Friday, 10 October 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Consideration resumed from 9 October. Schedule 3. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure, $130,872,000. Department of the Special Minister of State Proposed expenditure $278,939,000. Motion (by Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That further consideration of the proposed expenditure for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of the Special Minister of State be postponed. Department of Transport Proposed expenditure, $179,309,000. Department of Aviation Proposed expenditure, $460,113,000. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.02) —I wish to speak on three matters concerning the Department of Aviation-cost recovery, airworthiness surveyors, and Badgerys Creek. All of them are very sad cases for the Department. As to cost recovery, a dramatic increase has been forced on the operators of all forms of aircraft in this country through the Government's rejection of a 10-year phased-in cost recovery arrangement as recommended by the Bosch Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery, which suggested, at the same time, that there would be a considerable increase in the efficiency of the Department of Aviation. At this stage, the full cost recovery will come in one year. For commuter airline operators-that is, regional airline operators-that has meant some dramatic increases. For example, one operator has gone from $96,000 last year to $220,000 this year, and that includes the 50 per cent subsidy which the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) has so generously granted for one year. Next year, the figure will move to at least $440,000. Another operator has gone from $32,000 last year to $126,000 this year, and next year the figure will be $250,000. The short haul commuters are the hardest hit because of the greater number of movements. Regional communities are particularly hard hit because it is their air services that are affected. General aviation will also be hit. There is no increase this year because of the dual running arrangement. The Department must establish an accounting system so that the new charges can be brought in next year. I ask the Minister how that is to be done. I have been told that additional staff are being employed on a temporary basis at airports around Australia-one here and a couple there-all of whom manually record all airways movements so they can try to work out something for next year. Is that the case? If so, how much is it costing, and will it be an added charge for cost recovery for those unfortunate people in general aviation when they are hit with the increase next year? The Minister has indicated that because of the increase in fuel excise the 100 per cent cost recovery has been able to be met in one year because it has been there on an attributive basis. What happens as the world oil price increases as it will over a period and the excise falls as it has already? This will mean that what appeared to be the very dramatic but nevertheless final increase in costs for cost recovery will not actually be so. On the matter of cost recovery, the Department has stated that one of the reasons why it needs so much money is that it has a responsibility to maintain air safety. Only on Wednesday in this Parliament the Minister referred to the Bankstown Airport and to the important role of airworthiness surveyors in maintaining safety. They check maintenance procedures. That is good for Bankstown and New South Wales. What about Victoria and the Tasmanian region? The Department has not replaced, resigned or retired surveyors. A letter was sent from the Department last month to all operators of aircraft in Victoria saying that there would be delays in airworthiness surveyors, work and that they should go out and hire private industry people to do the work that they are supposedly already paying for through cost recovery in the Department. So they will be forced to make a double payment. So much for the Department and its efficiency and overall priority for maintaining safety. The union covering airworthiness surveyors has imposed a ban and has had restrictive work practices in place. There has been no word of this from the Department. It has been selectively saying with whom it will carry out the surveys. It is a blatant, restrictive work practice. The union sent a letter to all the operators in Victoria last month telling them that it may have dropped its ban in relation to Moorabbin but from now on it will decide who will be surveyed. Instead of about 20 man days a month being made available for this sort of work the union is keeping it down to about 12 days a month. One has to ask the Minister: Who is running the Department? Is the Department running anybody, or is the union saying what will be done and what will not be done? Meanwhile the commuter airlines and general aviation are suffering both in cost and in potential danger. I want to move on to an even bigger problem-- Mr Tim Fischer —Four for every registered aircraft. Mr LLOYD —I thank the honourable member. There is an even bigger problem; that is the tragedy of broken promises at Badgerys Creek. In February this year the Minister announced the selection of Badgerys Creek as the site for the second Sydney airport. A glossy publication has been put out by the Department entitled `Second Sydney Airport, Final Site Selection'. It states: Existing property owners or business owners will be invited to sell their properties at a time which is convenient to themselves, their families, or, where appropriate, their business partners. Each property or business will be valued individually by qualified valuers and the sale price offered will be market value. In a letter from the Minister dated 24 February, addressed to all landholders, it is stated: In other words, you can sell your land to the Commonwealth right now and I can guarantee that you will get a fair market price as determined by the independent government valuer. . . . . . . . . . You can negotiate the sale of your property to the Commonwealth any time up until the stage where the land is actually required for development. So far so good. We commend the Minister for that type of follow-up. The people at Badgerys Creek were obviously unhappy because they were the unfortunate ones in that area and had properties where the new airport site was to be situated. But there was to be a reasonable and fair arrangement. However, by 25 July the Minister put out a statement restricting that open ended type of arrangement whereby the people who were affected could sell whenever they wished. In other words, all bets were off from those nice opening days. A total of $9.5m was allocated in the Budget for compensation, but 240 landholders within the boundaries are affected and are eligible for compensation. That is not including a further group outside the boundary but within the noise exposure area where living will be impossible. So the Dear John letter came on August 26 from the Chief Property Officer in New South Wales saying that only approximately 44 properties, for which firm arrangements had been made, could be accommodated within the $9 1/2m. Even that is doubtful. The total compensation bill will obviously be somewhere between $75m and $100m. That means that those people directly affected will have to wait up to seven or perhaps 10 years to be treated. That is not all. These people were promised independent private valuations if they wanted to go that way. But the August letter cancelled that, and the independent valuations, I am told by the local people, were up to $30,000 better than the Government valuations. But that is still not all, because not all of the Government valuers have been actually registered or licensed in New South Wales, and there is an investigation by the New South Wales Real Estate Valuers Registration Board at present. But even that is still not all, because a letter by the Minister on 19 September 1985 to one of the landholders outside the immediate compensatable area said: . . . concerns in regard to your property . . . will be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner. Later on it is found that they will not be eligible at all. The Minister must accept responsibility for these broken promises and for the ruined lives of these people. They cannot sell; they are not even allowed to alter their buildings because a freeze has been imposed by the Council. Business is falling in the area; marriages are failing. There is no ability to plan and the prospect of up to a 10-year wait. To add insult to injury, the locals claim that the re-letting of some of those properties that have been acquired is at a rate better than it should be in relation to the compensation price. In other words, the Government is doing well. But there were two final insults. Within the last two weeks there have been phone calls to the Minister's office from affected people. Those who phoned from the area outside immediate compensation were told: `We dropped you because if we did anything to help you Bruce Lloyd would jump up and down in Parliament about it'. People who made phone calls to the Minister's office from inside that area were told: `Because you went to the media we will not look after you as well as we might have otherwise'. So the Minister has a few problems on his hands. He should accept his responsibilities and look after these people. He should not with those sorts of comments from his office fob off people with genuine problems. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(10.12) —I rise in this Committee debate to speak on matters within the portfolios of Transport and Aviation. I do so with some pleasure. These are areas of crucial importance to the economic security and safety of the Australian people, and I have a particular interest in policy implications arising from their administration. In particular, I am concerned about safety issues associated with transport and I am pleased, as a member of the Hawke Government, to reflect on the achievements and initiatives undertaken not only in this year's Budget but in all previous years in office-brought about, as they were, under the ministry of our most energetic Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris). In the area of road safety, there is a complex set of factors associated with the advancement of what must be, and is, an effective policy. These include: Road user education; road user attitudes, which is another most important aspect; the correct enforcement of traffic rules, because there is not a lot of good in having the rules if they are not properly enforced; and the effective use of available facilities. It is a matter of making the tax dollar go as far as we can. However, these factors, while being within the responsibilities of governments, are to a large extent affected only indirectly by Federal policy. In the construction of a direct causal relationship between deliberate policy and road safety advancement, very little can be seen to have a greater impact than the construction and maintenance of a comprehensive road system. Road funding has been a noteworthy achievement of the Hawke Government and, as such, has contributed greatly to the improved welfare and safety of Australians. Since coming to office, this Government has increased Federal road funding by 82 per cent. That is no mean achievement. This has meant an increase in real terms over the life of this Government of over 26 per cent. The greatest individual increase has been in the funding of arterial roads which, despite being primarily a State responsibility, has increased by 31 per cent in real terms. I would like to stress this point because I want to indicate the position of Federal road funding as it affects my home State of Queensland. Despite the continued bleatings of the Premier of Queensland, that State has actually done extremely well through the road funding policies of the Hawke Government. I am pleased to say that Queensland has received an 85 per cent increase in Federal road funds since the last full year of the Fraser Government. Queensland's allocation of Federal funding has increased by 26 per cent in real terms since the election of the Hawke Government. Queensland has enjoyed the greatest increase in respect of Federal roads of any State since the Hawke Government came to office. Queensland has enjoyed the second highest increase of any State in respect of national and local roads and the third highest increase in respect of arterial roads. In addition, the national highway program has been an enormously successful Federal commitment in Queensland, with 67 separate projects undertaken last financial year across the State. It is amazing that we should ever hear any word, any squeak from the Queensland Government and those who wish to attack us about road funding when one considers that there has been an 85 per cent increase-not five, 10 or 15 per cent-in Federal road funds for Queensland since we took over from the Fraser Government. One can see that Queensland in particular has benefited from the enlightened and socially responsible road funding policies of the Hawke Government. The Queensland Government should have the guts to say so. The benefits that Queensland has received will be felt by all road users as the expansion and upgrading of our roads is the most tangible and effective course of action available to any government in making road use safer and in reducing the road toll. I make the comment here that random breath testing is another highly successful means of keeping our roads safer. Full random breath testing has been introduced in Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales and the Northern Territory and it has a fine deterrent effect. Many people in Queensland-74 per cent of Queenslanders responded to a survey by the Brisbane media, Drug Arm and Brisbane's Lord Mayor on this matter which goes beyond party politics-would agree with me that we urgently need to see random breath testing given a go in Queensland. We can only hope that now an election campaign is under way, the Premier of Queensland may decide at last to put people before other interests. One can see that under a progressive, committed government, such as the present Federal Government, the huge social and economic costs of road crashes can be reduced. It has been estimated that road crashes cost the community over $3 billion every year. That monetary cost is compounded by the human cost of death and injury to our fellow Australians. It is beyond costing. In this context, the Federal Government has sought to explore every possible means of advancing road safety. Apart from the actual construction and maintenance of the roads, this has included new certification arrangements to ensure vehicle safety standards, programs to increase community awareness and involvement in the issue of road safety and encouragement of and co-operation with State governments and interested groups in the development of new methods of advancing road safety. Specifically, these initiatives have included research based high profile promotions such as the Molly Meldrum bicycle helmet campaign and the out and about campaign for school children, which was very well received in Queensland; the national road safety symposium, which was an effective forum for the presentation of road safety issues for discussion within the Australian community and which showed the high priority given by this Federal Government to national road safety; the national road freight industry inquiry; and the Bikesafe 86 conference held in New-castle earlier this year to discuss issues relating to bicycle safety, which is a major area of concern. These and many other Federal initiatives are making a vital contribution to the struggle for improved road safety. Clearly, there are signs that the situation is improving. Since 1983, the first year of the Hawke Government, there has been a 12.6 per cent decrease in the yearly total of road fatalities. I am sure that people across the board welcome this decrease. In that year the number of Australians killed on roads fell to below 3,000 for the first time since 1964. Encouragingly, this total has so far again failed to rise above 3,000. To the extent that we can expend the funds, we in the Federal Government will do all that we can to see that this horrific toll continues to decrease. We must not, however, rest on the laurels of such encouraging trends. There is much to do, and in the current climate of restraint, economic considerations impinge on necessary and clear policy goals. The Government has responded not only by maintaining its funding of road safety programs but also by greatly improving the efficiency of money spent. In this year's Budget overall Federal spending on road safety increased by 8.9 per cent. However, operational and administrative costs were brought down by 6.2 per cent. That figure appears in the Budget Papers and that achievement deserves consideration. Mr Robert Brown —A great achievement. Mrs DARLING —Money spent on programs will increase by over 26 per cent and, as my colleague said, is a great achievement. It represents a fitting testimony of this Government's ability to address its road safety commitments within the context of necessary and responsible economic management. This year's Budget once again shows how the Hawke Government is taking positive steps in the direction of greater road safety. I would like briefly to speak on issues relating to aviation, as once again I have a particular interest in that area. My electorate includes Brisbane airport, and I am pleased that planned redevelopment work at the airport has been maintained in the Budget, with $63m set aside for this financial year. This allocation will allow the new airport to be completed on schedule in late 1987, in time for Expo 88 in Brisbane. In addition, a new earth satellite station will be installed at the airport to improve aviation safety through better radio communication. The Federal Government is setting up 97 of these stations, all over Australia. I am delighted that Australia is the first country in the world to use this technology on such a large scale for aviation safety and that all labour and materials will be supplied by Australian firms, helping local industry and creating jobs. This year the Government decided to encourage the establishment of special consultative committees at major airports to give local residents and other interested parties a say in the running of their airport. The Chairman-Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JULL(Fadden)(10.23) —The honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) made a fleeting reference to the new Brisbane International Airport which is under construction in her electorate. That airport, which was an initiative of the Fraser Government, will near completion next year but not in the form intended. In speaking to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1), I wish to refer to the future of international air traffic into Brisbane International Airport and in particular the facilities for arriving international passengers. The history of the airport is long and goes back more than 20 years. Construction got under way and it was to be probably the finest international airport in Australia. Some years ago the Public Works Committee of this Parliament decided that the work should not proceed on a new international terminal. I suppose at that stage there was some justification for estimating that the level of traffic into Brisbane international would not justify a new terminal until 1992. But things have changed quite dramatically since that time. Included in those changed circumstances is a major increase in the number of tourists coming to Australia, especially in the number of Japanese tourists who will be going to the Gold Coast-48,000 this year. A further change is that, after the Public Works Committee's decision not to proceed, Brisbane was awarded Expo 88. At the end of this week is the prospect of Brisbane being granted the 1992 Olympic Games. All those things indicate a future tremendous development for the State capital of Queensland. Brisbane also has one of the highest percentage increases in the number of international passengers coming into Australia. At present they are greeted with a store shed, a shed that was designed as part of the new international airport complex. The former Minister for Aviation, the Hon. Charles Jones, in his wisdom, said that a quick job would be carried out on a new international air terminal which ultimately would become a store shed for the Department of Aviation on the outskirts of the airport-and a store shed it is. I was particularly disappointed when the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris), who is at the table today, visited Brisbane earlier this year. I believe he visited the new airport on a Wednesday when there is no traffic. He said that as far as he was concerned the facility was quite suitable for some years to come. I extend a special invitation to the Minister to visit the electorate of the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) in the near future, preferably on a Saturday morning, when the airport is packed to the gunwales, when up to six 747s sit on the apron and the arrival and departure areas are sheer and utter chaos. Perhaps the Minister would also like to visit the airport early on a Thursday morning when Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, which surprisingly is the biggest carrier of Japanese tourists into Australia, lands at Brisbane Airport at 9 a.m., along with a British Airways flight and a couple of Qantas flights. Once again, there is sheer and utter chaos. What a welcome to Australia! Within a matter of weeks Queensland, and the Gold Coast particularly, will stage one of the biggest conventions of international travel agents ever seen in the world, let alone this country. More than 3,000 people will visit the Gold Coast and we must bring them through Brisbane Airport. What will happen? Brisbane Airport admits that it cannot handle the traffic, so the tourists will have to come through some other ports. We also have an incredible problem because Ansett Airlines of Australia and Australian Airlines are saying quite openly that they cannot handle all that traffic. The airlines applied for domestic carry-on rights from other ports for Qantas and British Airways in order to bring those travel agents into Queensland. What happened? Although Ansett and Australian Airlines were quite happy with the arrangement that the international carriers carry that traffic, the Department of Aviation said no, we will not grant those traffic rights. I believe that there must be a massive stirring up of the Department of Aviation. It is absolutely amazing that in the United States there are four registered aircraft for every one public servant involved in aviation; in Australia there are four public servants for every registered aircraft, yet we still cannot get things right. It is absolutely amazing. It is almost farcical. I urge the Minister in the light of the tremendous development in the tourist industry in Queensland to look very seriously at trying to bring forward the completion of the international terminal at Brisbane Airport because we need it desperately. If Brisbane gets the 1992 Olympic Games and if it gets the expected 790,000 international visitors for Expo 88, a couple of years down the track, will we have the farce repeated that will occur in a couple of weeks with the huge conference of international travel agents on the Gold Coast? It is not only Brisbane Airport that is a disaster. We know the situation that exists in Darwin and we know that other international carriers are at present applying for rights to travel into to Darwin. We know what is happening in Sydney-the arrival and departure areas are sheer chaos too. We know that there have been surveys at Sydney showing what a disaster it is. Mr Lloyd —And the Government has refused private money for all these terminals. Mr JULL —I was just going to raise that point. Private money has become available and has been offered in an effort to solve the problem in Sydney, but at this stage it has been knocked back. Qantas says that the situation is so desperate that it is prepared to contribute funds in order to try to get it right. Mr Lloyd —The same is true of Darwin and Brisbane. Mr JULL —That is true. Yet nothing will happen because the Department will not agree. Why? If we are moving towards a Federal airports corporation, I hope that there will be some room for manoeuvre in terms of private money because the Department certainly cannot manage. I suggest that next time the Minister goes overseas he should look at Manchester International Airport because that is probably one of the best examples-in Britain anyway-of how a privately operated airport, or a corporate airport, can exist, flourish, prosper and make huge profits. While I am on the subject of airports I wish to talk about traffic rights into Australia. Only a couple of weeks ago the Minister denied traffic rights to a number of applicants-overseas airlines which want to operate in and out of Australia. I have no doubt that the Minister probably had very good reasons for rejecting an application by the Polish airline. Perhaps he also had good reasons for rejecting an application by Air Lanka, although that is doubtful. He also may have some doubts about Air Mauritius, although it is interesting that my investigations have revealed that more than 180 people travel from Australia to Mauritius each week. The Department tells us that the number is only 60, but there are, on average, 187 ticket sales from Australia to Mauritius each week. However, we are not interested in looking at traffic rights there. I was really amazed that the Korean Airlines application was rejected. It is interesting at the moment because the Qantas public relations department is doing quite a good job of sending around the speeches that Mr John Menadue makes at various organisations and clubs around the place. I sometimes wonder whether they are not reruns of speeches by Sir Lenox Hewitt, but it seems that the protectionist attitude is rampant again in the Department of Aviation after this Minister loosened up a number of aspects of international policy. In terms of tourists leaving Korea, it is true at the moment that people cannot get out of Korea if they are under 50 years of age, but it is true also that a couple of years ago people could not get out if they were under 65 years of age. It is true also that at the end of the next year people up to the age of 40 will be restricted and in five years it will be open slather for Korean tourists to go around Asia. At the moment Korea, with its balance of payments problem, is literally encouraging its people to go and tour the world, yet we have said: `No, you cannot have those traffic rights into Australia because we reckon you are going to fleece us on the Japan route'. I will tell the Minister how good the Japan route is at the moment. Because of the problem with currency exchange, Qantas is having trouble, understandably, getting Australians to go to Japan so it has reduced the economy fare to $1,300. But we had to make some adjustment to that. Working on 95 yen to the Australian dollar as the exchange rate, we put up the fare from Japan to Australia, so now a full economy ticket costs $3,800-and we are trying to promote tourism. This is the high farce of what is happening in the Department. We have to look closely at whom to give these air rights to. I suggest that Korea is one of the greatest potential tourist markets Australia has at the moment and we should be doing everything we can do not only to encourage Korean Airlines to operate into Australia but also to get Qantas on to that route to ensure that it can share in some of the tremendous profits that will be available because of the growth of the tourism industry and, most importantly, the creation of jobs for young Australians. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.33) —I intend to address my remarks in this debate to the issue of transport, particularly shipping and road transport. Australia carries 3 per cent or less of its external trade in Australian ships. That is bad for the Australian economy because 97 per cent of our external sea freight trade, amounting to billions of dollars, is in the hands of foreign owners. There is an adverse impact on Australia's balance of payments. The net impact upon our foreign exchange bill of using a foreign flag ship as against an Australian flag ship, in very rough figures, is $1m per ship per year. Some people may say that $1m per ship per year is not a lot of money, but when it is multiplied by the number of ships needed to handle our external trade it becomes a very big amount indeed. In 1984-85 there were 6,760 overseas vessel calls at Australian ports. Total freight paid in 1984-85 was $6.7 billion and of that sum $5.8 billion was paid to foreigners. The transport portion of our balance of payments deficit, at $2.124 billion, is around 20 per cent of our total deficit on current account. In terms of tonne kilometres Australia is the fifth largest user of sea transport in the world. Dr Ian Storey in a recent paper to the Economic Society of Australia said: If higher priority were placed on using Australian shipping facilities it is not inconceivable that the transport deficit could be eliminated by the end of the decade, given that Australian shipping credits are already $2.85 billion and growing compared with shipping debits of $5 billion. He claimed that transport accounts were 21 per cent of the invisibles deficit. The Chairman of the Australian National Maritime Association, Mr Bill Bolitho, recently observed that there is a fundamental reason why Australian commerce is at the mercy of our sophisticated trading partners with respect to the invisibles of freight and insurance other than our own problems. He said that, as a colony of the British-then the greatest maritime nation on earth-we were never allowed to develop a commercial culture in which Australian shipping could develop. The British kept it to themselves. From the early navigation Acts of 1651 through to the merchant shipping Acts of the nineteenth century and almost to modern times, the British controlled the maritime commerce of their colonies. That is why we are only just now as a nation waking up to the importance of freight to the national economy. Even the Australian Chamber of Shipping is controlled by foreign shipowners whose fundamental interests cannot but be opposed to our own, and successive governments of both political persuasions have looked to it for advice on Australian shipping. One of the craziest proposals ever put forward in this Parliament was contained in a Bill introduced into the Senate by Senator Hamer to repeal coasting trade provisions of the Navigation Act 1912. The Bill proposed the deregulation of the Australian coastal shipping industry. If passed, the Bill would permit foreign shipping to operate Australia's coastal shipping trade. Present legislation, which has been in operation for more than 60 years, ensures that Australian coastal trade is carried in vessels that are Australian owned or controlled and crewed by Australians. Australia is not the only country in which coastal trade is carried mostly by national flag carriers. Countries which reserve their coastal trade for their own ships include the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Chile, Indonesia and Malaysia. The Liberal-National Party policy to introduce foreign flag ships to Australian coastal trade would simply reduce the Australian value added content of what Australia makes, consumes and exports. Under this stupid and illogical policy of the Liberal and National parties we might as well have Korean politicians, Indian judges and Taiwanese postmen. The answers to the problems of the shipping industry do not lie in abandoning the Australian coastal shipping industry to foreign vessels. In 1986 the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) received the `Liner Shipping Report-an Industry Task Force Review of Australian Overseas Liner Shipping Legislation'. The major recommendation of the report, which relates to changes in Australian Government legislation, is the call for an Australian shipping Act. The proposed Australian shipping Act would provide a unique framework for liner shipping, yet would be consistent with the pro-competitive philosophy of the Trade Practices Act. Foreign controlled shipping cartel arrangements would be opened up to greater scrutiny. The Act would be compatible with the multilateral framework of liner shipping and legislation of our major trading partners. I understand that after a similar liner shipping review in the United States of America in 1984 a separate shipping Act was introduced and the European Economic Community is close to introducing a similar instrument. It would follow that it is entirely appropriate for Australia to establish a separate and distinguishable shipping Act similar to our major trading partners, which deals with the complex framework of liner shipping existing today. The Australian Shippers Council for some years has strongly advocated such a separate shipping Act. The report further recommended that the Australian shipping Act should safeguard the competitive access of national flag ship owners to an equitable share of cargoes and ensure that Australian labour has reasonable continuity of employment opportunities under internationally accepted conditions. This recommendation has been misconstrued by some to mean that the proposed Australian shipping Act would provide for exclusive cargo shares for national flag or Australian flag ships, but that is a deliberate distortion of the liner shipping report recommendations. The Hawke Government's policy with respect to shipping has resulted in improvements in Australian flag shipping. It has had the effect of reducing the freight rate for iron ore from Port Hedland to Newcastle by 50 per cent and from Port Hedland to Port Kembla by 30 per cent between 1982 and the present. Without the co-operation of the maritime trade unions and the resultant efficiencies in Australian flag shipping, the steel works at Newcastle would have closed. I congratulate the Minister for Transport on his enlightened approach to developing a shipping policy and shipping legislation that will restore the Australian shipping industry to a level which will serve not only the commercial interests of our nation but also our strategic interests. I would like to say a few words about road transport. The most important road in my electorate of Herbert is the Bruce Highway. Named after a former Queensland Minister for Public Works, the Hon. H. A. Bruce, it stretches 1,690 kilometres from Brisbane to Cairns. The bitumen link from Brisbane to Cairns was completed in 1962, although the Bruce Highway itself was not fully sealed until October 1982 when the road between Marlborough and St Lawrence was completed. The Bruce Highway was declared a national highway in 1974 by the Whitlam Labor Government. In 1982 a joint Federal-State government study - - Mr White —A monument to the honourable member for Gwydir. Mr LINDSAY —The study found that 84 per cent of the highway was deficient. I do pay tribute to the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) for his work in initiating that study and also in introducing the bicentennial road funding. The study recommended that priority be given to eliminating one-lane bridges, of which there were many on the Bruce Highway, particularly between Townsville and Ingham. The section of the highway between Townsville and Ingham has been significantly upgraded in recent years, with the elimination of one-lane bridges-six of them since 1982, and work to eliminate the last of these bridges has recently been commenced. In addition, there has been significant improvement to the pavement of the road to upgrade the worst section of the highway between Townsville and Ingham. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.43) —I wish to devote the few minutes which I have to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) to talking about facilities at international airports in Australia because the inadequate facilities are having an enormous effect on the tourism industry in Australia, and that adverse effect will continue to grow. The Opposition, the tourism industry and the aviation industry have been warning for years, but more particularly in the last several months, about the effect of these inadequate facilities on our tourism industry. Only two days ago that warning was again given by our major airline, Qantas Airways Limited, which said that tourist flights into Australia will have to be turned away to other destinations next year and that the Sydney international terminal is already saturated for passenger handling at peak times. Here we are, in an economic mess, with an industry which is growing strongly and which provides us with an opportunity to redress the imbalance in our trade figures. We have this enormous amount of money being spent overseas by the private sector and the Australian Tourist Commission to bring tourists to this country, yet the position is rapidly arising when we simply cannot accept them. The solution which is put forward sometimes, that they will have to go to other destinations in Australia, is not good enough because most people who come to Australia want to come in and go out through Sydney and are not prepared to go to Perth, Darwin, Brisbane, Melbourne, or anywhere else. It is compounded by the fact that if one suggests that they go to another destination they have the real problem of the cost of internal fares. It raises the question of interlining in Australia and the Minister's refusal to look at this matter. It is obvious that the industry is prepared to accept it. I would be interested if the Minister will respond and tell us the Government's approach to the interlining problem in Australia now. I would also be interested in why the Minister seems determined to restrict airlines such as East-West Airlines Ltd under the two-airlines agreement in providing the competition which is so necessary in Australian domestic aviation. I return briefly to the position of international facilities at our airports. Those at Darwin are an absolute mess; in Brisbane there will be no new terminal until some time in the 1990s; I have already covered Sydney where Qantas, our major carrier, says that it simply cannot cope; and Adelaide is crowded on at least one or two days of the week-certainly on the day I was there, which was a Friday. Mr Staples —They all came to see you. Mr WHITE —To see me off. The problem is lack of space in these facilities and the lack of simple things such as chairs for older people. They get off the planes, go down the gangways and have to wait to go through the Customs and immigration inspections, but there are no chairs for them to sit on. There is a lack of shopping facilities, baggage handling facilities and information. Some people who come off aircraft know they are in Australia but they do not know where. They look around desperately for a map or some information to tell them what they can do next. Mr Lloyd —Hopeless! They have a terminal problem. Mr WHITE —It is hopeless and it is very serious. We have the great potential of this industry to bring people to Australia, and it is growing week by week, yet when the people get here we have these inadequate facilities. One must wonder whether the Government is serious about developing the tourist industry. The private sector is playing its part which is a very important role. Billions of dollars are going into tourist facilities in this country. Yet the Government sector, when it comes to airport facilities, is not playing its part. The Australian Tourist Commission is being given some $30m of Government money this year and is spending it effectively overseas. We have the enormous bonus promotions of films like Crocodile Dundee in America from where many of our tourists are now coming and will come. Mrs Darling —A great film. Mr WHITE —It is a great film and it is a bonus; there is no government money in that. It provides millions and millions of dollars of free publicity for this country. Yet when people get here they are faced with these inadequate facilities. Is there a solution? Of course there is; there is always a solution to major problems. If the Government cannot provide the money or will not acknowledge the priorities that the airport facilities demand, why not let the private sector get involved? When the Minister responds I would like him to answer that question. He has had proposals put to him in relation to Darwin and Brisbane to get the private sector involved, to build these facilities and to assist the Government in providing some export income to this country at a time when we desperately need it and when we have a godsent opportunity to develop this enormous tourism industry. For some reason which escapes me and which I think escapes everyone on this side of the House the proposals are put forward but they are knocked back. One can only assume that a socialist government is so terrified of letting things slip out of its hands and terrified that somehow it will lose control that it will not let the private sector get involved. Because of the inadequate facilities in Sydney, Qantas is to go to the Government with a proposal involving some $20m. Mr Stainlay told a recent Price Waterhouse seminar that, if the plans for Sydney Airport are not large enough to cope with visitor growth projections, alternative private development plans would eventuate. He said that Qantas had had discussions with businessmen who were prepared to commit up to $20m privately to develop a new terminal at the airport. He also said that these plans might be put into action if current Government plans prove not to be adequate. Why were the Brisbane plans of the Moore consortium knocked back? There was the Darwin proposal for private sector involvement, and a Qantas proposal will be put before the Minister. Why, when we have this great problem, will the Minister not allow the private sector to become involved? An important matter for the aviation industry is the British travel agents' convention which will be held in Australia in November. As I understand the proposal that has been put to the Minister, Qantas and British Airways would carry those attending the convention across Australia in a domestic sense and deposit them on the eastern seaboard-in Brisbane or, presumably, near the Gold Coast. I understand also that Ansett Airlines of Australia and Australian Airlines have agreed that because of the congestion experienced by domestic airlines in November, and bearing in mind that about 4,000 agents will be attending the convention, they would not object to some limited interlining, if that is the correct phrase, taking place. As I understand it, yet again the Minister has said no to the proposal. I and thousands of others would be very interested to know why the Minister has again been so negative in denying the free carriage of these people across Australia to attend an enormously important convention on the Gold Coast. Tourism is probably our largest industry and it is the one that shows most signs of growth. It is the one industry that in the short term future can assist to get this country out of a hell of an economic mess. I ask the Minister to consider the proposals that are being put before him to improve our international airport facilities and to stop being so negative. I ask him to give the tourist industry the chance to progress that it should have. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(10.53) —I shall address my comments to Australian shipping. For far too long Australia has been beholden to the owners of foreign shipping for the export of Australian goods. As the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) said, this is part and parcel of the cultural cringe of this country. In the past, when Australia was a British colony-we have never really recovered from those days in this respect-Britain was able to gain an extra income by using its own shipping in the course of trade with this country. This has left Australia in a very unenviable position. Even today, the exports carried by Australian shipping constitute a minute percentage of our total seaborne exports. In 1984-85, this traffic amounted to only 3 per cent and that is something that should come as a bit of a shock to most Australians. In other words, 97 per cent of Australia's seaborne exports were carried by foreign shipping lines. This is an alarming and frustrating picture, especially when it is seen in the context of Australia's total export trade. In the financial year 1984-85, for which we have complete figures, 269 million tonnes of freight, or 99 per cent of our total exports, were exported by sea. Only 3 per cent of this tonnage was carried by Australian-owned shipping. Some important facts should be impressed upon Parliament and the nation about our exports because the significance of this trade is relevant to Australia and to the rest of the world. Australia is now the world's largest exporter of coal with 83.7 million tonnes being exported in 1984-85. There were 718,000 tonnes of wool exported in 1984-85. We are the second largest iron ore exporter-we are behind Brazil-with 91.2 million tonnes being exported in 1984-85. In the same year, we exported 558,000 tonnes of meat. In that instance we took second place to the European Economic Community. We are the second largest seaborne grain exporter, exporting 22.4 million tonnes in 1984-85 and taking second place to the United States of America. We are among the top five exporters in the world of a number of other minerals and metals. To emphasise the tremendous importance of shipping to Australia as a trading-exporting nation and our reliance upon shipping because of our remoteness we should bear in mind that in terms of the seaborne transport task based upon the volume or cargo and distance carried, Australia ranks about the fifth largest user in the world behind Japan, the United States, Saudi Arabia and the Netherlands. I tire of hearing those in Australia who do not believe that Australians can do as well as, if not better than, those in other nations in whatever task they set themselves. Our recent record as a shipping nation puts the lie to that view. When the Minister for Transport (Mr Morris) took office, the industry was in a parlous state. However, under his responsible leadership there is now evolving a climate of confidence and competence in the industry. His efforts demonstrate clearly what can happen when all parties are prepared to meet in an atmosphere of purposeful co-operation. Government, employers and unions have been prepared to examine their own roles with a view to making the necessary changes in their attitudes, practices and their previously perceived log of interests in order to provide the optimum conditions for the industry to become competitive. That this effort has borne fruit can be amply demonstrated when one considers the results for 1985-86. For example, Australian National Line returned an operating profit for the year of $33.2m. The transport division of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. has contributed $30m to the overall profit of BHP last year. These results have come in extremely difficult times but we have a minor competitive edge. To emphasise this, it should be said that Australian exporters and importers are benefiting from the current record low freight rates which have resulted from the continued oversupply of shipping and intense competition on the world's shipping routes. Both spot and longer term bulk freight rates have shown dramatic reductions since their peak in 1980. They are now as low as 30 per cent of peak rates in some trades and they are not expected to increase in the near future as the oversupply of shipping is likely to continue. The liner freight rates for meat and wool to main destinations are lower in real terms, after adjustment for inflation, than they were 10 years ago. The average in-bound liner freight rates have declined significantly since 1981. In some major trades they have declined by up to 40 per cent. It has to be recognised that there has been a severe decline in the fortunes of some of the major shipping lines. In recent years, 25 lines with direct services to and from Australia have collapsed. The profits made by ANL and BHP have come in a period when many other operators have been forced to rationalise their services, to withhold dividends or to take substantial losses. It is exceedingly frustrating to have to accept that so much of our seaborne export trade has been concentrated in the hands of the off-shore dominated lines. As at 30 June 1986, 33 vessels were operating in the Australian overseas trading fleet. This includes 12 bulk carriers, five tankers and 16 general or special purpose cargo vessels. I emphasise once again that only 3 per cent of our total seaborne trade was carried by this fleet compared with the 34 per cent that was carried by Japanese flag ships, 19 per cent by flag of convenience carriers and 5 per cent by the ships of centrally planned economies. It is astonishing that in the areas of major tonnages, the bulk trades, our share has been exceedingly low. For example, in the carriage of coal our share was just over one per cent. Nevertheless, it is a great achievement for ANL to increase its participation rate within the liner conference trades from 15 per cent to 24 per cent in the European trade and to 35 per cent in the Asian trade. Due regard should be given to the determined effort of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd to gain a larger slice of the coal trade with Japan and Korea. In this highly competitive market, BHP has installed three major carriers. The Iron Newcastle and the Iron Kembla are each 147,000 tonnes dead-weight in the Japan trade. The Iron Pacific, of 232,000 tonnes dead-weight, in the Korea trade, is the largest twin-screw craft in the world, and a state of the art ship. We look forward to seeing significant growth in our total coal export trade to 3 per cent. That is a 200 per cent increase; it is still not what one would call huge as a parcel of our export trade of coal. That will still be only a 6.6 per cent increase, or a 42.7 million tonnes increase, in five years. In order to increase the efficiency of our shipping, the companies have begun using a triangular service pattern which combines coal exports and coastal movement of iron ore. We cannot ignore the importance of developing our export oriented shipping lines. As much as anything, we should recognise that the current reliance on off-shore owned shipping for our export trade has a serious impact on our balance of payments. It is estimated that, each year, the invisible cost of freight charges is nearly $7,000m. In 1984-85, Australia paid out nearly 87 per cent of total trade related freight earnings, both sea and air, to foreign earners. The amount was $5,806m. That enormous amount of money should have been coming our way. We must set ourselves that target. Insurance, agents' fees and commissions are also invisibles that must, in truth, be charged against the balance of payments, resulting in an increased deficit. We must increase our encouragement for Australian shipping lines to increase their share of the export market. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(11.03) —Some very worthwhile contributions have been made in the brief opportunities for honourable members to speak at the Committee stage of Appropriation Bill (No. 1). The honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) touched on something that could well demand the attention of the Committee to a greater extent than is possible at present. He made a perfectly valid point. We have trading balance difficulties. Month by month and year by year we are losing extraordinary sums of money, not just with the shipping of exports but on the shipping of imports, because they are costed in foreign exchange. I think that that demand should command the more urgent attention of this Parliament to produce a much more accommodating result. This morning I wished to speak on matters that have been accommodated, to some extent, by other speakers. It seemed trite to say that Australia is a big country, and because of its sparsity of population and relatively small population in total, very substantial costs arise in giving reasonable service to those people throughout our country who have reasonable expectations. Clearly, as was mentioned this morning, it is beyond the resources of our country in terms of taxpayers' direct contributions. Particularly, I refer to our international airport terminal facilities. In a number of strategic points in Australia, there is little prospect-I say this with all fairness-of government providing, through ordinary revenue resources, the money to meet the requirements. Whilst there may be philosophical differences, I think that strong argument can be advanced to permit private enterprise to come in and fill the shortfall on terms that are thoroughly acceptable to the government of the day. The alternative is that we will make little, if any, progress. I have very much in mind, when I say that, the Sydney international airport terminal building. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) will immediately recognise that I have had an involvement in another area on that matter. We are presently proposing to spend $20m to build-in redundancy. On the admission of the Department of Aviation witnesses before a Public Works Committee inquiry, it was acknowledged that, under the proposal, at the end of three years of renovation and alteration, the Sydney international airport terminal building will be as congested as it is now, if not more congested. Mr Braithwaite —No improvement. Mr MILLAR —There will be no improvement, and it could be worse. That is a quite bizarre situation. Perhaps the Minister is influenced to some extent by the establishment of the Federal Airports Corporation, which can take over the problem. But why compound the difficulties confronting the Corporation by pre-empting a decision it may make in these matters to initiate works on a terminal that will leave it as inadequate, if not more inadequate, when the works are completed? The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) said that Qantas Airways Ltd has offered to build a terminal free of cost to the Government. I must admit that I have an instinctive aversion to letting such critical areas of operation out of the hands, by way of direct control, of the Government. I see aviation as a sensitive area where safety is a dominant consideration. In real terms, I see no reason why the proposal cannot be accommodated. After all, the Government is in a position to determine what arrangement may be entered into. It need not forgo its responsibilities as it sees them in terms of safety and maintaining control of the airport. It is simply a building. If private enterprise can see an opportunity to advance its own interests while meeting in full the expectations and entitlements of the travelling public and the Government in terms of its responsibilities, there would be some merit attaching to an earnest address to the possibilities inherent in such a proposal. With burgeoning tourism, we cannot have tourists departing our shores and becoming counter-ambassadors for Australia. The word will get around very quickly. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) canvassed very adequately the position at the Brisbane international airport terminal building. He omitted to mention one point. I do not say that in any critical way. There is an expression of view that aircraft integrity could suffer as a result of the extraordinary length of taxi-ing an aircraft from the new Brisbane airport, when it comes into commission, to the existing international airport terminal building which will continue to be used, under present Government plans, for some considerable time. Aircraft could overheat, suffer brake damage, and so on. The proposal leaves a lot to be desired. Perish the thought of what will happen if Brisbane is successful in securing the Olympic Games. Tourism, which offers so much hope for Australia with its budgetary difficulties, should not be impeded in the least for the want of adequate facilities. The Federal Airports Corporation will benefit, hopefully, from the transfer of 1,600 staff from the Department of Aviation. It is to be hoped that those staff, moving into a new environment, will be imbued with a sense of purpose and a spirit of resolve which will dispel what, sadly, seems to be the view of a wide section of the community, that the Department, under the mantle of safety requirements, is left to perform in a manner not necessarily consistent with that which is expected of it and, in fact, that which it should achieve. I hope that the transfer of 1,600 staff will produce a result which, in a very brief period, will dispel that notion which, sadly, reflects on the Department. Deregulation of our internal airlines is a highly topical issue. At first blush it has a great deal to commend it. But as one with a very modest flying experience as a pilot of modest stature, I am mindful that the pre-eminent requirement is safety. It cannot be tampered with. It cannot be set aside to wait a better day when it could be addressed as it should be addressed. My concern with deregulation is that in the very nature of operations one cannot expect an airline at 5 p.m. on a sunny Thursday to decide that it is no longer viable and will withdraw from operations on Friday morning. That would be an absurdity. The reality of the matter is that there is a shadowy period where the grim realisation that they are no longer viable descends upon airlines and they strive to maintain viability. We get these tragic situations evident in the United States of America as a product of de- regulation where airlines have cut corners. They have done all sorts of things that impinge absolutely and irrevocably on air safety. That concerns me. If we embark boldly on a philosophical act for deregulation, certainly there is considerable scope to improve upon our two-airlines system. Competition is a great stimulus and there is a mutuality of benefit attaching to that particular circumstance. But it is something that must be pursued. It must be done with extreme caution and responsibility. We should not necessarily let the market-place resolve the issue because very substantial risks attach to that. We should certainly address that matter further. In Australia we have runs on the board in many respects with operational safety, innovative devices and systems to ensure the well-being of passengers, crew and aircraft. I still remain totally fascinated with the simplicity of the T-VASIS system to ensure constant gradient approaches for airports. It is absolutely foolproof and so simple. I always feel proud about it when I realise that it is an Australian invention. I thank you, Mr Mountford, for the brief opportunity to say a few words on matters that are of more than passing concern to me. I am sure that the Minister, to the limit that he is able, will seriously address the propositions that have been put to him this morning. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(11.13) —I thank all honourable members for participating in this morning's discussion. In summarising, first let me thank the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) who chairs the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety. I commend her on her deep personal commitment to the improvement particularly of road safety. She raised, quite properly, the record road effort of this Government and the practised deception by the Queensland Government of Queenslanders in respect of the record road efforts by this Government. We now have an election campaign under way in Queensland. The National Party of Australia is seeking to make Canberra bashing the principal issue. In the same policy speech delivered by the Premier of Queensland yesterday, the major plank is the work being funded 100 per cent by this Government on improving Queensland's road system. The simple facts are that 60 per cent of capital roadworks in Queensland are being paid for by this Government. Queenslanders know very well what a disastrous state their road system would be in today were it not for the efforts of this Government. On the one hand the Premier of Queensland is saying that Canberra is the problem in his State; on the other hand he is going to absolute extremes to conceal expenditure and improvements being paid for in full by this Government. That is the hallmark of that Government. The deception and corruption referred to by the Leader of the Liberal Party is the hallmark of the dying government in Queensland. The simple fact is that this Government in its short life has done more than any other government in the history of this nation in a comparable period to improve the road system of this country. We are proud of that achievement and we will carry on. The people of Queensland know that very well. They know that the improvements on the national highway link between Brisbane and Cairns are solely the result of the priorities and efforts of this Government. They have nought to do with the efforts of the Queensland Government which seeks only to deceive and to misrepresent. The comments made by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) were, I thought, very useful and productive in the current debate about improving trade competitiveness. He pointed to the progress being made in improving the efficiency and the competitiveness of Australia's shipping industry. We have an abysmal rate of participation in the carriage of our international trades by sea. We are the fifth largest shipping market in the world and an isolated continent. When we look at our carriage of goods on a tonne-kilometre basis, we are the fifth largest market in the world. We ought to be the leading shipping nation in the world. This Government is determined that by improving our efficiency, or reliability and competitiveness we can gain a much greater share of that trade. We are doing that and it is being done on a co-operative and consultative basis, not in time of conflict but simply by consultation, negotiation and making progress, with everybody making a contribution. The matter was further highlighted by the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren). As Chairman of the Government transport sub-committee, he has underlined the opportunity that exists for Australia to increase our foreign exchange earnings. I hope it is something that all members of the House will be supporting and looking to with pride, as did the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar). This is an area of activity where Australians, by their own endeavour and commitment, can improve greatly the participation in our sea transport. Along with the comments of the honourable member for Herbert and the honourable member for Lilley in respect of the road efforts by this Government, what we are really doing with the national highway system is putting into place a quality sealed surface, flood-free standard national road grid that girdles Australia, that links Australia from the South to the North, that links Brisbane to Cairns and Burnie to Hobart in Tasmania and provides the means of road travel on easier, safer, quicker and cheaper conditions. If we are to exploit the benefits that are available from tourism that grid has to be in place. It contributes to improved transport efficiency and safer travel for these people who live in the regions which are traversed by the national highway system. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) referred to cost recovery. He made no mention of the role of the major airlines in the provision of air services or their contribution to cost recovery. What this Government has done in respect of aviation cost recovery is what no other government has been able to do; that is, it has introduced a system that places the cost burden of providing services to the industry on a much fairer basis. Those who use the service more make a greater contribution to the costs involved. That is essentially what the changes are about. No one can disagree with that. It is a fairer system. In respect of general aviation, the honourable member referred to increases in costs for some operators, particularly commuter operators. It is true in percentage terms that these increases look large, but they are from a very small base in most cases. One can best judge the impact of these increased costs by referring to the increased fares that have resulted. Sunstate Airlines had a 1.5 per cent increase in air fares, Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd a one per cent increase and Hazelton Air Services Pty Ltd a $1.20 increase. Kendell Airways had a flag fall increase of $1.40. Airopelican Air Services Pty Ltd, an operation in my own electorate, had a 2.4 per cent increase and Airlines of Tasmania Pty Ltd a 3 per cent increase. Those approved air fare increases also took into account a 2.3 per cent increase in costs arising from the national wage decision. In respect of the other general aviation operators for whom changes have not been made, there was a 17 per cent increase, but that was the first increase for several years. Even then, the increase was considerably below the consumer price index increases over the same period. So no one can dispute that the system is fairer and that it is reasonable. For general aviation, we have deferred the introduction of a new system until 1 July next year to enable the industry, at its request, to consult further with the Department and to put forward alternatives. No alternative has yet come forward, but I am sure that that will happen. Again, that has been done on the basis of consultation with the industry to try to develop a better and fairer system so that taxpayers who do not fly do not have to meet the costs of people who do. The honourable member referred also to the operation of the Department. Again, the critics who make such utterances as these ignore the fact that the Department of Aviation, by the end of this financial year, will have had a 6 per cent reduction in real terms in expenditure levels. There will have been a reduction of 1,200 in the number of employees over the period between March 1983 and 30 June 1986. The ludicrous comparison is made-sometimes by people outside this place and sometimes by members of the Opposition, as occurred this morning-between the number of Department of Aviation employees per aircraft and the number of Federal Aviation Administration employees per aircraft in the United States of America. That is a nonsense comparison. It is a comparison of unlikes. It is a meaningless comparison because one must take into account the population, the density of traffic, the spread of services, and the location of population. But if one did want to make the comparison, for whatever reason, one should compare the Department of Aviation in Australia with the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States, those Department of State employees in the United States who carry on all the international negotiations, the National Transportation Safety Board in the United States, which does all the air safety investigation work, and the relevant division of the United States Department of Transportation. All of these bodies deal with matters handled by the Department of Aviation in this country. So it is ludicrous and insulting to the public of this country to make a comparison between the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States and the Department of Aviation in this country. Mr Staples —And the economies of scale. Mr PETER MORRIS —Exactly. The economies of scale, the spread of population and the demand for services to be provided are all factors which have to be taken into account. This little bit of misinformation warms the egos of members of the Opposition and gives them an inner glow. But it is ludicrous to make that kind of comparison. In respect of airworthiness surveyors, of which mention was made by the honourable member for Murray, the Department is aware of that problem. It is a short term difficulty that has arisen through the unexpected resignation of a number of airworthiness surveyors in Victoria. It is being addressed by the Department as quickly as possible. But the honourable member is totally wrong to suggest that the industry, through the payment of air navigation charges, is paying for airworthiness surveyor services that are not being provided. In fact, the air navigation charges go to recover the costs of providing airport and airway services, whereas the costs of airworthiness surveyors are met by the taxpayer and are currently not recovered from the industry. They are met by the taxpayer generally and will be met by regulatory service charges when they are introduced. In respect of Badgery's Creek, the decision for a second Sydney airport site was one which the members of the Opposition when in government could never bring themselves to make. For year after year the previous Government fiddled and fiddled. This Government made that decision, and the rate of expressions of interest in negotiating for sale has been far greater than anything in history. In a matter of seven months, of some 240 people, 154 have to date expressed an interest in negotiating the transfer of their property. Within the confines of the Budget we are providing almost $10m this year to meet the costs of acquiring property. The actual acquisition of properties is a matter that is being dealt with by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services under the ministry of my colleague the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren). Another matter referred to by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) was the Sydney international terminal. That has been mentioned a number of times by speakers from the Opposition. Again, this Government is doing more than any other government in history to improve the aviation infrastructure, the development of services. I heard criticism about Darwin-again, a problem which honourable members opposite when in government could never face and which we inherited from them. I heard criticism about Sydney, a problem they could never handle, let alone the problem of the international terminal. These problems did not develop just in the last 31/2 years. They have been developing for over a decade. I think the best way to handle these criticisms is to run through these problems and show what we as a government are doing to address them. Perth international terminal will be opened in a couple of weeks, on 25 October, by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). That represents $70m worth of investment by the taxpayer to provide a long-needed better service for people of Perth and visitors to Perth. The Sydney international terminal is a program for the expenditure of $20m. The position is not, as stated by the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) and other Opposition speakers, that that program will not assist the situation. That program will provide an 80 per cent increase in the handling capacity of the international terminal. There will be a need for a second terminal. That matter will be referred to the Federal Airports Corporation as a priority project. But there is no way that that second terminal can be constructed and completed before the mid 1990s, and we cannot wait until then to deal with the problem. We are providing money in this Budget for the commencement of works on the international terminal at Sydney which, as I said, without going into the detail of them this morning, will provide for an 80 per cent increase in capacity. Along with that increase in capacity will be a corresponding improvement in the quality of management services. It is not just a matter of the area of a building; it is the quality of the service provided. It is a matter of how the people are processed and how the airlines themselves handle people. I am coming very firmly to the conclusion that on the one hand airlines are very quick to call for increased expenditure, but much quicker still in blaming others, particularly if they are public servants, when they are not able to handle the processing of the passengers themselves. A principal problem at Sydney is the scheduling of aircraft, and on that question the airlines have been utterly inflexible. I propose to address that question. But no taxpayer, no government, can afford to keep on investing money in public transport facilities to cope with very short duration peaks. It is a matter of making better use of the facility and of better scheduling of aircraft into the facilities, be they train, bus or aircraft facilities such as in this case. The Brisbane Airport program represents an expenditure by the Australian taxpayer of almost $400m. It was never envisaged and decided-even by the previous Government at the time-that there would be a new international terminal in the works that were then planned and initiated. That was planned for some time into the 1990s. Works were undertaken to expand the existing building. Further works will be carried out to assist in that position. But to suggest-I am disappointed that the honourable member for Wide Bay has done this-that the location of the existing international terminal in relation to the new airport will, when it opens in October next year, in some way cause hazards for the operation of aircraft is nonsense. All those matters were considered by the honourable member's Government when the decisions were made some years ago. Since then, to confirm the position further, there have been improvements in brake technology and tyre technology. The airlines do not make that comment. They are quite happy with the arrangements envisaged. After all, they are the operators of the aircraft. It is their aircraft and tyres that will be affected, not the Government's property. So in this case it is the industry that is satisfied with the arrangements. In the case of Coolangatta, a new taxiway has been put in to improve its performance and adequacy and to get more aircraft in. In Canberra, a long overdue expansion of the terminal is proceeding. When we talk about tourism and people coming to this country to visit the national capital, we should realise that they all come through that totally inadequate building. At a very modest expenditure of $2.3m that building is being almost doubled in size. In Townsville, a new terminal is being built which will be completed by the end of next year. Under aerodrome local ownership plans, Casino Airport has been upgraded, as have the airports at Wagga, Broken Hill, Kangaroo Island, Tamworth, Bundaberg and Albury. All of those investments have been completed and better services are now available to the country people using those airports. The upgrading at Coffs Harbour is also under way. So considerable work is being done by this Government in respect of airport investment around this country. There has been a record level of expenditure. We are very aware of the contribution that new infra- structure makes and of the need for it to be carried forward and completed as quickly as possible. The honourable member for McPherson raised a point about the Sydney international terminal which, I say again, is a legacy from his Government and his colleagues. It is utter hypocrisy for the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) and the honourable member for McPherson to raise the issue of interlining. A regime of domestic aviation arrangements was inflicted upon this nation by the present Opposition when in government. But Opposition members now come to me and to this Government and say: `This is awful. How can you allow this to proceed?' I say to them: `I am sorry. It is your creation. You inflicted it upon this country. There is a need for change and that change will be undertaken in a consultative way'. A review of domestic aviation arrangements is under way by a committee chaired by Mr Tom May which is due to report to the Government later this year. After that has come in and we have had the benefit of all that consultation with and contributions from people, we will look at what type of new arrangement best meets the needs of the Australian people. A decision on interlining was made in 1979 by the then Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, without consultation with the industry; it was just imposed. In addition, since that period, there has been an expansion in the number of international gateways; so I suspect that the whole issue of interlining may not be of the same magnitude as it was when it was imposed upon the Australian people. The honourable member for McPherson and other speakers raised the issue of private sector funding for Brisbane Airport. There has been no proposal for private sector funding of Brisbane Airport. The honourable member may have been referring to a tender that was lodged by a group in Queensland when tenders were invited for the construction of a hotel-motel complex at the airport. There were eight expressions of interest earlier in the year and then three tenders were received. Those tenders were examined and considered and legal advice was sought to ensure that any action that we took was properly within the law. We were given the best independent legal advice that two of the tenders could not be evaluated by the Department of Aviation as they were non-conforming tenders. As I have said, there is no proposal for private investment in Brisbane Airport. Comments were made about Sydney and Darwin airports. We were told that Peter Stainlay from Qantas Airways Ltd had put forward a proposal involving $20m. That is stale news. That was a proposal of many months ago which was subsequently withdrawn by Qantas when Qantas realised that it had misunderstood the nature of the improvements to the Sydney international terminal. It had misunderstood that the improvements would provide an 80 per cent increase in passenger handling capacity and the proposal was withdrawn. I invited Qantas to look more closely at the proposal and it found that it would not have cost $20m; it would have cost more like $70m. Again, that information is totally inaccurate; there is no such proposal. In the case of Darwin, a proposal was put forward but all it was was a proposal to lend the money to the Government and for the Government to pay it back with interest later. That did not address the real question of what is the best value for the money available in terms of a new terminal at Darwin. Certainly, no one disputes that the terminal at Darwin is inadequate. That situation did not develop in just the last 3 1/2 years. However, it is a matter of getting the best value for the taxpayer from the project and that is what we are doing. The issue of the travel agents convention also involves the very important issue of interlining. I have explained to the House how that matter is being addressed. The honourable member for Fadden raised a matter concerning Japan-Australia fares. The honourable member for Fadden got it the wrong way round. The Australian fares have gone up to compensate for the drop in the value of the Australian dollar. It is proposed that the Japanese fares will go down to compensate for the hardening or appreciation in the value of the Japanese yen. I remain mystified by the comments of the honourable member about other airlines when we have a major export industry, which our national carrier, Qantas, is. It is acknowledged across the world as being a major and successful international air transport operator. It does not have any price protection. The Department of Aviation has a virtually nil participation in fare setting which is left very much to the airlines. It has a share of capacity. I marvel at the capacity of Opposition members to knock Australia's own airline, which is successful in a fiercely competitive market and which makes a major contribution to tourism in this country. Qantas spends $100m a year abroad on Australian tourism, which is far more than any other organisation or government has spent. It provides thousands of jobs in this country, both directly and indirectly. At a time when we are asking people to buy Australian and we are talking about developing foreign exchange earnings for Australia, I look for support in the development of Australia's international air transport industry. Instead, we have the old time-worn `knock the Aussies' attitude from the Opposition which believes that people overseas can always do things better. I am sorry, but I reject that. If the industry were not competitive or efficient or if it had some high level of price protection, I could understand that type of attitude. But that is not the case. The concluding remark I make is that, in whatever field of transport or aviation, this Government is doing more in the areas under its jurisdiction than any other government has done in a comparable period to improve infrastructure and services available, be they air, sea, rail or road. The Opposition has an awful problem. It is now 11.35 a.m. In the mornings the Opposition always calls for the spending of more money, be it on airports, roads, donations, subsidies or whatever. But come Question Time this afternoon members of the Opposition will have undergone a culture change. At 2 o'clock they will be asking questions about why this Government is not doing enough to reduce the deficit and why it has not made some really fair dinkum expenditure cuts. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) said that the Budget is a Claytons Budget and that it is time that the Government really made some fair dinkum expenditure cuts and got down to a nil deficit. We do not see it that way. The Budget is a balanced Budget designed to promote the development of this economy and to provide improved and more efficient services. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Progress reported. Bill presented by Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.39) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill contains amendments to social security and veterans' affairs legislation to implement decisions affecting those portfolios in the 1986-87 Budget. Honourable members will be aware that, as a result of international economic conditions, there have been significant reductions in Australia's national income. The Government believes that through the Budget and other policy changes, the problems which this creates can be faced squarely and remedial changes put into place quickly and decisively. These changes must be made so that our domestic economy and standard of living can be adjusted to our current circumstances. The Budget therefore incorporates very large reductions in spending, amongst other measures. In making difficult decisions, the Government has sought to ensure that the burden of change is spread as fairly as possible across the community, while maintaining the Australian Labor Party's traditional commitment to the needy. Overall, there are reductions against forward estimates of some $500m in social security. This restraint was achieved with no discounting of indexed rises in pensions and benefits. Within a very constrained budgetary framework, we have been able to steer spending towards some areas of greatest need. And we have continued to tighten administrative procedures in ways that add to the integrity of our programs. Most important of all, nothing in this Budget jeopardises our continuing review and reform of the income security system. Two major decisions included in the Bill which will affect the Social Security Act 1947 are as follows. Future six-monthly indexation increases to pensioners and beneficiaries will continue to be paid in full, but will be deferred for six weeks, that is, three pension pay-days, from November 1986; and the measures implemented last year to reduce `poverty traps' in the social security system will be delayed by eight months, until July 1987. The deferral of indexation increases is estimated to save $129.2m in 1986-87 and $111.4m in 1987-88, and the deferral of the `poverty traps' legislation is estimated to save $126.6m in 1986-87 and will cost $196.5m in 1987-88. These are the only changes to the general pension and benefits area. They do not represent major structural change, and involve minimal disadvantage for those in greatest need. In line with the Government's aim to target welfare payments to the most needy, family allowance for student children between 16 and 18 years of age will be income-tested. Families with household income-that is, combined husband and wife taxable incomes-over $39,000 will not be eligible for family allowance. Estimated savings from this measure are $20m in 1986-87 and $49m in 1987-88. The Government has also decided to increase some payments in areas which will assist the most needy, particularly young families. Additional pension or benefit applicable for a dependent child of a pensioner or beneficiary will be increased by $1 to $17 per week, in November 1986; the rate of double orphan's pension will be increased by $4.30 to $60 per month, from November 1986; the rate of handicapped child's allowance will be increased by $7 to $92 per month, from November 1986; and the rate of mobility allowance will be increased by $1 to $11 per week, from November 1986. Estimated costs from these four measures are: Increase in additional pension or benefit by $1 per week-$28.3m in 1986-87 and $44.7m in 1987-88; increase in double orphan's pension by $4.30 per month-$0.2m in 1986-87 and $0.3m in 1987-88; increase in handicapped child's allowance by $7 per month-$1.7m in 1986-87 and $2.7m in 1987-88; and increase in mobility allowance by $1 per week-$0.4m in 1986-87 and $0.6m in 1987-88. Other decisions reflected in the Bill which will further rationalise the social security system are as follows. The current arrangements by which sickness benefit is either reduced or recovered by reference to compensation payable to the beneficiary will be extended to invalid pension, unemployment benefit, rehabilitation allowance and sheltered employment allowance, as from May 1987. The level of rent payable for a person to be eligible for rent assistance will increase from $10 to $15 per week, as from December 1986. Dual eligibility for both a social security pension or benefit and a war or defence widow's pension will be restructured, from November 1986. Dual eligibility for both a social security pension or Commonwealth educational scheme payment will be removed, other than for current cases, from January 1987. Estimated savings from these four measures are: Extension of the current arrangements concerning compensation payments $21m in 1986-87, and $50m in 1987-88, in conjunction with savings from the inclusion of the `apportionment formula' in the current sickness benefit arrangements from July 1986; increase in the rent threshold-$8.8m in 1986-87, and $16.1m in 1987-88; removal or reduction of dual eligibility for both a social security pension or benefit and a war or defence widow's pension-$4.1m in 1986-87, and $35.1m in 1987-88; and savings will occur in the Education portfolio as a result of the removal of dual eligibility for both a social security pension and an educational scheme payment. The Government has announced a range of measures to tighten the administration of unemployment benefits and so ensure greater fairness in the allocation of limited funds. We are also introducing new arrangements which will improve the administration of widow's pension and supporting parent's benefit. These arrangements are designed both to assist these pensioners and beneficiaries and to ensure that the correct entitlement is paid. In the area of unemployment benefit, the Bill will include amendments by which unemployment beneficiaries will have to be registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service to qualify for benefit, as from November 1986; beneficiaries will have to lodge their first income statements and applications for contribution of unemployment benefit in person, as from 1 November 1986; and arrangements will be made for beneficiaries aged over 55 years who have been receiving social security payments for a year to have relaxed reporting requirements. Estimated savings from these measures, and other measures not requiring legislation, are $33.9m in 1986-87 and $133.4m in 1987-88. In addition to these measures, youth income proposals announced in the 1985-86 Budget are included in the Bill. The Bill will also amend the definition of `income' which applies in the pension and benefit income tests. The amendment will make it clear that the income test does not create an artificial distinction between capital and income. This development would be inconsistent with the long-standing philosophical approach to the scope of the income test, and would have substantial cost implications, apart from unduly distorting the flow of funds into particular types of investments. The amendment is designed to maintain the current approach to the income test, which will be administered in the same way as it has been in the past. Finally, within the social security area, the Bill will amend the assets test in a number of respects to correct deficiencies found after review. These changes are, as a package, revenue-neutral. This Bill will also make some minor amendments to the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 and the Seamen's Compensation Act 1911. The amendments will prevent the application of those Acts to employees of the Northern Territory Government and its statutory authorities, and to seamen working in the territorial waters of the Territory. These persons will, from the commencement of the amendments, be covered by a proposed Work Health Act of the Northern Territory. There are small savings from this change in arrangements. I say in passing that a review is being conducted of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act and its administration. I hope that that review will be completed in the current session of Parliament and that legislation will follow. I make this comment because yesterday the Australian called for a review of the agreement with the United Kingdom. I made that announcement when the House discussed the Social Security (Proportional Portability of Pensions) Amendment Bill, and those negotiations have commenced. I make that comment because, apparently, sometimes these announcements are not heard. This Bill will also make a number of amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to give effect to the Government's decisions announced in the Budget. The opportunity is also taken in this Bill to make a number of machinery amendments, the need for which has become apparent from the experience of the last four months since the Veterans' Entitlements Act came into operation. The Bill will, in unison with amendments to the Social Security Act 1947, defer for three pension pay-days the payment of increased rates of pensions and allowances which are subject to indexation in accordance with movements in the consumer price index. Indexation of income and property value limits for the purpose of the income and assets test will also be deferred. This proposal will lead to savings of $26.6 million in 1986-87 and $23.3 million in 1987-88. The Bill will also provide that the rate of service pension payable to a widow who is also in receipt of a war widow's pension, currently payable at $228.20 per fortnight, will be frozen at the rate payable on 1 November 1986. Where service pension is granted to such a war widow at a later date the maximum rate of pension payable will be $120.10 per fortnight. The other main proposal relates to an option to recover from health benefits funds that amount of fund benefit that would have been payable to their contributors who are treated without charge at the expense of the Repatriation Commission. It is emphasised that this arrangement is entirely voluntary on the part of entitled beneficiaries. This proposal would save an estimated $7.2m in 1986-87 and an estimated $10m in 1987-88. Other amendments of a budgetary nature include increases in the rates of certain allowances and pensions. The rates of pensions payable to orphans of deceased veterans are to be increased; the rate of additional pensions payable to veterans suffering from certain incapacities will be increased, as will the rates of attendant allowance and the rates of clothing allowance. Other amendments are to align the assets and income test provisions with those proposed to be made to the Social Security Act 1947. Similar amendments are also made to the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940 where appropriate. Finally, the Bill will include savings provisions to ensure that rights to seek reviews of certain decisions by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are preserved and transitional provisions to ensure that money due to the pensioner but unpaid at the death of a pensioner before the commencement of the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 may be disbursed under that Act. I commend the Bill to the House and table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Schedule 3. Department of Community Services Proposed expenditure, $468,642,000. Department of Social Security Proposed expenditure, $573,693,000. Department of Health Proposed expenditure, $526,957,000. Department of Veterans' Affairs Proposed expenditure, $999,200,000. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.55) —I wish to make a few remarks about the expenditure of the Department of Social Security first and then mention briefly that of the Department of Community Services. Despite the general community perception as a result of the Budget, expenditure within the Department of Social Security has increased, not decreased. The post-Budget publicity suggested that overall expenditure had declined by some $500m. This is not the case. Total expenditure by the Department increased by $1.1 billion in round terms. Many people in the community, including the welfare lobby itself, believe that we are spending more than we ever have in the past and we are doing less good with it. An examination of this Government's expenditure priorities, as revealed in the Budget Papers and in the papers circulated by the Minister subsequent to the Budget, indicate its rather mean and miserly approach to aged members of our community. As I said, total expenditure within the Department has increased by about $1.1 billion. It is interesting to note that the only sections of benefits in which expenditure declined in absolute terms were total payments for family allowances and payments for what is known as a double orphan's pension. The decline in family allowances is about 11.2 per cent by my calculations. It is also interesting to note-I have been told this unofficially by certain people within the Department-that many of the estimates for the increased expenditure for certain categories of benefits are dubious and based on assumptions which some people within the Department and others outside believe will not be fulfilled. I am quite sceptical about the estimates for the cost of unemployment benefits in the coming year. The total expenditure anticipated in that area is for an increase of 13.9 per cent. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) told us that that did not include an allowance for some 10,000 people who are currently receiving unemployment benefits but who are not entitled to them. I was quite heartened to see that the Treasurer, if not the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), is prepared to admit that some people are currently receiving benefits when they do not deserve them and that that has been taken into account when calculating the estimate in the coming year. This Budget reflects the Government's failure to address effectively policy problems within the Department of Social Security. Total expenditure has increased for just about every benefit area. Areas of particular interest include that of benefits for supporting parents. The estimate for the increase in that area is 9.9 per cent, taking the total expenditure to the order of $1.4 billion. Only this week in this place we had tabled a discussion paper for changes in child support procedures within Australia. There is bipartisan support for review and reform of this area and for many years there has been considerable community pressure for action. The Opposition moved a private member's Bill in the Senate last year suggesting changes to the family law and its administration and I remind the Minister that this Government has been in power since March 1983. Last week it tabled a discussion paper which was a product of work prepared by a consultant who was appointed in January 1986. The Government was elected in March 1983; it appointed a consultant in January 1986; it tabled a paper this month. Quite frankly, that is not a record of high priority or determination of action to achieve reform and change in this very important area, which is a growing area of expenditure in welfare. There are certain concerns in the community about the effectiveness of welfare payments-the effectiveness of payments which in many cases do not represent an effective utilisation of taxpayers' funds. I believe that the failure of the Government to do anything about changes in child support is an indication of its preparedness to let the system roll on, notwithstanding the cost to the taxpayer. It is also interesting to note where the Government is prepared to save money. This Government has decided that the aged section of our community is perhaps the easiest to crack down on. The Government can implement its penny pinching programs, trim a few million dollars here and a hundred million dollars there by making life a little tougher and harder for those people who have retired from the work force and who no longer have the capacity to fight back in the way that other sections of the community can fight. It began when the Government first came to office and introduced the assets test. The first version of the assets test was an absolute disaster. It was like the present fringe benefits tax and the same Prime Minister initiated the review. I believe that we have had four or five versions of the assets test and we are now coming up for the sixth- Mr Nehl —And it is still a disaster. Mr BLUNT —Of course it is still a disaster and it will always be a disaster because the philosophy underlying the assets test is wrong, in conjunction with our current welfare system and our retirement incomes policy- Mr Hand —What a pathetic excuse. Mr BLUNT —The left wing of the Labor Party knows exactly what the problem is and so does the Minister. Because he does not have the courage or the numbers to do anything about genuine reform in retirement income in this country he is forced to continue with an administrative procedure that he knows does not work. Let me tell honourable members that this Government is in exactly the same trouble with its fringe benefits tax. The FBT will drag the Government down and take another 10 or 15 points off its popularity. The Australian Labor Party will be lucky to get 30 per cent of the total vote throughout Australia as a result, notwithstanding the Government's decision to spend a couple of million dollars of the taxpayers' money promoting the fringe benefits tax and running another massive advertising campaign. It has substituted public relations and advertising for effective policy. It must turn the stomachs of those people who have some commitment to ideology to realise this Government has become so pragmatic that it has sold out to the advertising agencies, the public relations consultants and the research companies. Rather than put time and effort into developing effective policies, the Government has put time and effort into hiring effective advertising agencies. The only trouble is that it cannot fool all of the people all of the time. An amount of $2m or $4m spent on advertising the fringe benefits tax will have exactly the same impact as the money spent trying to promote the assets test. The aged people of this country and every member of parliament know that the assets test does not work. There is not a member of this Parliament who has not been confronted with inequitable decisions under the assets test and who has not seen hardship inflicted upon people. Every member of Parliament knows that, notwithstanding the platitudes expressed by the Minister, the Prime Minister and everybody else on the other side of the Parliament who is trying to disguise his embarrassment over this ill-conceived measure, the assets test just does not work. Mr Tim Fischer —It will be abolished. Mr BLUNT —It will be abolished totally by the next Government of this country, whenever the mob opposite is prepared to call an election. I wish to make some remarks about other things that this Government has done in an attempt to prune a few million dollars off the aged members of our community. Not only has it inflicted the assets test on pensioners but also it has cracked down on pensioners' pocket money. This Minister did away with the averaging provisions applicable to income concessions for aged people and some other clients of the Department of Social Security. He said: `We will do something about it, we know something has to be done'. In February of this year he said: `We are going to do something about it'. We are now into October. What will the Government do? It has probably hired a consultant and had another committee which will announce a review of it. It is like every other review; just an excuse for inaction, a lack of policy and a lack of determination to do anything about genuine reform in this area. The worst thing that the Government has done is to defer the poverty trap relief measures. Those measures were introduced in October 1985 and had bipartisan support. We said that they were good measures but did not go far enough. The measures indicated that this Government was finally beginning to realise that it had to provide incentives for people to help themselves, to get out of that cycle of dependence that arises in many cases because of the interaction of the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Social Security Act. The Government introduced the measures in October 1985, not to be implemented until November 1986, but they have been deferred until at least July 1987. What will happen? The Government will introduce the so-called income tax cuts, which are not really income tax cuts, in December but it will not do anything for the clients of the Department of Social Security. The average wage and salary earner will get a token tax cut which will do something to reduce the impact of inflation and fiscal drag, but what will happen about the clients of the Department of Social Security? They have been discarded, consigned to the very last part of the queue. Nothing will happen until July 1987. The Government does not have sufficient compassion for the clients of the Department of Social Security to bring in even half of the poverty trap reduction measures. It will bring in part of the so-called income tax concessions, but no part of the poverty trap measures. The Government is not doing a thing in that area. It has deferred the whole lot, so the difference between those on benefits and those not on benefits will be that much worse, it will be that much harder for those on benefits to get off benefits. The Minister knows it and well he should bury his head in his papers, because he conceded that it is the major sell-out of this Budget. The most important benefit the Minister could have achieved for social security beneficiaries was the poverty trap reduction measures. The Minister sold out, caved in. He could not get his Cabinet colleagues to agree to the measures. Those on benefits will suffer. We see a further example of this Government's callous attitude to the aged in terms of the decision by the Department of Community Services in relation to nursing home clients. The Government has approved fee increases for nursing homes, but has deferred pension increases and has done nothing about the daily bed subsidy. It has increased the gap between the income available to aged people in nursing homes and the cost of providing those beds. The Government does not even have the common sense to align or synchronise the date of approval for fee increases, the date of increases for pensions and the date of review of the bed subsidy. The Government could not even consider a simple administrative measure such as that because it really does not care about the plight of the aged. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(12.05) —The shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) is a unique individual. His contributions in this place never cease to amaze me. The other day we heard him talk on the report handed down by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), trying to achieve justice for people who are deserted and left to fend for themselves. Then he attacked two measures of the Government, the fringe benefits tax and the assets test. He got a few `hear, hears' from his side of the chamber when he raised those two issues and told this House and the people of Australia that the Liberal Government, or the Liberal-National Government, would abolish both of those measures. The Opposition will abolish those measures because they are an attempt to redistribute the wealth of this country in order to assist people in the four areas covered by the discussion in the House today; the Department of Community Services, the Department of Social Security, the Department of Health and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We have a situation where any attempt by this Government to make things more equal and fairer will be abolished by those on the other side, but no one is quite sure what they will be replaced with. We have had four or five versions so far as to what will occur, but the honourable member for Richmond has to tell the Australian public where the money will come from to meet the demands made and the concerns expressed in the latter part of his contribution. Honourable members opposite cannot have their cake and eat it too. They have to start telling people what the Opposition stands for. Opposition members cannot come in here beating their chests, trying to protect their millionaire mates and friends whom they represent-we all know that. The assets test started off bumpily, I concede that. The fringe benefits tax has started off with a few bumps, but they will be sorted out. Make no mistake about it: They will be sorted out. The people we are after, including all members of this House, will start to pay a share of taxation that they ought to be paying. Opposition members come in here and talk about their concerns for the poor, but let us look at the rich-people like ourselves, if we compare our level of income with that of people covered by these portfolios. We are going to have to pay our share of the tax. I will take it further, as far as members of Parliament are concerned, and that might occur in a public way later on. The sooner everything is taxed equally in our society the better off we will all be. I might deal with that topic in a bit more detail later. According to the shadow Minister, the fringe benefits tax and the assets test will be abolished. This Government will be here for a long time and we will start to recoup the benefits of the fringe benefits tax and will give those benefits to the poor. We are sick and tired of paying for lunches, dinners, baby sitting fees which are added on to the restaurant accounts of executives in the name of another bottle of French champagne and paid for by the boss; or the education of rich kids to the detriment of the poor. We will be here for a long time because the people of Australia understand that once we get these few minor details sorted out in the review, as outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), we will make these people pay. Those people had better understand that and had better start kicking in now. They will have to pay their fair share; no more than their fair share. I make no apology for that. When the fringe benefits tax came in people told me that restaurants in my electorate-there are probably more restaurants in my electorate than in the rest of Melbourne-would face massive closures. We heard speech after speech from the other side about the closure of restaurants, particularly in the electorate of the member for Melbourne. I have to tell honourable members opposite that there is no real estate for sale in the electorate of Melbourne to open up a new restaurant because restaurants are opening up very fast and are booming. The people of Australia will begin to understand that the rich will have to pay their fair share and we will be able to deal with these questions. That fairness would enable the Government to do more in the areas of these portfolios than it has been possible to do before. I make no apology when I say to the shadow Minister, who referred to my view on the issue of the deferment of the poverty trap relief measures, that I am incredibly disappointed at the decision that those measures have been deferred until July next year. I have said that outside and inside the House; it gives me no joy at all. However, had the rorts in taxation, such as in the fringe benefits area, been addressed by the previous Government, we might well have been able to meet these commitments a lot more quickly than we are currently able to do. People had better understand that these deferments have been brought about because of a lack of funding and the lack of concern by our opponents about equality in the taxation system. I repeat that I will be doing everything that I can to ensure that a way is found to speed up that decision to defer until July next year. I have told people in the poverty area that, and I will continue to pursue my views within the Government, as will other members of the Government side. I feel that I have to put my position on the comments made by the Opposition spokesman-I am glad to do that-and I want to address the area of children's service programs, child care places and the decisions that have been taken by this Government and announced by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). When one makes changes in any area such as child care and the others to which I referred earlier there are always problems in the start of any new program. Again it is fair to say that when we announced our decision to change the child care financial arrangements there were some problems, particularly in my State of Victoria. I have mentioned the large number of restaurants in my electorate. It probably also has more child care centres than most other electorates in the country. Now that the dust has settled our commitment to child care has been further shown in this most recent Budget. The Australian Council of Social Service, ACOSS, in its report on the Budget, `Community Responses to the Budget 1986-87', makes quite glowing comments about the Department of Community Services and the steps that this Government has taken in relation to that portfolio. In the area of child care, the 20,000 places which were promised will be provided by 1988. Over $38m has been set aside in this financial year to be used in developing these additional 20,000 places. The total expenditure is estimated to rise to $194.7m in 1986-87. This constitutes an increase of 33 per cent over last year. It is not a bad achievement, further honouring a commitment that we made in relation to this very needy area. Since the Government came to office the total expenditure on children's services has increased 200 per cent. Given the nature of my electorate and the number of people involved in child care, either as users or as local government workers in this field, that is not a bad record. It is recognised by those people as a hellishly good performance by this Government. As I said, there were some problems when we changed the financial arrangements. I want to address one of the concerns of the community-I think it was justified in being concerned-which was about transitional funding. Recently, I attended a meeting with the Minister at which the question of transitional funding was raised. There was a fear that that would end at the end of this financial year. The Minister assured people that if the funds that are now called transitional funds were needed to maintain the viability of some of those centres those funds would be made available. I put that on the record of this place. Our commitment to child care services will continue and our commitment to the range of areas such as residential care for the aged, supported accommodation assistance, home and community care and programs for the disabled will continue and will develop further under this Government. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(12.15) —Today I would like to focus on the veterans' affairs section of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) which is currently before the Committee. In so doing, I point out the reality of the Government's program, with its assault on many of the elderly, veterans and war widows, which is in sharp contrast to the rhetoric that we have just heard from the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) and that we have heard from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) as he stomps around the country trying to defend his portfolio and his track record and trying to conjure up all sorts of contrasts with the situation should the coalition come to power. Let me point out to the Committee that it was this Government which, in the mini-Budget as a prelude to these Estimates, virtually halved travel allowance for veterans to a flat 11.6c per kilometre. It also sharply reduced subsistence allowance for veterans in relation to meals and accommodation when they are referred for medical treatment. It also contracted the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme on certain categories of service pensioners and applied a $300 limit on four categories of dental treatment for veterans. They are just some of the measures arising from that mini-Budget of 1985 which was a precursor to a program of cutbacks on veterans who served their country in time of war. Then the Veterans' Entitlements Bill came along. After a prolonged period of negotiation and determined effort by the coalition and others we secured a large number of amendments. In particular the draconian 40-year rule was removed from that legislation. Notwithstanding that, we had this sharp contraction in the criteria for totally and permanently incapacitated veterans, especially those who had retired. I have sought and obtained through Senate Estimates Committee F a good deal of detailed information in relation to the particular estimates and savings assessed which are involved in this area. I would commend to people who are interested in this subject the Hansard of Senate Estimates Committee F, and suggest that they can read that in conjunction with these remarks. Provision was also made for termination of the dependant's allowance by commutation, albeit on a voluntary basis; no further increases were to be provided for in the dependant's allowance. Then we have the Budget and the Estimates before the Committee at the moment. What do we see? We see another range of cutbacks. War widows and their dependants, as well as service pensioners with their fringe benefits, will no longer have access to the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Let me be accurate by saying that they will still have access to the national health scheme. War widows who also receive an age pension will have the social security component frozen at a maximum level of $60.05. An additional Budget decision to apply a reducing permanent maximum level below the $60.05 has now been dropped, following a very successful campaign by veterans' organisations and the War Widows Guild, involving many people at various levels, including two people who are present in the chamber at this time. I am delighted with that breakthrough and my campaigning and indeed that of the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) and others who took a particular interest in this issue. We have also had the cutback which is involved with the deferment of consumer price index related increases for veterans' pensions. It is ironical that, as luck would have it, the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) introduced a short while ago, set out the various amounts involved. I had extracted them from the Estimates paper to put them into this contribution, but there really is no need because they were all detailed a few minutes ago in the second reading speech of the Minister. We have had this range of cutbacks relating to veterans and particularly relating to war widows. We have had an additional cutback embraced by the decision of the Government that affects veterans who, through incentive, through voluntary determination, have taken out private health insurance. The Government is welshing on its obligation to pick up the treatment costs for those eligible veterans. It will go to the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia Ltd, the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd and other private health insurance funds in a most discriminatory way and require them to pay the costs involved with that hospitalisation. That represents an estimate-it is a Government estimate-of a $7m transfer in added burden to the private health insurance funds of this nation. It will in turn add to the overall cost for all Australians because the Government is not honouring its full obligations in respect of veterans. This is embraced in the estimates now before the House. There have been other cutbacks-above all, the continuing cutback of the assets test, which has seen over 13,000 veterans have their service pensions reduced or cancelled. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who is in the chamber, will be aware-he follows these matters closely-that the assets test has impacted more heavily on Victoria than any other State. It has a tendency to impact more heavily on veterans than general age pensioners. I am speaking of a range of cutbacks that have been carried out at the initiation of this Government over the past 18 months. It ill becomes the Government to accuse the coalition of proposing a series of policy changes that bear on the continued existence or otherwise of the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. After all, the coalition created the modern Department of Veterans' Affairs. In any event, following the extraordinary breakfast at the Lodge yesterday-the bash outer Ministers breakfast; the bomb breakfast-we know that junior Ministers, including the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, might be on the short end and might be rolled over by Senator Richardson. In any event, the portfolio might be restructured. I seek an assurance here and now that for the balance of this Parliament there will not be the restructuring that is suggested in respect of the Veterans' Affairs portfolio following the breakfast yesterday at the Lodge, which was clearly a case of shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. We know that Senator Richardson will end up being the next shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in the same way that the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) will end up being the next shadow Treasurer. This will happen only if the honourable members are able to retain their seats following the big swing that will take place at the next Federal election. The Department of Veterans' Affairs estimates before the Committee provide an increase in overall Veterans' Affairs expenditure from $3.5 billion to $3.8 billion. That is the figure that the Minister likes to latch on to but it camouflages the reality in terms of a number of programs, including those involving war widows and the veterans that I have mentioned in other categories. Those programs will be subject to cutbacks as a result of Budget and off-Budget moves which the Government has initiated in its general approach to those who served their country in time of war. The Australian War Memorial has been the subject of some controversy. The Budget review of the Department of Veterans' Affairs contained a generous reference to the War Memorial and many of the other Budget changes. It completely fails, however, to make any reference to the freezing of the social security component of the war widows' package where there is also an eligibility for an age pension. I realise that this has something to do with the fact that some of the matters relate to the Social Security portfolio rather than the Veterans' Affairs portfolio, but it is something which war widows would have liked to read about in the publication. As I have said, there is no reference to it in this veterans' affairs budgetary publication. Further details have emerged in the Bill that the Minister for Social Security introduced earlier today. The coalition will fight tooth and nail to ensure the retention of the independence of the Australian War Memorial and the operation of its management council. We shall not allow the Government or the Minister to use whatever may be the outcome of the current independent investigation as a vehicle or tool to sabotage the independence of the War Memorial or to move down the path of making it some form of special peace museum, or in any other way detracting from the fundamental traditional, historic, significant and vital role of this great institution. In the controversy leading up to the appointment of the independent investigation it has emerged that Parliament might have been misled by an answer to a question which I lodged about the reconstruction of a staircase at great expense-a six figure amount-at the War Memorial due to some error between the War Memorial and the National Capital Development Commission. Can the Minister clarify what might have been the correct answer to that question on notice which was answered by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs through his representative in this House? I would appreciate clarification. It has been suggested that the Minister's answer that was given a few months ago was incorrect. I understand from publicity that this matter is the subject of part of the independent investigation that is now proceeding. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(12.25) —In 1988, which is really only a short time away, we shall be celebrating our Bicentenary. What does that really mean? Does it mean a lot of flag waving and the construction of monuments all over Australia, or will it signal the first real Aussie assault in 200 years on the discrimination against poor people in favour of the rich? Australia started out 200 years ago with essentially two classes-those who came here with authority, gold braid and guns, and those who came here in chains. Standards and styles have changed and the standard of living of the poor has increased over the past 200 years, but in relative terms there is not that much difference. Out of a population of 16 million or 17 million people, two million to three million are living in poverty. The actual number depends on the definition of poverty, but when we get down to that level it does not really matter what definition is used because those concerned are in poverty. They do not have enough food. The number includes 800,000 young children, the children of Australia who are our future. Let us put this into some sort of perspective. The distance from Sydney to Perth is about 3,000 kilometres. If those who now live in poverty were to join hands they could stretch across the width of the continent. If the two million to three million poorest people in this country linked hands, they could stretch across 3,000 kilometres of this continent. That is what this Government, the people of Australia and the Opposition have to address. Let us consider the distribution of wealth in this country. The top one per cent of adult individuals own about $125,000m; the top 5 per cent about $250 billion; and the top 10 per cent about $300 billion. This means that the top one per cent have about $1.5m each. The same studies have shown that the poorest 2.5 million people have as much wealth as the richest 200,000 and that the bottom 50 per cent of Australians now have only 8 per cent of the country's wealth. That is what poverty and the maldistribution of wealth is all about in this country. Poverty means feeding kids on 70c a meal. How many honourable members would like to feed their kids on 70c a meal? How many people outside the House would like to do that? No one would like to feed his kids on 70c a meal, but that is what two million to three million people have to do every day. Poverty means sending kids to school without breakfast in the hope that someone will give them something to eat at school. It means being behind with the rent and wondering whether one will be thrown out of one's house. It means begging for handouts at the local court or having nowhere to sleep at night. Shadow Ministers tell us constantly how bad this all is and how sad it is. They tell us how heartless this Government is. We shall hear more and more of that as the debate continues. What a load of rubbish! What a lot of crocodile tears! Opposition members berate the Government but they will leave the House at the end of the debate, and in the streets and at meetings they will attack the unemployed, supporting mothers, the children of the poor and social security expenditure. It is no use Opposition members saying how bad everything is and how sad it is and then leaving this place and putting across the opposite message. Even that behaviour would not be so bad if it were not for the fact that the economy and the country have suffered under their incompetence, negligence and deliberate policies that have caused structural poverty and the degradation of our industries. They protect and encourage now, as in the past, the people who are making money out of tax evasion. They have degraded the tax morality of this country. That is something against which we are fighting, and we shall continue to do so. Members of the Opposition will come into the chamber in a couple of hours for Question Time. They will bring up the fringe benefits tax again and they will again try to protect the wealthy of this country. I shall not pretend that everything in the Budget is right, and neither will many Labor members. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) said that quite capably in his address. The fact is that in very severe economic circumstances-very few of which were created by the Government; most of which were created by the long term policies of the Opposition-the Government has brought down what it could in terms of assisting those least able to assist themselves, those who have the least opportunity to develop themselves, to achieve, and to gain some security. Some people see social security as a safety valve-`They should be given just enough money to keep the rebellion down. Give them just enough unemployment benefit to stop them rising up in the streets'-as has occurred in Britain. I can assure honourable members that that is not the philosophy of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). His commitment is far greater than that, and it always will be. There needs to be a balance to ensure proper and efficient use of social security funds. The Minister and the Government have again dedicated themselves to ensuring that social security expenditure is not wasted. There are plenty of examples in the Budget. We have talked about them. To be quite frank, honourable members opposite have also agreed with most of those measures, which is a good thing. I shall not go into the initiatives that have been taken in the Budget because that has been done on many occasions and will be done in a later debate. Because of the magnitude of poverty in this country, it takes billions of dollars to give a few cents here and a few dollars there. It is band-aid assistance. We must address the magnitude of poverty. I remind honourable members of what living in abject poverty means, and what it does to the living standards of all Australians. Australia is a very wealthy country. We might seem to have a balance of payments problem, and so on, at the moment, but we are a very wealthy country with tremendous potential. Our potential is limited only by our own lack of vision. It is limited by the fact that one in five Australians lives in poverty. It is limited by the economic rationalists of this country, the media commentators and the politicians who only look at next year's balance sheet. It is the quick buck, the quick fix, that restricts this country's vision. It restricts this country's ability to get back on its feet and to set structural change that will take it into the twenty-first century. There are people in this country, many supported by honourable members opposite, who will not put their money where their country is. Last year, $7,000m of workers' money went out of this country into overseas economies. It is no wonder that we cannot get business going and achieve capital gain in this country when we send our own money overseas to build up the economies of other countries and then expect our country to develop some economic and industrial strength. If we are to reduce the social security budget and eradicate poverty, we need some long vision planning and application. We have already seen the massive effects of unemployment. We will see them for a long time in an economic and social sense. Many people aged 25 to 30 years have not been able to work for a full month or a full year in their life because of structural unemployment. That is very expensive for this country and it will continue to be so. Who is paying for it? It is not the wealthy. Unfortunately, the Government has not imposed any real restrictions on the wealthy in this country. If we read the Business Review Weekly, we can see the wealth that has escalated in the past couple of years. It is the middle income earner, the pay as you earn taxpayer and the small business person who pay for it all. The big boys are getting the gravy without paying the bill. Who said that there is no such thing as a free lunch in this country? I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table, which I have presented to the Opposition, that shows company taxation and profitability over the past few years. Leave granted. The document read as follows- COMPANY TAXATION AND PROFITABILITY, 1979-80 TO 1985-86 Income Tax Gross Operating Surplus Tax as % of G.O.S. $m $m % 1979-80 ... 2,776 14,604 19.0 1980-81 ... 4,003 16,515 24.2 1981-82 ... 4,322 16,926 25.5 1982-83 ... 4,079 17,663 23.1 1983-84 ... 3,641 23,724 15.3 1984-85 ... 4,477 26,122 17.1 1985-86 ... 5,400 30,033 18.0 Source: The Round-up, June 1986, The Treasury AGPS, Canberra 1986. Mr STAPLES —I thank the Committee. The table shows that, in the past few years, tax has decreased as a proportion of gross operating surplus. I wish to hear some comments from the Opposition on that. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(12.35) —My contribution to the debate will be centred mainly around health and social welfare aspects of the four departments that we are considering. A few days ago, the Medicare Levy Bill, which I prefer to call the Medicare tax, was passed by this chamber. That tax was increased from one per cent to 1.25 per cent-a 25 per cent increase. I am very pleased that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is in the chamber. One of the most significant aspects of the Medicare legislation is the fact that there is an increase in the tax but a diminution of the services provided under Medicare. The maximum payable for each medical service will rise to a $20 contribution by the patient. Previously, the maximum service contribution by the patient was $10. We have seen the abolition of the private hospital bed day subsidy, which will save the Government about $140m. It means that private health insurance funds' contributions have risen in all States, and not in a moderate way, as was stated by the Minister for Health in his second reading speech. We have a diminution of services in that elective surgery queues in this country get longer and longer. If the Minister for Health doubts that point, he should go to some of the large hospitals in his own State of South Australia or those in New South Wales or Victoria, talk to some of the specialists there and find out how many people are on the elective surgery waiting list. It is a disgrace when one considers that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said repeatedly, both before and after coming to office in 1983, that there would be a hospital bed available for all Australians. Trust is a very important aspect of politics. I suggest that with the broken promises we have seen by both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health, they cannot be trusted on the provision of health services. What nonsense it was to make a statement that a bed would be available for all Australians when, 3 1/2 years further down the track, we find that the queues for elective surgery are lengthening. Most people wait in vain. Only acute conditions will be treated. If the Minister doubts that, he should talk to some of the arthritis sufferers-people with twisted hands and fingers, people who want fairly simple operations to relieve them of their discomfort and pain. Those people, especially the elderly, are unable to have those operations. Major operations, such as hip replacements, are also affected. I predict that that diminution of services will continue. The Hawke socialist Government has proved that it is big on promises but small on delivery. I turn to the actual level of the Medicare tax. The Prime Minister stated 18 months ago that there would be no increase in the level of the Medicare tax, and the Health Minister made the same claim. Yet, just 18 months later, there is a 25 per cent increase in the tax. We must remember that that clear and unequivocal election promise was made after Labor had been in government for 20 months. There could be no suggestion of shifting the blame on to the previous Government. We remember the old line that Labor used-that the economy was much worse when it assumed office than it thought it was, and it had to do this or that; therefore, it had an excuse for breaking a promise. There is no excuse for breaking this promise. The Prime Minister knows that and the Health Minister knows that. It is like the Prime Minister's promise on the capital gains tax. All of us recall that. In his policy speech in 1984 Mr Hawke said: `There will be no capital gains tax. All of our critics in the Opposition know clearly that there will be no capital gains tax'. This was a clear case of the misleading and the deception of the Australian people. It is no wonder that Mr 75 per cent is now Mr 45 per cent. The people do not like to be duped, and duped they have been by Prime Minister Hawke. Let me turn to the Health Minister. As I said earlier, I am pleased he is in the chamber. Like the Prime Minister, the Health Minister barnstormed around this country pre-election and post-election piously and proudly claiming that there would be no increase in the Medicare levy. He is on the record prior to 1983; he is on the record following 1983; and he is on the record in September 1983 after the introduction of the Medicare legislation as saying that there would be no increase in the Medicare levy. What a joke. What a laugh. Obviously the Minister knows nothing about economics because even a grade 8 school child could tell at a glance that, with the encouragement of bulk billing, the overuse of medical services, the absence of an indentifiable cost-which has come about because the Minister has encouraged bulk billing-steady and rising inflation, wage indexation increasing all costs and spiralling hospital costs, the difference between what has been collected by the one per cent Medicare tax and the outgoings will increase enormously. This is exactly what has happened. The grade 8 school child could understand the trend and the mathematics but the Health Minister could not. Could he see it but, like the Prime Minister, was about deception? After the introduction of the Medicare legislation in 1983 he made the claim that the one per cent levy would do the job. I will quote from the Australian of 14 April 1983. He was in government as Health Minister then. He stated: My department has checked the (Medicare) program and has confirmed we can deliver within 1 per cent . . . One of two things applies to the Minister as far as I am concerned: Either he lacks grey matter or he has set about misleading and deceiving the Australian people. Whichever it is, he should be sacked. Two months ago, Dr Blewett, along with the Prime Minister, broke the promise not to increase the Medicare tax. Why? It was because Consolidated Revenue could no longer stand the strain. That is rather obvious. Health services costs blew out and it caught up with Prime Minister Hawke and Minister Blewett. They could not even work out what the average grade 8 school child could, so they had to do something about their desperation with escalating health costs. The result was the broken election promises of 18 months ago. Can honourable members hear Prime Minister Hawke saying to Health Minister Blewett, `Well, Neal, we knew we couldn't keep this promise when we made it. I would have liked to have stalled the increase a little longer, but too bad, the increase really has to take place now'? Let me turn to the phoney tax cuts that we are going to have in December. I say `phoney tax cuts' because the taxes that have been introduced by this Government over the past two or three years make the so-called tax cuts that we are to receive in December just that-phoney. At the moment we are in a mess with the fringe benefits tax. Do honourable members recall the promise made by the Prime Minister that no capital gains tax would be introduced? There have been regular increases in the excise on alcohol, cigarettes, tobacco products and petrol and oils. There are new taxes on milk flavoured products and fruit juices and increases in the wine tax. There has been a saving of revenue with the introduction of the assets test. The Medicare tax has increased by 25 per cent to 1.25 per cent. This big taxing Government is offering tax cuts in December. Mr Howe —And July. Mr HODGES —They will not be any better in July than they are in December because they are phoney to start with. They are phoney in December and they will be phoney in July. Veterans and their dependants and war widows have had benefits withdrawn or reduced. Is it any wonder that members of the Australian public are becoming more disenchanted and disillusioned with the Hawke socialist Government? The Hawke Government ought to be thrown out lock, stock and barrel. Progress reported. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The House may at a later hour this day again resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole. Sitting suspended from 12.45 p.m. to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Madam Speaker, as a matter of courtesy I should mention that the following Ministers will be absent from Question Time today. Before mentioning their names I want to assure members of the House, particularly honourable members opposite, that the absence of these Ministers in no sense implies a casualty list reflecting the outcome of the very serious celebration for the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). Mr Howard —Have you sacked them? Mr HAWKE —No, but they did celebrate the fiftieth birthday of the Special Minister of State. He will not be here today, which will be some comfort to the Opposition; nor will the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley)-that should give the Opposition some comfort-and nor will the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). That, too, will give the Opposition some comfort. Mr BLUNT —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism in his capacity as Minister responsible for Government advertising. Will the Minister confirm that $2m of the taxpayers' money will be spent promoting the fringe benefits tax? If so, what advertising agency is to be used? Will this campaign be based on any research conducted on behalf of the Government? If so, who conducted the research? Is the estimated $2m cost of this campaign allocated in the Budget, or has it been ripped off another program? Does the money allocated include the cost of re-filming the hour-long video saga extolling the virtues of the fringe benefits tax? Will those who paid $13 for the current video that is no longer operative receive a refund? Mr JOHN BROWN —The question is such an unbelievable flight of fancy that I do not think it merits a response. Ms McHUGH —Has the Prime Minister seen reports that a mining company is commencing mining operations in Kakadu National Park? Will the Government permit this activity to continue? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Phillip for her question. Let me make it clear that under the Hawke Labor Government there will be no mining of any sort in the areas comprising former stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park. Kakadu National Park is one of Australia's great environmental treasures. Indeed, it is one of the world's great environmental treasures, as is evidenced by the fact that it is one of some 200 areas on the World Heritage List. It is one of the most beautiful wetlands in the world, a sanctuary for more than 200 species of bird life. It contains the finest collection of Aboriginal rock art in the world. It has a sensitive landscape and unique geological features that make it an area that must be carefully managed and preserved. The reports of Geopeko Mineral Exploration's exploration in Kakadu have been drawn to my attention. I have been advised that, under the national park legislation, pre-existing mineral interests are preserved. Geopeko, therefore, is entitled under law to explore in the areas of its existing leases-to explore. If, as media reports indicate, Geopeko is exploring outside pre-existing mineral leases, the Government will seek to prevent that activity through the courts. As Peko has been advised on previous occasions, the Government does not accept that the mere application for a leasehold interest carries in itself any right to explore or mine. As far as Peko's existing leases are concerned, while the Government cannot prevent further exploration occurring, we will take every step within our power to ensure that no mining of any kind takes place within the existing Kakadu National Park. I am advised that Peko-Wallsend Operations Ltd has 14 mineral leases in the stage 2 area, totalling around 550 acres but in five separate areas. My information is that these leases, small and scattered as they are, do not provide a sufficient area to establish a mine, and we will not grant additional leases. Furthermore, given that the existing leases are principally located in sensitive wetlands subject to seasonal flooding, it is almost inconceivable that any proposal for mining activity could be consistent with the stringent environmental standards that the Australian Government is obliged to apply to World Heritage areas. So there should be no misunderstanding whatsoever on the part of the mining company as it embarks upon any exploration. I repeat: The Government will not countenance any mining in the existing Kakadu National Park. That is categorical; it is final. Mr HOWARD —Whilst on the subject of categorical assurances, I ask the Prime Minister a question about his capital gains tax. Is he satisfied that there are no unintended, harsh or unfair consequences of his capital gains tax? Can he assure the House that if any such unintended consequences are drawn to his attention they will be investigated with a view to amending the capital gains tax legislation? Mr HAWKE —All I can say at the outset is that this Government's capital gains tax is obviously less harsh than the capital gains tax to which the Leader of the Opposition, by his embrace of the American tax reforms, appears to be attracted. The Leader of the Opposition will have to explain, in his good time, what his position is on the capital gains tax. I have not had drawn to my attention any of the sorts of situations to which the Leader of the Opposition refers and I therefore have no reason to speculate in the way that he seeks to have me speculate. Mr HAND —In the light of the conflicting statements by the Opposition and community groups, can the Minister for Social Security please explain how Australia's pensioners will be affected by the fringe benefits tax? Mr Sinclair —Are you going to be one of the new Ministers, Gerry? Mr HAND —I might, yes. Mr HOWE —I can understand the enthusiasm on both sides of the House. The fringe benefits tax has exercised the minds of people within the welfare community. I think that many people in the House would have heard Julian Disney, the President of the Australian Council of Social Service, this morning on AM, and would have noted that the Victorian Council of Social Service has recently passed a very strong resolution in support of the fringe benefits tax. The resolution says that VCOSS has argued for the need for a universal tax on fringe benefits covering all sections of the community with no exemptions. It says that the Victorian Council of Social Service therefore condemns the current campaign against the fringe benefits tax launched by the Australian Federation of Employers and Mr Bob Ansett. It says also that the Victorian Council of Social Service believes the tax will add one more element of fairness to the Australian taxation system. It calls on member organisations of the Australian Council of Social Service to launch a campaign. We all recognise-certainly it is recognised within the Australian Council of Social Service-that this country faces difficult economic circumstances and that this represents a period of restraint. Indeed, that restraint has been, as I understand it, a principal objective of Opposition policies. It has been argued by those on the opposite side of this House, both in response to the Government's Budget and on other countless occasions, that there ought to be further cuts in expenditure and that those cuts would have to include social welfare expenditure. At the same time, the only clear commitments that we have heard from the Opposition have been, firstly, to remove the assets test. Secondly, there has been a fundamental and very clear commitment from Opposition members, with the exception of the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, to remove the fringe benefits tax lock, stock and barrel. The Government has accepted the current need for restraint and has made quite substantial cuts in programs in the social security area to which people from both sides of the House have a very strong commitment. We have been prepared to exercise that restraint and to make very tough decisions. Let me say that they were tough and people were well aware of the consequences of those decisions. There is another side to that. If we are to call for restraint and say that there need to be expenditure cuts affecting people, some of whom are the poorest in the Australian community, the other side of that is that we have to have a fair taxation system in this country. Whatever one may say about every detail of the fringe benefits tax, we are no longer arguing about the details; we are arguing about the fundamental principles of taxation and a fair taxation system. It seems to me and to people within the welfare sector incongruous that those people who call the loudest for restraint and most strongly for cuts in social welfare expenditure have not been prepared to accept any initiative designed to restore some equity to the Australian taxation system. Let us look at Opposition statements. When it comes to the elimination of fraud, the Opposition is opposed to an identity card. The Opposition is opposed to the issue of a tax on capital when almost every other country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, including the United States of America, has some form of such a tax. When it comes to a modest fringe benefits tax that aims to prevent people from seeking to avoid payment of sometimes very large amounts of money-that is, to avoid simply paying what they owe in tax-the Opposition is the first to jump in and seek political advantage in terms of its attack. The reality is that we have to accept an example cited by the Prime Minister the other day-the case of someone who was avoiding effectively $35,000 in tax. That is the equivalent of payments to eight pensioners at the married rate. It is as simple as that. The cost of eight pensions at the married rate would be $35,000. When people talk, as those on the other side of the House do, about the need to improve certain benefits for particular groups of people, they deny that possibility by removing fairness from the Australian taxation system. The revenue from the fringe benefits tax alone represents an income for 160,000 pensioners in this country. That is what we are talking about. This Parliament is not always about opportunism; it is not always about cheap point scoring. Sometimes it is about something in which I believe and certainly the National Catholic Commission on Social Welfare believes-a fair go for families. Certainly, ACOSS believes in a fair share. That is what this measure is about and that is why I believe that the Opposition ought to reconsider its position. Mr CARLTON —I refer the Prime Minister to the capital gains tax legislation that he brought in last year. Is the Prime Minister aware that a major way of allowing pensioners and other small investors to participate in the share market and in commercial investments is through the medium of unit trusts managed by professionals? Is the Prime Minister further aware that his capital gains tax has had a very severe effect on the unit trust industry, thereby threatening this major avenue for the small investor? I ask the Prime Minister: Was this an unintended consequence of the capital gains tax? Will he commit the Government to review this aspect of the tax? Mr HAWKE —Let me talk about the intended consequences on the part of the Opposition of not having a capital gains tax. The intended consequences of the Opposition's policy, particularly when it was in government, were to ensure that a privileged wealthy minority in this country escaped the obligations imposed upon its counterparts in virtually every other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country to make a contribution to the general revenue of their country. In the United States of America this is done in an even more severe form than we are suggesting. The intended consequence of the policy of the Opposition is that that privileged wealthy minority should not pay any contribution to the rev- enue. We have recently seen an indication of the 200 wealthiest Australians. It is only as a result of the operation of a capital gains tax on a large proportion of the income generated by those people that some contribution will be made to the general revenue. It is the intended consequences of the Opposition's position that those people should remain untaxed; that they should pay no contribution to the general revenue. That is the intended consequence of its policy. Let me say that the intended consequence of the capital gains tax policy of the Hawke Government is that there shall be an equitable contribution to the general revenue in this country from people who, up until this point, have escaped making their fair contribution because they had friends in the Opposition who regard it as fair that one should increase the tax burden on the ordinary honest average taxpayers in this country by allowing the privileged few to escape their burden. Our intended consequence is to bring an end to that inequity that has plagued this country for too long. Mr ROBERT BROWN —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Do recent favourable developments involving important economic indicators such as employment growth, the value of the Australian dollar, interest rates and money supply growth, provide any evidence that the Government's policies to address Australia's new economic circumstances are proving to be effective? Mr HAWKE —I suppose that the best evidence I could put to the honourable member that the Government's policies are working is that, since the Parliament resumed last week, we have not had one question-not one question-from the Opposition. If there were evidence that the Government's policies were not working, it is just possible that we would have had a question from the Opposition. I guess that that is the best test. But there is increasing evidence, not only that the Government's policies are right but also that they are beginning to produce the needed responses within the Australian economy. It is particularly heartening, at least for the overwhelming majority of Australians but not for the Opposition, to see firming evidence that more and more companies in our manufacturing and service industries are taking advantage of Australia's substantially increased competitiveness. For example, the Australian Chamber of Manufactures pulse survey for the three months to August showed an increasing number of manufacturers finding overseas markets for their products, and also opportunities for import replacement. Mr Brian Powell, a name that is reasonably well known in this country, who is the Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, was asked on the AM program of 15 September: In what Australian industries are the export potentials over the next few months? Mr Powell's response was: Well, I think it would surprise you. I think it's occurring all over the place. It's in many areas not just the traditional ones. I think the only thing I'd exclude is bread. The New South Wales Chamber of Manufactures-State Bank Survey also reported: The competitive effects of the depreciation are beginning to occur. For the December quarter a net balance of respondents expect a fall in import competition, and the net balance expecting an increase in export orders is the largest since the survey began in March 1985. That is not to deny that the current account deficit will remain high for some time yet, especially over the next few months when it will remain high for a number of reasons, including seasonal factors, the lagged effects of past depreciation and also the concentration of imports of aircraft. I would also point out that the most recent depreciation in June-July of about 10 per cent, coupled with some seasonal influences, will also tend to keep the consumer price index relatively high for about the next two quarters. But that will be tem- porary and, with the continued sensible policy on wages outcomes that will flow from the Government's policy, inflation will be trending down in 1987. Let us make no mistake that Australia, for the reasons I have given, is responding to the challenges of current economic circumstances. It will be a long haul that we as a country have to engage in, but the correct policies are in place and are manifestly working. I suggest that growing recognition of that fact is one factor behind the improved tone of foreign exchange and money markets in recent weeks. This is particularly reflected in the 2 per cent fall in the key 90-day bill rate and one per cent in long term bond yield since the recent peak. If one looks at the statistical evidence, the surveys that are taken, the indications in the manufacturing and services sectors, the firming up in the exchange and money markets, every piece of evidence shows that the policies of this Government, correctly applied to the problems imposed upon us from outside, are working. This is in distinction to those of Opposition members, who wish that the adverse signs will continue since they have a vested interest in depression and recession. That is what they want, but Australian manufacturing industry, employers and workers are responding to the challenge and they will be successful. Mr ANDREW —Is the Acting Treasurer aware that if an Australian company transfers an Australian employee to its operations overseas, the capital gains tax legislation will deem the employee to have disposed of his or her relevant taxable assets for their market value, at the time the employee becomes a non-resident? Is the Minister aware that this results in tax being paid on an unrealised gain? Does he understand that this will be a disincentive to the Government's expressed desire to internationalise our economy? Is this an intended or unintended consequence of the capital gains tax? Mr HURFORD —I was a tax consultant 17 years ago, but I have not kept in touch with every-- Opposition members-Oh! Mr HURFORD —I am pleased indeed at the confidence shown in me by the Opposition in believing that I should have kept in touch with every clause of every change in the tax system, even though I am only acting in this job. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HURFORD —If the Opposition is interested in an answer to this question, I shall give it. Yes, there are some consequences of deemed values on the employee leaving the country, and, yes, these are some of the results of the need to make the capital gains tax workable. I shall look at the details of the rather long question put to me by the honourable member for Wakefield. If there are any wrong implications in the question, I shall let him know. If the question is correct in detail, I shall also let him know. But the Government does not resile one iota from the capital gains tax. I have been across a lot of the problems in imposing it and I am very pleased to say that there are very few. If, indeed, later it is found that some changes need to be made, they will be made, but not in these early days. Mr SCOTT —Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted the rather high-pitched claim by one of the world's richest foreign affairs commentators, Mr R. Murdoch, to the effect that in the South Pacific `There is a rash of new island republics and several are being run by self-confessed communist dictatorships who are out to make trouble'? Will he advise the House how serious is this claim and how many worries it creates for Australia? Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member was good enough to draw my attention to the article on which this question is based. Having looked at the article, I feel it is a case of pinkos in the South Pacific-a version of the 1983 election warning by Malcolm Fraser of reds under Bob Hawke's bed. The emphasis is rather strong and I find no factual evidence to justify the claim at all. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, and as such in contact not only with my own Department but with other equivalent foreign affairs departments, and drawing on a wide range of intelligence information that is available to us, as well as from my own personal contacts in the South Pacific-quite extensive, particularly in recent times-I can say that there is absolutely no evidence of any self-confessed communist dictatorship in any of the south sea island states. It seems to me that the rather strong emphasis used in the article to make a point is more appropriate for Mr Murdoch's well known style of journalism, perhaps exemplified in the New York Post headline some time ago, `Headless body found in topless joint'. The style of journalism has a rather limited specialist appeal, which perhaps is reflected in an engagement between Mr Murdoch at a social function in New York some time ago and the managing director of a very large and up-market department store. It is claimed that Mr Murdoch said to the managing director, `I have increased the circulation of the New York Post enormously but you still don't advertise in my newspaper'. The managing director said, `Your readers are our shoplifters, Mr Murdoch, and we don't want to encourage them'. I find no evidence of the claim contained in the article made by, as the honourable member said, the world's richest foreign affairs commentator. Mr SLIPPER —I refer the Acting Treasurer to the calls from the Government for businesses to invest to expand our productive capacity. Is the Minister aware that his Government's capital gains tax contains extremely limited roll-over relief for the disposal of business assets? Is the Minister further aware that if a business must sell a factory, warehouse or workshop to buy larger business premises to expand its operations and create employment, the business is liable to capital gains tax on the old premises, which will be a disincentive to the expansion of business-at a time when Australia desperately needs business investment? In view of the answer to the question asked by the honourable member for Wakefield, will this anomaly be considered by the Government when it reconsiders the effects of its disastrous capital gains tax? Is the matter raised in my question another intended or unintended consequence of Labor's capital gains tax? Mr HURFORD —In March the Treasurer announced the principles guiding business reorganisation for which roll-overs-that is, deferral of capital gains tax liability-would be provided. This applies where no change occurs in the underlying ownership of the asset concerned or where the underlying asset, against which the taxpayer has a claim, does not change. The capital gains tax legislation lists specific cases of business reorganisation consistent with the principles that the Treasurer outlined in that statement last March on the provision of roll-overs. These include, for example, the transfer of assets between companies with 100 per cent common ownership. The Government has received representations suggesting that specific business reorganisations are consistent with the principles that the Treasurer outlined in March, but do not fit within any of the particular cases listed in that legislation. The Government is prepared to consider such possible additions to the existing list. This is nothing new. No-one who is at all objective would take any notice of the hollow laughter coming from the benches opposite. Amendments are made continuously to taxation legislation and we are quite happy to admit that the design of such legislation is not always perfect. The Treasurer has made it quite clear that he will look at the roll-over provisions and for this purpose he is at present considering such matters as the one raised by the honourable member for Fisher. Mr BRUMBY —Has the Acting Treasurer noted a report that the Government will conduct an advertising program concerning the fringe benefits tax? Will he inform the House whether there is any truth in that report? Mr HURFORD —Yes, I have noted a report in today's media. Some consideration has been given by me and others in the Treasurer's private office to a campaign to inform the people of Australia about the new tax. This is nothing new, it is a normal process. A possible program has not yet been drawn to the attention of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism; indeed, as that Minister said earlier in Question Time today, the matters raised by the honour- able member for Richmond were a flight of fancy on his part and the implications of his question were totally wrong. It is not unusual for new policies affecting people to be explained to them. Every new taxation policy has been so explained. The Government is considering this matter but its consideration is in the very early stages. Mr N.A. Brown —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations will have seen reports of the initial trade union proposal to change our wage fixing system, including a proposal to allow wage fixing bargains to take place at a company level. Does the Minister recall the numerous occasions during the past six months, including the most recent in this House on 23 September, when he said that such a proposal was not only `utterly irresponsible,' but also `unconstitutional' and `constitutionally unworkable'? Mr Hawke —Ooh! Mr N.A. Brown —Will the Prime Minister please stop groaning. Some of his Ministers are having terrible trouble answering questions. Will the Minister send a copy of this advice to the unions and warn them that they are embarking on a proposal that is unconstitutional? Does he now concede that the only way to get reform and flexibility into our wage fixing process is to allow employers and their employees to make their own agreements on wages, conditions of employment and the removal of restrictive work practices? Mr WILLIS —If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition really thinks that the Australian Council of Trade Unions is about to adopt the Opposition's wages policy, I assure him he is greatly mistaken. The proposals the Opposition has put up are impractical and unwise in many respects, and one of the defects is unconstitutionality. What is being looked at by the Government, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and employer organisations has nothing to do with the detailed proposals of the Opposition, but rather is concerned with obtaining a system which will provide us with an appropriate wages outcome in 1987-an outcome which is appropriate for the economic circumstances of our time. For some time the Government has been examining the means by which we might adjust the wage fixing system. Our reason for doing so is that, first, we have in place a wage indexation system which, for economic reasons, can produce only partial wage indexation and therefore frustrates the prima facie supposition of full indexation. It is difficult to continue such an outcome indefinitely. Secondly, scope for increasing flexibility in the system is very limited in the current situation of low economic growth and partial indexation. For those reasons, the Government has been looking at a system which would be more appropriate in the circumstances that we now face, and that system would embrace a two-tier approach. It would provide for a general wage increase and a second tier of increases. In the current wage fixing system there is already a very limited second tier and our proposal would involve some expansion of that tier. Among the means by which increases could be obtained in the second tier could be, conceivably, some results of negotiations at industry or enterprise level. The Government will discuss that approach with the ACTU and the employers next week. The ACTU has already expressed the opinion that it sees some benefits in moving to a different system from the one that currently exists. Employer organisations are also developing something along these lines, so I am quite optimistic that we can have a substantial degree of agreement between all parties-government, unions and employers-about the kind of wage fixing system which should operate in 1987. That does not mean we will have agreement about everything. It is highly unlikely that we would have exact agreement about all the details of the system or about the outcome, but there can be substantial agreement about the kind of wage fixing system that will apply in the future. That is something that we have not had in the past and I believe it will be a substantial step forward. We will discuss this matter with the ACTU and the employers next week. After we have had those discussions we will know exactly how much we are likely to achieve. I believe we will be able to change the wage fixing system to a system which enables us to have an overall wages outcome which is compatible with continued economic recovery. That, of course, is our overwhelming objective in the wage fixing area. Mr CROSS —Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs rate as high the prospects for a successful outcome to preliminary talks at Reykjavik between President Reagan and Secretary-General Gorbachev? Is he confident that this process will lead to a full summit between leaders of East and West? Mr HAYDEN —I sincerely trust that the prospects are very good for developments which will lead to a full summit between East and West and, accordingly, I trust that the high hopes I have for the outcome of the meeting at Reykjavik will be justified. The meeting will take place on 11 and 12 October. As the Prime Minister has said, the Reykjavik meeting will provide an historic opportunity for the leaders to restore stability and to give clear directions towards progress on arms control. While at the United Nations in New York I had the opportunity of discussing the prospects of a summit meeting between the President of the United States of America and the Secretary-General of the Soviet Union with both President Reagan and Secretary of State Shultz on 21 September, then on 25 September with Foreign Minister Shevardnadze of the Soviet Union. The thing which struck me was the dramatically changed mood in respect of both sides. It was positive and hopeful, but of course was conditioned by a recognition of the enormous complexity and difficulty of the challenge ahead. The asymmetrical deployment of nuclear weapons between the two countries will be the most notable difficulty with which they will have to contend as, one hopes, they move towards some sort of system of arms control. The Soviet Union has an overwhelming deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles, which of course creates great distress to the United States because these ICBMs have enormously improved accuracy and explosive fire power. Accordingly, in the view of the United States they are a threat to its silo based, land based missiles. On the other hand, the United States has an extensive and effective deployment of submarine launched ballistic missiles which are part of its nuclear deterrents and these are seen by the Soviet Union as a threat. The matter of compiling a symmetrical balance between these sorts of things in order to arrive at a mutually acceptable arrangement for arms control represents one of the great challenges. Similarly, the intermediate nuclear force deployment in Europe, where I think there may be some prospect of a substantial basis for negotiation, nonetheless represents a critical challenge. The deployment of these weapons in Asia greatly concerns Japan-that is understandable. More than that, the weapons are mobile or can be made mobile and can be targeted on Europe, so they represent a destabilising or unbalancing factor in any negotiations. The important fact is that both sides have recognised the need for reservations, restraints and certain conditionality so that these talks can start. My impression is clearly one of a positive commitment from both East and West to try to sort out a worthwhile result, so the Reykjavik meeting is extremely important. I should mention that the Prime Minister has written to both President Reagan and Secretary-General Gorbachev outlining a number of proposals which he believes-I thoroughly endorse that belief-are essential in the process of negotiations either at Reykjavik or subsequently. The Government also hopes for progress on other items of the agenda, such as human rights, East-West bilateral relations and the resolution of regional conflicts in places such as Cambodia and Afghanistan. I mention two things in relation to those matters. On 21 September Australia was invited for the first time to participate in a debriefing meeting conducted by President Reagan, in which Secretary of State Shultz participated. This was a debriefing for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries and Japan. I say `for the first time' because Australia had never been invited to these sorts of debriefings in the past. The meeting related to progress on talks between President Reagan and Mr Shevardnadze up to that point. This was an extremely important meeting and it is a clear indication of the importance and respect accorded to Australia and its role in this area by the United States that we were invited to such a debriefing for the first time. Similarly, the extensive consultations we engaged in with Mr Shevardnadze are further evidence that both super-powers extend that respect and regard to us and want to involve us in the process of developments arising from summitry. The final matter is that on 15 October Mr Kenneth Adelman, the Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, will come to this country hot on the heels of the conclusion of the Reykjavik pre-summit discussions. His purpose will be to debrief the Government. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and I will be participating in that debriefing. That is pretty clear evidence that the role Australia has properly sought to carve for itself in having a right to participate in arms control and disarmament matters is recognised, respected and encouraged by the super-powers. Mr HOWARD —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to say that, although it will not surprise the House for me to say that the Opposition and I do not necessarily share the analysis just given by the Foreign Minister, certainly the Opposition shares the hope of the Government that the Reykjavik meeting between President Reagan and Mr Gorbachev is productive along the hard march to achieving an effective arms limitation agreement between the super-powers. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I join with the Leader of the Opposition in endorsing his hopes for the meeting between President Reagan and Mr Gorbachev. The Minister referred in his lengthy answer to his meeting with Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze on 25 September. Bearing in mind that he said that at his previous meetings with Soviet officials he has never had time to raise the issue of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, did he raise it on this occasion? Mr HAYDEN —Mr Speaker-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr HAYDEN —With me looking at you with my spectacles on and you looking at me with your spectacles on, I am getting a better view; Madam Speaker, I apologise. Mr Hawke —Flattery will get you everywhere. Mr HAYDEN —Well, what could one expect from a working class boy from Ipswich. If I have said in the past that I have not had time to raise Afghanistan with Soviet officials, I was wrong. I was caught off step one day, I must confess. I did publicly raise Afghanistan with Mr Gromyko at a luncheon when I outlined in my formal responses our opposition to Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The question is whether I raised Afghanistan on this occasion. I mentioned in passing our concern about Afghanistan, Vietnam and a whole range of matters, but I focused on the main matters in a meeting which went nearly 30 minutes over time. We had one hour set aside for the meeting and the fact that we had so much extra time is an indication of the importance with which the dialogue was regarded by both sides. I had to concentrate my attention on a selection of matters, mainly arms control and disarmament; regional matters, following Vladivostok. The speech of Soviet Secretary-General Gorbachev at Vladivostok was a speech which, when one takes the polemics away to one side and looks at the content, is a most significant and important speech and offers many positive proposals which could be followed up, especially within the regional context; in particular to focus on our immediate region, the South Pacific and so on. Those things were attended to in greater detail. The Sino-Soviet dispute, Afghanistan, Cambodia and Vietnam were mentioned, although I must confess only quickly, in passing, because it was more essential to focus on the big issues of the moment. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Acting Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 125 of the Insurance Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Insurance Commissioner for 1985-86, together with a bulletin on selected statistics on the general insurance industry for the year ended 31 December 1985. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report and financial statements of Qantas Airways Ltd for 1985-86, together with the Auditor-General's report. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Dr BLEWETT —I do, Madam Speaker. Last night in this place the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) claimed that I had misled the House in my Question Time statement yesterday that We Help Ourselves received $104,000 new money under the national campaign against drug abuse in 1985-86; that is, cost-shared money between the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments. My statement was quite correct. In 1985-86, the first full financial year of the drug offensive, We Help Ourselves did receive an extra $104,444 which it was able to add to another sole grant of $20,970 that it was getting from the New South Wales Government. The extra $104,000 that it received in 1985-86 was drug campaign new money. This compares most favourably with the $20,800 that it got in 1984-85; that is, the year before the campaign against drug abuse started. This financial year We Help Ourselves will continue to get substantial funds under the national campaign against drug abuse. In every respect I stand by the answer I gave yesterday and deplore the inaccuracies of the Opposition on this matter. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —by leave-Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able to table for the information of honourable members the first volume of the final report of the Better Health Commission entitled `Looking Forward to Better Health'. The remaining two volumes will be tabled as soon as the printing is finalised. Let me now turn to the Commission itself. Honourable members will recall that I established the Commission early in 1985 and it began its work in March 1985. Its role was to inquire into the current health status of the Australian population and recommend national health goals, priorities and programs to achieve significant improvements in illness prevention and health awareness in Australia. The Commission was chaired by Professor Derek Llewellyn-Jones and had a range of prominent Australians as its members. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the commissioners for the way in which they went about their work and for producing such a detailed but highly readable report. That easy style should ensure that it is widely read across Australia as it is, after all, discussing possibly Australia's most valuable resource-the health of us all. The better health report is possibly the most significant report tabled on the subject of health in Australia to date. It is important because it has the potential to provide a turning point in health policy Health care planning and policy up until now has, in the main, concerned itself with problems associated with the payment of health professionals and with caring for those who were ill. Consequently much of our effort has been devoted to how we pay doctors, how we pay for hospitals, how we pay for our medicines. Illness has absorbed the lion's share of the resources available to health. The sick are now protected under Medicare, and this Government has taken this initiative to promote better health in the community, to address the problem of preventing ill-health. My Department has recently been reorganised to adjust its focus towards better health, and a health advancement division has been established to promote these policies. Such policies are life saving, life enhancing and promise to cut, in the long term, the costs of ill health. The report makes a number of tough observations, which I would like to draw to the attention of honourable members: There is no national focus on illness prevention in Australia; there are no national directions, strategies, objectives or goals; medical schools fail to train students to promote health; research into illness prevention is fragmented and sparse-it lacks priorities and is rarely evaluated; national, State and Territory funding for illness prevention is small and erratic; information and skills sharing is limited; and the media do not appreciate their potential to contribute to better health. It is easy to be complacent about the state of the nation's health. True, we have made many advances, but it is salutary to remember that: Heart attacks, strokes, cancers and accidents account for 75 per cent of all deaths in Australia, most of which diseases are, to a significant extent, preventable; Australia still ranks high as a nation of pill poppers, with 74 per cent of women and 60 per cent of men currently taking medication; smoking is the regular habit of 32 per cent of men and 25 per cent of women-worse still the number of young smokers is growing; diet related disease accounts for about 60 per cent of deaths; over two-thirds of Australians rarely undertake vigorous weekly exercise; and one in six men and one in eight women have high blood pressure. Contribution to Health Policy Madam Speaker, Australia cannot afford to ignore these facts any longer. This report deals with prevention, not cure; with people, not patients; it asks us to focus our attention on preventive rather than curative medicine. The Commission found that health is a fundamental concern to all Australians. Most of those who submitted evidence to the Commission saw the need for a new positive direction in our attitude to health and for an increased emphasis on illness prevention and community participation in health policy. I expect the report will provide a catalyst for debate and action on better health in Australia. The Commission has already raised the level of debate in the area of prevention of illness and the promotion of health. The community reaction to the Commission is worth noting. Over 500 written submissions were received from all areas of Australia and on a broad range of health topics. Over 300 individuals and organisations presented oral evidence. The Commission also felt that it was necessary to investigate a number of other areas further and held a series of workshops, study groups, and seminars for this purpose. In February of this year the Commission published its interim report. Over 1,000 copies of the report were distributed for comment to individuals and groups who had made substantial contributions to the Commission or had shown interest in the Commission's work. Over 150 written replies to that interim report were received, and these were considered by the Commission when preparing its final report. Another significant contribution made by the better health report is that it provides us with an up to date profile on the status of our health. According to one survey conducted by the Commission, three-quarters of Australians admit that they could improve their health by changes to their lifestyle and behaviour. Almost two-thirds of the population feel they have almost complete control over their own health. This is a very encouraging basis on which to mount a national better health campaign. The report also provides a very useful discussion on existing barriers to achieving better health. As part of its terms of reference, the Commission was asked to consider the special needs of a number of specific groups within the Australian community, including Aborigines, people with disabilities, immigrants, older people, women and youth. The contribution of the Commission in this area will provide an invaluable foundation for planning future health promotion and illness prevention activities. The report looks at a number of important specific settings for health and recommends actions necessary in each case. These areas include: The involvement of children at school and the training of professionals in prevention at universities and colleges; the provision of incentives to health professions to promote prevention; the role of the media, both positive and negative, in prevention activities; and the role of research and the evaluation of what is being done. The Commission has made a number of recommendations in each of these areas. National Goals In its terms of reference the Commission was also asked to recommend national health goals, priorities and programs. The Commission, after considerable discussion, identified six priority areas for action. These were: Cardiovascular disease, nutrition, injury, cancer, communicable diseases and mental health. Having established the priorities, the Commission formed three task forces in the areas of cardiovascular disease, nutrition and injury. The task force process was used by the Commission to demonstrate one approach to the setting of national goals and the targets and strategies needed to achieve these goals. Each task force has set out measurable goals for the year 2000 and a blueprint, year by year, on how to achieve those goals. Some of these measurable goals include: reduction of the number of smokers to 15 per cent of the population-presently one-third of all adult Australians are smokers; reduction of the proportion of adults who have persistent high blood pressure to less than 5 per cent of the population; reduction in the prevalence of those suffering from overweight and obesity from the present 38 per cent of the population to 25 per cent; reduction to 5 per cent of the contribution of alcoholic beverages to the total energy content of the Australian diet; an increase in the level of breast-feeding at three months of life from 50 per cent to 80 per cent; to reduce by 50 per cent the numbers of hospital admissions of children for accidental poisonings from drugs and household poisons; and a reduction in the number of alcohol-related road crashes by 15 per cent. These are some of the targets which the Commission wants to see achieved by the year 2000. We now have the base data on these targets, and I have asked the Secretary to my Department to include in the annual report a progress statement to monitor what has been achieved, what has been spent and what is planned in the area of better health each year. It should be noted that a number of the recommendations of the Commission are already being implemented as a result of this Government's initiatives in the past two years to shift the emphasis from a curative to a preventive approach and to fill obvious but neglected gaps within the health system. There have been essentially separate but complementary developments in areas such as community health, public health, health services research, health promotion and other related activities. These initiatives all share the same basic objective of achieving better health for Australians. I have asked my Department to explore how these related activities might be interwoven to give a more coherent national focus to prevention as part of a new public health strategy for Australia. A central recommendation of the Commission was the establishment of a new and independent national body to provide leadership for better health. The need for effective national machinery is imperative. A workable partnership between relevant Commonwealth and State agencies has to be developed as there can be no national strategy for better health without that partnership. I intend to make this a priority item at the next Australian Health Ministers' Conference in April 1987. I should add that last week senior health officials from across Australia met and decided to establish a national health for all targets committee to follow up the Commission's work, particularly in the area of setting national goals. Quite rightly the Better Health Commission advocates that governments should, in future, concentrate their activities in priority areas. The priority areas identified for action are cardiovascular disease, nutrition, injury, mental health, cancer and communicable diseases. This is part of the national strategy I will be canvassing at the next Australian Health Ministers' Conference. A number of State health authorities have recently published planning documents which outline their priorities. All seem to be remar- kably consistent and I am hopeful we can achieve an agreed national strategy which will enable us to meet the goals set by the Commission's taskforce groups for the year 2000. The Commission's recommendations in the area of public health are related to the findings of the Kerr White report into Research and Educational Requirements for Public Health and Tropical Health in Australia, which I recently tabled in this House. The 1986-87 Federal Budget allocated $1m for public health research and development. This money will be translated into public health fellowships and research projects as a matter of urgency. For the first time a major national statistics collection initiative is being developed in the Australian Institute of Health. The Institute will also have a technology assessment and health services research arm. Much of the $26m Budget allocation for the Kerr White proposals will be spent on support of Masters of Public Health courses in universities around Australia, and we will also support the establishment of a centre of excellence to train public health teachers at the Australian National University. In this matter we have, I am pleased to say, pre-empted the Commission's recommendations. Major changes in health policy, away from traditional treatment and cure values, will only take place effectively if community attitude and involvement shifts. The Commission found a significant community voice for change but a greater effort is needed to assist communities to assess their health needs and to be able to communicate those needs in a way that will be reflected in future health policy. New channels of communication are being presently formulated within the Department of Health with the establishment of a health forum. This forum will provide consumer groups with a working mechanism to enable inputs into policy advice and administrative activities, and is, I understand, a first for consumer involvement in Departments of Health. Health professionals are vital to the cause of better health and the Commission recommendations in this area will in part be taken up by the proposed national inquiry into medical education which will be established in the near future. The Commission also looked at a variety of incentives to encourage medical practitioners to foster prevention. In the continuing review of Medicare, these options will be kept under consideration. In August I released a report on one of these approaches, namely health maintenance organisations, and the response to such proposals suggests that increasingly the medical profession is prepared to consider alternative modes of health care delivery and different methods of paying for medical services. There has been much talk about the media's role in health and I strongly support the work of the Commission in this area. Recent results in areas such as the acquired immune deficiency syndrome and drugs have demonstrated the power of the media in establishing positive attitudinal and behavioural effects. The Commission has recommended the foundation of a health and media council to consider major health issues in terms of their impact on the activities of the media. There can be no doubt about the importance of selling health messages, and one that readily comes to mind must be smoking. The Commission singled out smoking as a special problem and recommended a number of actions to reduce the level of smoking in Australia. I can report that State health agencies are actively engaged in a campaign to combat smoking. My Department has recently taken the initiative in working towards a smoke free workplace by the end of this year-an initiative which has attracted national interest. The National Campaign Against Drug Abuse has included smoking as one of the priority areas for action. Of course, the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse itself is a major component of the Government's efforts to improve overall health standards. The Budget allocates $21.4m for the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse this year, $2m for a national education program on AIDS, and $1.8m for the national health promotion program, which includes funds for the development of Better Health Commission recommendations. A $1.8m grant will be made to the Australian Diabetes Foundation this year, and $1.3m has been allocated for a campaign against hepatitis B. An additional $1m will be made available for family planning services this year and $700,000 has been made available for the first stage of the Bicentennial initiative against measles. The Commission also recommended a number of longer term funding proposals designed to provide a substantial pool of funds for better health initiatives. These include a one per cent increase in the present level of tobacco and alcohol excise; one per cent of the Medicare taxation levy; and appropriations from general revenue and tax deductible donations. Because these involve a number of portfolios and will have major fiscal impact, these recommendations will be matters for consideration in the 1987-88 budgetary context. The most important question is where do we go from here? How do we capitalise on this report? How do we maintain the momentum generated by the Better Health Commission? Already my Department is considering a number of impressive projects in the areas recommended for action by the Commission including school health education, community development and, of course, the priority areas of cardiovascular disease, nutrition and injury. I will be making an announcement towards the end of this year in relation to the allocation of $1m provided in this Budget to implement some of the Better Health Commission findings. Non-committed funds under the national health promotion program for 1986-87 estimated at $300,000 will also be allocated in a manner consistent with the findings of the Better Health Commission. When my Department has examined the report in detail and has related its findings to other public health initiatives and there has been sufficient time to analyse community and State reaction to the findings of the report, I will be presenting a longer term better health strategy proposal to government. Finally, I would like to take a moment to explain the new public health strategy which has gained support around the world and to which the Better Health Commission is a contributor. The term `public health' has traditionally been associated with activities such as food inspection, sewerage control and the like. The `new' public health expands `old' public health horizons. It is a total approach to health and brings together health promotion, illness prevention, health services research, environmental and social health activities and the like under one banner. It looks at spheres of activity impacting on health-the environmental, the political, the economic, the cultural, the social, the physical and their interactions. It is, therefore, intersectoral. I would like to see Australia adopt this approach in its future health policy developments. I conclude by saying that I believe this is a report for the people of Australia and it is my hope that they will read it and discuss it and, if possible, develop the ideas and take up the challenge that it presents. If any person or organisation would like to share their views with me, I would welcome their comments on the report. Governments can do only so much. The report is now available for everyone to consider and I believe that effective changes in public policy will only come about if the community is committed to change. I present my statement and a copy of volume 1 of the final report of the Better Health Commission. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-The final report of the Better Health Commission is truly a product of our age. Personal awareness of the rewards of better health has never been higher. With many of the major diseases largely under control through immunisation, early detection through advances in diagnostic techniques, and treatment through pharmacological, therapeutic and surgical technology, it is not surprising that our culture and those of other developed nations are turning their attention to the pursuit of better health instead of just relying on curative medicine. We enjoy being healthy and would like in our own way to stay healthy. Evidence of the growing awareness of the rewards of better health is all around us. Our demands for better nutrition are beginning to be reflected by the foods that are appearing on the shelves of our supermarkets. Our desire to be better informed is reflected in book stores in titles devoted to health and a healthy lifestyle and a myriad of self-help programs. Our awareness of the contribution of exercise to our better health is reflected in the growth of health clubs, enrolment in exercise and aerobic classes and the emergence of that new denizen of the footpaths, the jogger. Concurrent with this overwhelming community interest in better health, we who are involved in health, its administration, financing and delivery have become acutely aware that ill-health is an ever growing cost burden, and that significant gains may be made in improving our nation's health and controlling the costs associated with disease, sickness and trauma through the promotion of better health and prevention. Under Medicare, the costs of health care are exploding and changes to Medicare must be made to contain that explosion. In addition, significant gains can be made in slowing the rate of growth in expenditures through better health promotion. The report acknowledges the generally accepted views that there are distinct advantages in the promotion of better health. The report brings together in summary form the current views of health professionals regarding the benefits of promotion of better health. In a positive fashion, it has outlined achievable and measurable goals for the health of the nation and sets milestones for those goals against which we can measure our progress towards better health. It also highlights a number of areas of real concern and attempts to identify the reasons why we have not been more successful in promoting better health. However, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), in his tabling statement, ignored the majority of the report's recommendations regarding the implementation of the policy. Predictably, the Commission has recommended an increase in Commonwealth involvement, increased community involvement, increased health education in the schools, increased emphasis on health promotion in the teaching of health professionals, increased involvement of the media, increased action in relation to cigarettes and alcohol, better statistics and more evaluation. Also fairly predictably, the Commission, as is the wont of such commissions, has suggested a new statutory authority to continue the work of the Commission with an initial budget of $50m raised largely through increased taxation, despite the fact that the Department of Health has six divisions solely devoted to health advancement and the Government has established the new Australian Institute of Health. Nevertheless, the Commission does not believe that they are doing or can do the job and believes that we need another statutory authority called the National Council for Better Health to undertake the role together with a new Community Development Fund, a new Health and Media Council and a new National Centre for Health Statistics. In the meantime, it has recommended that the secretariat of the Better Health Commission should be kept operative and fully staffed in order to plan the launching of a new statutory authority. The Minister is silent on these recommendations. Let me make it absolutely clear that this will not be the approach adopted by the Opposition. Whilst we share the Commission's grave concern about the need for better health promotion which will provide advantages both for the health of the nation and for the containment of health costs, nevertheless the approach adopted by the Commission does not go to the heart of the problem. I am in no way questioning the bona fides of the members of the Commission. The thrust of a number of its recommendations is consistent with the goal of the promotion of better health, but I believe that there are better ways of achieving these goals than the expensive and bureaucratic proposals outlined in this report. The plain fact of the matter is that, until we get our health financing arrangements right, the gains to be made in the promotion of better health through government education programs and the like will be very limited. The real problem is that within the current Medicare system there are no ways to provide financial incentives to promote better health. In fact, the existing incentives are the reverse. They encourage curative rather than preventive medicine, and foster increases rather than containment of costs. Under Medicare, doctors are paid for treating people when they are sick and generally benefits are not payable for doctors to undertake preventive medicine or health education. Under Medicare, and as a result of the Health Minister's concerted attack on doctors, the report says, at page 53: In the current climate of distrust, many medical practitioners are wary of expanding their activities in preventive medicine because they say they fear this would be accompanied by increasing bureaucratic scrutiny. In addition, the report states at page 52: The current reimbursement schedule in the fee-for-service system of health care provides no financial incentive for a doctor to engage in serious health promotion. Similarly, under Medicare, hospitals are paid more the longer a patient stays in, so there is little financial incentive to reduce hospital stays. Better health promotion and cost containment measures without appropriate financial incentives as a driving force are doomed to remain in a relative backwater. As long as the Medicare program maintains its monopolistic control over payments to doctors and hospital services to public patients, it is doubtful whether the incentives for better health and health prevention will ever be achieved. The health maintenance organisation and day surgery concepts are mere shells without the motivation which has made them successful in other health care systems. Before such initiatives can become a force for change in Australia, financial incentives must be provided to doctors which will encourage the aggressive pursuit of better health promotion initiatives, whatever form those initiatives may take. The people of Australia will also have to be provided with financial incentives in terms of cost savings as a direct result of their better health. Under Medicare, nearly all Australians have more money spent on them by the Government than they pay by way of the Medicare levy. In this situation it is virtually impossible for them to identify with any cost savings which will result from their pursuit of better health. It is clear that the Commission was hog tied by the current Medicare arrangement and felt unable to recommend change in that area. Its failure to do so undermines the value of the report. The Government, of course, refused to put on the Commission a representative of the private health insurance industry, thereby ensuring that the Commission did not have the benefit of those operating in the field, whose very survival relies on providing cost effective care at the lowest premium and who have an enormous interest in the promotion of better health. Typically of this socialist Government, the private sector health funds were excluded from the Commission. The Commission does point to the need to provide financial incentives for better health but within the context of Medicare. One of the Commission's recommendations is that the Government offer a voluntary capitation scheme enabling participating doctors to provide preventive as well as curative care. The report states that such a proposal may-`may'-be attractive to a number of doctors and their patients, but it never explains why. The report does say, however, that the proposal would fit within the current Medicare taxation levy arrangement. If the Commission is truly convinced that such a scheme would, in fact, promote better health and provide cost savings to the membership, why, within the broad parameters of its terms of reference, was it unable to take that ultimate step and recommend that the members of such a program be entitled to share in the savings generated by their membership in such a program? In fact, the Commission's voluntary capitation proposal looks all the world to me like a variation on the British national health scheme, which is hardly the model we would want to follow. The difference, of course, in the United Kingdom is that one is stuck with the national health scheme, whereas this proposal is for voluntary participation. The Commission suggests one of the most significant developments in the area of the promotion of better health is through health maintenance organisations. In August, the Federal Government released its policy statement on the role of the health maintenance organisations in Australian health. Because this policy is so firmly rooted in the Government's commitment to the financing and delivery of health services within the constraints of the Medicare program, the best features of the health maintenance organisation concept were sacrificed at the altar of the Medicare program. It is only in a competitive private sector environment that the forces for the promotion of better health and the resultant cost containment will be maximised. Financial incentives need to be provided for doctors to keep people well and out of hospital rather than only treat them when they are sick. We need to provide incentives to maximise efficient care and reduce hospital costs. We need to provide opportunities for the financial benefits of programs which keep health costs down to be passed on to those who join such programs. We need to promote better health. Regrettably this report does not come to grips with these basic problems because Medicare provides incentives for overutilisation and penalises many health professionals who wish to promote better health. The coalition is determined to create an environment in which there are financial incentives for the promotion of better health to contain costs whilst providing greater access to high quality care by allowing people to opt out of Medicare and by freeing up the private health insurance market. In this way I have no doubt that the private sector will provide alternative health insurance arrangements which will promote better health practices in order that they-that is the insurers-may be able to offer contributors lower premiums. In that way all involved in the delivery of health services will benefit. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —by leave-I wish to make a statement on the outcome of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Ministerial Meeting at Punta del Este, Uruguay, from 15 to 20 September 1986. Three weeks ago at Punta del Este, Uruguay. I participated in a GATT ministerial meeting where agreement was reached to launch a new comprehensive round of multilateral trade negotiations. The launching of the `Uruguay Round', as it will be known, is a major victory for those of us seeking to reinforce a more liberal, fair and open multilateral trading system. We achieved what many thought was impossible-an international commitment to resist protectionism, to strengthen and improve existing trading rules, and to expand the multilateral trading rules to cover major areas currently not subject to GATT disciplines. I interpolate for a moment to quote from a letter I received today from Clayton Yeutter, the United States of America Trade Representative, in which, amongst other things, he stated: We achieved what many thought was impossible-an international commitment to resist protectionism, strengthen existing rules, and expand the GATT to cover major areas not currently under effective multilateral disciplines. Punta del Este was truly a victory for the principles of free and fair trade. There were two main achievements in this regard. First, we started the process of establishing international rules for the so-called `new areas'-principally trade in services. Secondly, we provided a basis to bring effectively into the GATT framework for the first time the longstanding issue of equitable treatment for agricultural trade. A measure of this second achievement is that since the inception of the GATT in 1948 there have been no less than nine failed attempts to bring agriculture under effective GATT disciplines. There were the seven post-war MTN rounds, the 1954-55 review session at which the United States achieved a further erosion of agricultural trade rules by obtaining a waiver from the existing permissive rules and then there was the disastrous 1982 GATT ministerial meeting. In my statement on trade policy in this chamber on 20 February this year, I stressed the important opportunity provided by a new round of multilateral trade negotiations to focus attention on the current bias in the rules against agricultural trade. The new round also provides Australia with an opportunity to create conditions for improved export performance in the fastest growing areas of world trade-manufactures and services. The creation of such conditions is concomitant with the Government's industry and trade policy objectives-as is the need to reduce the structural distortions plaguing commodity markets. I am pleased to report that we came away from the Punta del Este ministerial meeting having achieved all of the objectives we identified for a satisfactory launching of negotiations. Multilateral trade negotiations will soon get under way on the full range of international trade problems confronting us. Certainly the decision to launch a new trade round taken at Punta de Este will not solve all our problems. The agricultural subsidies war continues. Enormous stocks of agricultural commodities continue to overhang the world market. Protectionist pressures are still evident throughout the world, and the situation could deteriorate further before improving. The importance of achieving the commencement of the `Uruguay Round' of multilateral trade negotiations lies in its unmistakable signal of a change in direction. Peace talks have finally begun and the problems have been acknowledged. To this extent we can look to the future with a measure of confidence rather than despair. But let there be no doubt about it-the negotiations will be tough. Changing a trading environment nurtured by 40 years of distortion in the rules represents a formidable challenge. Yet we are optimistic that these negotiations will produce multilateral agreement on new rules and disciplines that will open significant new opportunities for Australian exporters and strengthen the global trading system. We seek a substantial move towards trading based on comparative advantage; an environment where Australian exporters can compete on fair terms. The meeting in Uruguay followed seven months of preparatory discussions in Geneva. Australia's strategy throughout that preparatory process was to co-operate fully with other like-minded countries to ensure that our views were heard and our aspirations taken into account. Particularly, we were determined that any new round should seriously tackle the growing crisis surrounding agricultural trade issues. Agriculture still accounts for nearly 40 per cent of Australia's export revenue. Yet poor returns are threatening the well-being of our agricultural sector and our farmers in particular. One major factor stands out above all others as the principal cause of declining agricultural commodity prices. It is the protection and production subsidies of Europe and the United States which have encouraged more production and investment than has been warranted-production creating surpluses which have then been placed on world markets with the aid of export subsidies. Depressed prices for fair traders, such as Australia, have been the most discernible result. Similar policies have denied us legitimate access to other affluent markets such as Japan. The critical need for Australia to address the problem is well documented. But there is an equal urgency for the European Community and the United States. Neither they, nor indeed the world, can afford to sustain the costs of the rapidly escalating subsidy warfare. The budget cost of all subsidies provided by the EC, Japan and the US to their farmers is phenomenal-an estimated $US76 billion from their combined coffers in 1986, following on $US60 billion last year. The US accounts for $US35 billion of that, Japan $US18 billion and the EC $US23 billion. But it does not end there. If consumer transfers are added, the total cost of subsidies for the three majors approaches $US180 billion. Add taxation and the contributions of individual member states and US individual State governments, and the total climbs towards a staggering $US200 billion. It is the impact of these sums that is forcing a growing international appreciation of the need to tackle the problems facing agriculture. Yet still, before Punta del Este, smaller trading nations acting alone were unable to bring these issues into a focus sharp enough to attract the attention of the major trading economies. In the lead-up to the ministerial talks some of these smaller nations such as Australia, Uruguay, Argentina and Thailand worked long and hard, and indeed, effectively, to bring these issues to the negotiating table. Our shared desire to build a `third force' on agricultural trade issues motivated our initiative for an agricultural fair traders ministerial meeting at Cairns in August. In no small measure the success achieved on the negotiating mandate for agriculture at Punta del Este can be attributed to the solidarity and vitality of the Cairns group of fair trading nations. For the first time, smaller agricultural exporters as a group became an effective voice in the negotiations. For the first time, the focus was too sharp to ignore. The unity and resolve of the group surprised many. The pivotal role it played in the week-long process of intensive bargaining and negotiation surprised even more. Our rapid establishment as a third agricultural force allowed us to retain the initiative in the crucial eleventh hour deliberations with the major economies. As a result we achieved a negotiating mandate, a mandate which for the first time embraces all subsidies-direct and indirect, including export subsidies. It has shifted the focus towards the root causes of the current agricultural crisis and the need to reduce and eliminate these negative distorting influences. That mandate has been clearly recognised by the major protagonists in the current subsidy war. The EC's Commissioner de Clercq told the final plenary at Punta del Este that, while the EC's fundamental common policies and mechanisms were not up for negotiation, `agriculture will be fairly and squarely addressed in the Uruguay round-in our own interest as well as in that of other contracting parties'. United States Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter, while conceding that it would be several years before the GATT negotiations themselves bore fruit, said that `in the interim, the United States will continue to pursue policies that enhance free and fair trade, including the aggressive enforcement of United States laws that address the problem of unfair trading practices by our trading partners'. So the signs are all good, but we too will be expected to demonstrate our commitment to the negotiating process. The reforms and benefits being sought in the negotiating round, if achieved, will not be costless. All participants will be required to accept some discipline in return for benefits received. The Cairns group has agreed to continue meeting regularly in Geneva in the course of the negotiating process and also at ministerial level as circumstances require. In so doing, it is demonstrating its commitment to ensuring that the momentum and spirit of Punta del Este is sustained. The ability to harness the strength of the combined forces of the smaller agricultural exporting nations has been clearly established. We must continue to not only maintain but also build on that new-found strength. Australia will continue to chair the Cairns group and my Department will provide the necessary secretariat to facilitate continued co-operation and liaison both within its membership and in its dealings with the major trading economies. The Uruguay declaration introduces some hope where before was only despair. There is now a commitment to negotiate on a broad range of old and new trade policy issues and the chance to redress past inequalities and create an environment for more dynamic world trade growth in the future. It is a commendable commitment of political will. That commitment will have to be sustained and reinforced over the next four years. For the negotiations to be successful, there will need to be a determined commitment to seek domestic policy adjustments and reforms. The recognition that radical changes have to be faced is an enormous step. It establishes an environment where national policy makers will look at their policy prescriptions in a new light. In agriculture, this will also enable us to approach the shorter term surplus problems with more assurance and sense. The Australian Government will be actively pursuing all avenues to redress current trading problems in the months ahead. Naturally, there was a reluctance to adopt such a broad mandate. Some developing countries in our own region had misgivings about a negotiation that would inevitably touch into the area of domestic policy formulation. These concerns have been covered by reference to the special position of developing countries. Certainly, we would not expect negotiated outcomes to apply with the same intensity to the modest support programs in these countries as would be expected from all industrialised countries and the more affluent newly industrialised countries. Services The launching of negotiations on services is another important achievement of the Punta del Este meeting, and again an historic precedent was set. For the first time we have an international consensus to consider the liberalisation of markets for service industries and to examine the scope for legally binding rules governing such trade. The services sector is a particularly important sector of the Australian economy. Services now account for 75 per cent of Australian employment and about 65 per cent of gross domestic product. Although Australia has not to date performed well in international trade in services, the sector is well placed to take advantage of Australia's improved competitive circumstances. Changes instituted by this Government in the area of financial services, and the vitality this has injected into that sector, signal the confidence with which we can approach these negotiations. Although that represents only a first step, our potential to develop into a significant trading force in the sector is beyond doubt. Certainly our ability to compete in a more open, non-discriminatory international services trade sector will be one of the major challenges faced by Australia in the coming years-a challenge we cannot afford to ignore. It offers more potential to accelerate growth for Australia's export receipts than any other industry sector. Market Access The ministerial declaration calls for negotiations to expand market access by reducing both tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, and to liberalise trade in tropical products and national resource-based products. Australia is prepared to participate fully in these negotiations. They offer a valuable opportunity to reinforce the Government's domestic policies aimed at improved the international competitiveness of Australian industry and the gradual development of an outward orientated industrial structure. Other key features for Australia of the Uruguay round agenda include undertakings to improve existing GATT articles and codes, particularly the subsidies code, negotiate a comprehensive safeguards agreement on emergency protection arrangements, improve the rules and procedures of the dispute settlement process and look at other ways of improving the GATT institutional framework. This is a broad reaching and complex agenda. Time Frame Ministers established a trade negotiations committee to oversee the negotiations in the round. Between now and the end of the year the TNC will complete an organisational structure for negotiations and appoint those who will chair the various negotiating groups. We anticipate that substantive negotiations will be well under way by early next year with a four-year target date for completion. However, in some areas of the negotiations, particularly agriculture, the urgency of the problems are such that we will be seeking concrete results from the negotiations as soon as possible. The United States has been advocating a special fast track for agriculture. Australia, and the Cairns group, fully supports this objective. In that light, the Cairns group will be pressing for completion of the negotiations on agriculture within two years. The negotiations will vary in length and tempo according to subject. The ministerial declaration notes that agreements reached at an early stage may be implemented on a provisional or definitive basis prior to the formal conclusion of the negotiations. Australia, in concert with the Cairns group, regional partners and other like-minded countries, will be pressing for the earliest possible negotiated settlements. Even in that case, however, it is likely that implementation of these settlements would take place over several years. The real success of Punta del Este is that a new round of trade negotiations has been launched encompassing critically important areas of trade for Australia in a much more comprehensive manner than has been the case in the past. It is therefore central to Australia's current economic circumstances. It offers the prospect within the foreseeable future of a new world trading order that would allow Australia to realise its competitive advantage in agriculture, and would give a major stimulus to employment, investment, and general economic growth. In short, the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations holds the prospect of a higher standard of living for all Australians. Our task in Geneva is to turn that promise into a reality. We have a long way to go, but we are well positioned for what lies ahead. While there will continue to be frustrations, disappointments and reverses, there is now some room for optimism that world trade can be placed on a more equitable basis for smaller trading countries like Australia. I table the full text of the ministerial declaration. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —by leave-Firstly, let me say that the Opposition endorses multilateral negotiations directed towards the liberalisation of world trade. Indeed, the Government has enjoyed broad bipartisan support and encouragement from the Opposition for its initiatives in this area. The Opposition welcomes the Cairns fair traders initiative and it supported the position adopted by Australia at the Multinational Trade Negotiations ministerial meeting at Punta del Este in Uruguay. I say to the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) that he deserves our sincere congratulations on the role that he played at both the Cairns and Punta del Este conferences. We are sincere in that. I believe he has been able to give Australia a position in world trade that we may not have had before. It is rather unfortunate that the move by the European Economic Community to undercut the United States offer of cheap wheat to the Soviet Union perhaps eclipsed to an extent the publicity that the Minister deserved. But that only underscores the reality of the world in which we live and of the trade war that continues in its undisciplined way despite all of the summits, meetings, deliberations and declarations that take place. It is true to say that the outcomes achieved at both Cairns and Punta del Este were constructive and certainly better than was generally expected. Again, I say that the Minister is to be congratulated on what he has achieved. Without detracting from that achievement, I wish to offer some commentary on what was achieved and on how perhaps even better results might have been achieved. I admit, however, that bearing in mind the location of the meeting, the results may not have been improved. The Cairns meeting of the 14 non-subsidising agricultural exporting or fair trading nations in late August was a very bold initiative that the Opposition fully supported. The idea was to bring together countries which, with Australia, contribute about 22 per cent of the world's agricultural trade, making this group the third largest bloc. The aim of these countries, which suffer the ravages of European Economic Community, United States and Japanese protectionism was to forge an alliance to press for the liberalisation of agricultural trade. The specific focus was to press for the adoption in Punta del Este, Uruguay, of a tough text on agricultural subsidies to be included on the agenda for the upcoming MTN round. The state of play before Cairns was that 48 countries had registered some degree of commitment to the so-called Swiss-Colombian text on agricultural trade. However, from our point of view, that Swiss-Colombian draft was deficient. It contained no definite commitment to abolish agricultural subsidies, only consideration of a possible phased reduction in subsidies. The declaration issued by the fair traders at the end of the Cairns conference was therefore an achievement. By contrast, it called for priority to be given to discussions on agricultural subsidies in the MTN, for the removal of market access barriers, substantial reductions in agricultural subsidies and the elimination of those subsidies within an agreed period. Certainly it was a tough text. Just as importantly, it gained the support of Canada, a country which trades heavily with the United States and New Zealand and which has access to the EEC markets. At the time of the Cairns fair traders meeting I called on the Government to work to try to get other countries to endorse the Cairns initiative in the three weeks left before the MTN conference. It is unfortunate that that suggestion was not followed. It was unfortunate because I believe the Government lost an opportunity to broaden support for the Cairns group and to strengthen our negotiating position in Uruguay. I also believe that the Government should have acted to stiffen Canada's resolve. Shortly after the meeting in Cairns, Canada withdrew support for the text that had been agreed to in favour of the deficient Swiss-Colombian draft. The solidarity of the fair traders was then in doubt. It would have been of some concern that the opening speeches at Punta del Este actually saw two Cairns participants, Canada and Colombia, retreat from the Cairns declaration. Those countries urged delegates to support the Swiss-Colombian draft with its weaker text on possible reduction of agricultural subsidies. By the middle of the Punta del Este talks, even the tacit support given by the United States for the fair traders position was wavering. The United States special trade representatives urged delegates to stick to the Swiss-Colombian draft previously agreed to by 48 countries. The reason given was: `If we start changing the text it will begin unravelling and we may never get any agreement'. As the conference was moving towards the compromise solution of the Swiss-Colombian draft, the success of the fair traders was in balance. It is perhaps not exaggerating too much to say that the future of fair agricultural trade was also in the balance. Fortunately, France, the main proponent of subsidies, cracked, and the EEC buckled, agreeing to put the future of its common agricultural policy on the negotiating table. That was one of the real achievements of the conference-it was a major achievement. The conference agreed to negotiate comprehensively on agriculture in the upcoming MTN round for the first time in GATT discussions. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 3.45 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Dawkins-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —Most significantly, the crucial paragraph in the text agreed to by delegates called for talks to `increase discipline on the use of all direct and indirect subsidies and other measures affecting agriculture, including their phased reduction of their negative effects and dealing with their causes'. It is fair to say that this would not have been achieved without the Cairns fair traders initiative and without the moral support of the United States of America. These events make the results of Punta del Este all the more significant, particularly in view of the role played by Australia and the Minister. The Punta del Este text may not be perfect but it is significantly stronger than the proposed Swiss-Colombian draft. While an even better text, possibly including a time frame for the negotiations on agricultural subsidies, might have been gained had the Government broadened support for the Cairns declaration prior to the Punta del Este conference, the final outcome was welcome. As the Minister indicates, it represents an historic turning point following the nine failed earlier attempts at such negotiations. But, as the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) has stated, the battle to resolve the subsidies problem will be long and hard. Caution has to be issued in that there has been no agreement to abolish subsidies at this stage. What we have is an agreement to talk about subsidies and those talks can be expected to run for at least the full four years. In the wake of this historic agreement at Punta del Este, I call on the Government to consolidate and seek to broaden the fair traders group so as to increase its influence in the tough years of negotiation ahead. I am pleased to note from the Minister's statement today that the Cairns group will continue to meet to ensure that its strength and momentum are maintained. The fact that Australia will continue to chair the Cairns group is also a tremendous achievement because Australia is again seen to be leading by example. I am particularly heartened by the Minister's statement that we must continue not only to maintain but also to build on this newfound strength. I hope that this means that he will now attempt to broaden the membership of the Cairns group and popularise its aims. The EEC cannot be taken for granted, even though it gave support in Uruguay. The concession it actually made was to talk about subsidies. The importance of maintaining the solidarity and expanding the membership and influence of the Cairns group will be paramount in the coming months and years. Unfortunately, the forces of protectionism throughout the world appear to be mounting. I believe that essentially Australia has the support of the United States in its stand on agricultural subsidies. Until recently the United States, like Australia, had virtuously adhered to the principles of GATT. This has cost both our countries dearly. But the United States is increasingly being dragged into a trade war with the European Economic Community whereby smaller agricultural exporting countries like Australia become cannon fodder. I was interested to hear the analogy that the Minister made with Kings Cross during the conference. Perhaps we could compare the EEC with a lady of the night in Kings Cross insofar as world trade is concerned-a person prepared to sell her wares anywhere, at any time, at any price and under any circumstances. The recent subsidised sale of wheat to Russia, which undercut the United States offer, is an example of that activity. In fact, page 5 of the Minister's statement indicates the cost of subsidies to nations throughout the world. Australia played its part with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics survey. The cost to farmers of the EEC is $1 billion per year. I believe that that fact has to be given wider circulation in order to bring this point home. But it is evidence again of Australia's concern. While Australia must be prepared to forge ahead with the Cairns group, it must also be prepared to negotiate with the United States to mitigate the effects of its export enhancement program, market loan program and other protectionist measures. This must be done on a bipartisan basis. I wish to comment briefly on the success of the all-party delegation which visited the United States of America and which demonstrates the sense of such an approach. The delegation succeeded in stopping the Dole amendment and defeating the legislation which proposed subsidised wheat sales and would have mauled Australian wheat farmers. Although we should not run off to America every time there is panic over one of our markets, there is reason to keep open this window into the United States in connection with other moves. There are moves that need careful watching, one of which is the sugar import quota. It is suggested that Australia will lose that quota of 142,000 tonnes in preference to the Philippines, Ecuador and Caribbean countries. It is important that, although the Helms-Melcher amendment was defeated, this matter should be borne in mind because the warning has been given and similar problems could arise again. The United States sugar quota is most important. There is also concern about a move to control lamb imports into the United States, by having lamb included with beef in meat import control provisions under a United States trade Bill. This matter arose earlier in the year and was knocked out in a similar way to the sugar quota. That problem still exists and these considerations will have to be watched from a bipartisan viewpoint. Parliamentary delegations appear to be able to size up a situation and to have a better effect than other types of negotiation. On the subject of bipartisanship, I conclude by welcoming today's call by the Minister for Trade for a determined commitment to seek domestic policy adjustments and reforms. In his statement the Minister said: We seek a substantial move towards trading based on comparative advantage; an environment where Australian exporters can compete on fair terms. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade presumes a level playing field. It appears to me that Australia among all the other nations has abided by the terms of GATT more responsibly than any other nation. But Australia even within GATT is not playing on that level playing field. For instance, we are playing against competitors in world markets and are trading with different economies that put Australia at a disadvantage. We are competing on a field in which there are differences in interest rates, inflation rates and in the rigid industrial and wages policies that are adopted between countries. Also to be borne in mind is the growing foreign debt, record budgets, and the cost to our traders of government charges and the excessive expenditure to which the Budget gives rise. Therefore, even within the terms of GATT Australia's sense of responsibility has put us at a disadvantage in many respects. Exporter costs must be considered before that playing field is levelled out. At some time in the near future the Minister may be able to explain the manner in which these domestic policy adjustments will be made and whether exporter costs will be removed. I wish to comment on the prominence given by the Minister in his statement to the subject of services. It is important that we should regard services as an integral part of the means by which we can get the balance of trade deficit into proper perspective. This is an opportunity to make the point that not only should we be buying Australian but we should be using Australian. The services offered by our professionals and our consultants are on a par with any. I thank the Minister for what has been done and for what has been begun in the Multilateral Trade Negotiations in GATT. I assure the Minister that in a change of government we would continue the moves that he has initiated. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(3.54) —by leave-I wish to thank the Opposition for its supportive remarks both in the House and as expressed to me privately by Opposition members. I also wish to acknowledge the gracious comments made by the former leader of the National Party, Doug Anthony, on 22 September. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Bill 1986 Intelligence and Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Bill returned from the Senate with an alternative amendment. Ordered that the message be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Mr Beazley,Mr Blunt,Mr Cadman,Mr Cobb,Mr Coleman,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Gorman,Mr Hollis,Mrs Kelly,Mr Maher,Mr Nehl,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Ruddock,Mr Simmons,Mr Spender and Mr White. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many post office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of post offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they officer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Beale,Mr Blunt,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Cobb,Mr Drummond,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Griffiths,Mr Hawker,Mr Nehl,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton,Mr Simmons and Mr Uren. 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Griffiths,Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Dr Theophanous. 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 Bilney,Mr Hawker and Mr Kent. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned plead that the Parliament implement pro-family policies. In particular we appeal for: 1. the retention of the present graduated assessment system for payment of the Family Allowance; 2. indexation of the Family Allowance in order to keep pace with inflation; 3. an increase of 3.7% in the Family Allowance benefit to return it to 11.5% of the Average Award Wage (making it similar in value to the 11.5% of the Basic Wage when Child Endowment was first introduced by the Chifley Government in 1941). 4. retention of the Dependent Spouse Rebate and the amount of the Dependent Spouse Rebate adjusted so that it is equal in value to the tax-free threshold allowed when calculating taxable income. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware that it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspir- ation 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 National as expressed in a Referendum.'' And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may complete many honest and decent citizens to defy the tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Hicks. 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 the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 is having a detrimental effect on the car industry generally in South Australia, and more particularly, on employment in that industry. 2. The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 contains many anomalies, inconsistencies and mistakes in drafting and its administrative implementation is an unwarranted burden on Australian businesses and the Australian taxpayer. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House repeal as a matter of utmost urgency this regressive legislation which imposes a disincentive to economic and employment growth thereby jeopardising the well-being and living standards of all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is a vicious, punitive tax that unjustly affects employers, will have a major impact on small business and farm profitability, and will result in increased unemployment. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to repeal the legislation establishing the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The introduction of an administrative charge for annual enrolment will restrict access to higher education for a range of disadvantaged groups, particularly women, rural dwellers and some low income earners. 2. Students will be deterred from study because of the probable escalation in the charge in future Budgets, prohibiting students' ability to plan the long term costs of their education. 3. The introduction of an administrative charge is contrary to the education provisions of the ALP/ACTU Accord and ALP policy which states that the party `will maintain the provision of free tertiary education'. Your petitioners therefore pray that the annual administrative charge for higher education students not be introduced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cohen and Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned residents of Australia totally reject any move to cut funding to Australia-wide English as a Second Language programs in schools. We request that the Australian Government restore funding to the 1985 level in the 1986-87 Budget. by Mr Coleman and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: By drastically cutting ESL funding, you have disadvantaged thousands of Australian children. Not only will students with limited English face gross educational inequality, but the entire Australian community will feel the wider effect-through the resultant inability of some of its citizens to contribute effectively to Australian society. On behalf of the children who will be directly affected, and the Australian community generally, we call on you to restore full funding for the general support element of the Commonwealth ESL program. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia, hereby petition the Prime Minister as Leader of the Australian Labor Party in Government in Australia and humbly showeth that: The voting public of Australia did in March 1983 and again in December 1984 vote as a majority for the election of a Labor Government who did claim to stand for social justice, equity and redistribution. That the said voters sincerely believed that a contract was entered into in voting for a Labor Government with democratic socialist principles. That there is an erosion of support for the pensioners, the unemployed, the aged, the sick and the working class of Australia, while the lot of the privileged class, the banks, the oil companies, and the money-changers continues to improve. Your petitioners call on the Australian Labor Government to implement those policies and follow those principles of social justice, equity and redistribution which the majority of Australians voted for in 1983 and in 1984, and to adopt an immediate programme that will transfer the current economic burden to those better able to carry it. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Dr Theophanous. 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 Australian 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 shows: That we the citizens of the Illawarra Region condemn the decision to close the Wollongong office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. And that we respectfully request that this decision be reversed immediately. 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 of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12th December 1984 as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video material, (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provision of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and the other related test in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners are gravely concerned about recent changes in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act of 1966 which deny basic rights which have been a cornerstone of the English and Australian law for over seven hundred years. We are speaking of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right of an individual to defend himself against his accusers. This concern has come to light during recent extradition proceedings against Messrs. Hempel and Etheredge in Western Australia. We are concerned that because judicial protection of these basic rights has been excluded from the Act, refugees, migrants, Australian overseas travellers, and visitors are at risk when they have been to (or come from) countries where the norms and practices of human rights and civil liberties are below traditionally accepted Australian standards. We the undersigned petitioners, therefore urge the government to re-examine the Extradition (Foreign States) Act (as amended in 1985), and amend the current Act so that the rights of the accused are once again judicially protected in Australia. In addition, we urge the government to refrain from entering into any further extradition treaties or proceedings under the current Act until the process of re-examination and amendment of the Act has occurred. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government should cancel the Fringe Benefits Tax they intend to impose on businesses throughout Australia because: 1. The tax discriminates against charitable organisations, sports clubs, private schools and religious organisations. 2. The tax will mean employees around Australia will suffer reductions in their remuneration packages. 3. The Bill places another impossible burden of paperwork on small business. 4. The Bill is absurd in its application to Government employees who now constitute 32% of the workforce. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament House. 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 humbly pray that you repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Maranoa electorate respectfully showeth that: The current Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to; Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That we the undersigned, who have been part of a 24 hour vigil for peace, believe that the present global arms race (both conventional and nuclear) is not part of God's plan for the human race. Consequently we urge the Australian Government to do all within its power in word and deed, locally and internationally to: (1) further the cause of peace; (2) curb the present arms race; (3) promote the view that justice is the precursor of peace; (4) acknowledge the causal relationship between arms spending and world poverty. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hand. For 1988 to be proclaimed the `First International Earth Repair Year' (FIERY) as an international aspect of the Australian Bicentenary activities 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 deterioration of the total global environment is continuing at an increasing rate; that important environmental resources vital to human livelihood such as trees, soil and water are decreasing at an alarming rate; that there is a need for educating all people to assume a greater responsibility for the conservation, sustainable use and maintenance of vital resources; that dynamic and active initiatives are needed to conserve and renew the total environment; and that protecting, conserving and repairing the Earth can unite all people and nations in co-operative action for survival. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: Propose to the United Nations General Assembly at its 41st Session in September 1986 that 1988 be proclaimed the `First International Earth Repair Year' (FIERY) as a vital action to ignite global co-operation for World peace. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should: 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and 3. 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 Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the closure of the Wollongong Area Office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. 2. That the impact of the closure of the office in Wollongong will be particularly felt by the non-English speaking migrants and community at large from Shoalhaven to Hellensburg and as far as Wingecarribee and Wollondilly. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to ensure that the area office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Wollongong kept operational and fully staffed. by Mr Hollis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia of Albanian back-ground respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the use of the ``Special Broadcasting Service'' and the taxpayers funds for nationalist political purposes. We are deeply concerned that the existing Albanian program on Radio 3EA Melbourne is not meeting the needs of the community. It is being used against its' interests, as well as the interests of the broader Australian society. We respectfully believe that such use of public facilities undermines Australian principles of multi-culturalism and has a damaging effect on community relations. Your petitioners therefore, strongly urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure that the present announcers of the Albanian program are removed and replaced with community representatives. 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners wish that all medicines prescribed by a registered Medical Practitioner be made available free of charge by the Government to all pensioners for the following reasons: 1. The enormous cost of some drugs, including pain relieving ones, not at present on the ``free list''. 2. That certain drugs essential for permanently disabled, such as epileptics, are at present being charged for and therefore present a great financial burden to the pensioner. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will consider our wishes. 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 petition of the Toowoomba Education Centre, electors of the Division of Darling Downs shows that Federal recurrent funds to the Centre have been reduced and your petitioners therefore pray that the funding be retained at its present level. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned members of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association and Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. The Sex Discrimination Act, passed by Parliament in 1984, will automatically make unenforceable from 1st August, 1986 the weight lifting limits applicable to women employees and contained in State laws, regulations and awards. 2. These weight lifting limits have applied throughout Australia for many years and have acted to prevent many injuries at the workplace, thereby avoiding much suffering and loss of working time. 3. The removal of this protective legislation will increase the rate of injury among women employees and lead to greater Workers' Compensation costs for employers. 4. The weight lifting limits do not in any way hamper the achievement of equality and equal opportunity in employment for women employees in the workforce. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will amend the Sex Discrimination Act to enable the weightlifting limits for women employees to continue. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Maher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that the 1986 Census deprived housewives of the right to record their occupation and instead forced them to give the negative response: `No, did not have a job'. That the 1986 Census could have been used, at no extra cost to taxpayers, to give a genuine `Fair Go' to all women to record their views on the Government's National Agenda for Women. That coinciding with the 1986 Census, the Office of the Status of Women is conducting a costly, selective survey titled: `A Fair Go For Women'. This survey requires no identification of respondents, making the results of the survey highly suspect since it is known that various groups and individuals have obtained bulk supplies of the brochure, while the majority of women are not aware that their views are being sought by the Government. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will restore to the Census a category for housewives, and that the `Fair Go For Women' survey will be recognised as a costly exercise of dubious value in determining the real views of Australian women, as this should be done through the Census, or a Referendum held in conjunction with the next Federal election to minimise costs, and to give all women a genuine `Fair Go'. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Miles. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the Government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia 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 Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefit Tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned residents of Australia totally reject the Federal Government cuts to Australia-wide English as Second Language programs and the axing of Multicultural Education Program and we request the restoration of funding to these programs. by Dr Theophanous. To the Speaker and Honourable 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 Gorman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Western Australia call on the Commonwealth Government to reverse recent decisions which deny Secondary Allowances to Year 11 students under the age of 16 years and make such allowances directly payable to students on attaining the age of 16. This request is made on the basis that: (i) Education Benefits as part of income support benefits generally are a Commonwealth responsibility under the constitution. (ii) It is the right of parents with children in Year 11 in Western Australia to receive the same benefit as parents with children at the equivalent stage of their education in other parts of Australia irrespective of their age. (iii) This decision by the Commonwealth Government will impact most unfairly on the capacity of low income families in Western Australia to keep their children at school in Years 11 and 12. (iv) Direct payment of the allowance to 16 year olds will make it easier for young people to leave home and bring more pressure on State Authorities to find alternative accommodation for them at the community and taxpayers' expense. You petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. 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: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. 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 residents of the Northern Territory of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation recently passed by Parliament is unfair and will prejudice the current working conditions of all Territorians. 1. It will increase both personal and company taxation. 2. It will undermine employment levels through reducing profitability and international competitiveness of industry. 3. It will result in price increases. 4. It will force employers to withdraw voluntary incentives to employees paid over and above existing payments. 5. It endangers stable industrial relations because of the potential for forced withdrawal of Fringe Benefits. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take such action as is necessary to rescind the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986, The Fringe Benefits Tax Act 1986, the Fringe Benefits Tax (Application to the Commonwealth) Act 1986 and the Fringe Benefits Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1986. by Mr Everingham. To the Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in the federal electorate of Melbourne respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-87 (Volume 1, page 98) is a regressive step for the education system. That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education. That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all. We, the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-87, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long-term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned, respectfully showeth that we, the people of Victoria would like to remind you of your moral duty in regard to your decision to sell uranium to France, against ALP policy. The French are still nuclear testing in the South Pacific, despite world wide protests. We therefore call on you to reverse the decision to sell Uranium to France. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully demand that the Federal Government take responsibility for existing and future funding of child care services and that such funding allocation be at such level to ensure the maintenance of quality child care. We further respectfully demand that proper planning of services occur and that the Federal Government enter into formalised agreements with State and Local Governments to achieve this result. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Bass respectfully showeth: That the present location of the Mowbray Heights, Tasmania office of Australia Post is causing considerable hardship and inconvenience, particularly to elderly residents, because it is located some distance from the main shopping centre. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Mowbray Heights, Tasmania office of Australia Post be re-sited to a location in the main Mowbray Heights shopping centre. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's belated abandonment of wage indexation and its refusal to support necessary reforms to Australia's industrial relations system. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.03) —We raise this matter of public importance for three reasons: First, because the Australian people should be reminded of the economic damage that the Hawke Government has done to Australia by sticking stubbornly and against all the evidence to its policy of full indexation of wages; secondly, because the Australian people should be reminded that the Opposition set the pace in the reform of our industrial relations system and it still sets the pace for reform of that system; and thirdly, because at a time when the whole system is under review and when there is great public demand for reform, the Government is not leading or giving the direction it should be, but is stumbling around from one knee-jerk reaction to another. We put the charge that the Hawke Government recklessly adopted the policy of full wage indexation in the first place. It adopted it recklessly, as the very terms of the accord mark 1 said. The accord mark 1 said that the objective of wage fixation was to ensure that wage increases did not give added impetus to inflation and unemployment. How was the accord mark 1 going to achieve that lofty objective? Believe it or not, it was to achieve it by setting in concrete a formula which was also set out in accord mark 1. That formula was to establish that: . . . a system of full cost of living adjustments will be strongly supported. So the Government committed itself from the very beginning to full indexation of wages. We say that that was a reckless policy from the very beginning. The proof that it was a reckless policy is now plain for all to see because the chickens the Hawke Government set loose in 1983 have now come home to roost. We have the results of what the Government started in 1983. We have higher inflation-the very thing that was warned about at the beginning-than any country with which we compare ourselves and rising unemployment. Those are the very things the accord mark 1 referred to. We have unemployment that is higher now than at any other time in the last 15 months and, as we know from the September quarter figures, we have negative employment growth. We say that the Government not only took up that policy recklessly but also pursued it recklessly against all the evidence. It pursued it recklessly despite the fact that it was warned time and time again that that was a policy that would lead this country to economic disaster. The history of the last three and a half years has been the history of the Hawke Government blindly following a discredited policy and being dragged, kicking and screaming, to the most grudging and pathetic abandonment of indexation, but only after the damage had been done. What has been very clear during this three and a half year period is that the Opposition warned the Government time and time again of the perilous course it had embarked upon. Madam Speaker, I ask you to listen, for instance, to what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) had to say when he was shadow Treasurer. He warned the Government as early as 16 March 1984 that it was on a course of disaster. The Leader of the Opposition, the then shadow Treasurer, said: At a time of high inflation and low competitiveness it is quite irresponsible for the Government to be blazing the trail of full wage indexation and advocating wage increases that are greater than the economy can bear. We gave the Government a clear warning in that and many other statements made by the then shadow Treasurer. We also told the Government what it should do at the 1984 election. This is what we said in our policy document would occur under a coalition government: Wage rises will be based not on the C.P.I.- we could clearly see the damage that was being done- but on the capacity of the economy to pay increases without adversely affecting employment, inflation or the competitiveness of Australian economy. The shadow Treasurer made it plain and gave that warning; the whole Opposition made it plain and gave that warning in its policy documents in 1984. We say that we were on the right track then-the evidence supports that we were on the right track then-and we say that we are on the right track now. The Government took a very long time to learn. As all the statistics piled up against it and all the signs started to emerge of how we were going down the drain compared with other countries, this is the way the Government, in its own propaganda, summed up its great achievements, as it described them, of the first two years of the prices and incomes accord: It is giving us record growth, it is giving us falling inflation and it is giving us dramatically rising employment. I ask honourable members to listen to the way in which the Government denigrated other countries that had abandoned full wage indexation. It devoted a whole page of the propaganda book it put out at the time to saying how foolish were countries such as Belgium, Italy, Holland, France-it even pointed the finger at the United States of America-for abandoning wage indexation. The Government said in its propaganda book: Most other countries have not maintained full indexation in recent times. Of course most other countries have not maintained full wage indexation in recent times. They abandoned wage indexation for very good reasons which are now only too apparent. When all those signs of economic decay tumbled out of the sky, what did the Government do? It pressed on with accord mark 2, as if accord mark 1 had not been enough. Accord mark 2 likewise says in plain terms that wage rates will be fully adjusted in accordance with movements in prices. As if that were not enough, the Government then piled on top of our wage cost structure an extra 3 per cent for superannuation. What was the lofty objective of that absurd policy? Again, accord mark 2 tells us, because it says: This agreement is designed to reduce the level of inflation. That is the course upon which the Government embarked-full wage indexation and 3 per cent on top of that-and the objective is to lower inflation. One could go on and on, but the history remains the same. The history is of the Hawke Government, controlled by the trade unions as usual, pushing wage indexation on to our cost structure and sending us into an inflationary spiral and an economic suicide dive. At long last, after all the damage has been done and after the Government's lame attempts to patch up the system, the Government has come along at the midnight hour and raised the white flag. The Government has said: `All right, we will abandon wage indexation'. We want a day to write the final chapter of the last three and a half years. We say to the Government, in writing this final chapter of Australian history: `You have made a pathetic and discredited retreat after you have done enormous damage to the Australian economy, and the Australian people at their first opportunity will judge you guilty'. As we write this chapter, let us put to bed one of the myths the Government has been peddling for so long about the achievements of the accord and wage indexation. The Government has peddled the myth that this scheme has produced wage restraint. Let me say two things about this: Firstly, the Budget Papers tell us exactly the opposite. We have been told in the Budget Papers that under the present policies we will have wage increases of over six per cent in Australia this year. The countries with which we trade will have a 4 1/2 per cent increase. Secondly, the accord has not brought down labour costs in Australia. The Government tells us that our labour costs have fallen by 7 per cent since 1982 but it does not tell us that 5 per cent of that 7 per cent reduction occurred in 1983-84 as a direct result of the previous Government's wages pause. The Government keeps trotting out these unit labour costs, which look good because Australia is now on a high inflationary kick, but if one looks at the nominal figures which are the only real test, our unit labour costs have risen by 4 per cent each year; four times the average of our major trading partners, whose labour costs have increased by only one per cent. Let us go on from here, because at long last the Government has said that it will abandon wage indexation. Abandon it in favour of what? The accord was described in this lofty way by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) as recently as 19 August in the Budget Speech when he said: . . . the Government reaffirms its confidence in the Prices and Incomes Accord. As recently as only two months ago the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) got up on his high horse and said this about wage indexation and the accord: This is hardly the time to be abandoning so well tried and successful a system of wage indexation. Is that still operative, or has it been abandoned? The Government should stand up and tell us whether it is still operative. Then the Government started floating a bi-cord, but that was not good enough for Senator Walsh; he wanted a tri-cord. We are still waiting for the lost chord. What was the contribution of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis)? We saw him fumbling in Question Time today to try to present some sort of coherent system. His contribution is to abuse the employers and to say that it is time for them to get their act together. We say that it is time for the Government to get its act together because at the moment the Government is floundering. Firstly, it said that it would reform the system with the recommendations of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems and it would do so immediately. We learned last week that it has given away that idea and we will not see legislation based on the recommendations of the Hancock Committee. Secondly, the Government looked at the Opposition's industrial relations policy and said that it has been widely accepted in the community as the most significant blueprint for reform of industrial relations in this country. Then the Minister said that it was utterly irresponsible and unconstitutional. I defy the Minister to say that he did not say words to that effect. He said there was not a single point in it that was of any use to man or beast. Let us look at what has happened to some of those proposals since then. We said indexation should be abandoned. That has been accepted. We said Australia should accept the need for flexibility. That has been accepted. We said that restrictive work practices should be removed by agreement by employers and employees at the work place. That has been accepted by the Government's latest mini-summit. We proposed that employees have shares in the companies in which they work. Even that has some merit according to the Prime Minister. He holds it up as some new truth which has been revealed to only him. Are those proposals still utterly irresponsible and unconstitutional now that they have been stolen by the Government? Is it unconstitutional for the trade unions now to be proposing agreements between employers and employees on wages? Instead of the fumbling that we got at Question Time today from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations perhaps we will now get some straight answers on these questions. We say there are further very significant reforms needed in our industrial relations system. The Opposition is at the vanguard of the move for reform. The Government had better get its act together on reforms before it is swamped and overwhelmed by the public demand for them. The Opposition has been at the forefront of reform and it is still there. These reforms are essential if we are to have a modern industrial relations system and not one that continues to drag us down the drain as Moody's Investor Services Inc. said of Australia only a few months ago. We give the Minister an opportunity to come back to tell us in clear, simple language whether the Government accepts our proposals and if not why. We say that Australia needs first a definite commitment to flexibility to the extent that employers and employees can make their own bargains on wages, conditions of employment and work practices. What is the Government's answer to that? Secondly, Australia needs a commitment that the capacity of industry to pay should at least be the test in national wage cases and other major wage cases. Thirdly, Australia needs a commitment that while the present system lasts and while we are working within this system there should be a wages pause. What is the Government's answer on that? Fourthly, Australia needs a commitment to put the trade unions under the same law as everyone else in the country. Fifthly and specifically, we need a commitment that the Government will not repeal or try to repeal sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act. Sixthly, we need a commitment to voluntary unionism in Australia instead of having people pushed into organisations they do not want to join. Seventhly, we need a commitment to having youth wages in awards before youth unemployment erodes any further. We challenge the Minister to stand up to say whether the Government supports these reforms, as the Opposition does, and to say whether the Government will be dragged kicking and screaming at the last hour to support these reforms in the same way in which it has been dragged kicking and screaming to abandon wage indexation. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(4.18) —Underlying the whole quarter of an hour contribution from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) was the sheer falsity of his basic position and that of the Opposition in claiming that the present difficult economic circumstances are attributable to the wage indexation system that applied after this Government came to office. That is utterly and completely false, without one shred of truth in it. The fact is that whilst wage indexation continued until 1985 the economy recovered extremely well from the worst recession in 50 years, a recession which was left to us by the previous Government. That recovery enabled us to have very strong rates of employment growth and strong growth in the economy-with a wage indexation system in operation. By the end of 1984 we had reduced the inflation rate from 11 per cent to 5 per cent. When we came to office the inflation rate left to the nation by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) when he was Treasurer was 11 per cent. That was occurring with the wage indexation system operating. From 1985 that situation started to change, not because of any failure of the wages system, not because of any failure of the accord, but simply because of something which did not pass the lips of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his quarter hour contribution; that is, the fact that we had occurring in this country a major deterioration in the terms of trade, the like of which has not been seen certainly since the 1930s. To give a speech along the lines that all the economic problems have occurred in the last year or so because of the wage indexation system is an extraordinary deception; it is a completely false charge which I think belittles the Opposition, which is trying to get the Australian people to believe something that is so patently untrue and absurd. The fact is that we have had an enormously large decline in the terms of trade, brought about by an almost cataclysmic decline in our export prices. This has brought about the devaluation of the Australian dollar, accordingly increasing import prices, accordingly pushing up the inflation rate and accordingly requiring us to adjust a number of aspects of economic policy, as the result of which we have had much lower rates of economic growth, higher inflation and some slight increase in unemployment in the last few months. That kind of adjustment to the economy has been unavoidable. No government pursuing any conceivable wages policy could have avoided the kind of adjustment that has had to be made because of what has happened to this nation through the decline in the terms of trade. It is just absurd to produce arguments in this place or anywhere else which totally refrain from any mention of the basic underlying economic fact of our time; that is, that any government would have had to make severe adjustment. It was that decline in the terms of trade and the consequent balance of payments problems, with devaluation reaching 20 per cent by September 1985, which forced us to the first substantial adjustment to our wages policy-that was that we had to ensure a discount of 2 per cent and the postponement of any productivity case so that we could have adjustment of wages policy and not build in a higher inflation rate. That was done through the accord. Any government without the accord would have had to impose that lower rate of wage outcome on the trade union movement by crunching the economy through the floor; by a much greater toughening of budgetary and monetary policy; by forcing economic growth down much further; by creating much more unemployment, as the Fraser Government did several times in its period of office; thereby creating the conditions in which it could have brought down inflation again. We were able to avoid that kind of crunching of the economy because we had the accord, because we had agreement from the trade union movement of an acceptance of a lower wage outcome, a reduction in real wages and a postponement of the productivity case, on the basis of a tax tradeoff. That was uniquely available to this Government. Because of the accord, we were able to save the Australian people from much more pain than would have been their lot had they had a government with no prices and incomes accord to go back to and achieve a voluntary reduction in real wages. Indeed, before that we had already seen, with the previous full indexation system, that we had less than full wage indexation applying and that we had a reduction in real wages over the period 1983-85 of 4 per cent. So, in our first three years in office we had a reduction in real wages of 4 per cent. That came about partly because of the way in which the full indexation system operated and partly because of the September adjustment. Since September 1985 and since that very substantial contribution by the trade union movement to the betterment of the Australian economy by voluntarily accepting a reduction in real wages, we have had a further 20 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar broadly. We had that because of the further deterioration of the terms of trade and the further balance of payments problems. The need, therefore, is for us to make further adjustment to the Australian economy. That has required us further to tighten monetary policy, to toughen budgetary policy further and to seek further discounting on wages policy. These are the basic elements that face the Government at present and it is in that situation that we now look forward to a system, if the indexation system continues, of only partial wage indexation. It is not open to us to have anything like full wage indexation in the next national wage case or the case after that because of the present economic imperative that we have a reduction in real wages so that we do not build in the higher inflation rate being foisted on us by devaluations and so that we adjust to the reduction in living standards which is being forced on us as a nation by those devaluations. The wages system that we have pursued has enabled us to do that with minimal pain. What we are about is continuing to have a wages system that will enable us to implement the appropriate overall wages policy with minimal pain to the Australian people, with the minimum amount of unemployment growth and the minimum amount of reduction in real income. That is being done now by further discussions between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions and also between the Government and the employers on the way in which we should be further developing that wages policy. As I said during Question Time, we are concerned that the continuance of a partial wage indexation system, which on the face of it should be delivering full wage indexation, becomes very difficult, yet the economic requirement is for the continuance of partial indexation. Given that that is the economic requirement, we believe that it is probably appropriate that we change the system to one which has a much greater chance of remaining sustainable and of giving us the overall outcomes that are economically necessary. We also see some value in taking that course in that, given the requirement for a low overall wage outcome, with a partial wage indexation system there would be not much scope for increasing the degree of wages flexibility. As we have said constantly, that is something that we should gradually be trying to develop and we believe that that scope will be increased if we now move to a system which moves away from wage indexation but which still provides for a basic national wage increase to apply. It is not appropriate for me to detail now the aspects of that wages policy which is being considered by us, but we will be discussing it next week with the ACTU and with the employers. From initial discussions that I have already had with them, I am confident that we will see considerable agreement forthcoming from both the unions and the employers as to the shape of the wage fixing system that should apply into the future. I believe that is a very welcome development. We will probably not have exact agreement about everything and we will probably not be in agreement about the wage outcome, but there will be agreement about the general direction and style of the wage fixing system, and I believe that is an important development. That, of course, has nothing to do with the nonsense we hear from the other side, repeated again today-a nonsense which I must say I continue to be amazed at. Perhaps after all this time I should not be, but I am just amazed at the sheer ignorance which continues to come forth from the Opposition, particularly its spokesman on industrial relations, as to various industrial relations matters. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has tried to suggest that the Government is stealing the Opposition's clothes. Let me say that in developing our wages policy, the last thing we would have regard to is anything said by the Opposition. We are developing a wages policy that is appropriate to our time. That is what we have had all the way along-a wages policy that has been conducive to growth and conducive to the necessary adjustment that we have faced as a result of the enormous decline in our terms of trade. We are continuing to develop a wages policy that is appropriate to the economic times we face, and what we need now is a policy which is appropriate to the economic recovery which is clearly getting under way again and which will become strong in 1987. The Opposition has said that we are taking notice of its policy in respect of such things as voluntary agreements. I regard that part of the Opposition's policy as absurdly unrealistic. Indeed, the Opposition's whole wages policy is a disgrace in the sense that it makes no attempt at any wage restraint. It simply says: Let everyone get out there and do his own thing and we hope that that produces the appropriate outcome. Of course, that is a highly irresponsible stance to adopt, but also the Opposition is adopting a policy the basis of which, frankly, as I have said before, is simply unconstitutional. We are developing a wages policy within existing legislation. We do not need to change any legislation to develop the appropriate system for wage fixation. Although changes will be forthcoming in respect of the Hancock legislation, legislation is not necessary to change the wage system. The Opposition is talking about changes to legislation to provide for voluntary agreements, but these would be without a constitutional base. The Constitution does not allow for legislation for voluntary agreements, whether or not an interstate or industrial dispute exists, yet the Opposition bases its policy on that approach. The Constitution does not allow for legislation for agreements other than those which would allow for dispute settlement by conciliation and arbitration. That, of course, is what the Opposition proposes. The Constitution does not allow for legislation requiring agreements to contain specified provisions such as the provision that there shall be the award rate of pay. The Constitution does not allow legislation to prohibit the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission having regard to voluntary agreements. Finally, the Constitution does not allow legislation to require the Commission to set aside existing awards. On all of these bases the Opposition's policy is constitutionally invalid. If the Opposition says `We have a great industrial relations policy', in the absence of a wages policy, and it is based on a series of measures which are unconstitutional, it is impossible to take much notice of it. In developing our industrial relations policy we do not take any notice of the Opposition. Our policy is one which has been developed to suit the needs of the time. The wages policy adjustment is one that will be appropriate and will have widespread support. The industrial relations changes that we shall bring forward will also have that widespread support. They have been developed in conjunction with the trade union movement and organised employers. The basis of the industrial relations policy that has been developed by this Government is an emphasis on co-operation rather than confrontation. The Opposition's policy, as we have seen from the past, is one of confrontation. Indeed, the Opposition, especially the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is supporting the madder elements that are calling for a massively confrontationist approach. Everyone knows that if the Opposition were to get back into power we would see an enormous industrial relations explosion as it pursued policies that were bound to create an enormous amount of industrial disputation. The Australian people do not want that. They want a government which has an appropriate wages policy and an effective industrial relations policy. That is what they have had from this Government, and that is what they will continue to get. Madam SPEAKER —The debate is concluded. Motion (by Mr Willis) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(4.33) —Madam Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Humphreys) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House stands adjourned until Tuesday next at 2 p.m. in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 9 October 1986. House adjourned at 4.34 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 10 October 1986: Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination-1986-No. 3. Public Service Act-Determination-1986-No. 72. Papers The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 3897) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: (1) What role is played by the Federal Government in the protection of Australia's beaches and coastline from erosion. (2) What has been the total Federal expenditure in this area in each year since 1972. (3) How do the Federal and State governments co-operate in this area. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The coastlines of the external Territories and some specific areas of the Australian coastline, e.g. Jervis Bay, are the direct responsibility of the Commonwealth. Some of these areas have been subjected to extensive land management programs, carried out by various government departments. Areas in which the Commonwealth has undertaken major programs of preventative maintenance and restoration on the coast include: Beecroft and Bherwerre Peninsulas (Jervis Bay, NSW); Sandy Point (Western Port Bay, Victoria); Garden Island (Fremantle, Western Australia); Fort Direction (Hobart, Tasmania) Portsea (Mornington Peninsula, Victoria); and Swanbourne (Perth, Western Australia). (2) The following information has been provided by Departments on their expenditure on projects related to the prevention of beach and coastal erosion since 1982-83. Some figures relate to broadly ranging programs which, while they include some beach and coastal protection activities, were undertaken primarily for other purposes. In those cases estimates of the cost of the beach protection component have been provided. Information relating to expenditure prior to 1982-83 would, in many instances, require a substantial commitment of resources to extract and collate. Given the Government's strong commitment to containing public expenditure and to the sensible use of resources, I am not prepared to authorise or request from other Departments the expenditure which would be required to provide answers to this part of the honourable member's question. 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $ $ $ $ Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment... Nil 15,000 Nil * Department of Employment and Industrial Relations... Nil 11,173,042 ** ** Department of Science... 190,000 233,000 243,000 * Department of Local Government and Administrative Services... Nil Nil Nil 40,000 Department of Primary Industry... Nil Nil Nil 20,000 Department of Territories... 16,000 16,000 16,000 20,000 Department of Housing and Construction***... 140,000 90,000 110,000 * * Figures for 1985-86 not yet available. ** The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations jointly administers the Community Employment Program (CEP) with relevant Departments in each State and Territory. From the inception of the Program in August 1983 to 21 May 1986, $11,173,042 of CEP funds have been approved for 124 projects to undertake activities relating to foreshore conservation. *** Does not include preventative maintenance and restoration works carried out by the Department of Housing and Construction in respect of Department of Defence training areas and installations. Expenditure figures specifically relating to coastal restoration works for training areas and installations are not maintained by the Department of Defence. (3) The Commonwealth, Territory and State governments co-operate in the protection of Australia's beaches and coastline from erosion through Ministerial councils such as the Australian Environment Council (AEC) and the Australian Soil Conservation Council and by various ad hoc arrangements. In July 1984, AEC agreed, inter alia, that the States and Northern Territory have primary responsibility for the management of the Australian coastline and that AEC members should exchange information and consider common objectives for the conservation and protection of the Australian coastline. To this end a coastal management liaison network of Commonwealth, State and Territory officers working in the field of coastal management was established. Under AEC sponsorship a national conference on environmental perspectives of coastal management and protection is jointly being organised by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment and the New South Wales State Pollution Control Commission, to be held on 7-9 October 1986, at Coffs Harbour, NSW. The Australian Soil Conservation Council is the Commonwealth, Territory and State Ministerial Council responsible for soil conservation activities in Australia. In addition, the Commonwealth conducts a National Soil Conservation Program (NSCP) through which grants are provided to States for approved projects. The Commonwealth's activities through the NSCP are intended to complement the activities of State Government agencies. Some of these grants have been expended on projects which include combating coastal erosion. The Commonwealth, Territory and State governments also co-operate on coastal management matters through the Community Employment Program and the Local Government Development Program. (Question No. 4103) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: What progress has been made in the establishment of a pilot national injury surveillance and prevention system for deaths and injuries associated with consumer products. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: To my knowledge, no progress has been made in the establishment of a pilot national injury surveillance and prevention system for deaths and injuries associated with only consumer products in mind. However, the Australian Institute of Health is working very closely with the Child Accident Prevention Foundation of Australia to establish a pilot study into a proposed Child Injury Surveillance System. Various State Governments have been approached to participate in the pilot study and positive replies have been received from Western Australia, South Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland. Negotiations are currently proceeding between the parties concerning the implementation of the pilot study which would, of course, include amongst its data that relating to deaths and injuries associated with consumer products. (Question No. 4112) Mr Sharp asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) Which firm won the contract for the 24 hour `Drug Offensive' phone-in information number. (2) What was the (a) term and (b) cost of this contract. (3) Who are the directors of the company who won the contract. (4) Were tenders called for the contract. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Camco Systems Pty Ltd, 19 Walkers Road, Nunawading, Victoria. (2) (a) The term of the contract is from 21 February 1986 to six months after the date of commencement of operation of the information line, i.e., to 10 October 1986. (b) The contract provided for three cost elements-(i) one set-up costs of $180,000 for computer design and programming, recruitment and training, data base development, scripting, mail-out planning; (ii) fixed monthly costs of $66,400 for maintenance and administration and for operator support time (8 operators x 16 hours x 30 days x $15 per hour); and (iii) variable costs of $2.50 per minute for incoming and transferred calls and $1.80 per information kit assembled, packaged and dispatched. (3) Michael Packer and Christine Packer are the Directors of Camco Systems Pty Ltd. (4) Public tenders were not invited. A certificate of exemption was granted by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services on 14 February 1986 to restrict inquiries to Camco Systems Pty Ltd of Nunawading, Victoria, based on Telecom advice on Camco's capabilities and on the urgent nature of the task. (Question No. 4321) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What (a) wines and (b) brandies does Qantas serve in-flight. (2) How many of the wines and brandies available on Qantas are Australian-produced. (3) Does Qantas policy support the principle of `Buy Australian' to help promote the Australian wine and brandy industries; if not, why not. (4) Will he take urgent action to ensure that the Qantas Board is cognisant of the Prime Minister's remarks in his Address to the Nation to support Australian industries and initiate a policy of active support and in-flight promotion of Australian-produced wines and brandies. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (2) All wines and brandies served by Qantas in-flight are Australian-produced, except that French as well as Australian champagne is served in First and Business classes, and French cognac is served in First and Business classes. (3) Qantas supports the `Buy Australian' policy to the greatest extent possible in all its catering operations. In regard to the Australian wine and brandy industries, this support is evident from the predominance of Australian-produced products on all services. (4) The Qantas Board and management are fully aware of the Prime Minister's remarks and, as indicated above, have a policy of active support and in-flight promotion of Australian wines and brandies. (Question No. 4603) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: What is the total amount of money to be paid to (a) each State Government and (b) the Northern Territory Government for the year 1986-87. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following table summarises estimated payments to the States and the Northern Territory. It should be noted that the first row `Total payments to the States and to the Northern Territory' includes both recurrent and capital payments of both a specific and general purpose nature. The second row in the table details those payments associated with programs under which local government authorities receive Commonwealth assistance paid direct to them. Figures are in millions of dollars. NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. Six State Total NT Total Total payments to the States and to the Northern Territory... 7 273.0 5 433.2 3 837.0 2 434.5 2 331.0 901.9 22 210.6 976.6 23 187.2 Payments made direct to local government authorities... 48.1 31.4 14.4 10.6 6.2 3.9 114.7 3.6 118.3 Total payments (gross)... 7 321.1 5 464.6 3 851.4 2 445.2 2 337.2 905.7 22 325.3 980.2 23 305.5 Repayments by States, the Northern Territory and local government authorities... 103.7 77.7 53.1 42.7 39.8 17.7 334.8 10.2 345.0 Total payments (net)... 7 217.4 5 386.9 3 798.3 2 402.5 2 297.4 888.0 21 990.5 970.0 22 960.5 (Question No. 4662) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 23 September 1986: (1) Has an application for a preferential rate of customs duty under the Closer Economic Relations Agreement with NZ (CER) been made for a large quantity of brandy exported in bulk from France to NZ, bottled there and subsequently imported into Australia; if so, what is the Government doing to ensure that the minimum export price undertaking in respect of brandy from France is not circumvented. (2) Does this situation negate the widely publicised `Buy Australian' policy. (3) Does this breach of the fundamentals of the CER agreement further increase the burden placed on Australia's wine industry by the recent imposition of a 100% increase in sales tax on wine announced in the 1986-87 Budget. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) An application was received by the Australian Customs Service from a New Zealand exporter requesting preferential tariff treatment for bulk French brandy bottled in New Zealand for export to Australia. No quantities were specified in the request. On the information available with the application the ACS found that the goods did not qualify for preferential entry into Australia. In respect of the second part of the question, the export price undertakings relate to the export of bulk French brandy to Australia. There are no undertakings in place in respect of bottled brandy. (2) No. (3) See answer to (1). (Question No. 3779) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: (1) What was the cost of (a) the production of the drug offensive kit and associated publications and (b) the Prime Minister's address to the nation on Sunday, 6 April 1986 announcing the commencement of the drug offensive. (2) Were any media or advertising consultants or businesses involved in (a) the production of the drug offensive kit and associated publications and (b) the Prime Minister's address to the nation; if so, who were they and what was the fee paid to each. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) $293,377-to design and print the folder and 24 separate items which are mailed out as information kits to callers on the National Drug Information Line. In addition, eight foreign language versions of the information kit have been printed. These costs are yet to be brought to account. (b) The address to the nation involved seven separate productions featuring each of the six Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory with the Prime Minister appearing in all of the productions. The cost of the segments featuring the Prime Minister was $21,644 for actual shooting costs plus a pro-rata share of overall production house costs and advertising agency head hours costs. This pro-rata share is estimated at some $7,340. (2) (a) Yes-Forbes Macfie Hansen Pty Ltd, Advertising Agents, Sydney, $43,513 for head hours, design, artwork, etc. in connection with the information kit; and Chippendale Printing Co Pty Ltd, Sydney, $249,864 for paper and printing the information kits. (b) Yes-Brian McDuffie Film Productions Pty Ltd, Sydney, $21,644 for cost of shooting segments featuring the Prime Minister plus $5,900 being a pro-rata share of production house costs; and Forbes Macfie Hansen Pty Ltd, Advertising Agents, Sydney, $1,440 being a pro-rata share of advertising agency head hours costs. (Question No. 4322) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Further to his answer to my question No. 2750 part (3) (Hansard, 11 February 1986, page 162), why is the Auditor-General critical of departmental security in his report. (2) What are the details of the `national security package' developed by the departmental Security Committee. (3) Have there been any problems with the implementation of `Stratplan'; if so, what have they been, and what action has he taken for them to be overcome. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Auditor-General commented in his report of March 1986 that some instances of inadequate perimeter security and fire alarm systems had been noted in departmental offices. About 80 of the perimeter security systems have been installed to date and the Department has an ongoing installation program for the remaining offices. (2) The `national security package' comprises an electronic security system with the following features: after hours intruder detection duress alarm buttons at all interviewing points in an office two stage heat detector in computer room local alarm sirens back-up power supply 24 hour monitoring by security companies. The electronic security system is supplemented by certain administrative arrangements with the monitoring company in the event of an alarm occurring. (3) The Auditor-General did not report on any defects in systems security aspects of Stratplan. The Department continues to attach a high priority on security and Stratplan and to monitor its implementation. (Question No. 4355) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: Will the Minister supply any analysis, appraisal or costing prepared by Telecom concerning the impact of the proposals by the NSW Department of Main Roads to realign or improve the Pacific Highway: (a) north of Lismore and (b) within the Byron Shire on (i) Telecom facilities generally and (ii) the co-axial cable. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: Telecom Australia has not received any proposals from the NSW Department of Main Roads regarding realignment or other improvements to the Pacific Highway in the area stated.