Monday, 20 October 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Madam Speaker, I wish to advise the House, as a matter of courtesy, that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) will be absent from Question Time today. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) will handle any questions on defence matters and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) will respond to any questions on the arts, heritage and environment. Mr HALVERSON —I direct a question to the Prime Minister and refer him to the week-long occupation of the grounds outside Parliament House by left wing demonstrators. Is the Prime Minister aware that the demonstrators have declared this public land off-limits to all Australians who are not members of their extremist group and already have threatened a senator and a television crew and have assaulted a photographer, all of whom were exercising their right to walk in this area? Does the Prime Minister recall that in April 1985, acting under the Trespass on Commonwealth Lands Ordinance, the Government physically removed a small group of Vietnamese who were peacefully protesting outside Parliament House? I ask the Prime Minister: Is this yet another example of the appalling double standards of his Government? When will he act to ensure that all Australians, including family groups, once again be given the right to move freely in the area outside Parliament House? Mr HAWKE —I think it has been recognised by successive governments that the issue of protests outside Parliament House requires a balancing-sometimes, I admit, a delicate balancing-of the public interest in terms of the right to peaceful protest and maintaining appropriate standards of public order. This Government has taken, and will continue to take, the view that in a free and democratic society tolerance should be shown to those who wish to express legitimate dissent or to express alternative views on matters of social concern. We say, in taking that view, that we expect members of the community who wish to demonstrate their views publicly to show similar respect for the rights and concerns of other members of the community. I say quite straightforwardly that, insofar as there have been some incidents, some of which have been referred to by the honourable member, they are to be regretted. On behalf of the Government I express the hope that all concerned would recognise and respect the position of others and that they would avoid any further incidents. Unless those protesting are prepared to recognise and respect the rights of others, they must accept that there will be a limit to the extent to which others are prepared to respect their right to express their views. To the extent that the people concerned are saying that they have permission to camp outside Parliament House, that is not true. To the extent that they are saying that it is some private place of their own which gives them the right to exclude others, they are wrong. Should they attempt to press the position that they have some right of private propriety, a continuation of that attitude could not be tolerated. Mr PUNCH —Can the Treasurer assure the House that the Australian economy and specifically its investment prospects are sound, contrary to comments in last week's Press by Mr J. Elliott? Mr KEATING —I should have thought that the remarks by Mr Elliott last week were a little churlish, considering what he had been saying more recently about economic prospects in Australia. On 14 August he is reported to have told Australian businessmen that they had enormous and sudden new opportunities for exporting, and cited two examples in his own company which could be worth at least $100m a year in extra revenue. He said that Japanese and United States companies suddenly had put Australia on the list as a potential off-shore manufacturing base. He went on to say that the company had made a currency windfall of some $100m to $130m from its United States beer sales and would use this to take on the New York beer market. He anticipated that Elders would, within two or three years, be running its Australian breweries at full capacity in winter to supply the northern hemisphere. In other words, essentially he is saying that Australia is so competitive that he can brew beer here and ship it and, of course, its water content across the Pacific and be competitive in the United States for its northern hemisphere winter. That is a very nice commendation for the competitors of Australia. The report went on to say that Mr Elliott said that people ought to be out there in Japan today and then the other markets looking at the products that Australia can produce. He said that, because the ball game had changed, whereas Elders had pushed all its business on to the service industries over the last several years, there was a real opportunity to move back into manufacturing provided one could make it export based. That is the true position which Mr Elliott was decent enough to reflect upon in August and, no doubt for probably political reasons, he has said something of the converse-that he would not invest in Australia. If he would not invest in Australia one has to ask the question: Why did he spend $1.8 billion buying into Australia's largest company Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Limited? Why does he believe that he ought to be investing where the ball game has changed to run his breweries at capacity and move back into manufacturing-very strange comments? Juxtaposed against his comments in the United States recently, I found the outburst by Mr Elliott somewhat uncharacteristic of his earlier comments and reports by his company seizing the opportunities created in this economy by the policies of this Government. It may irk Mr Elliott, as the Treasurer of the Federal Liberal Party, to have to admit that it is a Labor government which is rebalancing the Australian economy, it is a Labor government which has established this new-found competitiveness and it is a Labor government which has provided the buoyancy over the last three and a half years which has seen the stock exchange double its index rating and the tremendous profit growth of Australian corporations. Much of the accretions to wealth and business opportunities created in the three and a half years are due exclusively to the policies of this Government. Mr CARLTON —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Did the Treasurer's economic adviser, Dr Barry Hughes, inform a seminar in Washington during the Treasurer's recent overseas trip that the Government had made significant revisions to the composition of the economic growth forecast incorporated in this year's Budget Papers? Specifically, did this include a downward revision to the expected growth in domestic demand in 1986-87 from 0.5 per cent to zero real growth? If so, what impact will this changed economic growth pattern have on other key economic forecasts, including the level and rate of unemployment? On what basis were these revisions made so soon after the Budget? Will the Treasurer inform the House of any other changes to the economic forecasts underpinning the Budget? Mr KEATING —I am not aware of precisely what Dr Hughes had to say abroad. It was a seminar where views were given extemporaneously in the cross-current of discussion. I think he was probably reflecting the views in the economy put by many private forecasters that they believe demand may be somewhat less than the modest half a percentage point contribution to growth forecast in the Budget and that the contribution to growth from net exports may be somewhat higher than the 1.75 percentage point contribution to growth, leaving the growth forecast unchanged at 2.25 percentage points of gross domestic product. That is a view which is about. If the honourable member was asking whether the Treasury has reassessed its forecast, the answer is no, it has not. There has been no reassessment of those aggregates of growth which were outlined in the Budget, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that there will be a high net export contribution coming from what is seen as the investment and turnaround in investment expectations in this area. Mr KEOGH —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it a fact that the Australian Government has refused to allow an Australian aid program in the Philippines to engage an Australian cattle expert who is preferred by the Philippines Government? Has the Philippines Government imposed either beef or live cattle trade sanctions against Australia in reprisal for the Government's reported refusal to engage this cattle expert? Mr HAYDEN —A deal has been said about this publicly by people including, interestingly, a number of National Party members on behalf of the expert who is involved in this matter. I think the facts, to the extent that I can establish them, ought to be put on record, because there seems to be some confusion. Certainly, there would be confusion between what is being said publicly by some of those representatives of the National Party and what I am being advised. On 16 September the Australian Ambassador in Manila met with Vice-President and Foreign Minister Laurel to discuss this matter. The upshot of that was that the Australian Government, through our Ambassador, was informed by the Philippines Government that there was no ban on any imports of livestock or meat from Australia. The Philippines Government has also affirmed that it abides by the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and that it will always endeavour to follow fair trading practices. Furthermore, the Government, through the Public Service, has been advised that all outstanding requests for import approval for meat from Australia have been granted. I will mention some other factors which are highly relevant. Our representatives in Manila have maintained fairly continuous contact on this matter. The Philippines Ministry of Agriculture and Food advised certain details of proposed cattle import requirements on 7 October and has invited firm offers from qualified Australian livestock exporters. I shall not go through the details, as they can be made available to anyone who is interested in this matter. I should make the following points clear: The Australian Senior Trade Commissioner in Manila reports that the invitation to offer has also been extended to the United States of America, and perhaps others, and that, in support, an agency of the United States of America Government will be offering a finance package term of seven to 10 years at 4 1/2 per cent interest per annum under a recently introduced agricultural export funding program. Without going much further, this is a considerable concession in comparative terms between what I expect would be available from this country and what has been offered by the United States of America. It would seem to be an extension-in some varied form perhaps, but nonetheless an extension-of the very generous subsidisation arrangements which are being offered by the United States of America in relation to primary products on the export market. A Manila newspaper report states that the offer from the United States of America features a 10-year financing package, a three-year grade period and a 4.5 per cent interest rate. I understand that the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is quoted as saying: There's a brewing cattle war between the US and Australia and this is definitely to our advantage. I want to rivet people's attention to the substantial facts behind what has been taking place. It is quite clear that there is a major Australian interest involved, that there is further evidence on the basis of the information being provided that the United States of America is not fair dealing, or intends not to fair deal, and that this, probably more than anything else, will determine the outcome of the offers which are made. I stress that if a country or an individual consumer has been made an offer which is cheap against any competitor's because it is heavily subsidised and below real market terms-my understanding is that the United States of America generally would find it very difficult to make an offer of live cattle exports from the United States of America in strictly competitive terms at rates competitive with Australia's-buyers will find it hard not to accept the most generous offer which is made, regardless of the basis on which it is made. I think some other things should be said-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr HAYDEN —I am not disturbing the Special Minister of State, am I? Mr Young —Yes. Mr HAYDEN —Can we have a pause for the Special Minister of State? He feels disturbed by my interrupting his dialogue. Some other matters should go on record. I now address the case of the cattle expert. He is an employee of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Certain obligations are in place in respect of the employment on aid programs of any such public sector employee. I will come to that matter in a few seconds. The Australian Development Assistance Bureau offered him a salary of $55,104 as against his present salary of $47,638. So, it offered him substantially more. It offered allowances of $24,490, making a total of $79,594. The expert concerned submitted the following claim: His salary, $47,638; a salary for his wife because of employment she would not be engaged in while she was in the Philippines but does engage in here, $30,465; maintenance of his farm, $22,000; a caretaker for his house, $2,600; and accommodation in the Philippines, $5,200. That is $107,903, less superannuation of $2,296-a total claim of $105,607 as against what ADAB offered of $79,594. I apologise for taking so long. Furthermore, I apologise for going into the detailed figures. But there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about this matter. In view of the fact that potentially this is an important matter of national interest affecting the rural area, I should get the facts on the record as they have been given to me. I have been assured by ADAB that it would have no difficulty at all in obtaining the employment of a suitably qualified expert in this field at exactly the same rates as it is offering this man. The expert would be at least as well qualified as this man. It is conceivable that there would be even better qualified people. The person concerned is arguing, among other things, that because of his relationship with a Minister in the Philippines Government-and that Minister, I gather, is responding to the propositions put to him to restate this sort of matter-he should be employed above others because presumably he can get on `better' than can other people with the Philippines Government, or some people in that Government. I want to state two things: The first, honourable members will recall, is that the decision will be made on the best offer. If the United States of America is heavily subsidising the financial arrangements we will find it very difficult. That is an obligation that we all have to attend to. We have to look after that obligation and not go down the track of promoting a personal interest in this matter. The second thing is that, if we concede to these demands that this gentleman get more than $25,000 a year above what would be the appropriate rate under the conditions that are normally applied in these circumstances by this Government or were normally applied in the past by coalition governments, everyone in a similar situation will expect to be treated in exactly the same way. I put it to honourable members that that is intolerable. It would mean that the aid vote would be out of control and that we would be paying much more for such services than we should be. Let me state some facts which also should go on the record. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAYDEN —It is the National Party representatives in this House who are making an issue out of this matter. I have been sitting on this for some time-- Mr Howard —Have a proper debate on it. Mr HAYDEN —I do not think it is a matter for debate at all, with respect. It is a matter for us to understand the issues. There is a major national interest involved. We should not artificially create a diversion or division on this matter but support a responsible position. Mr Howard —Let us have a decent debate. Mr HAYDEN —Why does the honourable member want a debate on something that is so abundantly clear? It ought to be above National Party politics. The rates which are set for cases such as these are fixed by the Public Service Board. They were fixed by the Public Service Board under the previous Government. They are fixed by the Board under this Government. The judgment of ADAB, made on the basis of the record of the gentleman concerned and advice from CSIRO, was that the appropriate salary for the assignment was a full level above his current position: that is, he was paid more than he should have been. For this amount to have been further increased would have required the application of non-technical criteria, which means a special favour. I should imagine that the Waste Watch Committee of the Liberal Party, as distinct from the National Party, would have been the first to have criticised us on this matter. If he had been employed as a consultant he would have been required to move into the private sector. It would have been necessary for him to have obtained long term leave without pay from CSIRO, to have registered as a consulting firm, and to have obtained special permission under the CSIRO Act to enter into private commercial operations while remaining a public servant. Additionally and importantly, the magnitude of the contract amount involved for a 12-month assignment would have normally required under Commonwealth procurement guidelines that the job be put out to tender. When one puts all those things together, the Government has acted consistently with guidelines which have been in place for a very long time, guidelines which have been followed by Liberal-National Party coalition governments in office, guidelines which are now pursued by this Government. What it boils down to is that the particular interest of one person is being promoted in a way which distorts and mars the real presentation of the facts. The real presentation of the facts is that the Philippines Government anticipates that the United States will heavily subsidise the export of live beef to the Philippines and that will create severe competitive tensions between the United States of America and Australia. That is the basis on which this matter ought to be looked at. The unfair way in which the interests of this person have been promoted regularly by more than one member of the National Party should be put to one side because a much more important national interest is involved. Mr HUNT —Does the Treasurer accept the proposition put by the Economic Planning Advisory Council that Australia's foreign debt will continue to increase as a percentage of the gross domestic product and, even under optimistic assumptions, will stabilise only at a staggering 40 per cent of gross domestic product by the 1990s? Does this not contrast with his comments to an investment seminar in London recently that Australia's `debt burden will stabilise in the not too distant future'? Is the Treasurer concerned that, without further significant adjustment to both wages and fiscal policy, the Government's continued overreliance on monetary policy and resort to high real interest rates will jeopardise the business investment necessary to close the trade deficit and realise even EPAC's optimistic scenario of our debt profile? Mr KEATING —Everything I have said in recent times in general accords with what EPAC is saying, that is, that our external indebtedness having risen, put quite nicely by EPAC, `is reflecting a shift away from equity towards debt financing, the cumulative impact of successive large current account deficits and the effect of currency depreciation on the Australian dollar value of the foreign currency component of the debt'. There is a tabulation about the growth of indebtedness. Basically, the rise in our external indebtedness comes, firstly, from a shift away from equity to debt in the 1970s. It comes from the accumulated current account imbalances of the last half dozen years and it comes from the enormous valuation effect pushing the Australian dollar denomination of the debt up as the Australian dollar depreciates. What normally happens with a major depreciation and a lift in competitiveness is that the trade account responds and makes up the losses on the balance of payments and the current account which are being caused in the capital account. On this occasion the difficulty is that, with the depreciation, the trade account is not in a position to respond as in the past because of the terms of trade collapse. Hence the Government has had to make even more rigorous adjustments to the economy to compensate. But the Government has made those adjustments. It has made those adjustments to fiscal policy and to wages policy and, of course, it has done the very converse of what the Deputy Leader of the National Party has suggested-it has taken the relative weight off monetary policy and reburdened it back to fiscal policy and wages. The EPAC document mentions the Federal Government making substantial progress towards restoring fiscal balance and a reduction in the Budget deficit to 1.4 per cent of gross domestic product, and it goes on to make this very important point: It should be noted moreover that basically the whole of this deficit now reflects interest payable on the public debt. The `primary' PSBR (i.e. with interest netted out) in 1986-87 is estimated by the Office of EPAC to be zero, compared with an average of 3 per cent over the last decade. In other words, EPAC is saying that, on its assessment, the primary public sector borrowing requirement is now zero and that the whole of the Budget deficit is accounted for by the payment of public debt interest on past accumulations of debt. EPAC says that, whereas the debt-that is, the primary PSBR-has been 3 per cent over the past decade, it is now zero. That is a very great achievement on the part of this Government. We have taken the huge fiscal imbalance inherited from our predecessors-the huge Budget deficit inherited from the honour- able member for Bennelong-and we have reduced it to a point where the primary PSBR, on EPAC's assessment, is netted out to zero and the whole deficit is meeting the growth in interest on the public debt on past deficit accumul- ations. It is the quality of those changes which is being noticed and noted now in the northern hemisphere and in other important markets, and indeed in this country as well. EPAC goes on to say that the external factors which have brought Australia to this position are now being brought under control. It makes one other very important point. In the publication of its terms of trade chart it shows that, in 1981-82, the terms of trade which existed at the time of the former Treasurer's Government-- Mr Hunt —Page 22. Mr KEATING —I will just find it. I thank the honourable member for his assistance. That chart shows that, at a time when the former Government was saying that it had been treated badly by the world and that it was not waiting on the world, the terms of trade which it experienced were massively advantageous compared to the terms of trade experienced today. One must ask of the former Treasurer how, with terms of trade as advantageous as those which existed in 1981-83 and coming on the end of a period of accelerated investment in mining, he could have given this country the biggest recession since the Great Depression. One should ask how the honourable member for Bennelong managed to give Australia the deepest recession since the Great Depression with terms of trade far more advantageous than the terms of trade that this Government is grappling with, and following on a period of massive investment in mining. The former Government ran the economy into the ground and it gave us the first negative growth in 30 years. The EPAC document ought to be at least very illuminating to the Opposition about where it went wrong in the 1970s and where there is some cause for it to change its views. The shadow Treasurer is saying that EPAC will get the chop, that he is determined to axe this body, rather than have it reflect some light upon the external balance and economic growth in a dispassionate way, as it has looked at Australia's record over the last decade or so. Apparently he believes that we should have no dissemination of public information and no public debate as there was in the Howard years as Treasurer, but rather that we ought to axe this body and give it the chop. The Opposition says: `We do not want information. We do not want views. Rely on us. We will mess it up again'. I think a lot of other Australians are quite happy to have business, trade unions and other professional bodies sitting down discussing these issues. They are quite happy to have EPAC looking in a professional way, dispassionately, at some of these trends and publishing its views for the public debate. This is in marked contrast to what was given to the public in the years of office of the coalition. Mr HUMPHREYS —My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and refers to the provision of translation and interpreter services in Queensland. Can the Minister inform the House how much of the Budget allocation of $1.206m the Queensland Government took up and matched dollar for dollar for translation and interpreter services? Can the Minister also inform the House what proportion of the resources of the completely federally funded Telephone Interpreter Service is used on servicing State government departments and instrumentalities in comparison with the amount used for Federal Government functions which it was intended to service? Mr HURFORD —I can tell the honourable member for Griffith that the record of Queensland conservative governments in migrant welfare and helping migrants over the years has been woeful. It is the worst of any State government in Australia. Indeed, the Liberals are culpably negligent too because they have been responsible for State governments in Queensland over many years. The honourable member mentioned the cost sharing arrangements that there are for translation and interpreting services. I use that as an example because in the four years 1982-83 to 1985-86 the Commonwealth made available to Queensland no less than $560,000 for such services. Queensland took up less than half of that amount-$272,780. I repeat: Less than half the amount that Queensland was entitled to it took up. In the current year, 1986-87, our Government has increased the total appropriation for these very important translation and interpreting services by 61 per cent to the figure mentioned by the honourable member for Griffith in his question; namely, $1.206m. We could have earmarked a lot more for Queensland than the $75,000. On a per capita basis the amount would have been a great deal more than that but we had grave reservations about whether Queensland would take up even the $75,000 because in the previous financial year, 1985-86, Queensland took up less than $52,000. So on the basis of its record there was no reason to earmark any more. In spite of the attempted interjections opposite-I realise the Opposition must be very embarrassed over these poor services for migrants-there is a great need for the States to provide these services which are recognised as essential by anyone who is concerned about migrant welfare. All States should be providing services in those areas of their responsibility. We need translator and interpreter services for the legal, health, education, general welfare and local government fields. Labor State governments in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia have made substantial progress in providing these services but Queensland, under the conservatives, has had a very poor record and has not yet introduced any specialised services in its fields of responsibility. The honourable member for Griffith mentioned the Commonwealth's Telephone Interpreter Service. The fact that the Queensland Government has not provided services, as have Labor State governments, means that there has been a big load on the Commonwealth's Telephone Interpreter Service. Although it is a useful service, it is not as effective as providing interpreters to people in need of legal or health services. Thirty-three per cent of the Telephone Interpreter Service requests originate from Queensland State Government departments and instrumentalities. This service is provided by the Commonwealth totally out of Commonwealth funds. This gives us some idea of the demand that there is in this migrant service area-a demand denied by conservatives who want greater and greater cuts in public spending. In summary, this shows why people with a social conscience throughout Australia despair of any improvements in migrant and other welfare services under the conservatives in Queensland. Dr WATSON —I refer the Treasurer to his answer to my question last Friday when he stated that the principle that the capital gains tax will in every way be prospective has been enshrined in the legislation. I refer the Treasurer to the situation of a taxpayer who owned land prior to 19 September 1985 and who now grants a right to someone to take, for a lump sum, the timber or, say, sand from that land. Is it Government policy for the capital gains tax fully to tax that lump sum with no cost base, even though the property was owned prior to 19 September 1985? Does this represent a retrospective application of the capital gains tax? Mr KEATING —It would depend whether one was in the business of producing an assessable income or whether it concerned the taxation of an asset. Because all of the examples which the honourable gentleman is prone to trot out have applications of both principle and policy in the administration of the tax, I invite him again to put them on notice. I will then give him an answer. There are 2,000 pages of tax law. The honourable gentleman can ask questions from here to eternity about sections of the law in relation to individual taxpayers. It would not advantage him, me or the public. In fact, in terms of the administration of the tax system, he seems to overlook the fact that a responsibility is given to the Commissioner of Taxation under statute to administer the law, and the law relates to the individual circumstance of taxpayers as it relates to sections of the tax Act, including the capital gains tax. I am not about to give him opinions which he thinks are in the manner of policy in relation to administration of the tax law. If he is so interested, I ask him to place his questions on the Notice Paper. We will then furnish him with a reply. Mr MARTIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Aviation. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in today's Australian Financial Review concerning deregulation of the Australian airline industry? Can the Minister inform the House, first, when the existing two-airline agreement was inaugurated and by whom; secondly, when this agreement is to be subject to review . . . Mr Martin continuing to address a question to the Minister for Aviation- Madam SPEAKER —The Minister cannot be asked questions about the Government's policy. The first part of the question is in order; the last part is not. Mr PETER MORRIS —The existing aviation arrangements on the domestic scene are the result of legislation enacted by the Liberal-National Party coalition when in government in May 1981. Many of those who now sit opposite were members of this side of the House when the proposed two-airlines agreement was debated at length at that time. An amendment was moved at that time which, had it been carried, would have resulted in the two-airline agreement being terminated in January next year. The hypocrisy of the Opposition is that it is now advocating that there should be total deregulation of aviation arrangements in this country, given that the existing arrangements are those that were imposed by it in May 1981, set for a five-year minimum life for the agreement, that notice of termination of the agreement could not be given before January of next year, and that at that time there would have to be a three-year notice period, requiring a resolution of both Houses. Whatever the arrangements, for better or worse, they were imposed upon this country by those who now sit opposite. This Government has taken the view that what is most needed is a set of arrangements that best meet the needs of all Australians, not a set of arrangements that meet the interests of one pressure group, one political party or one set of vested interests wherever they may be. In view of that, the Government established a review, chaired by Mr Tom May, of the domestic aviation arrangements in this country. That review team has consulted widely around Australia. As a government we want to ensure that the views and interests of all Australians are taken into account before we make any determination on what might be appropriate changes to the existing arrangements. That team is due to report towards the end of this year. When we receive the report from Mr May it will be placed before government for consideration. At that time, having taken into account the interests of all Australians, we will make a decision on what new direction, if any, should be taken. The issue of deregulation is not simply a black or white matter. Rather, it is a matter of what form of regulation most meets the needs of the Australian nation. Those who are following the deregulation debate in the United States of America would have seen some of the charges and some of the disadvantages of that policy that are now showing up. I have not seen the article to which the honourable member referred but I thank him for his question and the opportunity of enunciating government policy. Mr REITH —I refer the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services to his answer to my question on notice No. 4468 concerning the impact of the fringe benefits tax on local government. Will the Minister confirm his answer that `insofar as the fringe benefits tax imposes a relative disability on a council it will be taken into account in determining that council's grant'? Will the Commonwealth increase its funding to local government to overcome the relative disability created by the fringe benefits tax? If local councils are to be reimbursed will other relatively disadvantaged groups, such as paraplegics and businesses in isolated areas, be similarly treated by the Government's review of the fringe benefits tax? Mr UREN —I have said that, in relation to the review, I would put before the Government the relationship of the fringe benefits tax to local government authorities in remote areas. I think that is the only aspect of local government that has been seriously affected by the fringe benefits tax, and I have said that to whoever I have spoken to in local government. The amount of money this Government has made available to local government this year is $585m, an 8.2 per cent increase over the amount made available last year, while the States have experienced a real decrease of 1.7 per cent in funding. Local government has received over $1 billion in tied and untied grants which is 50 per cent greater than in the last year of the Fraser Government. So there is no doubt in anybody's mind how local government is faring under this Government. The Government is conducting a review, and I have written to the Prime Minister in relation to local government in remote areas and sent a copy of the letter to the Treasurer. I am quite sure, with the Prime Minister's understanding, that this matter will be looked at sympathetically. Mrs DARLING —I direct my question to the Minister for Transport. I refer the honourable gentleman to the declared intention of the Queensland Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing, Mr Hinze, to charge a highway toll to fund arterial roads in Queensland. To what extent and on what basis does the Federal Government fund arterial roads in Queensland? Is the formula for this Federal funding designed to attract State funds to provide arterial roads for Queenslanders? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for her question. My attention has been drawn to the statement by Minister Hinze under the heading `Hinze plans toll on roads'. The arrangement is that the national highway system is the full responsibility of this Government-we meet the full cost of building and maintaining national highways and the State road authorities act as our design and supervision agencies-but arterial roads are the responsibility of State governments. We make a contribution to expenditure by the States on those roads-about one-third of what the States spend on arterial road improvements. As I said, they are State roads and they are a State responsibility. The Queensland Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing, Mr Hinze, has been decrying the efforts by this Government to improve the national highway system in Queensland. In the same statement he referred to this Government presenting its achievements in respect of the national highway-that is, the links from Brisbane to Cairns, from Brisbane across to Mount Isa and Darwin and from Brisbane down through Warwick to the New South Wales border-as `political showpieces'. I am quite sure that the people of Queensland, particularly of the Capricornia region, the north and the far north, do not see the national highway to Cairns as a political showpiece. They see that as an essential transport corridor which is desperately overdue for improvement and that improvement is being carried out by this Government. That is really what is gnawing at the gut of the National Party in Queensland. The improvements to the road system in that State are the result of the efforts and the priorities of this Government. What hurts the National Party in Queensland more is that it can see, as all Queenslanders can see, that this Government has done more in a comparable period to improve the road systems of Queensland than has any other government in history. Let me turn to the question on arterial roads which was raised by the honourable member. Arterial roads are the responsibility of the States. In the capital roads budget announced by the Premier of Queensland a few weeks ago, 60 per cent of the cost of the capital roads program in Queensland is being met by this Government. I can say that 20 per cent of the cost is being met by the Queensland Government and the remaining 20 per cent is being met by loan funds. So the honourable member can see the low priority that is being accorded the improvement of the vital arterial road systems in Queensland by the Bjelke-Petersen Government. Mr Hawke —Shame. Mr PETER MORRIS —Of course it is a shame. Everybody in Queensland knows that if we are going to maximise growth of the tourism industry and the economy in Queensland there have to be adequate road and rail systems. Mr Young —What about the road to his property? Mr PETER MORRIS —I am sorry, but I did not mention the road to his property. If that is to be the case, it will happen because of the efforts of this Government. The response of the Queensland National Party to that need is to slug the motorists of Queensland yet again with a toll. Of course it is a shame. It is an imposition on the people of Queensland. But for the efforts of this Government, the road system of Queensland would be in a desperate state. It is only through the efforts of this Government that the essential infrastructure-roads, airports and aviation generally-is being put in so that Queensland can build upon the growth in tourism and the impetus to tourism through the efforts of my colleague the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism in bringing people to Queensland. Thanks for nothing to the Government of Queensland. All I can say to the honourable member is respect of roads is that what we are seeing from the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing is a campaign of deception, deceit and disinformation from a dying government. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —-Madam Speaker, I wish to address to you a question as to matters pertaining to the operations of the House, in particular the operation of Question Time. In so doing I refer you to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday, 8 October 1985 headed `Parliament's Role Declining' which draws our attention to the fact that questions asked at Question Time have declined from 1,450 in 1976 to an average of 985 per annum during the period of Speaker Snedden to a situation where in 1983 and 1984 only 500 questions were asked. I ask you whether you are aware that page 1063 of Hansard of 9 September 1981 records, in the process of an answer being given by Mr Anthony, the following: Mrs Child —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the Hansard of 27 August. You ruled: The Minister will answer the question and not engage in irrelevancies, such as contrasting the Government and the Labor Party. To this Mr Speaker replied: I think it was a very sound decision. I ask the right honourable gentleman-- meaning the Minister- to draw his answer to a conclusion. I wonder whether you are also aware-I will give only this one further example-that page 1808 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 30 April 1981 records, when Mr Howard was answering a question, the following points of order: Mr Keating —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders provide that an answer shall be relevant to the question. A bit further on, in the same answer, is the following: Mr Hayden —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Question Time and much of the parliamentary procedure becomes low farce if questions are not answered by Ministers. Mr Keating further arose and demanded relevance and then the following was said: Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Blaxland will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Treasurer is making a statement in answer to the question, which answer is quite relevant to the question asked. A little later Mr Speaker said: Order! The Treasurer will draw his answer to a conclusion. I now draw your attention to page 2741 of Hansard in which Mr Speaker, on a point of order from Mr Uren, states: The honourable member for Reid knows that is no point of order. However, the honourable member is expressing dissatisfaction with the length of the reply, having regard to the debate which is to come, and I therefore ask the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion. A little further on: I ask the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion. A little further on: The Minister will end his answer- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Would the honourable member for O'Connor get to the point of the question. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, a little further on, on other pages, the Speaker went as far-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Would the honourable member now get to the point of the question? Mr TUCKEY —The Speaker asked the Minister to resume his seat. I am now restrained from bringing the actual pages to your attention, but I would like to give them to you. I ask: As there appears to be a wide bipartisan body of opinion on this matter-I have given you some examples of that-and in the light of the accent that the Australian judicial system places on precedent and the obvious success that Speaker Snedden achieved by the ultimate use of the Speaker's power to require a member to `resume his seat' to cause garrulous Ministers to bring their answers to a close, would you undertake further to investigate the Speaker Snedden rulings in regard to relevance and length of answers with the prospect of identifying a procedure within the present Standing Orders of returning Question Time to the status it held in 1971 when in fact the average number of questions asked was 17 per day? Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —With your indulgence, Madam Speaker: I am not sure what the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) is up to, and I would like to make some comment on his question before you review the matters that were raised. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr YOUNG —Madam Speaker, it is of some concern when a member raises such a lengthy objection to the way in which the Parliament is being run. If you are to consider some of those things, I would like to raise some points with you too. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the House must best know the procedures of this place. I put a question to-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House is speaking with the indulgence of the Chair. I call the Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for O'Connor asked you to look at the rulings of Speaker Snedden. I think you should also look at other rulings and at other conventions of this Parliament which have been carried out by this Government and which were continually broken by the Fraser Government. This Parliament has been under much better control and has been administered in a much better way since March 1983 that it ever was between 1976 and 1983. The honourable member for O'Connor knows the Standing Orders, and he knows that each Speaker who is elected will interpret them as tightly as is possible in terms of how long a Minister can take to answer a question. On a number of occasions during the years in which the honourable member for O'Connor wants you, Madam Speaker, to look at precedents, we took continual objection to Fraser Government Ministers taking a long time to answer questions. But as Speaker Snedden told us, there was very little that could be done about it under the Standing Orders. Today the honourable member for O'Connor, as honourable members opposite have done in the last few weeks, is trying to disrupt and cast aspersions on the running of the Parliament. All I am saying, Madam Speaker, is that if you look at the conduct of the Parliament since this Government was elected and contrast that with the way in which it was conducted, with every convention in the book being broken, by the Fraser Government, you will see that the Parliament is much better administered now than it ever has been. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business) —With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I rise only because the Leader of the House (Mr Young) has intervened in this matter as the question was directed to you. There is one matter that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) did not bring to your attention and which the Leader of the House did not address, and that is the increase in the numbers of members of this place. As a result of that increase, the comparison between earlier periods and today is particularly relevant. With increased numbers in the Parliament I think the obligation under the Standing Orders to determine relevance becomes even more onerous. We respect greatly the difficult position in which you find yourself, but one can turn back to any number of instances in which your predecessors have certainly seen fit to require Ministers to come to a conclusion on what they have believed to be unnecessarily long answers to questions. I give a further illustration to those referred to by the honourable member for O'Connor. As recorded on page 2877 of Hansard of 2 June 1981, on three occasions Speaker Snedden called on the then Minister for Housing and Construction to draw to a close his answer to a question. He said: I ask the Minister to bring his answer to a conclusion; `The honourable gentleman will draw his answer to a conclusion'; `The honourable gentleman will bring his answer to a conclusion or I will require him to resume his seat'; and `Order! The Minister will resume his seat'. Madam Speaker, I think that the Leader of the House, in his submission to you, failed to understand the extent to which, with increased numbers in this place, it is absolutely essential that Ministers respect the degree to which many on both sides of the chamber do not get a chance to address questions to Ministers. I suggest that it is therefore even more necessary for you to look at those precedents and perhaps to use the standing order with respect to relevance to ensure that Ministers who use too much of Question Time draw their answers to a conclusion. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Briefly, and with your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I understand from the honourable member for O'Connor that in raising this matter today he had in mind in particular an answer I gave to a question in the course of Question Time. I recognise that the answer to that question was a little long and for that I apologise most profoundly. On the other hand, one must look at the general pattern of behaviour. Even if I have to say it myself, my conduct in Question Time in the past has been exemplary. In setting that standard, I have given an example that could easily be followed. Accordingly, the exception establishes the rule. I find it not without great humour that the honourable member for O'Connor is seeking to invoke some golden age of the past in which Question Time was respected by Ministers of the day and, by implication, by Liberal-Country Party Ministers. To bolster the honourable member's case he then draws upon complaints I made when I was in opposition about the government of the day. To justify the honourable member's case that the past was better than the present, he draws upon what I said in the past about past practices. That shows beyond any doubt that not much has changed. There may well be a case for tightening up answers at Question Time. On the other hand, there is a substantial and compelling case that some questions require detail. All I can say in my own modest way is that from time to time I will endeavour to lift the intellectual application of this chamber by answering a question in detail. Madam SPEAKER —I will treat the question as being on notice. I will give the honourable member for O'Connor and the House a considered answer in due course. Mr Shipton —I take a point of order. My point of order relates to the question asked by the honourable member for O'Connor and the consideration that you, Madam Speaker, will give it. The honourable member for O'Connor, in his question, asked you to identify procedures on relevance. I ask you to consider-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. The Chair will take on board all the suggestions that were made by honourable members. Mr Donald Cameron —I ask for your indulgence, Madam Speaker. I want to draw to your attention that during the Fraser years a number-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. We have finished with the discussion. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 90 of the Wool Industry Act 1972 I present the annual report of the Australian Wool Corporation for 1985-86. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —For the information of honourable members I present a statement of expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for September 1986. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922 I present the annual report of the Department of Community Services for 1985-86. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 215 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 I present the annual report of the Repatriation Commission for 1985-86. This report also covers the activities of the Department of Veterans' Affairs for 1985-86, pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —I ask for leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr KLUGMAN —Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Dr KLUGMAN —I have some difficulty in dealing with this matter because of the question of privilege. The Weekend Australian on Saturday published an article headlined `Labor MPs to back Star Wars research'. The first section reads: Several Government back benchers will soon publicly disagree with a parliamentary report that is expected to endorse Government opposition to Australian involvement in research on Star Wars-President Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative . . . program. It is believed that both left and right-wing ALP MPs, as well as Opposition members of the Joint . . . Committee . . . will disagree with the majority findings . . . The 700-page report . . . is understood to recommend against any involvement by Australian laboratories in research on Star Wars. It goes on: However, a right-wing ALP back bencher, Dr RichardKlugman . . . is believed to have written a report disagreeing with the main findings on several points, including Star Wars. The suggestion obviously is that I have disagreed with the Committee. The report and the minority report are privileged, although the Australian has not printed the material as such. I have not disagreed with the report's finding on Australian involvement in the research. My minority report will more likely be along the following lines: Whilst I am far from convinced that the strategic defence initiative will work, and accepting that there is a significant risk of destabilisation of the current position, it is my view that agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union to share the results of any successful research and its installation by all nuclear powers would be the only path likely to lead to complete nuclear disarmament. I accept that this is not very likely, but the alternative of continuing to live permanently `protected' only by the use of `mutually assured destruction' cannot be faced with equanimity. I nowhere refer to the question of Australian involvement in Star Wars research. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I have allowed the honourable member a fair amount of time because I recognise his difficulty. I ask honour- able members not to take it as a precedent. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —I refer to an article labelled `From the Gallery' by a Mr Rod Frail which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 October 1986. The misrepresentation to which I refer is the last line of the first column of that article, which suggests that I had said that all horse races were the principal means of laundering bribes. As page 2173 of Hansard clearly shows, that was not the case. I was referring to placing a bet on the last winner after it had passed the post. 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 Blunt,Mr Cobb,Mr Coleman,Mr Dobie,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Gorman,Mr Humphreys,Mr Peter Morris,Mr Ruddock,Mr Sharp,Mr Simmons,Mr Spender and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Ian Cameron,Mrs Darling,Mr Drummond,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Ruddock,Mr Tickner and Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are concerned at the proposed changes to Family Allowances and the Spouse Rebate. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to protect the family unit by indexing Family Allowances, increasing the Spouse Rebate and introduce Income Splitting for taxation purposes for the single income family, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Adermann. To 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. 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 Hawker. 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: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. by Mr Coleman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that under the guise of ceasefires the Government of Sri Lanka has largely militarised Tamil regions and has now resorted to airship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seen even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to: 1. Intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka to desist from airship attacks and seeking a military solution; 2. To offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programmes to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; 3. Abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation of any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; 4. As a member of the Commonwealth, persuade the Government of Sri Lanka to pursue a political solution which will allow the Tamils to live in peace and dignity. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. 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 the 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 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 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 Australia respectfully 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 Benefits Tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. 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 Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr 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 petition of the 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 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 U.S. 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 petition of the undersigned shows: (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap can be terminated from 19 October 1986. (2) In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. (3) Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. (4) The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. And your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) Notice be given by 19 October 1986 that the Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap be terminated by October 1987. (2) Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. (3) Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned concerned citizens of Australia shows that: the Joint Space Defence Research Facility at Pine Gap is a vital part of United States plans to fight a nuclear war, thus implicating Australia in these immoral plans; spy satellites such as those linked to Pine Gap are used to spy on both allied and non-allied countries, including Australia; these activities of Pine Gap are a destabilizing influence in a dangerously uneasy world, raising the level of fear and distrust between nations; the significance of Pine Gap to the U.S.A. is such that it is a prime nuclear target; Pine Gap desecrates an Aboriginal dreaming track. Your petitioners therefore strongly urge that the Australian Government give to the government of the U.S.A. the one year's notice required to terminate the lease on the Joint Space Defence Research Facility at Pine Gap. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: Take the action necessary to create an Australian republic on or before 1st January 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the wake of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, no nuclear reactor can be considered entirely safe. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government close down the Lucas Heights reactors immediately and permanently, and that no new nuclear reactors be built within Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. We your petitioners, humbly showeth: That the wildlife species, in this case-the kangaroo, have a right to exist and flourish independently of human needs. For this reason alone we should not regard the kangaroo as a human resource nor contemplate commercial exploitation simply because more offspring are born each generation than can hope to survive. Permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective legislation is completely ineffective and inadequate due to the widespread nature of the industry. All Australia's have a responsibility to our already declining wildlife. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will: 1. Ban the exports of products made from kangaroos. 2. Take action to see that State Governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. by Mr Tickner. 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 years 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. 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 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 of the Australian Parliament. We, the undersigned citizens and electors of Queensland do humbly pray that the Queensland members of the House of Representatives will: (i) Oppose the introduction of the $250 Tertiary Administration Fees that were announced in the Federal Budget on Tuesday 19th August 1986. (ii) Vote against any legislation that would attempt to establish this fee, given that it is setting a precedent for further increases in fees. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry report. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free. To the Honourable the Speaker 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 Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Sutherland Shire respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian atomic energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Assent to the following Bills reported. Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill 1986 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1986 Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1986 Sales Tax Acts Amendment Bill 1986 Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Bill 1986 Intelligence and Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The abuse of the power and discretion of Government by the Hawke Labor Government in spending nearly $90 million on advertising, public relations and research for party political purposes. 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 BLUNT(Richmond)(3.12) —The matter of public importance that is to be debated in this place today is a matter of grave importance to all Australians. The Commonwealth of Australia is governed by this Parliament and this Parliament has a responsibility to govern for the benefit of all Australians: Governments have a responsibility not to exploit the power and privilege that goes with that office for party political purposes. I am sure it is of great concern to every Australian taxpayer to learn that the Hawke Labor Government has spent $90m of taxpayers' money on public relations, $34m on advertising, $33.5m on public relations and $22m on image promoting journals and magazines. One may say that that amount is not too bad for the 3 1/2 years that this Government has been in office. However, it is not for three and a half years. It does not include the current financial year and it does not include the financial year 1985-86; it refers to the previous year. In fact, it is this Government's expenditure for its first 18 months in office. It does not include 1985-86, a year in which we saw monumental advertising campaigns undertaken by this Government for blatant party political purposes and it does not include any estimate for the amount of money it is proposing to spend in the current financial year on campaigns relating to the fringe benefits tax or the so-called income tax cuts. It is not in any way an exhaustive total of the Government's expenditure in those periods. However, it is extremely accurate. Every figure has been derived as a result of questions to Ministers or freedom of information requests. For those who are particularly interested, let me say that the exact figure that we have been able to calculate as a result of questions to Ministers-questions that they have not sought to answer freely or easily-is $89,903,769.19. As I said, it is not an exhaustive list and it certainly does not cover the entire period in office of the Hawke Labor Government. I am prompted to ask why the Government has embarked upon such an extensive and expensive advertising and promotion campaign. Quite frankly, this Government has substituted public relations advertising for effective policies. We are told that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is a Prime Minister of charisma and consensus. But what that really means is that the Prime Minister is more interested in the part in his hair and the cut of his suit than in the tax paid by Australian workers. Quite frankly, it is a gross abuse of the power and privilege of government to embark on such extensive advertising campaigns. The Government has embarked on extensive advertising campaigns for two reasons. Its first motive is to sell unpopular and inept policies. A classic example of this is the fringe benefits tax. In a few minutes I will return to that. It is a classic example of the Government's method of operating in this area if ever I have seen one. Of course the other motive for indulging in this sort of expenditure is as a substitute for effective policies. There are two classic examples: The Priority One: Young Australia campaign, which could really be referred to as a `Vote One Bob Hawke' campaign; and of course the drug campaign. I will also return to both of those campaigns in more detail. Let me take a few moments to examine a proposal for massive expenditure by this Government on behalf of the fringe benefits tax. It is not included in the $90m that I have referred to already; it is a proposal for a $2m campaign to promote what has to be the most inept and stupid piece of legislation that has ever been introduced to this Parliament. It is a policy that will not work. It is a policy that people do not like. Of course the Labor Government has resorted to its classic solution: `Call in the advertising agents'. The Government has begun to concoct a very secret, expensive and irregular campaign to try to get it out of a political hole. That hole is being dug a lot deeper every time a Minister makes a statement on the subject. So far three Government Ministers have talked about their so-called fringe benefits campaign advertising and all three Ministers have been singing different songs. On 10 October I asked the Minister responsible for government advertising, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), what was happening about government advertising. He said: `It is an unbelievable flight of fancy. No one would propose to spend $2m'. Mr John Brown —Is that in the answer? Quote correctly. It is not in the answer. Mr BLUNT —Later on the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) jumped to his feet in response to a hastily orchestrated dorothy dixer and said: `This proposal has been considered by me and others in the Treasurer's private office'. So I am prepared to give the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism the benefit of the doubt. He obviously had not been told what was going on. But over the weekend something must have have happened. On Thursday, 16 October, the Treasurer had returned and was back at the job. In response to a question he said: `In conformity with established procedures three advertising agencies have been approached. At this point of time no decision has been formally taken'. One might ask what `formally taken' means. It probably means that the Government had not got the letter through the typing pool at that stage. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me tell you that the advertising agency that has got the account, the agency that is going to spend $2m of Australian taxpayers' money to promote the worst piece of legislation that this Parliament has ever seen, is already working on the campaign. Let me also tell you that part of that proposal is that that campaign should be ready to go before the end of this year. One might wonder how we could get three such conflicting answers from three Ministers in such a short time. Obviously conformity with established procedures does not mean that they have been complying with what has been published in certain annual reports as to what is the Government's procedure for advertising campaigns. It is my belief, and the belief of every member of this Parliament and the belief of all Australians who have read the annual reports, that the established procedures for government advertising are quite simple and straightforward; that is, if one wants to advertise one puts the proposal up. The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, through the Information Co-ordination Branch and a departmental panel, has a look at the proposal. It calls for tenders, examines the proposal and makes a recommendation. Then it goes to something called the ministerial committee on Government advertising. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, who is at the table, is the chairman of that committee. Mr Deputy Speaker, I remind you that on Friday, 10 October, the Minister said: `It is an unbelievable flight of fancy'. If he gave that answer on the basis that he did not know what was going on, obviously the Treasurer on 16 October, when he was talking about conformity with established procedures, was not talking about any proposal that had gone to a committee that the Minister had chaired. So I would like the Treasurer to tell me, the Parliament and the Australian people what the established procedures are that he was conforming with and just how it happens that a particular agency has already been told to go ahead and to work up the campaign to get the Government out of a hole on the fringe benefits tax. More importantly, how can it work up this campaign on the fringe benefits tax when we do not even know what sort of tax it will be because there is a review of the detailed administration of the fringe benefits tax? Obviously, it is a typical Australian Labor Party proposal. The Government will try to blind the Australian people with advertising, paid for by their own taxes, and hope that everyone will forget about it over the Christmas period. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me tell you that the more the Government spends on promoting the fringe benefits tax, the lower its political fortunes will go. Quite frankly, the Australian people are not fools. They do not approve of their hard earned money, which is ripped off them by the highest taxing Treasurer that this country has ever seen, being spent on such superficial and unessential projects as an advertising campaign. There is one thing of which I am quite confident: There is no way that the fringe benefits tax promotion will feature pictures of the Prime Minister-for one very good reason. He is so unpopular now, and he knows how unpopular this tax is, that there is no way that the two concepts would be placed so close together. It is important to have a good, hard look at how this Government conducts its entire operation. It is very much the creature of the ALP machine. Whenever there is a political hassle, one of the shadowy figures comes out of the background, makes a few comments-hopefully not picked up by the media-and the next thing we know, the Government responds, but it responds by using, not the ALP's money, but the taxpayers' money. On AM today we heard the Federal Director of the ALP talking about some of the problems that the Government currently has. What did he say? He said: `The Government must do some political campaigning'. Translated, that means that the Government must spend some of the taxpayers' money trying to get itself out of the hole it has dug for itself. A classic example of the way in which it operates is the Priority One campaign. The Australian Labor Party came to office on a claim that it would do something for the young unemployed of Australia. It did absolutely nothing except spend an immense amount of money promoting itself and trying to convince people that it had a policy that would work. Let us look at what was involved in that Priority One campaign. The Government spent $373,000 on Press advertising. There was a payment of $83,000 to an agency, known as Chandler Hambleton Mier Pty Ltd, an agency whose previous claim to fame was that it worked for the ALP during the Nunawading by-election-a by-election which will go down in the history of Australian politics for the way in which it was conducted. The Prime Minister's address to the nation, which was presented in a way designed to convince people that it was prepared by young Australians, actually cost $55,000. Questions asked at Senate Estimates committee hearings indicate that about $1.6m has been spent on Priority One, including the phone-in. The company which organised the phone-in was paid $450,000 for doing so; $287,000 was spent on media promotion for the phone-in service; $98,000 went on newspapers offering information; $32,000 was spent on radio spots advertising that the Prime Minister would be heard on a particular radio station; $25,000 was spent on extending the phone-in for another 10 days; and $48,000 was spent on research. All this money was spent for what? How many jobs were created? How many young people were helped? All I know is that the taxpayers of Australia did not get a very good deal out of that little proposal. We have to ask: What will happen to the names and addresses that were collected during this very expensive program? I wonder whether the Prime Minister or any other Government member will give us an undertaking that those names and addresses will not be used for party political purposes. In fact, will they even tell us what they will use those names and addresses for? It is, in my opinion, a very sinister development in Australian politics for a government to spend such an immense amount of money compiling such a large and expensive databank without telling the taxpayers, the Parliament or anyone what it intends to do with that data- bank. It is, I believe, beyond the true province of government and a threat to the democratic processes of this country when a government is prepared to spend immense amounts of money to use its executive discretion for those sorts of purposes. I mention the drugs campaign. Drugs are a very major problem for all Australians. This Government's policy on drugs is like its policy on everything else: It is froth and bubble. It uses a major advertising campaign, in an attempt to convince the Australian people that it has a program, that it has a policy, and that it is dealing effectively with the problem confronting all Australians. All we have got of the drugs campaign is a massive expenditure on public relations and advertising-some $13m over three years, I am told-and, quite frankly, very little of it is getting through to the streets, where the money should be spent. If we are to deal effectively with the drug problem in this country we should not be making advertising agents wealthy; we should be spending money on people who can effectively combat drug pushers and drug dealers. It concerns me that this Government's economic policies have failed and that it is resorting to advertising to try to convince the Australian people that it remains in control of this economy. One would think from looking at the Government's record-$90m in its first 18 months in office and I do not know how many millions more it is proposing to spend in the next 18 months-that we were going to have an advertising-led recovery. Let us look at to whom this Government pays money and on whom it spends money for research. What money has it spent with Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd, which also happens to be the Australian Labor Party's research and polling firm? ANOP conducted a survey on what women think, at a cost of $70,000; a survey into community attitudes towards tax reform, which is a nice non-partisan issue, at a cost of $160,000-it was done by the ALP's own polling agency; a survey into possible community Aboriginal awareness programs, at a cost of $59,000; a survey of youth attitudes towards the defence forces, $25,000; a survey of community reactions to the Australian Medical Association-Government dispute, $20,000-a non-partisan research project if ever I have seen one; the anti-drug research campaign, $10,000; a survey on attitudes to various government policies, done by the Australian Labor Party's research company, $120,000. I ask honourable members to make the obvious linkage between those two figures. The list goes on. Money is paid not only to research companies but also to advertising agencies. Forbes Macfie Hansen Pty Ltd works extensively for the ALP and did the Thieving Magpie campaign as the Labor Party's mid-term campaign in March 1986. It has done a large number of advertising campaigns on behalf of this Government. I believe that this Government has exceeded its authority in this area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(3.27) —Once again the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), in his usual role as the bucket tipper, has come into this Parliament accusing everybody within sight of dishonesty, corruption, all sorts of deceptions-- Mr Blunt —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I at no stage accused anybody of dishonesty or corruption. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order, but the honourable member has made his point. Mr JOHN BROWN —Even if he did not use those actual words, everything the honourable member says in this place is negative, carping, mean and sleazy. Let us look at the terms of the matter of public importance. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We have had a bellyful of words such as `sleazy' in this House. If I use that word, which perhaps I should not, it is to indicate that the honourable member should not use it. I think that Madam Speaker has ruled that it is unparliamentary and I ask you to request the honourable member to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I do not recall any such ruling, but the Minister might take on board what has been said. Mr JOHN BROWN —The terms of the matter of public importance state: . . . spending nearly $90 million on advertising, public relations and research for party political purposes. If that is not a sleazy attack on this Government I do not know what is, and it is in line with the normal style of the honourable member for Richmond. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister is using the same word and I ask that you rule whether or not it is parliamentary. If it is parliamentary, then it is a curious result. If it is not, then he should not use it and you should tell him so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the honourable member for North Sydney might be aware that some years ago a list of alleged improper words was kept. I think it may have been discontinued because it got too long. Members should use their best judgment in debate in the House. Madam Speaker has drawn the House's attention to the fact that she felt the language used by members was not as conducive to good debate as it could be. I hope all members will bear that in mind, and I am sure the Minister will in making his further contribution. Mr JOHN BROWN —I find the terms of the matter of public importance quite offensive. It accuses this Government of spending $90m of government money-public money-on party political purposes. I think I can prove that that is not the case. In doing so, I will refer briefly to the history of the previous Government and to the nefarious instrument it used called the Government Information Unit. I think it was an insult to every decent taxpaying Australian that the Fraser-Howard Government employed this very nasty little operation, which was an extension of the headquarters of the Liberal Party of Australia, that did nothing more than provide government money for the propaganda of that Government. Mr Blunt —We'll have another one tomorrow on yours. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Richmond will cease interjecting across the table. Mr JOHN BROWN —I usually do a single act. The previous Government quite blatantly used public money to extend promotion and propaganda on behalf of the Liberal Party. We found it so offensive that we disbanded this organisation immediately on coming to government. Mr Blunt —And set up another one. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Richmond continues to interject, I will deal with him. Mr JOHN BROWN —We set up a body which has deliberately set out to raise the standard of government information services and/or advertising. Mrs Sullivan —Ha! Mr JOHN BROWN —Despite the huff-huffings of the honourable member for Moncrieff, this happens to be the case. The revised system came into being on 1 October 1984 after we had sought a report on the system in July 1983 from Coopers and Lybrand. We immediately implemented its recommendations. The fundamental recommendation was to go to an open tender system for the appointment of master placing and charging agencies for Commonwealth advertising. This was an enormous step up in honesty and decency on the performance of the previous Government. The system that has been put into place has some very distinctive features. It is simpler and more efficient. It is more cost effective and uses resources much more efficiently, it achieves the integration of advertising into the overall communications co-ordination responsibility and it achieves a more appropriate balance between the central advertising service and responsible departments. There is no question that the system we use is ever so much more accountable. It is accountable to the extent that, because this Government is not afraid to have its motives investigated, it introduced freedom of information legislation, which means that all of those documents are available for people quickly to survey if-- Opposition members interjecting-- Mr JOHN BROWN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I will amend that statement just to suit the efficacy of the moment. The freedom of information system is being used very freely to make sure that this Government is honest. It was not used against the previous Government because it was not in place long enough for that to happen. We have been quite happy to operate under such a system because our motives and operations are open for inspection by anybody. There has been an enormous difference between the attitudes of the previous Government to government advertising and the expenditure of public money and the attitudes of this Government. I turn to the credibility of the proposer of this matter of public importance because on 10 October last year he and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) stood up and spoke on a similar matter. They made all sorts of outrageous claims that evoked an immediate response from the advertising industry. I quote what the advertising industry thought about the two honourable members who spoke on that matter. In doing so, I might question the motives behind and the accuracy of the statements that the honourable member for Richmond has now made about $90m worth of expenditure by this Government in 18 months. I have never heard such a farrago of overstatement. The honourable member must have taken into account every statutory authority and every government publication which had nothing to do with advertising. This is what the advertising industry said: A strong Federal Opposition attack in Parliament against the Government's advertising spending of around $27m and MDA's position in it, backfired when MDA corrected numerous facts contained in the speeches by two shadow Ministers. The shadow Ministers who made the attack were Wilson Tuckey . . . and Charles Blunt. I would like to mention a few things that were said by the industry. It said, referring to me; This Minister . . . said that if the Opposition could produce any evidence of Government dishonesty or favouritism in the handling of its advertising, the Government would hold an inquiry. In a Press statement, Blunt said two agencies had benefited from massive government spending on advertising. MDA had been paid less than $200,000 . . . He also attacked MDA's gaining one of three master agencies for TV, radio and cinema advertising. Also attacked, was the ALP's research agency, ANOP, which, he said, earned $349,500 from government contracts . . . The Opposition outlined what it thought was MDA's involvement in government advertising but group managing director Malcolm Spry, gave detailed and what appeared were accurate replies to most of the facts given by the Shadow Ministers. Spry made the point-and I summarise what he said-that MDA had three campaigns, not the 10 that the honourable members opposite claimed it had run. So the honourable members were just 70 per cent wrong. The honourable member for Richmond can shake his head as much as he likes-it rattles-nevertheless, this happens to be true. The advertising industry then went on to mention a whole range of other inaccuracies which it answered very effectively. I doubt very much the accuracy of the statements that the honourable member for Richmond has just made. Certainly, he has produced nothing to back them up. The honourable member spoke about my answer to his question about the $2m campaign. I said his claim was a flight of fantasy. He went on to say that I said: `Would anyone spend $2m?'. My answer was very brief. I said it was a flight of fancy and that the question did not warrant a response. I did not go on to mention $2m-those were the honourable member's words. I would like to quote the figures in regard to government advertising from 1981 to 1985. In 1981, under the previous Government, the figure was $23.25m. In 1982 it was $17.59m. In 1982-83, which was an election year, the figure was $24.84m. In 1983-84, the first year of this Government, it was $24.13m-a very slight increase. In 1984-85 it was $27.16m and in 1985-86 it was $34.64m. Let it be noted that this Government has taken on the responsibility of heading and in conjunction with all of the States-including some States of the same political colour as the party to which the honourable member for Richmond belongs-invoking a campaign to stop the spread of drug abuse in Australia. Do honour- able members think that that is something of party political value? Do they think it is of party political value that the Government has involved itself in very heavy campaigning against the spread of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome? Do they find it offensive that the Government is financing those sorts of operations? I will give honourable members opposite an idea of the sorts of things that this Government is advertising under the present program. Under the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, assistance to the arts, the Australia Council is promoting the National Gallery and its collection. What a great political venture! The Attorney-General's Department is raising the consumer awareness of young people and advertising the recall of unsafe products. That would be of great value to the Labor Party! The Department of Communications is advertising the ultra-high frequency band and educating the public on how to use it. The Department of Defence is running a recruiting campaign in which it is advertising all avenues of entry-something which all governments have advertised. An amount of $9m is involved here. The Department of Education is advertising participation in education and student assistance in rural areas. This is good for the National Party of Australia, of which the honourable member happens to be a member. There is also a national campaign on the education initiatives of Priority One: Young Australia. Just while I am on Priority One, the honourable member referred in furtive and sinister terms to the list of names claiming that it was going to be used for promoting the Labor Party. As I understand, those names were used once for a mail-out. The information for the surveys was analysed separately from those names. As far as I know, the list of names was destroyed. Perhaps the honourable member should direct that question to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet because I am saying that that is the position as far as I know-I am not asserting it is so. A national awareness campaign on traineeships is being advertised in respect of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I suppose honourable members are against giving traineeships to unemployed kids. The International Year of Peace is being advertised by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I know that honourable members opposite are against that. In regard to the Department of Health, advertising is being conducted for the national campaign against drug abuse and the national campaign on AIDS. The Department of Housing and Construction has advertised in respect of the first home owners scheme. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has been concerned with advertising to improve community awareness of migration policies. The list goes on and on. They are the sorts of things that this Government is spending its advertising money on-not on promoting its Party, as the previous Government did, to its great discredit. The honourable member for Richmond, who is a member of the National Party, has come into this place and lectured this Government about its advertising. I hope that he has had a look at the performance of his confreres, his colleagues, his partners in crime in Queensland and seen what they are doing with public money in the midst of an election campaign. Have a look at this lot: Last week the State Opposition in Queensland blasted the Queensland Government for spending $7.9m last financial year on advertising to promote Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Cabinet Ministers. This money was spent not on any government program but merely on programs of self-aggrandisement for the Premier and his Ministers. Let us look at a couple of these. Look at the infamy of this one-a full-page advertisement by the Queensland Government in the local papers with the heading: `Good luck Brisbane in its campaign to win the Olympic Games'. Another one states: `Our aim is to give Christine a chance'. Then there is `Queensland a stronger State of better life' by the Hon. Yvonne Chapman, MLA, Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs-sitting in a marginal seat and using public money. Do those people in the public gallery realise that this is public money being used by the Queensland Government to promote one of its lousy Ministers, et cetera? The gall of the honourable member for Richmond, a National Party member, coming in here and criticising this Government for its splendid and very-- Mr Blunt —This is not a very effective answer. Mr Spender —It's a terrible answer. Mr JOHN BROWN —Is it really? What gall for the honourable member to criticise this Government for its very honest performance in making the public aware of the services that are available to them with the expenditure of government money. I can find nothing in his argument to sustain any sort of reasoned argument against us. Mr Tim Fischer —He's struggling. Mr JOHN BROWN —Yes, I am struggling with the poorness of the Opposition's argument. Blatant political advertising was a hallmark of the previous Fraser Government. We have resisted the attempt to do likewise and in fact have set up a process which is absolutely fair and which calls for public tender and public scrutiny. I will stand here and argue forever that this Government has not been involved in spending public money on party promotion. The performance of the honourable member for Richmond in launching these campaigns against this Government brings no credit to him. He is forever firing bullets out here that do not hit anybody. He has fired a couple at me on another area and very shortly I will have a couple of police reports here that will bring both him and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) undone. He comes in here alleging corruption, alleging dishonesty and alleging all sorts of bad motives by this Government and today's attack was no different. He has never yet been able to sheet them home with one form of reasoned argument, and today was no different. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(3.43) —It is fortuitous that the time available to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has run out. His arguments are so vacuous and his invective so unnecessary-- Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order arises out of a personal experience. On three occasions last week I was threatened in this place. I ask you: When the honourable member for Richmond approached the chair, was he attempting to intimidate or threaten you? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Melbourne will behave himself. Mr DOWNER —This Government will go down in history as the Madison Avenue Government, the government which, on the Minister's own admission, has increased spending on advertising-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Mayo to resume his seat for just a moment. I think it might be necessary, rather than make light of what the honourable member for Melbourne said, for me to categorically deny the suggestion that he made and state that the honourable member for Richmond under no circumstances was attempting to threaten me in any way at all. I call the honourable member for Mayo. Mr DOWNER —The Minister admits that the Government's spending on advertising has gone up from $24m during the period of the Fraser Government to about $35m under this Government and puts that forward as a defence. I would have thought that that would have been one of the more feeble defences imaginable. He also went on to contest the statistics that the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has put forward, yet those figures are based on answers to questions asked by members of the Opposition on numerous occasions and those answers are right here beside me-hundreds of questions asked in order to obtain this information. If the Government is contesting our figures and saying that they are wrong, it has been misleading the House in the answers it has been giving. The Minister also made some contention about freedom of information. We remind him that it was the Fraser Government which introduced the freedom of information legislation. It is this Government that has not only made access to government documents more difficult by its amendments to that legislation but also substantially increased charges on obtaining that information, thereby making it much more difficult. The simple fact is, as the honourable member for Richmond has said, that some $90m was spent last financial year by this Government on advertising. The honourable member for Richmond has only just touched the surface and I would like to build on some of the examples that he has put forward. He mentioned the Government's advertising in relation to the fringe benefits tax. Honourable members will remember that the Government produced 750,000 copies of a booklet called `A Guide for Employers', produced at a cost of $174,000. Incredibly, so inefficient was the Government's advertising campaign that it had to distribute an amendment to 450,000 people at a cost of around $400,000. By the way, 300,000 people did not even get hold of a copy of the amendment. Subsequently another booklet, entitled `A Supplement to the Guide for Employers', was introduced, and 120,000 copies of that were produced at a cost of $9,900. No doubt once the Government changes the fringe benefits tax yet again, new booklets will be produced at an extraordinary cost to the taxpayer in order to try to justify his utterly absurd tax measure. Another example is the case of the Australia Card. So far no legislation has been introduced and all the signs are that this legislation will be defeated in the Senate, but that has not stopped the Government from putting forward large amounts of taxpayers' money to try to justify the initiative and to try to sell it. In January it spent $22,000 on a survey on attitudes of Australians to the Australia Card. Once it got the results of that survey, out it went to advertise it. It produced 664,000 pamphlets entitled `Explaining the New Australia Card', at a cost of over $17,000-again an example of government wastage in this area and of gross political promotion. The honourable member for Richmond referred to the Government's Priority One campaign. It produced a whole lot of newsletters called, not surprisingly, `Priority One'. These newsletters cost $147,475 to produce and of course they have been distributed fairly widely to Commonwealth Employment Service offices, to Department of Social Security offices, to Department of Education offices, to cinemas, to youth organisations, to post offices and, believe it or not, even to shopping centres. The first edition of this two-edition piece of propaganda was delivered not in the normal way that one might expect, by ordinary mail or even by generous supporters of the Australian Labor Party, but by express courier; 1.3 million copies of this `Priority One' newsletter were delivered by express courier. The second edition then came out and half a million copies of that were also delivered by express courier. In other words, there is no doubt whatsoever that that particular document is little more than government propaganda distributed at a vastly expensive rate. The Government has produced a booklet entitled `Record of Government'. It printed 32,000 copies of this blatant propaganda which cost $55,000 to produce, and that propaganda was distributed to a range of community organisations. Is it objective? The Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, said: The booklet was designed to provide a comprehensive and accurate summary of the Government's first three years in office. When we look at it we see that it is little more than blatant propaganda with no reference to scandals in the Government and no reference to the fact that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) was forced to resign on two occasions. None of those things are in it; just blatant propaganda supporting programs, some of which were started during the term of the previous Government. Australians have no choice about joining Medicare; it is compulsory for them to take out Medicare insurance. If it is compulsory, why did the Government have to advertise? Yet in 1983-84, when Medicare was introduced, the Government spent $2.8m on advertising the fact that it had been introduced. Yet everybody was forced to join it. The Government spent $1.5m on television advertising, $350,000 on radio advertising and three-quarters of a million dollars on Press advertising. As if it were not enough to spend $2.8m in 1983-84, in the last financial year another million dollars was added to that in advertising for Medicare. Equally scandalous in the Health portfolio is the fact that when the Government was in confrontation with the Australian Medical Association, when doctors were trying to maintain their independence as a profession, the Government spent $75,000 on advertising its side of the argument. It also spent money on an opinion survey to try to establish what people thought about the dispute. I suppose the advertising campaign followed that survey. We have had the fiasco of the Army Reserve advertisement which featured, and still features, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Last financial year the Government spent $2.5m on that. It had to, of course, as people had been leaving the Army Reserve ever since the Government abandoned the tax exemption for members of the Reserve. What was the result of the $2.5m advertising campaign? Numbers actually declined by 550 last year. We had the utterly scandalous and blatant advertising of the Government's so-called rural statement, which was little more than an offence to farmers. It spent $127,000 on an advertising campaign for that statement. Twenty thousand booklets were printed, $33,000 was spent on printing them, $11,000 was spent on stamps for them, and $77,000 was spent on advertising in newspapers and in the electronic media. Those are just a small number of examples of blatant political advertising, all at the expense of that very long suffering creature, the Australian taxpayer. The honourable member for Richmond referred to the fact that Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd, the opinion pollster for the Australian Labor Party, has been a very fortunate beneficiary of the Government's research budget. ANOP has received $800,000 from the Government in research contracts. That is excluding money spent on the Labor Party's research; that is for the Government. That is $800,000 of taxpayers' money, according to answers given by Ministers to questions on notice. The Government has spent money on a survey on attitudes to Government policies. It has spent money on research into the understanding of school funding and on research into the Tasmanian dam consequences. It spent $60,000 on research into Medicare-more money wasted on the Medicare fiasco. An amount of $44,000 was wasted on research into a public attitude survey on the introduction of unleaded petrol. So the list goes on. The Government collects information at a cost to the taxpayer through ANOP and then wastes money on advertising campaigns. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(3.53) —The Government welcomes the proposal before the House. In fact, the Government was thinking of pursuing a debate of this nature itself. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has presented such a debate to us. It is quite extraordinary that he has the gall to present this nonsense when his colleagues just north of his electorate have, for many years, scandalously misused taxpayers' funds in Queensland. I will say more about that later. We have heard the honourable member for Richmond and the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) talk about advertising along the lines that no government should ever advertise any new project. That is absolute nonsense. All governments have a right to do that and, in fact, should do it. Governments have a legitimate right to advertise any new project, such as Medibank when it was introduced. The Fraser Government introduced five of them in regard to health. There have been a number of such advertising campaigns. The honourable member for Mayo mentioned a few quite legitimate ones. The honourable member for Richmond spoke about drugs and Priority One. He said that we should not advertise the drug situation. Having regard to the total dishonesty of that remark, the facts are that some 13 per cent of the $100m additional drug moneys is going on public information and related activities and that most of the remainder is going to the street level, where the honourable member for Richmond said it was not going. The dishonest approach he takes is contradicted by the facts. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member should not accuse the honourable member for Richmond of dishonesty. He should withdraw. Mr CHARLES —I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Most of the remainder is going to the street level, to schools, to treatment provision, to rehabilitation work and to preventive education. Even today there are letters to the papers refuting the false allegations spread by many honourable members opposite. Public information is one of the weapons in the anti-drug offensive which is being supported by every State government in Australia and by most advanced industrialised nations. The honourable member for Richmond has the hide in this House to talk nonsense-we are not allowed to use the word `dishonesty'-and distort the facts about the $100m that this Government is spending on the drug offensive, which the vast majority of Australians would clearly support. Yet those opposite are saying: `We do not want to use money for that. We do not want to use money to support the young people through Priority One'. We have the stupidity of the Opposition saying: `We cannot understand the fringe benefits tax. Why don't you tell the people about it?'. The Government spends money to inform the people about the fringe benefits tax, and booklets are written for employers so that they can understand it, yet the honourable member for Mayo says: `What a scandal. The Government is informing the people about the new tax system'. What an unbelievably stupid thing to say. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. Either it wants people to be informed or it does not. In fact, many people have come into my electorate office and said to me: `I think things have improved markedly in regard to information'. One can get information about a whole range of issues such as that put out in little booklets that have emanated from this Government. People have been informed about a whole host of issues. This Government has backed such politically motivated issues as the Aussie sports campaign, yet the honourable members for Richmond and Mayo and most honourable members opposite would not support the health and well-being of our young people and the sports they are interested in. This Government has put money into the promotion of that program. That is the subject of the drivel that those opposite are going on with today. They do not want to support that sort of thing. Let me talk about the Queensland Government for a moment. The Brisbane Telegraph of 22 April this year, in an article by Doug Button, states: Latest figures available for 1984-85 financial year show the State Government- that is the Queensland State Government- paid nearly $8 million to public relations agencies and advertising agencies. The Liberal Party leader, Sir William Knox, called the figure `excessive' . . . He is quoted further as saying: `The spending to promote Ministers is totally out of control in this State'. . . That is from the leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland, not the Labor Party. Eight million dollars went to agencies. There is a whole list of agencies that received massive amounts of money from the Queensland Government. I have a full-page advertisement here which says: `Good Luck Brisbane' and shows the aging politician who is about to go out the door, Old Wrinkle Face himself, who is about to go down the gurgler, which the Queensland people recognise-the picture was taken a few years ago-was trying to back up the election campaign that is under way. It has nothing to do with the Brisbane Olympics bid but is completely to do with the election campaign that is operating in Queensland at present. We know that $8m has been spent by the Queensland Government in 1984-85-heaven knows what it will be this year; it will be massively more-on numerous advertising agencies when it is too stingy to introduce a pensioner rebate scheme for electricity. It is unbelievable. I am not quite sure where the Opposition got its figure of $90m from-I think it dreamt it up last night-but it is interesting to look at the facts. In 1980-81 the Fraser Government spent in total on media advertising $23.25m. Mr Simmons —Was that all with Masius? Mr CHARLES —Was it all with Masius? Who knows what the previous Government spent with Masius. People talk about $800,000 going to this Government's advertising agency, Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd. Masius over the years must have earnt millions of dollars from the Liberal Party of Australia. In 1980-81, the total media cost was $23.25m. Five years later, the cost was $34.64m for 1985-86. That figure hardly keeps pace with inflation. Yet the Opposition talked today about the politicalisation of government advertising. That figure of $34m includes $4m for the drug campaign and $2m for the campaign against the spread of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The facts show that spending on advertising has hardly kept pace with inflation. We have had a go at the National Party of Australia and its scandalous use of funds. That continues. The people of Queensland have woken up to that. As the campaign marches on, it is quite clear that we will see a new government after 1 November. In March 1982 in Victoria the then Thompson Government spent a fortune through statutory authorities in the final weeks leading up to the State election. That was scandalous misuse of taxpayers' money. The Urban Land Authority introduced `Operation Homebuyer', saying that it was a great way for all new home buyers to fight rising interest rates. The State Liberal Government in Victoria in 1982 used two full-page advertisements to advertise that and used those advertisements to get around the law. But the people saw through that. There was a Cain government just weeks after that. In the next couple of weeks people will see through the disgraceful advertising campaign that has gone on for too long in Queensland. This whole matter of public importance debate is a sham. The Government welcomes it. The facts stand for themselves. The Government is proud to promote such things as Aussie sports and the drug offensive as we have done over the last three and a half years-and we will continue to do so. We make no apology for that. The House rejects totally this proposal that the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has put before it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Consideration resumed from 17 October. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(4.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. As this matter has been widely canvassed in the Senate, with an explanatory memorandum, I simply table a copy of the second reading speech of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 16 October. Schedule 3. Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment Proposed expenditure, $193,300,000. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism Proposed expenditure, $92,032,000. Department of Territories Proposed expenditure, $529 924,000. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(4.05) —It is a great and gross discourtesy to the Committee that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) is not in the chamber today. It is the responsibility of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) to make sure that the Minister responsible is present at a time suitable to him and to Government Business. These estimates are the responsibility of the Minister. He is answerable to this chamber. The estimates for the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment include estimates related to the environment and, in particular, the Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory. The future of the Kakadu National Park has been the subject of considerable public comment in recent weeks. In many respects it demonstrates the utter perfidy of this Hawke Labor Government which on the one hand talks about maintaining standards of propriety while on the other anticipating its own decisions and ignoring absolutely the involvement of State governments. We are talking about a Government decision, recently announced, to increase the size of the Kakadu National Park to about 20,000 square kilometres. The park will now be so large that if it were superimposed on Sydney it would stretch from Newcastle to Wollongong and west to Lithgow. In any terms, but especially in European equivalents, it represents the size of a total nation. The Opposition does not resile from or in any sense disapprove of a concept of national parks, but it is our responsibility to the Australian people to make this Government reconsider whether such a vast area of land should be totally locked up against any prospect of development-especially of mining and, to a lesser extent, of tourism. It is an extraordinary situation that the second management plan which is now before the Senate, coming as it did, on the basis of the first management plan for stage 1 of Kakadu, is so different in many fundamental ways. The first management plan, introduced into this Parliament and passed by it in the time of the Fraser Government, made provision for exploration and, where environmental considerations were fully catered for, potential mining in stage 1. The proposal now for stages 1, 2 and, in due course no doubt, 3 is fundamentally different in that it excludes forever any prospect of exploration or mining taking place in any of that area, subject only to the handful of leases which were in place before the areas were designated as a national park. Whether we like it or not, Kakadu contains one of the world's richest known ore bodies, especially of uranium. It is on that knowledge that this Government's policy has been based. It is not trying to say to the world: `We want to create the world's largest national park which for all time will be free of human involvement or development'. It is simply saying: `We have a political problem in the Labor Party. It is called uranium. Because of that political problem, we are not prepared to permit any development whatsoever to take place in that area'. The area which is subject to this problem contains stages 1 and 2, which are known to contain one of the richest uranium ore bodies in the world. But that is not all. There are other minerals to be found elsewhere in stage 2 of Kakadu. All this Government has proposed is that when stage 3 is finally added-an area which, it has to admit, has very few ecological advantages, save that it is part of the same river catchment area-with the exception of that catchment region there are significant parts of stage 3 which ought to be protected. No one denies that. But to suggest that we have to add a further 7,000 square kilometres to what is already the largest national park in this country, if not one of the largest in the world, beggars the imagination. Whether this nation likes it or not, we have a responsibility to this and future generations at least to know what resources we have. This Government will not even allow mining companies to carry out exploration in these areas. If exploration is to be carried out, subject to the implementation of the appropriate environmental impact statement and the protection required of the environment of a national park, the decisions must be taken by government. The people facing the Australian people today, the members of the Hawke Labor Government, simply solve their problem on doctrinal lines by saying that there will be no mining under any circumstances at any time in any place. On that basis the Government seriously suggests to the Australian people that it is responsible for the management of the nation's affairs. The background of the Kakadu situation in recent months has been nothing short of a disgrace, both the personal involvement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and especially that of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Let me give honourable members some of the background. On 18 November 1983 the Prime Minister put out a statement telling the Australian people that because of the troubles he was having in the Australian Labor Party there would be no further mining in stage 1. As a palliative to the Northern Territory in particular he said: Subject to negotiations with the Northern Territory Government and Aboriginal groups, an additional expenditure of the order of $36m- remember that figure- over six years is envisaged under the accelerated development program. In the Northern Territory election the following year he made an even more generous statement. He suggested that the Government would be spending up to $70m to develop Kakadu. I ask, given the four Budgets for which this Minister has been responsible, where is this money? It is not in this year's Budget. It was not in last year's Budget. It was not in the 1983 Budget. I think it is fair to say that we are never going to see it. Once again it is an example-mentioned by my colleague earlier-of a Madison Avenue government which promises the world, works on advertising and public relations, but which ultimately does not deliver. Assessments which have been conducted by my Party and by the Party of honourable members opposite bear out the fact that the Australian electorate is sick and tired of a government which makes promises and commitments and then, time after time, fails to deliver. I will read to honourable members a little quotation, as we are on the subject of the environment. One of the people who were surveyed in our last analysis was asked about the capacity of this government to break its promises. He answered: `The only promise the Labor Government has not broken is that it has not yet flooded the Franklin.' Mr White —Not yet. Mr CONNOLLY —It has not yet flooded the Franklin. That is what the Australian people think of the Hawke Labor Government. Let us examine the record of Kakadu and how things have been carried through. On 16 September this year the Minister, who is not with us, made a number of interesting proposals. Mr Holding —He is ill. Mr CONNOLLY —I am sorry to hear that he is ill, but that does not alter one iota what I said when I started. This debate should not be carried out when the Minister responsible is not able to defend the estimates of his own expenditure. That is not our responsibility; it is the responsibility of those opposite. On 16 September this year the Minister wrote to his opposite number in the Northern Territory, Mr Coulter, and said: `We will not proceed with the announcement of stages 2 or 3 of Kakadu until we have carried out discussions with you'. Those discussions never took place. In that act the Minister personally abrogated the agreement entered into by the Commonwealth and all the States. The CONCOM agreement of July 1984 stated that the Commonwealth Government would write to the State and Territory governments inviting them to submit suggestions with supporting information for places to be examined with a view to possible future nomination on the World Heritage List. It stated that the Commonwealth Government would arrange for the appropriate authorities to examine places against the stringent criteria for World Heritage listing and that any consideration by the Commonwealth Government of the issues is to involve full consultation with the State and Territory governments. That was a breach of agreement-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(4.16) —In the absence of my colleague the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), I desire to answer some of the allegations that have been made by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) speaking on behalf of the Opposition in terms of its perception of the future of Kakadu National Park. As Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I was privy to the discussions which led this Government to its very principled decision that there should be no mining in stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu. That decision was not reached lightly. It did not relate to some perception that this Government, as such, was anti-mining. Mr Connolly —But you are anti-mining. Your record stands. Mr HOLDING —Let me say to the honourable gentleman that at this stage the Opposition has placed itself in the position, in respect of one of the great natural wonders of the world, of being little more than a lickspittle mouthpiece for mining interests, who take the view that if there is something to dig up it should be dug up. I will say this for Mr Hugh Morgan: He is perfectly candid about it. He does not mind whether it is under the Vatican, under the Shrine or in the middle of Kakadu. As far as he is concerned, mining interests transcend every other interest. That is a completely legitimate viewpoint for a miner but it is not a legitimate viewpoint for a government or for an opposition, which has to balance the range of interests any citizen has to consider in respect of the future of the national park. Let us consider the most recent support given by the Northern Territory Government to the application of Peko Wallsend Ltd to mine or explore in Kakadu National Park. What are the facts? The facts are that the application did not arise during the life of this Government. The application to consider the exploration of some of these areas of land, which were subject to both mining exploration leases and applications to explore, came up during the period of the Fraser Government. The argument of Peko, which was addressed both to the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Commissioner and subsequently to two Liberal Ministers, was simply that the land should not be considered eligible to become Aboriginal land because that would place Peko in the position of having to deal with it under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Peko was saying that any land which becomes Aboriginal land under the Land Rights Act places an impediment on the miner. That argument had been rejected by the Courts which was dealing with the matter on two occasions. On two occasions the courts decided that that could not constitute detriment. The spokesman for Peko, a director who gave evidence on behalf of the company, did not place all the facts before the Federal Court. It is the only occasion about which a judicial record says that the nature of the application was misleading, vague and inaccurate. That is not simply the finding of one judge. It is the finding of the full Federal Court of Australia, and confirmed by the High Court of Australia. What are we looking at? We are looking at a company which said that that was its position. Peko then approached Minister Baume, who could not be regarded as a Minister who was opposed totally to mining but who had a duty as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. He had almost 12 months in which, if he had so desired, he could have moved to excise these areas from the park so that they would be eligible for mining. He did not do so. Why did he not do so? I submit that the reason is that he was no more prepared as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to consider that argument than I was. Peko then went to Minister Wilson with a letter saying: `We would like to come and see you and discuss it'. Minister Wilson, a member of the Fraser Government, would not even see Peko. He was not going to decide anything. So the question of whether or not this particular land became Aboriginal land landed on my lap, when something like 18 months or two years had elapsed during which time it was possible for Liberal Ministers in a Liberal government to have had these areas excluded from the park so that they would be available for mining. Why does the shadow Minister not say how, during the period of the Fraser Government, these issues were on the table but were not dealt with to the satisfaction of the mining companies, but when we make a decision which excludes mining all of a sudden we are sinful? The sins of omission can be as serious as the sins of commission. As a responsible shadow Minister, he should ask himself why it was that no fewer than two Ministers in a coalition government sat on this for almost 18 months. If the previous Government was so keen on allowing mining, why did it not say that it had before it a perfectly reasonable application, and excise that area from the park? I think there were two reasons. First of all, there was the advice from the Department of the effect this would have on the operation of the Land Rights Act generally. But there is another very simple reason. I am not a miner, but if one travels to Kakadu National Park-the shadow Minister knows this-any time between now and the next eight weeks the one thing one can be certain of, as certain as night follows day, is that the East Alligator River will break its banks. If one were to visit the area that Peko is talking about mining, during this season, one would have to visit it by boat because there would be between one and 10 feet of water flowing over this area. Honourable members opposite come in here, knowing the nature of the environment and knowing that it is flood prone, and say: `Well, there is no real problem about any of that. After all, Geopeko and Mr Copeman'-that is his name, is it not?-`are part of the New Right and they say that we had better go ahead and mine, irrespective of the fact that the uranium is being mined in the middle of a flood prone area and irrespective of the fact that the actual tenement areas are so small that one cannot construct an effective mine on them unless the Government grants further areas of land'. Mr Connolly —You promised that you would. Mr HOLDING —I did not promise anything of the sort, my friend. Mr Connolly —Your previous Whitlam Government committed that fact. It's on the record. Mr HOLDING —What my dear friend cannot explain is that, in seven years of Fraser Government, two of his present colleagues had all this evidence before them but they would not make a decision. The reason that they would not make a decision was that they knew it was intrinsically wrong and intrinsically detrimental to the whole future of the national park. I know a bit about mining. We have some mines in Victoria. We have the biggest open cut mine in the world. I do not see any tourists heading down to Gippsland to look at the biggest open cut mine in the world. It is a great big black hole-something like the minds of the honourable gentlemen opposite. In this situation I think there are plenty of arguments as to the way in which one can develop a national park, but the glib and specious argument put up by the Opposition is that it is all compatible. If it is all compatible, the shadow Minister should say why two of his colleagues, when in office, had all the capacity and all the power to make the decisions but did not make them. They did not make the decisions then because they knew it was intrinsically wrong and I venture to suggest that if the previous Government were ever to get back into power, it would not make them again. As I said the other day, on these sorts of issues it is time that the Opposition looked at the details. If it looked at the detail it would find that the only mature policy for the future of this very valuable heritage area is to say quite bluntly and frankly to the people of Australia that it is part of a World Heritage area and that in stages 1 and 2 mining is incompatible, particularly the mining of uranium, because that is a commodity that could destroy the whole basis of the environment. It is time to be sensible. I believe that, if by some chance the Fraser Government had continued in office and these events had unfolded in this way, it would have adopted the very policy which this Government has adopted. All that has happened is that this waspish new coalition has fallen to the pressures of some of the miners and people in the New Right. So long as the Opposition adopts those positions, it has no credibility in the area of the protection of the environment or in the area of Aboriginal land rights. The arguments it is putting up about the future of the Kakadu National Park are specious and false, and will be rejected by the Australian people. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Mr Deputy Chairman, I claim to have been misrepresented. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Is the honourable member seeking leave to make a personal explanation? Mr CONNOLLY —Yes. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, has drawn a very long bow when he has suggested that somehow or other the Opposition is under the control of mining interests, whether they be Peko-Wallsend Ltd or anybody else. I reject that fundamentally. I am not debating the point, I just wish to repeat what I said. The issue which I raise is that the stage 1 management plan-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member would be aware that he has to explain where he has been personally misrepresented. Mr CONNOLLY —I have been misrepresented by the Minister in the allegation he made that I, as a representative of the Opposition, was somehow or other under the control of external interests. I reject that. Secondly, he had claimed that our environment policy states that one can mine anywhere and everywhere. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no personal explanation. Obviously the honourable member cannot show where he has been personally affected. Mr CONNOLLY —I can, because the Minister, in quoting what I said, was not accurate. That is the point. I am merely stating for the record what I said; namely, that, subject to environmental impact statements, mining is not carried through in every case. He is suggesting that we were claiming that-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I think the leniency of the Chair has been extended sufficiently. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(4.27) —In addressing these appropriations for the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, at the outset I congratulate the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and her team on their efforts in trying to achieve the Olympic Games for Australia. In doing so, I congratulate the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the Government on the support they gave that team. It was an unsuccessful bid, unfortunately. We are not sure whether they are going to try again. I hope so. Having done all that work there is no doubt that an enormous amount of expertise has been built up for a full-blooded effort in due course. Those congratulations are on behalf of not only the Opposition but most of the people in Australia. In talking about tourism and the Australian Capital Territory, might I also congratulate the cadets of the Royal Military College who, on Saturday, put on an absolutely magnificent display of drill for the seventy-fifth anniversary of that college, of which I am proud to be a graduate. I congratulate them and all associated with that parade. Turning to some of the responsibilities of the Minister in this portfolio, the question of government advertising was widely canvassed just a while ago, but what the Minister seems not to appreciate is that, in the last week, the position has become very cloudy. When he responds he might like to answer these questions: How much has been spent on advertising the fringe benefits tax to date? How much was spent on those 750,000 pamphlets that have gone out? A lot of money has gone out. Putting that to one side, as far as the new fringe benefits tax advertising program is concerned, are the normal procedures to be adhered to-that is, going through the tendering procedure and through the committee which the Minister chairs-and if not, why not? How much is to be spent on this program? They are fairly simple questions and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them. This is a very important matter. We are talking about government accountability-the sort of accountability that people are worrying about very much as this Government goes into its fourth year, the sort of accountability that has allowed the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to get away with $17,000 in travelling allowance while payments to pensioners are reduced. Mr John Brown —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. I know that we have a fairly free-ranging debate but surely not on the appropriation of my Department does the shadow Minister have the right to invoke that curious argument about the Treasurer's travelling allowance. How he can relate that matter to these appropriation in even the most tenuous fashion escapes me. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —I uphold the point of order in regard to travelling allowances. Mr WHITE —Mr Mountford, I bow to your decision in that matter. I was raising the matter of accountability. It seemed to me that very much was a matter of accountability. Turning to the estimates of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, tourism in this country is going very well indeed and upon our return to government we will seek to build on the very solid base that has been put in place in recent years. Part of it has been due to the devaluation of the dollar and terrorism overseas, which make Australia a much more attractive destination, and to Government policies which in the main I believe have been very satisfactory. The Government deserves credit for them. In the future the private sector must take more responsibility for its own affairs. It has done an enormous and remarkable job in putting into place infrastructure to allow the development of tourism in Australia. But in the view of the Opposition it is time that the private sector took more responsibility for its own affairs. Tourism is a strong and vibrant industry. It has a much more positive and widespread role in domestic tourism. As I have said many times before-the Minister is well aware of this-it is time, for example, that the private sector took over the organisation of the national tourism awards as an example of what the private sector of the tourism industry can do for itself. The Government should concern itself, through the Australian Tourist Commission, primarily with overseas markets. I compliment the ATC on the work that it has done over recent years. It should get out of its domestic role except in in one area: It should conduct a campaign to raise the level of awareness amongst Australians of the value of tourism to this country. People should be made aware that it does not cost anything to be polite to a tourist. Australians should be made aware of how much this industry will mean to Australia in the months and years to come. There are some areas that I hope this Government will address more seriously than it has in the past. I refer to international airports, which in some cases are nothing short of an absolute disgrace. The Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) last week said that he had no private proposals in front of him to extend or improve these airports. Very simply, the reason for that is that he has never sought them. People such as those in the Moore consortium in Queensland and the Darling consortium know that their proposals will be knocked back. If the Minister were actively to seek private proposals to improve the international airports of this country we would have the reception facilities which the tourism industry demands and deserves. Mr Lloyd —That is right; he would only have to let it be known that he was receptive to such a proposal. Mr WHITE —They know very well that the Minister is not receptive. The question of penalty rates still bedevils this industry; there is no doubt about it. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, who is at the table, for all the promises he made before this Government came to power and subsequently, does not seem to have advanced the situation. He might address that problem in his reply. The capital gains tax and the lack of tax deductibility of entertainment expenses are affecting the industry, as are the two-airline policy and the negative attitudes adopted by the Minister for Transport in relation to East-West Airlines Ltd and several charter airlines. Statistics in the industry are inadequate and the industry cannot progress satisfactorily until that question is addressed. In the last few minutes available to me I turn to sport. I take up a remark made by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism during his last speech as to a police report which will soon be forthcoming. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see that report clear everyone involved in the incident at the Institute of Sport. The implication of the remarks of the Minister was that I would be delighted to see someone charged following that police report. I have no idea what is in that police report. The Minister knows very well that the matter was not initiated by anyone on this side of the chamber. If that report gives everyone a clean bill no one will be more delighted than I will. It is time that the Australian Institute of Sport was given the opportunity to develop as it should. The coalition will assist and support the sporting sphere of this nation on its return to government but it will not seek to direct. I take issue with the Government and its policies on the matter of committees in the sporting world. The Australian Sports Commission, the Australian Institute of Sport and the Sports Aid Foundation amongst them have 39 members. The Department has grown from having five senior officers to having 22 senior officers. That is simply too many. It is too expensive and that matter will be addressed on our return to government. Finally, I refer to the Anzac Rifle Range and the Williamstown Rifle Range. I ask the Minister to give a minute to listen to the debate to take up the question of the Anzac range and to make sure that that range is in place for the bicentenary competition that has already been arranged for Australia's Bicentenary in 1988. I would have thought that that is not a request he would find too tough. As my time has run out, I conclude by saying that the tourist industry in this country is going very well indeed and will continue to grow but there are problems in administration of sport in Australia. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(4.37) —In rising to speak on this year's Budget appropriation for the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, I would like to bring to the attention of the Committee two significant areas of Government expenditure. The first of these is the Federal Government's national rainforest conservation program and the second is Kakadu National Park. That is the park that the Opposition wants to mine, the park it wants to destroy and the park it wants to take off the World Heritage listing. But let there be no mistake: Under this Government there will be no mining in stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park. Let us forget the nonsense about whether the Government is responding to left, right or centre pressure. There is no issue on which Government members are so united. This issue goes right across factional lines with no dispute among them. There will be no mining in stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park. Mr Mountford, I have a particular interest in the national rainforest conservation program, firstly, because there are extensive and highly significant areas of rainforest in the beautiful Throsby electorate and, secondly, because my good friend the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) quite rightly and for obvious reasons chose to launch the Government's rainforest program at Minnamurra Falls in the Throsby electorate on 3 October of this year. The national rainforest conservation program has an interesting and enlightening genesis. When the Hawke Labor Government came to office in 1983, the Minister and the Government were faced with two possible choices as they sought to protect and conserve our nation's rainforest. The choice lay between an approach based on confrontation and one based on consultation. Rightly, this Government chose the latter approach. It is less spectacular and in the short term might seem to achieve little, but in the long term it offers the very real hope of protecting and conserving far larger and highly significant areas of our national rainforest heritage. Following a national conference on rainforest conservation in Cairns in February 1984 a widely representative working group was formed to develop a national rainforest policy. The working group's report of September 1985 was undoubtedly a landmark in collaboration amongst groups holding very diverse opinions on major environmental issues. Following a period of public comment on the report, this Government has now formulated its national rainforest conservation program, and has committed itself to providing $22.5m over the next five years. Such a decision would have been regarded as momentous at any time. To do so now, in light of current financial constraints and the need for tough budgetary action, clearly signals this Government's strong resolve and commitment to the conservation of our national environmental heritage. In the present financial year the Government has committed itself to spending $7m on its rainforest conservation program. Some $2.65m, almost 40 per cent of this amount, has been allocated to the New South Wales rainforest program. The national rainforest conservation program and its New South Wales counterpart comprise several different but related elements. These include: Acquisition of privately owned rainforest of particular conservation significance for inclusion in national parks; establishment of plantations as a long term alternative to logging of rainforest; planning and management of parks and reserves; development of interpretative and visitor facilities in rainforest areas; studies of tourism potential; and research and surveys. Taken together, these elements provide the basis for an integrated attack on the various problems facing our rainforests. The program is not designed to lock people out of our rainforests but to protect and conserve them for our enjoyment and information. Obviously, the best way to inform the community about the special values of rainforests is to encourage people to experience rainforests for themselves and to provide the facilities that will allow them to learn about them and appreciate what they see while they are there. I consider it to be a most important feature of this Government's rainforest program that it seeks to promote a sense of public pride in and stewardship for our rainforests. Ultimately, the most vigilant protectors of rainforests will be the hundreds of thousands of people who visit our rainforest parks and reserves. For this reason, I am delighted by the emphasis in the program on the development of interpretive and visitor facilities in rainforest areas. I am excited by the plans for some of the State's interpretive centres. Design features under consideration include elevated walkways, canopy observation towers and hides for viewing wildlife. Such facilities will do much to help visitors experience the rainforest at close quarters and learn to understand and appreciate it so much more. In my electorate of Throsby, for example, at Minnamurra Falls, where the Government's rainforest program was launched, $150,000 of Commonwealth funds has been allocated for the construction of a rainforest centre, which will feature an interpretive display to help visitors appreciate and understand the rainforest environment. An additional $40,000 has been allocated for upgrading walking tracks. The New South Wales Government, for its part, has committed itself to spending some $400,000 for works in Buderoo National Park, of which $100,000 is earmarked for the Minnamurra Falls section. Honourable members may be interested to learn that more than 100,000 people visit Minnamurra Falls each year. Many of these are school children who are eager to learn more about the area and who enjoy the rainforest surroundings with such obvious delight. As I have already indicated, the Commonwealth has allocated some $2.65m to the New South Wales rainforest program. Of this sum, $1.6m-or 60 per cent of the overall allocation-will be spent on the acquisition of rainforest lands, which in most cases adjoin existing rainforest reserves and parks, and in some cases contain very rare species or communities not yet represented in existing reserves. In addition, $875,000, or 33 per cent of the total allocation, will be spent on public information and interpretation and on visitor facilities, such as the rainforest centre at Minnamurra Falls. The final 7 per cent of the overall allocation, $170,000, will be spent on planning and management, research and survey, and tourism study. I say at this stage that it is most fitting that the national rainforest conservation program should be launched in New South Wales, for it is this State more than any other that has long given the lead in rainforest conservation. The New South Wales component of the national program, is however, but the first of several such packages. Negotiations are well advanced with Victoria, and it is expected that its program will be settled in the near future. Likewise, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, both of which have limited but important rainforest resources, are close to finalising their programs. Tasmania and Queensland are also working on their proposals. Queensland, which relies so heavily on tourism to prop up its ailing economy, and which possesses more than half of Australia's rainforests, obviously has most to gain from rainforest conservation and a rainforest-based tourism program. Quite predictably, however, the Queensland Government seems to be very slow to realise that it has an attractive alternative to its present policy of: `If it moves, shoot it; if it doesn't dig it up or chop it down'. Hopefully, that Government will learn before it is too late that in Queensland's extensive rainforests, the people of that State- (Quorum formed) Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(4.48) —I address my remarks to division 136 of the appropriations for the Department of Arts Heritage and Environment, relating to section 5 of the Australia Council Act. I think it is quite easy to see, if we peruse the various documents, that no one seems to worry about our artists. Unfortunately, there is present in Australian society what one might call the cultural cringe. We are somewhat hesitant about employing Australians. I hope that the vacancies in the management of the Australian Opera and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation are filled by Australians. I do not imply any criticism of the present occupants, but we need to be fiercely Australian and proud of our country. I suggest that Australians can do these jobs, and they must be given the opportunity to do so. There is unfair competition for our artists due to the cultural cringe. It seems to be fashionable to engage other than top quality artists from overseas, be they in the fields of ballet or theatre, in preference to Australian artists who, in many instances, can give higher class performances. Why is it that we treat almost with divine honour the performances of our sports stars, be they Bradman, De Castella or others, but very rarely show our pride in the performances of Marilyn Jones, Garth Welch, Marilyn Rowe Maver, Kelvin Coe, Joan Sutherland, Robyn Archer, David Williamson, Noni Hazelhurst and Helen Morse, to name a few of our great artists'. Why do we not give the same government assistance to our artists as we give to farmers, manufacturers and other people? It is part of reality that people seem to get uptight when assistance for our artists is suggested. I suggest that, on the basis of honesty and equality, it is about time that we changed that emphasis. It is interesting to note the McLeay report, the report of the inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure into Commonwealth assistance to the arts, which we will have an opportunity to debate later. It has not really recognised the contribution made by artists to society. It has no great dream for artists of the future. This Parliament and the people of Australia need to know that the greatest subsidy to arts in Australia is given by artists. It is not given by governments and it is not given by private enterprise. It is given by self-sacrificing artists who, in most instances, work for a pittance to bring enjoyment to Australians. They have no guarantee of work and receive the lowest income of all professional people in Australia. The average income of established, experienced artists is slightly less than $10,000 per annum. Obviously, on that rather small salary they cannot afford their own superannuation scheme. Whilst we on this side quite legitimately criticise superannuation schemes at the present time, I would support a superannuation scheme for artists because that appears a legitimate one. Quite often we come across great artists, people who have become a legend in their lifetime, who in retirement are living basically in poverty, often relying on benevolent funds funded by fellow artists selling raffle tickets in hotels around the country. They get little compensation for losses due to home taping and there is no protection from other recorded performances. We see television becoming a threat to live performances in clubs through Australia. I ask the Minister responsible for ensuring that artists get a fair go in radio to ensure that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal issues its decision on Australian content in radio. It is about time the Channel 10 network was penalised for its failure to meet its quota of 104 hours of first release prime television drama. It has failed to meet this requirement two years in a row. We need to ensure that 10ba is quite specific and that it is used for the benefit of Australian actors, producers and directors. I have always been opposed, and I will continue to be opposed, to Australian funds being used to benefit overseas artists under 10ba. When we are talking about art policy in Australia we should forget about government intervention. We should start talking about artists as people and ensuring that we are as proud of our great artists as we are of our great sportsmen and women. I use the second part of the time available to me to talk about division 593. I say quite clearly and specifically-I am not going to hedge and have my two shillings each way-that it is my personal belief and feeling that the Gleneagles Agreement barring contact with the South African community should be suspended in part to allow for, first, sporting contact with South Africa, in view of what that Government has done to address the conditions set out in the Gleneagles Agreement in overcoming racial discrimination in sports; and secondly, to provide for bonds to be lodged with the Commonwealth Games secretariat prior to participation in Commonwealth-sponsored games in order to avert the financial losses suffered because of boycotting nations. It is not good enough for these nations to say that they will come to the Games and then, on some spurious excuse at the last minute, not come and thus cause a great deal of financial loss to the sponsors. We have to acknowledge the great strides South Africa has made in overcoming its problems. We have to give it recognition for that and praise for a job well done in very difficult circumstances. In 1978 Mr Denis Howe II, the British Minister of Sport, clarified conditions interpreting the Gleneagles Agreement on sporting contacts with South Africa before South Africa's position could be reconsidered. (Quorum formed) Let it be known clearly that the South African rugby union side and the Australian rugby union side should get together and an Australian side should tour South Africa next year. It is no good our saying: `We are the world champions because we beat New Zealand'. We have to go to South Africa and play at least four international tests, and because we are the best we will win. Let us be fair; let us acknowledge the enormous job the South African Government has done in ensuring that blacks can participate with whites in sport. We have seen coloured people and black people who are members of the South African rugby side. Australia must compete against South Africa. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.57) —Speaking on the estimates for the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, I want to make a few comments about the proposed cutbacks in staff in the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region. As I understand it, the staff loss will be eight for 1986-87, rising to 12 in later years. The staff loss for a full year represents a loss of nine staff in the Alligator Rivers Region Research Institute and a loss of three staff in other sectors of the Office. I take this opportunity to express my concern on the consequent loss of information and scientific knowledge on the effects of uranium mining on the environment of Kakadu National Park which must inevitably occur. (Quorum formed) Bearing in mind that Kakadu National Park is a world heritage area, we have a responsibility, not only to Australia but also to the international community, to ensure that this most significant environmental region is protected. I am particularly concerned that the Research Institute is to lose the services of nine staff members. The Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978 sets out the functions of the Institute, which include: `To undertake, promote and assist in research into the effects on the environment in the Alligator Rivers region of uranium mining operations in the region' and `to collect and assess and to promote and assist in the collection and assessment of information relating to the effects on the environment in the Alligator Rivers region of uranium mining operations in the region'. With a total of 69 staff in the Office of the Supervising Scientist, a loss of 12 staff will represent a serious decrease in the activities of the Office as a whole, and the Institute's activities in particular, in providing information for use in protecting the environment of the region. As the Research Institute's 1984-85 annual report summary indicates, both the Ranger and Nabarlek uranium mines which are operating in the region are located in open woodland close to seasonal watercourses which flow into extensive floodplain systems. Research is accordingly needed to develop standards and measures to minimise the potentially harmful effects of uranium mining operations on such an environmentally sensitive river system. As Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I tabled in the House last Thursday a report on the Ranger uranium mine's water management system. (Quorum formed) I found the information provided by the Office of the Supervising Scientist in relation to that report invaluable. I do not agree with some critics of the OSS who have argued that the staff of the Research Institute are involved in scientific studies far removed from the main functions of the Institute. In my view, such critics have no understanding of the extent of the scientific research studies necessary for us to understand the complexity of the terrestrial and aquatic eco-systems of the Alligator Rivers region and, in consequence, the effect of uranium mining on the biological, physio-chemical and geo-morphological systems of the region. Let me quote again from the 1985-86 research summary of the Research Institute in relation to the aims of the research program. Because of all of the quorums which have been called on me by the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), I will draw attention to only some of the aims as set out on pages 6 and 7 of the report: The main aims of the program are to: establish baseline environmental data against which to measure the impact of uranium mining activities; develop techniques to monitor the effects of uranium mining operations; develop an understanding of the processes by which dispersion and transport of contaminants may take place from the mine sites to the surrounding environment; . . . . provide scientific advice on whether uranium mining operations are being carried out in a way that minimises environmental damage. However, even a cursory look at the research summary will indicate the large number of projects presently being undertaken in the study areas of aquatic biology, terrestrial ecology, analytical chemistry, environmental radioactivity, geomorphology, environmental modelling, water release standards and computing for a geographic information system. In aquatic biology alone there are 16 studies being undertaken. Two of these studies deal, for example, with the effects on marine life of a discharge of retention pond 4 water of the Ranger uranium mine into the Magela Creek. It was one of the projects contained within these studies which revealed that the reproductive functions of fresh water mussels were adversely affected by the discharge of the retention pond water to the extent that the abortion of larvae occurred. My purpose in drawing attention to the 155 page report of the annual research summary is to make clear to honourable members the vital work that is being carried out by the Office of the Supervising Scientist. It is most regrettable that the cuts in the staff of the Office will occur. As Mr Fry, the Supervising Scientist, pointed out to a Senate Estimates committee on 23 September: The work of the Research Institute is rather more of an applied research kind to provide the information and scientific knowledge necessary to develop standards and measures for the protection of the environment. That is the work which will suffer. . . I also want to draw attention to the fact that, if exploration and mining activities are allowed in the proposed stage 3 of Kakadu National Park, as advocated by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), it will be necessary, in my view, to extend the functions of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. At present, the Supervising Scientist is only required to develop programs for research into uranium mining operations in the region. It would accordingly be necessary to amend the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act to ensure that research could be conducted into the effect on the environment of all mining operations, including gold and platinum mining operations which are proposed for the Coronation Hill area. It should be noted that Coronation Hill is located in the middle of the proposed stage 3 of Kakadu National Park. The cut in staff of the Office of the Supervising Scientist is, therefore, occurring at a time when it is necessary to make sure that additional information is available to ensure that mining operations, which will probably take place in the upper reaches of the South Alligator River region, will not cause detriment to the World Heritage conservation area of Kakadu National Park. Incidentally, I take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) on the inclusion of stage 2 in the World Heritage area. I hope that the Minister will take my comments into account. Whilst I appreciate that the Budget estimates for 1986-87 cannot be substantially changed at this time, I urge that consideration be given to expanding the functions of the Office of the Supervising Scientist and to the restoration of the staff levels to ensure that those functions can be performed in a satisfactory manner. Mr Scott —It would not cost much. Mr MILTON —As the honourable member says, it would not cost a great deal. I think it is very important to ensure that the Supervising Scientist can do his job in the way that is required by Parliament. Mr JULL(Fadden)(5.08) —I think one of the features of the debate on tourism in this chamber over the last decade or so has been its bipartisan nature. Therefore, it is with very great pleasure this afternoon that I say a special word of thanks and congratulations to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is at the table, for the efforts that were put in by the Commonwealth Government in terms of the application by my home city of Brisbane for the 1992 Olympic Games. I think it was a very good example of how all levels of government can work together for a worthwhile project. I would also like to extend my special congratulations to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Alderman Sallyanne Atkinson, the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth Government for a job well done. I think that, all things being considered, what was achieved last Friday in Switzerland was a tremendous success. I sincerely hope that in years to come when major events such as this are in the offing for Australia we will see this kind of bipartisan approach and application of effort by all levels of government to try to achieve this type of thing for Australia. I am going to confine my comments this afternoon to tourism. Along with the Opposition spokesman for tourism, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), I express my appreciation for the good work that was done by the Australian Tourist Commission during the past 12 months in promoting of Australia overseas. We are now seeing some tremendous benefits being derived from that promotion as well as from the very great advantage of the depreciation of the Australian dollar. The plain fact is that Australia is now a very worthwhile holiday destination in terms of its value. I am also looking forward to seeing what is going to evolve from the Kennedy Inquiry into Australian Tourism, which I understand should be reporting within the next few months. That inquiry into the operation of the Australian Tourist Commission will I hope address a number of areas such as an improvement in the operation of Australia's overseas tourism body. I do not say that in any sense of criticism. I think the Kennedy Inquiry was a timely investigation because we have certainly matured in terms of our promotional ability in the world market. For some time, both while a member of the House and while involved in a State tourism office, I saw that there was obviously some room for improvement in the ATC. One of the areas which I hoped the Kennedy Inquiry would be looking at would be whether or not there is a greater opportunity for the Australian Tourism Commission to look at what could perhaps be described as more commercial opportunities in some of those overseas markets. One of the things that concerned me when I was in the industry was the lack of capacity of any organisation, whether it be Federal, State or even private enterprise, to try to co-ordinate the marketing of Australia and to try to bring together, in such diverse places as Europe and even right across the United States of America and Canada, some central point for the physical sale of tourism. I do not believe the Australian Tourist Commission should necessarily go into the nuts and bolts of selling our product because I do not think that is the place for it, but there must be that greater co-ordination. I trust that the Kennedy inquiry will look after that. I was also interested to read some criticism by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism of the operation of State tourism organisations overseas. That is one area in which we could probably look at greater co-ordination of the efforts of the States and the Federal authorities in promoting Australia as a multiple destination. Tourism does not know any boundaries. Tourism does not recognise Australia's State boundaries. Perhaps we could achieve greater co-ordination between the States on this. I understand that there has been successful co-ordination between the Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australian tourism bodies in the promotion of the Reef-Rock-Rottnest concept for the America's Cup challenge, and that is probably a good example of how the State organisations can get together and promote a package through the Australian Tourist Commission. One thing that has disturbed me over the years, both during my time as Chairman of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism and when I served on some of the advisory bodies to the Australian Tourist Commission and the then Minister when I was not a member of the House, and as recently as during the hearing of the estimates for the Department of Aviation, is the very real problem that seems to exist in the co-ordination of policies for Australia's international aviation regime and the requirements of the tourist industry. One of the things that the Minister has been pushing for, and quite rightly so, is the prospect of having two million international visitors coming to Australia in our Bicentenary year of 1988. I wonder how far down the track the Department of Aviation has considered what will be required to land those two million international visitors here in 1988. The other day, when I brought to the notice of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) some of the activities going on in the Japanese market, such as the adjustment of air fares, I was disturbed that I was told that I did not know what I was talking about. I know that the Minister has every right to say that, but the plain fact is that we do have problems with setting fares, conditions and the physical prices off-shore; and that is acting as a determent, especially in the Japanese market, to maximising the number of visitors we will get. While the Australian Tourist Commission is, quite rightly, starting to pour its concentration into the Japanese market, we have to be realistic inasmuch as that is a prime and very competitive market. If we are to make a full impact there we have to make sure that we are fully competitive. The sort of thing we are up against is, for example, the low cost of a tourism air fare from Japan to Honolulu, which is some $US480 return, whereas the distance between Tokyo and Cairns is about 10 minutes shorter than the distance between Tokyo and Honolulu. It would be crazy if we did not get our act together-I think this is important-and market aggressively and tell our national carrier exactly what we want. One of the things that annoyed me the other day was the Minister's blanket refusal of virtually all applications for air rights into Australia. What he did not say was that a lot of the major international carriers now coming to Australia are in fact bringing in more international visitors than they are taking Australians out. I wonder what mechanism there is within the Department of Aviation-and what effect the Australian Tourist Commission is having on some of the people there-for working out the future projections of some of these markets. The point has been made that an application by Korean Air Lines has been knocked back, yet five years down the track Korea will be one of the biggest, booming outbound tourist markets in Asia. It is true that at the moment there are restrictions on the age of people who can leave Korea for a holiday, but those restrictions are coming down gradually. Only a few years ago someone under 65 years of age could not get an exit visa, but that is now down to 50 years of age and I understand that a further five years down the track it is hoped that most of those restrictions will have been lifted. I hope that Australia will be positioning itself to get access to those markets. I would also like very briefly to mention a major convention to be held at the Gold Coast in Queensland in a matter of days, the Association of British Travel Agents convention. Up to 4,000 people will be coming to the Gold Coast to attend the biggest travel convention of its type ever held in Australia. I am disappointed that we have already been at the receiving end of criticism from ABTA because of the problem of getting visas for the people attending this convention. I know that the Minister has often mentioned the need to look at the issuing of visas, and that could be one case in point where some exceptions could be made. I was also disappointed with the attitude of the Department of Aviation to the on-carriage of those people by the international carriers into and out of the Gold Coast. Mr John Brown —They have got it. Mr JULL —Yes, but the problem was that Ansett Airlines of Australia and Australian Airlines could not pick up the number of visitors there were. If there has been some change and if they can get that on-carriage, that is well and good because that was a crazy situation. The fact that we are going to have 4,000 people visiting Australia is indicative of the way Australia is regarded as a potential tourist destination for Europe. I hope that once the Japanese market is really topped up the Australian Tourist Commission will be looking at homing in on some of that European traffic, especially from northern Europe, Switzerland and the Netherlands, because that obviously must be the next market to tackle and there are some very great riches to be made there. Tourism is the only industry in Australia at the moment that has the capacity to provide mass employment for our young people. Anything that the Government can do, or anything that any government can do, to promote that can only help the young of Australia. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(5.18) —I want to make three very brief points about the appropriations for the Department of Territories. The first is that these estimates were the first which were prepared by the newly-integrated Department of Territories in preparation for self-government, which we all hoped would be introduced this year. There was a change in the administrative arrangements orders last year which grouped most of the functions provided within the Public Service in the Australian Capital Territory within the Department of Territories. This year's Budget is the first of those to be prepared within that enlarged Department, which covers most of the functions within the Australian Capital Territory. For example, it includes the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority and the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority, which are two of the very large areas in which services are provided within the Territory. That grouping also allowed the preparation of an integrated set of estimates of receipts and expenditure for municipal and territorial works and services in the Australian Capital Territory. That is a very valuable document because it gives us a clear idea of the areas in which expenditure is being increased and the areas in which funds are being spent in general. It also provided an opportunity within the Department for priorities to be set. One of the immediate outcomes of this additional information was that the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which was preparing a report on the Australian Capital Territory, had better quality data for preparing its report. That Grants Commission report, which was published at the end of June, showed that the level of services in the Australian Capital Territory was much the same as the level of services in the States after allowing for the special features of the Territory. That information has already produced a very important result for analysing what is happening in the Australian Capital Territory. My second point is that the overall estimates for the Australian Capital Territory show a total increase of 2 per cent-(Quorum formed) We are witnessing childish behaviour on the part of the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh). It is disruptive of Parliament. It undermines the stature of Parliament in the eyes of the community to have this constant disruption going on. Mr O'Neil —He is a former Minister too. It is outrageous. Mr LANGMORE —It really is outrageous. I was talking about the increase in the appropriations for the Australian Capital Territory in the Budget. The appropriations have been increased by 2 per cent per head in real terms. It is a very good Budget. This increase in expenditure in the Australian Capital Territory is not only making possible the building of the new Parliament House, which I am sure will be welcomed by every member here-- Mr Robert Brown —And the nation. Mr LANGMORE —And the nation. Indeed it also allows for 3,000 new building sites, 400 new government houses, an increase in rent rebates for low income earners, over 100 new nursing positions, and so on. It provides for very substantial improvements in the services available in the Australian Capital Territory. My third point is that, unfortunately, this Budget as it affects the Australian Capital Territory was not prepared by anyone directly accountable to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. This is a clear example of the principal reason why we need self-government in the Territory. Although the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) is a benevolent and, one might even say, paternalistic Minister, he nevertheless is elected by people in other parts of the country. I am sure that he has the interests of the Australian Capital Territory at heart, but it would be better for the people of the Australian Capital Territory if people directly accountable to them were responsible for making choices between the various competing claims for funds. Mrs Darling —I do not know whether to say `Hear, hear', or `shame'. Mr LANGMORE —The honourable member should say: `Hear, hear'. I am sure she is a democrat. One very good example of a decision which would not have been taken if there had been self-government is the increase in interest rates on government mortgages. It seems to me that, even if the central Government had said that the total allocation for the Australian Capital Territory must be reduced-that would have been a perfectly legitimate thing to say in present economic circumstances-a council elected by the Australian Capital Territory would have chosen other areas for making that kind of cut. It would have reduced expenditure on roads or reduced the level of road construction this year rather than involving itself in that kind of decision. It is quite clear that a council elected by the people of the Australian Capital Territory would be better able to represent the interests of people here and set priorities that were more reflective of the community's concerns. Mr COBB(Parkes)(5.26) —I see that the total amount appropriated for the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism this year is just over $103m. Despite the spending of all this money, this Government will still not allow our sportsmen to play sport with whomever they want. I commend the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) for his opinion and the courage he had in putting the point that Australian sportsmen should be allowed to play with whichever country they want, including South Africa and Taiwan. It is ridiculous in this so-called free country that sportsmen are restricted as to the countries with which they may play sport. This is particularly so when we consider that the Federal Government actually encourages teams to play sport with Russia. Russia is a country which commits atrocities that are far worse than anything ever dreamed of in South Africa. I know that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has been to Russia to encourage sporting tours between Australia and that country and I agree with him on that. We should have the freedom to trade with and play sport with Russia but, by the same token, we should have the freedom to trade and play sport with South Africa. The murders, the oppression and the racism are no worse in Russia-they are probably on a greater scale-than in South Africa. The Australian Government has no constitutional right to place any restriction on our citizens. The Australian Rugby Union should be aware of that. The South African invitation provides a rare opportunity for Australia to show that it is the best rugby nation in the world, having recently defeated the All Blacks and every other rugby nation at test level. The majority of Australians have no interest in the Government's bans and want to see our players have the opportunity to prove themselves in South Africa. If we genuinely want to break down apartheid, we should be breaking down the barriers of ignorance between countries and establishing friendships. We should let others come here to see how well we treat our Aborigines. Segregating the citizens of one country from those of another by government edict is surely little different from segregating the citizens within a country from each other. It is time the touring bans were recognised for the hypocritical nonsense they are. The Australian Rugby Union should ignore any pressure from the Government and accept the invitation to tour South Africa without delay. I now move to the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, the total spending of which I see is to be $243m, of which $49.73m is to be spent on the Australia Council. Mr Sharp —Waste of money. Mr COBB —It is. The Australia Council was originally set up to give money to the arts. It is divided into eight different boards: The Aboriginal Arts Board, the Community Arts Board, the Crafts Board, the Design Arts Board, the Literature Board, the Music Board, the Theatre Board and the Visual Arts Board. Most Australians believe that the sum of almost $50m spent by the Australia Council should go to areas such as the Australian Opera, the Australian Ballet, the theatre and music boards, and things of this nature, as these funds once did. These days when one goes through the list one sees that a fair proportion of this money goes to a whole grab-bag of weird left wing groups, communist groups, homosexual groups and trade union groups. The amount that they get runs into millions of dollars. The other day I listed the amount that has gone recently from the Australia Council to various homosexual groups. The Community Arts Board gave the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras Association $6,000 towards the costs and salary of an artist in residence. The Literature Board gave the Sydney Gay Writers Collective $2,000 so that it could write an anthology. The Community Arts Board in November last year again gave $5,000 to the Sydney Mardi Gras Association for art workers' fees and for pre-festival workshops-whatever they are. The Theatre Board gave $6,700 in March this year to the Gay Actors Ensemble. To top it off, the Community Arts Board again gave $7,500 to the Gay Mardi Gras Association. Whatever people may think of such gatherings of homosexuals, such as the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras Association, such functions are clearly unsuitable as recipients of taxpayers' funds. Not only are these grants wasteful, but most citizens would find it repugnant that their taxes are used to fund the activities of individuals who flaunt a lifestyle completely anathema to their own. But this matter does not end there. If we go through the lists of trips that the Australia Council has granted in recent times we can see that many of the directors have gone overseas. One fellow, the Director of the Community Arts Board, has taken a trip to Cuba. I believe that he has an interest in the Sandanistas in Nicaragua. It would be interesting to see whether he dropped off there. Another fellow, the Chairman of the Aboriginal Arts Board, last year took trips to Tahiti on two different occasions. Another fellow, Gary Foley, has had a couple of trips overseas. One wonders whether the sums of money allocated to these groups are what was originally intended when the Council was set up. Last year, $5,000 was given to the Palestine Information Office, which is sort of an offshoot or a spokesgroup of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, so that it could set up an office in Melbourne. I am not sure whether the taxpayers of Australia would want their money spent in that way. It is in the area of trade union groups receiving grants that a lot of concern is being expressed. I have a 10-page list of grants that have been given. I am sorry to say that some of the grants started under the previous coalition Government. I mention that because we should be even-handed. This trend has continued and it is gathering momentum. Mr John Brown —Malcolm was a raging leftie. Mr COBB —There could be an element of truth in that. I grant the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) his comment. Why should trade union groups be getting all this money? The top 15 trade union groups in Australia have accumulated funds of $110.8m. The top 100 trade unions have well in excess of $200m. Just about every trade union has either an artist in residence, a muralist in residence, a lyricist in residence or a story-teller in the community funded at taxpayers' expense. I will go through some examples. The Builders Labourers Federation got almost $13,000 towards artists' fees. I will leave it to the imagination of honourable members as to what that money was spent on. The Austral Bronze Combined Unions Works Committee received several hundred dollars towards the cost of making a banner to highlight employment in the coin industry, for goodness sake. The Administrative and Clerical Officers Association received $2,000 towards artists' fees so that it can have an illustrated history of a local dispute. Mr Hicks —Who gives them these grants? Mr COBB —The Minister is ultimately responsible for grants. I know that he says this is arm's length funding. It is barge pole length funding, I think. This must be tightened up. The United Trades and Labour Council received over $1,000 towards the cost of a May Day cabaret. The Combined Unions Arts Committee received $2,000 towards the cost of mural projects at the Williamstown Naval Dockyard. The Community Media Association received $21,000 for the costs of a trade union banner project. The list goes on. Mr Robert Brown —Hear, hear! Mr COBB —I see that the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) approves. The Music Board gave several hundred dollars to the United Trades and Labour Council so that someone could write a centenary song for the Council. Mr Peter Fisher —We cannot even get money for our ballet group. Mr COBB —We cannot. Too many genuine groups are being starved of funds. The Amalgamated Metal Foundry and Shipwrights Union received $15,000 for a music co-ordinator-for a metal foundry for goodness sake. The Labour Council of New South Wales received $3,900 for a writer-in-residence at the Chullora workshops. The list goes on and on. The BLF again received $12,800-odd for a mural project. The Labour Council of New South Wales had two grants amounting to $7,000 for a composer and musician in residence for the Chullora railway workshops. The Trade Union Labour Day Celebration Committee received $30,000 towards art workers' fees and for art provisions on Labour Day. One wonders when all this will stop. There is even a ridiculous $8,000-odd to the Food Preservers Union of Australia so that it can hold lead-light and ceramic classes for workers. The Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association received $3,000 so that it can make a video history of that trade union. Finally, the Labour Council of New South Wales received $3,000 to employ a song writer in residence at the Chullora workshops. Mr Hicks —This cannot be right. Mr COBB —People would rise up and revolt if they could see where their money is being spent. I think that we could tighten up a lot in this area. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(5.37) —I will make a few comments on some of the questions that were asked and comments made on the estimates for the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), asked me about the alleged $2m advertising campaign to explain the fringe benefits tax and wanted to know whether, if this campaign is to take place, the procedures as laid down by the Government have been followed. I assure the honourable gentleman that the procedures have been followed. Mr Shack —So it will happen. It will take place. Mr JOHN BROWN —No, I did not say that it would take place. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has admitted, there have been some discussions with advertising agents. No contract has been let. The Opposition is quite mistaken in its view of how the Information Co-ordination Branch of my Department works. I would have thought that the name was self-explanatory-information co-ordination. Once the Cabinet makes a decision on an advertising campaign, my Department co-ordinates the advertising. At this stage no contract has been let for such a project. I assure the Opposition that if the contract is let the procedures will be followed as laid down by the Government some time back. The honourable member also asked me several questions about tourism. He made a couple of quite laudatory statements, for which I thank him, about the success of tourism in Australia at the minute. He was decent enough to admit that some of that success had to do with government policy. But he mentioned a lot of other things that are worthy of comment. For instance, he mentioned that the national tourism awards should become the subject of control by the industry. The honourable member also made a suggestion that it is time the industry took charge of its campaigns for promotion and advertising. In suggesting that, he overlooks the fact that the tourism industry is very fragmented in that there are hundreds-thousands-of operators. This Government has given them a central focus by strengthening the activities of the Australian Tourist Commission. We have enabled all those disparate parts of the tourism industry to have a combined advertising campaign that they could not possibly have undertaken by themselves to sell Australia as a destination. I do not accept that the Government can get right out of the promotion of tourism. That occurred under the previous Government. The lack of success was quite obvious for everybody to see. Every effort that the Government has made in tourism has been of a non-interventionist kind. All we have done is set up an advertising campaign that covers every aspect of tourism in Australia. It does not favour any State, destination or resort. It merely sells Australia as a destination. It has had astounding success. I do not think any argument has yet been made to suggest that the Government should get out of it. There was an argument, to which I will subscribe, put by the shadow Minister that there could be a greater involvement by private enterprise. I do not argue with that at all. The statistics are worth relating. When I became the Minister in March 1983 the funds available to the Tourist Commission were less than $10m. The contributions from private industry towards the promotion campaigns that were run were less than half a million dollars. Last year the budget available was $29,500,000 and contributions from industry had climbed to $6m, which was an extraordinary increase in percentage terms. The shadow Minister also spoke about an awareness campaign to encourage Australians to understand how important tourism is to our future and how important it is to make tourists feel at home in Australia. He will be pleased to know that this year the Tourist Commission is undertaking in conjunction with the States exactly that sort of awareness campaign. The shadow Minister might recall that in the previous year the Commonwealth put in $500,000 and the States put in $500,000 to fund a couple of advertisements Paul Hogan did, the final advertisement being `Auntie Doreen'. If ever one wanted an example of the parochial nature of the States it came with that advertisement, which was particularly successful. However, every State Minister for tourism, except the Western Australian Minister, was on my back wanting to know why Auntie Doreen was going to Perth instead of to Brisbane, Gosford, Adelaide or somewhere else. So I decided that, successful as that advertisement was, I was not going to get involved in that sort of argument again. Mr White —They are all States men. Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member is absolutely correct. This year we are running an awareness campaign in conjunction with the States which is about encouraging people to come to Australia and, once they get here, to make them welcome. Advertisements will not be too long in being seen on television. Mention was made of airports. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) used the same argument about the lack of airports. I came in from Lausanne this morning at 7.15, which I suppose would have been 6.15 before daylight saving commenced yesterday. Mine was probably the first or second plane to land and there was absolutely no congestion at all at Mascot. There were no queues. Everybody had his baggage and was out of the place within half an hour. Mr White —That is not the case normally. Mr JOHN BROWN —I am just telling honourable members about what happened this morning. I am not denying that on occasions we run into difficulties in Mascot, particularly with long queues. I have noted some criticism from the Queensland Premier about an alleged attempt by the Commonwealth Government to discourage airlines from flying into Cairns and encouraging them to fly into Sydney and Melbourne. I can assure the Committee that that is not the case. The more airlines we can encourage to fly to Cairns, the happier we will be. There is certainly no attempt by the Government or the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) to persuade airlines to fly into Sydney and Melbourne. In fact, we have underutilised gateways at Cairns, Townsville, Adelaide and many other places. We have far too many people coming into Sydney and Melbourne. I have no parochial view at all about attracting tourists to Sydney. I am quite happy for them to be dispersed all over Australia. What is not present is a demand by the airlines themselves to fly into Cairns. I can assure honourable members that we are making every effort we can to encourage airlines to do just that. The national tourism awards were mentioned. I do not think there is any way in the world that the industry will take over the tourism awards. They were an initiative of mine as Minister and I think they have been highly successful. The shadow Minister was at the awards in Adelaide this year. He should have been very pleased to see the dissemination of those awards all over Australia to every State, with Queensland having particular success and picking up three of the four major awards for Dreamworld, Sea World and Lizard Island. That pleased me immensely because the product in Queensland is certainly of a very high standard. I re-emphasise that everything the Government has done in the promotion of tourism has been of a non-interventionist nature. There is no way in the world I want to turn the Tourist Commission into an agency that is competing with highly successful travel agents or State tourist commissions. There is no way in the world I want to get the Tourist Commission involved in the development of resorts or hotels. That is something private enterprise has done extraordinarily well. To add a cynical note, I am rather amused every time I hear the Queensland Premier talk about the socialists from the south, considering what has happened to the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation getting involved in joint developments on crown land with certain chosen developers, in competition with other people who are involved in purely free enterprise operations operating with their own cash. If there is any attempt to socialise tourism in Australia, it is happening in Queensland under the alleged great patron saint of free enterprise, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. It is certainly not happening from Canberra. The shadow Minister made an observation about the devaluation of the dollar and terrorism being factors in our favour. They certainly are. As time goes by, if the Australian dollar remains around the 70c mark people will find Australia an even more attractive proposition than it is now. At present the devalued dollar is not having a very big effect. Most tourists to whom I speak, as well as some people who were interviewed in the Sydney Press the other day, have not known what the Australian dollar has been worth until they arrived here. They buy their air fares and package tours in American dollars. Anybody who has been to America or to any other nation will know how difficult it is to find out anything about Australia. One can look on a bank board in the United States and probably find 50 or 60 currencies listed but one will never find the Australian dollar listed. What the Australian dollar is worth is certainly not front page news in the Wall Street Journal every day. It is a very pleasant surprise for tourists when they get here. Now that people are going back and telling their friends how reasonable it is to have a holiday in Australia, there will be a great advantage for us in the future. The shadow Minister made a point about entertainment tax. While there have been great bleats about how the entertainment tax was going to destroy the restaurant business in Australia, the fringe benefits tax on entertainment started on 19 September 1985. I saw the figures last week for the year ending September 1986, that is, from August 1985 to August 1986. In that period, which is exactly the period covered by the fringe benefits tax, there have been 24,000 new jobs in Australian restaurants, clubs and hotels. So if ever anybody wanted an answer to the spurious nonsense that was spoken by the restaurants and caterers association about a loss of 50,000 jobs or a loss of 40 per cent of business, it has not happened. It will not happen. The severest critic at the time was Johnnie Walker, who runs a series of successful restaurants in Sydney. On the day these Australian Bureau of Statistics figures were announced he was honest enough to admit that he was very much wrong. He can now see less than a 10 per cent drop in his turnover in that period. A reasonable argument was launched about the lack of statistics, and I share that view. It appals me to see that the latest statistics we have on tourism within Australia relate to 1984, which puts us at a distinct disadvantage compared with New Zealand, where the figures are available within one month. The honourable member for Fadden referred to the Kennedy inquiry. The Kennedy inquiry report will be in my hands within the next month. As a result of that inquiry the Tourist Commission will become a much leaner, efficient and capable body. One of the first things it recommends is the set-up of a database in Canberra involving the State tourist commissions, the Department of the Treasury, my Department and the Australian Tourist Commission, to make sure that there is a proper econometric model and a proper database to provide this rapidly growing industry with the statistics it needs to plan. That recommendation will be taken into account. I noted with some satisfaction the pleasant remarks made by the honourable member for McPherson and the honourable member for Fadden about the recent bid in Lausanne for the 1992 Olympic Games to be held in Brisbane. I can assure the committee and all Australians that I was very proud to be a member of that team, headed by Sallyanne Atkinson, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. It made me very proud to see how well received our bid was by the International Olympic Committee. By any dispassionate judgment, Brisbane should have won the Games. There is no question that, from every point of view, its bid was the best in terms of the peace and security that are available in Australia, the absolute lack of terrorism, the quality of the facilities, the standard of the lifestyle in Australia and the economic arrangements made to make sure that no national team would be disadvantaged by coming to Australia. Certainly the new arrangements for quarantine overcome all the difficulties that were encountered in the 1956 Games in Melbourne when the equestrian events had to be held in Stockholm. Unfortunately, Europe had decided that the Games were going back to Europe. Juan Antonio Samaranch, the President of the International Olympic Committee, is a former Mayor of Barcelona and is a very distinguished Spaniard. Once the Europeans had decided that Spain was going to get the Games, the die was cast. The die was probably cast four years ago. I think we knew that when we launched the bid. But it is a fact that Australia had the 1988 Games in its pocket. Many more powerful countries had absolved themselves from bidding for the 1988 Games because they were considered to be Australia's. Unfortunately, the then Federal Government and Victorian Government showed a reluctance to support the bid and at the last moment we withdrew. We left the International Olympic Committee in the difficult position where it had only Nagoya and Seoul as the competing cities. Honourable members would know that the Games are to be held in Seoul and that there is a certain amount of difficulty there vis-a-vis relations between North and South Korea. It was very important that if we bid for the 1992 Games, whether we thought we could win or not, we went right to the line with a properly established bid, if only to re-establish our credentials as a viable bidder. One thing that has not made much Press and which I think is worthy of comment in the fact that Kevan Gosper, the President of the Australian Olympic Federation and one of our two representatives at the International Olympic Committee, on Saturday was appointed a member of the 11-man executive board of the International Olympic Committee. He is the first Australian to receive that honour and that now gives us a great deal more influence on the International Olympic Committee than we previously had. It is interesting to look at the make-up of the countries that vote on the venue for Olympic Games. There are 164 nations represented on the International Olympic Committee and 85 votes were cast in terms of the next venue, which represented the votes of about 70 countries. Liechtenstein, Monaco and a few other very small European principalities with very small Olympic teams had a vote. There was an arrangement between France and Spain to give the Winter Games to France and the Olympic Games to Spain, which meant that all the Spanish and French speaking votes were blocked up, including South America and Africa, as well as the Eastern bloc votes that went to Barcelona immediately Belgrade was eliminated. In view of that, Australia's performance in eliminating Amsterdam, Belgrade and Birmingham was exceptionally good. To run third to Barcelona and Paris was something that pleased me immensely. I hope that everybody in Australia gets an opportunity to look at the film that was produced by the organising committee in Brisbane, which described Australia as `the land over the rainbow' and in which there was a marvellous choir of Aussie kids singing that lovely song. Sitting there watching this presentation one had to have a feeling of pride in being an Australian. Certainly it made the hair stand up on the back of one's neck and gave one a lump in the throat. I can tell honourable members that every delegate I spoke to quite sincerely said that Brisbane's bid was the best. It was just that 1992 is the year for Europe. There might be an opportunity for us to bid for the 1996 Games. There seems to be some foregone conclusion in lots of people's minds that the 1996 Games will go to Greece. I do not think that is the case. I do not think that Greece is in a position financially to support an Olympic Games. My understanding is that there might be a big festival in Greece to celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of the first Olympiad held in 1896 and that the bidding will be open for other countries to compete for the 1996 Games. I would hope that at least one Australian city, Brisbane or Sydney particularly, would consider seriously a bid for the 1996 Games because it would be particularly good for Australia, it being one of the proudest olympic nations and one of the only three nations which have competed at every Olympic Games, to have another Games in the Southern Hemisphere, in Australia. The only other thing I want to speak about is the comments made about South Africa. I regret that those comments were made here today. There is a misunderstanding of what our boycott of sporting contact with South Africa is all about. It is not about eliminating apartheid in sport in South Africa. It was a conscious decision made by the Commonwealth countries which, because of rugby union and cricket, have more wide ranging sporting contact with South Africa. It was an attempt to force the South African Government to alter its rules on apartheid by eliminating sporting contacts with South Africa. No matter what improvements have been made in terms of the integration of sport in South Africa-I admit that they have been quite massive-that was not the point of the boycott. As far as this Government is concerned, the boycott will exist as long as the South African Government practises that hideous regime of apartheid. I would hope that some members of the sporting fraternity in Australia and some members of the Federal Opposition would understand that that was the reason why that policy was introduced. That is the reason it has been honoured by successive governments-by Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke. I do not care how particularly keen the members of the Australian rugby union team are to flex their muscles and show us what great players they are by beating South Africa. It does not matter a jot in terms of what that boycott is about. It is about improving the lot of black people in South Africa in a whole range of areas and not just in sport. I thank those people who have taken part in this debate. It was a very constructive debate. Sport and tourism are two areas where we can be apolitical. I might say in closing how pleased I was to receive a telex in Lausanne, which I passed on to other members of the team, which indicated a unanimity of purpose in Australia and a unanimous motion passed by both Houses of this Parliament supporting the Brisbane bid. It is a pity that has not happened in a whole range of other areas. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Communications Proposed expenditure, $510,115,000. Department of Science Proposed expenditure, $541,025,000. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(5.58) —As all departments do, the Department of Communications issued estimates of expenditure and explanatory notes, which were used particularly by the Senate in its Estimates committees, but it then issued a corrigendum which says: The explanatory notes included in this document for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation . . . and the Special Broadcasting Service . . . are each overstated by $1m as a result of the Treasurer's announcement on the amalgamation of the two agencies. Let me say at the outset of this debate that that statement incorrectly implies that in this Budget there is a measure which brings about the amalgamation of those two national broadcasting authorities and which brings about a saving. The truth is that in this Budget there is a reduction of the expenditure of both national broadcasters. It is right and proper that they should bear their share of the reductions in public expenditure at this difficult economic time, but it is not true to say either that this Budget brings about the amalgamation of the two bodies or that, as a result of the amalgamation which was announced about the time of but separate from the Budget, any moneys will be saved. The Opposition will make its mind up when it sees the legislation that the Government brings forward regarding the amalgamation. But it is extremely important that we recognise that this Budget does not bring about the amalgamation or a saving as a result of the amalgamation. It is highly questionable whether the amalgamation will bring any savings at all. This Budget simply reduces the budget of both national broadcasters and it provides separate statements of account for the two broadcasters which show that the amalgamation was not part of the Budget. I say that for obvious reasons in view of the later debate on the amalgamation issue. The Special Broadcasting Service has been a very lean and efficient organisation compared with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and if the two bodies are merged no doubt SBS employees will expect the same terms and conditions of employment as those of the ABC and that will increase costs, if SBS services are to be maintained. It is certainly the view of the Opposition that the programs of the SBS are important and must be maintained; the precise form of their maintenance we will debate later on. From a cost point of view I add that the SBS has been buying many of its overseas programs more cheaply than the ABC could buy them. It has also been buying from Australian program makers who believe in multiculturalism and in the SBS as a concept at bargain rates that the ABC could not buy at, simply because of the belief that those program makers have in the importance of multicultural broadcasting. So the costs will not necessarily be reduced, and I suspect they may even be increased as a result of the merger. There may be some long term savings associated with the merger but I seriously doubt whether we will see them in the shorter term. Whatever the merits of the merger might be, I believe it is imperative that the evolving Australian cultural identity have an avenue of broadcasting in both radio and television. It would be a most retrograde and shameful step to halt the great contribution which SBS is making. I note that the ABC, the SBS and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal are to move into line with other statutory authorities in introducing program budgeting. We are all aware of the shortcomings within the ABC in past years with respect to its financial management but I believe the organisation has recently taken major steps to overcome these problems and the adoption of a corporate plan and the introduction of program budgeting will go a fair way towards that ensuring the ABC is a more efficient and accountable organisation. Nevertheless, the Auditor-General's report shows how far the ABC has to travel to be efficient. It is sad to note that last year's balance sheet was the first attempt at proper accounting since 1952. That is an astonishing state of affairs. Just as astounding is the Government's timing regarding the proposed merger with the SBS. It seems strange when someone is clearly suffering from indigestion to try to force him to have another three-course meal. The SBS as a separate entity has placed a great discipline on the ABC and that is important. It is also important that we give the ABC a chance for consolidation before we ask it to take on other responsibilities. I think the Government has to find another way of helping to fund the ABC, perhaps some sort of triennial funding or some rolling funding program, which will enable it to make decisions with certainty. For example, if it makes capital works commitments and then gets unexpected Budget cuts programs will suffer, and that simply is the state of things. Already the Chairman of the ABC has made it clear that it will be centralising its broadcasting operations even more. That means there will be less and less local programming. The operation of the satellite has reduced local television programs anyway and if savings are made at the expense of rural and even provincial city programs that will be most unfortunate because, whilst national programming is important, so too is local programming. The ABC has already slashed its budget for the week-long tour of the Pope in November. It had allocated $1.3m; it has now reduced that amount to $250,000. There have already been serious reductions in staff. The Budget estimate puts the 1986-87 staffing levels of the ABC at 6,570 employees, a drop of 172 from last year's level, and we all recall that last year also there was a very substantial reduction. Approximately $7m will be spent this financial year by the Government to fund the operations of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I believe that the ABT does an admirable job in the face of many difficulties. Most of those difficulties are imposed by this Parliament and the Government. Many of the delays associated with hearings and many of the overcomplex regulations concerning the Tribunal stem from Acts of Parliament and regulations made under the principal Act. That is really a very serious burden for the industry to carry. It would not be difficult for the Government to free up the broadcast licensing arrangements and the procedures under which the Tribunal operates so that it can deal with the matters of major importance to broadcasters and the community much more expeditiously. I believe that substantive matters covering the mode of operation and general structure of the broadcasting sector should be contained in the Broadcasting and Television Act and that as far as possible a code of practice should be drawn up with and by the industry and self-regulated by the industry. I also point out that the Department is understaffed in technical personnel. It has been understaffed for a long time and as a result of that there is inadequate long term planning by the Department. Bottlenecks are created and there are very costly administrative delays for the industry. As a result, the consumers of both radio and television broadcasting in particular suffer. If the Government insists on regulating to the extent it does, it must provide adequate qualified staff to administer the regulations fairly, competently and expeditiously. The Government must be consistent. The worst example of the Government's failure in this respect concerns the reversal of its commitment to supplementary television licences. A group of creative entrepreneurs spent a daunting amount of money in a lengthy hearing before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in quest of a new television licence in Canberra only to find that the Government suddenly reversed its policy and all the time, creative effort and money expended were wasted. Is it any wonder that the public is turning against the Government? Finally, there is in this area of communications the vexed problem of regional commercial television. We will have relevant legislation before us in a few weeks. It is extremely important for the Australian public that the Government should get it right. I asked the Minister only last Friday about the belief among regional television proprietors that, as a result of the policy already announced by the Government, the two Sydney-based networks, Channel 9 and Channel 10, were already putting great pressure upon some of the smaller regional television stations. In some cases these regional stations have ties of commerce and friendship and are already taking steps to try to become conduit pipes for the network programs, thereby weakening the position of the independent regional broadcasters and removing local programming, employment and advertising. The Opposition believes that this is a most serious and retrograde step for Australia in every way-socially, culturally and economically. We will be looking forward to calling the Government to account when that legislation comes before us in a few weeks time. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(6.09) —I rise tonight to speak on the appropriations for the Department of Science. I wish to make a few general comments before switching to more specific comments in an area of expenditure for the Department of Science, the Commission for the Future. As an introduction I suggest that the role of science in Australia has been widely underestimated by the community, and indeed by government for many years. Science has always been at the vanguard in the progress of our civilisation. Science has changed the world, most of the time for the better eventually but often for the worst, as we have seen through the application of science in wartime. But I am afraid science in the past has been far distant from the community. A scientist in earlier ages was basically seen as someone who sat on the top of a mountain, a hermit-like person; at one stage he was probably threatened with being burnt at the stake or something similar. There are a few scientists around today who are also threatened with similar attacks upon their person. But since World War II science has become a very dominant and a very public and open force in society's direction, in both social and economic terms, and an important economic generator for our future. Australians traditionally, unfortunately, have been very complacent about their future, and for good reason, I suppose. We are a pretty wealthy country, we are isolated from the trouble spots of the world and we have much going for us. We have a nice climate that tends to make one move to island time, and we have never really had to worry. We have had a few frights-things such as World War II, the oil crisis and so on-but essentially our view of the future is basically summed up by the very well known Australian idiom-it is a shame it is so well known, but nonetheless it is-`She'll be right, mate'. The attitude behind the saying `She'll be right, mate; let's crack another tinny and turn on the telly' has unfortunately led Australia into many problems it faces today. It is only when a country is down on its knees, in hard times, with an air of desperation about the place, that it tends to give itself a bit of a kick in the pants and get going. That is what we are about today. It is certainly what this Government is about. It is giving Australia a bit of a kick in the pants to see whether we can get this country moving again-moving into the latter half of the twentieth century and well into the twenty-first century. One of the problems we face is that the world of today is not the world of yesterday. It is not a world of minerals-- Mr Chynoweth —And holes in the ground. Mr STAPLES —And holes in the ground and riding on the sheep's back. It is a different world, a very public world, of science and technology that we are facing. Information is a very important part of that world. Information and knowledge create power, as they always have. Information is also important-vital in fact, to a democracy. The involvement of more people-and people's understanding, in information and technology will, I believe, be vital, to Australia in the future, just as it has been shown to be vital to the development of other informed, dynamic, democratic economies around the world. While many of those opposite talk about democracy, socialism, private enterprise, big government, small government, and development of the individual, they fail to recognise, in their attacks on the Commission for the Future, that the Commission for the Future is seeking to establish a place for all Australians in the future-a place for all Australians in democracy, and economic well-being. Information is a safeguard for democracy. The Commission for the Future is seeking to promote community awareness and understanding of developments in science and technology and to give Australians a better understanding of the potential impact of such events on Australia's future. It seeks to stimulate discussion and debate across the community, not only here in Parliament, as it has done by holding seminars for parliamentarians, and in the boardrooms of companies around Australia, but also in the community-in schools and everywhere else-so that Australians become aware of what is going on around them. I cannot understand why honourable members on the other side of the Chamber feel threatened by such a process. (Quorum formed). Before I was interrupted by a National Party member, the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), I was talking about the Commission for the Future. As we all know, members of the National Party have no concept whatsoever of the future. All they can think about is the past. They think about digging up the rocks and the minerals, putting the ore in big ships, sending it out and selling it. It does not matter to them what price we get for it or what its value is; they just want to sell it and get rid of it. That is what they think of the future. They are not interested in the future or in the future of the people they represent. They are not interested in the future of all Australians. They are anti-democratic. They do not want people to discuss the future. Like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), they are against the Commission for the Future. I cannot understand the mentality of such people. The people of Australia should know what the attitudes of these people are in regard to the Commission for the Future and, indeed, the future of Australia. They have no concept of the future. They live in the past. They are not prepared to see Australia as a vibrant democracy interested in developing information and getting all Australians involved in leading Australia into the twenty-first century. I do not have much time left, thanks to the honourable member opposite. I point out that the Leader of the Opposition has made consistent attacks about a small item of Government expenditure which represents less than about two-thousandths of one per cent of the Commonwealth Budget. The Commission for the Future is so important that the Leader of the Opposition devoted time to it during his address to the nation. What are honourable members opposite so afraid of? They are afraid of looking to the future. They are afraid of Australians communicating with each other, trying to understand science and technology, and how people can contribute to it. Do they see the Commission as some great socialist plot? They are worried that ordinary people will know something about information and technology and participate in it. Other countries have such commissions. In the United States of America which the Opposition looks up to-it kneels at its feet-35 of the 50 States have what are essentially commissions for the future. Is that what those opposite are worried about? Are they afraid of what happens in the United States? What other countries are they afraid of? I know what they are afraid of; they are afraid of Sweden. They are constantly paranoid about Sweden, whether it be in connection with submarines, trade unions or management practices. They are terrified about the socialist state of Sweden. In the United States, 35 of the States have commissions for the future. Finland, Germany, Sweden-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JULL(Fadden)(6.19) —I will concentrate my comments primarily on the Department of Communications. I join with the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) in expresing some concern about aspects of the present operation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I join him in expressing concern that this is the first year in which we have had the full audited accounts of the ABC-or an attempt fully to audit the accounts-since 1952. The ABC at the moment is probably entering the most crucial phase in its history. There must be some tremendous changes in terms of the hierarchy of that organisation and in terms of some of the conditions that have been imposed on it by this Parliament. I refer, obviously, to the amalgamation of the Special Broadcasting Service and the ABC, which I think is very sad for the Special Broadcasting Service. Members on this side of the Chamber would certainly join me in congratulating the SBS on what it has achieved so far with very limited funds. What worries so many of us on this side of the House is that the SBS now has the capacity to be overridden completely by ABC thinking and ABC management, although we are assured that this will not happen. We in this place must certainly keep our eye on the operations of the SBS and the ABC to make sure that that does not happen. The honourable member for Goldstein also raised the issue of future funding for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I congratulate him on his idea of introducing rolling triennial funding for the Corporation. One of the very great disadvantages the ABC has had almost since the day of its inception has been its lack of capacity to be able to afford to continue to plan in terms of its technical requirements. This is one of the areas where the electronic media are undergoing such massive changes at the moment, and it is an area which the ABC must really stay abreast of. It is not good enough for it to have to front up every year to this Parliament and this Government to make specific bids for the moneys it requires. It needs time to plan and it needs some assurance of the amount of funds it will be getting down the line. The new Chairman of the ABC, Mr Hill, has already given an indication that he is looking towards some massive restructuring of the ABC, especially in terms of its management and the division of power and responsibility within the ABC. One would wish him well. I was interested to hear his comments in recent days about the future of parliamentary broadcasting. I am not quite sure how correct Mr Hill was in suggesting that he would have that changed, but I felt a deal of sympathy with him in trying to put forward the notion that perhaps we should be looking at taking parliamentary broadcasting away from the ABC first network and putting it somewhere else. We in this place probably delude ourselves sometimes about the number of people who may or may not be listening to ABC parliamentary broadcasts. The plain fact is that the best rating we get around Australia is probably for Question Time, when we hit 3.5 per cent. If it were a commercial operation nobody would ever buy advertising time with an audience of 3.5 per cent. That is not to say that there is not room for parliamentary broadcasting on the airwaves. We should be looking more and more to the promotion of the broadcast of the Parliament, to letting people know that we cover a great deal more ground than just what emanates from this chamber. One of the suggestions that have been raised-I think it is certainly well worth looking at-is the prospect of having a separate network to carry the signal from the House of Representatives and the Senate. We are right if we think that we can expand that signal to cover much more than just the broadcasting of these two chambers. Much of the good work that is undertaken by the Parliament happens within the committees of this Parliament. We could well look at the broadcasting of some committee work. A great deal could be learnt a great deal of information could be gathered and a great deal of access could be had by the electronic media in terms of some of the work that is done on committees. I would hope that with the shift to the new Parliament House and the report of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings we would be looking forward to the prospect of a separate parliamentary channel, which technically can be done very cheaply at the moment and which would certainly give the people of Australia and the electronic media a great deal more coverage of the parliamentary procedures and the work we do in this place than perhaps they are receiving at the moment. As I have said, although Mr Hill may have overstepped the mark in his comments, I believe it is worth looking at just what we can do about the rebroadcasting of things that happen in this place. There is within the ABC, and particularly within ABC radio at the moment, a move towards networking of their programs. Radio National, the second network of the ABC, is certainly a long way down the track in this regard. However, there is an aspect of networking that worries me. One of the problems about Australia is that its very nature is that it is far flung. There are remote communities and small settlements which like to stay abreast of what is happening in their locality. If they happen to plug in to the Radio National network they can be deprived of a lot of the information that is available. In my own city of Brisbane there is quite a campaign on at the moment concerning the ABC's second network station 4QG. I do not think there is an organisation in Queensland that has done more to promote the arts and local interest in the activities of Brisbane than that second network station 4QG. At the moment it would seem that virtually the entire localism of the ABC second network in Brisbane is being confined to the Saturday morning program, which is an excellent program. I suppose it would be fair to say that Howard Ainsworth, the man who presents that program, is something of an institution within Brisbane. The latest we hear is that there is every prospect that that Saturday morning program, the last link for the artistic and cultural life of Brisbane, will be taken away and that we could be going towards a national networking situation there. A similar situation would exist in other States of Australia, and I think it is a great pity if we lose that type of localism altogether. In the last few minutes available to me may I also follow a point that was raised by the honourable member for Goldstein. He dealt with what we are expecting to see over the coming weeks in terms of the reintroduction of the Broadcasting and Television Act and the changes that are likely in relation to the future ownership and operations of commercial television, especially rural commercial television, in Australia. One of the saddest things that could possibly happen would be if the Government comes out supreme in its move towards the aggregation of country television services. Over decades both sides of this place have expressed concern at the ownership of media in Australia. Very few honourable members would argue that in Australia we have more concentration of media ownership than sometimes is healthy. The only thing we will do, through this aggregation of the country stations, is to make sure that virtually the entire commercial television industry in this country will be dominated by the three networks. I do not think any of us would want to see that. The figures that have been put up by the Department of Communications leave a lot to be desired. Certainly there seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the needs and aspirations of people in country areas. I find it very difficult to work out exactly how conclusions have been reached about which particular markets should be included in the aggregation of country television stations. I suggest that the capital outlay that will be required, if we go ahead with aggregation, to re-equip technically the stations to undertake it is far beyond what this country can afford at the moment. Although we are told that it will cost only something like $384m, the figures that have been presented to us are old figures arrived at long before the devaluation of the Australian dollar. We are looking at the prospect of the complete aggregation of regional television in Australia costing in excess of $600m. At a time when we have balance of payments problems I think it is absolutely crazy, for that reason alone, that we look towards aggregation. However, for the sake of some independence, especially in the television media, I hope that the Government will think very carefully indeed before it makes the decision we expect to be made in the next couple of weeks about proceeding with aggregation. Multi-channel services and supplementary licences in regional areas would provide the diversity of program that people want. Such a course would maintain a local aspect in regional areas and, most importantly, it would help to diversify the ownership of the electronic media in Australia. Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(8.00) —I rise this evening to speak on the appropriations for the Department of Science. On 17 October 1985-- Mr McVeigh —Mr Chairman, I draw your attention to the state of the Committee. This is deplorable. The CHAIRMAN —Order! If the honourable member for Groom wishes to draw attention to the state of the Committee, he should rise and attract the attention of the Chair. He does not need to put on a pantomime for us. (Quorum formed) Mr CHYNOWETH —That intellectual Luddite, the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), interrupted me when I was about to speak on space research. I suppose the only space we can talk about is the space between the ears of honourable members opposite, and there is plenty of it-one could fit the whole universe in there. However, while I am speaking in relation to Luddites and space between ears, I would like to tell the Committee what the Opposition has said about space research. An article in the Australian Financial Review of 30 September stated: Speaking at a meeting of the Australian American Association in Sydney yesterday, Mr Howard called the recent establishment of a National Space Board to co-ordinate and manage a national space program `ridiculous'. These are the sorts of policies that the Opposition is espousing with its friends in the New Right. If the Opposition goes any further to the right it will end up outside Mars. The Austra- lian Academy of Technological Sciences work- ing party report-the Madigan report-recommended: Australia should as a matter of urgency establish a national space policy to facilitate the achievements of an appropriate industrial, technological, and scientific structure for Australia's participation in space. The Government made the following response: This is a general recommendation which is fully supported. It recognises space as a field of endeavour which covers a wide range of desirable technologies and hence as an ideal vehicle for developing state-of-the-art technological competence within Australian industry. The present level of Australian involvement in space related activities is quite significant yet unfocused. The recommendation is seen as an appropriate response to this situation. In September this year the Government announced the formation of the Australian Space Board, its members and its terms of reference. The quite generous allocation of $5.25m in this year's Budget has been put into this area to encourage investment in space research. Australia is in an ideal position for the sighting of a spaceport and the launching of space vehicles. Already investigations are under way for a site near the Equator. Of course, Woomera rocket range in South Australia is already established. The current information explosion will require many satellites for the transfer of information to the market. Spacecraft systems will have to be produced to meet the needs of people who will require information and support from this area. The infrastructure which could be generated is enormous. We have a highly skilled industry and competent engineers and scientists who are anxious to move into this exciting new industry. On 7 September this year it was reported that a team of Australian scientists had joined a company called Auspace. This company is 100 per cent owned by the French space company Matra, thus earning it the well deserved nickname frogspace. Industry critics such as Hawker de Havilland and British Aerospace complained that Auspace is a front by the French company to secure the prime Aussat contract. However, according to Ted Stapinski, the general manager, Auspace has an Australian team and is seeking about 50 per cent Australian ownership of the company by the end of the year. He says Auspace will soon become a public company, possibly by flotation. Auspace was a `shell' company until this year, says Stapinski. Matra brought out Hawker de Havilland's shares last December and an attractive offer was made to Australian National University scientists. It is a very great pity that Australian technology is owned by the French, of all people. However, they have shown to other companies that they are prepared to take a risk, that they are prepared to use their entrepreneurial skills which, I am afraid to say, some Australian companies would never do. Our progress in space industries was not very great until the present Government actually put aside money for this area. Back in the 1960s Australia launched a satellite-I think it was the fourth in the world that was launched. At that time there was a great future for the industry. However, it has dropped away and we are now behind many other countries. Japan has a very large space industry. India has also moved into this area. Mr Barry Jones —China. Mr CHYNOWETH —As the Minister says, China is also involved. There are fortunes to be made in space. It only takes a bit of imagination and a bit of courage to make certain that we can be a member of the space club. (Quorum formed) The 10 seconds I have left is enough time to launch the honourable member for Groom into space. I wish we could make him our first astronaut and send him away-the first Australian monkey in space-for the disgraceful way he is acting today. I would be pleased to nominate him for that position. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. Those words were unacceptable to me and I ask that they be withdrawn. The CHAIRMAN —The Chair has great difficulty in understanding how the honourable member for Groom heard because I had no chance of hearing. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(8.10) —In addressing myself to the estimates for the Department of Science I point out, firstly, that this allocation, when adjusted for inflation, is virtually the same as that for last year which, of course, reflects the zero real increase in spending that we have heard about. More importantly, as the shadow Minister for Science has shown, in real terms the provision this year is less than the provision made in the first full year of the Hawke Government, 1983-84, and some 6 per cent below the 1982-83 provision under the Fraser Government. Indeed, the point has to be made on the basis of these figures that the record of the Hawke Government in the area of science and technology over the past three years has been at best patchy and at worst extremely disappointing in the context of the high expectations for science and technology built up by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). In respect of science in particular, under the preceding Government science funding was increased at an annual real rate of 6 per cent-notwithstanding the Fraser Government's success in holding total government spending to an annual real increase of just over 2 per cent. In contrast, over the period of the Hawke Government real expenditure has actually declined, in the context of increases in total real spending during the first three years of the Government, averaging 5.3 per cent per year. One key component of the Science Department's funding is for the Australian research grants scheme-ARGS-Australia's key research funding program, especially in respect of the universities. Among the many high profile election promises of the Australian Labor Party in the 1983 election was a commitment to increase the funding of the ARGS by 10 percentage points above the inflation rate in each of the first three years of the Government. Because that promise was not honoured-like many others, such as that celebrated, categorical `there will be no new capital gains tax'-notably in the 1984 Budget when, in the context of a massive $7,400m increase in outlays, a miserable $1.5m-- Mr Chynoweth —Mr Chairman, I draw your attention to the speakers list. The next speaker was supposed to be the honourable member for Gippsland, who is not in the chamber. I was wondering whether there was any ruling that he should be here to speak. The CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair that the honourable member for Gippsland was not here. I call the honourable member for Berowra. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —As a result of that miserable allocation, the allocation during this year is nearly $4m or some 12 per cent less than would have resulted from that commitment. Again, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia's premier research organisation and a major responsibility of the Department of Science, shows no real increase in its funding in this Budget. At least that is an improvement on the real cut of 3 to 4 per cent in the science disaster year of 1984 and the only marginal improvement in the position last year. The situation with CSIRO is complex one and we will be debating it at a subsequent sitting of this Parliament. However, there are some general issues of quite central importance that come up here. One preliminary comment I would make is that in this debate we are supposed to be focusing on the `science' area but, of course, science is closely bound up with technology. There are-plural verb-science and technology, but they are inextricably linked. Because of the transfer of the technology side to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, partly no doubt in order to harness the clout of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, we were debating technology to some extent the other night. But it is essential background to the few final remarks that I want to make that Australia is in an almost unique position among advanced countries in respect of science and technology. This is, as the Minister and I and others have frequently stressed, that in science as such and also inventiveness Australia ranks very high in comparative international terms. But our performance in the technology development area, that is, the translation of scientific research and innovative ideas into actual industrial technologies leading on to profitable job generating business, has been and is abysmal and the level of effort expenditure is extremely low. In view of the importance of the productivity increasing and job generating effects of technology development we should be striving to encourage a manifold increase in private sector research and development. I make three points there. First, in referring to CSIRO, the effect of the Budget allocation is that certain programs have to be curtailed in order to give prominence to priority programs, and in debating the legislation I referred to we will be debating a measure to bend CSIRO's charter more towards applications oriented research in support of Australia's major industry sectors. While supporting that, the first point I want to make is that it is important that Australia's great strength, its eminence in science-basic research, the wellspring of the nation's science and technology effort, and so-called strategic scientific research-not be prejudiced in any way. It is precisely the long tradition of excellence in microbiology, plant and animal genetics, biochemistry and agricultural science which now provides the exemplary scientific base to exploit areas of modern biotechnology, which is a foremost area for high technology industry of the future. The second point I want to make is that, while the market prospects for new technology intensive industries and for exports of their products are potentially very large in the long term, we need to take a realistic view as to how far and how quickly such activity and such exports, or indeed manufacturing of any kind, can really take the place to any significant extent of more traditional industries and exports, especially resources. Nothwithstanding some of the potted history and the perhaps rather visionary view of the sweep of Australian development that the Minister gave us the other night, the hard fact is we still need to look to resources as the main part of the answer to our trade difficulties, at all events in the medium term. Above all, we urgently require realistic adjustments to the more difficult world resources environment. We need more of the potential 30 per cent improvement in productivity that can be realised at Robe River by the curbing of restrictive work practices as well as other measures such as the containment of unreal award decisions in the mining area. The third point I would make, which is tied into that, is that the very low level of private sector research and development in Australia is due to some pretty fundamental causes, structural factors such as the small scale of the Australian market, the very high cost-the large so-called `critical mass'-of new product and process development and the very history of import replacement, largely overseas owned manufacturing development in earlier decades, and so on. It is not going to be lifted quickly. I recognise and acknowledge the range of specific initiatives commanding a large measure of bipartisan support which have been implemented or which are in the pipeline to encourage private sector research and development-the management and investment companies program, the 150 per cent write-off tax incentive for industrial research and development and so on, including the range of industry `plans', which includes in most cases finance or incentives for research and development, such as the $150m over five years for the motor car industry. But in concluding, the central point I would make is that all these things are not enough. All these direct government interventions will be ineffectual unless we get the overall economic environment right. Industry research and development, new business investment-nourished by research and development, with the market and the investment in turn driving the research and development-and growth in a dynamic economy all flourish together. If the Government wants to boost these things it is important that it act to get the key settings of the Australian economy right-costs, inflation, the Budget deficit, interest rates, and so on-and address other fundamental features and rigidities in the business environment such as the so-called risk reward structure recently distorted by the iniquitous fringe benefits tax, the profusion of regulations and interventions stifling enterprise and restricting competition, and, perhaps most importantly, the inflexible and restrictive Australian wages and industrial relations system-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(8.21) —I rise to speak on the estimates for the Department of Communications. I consider it to be one of the more important departments when one looks at the issues involved and the decisions that have to be made, particularly over the next few years. Some decisions will be made in the next few months in the very important area of communications, but they will have a continuing and ongoing importance in our community over the next several decades. There are ever-evolving changes in technology in telecommunications and in our communications industry in general. The developments overseas, and those developments which have taken place here and in some respects revolutionised the telecommunications arena, will continue to occur over the next several decades. I have a feeling that such developments will continue for a very long time into the next century as man comes to grips with the whole area of communications and the way in which information can be pumped into the community about a whole host of things. One area to look at is that of Telecom Australia and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. Whilst I believe that this Government has given strong support to all the statutory authorities, if I had to make one criticism it would be that the so-called dividend taken by this Government from those two statutory bodies has been too high. It goes in a cycle. If one takes too much revenue from those bodies, too much of their profits, they have to go for either larger borrowings or a decline in services. This Government has not forced those authorities into that situation, but I want to make sure that the Government keeps a continual watch in that area. If one goes too far, that is always a possibility. In contrast, the Opposition has not quite made up its mind on very important policies regarding the privatisation of Telecom, OTC and Australia Post. What would it do? Would it sell those bodies off or not? It boils down to whether the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) or the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) will get his way in the shadow Cabinet. Mr Hollis —Who is your money on? Mr CHARLES —I think it might be on the honourable member for Bennelong, because the heavyweights who control the money behind the Liberal Party and who want a slice of the action in regard to the selling off of Telecom will probably be in there lobbying very hard. What they envisage is a rip-off of one of the biggest public enterprises in the world. The telecommunications infrastructure, as is the case with transport and a number of other areas, has been built up by public enterprise. Now that we are making quite substantial profits and our public enterprises are all doing extremely well, people are saying: `It is private industry that has built the country and we should be ripping off the profits'. But, of course, it was not private industry that built up the transport system or the telecommunications industry in this country-just to name a couple-it was public enterprise, the great tradition of this country that has done so well since Federation. Our telecommunications system, and particularly Telecom, is very important, as we have one of the best set-ups in the world. Privatisation is only a matter of ripping the ownership away from the people of Australia and into the hands of a few. That is all it is-an attempt to cream the profits off. The entrepreneurs who want to get into telecommunications do not want to compete with Telecom across the board. They say: `We won't want to do that. We want only to compete in the top 3 or 4 per cent'. The big profits are made on the trunk calls, on PABXs and in the data processing area. That is where all the money is. One does not have to be an Einstein to work that out. If the entrepreneurs compete in the cream area and undercut Telecom, Telecom will be forced to lower its prices to compete, but it will have to lift its prices in other areas, for instance in the country. I can see only one National Party member here. Members of that Party are usually stunned with silence. Mr McGauran —The member for Gippsland. Mr CHARLES —I am glad to hear the honourable member for Gippsland is supporting the selling off of Telecom. He should tell his constituents how that will raise the cost of telecommunications in his electorate and in all the country-- Mr Lee —Time limits on local calls. Mr CHARLES —Yes, time limits on local calls. One of the scandalous things that we have seen was a report on 60 Minutes by Jana Wendt. It was scandalous because it told only half the truth. I commented on this a few years ago, but it is worth raising again because she did a program on the Canadian telecommunications system. She told only half the truth when she said that the Canadians have free calls. So they have, but she did not tell everyone that the free local call extends only to one suburb. Beyond that one suburb is a trunk call area. She forgot to tell everyone that. Mr Hollis —What do they pay for that? Mr CHARLES —The Canadians are paying substantially more, in total contrast to the situation here. It is about time that people started telling the truth. If the cross-subsidisation has to go, as the honourable member for Gippsland and some others opposite are suggesting, services will be dearer not only in the country but also in the metropolitan areas right across the board. The cost of telecommunications will lift. Mr Lee —It will hit the pensioners. Mr CHARLES —It will hit the pensioners, as the honourable member for Dobell said. They will suffer when the local calls and services go up because of the competition of the wealthy few who have got into the system to rip-off the cream areas. I think that the honourable member for Goldstein will put forward a policy that will attempt not to do that. I do not believe that he has the numbers because the so-called New Right backers will push for their mates, if they win the next election-which they will not-to try to get a bit of the cream from that win. That will not happen. Even if some disastrous thing did occur and honourable members opposite won at some time in the future, the people of Australia would make sure that the selling off of public enterprises such as Telecom and the transport system, et cetera, never occurred. The people of Australia own them. This Government is completely behind and committed to public enterprises that have built the major infrastructure of this country. The major infrastructure of this country has been built by public enterprise, not private enterprise. They are the facts and they are the issues that this Government will continue to support. If the Opposition goes to an election on the privatisation policy that some of its lunatics have been putting forward, it will be crushed at the next election because the people will be told what it is on about. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member might withdraw that remark. I do not think one can accuse the Opposition of that. Mr CHARLES —I withdraw, Mr Chairman. I refer instead to what some people opposite are putting forward. The CHAIRMAN —No. The Chair has the-- Mr CHARLES —I will withdraw that comment. If the Opposition goes into the next election on what some honourable members opposite are putting forward it will be defeated quite handsomely at the next election. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(8.30) —In speaking to the estimates for the Department of Communications I wish to concentrate my remarks on the issue of aggregation. It is very timely that I should be doing so, given, we are led to understand, Cabinet's consideration today of the aggregation proposal. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), by the shaking of his head, indicates that the submission by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has not yet reached Cabinet. For how long will a final decision on aggregation by put off by this Government which seems to be paralysed by fear or, more pertinently, has been overwhelmed by the objections not just of the Regional Television Association but also of a great number of constituents of mine, of the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), who is in the chamber, and of other members? The failure of the Government again to reach a final decision on aggregation is testimony to the division within Government ranks. The aggregation issue is simple. It is a matter of choice-not the choice of members of this place or television stations but of viewers or, more accurately, our constituents to whom we have such a responsibility. Will aggregation give viewers a greater choice? I believe that it will not. The Government's proposal for aggregation, as we now know it-bearing in mind that it is subject to change as circumstances seem to overcome this Government-does not meet its own objectives. It will not provide the choice of local programs to viewers that it promises. It is very simple to see why this will not happen. Under the Government's aggregation proposal, with its in-built cost structure, regional stations will mostly become, if not immediately then over time, merely relay stations for the networks. Cynical observers could be excused for thinking that this is the deliberate proposal of the Government, if not of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The statistics for regional television paint the picture. With 1,740 employees, regional television obviously is a very significant provincial employer. It provides work for 28 per cent of the commercial television work force. It is important always to bear in mind that the regional stations employ more people than do all city-based stations. In meeting the information needs of country and provincial communities, regional television employs over 100 journalists to produce the 27 local news services that currently are seen in the non-metropolitan area. Furthermore, regional television currently provides programming from 7 a.m. to midnight for 51 per cent of its viewers and programming from 11 a.m. to midnight for 43 per cent of its viewers. Looking at regional television from the point of view of regional economies, it is obvious that television stations provide a very important advertising medium. For example, between 24 and 40 per cent of station revenue is generated by local advertising; that is, the local car dealer, supermarket or small business. Typically, each regional television station produces about 2,500 local advertisements each year. We can see straight away that already in place is a very strong, vital local industry which serves, to a very large extent, the demands of its viewers. What is the Government's choice? I should not say `choice'. What is the Government's enforced proposal? It is one of immediate aggregation. By dividing the country into several aggregated areas, the Government will allow one station to reject multi-channel service and opt for aggregation. What will be the effects of aggregation? Firstly, there will be an immediate and severe increase in operating costs. Secondly, there will be an immediate and severe increase in capital costs. Thirdly, there will be virtually no increase in overall regional viewing of commercial television. Fourthly, therefore, there will be virtually no increase in advertising revenue to offset the increased operating capital costs. Needless to say, aggregation is expensive. It will cost the regional stations anything up to $670m simply to buy the transmission facilities required for telecasting into wider areas. It is undeniable that a number of regional television stations cannot afford the huge injection of capital required so that they can broadcast beyond their established areas into the aggregated areas. I take as an example Southern Cross's station in my electorate, GLV8. Under the Government's aggregation plans it will be forced, with its sister station in Bendigo, to broadcast to all of regional Victoria. That means establishing transmitters or translators in numerous places at a capital cost of about $12m. At the same time, the Mildura station, the Sunraysia television station, will also be able to broadcast to all of regional Victoria. For the same capital injection for the purpose of establishing transmitters and translators it will have the same viewing audience as Southern Cross. From a number of tenuous links between the ownership of Sunraysia television and one of the major networks we know that basically, if not entirely, it will broadcast network programs. Therefore, why should GLV8 spend $600,000 a year on its local television news when Sunraysia will spend a fraction of that amount on a five-minute window on Gippsland news? Where is the incentive for these regional stations to spend huge amounts on local community announcements, live as well as recorded sports events and the very prestigious and important local news, when rival stations will spend only a tiny amount or no money at all? Mr Cowan —People love local content. Mr McGAURAN —As the honourable member for Lyne has said, people love local content. They need to be kept in touch with affairs happening not in other parts of Australia, in the far away places of Sydney and Melbourne, but in their own back yard. If the Government is sincere and honest in its desire for localism it will reject aggregation. Let us make no mistake; the Prime Minister is a stalking horse for the networks on this issue. The Minister for Communications, to his credit, until now at least has put up a brave fight on behalf of the regional stations and, therefore, for localism in country areas. But he seems to have given up the fight. He has lost either his nerve or his determination. It is therefore important for members of the Opposition not to let up on this issue. We know only too well what happens when the networks have control of programming. Do people really believe that viewers in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane or the other capital cities have a choice of programs? It is a choice between Dynasty on one station, Dallas on another and Knott's Landing on the third. Where is the choice in that? Mr Nehl —No choice at all. Mr McGAURAN —That is right. It is a choice of the same type of programming. Instead, under the Regional Television Association's proposal for multi-channel service there will be three channels which can specialise in an area. The first channel can have much of the soap opera, drama and entertainment that seems to be the standard fare of all television stations. The second channel can be devoted to local community broadcasting and have artistic as well as educational facilities. The third channel can have sport, whether overseas or local. The scope for localism with three channels, each concentrating on a specific area, is endless. So long as regional stations act merely as relay points with a switch of a button to the networks, the identity and integrity of local television will be washed away far more quickly than we fear. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.40) —I wish to point out in the debate on the appropriations for the Department of Communications the way in which the Government has failed to give a large section of the Australian community a fair go in its decision to amalgamate the Special Broadcasting Service with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in his policy speech: On the other hand, a society united in a commitment to multiculturalism, equal opportunity and a fair go for all, is most likely to minimise social conflict. The Prime Minister and the Government have seen this merger as only one of a series of anti-migrant decisions. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can be trusted because in many instances he has failed to keep his promises. In the same policy speech he said: We have no plans to abolish the Special Broadcasting Service . . . A Labor government would be committed to increase funding of ethnic and multicultural broadcasting and develop these services as facilities controlled by ethnic communities themselves. One wonders whether SBS should stand for what it does or whether it should stand for `Sack Bob Soon', because that is what will happen if the Prime Minister continues to fail to give people a fair go and to break his promises. No wonder people around Australia feel betrayed when they see that there is a chance of Channel 0-28 and radio stations 2EA and 3EA programs being removed from their range of services, services they have grown to appreciate. I refer not just to migrant communities but to the whole community, which has learned to appreciate and expect high quality services on a range of issues, such as these provided by Channel 0-28. I remind the Committee that in January 1986 the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), despite advice, moved Channel 0-28 to UHF range reception from the normal VHF transmitting wavelength which most television stations are on. The Minister did this despite the fact that there is no intention in major capital cities to move other television stations to UHF. They will all stay on VHF for another three years. So I do not know why Channel 0-28 should be selected in this way. The Minister for Communications definitely had a proposal for amalgamation which was not successful. The Minister advances the Government's decisions on the basis of cost savings, and I wish to examine that. The 1986-87 Budget appropriation for SBS is $47,429,000. This is a saving on the forward estimates presented to the Government of approximately $4.1m, or 8.6 per cent. On the other hand, the ABC's forward estimates were cut back by 6.9 per cent. So not only has SBS borne a larger cutback in its forward estimates but also it is forced to bear the compulsory savings of $2m imposed on it by the Government in addition to the savings to be shared equally by the services. Additional savings of $1m are to be made by the SBS and an extra $1m by the ABC. The truth is that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation wants an additional channel all round Australia. Mr David Hill found that it was not possible to continue in his position unless he gained an additional capacity. That is the truth of the matter. It is not a budgetary decision. When one examines the details of the Government's proposals one sees that there are no real savings in this decision. The Minister said earlier this year: These decisions by the Government are in line with recommendations of the Connor report and underline the Government's commitment to ensuring a viable and progressive ethnic and multicultural broadcasting service. However, if one refers to the report on which those decisions were based, the report of the Connor Committee of Review into the Special Broadcasting Service, one finds that the consultants, Price Waterhouse, made the following major finding: . . . the implications of increased salary and direct costs in key administrative areas of the SBS, such as training, financial management, research, personnel management arising from this Review. These services could be provided more efficiently, at probably a minimal marginal cost under the ABC but will involve additional expenses for a stand-alone organisation . . . Price Waterhouse, in its examination of these details, said that the additional impost placed on SBS would increase the costs of running that service. So the Government is not making a decision based on cost effectiveness. It is making a political decision. The Prime Minister and the Minister should be frank enough to state clearly what their intention is in regard to this broadcasting service and its protection. Not only have we had these cuts but also we have had other cuts. When the Minister addresses the matter of SBS he needs to be cautioned that his decision will be severely tested and criticised around Australia. The cut is linked with the cuts to the English as a second language program and multicultural education, the rise in citizenship fees and immigration fees, the merger that I have mentioned, the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the rise in petrol prices-all broken promises. SBS has changed its name. The migrant communities which have depended on it for so long will realise that SBS has come to mean `Sack Bob Soon'. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(8.47) —I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87, especially those who have spoken on the Department of Science-the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) and the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards). The 1986-87 science budget confirms that last year's figures were not an aberration and that we have come a long way from the annus horribilis of 1984-85. In that year science and technology was to a large extent the victim of prevailing euphoria about the state of the Australian economy. After all, it was reasoned, if we had the world's strongest economy and the world's highest growth rate, then structural improvements hardly seemed necessary. I was deeply conscious that my concern about the inadequacy of Australia's scientific and technological base was not popular in 1983 and 1984. Science, including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the major part of portfolio expenditure, has retained a firm foothold in the budgetary stepladder at a time of acute cost cutting, with the remarkable achievement, in the face of economic problems unprecedented since the 1930s, of bringing in a Budget with a deficit of $3.5 billion. Is it only three years since the last Howard Budget had a projected blowout figure of $9.6 billion? In annual outlays growth rate, Science has come in No. 15 of 28 departments, with an increase of 6.8 per cent over the expenditure for 1985-86. In absolute figures the total Science vote, including CSIRO, totals $590,790,000, just ahead of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, also ranking fifteenth of the 28 departments, essentially the same position as 1985-86. I was a little disappointed by the speech by the honourable member for Berowra. I had expected something more original. It seemed to me to be an advanced case of deja entendu. Mr John Brown —What does that mean? Mr BARRY JONES —`Deja vu' is `already seen'; `entendu', naturally means `already heard'. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that a number of honourable members have drawn the Chair's attention to the use of unparliamentary words. The Minister might use the language of the country so the Chair can be sure that he is not using unparliamentary words. Mr BARRY JONES —There is a touch of cultural pluralism in all this. We are committed to multiculturalism. The CHAIRMAN —Us boys from Marrickville have a difficulty with some of these things. Mr BARRY JONES —At least you are not from Balmain, Mr Chairman. In 1982 we promised that there would be a 10 per cent real increase in the Australian research grants scheme in the first three years of a Labor government. We have achieved that in three out of four Budgets. The exception was, as the honourable member for Berowra said, the 1984 Budget. In that Budget I could have delivered a 10 per cent real increase only at the cost of scrapping the national research fellowships. I concluded that for the long term I should preserve the NRF scheme and withhold the ARGS increase for one year, for 1984-85, and I think my judgment has been vindicated. The national research fellowships are now a permanent part of the scene, with valuable links between academia and the community, and will no longer have to be regarded as new policy proposals. The honourable member for Jagajaga spoke about a number of areas, including the creation of a scientific and technological awareness in the community and the role of the Commission for the Future. I regret that I was in the Cabinet and did not hear his comments directly, but I am grateful for his words. The honourable member for Dunkley spoke about space and the economic opportunities that this provides for the future, following the adoption by the Government of the Madigan Australian Academy of Technological Sciences working party report. That perhaps more properly should have been raised under consideration of the estimates of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, but it is an area of abiding interest with the Department of Science as well, which has our international responsibility of collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the European Space Agency. In the last couple of weeks I had the opportunity to visit the province of Sichuan in China to go to Xichang to look at the Chinese rocket launching capabilities. The Chinese are serious contenders for the opportunity of launching Australia's fourth and fifth communication satellites in 1991-92. The honourable member for Dunkley could well have mentioned the very valuable work being done within CSIRO by the CSIRO Office of Space, Science and Applications, COSSA. The honourable member for Berowra said that he thought that, at least for the foreseeable future, resource exploitation would remain the most important area in Australia's economy. That is perhaps a rather shortsighted and, pessimistic view. I draw the honourable member's attention-indeed, the attention of all honourable members-to an extremely valuable article in Scientific American of June 1986 called `Beyond the Era of Materials' by Larson, Ross and Williams, in which the argument was put: The industrial nations now face a historic change: economic growth is no longer accompanied by increased consumption of basic materials. The economic outlook depends on the capacity to adapt to this shift. We can longer look at expenditure on research and development-the sciences generally-or get an accurate figure purely by looking at the Commonwealth Budget. One of the most important activities in the last few years has been to act as a catalyst to stimulate the States to be involved. There has been significant expenditure by virtually all of the States. It was insignificant when we came in and it is now quite an important factor. The honourable member for Berowra said that he was concerned that CSIRO would lose its capacity to maintain its skills in basic research. He is wrong to assume that applied research is to be the main focus of CSIRO. As the Australian Science and Technology Council report made clear, and as I have restated in the House, what used to be called strategic research will continue to be the major emphasis in the Organisation, while recognising that to some extent there is no longer much value in looking at arbitrary or discrete categories as if basic research, strategic research and applied research were three completely different things. They are not; they are really part of a continuum. I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Hayden, W. G. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Jones, Barry Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Conquest, B. J. Peacock, A. S. Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K. Downer, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C. Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Watson,D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hodges, J. C. Beazley, K. C. MacKellar, M. J. R. Jacobi, R. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr John Brown) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.03) —I rise simply to make the point that once again we have seen a gagging of the debate on an Appropriation Bill. Something like 10 members on this side of the House wishing to speak have been prevented from so doing. That is a scandal and a disgrace. Mr Keogh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Denison is clearly defying the Standing Orders and the Chair in that he is making a general address to the House on the third reading of the Bill. As he does this repeatedly, he should clearly know that the third reading debate is very restrictive and he should restrict his remarks to the clauses of the Bill and not introduce any new, extraneous matter into the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The point of order is upheld. The honourable member for Denison will restrict himself-- Mr HODGMAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, in deference to the demented member for Bowman I do not argue the point of order, except to say that the Standing Orders should be known to a Deputy Speaker and they are not. Mr Keogh —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I require the honourable member for Denison to withdraw that remark. Mr HODGMAN —Which remark? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for Denison to withdraw that remark that he made about the honourable member for Bowman. Mr HODGMAN —The misguided member for Bowman, I withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —They are not the words that were used. I ask you to withdraw unconditionally. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, could I say that the honourable-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, I ask you to withdraw the remarks. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, in deference to you I withdraw. I now raise a point of order. On two previous occasions the honourable member for Bowman has endeavoured incorrectly to state what is the appropriate procedure on the third reading of a Bill. On the first occasion Mr Deputy Speaker Rocher very clearly indicated to the honourable member for Bowman that the honourable member did not understand the Standing Orders or Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice. I ask you now to refer the matter to the Speaker for a ruling because the honourable member for Bowman, a Deputy Speaker, clearly does not know the Standing Orders, has not read Pettifer and should no longer be a Deputy Speaker of this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Those remarks will be referred to the Speaker. Mr Rocher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I cannot find the reference in Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice but I submit to you that on the third reading of a Bill an honourable member in this place may speak to the measure before the House provided that he does not discuss in detail the Committee report or go over the second reading debate. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that on this Bill there was no second reading debate before it received a second reading. I submit to you that the honourable member for Denison may continue his remarks on the third reading unhindered. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is correct. On the third reading of a Bill an honourable member may address himself to the contents of the Bill and not to the previous debate. I take it that the honourable member for Denison has finished his remarks. Mr HODGMAN —In view of the attitude of the honourable member for Bowman and the typical attitude of the Government in gagging the debate I do not press the matter further. But I thank the honourable member for Curtin for making the point that this chamber has been completely misused and abused by this Government and unfortunately by some honourable members who sit in the chair of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to withdraw that statement. That is a reflection on the Chair irrespective of the occupant. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, again for you I withdraw. I simply say that the proper course is to move a motion against the honourable member for Bowman. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Mr MACPHEE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish tonight to make reference to what is the longest running radio program, the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The ABC, Australia's national broadcaster, was one of the first broadcasters to undertake the task of parliamentary broadcasting on a continuous basis. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! Will the honourable member inform the House whether he is seeking leave to make a statement? Mr John Brown-We have already passed the third reading. Mr MACPHEE —I am sorry; I was not aware of that. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a contribution on parliamentary broadcasting. Leave granted. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —I am obliged to the Leader of the House (Mr Young). I believe that it is important to place on record the fact that for 40 years the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been broadcasting parliamentary proceedings. The first parliamentary broadcast took place on 10 July 1946. Those broadcasts have played a vital role in presenting the participants in our parliamentary process directly to the people whom they represent, and have played an important role in keeping the population informed, thereby aiding the functioning of our democratic system of government. In 1946 the Parliamentary Committee on Broadcasting unanimously recommended the broadcasting of parliament. It thought that it would `raise the standard of debates, enhance the prestige of parliament and contribute to a better informed judgment throughout the community'. Some of us may wonder whether it achieved those objectives. Nevertheless, the raising of standards of debate is important and I think, on balance, the Committee was correct and it probably has been achieved. The ABC, via the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcast Act 1946, broadcasts the proceedings of parliament over eight medium wave stations-to the six capital cities plus Canberra and Newcastle-as well as broadcasting the proceedings over a short wave signal, and reaches about 70 per cent of the Australian population. The Chifley Labor Government, which was in power in 1946, gave #10,000 to equip the two chambers with microphones, wires and booths for announcers and technicians. At precisely 8 p.m. on 10 July 1946 Mr Billy Hughes, the Prime Minister from 1915 to 1923 and a member of the first Federal Parliament in 1901, rose to his feet and spoke as the first politician to be heard on a parliamentary broadcast. The ABC transmitted that night not only his voice but also squeaks from his hearing aid. Mr Hughes spoke on the Telecommunications Bill 1946 which, amongst other things, established the Overseas Telecommunications Corporation. The OTC and its origins are of very great interest to me at present because of my responsibilities in the Communications portfolio. The second speaker that night, at 8.18 p.m., was Mr Fred Daly, another long serving member of this Parliament, who resides in Canberra today. The third speaker was Mr Thomas Walter White, later Sir Thomas White, who from 1929 to 1951 was the member for Balaclava, the electorate to which I was elected in 1974, which in the last redistribution was renamed to Goldstein. In over 40 years of parliamentary broadcasts since that July night in 1946, the ABC has broadcast an estimated 22,500 hours of parliamentary proceedings, or the equivalent of 930 days of non-stop parliamentary broadcasting which, in turn, equates to almost three years of non-stop coverage. Of course, some people would say that with the small number of listeners the broadcasting of parliament is a waste of time and money. Mr Tim Fischer —Farmers listen to it on their tractors. Mr MACPHEE —I am told that, certainly around the Albury-Wagga Wagga area, they listen to it on their tractors. There was a survey conducted-- Mr McArthur —And in Victoria. Mr MACPHEE —Even in the Western District of Victoria. A survey was conducted by the ABC in August 1983 in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Hobart. It found that 49.3 per cent of people aged 10 years and over have listened to a broadcast of parliament; 47.5 per cent of those who listen to parliament do so once or twice a year; 29.3 per cent listen several times a year; 15.6 per cent listen once a week; and 7.6 per cent listen on most days. While it is not possible precisely to state how many people listen to parliament at any one time, it has been estimated that in the April to June period of 1983 there was an average of approximately 14,000 listeners in Sydney and there was a average of approximately 18,500 listeners in Melbourne. Those figures may not be high compared with the figures for other shows broadcast on radio, but I believe they are significant enough to justify the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings, so that those who wish can be directly informed of the happenings of the national Parliament. No tribute to the ABC and its role in parliamentary broadcasting would be complete without mentioning some of the individuals associated with the program over its 40 years of existence. Some of the well known ABC broadcasters who have been announcers in the booth have been Eric Coleman, Malcolm Naylor, Arthur Wyndham, John West, Graham Conolly, Martin Royal, Kevin Chapman, Geoff Howard and Bruce Webster. The late Stan Bancroft helped set up the technical equipment and was one of the first operators. Mr Casey Visser has been in the booth for 21 years and the present operator in charge, Mr Athol Dale, has been there for 19 years. Madam Speaker, you received recently a report by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings with respect to the television and radio broadcasting of both Houses. I believe we should all thank the members of that Committee for producing such a comprehensive report. I understand that the Government will not be bringing it forward for debate in this session, but I believe that the Parliament should consider it as soon as possible, especially with a view to moving into the new Parliament House. The issues raised in the report are fully discussed by the Committee and should now be fully discussed by the Parliament. One of the principal recommendations is that the current practice of continuous broadcasting over the radio of proceedings of parliament should continue. I must say I believe that that is an entitlement of all Australians. I think they are entitled to hear what is being said in their Parliament. The report states that it is imperative that the ABC be freed of the requirement to carry out these continuous broadcasts. One of the options which the Committee advances, therefore, is to have a separate parliamentary network on the FM band, to be run by the Parliament, so that the ABC will be free to provide alternative programming. I certainly accept the proposition that the Chairman of the ABC is now putting that the ABC should be freed to produce other programs which can gradually win and retain an audience. I certainly understand that argument and that programming is interrupted by parliament and the ABC cannot gain a consistency of audience. But in these economic circumstances we have to consider the estimated costs of setting up this network. Again, the sooner the Parliament debates it, the better. We are now looking at, according to the report, a cost of $2m to cover the existing 70 per cent of the population who receive the current broadcasts. To extend the coverage of the proposed parliamentary network to 90 per cent of the population would cost an additional $8m. So we are looking at a cost of $10m. Most of us would agree that that is out of the question in the current parlous economic circumstances. When we discuss it, however, I think it is very important that we do so with a view to the new Parliament House. We should recognise that any parliamentary network would have certain down time. Access radio could then come into play. There could be a whole series of other proper services, such as radio for the print handicapped and educational programs. Of course, hearings of parliamentary committees on various important issues that are carried out in public in the non-parliamentary periods could be broadcast as well. I think it is important that the Parliament be given an opportunity to debate this issue as soon as it can, because a good deal of planning has to go on in respect of the new Parliament House. The report of the Committee of the Parliament recommended that a parliamentary audio-visual unit be established to co-ordinate and control not only radio broadcasting but also the whole internal communications system of the new Parliament House, as well as to provide a television coverage of the proceedings. It is envisaged that the Parliament not be televised on a continuous basis but rather that excerpts be provided to the media via this unit. I am reliably informed that, with a Budget cutback of over $30m in terms of deferring certain capital items and fittings for the new Parliament House, the television side of the unit's operation has been virtually wiped out for the time being at least. That would be most unfortunate. It appears that only industrial-type cameras, such as those used by the Whips or for security, will be initially installed in the building. In view of our economic circumstances that is probably sound, but its deferral should not be indefinite. A key point is to ensure that the various fittings that go into the new Parliament House communications system are adequate and compatible so that in future, when the television facilities are expanded, no unnecessary additional cost is caused by lack of foresight now. These cutbacks bring into question the whole role of the proposed unit in the near future. If we are to look at the ABC's role in the meantime, what should it do? Its Chairman, Mr David Hill, has recently said that he would like to abandon the continuous broadcasting of the Parliament. As I have said, I can understand why he believes that that is necessary in terms of winning back an audience. Even if the ABC moved to selective broadcasting, which I for one am not opposed to, it could still disrupt a programming pattern. What is important should always be covered. Question Time, obviously, matters of public importance, ministerial statements and the debates on them, and urgency debates are all important and because they can erupt out of nowhere they can disrupt programming. In the end there will be no alternative, if the ABC is to have two radio programs seeking to complement commercial broadcasts, but to have a separate parliamentary network. Finally, there are other matters which I think we ought to be debating in this House-for example, the question of whether the adjournment debate is broadcast. Governments tend to dislike it; Oppositions tend to like it. These matters ought to be on the table for us and we ought to look at the guidelines in relation to broadcasting as well. They have been eased in recent times and I think the current broadcasters have made parliamentary broadcasts more interesting than they used to be. Instead of long silences when the broadcasters were afraid of breaching the broadcasting legislation, they can now inform people what divisions are about, what is proceeding, what happened earlier, what happened in the other place, and so forth. There are many other matters which ought to be canvassed, including some which relate to the preparation of material in other languages, as well as the use of excerpts. I believe that the sooner you, Madam Speaker, and the President of the Senate can bring this matter before the Parliament for debate the better it will be in general. Question (by Mr John Brown) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(9.23) —It is indeed regrettable that this adjournment debate is not being broadcast as suggested a few minutes ago by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee). If it were being broadcast the elderly right across Australia would learn the extent of this Government's assault on their well-being since it came to office a couple of years ago. They would learn how the coalition is properly defending the elderly and pointing out the many attacks, assaults and cutbacks which have been made in the social security area, the veterans' affairs area, and right across the board. The Budget which has just been passed has deferred consumer price index related increases for social security recipients, veterans and war widows which will deny many millions of dollars to the elderly of this country. This has been done in a shabby way, a way which I would have thought the Left would have fought more strongly than it did in the Caucus. Except for the three members of the Left who walked out of the chamber on Budget night, the rest sat here meekly. The three who walked out of here on Budget night-they created a precedent-did not even walk out in defence of the elderly; they walked out because of their version of the uranium issue. The coalition strongly defends the elderly of this country, their right to a fair go and a just hearing. My colleagues and I in the first part of this adjournment debate will demonstrate to the House just how comprehensive the assault by the Government on the elderly has been. Right across the board there has been not only a deferral of pension increases until later this year but also the onward application of the assets test which has existed for well over a year and which has led to over 13,000 veteran service pensioners having their pensions reduced or cancelled. The honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) well knows that many of these people are not millionaires or well to do. They are people who have fought for their country in time of war, who are now experiencing hardship in country locations, and over 13,000 of them have had their service pensions reduced or cancelled by the assets test. I resent what this Government has done to veterans, in particular, and to war widows. This is an area of policy which I, as shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, have obviously been following extremely closely. Veterans and war widows resent the last 18 months of severe cutbacks and changes which have caused turmoil in their lives. Those cutbacks have flowed from the assets test, from the 1985 mini-Budget, from aspects of the Veterans' Entitlements Act, and, finally, from the 1986 Budget, with particular reference to war widows. When their country needed them these people served it in time of war. They were promised that they would be taken care of. Upon their return the Prime Minister of the day, Ben Chifley, at one stage told the House that upon this Parliament rested the responsibility of seeing that the right thing was done. I put it to the House that Ben Chifley would turn in his grave today if he could see this Labor Government taking money from war widows, denying war widows access to the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme, freezing the social security component of the age pension for war widows, halving the travel allowance of veterans who are referred for medical examination or treatment-this measure has had a very big impact on many country veterans-and taking a series of actions which impact on veterans and war widows. Another factor is that elderly people cannot handle the rate of change and turmoil that is created for them by this Government. It upsets them and makes them irate out of all proportion to how they feel in relation to other policy areas dealing with younger people. We have the responsibility of seeing that the position is consolidated and settled down and that the changes and cutbacks that have been made cease in the interests of those who served their country in time of war. It is about time the Government recognised fully the contribution that veterans, war widows and indeed the elderly have made to the well-being of this nation. It is about time the Government came up with discerning, fair and just policies for the elderly of this nation and provided for them a decent quality of life. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(9.29) —While we are talking about veterans, I would like to mention the Royal Australian Navy, in which many veterans serve. We are all aware that the Navy is celebrating its seventy-fifth birthday. It has been in all the news media lately, with naval vessels from other nations contributing to the celebrations. However, one point has not rated a mention in all these festivities and that is the fact that the Australian Labor Party was instrumental in the development of a truly Australian Navy. Australia's ties with the Navy go back to our earliest beginnings. Lieutenant James Cook discovered Australia for England in 1770. Mr Conquest —He was a conservative. Mr CHYNOWETH —Another naval officer, Captain Arthur Phillip, commanded the First Fleet which landed the first European settlers at Sydney Cove in 1788. We have had several naval officers as Governor, the most infamous, and probably a conservative, was William Bligh in 1806. I have been informed that my ancestors possibly had a close relationship with the Navy when they were transported to Australia with the compliments of the British judiciary. Although Britain's Royal Navy firmly ruled the waves of the world's oceans at the time, as the population grew and spread it became increasingly apparent that the defence of such a vast land as Australia posed great problems. During the Crimean War the British realised how difficult it was to have naval ships based in England protecting Australian shores. Britain conceded that the colonies should have official power to establish their own naval forces and subsequently passed the Imperial Colonial Naval Defence Act. Independent British Navy bases were set up in Australia. These colonial bases operated for nearly four decades. It was of particular interest to me to see that Victoria placed considerable importance on its naval forces. One of its ships was the formidable HMAS Cerberus, a turret ship which was to be used for port guard duties but which spent most of her 52 years of service tied up at Williamstown and Port Melbourne piers. At the end of her career Cerberus was towed to the bayside suburb of Black Rock in 1926 and grounded as a breakwater. She remains there today as a reminder of a bygone era. Her name, however, is perpetuated in the RAN recruit training establishment HMAS Cerberus at Crib Point in Victoria. In the 1800s, even though Australia had more naval responsibilities it was becoming obvious that it was in effect merely an expansion of the Royal Navy's Australian stations. This fact helped those agitating for Federation, as one of their main thrusts all along had been the need for the unification of the various colonial navies and armies. By the 1900s the debate was hotting up indeed. Alfred Deakin, had declared that defence was the `chief stimulus of Federation'. The Australian Labor Party, under Alfred Deakin, sent a Minister, Mr Foxton, to England to a conference regarding our status in naval matters. After much deliberation, the Labor Party pushed for an independent Australian navy and by 1901, with the Federation of Australia, had empowered the Commonwealth Government under the Constitution to `make laws' with respect to naval and military defence. At the Colonial Conference of 1902, at which Australia was represented by Sir Edmund Barton and Sir John Forrest, the Naval Agreement of 1887 was amended by increasing the size of the squadron, increasing the amount payable by Australia for its upkeep and providing for a branch of the Royal Naval Reserve in Australia. This was unsatisfactory to the Labor Party, whose national feeling demanded the formation of an Australian Navy. In the first months of the first Parliament William Hughes had demanded withdrawal from the agreement of 1887 and the establishment of an Australian Navy of which the people might be proud. In 1904 the first Labor Government put forward the proposals, which was received with much ribald criticism by the then Opposition, that Australia should set about forming a mosquito fleet for the defence of the coast line. The opposition to it scornfully argued that an Australian fleet would be unable to reach the levels of efficiency of the Royal Navy and, furthermore, that Australia was defended by the Royal Navy itself. At the Imperial Conference in 1907 the Naval Agreement of 1902 was terminated and Alfred Deakin announced the Government's intention of establishing an Australian squadron. One should never forget the past and who it was that fought hard to establish a truly Australian Navy. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(9.34) —The elderly of Australia have been the subject of debate in this Parliament. Over the weekends I go out and talk to as many people as I can. I say to them such things as: `How are things going? How do you think the Federal Labor Party is treating you?' I get the same answer back. People are absolutely astounded at what the Australian Labor Party has done. I can remember quite vividly the half-yearly indexation of pensions row we had when Mr Fraser was the Prime Minister of Australia. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) would recall it. The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), who is interjecting, would also remember it. We can all remember what was said when the Fraser Government, for political reasons and financial constraints, decided not to have half-yearly indexation of pensions. Many of us thought that this was an incorrect way of tackling the problem of the elderly at that time. However, we never dreamt that the then Opposition would attack the Fraser Government in such an abusive and destructive way. Many of us find it fascinating that a party which would attack so bitterly over the discontinuance of half-yearly indexation would, all of a sudden when it got into government, implement measures which affected pensioners. Members of the Australian Labor Party have continually told me over the years that their Party cares for the needy, the elderly and all of the other social welfare recipients. But I have found to my dismay that the Labor Party has attacked these people most bitterly since it has been in government. It has left a trail of vicious attacks on the elderly of Australia. It did this first of all by introducing the assets test and then by imposing a means test for pensioners over 70 years of age. Honourable members opposite may recall that a seat was won in Sydney by the now Government over the alleged introduction of a means test for pensioners over the age of 70. The then Government was attacked bitterly on just a rumour that it was going to introduce this measure. All hell broke loose. Let us be very clear on this matter. The vote of the elderly will be most significant and important at the next election. I tell the Labor Party squarely that many people in Australia are elderly. We are reaching a stage of zero population growth and by the year 2020 people over 65 years of age will represent an extremely high percentage of the total population of Australia. So it will be a significant vote. Even though some elderly people may die as a result of old age or sickness, there will be more to follow them and they will talk to their families and children, saying: `Look, this is the Party that said that it always cared for the needy and the welfare needs of Australia, but in fact it has not done that'. I have found to my dismay that the Labor Party has continued on that path. The latest move by the Government has been to hold back a miserable little amount of money because, so it says, of the necessity for restraint. One only has to think of the increased cost of groceries, petrol and all of the other commodities that are required by the elderly, the people who can least afford any hold up of money. Therefore, when they come to vote at the next election they will remember that the Labor Party was the Party that said it cared for the elderly but it was the Party that led the elderly down the path of destruction. The Labor Party will know about it at the next election. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(9.37) —I notice that the Opposition again is trying to scare the pensioners. I was not terribly surprised to see the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) running around trying to scare the pensioners. However, I must say that I was very surprised to see my good friend, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), also caught up in this most vicious attack. This will not do honourable members opposite any good because pensioners are far too wise to be taken in by the sort of stuff that they are peddling here. I did not intend to speak about that subject this evening. I want to tell the House that the inaugural Kiama Arts Festival held last weekend was an outstanding success. The program included jazz, chamber music, folk music, theatre, dance, puppetry and choral music. I pay a particular tribute to the organising committee, especially the Festival Director, Dennis Koks, who, by their dedication, enthusiasm and hard work, made this Festival such a success. I might add that this was achieved with no funding from State or Federal sources. However, I hope that the Festival gets some Federal funding next year. The response from the local community, especially from business houses and the local Kiama Municipal Council, was outstanding. Without their generous support the Festival would not have been the success that it was. The real success can be measured in terms of the crowds that packed every event during the weekend-crowds both local and visitors. I doubt whether any town of equivalent size in Australia could have staged such a successful festival. I know that when the next Kiama Arts Festival is held in 1988-the bicentennial year-I will be able to welcome many honourable members there. In the time left to me I should also like to draw the attention of the House to another great Illawarra success-the outstanding achievement of the Illawarra Cross Country Hawks in this year's National Basketball League. This team reached the National Basketball League semi-finals only to be eliminated by the eventual champions, the Adelaide 36ers. I offer my congratulations, as I did yesterday afternoon at a civic reception, to the whole team, the members of which have been magnificent ambassadors for the Illawarra region. I especially offer my congratulations to the captain of the team, Gordon McLeod, and the coach, David Lindstrong. I pay tribute to the board, the sponsors and the fans-I hope I am the No. 1 fan-who have supported this team throughout the year. I know that at this time next year I will be standing in the House to congratulate them on being the national champions. The Illawarra Cross Country Hawks have added another magnificent page to the sporting triumph of the Illawarra region. Mr SMITH(Bass)(9.40) —I notice that the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) is in the chamber. That is fortuitous because the matter I wish to speak about tonight concerns the long running battle for the upgrading of the East Tamar Highway within my electorate of Bass, a road approximately 60 kilometres long running between Launceston and George Town. This road is one of the busiest in Tasmania, as I am sure the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) will testify, being the access road to the major shipping port of Bell Bay, as well as a major commuter road. The George Town Council has recently expressed concern and the Warden, Geoff Sweet, has been expressing views that he is particularly `bitter' about the lack of funds for upgrading the road. The Council Clerk, Lionel Young, who has been in that position for a number of years, refers to it as a road where people are continually getting killed. I can certainly testify to that because that happened again recently. For well over 18 months the issue of whether the State Government or Federal Government is responsible for the upgrading of the road has been dragging on while thousands of people each year continue to drive on a road, many parts of which are just plain dangerous. The procrastination between the Federal and State governments has been unbelievable. At various times in its history the road has been classified as a State road, a developmental road, and a special category road under the provisions of the national highway program, and currently the road is categorised as a State arterial road. Nevertheless, the Federal Government must stand condemned for the drawn-out and thus far inconclusive nature of the funding debate. Wrangling over whether the Federal Government or State Government is responsible for funding for the road has unfortunately been a feature of efforts to improve the standard and safety of many sections of this road. Since February 1984 three major reports concerning necessary work for the road have been presented to the Federal Minister: In February 1984, the East Tamar Highway study; in July 1985, the highway overview report; and in July 1985, the highway planning report. The Tasmanian Government has consistently indicated the high priority it attaches to the upgrading of the East Tamar Highway. The reports identified this as very important as it is the access point to Bell Bay Port, from which Tasmania's largest tonnages are moved. On 17 December 1985 I wrote to the Minister pointing out to him that he had the discretionary power to allocate funds for upgrading the highway under the national highway program. Again on 30 September last year I telegrammed the Minister seeking some commitment from him on funding for upgrading of the road. The Minister responded on 21 October 1985 that no decision on funding had been made. On 30 January this year I sent yet another telegram to the Minister urging him to make funds available. The Minister's reply in late January indicated that yet again no decision had been made on the allocation of funding. Since May the highway has been regarded as a State road, with the State Government responsible for much of the maintenance but, as sections of the highway need urgent repairs and upgrading, they will be reclassified as being part of a developmental road and hence the responsibility of the Commonwealth upon completion of such repairs. These sections will then be reclassified back to the status of a State arterial road with maintenance the responsibility of the State. This farcical situation has gone on for long enough. Whilst the allocation by the Federal Government in May of $2.4m in funding was welcomed, the simple fact remains that much more needs to be done, and the only way to ensure that such work is completed is for the highway to be further reclassified as part of the national highway. The $2.4m allocated in May is to alleviate only three black spots of nine identified in the reports of 1985, so honourable members can see that there is still a long way to go. Within Tasmania the Midlands Highway and the Bass Highway are currently included as part of the national highway. If the Launceston-George Town-East Tamar Highway were included Tasmania would be traversed north-south by the national highway. The problems remain, however, and will remain for as long as this very important road is not included in the national highway, so I urge the Minister-and I note that he is in the chamber-to again give every consideration to the incorporation of this road as part of the national highway system, to the concerns that have been expressed by the State governments, both Liberal and Labor, and to the wishes of the local council and citizens of Launceston in respect of what has been and what will continue to be a very important road in Tasmania and especially in my electorate. Mr KENT(Hotham)(9.45) —I rise this evening to highlight the extensive and invaluable work undertaken by the 850 or so municipal councils and shires throughout Australia. In our three-tiered structure of government, Federal, State and local levels, we rarely acknowledge the importance of that component which is closest to the people. My own electorate of Hotham includes three local councils-the City of Oakleigh, the City of Moorabbin and the City of Springvale. Although, as a Federal member, I enjoy a co-operative and fruitful relationship with each, I am particularly proud to be associated with the Mayor, councillors and staff of the City of Springvale Council. In my opinion, the City of Springvale has demonstrated the way in which the local council can indeed become the leader of local development and the focus of local pride. Although, as a township, Springvale recently celebrated its 100th anniversary, the city itself was proclaimed only 25 years ago. Located in an area of some 100 square kilometres, with a population of 86,000, the city has a varied base consisting of a mixture of manufacturing, agricultural and retail concerns. The city is a populous one with extensive ethnic diversity. About one-third of Springvale residents were born overseas. The large influx of migrants from numerous countries has, over the years, placed a heavy burden on local government, planners and service providers. The varied range and quality of human and community services now available in Springvale is a tribute to the sensitivity and responsiveness of council to the needs and requirements of their residents. In addition, the community service network in the Springvale area is an outstanding example of the successful co-operation and genuine concern of the three tiers of government. The Springvale Citizens' Aid and Advice Bureau, headed by Ms Merle Mitchell, and the Springvale Legal Aid Service are examples of the way in which council has provided support and encouragement for the development and flourishing of much needed support and information services which are particularly sensitive to the ethnically diverse local population. Most recently, funding has been secured for the construction of a new building to house these services, with a total project cost in excess of half a million dollars. Similarly, without the co-operation of the Council and the dedication and hard work of the member of the Legislative Assembly for Springvale, my colleague Mr Eddie Micaleff, the Springvale community health centre could not have been established. The centre now performs a number of essential functions and services in the community. Local primary and secondary schools, in addition to pre-school and childcare services funded by both Federal and State governments, continue to reaffirm the success of the co-operative efforts of the three levels of government. I am happy to say, also, that the diversity and change in the community have been reflected in the structure of the Council itself. The recently retired Mayor of Springvale, Councillor Blashki, has presided over the development of the city for the last year. As well as congratulating him on his achievements, I have no doubt that his success will be matched by the present Mayor, Andrew Papapetrou. Like his predecessor, who is a third generation Australian, his grandfather came from Poland. Mayor Papapetrou is also of ethnic origin, having arrived in Australia from Greece in 1954. The demographic and geographic characteristics of the City of Springvale have constituted an enormous challenge for any city council. In addition to the planning of physical services, the diversity in the Springvale community has required the provision of human services well above that of other municipalities. The success of the City of Springvale in meeting this challenge has been possible with the assistance and diligence of the Mayor, councillors and staff of the Council. I would especially like to highlight the contribution of the city's chief executive officer, Mr Ian Tatterson. The overall administrative expertise of the Council was recently recognised by the receipt of a `development award' by the City of Springvale Council as part of the National Awards for Innovation in Local Government. Finally, I conclude my tribute to the City of Springvale Council by saying that I take pride in being a ratepayer in this municipality. I am particularly proud to see that the Council places a high priority on human service development and delivery. I admire the achievements of the City of Springvale Council in particular. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(9.50) —I join my colleague the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) in the concern he expressed about pensions in the veterans' affairs area and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) in the concern he expressed about age pensions under measures introduced by this Government. My concern relates to an administrative change that has been made within the Department of Social Security to widows' pensions and supporting parents' benefits. Budget Paper No. 1 tells us that as from October 1986 the administrative arrangements for these two benefits will change. There has been no public announcement by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) on this. There has been no Press release, no official announcement by the Government on a very significant change in the conditions of these two social welfare benefits. The only reason that we know anything about it at all is two sentences in Budget Paper No. 1, which states in part: The change is designed to improve the administration of the supporting parents' benefits and widows' pensions by more regular reporting to ensure continuing eligibility and counselling which will assist the recipients to find work and thus reduce outlays. The last three words of that quotation-`thus reduce outlays'-are the important ones, because the statement appears entirely in a Budget cost cutting context and is followed by information about how much money the Department thinks it will save by virtue of widows and supporting parents beneficiaries having to report compulsorily on a regular basis to the Department of Social Security, explaining their circumstances and what efforts they are taking to get full time paid employment. When I raised this matter in debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87, the Minister made a brief reply. In part, he said: Generally people on both sides of the House would welcome the measures with respect to reporting requirements for supporting parent beneficiaries as a whole. It is important that people have the opportunity to receive from the Department on a regular basis advice and counselling on information that may be relevant to them. It is important also that the Department is in a position to verify the circumstances of a group of people whose circumstances often change. While the Minister chooses to use the word `counselling', what is clearly intended is a face to face checkup and the placing of pressure on people who are on these benefits to find jobs. Who is affected and how? De jure widows will be required to report for an interview with the Department three months after receiving the widow's pension. They must begin reporting on their circumstances on a monthly basis six months after receiving the widow's pension. They do that monthly for three months and quarterly thereafter. People on supporting parents benefits are not treated with such sensitivity. People who receive this benefit are, of course, widowers, de facto widows, divorcees- who account for two-thirds of the beneficiaries-and single mothers. They must, within one month of receiving the benefit, report to explain themselves to a Department of Social Security official. They must do that for three months and quarterly thereafter. Under the measures that have been introduced by this Government in an attempt to overcome social security fraud in relation to age pensions, it is considered sufficient to send a letter to the beneficiaries twice a year just asking them whether their circumstances have changed. This group-widows, widowers and people who have just gone through marital breakdown-must present themselves shortly after the trauma of either bereavement or loss of their spouse through marital breakdown. They will, because they would not qualify for these benefits otherwise, have dependent children and be both mother and father to them. As well as coping with their own personal trauma they have to cope with the traumas of their children caused by loss of a parent through death or divorce. We hear often enough in debate, particularly in relation to women with dependent children who go to work, that women should have a right of choice-according to their own family circumstances-as to whether it is appropriate for them to work. This measure shows classic double standards. If we believe in choice, pressure should not be put on these people of all people-sole parents, parents who are attempting to cope with difficult family circumstances on their own without a spouse. I have said before that I think it is inhumane. This situation has not been provided for under legislation. It is to be done by administrative arrangement. I ask: Since it is not a law approved by this Parliament, is the best way to achieve the objective through officials of the Department of Social Security? Most importantly, what will be the sanctions for non-compliance? Will these people lose their pensions? Mr GEAR(Canning)(9.55) —I wish to refer to the misconception that the unemployed do not want to work. Before doing so, I will comment on the crocodile tears that are being shed opposite for pensioners and people on social security. To those opposite who get up from time to time and say that the pensioners and people on social security are being harshly treated by this Government, I point out the total hypocrisy of the Opposition on the assets test. The Opposition is saying to us, as it has said before, that it will remove the assets test. I keep pointing out that without the assets test the pension fell from 24.7 per cent to 22.7 per cent-a real decrease for the pensioners under its term of government. That happened without an assets test. Since we reintroduced the assets test, the pension has risen to 24 per cent. Members of the Opposition should not tell this Government about their concern for pensioners and people on social security while in the same breath talking about getting rid of the assets test, about giving back the fringe benefits to people on substantial incomes, such as the hostess allowance and the tertiary fee allowance. They are quite happy for people of considerable wealth to have all the rorts and ramps in the taxation system and to remove the assets test and give the pension to the millionaires. I ask: Where is the money coming from? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) on the receipts side has a credibility gap of $5.9 billion. He will also have a balanced Budget-another $3.5 billion. That amounts to $10,000m. If the Opposition thinks the pensioners will go screaming over to it at the next election it has another think coming. It has no credibility at all on social security issues and no morality at all on the taxation system. I return to the point I wish to make. I believe there is a belief that the unemployed do not want to work. I believe that that is totally wrong. It has been the excuse of governments in the past to disguise their own shortcomings. They have said that the unemployed do not want to work and have blamed the education system and everything except their own incompetence. In this context I refer to two articles in the Sunday Times of Western Australia. The first, which appeared on 5 October, is headed: `Firm cannot find any workers'. I will read a little from that article as it is very illuminating in the context of which I am speaking. It states: A major WA manufacturer has voiced scepticism about the State's unemployment `crisis'. The article later states: The Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) says more than 53,000 Western Australians are out of work and seeking jobs. But Mr Walmsley, the managing director of Westral said: `We're pulling our hair out trying to find staff'. . . . . Mr Walmsley said Westral wanted people for 11 permanent positions-sales reps, security door assemblers, saw operators, venetian blind assemblers and senior accountants. In some cases those positions require considerable skills and Mr Walmsley was saying that he could not get people to take on those jobs. At the end of the article he is quoted as saying: `I must admit I've never believed anyone could not get work if they wanted it-and I really believe that now'. So there was scepticism on the part of Mr Walmsley of Westral in Western Australia that he could find people who really wanted to work, notwithstanding the fact that 53,000 West Australians cannot find a job. The Sunday Times is not one of the greatest newspapers in the world, but a week later on 12 October it wrote an article which followed the previous one. It is headed `Response to story ``mind-blowing'' '. Westral had had over 1,000 applications. Mr Walmsley had so many applications on the night the article was published that he had to take his phone off the hook. To any employer who doubts that the unemployed want to work, I say: Follow Mr Walmsley's experience. They should go out and say: `I want people to work for me'. They should make a public statement as he did, and they will find the same response. The unemployed do want to work. I have never found anyone with a job who held that belief who would swap places with anybody out of work. Mr Walmsley's experience should serve notice to all of us who blame the unemployed for being unemployed. The fact is they do want to work and it is up to this Parliament, in particular this Government, to make sure that there is work for them. I am happy to say that as a member of this Labor Government we have got over 700,000 back to work and we will continue that trend. We know that the unemployed want to work. We are not like members of the Opposition who blame the unemployed for their own failings. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.00) —In nearly 20 years in parliament, State and Federal, it has always been my belief that pensioners traditionally voted for the Australian Labor Party. Certainly, they believed that the Australian Labor Party genuinely cared for them and had their concerns at heart. I have no doubt that many pensioners-1 1/2 million pensioners, beneficiaries-would cast their minds back to February 1983 when the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), stood at the Sydney Opera House and gave a clear and binding commitment to pensioners when he said: My Government will not take money out of the pensioners' cheques. Sadly, in the intervening period we have seen the pensioners robbed by a rapacious government which, without compunction, has broken just about every promise it made to the pensioners-and worse. It must grieve members of the Australian Labor Party on the other side of the House who are genuinely concerned for the welfare of Australia's elderly to be party to the actions perpetrated against pensioners by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). The most recent outrage involves the theft of $129m from pensioners by the deferment of the automatic indexed increase due to come into effect on 1 November this year. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Would the honourable member withdraw the word `theft'. Mr HODGMAN —I withdraw it. The misappropriation of $129m is but the first suck of the bitter cup because many pensioners do not realise that the outrageous legislation which was put through this House last week also provides for a further deferment in May. That will be at an increased cost, namely, $158m. Who is to say that this will not be repeated by deferments of the November 1987 increase and the May 1988 increase? The assets test has seen 13,381 veterans' pensions cancelled or reduced. Mr Slipper —How many? Mr HODGMAN —The number is 13,381. I give the figures to the House so that honourable members may see which States are most affected. In New South Wales, 4,661 veterans' pensions have been either cancelled or reduced. In Victoria, the number is 3,732; in Queensland, 2,395; in South Australia, 1,381-although I am delighted to say that that figure has been reduced by one in view of the successful Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing; in Western Australia, 830; and in Tasmania, 382. That was as at 28 June 1985. I remind the House that it is now 20 October 1986. Is it the way to repay those who served this country, those who went overseas and returned wounded and maimed, who have struggled on soldier settler farms and battled adversity year after year, to have a government, many members of which have never worn a uniform in their life, which takes away their service pensions? The shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), has pointed to at least nine separate actions by this Government which are deliberately against those who qualify for veterans' entitlements. I will speak later in this session on the iniquity of the legislation as it stands and in particular section 24 (1) (b). I ask honourable members opposite to stand up in front of their electors in the next few weeks and explain to them why pensioner couples are suffering a loss of $83 in the six weeks running to Christmas, that single pensioners are suffering a loss of $53 in the same period and that pensioners are being robbed. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(10.05) —I wish to raise a matter of great concern to consumers-the irradiation of food. It has been a matter of concern in the United States of America, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. To date we have not had the type of debate that is necessary if we are to achieve a result that is safe, adequate and acceptable to consumers. Honourable members would be aware that the National Health and Medical Research Council has drafted regulations that would allow the introduction of the process into the various States. No doubt, honourable members and those people who listen to the Parliament from day to day will also be aware of the many thousands of petitions coming into this Parliament from concerned consumers asking that the Government take steps to ensure that the process does not go ahead. It is worth while to reflect on some of the things that have happened in the countries I mentioned earlier. In the United Kingdom a committee to inquire into food irradiation was set up by the British Parliament. That committee worked for about four years and became known as the Burgen Committee. It brought down its report in April or May this year. It gave a three-month period for responses to its findings. During that period a great deal of concern has been expressed by a number of groups. The views of one group to which I will refer are contained in a Press release from Australian Associated Press and reported in the Adelaide Advertiser of 27 September this year. The report is succinct and goes to the kinds of problems that have been experienced in other countries. Unless we have such an inquiry we will be faced with similar problems. The article is headed `Don't rush into irradiated food, UK told'. The release, from London, says: Chiefs of public health services have advised the Government not to be rushed into allowing irradiated food to be sold in Britain. The process-designed to extend the shelf life of food-involves using low levels of radiation to kill bacteria and insects and delays the ripening of fruit. None of the 306 delegates of yesterday's final session of the annual congress of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers in Scarborough was prepared to accept a Government advisory committee's recommendation that irradiation be allowed. That is very significant. The article goes on: The deputy director of public health at the Amber Valley District Council, Mr Barry Sheard, said: ``There is a lot more work to be done before this process can be considered safe. Do we really need it?'' Several delegates argued that irradiation could become a means of covering up unacceptable practices in food production. Mr Tony Webb, consultant researcher on food irradiation to the London Food Commission, said the effects could include ``off flavours'' and smells in some foods, and loss of nutrients. He also was worried about the health and safety of workers in irradiation plants. The senior research officer with the Consumers in the European Community Group, Ms Judith Eversley, said irradiated shellfish of low quality had been brought into Britain illegally from countries where the process was lawful. ``It raises the possibility that unscrupulous traders may market substandard produce which has been `cleaned up' by irradiation,'' she said. That just touches on the kinds of problems one is going to run into. I am glad to say that consumers throughout Australia are starting to respond. Public meetings have been held in Brisbane and Sydney. They are arranged for Melbourne on 23 November. There will be more pubic meetings in Adelaide on 26 November at which the public will have the opportunity to express concerns about this new process. The Government should take heed of those concerns. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kent, L. Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J. Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C. Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E. Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H. Bowen, Lionel Lee, MBrown, John Lindsay, E. J. Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J. Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Dubois, S. G. Milton, P. Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L. Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H. Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R. Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C. Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Uren, T. Hurford, C. J. West, S. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R. Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W. Kelly, R. J. Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Hodges, J. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hodgman, W. M. Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S. Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Conquest, B. J. Peacock, A. S. Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K. Downer, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C. Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, Harry Sharp JFife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steel Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Beazley, K. C. MacKellar, M. G. H. Jacobi, R Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.19 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 20 October 1986: Cross investments between Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and Elders IXL Limited-Report by National Companies and Securities Commission, dated 25 September 1986-Page 200 (missing from paper tabled on 16 October 1986). Health Insurance Act-Guidelines pursuant to sub-section 124h (1), dated 30 September 1986. Home and Community Care Act-Agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Victoria, pursuant to sub-section 3 (2), dated 26 September 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 2214) Mr Hodges asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 October 1985: (1) Has the restaurant and catering industry developed substantially as a result of the tax deductibility which was allowed on business meals and business functions. (2) Will restaurant owners' returns on capital investment be severely reduced and employment affected due to the tax changes announced on 19 September 1985. (3) Will the Government provide compensation to restaurant owners as a result of income interference through these sudden owners to prop up their ailing businesses. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There have been claims that the restaurant and catering industry has benefited significantly from the tax deductibility previously allowed for entertainment expenses. While it has not been possible to substantiate such claims, the Government has always accepted that they have some substance. (2) The Government's decision to end tax deductibility for entertainment expenses was expected to have some implications for employment and returns on capital investment in the hospitality industry. There is no evidence, however, that that has occurred. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures (ABS Cat. No. 6202.0) show that between August 1985 and May 1986 employment in restaurants, hotels and clubs increased by some 19,000 persons, or 8.9%. This rate of increase was more than double that for the economy as a whole (3.8%). Moreover, vacancies in the industry, registered with the CES, were 23 per cent higher in the three months to July 1986 than in the corresponding period a year earlier. (3) There is clearly no case for Government compensation. (Question No. 2674) Mr Moore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 November 1985: (1) What is the average annual cost to the Government of drought subsidies and assistance to landholders in drought affected areas. (2) Is he able to say what the average annual cost is to each State Government. (3) Is it a fact that increased productivity is available from areas suitable for irrigation when efforts are made to utilise underground waters efficiently. (4) What increase will be achieved in Government revenue by removing the total immediate tax deductibility for ``conserving and conveying water''. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Commonwealth expenditure on drought assistance in recent years has been provided in two forms: (a) The Drought Relief Fodder Subsidy and the Drought Relief Interest Subsidy schemes. These schemes were introduced in 1982 and, following the breaking of the general drought, were withdrawn on 30 June 1983 and 31 December 1983 respectively. However, significant expenditure under both schemes continued into 1983-84 and, under the latter, into 1984-85, because primary producers were allowed to submit claims in respect of transactions made prior to their withdrawal. Average annual expenditure under the two schemes during the three financial years ended 1984-85 was $53.2 million. (b) Financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory under the long-standing Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements (NDRA). Commonwealth expenditure on drought assistance under this scheme can only be estimated because the scheme involves the provisions of assistance to the States and the Northern Territory towards their expenditure on relief measures in respect of a range of natural disasters, including drought. Table 115 of 1986-87 Budget Paper No. 7 provides estimates of Commonwealth assistance by type of disaster through the apportionment of Commonwealth assistance accordingly to States' advice on their expenditures by type of disaster. The table indicates that Commonwealth expenditure on drought relief under the NDRA during the 5 years ended 1985-86 averaged about $45 million per annum. In addition to drought assistance, the Commonwealth's Federal Water Resources Assistance Program, which includes assistance for rural water resources development and conservation, provided $65.3 million from the Budget in 1985-86. (2) Payments under the drought Relief Interest Subsidy and Fodder Subsidy schemes were financed entirely by the Commonwealth. In respect of the NDRA, complete figures for drought-related assistance measures by State Governments are not available. Table 116 of 1986-87 Budget Paper No. 7 records available details of State expenditure on natural disaster relief by category of relief measure. While one category (water cartage) relates directly to drought relief, others (e.g. loans to primary producers) encompass expenditure for the relief of both drought and other natural disasters. Moreover, complete information on expenditure by some States is not available for some years, particularly in years when they were not eligible to make claims on the Commonwealth. (3) Yes. (4) The immediate deduction allowed for capital expenditure by primary producers on conserving water has been replaced with write-off over three years. The resulting savings in revenue forgone are expected to be $20 million in 1986-87 and $13 million in 1987-88. On-going savings would be restricted to those arising from any reduction in tax sheltering as a result of the reduced concession. (Question No. 2761) Mr Lamb asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: (1) Is he able to say whether the Commonwealth Trading Bank loan to Basilthon Nominees Pty Ltd, dated 21 April 1978 and secured by a second mortgage on the Swagman Restaurant, was further secured by mortgage insurance; if so, who was the mortgage insurer. (2) Is he also able to say whether the insurer was subrogated to any rights of the Commonwealth Trading Bank to collect called, but unpaid, capital owing on units in the Basilthon Unit Trust held in trust by the UK Company, Aquaglen Ltd. (3) Did Basilton Finances Pty Ltd, as trustee for the Basilthon Finance Settlement, obtain authorisation pursuant to the foreign exchange regulations of the Banking Act 1959, during the period 1976-79, for the transfer of funds to (a) Aquaglen Ltd in the UK or (b) trust accounts set up in Switzerland. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I am not personally in a position to comment on details of loans provided by the former Commonwealth Trading Bank (now the Commonwealth Bank of Australia), which are necessarily matters for determination by the Bank on the basis of its own commercial judgment. The views of the Managing Director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation have been sought in respect of those aspects of the honourable member's questions which relate to the Corporation. The Managing Director has advised that the CBA would wish to preserve the confidentiality of the banker/customer relationship that existed between itself and Basilthon Nominees Pty Ltd and considers it inappropriate to comment on matters relating to that relationship. (3) The Reserve Bank of Australia is responsible for the administration of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations. Given the confidential relationship that the Bank assures in its dealings with clients, the Bank does not publicly divulge information with respect to the affairs of any person acquired under those Regulations, except by written consent of that person or under compulsion or obligation of law. (Question No. 3288) Mr Duncan asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) How many companies within the jurisdiction of each of the delegates of the National Companies and Securities Commission have gone into liquidation each year since the inception of the co-operative companies and securities scheme. (2) How many companies in liquidation were unable to pay their unsecured creditors more than 50 cents in the dollar in each of those years and each of these jurisdictions. (3) How many of the companies were subject to investigation by delegates of the National Companies and Securities Commission in each of those years and each of those jurisdictions. (4) How many principals of the companies were the subject of criminal charges arising from the investigations in each of those years and each of those jurisdictions and how many of the charges resulted in convictions. (5) Is administration of the co-operative scheme successful in identifying and punishing corporate criminals. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In answering this question I have had the benefit of the assistance of the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) which has sought responses for each of its State and Territory delegates. I am informed that the figures provided by delegates of the NCSC in answer to parts (2), (3) and (4) of the honourable member's question are not necessarily comparable as between jurisdictions. This is because delegates employ different record keeping systems and have made different assumptions in responding to the questions. (1) I am advised that the number of companies which have gone into liquidation within the jurisdiction of each of the delegates of the NCSC for each financial year since 1 July 1982 is as follows: (a) Australian Capital Territory: 1982-83-180 1983-84-219 1984-85-294 1985-86-264 Total: 957 (693*) (b) New South Wales: 1982-83-2235 1983-84-1781 1984-85-2694 1985-Mar. 86-507 Total: 7217 (6710*) (c) Northern Territory: 1982-83-53 1983-84-66 1984-85-56 1985-Mar. 86-41 Total: 216 (175*) (d) Queensland: No figures have been made available by this delegate. (e) South Australia: 1982-83-496 1983-84-523 1984-85-451 1985-Mar. 86-334 Total: 1804 (1470*) (f) Tasmania: 1982-83-53 1983-84-102 1984-85-88 (Figures not available for 1985-86.) Total: 243 (g) Victoria: 1982-83-1532 1983-84-1313 1984-85-1563 (Figures not available for 1985-86) Total: 4408 (h) Western Australia (Total figure for period only provided) 1982-1986-1261 (*) Denotes total excluding figures for 1985-1986. (2) New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory do not keep separate statistics of companies which have been unable to pay creditors more than 50 cents in the dollar. The figures provided by those two jurisdictions relate to the number of reports received from liquidators under s.418 of the companies legislation. The fact that a company has paid its creditors less than 50 cents in the dollar is the main, although not the only, reason for the submission of a s.418 report. Subject to that qualification, the number of companies in liquidation which were unable to pay their creditors less than 50 cents in the dollar in each of the financial years and in each of the jurisdictions is as follows: (a) Australian Capital Territory: 1982-1983-28 1983-1984-19 1984-1985-18 1985-1986-19 Total: 84 (65*) (b) New South Wales: 1982-1983-386 1983-1984-592 1984-1985-884 1985/Mar. 86-451 Total: 2,313 (1,862*) (c) Northern Territory: 1982-1983-5 1983-1984-6 1984-1985-36 1985/Mar. 86-55 (47*) (d) Queensland: No figures made available by this delegate. (e) South Australia: 1982-1983-186 1983-1984-158 1984-1985-154 1985/Mar. 86-115 Total: 613 (498*) (f) Tasmania: Statistics not maintained. (g) Victoria: 1982-1983-592 1983-1984-621 1984-1985-569 (Figures not available for 1985-1986) Total: 1,782 (h) Western Australia: 1982-1983-125 1983-1984-160 1984-1985-128 1985/Dec. 85-68 Total: 481 (413*) (*) Denotes total excluding figures for 1985-1986. (3) The figures provided by the delegates of NCSC in respect of failed companies subject to investigation in each financial year and in each jurisdiction is as follows: (the figures are not necessarily limited to companies that paid less than 50 cents in the dollar to unsecured creditors): (a) Australian Capital Territory: 1982-1983-11 1983-1984-13 1984-1985-9 1985-1986-16 Total: 49 (33*) (b) New South Wales (completed investigations only): 1982-1983-105 1983-1984-128 1984-1985-63 1985-1986-54 Total: 350 (296*) (c) Northern Territory: 1982/1983-1 1983/1984-1 1984/1985-7 1985/Mar. 86-10 Total: 19 (9*) (d) Queensland: No figures made available by this delegate. (e) South Australia: 1982/1983-124 1983/1984-178 1984/1985-149 1985/Mar. 86-86 Total: 537 (451*) (f) Tasmania: Statistics not maintained. (g) Victoria (estimate only): 1982/1983-354 1983/1984-446 1984/1985-690 (Figures not available for 1985/1986) Total: 1490 (h) Western Australia: 1982/1983-47 1983/1984-79 1984/1985-96 1985/Dec. 85-44 Total: 266 (222*) (*) Denotes total excluding figure for 1985/1986. (4) I am advised that not all delegates keep separate statistics which would enable a complete answer to be given to this part of the honourable member's question. The figures for some States include multiple convictions of one person in the aggregate statistics for the number of principals convicted. As a considerable time elapses between respectively the date of the liquidation, the completion of investigations, and the determination of criminal proceedings the figures provided may not relate to liquidations occurring in any one of those years and generally record the result of investigations carried out some years previously. Furthermore, in the case of New South Wales and Victoria, the figures given do not include those cases where a prosecution was brought, but no conviction resulted. Prosecution records kept in New South Wales are not classified by the type of case concerned; accordingly, the convictions recorded for that State relate generally to cases involving failed companies. Bearing these factors in mind, the response given by the delegates to the honourable member's question is as follows (the number of charges brought is the figure given first and is followed by the number of convictions which is given in brackets): (a) Australian Capital Territory: 1982-1983-4 (6) 1983-1984-2 (4) 1984-1985-2 (2) 1985-1986-7 (6) Total charges 15 (8*) Total convictions 18 (12*) (b) New South Wales (convictions only): 1982-1983-(23) 1983-1984-(19) 1984-1985-(25) 1985-Mar. 86-(5) Total convictions 52 (47*) (c) Northern Territory: 1982-1983-0 (0) 1983-1984-0 (0) 1984-1985-1 (0) (Figures not available for 1985/86) Total-1 (0) (d) Queensland: No figures made available by this delegate. (e) South Australia: 1982-1983-30 (27) 1983-1984-25 (23) 1984-1985-61 (57) 1985-Mar. 86-27 (22) Total charges 143 (116*) Total convictions 129 (107*) (f) Tasmania Statistics not maintained. (g) Victoria: 1982-1983-23 (36) 1983-1984-29 (25) 1984-1985-22 (32) (Figures not available for 1985-86) Total charges 74 Total convictions 63 (h) Western Australia 1982-1983-12 (9) 1983-1984-15 (13) 1984-1985-18 (16) 1985-Dec. 86-7 (3) Total charges 52 (45*) Total convictions 41 (38*) (*) Denotes total excluding figure for 1985-1986. (5) The identification and punishment of corporate criminals is a matter of continuing concern in the administration of the co-operative scheme. Measures are being implemented to deal more effectively with the identification and prosecution of corporate offenders. For example, I understand that the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission has formed a task force, headed by a senior investigator, to follow up liquidations and to seek to improve the rate of convictions under the Companies Code. One of the problems experienced in the prosecution of corporate crime has been the lack of adequate evidence gathered at an early stage so as to enable the timely and successful prosecution of suspected offenders. These problems are being addressed by the task force and liquidators are being made aware of the nature of the evidence which is required and of the means of obtaining it. In light of the high costs involved with successfully prosecuting corporate offenders under conventional court procedures, some jurisdictions within the co-operative scheme are considering alternative methods such as extending the penalty notice system to more serious corporate offences. The penalty notice system essentially involves an `on the spot' fine payable by the alleged corporate offender unless the person wishes to defend the matter in court. At its meeting on 23 July 1986 the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities agreed that any State that so desires could amend its application of laws legislation so as to enable it to issue a penalty notice for any offence under the Codes involving not more than a pecuniary penalty of $2,500 or 6 months imprisonment or both. The activities of those who may have abused the privilege of limited liability is also a matter of concern. Procedures now exist under the companies legislation to prohibit serious offenders from taking part in the management of companies. (Question No. 3703) Mr Downer asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: (1) How many applications for legal aid in cases involving industrial disputes were there in (a) 1982-83, (b) 1983-84 and (c) 1984-85. (2) How many of the applications were successful. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Financial assistance for legal costs and related expenses is available under a number of administrative schemes for which I am responsible. My Department does not keep records that would enable identification of which (if any) of the applications made under these schemes involved industrial disputes. Financial assistance may also be authorised under the provisions of sections 132j, 141a, 141b and 168 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. Under these provisions financial assistance may be authorised for individuals in respect of legal costs and expenses incurred by them in- (a) an application for leave to be a candidate for election or appointed to a union office, or an application for leave to continue to hold office; and (b) proceedings instituted to- (i) challenge the validity of union rules; (ii) enforce compliance with valid organisation rules, or (iii) inquire into alleged irregularities in union elections. Details of applications for financial assistance under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 are set out below. APPLICATIONS Year Received Approved 1982-83... 29 13 1983-84... 27 26 1984-85... 17 15 (Question No. 4360) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Does he recognise the spirit of the UN Declaration on the rights of the Disabled and Mentally Retarded Person. (2) Will he ensure the removal of charges associated with the dispensing of drugs used in the treatment of epilepsy. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) There are two major costs associated with the provision of pharmaceutical benefits to the public, namely: the cost of the drug and the remuneration paid to pharmacists for dispensing. Drug prices are negotiated between manufacturers and my Department while pharmacists' remuneration is determined by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal. For items listed as pharmaceutical benefits the Government currently subsidises costs in the following manner: for pensioners the full drug cost is met; concessional beneficiaries pay the first $2 of the Commonwealth dispensed price; and general beneficiaries pay the first $5 of the Commonwealth dispensed price. Where there is disagreement between a manufacturer and my Department over the price of a drug, and the drug is considered unique, a special patient contribution may be determined. This contribution, payable by all patients, represents the difference between the dispensed price based on what the Commonwealth is prepared to pay and the dispensed price based on the manufacturer's charge. There are a number of drugs listed as pharmaceutical benefits that are used in the treatment of epilepsy. Of these only the Dilantin range attracts a special patient contribution. The application of special patient contribution provisions to Dilantin is the result of action taken by the manufacturer, Parke Davis Pty Ltd, to unilaterally increase the price of its product by an amount regarded by the Government as unjustifiable in the light of cost and profit data, and therefore unacceptable. Normally, prices of pharmaceutical benefit items are established through direct negotiation between a manufacturer and my Department which obtains recommendations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Bureau. This Bureau comprises officers from my Department, the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, an industry nominee and a consumer nominee. If a manufacturer applies a price increase outside of the normal negotiation procedures, which it has been unable to substantiate, the Government has a limited range of options available to it. It may: (a) delist the product which would result in patients including pensioners having to pay the full drug cost at private dispensing rates. (b) accept the price demanded by the manufacturer which would have serious financial implications to the whole Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. (c) allow the item to remain listed as a special pharmaceutical benefit. In the case of Dilantin, it was felt that in view of the more undesirable aspects of the only other options available, the Government had no choice other than to retain the item as a pharmaceutical benefit under special patient contribution arrangements. The special patient contribution ($1.57) was introduced to alleviate hardship for patients who could otherwise be expected to pay up to $14.86 for 200 Dilantin capsules, the main item concerned. My Department was willing to negotiate a reasonable price for Dilantin but the manufacturer was not willing to co-operate unless price increases were granted for other major products produced by the company. These other products are in competition with alternatives or therapeutically similar products for which the manufacturers are in a more satisfactory cost/profit situation. Parke Davis appears to be mainly concerned with overall company revenue and as Dilantin is a unique product, it provides a means by which Parke Davis can increase its revenue. (Question No. 4557) Mr McArthur asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: (1) How many Medicare agencies have been granted in Victoria. (2) To which organisations have these agencies been granted. (3) Where do the organisations operate the agencies. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There have been 4 Medicare agencies granted in Victoria. (2) These agencies were granted to the following Victorian organisations: (a) Geelong Medical and Hospital Benefits Association Ltd. (b) Latrobe Valley Hospital and Health Services Association. (c) Mildura District Hospital and Medical Fund. (d) Yallourn Medical and Hospital Society. (3) The agencies are operated in the following localities: (a) Geelong Medical and Hospital Benefits Association Ltd. Moorabool Street (Geelong) Corio (Geelong) Belmont (Geelong) Myer Store (Geelong) Newcomb (Geelong) Colac Hamilton Portland Warrnambool (b) Latrobe Valley Hospital and Health Services Association Bairnsdale Moe Morwell Mid Valley (Morwell) Mount Beauty Sale Traralgon Warragul Wonthaggi (c) Mildura District Hospital and Medical Fund Mildura (d) Yallourn Medical and Hospital Society Newborough. (Question No. 4588) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: How much of the expected increase in sales tax revenue in 1986-87 is estimated to be generated from (a) Australian alcoholic wine (b) imported alcoholic wine and (c) alcoholic cider. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The estimated increase in sales tax revenue in 1986-87 from Australian alcoholic wine, imported alcoholic wine and alcoholic cider is $43m, $3m and $1m respectively. (Question No. 4589) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: How much of the expected increase in sales tax revenue in 1986-87 is estimated to be generated from (a) packaged flavoured milk, (b) previously exempt fruit juice products, (c) non-alcoholic wine and (d) non-alcoholic cider. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The estimated increase in sales tax revenue in 1986-87 from packaged flavoured milk, previously exempt fruit juice products, non-alcoholic wine and non-alcoholic cider is $7m, $52m, $0.3m and $0.7m respectively. (Question No. 4597) Dr Klugman asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the Australian Conservation Foundation's (ACF) call to close the joint facility at Pine Gap. (2) What funding have federal governments given the ACF (a) directly, and (b) indirectly by making donations tax-deductible, since 1976. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) Under a program of grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations administered by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, the ACF has received a total of $1,131,050 between 1976-77 and 1985-86 inclusive. $ 1976-77... 150,000 1977-78... 150,000 1978-79... 100,000 1979-80... 100,000 1980-81... 75,000 1981-82... 75,000 1982-83... 77,000 1983-84... 120,000 1984-85... 144,050 1985-86... 140,000 (b) Donations in excess of two dollars have been tax-deductible since 26 October 1966. It is not possible to quantify the cost of deductibility for donations to individual organisations. (Question No. 4733) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) What are the total and itemised costs of the departmental publication ``Vetaffairs Monthly Journal''. (2) What is the purpose of the journal. (3) How many persons receive copies of the journal. (4) What is the cost of posting a copy of the journal. (5) Is the journal used for promoting Government policies. (6) What was the cost of the article entitled ``What the Minister says . . .'' in the September edition. (7) What is the basis of the Minister's comments on the Opposition's Veterans' Affairs policy. (8) Why did the Minister use a departmental journal to attack the Opposition. (9) Will the Minister give the Opposition spokesman on Veterans' Affairs an opportunity to reply; if not, why not. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The cost of ``Vetaffairs'' during the 12 month period September 1985 to August 1986 was about $42,000. This comprised: Salaries-$22,000 Publishing-$15,000 Postage-$5,000 (2) ``Vetaffairs'' was first produced in July 1981. The publication is designed to provide (a) staff, (b) interested/associated people and organisations and (c) media with up to date information on developments, changes and achievements in the portfolio. (3) Approximately eight thousand copies are distributed each month. It is read by many tens of thousands of people in ex-service and kindred organisations and hospitals and other institutions. (4) The Department mails 746 copies of the journal each month at a cost of 55 cents per envelope. However, these envelopes usually contain other material for the addressee such as news releases, speeches and notices. (5) The Department of Veterans' Affairs exists to apply legislation and to give effect to Government policies concerned with the welfare and wellbeing of the Veteran community. ``Vetaffairs'' helps to inform beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries, staff and the community about such policies. (6) The cost, worked out on a pro rata column/cm basis, was $287.56 (including postage). (7) (8) (9) How well the ex-service community fared in the 1986-87 Budget is a matter of legitimate public interest and my comments in the September edition of ``Vetaffairs'' were entirely appropriate for me to make in my capacity as Minister for Veterans' Affairs.