, a diminution in the proportion of resources devoted to defence. But Dibb does not say that. The report says that there should continue to be a better than 3 per cent real increase in the amount to resources devoted to defence. Indeed, the only government in my lifetime which has reduced expenditure on defence to a negative real growth was the Liberal Government in 1981-82. The honourable member for Casey talked of the ridiculousness of saying that there is to be no threat for 10 years. Quite apart from whether Dibb really said that, it is the case that that same assessment, with the various qualifications that surround it, was accepted by our predecessors, the Liberal Government. The honourable member talked of the report recommending a mothballing of the Reserves. On the contrary, the Dibb report recommends not only an expansion of the number of Reserves but also a greater use of the Reserves in different capacities. It also recommends that the decision to tax the Reserves' pay be rescinded or that their whole pay structure be examined. Therefore, it recommends a considerably greater use of the Reserves. The honourable member for Casey talked of the report recommending a brown-water navy. It does precisely the reverse. It recommends an expansion of our naval capacity. I quote from the report: . . . a new class of ocean patrol ship, perhaps to be known as the light patrol frigate, to be built in Australia to complement our FFGs and DDGs and our Fremantle class patrol boats. It recommends that we build a good number of those additional vessels. Even my good friend the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) spoke of the report somehow equating the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America as powers in rivalry. There is no way that the report gives any credence to that. In fact, I cannot think of any person in Australia who would have more to say from a more expert position than would Paul Dibb on the question of Russian influence in our region and any effect that might have on the force structures we adopt and the kind of defence posture we might allow. It is quite disappointing that there has been so much sloganising from Opposition members about what is the first and best document I have seen written on defence policy in the perhaps 20 years I have been associated with that area. It is perfectly true that previous governments have brought out strategic basis assessment papers and papers that relate to the force structure, but never the twain meet. There has never been a real follow-through of our strategic position, how it relates to the kinds of forces we should have and deploy and what situations they might face. From that point of view, this report is a very long overdue document and it is an excellent one. As the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) said when tabling the paper this afternoon, it is the first since the Second World War. The Minister in his remarks quoted John Curtin, and I also would like to quote from that source because it seems to me to be basically the kind of defence policy we should be following. John Curtin said 50 years ago: The people of Australia would expect this country to be capable of defending itself should the occasion arise. He went on: A greater degree of self-reliance in Australia's defence is essential. Mr Peacock —No one denies that; but you are doing it at the expense of alliances. Mr BILNEY —I am glad to hear the honourable member say that no one denies that; but I have the feeling that that is being denied, at least if not by him, by some of his Opposition colleagues. The fundamental premise of self- reliance is what informs the whole of this report. I quote a conclusion of the report: This Review has sought to narrow the options and to limit the scope for subjective judgment by focusing on the unchanging nature of our geographic circumstances and the levels of threat that we might realistically expect. The central theme of this Review is that Australia is a defensible continent and that, with some important reordering of priorities, we can provide for our own defence. Thank God, to hear that said, because so much nonsense has been talked in the past by governments which seemed more set on scaring people in Australia to death, with red arrows pointing down and so forth, than on intelligent debate about defence that many Australians have come to believe that there is very little we can do in our own defence. It is a great contribution of this report that it not only sets out to show that there is a great deal we can do to make ourselves a more self-reliant nation from a defence point of view, but also it shows how. That context of self-reliance sets the whole scheme and tone of the Dibb report. In the report Dibb goes right to the basics of designing a defence policy for this country-not Australia seen as an appendage of other countries, not Australia seen as a country fighting the last war or fighting a different war from what is likely to face us, but Australia addressing the real problems of defending, today, a real country called Australia in the real political, strategic and international environment which is developing around us. I sometimes think there is too much mystique about defence policy, too much of an idea that defence matters are too complex for ordinary Australians to understand. This report performs the great service of bringing the debate down to earth by asking the very questions that ordinary Australians ask themselves when they think about defence, and there are few subjects which are of similar importance. The report asks: What are our strategic circumstances? What sorts of threats to Australia are credible, and within what time frame? How should we Australians guard against those threats, inform ourselves about them and assess them? How should we prepare to defend ourselves against them, given our geographic and strategic circumstances and given our present resources and what we can realistically expect to spend on them in the future? What does that mean for the kind of force structure we need in the Australian Defence Force? Where should those forces be deployed? How should they be equipped to react in the various circumstances the report identifies? What is the role of Australian industry in supporting our defence effort? What is the role of the men and women who loyally serve Australia in the Army, Navy and Air Force Reserves? The report asks all those questions and many more besides, and it provides answers that I am sure set the scene for a greatly improved defence effort by Australia for a long time into the future. I said earlier that few of the Federal Government's responsibilities are as important as providing adequately for the defence of Australia. Most thinking Australians would agree that it does not make much sense to undertake the kinds of efforts we all make to give our families, our children, a better life in the future, to improve our education and welfare systems and our quality of life, if at the same time we leave ourselves open to attack and, ultimately, to the destruction of the whole way of life we have painfully built up and in some cases bloodily defended in a number of conflicts in the past. I have often felt that too little was done in the past to explain to the ordinary men and women of Australia who elect people to this place-and vote them out-why particular defence policies are followed, why particular equipment is needed, why certain levels of manpower are required, and why alliance relationships are so important. Indeed, the report spends a great deal of time explaining the necessity for those things. Why not at least explain that an adequate defence effort cannot be sustained without the commitment of considerable financial resources? Like most members of parliament, I often see people in my office who suggest to me that more expenditure should be made on this or that. I say to them that we could certainly do that by raising taxes. They say: `No, I do not want that'. I ask where the money is coming from and they say that it can be taken out of defence, that we spend a lot of money on defence-$6 1/2 billion a year, or 10 per cent of the Commonwealth Budget, or around 3 per cent of gross national product. Another way of looking at this is that it costs $400 per annum for every man, woman and child. There is a feeling that because such huge amounts are involved there must be ways of doing things better. The great virtue of this report is that it deals from beginning to end with what kind of defence policy we should be following, what kind of structure that implies, what kind of equipment it involves, and how and why the money should be spent. I believe that the report will make a great contribution towards raising the standard of debate about defence in Australia, particularly if people read it with somewhat more care than my colleagues on the other side seem to have done. I shall run briefly through the structure of the report and first consider what is the basis of Australia's national defence strategy. I think this is actually one of the points about which there might be some degree of bipartisan agreement, because it is based essentially on papers that have been agreed to, both by this Government and its predecessors. The report states: We are a large country with a small population and industrial base. But through a strategy based on the fundamentals of our geographic location we can maximise the benefits of an essentially defensive posture in our region. . . . Australia must have the military capacity to prevent any enemy from attacking us successfully in our sea and air approaches, gaining a foothold on our soil, or extracting political concessions from us through the use of military force. I think most people would agree that that is a reasonable basis for a proper defence policy for Australia. The report then goes on to consider what main areas of operation we should be involved in. My colleague referred recently to a map and asserted that this meant that the report was not isolationist. Of course it is not isolationist. The area of our defence interests that the report outlines involves about a quarter of the earth's surface. Anyone who can claim that that represents an isolationist strategy has to be off his head. Having set out this basis for a national defence strategy, the report then considers in detail what are the places in that strategy of our alliance relationships and regional consideration. I am pleased to see that recognition has been given to the need for friendly relationships with countries in our region. Nothing will make us more secure than to have north of us, in the area of our strategic and immediate defence interests, a group of friendly, stable countries which are making progress and are at peace. That is an important matter. It is nothing to do with a military structure but very much to do with the future security of this country. The report then goes on to consider the levels of conflict we might come across. It is quite ludicrous to say that we should prepare for a global war. We will not be a principal party in a global war, but there are a number of threats that are much more credible and against which we should prepare; it is these that the report deals with. It then relates those credible threats to the capabilities we should have. We obviously need to have a much more mobile army. We are trying to defend a territory which is harsh, which is large, and in which the necessity to move forces around quickly will be paramount. That means that we need a considerable number of army utility helicopters so that we can get troops to particular places. We have a large resource zone to defend; therefore, we need more ships than we have at present but we need them to be able to do more than can our existing light patrol craft. Therefore we need a new class of ship, to be built in Australia, to carry out these functions. Everything in the report is related to the situation in which we now find ourselves and the threats with which we might be faced. The great virtue and achievement of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities is that it brings all these threats together in a coherent whole which will provide a sound, realistic and credible basis for the kinds of defence efforts that all Australians will support, will agree is necessary and will agree are vital for our future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(9.57) —If ever there were a subject before this Parliament, and before the nation in other forums, where there should be a total bipartisan approach it is our defence and security. I rather felt that as this debate has proceeded tonight that has been fairly much in evidence, particularly in the contribution by the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson). I feel that most members have attempted to approach the discussion of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities with this in mind. I am rather puzzled that men, who I know from serving with them and from having experience of them would have the interests of this country and its protection very much and sincerely at heart, have almost conspired to get a message across here tonight that there is no threat from the Soviet Union, that we on this side of the House still have the old approach-`the Russians are coming', `red arrows'. There was all that sort of comment tonight. I would like explained away why we have heard evidence time and again of the continuing intrusion, the buildup of immense resources, if not within our own area in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, certainly up in the northern parts of the Pacific Basin, the fringe in the vicinity of Japan. I was fortunate enough to have a very impressive briefing at Pearl Harbour with Admiral Long when he was Commander of CINCPAC. All of us, including the Chairman of our Committee, the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross), more or less had this confirmed again when we had discussions with the present Commander of CINCPAC in Sydney. That is, this installation, if I might call it that, this immense base that the Russians have up in that part of the world, is superior to anything they have to counter the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It is capable of carrying out global warfare-either a conventional conflict or a nuclear one. Supposing matters ended there. We are also told now that there is irrefutable evidence that there are as many nuclear submarines prowling around the Pacific Ocean as we calculated were evident in the Indian Ocean. Are we being stupid? Will there be another Vanuatu incident, a further intrusion? Do we say that there is no direct military threat there, that all we need is an umbrella and to call ourselves Chamberlain? Let us go back through history. Let us look at the Carter regime, during which the CIA and everything that protected the United States was being emasculated. A man named Reagan came along and said: `That era is over. We will again be strong enough to stand up to these people'. The verdict of 240 million people gave him the greatest victory in history. This brings me to one of the pivotal points of my contribution to this debate. We talk about a combination of surveillance and intelligence to protect this nation; we talk about the strategy of denial. Let us get down to specifics. I would feel that I had totally failed in my contribution to this debate if I were to go on a political slap-bang. I happen to know the thinking of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). I know his approach and I know his thoughts. For years we served together on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. He was one of my most valuable lieutenants, if I may put it that way, who, with the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), I am sure other members of the Committee would agree, made a very profound contribution to the affairs of this nation. I do not want to embark on shooting down the Minister or the Dibb report, but if we are to talk about a strategy of denial we have to realise and face up to realities: What do we have to deny our shores-Fortress Australia, if you like? What equipment, what logistics, do we have to prevent a would-be invaders crossing that moat and landing in Australia, whether they be immense forces, infiltrating forces or whatever they may be? The crunch comes when the invaders advance. I would think that the first thing we need is effective surveillance. Do we have that at the moment? We talk about Jindalee. I can understand Mr Dibb referring to Jindalee in his report. Ever since I have been interested in the spectrum of defence-and I had the privilege of chairing the Defence Committee through the Fraser regime, working together with the present Minister for Defence and others-we have been told that Jindalee will go into service. In 1976 we were told that, within three years, Jindalee would be operating. In the early 1980s we were told: `By the mid-1980s we will really reach perfection. We will be over the horizon and probing deep into the Indian Ocean and elsewhere'. We are now told that Jindalee will soon be operating. Let us face up to this reality: If we are not to have static surveillance, we will not have much surveillance at all. I am absolutely convinced that the most disappointed man in the whole of this nation in relation to surveillance is Minister Beazley. I know his thoughts on surveillance and I know what he wishes would be provided for this country. Surveillance has never been at a lower ebb. Mr Dibb said that there should be a combination of surveillance and intelligence. If honourable members heard the debate on intelligence last night they would be very concerned indeed. There is to be a new position of Inspector-General and all that goes with it. One could be forgiven for believing that the political wing will intrude very profoundly into operation of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, security being another element that Mr Dibb suggests is vital to our new concept. May I now make just a few formal comments. I begin by pointing out that it is a matter of great regret that the tabling of this report represents the first opportunity for a full scale debate in the Parliament on national security matters since the Fraser Government tabled its White Paper in 1976-some 10 years ago. I further state-and this does not apply particularly to this Government; it applies also to successive governments-that in some extraordinary way the debate on defence always comes at the concluding stages of a parliamentary session. So the defence of this nation and all that goes with it are always debated in the dying phases of a sitting. There is a need for the Parliament to consider vital questions such as those dealt with in the White Paper. Much of what was in Sir James Killen's White Paper has been repeated and presented, perhaps in a different form, in Mr Dibb's report. However, I think we have to do better than have a debate of this nature once every 10 years. It is better late than never I guess. This report is an attempt to bring together all the major considerations relevant to Australia's future national security position. Members on the Opposition side of the House have a number of specified objections-they have been voiced very fluently earlier in this debate-to the direction which the Government proposes to take in the light of the report. My comments take a rather less party political line; they are intended to look compassionately and objectively at what this report proposes with reference to the work of the Defence Matters Sub-committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I get back to that Committee, which has, I feel, done a good job. I say that not because I chaired the darn Committee; there have been several chairmen, all of whom have done a darn good job. However, it would not have done a good job except for the fact that it had good solid bipartisan members on it. That Committee plays the sort of role in which it is able, without all the inhibitions of the Ministry and without its members holding some formal or official positions in the forces, to dispassionately examine not only the feelings of the experts, but also the feelings of the people who are most involved, that is, the general people of Australia. In that process we made a discovery. We found that the people are very remote from the defence spectrum. Someone once said that Katter's only contribution when he was Army Minister was to get a new Army hair cut. That was a very human thing; it was just another barrier between the people. Mr Deputy Speaker, I respect your remarks about coming closer to the people and not having all the mysticism about the forces. Although the impediments may have been only little material things such as an Army hair cut, they were inhibitions which set the forces apart and were almost resented. A fellow in uniform was someone from another world. Although we have perhaps crossed those barriers, to some degree they still exist. The purpose of that Committee was to bring the forces and all that goes with our defence closer to the people. The force structure proposals in this report will, no doubt, be the subject of considerable debate, and so they damn well should. An honourable member has said that we will probably hear about Norforce again tonight. Unless one understands the possibilities of Norforce, one would say that it was brought into existence to play a fairly insignificant role. However, let me get back to the argument of denial, the assumption that we have some massive new generation of logistics that could deny an enemy. Can honourable members imagine it? Let us presume that the moat does not hold and that an enemy lands in this country. If anyone tells me-and I am being a little brutal-that the present establishment, particularly of our Army, would be effective in throwing back an invasion or even a minor threat to this country, he needs to get up and look around the country. We did. The Chairman, the honourable member for Brisbane, and all of us were very concerned indeed. We have a body of men, and one could not wish for a higher quality of morale in the officers and other ranks; but their powers of mobility were almost non-existent. I inform the Chairman of our Sub-committee that I believe that that has been rectified to a very great extent. With the return of the helicopters from the Sinai at least we are near full strength in that regard. I am not sure about mobility of other forces, but let us suppose that it exists. It would not be commensurate with any sort of an invasion or intrusion into this country. With the experience over many years of dealing with other people's abilities I advise honourable members that the answer is to have-God forgive me for mentioning them-Vietnam-type hit squads. Thus we could develop Norforce-highly mobile-to move instantly and with immense new generation fire power and to act in the way that the Israelis and Vietnamese did. Unless we look at the reality of what can and will be done when we get back into power, the Dibb report will be only another theoretical contribution to the arguments that have gone on for years. Again I express my regret that this debate is brought on in the dying stages of this session, as has happened so often with other matters. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.11) —I commend previous speakers in the debate and particularly pay my compliments to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and Mr Dibb for the report of the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. I need to make a couple of points in the very limited time available. There is a contrast between this approach to defence and that which preceded us. I will paraphrase a comment by Mr Dibb in the report: Much of what was presented as national security interests was basically current political perception of what was favourable and unfavourable. We were told at one point in our history that our security depended upon an allied victory on the other side of the globe; at another that our security was inextricably linked with preventing the downward thrust of Chinese communism. It is little wonder that what we inherited was really an inadequate defence structure and an inadequate preparedness in terms of what was deemed by the then Government to be the sorts of threats we might face and the capability of dealing with those threats. The significant departure in the Dibb report-and previous speakers have identified this-is that it looked at what the threats are likely to be, took a hard look at the capability we will need to deal with those threats and then made an assessment of the costing and force structure needed. That is a very important way to proceed. Mr Bilney —It's the first time. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) points out, it is the first time that it has been done. It is very important that this has been done because, for the first time, the Australian community will not be led by the nose by a lot of rhetoric. It will have put before it some propositions that are realistic, not only in terms of the threats we face but also in terms of our capacity to fund our defence. That is crucial and is the big departure. Anyone who in this debate wants to inflame other propositions has to address himself to the fact that the Dibb report says: `These are the discernible threats. This is the kind of capability we need to deal with those threats. This is the sort of force structure we have to put in place. There are the budgetary propositions that we have to address'. That is a very simple and straightforward approach. Coming from Western Australia, I am very pleased that there is a commitment in the Dibb report to a submarine base in Western Australia and also to another more limited naval facility in Western Australia. That is very important. The capacity to recognise the needs of areas such as Western Australia has emerged in the Dibb report and under this Government. This is a significant departure from previous ideas. It is a case not of creating phantoms over the oceans but of having a realistic preparedness. That is what this report is about. We ought to recognise that. I am also very pleased that we are addressing the issue of mining counter measures. Western Australia has many ports that would be vulnerable to mining. This report addresses that issue and points realistically to some propositions that the Government might pursue when dealing with mining of ports. Western Australia has many strategic ports in its north-west; it has ports such as Cockburn Sound and Fremantle. It is very important that this report addresses those issues and that we as a government address those issues. In concluding my remarks, this report is a realistic assessment of what this country needs for a defence force structure and for the first time we have removed all the nonsense, all the electoral rhetoric and all the other hype that has preceded us. Mr Dibb and this Government have said that this is the sort of defence preparedness that we need and this is the way we go about it. I am pleased that many contributors on this side of the House tonight have addressed what we believe is a satisfactory way of going about the business of defence preparedness. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.15) —The Parliament will go into recess on Thursday night. It will not resume until the Budget session, which begins on 19 August. During the recess-that is, in July-the Australian Labor Party National Conference will be held in Hobart. This will present representatives from the parliamentary Labor Party with a tremendous opportunity to repair the damage and heal the wounds inflicted on the Australian community by the ALP at its July 1982 National Conference in Canberra. It was there and then, that the Party changed its platform and declared its intention to change the Australian flag. Members of this Government should now try to reverse that decision. Nothing of course could be more divisive than a flag change. The Australian flag is the nation's most important symbol, a symbol which has over a period of almost 100 years become invested with deep-rooted emotions and traditions. No flag could be more attractive: None could be more representative. The Southern Cross has burned in Australia's night sky, a pointer for Australia's Aboriginal people for over 40,000 years. The three crosses in the left-hand corner-the red cross of St George, the white diagonal cross of St Andrew and the red diagonal cross of St Patrick-represent the three peoples who came here almost 200 years ago, bringing our language, democratic government and the rule of law. People from a myriad of countries have come to these shores since because of the kind of country it is and the essence of freedom, epitomised by this flag. It is therefore not surprising that opinion polls have consistently shown that the vast majority of Australians want no flag change. A majority of all age, occupational, educational and voter groups want the present Australian flag retained. A majority of those in the ethnic community want no other flag. All ALP members are bound by the Party's platform. There are obviously some Government members who agree with the policy and want to be bound by it. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) signalled his attitude by allowing the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to make a grant last year to help with the costs of a new flag competition in Australia's schools. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), when Federal Minister for Housing, nailed his views to the mast when he became one of the catalysts for the creation of Ausflag 1988. It was obviously more than a coincidence that this association, which was dedicated to changing Australia's flag by our bicentenary year was created only six months after the ALP Conference in July 1982. I suggest that there are also among the Government's ranks many who take pride in the Australian flag and wish to see it retained in the ALP's logo, on the Party's letterheads and election literature. The Australian flag has featured at all ALP national conferences and thus will no doubt also feature at next month's Conference in Hobart. I should like to think that this will reflect the genuine attitude of most ALP members, including those sitting on the other side of this House. I should prefer to think that, than the alternative: That the ALP could be guilty of a monumental hypocrisy. The ALP can redeem itself in the eyes of the public in another important respect. In 1984 a Bill requiring a referendum of the Australian people before any flag change was passed by the Senate. In February 1985 it was introduced into the House of Representatives, where it has languished since. If the Government wants to re-establish its credibility with the Australian people it will allow that Bill to proceed. Mr Hawker —Why won't they do it? Mr McARTHUR —I do not know. The Government ought to let it go ahead. If a referendum for a new Australian flag were ever held, the Australian people would in effect be agreeing or disagreeing with two kinds of statements. The first is this example from Senator Gareth Evans, who described the Australian flag as: . . . An undistinguished bit of cloth inherited from our colonial past. It sets no-one's pulse racing except the odd RSL blimp or Liberal backbencher. Then there are the sentiments expressed by the champion yacht designer Ben Lexcen. He said: If they try to change our flag there is no way in the world I'd recognise the new one. I might even leave the country. Look, I'm bloody proud of our flag . . . When we came back in Australia II after winning the final race in the America's Cup, Challenge 12 came out to meet us flying an Australian flag nearly half the size of the boat. I have never felt so proud! Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(10.20) —Tonight I wish to register my horror and disgust at the film Hail Mary, which is scheduled to appear at the Sydney Film Festival this month. The release of this movie in Australia was the subject of a recent question in this House of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford). For those who are unaware of the honourable member's question and the Attorney-General's reply, I will quickly precis both. The honourable member asked whether the Attorney-General would overrule the Film Censorship Board's R rating for the film Hail Mary for the sake of the beliefs of many Christians who regard this film as blasphemous. Attorney-General replied that, as the film had been registered and released from the control of the Australian Customs Service, he had no power over the matter. I appreciate the Attorney-General's position in this instance. It would be dangerous indeed if the Attorney-General alone were empowered to ban or to allow films, newspapers, magazines, et cetera, which he found not to be to his liking. It would be the first step towards total control of information and ideas, and the beginning of totalitarianism. However, as a practising Catholic, I share the deep distress felt by many people in our community who feel deeply offended by the manner in which Christian beliefs are portrayed in this movie. I have received numerous letters and personal approaches from constituents in my electorate who are deeply distressed by the release of this film. I share their horror and abhorrence at a film which portrays the Virgin Mary as a foul mouthed women who derives pleasure from the infant Jesus fondling her, or the Angel Gabriel being portrayed as an unshaven child molester. This garbage deeply offends not only me but many on both sides of the House, along with countless thousands of Christians throughout Australia. I am stunned to think that anybody should conceive of making such a film. Its existence only goes to show that some people will go to any lengths to make a quick and easy dollar-and they do it in the name of art. What kind of art is that which offends decent people and their beliefs? The makers and promoters of this movie no doubt are relying on controversy to add to their profits. It is a shame that the movie was not allowed to sink back unnoticed into the mire from which it came. I wish to use this forum to implore all right thinking Australians to boycott this film. I call on them to urge their families, friends, fellow workers and acquaintances to boycott this rubbish. Let us not make the peddlers of this trash martyrs by banning the film. Instead, we should take the high moral ground and condemn the film, its makers and its promoters by boycotting it completely. Finally, I thank all of those people who have approached me and who have shared with me their thoughts on this matter. I pay tribute to one person in my electorate whom I hold in very high esteem. I refer to a man of tremendous moral and ethical conviction, Father Eugene Hurley, who I cite as a representative of so many decent people in my community. Those people are typical of the people whom this film deeply offends. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(10.24) —Just recently the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) announced a number of grants to so-called ethnic nursing homes. Amongst those was the San Carlo nursing home at South Morang. There is one for the Greek community and one for the German community. The one in which I am most interested is the one announced for the Griffith community, the Scalabrini Village nursing home in Griffith. The Federal Government allocated $557,580 for that. I warmly welcome that grant to that nursing home and thank the Minister and the Government warmly for that. The Italian community in Griffith raised over $300,000 to go towards that nursing home. They are still in the process of raising money through raffles, dinners and all of those things that are normally associated with raising money for nursing homes. They are to be particularly congratulated because this money was raised at a time when the rural industries in the area were suffering some fairly bad times. Full marks go to the Italian community. Of course, it was not only that community that raised that money; the wider community also contributed because of its respect for the elderly citizens. In Griffith the elderly citizens are very well looked after. Wherever the people can, they look after them in a variety of ways. Mr Andrew —So does their member. Mr HICKS —Thank you very much. The reason I am speaking tonight is that I was phoned by a newspaper and asked what I thought about the funding of nursing homes, particularly those for so-called ethnic groups. I do not like the word `ethnic'. I like to speak of people from other countries as perhaps Italian Australians, Australians of Italian heritage or Australians of German heritage. I believe that foremost we are Australians. Those people who come from other countries should be proud of their heritage and should keep those aspects of their heritage which are of fundamental importance to Australia. They should contribute those parts of their heritage to the community of Australia. I just add a story about when I was a youngster in Broken Hill. It illustrates one of the things that make Broken Hill a unique city. When I was a young boy, my uncle, who was a long time resident of that city, said: `Listen, son, you are the equal of any other man or women, but you are the better of no one. You are the equal of everyone'. That is the way I like to think of all Australians. That is the reason why I am speaking tonight. I believe that these nursing homes are a great addition. For example, in Griffith we have the Italian community. With the immigration laws of this country, many el- derly people who cannot speak English come to Australia. Members of the Italian community are used to Italian food, and therefore they need that comfort and security in their old age. It is good that these nursing homes cater particularly for these elderly people. By the same token, I believe that these nursing homes, as with any other service provided, should be available to the wider community when the need arises. I am sure that the people of the Scalabrini Village have this in mind. I just want to clear up any misunderstanding. I think these nursing homes should provide facilities for Australian Italians, Australian Germans, Australian Greeks or whoever. At the same time they should be open to the wider community. I am one of those people who believe in assimilation. I am not so sure about the word `multiculturalism'. I do not really know what it means. I am a bit worried about it. For instance, if it means as it may do in some parts of Australia where multiculturalism is taught, Greek against Turk or Muslim Lebanese against Christian Lebanese, I am very disappointed. Mr Gayler —Irish against Irish. Mr HICKS —Or Irish against Irish, as the honourable member says. I am opposed to that because I am totally opposed to anything that divides Australia. I would go to the barricades against that. For instance, I believe that in Victoria there is a special policy whereby, if an Aboriginal person shifts from Swan Hill to Mildura, he gets priority in housing because of his nomadic existence. If that is the case, I believe the same should apply for an Australian Arab who had a nomadic existence in his former country. He should be provided with the same services. What I am saying is that I believe in equality for all Australians, with equal rights and equal opportunities. I believe that all people in Australia are equal and none is better than the other. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(10.29) —The House may recall a question that I asked recently of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) concerning a controversial film entitled Hail Mary. I asked whether the Attorney-General would intervene to have the film banned in this country due to the great outcry against it from certain sectors of the community. I am pleased that tonight my colleague the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) preceded me on this side of the House in speaking on the same subject. Let me explain why so many people are outraged by the film. It is not because of sex, violence, swearing or bad taste. In this country we are quite used to seeing that sort of thing all the time. If anything, we have become a little blase about it. We are even used to having such rubbish foisted on us as art. The reason we are outraged is that the baser motives and activities that we are used to in modern films have been attributed to historical figures who are sacred to our faith. It is not the swearing or the nudity but the people who are being depicted in that way that has caused the anger. Let me point out a contradiction in our own laws relating to such matters. The Government is quite concerned about respect for the religious freedom and beliefs of different cultures. Witness, for example, Article 9 the Bill of Rights Bill. We carry that respect into action with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill 1986. In fact, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) demonstrated this concern for the respect of religious sanctity last June, when an auction by Sotheby's at Sydney attempted to sell off certain artefacts sacred to local Aboriginal people. The Minister used his authority under the 1984 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act to stop the sale so that the New South Wales Land Council would have enough time to negotiate a sale and keep the artefacts in the hands of the rightful owners. I applaud the Minister for his actions, and I support legislation which guarantees the dignity and respect of religious belief. I personally may not believe that such objects were sacred or magical or important, but when the beliefs of another hold such things in reverence, surely I should respect those beliefs. Exactly the same sentiment should apply to the film Hail Mary. The Attorney-General in his answer suggested that those who objected to the film should not see it. I cannot let the matter rest there. If it were merely a gross piece of rubbish perhaps I could, and let those sick-minded enough to want to see it pay their money, but it is a piece of rubbish which denigrates and debases central tenets of my faith and the faith of many other Australians. I am fully prepared to recognise the value and authority of other religions. I believe that is a prime task of any healthy, democratic government. Why can my faith not be shown the same respect? Some have answered that Hail Mary is a serious work of art, even that is devotional. In fact, the director, Jean-Luc Godard claims to be a Catholic making a pro-Christian film. My only answer to this is that Monsieur Godard has got it completely wrong, as most of his co-religionists have told him. A far more believable theory is that the director has attempted to create some interest for yet another of his hopelessly boring art films by insulting a particular group. Another criticism levelled at those who want the film banned is that we have not seen it to know what we are protesting against. This `don't knock it till you've tried it' argument is utterly mad. One need not have direct experience of something to make an informed opinion of it. I have read virtually all the reviews of the film written in this country. They give graphic descriptions of the goings on in the film. I really do not need to see and hear the actress swear to object to it. I do not need to see the nude scenes to be outraged at the attacks on persons sacred to my religion. If honourable members still are not convinced, they should consider this example. There is a particularly vile form of film known as the snuff film. In such films one witnesses a violent rape scene and, at the climax, the victim is killed-not an actress feigning death, mind you, but a real victim murdered before our eyes. I have never seen such a film; I never wish to see such a film. I would hope no honourable members have been subjected to such a sight, yet I am sure all would agree with me that such films need to be eliminated, and all persons associated with their production and distribution should be gaoled. Naturally, the situation with Hail Mary is not as desperate or demanding as the elimination of underground snuff films. However, the situation requires action. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I stress that I am not in favour of censorship for its own sake. I accept that there is nothing to be done now as regards this film. I only hope that the publicity all this has created will not make more people go to see it. What I hope to see is the production of a set of regulations which will ensure that the beliefs of all faiths will be respected, so that this outrage will not be repeated. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.34) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to take but two minutes of this adjournment debate to complete a speech I was making last Thursday evening, when the adjournment debate concluded before I had finished my remarks. I was commenting on that occasion on a letter I had received from the Almond Co-operative Ltd, which was protesting at the fact that a new blanching machine it had ordered, worth $150,000, had been held up between Melbourne and Berri for 31 days. Honourable members may ask what is a $150,000 machine, but in fact the machine has provided this industry with the opportunity to break into a new export market. It was unable to do so in time to match the American competition simply because the machine was held up by VicRail. The Almond Co-op was unable to trace the machine and get it to Berri in time to do the job it wished it to do. Why do I express my indignation? This relatively small industry, producing a little over 2,000 tonnes of product with a value of about $8.75m, is an industry that fails at this stage to meet the Australian demand for almonds. Sixty per cent of the almonds consumed in Australia are imported from the United States of America, and in fact there is opportunity to plant an additional 2,500 hectares of almonds in Australia in lie of other irrigated crops that are not as profitable as the almond industry promises to be. The delay of this machine by unnecessary industrial action has jeopardised the growth of what could be in future a very profitable Australian industry, and I think that everyone responsible for that delay ought to hang their heads in shame. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(10.36) —I want tonight to draw the attention of the House to an article in the Business Bulletin of May 1986. The article is headed: `Import if you must, but don't import insurance'. It is very relevant-- Mr McGauran —Relevant to what? Mr BLANCHARD —It is relevant in view of the fact that we do have a balance of payments problem. There is some interest in this subject, even though the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) may not be interested. My interest in marine insurance-essentially this article deals with marine insurance-goes back quite a few years, to when I was involved in a small company which was responsible for covering marine insurance for a big firm in London involved in the electrical and musical industries. The article points out that so often most of our importers buy goods on a cost, insurance and freight basis, not on a cost and freight basis. If they were to buy goods on a c. and f. basis, the article points out, they would have better service and it would save a deal of money which at present goes overseas, so becoming part of our invisibles deficit. So buying on a c. and f. basis would do this country a great deal of good. The article points out that marine insurance rates in Australia are very competitive with those quoted by overseas insurance markets, and importers do have a range of marine insurers from which to choose. As most honourable members would know, marine insurance is a very specialised class of insurance and it does require expertise in trade, shipping and maritime law. Very few general insurers have much expertise in marine insurance, and it is the specialist marine insurance organisations that are best equipped to meet the needs of importers. To illustrate the point that we should cover our own insurance when we sell overseas, the article cites the case of the recent sinking off the New South Wales coast of the vessel Hoelien, which had a full cargo of steel piping and timber. This provided a good example of the value of arranging marine insurance in Australia. The day after the vessel sank, Associated Marine Insurers Agents Pty Ltd were notified by their client, Elders IXL Limited-a name that has been bandied around this House-that it had cargo on board. Within 24 hours Elders IXL had a cheque for $525,000 in its hands. If Elders had imported c.i.f. rather than c. and f., it no doubt would have had a lengthy wait for the settlement of its claim. Mr MILES(Braddon)(10.40) —I would like to spend a few moments talking about an article which appeared in the newspaper last Monday, 26 May. It was headed `ALP plan to put private schools under closer watch'. The article illustrates the fact that the Australian Labor Party is constantly interested in trying to wind back private schools. The article leads me to think about several situations I have experienced in schools. I spent 12 years teaching in the government school system, so I understand as much of what goes on in the government school system as goes on in the private school system. The article states: The new policy says it is a matter of legitimate public interest to require information relating to Commonwealth funding in regard to private schools. That is fair enough, but education for every child in Australia should be funded equally by the community, no matter whether the child goes to a government school or a private school. Interestingly, the article goes on: Accountability mechanisms are an essential part of the process of ensuring both that particular program goals are met and that individual Commonwealth programs promote rather than retard Labor's broad commitments to social justice and equality. I am absolutely certain that what the Labor Party is on about here is getting more information, through legislation. It is going to legislate against the private schools so that it can get more information. Every time the Labor Party gets more information from the private schools, it is so that it can do a couple of things: First, to see how it can cut government funding to private schools, how it can weed out the money from private schools; and, secondly, to develop arguments to undermine private education. They are the two purposes that are always in mind when the Government wants to examine private schools. Why does the Government not have a look at some of the rorts that exist in government schools? I can tell honourable members, from my experience in some departments, that 25 per cent of the value of textbooks is lost every year. I can illustrate than in money terms. In one school I taught at $6,000 was spent one year on textbooks and $1,500-worth of textbooks were lost. I then went to a private school. I have checked out the records there. It is interesting to note that, over a period of four years, about one book out of 500 books was lost a year, which is about $6 out $3,000 in total. There is a lot of difference in the way schools are run. Yet the Government wishes to put more bureaucracy, more expense and more intrusion into a part of the Australian community with is largely very efficient and competitive. I notice that the Government wants to look at its employment policy in regard to private schools and is seeking information on various structures in the schools. Teachers in private schools generally spend about 15 per cent more time in the classroom than do teachers in government schools. If all private school students were in government schools, it would cost this nation over $1 billion more in the Budget. At this stage in our history what every government should be doing is encouraging more people to go into private education, because that would save the country millions of dollars. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.44) —I wish to raise two matters. The first matter concerns the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the news today that Sister Veronica Brady from Western Australia is not to have her appointment to the Board continued. I am concerned about that on two grounds. The first is that Sister Veronica Brady has done substantially good work in terms of her role in the community. She has gone to great pains to consult with people in the ABC and to talk to people in the wider community about what they perceive as the important role of the ABC. One of the issues we have to address in this place is that in the last couple of years the ABC has had an identity crisis of extraordinary proportions. It has also had an accountability issue of some proportion. We have to address the fact that we need an effective Board and we need members of that Board who can ensure that they are reflecting community views and that the ABC works effectively as an organisation funded by taxpayers. On the first ground I am concerned because Sister Veronica has performed very well in terms of consulting with the community and with the organisation she was responsible for, the ABC, in particular in Western Australia. She had two concerns. One was about educational programs and the other was about Aboriginal programs. I believe that she has done a lot of valuable work there. I cannot escape the feeling that, because Sister Veronica took a particular position with respect to what is referred to as the Molomby matter, she is being made to pay the price. I find that very unfortunate and quite unsatisfactory. My second concern is that we might not have a representative from Western Australia on the ABC Board. I believe that in the past the ABC Board has left something to be desired. It is very important that we have a representative from Western Australia on the Board in the future. Western Australia is an important part of Australia. In fact, in the chamber now are honourable members from Western Australia such as the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) for whom the ABC is an important medium because many of the people in the electorates of these honourable members do not have the opportunity to have any other broadcast form. So it is very important that they and other people in Western Australia have proper representation on the Board of the ABC. I am very disturbed about the news today and I wish to register my protest. The second matter I wish to comment about is that we are now witnessing a headlong rush by the managers of the Australian football competitions in the various States towards a national competition. The concern I have substantially is that a number of people from corporate life are deciding what they will do with the Australian game. I am concerned that they have never taken the trouble to ask the ordinary spectator, the man, woman or child who pays through the gate, leans over the fence and makes up the base support of Australian football. Corporatist people who, due to their inability and inefficiency in the past, have tended to run the game down as an economic proposition are now trying to rescue it by beating up a national competition. It will not work. They ought to be asking ordinary spectators what they want. Some preliminary indications I have from talking to people is that they are not in favour of a national competition. We have seen the farce of the Sydney Swans. They do not draw the crowds that they claim to draw. In fact, half the people at those games are on free tickets. In economic terms, the Swans are a farce. We ought to be asking the ordinary people of Australia what they want for the Australian national game. Let us not tell them; let us ask them. Let us take some time out and find out what their needs are. The concerns I have are these: The game is not owned by the corporate people at the top. The game belongs to everyone who plays it and watches it. That is the important thing. We ought to be concerned that there be a commitment to junior development. There has been no undertaking from the people talking about a national competition regarding junior development. In fact, it is a takeover by the Victorian clubs, some of which are in a financial mess, to try to destroy in a sense the football structures in other States. I am very unhappy about it. I believe that the football administrators ought to do the first thing properly and ask the ordinary spectators what they want. If they did that, they would find them saying very loudly: `No, we do not want a national competition'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I call the honourable member for Fisher. Mr McGauran —He is a good member. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.49) —I thank the honourable member. From 1 July the livelihood of pineapple farmers throughout the electorate of Fisher will be in jeopardy. This will not be as a result of any poor growing conditions or bad marketing of the fruit. It will be as a direct result of a decision taken by the Hawke Government to revise the developing country tariff preferences. I make it quite clear that I do not wish to downgrade in any manner government assistance to developing countries in the South East Asia region. The fact of the matter is, however, that this ad hoc approach to cutting tariffs will threaten over 1,600 jobs and sales worth $150m in the pineapple industry. Given the economic climate that this country is now in as a result of Labor's economic mismanagement, the Federal Government cannot justify placing such an industry in danger. The banana republic of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will have no chance of becoming a pineapple republic because this Government will wipe out the industry far more quickly than any natural disaster. In 1981-82 an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into canned fruits decided on a reduction in tariff protection from 15 per cent to 10 per cent, to be phased in over a number of years. The final reduction to 10 per cent was due to be made on 1 July this year. Under the Government's latest decision, the tariff will now be dropped to just 5 per cent. The Government's decision will, of course, be welcomed by the large mainly American multi-national companies in the Philippines and Thailand who are responsible for the importation of most of Australia's pineapples. This decision will not be favourably greeted by the large number of growers throughout the Fisher electorate, including those in the Caboolture, Wamuran, Beerwah, Glasshouse Mountains and Dayboro areas. Multi-national companies growing pineapples in the so-called developing nations do so specifically to take advantage of low labour costs. Australian producers, despite being among the most highly efficient in the world, cannot hope to compete with a wage structure of 70c per hour, compared with $7 to $10 per hour. This Government resolutely ignores the urgent need to deregulate the wages market. The Government's move will do nothing to create employment in this country and, with our growing balance of payments problem, it surely will not help to reduce imports. It is nothing more than yet another king hit for growers. Honourable members would be aware that average farm income in Australia this year will fall by 66 per cent to $6,700, with a further one-third of farmers estimated not to earn any income during 1985-86. So much for the Federal Government's promise after the national farm rally last year that there would be relief in the Budget on farm costs. Pineapple growers, along with other rural producers, still face high input costs which the Government refuses to reduce. The imposition of government duty in some cases amounts to 35 per cent, and to compare these charges with the tariff of 5 per cent on imported produce is ludicrous. The pineapple industry in Queensland operates without any government assistance. It has built up a reputation for quality, efficiency and versatility. This industry can be destroyed quickly by a single government mistake. Some growers are already estimating that they could face a reduction of 50 per cent in production output following the flood of imported produce after 1 July. The flow-on effects of this flood of imported produce on the pineapple growing areas in the Fisher electorate will be catastrophic. It is high time that this Government got off the backs of primary producers. Its hypocritical double-dealing is slowly sending rural areas throughout Australia to the wall. Pineapple producers are like other producers in primary production. They accept adverse seasonal conditions and fluctuations in market prices as part of farming. What is not accepted, however, is for the Government to stifle the efforts of farmers to compete in the market-place. Labor is prepared, in effect, selectively to reduce tariffs, even when this action decimates returns to farmers. The Government will not alleviate the cost burden on production that some tariffs impose on the rural sector. Labor's approach is inconsistent, hypocritical, contradictory and disastrous. Australian producers do not want handouts; what they want and what they are entitled to is a fair go. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.54) —There are few small businesses in Australia more competitive in today's world than the aviation charter industry. I draw the attention of the House to a particular charter operator, a friend of mine, Mr Len Paggi of Carnarvon, who operates what has been a very successful charter business over many, many years. He is highly regarded by people who fly with him. I have flown with him on many occasions, as does the magistrate, and he was chosen by the Agriculture Protection Board for its dingo baiting campaign. The Board told me that he was chosen because of his performance and its opinion of his safety. I have been a member of this Parliament since 1980 and in the first year I was in this Parliament, in an adjournment debate, I made a very personal attack on a member of the Opposition, one Michael Baume. I said some very harsh things about `Patrick' on that occasion. Whilst I do not resile from anything that I said-I think I said on that occasion that the man was a spiv; I think that that has been amply demonstrated-I certainly did not feel proud of myself. But I think that the height of cowardice is when any member comes into this House and attacks people outside the Parliament who are not in a position to respond. That is the tactic of a cowardly, bullying thug. I think that the attack on Mr Len Paggi by the honourable member for O'Connor, Mr Wilson Tuckey, a couple of weeks ago can only be described in those terms. Mr Paggi is well known to Mr Tuckey, because Mr Paggi chartered Mr Tuckey's own aeroplane on several occasions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Kalgoorlie should refer to the honourable member by his title. Mr Gayler —What? Thug? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Leichhardt will withdraw that. Mr Gayler —I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr CAMPBELL —All right; the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Paggi said to me: `Yes, it's a funny thing; on one occasion when I was chartering the aeroplane of the member for O'Connor, a very lucrative charter came up and I explained to the member that we couldn't take it because the plane was out of hours, and the member for O'Connor said: ``Yeah, well, it's a pity you can't have one set of books for yourself and one for the Department, isn't it?'' ' That is the measure of the man. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Kalgoorlie will not parody members; he will use ordinary language. Mr CAMPBELL —It is a nasal complaint, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have no way of proving this matter at all, but it has the ring of truth about it. I am appalled that a member of this House should stoop to these tactics. It is all right to trade abuse across the floor of this House, and I am prepared to mix it with anyone. But to use the power of this forum to attack people who simply do not have the ability to respond to such an attack is cowardly and gutless. The honourable member for O'Connor has put questions on notice referring to this aspect. I do not know the answer to those. The honourable member for O'Connor tells me that he has the answer and that it fully vindicates him. I do not know what the answer is, but I know that there is no substance to his allegations. Mr Paggi is an extremely safe flier and an extremely cautious flier. He is also a man who has been successful against tremendous odds in business for very many years. We shall see the answer printed in Hansard tomorrow, and I will lay London to a brick that there will be no vindication of the honourable member for O'Connor in that answer. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.57) —The suggestion just made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) is that I levelled an attack against somebody and that it was of some personal nature. It is a great pity that the honourable member does not think of some of his own colleagues in that regard. However, he has referred to the question that I put on notice. What I raised in this place was a matter relating to the safety of the public, and the fact that a certain charter operator, namely Paggi Aviation, was doing unauthorised repairs to its aircraft and putting the public at risk. That was to protect the public. The honourable member has just mentioned certain people. Let me refer to the question that I put on notice. It states: Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 26 May 1986: Is he aware of alleged unauthorised repairs to light aircraft by Paggi Aviation of Carnarvon; if so, (a) what complaints has his Department received about this and (b) what action is his Department taking. Mr Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (a) Oral complaints from sources who did not wish to be identified related to two incidents. It was claimed that Mr Len Paggi changed a propeller on a Partenavia aircraft in Carnarvon around 1984. Since 8 May 1986 it was further reported that Mr Paggi dismantled some part of the elevator trim mechanism around 1979 on the same aircraft . . . They are exactly the allegations that I made in this place. There is a further part to the answer, which goes on to say that the Department was unable to get evidence on that. That is exactly what I said in my speech: That the people were not prepared to be named, because Mr Paggi is known in the area. He wrecked a cell when he was put in gaol once, and he crashed my aeroplane on another occasion. I never said what the honourable member for Kalgoorlie suggested and I will bet he will never produce proof of that. What is that supposed to mean? What is the suggestion that we should have two sets of books supposed to mean? On one occasion I put the repair agent in Perth into the Department of Aviation because he reported me for unsatisfactory work on that plane. That was the difference between my ideas of pilot safety and public safety and that gentleman's. If the honourable member for Kalgoorlie wants to carry on this debate, I am glad that he says that the magistrate and others are still flying, because I want to advise them to keep out of those planes before they get killed. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.59) —I shall rise tomorrow night, Mr Deputy Speaker, and speak about the matter that I have been trying to raise over the past three nights. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think that that is probably an excellent idea. It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. Mr Andrew asked Madam Speaker, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) Has Madam Speaker's attention been drawn to the answers to questions on notice which appeared in the Daily Hansard of (a) 30 April 1986, pages 2801-2833, and (b) 1 May 1986, pages 2960-2961 and that (i) both had the heading date of 29 April 1986 (ii) page 2960 was not numbered and (iii) there were no answers to questions included in the Daily Hansard of 29 April 1986. (2) Is this considered an isolated incident or accident or is it Hansard policy; if it is Hansard policy, (a) when was the policy implemented, (b) who authorised the policy and (c) on what date are such answers included in the Weekly Hansard. Madam Speaker-The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. My attention had not previously been drawn to the matters referred to. 2. The way in which the answers to questions on notice were printed in the Daily Hansards of 30 April and 1 May is not in accordance with Hansard policy. The acting Director of Printing has informed the Principal Parliamentary Reporter that the error, which occurred also in the Daily Hansard of 8 May, was due to an operator error in the Government Printing Office in that the relevant typesetting format held on the typesetting system was not updated. Hansard policy on the publication of answers to questions on notice is that they be forwarded to the Government Printing Office on the day on which they are received from the Table Office and printed in the Daily Hansard for that day, if it is a sitting day, or, if it is not, in the Daily Hansard for the next sitting day. Sometimes, for various reasons-such as the number of answers to questions, or staff shortages or equipment or industrial relations problems at the Government Printing Office-it is not possible to publish the Daily Hansard at an acceptable time and to include all the answers to questions. On such occasions the Daily Hansard is published as early as possible the next day and some or all of the answers to questions are held over and included in a subsequent Daily Hansard. In the Weekly Hansard the answers to questions are printed in the same sequence as they were printed in the Daily Hansard. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 3 June 1986: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for collection of information-1986-No. 6-Survey of stocks of unsold wool. Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 117. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 3363) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) What Bicentennial projects have been approved in the electoral division of Moreton. (2) What is the cost of each project. (3) What percentage of the cost will be borne by the Federal Government. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The program of projects, events and activities for the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary is being developed with the intention of involving all Australians. The cultural and economic benefits of the Bicentenary will reach all parts of the country. The program is being administered at different levels- national, State or regional-and the effect on individual electorates is thus difficult to quantify. In the Brisbane region, for example, the staging of Expo '88, preservation of historic sites on St Helena Island and the construction of the Boondall Bicentennial Sports and Entertainment Centre could all be expected to benefit residents of the Moreton electorate. To date there have not been any Bicentennial projects approved by the Commonwealth Government or the Australian Bicentennial Authority which are confined solely to the Electoral Division of Moreton. Under the Local Government Initiative Grants Scheme, an amount of 742,200 has been allocated to the City of Brisbane, which is the local government area covering the Moreton electorate. The Scheme, which is administered by the Australian Bicentennial Authority, provides for a base grant of $2,000 for each local government authority plus $1 per capita. Grants are to be matched by the local government authority on a $1 for $1 basis. (Question No. 3368) Dr Donald Cameron asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) What sum was paid to each non-Government school in the electoral division of Moreton in (a) 1982-83, (b) 1983-84 and (c) 1984-85. (2) What are the estimated payments to each school in 1985-86. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) Commonwealth payments to non-government schools are made under several separate programs. GENERAL RECURRENT GRANTS These are paid on a calendar year basis. There were no non-government non-systemic schools receiving recurrent grants in 1985. Attachment A lists the amount of recurrent grants paid to non-government Catholic systemic schools from 1982 to 1985. Attachment B lists the amount of recurrent grants paid to non-government Seventh Day Adventist systemic schools from 1982 to 1985. Systemic schools are those schools administered by a System Authority. Grants are paid direct to the System Authority which allocates funds to schools according to their need. In 1986, the estimated entitlement for Catholic Systemic Schools in Queensland is $53,730,927, while for the South Queensland Conference of the Seventh Day Adventist Church the block allocation is $770,623. The Department of Education will be advised in due course of the amounts actually paid to each of the systemic schools by the System Authority out of General Recurrent Grants. CAPITAL GRANTS These are also paid on a calendar year basis. Attachment C lists the amount of capital grants paid to non-government schools from 1982 to 1986. ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE (ESL) PROGRAM This Program aims to develop and improve the competence in English of students of non-English speaking background (NESB). The Program has two elements: the General Support element for students of non-English speaking background resident in Australia and needing to improve their English competency; and the New Arrivals element which provides for intensive English language instruction for newly arrived students of non-English speaking background. ESL Program funds are provided on a calendar year basis. Details of grants under the ESL Program for the period 1982-86 are provided on Attachment D. OTHER PROGRAMS Details of funding under the Ethnic Schools Program, Multicultural Education Program and Basic Learning in Primary Schools Program in respect of schools in the Moreton electorate are not available. Two schools received Integration Grants under the Special Education Program in 1986: Loreto Convent, 415 Cavendish Road, Coorparoo, Qld. 4151, $2,200; St James Convent school, 165 Old Cleveland Road, Coorparoo, Qld. 4151, $2,200. Attachment A GENERAL RECURRENT FUNDING ALLOCATED TO NON-GOVERNMENT CATHOLIC SYSTEMIC SCHOOLS IN THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF MORETON School name and location Actual funds allocated 1982 1983 1984 1985 $ $ $ $ Mary Immaculate Primary School, 616 Ipswich Road, Annerley ... 118,424 126,345 156,825 124,328 Our Lady's College, 15 Chester Road, Annerley ... 442,937 480,939 552,862 519,400 Our Lady of Mount Carmel School, Norfolk Street, Coorparoo ... 192,122 202,954 244,865 210,596 St James' Convent School, 165 Old Cleveland Road, Coorparoo ... 144,134 136,100 181,867 168,731 St Elizabeth's School, 55 Effingham Street, Ekibin ... 145,834 138,949 131,421 109,104 St Joachim's School, Yuletide Street, Holland Park ... 108,408 117,773 126,957 128,134 Seton College, 1158 Cavendish Road, Mount Gravatt East ... 193,497 237,164 303,696 282,875 St Catherine's School, Morella Street, Wishart ... 289,264 329,408 329,662 290,522 St Sebastian's Primary School, Kadumba Street, Yeronga ... 95,401 126,971 135,021 156,044 St Agnes' School, 29 Tudor Street, Mount Gravatt ... 225,368 228,174 271,755 256,268 Total... 1,955,389 2,124,777 2,434,895 2,246,002 Attachment B GENERAL RECURRENT FUNDS ALLOCATED TO NON-GOVERNMENT SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST SYSTEMIC SCHOOLS IN THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF MORETON School name and location Actual funds allocated 1982 1983 1984 1985 $ $ $ $ Brisbane Adventist High School, 306 Wishart Road, Mount Gravatt ... 257,222 240,874 281,726 290,525 Mount Gravatt Seventh Day Adventist School, 303 Broadwater Road, Mount Gravatt ... 160,324 167,281 187,043 171,049 Total ... 417,546 408,155 468,769 461,574 Attachment C COMMONWEALTH GRANTS TO NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS IN THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF MORETON UNDER THE CAPITAL GRANTS PROGRAM School 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Total $ $ $ $ $ $ Mary Immaculate Primary School, Annerley ... (L) 1,000 (L) 6,230 . . (L) 7,000 . . 14,230 Our Lady of Mount Carmel School, Coorparoo . . . . (L) 10,000 (L) 4,000 . . 14,000 St Elizabeth's School, Ekibin ... . . . . (L) 1,000 . . . . 1,000 St Joachim's School, Holland Park ... . . . . (L) 10,000 (L) 4,000 . . 14,000 St Sebastian's Yeronga ... . . (L) 1,000 . . (L) 7,000 . . 8,000 Seton College ... (L) 2,140 (L) 5,060 . . (L) 2,000 . . 9,200 Mount Gravatt East ... . . (C) 50,000 . . (C) 36,813 . . 86,813 Our Lady's College, Annerley ... (L) 1,470 . . . . . . . . 1,470 St James Convent School, Coorparoo ... (L) 1,000 . . . . . . . . 1,000 Brisbane Adventist High School, Mount Gravatt ... (L) 1,000 . . . . . . . . 1,000 St Catherine's School, Wishart ... (L) 2,480 (L) 1,000 (L) 1,500 . . . . 4,980 Totals ... (L) 9,090 (L) 13,290 (L) 22,500 (L) 24,000 . . (L) 68,880 . . (C) 50,000 . . (C) 36,813 . . (C) 86,813 Note: (L) = Grants for Library Resources (C) = Grants for Capital Works Attachment D COMMONWEALTH GRANTS UNDER THE ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE PROGRAM TO SCHOOLS IN THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF MORETON 1982 New arrivals General support 1983 New arrivals General support 1984 New arrivals General support 1985 New arrivals General support 1986 New arrivals General support $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Seventh Day Adventist (primary) Mt Gravatt... Nil 1,200 Nil 4,950 Nil 2,110 Nil 1,620 * 1,500 Our Lady's College, Annerley... Nil 3,093 Nil 3,285 Nil 5,414 * 17,580 * * St Agnes's Schools, Mt Gravatt... 3,180 9,012 Nil 8,938 3,576 8,576 * 4,380 * * St Elizabeth's School, Ekibin... Nil Nil 841 Nil 894 Nil * Nil * * St James' Convent, Coorparoo... 4,770 Nil 1,682 7,655 4,470 13,824 * 7,212 * * St Catherine's, Wishart... Nil 15,797 Nil 4,463 894 6,867 * 10,780 * * St Joachim's, Holland Park... 1,590 Nil 841 5,190 Nil Nil * Nil * * St Sebastian's, Yeronga... 795 Nil 1,682 Nil Nil Nil * Nil * * TOTAL... 10,335 29,102 5,046 34,481 9,834 36,791 41,572 *Notes: (i) Amounts for individual Catholic Schools for 1986 are not yet available for both General Support and New Arrivals elements; (ii) Amounts for Non-government non-Catholic schools for 1986 are not yet available for New Arrivals element; (iii) Amounts for individual Catholic Schools for 1985 are not yet available for New Arrivals element. (Question No. 3402) Mr Jull asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: What sum was paid to each non-government school in the electoral division of Fadden in (a) 1984-85 and (b) 1985-86 to date. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) and (b)-Commonwealth payments to non-government schools are made under several separate programs, and typically on a calendar year basis. GENERAL RECURRENT GRANTS Attachment A lists the amount of recurrent grants paid to non-government non-systemic schools in 1984 and 1985. For the 1986 calendar year, an estimate of the school's entitlement has been given for each non-government non-systemic school and is based on the school's 1985 enrolments. Attachment B lists the amount of recurrent grants allocated to non-government Catholic systemic schools in the electorate in 1984 and 1985. Systemic schools are those schools which are administered by a System Authority. Grants are paid direct to the System Authority which allocates funds to schools according to their needs. In 1986, the estimated entitlement for Catholic Systemic schools in Queensland is $53,730,927. The Department of Education will be advised in due course of the amounts actually paid to each of the systemic schools by the Systemic Authority out of General Recurrent Grants. CAPITAL GRANTS Attachment C lists the amount of capital grants paid to non-government schools from 1984 to 1986. ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE (ESL) PROGRAM This Program aims to develop and improve the competence in English of students of non-English speaking background (NESB). The Program has two elements: the General Support element for students of non-English speaking background resident in Australia and needing to improve their English competency; and the New Arrivals element which provides for intensive English language instruction for newly arrived students of non-English speaking background. Amounts for 1986 are not yet available but during 1984 and 1985 the following grants were provided: 1984 New arrivals General support 1985 New arrivals General support $ $ $ $ St Bernards, Upper Mt Gravatt... 1,788 5,651 * 4,380 St Pius X, Salisbury... 894 7,344 * 7,220 St Peter's, Rochedale... Nil 3,017 * 4,016 St Thomas More College, Sunnybank... Nil 11,996 * 10,780 St Edward the Confessor, Daisy Hill... 1,788 Nil * Nil Logan Uniting Primary, Springwood... Nil Nil 2,784 Nil * Amounts for individual Catholic schools not yet available. OTHER PROGRAMS Details of funding under the Ethnic Schools Program, Multicultural Education Program and Basic Learning in Primary Schools Program in respect of schools in the Fadden electorate are not available. Maryfields Catholic Primary School, Kingston and St Peter's Primary School, Rochedale participated in the Early Literacy Inservice Course (ELIC) in Queensland Catholic schools in 1985, for which there was an allocation of $88,000. St Thomas More College, Sunnybank, received $8,000 in 1984, $21,000 in 1985 and $6,000 in 1986 under the Participation and Equity Program. Attachment A GENERAL RECURRENT FUNDS ALLOCATED TO NON-GOVERNMENT NON-SYSTEMIC SCHOOLS IN THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF FADDEN Name and Location of School Actual Funds allocated 1984 1985 Estimated entitlement 1986 $ $ $ He Lives Christian College, cnr Redland Bay & Ferry Roads, Carbrook... 28,266 28,998 31,305 John Paul College, Chatswood Road, Daisy Hill... 647,710 891,052 900,474 Redeemer Lutheran College, 745 Rochedale Road, Rochedale... 526,584 613,162 613,162 Logan Uniting Primary School, Dennis Road, Springwood... 38,976 99,724 91,485 Robert J Andrews Education Centre, Troughton Road, Sunnybank... 42,076 89,779 School transferred to State government from beginning 1986 Total... 1,283,612 1,722,715 1,636,426 Attachment B GENERAL RECURRENT FUNDS ALLOCATED TO NON-GOVERNMENT NON-SYSTEMIC SCHOOLS IN THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF FADDEN Name and Location of School Actual Funds allocated 1984 1985 $ $ St Edward the Confessor School, Chatswood Road, Daisy Hill... 488,145 405,969 St Mathew's School, Bryants Road, Loganholme... 46,009 78,656 St Peter's Primary School, Rochedale Road, Rochedale... 385,884 392,014 St Pius X School, 73 Golda Avenue, Salisbury... 138,883 153,507 St Thomas More College, Turton Street, Sunnybank... 763,450 788,654 etSt Bernard's School, 1823 Logan Road, Upper Mount Gravatt... 341,892 307,447 Clairvaux College, Klump Road, Upper Mount Gravatt... 510,944 668,374 Amalgamated to form Mackillop Clairvaux College start of year 1986 Mackillop College, Klump Road, Upper Mount Gravatt... 464,268 508,781 Total... 3,099,475 3,303,402 Attachment C COMMONWEALTH GRANTS TO NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS IN THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF FADDEN UNDER THE CAPITAL GRANTS PROGRAM School 1984 1985 1986 Total $ $ $ $ Mackillop College, Upper Mount Gravatt... (C)38,450 (C)48,961 . . 87,411 St Bernard's School, Upper Mount Gravatt... (L)10,000 . . . . 10,000 St Peter's Primary School, Rochedale... (L)4,000 (L)6,000 . . 10,000 St Edward The Confessor School, Daisy Hill... (L)2,500 . . . . 2,500 Redeemer Lutheran College, Rochedale... (C)180,509 (C)114,100 . . 294,609 John Paul College, Daisy Hill... (C)599,400 (C)300,000 (C)169,700 1,069,100 Robert J. Andrews Education Centre, Sunnybank... (L)10,000 (L)10,000 . . 18,400 St Mathew's School, Loganholme... (L)10,000 (C)67,700 (L)4,000 (C)256,300 . . . . 14,000 324,000 Logan Uniting Primary School, Springwood... (L)10,000 (C)218,000 (L)13,100 (C)119,000 . . . . 23,100 337,000 St Pius X School, Salisbury... . . (L)7,000 . . 7,000 Total... (L)46,500 (L)38,500 (L) . . (L)85,000 (C)1,104,059 (C)838,361 (C)169,700 (C)2,112,120 Note: (L)=Grants for Library Resources (C)=Grants for Capital Works (Question No. 3674) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) Is it a fact that (a) natural gas reserves in Australia are estimated to be adequate for 100 years and (b) the cost of production of gas is close to 40 cents per gigajoule, making gas the cheapest energy source in Australia until well into the 21st century. (2) If so, will the Minister institute an inquiry into the desirability of the Commonwealth Pipeline Authority planning, and if subsequently authorised by the Government with the consent of the States, building pipelines to establish a system of interstate gas transmission to supply the large volumes of gas that can be used for electricity generation, industry and domestic use in all States. (3) Is it a fact that natural gas is purchased principally by State Government controlled distribution authorities at prices which are excessive, uncoordinated and detrimental to the well-being and growth of industries whose products are vital to manufacturing and Australia's export trade. (4) Will the Government seek co-operation from the States to take combined action on the future pricing of natural gas, as it does for crude oil. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) Demonstrated economic resources of natural gas in Australia are sufficient to last around 50 years at current levels of consumption. Consumption is expected to increase significantly over the next decade, but at the same time, there is potential for further discoveries in Australia, as demonstrated by the recent Kipper find in Bass Strait. (b) While the cost of production of gas from older established fields is quite low and could be less than 40 cents per gigajoule, new discoveries are significantly higher cost, in some cases up to 4 dollars per gigajoule. It is very difficult to arrive at a representative figure of the cost of production. (2) The Australian Minerals and Energy Council (AMEC) established a Working Party in 1985 to look into natural gas supply and demand issues. The Working Party is considering the need for interstate pipeline connections. There would appear to be opportunities in the medium and longer term for the integration of existing gas markets and for the interconnection of pipeline systems in the interests of security of energy supply and minimisation of natural gas supply costs. If such opportunities are to be taken up, there will be a need for close consultation and co-ordination between governments and industry on the sizing, timing and ownership of new pipeline interconnections. The Commonwealth would wish to facilitate this process, but this might not necessarily involve the Pipeline Authority either in ownership or operation of new pipelines. (3) and (4) The various intra-State gas markets in Australia have evolved as essentially separate markets, except for the supply of Cooper Basin gas to New South Wales and of Bass Strait gas to Albury. The prices at which gas is sold to the various distribution authorities naturally vary and in some cases are still related to quite low prices which were established prior to the 1973 increase in oil prices. Prices are, however, negotiated between producers and distribution authorities, and there is no evidence that any such prices are excessive. In some markets prices may need to rise if supply security is to be assured. Given the myriad factors which affect production and supply costs, there is no case for the co-ordination of prices if they are to reflect real costs and therefore to result in efficient allocation of resources. Gas should be priced to reflect its value as a premium fuel while ensuring the maximum penetration of gas in energy markets where this is economic. The best way to achieve this objective is to rely on commercial negotiation between the parties involved. (Question No. 3723) Mr Everingham asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 10 April 1986: (1) Did the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, presided over by Mr Justice Fox, conclude that releases of water from the Ranger mine site might be made. (2) Does the Ranger Environmental Requirement No. 7, issued under section 41 of the Atomic Energy Act, (a) specify the conditions for the release of waters from the Ranger restricted release zone or (b) state that waters must always be contained in the restricted release zone. (3) What scientific advice pertaining to the trial release of restricted release zone water at Ranger was submitted to the Minister by the Supervising Scientist. (4) Did the Minister accept the advice of the Supervising Scientist. (5) Which advisory bodies other than the Office of the Supervising Scientist, submitted advice pertaining to the release of restricted release zone water at Ranger to the Minister and what was the nature of that advice. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. Moreover, release to the Magela Creek of good quality water from ponds at the Ranger mine site, which collect runoff water from outside its Restricted Release Zone, has been authorised and monitored by the supervising authorities since 1979. (2) (a) Some of the conditions are specified in that clause. (b) No. (3) and (4) The Supervising Scientist for the Alli- gator Rivers Region submits advice directly to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, not to me, although he does frequently consult with officers of my Department on relevant matters. Also, a senior officer of my Department is a member of the Co-ordinating Committee for the Alligator Rivers Region, which is established under the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act to consider scientific and other information of relevance to the protection of the en- vironment from the effects of uranium mining in the Region and to make recommendations to the Supervising Scientist. My Department participates in the meetings of the Committee and keeps me informed on its deliberations and on the views of its members, particularly on the issues which are of relevance to me as Minister responsible for administering the Atomic Energy Act, under which mining at Ranger takes place. (5) No advisory bodies have submitted advice to me on this matter. (Question No. 3754) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, 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 Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. (a) Nil. (b) No projects were undertaken by Mr Adams and Mr Cameron, their associated companies or principals of those companies for work on behalf of the Department of Community Services. (Question No. 3761) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, 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; (iii) 1985-86 to the date of answering this question. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) and (b) There have been no projects undertaken by either Mr Phillip Adams, Mr Rod Cameron, or their associated companies or principals of those companies, in my Department or authorities under my control during the period mentioned. However, the Department did contribute $14 000 to a project organised by the Energy Authority of New South Wales in 1984-85 and carried out by the Australian National Opinion Polls (ANOP) of which Mr Rod Cameron is a principal. The project involved undertaking a study and providing a report on: (i) Fuel consumption promotion including the degree of awareness of Fuel Consumption Guide (FCG) and; (ii) The impact of the FCG on consumer decisions in the purchase of new vehicles. (Question No. 3860) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) What funds were set aside for the `Street Beat' road safety campaign in April 1986. (2) How were these funds to be spent and through what government or non-government agencies. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $83,000. (2) These funds are for road safety radio commercials and a magazine containing information on road safety. The funds were spent by the Federal Office of Road Safety in the Department of Transport as part of the 1985-86 Road Safety Public Education Program. (Question No. 20) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) What applications have been received from international airlines to service Australian airports during (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 to the date of the answer to this question. (2) Which of these applications were (a) approved and (b) denied. (3) Which of the applications were from established carriers (a) already operating into Australia and (b) not presently operating to Australia and which airports did they seek to service. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) the following applications were received from international airlines, or from foreign Governments, to provide scheduled services to Australian airports: (a) in 1983-84- In December 1983, the Mauritian Government requested an air service agreement to enable scheduled services to be operated between Port Louis and Australia. In February 1984, the United States Government applied for rights for US carriers at Brisbane. In February 1984, the Government of the Republic of Korea sought an air services agreement with Australia. In April 1984, Polynesian Airlines filed to operate a weekly B737 service from Apia to Sydney, to commence in August 1984. In March and June 1984, the Pakistan Government advised that it wished to pursue the question of an air services agreement with Australia. In May 1984, Australian and Chinese officials negotiated an air services agreement. Each delegation sought rights for its respective airline to operate between Sydney/Melbourne and Beijing and Guangzhou. (b) in 1984-85- In July 1984, Royal Brunei Airlines applied to operate a second weekly frequency to Darwin. In September 1984, Cathay Pacific and Qantas applied to operate a sixth weekly B747 passenger service each between Hong Kong and east coast Australia from October 1984. In September 1984, Olympic Airways applied to resume services from Athens to Melbourne and Sydney from December 1984. In September 1984, Japan Air Lines (JAL) and Qantas applied to operate a fourth weekly service each between Japan and Australia from April 1985. In November 1984, Lufthansa filed for a joint Lufthansa-Qantas freighter service from Frankfurt to Melbourne. In December 1984, Air Pacific applied to operate, from January 1985, four B747 services weekly between Nadi and Sydney and an additional B737 service between Nadi and Brisbane. Qantas applied to operate three new services between Melbourne and the United States via Fiji. In December 1984, the Omani Government requested negotiations towards an air services agreement to enable scheduled services to be operated between Oman and Australia. In December 1984/February 1985, the Egyptian Government raised the possibility of Egypt Air and Qantas each operating a once weekly service between Sydney and Cairo. In February 1985, the United States Government filed on behalf of Continental Airlines to operate a once weekly all freighter service between Los Angeles and Sydney from March 1985. In February/March 1985, Cathay Pacific and Qantas applied to operate a seventh weekly service each between east coast Australia and Hong Kong. In March 1985, during informal discussions in Canberra, Sri Lankan officials sought agreement to regular services by Air Lanka to Sydney and Melbourne. In June 1985, the Polish Government requested an air services agreement for services between Poland and Australia. (2) (a) The following applications were approved: Polynesian Airlines. Weekly service to Sydney commenced in August 1984. Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) and Qantas. In September 1984 CAAC commenced services from Beijing and Guangzhou to Sydney and Qantas commenced services from Melbourne and Sydney to Beijing. Royal Brunei Airlines. Second weekly service to Darwin commenced in October 1984. Cathay Pacific and Qantas. In October 1984 Cathay Pacific commenced a sixth weekly service to Sydney and Melbourne and Qantas commenced a sixth weekly service from Sydney to Hong Kong. In October 1985, Cathay Pacific commenced a seventh weekly service to Sydney and Melbourne and Qantas commenced a seventh weekly service from Sydney and Melbourne to Hong Kong. Olympic Airways. Twice weekly services to Sydney and Melbourne commenced in December 1984. JAL and Qantas. In April 1985 JAL and Qantas each commenced a fourth weekly service between Tokyo and Sydney. Lufthansa-Qantas. Joint freighter service commenced as a scheduled service in November 1984. Air Pacific and Qantas. In January 1985 Air Pacific commenced four weekly services to Sydney and an additional service to Brisbane and Qantas commenced three weekly services from Melbourne to the United States via Fiji. Continental Airlines. Once weekly freighter service from Los Angeles to Sydney approved but approval was not taken up by the airline. (b) The status of the remaining applications is as follows: Mauritius, Oman and Poland. There is insufficient origin-destination traffic between Australia and each other country at present to justify the conclusion of an air services agreement. United States. The request for rights at Brisbane is still under consideration. Republic of Korea. The Korean authorities were advised in 1984 that Australia considered there was insufficient origin-destination traffic between the Republic of Korea and Australia to justify the conclusion of an air services agreement, but would continue to monitor traffic on the route. Pakistan. Pakistan officials have been advised that Australia considers there to be insufficient origin- destination traffic between the two countries to sustain economically viable services by the carriers of both countries. Both national carriers will monitor traffic on the route. Egypt. Proposal not pursued by the Egyptian Government. Sri Lanka. Current traffic levels between Australia and Sri Lanka are not sufficient to sustain economically viable scheduled services by the national carriers of both countries. Traffic figures will be closely monitored and the question of direct services will be reconsidered should there be a substantial increase in traffic. (3) (a) The following applications to serve Australian airports were from established carriers (or their Governments) already operating to Australia: Qantas (Australia) Royal Brunei Airlines (Brunei)-Darwin Lufthansa (Federal Republic of Germany) Qantas-freight service to Melbourne Air Pacific (Fiji)-Sydney and Brisbane Continental Airlines (United States)-Sydney JAL (Japan)-Sydney Cathay Pacific (United Kingdom)-Sydney and Melbourne (b) The following applications to serve Australian airports were from carriers (or their Governments) which did not operate to Australia at the time of applying: Air Mauritius (Mauritius)-airports not specified Korean Air (Republic of Korea)-airports not specified Polynesian Airlines (Western Samoa)-Sydney Pakistan International Airlines (Pakistan)-airports not specified CAAC (People's Republic of China)-Sydney and Melbourne Olympic Airways (Greece)-Sydney and Melbourne Gulf Air (Oman)-airports not specified Air Lanka (Sri Lanka)-Sydney and Melbourne LOT (Poland)-airports not specified Egypt Air (Egypt)-Sydney (Question No. 1831) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: (1) What international air passenger routes, or frequency of services, available to Qantas are not presently being utilised by Qantas. (2) Which of these are being flown by other companies in place of Qantas. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Routes or frequencies of services available to Qantas but not presently utilised (as at April 1986): Route Unused entitlement Australia/Amsterdam 1 B747 Australia/Apia (Western Samoa) 1 B737 Australia/Athens 1 B747 Australia/Bangkok 3 B747 Australia/Belgrade 1 B747 Australia/Denpasar, Jakarta 2 B747 Australia/Honiara (Solomon Is) 1 B737 Australia/Johannesburg 1 service Australia/Kuala Lumpur, Penang 6 B747 Australia/Manila 2 B747 Australia/Paris 1 service (up to 200 passengers) Australia/Rangoon (a) 2 B707 Australia/Vancouver 1 B747 Darwin/Brunei 1 B737 Darwin/Denpasar, Jakarta 2 DC9 Hobart/Christchurch (b) 1 B727 Port Hedland/Denpasar, Jakarta 1 DC9 Sydney/Brisbane/Vila 1 B737 (2) Routes or frequencies listed above which are operated by other airlines under arrangements with Qantas: Darwin/Brunei 1 B737 Royal Brunei Airlines Hobart/Christchurch 1 B727 TAA Port Hedland/Denpasar (c) 1 F28 Ansett WA (fortnightly service) Sydney/Brisbane/Vila 1 B737 Ansett Notes: (a) No services are operated by airlines of either country due to the lack of traffic on the route. (b) Capacity on the Trans Tasman route(s) is determined by Qantas and Air New Zealand at regular intervals. (c) The Australian entitlement is exercised fortnightly, rather than weekly, and is operated by Ansett WA, using an F28 aircraft under arrangements with Qantas. (d) Australia also has air services agreements or arrangements with Austria, Egypt, Lebanon, Ireland, Sri Lanka, Tonga and Nauru for which no capacity entitlements have been established for Qantas. Provision is made for capacity negotiations when traffic reaches appropriate levels. (e) Transecutive Airlines operates four all-cargo services per week between Sydney and Auckland using Westwind 1124 aircraft under arrangements with Qantas and Air New Zealand. (Question No. 2753) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) What special air freight arrangements does Qantas have (a) for dedicated freight aircraft, (b) for scheduled services and (c) jointly with other airlines. (2) Does each of these arrangements cover exports and imports equally; if not, do joint arrangements relate more to imports than exports. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Qantas does not own any dedicated freight aircraft. The Company operates three Boeing 747 `Combi' aircraft, which are a mixed passenger/freight aircraft with main deck cargo capacity, giving a freight uplift of over 30 tonnes in addition to a full passenger load. (b) These aircraft operate scheduled services to/from the United States, Hong Kong, Tahiti, Papua New Guinea, West Germany, Singapore, Thailand and Japan. In addition to the ``Combi'' services. Qantas also carries cargo on its scheduled passenger services. Each Boeing 747B and 767 has the capacity to uplift 10.5 and 6.5 tonnes of cargo respectively in the aircraft bellyhold. Such services carry the majority of all air freight to and from Australia. (c) Qantas also has special arrangements for the provision of dedicated freighter aircraft with Lufthansa, Cathay Pacific, Japan Air Lines and Air New Zealand. (2) The joint Qantas/Lufthansa service operates weekly from West Germany to Australia using a Lufthansa Boeing 747 freighter for imports only. This aircraft then flies from Australia to Hong Kong carrying cargo on behalf of Qantas and Cathay Pacific. Qantas and Japan Air Lines operate a weekly cargo service between Australia and Japan using a JAL Boeing 747 freighter aircraft, available for the carriage of both imports and exports. Under arrangements between Qantas and Air New Zealand, the two airlines operate a DC8 freighter service between Sydney and Auckland three times weekly. Qantas has an entitlement of 14 tonnes on each flight in each direction. Qantas and Air New Zealand also operate a joint overnight service four times weekly between Sydney and Auckland for small freight items using a wet leased Westwind 1124 aircraft. (Question No. 3043) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) On which forums, committees and other consultative mechanisms established by the Federal Government is there local government representation. (3) Who are the local government representatives on these bodies and (a) in what capacity are they appointed and (b) who do they represent. Mr Uren —Supplementary to my previous answer which was published in Hansard of 8 April 1986, the following information is submitted in respect of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations: Forum Representative Capacity Sponsoring Organisation National Local Government Industry Training Committee Ms M. Crome Member Australian Council Local Government Associations Mr M. Regnis Member Institute of Municipal Management Mr S. Gibbs Member Municipal Officers Association Mr B. McCarney Member Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union of Australia Mr M. Lynch Observer Australian Centre for Local Government Studies Local Government National Industry Working Group (Traineeships) Prof. R. Gates Member Local Government National Industry Training Committee Ald. C. Black Member Australian Council of Local Government Associations Mr J. Hullick/ Mr J. Hill Member Local Government Association of South Australia Mr M. Regnis Member Local Government Association of New South Wales Mr D. Flores Member Local Government National Industry Training Committee Mr S. Gibbs Member Municipal Officers' Association of Australia Mr B. McCarney Member Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union of Australia Mr E. Hodder/ Ms J. Walker Member Australian Workers' Union (Queensland) State Local Government Industry Working Group (Traineeships-NSW) Mr M. Regnis Town Clerk-Woollahra Municipal Council Chairman Local Government Employer Representative on Industry Working Group Examining and Proposing Traineeships in Local Government Industry State Local Government Industry Working Group (Traineeships-NT) Mr C. Black Member NT Local Government Association Steel Industry Assistance Program (N.S.W.) Ald. J. Parker Ald. A. Campbell Ald. J. McKenna Mr T. Phillips Members of the Leisure Coast Tourist Association Wollongong City Council Kiama Municipal Council Shellharbour Municipal Council Shoalhaven City Council Mr J. Flannery Member Singleton Shire Council (representing 13 Hunter Valley local government bodies) Community Employment Program Consultative Committee Mr D. Effraemson Committee Member N.S.W. Local Government and Shire Association Mr K. Dowling Committee Member Municipal Association of Victoria Mr G. Hoffman Committee Member Queensland Local Government Association Mr D. Roberts Committee Member South Australian Government Association Mr L. Armsby Committee Member Municipal Association of Tasmania Ald. J. Antella Committee Member Local Government of Northern Territory Community Employment Program State Cr G. H. Park Committee Member Local Government Program Country Shires' Association Consultative Committee (W.A.) Mr R. Dawson Adviser Local Government Association JOLOR Sub-Committee (W.A.) Cr G. H. Park Committee Member Local Government Country Shires' Association Local Government Industry Training Committee (N.S.W.) Mr M. Regnis Chairman Town Clerks Society of N.S.W. Cr P. Couvret Member Local Government Association of N.S.W. Cr A. M. McGrane Member Shires Association of N.S.W. Mr W. A. Henningham Member Local Government and Shires Associations of N.S.W. Mr W. Vincent Member Town Clerks Society of N.S.W. (Electricity Council membership) Mr L. Davis Member Local Government Community Services Association of N.S.W. Mr F. A. Hislop Member Local Government and Shires Associations of N.S.W. Mr D. Sheffield Member Local Government Engineers Association Mr D. H. Thomson Member Electricity Supply Engineers Association of N.S.W. Mr R. Guy Member Australian Institute of Health Surveyors Mr W. Burns Member Institute of Building Surveyors Mr T. Parish Member Local Government Planners Association of N.S.W. Mr K. Gordon Deputy Chairman Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union Victorian Local Government Industry Training Committee Inc. Cr P. Holmes Chairman 1985-86 Committee Member Municipal Association of Victoria-Executive Mr Jon Linehan Committee Member also Deputy Chairman at present Acting Chairman Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union Mr Colin Bock Committee Member Institute of Municipal Management Mr P. Carter Committee Member Municipal Officers' Association Mr J. Murray Committee Member Local Government Department Mr R. Barfus Committee Member Municipal Association of Victoria Cr J. C. Trezise Committee Member Women Employees in Local Government Mr K. McNamara Committee Member Local Government Engineers' Association Mr K. Brydon Committee Member Victorian Water and Sewerage Authorities Association Mr R. L. Povey Committee Member Department of Water Resources Local Government Industry Training Committee (Qld) Mr G. Hoffman Member Queensland Local Government Association Mr C. Blume Member Brisbane City Council Cr T. Gilmour Member Mareeba Shire Council Cr O. Stockwell Member Blackall Shire Council Mr I. Farr Member Toowoomba Shire Council Mr W. Jaboor Member Mackay Shire Council Western Australia Local Government Industry Training Committee Cr G. H. Park Committee Member Local Government Association Swan Shire Council (Member to be nominated Committee Member Local Government Association Cr K. Trent Committee Member South Perth City Council Major M. R. Finlayson Committee Member Country Shire Councils' Association Cr A. W. Llewellyn Committee Member Country Shire Councils' Association Local Government Industry Training Committee (S.A.) Ms M. Crome Deputy Chairman Local Government Association of South Australia Incorporated Mr G. Hill Member Local Government Association of South Australia Incorporated Mr B. Carr Member Local Government Association of South Australia Incorporated Mr D. Krause Member Local Government Association of South Australia Incorporated Tasmanian Local Government Industry Training Committee Mr S. Wardlaw Chairman Institute of Municipal Management Mr R. Foulkes Member Institute of Municipal Management Mr L. Armsby Member Municipal Association of Tasmania Cr B. Benholm Member Municipal Association of Tasmania Cr R. Holderness- Roddam Member Municipal Association of Tasmania Mr T. Cordwell Member Municipal Employees Union Mr R. Mecklenburgh Member Municipal Officers Association Northern Territory Local Government Industry Training Committee Mr G. Storch Chairman Local Government Association Mr E. Mitchell Member Local Government Association Mr P. Jackson Member Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union Mr P. Monaghan Member Municipal Officers' Association Mr J. Holsworth Member Association of Professional Engineers of Australia Mr A. McGill Member Institute of Municipal Administration Mr R. Young Member Library Association of Australia Mr J. Valentine Member Royal Australian Institute of Parks Mr B. Ebery Member Association of Professional Engineers of Australia Group Apprenticeship Scheme Management Committees Wyong Cr F. N. Farrell Director Wyong Council Cr P. Levick Director Wyong Council (To be appointed) Chairman Wyong Council Wagga Nil Central West Ald. B. Cassidy Director Bathurst City Council C. E. Thompson Director Blayney Shire Council Mr E. Chenery Director Southern Mitchell County Council Mr E. Gale Director Ophir County Council Macarthur Ald. G. Bush Chairman Camden Municipal Council Cr D. Weaver Deputy Chairman Wollundilly Shire Council Mr R. Streeter Director Campbelltown County Council Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Ald. D. Turtle Chairman Fairfield City Council Mr P. Mitchell Director Penrith City Council Mr M. Hitchen Director City of Blue Mountains Council Ald. E. Cullen Director Holroyd Municipal Council Ald. D. Syme Director Liverpool City Council Cr J. Worthington Director Baulkham Hills Shire Council Ald. P. Garrad Director Parramatta City Council Ald. K. Bali Director Blacktown City Council (To be nominated) Director Hawkesbury Shire Council Albury-Wodonga Group Apprenticeship Support Program Management Committee Mr P. Trestrail Mr J. Cunningham Mr R. Modney Mr J. Goonan Director Chairman Director Director Albury City Council Murray River County Hume Shire Council Rural City of Wodonga (Question No. 3362) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, 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 Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Forty-one overseas visits were undertaken by officers and employees in my portfolio during 1984-85. Details are shown below. Travel by officers and employees either to take up or complete an overseas posting have not been included. DEPARTMENT (1) Purpose: Evaluation of computer phototypesetting systems. Classification: Clerical Administrative, Class 9. Duration: 15 July 1984-5 August 1984 (3 weeks). Countries visited: United States of America. Estimated cost: Air fares, $4,937.00; other allowances, $2,540.00. (2) Purpose: Evaluation of expressions of interest for the supply of furniture and fittings to various posts. Classification: Clerical Administrative, Class 11. Duration: 3 July 1984-15 August 1984 (6 weeks). Countries visited: United States of America, Canada. Estimated cost: Air fares, $5,009.00; other allowances, $6,515.00. (3) Purpose: Evaluation of expressions of interest for the supply of furniture and fittings to various posts. Classification: Architect, Class 4. Duration: 6 July 1984-13 September 1984 (9 weeks). Countries visited: United States of America, Canada, Great Britain, Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark. Estimated cost: Air fares, $5,200.00; other allowances, $12,350.00. (4) Purpose: Evaluation of expressions of interest for the supply of furniture and fittings to various posts. Classification: Clerical Administrative, Class 10. Duration: 7 August 1984-13 September 1984 (5 weeks). Countries visited: Great Britain, Scandinavia, Germany, France, Italy, Thailand. Estimated cost: Air fares, $5,000.00; other allowances, $7,903.00. (5) Purpose: Examination of furniture and fittings at various posts. Classification: Clerical Administrative, Class 9. Duration: 20 July 1984-13 September 1984 (7 weeks). Countries visited: Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Iraq, Thailand. Estimated cost: Air fares, $7,500.00; other allowances, $5,587.00. (6) Purpose: Inspection of Chancery renovations. Classification: Senior Executive Service, Level 4. Duration: 2 August 1984-13 August 1984 (2 weeks). Countries visited: Solomon Islands. Estimated cost: Air fares, $974.00; other allowances, $715.00. (7) Purpose: Location of new office and residential accommodation. Classification: Clerical Administrative, Class 11. Duration: 16 August 1984-2 October 1984 (7 weeks). Countries visited: United States of America, Peru, Brazil, Mexico, Canada. Estimated cost: Air fares, $6,770.00; other allowances, $7,850.00. (8) Purpose: Examination of furniture and fittings requirements of various posts. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 9. Duration: 19 August 1984-8 October 1984 (7 weeks). Countries Visited: Africa, Portugal, Spain, Singapore. Estimated Cost: Air Fares, $4845.00; Other Allowances, $5360.00. (9) Purpose: Inspection of new Australian High Commission. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 9. Duration: 13 August 1984-26 August 1984 (2 weeks). Countries Visited: Western Samoa. Estimated Cost: Air Fares, $2367.00; Other Allowances, $1570.00. (10) Purpose: Attend printing exhibitions. Classification: Senior Executive Service Level 2. Duration: 19 August 1984-23 September 1984 (5 weeks). Countries Visited: Germany, Finland, Great Britain. Estimated Cost: Air Fares, $4900.00; Other Allowances, $5070.00. (11) Purpose: Attend Land Administration Conference. Classification: Senior Executive Service Level 3. Duration: 22 August 1985-7 September 1985 (2 weeks). Countries Visited: Papua New Guinea. Estimated Cost: Air Fares, $1497.00; Other Allowances, $1924.00. (12) Purpose: Examination of furniture and fittings at post. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 7. Duration: 30 August 1984-29 September 1984 (4 weeks). Countries Visited: Papua New Guinea. Estimated Cost: Air Fares, $1058.00; Other Allowances, $2477.00. (13) Purpose: Inspection of construction project. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 9. Duration: 7 September 1984-16 September 1984 (1 week). Countries Visited: Papua New Guinea. Estimated Cost: Air Fares, $1086.00; Other Allowances, $780.00. (14) Purpose: Detailed building inspections, development of maintenance programs and strategies. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 8. Duration: 8 September 1984-23 October 1984 (6 weeks). Countries Visited: USA, Canada. Estimated Cost: Air Fares, $4810.00; Other Allowances, $7322.00. (15) Purpose: Examination of furniture and fittings requirements at various posts. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 9. Duration: 16 September 1984-7 November 1984 (7 weeks). Countries Visited: Peru, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Jamaica and Mexico. Estimated Cost: Air Fares, $7539.00; Other Allowances, $7800.00. (16) Purpose: Research into ownership of land in Port Moresby. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 9. Duration: 21 September 1984-29 September 1984 (1 week). Countries Visited: Papua New Guinea. Estimated Cost: Air Fares, $1076.00; Other Allowances, $873.00. (17) Purpose: Liaison visits to various posts. Classification: Journalist Grade A4. Duration: 13 October 1984-28 October 1984 (2 weeks). Countries Visited: Thailand, China, Japan, Philippines. Estimated Cost: Air Fares, $3179.00; Other Allowances, $2080.00. (18) Purpose: Development of maintenance programs and inspection of various posts. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 10. Duration: 18 October 1984-2 December 1984 (6 weeks). Countries Visited: Great Britain, France, Belgium. Estimated Cost: Air Fares, $7539.00; Other Allowances, $7800.00. (19) Purpose: Inspection of various posts. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 9. Duration: 25 October 1984-28 November 1984 (4 1/2 weeks). Countries Visited: Israel, Bahrain, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia. Estimated Cost: Air Fares, $8644.00; Other Allowances, $6512.00. (20) Purpose: Liaison with Commonwealth goods suppliers. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 11. Duration: 27 October 1984-19 November 1984 (3 weeks). Countries Visited: Great Britain, USA, Canada. Estimated Cost: Air Fares, $4865.00; Other Allowances, $2817.00. (21) Purpose: Opening of posts at Budapest and Addis Ababa. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 9. Duration: 26 October 1984-18 December 1984 (7 weeks). Countries Visited: Hungary, Africa. Estimated Cost: Air Fares, $6080.00; Other Allowances, $6470.00. (22) Purpose: Inspection of various posts. Classification: Engineer Class 4. Duration: 30 October 1984-3 December 1984 (5 weeks). Countries Visited: Africa, Great Britain, France, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Philippines. Estimated Cost: Air Fares, $8046.00; Other Allowances, $4150.00. (23) Purpose: Inspection of various posts. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 11. Duration: 4 November 1985-20 November 1985 (3 weeks). Countries visited: Hong Kong, China. Estimated cost: air fares, $3,170.00; other allowances, $1,576.00. (24) Purpose: Inspection of staff housing complexes. Classification: Senior Executive Service Level 2. Duration: 6 November 1984-19 November 1984 (2 weeks). Countries visited: Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong, China. Estimated cost: air fares, $3,717.00; other allowances, $1,522.00. (25) Purpose: Examination of official residences. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 9. Duration: 6 January 1985-20 January 1985 (2 weeks). Countries visited: Kiribati, Western Samoa. Estimated cost: air fares, $2,342.00; other allowances, $2,135.00. (26) Purpose: Examination of furniture and fittings at various posts. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 9. Duration: 7 February 1985-24 March 1985 (6 weeks). Countries visited: Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Austria, Yugoslavia. Estimated cost: air fares, $5,048.00; other allowances, $7,754.00. (27) Purpose: Inspection of new office premises. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 9. Duration: 19 February 1985-17 March 1985 (4 weeks). Countries visited: Mexico, Canada. Estimated cost: air fares, $4,461.00; other allowances, $5,276.00. (28) Purpose: Detailed building inspections, development of maintenance programs and strategies. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 9. Duration: 28 February 1985-4 April 1985 (5 weeks). Countries visited: Italy, Egypt, Yugoslavia, Austria. Estimated cost: air fares, $4,673.00; other allowances, $5,500.00. (29) Purpose: Examination of work performance of buildings and services offices and inspection of maintenance procedures at various posts. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 8. Duration: 31 March 1985-5 May 1985 (5 weeks). Countries visited: Burma, Thailand, Laos, China, Japan. Estimated cost: air fares, $3,966.00; other allowances, $6,446.00. (30) Purpose: Examination of furniture and fittings at various posts. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 9. Duration: 23 March 1985-4 May 1985 (6 weeks). Countries visited: Thailand, Sri Lanka, Indonesia. Estimated cost: air fares, $2,905.00; other allowances, $6,528.00. (31) Purpose: Arrange supply of furniture and fittings to various posts. Classification: Architect Class 4. Duration: 29 March 1985-29 April 1985 (4 weeks). Countries visited: USA, Great Britain, Denmark, Italy. Estimated cost: air fares, $4,640.00; other allowances, $4,690.00. (32) Purpose: Arrange supply of furniture under period contract. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 9. Duration: 22 April 1985-24 April 1985 (3 days). Countries visited: New Zealand. Estimated cost: air fares, $940.00; other allowances, $196.00. (33) Purpose: Inspection of various posts. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 11. Duration: 14 May 1985-4 June 1985 (3 weeks). Countries visited: Thailand, Hong Kong, China. Estimated cost: air fares, $3,559.00; other allowances, $2,566.00. (34) Purpose: Study arrangements for the removal and storage of furniture and effects. Classification: Senior Executive Service Level 1. Duration: 17 May 1985-28 June 1985 (6 weeks). Countries visited: USA, Canada, Great Britain. Estimated cost: air fares, $5,455.00; other allowances, $10,872.00. (35) Purpose: Inspection of various posts. Classification: Engineer Class 4. Duration: 30 May 1985-27 June 1985 (4 weeks). Countries visited: Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Philippines. Estimated cost: air fares, $2,695.00; other allowances, $4,630.00. (36) Purpose: Presentation of paper on shallow water mapping at Singapore conference. Classification: Surveyor Class 2. Duration: 9 June 1985-15 June 1985 (1 week). Countries visited: Singapore. Estimated cost: air fares, $938.00; other allowances, $750.00. (37) Purpose: Examination of furniture and fittings at various posts. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 9. Duration: 27 June 1985-21 August 1985 (8 weeks). Countries visited: USA, Canada. Estimated cost: air fares, $7,360.00; other allowances, $6,596.00. (38) Purpose: Negotiations regarding purchase of goods and equipment, and disposal of surplus goods. Classification: Senior Executive Service Level 3. Duration: 3 June 1985-30 June 1985 (4 weeks). Countries visited: USA, Canada. Estimated cost: air fares, $5,645.00; other allowances, $5,952.00. (39) Purpose: Inspection of various posts. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 8. Duration: 28 June 1985-2 August 1985 (5 weeks). Countries visited: Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore. Estimated cost: air fares, $2,700.00; other allowances, $6,260.00. (40) Purpose: Evaluation of computer phototypesetting systems. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 11. Duration: 15 July 1984-5 August 1984 (3 weeks). Countries visited: USA. Estimated cost: air fares, $4,937.00; other allowances, $2,836.00. ALBURY WODONGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (41) Purpose: Promotion of Albury Wodonga to businesses and industries overseas. Classification: Clerical Administrative Class 9. Duration: 15 June 1985-30 June 1985. Countries visited: New Zealand. Estimated cost: air fares, $783.00; other allowances, $1,050.00. (Question No. 3667) Mr White asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: What amount of the $113m allocated to his Department in 1985-86 is to be spent on wages, salaries and administration. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Wages, Salaries, $25,607,200; Administration, $7,514,310. These figures also include the wages, salaries and administration budgets of the Australian Sports Commission, the Australian Institute of Sport and the Australian Tourist Commission. (Question No. 3671) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) What regulations are administered by his Department in relation to the (a) wheat (b) wool (c) meat (d) dairy (e) barley (f) sugar (g) apple and pear (h) citrus (i) grapes (j) canning fruit (k) rice (l) tobacco (m) fishing and (n) forestry industries. (2) What changes are proposed. (3) What would be the consequences of deregulation in each of those industries. (4) Is he able to indicate the nature of regulations administered by State Governments in each of these industries. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Regulations under the Wheat Marketing Act 1984: Wheat Marketing (Liability to Taxation) Regulations. Regulations under the Customs Act 1901 (administered by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce): Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations. Regulations under the Wheat Tax Act 1957: Wheat Tax Regulations. Orders under the Export Control (Orders) Regulations of the Export Control Act 1982: Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as amended; Grain, Plant and Plant Products Orders as amended. (b) Regulations under the Wool Industry Act 1972: Wool Industry (Apportionment of Wool Tax) Regulations; Wool Industry (Sampling Sites) regulations; Wool Industry (Market Support Fund-Refunds) Regulations. Regulations under the Customs Act 1901 (administered by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce): Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. Regulations under the Wool Tax (Administration) Act 1964 (administered by the Treasurer: Wool Tax (Administration) Regulations. (c) Regulations under the Livestock Slaughter Levy Act 1964: Livestock Slaughter Levy Regulations. Regulations under the Livestock Slaughter Levy Collection Act 1954: Livestock Slaughter Levy Collection Regulations. Orders under the Export Control (Orders) Regulations of the Export Control Act 1982: Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as amended; Export Meat Orders as amended; Game, Poultry and Rabbit Meat Orders as amended. Orders under the Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations of the Meat Inspection Act 1983: Meat Inspection (General) Orders; Meat Inspection (New South Wales) Orders; Meat Inspection (Australian Capital Territory) Orders. Regulations under the Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971: Pig Slaughter Levy Regulations. Regulations under the Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Act 1971: Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Regulations. Regulations under the Meat Chicken Levy Act 1969: Meat Chicken Levy Regulations. Regulations under the Meat Chicken Levy Collection Act 1969: Meat Chicken Levy Collection Regulations. Regulations under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977 (administered by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation): Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation (Conditions of Export) Regulations; Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation (Annual General Meeting) Regulations; Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation (Liability to Taxation) Regulations. (d) Regulations under the Dairy Produce Act 1924; Dairy Produce Regulations. Regulations under the Dairy Produce Export Control Act 1924: Dairy Produce Export Control Regulations; Dairy Produce Export Control (Banking) Regulations; Dairy Produce Export Control (Licences) Regulations. Regulations under the Dairy Industry Stabilization Act 1977: Dairy Industry Stabilization Regulations. Regulations under the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Act 1977: Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Regulations. Regulations under the Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972: Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Regulations. Regulations under the Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Collection Act 1972: Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Collection Regulations Regulations under the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Act 1958: Dairy Produce Research and Sales Promotion Regulations. Regulations under the Dairying Industry Act 1962: Dairying Industry Regulations. Regulations under the Processed Milk Products Bounty Act 1962: Processed Milk Products Bounty Regulations. Orders under the Export Control (Orders) Regulations of the Export Control Act 1982: Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as amended; Dairy Produce Orders as amended. (e) Orders under the Export Control (Orders) Regulations of the Export Control Act 1982: Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as amended; Grain, Plant and Plant Products Orders as amended. Regulations under the Customs Act 1901 (administered by Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce): Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. (f) Regulations under the Customs Act 1901 (administered by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce): Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations. (g) Regulations under the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973: Apple and Pear (Conditions of Export) Regulations. Regulations under the Apple and Pear Levy Act 1976: Apple and Pear Levy Regulations. Regulations under the Apple and Pear Levy Collection Act 1976: Apple and Pear Levy Collection Regulations. Regulations under the Apple and Pear Export Charge Act 1976: Apple and Pear Export Charge Regulations. Regulations under the Apple and Pear Export Charge Collection Act 1976: Apple and Pear Export Charge Collection Regulations. Regulations under the Export Control Act 1982: Export Control (General) Regulations, which apply the conditions or restrictions of the Export (Fresh Fruit) Regulations as in force at 31 December 1982. (h) Regulations under the Export Control Act 1982: Export Control (General) Regulations, which apply the conditions or restrictions of the Exports (Fresh Fruit) Regulations as in force at 31 December 1982. (i) Regulations under the Export Control Act 1982: Export Control (General) Regulations, which apply the conditions or restrictions of the Exports (Fresh Fruit) Regulations as in force at 31 December 1982. Regulations under the Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Act 1978: Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Regulations. Regulations under the Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Levy Act 1978: Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Levy Regulations. Regulations under the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980: Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation (Exports) Regulations; Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation (Election of the Members) Regulations; Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation (Liability to Taxation) Regulations. Regulations under the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Act 1978: Dried Fruits Export Control (Licences) Regulations. Regulations under the Dried Fruits Export Charges Act 1974: Dried Fruits Export Charges Regulations. Regulations under the Dried Fruits Levy Act 1971: Dried Fruits Levy Regulations. Regulations under the Dried Fruits Levy Collection Act 1971: Dried Fruits Levy Collection Regulations. Regulations under the Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act 1979: Wine Grape Levy Collection Regulations. (j) Regulations under the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979: Canned Fruits Marketing (Liability to Taxation) Regulations; Canned Fruits Marketing Regulations. Regulations under the Canned Fruits Levy Act 1979; Canned Fruits Levy Regulations. Regulations under the Canned Fruits Levy Collection Act 1979: Canned Fruits Levy Collection Regulations. Regulations under the Export Control Act 1982: Export Control (General) Regulations, which apply the conditions or restrictions of the Exports (Canned and Frozen Fruits) Regulations as in force at 31 December 1982. (k) Orders under the Export Control Act 1982 (for the purpose of phytosanitary certification only): Grain, Plant and Plant Products Orders as amended. (l) Nil. (m) Orders under the Export Control Act 1982: Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as amended; Fish Orders as amended. Regulations under the Fisheries Act 1952: Fisheries Regulations. Management Plans under the Fisheries Act 1952: Southern Bluefin Tuna Management Plan; Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan. Regulations under the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984: Torres Strait Fisheries Regulations. Regulations under the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968: Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Regulations. Regulations under the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act 1981: Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Regulations. Regulations under the Fisheries Levy Act 1984: Fisheries Levy (Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery) Regulations; Fisheries Levy (Northern Prawn Fishery) Regulations. (n) Orders under the Export Control Act 1982 (for the purposes of phytosanitary certification only): Grain, Plants and Plant Products Orders as amended. Regulations under the Customs Act 1901: Regulation 5 of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations insofar as it applies to the export of unprocessed wood; Regulations 13 of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations. My Department also administers the following regulations under the Quarantine Act 1908 which cover all the industries in question: Regulations under the Quarantine Act 1908: Quarantine (Animals) Regulations; Quarantine (Plants) Regulations. It also administers the following regulations under the Rural Industries Research Act 1985 which of the industries referred to in part (1) of the Question covers wheat, meat (in respect of pig and meat chicken), dairy, barley, grapes (dried vine fruit) and tobacco. Regulations under the Rural Industries Research Act 1985: Rural Industries Research Regulations. (2) and (3) The regulations listed above are in part export oriented with the object of maintaining health and product quality standards of primary products to enable Australia to compete effectively on export markets. Regulations under Primary Industry legislation also relate to such matters as quarantine procedures to protect the health of Australia's plants and animals; procedures for the collection of levies on primary industry products in connection with statutory marketing arrangements or to partly finance research and disease control; and the Management of Australia's fisheries to ensure their long-term viability. Given the overall aims of the regulations in question, I consider that wholesale deregulation would be detrimental to the long term interests of Australia's primary industries. Nevertheless, it is the Government's policy to deregulate wherever possible and my Department has recently reviewed all existing regulations and is in the process of removing those judged to be no longer cost-effective. These relate primarily to a number of export regulations. Changes to several other regulations are expected to be made over coming months consequent upon amendments to the parent Acts. (4) Regulation of production and/or distribution of foodstuffs is also a State responsibility and each State has a range of legislation relevant to this responsibility. The nature and extent of such legislation is a matter for each State Government. (Question No. 3734) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 10 April 1986: (1) When did his Department accept the new office location of the Bundaberg Regional Office of the Department of Social Security in Woongarra Street, Bundaberg. (2) What is the annual lease fee. (3) From what date was the lease agreement effective. (4) When did the lease on the former location of the Social Security Regional Office in Quay Street, Bundaberg, expire. (5) What was the annual lease fee at the time the office was transferred. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 24 September 1984. (2) $125,235. (3) 16 August 1985. (4) 31 January 1986. The Department of Social Security has continued to occupy the premises on a month to month tenancy in accordance with the provisions of the original lease, pending completion of fitout works in the replacement premises. (5) $29,628. (Question No. 3778) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, 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 Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Expenditure involving Mr Phillip Adams and his associated companies has been: (i) 1983-84 Nil (ii) 1984-85 $20,362 (iii) 1985-86 $18,511. No expenditure has been recorded for Mr Rod Cameron or associated companies. (b) All the expenditure relates to radio and print-media advertising for disposals sales. (Question No. 3940) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: What amount was spent by the Minister's Department and Statutory Authorities under the Minister's control on the use of Commonwealth vehicles in 1984-85? Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department... 997,216 Statutory Authorities... 28,600 Total... $1,025,816 (Question No. 3954) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: What amount was spent by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under the Minister's control on the use of Commonwealth vehicles in 1984-85. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The amount spent within the Veterans' Affairs portfolio on the use of vehicles for Commonwealth purposes in 1984-85 was $9,079,075 made up as follows: $ Transport of beneficiaries for medical treatment (charged through Department of Local Government and Administrative Services (DOLGAS))... 7,991,682 Departmental official transport (including costs incurred by the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service and the Veterans' Review Board): Institutions (including hire of vehicles such as laundry trucks, fork lifts etc. through DOLGAS)... 410,678 Branch Offices ... 385,857 Central Office... 120,456 Defence Service Homes Corporation... 104,693 Australian War Memorial... 21,231 Office of Australian War Graves... 45,478 9,079,075 (Question No. 4030) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 21 May 1986: When may I expect an answer to my question No. 2244 placed on notice on 17 October 1985. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to the answer provided on 20 May 1986 (see Hansard, page 3598). (Question No. 4077) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 26 May 1986: Is he aware of alleged unauthorised repairs to light aircraft by Paggi Aviation of Carnarvon; if so, (a) what complaints has his Department received about this and (b) what action is his Department taking. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (a) Oral complaints from sources who did not wish to be identified related to two incidents. It was claimed that Mr Len Paggi changed a propeller on a Partenavia aircraft in Carnarvon around 1984. Since 8 May 1986 it was further reported that Mr Paggi dismantled some part of the elevator trim mechanism around 1979 on the same aircraft type. (b) My Department investigated these allegations-no evidence was found that Paggi Aviation performed or is performing unauthorised maintenance. Departmental officers regularly conduct surveillance of charter organisations, including Paggi Aviation, and they will continue to monitor the activities and performance of that organisation as part of my Department's regulatory role-that activity will include surveillance of the organisation employed to carry out maintenance of Paggi Aviation aircraft, the aircraft themselves and their records.