Monday, 17 November 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I wish to advise the House of the following ministerial arrangements: The Treasurer (Mr Keating) will be absent from Australia on Government business until 21 November and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) will act as Treasurer during his absence. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) will be absent from Australia on Government business until 4 December and the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) will act as Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations during his absence. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will be absent from Australia until this evening attending the funeral of the late Sir Iambakey Okuk in Port Moresby. Because of the brevity of Mr Kerin's absence no Acting Minister has been appointed. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) will respond to any questions relating to the primary industry portfolio. As a matter of courtesy I also advise the House that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) will be absent from the House on Government business today, as will the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). The Minister for Science will respond to any questions relating to the trade portfolio and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) will respond to any questions relating to the Aboriginal affairs portfolio. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur) —Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. I draw your attention to two newspaper articles which were published this morning. The first, headed `States Set to Gain Phone Tap Access', was in this morning's Melbourne Sun, published by Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. The second article, headed `State Police to Get Tap Power', was in the Brisbane Courier-Mail, published also by Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. These articles purport to contain the views of members of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception as allegedly expressed in the Committee's forthcoming report to the Parliament. I understand that similar articles may also have appeared in Tasmania, in today's Burnie Advocate and the Launceston Examiner, and I am checking this further. Madam Speaker, the Committee is in the final stages of deliberation on its report. It appears to me that the publication of these two articles is evidence, prima facie, of a contempt of the Parliament. I ask you to give consideration as to whether, prima facie, a case of contempt of the Parliament exists. Madam SPEAKER —Order! As is normal in these matters, I will take the matter on board and report back to the House at the earliest opportunity. Mr PORTER —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I refer the Minister to his answer in the House last Friday when he said that eligible persons would be able to sign section 36 certificates of identity which could in turn be forwarded through the mail, and to his reference to the procedure covering the signing of passports as a possible method of determining eligibility for signing such certificates. How does the Government propose to guarantee the integrity of these section 36 certificates? Does the Minister propose that 1,500,000 Australians who are eligible to sign passports will be able to issue section 36 certificates? If not, when does the Minister propose to announce the eligibility criteria for signing the certificates? Dr BLEWETT —With reference to the question of the prescribed persons who can sign those particular eligibility certificates, I indicated in my answer the other day that they would include leading community individuals-that is, people who would not recognise the person making an application before them. I also indicate now that the exact definition of each of those categories of eligible persons who will be able to sign such certificates will be provided in regulations which, of course, will have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. At this point we are not able to identify completely all of the groups or categories of people who would, under the provisions of the Australia Card Bill, be prescribed persons in the sense of being able to authorise and verify those certifications. But the important thing is that there exists a major proposal within the Bill so that we might at least not have the nonsense that has gone on over the weekend whereby we have had these tales particularly spread amongst country people that they will have to come to the city every time to get themselves verified. There is a very adequate and full provision in the Bill for effective verification of Australia cards where people are not able to come into a major city. Mr KENT —Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the House of the situation with respect to the ratification of the Treaty of Rarotonga? Mr HAYDEN —To date, 10 of the 13 South Pacific Forum countries have signed the Treaty of Rarotonga-the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty-and seven have now deposited instruments of ratification. Eight ratifications are required for the Treaty to enter into force. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill, to clear the way for Australia's ratification, is currently before Parliament. Having been cleared by this House it is now before the Senate. The protocols to the Treaty which will be open for signature on 1 December provide for the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France to apply the provisions of the Treaty to their South Pacific territories and for the nuclear weapons states-the United States, United Kingdom, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China-to undertake not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against parties to the Treaty, nor to conduct nuclear testing in the South Pacific. We sincerely trust that all those eligible states will adhere to the protocols. The United States and the United Kingdom have advised us that they are still studying the Treaty. France has declared publicly that it will not sign. I sincerely trust that this is a view that will not prevail as its final position. The Soviet Union and China have responded positively. In all the circumstances it has been a very encouraging result. It is only the second such Treaty in existence, apart from the Antarctic area covering a substantial region of the globe. It is a very important contribution to arms control and disarmament measures. Mr SPENDER —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I remind the Minister that the Health Insurance Commission's submission to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card said that in the two years of Medicare's operation, 670,000 cards have been reported lost or stolen; that is 6 per cent of the cards issued. What reason is there to expect that the number of lost or stolen identity cards will be any less than the rate for the Medicare card? Given that or any other substantial rate of loss or theft of the identify card-and the techniques already available to alter and forge high security documents such as credit cards, passports and birth certificates-how will it be possible to maintain the integrity and the utility of this extraordinarily expensive system? Dr BLEWETT —In answer to the honourable member's question, first of all let me point out that the Medicare card was never designed as a high integrity card. It was never a card of the same importance to individuals as the Australia Card would be for one obvious reason; that is, that the Medicare card is not usable unless one has an actual doctor's bill in which to make a claim. So I do not think that to make integrity comparisons between the Medicare card, which never was intended to have-- Mr Spender —You got the question wrong. Dr BLEWETT —Let me deal with the integrity question. One would not expect, therefore, to have the same integrity comparisons between the Medicare card and the Australia Card. Turning specifically to the integrity of the Australia Card, first of all, unlike the Medicare card and any credit card in this country, it will have a digitalised photograph and a signature of the same order on it. In addition, a security device will be attached to the backs of particular batches of cards, again to prevent forgery. Let me just take the question of bank notes in this society. Of course there is some forgery of bank notes but, again, our system and the protections and security device built into our currency have gone a long way towards making that a relatively marginal problem. For all those reasons I think-- Mr Hawke —We still have the currency. Dr BLEWETT —As the Prime Minister has pointed out, we still have a currency which is of high integrity. So I believe that, with these security devices and the form of the card, it will have a very high integrity in this society. Returning to the original point I made about the comparative losses between systems, obviously some Australia Cards will be lost. If the honourable member reads the Bill again he will see that there is a whole series of protections in relation to those matters. In addition, I think a much greater valuation will be placed on that card by Australian citizens than on the Medicare card system which, as I have said, was never designed to be a system of high integrity. Mr LEO McLEAY —Is the Minister for Health aware of an advertisement which appeared in Saturday's Weekend Australian calling on people to oppose the Australia Card? Can the Minister inform the House whether his Department will collect detailed, personal information about individuals and, if so, whether there will be proper safeguards to prevent leaks of personal information? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the advertisement to which the honourable member referred. I must say that, as I have a considerable personal respect for many of those people on that list, I was extremely disappointed that they should lend their names to such a misleading and inaccurate advertisement. Indeed, I think when some of those people who signed that advertisement consider what they have signed, very clearly they will agree that they have lent themselves to a very sloppy document indeed. Of course, I am not surprised at the Opposition displaying enthusiasm about the advertisement which plays up its scare-mongering tactic which is about the only response the Opposition has to any of this Government's tax proposals. Mr Porter —Rubbish! Dr BLEWETT —I want to go through each of the statements just to show how clearly inaccurate, misleading and scare-mongering they were. The advertisement claims: `The Government will collect detailed, personal information about you'-- Mr Porter —Written by a QC. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting. Dr BLEWETT —I will just repeat what was written: `The Government will collect detailed, personal information about you'. That statement is simply wrong. Mr Porter —Of course it is not. Dr BLEWETT —There is nothing on the Australia Card Register other than basic, identifying information. Mr Porter —That's not true. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Dr BLEWETT —If honourable members opposite look at what is put on that Register they will find that, at least once every month, Australians fill in a document, either for a public or private bureaucracy, which at least covers that kind of identifying information. It is a very common process in this country to supply that kind of information. The second allegation that is made is that the system will cost $1 billion and require 2,000 public servants to run it and, therefore, it will not save money. Again that is incorrect. The cost to government over the first 10 years will be $759m with savings to revenue of $5.4 billion, giving a net benefit to government of $4.7 billion. Mr Porter —Rubbish! Dr BLEWETT —The honourable member for Barker, who has twisted and turned on this issue in every possible way, is denying that accusation. But of course-- Mr Porter —What about your own members? They were on the Committee. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Barker-- Mr Porter —What about the Committee? Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Barker. If he does not heed the Chair, the Chair will deal with him. Dr BLEWETT —But the biggest component of those savings is in the tax area. The honourable member for Barker signed a report stating that we had grievously underestimated the amount of savings we will make in the taxation area. There was also the claim in this document that there were no proper safeguards to prevent leaks of personal details. But the people who signed that document should read the Australia Card Bill. There is provision for a Data Protection Agency in the Bill, which is in tandem with the privacy legislation. That will deliver the most broad-ranging, comprehensive and effective protection of privacy ever introduced in this country. The DPA will act as a watchdog and provide individuals with fast and efficient appeal mechanisms. In addition, every access to the Australia Card will be logged so that any access to it by departments will be logged. Every individual will have access to his or her identification information contained in the Australia Card Register; that is, every citizen will have the right once a year, free of cost, to check what is in the Australia Card Register. I refer all these so-called concerned people who signed that advertisement to a statement by somebody who is really worried by and has worked on the issue of privacy. I refer to Professor Douglas Whalan, who told the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card-- Mr Howard —Who? Dr BLEWETT —He happens to be a professor of law at the Australian National University and also was Convenor of the Federal Government's Committee of Inquiry into the Protection of Privacy in 1973. He said: If we do have an Australia Card, it is vital, I believe that we have both very carefully circumscribed limits on its use and a protective body with similar independence to that possessed by the Ombudsman. Perhaps one irony would be that if we do have an Australia Card with all those protections . . . our privacy may be better protected than it is now. Because we have done that, I think we can justify Professor Whalan's claim. Dr KLUGMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Has his attention been drawn to similar articles in the Murdoch Sunday papers in at least Sydney and Brisbane on 9 November claiming that a person on a supporting parent benefit with one child is $70 a week better off than a single-income family on $39,000 a year with three children? Did the articles claim that these figures were allegedly supplied by the honourable member for Macquarie? Are they correct or are they based upon completely wrong premises? Mr HOWE —I deplore the misrepresentation of the facts contained in the articles to which the honourable member for Prospect referred. The honourable member for Macquarie claimed that a family with an income of $39,000 per annum is worse off than a family on supporting parent benefit. This so-called research is riddled with inaccuracies and inconsistencies. It is an unbelievable claim that a person on the supporting parent benefit gets $72 a week more when one recognises that the current payment for supporting parent benefit is about $135 a week. The calculation in the article is wrong, first of all, in that it wrongly calculates the tax liability. Secondly, it overvalues pensioner concessions. Thirdly, it wrongly attributes the payment of rent assistance to people living in Housing Commission accommodation. Furthermore it also contains the assumption that a higher income family requires a generous standard of living, while it condemns a pensioner family to survival existence. What this does is to reflect a dual value system within the Opposition. It claims, on the one hand, that people with an annual income of $39,000 have a right to a certain standard of living whereas it claims, on the other hand, that people on a supporting parent benefit have a right only to a much lower standard of living. This cooked up example has not been arrived at by comparing two like families. In the case of the $39,000 family, children of 16 and 17 years have been used whereas much younger children were used in the case of the supporting parent benefit family. If we compare two like families-namely, a couple on $39,000 with a four-year-old child and a supporting parent benefit family with a four-year-old child-the real result is that the couple with the $39,000 income has a free income of $350 a week compared to an amount for the sole parent family of $136 a week; that is, the first family has a free income nearly three times that of the second family. In relation to the motivation behind the use by the honourable member for Macquarie of the phrase `the new poor' in the article-a phrase coined by Katharine West and the New Right-we must understand that the Opposition's attitude is entirely punitive in terms of people on very low incomes. That is nowhere better reflected than in the record of the previous Government with respect to children in poverty. Under the Liberals the number of children in poverty more than doubled, from 9 per cent to 20 per cent, and payments for children in those circumstances declined by 35 per cent in real terms. Mr Hawker —What have you done about it? Mr HOWE —The honourable member asks what we have done about it. We have raised by 70 per cent per child additional pension and benefit payments for pensioner families. We have raised payment under the mothers/guardians allowance by more than 100 per cent and, in terms of the tax cuts that will be delivered in December and July of next year for families in middle income levels, the level of tax cuts will be in the order of $7, not only once but twice. For a family of the type mentioned in this article the level of tax cuts will be considerably higher. So let us not in this Parliament take seriously the kind of nonsense and misrepresentation being peddled by the honourable member for Macquarie. This Government has shown, by its policies with respect to the poor, compassion, and we are determined also to ensure that families on middle incomes are delivered equity, in terms of our taxation and social security systems. I wish the same could be said for the nascent policies of the Opposition. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that I called two members of the Government in succession because no one rose on my left. I shall now redress that and call two members on my left in succession. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Minister for Health to his answer to the first question asked of him by the Opposition and to his professed concern about the integrity of the proposed identity card. I ask the Minister, specifically: If a certificate under section 36 is signed by an eligible person and then sent through the post, how can such a certificate be treated as having the same integrity as the physical observation by the recipient of the original person holding his or her card? Dr BLEWETT —I think in the practical world in which we live we always have to make some compromises of this order. Let us take passports. There is a whole series of processes by which these very important and high integrity documents are certified by eligible persons, members of recognised groups in the community, who are entitled to do that to facilitate the issue of passports in this country. Where there is a real difficulty in somebody being able to present physically with their Australia Card, which I agree is our preference, it is encumbent upon government to provide an effective alternative. We believe that this system, which has been used by government in other areas in relation to high integrity documents, will be provided in relation to the Australia Card, as governments of all political persuasion have provided it in these kinds of areas before. Mr HICKS —I ask the Prime Minister: In the light of today's Australian Customs Service decision that Brazilian frozen orange juice concentrate is being imported at dumped prices, does the Government now accept that Australian citrus growers are in one of the worst ever cost-price crises? Does the Prime Minister accept that the Customs notice will be meaningless until its anti-dumping measures are given specific values, especially as the countervailing tariff applied to the dumped Brazilian product by United States authorities has been public knowledge for some weeks? Further, what complementary action will the Government take to reduce costs of production to Australian growers, including the present near record high interest rates, fuel excise, the Budget imposition of a 10 per cent sales tax on juice and juice products, and the fringe benefits and capital gains taxes? Mr HAWKE —In relation to the question of the reduction of costs facing rural producers, I remind the honourable member of the fact that under this Government there has been a very significant reduction in the rate of growth of costs faced by rural producers. All we have come to expect in this Parliament when facts are put before this pathetic Opposition is a variation of oohs, aahs and confected giggles from the Leader of the Opposition. Despite that, I will put the facts before it. The fact is very simply this-- Mr Nehl —Give us the facts. Mr HAWKE —Do not confect your anger, old boy. You are too nice a fellow; do not do it. The facts are that when we came to office the rate of growth of farm costs faced by the honourable member's constituency, which his Government left them, was about 11 per cent per annum. We have very significantly reduced that. In fact, this year it will be less than half of that. That is because in the areas which really determine what will happen to costs in this country this Government has policies. It has policies in regard to bringing down the Budget deficit and policies in regard to having a sustainable level of wage increases. We do things; we do not just talk about things. The honourable member for Riverina-Darling asks us what we will do. We have been cleaning up the mess that the Opposition left. Now the country is talking about the hopeless ineptitude of what the Opposition promises it. The problem for this country, including the citrus growers, is that people are looking at the honourable member and the Opposition and saying: `My God, will they ever learn?'. The Opposition is hopeless; it has nothing. The President of the Victorian Branch of the Liberal Party of Australia had something to say at the weekend. Mrs Ritchie is the very widely respected leader of the Liberal Party in Victoria. She said that it is a very trying time for the Liberals in Opposition. They are trying to find a leader; they are trying to find some policies; and they are trying to find some principles. As distinct from the honourable member's colleagues who are trying to do something, this Government has put into place policies in regard to wages and policies in regard to bringing down the Opposition's $10 billion deficit to $3 1/2 billion, and in the event the people whom the honourable member purportedly represents have had their rate of cost increases more than halved from the preposterous levels that were achieved by his Government's lack of policies. So he should not talk to us about the citrus growers or anyone else because they know that under this Government they have had a significant improvement in their position. As to the actual details that were contained in the question of the honourable member, I will refer them to the Minister for Primary Industry. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Is the Minister for Health aware of claims made by the Opposition that the introduction of the Australia Card will make detection of illegal immigrants more difficult? Can he advise the House whether in fact the Australia Card will have a deterrent effect on the entry of illegal immigrants into this country? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of allegations made by the Opposition that the Australia Card would make the detection of illegal immigrants more difficult. I must say that, in the kind of paper warfare over the weekend, this statement from the honourable member for Mitchell does qualify as the most asinine of the lot. First of all, if citizens read that peculiar statement-I would advise them to do so-they would be quite unaware of the fact that people from overseas need a passport to come into this country. One would have thought that the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs would have been aware of that, but there is no sign of that in the statement whatsoever. In fact, he talked about how people would be popping in and out with these Australian cards that they had been granted as visitors. I point out that people need a passport every time they come into this country. Secondly, the Australia Card for visitors does not confer any extra rights on any visitors, except those which are provided to them under the various laws of this country in relation, possibly, to Medicare or the ability to get a job. Moreover, as an identity document it is only valid for the period of the entry permit; that is, when the entry permit finishes the document is, of course, cancelled. Indeed, if the visitor departs earlier than the date on that person's entry permit, because there is a requirement that that information be fed from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to the Australia Card authority, it will be automatically cancelled as soon as the person leaves the country. I have never claimed that the Australia Card will be prominent or significant simply in the detection of illegal immigrants. The real contribution it will make will be as a deterrent to illegal immigrants in this country because, if it is extremely difficult for people to get employment without an Australia Card, if it is difficult for them to get access to social security without an Australia Card, of course it will act as a major deterrent for people coming into this society on the basis of those things not being easily available to them. It is for this very reason that in the United States of America at this time there is major pressure amongst all political parties to raise the standard of the United States identification cards in order to deter illegal immigration into the United States. The Australia Card will have the same effect on illegal immigration into this country. Mr BLUNT —I refer the Minister for Health to section 49 of the Australia Card legislation whereby an employer faces a maximum fine of $20,000 for failure to sight and record details of an identity card and/or to pass on that information to the Commissioner of Taxation. Is it the Government's policy that a householder who employs home help one day a week is an employer and that such an employer, for example, an age pensioner, be subject to such a penalty if that person fails to meet the obligations of recording and reporting under this Act? Dr BLEWETT —First of all, let me just point out that there are already certain requirements in the taxation legislation in relation to those matters. This does not in any way alter those requirements that exist already in the taxation legislation for reporting such activities. If the honourable member reads the taxation legislation he will find that they are already there. Could I just say to the Opposition that there have been a number of these nitpicking questions today on details of the Bill. This Government is very firmly committed to the principles of the Australia Card Bill because, unlike the Opposition, we are in fact genuinely interested in making our tax system one of high integrity, fair to all who participate in it. Secondly, we want to ensure a social security system that delivers its benefits to those in need and we want to deter the abuse of illegal immigration in this society. We would like to see the Opposition participate in that effort. We will not alter the principles of this Bill; but, if the point of these questions is to try to make the Bill better and to improve it in detail, we would welcome the Opposition's support. Mr MAHER —I address my question to the Prime Minister. Are economic indicators continuing to demonstrate the success and soundness of the Government's economic strategy? Mr HAWKE —The answer to the honourable member's question, of course, is in the affirmative. This is because the policies brought in by the Government in all areas are relevant to the needs of the economy. I refer, firstly, to the Budget, which was recognised not only in this country but also overseas as being courageous, very significantly reducing the level of deficit and thereby reducing the level of pressures upon interest rates in Australia. Also, our wages policy has produced a significant reduction in the levels of real unit labour costs in this country of between 7 and 8 per cent. That has played its part in ensuring that the very substantial improvement in the competitive position of the Australian economy, brought about by the massive depreciation, will not be dissipated but will become a real continuation of our competitive advantage. We will ensure in the submissions by the Government in the national wage case that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has clearly before it this Government's view that movements in wages should not be out of line with those proposed by the Treasurer in the Budget and, as we move into 1987-88, that these should also be relevant to the sorts of movements experienced by our major trading competitors. As well as being able to refer to the statistics involved in the answer to this point, I point out that it is also significant to look at the anecdotal evidence which is increasingly coming before us from manufacturers in this country, who are now saying two things: That they, by their operations, are displacing imports that had previously come into the country; and, most encouragingly, that Australian manufacturers are now going into export markets which they previously could not contemplate. I believe that the analysis given by my colleague, the Treasurer, at the time of the Budget is being sustained and fulfilled. We made it clear that we would continue through the 1986 calendar year and into the beginning of 1987 to have difficulties on the external account, but that the fundamentals of the economy would move in a way that would at least sustain the outcomes that were put before the people of Australia in the August Budget. I point out particularly to the honourable member for Lowe that I have been talking about the positive features of the Government's economic policies which are producing these results. As far as the people of Australia are concerned, not only are they applauding those positive policies, but increasingly they are contrasting the firmness, the relevance and the principled position of this Government with the continued expediency shown by the Opposition. This Question Time has blatantly shown again the expediency of the Opposition. If one looks back over the Opposition's record on important issues of economic policy, one sees that Opposition members are totally lacking in principle. Whenever they have the opportunity to take a position of principle or one of expediency, they take expediency every time. I refer to the assets test, the fringe benefits tax and the Australia Card. All these measures are calculated to ensure that this country, this community, will have the opportunity of having the revenue available to it fairly and equitably collected so that those in need will have the opportunity of having done for them those things that need to be done. The people of this country will continually make the judgment to come down on the side of the principled policies which are producing these results and against the continued expediency of this Opposition. Mr HOWARD —I remind the Minister for Health that the Prime Minister, in his policy speech for the last election, had this to say: Over the term of the next Parliament we will remove legislation and regulation which is damaging to business and employment expansion and which is not justified. Given that firm promise, how does the Government justify adding more than a projected $2,000m to the operation of all businesses by introducing the Australian Labor Party's identity card? Furthermore, I remind the Minister of the establishment last year of the Business Regulation Review Unit to examine the cost to business of proposed Government legislation and activities. I specifically ask the Minister: Has that group looked at the full cost of the identity card to business? If not, why not? Dr BLEWETT —First of all, let me point out that the figure that the Leader of the Opposition has cited, the fantasy figure of $2,000m being used by the Opposition, has never been documented anywhere or by anyone. It has been attributed, of course, to the Business Regulation Review Unit because it made a general comment that, on average, there was a tendency for private sector expenditure for particular programs to be about double that of government. The BRRU pointed out to the Government specifically that it did not find evidence of this in relation to the Australia Card. If the management expert on the Opposition benches, the honourable member for Mackellar, understood the kinds of costs involved in the Government's program, he would know that obviously this is not a typical change of regulation which then imposes costs on the business sector. It is a much more massive cost to government because of the operation we are putting into practice. Indeed, the Australian Bankers Association, the body which is going to be most affected by the reporting requirements under this measure, has established that to the banking industry it would cost $60.6m to introduce and that the annual operating cost would be $4.6m. I point out that, as that is the part of the financial sector which will be most involved in this activity, it is a long way indeed from the $2 billion figure. In fact, in a telex to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer last Thursday the Australian Bankers Association advised that it was incorrectly reported in the Australian Financial Review on 12 November 1986 as opposing the Australia Card. The Association went on to say: While the Australian Bankers Association has improved its identification procedures the issues are much broader than the identification of bank transactions. Consequently the Australian Bankers Association does not oppose, nor does it support, the Australia Card because it has not been able to evaluate these wider matters. On the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition the Bankers Association made its position quite clear and its costings have been worked out and discussed with government. Moreover, the suggestion has been made that small business is somehow opposed to these proposals. In fact, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia stated early on that it saw the need for a colour photograph to maximise the effect of the Australia Card. COSBOA indicated its support for the concept of a national identity card complete with a colour photograph at the National Taxation Summit last year. In subsequent correspondence with the Government COSBOA stated that it saw `significant advantages in the introduction of a national ID card in numerous areas'. Because the Council of Small Business Organisations was obviously involved and interested, in further correspondence it said: Any means to increase the efficiency with which taxation is collected and welfare funds dispersed is obviously in the interests of our 130,000 constituents. I echo COSBOA on that point. I wonder whether these people opposite are really interested in the ordinary Australians. As was pointed out in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, it is the pay as you earn taxpayers who have nothing to fear from the identity card because the tax evasion in this society does not occur amongst the small and ordinary, the PAYE, taxpayers; it takes place amongst the bigger groups in this society. Mr LEE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Aviation. What progress has been made in negotiations with the United States of America Government on air traffic rights for Qantas Airways Ltd, Continental Airlines Inc. and United Airlines Inc.? What impact could these negotiations have on Australia's balance of payments? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for Dobell for his question, which raises the very important issue of international aviation rights and our opportunities for export earnings. The honourable member is aware that the agreement that exists for air services between the United States and Australia is of some 40 years duration, drawn up as a consequence of World War II, and it is in effect an unequal agreement. There is a heavy advantage to the United States in the provisions of the agreement and the honourable member has discussed that matter with me on other occasions. The agreement provides the opportunity for United States airlines-giants such as Continental and United-to effectively swamp Australia's international carrier. They are major domestic operators in their own right and they have access to United States domestic markets that are not available to Qantas, but the access to Australia's market is of a much greater proportion than our operator has to the United States market in terms of entry points. We have had two rounds of discussions and one could only term the approach of the United States in those discussions as being one of intransigence. We are determined that when these discussions proceed-I expect in some weeks time-we will put a view for Australia that will ultimately give Australia some equity in terms of the arrangement. We are not asking for any special arrangement, we are simply asking for a fair go. We are simply asking for an equitable arrangement that will give equal opportunity to operators both in Australia and in the United States. We often overlook the fact that our air transport industry is a major export industry in its own right. Qantas is a major operator in terms of passengers and services, which alone earned some $2.2 billion this year, more than half of that from abroad. It employs some 12,000 Australians directly and it spends more than $100m abroad both on administrative services and on the promotion of Australia as a tourist destination. The industry spends in excess of $0.5 billion annually on goods and services within Australia. Payments to Commonwealth, State and local governments are just over $100m. More than half of its total earnings of some $2.2 billion are earned abroad. The operator contributes in net terms more than $100m to the positive side of the balance of payments of this nation. It does that in a climate in which it has no price protection; it simply has a share of the market. It is up to the operator to win what share of traffic it can from the capacity, but the market it wins is within the share of the capacity available. We are not asking for any special advantage for Australia. We are asking, in terms of the agreement, for a fair go for this nation and for equity in the arrangement for our operator. We hope to see that development occur in the talks about to take place. Mr CARLTON —I refer the Minister for Health to his evasion of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the Business Regulation Review Unit. Is it a fact that the Business Regulation Review Unit advised the Government that it was against the introduction of the Australia Card? Will he table the report given to the Government by the Business Regulation Review Unit? Dr BLEWETT —At an earlier stage of the discussions on the Australia Card doubts were expressed by the Business Regulation Review Unit in relation to the Australia Card. It then advised us on the costing of the card and we wrote to a large number of private organisations regarding the costing. In fact, most organisations did not consider it to have a very high priority as they were not particularly worried about the cost. A number of major groups came back to us and had full discussions. The best figures, in terms of a complete assessment of the costs which have been provided to the Government, are the banking sector figures which I have already given. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to sub-section 33 (2) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, I present the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions for 1985-86. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 97 of the Legal Aid Ordinance 1977 and the Seat of Government (Administration) Act, I present the annual report of the Legal Aid Commission (Australian Capital Territory) for 1984-85, together with the Auditor-General's report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Corporate Affairs Commission of the Australian Capital Territory for 1985-86. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce for 1985-86. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CADMAN —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr CADMAN —The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), in answer to a dorothy dix question today, led the House to believe that I had made a statement in regard to the use of the Australia Card to prove entry. I did make a statement over the weekend. The point of that statement was that there are far less costly and bureaucratic ways of achieving what the Government seeks to achieve with the identity card. The statement makes it perfectly clear that everybody is identified on entry by a passport. There is no need to use the ID card in the way in which the Government is proposing to do so. 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 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 Cadman,Mr Ian Cameron,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Howard,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. 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 Cadman,Mr Carlton,Mr Cowan,Mr Everingham and Mr Tickner. 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. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investment. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects 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 and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We believe that the Australian Government has failed to properly ensure that the remaining rainforests of the Wet Tropics of Queensland are both conserved and protected as far as possible. We note that the Australian Government has received a report that is completely in agreement that this relatively small area of land is in urgent need of protection and is particularly unusual for a special site of world significance in that each of the 4 qualities considered important for a World Heritage Area are fulfilled in this region. The referees for this Report have been simply glowing with superlatives when recording the scientific, cultural and aesthetic qualities of this area. We therefore ask that immediate action be taken to conserve this area by way of nomination of this area for World Heritage inclusion over the selfish concerns of the Queensland Government and that a mechanism be developed that would take the future course of such action out of the hands of all Parliamentarians and that perhaps the Australian Heritage Commission be given powers of self-nomination on Australia's behalf as well as powers enabling enforcement of conservation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the anomalous Fringe Benefits Tax is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair on the grounds that- it adversely affects business throughout Australia, including farms, by creating a further tax burden it destroys incentive, it has caused unemployment, it is costly to administer and its complexities have caused confusion and widespread anger. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Fringe Benefits Tax legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. 5. We also feel it is morally wrong for one person to be forced to pay the taxes for another. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Fringe Benefits Tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The Fringe Benefits Tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it, and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this legislation, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled to petition of Peace, your petitioners therefore pray that the Government is more committed in establishing peaceful relations with the People within and outside of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable 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 have grave concern 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 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. We the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. 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 petition of the undersigned 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 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 assembled: Your petitioners call for Government intervention to provide economic justice for families and humbly pray that whatever action possible be taken to provide some price control in the following areas, which most directly affect the family budget: food and other essential items petrol rent and bond levels And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth opposition to cuts in English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching, the scrapping of the Multicultural Education Program, the amalgamation of the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), and the abolition of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (AIMA), as announced in the Federal Budget of August 19, 1986. Your petitioners request that the Government will review and reverse its decision on these matters. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a Nuclear Test Moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would- be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Kent. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That the Summerland Point Post Office recently closed at short notice by Australia Post should be reopened. 2. This Post Office has serviced a community consisting mainly of the aged and young families with small children who are now faced with a five kilometre journey to the nearest Post Office. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should ask the Minister for Communications not to deny the 800 permanent residents of Summerland Point on Lake Macquarie the use of a Post Office. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until 6 August this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: By 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. 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 of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned express our deepest concern over the government's discriminatory policies on overseas students which were contained in the 1986/87 Federal Budget. We register our strongest outrage and opposition to: 1. The introduction and subsequent increase of overseas students charge imposed on overseas students. 2. The proposed imposition of fees to secondary and TAFE overseas students. 3. The restrictive quota system on the tertiary institutions entry. 4. The heavy-handed deportation of overseas students who fail to pay their fees in time. The overseas students program is an important education program to promote international goodwill and peace, especially among nations of Asia and Pacific region. The above mentioned policies have adverse effects on the objectives of overseas students program. Your petitioners therefore urge that the overseas students policies in the 1986-87 Budget be immediately reviewed. 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 Australians 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: The petition of the undersigned who are staff of the ABC and the SBS respectfully showeth that: The proposed legislation to amalgamate the ABC and the SBS, together with certain existing provisions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (as amended), would have the effect of removing the present Staff Elected Director of the ABC from office before the end of his elected term, and of barring him from standing for re-election. This offends basic democratic principle. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Government will remedy this situation by either, continuing the current Staff Elected Director in office until the normal expiration of his term on 15 December 1987 or, making such amendments as are necessary to the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Act 1986, to enable the current Staff Elected Director to contest an early election after amalgamation, whilst preventing him from seeking a further term immediately following the one for which the early election is held. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jenkins,Mr Milton and 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 or the capacity of low income families in Western Australia to keep their children at school in Years 11 and 12. (iv) Direct payment of the allowance to 16 year olds will make it easier for young people to leave home and bring more pressure on State Authorities to find alternative accommodation for them at the community and taxpayers' expense. 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 Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Maranoa respectfully showeth that: The ABC proposes to abolish certain country programmes from regional stations. Such action will disadvantage those country listeners who only have the benefit of one radio station. Regional stations broadcast entertainment and topics of local interest and any reduction in these programmes will undoubtedly inconvenience those listeners in the more remote and isolated areas of the State. Talk back shows and the Hospital Hour are only two such programmes which it is thought are to be abolished. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Approach the ABC requesting that they reconsider their proposal to adopt the above and that commonsense prevail in ensuring that those listeners who reside in country areas are not disregarded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of the State of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Government has increased wholesale sales tax another 10% under the 1986-87 Budget, resulting in a 20% Sales Tax on wine. This tax was introduced at a time of a record trade imbalance between our wine imports and exports and will further exacerbate that problem. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Government cancels the 20% Sales Tax before it causes a further contraction in our wine industry, with consequential loss of exports, and employment in the wine and tourism and retailing industries which are currently operating in Western Australia. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the Northern Territory of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation recently passed by Parliament is unfair and will prejudice the current working conditions of all Territorians. 1. It will increase both personal and company taxation. 2. It will undermine employment levels through reducing profitability and international competitiveness of industry. 3. It will result in price increases. 4. It will force employers to withdraw voluntary incentives to employees paid over and above existing payments. 5. It endangers stable industrial relations because of the potential for forced withdrawal of Fringe Benefits. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take such action as is necessary to rescind the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986, the Fringe Benefits Tax Act 1986, the Fringe Benefits Tax (Application to the Commonwealth) Act 1986 and the Fringe Benefits Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1986. by Mr Everingham. To the 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 of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian atomic energy establishment at Lucas Heights in 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. Bill returned from the Senate, without amendment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The hidden dangers and costs of the Federal Labor Government's proposed identity card. 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 SPENDER(North Sydney)(2.59) —The Australian Labor Party Government's identity card is a direct and fundamental threat to Australian liberties. This is not just the view of the coalition parties; it is the view of a wide constituency of Australians. Within 24 hours of the Australia Card Bill passing through the House of Representatives an advertisement, which so wounded the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), appeared in newspapers throughout this country. This was not an advertisement sponsored by the coalition-although if we had sponsored it, we could not have done better; it was an advertisement paid for by a cross-section of our people. What does it say? It calls upon Australians to oppose Canberra's ID card and seeks the support of Australians to defeat this anti-democratic proposal. What has the Minister said of these people? As I understand him, he has said that the people who sponsored this advertisement lent their names and did not understand what they were doing. I will come to some of their names in a minute. Let us see what they said. They say: The people who paid for this ad disagree on many issues. When one sees the names, one understands that that is certainly true. The advertisement then states: But they are all opposed to the un-Australian Australia Card and they agree that a computerised ID register is wrong. Here are some of their objections: The Government will number every man, woman and child in Australia. Well, is that not right? Is that not what is intended? It also states: You will have to produce your card to open a bank account, get a job, get Government benefits and Medicare. Is that not right? That names but a few of the many times when we will have to produce the card. It also states: The Government will collect detailed information about you on a computer file. That particularly struck the Minister as offensive. He said that that really is not intended. What is intended? This is the whole purpose of the exercise. The rationale behind the system is to amass information on each Australian and to be able to cross-reference and match that information by this unique system whereby a profile of unparalleled detail can be built up on each person in this country-job history, names of bankers, building societies, companies and solicitors with whom money is held, to name but a few. The advertisement also states: To begin with, the law will permit four Government departments to have access to this private and personal information. How many more will follow? The Government's original submission to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which examined the proposal, proposed that the card number be used by 13 government agencies. All we have seen is a temporary retreat to disguise the extraordinary potential of this identification system and to mask the Government's determination to extend it as soon as it can. Those were not the only concerns expressed in this ad. But who are the people who have paid for this advertisement? They include the Victorian branch of the Australian Journalists Association; Mr Frank Costigan, QC, who probably knows more about the capabilities of computers to sort and match information and build profiles than anyone else in this country and who is committed to the war against tax evasion; Joan Coxsedge, a Labor member of the Victorian Legislative Council; Norm Gallagher-we know that he is not a member of the Liberal Party of Australia; Peter Garrett, who nearly became a senator in this Parliament and who is a Government appointee to the Australian Constitutional Commission's Advisory Committee on Individual and Democratic Rights-the Government will have second thoughts about having appointed him; Bishop Michael Challen; Frank Moorhouse, the author; Hugh Morgan; Mr Justice Staples, who is well known and does not hide his political beliefs-we know that he does not come from this side of the House; Damien Murphy and John Howie of the Society of Labor Lawyers; and Jim McClelland, former judge and former Labor Minister. To those, let me add the names of a few other people who have objected to this identity card proposal. They are the New South Wales Privacy Committee, the Federated Clerks Union of Australia, the Victorian Teachers Union and Mr Justice Kirby. The identity card is a product of that zealous, tidy-minded, anti-democratic strain so evident in this Government. It is the intellectual soulmate of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. Against that backdrop, let us look at some of the Government's attacks-at the two attacks that the Government makes on the Opposition. First, we have the technique of the big lie-that Opposition members are the friends, supporters and co-conspirators of tax evaders. Second, we have the proposal that there is an Aladdin's cave of revenue to be got from the identity card and that the Opposition would wilfully frustrate that end. Let us deal first of all with the technique of the big lie. I quote from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 21 October 1986 when he said: If it chooses not to support the Australia Card, two things will have been demonstrated. Firstly, the Opposition will continue in its role in the community as a friend of the tax-cheats and avoiders and its blatant hypocrisy on social security fraud will have been fully revealed. That is typical of the Prime Minister. I turn now to some of the lesser members of that team-the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Health-who, in a recent joint statement, stated: They are unconvincing grandstanders who prefer to allow tax evasion and welfare fraud to continue unabated rather than see this Government take effective action to tackle these scourges. This is the spirit of McCarthyism so entrenched in this Labor Government. Dr Goebbels knew it all. It is a case of: Don't worry about the truth; the bigger the lie, the more it will astonish members of the public and they will say `Surely the Government wouldn't say something like that; surely it wouldn't tell such an extraordinary lie if it were not true'. Will the Minister now explain to us what possible reason the Opposition would have to align itself with tax evaders? Does he believe that tax evaders represent the vast majority of this community? There is no reason to believe that and he knows it. What the Opposition has done is to take a stand of principle, and he knows that too. What about these individuals and organisations and the many others who have protested against the Australia Card? Are they, to use the Prime Minister's words, friends of the tax cheats in the community? Do they, to use the words of the Treasurer and the Minister for Health, prefer to allow tax evasion and welfare fraud to continue unabated? Do they, to go back again to the words of the Prime Minister, show blatant hypocrisy on social security fraud or are they simply so stupid that they can be manipulated by the Opposition? Does he seriously suggest that the men and women of such eminence, in some of whom the Government has placed high trust, are so stupid that they can be manipulated by the Opposition, so socially corrupt that they would align themselves with tax evaders or so heedless of what they are doing that they would make themselves party to an advertisement which condemns this Government's identity card proposal, which is what it is? It is not the Australia Card; it is a debasement of the word `Australia' to apply it to this card. In truth, once again the Government did not understand what it was doing. I hope the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) returns to the chamber; he is on our side. The Government did not realise that it would stitch together a constituency across this country in opposition to its legislation-a constituency of extraordinary depth and breadth containing in it many people who must be deeply disillusioned supporters of this Government because they see one thing: They see the Government's actions as being on a collision course with the values that most Australians cherish. We do not cherish the notion of an internal identity card, of an internal passport, and that is what the Minister proposes. Before moving on to this Aladdin's cave we are meant to have, this crock of gold at the end of the rainbow, let me say something about the Government's quoting of the Opposition. The Minister will remember that a report came down in March 1986 entitled `Report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card'. He should read it; he would find it most interesting. He will understand that the statements that his side is so fond of quoting are statements made by Opposition members before this full inquiry into the card and before there was a full understanding of what was involved-what was involved in terms of costs, what was involved in terms of doubts and what was involved in terms of damage to the essential liberties of people in this country. So if the Minister is going to quote us, he should quote things we have said since that report, not before it. It he wants to do it honestly-we have somewhat different views from him as to the honesty of this Government, as do many people-he should look at what has been said since and not before the report came out. Let us get to this Aladdin's cave. What will the cost be? The Government tells us that over 10 years the cost will be $759m. Is that not a nice precise figure? Imagine coming to a figure of $759m as the cost of installing a system that will enforce identity cards against all people permanently resident in this country and that will apply very rigorous procedures against people visiting it. What are the estimates of the numbers of public servants who will be involved? What is the estimate for technology? The truth of the matter is that that is the kind of figure that public servants and governments come up with when they want to say: `We have here a clear proposal and the figure is a precise one; it must be right because if it was not right, how could it be so precise?'. It is all part of the same technique. At all events, the Government says that it can tell us that over 10 years this will cost $759m. But what of the compliance costs and what of the views of the bureau that the Government has established? We have not heard from it. The Minister tells us today that the bureau has certain doubts. Why does he not put on the table the report it has given to him so that we can know just what those doubts are? But the Minister will not, just as he will not acknowledge the Opposition's reasons for opposing this card, just as he will not say, if we are supporters and friends of tax evaders, where that places the distinguished Australians who are wholly on our side and where it places the whole cross-section of the Australian community that believes that what the Government is doing now is wrong, un-Australian, objectionable and needs to be thrown out? Before I go to some of the things that were said before the Joint Select Committee, I would like the Minister to tell us his estimates of compliance costs. We have a mere $60m, he says, establishment costs for the banks-that is neither here nor there-plus $4.6m a year, bagatelle. What about the employers, the small and large businesses, the share and futures brokers, solicitors and companies which receive deposits of money? What about the rest of it? Has the Minister worked it out? No, he has not. He has not worked it out, and he has not tried to. He has not the least idea of what the compliance costs will be. Neither he nor the Government cares a damn because, after all, those costs will be borne by the Australian taxpayers, and nobody on the other side of the table cares about them. What of the cash economy? We have heard great things. Here the Government and the Australian Taxation Office enter the realm of fantasy land. Let me quote to honourable members from the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card referring to what Mr Douglas Meagher, QC, who assisted the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, had to say. It said that he: . . . was of the opinion that an identification system would have no effect in this area-- talking of the cash economy- On his definition, all transactions within this economy are in cash and are applied towards paying of the week's groceries, mortgage, etc. He stated categorically that these moneys are not put in the bank and are never declared. Would he not know? Was he not the man who was so closely involved with inquiries into tax evasion for literally years? What happens? People deal in cash and when they deal in cash they do not declare it. This is the whole problem about the cash economy. If the Minister understands that he must understand that he has one essential problem. What of social security fraud? I will give just a few quotes. According to the second report of the Joint Committee of August 1985 the Department of Social Security stated: The overall savings likely to accrue from the new system are impossible to estimate. Evidence from that Department before the Joint Select Committee stated: The fact is that in our experience the main problems within the departmental portfolio are not with identity as such, but a failure to notify change of circumstances. What of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs? We have heard some talk about that. What about illegal immigrants? It gets even better. These are some of the quotes of Mr McKinnon, the Secretary, in his evidence to the Joint Select Committee. He used phrases such as `We have presumed', `and that is a very rough estimate', `which I must say I would not dignify by describing as more than guesswork', `We have no real way of checking that', `We would describe it as only a guesstimate' and `We probably could not find the same crystal ball that was used then'. The poor sods have lost the crystal ball! Maybe it is somewhere between the Department and the Minister's office. The conclusions of the Committee were that the evidence should be rejected, that the statistics were inadequate and that it had little difficulty in rejecting the DIEA estimates as being grossly exaggerated. It said: On the basis of the available data and methodology, no reliance can be placed on the Department's estimates and consequently the Committee rejects its evidence. Those are the conclusions against which this card is being introduced. Nobody believes that the estimates about which the Minister is talking are precise; nobody believes that they are anything more than estimates which have been plucked out of the air, and nobody in the community who understands what this card is about supports it. We will hunt this card around this country so that the people understand what it is about, and more and more they will be coming out and saying: `No, we do not want it. Throw it out'. The Minister will be coming back and trying to find a reason to crawl out from under the obligation that he has imposed on himself. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(3.14) —Unlike the Opposition speaker who has spoken on this issue today, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), I am not interested in establishing the argument based on the personalities who advance it. If one looks at that document which was presented in the paper at the weekend, one will see that it is the arguments themselves that can easily be refuted. I do not believe that anybody who honestly looks at that advertisement can but reject it on the grounds of the sloppy, unintellectual comments made in it. I refer to the suggestion that, because it is written by certain men, that validates the document. What we want in this debate is an argument about the arguments; not arguments that, because these persons signed the document, somehow it is the significant word on this issue. Indeed, the only interesting comment was the opening remark by the honourable member for North Sydney. He said: `If we had sponsored it we could not have done better'. I have no doubt that that does characterise the quality of the Opposition argument in this matter. The argument that cards have to be produced on all occasions is, of course, one of the classic furphies. Most people in this society do not buy houses or open bank accounts every year. Indeed, the only relatively regular use that might be made of the card by most Australians is in relation to Medicare. Even then, if one is bulk billed one will probably not have to produce the card, because the doctor already has the details on his own list. If one does not have to collect money actually at the office, again one does not need it. The notion that the card will have to be produced day after day just shows a complete ignorance of the requirements of the card. Most of the activities for which the card is required are not activities regularly performed by Australians. In respect of the notion that we are going to collect detailed information on every Australian individual, no additional information is being added to the banks of information that the Commonwealth Government already has. That is to say, all that is required for the Australia Card is the information in relation to identity. No additional information is required. So the notion that somehow additional information-- Mr Porter —That is just a lie; that is a big lie. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Barker has already been warned today. He shall cease interjecting. Mr Cadman —Well, they have it for deaths and marriages. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Mitchell will not interject, either. Dr BLEWETT —Indeed, when one looks at what is required on the Australia Card Register one sees that it is the sort of thing that Australians fill in at least once a month and often more, both for bureaucratic government agencies and for bureaucratic private agencies; that is, things like name, address, date of birth, sex and matters such as this. So this notion that with this measure we are compiling some detailed personal dossier is, in fact, quite incorrect in light of the information. Then, of course, there is the thin edge of the wedge argument; the argument that it is all right now but in the future it will be extended. In this legislation we have made it perfectly clear that the uses of the card cannot be extended by bureaucratic fiat. They cannot be extended by ministerial regulation. The only way the uses can be extended is by a vote of both Houses of this Parliament and that is the proper way in a democracy. That is to say, if there is to be any change whatsoever in the uses of this card, the proposal has to go through the parliamentary process. So, analysing each of the arguments presented in this advertisement, they are arguments that do not stand up to any worthwhile examination, as, of course, most of the arguments advanced by the Opposition do not stand up to any worthwhile examination. It is said that the Opposition has been much abused, that somehow members of the Opposition are men of principle standing up against the gallup poll. Let us just look at the case of this collection of men of principle standing up against the gallup poll. That pose as men of principle was completely undermined by the Opposition's own leader, who, virtually salivating, said: `This can be the fringe benefits tax and the Bill of Rights rolled into one'. That was a simple opportunistic position. That is to say, the Opposition thought: `Here we have a marvellous issue-the FBT and the Bill of Rights rolled into one'. These people claim to be men and women of principle standing up against the gallup polls on this issue. Yet we have the Opposition's own leader quite clearly showing the basis of the Opposition's opportunistic position. But we do not need its statements. What the Opposition really has to explain is not just what it said 12 months ago, but what it said six months ago. We have a real problem with what the leading figures of the Opposition said only 12 months ago. When we were beginning to make plans and preparations we were looking at what the Opposition was saying about this issue. In fact, many of the leading front bench figures were enthusiastic about the proposal. I have to quote again the Leader of the Opposition himself-- Mr Spender —How many months ago was this? Dr BLEWETT —Twelve months ago. He said: I personally see some merit-- Mr Spender —What is the date of that report? Dr BLEWETT —Let us take the issues. He said: I personally see some merit in having an ID card, providing the civil liberties concerns that people have voiced can be looked after and provided the Government can satisfy the community that there is some cost benefit in it. I haven't gone overboard in supporting it but, as a matter of principle, I think there is some merit in giving it favourable consideration. But, of course, he went on from there and, bearing in mind some of the questions that he asked today, this is even more relevant. Mr Laurie Oakes then said: But what about on the grounds of deregulation? If you support deregulation how can you support an ID card? The Leader of the Opposition replied: I don't think there is any inconsistency. I mean, the United States has had a social security card for generations and yet the United States economy is the most deregulated economy in the world. In effect he was saying that he did not think there was any conflict at all between an Australia Card and deregulation, and he quoted the American example. It may be said that that was 12 months ago, and the poor things have had a lot of opportunities to think about the matter and to recognise the sorts of opportunistic possibilities that are available. But they also have to explain their position six months ago. Our friends opposite are very keen on quoting the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. I will now quote what leading Opposition figures on that Committee supported and said. This has not been mentioned in this debate. They said: That the integrity of a tax file number be upgraded to that of the proposed Australia Card number based on the following premises: (i) that taxpayers with a continuous tax record exceeding five years not be required to make an application; (ii) that the file numbers of these taxpayers by verified by normal audit process over a period of time; (iii) that all other taxpayers and persons who do not currently possess a tax file number verify their identity to the same level of integrity as proposed under the Australia Card program, . . . Six months ago the Opposition members on the Committee quite clearly supported the proposal that there be an identification system, of the same integrity as the Australia Card, covering all Australians. That was the position of the leading figures of the Opposition who signed this document. Now, of course, the Opposition is even in retreat from that position. Six months ago these leading figures were prepared to support a national identification system based on tax file numbers, but such are their twists and turns that they have now abandoned that. One really must ask whether the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) and the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter)-two leading front bench members of the Opposition-simply signed that document in order to defeat the Australia Card. They could not care what they committed themselves to; they could not care what the position of the Opposition was. They were simply prepared to sign that document in support of an identity system in order to defeat the Australian Labor Party's proposal. As soon as that was finished they were prepared to take no further notice of the report. That is why people all around this country are questioning the motives of the Opposition in this matter. When one looks at the Opposition's record one sees that it is not just a matter of what various Opposition members said 12 months ago; it is what leading Opposition figures were prepared to sign only six months ago. Now even that has been abandoned. We now come to the costs and benefits of the proposal, which was a prominent feature of the remarks of the honourable member for North Sydney. Detailed cost proposals were presented to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card and that Committee in its document did not significantly criticise the general thrust of the cost proposals to government in that detailed documentation. On the cost side, there is no significant criticism of the cost to government of the proposals in the report. As to the benefits, the Committee went even farther. This is what the honourable member for Richmond and the honourable member for Barker said about tax, which contributes the biggest part of the saving: Overall, the Committee accepts the estimates made by the Australian Taxation Office and notes that they may be a substantial underestimation of final benefits obtainable under the proposal. That is the most significant part of the saving and both the honourable member for Richmond and the honourable member for Barker were prepared to sign a document only six months ago saying that the benefits were probably underestimated. Taxation accounts for the great mass of savings being made by this proposal. When we look at how much money the card will save, we see that the greatest bulk comes from the tax area which, we were told by Opposition figures, had been underestimated. On that cost point, I stress that in many ways this is the essence of the argument. We believe that there is a cost benefit; that is, we spend some $759m and we save, primarily in the tax area but also to a lesser extent and often more indirectly in social security and immigration, a total of $5.4 billion, which gives us a net saving of about $4.7 billion. If we examine this report we see that there is no serious questioning of the broad reach of those figures. I agree that on some of the revenue points there are some criticisms. We are now told that it does not affect the cash economy. Let me deal with the cash economy issue. We have never claimed that it directly affects the cash economy, but the point about the cash economy is that significant income in that cash area at some time has to get into the financial institutions. It might go into land, which seems to be one of the ways it has gone, according to some of the work that has been done. We will be able to provide a trail for much of the money in the cash economy-not all the money and not a lot of the little money in the cash economy. Much of the significant money in the cash economy has to come into the financial system and, therefore, gets identified at that point and facilitates the whole process of following this money through. Although it does not directly address the cash economy, there is no doubt that cash economy incomes of any significance will move into the financial institutions system and into the purchase of land and houses and, therefore, will be identified as we follow through. It has also been suggested that there are these amazing costs in the private sector. All I have to say on that area-and I repeat what I said at Question Time-is that there is no support anywhere for the fantasy figure of $2 billion that has been advanced. It is said that the Government has made no effort to tackle private side compliance. I point out what the Government has done in an effort to get on top of this problem. In part of its attempt to consult widely with business, the Government invited 116 organisations to respond in writing by 18 April 1986. Only 25 were sufficiently concerned about the cost to them of the Australia Card to reply. We contacted all the other organisations by telephone. Some further responses were received and broadly the overall assessment was as follows: The estimates of costs between these organisations varied considerably. Many of the responses saw merit in the Australia Card. Some respondents believed that costs and benefits would balance out. A large number of organisations did not respond at all. Where reasons for non-response could be ascertained, it was generally felt that the Australia Card program did not warrant analysis, given existing priorities and resources. That is fairly understandable for most of the business sector because the only additional requirement is that they add to the information they already provide to government simply the Australia Card number, and that is not a particularly expensive operation. It is true that in a number of the areas they will be reporting to the Taxation Office for the first time, but that will occur whether or not there is an Australia Card. Even members of the Opposition, in their sort of minimal response to the problems of tax evasion in this society, might agree that it is about time that areas such as real estate sales and rental arrangements in this country were reported to the Taxation Office because all the evidence of the various commissions is that that is where much of the money we are hunting in this society is laundered-into houses, into land and into rental arrangements that flow from them. Although it is going to impose some new costs, those costs will occur anyhow because, whether or not we have an Australia Card, we will have to broaden those reporting responsibilities in those areas. Let me say in conclusion that, having examined all the options in detail over the last 12 months, I have concluded that, although one can do a lot of little bits, the Australia Card is one of the best and simplest ways to deal with this problem and is the most effective central method of doing it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(3.29) —The identification card is in fact a licence to operate as an Australian citizen. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who is at the table, may think his Government's legislation will provide that licence, but in practice it will be a public servant who will make the decision to license Australians to operate within their own country. I for one am quite concerned about the consequences of that. Having had some experience with the capacity of the Australian Public Service to manage detailed administration on a very broad scale, I am concerned about the potential for error and the consequences of error for the Australian population. If some public servant, who is protected by this legislation from legal recourse, gets it wrong, a person can become a non-citizen. The consequences of not having an ID card in the Australia of the future, the Australia of the Minister for Health and his friends, will be quite serious. While people may not be required to carry this ID card, they will not be game to leave home without it. The card will be needed for just about every facet of daily life-transactions at banks, building societies, credit unions and stores; to get a new credit card; to make an investment, whether with a building society or finance company; to buy a new car or anything else substantial on credit; and to buy land or a house. It will even be needed to rent a house. People who employ a gardener, someone to cut their grass, or even a babysitter, will have a look at the ID card. Of course, plumbers, electricians, gas fitters, handymen and other providers of service will have to produce their ID cards. People will not be able to move very far in this country without having their ID card in the top pocket of their shirt or in their purse. Yet the Minister says that the ID card will not affect the quality of our lives. Quite frankly, people have not thought about what the ID card will mean. Sure, lots of honest Australians are not worried about providing details of their name, address and date of birth. But what happens when the ID number is given to persons with whom transactions are conducted? They write it down. Why? Because reports will be prepared for the Government. That is when the paperwork will start and the cost to business will start to build up. The direct cost to business in terms of completing the compliance requirements will be about $2 billion, and estimates as high as $10 billion have been made for the ongoing administration and reporting requirements. It is interesting that the Minister and the Government have ducked the issue of private sector cost, but the cost of collecting the details of the many thousands of clients for big Australian institutions will be very high. The cost to industry of allowing each employee time off twice to go to a Medicare office to get an ID card will be very significant. Can honourable members imagine the queues when something in the order of 10 million to 16 million ID cards will be issued? There are queues in Medicare offices and Department of Social Security offices now-the queues to issue 10 million or 16 million ID cards will be monumental. The Minister can be known as the Minister for queues. He has set up queues in the hospitals and the queues outside Medicare offices will extend for kilometres. The time which will have to be spent by people in going to Medicare offices to get their photograph taken, record their signature and get their number will be significant. As for the suggestion that people will be able to make an appointment, I defy the Government or anybody else to implement that. It will be impossible to issue 16 million cards efficiently and on time. The Government knows that and knows the chaos that has ensued when this procedure has been introduced in other places. Many people are not worried about carrying a card, but perhaps they do not understand the consequences of the card. When a transaction is conducted the number will be recorded next to it and the details of that transaction will be reported upon. The Minister said that a few new reports will be sent to the Australian Taxation Office but that the reports will not contain any more information than the Tax Office is getting now. Well, it will do a lot with the information it is getting. The card will be attached to just about every transaction conducted in daily life. It might be needed only once to get a bank account, but that number will be indelibly attached to that bank account. Once a year the bank will send the Tax Office, and maybe some other government departments, details of that bank account. Details will be provided of every other transaction, major purchase or credit transaction which has been made. The information will be compiled using the number and computers will sort it into one neat little file for John Citizen. John Citizen's entire financial life will be revealed. There will be a comprehensive dossier of every move he makes in a financial sense. Of course, it does not stop there. People who are office bearers in voluntary organisations-a football club or a gun club-and who sign cheques for that organisation will have their ID number recorded against the financial transactions of that institution. What happens with the accounts for that club at the end of the year? They will be sent to the Tax Office and that person's involvement with the football club, gun club, pigeon club or any other social institution will be recorded on a file. So we will have not only a complete dossier on a person's financial transactions but also a dossier on the pattern of that person's life. The information will be recorded on magnetic tape and will be available for those people in the Tax Office and anybody else specified by the legislation as having access to it. We are really compiling a super-file. The ID card seems to require fairly innocuous information about an individual, but that innocuous information will be used to compile a comprehensive file on every Australian-all 16 million men, women and children. It is interesting to read the Australia Card Bill to see what it proposes. The ID card has to be provided for the most innocuous transactions. People have to sight the card before they employ someone, including babysitters and other people employed casually in the suburbs around Australia. Of course, if the person providing that babysitting service does not have an ID card-many babysitters will not have an ID card because many of them are under 16 years of age-whose ID card will be provided? A parent's ID card. The card will have to be produced for some financial transactions which are significant and on which tax is payable. I am waiting for the Government to explain which transactions will be caught by the ID card and which will not. The Government seems to be at pains to run for cover when we ask questions about which parts of the cash economy will be caught and which parts will not be reported upon. If a minor who is employed does not have an ID card, whose ID card will be provided? The parent's ID card will be used and the number associated with that, because people under 16 years are not required to have an ID card. It is important for everybody to understand that this proposal will significantly change the nature of the Australian community. It has been introduced without due regard to the consequences for Australia. Many people believe that ID cards are worth while in terms of stopping fraud and tax abuse and they are prepared to have an ID card in order to stop social security fraud. Everybody knows that less than one per cent of social security fraud is related to identity and 61 per cent is related to changed circumstances. Everybody knows that there will be no net benefit to the Department of Social Security from the ID card. Everybody knows that the Department does not have enough confidence in the ID card system to use it alone for identification and that the Department will require other proof of identification. It is interesting to note that in 1985 the Department of Social Security gave evidence to a sub-committee of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure that a card system of itself poses a threat to the integrity of the welfare system and opens the door for greater fraud. I wonder when the Government will quote that evidence from the Department of Social Security back to the members of this House. The Department of Social Security recognises that an ID card system, because of its apparent intrinsic credibility, will open the door for fraud. Perhaps the Department is aware of overseas experience where the perceived integrity of the card has been exploited by corrupt people in society to manipulate the system and open the floodgates to rorts and rip-offs. This Government has not thought through what it proposes to do with the ID card. If I had more time I would detail the massive variations in expenses and revenue projections given to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. The fact is that the ID card is a very poor idea and it will not work. Its costs are indefinite and the revenues associated with it cannot be quantified with any degree of precision. There are simpler and better ways of addressing the problem. This Government is hooked on an idea and does not know how to get off. It is worried that part of its back bench will cross the floor and vote with the Opposition to stop this legislation. The Minister himself has certain questions about the integrity of the whole proposal. The Government is hoping that the Opposition will get it off the hook and stop this proposal in the Senate. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(3.40) —When listening to the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) talk about errors, I can only say that the public would think about another catalogue, another litany of errors. They were the errors carried out by members of the Opposition when in government in neglecting to crack down on tax avoidance. They went soft on tax avoidance. Another error while they were in government was to fail to support the Australian Taxation Office when it attempted to administer the very laws that it had put into operation. All that is required by the identification system is to match up information already available to the Tax Office and the Department of Social Security with the individual's records. Other errors which members of the Opposition are guilty of while in opposition are that repeatedly, time and time again, they have opposed every single tax reform that this Government has brought in and every single effort to crack down on tax avoidance. Another error by members of the Opposition has been that they have run away from the very report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card which they agreed with only six months ago. I will mention that a little later in my contribution to this matter of public importance. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) quite adequately dealt with some of the misleading misrepresentations about the Australia Card-what it can do and what it cannot do. But one strongly suspects that the real danger from legislation on an Australia Card would be if members of the Opposition were ever to become the Government. Their imagination, as displayed during the debate on that card, and their imagination as displayed here today, is somewhat terrifying. I suggest that the dangers put forward by those opposite come from that source alone. But anyone who is reasonable, anybody who is clear headed and objective and looks at the legislation introduced by the Minister, who is at the table, would know that nothing that the Opposition has suggested can happen while the legislation is in its current form. Let us just take one example given by the honourable member for Richmond. He said that the intimate details of bank accounts, of financial transactions of John Citizen would be available to the Tax Office. The Tax Office is interested only in the interest earnings which are already supplied by the banks, building societies and financial institutions to the Australian Tax Office and have been for some time. I was rather amused by the honourable member for Richmond's concern about those who might be members of pigeon clubs and pony clubs. After hearing him speak, I can only say that he is probably a fully paid up member or life member of the mushroom club. The dangers and costs associated with the Australia Card are not those of the system itself, but of the neglect in having an integral identification system that will assist the Australian Tax Office in carrying out current laws that were in existence under the Opposition when it was in government and to carry out the duties of that office. Let us put the Australia Card and identification system in its proper context. An identity card is an integral part of this Government's tax reform package which restores fairness and equity to the tax system. When it does that it earns the respect of the community. On one side of the coin that package is a fight against avoidance and evasion; the other side of the spending coin is that when tax is collected it will prevent welfare fraud. It is timely in this debate on this matter of public importance to put that national identification system in its proper context. This was brought starkly into sharp reality by the verification of the House or Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure that $2 billion is not being collected by the Australian Tax Office-the same $2 billion referred to in the Tax White Paper of last year; the same $2 billion which the new tax measures are aimed at; the same $2 billion in unpaid tax that the Opposition wishes to defend; the same $2 billion which is costing each honest taxpayer $7 per week and $350 per annum. They are the hidden dangers and costs associated with this legislation if an identification system is not passed by this Parliament. Let us see it in context and let us get our focus and our spotlight on the correct path of what is costly and what are the benefits to society. After 3 1/2 years in opposition, all we hear is carping, cant criticism without one positive suggestion of a tax reform policy or any policy to overcome tax evasion. Time and time again those opposite come in here purely to oppose, for opposition's sake. A national identification system to attack tax fraud, cheating and welfare fraud is no exception. It is no wonder that those opposite are referred to outside this Parliament as the tax avoiders party. Let us look at a few examples of how those opposite oppose certain tax reforms in this Parliament and yet have spoken earlier of their support. Let us take the fringe benefits tax which they now oppose. On 1 October 1986 the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) said that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was not going to allow the fringe benefits issue to be a great tax avoidance device. Those opposite opposed a capital gains tax in this Parliament. Yet on 29 August, two years ago, commenting on the need for a capital gains tax, the honourable member for Bennelong, the Leader of the Opposition, said: `There are arguments for a total restructuring of the system for what you have said'. That is when there is a total tax reform, as this Government has brought in, there is a place for capital gains. Those opposite oppose the assets test and yet the honourable member for Bennelong, the Leader of the Opposition, on 27 November 1983, stated: `I'm personally in favour of a needs approach to the payment of welfare'. Time and again those opposite oppose in this House, hopefully for some cheap political gain, and yet at a more rational moment when caught in debate, where they have to put up or shut up, the public finds out that they actually agree with the reforms of this Government. I want to mention the difficulties that the Australian Tax Office has in matching up the legitimate information that it gets to ensure that every member of the public, every taxpayer pays his correct amount of tax-not too much and not too little, but his proper and fair amount of tax. Members of the Opposition, even when in government, would not support the Australian Tax Office in ways that protected the needy and got the greedy. They wanted the Australian Tax Office to go out there under-resourced and still carry out their own legislation. Let us just make two examples: When those opposite brought in the prescribed payments system and it was impossible to carry that out effectively and quickly, they did nothing to assist-with greater manpower or even updated computer technology-the resources of the Australian Tax Office. When the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Boucher, comes out with a simple non-partisan statement and says `If there is to be an effective attack on evasion practices throughout the community, there must be in some form a high integrity identification system', we find him being attacked by the Leader of the Opposition. At the time Mr Boucher was a Second Commissioner of the Australian Tax Office and, when made the Commissioner, the Leader of the Opposition stated: `I think his word can be very greatly relied on'. How the Opposition Leader and the Opposition change when they feel there is cheap political gain to be made. The honourable member for Richmond, along with the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) from this House, who were members of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, put their signatures to this statement: That the integrity of the tax file number be upgraded to that of the proposed Australia Card number. As the Minister, who is at the table, outlined, there are a few qualifications which did not greatly change the situation. The same statement those two honourable members signed stated: . . . recognises that there is a serious problem in Australia with losses in tax revenue. The majority-- they were amongst them- believes that this is best solved by attacking the problems within the current system. The majority has therefore opted for an extension of the tax file number system in order to reduce tax evasion as well as to assist in attacking social security fraud. In their alternative proposal, which is counter to the Australia Card proposal, we see no sign of that upgraded or increased integrity of the tax file system. They have run away from the report that they signed only six months ago to which they gave such noble argument. Within six short months they are now prepared to turn their back on that report. They have a lot of explaining to do to the public and to other members of that Committee as to why they have changed their minds. They have not done so. They have a lot of explaining to do to the many different witnesses who appeared before that inquiry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time allowed for this debate has now expired. Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(3.51) —Essentially the Opposition is opposed to the amalgamation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service because it believes that multicultural broadcasting will suffer as a consequence. There is already evidence that the philosophy of multiculturalism is under threat. This threat comes from several quarters and is due largely to ignorance of what multicultural means. During the debate on the abolition of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, several Opposition speakers demonstrated how the 1986-87 Budget cut expenditure on multicultural programs disproportionately from cuts to other programs. As was amply illustrated in that debate, the Opposition felt both anger and disquiet at that disproportionate action but, as the abolition of the Institute and the cuts in the English as a second language program were part of the Budget, we did not seek to defeat them. The Opposition is committed to the principle of not defeating Budget Bills. Rather, it believes that it is proper to analyse and, where necessary, criticise those Bills, but not to vote against them. A government must be judged on its Budget when elections are held. The ABC/SBS Amalgamation Bill now before the House, however, is not a Budget Bill. I set out the reasons for the Opposition's approach in that regard in my speech on the estimates of expenditure of the Department of Communications on 20 October 1986, which is to be found on pages 2366 to 2368 of Hansard. The Government decided last year that a merger of the two organisations was inappropriate. The Opposition agreed with the Government. In this Budget, the Government took $1m off both the ABC and the SBS-again a massively disproportionate cut when one considers the large and demonstrably inefficient ABC and the small and efficient SBS. As this was part of the Budget, we allowed the cuts to pass. But the Bill before us is not a Budget measure. Its passage will not reduce government expenditure by one cent and its defeat will not increase expenditure by one cent. The Bill is expenditure neutral. It is true that, in theory, one national broadcaster ought to deliver services more efficiently than two. But that is not the case at present. The real question is what type of service the Parliament believes should be provided. The SBS was created by the Parliament because it and the Fraser Government believed that multicultural broadcasting was needed and that the ABC was both unwilling and unable to provide it. The report of the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission had shown that, and the report of the Connor Review of the Special Broadcasting Service told the Hawke Government last year that that was still the case. The Government, correctly, accepted those reports, as did the Opposition. Now the Government has had a sudden and unexplained reversal which the Opposition finds mystifying. Nothing advanced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has justified this reversal. The Government's decision looks like a gimmick. To those who might not give the matter a second thought, it might look as though there will be inevitable savings. But to the Opposition and others who have given the matter considerable thought, it is clear that the Government is trying to create the impression that it is expenditure conscious. Once its Budget was finalised and thought likely to look less tough than the community was expecting, this gesture was announced prior to the presentation of the Budget. It was a confidence trick that has worked to some extent; for many media commentators were critical of the Opposition's consistency, rather than the Government's inconsistency. I really find that hard to understand. From the creation of the SBS by the coalition to the acceptance by the Opposition of the Connor report, we have been quite consistent. We have always favoured one national broadcaster and lamented the fact that problems within the ABC prevented it from delivering a choice of programs for all Australians of a kind which would never be catered for on the commercial radio and television stations. Parliament has properly denied itself and the Government the right to interfere with programs. Thus, no government can or should tell the ABC to broadcast multicultural or any other programs. Members and senators may always express their views on programs, but no direction should flow from that. Consequently, there are two options open to Parliament: To continue with two national broadcasters until the ABC has become a cost-effective body willing and able to do multicultural broadcasting; or to recast the two so that one broadcaster provides the services now provided by the two. The less drastic option is the former and this was preferred by the Connor report. I gave evidence before the Connor committee and the burden of my evidence was consistent with its findings. The Connor report thought that the question of creating one national broadcaster, whether by merger or otherwise should wait until about 1990. The committee based that view partly on the ABC's admission that it had its own problems in improving operations, and that it did not want further change before it had completed its own restructuring. In evidence to the Connor committee, the ABC said that it was particularly concerned to see that there was stability in the key areas of budgeting, financial management, corporate planning and programming. The subsequent hearings of the Senate Estimates committees of the last two years and the devastating findings of the Auditor-General would most certainly have confirmed, in the minds of the Connor committee, that 1990 was the earliest possible date for a re-examination of the situation. Moreover, I am sure that many members of the Connor committee would feel that the ultimate formation of one national broadcaster might now be best obtained by the creation of a new one rather than a merger of the ABC and the SBS. If any more confirmation of this view were needed, it would be found in the words of the former Chairman, Mr David Hill, who became Managing Director by most undesirable means. Mr Hill said recently that the ABC has more problems than any other organisation with which he has been involved. Mr Hill also said that what the ABC needs most of all is a period of consolidation. I would agree with that. At the end of a period of consolidation one would need to assess whether the ABC, as such, had a future, or whether an entirely new national broadcasting structure was required. Australia is one of only a handful of countries with a commitment to national broadcasting in conjunction with commercial broadcasting. Our two national broadcasters, logically, should be ultimately one. The questions are: When and how? Certainly with the ABC suffering from indigestion, it would be irresponsible to ask the ABC to devour the rich fare of the SBS, yet that is what the Government has asked, and that is what the Opposition refuses to support. The three key areas in the ABC at present are the positions of Managing Director, Finance Director and Director of Television. The position of Managing Director has been filled in a disgraceful way, the Finance Director has resigned and the Director of Television has been sacked. A new ABC Board was appointed two months before the merger with the SBS was proposed. The new SBS Board was appointed only three weeks before that announcement. The Government clearly does not know what it is doing. If the Government gets its way, next January will see the fourth ABC Board in four years. By contrast, the Opposition has been absolutely consistent. When the Minister for Communications announced the merger, I was interviewed on the ABC's AM program on 14 August 1986. The transcript of that interview reads as follows: Mr MACPHEE: I'm convinced that there is great virtue in the two continuing. I do believe very strongly that the SBS is fulfilling a need which the ABC has not fulfilled and if it's facing Budget cuts would most certainly not fulfil. The SBS would be totally subsumed within the ABC and that in fact would be a loss culturally and in terms of alternative programming for the Australian Public. But there's a further point. The Government might think it's going to save money this way, But the Connor Report which the Government itself commissioned, showed that money would not be saved and indeed the work practices and staff structure of the ABC are more expensive than those of the SBS and if the SBS services were to continue it would actually cost the merged organisation more. Mr Mark Llewellyn: But wouldn't it lead possibly though to economies of scale, more efficient use of resources? Mr MACPHEE: No, it wouldn't. As it is the SBS operates on a shoestring budget and it does so magnificently. The ABC could do with some more economies, I believe. And I believe the management is well aware of that and on the way to achieving those. I don't believe they'd be achieved by virtue of this merger. On the contrary, it would only confuse the administrative reforms that are going on within the ABC itself. Mark Llewellyn: But there are people who would argue it's totally extravagant to have in Australia two Government-funded public broadcasting systems. Mr Macphee: Well, I know that that might appear to be so from the outside, but when you examine the administration of both of them you will see it's not an extravagance and I believe that the continued existence of the SBS represents a very important discipline on the ABC. And I'm convinced that for the time being Australia would be well served by having two national broadcasters, especially in television, where the programs can be complementary, each of them catering for slightly different audiences and each of them again different from those served by the commercial television stations. The Opposition view and the reasons for it which I expressed then on 14 August, before the Budget, were precisely the same as those I expressed on the ABC programs The World Today and PM on Tuesday of last week, 11 November, when the Opposition's position was reconfirmed. The transcripts of my remarks are available to anyone who wishes to confirm that. The harsh, and grossly unfair, criticism of the Opposition's view by many in the media is matched by the overlooking by the media of the Government's lack of consistency. Mr Ruddock —A total misrepresentation of us. Mr MACPHEE —Indeed, it is a serious misrepresentation of the Opposition's position. The Opposition has long since faced the fact that the SBS as an independent organisation, has proved to be a valuable discipline on the ABC, particularly in the area of what can be done with scarce resources and imaginative management. This discipline will be lost if the two organisations are amalgamated. Many of the most creative people in the ABC have had their creativity greatly curbed by the bureaucracy of the ABC, and many of the finest have left the organisation. It would be a tragedy if the same fate befell the innovators currently employed by and associated with the SBS. There is evidence to suggest that the majority of Australians support the continuance of the SBS as a separate organisation. Over 65 per cent of people who made submissions to the Connor Committee of Review into the Special Broadcasting Service supported the continuation of national multicultural broadcasting services provided by a separate broadcasting authority. For many reasons, therefore, the Opposition has remained convinced that the two national broadcasters must remain. That was our policy in the last election campaign and remains so. Under the Government's proposed administrative arrangements, SBS television will become ABC One and ABC television will become ABC Two. This sounds attractive, but there are problems because the channels do not have the same transmission coverage. The current ABC channel is transmitted in many areas where the SBS is not, and even in areas where both are transmitted SBS cannot be received by over half the audience, who do not have equipment for UHF reception. So moving programs from the current ABC channel to SBS is to disenfranchise a major part of the audience. We still believe that the Minister was wrong to take SBS off the VHF channel before the Government had made a decision about what to do with that part of the spectrum and had asked the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to allocate a licence for it. It is a fact that the SBS has been successful at holding its program acquisition costs on overseas markets at a constant price for the last four years. This has been achieved because overseas suppliers saw the SBS as a small organisation struggling to meet a specific broadcasting need. However, the same organisations, in dealings with the ABC, have a quite different perception of that organisation and believe that they should get fairer commercial prices from the larger organisation. Where possible, the SBS commissions local productions via independent producers. In contrast, the ABC has a philosophy of in-house production. Already some independent producers have indicated to the SBS that they will not give the same preferential pricing treatment to the ABC as they have done for a separate SBS. Prices paid for the same types of programs will, in all likelihood, increase once there is a single national broadcaster. Moreover, no doubt SBS employees will expect the same terms and conditions as those of the ABC, and that will substantially increase costs. At present the SBS is a very lean and efficient organisation compared with the ABC. As the Peat Marwick study for the Connor report found, there would be `significant cost implications of imposing ABC employment structures, the progressive abandoning of contracting out and its replacement by fully staffed production and technical services in the ABC mode'. As an example, most SBS staff work a 40-hour week and most ABC staff work a 38-hour week. Moreover, it is doubtful whether meaningful savings can be made in shared accommodation in the short term. Both organisations have existing leases for their current premises in Sydney, where both headquarters are situated, and the SBS leases run for between three and five years. There would be massive costs in relocating the SBS Sydney operation even if there were space available. The recent lack of consultation by the ABC with the SBS over the appointment of Mr Hill as Managing Director highlighted the ABC's lack of readiness in terms of the amalgamation. The SBS Board should have been fully involved with the decision to appoint Mr Hill, as the two organisations are, on the Government's plans, to be merged on 1 January next year and the Minister had set up discussions between the two boards. If the ABC were sensitive to SBS concerns and fears, it should have consulted SBS management. It is already obvious that the SBS would become submerged within an organisation as large as the ABC, removing the identity, efficiency and unique qualities currently provided by the SBS. In those circumstances this Parliament cannot be sure that any legislation it passes will be respected by the ABC in its present state of desperation or management control. Therefore, we believe that it would not be responsible to merge the two organisations at this stage. Despite what the legislation says, we do not believe the integrity of the SBS programming would be maintained if the amalgamation went ahead now. We therefore hold the same view as we held when we responded to the Connor Committee of Review. We oppose the merger and are mystified about the Government's motives and reasons to proceed with the merger at this time. I should add that we think there is virtue in formal consultation between the two boards. If, as a leak in today's papers suggests, Sir Nicholas Shehadie is made Chairman of the ABC, I hope, in the event that this legislation is defeated, that he will be chairman of both organisations and that the two boards will think of meeting once or twice a year in a joint board arrangement to try to make sure that the two organisations work in maximum harmony while maintaining their separate identity. In opposing this Bill, the Opposition recommits itself to the SBS for the next several years and to a continuation of multicultural programs for as long as any thoughtful Australian adult could now contemplate. Mr Duffy —It has now become several years? Mr MACPHEE —Quite. For the reasons I indicated earlier-- Mr Duffy —Not 1990? Mr MACPHEE —I indicated earlier that I believed the Connor inquiry would now look at a date beyond 1990 and I think that is the time scale at which this Parliament should be looking. I believe that the Senate might usefully explore the possibility of conferring corporation status upon the SBS so that it is not in limbo. Furthermore, we would like to see the SBS expand its capacity to make local programs. We urge it to make more programs about Australia and to enter into arrangements with the Australian Film Commission and with Australian film-makers individually so that it provides more insights for Australians into themselves than does the ABC or the American-oriented commercial stations. We would like SBS radio to be more multicultural in character. At present it is too ethnic in character, although none of us would deny the entitlement of elderly Australians, in particular, to hear programs in the language of their birth. Some extra programs about multicultural Australia would be beneficial, however. SBS television already does this to a greater degree than does SBS radio, but even more is needed if its essential purpose is to be achieved. In short, SBS has to be even more about multicultural Australia than about ethnic broadcasting or being a presenter of foreign films. In addition, SBS has, or should have, an increased educational role. We believe that SBS should be encouraged to present programs of the kind identified with the open university concept. We are confident that the loyal SBS viewing audience would grow as a result. If those and other Australian productions such as films, documentaries and other programs were shown on SBS in addition to rare screenings at esoteric, hard to reach cinemas, we are sure that the SBS audience would grow constantly. We are sure also that an increasing number of Australians will consequently accept the judgment of Melbourne's Age when it stated of SBS in an editorial on 8 November 1986: The service enables ethnic people to maintain links with the culture of their origin while adapting to the country of their adaption. To them, its programs must be what `A Country Practice', `Sons and Daughters', or films of a VFL grand final would be to Australians living abroad among unfamiliar customs and people speaking a strange language. Apart from the channel's service to our ethnic population, it also offers at least three values for viewers of Australian Birth. It provides opportunity for those learning a new language to hear it spoken as nationals speak it. In a typical week they may listen to dialogue in Portuguese, Armenian, French, Bengali, Italian, Russian, Japanese and German. Its programs are refreshing because they are set against exotic scenes and unfamiliar backgrounds. Furthermore, it gives us a deepening insight into human nature. Because of our geographical isolation, many Australians are strangers to ways of life in other countries. Some have discovered that, notwithstanding differences of nationality and language, people everywhere are the same at heart. They all experience sorrow and joy, despair and hope, pain and pleasure. Young people in Lisbon fall in love like their peers in Lima or Leongatha. Chinese and Latvian mothers feel the same agony and ecstasy when their babies are born. A Dutch or Chilean husband suffers the same grief as a man in this country when his wife dies. Criminals commit similar crimes in France, Finland and Fitzroy. This insight into human nature, which SBS-TV provides, confirms what archaeologists discover about people in ancient civilisations. Egyptians in the days of the Pharaohs felt the same need for sex, security, significance and a sense of meaning in life as the Babylonians, the Greeks and the Aztecs-as people everywhere do today. Although people the Bible depicts lived in circumstances different from ours, they experienced hate and love, fear and hope, awe and wonder as those whom Channel 28 portrays. A Hebrew king's pangs of guilt 3,000 years ago correspond with those of a conscience-stricken Australian. The same joy that accompanied St Paul's conversion is still felt by people who resolve to follow the Way. Our community is richer for the distinctive programs SBS-TV provides-and especially for the better understanding of our neighbours on a planet that has become a cosmic village. On 13 November the Age editorial added: The Government miscalculated badly when it decided that the SBS would no longer have an existence in its own right. The SBS audience may be a small one, numerically speaking. But it is also a loyal one, and the ethnic communities identify with it. Unlike the ABC, it speaks to them in their native languages; it caters for their special interests. It gives them a measure of recognition. In such a climate, merging the SBS with the ABC-which up to that point had shown no particular interest in ethnic broadcasting-was seen by many as an act of provocation. Politically, it makes good sense for the Liberals to oppose the merger. We have opposed it, too, for other non-political reasons. Chief among those reasons is the Government's failure to explain in detail just what it hopes to achieve by linking the two national broadcasters. We expect, in this House and in the Senate, answers from the Government about what its reasons are and what it really believes it can achieve. Those thoughtful editorials in the Age were absolutely negated by that newspaper's senior Canberra correspondent, Michelle Grattan, when she decreed last Saturday, 15 November, that the Opposition's policy against the merger of the ABC and the SBS was `bad'. Unlike her editor, Ms Grattan feels no need to advance reasons for her judgment. Her word, to her anyway, is definitive. The Government will no doubt be pleased with Ms Grattan's pronouncement, but many Australians will be relieved to know that the Opposition is not and agrees with her editor. Thus, the Opposition coalition maintains the view which it held in government. This was summarised by the members of the Galbally Committee of Review of Post-arrival Programs and Services to Migrants-Mr Frank Galbally, Ms Francesca Merenda, Mr Nick Polites and Mr Carlo Stransky-when they said: Every person should be able to maintain his or her culture without prejudice or disadvantage and should be encouraged to understand and embrace other cultures. The SBS is of critical importance in achieving that objective. The SBS can do even more than it now is to combat racism. Like the ABC, it needs a period of consolidation before the creation of one national broadcaster is again contemplated. The Opposition, therefore, stands unequivocally by its commitment to a philosophy of multiculturalism-a philosophy which the Government has abandoned in the 1986-87 Budget. In my three years as the coalition's Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, I spoke of our commitment to that philosophy on many occasions. No matter how much longer my political career might last, I cannot imagine being involved in anything more enriching, more exciting or more significant for Australia than my role in bringing to its culmination the expression of the philosophy of multiculturalism and its practical application. I am, therefore, appalled by the Government's retreat from multiculturalism in this year's Budget. That Budget set back multiculturalism by abolishing the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, led so outstandingly by that great Australian, the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, Dr David Penman. It also attacked the most vital multicultural educational program of all, that concerned with the teaching of English as a second language, and, after the Budget was prepared, the Government-three weeks after the new SBS Board was created and eight weeks after that of the ABC was created-decided to merge those two bodies without any practical regard for the consequences for multiculturalism. The definitive statement of multiculturalism was that prepared at my request by the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs in May 1982. The booklet was the product of a committee led by another distinguished Australian, Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki, Professor of Sociology at the Australian National University. The booklet was entitled `Multiculturalism for all Australians: Our developing nationhood'. The report was adamant that `to make multiculturalism successful minority groups with a non-English-speaking background must not flourish on the margin and at the expense of the total society, but must be oriented towards it and be given the necessary incentive to belong to it'. To stress ethnic differences is to divide Australians from Australians. To ignore those differences is to handicap some Australians as they strive for equality of opportunity, compared with the more advantaged, and many people are more advantaged because they have the English language. Recognising differences, by way of both programs of positive discrimination and compensatory measures in the short term, can make successive generations of individuals more equal than would otherwise be the case, thereby adding to both their quality of life and their capacity to contribute to Australia for many years thereafter. A few weeks ago, Professor Zubrzycki, who first outlined his concept for a multicultural Australia in 1968, examined the current state of social policy in multicultural Australia in a lecture to Deakin University. I agree with his analysis and his model of multiculturalism, which requires `a range of programs and services that provide government grants in support of limited and largely short term projects in the area of welfare, education, language training and cultural maintenance services'. These services include multicultural broadcasting. Multicultural broadcasting, along with all the post-arrival programs introduced by the Fraser Government, help cater for equality of opportunity, evolving Australian cultural identity and social cohesion. It is a policy of integration, not assimilation. We have rejected hitherto the melting pot theory which characterised the United States and left every successive wave of migrants at the bottom of the pile. The core culture of modern Australia came from England, but other strands of our culture came from the Aborigines as well as from Scotland, Ireland, Wales and the rest of the world. It is significant that the core culture of our language, our parliamentary system and our judicial system came from England, not from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom itself is a multicultural society and it is important for us to recognise that. So, indeed, are many societies around the world, some more successful than others. It is integration around that core culture that is far more just to the individual and beneficial to the nation than are policies of assimilation in which disadvantaged people suffer very severely because of their lack of introduction to the language or culture. As an illustration of what I say, the Minister has slipped across a note saying: `What about the O'Macphees?'. It is a fact that the Duffys and the McDuffys were not far apart and the McDuffys were part of the same clan as the Macphees, who came from the little island of Colonsay, in the Irish sea, from which on a clear day one can see the coast of Ireland and the coast of Scotland. They disliked the English as much as the Irish did. The fact is that a reasonably harmonious multicultural society was forged from the arrival of Celts such as the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh, and they have been added to in this multicultural society of ours until, more recently, we have had the enrichment of people from Indo-China and other parts of Asia. Integration around that core culture is the key to social harmony, cohesion and equality of opportunity. The Government must rethink its direction in the area of multiculturalism, for it is that concept which faces the issue of getting the minority ethnic groups into the gradually maturing mainstream. Other policies lead to friction and division, not social cohesion. A further consolidation period for the SBS will greatly assist the process of integration and ultimately help us to have one national broadcaster catering for all Australians. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(4.21) —I am glad that at last we have a definitive approach from the Opposition. We now know that it agrees with an amalgamation of the two national broadcasting networks at some stage-however, not just now. It is a little like when one says: `Yes, I would love it, but not just now, Henry'. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that one would like it somewhere down the track when things get a little better as one perceives them but that one does not want it just now. That is absolute nonsense. When does the Opposition perceive that the national broadcaster or broadcasters will be in such a position? I maintain that the Opposition is going in completely the wrong direction because in another five to ten years it may be virtually impossible to merge the two broadcasters as they grow from strength to strength and as the Special Broadcasting Service as it exists now expands and acquires more facilities. At that time the government of the day, whichever that may be, would say `thus far and no more' when faced with a budgetary situation of maintaining two national broadcasters, both at that time having budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. One would go. The Government has moved this as one of its reasons, on which I will elaborate in a moment, for the continuation of multicultural broadcasting. If multicultural broadcasting were allowed to stand alone, in time, whether it be 10, 15 or 20 years, it would wither on the vine and disappear. This will strengthen multicultural broadcasting in the long run. It will cement it into our national network. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) said that he wants some answers. I am sure it will be like a birthday for the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to give him those answers in his summing up. If I can jump the queue, one of the reasons that this Government has introduced the ABC/SBS Amalgamation Bill is that in the next decade it will save tens of millions of dollars. I am not talking about the saving of $2m this year-I admit that is nothing in itself-but we will save vast sums of money in the long term. As I have already said, SBS will want to expand its services, equipment, et cetera. Human beings being what they are, we would see the two networks expanding independently. Whilst they stand alone that will occur. They must be brought together to save the costs of services, manpower, equipment and facilities in the next decade, and that will amount to some tens of millions of dollars. That is one of the answers that I am sure the Minister will give. As I have already mentioned, it will cement multicultural broadcasting into our society. It is not there at present. Indeed, the Opposition is saying that it wants to take away the charter that is in this legislation for multicultural broadcasting and diversity and replace it with nothing. Virtually, that is what exists at present-nothing. There are no guarantees now. There is no great wad of legislation relating to multicultural broadcasting, what it has to do for the country and what the SBS can or cannot do. In some respects that is being written into this charter. Indeed, in a private conversation with the Minister the other day, in relation to this charter I said: `People have attacked you from both sides, saying that the charter did not go far enough or that it has gone too far'. I am sure the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), a long-standing and experienced member of this House would know that when one has reached that point one knows that one must have done a good job by steering the ship somewhere down that delicate middle line if both sides are not 101 per cent happy with what one has done. The charter specifies the nature of multicultural broadcasting, and the new corporation has to take note of it. That is clearly spelt out in the charter, and I think it is on that middle line. The extension of multicultural broadcasting is another asset of this legislation. At present and in the foreseeable future multicultural broadcasting will not extend. What government would come forward in the economic circumstances which exist and which will be reasonably tight for a number of years and say that it wants multicultural broadcasting in Darwin, for example? It would not spend tens of millions of dollars in Darwin, Albury, Ballarat or Bendigo-one could name a number of regional centres-or Wide Bay. That will not occur, but it will be able to occur under the new corporations, Australian Broadcasting Corporation 1 and Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2. Quite obviously the new broadcaster would be negligent, if there were only the one service-for example, in Darwin-if it did not carry some multicultural broadcasting after this legislation has passed through this House. In many areas of Australia we will see, as a result of this legislation, an extension of multicultural broadcasting that would not have occurred for a long, long time under the existing arrangements. The honourable member for Goldstein talked about increased local program production for the SBS. He also talked about more education programs in regard to the open university concept. From where would SBS get the money to expand greatly, if it were to do it properly, its education programs or local programs if it were allowed to stand alone? In the six years since I became a member of this House I have spoken about a combined network-it has happened a little sooner than I thought-an ABC 1 and an ABC 2 which will incorporate multicultural broadcasting. In time to come on the new network we may see an extension of education programs, open university programs, and so on, which I would support. We will get that only if we have an integrated network. If we have two separate networks they will go off in different directions. We cannot make them take note of each other's programming if they are totally separate organisations; it is absolutely impossible. People say that the ABC has not done anything about multicultural broadcasting in the last few years anyway and that it should be made to do something. I put the point that, whilst I agree that the ABC has not been good at multicultural broadcasting for a long time, since the introduction of the SBS in the last six or seven years it would have been a dereliction of its duty if it had gone into multicultural broadcasting because at present there is a whole network for it. Why would the ABC provide any multicultural broadcasting if there is already a total network for it? I am sure one could ask the same question of the Channel 9, Channel 7 or Channel 10 networks. They would come back with the same answer: `Why should we be doing it? There is a whole network for it.' The ABC has a perfect comeback at present. With the integration that will occur, with the new Board, with the new Managing Director and the Chairman who will be appointed in the not too distant future, we will see a vibrant network of ABC 1 and ABC 2. One cannot say that we will set it up somewhere down the track when we think things will be better; we have to look at doing it now and give the organisations time to combine together. Sure, there will be a little bit of a rocky period while they work things out and get their act together. But they have a few years to do that and we will then have a good and genuine dual national broadcaster. I mention one other thing: Very few countries in the world have a national broadcaster funded out of Budget. That is another point that may have to be taken up at some other time. But, from my research, no other country has two. I could put it another way: Only one country in the entire world has two-Australia. It is nonsense to say that this measure will not save money and that multicultural broadcasting will suffer. I have had discussions on this matter. Not only myself, but also the Government, particularly the Minister, have had numerous discussions with the groups within the ABC, the SBS and the ethnic communities at large over the last few months. As many guarantees as possible are provided, either in the legislation or else they are guaranteed with the co-operation of the people at the existing organisation. Some of the guarantees, such as those regarding programming, cannot, from a practical viewpoint, be put into the legislation. One cannot guarantee that Yes, Prime Minister will be on at 7.30 every Monday night or some such nonsense as that. Some people are saying all sorts of silly things like that. That cannot be guaranteed. One cannot get into programming. One has to leave that to the managing body, the management of the Corporation. I am sure that that will occur. Unfortunately my time has just about run out. It is worth noting that radio stations 2EA and 3EA will continue to exist. There is absolutely no thought of tampering with them at all. The multilingual position in those radio stations will continue. They have been of great service to our ethnic communities, and that will continue absolutely. The new charter guarantees that. The Minister for Communications will, I believe, relate some extracts from an editorial in today's Il Globo, which is one of the more famous ethnic newspapers, the Italian language newspaper in Victoria. That editorial supports the Government's position. Today's Il Globo slams the position of the Opposition and shows it up for what it is. I think that is worthy of note, and the Minister will elaborate on it. It comes from one of the most famous and long running ethnic newspapers in this country. For all the reasons that I have outlined, and many more that members on this side, including the Minister, will outline, I support the legislation before the House. Mr JULL(Fadden)(4.35) —The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) and I share quite a deal in common, and it is not uncommon for one of us to follow the other in debates in this House on broadcasting legislation. In fact, one of the things that we share in common is that we both cut our teeth in the world of commercial television. I am absolutely amazed-or even, perhaps, horrified-if the honourable member for Isaacs believes some of his own rhetoric such as he has given this afternoon in terms of the capacity of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to adapt at this stage to taking over and working in conjunction with the Special Broadcasting Service, because certainly I do not share that sense of optimism that he has at a time when the ABC is probably going through the most difficult period in its history. I will come back to that a little later on, because I think there are some very real difficulties in the ABC at the moment that must be addressed before we can ask it to take over an organisation such as the SBS. I was interested in the speech of the honourable member for Isaacs because he referred to this morning's editorial in the Italian newspaper. I would like to quote from the editorial in the Greek newspaper Neos Kosmos dated Monday, 8 September, in which it is said: The Labor MPs, who are elected in seats with big migrant population, would err if they tried to `explain' to migrants the merger of SBS and ABC. The decision was both silly and dishonest. The migrant communities will not be convinced by excuses. Migrants feel like being victims of `rape'. They are enraged because the rapists are persons who they trusted. Instead of trying to convince migrants, these `likable' MPs should try to convince Hawke, Keating and Duffy that the merger of SBS and ABC is not acceptable to migrant communities. I quote another statement, this time from the Melbourne Age of 15 September. The report is about a rally that was held in the Melbourne suburb of Brunswick over the SBS-ABC merger. The report stated: Dr Andrew Theophanous, the federal member for Calwell, said the SBS was a symbol which the migrants could not and would not do without. He stressed that the decision was the fault of the Government, not the Australian Labor Party. `We've heard a lot about uranium but merging the SBS and ABC is a breach of Labor policy too and we're going to hear a lot more'. To let honourable members know the concern that is in the community, I will read just one more quotation. On 15 August the Premier of New South Wales issued a Press release expressing his concern over the ABC-SBS amalgamation. It said: The Premier . . . would be making the strongest possible representations to the Prime Minister clearly defining his objections to any amalgamation of SBS and the ABC. I would contend that there is some very real concern within our ethnic community about just what the future might be for the SBS. The SBS proved itself in its early years to be a very lean and efficient operation. I was a member of the then Government's committee on communications, which went through some rather difficult periods deciding whether or not we should go ahead with the SBS as a separate entity or whether in fact at that stage we should put it in with the ABC as part of its operation. I am sure that honourable members will recall the debate that, for every day for weeks on end, was broadcast over such ABC programs as AM and PM, and the objections that were being put up regarding the capacity of the ABC to provide this particular service. Could one ever forget the fact that the ABC, when it came to the Government, said that to establish an SBS network within the ABC would require some $50m in capital costs, and a similar figure for its operating costs. I suppose that this is really at the heart of what is wrong with the ABC today. What happened? Private consultants came in. Ron Fowles, who was an established figure within the commercial organisation, came up with establishment costs of $4.3m-not $50m, but $4.3m-with an annual operating cost of some $6m. That was the argument then. Unfortunately, I do not think that things have changed terribly much at the ABC even now. At a time when there are difficulties with the Board and the General Manager, when we find that the Finance Director of the ABC has just walked out and the Director of Television has been sacked-while we have this turmoil within the ABC-we expect it to take on the added responsibility of this merger with SBS. I do not really see how it can be done. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), the shadow Minister for Communications, pointed out some of the difficulties in terms of the two organisations working side by side because of their different conditions of employment. It is a fact that the SBS personnel work a 40-hour week; it is a fact that the ABC staff work 38 hours a week. Do we honestly expect at this stage that the ABC Staff Association and the other unions involved with the ABC will allow the SBS personnel to work under any lesser conditions than those under which they themselves presently work? I think that really this merger will create a monster for the Government. I think it is absolutely critical at this stage that we let the whole of the ABC process settle down and let the organisation work itself out before we force this particular merger on it, because there is no doubt that the problems facing the ABC are widespread and very deep seated. I know that in the newspapers at the moment there is the continuing controversy about the future of the ABC orchestras around the country. What exactly will happen to the ABC orchestras? Does the Minister know? We know that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has been meeting the State Ministers for the arts for about 12 months to determine what will happen. We know that at this stage there is all sorts of talk about hiving off various operations of the orchestras, in terms of bookings and promotion, to private organisations. That is probably not a bad thing anyway. But we do not know whether there will be any sort of privatisation of the ABC orchestras. I doubt very much whether that would happen-I certainly hope that it would not-because basically that would mean that ABC orchestras would be left in only Sydney and Melbourne. We must find out from the Minister exactly what is happening in that area, because already people in the ABC concerts departments have lost their jobs or have left. This is just another typical example of the turmoil that is facing the ABC at the moment. Mr David Hill, who has recently taken on the ABC, has a huge job in trying to sort out the mess that is the ABC. I am not going to stand here and denigrate the ABC. I hope that we will be reasonably constructive because I think that one of the very real difficulties with the ABC is that over the years, like Topsy, it just `growed'. There has never really been the sort of management structure in the ABC that can give it any sort of positive direction, that can introduce proper managerial techniques to put it on the right track and ensure that we get efficiency for the ABC dollar. If Mr Hill does nothing more than put the ABC on the right track, well good luck to him and I am sure that the whole of Australia will congratulate him. The ABC has the potential to be the greatest broadcasting organisation in the world. There is no doubt about that. Much of the program that the ABC transmits is fine material indeed. But when one looks at $480m as the annual budget for that organisation, one realises that we as taxpayers must ask whether we are getting full value for money. It is a lot of money. If we think that ABC techniques which are presently employed will not extend into the SBS networks, then we have another think coming. That is the aspect that worries me. While the SBS is a lean, efficient organisation providing a tremendous alternative service, we do not want to pollute it at this stage with the difficulties that are embracing the ABC. In the interests of efficiency and the future of the tremendous job that the SBS has been doing and its future growth, I suggest that we should let things settle down now. We should let the SBS go on as a continuing entity until such time as we get on top of the ABC managerial difficulties, until such time as we have a settlement of all the internal problems that are afflicting the national broadcaster. Then we might be able to look at a situation in which the SBS can most sensibly go into that ABC operation. There is concern in the ethnic communities right throughout Australia about what is presently happening. We should never forget that 40 per cent of the population of Australia either were born overseas or have at least one parent who was born overseas. We should never forget either that 25 per cent of the population of Australia have ethnic roots in non-Anglo-Celtic countries. That is the real basis of what the SBS is all about in enhancing that multicultural community that we have in Australia. Rather than restrict the future of the SBS, as may happen under the Government's plans as indicated by the honourable member for Isaacs I believe that it would be a relatively simple operation to expand the SBS. The question that I would like to ask the Minister is: Why are SBS signals encoded outside the metropolitan area? Why should it happen? Is it because there are certain commercial television operators who are scared that the variety and quality of the programs being transmitted by the SBS will provide greater competition with those commercial networks? That is one question that we want answered. What is the technical reason for the encoding of those signals? I cannot see any. In fact, there would be a very great capacity to spread the whole SBS signal around Australia. There is another point as well: Even though we tend to think that the ethnic communities of Australia congregate in capital cities, there are other areas of Australia that have very big ethnic populations and for relatively cheap outlays we could extend that SBS signal extensively. My request to the Government is: Think again. Do not ruin the future of SBS while the ABC is in turmoil. Let us try to get the ABC right before we look at that sort of amalgamation and then we will really have a capacity to expand the SBS and let it reach its full potential. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.47) —In speaking on the ABC/SBS Amalgamation Bill 1986, I take the opportunity to express my misgivings about the legislation. I have listened carefully to the Government's view that the amalgamation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service is necessary because Australia can no longer afford to support two separately funded government national broadcasting networks. I must admit that I had concerns that funding problems might inhibit the future growth of SBS. However, one problem as I see it is that nowhere in the amended Bill is there any real guarantee that the ABC will, as the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) stressed in his second reading speech, maintain and enhance the existing multicultural programs. It is true that in Part II of the Bill amendments are included in clause 4, which sets out the functions of the Corporation, to include multicultural broadcasting and television programs. The trouble is that the broadcasting and television needs of Australians from non-English speaking backgrounds are dependent upon the opinions and understandings of the multicultural character of the Australian community held by the members of the Board of the Corporation. In consequence, it is understandable that the leaders of the ethnic communities are unhappy about the amalgamation because they have no faith in a Corporation which, in the past, showed itself to be so unsympathetic to Australians from non-English speaking backgrounds that it was found necessary to create the SBS to meet the broadcasting and television service needs of ethnic communities. I am pleased to see that clause 5 of the Bill provides for amendments in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council to include persons from non-English speaking backgrounds, and time alone will tell whether the councils-whether they be national, state, Territory or regional-will have sufficient clout to ensure that the Corporation does indeed uphold its obligations to the ethnic communities of Australia. Clause 6 of the Bill amends the structure of the Board of the Corporation, and it is in relation to the appointment of the new Board that I wish to address the remainder of my remarks on the legislation. The Minister has pointed out that increasing the number of Board members from seven to 10 non-executive members, plus the managing director and the staff-elected director, strengthens the Board to enable it to carry out its wider responsibilities in relation to ethnic broadcasting. He has also indicated that, as the new Board will operate from 1 January 1987, the appointments of all the existing non-executive directors will cease and new appointments will be necessary from 1 January 1987. In amalgamating the ABC and the SBS, the Government will of course need to ensure that the staffs of the two organisations are given the opportunity to take part in the elections of the staff-elected director at the earliest practicable opportunity. The present holder of the office is Tom Molomby, who has performed exemplary work, in my view, in his capacity as staff-elected director and who is in his second term of office-a two-year term which is due to expire on 15 December 1987. It is also important to note that staff-elected directors are not allowed to hold office for more than two terms, which, I understand, was at the express wish of staff members when the position was created. The Bill accordingly provides in clause 29 (3): The Board shall, as soon as practicable after the amalgamation day, cause elections of a person as the staff-elected Director and of a person as a deputy of the staff-elected Director to be held and, if those elections are held before regulations are made for the purposes of sections 13a and 13b of the ABC Act, those elections shall be held in such manner as is approved by the Board. I should mention at this point that I have taken a particular interest in the position of staff-elected directors in all organisations, as I believe it is an essential first step in the process of workers' decision-making which is so important for industrial democracy, of which I am a strong supporter. Also from a practical point of view, as a staff-elected Council member of the University of Melbourne from 1978 to 1980 before I became a member of this House, I am aware of the vital importance of staff being properly represented on the governing bodies of the organisations in which they work. In this respect it caused me great concern to find that the ABC Staff Association is most unhappy with the proposed election processes for the new staff-elected director, as indicated to me in a letter from the Federal President, John Cleary. I and other members of the House have over the past few days lodged in the House petitions containing more than 1,200 signatures from the staff of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service, and more are arriving day by day. The petition reads as follows: The proposed legislation to amalgamate the ABC and the SBS, together with certain existing provisions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (as amended), would have the effect of removing the present Staff Elected Director of the ABC from office before the end of his elected term, and of barring him from standing for re-election. This offends basic democratic principle. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Government will remedy this situation by either, continuing the current Staff Elected Director in office until the normal expiration of his term on 15 December 1987 or, making such amendments as are necessary to the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Act 1986, to enable the current Staff Elected Director to contest an early election after amalgamation, whilst preventing him from seeking a further term immediately following the one for which the early election is held. In addition to the requests from the staff, the Chairman, David Hill, soon to become the Managing Director of the Corporation, also expressed his concern. In a letter dated 14 October 1986 addressed to the Minister for Communications in which he outlined the problem he ended as follows: I believe that it is essential to avoid the unanticipated result that Mr Molomby's term is both cut short and that he is excluded from contesting the early election, and I seek your support for legislation that will prevent this. Because of the short time remaining before legislation must be introduced, I have also arranged for a copy of this letter to be tabled at the 15 October meeting of the Steering Committee. As I mentioned previously in my speech, I appreciate that the Government had two important considerations to take into account in framing the legislation in relation to the staff-elected director. First, it was necessary to take into account the initially expressed view of the ABC staff that the staff-elected director not hold office for longer than two consecutive two-year terms. Second was the need for the SBS staff to have the earliest opportunity to participate in determining who the staff-elected director should be. Unfortunately in framing the legislation the Government has alienated an important section of the staff. I accept the Minister's personal assurance that there was no intention of alienating the staff, but the plain fact is that it has occurred and the petitions are an eloquent testimony. My examination of sub-clause 3 of clause 29 of the Bill has led me to the view that there is one particular part of the clause which would engender suspicion on the part of the staff. The part of the sub-clause I am referring to reads: . . . and, if those elections are held before regulations are made for the purposes of section 13a and 13b of the ABC Act, those elections shall be held in such manner as is approved by the Board. It would appear to me that, if I were an ABC staff member, reading that phrase would lead me to believe that the intention of the Government was to encourage the Board to initiate the election with undue haste before the necessary regulations have been compiled. The Minister has assured me that the Government has no intention of attempting to cut short Tom Molomby's term of office in a hasty manner. It is the view of the Government, as expressed to me, that when all the necessary election formalities are concluded and the newly-elected director is able to take office it will for all practical purposes be very close to 15 December 1987, which is the date of expiry of Mr Molomby's term of office. I had hoped to persuade the Minister to delete from the sub-clause the phrase which would circumvent the regulations, but unfortunately I was not able to persuade him or sufficient of my colleagues to provide an amendment to the legislation. One has to look at the numbers. My main purpose in bringing this matter before the House today is to seek an assurance from the Minister, and hopefully to signal to the new Board, that there is no wish on the part of the Government that Mr Molomby's term of office as the staff-elected director be deliberately cut short. I should perhaps add that the circulation of the petition signed by the 1,200 staff members, and more, was authorised by a number of well-known radio and television personalities known to ABC listeners and viewers as people of integrity who are concerned to provide radio and television programs which meet the needs of the diverse Australian population. In addition I understand that, apart from the staff union itself, other unions such as the Australian Journalists Association, Actors and Announcers Equity Association of Australia, the Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association, the Musicians Union of Australia and the Senior Executive Association have also expressed concern over the matter. I am not quite clear regarding the position of the Australian Clerical Workers Association although I believe that it too is not happy with the situation. Bearing in mind the circumstances which I have outlined, I hope that the Minister can give the assurance I am seeking, as I believe that there is a strong chance that a few reassuring words from him could allay the suspicions of the staff members concerned and would help to smooth the path towards an amalgamation which, for the sake of all the ethnic communities concerned, should not begin on a sour note. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(4.56) —I think that all members of this chamber and their ancestors could say that we are all from ethnic origins. Therefore, we are certainly interested in the progress that has been made with respect to the Special Broadcasting Service. It is of particular interest to note the legislation before the House and to see that the Government intends to combine the SBS with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. My reason for speaking today is to join with the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) in what he said with regard to the ability of the ABC to engage itself in and address itself to its added role. I can recall reading for years now almost week by week about the problems being determined with the ABC Board, within the administration, and also within the staff, and it is only normal that one should question the ability of the ABC to look after its expanded role. I represent a country electorate in which many ethnic people reside. The other day I opened the centenary celebrations of a German family where people of German origin from Newcastle were dancing and entertaining us. It made us appreciate that many people in this country have a realisation of their birth place and want to keep the culture and the ways they were taught in those early days. It is always interesting to look at the development of people within any country. It takes some years before people of ethnic origin are able to assimilate properly into the way of life we have in Australia. We term it multiculturalism, and it is, but we often see families in which the parents came directly from Europe or Asia. The children are reared basically on the culture of the two parents, but in the next generation there is a change and they become more accustomed to our Australian way of life. So I think we have to be a tolerant population. We as a parliament have to be very tolerant and accept that there is a period before a person becomes-I will not say a `true' Australian, because that is the wrong word-an assimilated Australian, accustomed to our way of life, to the Constitution, to the way we live under the Crown and to every other aspect of our Australian way of life. I believe, with the knowledge I have of the Special Broadcasting Service, that it has done a particularly good job. Before we criticise it in any way or attempt to change its modes, we should look at the reasons why it was formed. It was formed to provide an outlet and a form of education, a form of information generally, for the ethnic people in Australia which would allow them to know more about Australia and what is happening in the native lands they have left. It has fulfilled a very purposeful role so far as we are concerned. Like the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) I have no great objection to the amalgamation of the SBS with the ABC in time. That is the important fact-in time. I ask the Government whether now is the opportune time, after all the problems we have seen within the ABC, to thrust upon the ABC this greater responsibility which will be given to it. I do not know whether there will be a saving in funds. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has said that there will be, otherwise he would not have brought the matter before Cabinet. Mr Duffy —We will. Mr COWAN —The Minister signifies that there will be. From past experience, we do not know exactly whether there will be a saving of funds until we see things in reality and until we see the operation of the new system of the ABC. I would love to see a greater consolidation of the new role of the ABC, covering its present responsibilities, before we give it the greater responsibility we are about to. We do not want to see any reduction in the service that is available to ethnic people now. Let me say a little about the service which is available. It is a service of education, so far as ethnic people are concerned, as they are able to understand the language, they are able to find out some information about the countries they have left and news of what is happening there, and so they are able to know what is happening to the relations that they have left behind. I believe that more English language programs should be available, particularly programs about the Australian way of life. More programs should be shown about agriculture, the mining industry, commerce and industry generally, schooling, and what goes on in the very large cities compared with the life we lead in the country districts of Australia. More programs should be shown about the north of Australia, our desert country and marginal country. It is important that we get this message across to the ethnic people about or ancestors who founded the Riverina, the Cowper area and other areas of Australia-the people who went out and pioneered and settled those areas. Our country needs more settlers and pioneers of the calibre of the people who bred us. None of us can criticise the qualities of the great majority of migrants who have come to Australia. I do not care where they come from-they come here eager to work and to participate in the way of life that our forefathers have won for us. That is the foundation of things I want to say about this. I do not want to see destroyed a system which is providing education and information for the betterment of those people who are listening to ethnic radio. The network is a good one, but it does not cover the whole width and breadth of Australia. I suppose that the ABC would hope to do that, but from what the honourable member for Goldstein said there is doubt about whether this can be done, even in the foreseeable future. I am anxious that ethnic radio should be expanded so that migrants can tell their relations and friends who will come here of the great values and safeguards that we have under the Australian Constitution. People have come here from countries where they have had personal threats against their way of life. They want to come to Australia and we want to welcome them here, but we want to be able to give them the information to take them along that long road before they become the same as we are in our English speaking way. These matters are very important. I am sure that the Government and the Minister-he is a sensible man-realise that this legislation will integrate the SBS with the ABC, an organisation which is in doubt. It is in doubt because of its administration. A previous speaker spoke about electing staff to the new board and the method of election. I am doubtful whether the staff should have a representative on the new board of the ABC. The Minister may be creating a precedent with this, but I will say something about that in the television debate. I know of State organisations where a government has given the staff one, two or three representatives upon a committee of 12 or 15 and all they do is fight amongst themselves. The staff of the ABC are doing it now. A Government member said that he wants certain undertakings from the Minister about the election of a representative of the staff to the ABC board. This should not be the case. The staff are divided because of political reasons, which will divide the board of the ABC. It has just happened-I am sure it has. It has been mentioned by the media that the staff of the ABC are divided. The Minister does not want that, I do not want that, the Government does not want that and the Australian people do not want that. Sir Nicholas Shehadie was the Chairman of the SBS-a tremendous man. I hope that the rumours are correct, because he is a man of ethnic origin. Mr Duffy —They are. Mr COWAN —The Minister assures me they are correct. I am delighted because Sir Nicholas Shehadie is a great sportsman and a great Australian and I know that he will contribute to the board of the ABC. If the Minister keeps the appointments up to that calibre, there will be no trouble with the future of the ABC because we will have people of ability who will be able to handle the ABC and the board will not be divided. To sum up, I want to say something about my concern as to the ABC being able to absorb the SBS and to do it the duty to which it is entitled after the way it has been built up over the years and the excellent service it has given to assist the ethnic people of Australia. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(5.08) —I rise to support the ABC/SBS Amalgamation Bill. I have supported the amalgamation of the Special Broadcasting Service and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for some time, even before the Budget decision. It is an absolutely rational situation to introduce. Whilst there may have been-I think there probably was-a justification for the creation of an independent organisation to begin multicultural radio and television programs, that justification has long since disappeared. We have heard honourable members saying in the House that there should be an amalgamation, but not now. Frankly, I think that is just an excuse. The Opposition spokesperson, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), said we should not do it now, but some time in the future perhaps. All that does is leave the matter in doubt. How can anybody plan on what the Opposition would do? Why would people invest millions and millions of dollars in capital works and the purchase of expensive equipment on the basis that maybe at some time in the future there would be a united organisation and therefore all the additional facilities that have been created would not be needed? It is quite clear that we are at a stage where amalgamation is absolutely justified and ought to happen, as we are proposing. SBS television reaches virtually all the capital cities except Darwin and does not reach most of rural Australia. With this proposition there will be, for the first time, an opportunity for people in the country to see some of the better programs because the amalgamated organisation will have flexibility of greater program variety. Within its charter it also has a much more strengthened requirement to ensure that it recognises multiculturalism in our society and provides programs to achieve that. I do not see any reason why we would not have some of the better programs on the ABC, which would replace some of the not so good programs that are shown on the ABC at the moment. It provides that sort of flexibility. We have a look to what we want when we start talking about having multiculturalism in our broadcasting programs. Do we simply want to achieve a situation where we have a television station in every capital city and in every rural area so that people can watch foreign programs? Is that what we want to achieve? Do we want to achieve this so that we can see the cultures of other countries? Is it a fact that we are trying to raise in everybody's mind that our society is more than simply a white Anglo-Saxon society-that it is a society which has many people from different countries who have given us a diverse culture? We want to portray that on our normal television programs. But, first of all, we have to raise people's consciousness about what our society consists of and what it is watching on television generally. I think the SBS has achieved that in its first few years. People are quite aware now that there is a difference in our society as compared with other societies. There is a need to reflect multiculturalism right through our programs on television. Having done that, I think we have to be careful that we do not create a second rate station which continues to show programs from overseas and does not take the next step towards really developing a multicultural television industry. I think the amalgamation will achieve what we want to achieve; that is, it will open up the whole of the national ABC television system to allow proper multicultural programming throughout Australia. It will ensure that the money that is saved by the fact that we will not duplicate facilities in the long term will be able to be used for the development of programming. The ABC is now required to put greater emphasis on the multicultural side of affairs. That will mean that, within the new programs that will be developed, the ABC will be putting emphasis on multiculturalism in Australia. I think there is a lot going for it. Some questions have been raised about whether we would have any savings at all. I do not think one has to be a Rhodes scholar to be able to sit down and look at what is happening and see the long term costs that will be saved. It is quite clear that we should save in the rationalisation of leased properties throughout Australia. I know in Melbourne SBS leases expensive office buildings in St Kilda Road. I know the ABC is leasing property in the city. When the new television facilities are built for the ABC they will be able to be used by both organisations. This will save the duplication that would have occurred. Television facilities are not provided cheaply and many millions of dollars will be saved. The purchase of equipment for television production will also be saved. It is clear that the rationalisation of administration by having only one administration instead of two will also mean savings in the long term. We have recognised that there will not be any great instant savings-that is why in the first year the savings are very small-but in the long term it is essential that the amalgamation take place so that greater benefits can be achieved over a period of years. People have already expressed their view on the size of the ABC and SBS budgets. It is quite clear that no country can afford to fund in the order of $900m to $1 billion for public broadcasting. If we really want to achieve SBS on a national basis, the same as the ABC, that would be the cost we would be looking at. That is because it would have to duplicate all its television facilities, its links to regional areas, transmitters, translators-the whole range of facilities. It would have to extend the radio service which currently goes only to Melbourne and Sydney. To ensure that the ethnic groups in each of the States had representation, it would have to duplicate the community groups that provide programming and servicing for the radio stations. As previous speakers from this side of the chamber have already indicated, virtually no countries actually provide free public broadcasting fully funded from the Budget. Broadcasting in England is paid for by licences issued to people who have televisions. But nowhere in the world are two public television networks being funded totally out of the Budget. Any rational person would realise that we will not get the funds we need. Already members of the community are saying: `Are we getting value for money out of that ABC?'. They are not going to sit back and say: `We don't mind you spending more money so that we can have two public broadcasters both providing programs, one for multiculturalism and the other for the community at large'. It is quite obvious that Budget restraints that would be applied in the future would mean that we would really not get what we want to achieve. We would not have either organisation working effectively. If these organisations remain separate, they will have to duplicate facilities and will have to draw from their budgets for new equipment and expansion. This would mean that amalgamation certainly would not occur. I think that amalgamation is basically the only rational thing that can take place. We have to look at the stand of members of the Opposition on the issue because they are obviously very opportunistic. They have seen that there has been some unrest in the ethnic community and some concern about amalgamation. They believe that simply saying `We will oppose the amalgamation now', will put the ethnic communities on side and that they will all rush across and support the Opposition parties. What they fail to realise is that the members of the ethnic community are much more intelligent than that. They are not so silly as to believe that just because the Opposition is going to reject it now it is not going to amalgamate in the future. Those opposite have given no hint about what they would do or whether they would even maintain these organisations in the future. They have said simply that the merger would be on some time in the future. There are no guarantees. Members of the ethnic community have far greater concerns than simply about what is happening on television and radio. They are concerned because they see programs are provided which help them to keep in touch. They are also worried about Australia as a community, the economy and taxes, and all those issues. They will make up their minds about whether they will vote for us on our policies. They will still support us on our policies because they have seen the policies of those opposite in aciton and they know what those opposite are like. They will not vote for the Opposition anyway, whether or not it rejects this amalgamation. The reality is that they have seen through the Opposition's fraudulent stand on this anyway. As has been said in the Il Globo newspaper and other newspapers in Melbourne, it is just a fraud and a farce. The Opposition will amalgamate the ABC and the SBS in the future, yet it is not prepared to stand up now and accept it. It is not even prepared to stand up and argue for what might be perceived as better conditions. The Opposition spokesperson, the honourable member for Goldstein made two comments which I would like to address. The first was his reference to the Managing Director of the ABC. He said that the new Managing Director had been appointed by unfortunate means. I really must take him to task because the Managing Director was appointed in the same manner as every other managing director. He was appointed by the Board, which considered the people available and decided that Mr Hill was the person with the capacity to bring about this amalgamation, to put the ABC back on a strong footing and to take it into the 1990s and the year 2000. That is what the Board perceived and it has appointed Mr Hill. The inference of the honourable member for Goldstein was that there was some collusion by this Government and that we made some effort to have him appointed. That is not correct and it is being denied by all sources and all people involved. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has denied that and so has the Board. The Board made its decision by itself. I think the other comment that the honour- able member for Goldstein made, which referred to ethnic radio, highlighted how out of touch the Opposition is with the ethnic communities. The honourable member for Goldstein said that the radio stations 2EA and 3EA should provide more multicultural programs rather than the present multilingual service. If he had been in touch with the ethnic communities or knew of their concerns in relation to ethnic radio he would know what they want-to leave it exactly the way it is. They do not want it touched by anybody. We have given an undertaking that that is how it will operate. The Board and the new Managing Director have made it clear that they see ethnic radio operating in exactly the same way as it is now. That has allayed the greatest fear that existed during the campaign that was taking place within the ethnic communities. So there is no question that the Opposition is totally out of touch. It has missed the point that the ethnic communities were raising and it has been seen instantly by the ethnic communities for what it is-absolutely opportunistic and with no policies of its own. I would like to make some comments about Mr Molomby. There has been a bit of a campaign by union staff who, quite rightly, are concerned about the fact that their appointee may have his term cut short. The reality is that it would be wrong for us to have a specific part in the legislation which would virtually be a Molomby clause which would give him special conditions. When we look at the reality of what is going to happen in terms of the election of a new union representative on the Board we see that it is extremely likely that Mr Molomby will go for his whole period. There is a requirement for legislative processes to be introduced. The Board has to draw up the regulations. There will be a requirement for people to determine absolutely who is eligible to be nominated and who is eligible to participate in the election. There will be a need to organise with the Australian Electoral Commission, which will run the election. There is also a need to consider that, with an amalgamated organisation where we will have some 700 full time and maybe some 300 part time staff from the SBS coming to an organisation where there are 6,000 staff, where we will have restructuring within the organisation and people working in different divisions, the ABC Board will have to take into account that there will be a need for a settling down period so that people can find out exactly how they are operating within the new structure, can get to know who are likely candidates, and can get to know other people with whom they have not actually had any great involvement. All those things will need to occur and there will have to be a settling down period within the new organisation. It would be very wrong to run instantly to an election when people have just been drawn together. Of course, the other thing that will complicate the matter even further is that there is a possibility that unions, which currently have some coverage of staff within the SBS, may find themselves being excluded by the fact that the SBS is going in under new ABC legislation. They may wish to challenge the continuity of employment of the people they currently cover. If that occurs it means that there will be a delay whilst that challenge is taken up. In the past the Board has always consulted with the relevant unions in the ABC and I think it would want to maintain that relationship. So it would not want to exclude a union from the negotiations if ultimately that union has the right of coverage. I believe that all those things will mean that Mr Molomby will probably go to what would have been his full term anyway. If it is cut short, it will only be marginally short in reality. Mr Milton —Just a few weeks. Mr SAUNDERSON —Just a few weeks, if anything. In conclusion, I support the legislation. I think this is probably the best thing that could happen to our public broadcasting. I have no fears that the ABC will simply swallow the SBS, use it resources and not maintain the multicultural programs that it has developed. I am sure that we will see a better organisation overall, one with much more flexibility in its programming capacity. I think we will be seeing a greater viewing audience going to the new organisation as it develops and provides better programs for the whole of Australia and the multicultural society that we live in. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.27) —I want to read a quote which may interest honourable members: If the SBS were amalgamated with the ABC it would be lost. It would be like pouring a bottle of good wine into the Yarra. I imagine that one bottle of good wine might not improve it very much. That comment was made by Al Grassby, a former Labor Minister. I picked that up because, surprisingly, I thought that the Australian Labor Party would have relished Al Grassby going around the electorate in one form or another drumming up support for it. I would not have agreed with Al Grassby on everything but, on this matter, he has put a view which I think fairly represents the view of a large number of people who have settled in Australia, who were not necessarily born in Australia, who have a concern, not that they want to change Australia but that they are acknowledged, in a liberal and tolerant community, as having a real place and a contribution to make in which their background is as much respected as the background of those who have lived here for a lot longer or who were born in this country. In essence, that embodies the concept of multiculturalism which we, on this side of the Parliament, see as so important. The honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson), who preceded me in this debate, demonstrated by his remarks the very real concern that is evident in the community about a large number of decisions taken by this Government which will impact very adversely upon migrant communities generally within Australia and those people who see the concept of multiculturalism as being important for maintaining our society's growth and its unique identity in which we are all truly Australians. I think it needs to be said over and over again that Australia is not a European enclave living in Asia. In fact, it is a dynamic nation of people who have settled from all parts of the world, all of whom have brought to Australia different aspects of their way of life, which has enabled us to obtain considerable benefits and has given us our unique Australian character. Any of us who travel abroad are able to say quite truthfully and genuinely that we are not British, we are not Irish, we are not European, we are not American; we are Australian first and foremost. That Australian character has been developed because of the wide background of the people who have settled in this nation. It is that tolerance, the way in which we are able to pay respect to whatever background people come from and the extent to which we are able to give people the opportunity to share with the wider community aspects of their culture that this unique Australian character has developed. I find quite unbecoming comments such as that from the honourable member for Aston, who said that we are opportunistic in opposing this legislation. Certainly, it is a reflection on members from this side of the Parliament who over a long period have held consistent views strongly supportive of multiculturalism and the special role of the SBS. I have quoted in debates in this Parliament before, and I would like to quote again, some of the comments of the Fraser Government about multiculturalism which embodied a long term commitment from the parties on this side of the House. I quote from a statement that I have previously quoted in this regard: Australian society and culture has already been enriched by artistic, intellectual, lingual, culinary and other contributions of migrant cultures. The development of a multicultural society involves the recognition of the rights of ethnic groups to maintain and foster their ethnic languages and cultures, and requires efforts on the part of all Australians to adopt a multicultural perspective and to promote social harmony in cultural interaction. It is that tolerance about which I have spoken which has been embodied in statements made by the former Government and by members on this side of the House over a long period. It does the Government no good service by trying to excuse its performance in this area by suggesting that our approach is in some way couched in opportunism. In fact, if one goes over the statements on the record by different spokesmen for the Opposition before the last election, one finds that the position that we have taken is a totally consistent one. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), in the time available to him, managed to put on the record a large number of those sorts of statements. I want to add another. It is a statement that was made by the former spokesman for the Opposition on communications, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). He was speaking on behalf of the Opposition to a number of people interested in the whole issue of ethnic broadcasting. He said: I thank you for your invitation to be present here today and for the opportunity to discuss with you the Oppositions' policy on ethnic broadcasting. . . . . I can state quite unequivocably that the Opposition totally supports multicultural broadcasting and in government would maintain and encourage ethnic broadcasting and the Opposition policy is as follows: The value of the SBS is now recognised and the coalition parties will retain it as the primary source of multi-cultural television and radio programs. We will- 1. Provide an appropriate legislative structure for the SBS. 2. Extend the SBS to additional capital and other major metropolitan cities: 3. Investigate extending multicultural radio and TV programs to regional and rural areas by using the domestic satellites. 4. Consider the recommendations of the Review Committee when it reports in the near future. I will come to that issue in a moment. He stated further: As we are all now aware that since the drawing up of the Opposition's policy statement the Review Committee has submitted its recommendations to the Government and one can only assume that they are being considered. The Opposition, in turn, is examining these recommendations with a view to developing and expanding its policy in relation to multicultural broadcasting. He went on to say: . . . I fully support the establishment of a new independent statutory body to replace the present SBS under its own Act of Parliament along the lines and with the powers as envisaged in the recommendations. He further stated: . . . one should also emphasise at this point that the Labor Party when in opposition was constantly critical of the SBS. That is the situation as put by our former spokesman when we first went into opposition and when the whole issue of the future of SBS was being considered in the context of a review established by the Government to look at the Special Broadcasting Service. The Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service, chaired by His Honour Mr Justice Xavier Connor and with Clare Dunne and Walter Lippmann serving with him, brought down a report entitled `Serving Multicultural Australia: The Role of Broadcasting'. That document was given to the Minister on 31 December 1984 and subsequently published. That document considered the whole issue of whether there was any basis upon which one could reasonably proceed to look at amalgamating the ABC and the SBS with a view to serving multiculturalism in a better way and, of course, in the context of the Government's budgetary difficulties. That review made it very clear that in the view of the reviewers it was not appropriate to amalgamate the ABC and the SBS at that time. The reviewers stated that it was a matter that might be looked at at a later point in time. I think they fixed 1990 as a point in time at which we might look at the whole question of whether the ABC and the SBS were two organisations that could be reasonably merged and whether the objective of serving multiculturalism could be reasonably maintained. Certainly, Justice Xavier Connor approached this question with an open mind. I have talked to him about it. He came to a genuine view, after hearing all of the evidence and surveying all of the available material. It is not a view that I would impugn in any way. It was a considered view and one worthy of respect. The Government had that information before it and had further initiated an inquiry into the issue of multicultural programs and services generally. Only a matter of weeks ago it tabled in the Parliament a report of the Committee for Stage I of the Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs and Services dated August 1986 and entitled `Don't Settle for Less'. That inquiry was also headed by a very distinguished Australian, James Jupp, and the Committee also included Concetta Benn, Steve Karas and Nina Skoroszewska. That report also considered the whole issue of the media, the ABC and the SBS. The Government did not receive any comfort from that report in terms of the implementation of this decision taken in the Budget to amalgamate the ABC and the SBS. The Government had the report before it at that time. It is pertinent to look at what the reviewers in that instance had to say. They stated: The Federal Government funds both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), both of which are independent statutory authorities. As a result of the view of both in the past five years the Government decided earlier this year that: The SBS will be upgraded to corporation status; both the ABC and the SBS will continue as independent national broadcasters; they will be required by legislation to co-operate in the future, including sharing resources, co-ordinating program planning and exchanging personnel; each will be required by statute to report each six months to the Minister for Communications and the Parliament on the steps they have taken towards co-operation and co-ordination. That report records that the report of the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, given to the former Government, was critical of the ABC for its failure to recognise that Australia is a multicultural society. Certain instructions were given to the ABC in 1981 as a consequence of the recommendations that the Dix report brought forward. Jupp noted that the Connor report recommended an upgrading of the SBS and that it should have its own charter. It suggested also that it have expanded obligations in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The report from Mr Jupp canvassed other matters relating to extending the awareness of multicultural issues, language and cultural maintenance and the like, and of course if the Government had in mind that there was to be in the context of that report some amalgamation of the ABC and the SBS, that was a matter that could well have been canvassed at that time. That review did not contain any suggestion that amalgamation was the appropriate route to take, and it had before it many submissions which suggested that ethnic radio, particularly, had a crucial role in catering for the racial and cultural interests of people from non-English speaking backgrounds. The Jupp report said that some urged that the ABC and the SBS be more active in serving that objective. The Committee went on to say: We believe it is essential for the two national broadcasters to give priority to the promotion of better community relations through their programming. Close consultation with each other and with AIMA- another organisation abolished by this Government- . . . and other appropriate bodies at Federal, State and local level should be beneficial to both the ABC and the SBS in fulfilling their charters. There was no recommendation in that document that there be any amalgamation, and in fact the document itself was predicated on the basis that those two organisations would have a continuing role. That is the sort of advice that this Government has been receiving. It is pertinent that honourable members understand that there has been no clamour for this amalgamation to proceed; in fact, the reverse is the case. I have before me a great deal of information from a variety of organisations experienced in these matters which may have enabled the Minister to inform himself on this question. The Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia had some very strong views on this matter, and it considered the whole question in the context of the Connor report. It was violently opposed to any suggestions that there ought to be a merger of any form whatsoever, and it put that view over and over again. At the same time views were put by the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales, on which I put a great deal of weight, but of course since the Budget and the announcing of this decision the Government has had an opportunity to assess the views of a wide range of other people. One government body, the Ethnic Affairs Commission of New South Wales, made some comments about the Government's approach to ethnic affairs generally. I quote from its report, `Ethnos', of September 1986: The 1986/87 Budget marks the end of the support by the Federal Government of multicultural programs and services. The fact that initiatives such as the English as a Second Language Program and the SBSTV have been either disproportionately cut, or virtually abolished in their present form, are signs of vanishing Federal commitment to multiculturalism. We have statements also from the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales, which wrote an article entitled `Has Mr Hawke Burnt his Bridges'. Its comments provided a quite realistic assessment by ethnic communities generally of what the Government is doing. It had this to say: You are abolishing the Special Broadcasting Service. Yes-abolishing it. How else can you explain your decision to amalgamate the SBS with the ABC. A saving of $2m cannot be worth all the anger generated among its viewers. There must be another explanation. You must, in fact, be saving much more. Perhaps thirty or forty million dollars. How? By effectively killing the SBS! That is the sort of view of which Government members ought to be cognisant. It is certainly the way in which ethnic communities generally see the decisions of this Government. I make the point again, very strongly, that the Opposition is not putting this view as a result of any opportunistic approach. It is a view long held by members of the Opposition. I quoted former Prime Minister Fraser on the question of multiculturalism. The establishment of the SBS was an initiative of the Fraser Government. I quoted from the former spokesman on communications, the honourable member for Ryan, and I want to conclude by reading a statement I made when I had some responsibility in this area as Opposition spokesman for immigration and ethnic affairs. That statement, again, put on behalf on the Opposition a considered view. I issued a statement dated 27 May, in relation to the Connor report. Mr Duffy —Ha, ha! Mr RUDDOCK —Does the Minister laugh at that? Mr Duffy —No, I was not laughing at you particularly. Mr RUDDOCK —I am glad the Minister was not laughing at the concern expressed on behalf of many ethnic organisations. The statement read, in part: Mr Ruddock said he shared the concern of many ethnic organisations at reports that the Government was considering an amalgamation of the SBS network and the ABC. The Opposition does not believe that it is appropriate at this point of time for the ABC and SBS to be merged, but we do accept that at some time in the future a further review might recommend another approach. One of the Committee of Review's recommendations was that the Government should appoint a further inquiry in 1990 of both the ABC and the MBC- that was the designated title for the SBS successor- with a view to considering their integration then. That was on the record at that time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(5.47) —It is a pleasure to enter this debate on the Australian Broadcasting Commission/Special Broadcasting Service amalgamation. As an avid fan of both the ABC and the SBS I have a strong commitment to the continuance of what is original and necessary in both. I admit to having had some concerns in the beginning about the nature of the amalgamation, particularly the ability of the SBS to survive such a merger. However, having involved myself in discussions with the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and the relevant parties to the amalgamation, I am convinced that services to the migrant communities in Australia will not only be preserved but also may actually be extended to areas which do not currently have multicultural television and/or radio services. The people of Perth have only recently accessed SBS television programs and I thank the Minister for the extension of that service. I am sure the programs are very popular there, not only among members of the migrant community. However, one of the difficulties of the SBS is that it generally preaches to the converted-that is to say, many people who have no real interest in migrant issues never tune into SBS. This problem may well be overcome by the current amalgamation because people will have the opportunity of viewing SBS-type programs on a general ABC channel. The people of Darwin and other areas in Australia still do not access that SBS service and would not conceivably be able to do so for many years because of the costs associated with expanding a separate television channel. However, the amalgamation should ensure that a more multicultural emphasis is given to television and radio broadcasts by the ABC. Accordingly, some of the non-English migrant communities in outlaying areas of Australia will soon have the opportunity to hear or view programs which do not have an Anglo-Saxon bias. In fact, bearing in mind the initiative and talent evident within the staff pool of the Special Broadcasting Service, the ABC will have to look to its laurels and change its entrenched attitudes on a great number of fronts in the future to keep up with the SBS. I have nothing but praise for the personnel of the Special Broadcasting Service. Like many other Australians I was fascinated by the ABC's screening of the SBS production `Women of the Sun', which was-as some honourable members would be aware-about Aboriginal women in Australia and the impact of white settlement on Aboriginal Australians. To my mind, the amalgamation simply means that more of these sorts of co-operative arrangements may occur in the future. Since we have had SBS transmission in Perth, my children have been regular viewers of its excellent teenage features, such as the Game of Life, which deals with the thorny question of drug abuse and other social problems confronting young people in Australia. This is the type of program that I would like to see the ABC picking up and carrying through. Also, like many other families, my family regularly watches the SBS news service and Vox Populi. Nobody can doubt the multicultural nature of Australia. We enjoy a rich, cosmopolitan lifestyle as a result of the contribution made to this country by people from all over the world. Our nation is all the stronger for this diversity. The Government recognises the debt which every Australian owes to every new settler who decides to stay and contribute his or her efforts to the development of this country. None of this discussion precludes the contribution of the Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Irish community now and in times past, does it, Minister? Mr Duffy —No. Ms JAKOBSEN —However, its communication, information and entertainment needs have been well and truly met by the existence of the ABC and the commercial television and radio networks. The Special Broadcasting Service has existed to redress the balance of broadcasting to take account of the requirements of the non-English speaking, non-English origin migrant community. It has done this well. This does not mean, however, that the service provided to date cannot be continued under the proposed amalgamation. On the contrary, I believe that funding for multicultural broadcasting will be much more secure under this new arrangement. No longer will the future of SBS be threatened by the Damocles sword of funding cuts. Its essence will be unassailable under the auspices of the ABC. Furthermore, I am sure that the alleged arrogance and ethnocentricity of some ABC programmers will not be permitted to dampen the ardour and the enthusiastic talent which many SBS staff members have traditionally brought to migrant broadcasting operations. A revised ABC charter is to be inserted into the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act. The new charter will expand the functions and powers of the ABC to reflect the multicultural and multilingual broadcasting responsibilities which the Corporation will have, following the amalgamation with the SBS. The revised charter makes it a function of the ABC to provide radio and television programs that contribute to the development of a multicultural society based on mutual understanding. In providing radio and television services, the ABC is to be required, under its new charter, to take account of the need to encourage and facilitate participation by persons whose first language is not English; the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities and persons of diverse cultural backgrounds; and the needs of persons from non-English speaking backgrounds, particularly in facilitating the learning of English. In short, the ABC will be revitalised by this amalgamation. The service currently provided by the SBS will continue. Generally, Australians will benefit from this change, and a new understanding and tolerance may well result in the longer term. The new ABC board will not be dominated by traditional ABC directors. On the contrary, the maximum number of non-executive directors on the new board is to be increased from seven to 10, and a significant number of these will be people from non-English speaking backgrounds. Many people on this side of the House have expressed concerns about the ability of the ABC to accommodate the diversity which is a hallmark of the SBS. That concern is a further guarantee that no dilution or diminution of the service to migrant communities will be countenanced. We are committed to a successful amalgamation and a continuance of a migrant broadcasting service of merit and significance. Furthermore, the Bill requires the ABC to include in its annual report particulars of multilingual and multicultural programming. This requirement will allow interested groups to monitor its performance in relation to its widened responsibilities. Certainly it is not my view that the screening of a foreign soccer game, noteworthy though that might be to some, should equate a commitment to multilingual or multicultural broadcasting. I am sure that will not be the result of the amalgamation with the ABC. To date, the ABC has had an excuse for not providing multicultural broadcasting services, and that is that the SBS has been in existence. I am sure this amalgamation will overcome that problem and that the ABC will now take its responsibilities more seriously. While I sympathise with the comment of some on the other side of the House concerning the technical demise of the SBS, I cannot agree that there is a danger that it will be swallowed up by the ABC. To believe this is to ignore the ability of the ethnic communities to provide their communication needs through a poorly funded broadcasting service in the first place. It is also to ignore the vibrancy, commitment and diversity of the current SBS personnel. These qualities are our guarantee that the ABC will not subsume the operations of the SBS without a ripple; so also are the changes to the ABC's charter, which I mentioned earlier. Rather, we, as inhabitants of a truly multicultural country, can look forward to a stronger and more efficient national broadcaster with the charter and the capacity to provide a broad range of programs for all of the many groups which comprise our population. I am confident that the Minister has had the interests of the migrant communities at heart during all negotiations on the amalgamation. I am also absolutely confident of this Federal Government's commitment to the recognition and advancement of multiculturalism in Australia. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.57) —I quote: The ABC is not ready for the merger, and there is certainly strong across-the-board opposition to it. They are not the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), not the words of the shadow Minister for Communications, not the words of the president of an ethnic communities council somewhere in Australia, but the words of one of the Government's members, Senator Childs, quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald of 4 September. Senator Childs has put his finger on the reason that this amalgamation should not take place, and he has been supported by so many Government members who have now gone quiet under the force of numbers within the Government. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), who is at the table, has launched a series of attacks on the Special Broadcasting Service over a long period. If one looks at the report of the Connor Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service, the report of the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and comments of the Minister in regard to the establishment of a corporation for multicultural broadcasting, one would have to conclude that he has at last succeeded in convincing his own Party to ditch the SBS. The Connor report is a Price Waterhouse report examining the financial aspects of the operation of such a proposed amalgamation. In the recommendations Price Waterhouse says: The consultants believe that an immediate merger of the ABC and the SBS would be administratively difficult, requiring short term legislative solutions and producing only limited benefits. It would be difficult for the ABC to effectively absorb the SBS at this stage. That is a report of a very competent financial group which independently assessed the processes that the Government has now undertaken. Those processes will not be successful, and financial advisers have advised the Government against embarking on the course of action which it has decided to take. Further, in regard to the amalgamation, the Connor report states: We recommend that the Government should appoint a further inquiry in 1990 of both the ABC and the MBC with a view to considering their integration. In the meantime both organisations should be encouraged to work towards the aim of a single national broadcasting authority. That is a process of moderation and careful planning, one that the Government has chosen to ignore. I think the Government has taken this course at its own peril because, in the same time frame in which this decision was made, it launched an attack against the migrant communities of Australia in very many significant areas. That is a tragedy because it has been grossly misunderstood by the community. The Government's stated good intentions cannot counter the fact that there has been a series of decisions which have set a group of Australians in a high state of concern and agitation over what the Government claimed at one stage was an economic decision. The Minister's own thought processes followed a most curious train. Firstly, the Minister, on behalf of the Government, thought that he would amalgamate. He was unsuccessful due to pressure. Then he decided earlier this year to move SBS on to the ultra high frequency band, making it the only significant station to go on to UHF. We then found that it was not the Government's intention to move any other broadcasters to that wave length for another three years. The Minister selected this organisation alone to move to a less popular band, as a result of which people have to make modifications to their receivers in order to gain reception. What has been the result? It has been the reduction by roughly half of the viewing audience overnight. I think that is an indication of the way in which the Minister has sought to deal with SBS. Within three weeks of the Minister's appointment of the new Chairman of SBS, the Government decided to abandon the whole broadcasting service. These are not actions of rationality; they are actions signifying a determination to change and to abandon. Step after step has been taken. The Government has done this at its own peril. The Opposition is opposed to this process. There is logic in the Connor report. There is logic in saying: `Let us get the ABC fixed up'. If the Minister wants to stupidly use some sort of philosophic argument against that, why does he downgrade-or run the risk of downgrading-after fine reports and sensible evaluation, the activities of SBS to the level of the ABC, in the hope that there will be a recovery at some later stage? The Connor report sets out a sensible administrative approach; it really does. There are other reasons why the Minister wants this amalgamation. He is bent to the wish for a two-channel national broadcaster. That was the objective. He was determined to achieve the services of a new chief executive, and that was part of the process, too. The objective was a larger organisation, a larger budget, the person whom the Minister wanted to run that organisation and, in that process the doing away with the commitment to SBS. Mr Duffy —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the clearest Standing Orders in this place deals with reflections on honourable members. The honourable member for Mitchell has indicated that in some way I attempted to bring about the appointment of the chief executive of the ABC, which is clearly the role of the Board. I have said over and over again that I played no role in that appointment whatsoever. I find the suggestion totally offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Considering what the Minister has said, will the honourable member for Mitchell consider withdrawing those remarks? Mr CADMAN —I am happy to withdraw if he finds offence in those remarks. I will pursue the matter not in that direction but in regard to the Minister's general attitude and approach to this matter. The move to UHF did halve the audience of the Special Broadcasting Service. There has been constant speculation about what the Government's intentions are in relation to SBS for over 12 months. The Government has got the message as to what the sensible and reasonable approach should be. Yet it has chosen to ignore it. I refer to the Government's own report of the Committee of Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs and Services, by Dr James Jupp, released last week, on the services to migrant communities. Dr Jupp, while not finding on SBS, has set out the series of criticisms and comments and the conclusions he drew from what he expected the Government to do, based on the Minister's own announcements. Dr Jupp expected certain things to happen. I quote from his report, at page 267: The SBS will be upgraded to corporation status- in a ministerial statement the Minister made that commitment- both the ABC and the SBS will continue as independent national broadcasters- Government policy stated perfectly clearly- they will be required by legislation to co-operate in the future, including sharing resources, co-ordinating program planning and exchanging personnel- again, this was stated Government policy- each will be required by statute to report each six months to the Minister for Communications and the Parliament on the steps they have taken towards co-operation and co-ordination. There they are-four points of Government policy overturned with a flick of the pen. No wonder we have many disillusioned people around Australia. The continuation of the independence of the SBS and requirements for co-operation and sharing and for the reporting to the Minister on the way in which that was proceeding have all been overturned. That was the Jupp report. What about the Dix report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in 1981-another examination of the ABC? The Dix Committee in 1981 was critical of the ABC for its failure to recognise that Australia was a multicultural society. As a result, the Dix Committee's recommendation was that the ABC be given a statutory charter in 1984 to: Firstly, contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community; and, secondly, to take account of the multicultural character of the Australian community. We have amendments today reinforcing what was already the charter of the ABC. The Minister gives guarantees, with a track record of having broken commitment after commitment, of chopping and changing, of making a commitment to corporation status, of wanting to amalgamate, of moving to UHF, of appointing a chairman and then abandoning the Service. How many people does he expect to really take the Government's word that it will abide by and supervise the changed charter of the ABC? People will not believe it. They do not believe it because there have been so many changes over just a short period of 12 months. So the Minister wonders why he has problems. The Government has to decide what it is going to do and set out its case clearly. It has not done that. The Minister threw in, ad hoc, a $2m cut on the eve of the Budget. He said that those organisations will be carrying a disproportionate share of those cuts. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) made some passing irrelevant comments about the process the Government has decided to adopt. Yet the Minister expects the community of Australia to accept his word. It will not do it. These people need something more significant than what the Government has decided to do. I know that the Government's own members have sought from the Minister some sort of statement of programming, a commitment by legislation to the fine thoughts in his second reading speech. The Government has refused to make those commitments. It sounds nice, but the facts of the law are not there. The facts on the change of the charter are also not there. So the Government has followed the pattern of its past behaviour by making claims and statements that people now come to regard with suspicion. That is a great shame. The attitude of the Minister is, I think, epitomised in this statement from the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, from which I will read briefly: On July 10, 1986 at a meeting with FECCA Mr Duffy (Minister for Communications) stated that he considered there was no basis to any financial argument advocating the amalgamation of the SBS with the ABC since no one has yet identified any savings entailed. He indicated that there is a political perception that there would be a saving involved-but that this was not a serious obstacle. He agreed that the ABC was less than effective in carrying out its charter to respond to a multicultural society let alone other aspects of its charter. There we have it. On 10 July, at a meeting of FECCA, the Minister again stated what was supposed to be the Government's view. Time and again we have this problem of change and uncertainty. Last year's attempts at amalgamation are clearly set out. I could quote from the Sydney Morning Herald in March this year, which refers to a previous attempt at amalgamation. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the Minister has real trouble. In an article it said: Any amalgamation would be a direct reversal of assurances Mr Duffy gave in March that he would introduce legislation next year to establish SBS as a corporation. Those assurances were in line with the recommendation of the Connor Report, tabled in May last year. The Cabinet rejected a merger nine months ago. There we have a demonstrated continuity of difficulties. What did the Minister say when he talked about a new corporation to replace the Special Broadcasting Service? Those were great words which he uttered in a Press release on 25 March this year. The Press release said: `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', Mr Duffy said. The Minister went on: The Connor Committee found that there was a need for a considerable strengthening of the SBS administrative structure. The Government has accepted that the best way to achieve this will be by replacing the SBS with a new statutory corporation having more flexibility over staffing matters, programming policies and administrative arrangements than the SBS has enjoyed. That is the end of his Press release. So much for ministerial statements and Press releases. In the Government's 1983 policy speech, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) himself said: We have no plans to abolish the Special Broadcasting Service. Again, in the same section of the speech he said: 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. He also said: On the other hand, a society united in a commitment to multiculturalism, equal opportunity and a `fair go'- there we have it, the fair go of the Prime Minister- for all is most likely to minimise social conflict. So, we have the Prime Minister shot in the foot by his Minister, all promises broken and not understood by anybody because of the backing and filling. One ethnic newspaper, El Espanol, expresses it this way: The Government did not dare to abolish the SBS. It is trying, however, to take away its identity by taking away its autonomy. That is a pretty fair summary of what the Government has done. Let us look at some of the economic facts relating to the SBS and the ABC. With an audience of 1.5 per cent, the SBS costs $47m. For more than $400m, the ABC has an audience of 10 per cent of the community. The SBS is at least 50 per cent more effective in gaining an audience than the ABC is, judging by those figures for cost outlaid. The ABC has other responsibilities; but the figures I am using are the half figures, after the SBS went on to UHF frequency. If the figures of like against like can be used, even allowing for the wider responsibilities of the ABC, the SBS is far more successful in attracting an audience than the ABC is. Mr Ron Brown, who is the executive officer of the SBS, was reported in an article in the Australian of 5 September in this way: `The SBS runs a tight ship', he says, and points out its entire national staff, which produces all news, current affairs, in house production, sub-titles, et cetera, is smaller than the 240-strong ABC staff in Perth which puts to air half of the 7 p.m. news, half of The 7.30 Report and 45 minutes of magazine-style interviews each week. That is a fair comparison of the relative merits of the two organisations. I am a supporter of the ABC and I want to see it get its shop in order. For the Minister to claim that the Opposition's process of opposing the merger will affect the bush is a bit of sleight of hand. It was a government organisation that put the scrambler on those in the outback who were receiving SBS broadcasting. I do not think the Government can now claim that because it is taking the scrambler away it has come up with a great initiative. One only needs to refer to the report of the Auditor-General in regard to the ABC: The audit indicated insufficient documentation of the policies and operating procedures of ABC Enterprises. Another quote was: . . . tenders were not invited . . . The Corporation's mail order bank account showed a discrepancy outstanding since March, 1984. The conclusion of the Auditor-General was: Audit is concerned that the Corporation is experiencing difficulties in meeting basic financial control requirements; in particular those relating to generation of information for accrual accounting financial statement presentation. That is the statement of the Auditor-General. The Government is bent upon the process of trying to subsume an organisation that has proved its worth in one that has not demonstrated its worth. Why would it want to run the risk of downgrading the activities of the SBS? Why cannot the Government adopt a more moderate and measured approach? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(6.17) —I find the debate on the ABC/SBS Amalgamation Bill extremely interesting because the Opposition seems to have taken the opportunity that it offered once again to denigrate the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and to talk about the ABC as if it is in an impossible position and a very poor broadcasting service when we know what a job the ABC has done over the years that it has been established and continues to do every day. Certainly, the ABC is a large organisation and like any large organisation it has, from time to time, some problems. Chief amongst its problems would have to be the number of people who choose the ABC as their Aunt Sally. I think it is time we said that the ABC is something of which we can be proud. We can be proud of its reach, its history and its daily services to the people of Australia. I say that because in this debate we have heard far too much about the ABC not being an organisation which can handle what it already quite clearly handles every day. I wish to introduce my remarks by drawing a distinction between services provided by governments to overcome disadvantage and those which provide an absolute advantage. Programs such as the English as a second language program-which, I might say, remains fully funded with the States' agreement; there has been no diminution in the English as a second language program in Victoria, for example-are designed to overcome disadvantage. The provision of the Special Broadcasting Service provides an advantage-that is, it recognises differences and gives that difference time to be expressed. However, it should be recognised that providing a narrowly based advantaged can be justified only so long as we wish to separate groups from the mainstream of Australian culture. If we no longer want to separate our population into this, that and the other category, we need to recognise that by having a broadcasting service which reaches all Australians. The amalgamation of the ABC and the SBS promises to provide at last a national broadcast system which will recognise the true nature of the Australian people. While I agree totally with the proposition that Australians of non-English speaking origin should have available broadcast programs in their languages and reflecting the culture of their home countries, it has always seemed to me to be wrong that these important programs are not part of the mainstream of broadcasting. The assumption behind the separation seems to be that Australians, either native born or from English speaking countries, have no interest in and need no knowledge of the languages and cultures of their fellow Australians, or maybe they need only a little so that they can have a little watch of SBS if they do not find anything satisfactory on the other channels. If we are to be a nation of one people understanding and appreciating the diverse strands of our developing Australian culture we need to dignify that diversity by making it part of our mainstream national broadcasting system. We need to make multicultural programs available to Australians outside the cities and to recognise the presence in our country and outback areas of people from all the strands of Australian culture; and I will come back to one important strand of that a little later. I find it rather disconcerting that in many of the arguments used opposing the amalgamation the need has been ignored of native-born Australians to learn about, to value and to respect the cultures and languages brought to us by the people who have adopted our country as their own. Surely our major national broadcaster should not be party to the us and them notion which divides our society rather than unites it. We should celebrate our diversity. We should understand that we do not celebrate something of which we are either ignorant or afraid. For many years Australians, isolated from the rest of the world and instructed by the phobias of Victorian England, rejected for our wider society each cultural grouping as their people arrived in significant numbers. Even today each newly-arriving group suffers from the treatment given to those whom we do not understand. To overcome that understandable but undesirable characteristic the national broadcasting system should be able to acknowledge through its mainstream programming the values of a culturally diverse population in a united country. It is time that we recognised that Australia is a country in which there is still need for various groups to understand each other and that this separating of our people from the non-Anglo-Celtic origin and lumping them together as ethnic or multicultural is not the only way to achieve understanding. Of course, our national broadcaster should, as it does, provide material from the countries of origin of our people, but to continue to segregate that programming under arrangements which actually prevent some people from receiving the programs intended for them is not the most equitable way to go. Bringing the world back home is important to all Australians and the amalgamation of the two separate services into one service with diverse programs brings it home to us that we are one nation. Multiculturalism is a very nice term and it is paid a good deal of respect in what I believe to be the breach rather than the observance. True multiculturalism is surely bringing to the understanding of the majority the nature of participant groups while enhancing the maintenance of the cultural value for those groups. It means access to mainstream broadcasting so that information can truly be exchanged. I find it difficult to understand the gloominess within the Opposition about the ABC and its ability to handle an amalgamated service while at the same time praising the SBS for its efficient operation. It seems to me that the addition to the ABC of SBS personnel would assist the ABC rather than pose a problem to it and there is a great deal to be said for the notion that, while changes are taking place, those changes should include any major changes which are signalled for some time in the future. That is why I take the greatest objection to this `some time, maybe 1988, maybe 1990, we will do it but we certainly cannot and will not do it now' attitude. It is a little like the prayer: `Please, Lord, make me pure but not tonight'. I remind the House that the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) informed the House that the new charter will require the ABC to contribute to the development of a multicultural society or to encourage people whose first language is not English to participate in a number of parts of the life of Australia. This means, if it is taken seriously-I am sure that it will be-that we will see on ABC 1 and ABC 2, which are able to reach a much wider audience, programs which provide for all Australians entertainment, education, news and current affairs programs which do not exclude Australians of non-English-speaking origin. The new Board, expanded from seven members to 10, can be expected to take the charter provisions seriously as the Board will report to Parliament on the way it has carried out its charter provisions. While it is not a good idea to quote people out of context, it may be worth quoting more of Professor Zubrzycki's evidence to the Connor Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service because the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) certainly quoted some of his evidence. Mr Duffy —He missed a bit. Ms MAYER —Perhaps this is the bit that he missed. Speaking of the SBS, he said: . . . further extension . . . as a separate entity, is not really multiculturalism, while the ethnic languages, ethnic broadcasting and multicultural television remain outside the mainstream of electronic media. It is simply . . . a further example of separation, of segregation, a re-affirmation of separateness. I think that that is a very serious statement to make about our broadcasting system. Have we reaffirmed the separateness of our ethnic communities rather than supported their right to be part of mainstream Australia, which they really are? Perhaps only those of us who have a different sort of background have failed to recognise it so far. I think that we should have no longer a reaffirmation of separateness but rather an affirmation of unity-an affirmation of our appreciation of the value of every member of our society and of our appreciation of our important cultural history. One of the ways in which the Bill can provide that for the new organisation is to have regard to the services provided by the holders of public radio licences and public television licences; and the amalgamated corporation may very well encourage the new National Program Packaging Unit to take advantage of programs made for Imparja, the recently licensed Aboriginal station in the Northern Territory, in the recognition that multiculturalism includes the original Australians as well as those of us who came or whose ancestors came here from other countries. I believe that the amalgamation of the ABC and the SBS will not be a destruction of anything which we value but rather will be a step into the future-the future of an Australia which is no longer divided into this, that or other ethnic group but an Australia which recognises its value as a country of very rich and interesting history and of a cultural diversity from which we will all gain strength. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(8.00) —I wish to steal a moment or two of the House's very valuable time, simply because I have followed the debate during the afternoon with more than ordinary interest, not least because of being chairman of the Opposition's transport, aviation and communications committee. I am left to ponder as to what would have been the outcome and nature of this debate if an electoral consequence were not attaching to it. It is an extraordinary feature of the politics of this place that on many occasions we consider our position in terms of what electoral benefit may attach. I simply wish to say that the sum total of this debate is ensconced in the remarks of the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) in her address this afternoon when she made reference to the situation in Darwin, pointing out that it would be an extraordinary length of time before the facilities through the Special Broadcasting Service could conceivably be made available to the people of Darwin. I simply put to the House that the consequence of the people in Darwin being denied the benefit of the SBS would be that they would unquestionably become real Australians in the real sense of the word. Therefore, it may be fairly argued just how important is the SBS in the totality of things. I thank the House and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) for the indulgence. I will not go beyond that point, mindful of the pressure of time. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(8.02) —I too have arrived late for the debate and I am grateful to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) for having agreed to my having five minutes to speak, but I was unavoidably absent from the House earlier today. I rise to support the Opposition's decision to oppose the ABC/SBS Amalgamation Bill. I refer briefly to the history of the Special Broadcasting Service, which was set up in 1980. The Australian Labor Party, the then Opposition, proposed a motion in the Senate that the legislation be referred to a Senate committee for investigation and report. I was one of a number of then Government senators who crossed the floor and voted against my Party in order to enable the Senate committee to undertake that course. I did it because at the time, whilst the objectives of the Special Broadcasting Service were ones with which I agreed, I did not think that setting up a separate broadcasting service was the best way to do it. In the event, the Senate committee's report vindicated my view. However, in the meantime the Fraser Government had proceeded, under funding from the Advance to the Minister for Finance, to establish the Special Broadcasting Service without the enabling legislation. We are now six years down the track and history has vindicated the wisdom of Prime Minister Fraser when deciding not to establish the Special Broadcasting Service within the then Australian Broadcasting Commission. In that time the Special Broadcasting Service has become a lean, efficient, effective and highly respected broadcasting organisation. With all due respect to the very dedicated staff who work at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the ABC has gone from bad to worse. There is no doubt at all that ethnic communities throughout Australia fear very much what could happen to the quality of ethnic broadcasting if the Special Broadcasting Service were to be swallowed up by the ABC-swallowed up it would be, because it would be an unequal amalgamation. The Minister said in his second reading speech that this was a budgetary decision. It has been pointed out in debate that it is nothing of the sort. There is every reason to believe that if the present level of programming and services provided by the Special Broadcasting Service were to be provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or some amalgamated organisation in the future, it would probably cost more in relation to the staffing of the ABC and the SBS and the method of commissioning and producing programs. As I said, the SBS has proved itself to be a lean and efficient organisation. A report was commissioned by the Government, which came into this Parliament some time ago, specifically on this subject. That was the Report of the Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service entitled `Serving Multicultural Australia-The Role of Broadcasting', known as the Connor report. That report did not recommend amalgamation of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Special Broadcasting Service. It foresaw that in the long term that would be a desirable objective, but it certainly did not foresee it in the short term. I refer honourable members to the recommendations of that report. I can refer only briefly to a couple because of the constraints of time. I refer to just three recommendations contained in paragraphs 5.75 to 5.76. They state: We recommend that the first priority is to establish a statutory authority better designed than the SBS to develop a more effective ethnic radio and multicultural television service. We recommend that the ABC and the new MBC- that is, their recommended new Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation to replace the SBS- should increase co-operation between them, sharing resources, co-ordinating program planning and exchanging personnel. We recommend that the Government should appoint a further inquiry in 1990 of both the ABC and the MBC with a view to considering their integration. In the meantime both organisations should be encouraged to work towards the aim of a single national broadcasting authority. The Opposition endorses those recommendations of the Connor report, as did the Government just a few months ago. There was no reason to expect this decision in the Budget context or in any other context; no reason to expect it at all, because the Government had indicated that it accepted the recommendations of the Connor report of working towards an amalgamation of the two organisations over time, with some modification of the Special Broadcasting Service in the meantime. More recently the Jupp report of the Committee for Stage 1 of the Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs and Services, entitled `Don't settle for less', was tabled in this House. The Jupp report assumed that the Connor report would be proceeded with in the manner indicated by the Government and did not travel down that track again. However, it saw what it called the ethnic and multicultural media as central and critical to the establishment of multicultural and migrant services in Australia. I recommend paragraphs 13.86 to 13.90 to honourable members. I quote briefly from paragraph 13.86, which states: The ethnic media are an indispensable source of cultural support for ethnic communities. The Federal Government through the Special Broadcasting Service operates multicultural television services in major cities and ethnic radio stations in Sydney and Melbourne. In addition, other cities now have that service. The Jupp report recognised the importance of multicultural programs on radio and television. It did not foresee the peremptory Government decision that has now come upon broadcasting. In summary, I, along with other members of the Opposition, oppose this decision, not because in principle it would not be a good decision in some years time, as indicated by the Connor report, but because the manner in which it is being done undoubtedly would be to the detriment of multicultural broadcasting and the quality of programs that we have come to expect from the Special Broadcasting Service. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.09) —in reply-In summing up, I would like to deal with the matters raised in debate this afternoon. Firstly, I indicate that the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) seemed to be somewhat confused as to what the Government is about. The second reading speech, if people took time to read it, provides a comprehensive policy statement of the Government's objectives. The Government believes that amalgamation is desirable because multicultural services must be brought into the mainstream of national broadcasting in the interests of wide and equitable access. Nowhere else in the world do we have two separate government funded broadcasters. The new arrangements will be considerably more efficient. The honourable member for Goldstein quoted Professor Zubrzycki in relation to multiculturalism. One matter which ought to be brought to the attention of the House is that certain parts of those quotations should be very clearly understood. In giving evidence to the Connor Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service, Professor Zubrzycki stated: . . . further extension . . . as a separate entity, is not really multiculturalism, while the ethnic languages, ethnic broadcasting and multicultural television remain outside the mainstream of electronic media. It is simply . . . a further example of separation, of segregation, a reaffirmation of separateness. I refer those honourable members opposite who are fond of quoting the professor when it suits them to paragraph 3.71 of the Connor report to see the view expressed on this issue. The second point that I think is quite extraordinary is the insistence by the Opposition that this is not a Budget matter. I again refer honourable members to the second reading speech. It stated: . . . the decision to amalgamate the two broadcasting organisations was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech. Accordingly, the Government sees the amalgamation as a Budget-related matter. A decision was taken in relation to that but in the context of a difficult Budget. If members of the Opposition want to continue to pretend that it is not a Budget-related matter, so be it, but it is quite stupid of them to take that view. The honourable member for Goldstein said that there would be no savings, but it did not matter anyway. The fact is that the $2m saving on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) has already been passed. Members of the Opposition argue that the legislation is not a Budget matter. They can argue that if they want to, but in response I want people to understand quite clearly that if the amalgamation does not go ahead obviously there will not be any savings and consequently the $2m will need to be reappropriated in additional estimates to the ABC and SBS. This makes a nonsense of this argument. Mr Lee —The Leader of the Opposition agrees with that. Mr DUFFY —The honourable member for Dobell interjects and says that the Leader of the Opposition agrees with that. It is very difficult to understand what he is saying on this issue, but we will deal with that in a moment. Furthermore, the SBS and the ABC will have to ask for additional funds to cover the wasted costs of amalgamation planning. That is something which again those opposite have totally neglected in this debate-the enormous amount of work that has been done on getting this amalgamation together in a way which will be acceptable to both the ABC and SBS. The other point that is made is that there will be no short term savings. I would like people to have a think about that. There will be immediate savings in various areas. ABC volume discounts will be available to SBS; rationalisation of the management structure will mean the SBS management floor, for example, in the Cliff Street premises will be able to be sub-let, the market value being about $350,000; spare ABC resources and facilities will be available at marginal costs rather than having the SBS hire them from outside groups at full commercial rates; and there will be a rationalisation of suppliers of duplicated goods and services. An example of that, to be specific, is that one major saving is that the SBS will no longer use the Australian Associated Press domestic wire service. These are matters which Opposition members just seemed to have ignored in this debate. In the longer term there will be economies on program production and acquisition; availability of SBS sub-title facilities for the ABC closed caption service; reduction of administrative overheads; a comprehensive review of work practices in both organisations; rationalisation of accommodation, goods and service suppliers, staff resources, capital equipment and expenditure plans and a rationalisation of outside publicity expenditure through the availability of free publicity on other ABC services. It is in fact a nonsense to be suggesting that there will not be substantial savings. It is very difficult to understand the Opposition's position. We have to go to a few things to try to ascertain that. One of the interesting aspects is that, again, there is some confusion of the position of the honourable member for Goldstein, but again we will go back to the Connor inquiry and have a look at what he said then. The Connor report cites the honourable member in evidence to the inquiry as `supportive of the proposition that there should, ideally, be one mainstream national broadcasting organisation catering for all Australians'. The reference is paragraph 3.74. I do not know whether that is really inconsistent with the reported current position of the Opposition as the honourable member for Goldstein has indicated; firstly, that circumstances are not now ideal and there is the need for two organisations. He says that the amalgamation will result in increased costs and the SBS will be swallowed up by the ABC and will inherit its problems. Circumstances can never be ideal, so I do not know when his amalgamation takes place. Secondly, savings are achievable. I assure the House that the autonomy of the existing SBS services will be maintained within the new organisation. It is worth noting on that point that it is very difficult to ascertain what members of the Opposition are about. There were great complaints this afternoon about bad Press reporting-the Press saying that it did not know what members of the Opposition were doing or the short term political gain they were after and all the rest of it. It is very difficult to complain about the Press with this sort of statement. On 11 November 1986 on the World Today Mr Dodd, who was interviewing, said: Well taking a step . . . sorry Mr Macphee. The honourable member for Goldstein then stated: I was just going to add I support, as far as one can see at the moment that there is a need for two separate broadcasters but ideally there ought to be one, but until we have the ideal circumstances to bring about one then we are committed to two. It is unbelievable. It goes on further. There is then some discussion about 1990. The honourable member for Goldstein stated: We may not by 1990 but a lot depends on the quality of management now. . . When we get into Government we'll examine the position of the ABC in particular then and see what ought to be done. . . This sort of `not now, but it is a good idea', `maybe' and `however' really is an insult to the intelligence of people, particularly in ethnic communities, because the short term political gain, as mentioned by the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), is very much in the minds of those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition in an interview with Mr Alan Jones on 12 November in answer to a question said: What I'm saying is that the ideal is to have a single national broadcaster, but we don't believe at present . . . I find it very difficult to understand what honourable members opposite are on about and, unfortunately, so do they. Let us look at what has happened and the cost at this stage. What will the cost be if the decision does not go ahead? Firstly, the current Chief Executive of the SBS, Mr Ron Brown-I again repeat as I did the other day in fairness to him-is a person who has opposed the amalgamation very strongly. Once he realised it was Government policy he then co-operated as best he could to bring it about in the best way possible. He has publicly said that the SBS's position is the worst of both worlds. Nobody knows where these organisations are going now; nobody has any idea. The ABC cannot plan and the SBS cannot plan because those opposite are trying to pick up-no matter what their mealy-mouthed utterings may be-some short term political gain which they think they are going to get, which is an insult to the intelligence of the ethnic communities. If those opposite think that these organisations are going to tumble for that, they have got another think coming. What if the amalgamation does not go ahead now? Substantial costs have already been incurred, such as management planning time, resources, redesign of television logos, station identification, and planning for program launches in January. The other thing is that if the ABC is to proceed the potential audience includes some 660,000 people in major population centres, including Darwin, north-eastern Tasmania, the central tablelands of New South Wales and the Darling Downs in Queensland. In particular, the population of centres which have concentrations of people of non-English speaking backgrounds, including the La Trobe Valley, Townsville, Cairns and parts of Victoria and South Australia will miss out as a result of the fact that the ABC will not be running part of the multicultural programs on what is now the straight ABC. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) spent a long time on the Connor report as if we had just ignored it. Let me clarify that issue. In fact, the Connor report has not been discarded. The response of our decision has been to amalgamate now rather than later; that is the difference. The Connor report indicated that this matter should be reviewed in 1990 with a view to considering integration again. As I have indicated, I do not think that is good for the SBS or the ABC. They ought not to be left in that position. In effect, the Government has adopted, as its first priority, the establishment of a statutory authority better able than the current SBS to develop more ethnic radio and multicultural television services and that was the reference in paragraph 5.75 of the report. The Government approach is in accord with the Connor Committee in that it takes the view, as the Connor Committee did, that the dangers in maintaining indefinitely a separate entity to provide multicultural broadcasting-an entity which may be left isolated by a sudden change of policy or shifts in public opinion-is potentially very vulnerable. That reference is in paragraph 3.83 of the report. True multiculturalism will not be achieved in Australia until its objectives are reflected in the services of broadcasters in all sectors and that is the reference in paragraph 3.96. We have noted the importance of other Connor recommendations and they have already been reflected in the operations of the SBS and are proposed to be adopted by the ABC as an integral part of the amalgamation. So honourable members opposite should not talk to me as though the Connor report had been left to one side. It has not. However, the fact of the matter is that honourable members opposite just pick out pieces of the Connor report which they like and adopt them and ignore the rest. The other matter that I would like to refer to today, to have a look at the reaction that this has had in some areas of ethnic communities in this country, is extracts from an editorial in Il Globo on Monday, 17 November-that is today-which is headed `SBS Corpse can no longer be propped up'. Unfortunately, I am unable to read the whole of it but I ask honourable members just to have a listen to this. Mr Charles —Why not? Mr DUFFY —Unfortunately, it is too long. I should have got the honourable member to do it earlier. The editorial states: The decision by the federal Liberal-National party coalition to join the Democrats in the Senate in blocking government legislation on the merger of the ABC and SBS means the issue has been politicised by a small circle of people in a way that has no relevance to the everyday reality of public broadcasting or to the grass roots of the ethnic communities . . . The Government and the ABC must obviously provide assurance, which if necessary must be extracted with every available political means, that not only will multicultural, multilingual broadcasting be maintained but also developed further. Above all they must- The Il Globo editorial then sets out five points. Having set out those five points it then states: Now that the above guarantees have been largely given by the government and others are equally negotiable, any indiscriminate opposition to the SBS-ABC merger, apart from being absurd is not in the interests of the ethnic community. We regret the Federal Opposition's hasty decision promoted by forces which do not reflect the true feelings or interests of the community. Liberal leader John Howard's position is obviously contradictory. He says the merger should go ahead but later, without specifying when or how. Nor is the stance taken by the shadow Minister for Communications, Ian Macphee- the honourable member for Goldstein sitting in the chamber tonight- morally defensible. Among other things he warns against the planned merger because SBS employees, many of which are underpaid and under-utilised, would then come to enjoy the same economic benefits as ABC employees. Liberals, Nationals, Australian Democrats and even certain sections of the Labor Party (worried about electoral repercussions) should calmly reflect on the whole issue. The current viewing audience of multicultural television is so small as not to constitute in itself a voting force, neither against the government nor the opposition. The editorial goes on. In fact I commend that editorial to honourable members opposite because it points up their absolute hypocrisy on this issue. The other matter which was floated today in the Sydney Morning Herald was the possibility of Sir Nicholas Shehadie, who has been Chairman of the SBS and has served that organisation very well, becoming Chairman of the new organisation. I am able to say to honourable members opposite that those rumours in the Press today are correct. If this amalgamation takes place, as it should but for the stupidity of those opposite, the chairmanship of the new organisation will be offered by this Government-I am not speaking as the Minister; I am speaking on behalf of the Government-to Sir Nicholas Shehadie. Conversations that I had with him long before I knew about the stupidity that was going to come from honourable members opposite indicate clearly to me that, if the amalgamation takes place and that offer is made, Sir Nicholas will accept that offer. Today the honourable member for Goldstein made a quite extraordinary suggestion which was taken up by the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) which I just want to repeat. He implied that radio stations 2EA and 3EA should be more multicultural as opposed to the existing multilingual approach. Honourable members opposite had better go and talk to the ethnic communities about that because if there is one thing that they do not want touched it is 2EA and 3EA and that is why we have said that they will not be touched. The lack of understanding of honourable members opposite on that issue is quite extraordinary. Another matter that I want to deal with very quickly was raised by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), who had a terrible concern about the position of the staff-elected director. He indicated that there may have been some reflection on the capacity of Mr Molomby. If there is any such reflection it is in the mind of the beholder. Certainly I have not received any indication from any person that Mr Molomby has not served the ABC very well during his period as a director. Any suggestion that the Act has not been amended in order to prevent Mr Molomby from serving another term is simply nonsense. Mr Molomby will be there for about 3 1/2 years, maybe four. I can assure my colleagues who have had some concerns about the suggestion that there has been some effort to bundle out Mr Molomby with any undue haste-based on what, I do not know-that there is no justification for that suggestion at all. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) did not let facts get in the way of a good story in relation to UHF. He did not understand that the tremendous growth in broadcasting required the change to UHF. He did not understand that the SBS has not been switched to UHF. SBS television has been broadcasting on UHF since its inception and there was a temporary allocation of channel O for a parallel service, which was not properly used for that purpose. In closing I would like to thank very much the members of my Department, the members of the ABC and the SBS who have worked so hard, the members of the infrastructure committee and my colleagues in this Parliament, but particularly in this instance the ABC and the SBS, which have worked so hard to bring about an amalgamation which would be better, which would bring about a great national broadcasting organisation that looks as if it will be stymied by the political expediency and stupidity of those opposite. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Duffy) put. That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Lee, M.Brumby, J. M Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free. R. V. Punch, G. F.Gear, G. Saunderson, J.Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Hollis, C. Staples, P. R.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Uren, T.Hurford, C. J. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F.Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millard, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —by leave-I wish to add to my remarks opening the second reading debate. I want briefly to provide the House with additional information that will assist honourable members to consider the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill. In accordance with my undertaking of last week, I table my Press release which summarises the Government's proposed indicative plan for the equalisation of regional commercial television. The plan will be published as soon as practicable in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette as required by the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. As I stated last week, this plan is the basic strategic planning instrument for the process of equalisation. It specifies those regional licences to which the equalisation scheme is to apply; the areas that are to be approved markets, namely, in Queensland, the current service areas based on Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Maryborough, Toowoomba and Stanthorpe; in northern New South Wales, Lismore, Coffs Harbour, Tamworth, Taree and Newcastle; in southern New South Wales, Dubbo, Orange, Wollongong, Wagga and Canberra; in Victoria, Albury, Shepparton, Bendigo, Ballarat and Traralgon. The plan also designates the aggregation area for each licence in the relevant approved market, those licences eligible for consolidation, the aggregation completion date for multi-channel services in approved markets and certain other relevant information as required in the Bill. Copies are available from the Table Office. Since I presented the Bill to the House, the industry body representing regional licensees, Regional Television Australia, has made representations to me and my Department concerning several aspects of the legislation as presently drafted. I have carefully examined these representations and am of the opinion that there is merit in several specific provisions of the Bill being amended. Accordingly I foreshadow that I will be moving several amendments on behalf of the Government. These amendments have been circulated to honourable members in my name. I will briefly explain the amendments I propose to move. Extended Notice to Licensees on Variations to Indicative Plan The first two amendments relate to the Minister's power to vary the indicative plan to specify new approved markets. The amendments I propose to move extend the obligation of the Minister to give personal notice to licensees whose service areas would form part of the new approved market. These licensees will be given 21 days in which to make representations to the Minister on the proposed variation. Consistent with other provisions in the Bill, and in the principal Act, the Minister will be required to have regard to these representations. The Bill, as it stands, provides for public notice in the Gazette with any interested person being able to make representations. This will remain unaltered. I propose to move these amendments as the representatives of regional licensees strongly put to me that they consider that the protection of personal notice is important to them. The extra administrative burden will be very small. Specification of Aggregation Completion Dates Prior to 31 December 1996 Amendments (3) and (4) are in response to the RTA's problems with the Minister being empowered to determine a timetable for transition from MCS to aggregation in an approved market. As the Bill stands, the Minister appears to have the power to determine a timetable for transition at variance to one which may have been negotiated by all licensees within the approved market. The proposed Government amendments will specifically require the Minister to have regard to the desirability of giving effect to a common timetable proposed by all licensees in an approved market. Relationship Between MCS Permits and Implementation Plans Amendments (5), (6) and (8) through to (10) are to put in place consistent wording in relation to the word `consistent' in those provisions in the Bill dealing with the Minister's obligation to act consistently with licensees approved implementation plans. While the draftsman does not consider that the proposed amendments will alter the meaning of the affected sub-clauses, the amendments are proposed as the regional licensees' legal advisers are concerned about the variations in wording in the Bills as introduced. Consultation on Technical Conditions Proposed amendment (7) is also to tighten the drafting of the Bill. It relates to the alterations to a licensee's technical conditions which are made as a consequence of the extension of his `service area' into his `aggregation area'. The amendment is to ensure that the provisions relating to consultation in the principal Act continue to apply when the variation is made in the process of `aggregation'. Restraint on Common Programming As far as proposed amendments (11) and (12) are concerned, the Bill contains a provision, at proposed sub-section 94za, which is directed against regular simulcasting of programs on the head licence channel and on any MCS permit channels. The representatives of regional licensees have strongly pressed the view that the current provision would catch the normal broad- casting practice of repeat programming while the objective is to stop regular common programming. I have agreed to their request and propose to move an amendment to this sub-clause in the Bill to restrict the application of the provision to repetitive broadcasting within the preceding 24 hours. For the sake of the record I would point out that the provision in the Bill, as it now stands, is based upon an existing provision, in the principal Act, relating to supplementary licences. Delegations Power I now turn to my proposed amendments (13) and (14). It has been strongly put to me that the current provisions in the Bill relating to the delegation of ministerial powers are too widely drafted. The broadcasting industry contends that the ministerial powers specified in proposed section 94n (4) should not be able to be delegated. These are the powers of the Minister, following a second rejection of an implementation plan, to direct the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to hold an inquiry in relation to the plan; to direct the licensee under existing section 125e of the principal Act; or to determine an implementation plan for a licensee. The regional licensees also consider that the Minister's power to vary an implementation plan should not be able to be delegated. These are very significant powers which I am prepared to reserve to the Minister by amending the Bill. Other Contentious Issues During consultation on the Bill some other issues have arisen which are of concern to the television broadcasters, and particularly to the regional broadcasters. I would like briefly to clarify some of these issues at this stage of the debate. Need for Markets with New Additional Licence Firstly, because of the content of the proposed indicative plan it is argued that there is no need for the Bill to provide for the indicative plan to specify approved markets in which an additional licence can be called for. While this type of market is a hangover from what was foreseen as necessary in the published draft indicative plan, it has been retained because it could possibly become useful in future years in, for example, Tasmania. I do not, however, have immediate plans to use this type of market. I think it should be retained, however, to allow for its use in future years. MCS Election in South Australia and Western Australia Secondly, it has been said that it is inequitable for regional licensees in approved markets which include a metropolitan service area, to be denied, in proposed sub-section 94g (3) (a), the option of the election process for MCS or aggregation as is available in other approved markets. This criticism is based upon a misconception. The markets to which this provision is likely to apply are future markets in South Australia and Western Australia. These markets will not be specified as approved markets for some years. Licensees within these areas will be free, at their option, to apply for an MCS permit or permits prior to them being included in an approved market. The election process will thus be redundant following the specification of these areas as approved markets. This is because MCS will already be operational in those areas at the option of the licensees. Powers of Minister in Relation to Implementation Plan It has been argued that proposed section 94n should provide for specific consecutive steps to be taken, by the Minister, following a second rejection of a licensee's implementation plan and before the Minister may determine a licensee's implementation plan. The flexibility provided for in the Bill is necessary to allow for efficiency in the processing of implementation plans and the very wide range of factors that might be at issue in relation to any particular plan. I would like to make it quite clear, however, that the power of the Minister to determine an implementation plan is seen as a last resort. I said this is my second reading speech and I re-emphasise it today. Minister's Obligation to Grant an MCS Permit It has also been argued that proposed sub-section 94v (2) should make it obligatory for the Minister to grant an MCS permit where a licensee applies for an MCS permit and its grant would be consistent with the licensee's implementation plan. To make such an amendment would conflict with other areas of the Bill. For instance, it would not be consistent with the ability of the Minister to revoke a permit on a recommendation of the ABT for breaches of programming requirements. This is because the licensee could immediately reapply and be entitled to the grant of another permit as long as such a grant was consistent with the relevant implementation plan. Also such a provision would be inconsistent with the structure of the Bill which does not provide for there to be any proprietary rights in an MCS permit. On the other hand it is relevant to draw honourable members' attention to clause 23 of the Bill which provides, in part, a duty on the Minister to carry out implementation plans. The Minister would thus not be acting in accordance with this duty if he were to refuse to issue an MCS permit without cause, if the application were to be made in accordance with the relevant implementation plan. The same argument applies in relation to the provision in proposed sub-section 94y (1) which provides for the suspension or revocation of an MCS permit. When exercising this power the Minister will be under the same duty to act in accordance with the approved implementation plan. In conclusion, the amendments I have proposed will not change the substantive purpose of the Bill but will allay and clarify some concerns among regional licensees. The result will be a better Bill that the industry will be confident to work within. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — I understand it is the wish of the House to debate the Broadcasting Amendment Bill concurrently with the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill. There being no objection, I shall allow that course to be followed. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(8.50) —I disagree slightly with the final remarks of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), but I am bound to say that, given that he does not accept the principal objectives of the Opposition's policy and therefore our objections to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, he has been most courteous and helpful in the preparation of the statement which we just gave him leave to read. The Minister is, by nature, a courteous man. He is also basically concerned with delivering services to as many Australians as possible. We regret that he has not been successful in getting his policy through the Cabinet. As a reflection of our concern, I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House expresses its concern at the equalisation of regional television services by way of aggregation of viewing areas, especially the `one-in all-in' trigger mechanism and believes that equalisation would be best achieved by the immediate issue of supplementary licences to existing licensees subject to specified conditions'. The Opposition is opposed utterly to the policy of aggregation of viewing areas which has been adopted by the Government. I spoke at length on this matter on two occasions in recent weeks. The first was on 16 September and appears in the House of Representatives Hansard at pages 745 to 748, and the second was on 18 September and appears at House of Representatives Hansard at pages 999 to 1002. I draw those references to the attention of the House and especially to the attention of our colleagues in the Senate where I suspect this will receive a rather more free-ranging debate than is possible here, given the state of this House. We are committed to a policy of supplementary licences being issued immediately to existing licence holders and, as the amendment implies, subject to certain conditions. We will spell out those conditions in due course when we formally announce our policy on communications. We believe that, in providing a choice to regional viewers, by far the better way to go is to provide people with a supplementary licence in order that there can be at once alternative programming and that therefore the viewer may select an alternative program. If one wants evidence of that, the case of supplementary licences which has got farthest was in this city of Canberra. If the Australian Broadcasting Corporation had not chosen to take the Australian Open at the weekend, Capital 7 might not have shown the cricket, but it did show the cricket and forsook some other programs. If Capital 7 had been the recipient of a supplementary licence under what is the Opposition's policy, which was our policy in government, which remains our policy in Opposition and which was momentarily-an expensive moment, I think, for Capital 7-the policy of the Government, viewers would have been able to watch the usual programs plus the cricket which, if one really enjoys cricket, was not bad but which, if one is partisan, was not good. Such are the decisions that have to be made by the investors in Capital 7. We believe very strongly that the real issue here is not the gimmick of so-called equalisation. What does equalisation really mean? If we look at the number of services provided for Australians living outside the capital cities, especially on the east coast, it is already substantial on a head of population basis, and it can be improved. No one questions that. One could argue that, if the Government is determined to provide three services to most of regional Australia it ought to be prepared to provide rather more services to the metropolitan cities, especially those on the east coast. In this debate we want the Government and the Senate to understand what we have been saying for some 12 months and what, indeed, members of the Government have been saying in the Caucus and the Minister's office. The path to his office has been well and truly worn by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) and others who understand the significance of this issue. We in the Opposition want an improved range of viewing-that is, a greater choice for the viewers. We want not some gimmick called equality of programs but quality of programs. We want diversity, choice, a minimum of repeats and more localism. We want local production of advertising as well as news and current affairs, sports, entertainment and other programs of cultural significance. These are much easier to deliver under a policy of supplementary licences than under the tortuous propositions coming now from the Government. The Minister, as we know, has been rolled a couple of times. It is no reflection on his Irish tenacity, but he has been outvoted by other forces and influences upon which we can only speculate. It is hard, if not impossible, under what the Minister has put to us tonight, to provide local programs. It is our firm view that if one of the Government's policies had been allowed to be enforced-that is, immediate aggregation everywhere-it would have been impossible to have local programs and, indeed, Australia would have been, as I said in one of the earlier debates, able to be run from any point in the world, particularly from the United States of America. Even according to the statement that the Minister has just read to us tonight, the cost of trying to provide diversity of programming, real choice and localism is prohibitive. In relation to the technology about which the Minister is asking people to make decisions now, the Government is most uncertain about what it wants. We have just had a debate, Mr Deputy Speaker-you were in the chair for some of it-in which we saw the changes of mind through which the Government has gone regarding the future of the ABC and the future of the Special Broadcasting Service, and now we have the contemplation of a merger of them. The Government is again uncertain. I will read a couple of really penetrating Press releases that have been put out by the Minister. Because he is a sensitive man, he will be embarrassed to be reminded of the fact that in a statement to the House on 1 December 1983 he invited expressions of interest by March 1984 and formal supplementary licence applications by September 1984. In a Press release dated 8 March 1984 he congratulated the regional television industry on its reponse to his invitation for expressions of interest. What he said is worth reading, in part at least: All thirty-six commercial television stations located outside mainland metroplitan cities or in Tasmania have formally expressed interest in obtaining an extra, or supplementary, licence . . . The reaction from all States and Territories is much better than expected and I congratulate the industry on its initiative . . . This is good news for listeners and viewers in regional areas wanting more diversity of choice in programming. It certainly was good news and we in the Opposition applauded him because he was actually adopting our policy. Then, on 2 October 1984, the Minister said: Exactly 100 formal applications for supplementary, or second, radio and television licences had been received by the cut-off date of 20 September 1984 . . . This is excellent news for viewers and listeners in regional areas and should lead in time to their having a wider choice of programming. I am sure the words are coming back to the Minister. He went on to say: In all, 69 radio and 31 television stations out of a possible 137 (101 radio, 36 television) have lodged applications. Mr Braithwaite —Who said this? Mr MACPHEE —The present Minister said that about implementing our policy, effectively, the one that he would like to continue. The Press release stated: The Minister said the Department of Communications had begun processing the supplementary licence applications and he hoped to be able to refer the first of them to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by the end of October 1984 . . . The Tribunal will publish the necessary particulars of applications referred to it and invite written submissions concerning the grant of licences . . . It will hold the first public inquiries into the grant of supplementary licences in February 1985. That was on 2 October. I want you to focus on this, Mr Deputy Speaker, because, only eight days later what did the Minister say? He said: I now wish to say a few words about the future. We thought that that is what he said on 2 October. On 2 October 1984 we thought we were getting a pretty important statement about the future for choice in regional viewing areas. But here, eight days later, really is a statement about the future. Mr Duffy —They must have been reflections. Mr MACPHEE —I am just quoting the Minister. The Minister said: In its SPS report, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal provided a very useful analysis of strategic objectives regarding commercial television. It identified five major concerns of government: a. To maximise diversity of choice in radio and television services, so that all Australians have access to as wide a range of services as possible; to bring a similar range of entertainment and information through broadcasting services to all Australians, especially those currently without any or with inadequate services; b. To maintain the viability of the broadcasting system; c. To encourage an Australian look for television and radio by maintenance of an appropriate Australian content level and the fostering of an Australian production industry; d. To provide broadcasting services relevant and responsive to local needs; and e. To discourage concentration of media ownership and control of stations. These are worthy sentiments of a worthy Minister with which we would find great concurrence. But what has happened to the poor Minister and his policy since that day? The first worthy sentiments were expressed in December 1983; they were repeated in October and then, eight days later, they were totally reneged upon in terms of the forecasting of the method of change. All of the sentiments in terms of the Broadcasting Tribunal's objectives are important. What is wrong, as he goes on, is the focusing on the method of change. In the method of change he forecasts what I have since called, with some conviction, a gimmick. It is even swifter than the change of the Government in deciding, three weeks after it had appointed the SBS Board, that it wanted to amalgamate the SBS with the ABC Board, which it had appointed only eight weeks before that. Now we find that, eight days after he has said what a wonderful thing it was that 31 regional television stations out of 36 had lodged their applications for supplementary licences, he will have a new policy altogether to achieve what sounds remarkably like the same objectives that underlay the supplementary licence scheme. As the two speeches that I referred to earlier-those that I gave in September-indicate, we went from that to the draft indicative plan. We know that the draft indicative plan prepared by the Department of Communications had a number of false assumptions. They were demonstrably false and they have not been repeated in this exercise before us now. There is a reference to a modest growth of advertising revenue in the order of 4 per cent, and it certainly is modest compared with the upper limit that was forecast in the draft indicative plan. I suspect it is still too high. We remember that the draft indicative plan was destroying the community of interest that has been naturally accruing since television was introduced in Australia, and we also are aware that this draft indicative plan opened the door for not only the destruction of that, but also the destruction of all community of interest within Australia itself because of the access it gave to networking. Today we have seen the final indicative plan which has been put before us. It is put before this Parliament in the absence of any plan regarding changes to the ownership and control rules. I know that they are promised imminently, in a few weeks time; but it is hard for the Parliament to decide what is best. I do not know what view the Senate will take of this situation. We are also being asked to decide, in the absence of technical guidelines that are very important for major investment decisions, how people will draw up their requests for implementation plans. What we do know is that, under these now considerably revised approved markets, as they are called-which, by the way, are not natural markets; there is nothing natural about them; they are not natural markets in the sense that the world of commerce understands-there is a proposition about one in all in. That is to say, any one of the people who are affected in a given so-called approved market, can trigger off an aggregation of the others regardless of the opposition of the others. What are the consequences of that? Under the plan which the Minister has just made clear to us and tabled, we will see two different market formats. Many of them will proceed by what is called the multi-channel service. Others will take immediate aggregation. There will be different dates; there will be different regions. The policy we have of supplementary licences issued immediately to existing licensees provides greater choice at once and uniformly throughout Australia-or throughout eastern Australia which is the only part we are now dealing with. But under the final indicative plan produced by the Government, one part will move virtually immediately to aggregation-that is, southern New South Wales-well ahead of the 1996 aggregation date produced by the Government. What a shambles that is. What will be the effect on production houses, on national advertisers and on investment in the industry generally? What will be the effect on employment and the aspirations for employment and for training of people in the various regions who now look forward to being employed in or in support of regional television? We have what can be called a patchwork quilt. It is a policy for everyone. Equalisation is the catchphrase; but that is not so, looking at the services. Tasmania is a special case. South Australia and Western Australia were always going to be special cases. The Northern Territory is always a special case. Now there is a special case for southern New South Wales, for northern New South Wales, for Griffith itself, for Mildura, for Wagga Wagga-every one is a special case. A lot rests, it seems, on where the sensitive electoral boundaries are drawn for the present Government. There is a policy for everyone here. Studying the pattern of viewing markets, it is confusing beyond belief. Looking at the document which the Minister, obviously against his will, has been forced to bring forward on behalf of the Government, I would say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker-although we hear a lot of this sort of debate here-that there is more chance of the J-curve working than there is of regional viewers gaining early choice or eventual equity between regions under the proposal now before us. The year 1996 is the ultimate aggregation, whereas in fact under our proposition everyone can get a station on air now. In fact, not only the Government and the Opposition all say that they want a choice for viewers, but also Regional Television Australia, the organisation that represents the regional television licensees, put a table forward to the Government which would have produced stations already on the air over a year ago, so that there would have been a second channel in each of the areas covered by the Minister's plan. Let us look at the Minister's timetable: Southern New South Wales, 1989; then do we go to northern New South Wales? Oh no, we go to Queensland, where the date is 1990; then we come back to northern New South Wales in 1991; Victoria in 1992 and, for good measure, Albury crosses the border and goes into Victoria. None of those machinations are necessary if one takes the path of supplementary licences or if the proposition put to the Minister by Regional Television Australia for multi-channel services is adopted. The RTA put to the Minister the proposition that by 1990 there could be three services. That proposition was put twice by the licensees of Regional Television Australia. They said that there could be aggregation-they did not want it, but the Government did-of three services by 1996. They were told that that was Sunday too far away, so they brought the date forward to 1993. Again they were told that it was Sunday too far away. Both 1993 and 1996 were too far away; yet now we find that it is not too far away after all because the Government has now adopted 1996. As we have seen, 31 of the 36 members of that association already had a second service funded. They had put money aside from their profits to provide a second service, and this happened at least a year ago. Had the Minister proceeded down the path of those Press releases that I read out, a service would already have been operating and there would have been no argument about whether people in Canberra could choose the ordinary Channel 7 programs or the cricket. Other similar decisions could have been made around Australia. Regional viewers are the ones who suffer. There has been a delay. Why? We want to hear from the Minister why that is. All regional viewers will want to know the answer to that question. This is the most massive restructure of television in Australia since television began, but the service to regional viewers is being jeopardised. If we look at the document that the Minister has just put before us, we see that there is a long lead time in opting for immediate aggregation or multi-channel services, whichever is decided. The Government will, of course, gazette the indicative plan and the licensees will respond within 28 days. About three months later the licensees will be required to submit an implementation plan. In some cases equalisation is not due to start for three to five years. Those who are going down the aggregation path have to burst their boilers doing a study and then wait a number of years before they can actually implement the program. That shows three things. It shows, first of all, that the Government is considering an early election because-- Mr Duffy —No! Mr MACPHEE —The Minister says no, and he is wise, because he knows that he will lose. The people who made this policy against the Minister's will may be considering that, not because they can deliver services, as we and, indeed, the Minister could have done, but because they can say: `There you are; the services are there. We will provide you with the services. We have the timetable'. We will look soon at how satisfactory the services will be under this timetable. That is the first thing that occurs to me. Secondly, it occurs to me that the multichannel service or the supplementary licence is the best way to proceed in order to provide sure choice immediately. The third conclusion I come to is that, in spite of the Government's commitment to aggregation, many people will defer an aggregation decision for as long as they possibly can, believing rightly that there will be a change of government and that the new government will not then proceed down the aggregation path. I have already referred to the guidelines and the ownership and control rules, but there are other details that need to be made available. Even though some of those details are technical, they are of vital significance to regional licensees. There is no indication of the complexity of these guidelines and they could well involve licensees in a costly and time consuming exercise which could take three months or longer even to start to get to the first fundamental commercial consideration. The time allocated under the timetable given by the Government is far too inadequate to do the job. Talking of timetables, I point out that in Western Australia and South Australia there is reference to aggregation and one wonders what this really means. Does it mean that regional licensees will be able to broadcast in the metropolitan areas, or will the metropolitan stations simply expand in the regional areas? I ask the Minister to answer that question when we reach the Committee stage of this debate. Why should someone meet this timetable in a rush and then repent at leisure? Most people will opt for multi-channel services, and that defeats the Government's intention in the short term. In the short term and even in the medium term, viewers in regional areas will be denied opportunities of choice. Australia already has more stations per capita than the United States of America. We now have in regional eastern Australia four million people served by 23 stations-that is about 174,000 people per station at present. Under the Government's policy there will be 69 stations for four million people-that is 58,000 people per station. I read in the papers-I hope that it is not true-that certain people in the Government are influenced not by the wishes of regional viewers but by one or two networks in Australia. I know that that is not the Minister's view. I have looked at the figures. In the eastern capital cities nearly eight million people reside in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, where there are nine stations. That means that there are about 890,000 people per station. When is the Government going to extend the number of stations in those three cities? Mr Cowan —The Prime Minister won't let him. Mr MACPHEE —It is not the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I wonder who runs the Government in this regard. How does one provide viewer choice? These are the questions that the Parliament must face. Networking is what the Government is on about, but it has just become more confused. Mr Brumby —You had eight years. Mr MACPHEE —We were on the way to providing viewer choice by supplementary licences. The one defect of that was that we did not grant supplementary licences immediately. The question now is networking. Even though this is a more cumbersome version of it, we believe that the ultimate outcome will be control, if not ownership, and the destruction of localism by the people who make programs, and the people who make programs or sell them are essentially the networks. We do not think that that will provide quality or diversity or choice. Another option for the Parliament is to look at the multi-channel service or the supplementary licence approach. We know that regional stations have been highly profitable. We also know that, pursuant to the previous Government's policy and the announced policy of the Minister, the stations set aside a lot of money in order to set up a supplementary licence and to provide for a second supplementary licence and to cope with eventual aggregation. They can do that, remain viable and provide choice; but they cannot survive under the policy announced today. That is bad for local employment and local advertising as well. As well as that, the Minister has confused the issue further because in a separate statement he said that there would be a moratorium on pay television for four years. It will not be introduced until 1990 at the earliest. The wild card is: Will it be introduced then or will it come a little later? This Government will not be in government at the time, but, just the same, those who want to invest their capital must consider that it might be. It is a wild card because, under the final indicative plan produced today, some people-- Mr Duffy —That is a good way of viewing the ABC and the SBS. Mr MACPHEE —The Minister sees a parallel there. Some people are looking at 1991 and some at 1992 before they must aggregate under the plan before us. Yet they could find that they are obliged to make decisions early about the kind of technology they must adopt. In fact, they must decide that in three or four months. Yet after they have made the decision, the Government could introduce pay television in its various forms. We are in an era in which satellites and fibre optics will be the technological route to go. Some licensees are now obliged to commit themselves to an implementation plan virtually straight away. Three or four months is virtually straight away. That will almost inevitably force them to make technological decisions which will involve outmoded technology, although by the time they actually come to implement the plan they would have preferred to go by way of satellite or fibre optics. Telecom will have linked the capital cities and several provincial cities by 1992 by fibre optics. All these choices are a hard and confusing route for regional proprietors to go down. Then they will be confined instead to obsolete technology. Also, the Minister made much of licensees being able to get sales tax exemptions. I put it to him that these should be extended beyond just the transmitters used for aggregation so that exemption embraces expenditures on the feeder lines and antennas and on the translators. The are all essential parts of an overall transmission system and, in a broad sense, are included as parts of transmitters. The cost of these feeder lines and antennas, together with the cost of translators, is in the order of $36m, which adds 75 per cent to the cost of transmitters which would otherwise attract a sales tax of some $7m. The exemption of sales tax is justified not only-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hodgman —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(9.22) —It is my pleasure to rise to support the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill. I do that because in no uncertain way are these important Bills. Equally, they are historic Bills in terms of broadcasting policy in Australia. We have heard already an interesting debate on these Bills and a legitimate contribution from the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), but I think it is important to bear in mind that what we are trying to do with this legislation is to provide a cast iron framework, if you like, for expanding the range of broadcasting services throughout country Australia. In simple terms, this legislation is about ending the discrimination which has occurred in the range of television services which can be enjoyed by city and country viewers. This legislation gives effect to a commitment that this Government has held since we were elected in March 1983, that is, to provide equal services to the many millions of Australians who live outside the capital cities. When we came to government and when the Minister for Communication (Mr Duffy), who has made a number of statements to the Parliament on this issue, stated very clearly what the Government's goals were, he said that this Government was determined to seek to meet its joint objectives of equalisation and competition in regional television in Australia. We sought to do that because, as I have said, We want to ensure that regional viewers in Australia get the same range and choice of television services as do their city cousins. In looking at providing increased services to country people a range of options was obviously available to the Government. As has been mentioned already in the debate, technology would allow a government to make decisions to simply allow 100 per cent networking of programs via satellite from the capital cities. That would probably be the cheapest and the quickest way to provide choice to people in regional areas, but the Government is not interested in that course of action because it would destroy regional television as we know it, would destroy localism and would put all control of television policy into the hands of a few owners of the major city networks. That was one option we did not pursue. We basically came down to looking at two options-what is known as aggregation and what is known as the multi-channel services system. I am on the public record as supporting the view that an expanded range of services should be provided to country people through the multi-channel services option and I put forward certain arguments in support of that proposal, but I have always of course acknowledged that there are legitimate views on both sides about how best to provide that increased range of choice and eventually competition to country people. When the draft indicative plan on aggregation was released by the Minister some weeks ago I was not happy with it, and it has now been changed. The Press release which the Minister tabled in the House tonight provides significant changes to the original draft indicative plan. I have to say that I am pleased with the final outcome. There has been considerable consultation by the Minister and by Government members with all involved in this industry, ranging from the regional stations themselves to their representative body, Regional Television Australia; and of course the interests of viewers has also been paramount. The Minister said, when announcing the draft plan, that it would be just that-a draft plan-and that it would always be subject to consultations and amendment. I am pleased that that process has been undertaken by this Government and that, as a result, significant changes have been made to the draft indicative plan. Importantly, because of those changes, we now have a plan which guarantees choice and competition and which still provides that, where all licensees agree, they can move to competition via the multi-channel services system. It ensures that there is a steady timetable for the introduction of choice and competition throughout Australia. Most importantly from my point of view, it ensures that in the longer term the vital role of regional television will survive and indeed, in my view, will prosper in the future. That outcome may not have been guaranteed. It certainly would not have been guaranteed had any government decided simply to go down the satellite networking route. I want to make a few points about aggregation because it has been the Government's preferred method of achieving choice and competition. It is the vehicle which Cabinet has now decided on and which this legislation gives effect to for giving country people the same range of services as city people. I think aggregation has some advantages over other forms of introducing choice and competition into regional television. The first of those is that the framework we have before us tonight provides for much less regulation in the industry than would be the case under a system of supplementary licences or multi-channel services, as we could call them. Regulation for regulation's sake I certainly never support and I support any case where government can reduce regulation if it is in the long term interests of business in the market and of viewers; and I think in this case that is so. The second advantage of this framework before us tonight is that it is market driven, and that again is important in an industry which is imaginative, which is competitive and which needs, I think, more opportunities for entrepreneurs. This framework will ensure that it is more market driven. I also have to emphasise that, in my view, as one looks around the four markets that have been created in Australia one can see that there will be opportunities for imaginative entrepreneurs to provide improved television services. The plan which the Minister has tabled tonight and which has been approved by Cabinet provides for competition in the Victorian situation by 1992. I mention that area because it is the one in which I have an interest. It has been put publicly that the plan that has been approved provides for the majority of people in country Victoria, but omits the 47,000 viewers of Mildura. Similarly, in the New South Wales market Griffith has been excluded. I want to make a few points about why that has occurred. If the Government could have done so, it would have provided competition and choice to those people, but it simply has not been possible under this arrangement to do that. I will make a few points about that. The first is that under our policy of equalisation we have tried as far as possible throughout Australia to provide that range of choice and competition, but some areas, because of their small population and because of their isolation, we simply have not been able to fit into that broader plan. There is nothing new about that. In the draft indicative plan places such as Mount Isa, Broken Hill, Darwin and so on were not included because of those issues of isolation and small population. Similarly, when we looked at the final indicative plan, we had to exclude Mildura and Griffith for exactly the same reasons. It also has to be said that Mildura and Griffith were the smallest markets included in the draft indicative plan. There is no doubt that if three competitive services had proceeded with those two smallest markets they would have been in many ways big winners under the plan, whereas the larger regional stations such as Bendigo and Ballarat would have been financial losers, having to outlay significant sums to service those small, isolated markets and getting back a very small return. When the Government looked at the draft indicative plan, it consulted the industry and got the views of regional television. On that basis the Government has excluded those areas from the larger approved markets. In this legislation we will be providing those two areas with the option of providing multi-channel services. We finally reached a fair decision there. It is worth bearing in mind that under this plan well over 90 per cent of people in regional areas will have three television services in the not too distant future. I want to touch on another point raised by the honourable member for Goldstein-that is, the network argument. It is alleged that the Government has pandered to the networks in favouring its method of achieving equalisation-in other words, aggregation. I restate that the easiest way for any government to have ensured competitive choice into regional Australia would have been simply to allow the networks to have beamed directly off the satellite. We did not do that because we believed there is a vital role for regional television and we want to see that sustained in the future. This Government has always refused permission to the networks to broadcast directly to viewers in regional areas because we value localism and because, if we did that, the local news, current affairs, weather and sport would have simply disappeared off local stations. It is worth emphasising, in response to the honourable member for Goldstein, that the Government cannot be accused of simultaneously pandering to the networks and favouring regional licensees, as has been put by some commentators on this decision. Under the final indicative plan some licensees will do well, some not quite so well and some very well. We have tried to bring together a policy which meets all the competing interests in this industry in a way which will guarantee eventual choice and competition. Another issue on which I have touched briefly, but which is fundamental to this debate, is localism. I have mentioned that the simplest way of providing choice and competition would have been simply to use the satellite, but that would not have done anything for localism in regional Australia, which this Government wants to see protected. Some stations have a fine record of providing local content. Most regional stations have about 7 per cent local content and take, in one form or another, about 93 per cent of their programs from the major networks. Localism is important. It is crucial in my area of Bendigo in the service provided by TV8. There is a very strong local following of TV8 because it provides local news, current affairs, access and so on. I point out that if one looks at the resources which stations such as TV8 put into their local content, it is something which is worth preserving at all costs. This year TV8 won the Penguin awards of the Television Society of Australia for the best regional news, the best regional news story and the best regional personality; received a commendation for another regional news story; and received special recognition in an open category for its community service announcements. That is no mean set of achievements for one regional station. This year TV8 also won the Logie for the outstanding contribution to regional television, which was won by the TV8 news presentation, News Hour. In 1985 TV8 won further awards for its news and current affairs programs and it has also won sporting awards for what it has done in film, videos and documentaries on harness racing in Victoria. Those things are worth preserving and I am confident that the policy we have announced tonight will ensure that there is a long-standing and long term role for regional television in Australia. It has been argued that aggregation may reduce local content, but I am firmly of the belief that aggregation will not destroy local content. In fact, there will be every incentive in larger aggregated markets for television stations to continue to put their resources and money into producing local programs, because by doing that they will keep local viewers. There are American examples which show that television station licensees which provide the greatest proportion and best quality of local content achieve the highest ratings. In a commercial operation it is ratings which are all important because they determine advertising revenue. I am confident that in the markets of Victoria, southern and northern New South Wales and Queensland regional television stations will have an inbuilt incentive to maintain and perhaps even increase their level of localism in terms of sporting coverage, cultural coverage, news and current affairs. By doing that they will retain viewer patronage, which will keep advertising revenue coming through. I am confident on that issue of localism. It is fair to say that this issue has been a contentious one for the Government over time. It evokes, depending on whom one talks to, some heated views about providing choice and competition in regional areas. It is also a complex issue. A wide range of competing interests is involved in this industry-the interests of networks, regionals, viewers and of the big regionals versus the small regionals. One could probably throw in a few other competing interests. In the legislation before the House tonight the Minister and the Cabinet have found a formula and a framework which meet most of the concerns. We will never meet all the concerns, but the legislation meets most of the concerns of all those competing interest groups and provides a formula which will provide competition and choice to the five million Australians who do not live in capital cities. It is also an historic piece of legislation because it provides, in my view, an iron clad time-table for introducing choice and competition in Australia. We will have competition and choice of three stations in southern New South Wales by 1989, Queensland by 1990, in northern New South Wales by 1991 and in Victoria by 1992. Even if in some of those markets all the licensees agree to move to competition via the multi-channel service, we will still be guaranteed competition and three services in Australia by 1996. The honourable member for Goldstein said that the Government had neglected to take account of the main players in this whole issue-as he put it, the viewers. I reject totally his assertion. We have put the interests of viewers in country Australia to the forefront of our considerations. It was this Government and this Government alone which talked three years ago of equalisation and which has been determined to provide country people with the same range and quality of services as their city cousins. Clearly the Opposition, which was in government between 1975 and 1983, had every opportunity to provide increased choice to country viewers if it had so wanted and if it genuinely intended to do that. The fact is that in eight years of government members of the Opposition did nothing about providing increased choice to those viewers whom tonight they say are so fundamental to this whole issue. Mr Jull —We brought in supplementary licences legislation.- Mr BRUMBY —There is an interjection about supplementary licences. The fact is that those opposite were in government pre-1975 as well. Pre-1972 we had regional television, but the fact is that those opposite were in government for eight years between 1975 and 1983 and they did not provide any additional choice to the five million country people who live throughout Australia. I daresay that if those opposite were in government for another 10 years they still would not. The reason they did not was that certain interests were on their side. The fact is that we are providing additional choice in services. This Government has put into place the remote commercial television service. We have put into place an expansion of the ABC radio network. We are now putting into place an expansion of choice in competition in regional television. This Government is determined to give country people the fair go that they have deserved for the best part of a decade. We have got that now with legislation which is iron-clad. It will guarantee that. I have pleasure in supporting this legislation. Mr SMITH(Bass)(9.42) —I will make a few remarks about the previous speaker, the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby). I suppose he can take some satisfaction in that the final plan that has been brought before the House in the guise of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill does change somewhat-I think it is termed `substantial changes'-from what was previously proposed. He was one of those who led the charge, if you like, against the policy proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and others. In that sense I suppose he should be congratulated. But I wonder how far he is really satisfied with the final outcome because whilst there is still an embracement of aggregation despite what he has said in his rebuttal of many of the arguments that we have put to the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), I believe that he could still have some reservations about where this legislation might take us in the end. In any event, the Broadcasting Amendment Bill has had a long gestation period as other speakers have said. It was some three years ago that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) outlined his desire for equalisation. In the second reading speech in introducing this Bill he said that he was proud to commend the Bill. I remind the Minister of his own words. He said: . . . we always have to be constrained by consideration of cost and good management . . . That is partly why our amendment is concerned with good management and cost. If one looks at the end of his second reading speech-it is interesting to highlight the costs associated with this Bill-there are three broad areas. Firstly, the licensees proceed to aggregation and are to be exempt from sales tax on UHF transmitters purchased prior to 1991. The estimated cost is about $30m in 1986 prices. I ask the Minister: Does that apply to those who opt for the multi-channel services option initially? I suppose that it does. The honourable member for Goldstein made the point that if we are going to pursue this route for sales tax exemption, we ought to go the whole gamut of the material and items that have to be purchased and take in feeder lines and antennae. The second point is that there is a rebate offered on licence fees to those that aggregate. That will cost $22m in forgone revenue. Thirdly, there will be a project of planned capital works to upgrade Commonwealth transmitting stations. That will cost $16m. So the total estimate is to be approximately $60m over the period until 1996. That is the direct cost to taxpayers via the Commonwealth. But what of the cost to the stations themselves? Estimates range into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Really the basic question that must be asked is whether or not this pursuit of providing choice which we have heard so much about in the method proposed is worth the cost. I suspect that when the final accounting comes in it will certainly not be. There is no doubt that a policy of equalisation-that of providing three commercial services to all Australians-is a massive task and equivalent to the work of the introduction of television itself. There are many issues to be considered. There are the financial issues, which I have mentioned; there is program production which other speakers have mentioned; there is the effect on advertising revenues; and there are also diversity aspects and the localism aspects to which the honourable member for Bendigo alluded. I, like him, come from a rural seat, although mine is in Tasmania, and we will certainly be concerned about the maintenance of continuation of localism within television. I do not want to see us progress down that path with not only satelliting but also networking because I think that would be to the detriment of the continuation of localism and letting regions develop their own character. I fear that this aggregation policy even though it has been watered down will, in time, affect localism because of the financial issues that will arise to force greater control by the networks over regional stations, whether they be small or medium sized. The detailed discussion of the two possible routes to equalisation, either aggregation or MCS, has provoked much discussion publicly. Most of it has been on the government side. The change in attitudes has indeed been interesting to watch. The Minister quaintly describes it as `a flexibility in debate which can only be admired'. The flexibility has not been the sole province of the industry; it has certainly been within the Government's ranks. When one goes back to the Forward Development Unit report, the threshold question is posed that in determining which approach to take the conflict exists between considerations of competition and viability. The FDU acknowledged that the Government is in a hurry for equalisation and thus some long term options have been discarded. Why then is there this hurry? The Government has adopted the aggregation route with an option MCS phase in arrangement. The needs or desires for competition were over viability. Only time will reveal whether this has been sensible. However, it was the major networks that wanted it this way and it seems that they have won the day. It must be acknowledged that the original indicative plan has been substantially reworked which does give more attention to the more absurd aspects of the original proposal. Viability is at least given as one of the essential criteria in the determination of aggregated and approved markets. In my view the safest way to create greater choice was the MCS route. Under MCS existing licences would expand to two transmissions in their respective markets immediately and then by 1991 expand to three transmissions in their own market. After these had been consolidated there would be a move to the competitive circumstances of aggregation. This Bill does have a hook in it regarding MCS. In my view the 28 days period is hardly adequate time for the television stations to make up their minds whether or not they wish to go down the immediate aggregation route or the MCS route. I wonder whether or not there might be an opportunity to extend that period to a more reasonable period. The hook in it is the one-in all-in rule on the MCS option. If one of the three licences chooses the aggregation route instead of the MCS, the other two licences must follow suit. David Astley, Chairman of Regional Television Australia, said as long ago as August of this year: This decision making process, not by majority, but by minority, is undemocratic and against all principles of natural justice. As a lawyer the concept of natural justice ought to be something the Minister is well acquainted with. I wonder how he answers that very valid criticism. If one looks at our amendment, we draw attention in the amendment to the one-in all-in trigger mechanism because we believe it to be wrong and contrary to natural justice. The flexibility of argument over the Bill is interesting if one looks back over the last months. As long ago as 16 December 1985 in an article in the Australian Financial Review we see that the differences between the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications surfaced and, lo and behold, a committee was formed. In that article it is stated: In light of the considerable Government in-fighting and some unflattering media coverage last week concerning his attitude to various media groups, the climate was not good for a considered solution to the ticklish problem . . . . . . . Essentially, it is a hung committee as Mr Keating so far has largely supported Mr Hawke. The members of the committee were the Minister for Communications, Minister Button, the Treasurer and, I believe, the Prime Minister. There are previous articles with headlines on this issue. This is going right back to late 1985. We saw headlines such as `Duffy braces for regional T.V. showdown' and `Duffy's regional T.V. plan gains support from unexpected quarters'. That article talks of the connection between Senator Button, the Minister for Communications and the independents. Then there was an article by Gregory Hywood in the Australian Financial Review of 13 December 1985 headed `Mates and others: Hawke's view of the media groups'. It is interesting to have a look at that article. It states: On Monday during the heated Cabinet discussions over revamped television ownership provisions-the biggest proposed changes to broadcasting rules in 30 years-the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, is authoritatively said to have referred to the Packer and Murdoch organisations as `the only mates we've got' in the media. That is interesting. I repeat that the article stated `the only mates we've got in the media'. If we look also at the National Times we see another interesting article by Alan Ramsey. That article, which went into some detail, reads: The Prime Minister is being forced to re-think his new grant design for Australia's commercial TV industry that overtly benefits the broadcasting interests of two of the country's most powerful media figures, Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer. Where did Mr Peter Barron end up? He was the one who was actively involved in all the television activity and policy formulation. I understand that he is now gone. Where else should he end up but, as I understand it, working for Mr Packer. The interesting move in this legislation is that the vital ownership and control decisions on changes are not yet final. We are told in the second reading speech that the two-station rule is under consideration. It is my strong view that the legislation is deficient in that the whole change requires the vital second leg of ownership to be made known. All the Minister has said is that it is being reviewed and that there `could' be a change. It is my view that this statement is more a recognition of the deep divide that still exists in the Government over this whole issue. By 13 October 1986 the Duffy-Button concern for regional seats began to manifest itself in newspaper headlines. In the Australian Financial Review of 13 October this year was a headline `Government pushes modified plan for television aggregation'. I would just like to quote from that article as well. It states: In an attempt to take some of the sting out of the regional industry opposition and in response to the Caucus, the Government is considering enlarging the aggregated markets so the regionals will have a greater revenue base to fund aggregation. This was a clear response to the threatened Caucus revolt led by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), who, in a moment of rational thinking, pointed out that aggregation would require massive purchases of equipment overseas to provide the necessary services at a time when our balance of payments was bad. After last week's announcements of $1.78 billion in terms of the current account deficit I would say it is now worse. Indeed, the ministerial ambitions of some honourable members on the other side of the House might be a little sick after this protracted debate. I understand that the Caucus committee of infrastructure and primary industry voted 15:1 to urge a slower pace on aggregation. The Australian Financial Review reported: . . . Mr Hawke was said to be furious yesterday that the entire commercial television question was unravelling, with the potential to strain his relations with some major media group. Mr Jull —Not a pretty sight. Mr SMITH —Indeed, not a pretty sight. No one knows what relations or agreements of understanding exist. Of course, one hopes that there are none but Australia is not alone in being concerned. It is interesting that the former Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Michael Somare, said in Port Moresby on 18 September, according to an Australian Associated Press wire: . . . it would be morally wrong to allow Kerry Packer's media organisation to broadcast . . . in . . . New Guinea while blocking another intending Australian operator, Newcastle Broadcasting Network. . . . . He said he did not know whether there were secret arrangements on the future of television but the matter was a subject of speculation. He referred to a reported meeting recently between a senior Packer executive and Prime Minister . . . Wingti. It should also be of interest to honourable members that the Newcastle Broadcasting Network, owned by Kevin Parry, sought a writ of mandamus in September this year requesting the Government of Australia to show why it is not continuing with the existing supplementary licence system. I ask the Minister, when he sums up, to explain how this legislation affects that court proceeding. Does it have the effect of annulling the proceeding if the legislation passes? If that organisation wins that proceeding what will be the situation? Will honourable members opposite come into this House and try to amend the Act as it applies to that application for a supplementary licence? The honourable member for Goldstein, in postulating why the Government was in such a hurry to pass this legislation, said that it could be because there was an election around the corner. It could also be that the Government was worried that the successful litigation proposed by NBN would have forced its hand in any event. Finally, I wish to refer to Division 8 of the Bill, which relates to the special provisions affecting Tasmania. The need to recognise Tasmania as a special case was always apparent to those who really thought about it. It is a relief to see that the legislation recognises this fact. A total population of 450,000 in a State could never support three commercial licences. A population of one million is seen as the viable figure and that is not likely to happen in Tasmania in the short term. The lack of any decision on ownership and control is such that a Tasmanian operator is not really in a position to make decisions as to the options provided by the Bill. This is so right around the country. It is a fatal flaw in this plan for the Government not to present the whole package together so that industry can make clear decisions as to its future. It again raises questions as to why there is such a rush to put this Bill through, leaving, as it does, a major, unresolved issue vital to industry's future decision making. I believe that reasons can be explained in part in the recent views expressed by the Treasurer, who, as we know, was appointed to a special television committee as long as ago as 1985 and who has been seen as the stalking horse for the Prime Minister on this issue. But a recent headline in the Australian Financial Review of Monday 10 November sums it up quite well. It states: `Keating muddies waters of TV issue now in too-hard basket'. Let me quote from that article to find out what Mr Keating has done to muddy the waters. I quote from the article written by Greg Earl: . . . Mr Keating has now muddied the waters by proposing a ban on any new common ownership of newspapers and television stations in the same market' but no overall limit on commercial television ownership. . . . . It would appear to disadvantage the Herald and Weekly Times and John Fairfax media groups. It would appear to advantage the Consolidated Press Nine Group . . . Perhaps there we have the solution. I will leave it to honourable members to draw their own conclusions about what has really become a sordid affair to try to get to the truth of what has been happening on this issue. In effect, as it relates to Tasmania we would certainly be pleased with what the Government has decided. It gives effect to what is really a common-sense approach. But, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Goldstein, as we have one exception-we have one in Tasmania and now there are other exceptions as a result of the new indicative plan-how can we ever say that we have equalisation? It might be a lesson to the Government that, when it follows some recommendations that are put to it that are designed to advantage particular groups-that would seem to be the reason it wants to pursue full aggregation-there are always traps. Any government, when it makes a decision such as this of a vital nature, which is the biggest change to broadcasting in 30 years, has to remember that it governs for us all and not, as outlined in the headline I quoted from earlier, just for the mates of the Prime Minister. I support the amendment. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(9.58) —As the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) said earlier, we have before us a very important piece of legislation-in fact, an historic piece of legislation that some would say equalises the television services and provides three services for regional Australia over the next 10 years at the outside and a lot earlier in the eastern part of Australia. One could say, after the last 18 months or so of debating this matter: Who thought of equalisation in the first place? I can quite clearly say that it was not I. Notwithstanding that, we are here tonight. As I have mentioned, the decision on equalisation services was an historic one. They provide larger and more viable regional markets than the smaller monopolies that have existed since the advent of television some 30 years ago. It is not that those services have not served us well up to this time but, with the advent of new technology and the way communications are moving with technological advances and so on, it is time to move on. Clearly, it is time to move to larger and more viable regional markets. As has been mentioned, the Government could have gone to direct broadcasting in a much quicker way via satellite and the networks, but that was obviously not the way to go. It was not the way that I, or the Government as a whole, wanted it to go as that would have concentrated the ownership and control of just about all Australian television into the hands of three networks. Obviously that is not the way to go. The honourable member for Bendigo and other honourable members have talked about localism. I, from a suburban seat, probably do not appreciate that as much because I do not live with it every day of the week as they do when they are at home. But, as someone who has tripped around the Victorian countryside quite a bit, I appreciate the localism that country stations bring to their areas. In fact, I believe that the Bendigo television station had an open day recently and several thousand people went through the complex in the one afternoon to see their local television station. At markets, trash and treasure stalls and all those sorts of things one might see a few hundred people. But it is quite amazing that, when there is an open day at a local television station, literally thousands of people pour in to see how it all works. I see the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) is agreeing. It would probably have been the same had this occurred in Launceston. That must be taken note of. It has been taken note of in this legislation and with aggregation. This legislation also provides for competition. For example, in my State of Victoria the Ballarat, Bendigo and Albury services will be in one of the markets which should be provided by 1992. There will be three competitive services from those existing operators right across Victoria, leaving aside Mildura, which is treated as a separate case and is allowed to have a multi-channel service if it requires it. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) talk about what really amounted to a fourth network. He was implying that we should look at putting to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal that a fourth television network in Australia is due. I have not heard that proposition from the Opposition before. But, looking at the figures that I have seen and that maybe the honourable member for Goldstein has also seen, I must admit that that may be not too far down the track, especially for Melbourne and Sydney. But I was interested to hear him raise that issue. It would obviously be a very important issue if a fourth network or channel in the two major population cities were to occur within the foreseeable future. As I have said, the Government has no plans at this stage to put that proposal to the Tribunal. It has not been discussed at all but I thought it worth noting that the honourable member for Goldstein floated that idea this evening, not quite as directly as I am putting it, but that was what he was saying. I do not think that the regional operators have helped themselves much over the years. We would not have had this great hassle and fight backwards and forwards over the last 12 to 18 months if they had been a bit more progressive and more willing to bring forward positive plans over the years, especially with some of the members of the National Party of Australia who represent them in this Parliament. I am not quite sure who is at fault. As I understand it, when progressive thoughts were put forward under the previous Government, it was always the National Party members who stomped on them. If they did not stomp on them, they dilly-dallied and said: `We will fix that and come back next week'. Of course, next week never arrived. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) is grinning. He was a member of the former Government's communications committee. I understand the problem was really with the intransigence of the National Party, in collusion to an extent with some of the regional operators who did not want to progress as quickly as they should have when they saw technology on the horizon ready to take them over. We have seen the same thing happen with the National Party in the primary industry area. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) spoke about that at Question Time today. In this case it is television, but again National Party members have not been representing their constituents as they should have been. They should have been talking to the regional operators and saying to them: `We have to be positive. We have to draw up plans for the future because this big satellite will be there whether we like it or not. If we do not sit down and come up with some constructive thoughts, you will have the networks running the whole show whether you like it or not'. We have avoided all that and I sincerely hope that we will continue to avoid all that. But National Party members must give more constructive thought to what is best for their constituents; that is, if the National Party is representing many rural areas after the next election, because the Labor Government may well take a few more seats, particularly in Queensland, where one or two are going begging. They may well come our way. I wish to pay tribute to some of the Government members, in particular the honourable member for Bendigo, the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay). Mr Shipton —What about Isaacs? Mr CHARLES —In answer to the interjection, the National Party did stand against me at the last election and finished up with about 600 votes out of 70,000; so I do not think it will try again. The honourable members for Bendigo, Ballarat and Herbert have been very forceful and not backward in coming forward with their views to the Government over a long period on this issue. In fact, Jack Gleeson in Townsville should name part of the television station after the honourable member for Herbert. Every time we thought we had fixed a problem, the honourable member for Herbert came back and annoyed the hell out of us again about something else. This went on for about 12 months. But, collectively, those honourable members have done an excellent job by representing their constituents and putting to the Government quite succinctly the views of the regional operators and of the people they represent. They should be lauded in this House for their efforts over a lengthy period. The ownership issue will be settled shortly. Mr Smith —When? Mr CHARLES —That will go hand in hand with this historic piece of legislation. The honourable member for Braddon had better hope that Kerry Packer does not buy the new network available in Tasmania or he will be really up against it. To summarise, the Bill equalises the bringing of three services to all of Australia. It provides more viable and larger markets for regional Australia. It is progressive and we will continue to progress in various ways as technology continues to change, which it will do for many decades. We will not have a situation of two or three people controlling television in Australia. Ownership must be as diverse as possible in the most powerful medium in the world. We must provide competition. This legislation is one part of ensuring that competition. For all those reasons, I support the legislation before the House. Mr JULL(Fadden)(10.08) —There is no doubt that the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill are historic legislation. In fact, it is the most dramatic legislation in terms of the future of the television industry since television was introduced in Australia in 1956. The ramifications of the legislation will be felt far and wide across the nation. Tonight we have heard a number of excuses for this legislation. But the real question that we must ask ourselves is: Why is it being introduced in this time of very great technological change? The question we must answer is: Why are we applying 1950s technology to the 1990s? At a time when we have this technological change with satellite transmissions and the introduction of fibre optics we must say to ourselves: Are we going to give a second best solution to the people of Australia by virtue of this legislation and by virtue of going down the path of aggregation of our television systems? Speakers on the Government side tonight have promoted the concept that the people in outback Australia and in the regional areas will get a greater choice of programs. I suppose they will, but there were simpler, easier and cheaper means of delivering choice of programs to those regional areas than those being put forward tonight. I know that my good friend from Tasmania tonight indicated that he had some concern with the control that networks would have in terms of the provision of those programs to those regional areas. I thought tonight we might undertake a little study in just what the country people might be up for once we get aggregation. I have just taken a random sample of the television programs for tonight, Monday, 17 November, from the program guide on page 17 of the Sydney Sun. Let us turn to Channel 7, because it will certainly be in this business. At 4 o'clock we have a program called For Young Viewers, the highlight of which is Huckleberry Finn and Friends, which is a repeat. At 5.30 we have Punky Brewster, a repeat; at 7.30 we have Air wolf, a repeat; at 8.30 we have Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer, a repeat; at 9.30 we have Simon and Simon, a repeat; at 10.30 we have Bless Me Father, a repeat; and the only new programs that we have happen to be the news and some program called Play Your Cards Right. For the nightime's viewing on Channel 9, at 7.30 we have The Flying Doctors, a repeat; at 8.30, Paper Dolls, a repeat; at 9.30, Prime Time, a repeat; at 10.40, Best of Jackie Gleason-that must have been made in 1956-a repeat; at 11.40, Last of the Australians, a repeat; and then we have three movies through the night, all repeats, before we start off with Bonanza at 10 past 5 in the morning, also a repeat. Turning to Channel 10, at 4 o'clock for young viewers we have Catch Cameron, a repeat; at 5 o'clock Gilligan's Island-when I worked for the Ten Network we had put that through 27 times; it must be up to 100 times now, so that is another repeat-at 5.30, Best of Perfect Match, a repeat; at 8.30, the movie, Dimboola, is a repeat; at 10.25, Entertainment This Week, is a repeat; Morecambe and Wise at 11.25 is a repeat and at 11.55 Are You Being Served?, a repeat. So all night there are repeats. We must ask ourselves what will happen when we have these three networks going throughout Australia. The facts are that the commercial networks existing at the moment hold Australian rights on virtually all those television programs and the garbage being dished up by way of repeats on the network stations now is exactly what will go out on three networks around the regional areas of Australia. I suggest that rather than looking at spending in excess of $600m, which is what this proposal will cost the regional networks, we should be looking at an easier, simpler and more inexpensive approach, and we can do that by providing multi-channel services, by providing supplementary licences. The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) said tonight that the coalition parties had done absolutely nothing in their term in government. In fact, the supplementary legislation was put in place by a Liberal government. A number of the regional stations had applied for supplementary licences and the Government would not hear them. The point about supplementary licences is that if we want to provide a very real choice in television programs for regional viewers, we can do it now; we can do it quickly and we can do it very cheaply. In fact, supplementary licences could be on the air in just a matter of months. That is obviously the way to go because nobody realises what the full extent of the technological development in the communications industry will be like 10 years down the track. I suggest that we will have satellites and that they will be the prime source of distribution of programs and of information generally, and with the tremendous developments that are currently being made in that whole area of fibre optics we will have great options for diversification of programs beyond the comprehension of most members in the House at the moment. Mr Macphee —You can see that the Minister agrees with that. Mr JULL —I think the Minister would agree. Any rational human being who has done a bit of reading on the subject would realise that already we have fibre optics that can deliver 40, 50 or 60 channels, and they are talking about the development of fibre optics in the United States at the moment which have the capacity of distributing 930 programs through one fibre. That is the sort of technology that we are looking at. It would seem that we have put all this aside at the moment to go ahead with this system of aggregation which just will not provide what is needed-a greater choice of program, and a greater diversity of program, which we can institute virtually straight away. Mr Macphee —Why do you think that is? Mr JULL —We can go back to the original concept, back to the situation of networks and just who owns those programs, and we have to work out why the deal is being done. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr JULL(Fadden)(10.16) —Last week on the Gold Coast of Queensland 4,000 British travel agents met for their annual international conference. It was the first time that a major international conference of this type had been held in Australia and in terms of the future of the travel industry it was probably the most important conference ever to be held in Australia. Having spoken to a number of the travel agents who attended the conference, it would seem that the majority of them were quite surprised at the attractions that Australia has to offer, and in fact gave every indication that Australia would be a most attractive place for British tourists to visit. In fact we have seen a great increase in the number of international visitors coming to Australia in the last few years, particularly in the number of British tourists. I understand the projected figure for British holidaymakers this year is around 178,000. One of the most telling points that came out of the conference was a statement by Mr Jack Smith, the Chairman of the Association of British Travel Agents, that the only thing standing between Australia doing very well out of the tourist industry from Britain was the high cost of air fares to Australia and indeed the high cost of domestic travel within Australia. He suggested that, because of the present regime in terms of international air rights into Australia, the average cost of a holiday in this country for a British holidaymaker would be something in excess of seven times what is normally paid now. Mr Smith suggested that the only way we could overcome this and obtain an even greater share of the British travel business was to look for the introduction of charter flights both to Australia and within Australia. I was interested to see that he suggested that the price available for charter operations from Britain to Australia would probably be in the vicinity of $850 return. That is not bad; $425 each way between London and Australia for a return flight. That figure is probably right because it is not so many years ago that Sir Freddie Laker, when making an application to the then Government to introduce charter flights into Australia, was quoting a return fare of some $680. The way inflation is at the moment, that $850 figure is probably not a bad base to work on. My suggestion would be that we overcome some of the bias that seems to exist in all levels of government in relation to the introduction of charter flights and ask both Qantas Airways Ltd and British Airways, which are the prime operators on that route, to have a look at the prospect of generating their respective charter companies and introducing a fare that may be in the vicinity of $850 return. We know, for example, that British Airways has a holiday packaging outfit called British Air Tours. British Air Tours is the charter subsidiary of British Airways. In the early 1970s when Sir Freddie Laker first made his application to Australia, Qantas itself started up a charter company. It put that company, called Qantair, on its books but it has never been generated. My suggestion tonight is that the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) go to Qantas and British Airways and look at the prospects of opening up that charter market between Great Britain and Australia. With a base holiday fare of some $850 return we would be more able to tap into that British market, worth more than $10m a year. Of course we have to look beyond charter flights. There is a tremendous growth in the number of Japanese tourists coming into Australia. The fact is that the air fare between Tokyo and Australia is still one of the most expensive in the world. If one looks at the formulas used by the Japanese charter operators when they were looking at coming into Australia, one sees that they quoted a fare of about $640 return between Tokyo and Australia. That compares with anything between $900 and $1,700 which are the tour base fares on which we operate at the moment. Tourism is one of the few growth industries in Australia. It is one of the few industries that have the capacity to provide long term employment for our young people. Every time we can bring an additional 25,000 international holidaymakers into Australia we have the chance of creating another 1,400 jobs for young Australians. Therefore it makes a lot of sense for the Government to start to forget some of its bias towards charter operators and have a very real look at that proposition that has been put up by Mr Jack Smith, the Chairman of the Association of British Travel Agents. A fare of $850 between the United Kingdom and Australia would be a tremendous base for us to start feeding into that traffic. The one thing that it can do, apart from improving our balance of payments deficit, is to provide real and long term employment for young Australians. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.21) —Tonight I wish to bring to the attention of the House an event which, for symbolic reasons, would obviously have been more appropriate to raise during last week's adjournment debate. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present for the adjournment debate on Remembrance Day 1986. My colleague the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) made a fine contribution on the significance of that date. I take the opportunity to congratulate him and to congratulate his friends, the students from the Kiama High School, who talked to a number of members of the House on that day. I, too, wish to raise issues of war and peace, of sacrifice and remembrance. The story that I will relate is about men who, like so many others, gave their lives in the defence of Australia during World War II. They are the men of the 2/21 Battalion, known as Gull Force. They were sent to the tiny but strategic island of Ambon which is located in the Banda Sea between New Guinea and Timor. The battle for Ambon took place in January 1942. It was all over in a week, with the inadequately manned and underequipped Gull Force isolated without either air or sea support, unable to stave off the enemy whose strength and superiority were so self-evident yet so underestimated. Although the defeat was swift, the existence of the Defence Force on Ambon was a strategic factor in halting the Japanese advance on Darwin and shifting its direction towards New Guinea. What happened after the surrender is not perfectly clear either in relation to the number of prisoners of war involved or in relation to their fate. The facts appear to be these: Of the 900 to 1,100 soldiers who constituted the Gull Force, it is confirmed that only 305 returned to Australia after the war. One account that I have read suggests that only 15 soldiers were killed directly in the fall of Ambon while another 40-odd were able to escape before the Japanese had completely secured the island. It is therefore to be assumed that between 500 and 700 young Australians lost their lives at the hands of the Japanese while serving as POWs. Of these, it is confirmed that 312 officers and men were the victims of a massacre carried out by the Japanese at Laha on 6 February 1942 and between 15 and 20 February 1942. The official record cites the reason for these atrocities as being in response to heavy Japanese losses incurred when a mine sweeper struck a Dutch mine in the Bay of Ambon on 1 February. A number of Japanese officers were brought before the war crimes trial in 1947 for the massacre, and one was executed for his part. A further 263 men were relocated to the island of Hainan off south China following these executions. A total of 182 survived the Hainan experience whilst only 121 reached Australia from Ambon. The Australian War Crimes Commission said of Ambon that the death toll was 87 per cent of POWs, rating it as the worst prisoner of war camp in the Pacific. Despite the fact that the official record recognises the existence of the massacre at Laha, on Ambon, the circumstances and numbers involved have never been fully clarified. Following the war the truth was hidden from many of the relatives who lost sons, husbands and fathers. They were told that their kin had been killed in action or were missing presumed dead. This incident has been brought to my attention by a constituent who lost his brother at Ambon. He alleges that a conspiracy of silence has surrounded the events since the war. Even the Victorian President of the Returned Services League, Bruce Ruxton, was unaware of the massacre until it was recently brought to his attention. I do not know why this conspiracy of silence exists. My intention in relating these events is not to rekindle the fires of hatred but merely to ensure that the real story of Ambon comes to light so that my constituent and the relatives of all those who died and, indeed, all Australians may know what happened. To set the record straight, I believe the Government should carry out an investigation into the Laha massacre. I think this would be an important step in providing the due recognition which my constituent and other relatives of those who died believe is proper for the sacrifice which was made. In closing, I will mention that in the Encyclopaedia Britannica is a reference to the Amboinia massacre, now Ambon, but it is not a reference to the events of 1942 in which 300 Australian soldiers were so brutally killed; it is a reference to 21 traders who were put to death by local Dutch authorities in 1623. I believe it is time that another reference was added to that entry in the encyclopaedia-a reference which brings to light the truth of the massacre of Ambon. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(10.26) —I rise in this adjournment debate to add my voice to the long list of individuals, organisations and public bodies expressing their loathing of the Government's fringe benefits tax. The longer this tax is around, the more anomalies and defects are found within its legislative framework. Unlike the New Zealand fringe benefits tax which is centred on cars, cheap loans and housing arrangements, the Hawke-Keating version throws a wide net, capturing all within its grasp. Two particular incidents exemplify the broad thrust of this act and bring innocent individuals into its predatory clutches. The first is represented by the taxing of benefits provided to local government council members for the use of vehicles, meals, entertainment or any other benefit associated with council members' duties. The main bone of contention in this area is whether councillors are considered council employees, even if they are elected by the general public within the precincts of their small shire electorates. Section 7 of the Queensland Local Government Act 1936-85 prohibits a member of a council from being an employee of that council. Therefore, a councillor is not an employee by definition of the law. As I am informed, other State Acts contain similar provisions. So we have the law saying that a councillor is not an employee. However, a recent ruling by the Commissioner of Taxation contradicts this statement, and considers local government councillors as employees in his statement No. MT2035. The implications of this decision are that members of governing bodies of various other statutory authorities and companies, who are not considered employees, may come under this ruling. This all boils down to the fact that the Commissioner should be directed not to issue taxation rulings that attempt to widen the scope of revenue collection further than the law allows. The second area which concerns me is that country school hostels and boarding schools will be liable for FBT on accommodation and board provided to wardens and staff, many of whom are required to live in as part of their duties. When the Treasurer (Mr Keating) sought to rectify anomalies in the original legislation, he failed to take into account the extra cost burden being placed on our boarding schools by the imposition of this tax. I have it from one of the boarding schools in my electorate that the FBT will cost it an additional $10,000-- Mr Slipper —How much? Mr McVEIGH —Ten thousand dollars, which naturally will have to be passed on to the families which are struggling to give their children a good education. It is all right for those who have high schools every two miles, but in outback Queensland and other parts of Australia people are not quite as fortunate. We are all aware of the vastness of our outback and the necessity for children to attend boarding schools in order to receive an education. Now we have a tax imposed on those individuals who mind the dormitories in the evening and who are provided meals and lodging in lieu of cash payments. Obviously, like so many Australians, I submit what a nonsense this Act is. The small, piecemeal alterations to this legislation which were announced recently go nowhere towards rectifying the serious changes needed in order to keep from burdening the individuals whom we should be wanting to help. After all, the Labor Government is about the redistribution of wealth, but this tax impacts on almost every Australian in some way and does not relieve anyone of additional burdens of taxation. This legislation does more harm to the little man than it does to the big fish whom the Labor Party and the Treasurer, Mr Keating, originally sought to catch. If this tax represents the concern of the Labor Party for the worker, the worker will never forget it when the next election comes around. The burdens of this tax will be passed on to each and every one of us and will not be absorbed by the employer, as the Treasurer in this forgotten area of Canberra seems to believe. The tax will be added on to the cost of necessities which the ordinary worker has to purchase. The Labor Party will rue the day it threw such a broad net and caught every fish in the pond, and not just the big ones. There are many more small fish than the big powerful ones, and I advise the House and you, Madam Speaker, that the memories of ordinary Australians are long. They will not forget, just as they did not forget in the Queensland election. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(10.31) —I would like to say a few words tonight about the progress of the made in Australia campaign in my electorate. Particularly, I would like to comment on an insert that was published in the Sunbury Regional News. Mr Hollis —I will pay that. Mr O'KEEFE —It is, as my honourable colleague says, an excellent newspaper which is encouraging people to buy Australian. It has gone to a lot of trouble to set an example. It has used the new Government endorsed Skippy logo, as I call it, to encourage people to look for the real logo. That is something I want to return to a little later. This has not just started with the Regional News. It has now been picked up by the major retailers. They have reported to both the country task force of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and also the Prime Minister's prices task force that there has been a definite shift in consumer preferences. I saw an insert last week in the Melbourne Sun in which a major retailer is now taking full page advertisements promoting Australian made products and using the Government's logo. I think that is good news and a good example has been set. This draws me to the issue that I really wanted to adopt tonight; that is, the need for retailers who are really doing the right thing to adopt the Australian made logo. It is very rare that I have some success on the golf course, but I happened to win a trophy a couple of weeks ago. I took great delight in it, and I took even more delight in the fact that it has the Australian made symbol on it. In fact, the president of the golf club, in presenting it to me, happened to comment on the fact that I had been promoting Australian made products and how proud the golf club was that it had a genuine Australian made trophy for me. You will notice, Madam Speaker, that the trophy does not bear the proper skippy logo; it is one of those logos with a boomerang and some stars on it. I went away thinking that this is really good. Later on I took it apart, just out of curiosity, being naturally suspicious. Of course, what did I find? It was made in Japan. This is a problem that has been raised so often with us. People in Australia are prepared to support the campaign to buy Australian made products, but they need to be able to rely on a logo and upon the marketed products as they are presented on the shelves. That is why there is clearly a need for better packaging and labelling and, most importantly, the logo that people can rely on. We know-and we have seen first hand experience of it here-that products have been shown on the outside as Australian made and then turn out to be imported. We have had to take steps to ensure that the Australian made logo will be a genuine guide for shoppers. That is why the companies which want to adopt the logo will have to demonstrate that their products have at least a 70 per cent Australian content and, most importantly, the Australian Council of Trade Unions has agreed to assist the Government by making sure that the logo appears only on products which have met the guidelines. Quite clearly, retailers and importers-importers in particular-will resort to that sort of tactic when they know people are looking for Australian made products. It is just not good enough. I think it is fair enough to say that workers know best what is going on in the factories and shops of Australia. Through the ACTU, they will be assisting us to expose anyone who wants to exploit the campaign using that sort of tactic. I think it is only fair. Let us remember that the Hawke Labor Government is spending $2m on a campaign to promote Australian made products. If that is fair enough, I state here in this Parliament that it is fair enough that business must do the right thing for ordinary Australians and consumers. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(10.35) —Madam Speaker, a few days ago you were gracious enough to extend your hospitality and to receive a gentleman named Pat Ogden. Pat was here on a very interesting mission. He was here to bring before the more significant members of the Australian Labor Party the fact that the ALP was actually formed in a place called Barcaldine. Mr McVeigh —That is in your electorate. Mr KATTER —Exactly. He, of course, was involved in some dispute, I believe, with people from Balmain, who believe that the Party was formed there. We have no doubts; we know it was formed in Barcaldine. What I want to point out is that Barcaldine is typical of great communities, communities which are significant insofar as they are the substance of the industries that keep this nation operating-the mining industry, the shearing industry, the cattle industry. I am not here to put the case for the powerful landholders-not one damn bit. I am here to put a case for all those groups of little people who have the experience of talking to friends and learning that they are able to sit in their armchairs and have a look at the recent test match. The point I want to make, and which I am leading up to, is that we out in those back blocks are a little tired of not receiving outstanding sporting events. We do not have much else. There is not very much else out in that part of the world, and I could point to community after community. I know from discussions with the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) that perhaps this situation will be rectified in the near future. But the point I want to make is that it is always a matter of `Will we see the Melbourne Cup?'. We are told: `Oh, yes, you will see the Melbourne Cup. You will see the start, when they jump, and you will see the result when they pass the post'. There are none of the preambles, none of the preludes. We people out there are said to be galahs and my very good friend, whom I hate to quote in this sort of sense, said we represent trees and sheep. Mr Slipper —Who was that? Mr KATTER —It was the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). A lot of lip service and a lot of pontificating goes on from various ALP members and senators. What I am saying to them is: `Do not pontificate; do not make great speeches; do not make statements to the Press. Get in the Caucus room and demand from the Prime Minister and from the other Ministers involved that these matters be rectified'. It is very simple. When we were in government we were able to do that sort of thing. I am quite sure that if these people are fair dinkum, if they really believe in making these Press statements and so on-such as why are we not getting television-they will not just make a speech in the House or see the Minister; they will take the issue to the Caucus room. They will get in there and demand. We represent people who are isolated; we represent people who are in remote areas; we represent people who have little else; and we represent people who are treated frequently with contempt by the people in the urbanised areas. Honourable members opposite should go to the Prime Minister and to members of Caucus, because most of the people in those areas have over the years been totally loyal to the Australian Labor Party. In the very heart of that area the Australian Labor Party was formed, Madam Speaker. You and I had the pleasure of discussing all this. So my appeal tonight is to those members and senators who are involved with these areas: We have had enough damn lip service; get into your Caucus room and have some firm decisions made. Mrs KELLY(Australian Capital Territory)(10.39) —I have some sympathy with the points that the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) has just raised. In fact, I was faced with a similar situation last Friday when I received some calls from my constituents who were very concerned that in this national capital they were not going to see any telecast of the first cricket test. Even my own colleagues complained. So what I did was take immediate action. I rang the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. A spokesman said: `No, I am sorry. We are not televising the cricket because we are running golf'. So I rang Capital 7 and I spoke to the General Manager. He said: `Of course I will respond to your request'. And at 2 o'clock that afternoon the station was showing the first test and it showed it all afternoon. I suppose that indicates a very effective local member of parliament! I rose tonight to speak about a case that was drawn to my attention by one of my constituents. It really concerns the action of a kangaroo court which exists in the legal system of Australia-and that is the Marine Council. A constituent of mine was charged before the Marine Council with assault. He was suspended for three months, but he had no chance at all to present his case. The background to this is that my constituent is a young man with three young children. The youngest is a child of three years who has to attend a special school in Canberra. An incident occurred outside Port Walcott, Western Australia, aboard the Australian National Line ship Australian Purpose. My constituent-David-was an electrical engineer and also the bar manager for the officers' mess for the trip. The ship was at anchor off Port Walcott for about 14 days because of an industrial shoreside dispute. An incident occurred when the ship had docked for loading cargo. A cook entered the officers' smoke room and abused those present with foul language. David had to remove the cook and the cook fell. The incident was logged as assault and David was fined $10 and suspended from duty. The master of the ship should have carried out a proper inquiry. He did not do so, and this contravenes section 115 (2) of the Navigation Act. The ship was just about ready to sail and pressure was put on David because had he appealed the ship would have been delayed further. So, he did not appeal. Because the incident was logged as assault, the master or Superintendent of Shipping had to inform the Marine Council. The Marine Council heard the case on 18 September. David was not asked to appear; nor was he given the opportunity to question witnesses or evidence. The solicitor for the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, which is the union, had, prior to the hearing, asked the Marine Council to specify a number of details regarding charges in order that the matter could be defended. A decision was made by the Marine Council before it replied to the solicitor's letter. I then took up my constituent's case. I spoke to the Chairman of the Marine Council myself, requesting that compassion be shown to David because of his family circumstances and particularly because of the high medical bills for his daughter. The Chairman showed no compassion whatsoever. David was suspended for three months by the Marine Council. Therefore, he has lost salary for three months and he has used up all his leave. This man has been suspended with no salary for three months. He is the father of three children and his is the only income coming into his house. He had no opportunity to argue his case to the Marine Council, and that is supposed to be justice in this country. Ironically, after David was suspended by the Marine Council he received a letter from the Australian National Line advising him that he had been promoted. So, this man has been promoted while he is suspended for three months. I believe that this contravenes laws of natural justice. I also believe that it contravenes certain sections of the Navigation Act 1912, particularly section 369 which states: Every inquiry shall be so conducted that, if a charge is made against any person, that person shall have full opportunity of making a defence. I do not believe that that situation existed for my constituent. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.44) —Tonight I wish to talk about the Queensland election. On 1 November, with the words `I have some wonderful news for the people of Queensland', Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen claimed victory in the State election. He effectively silenced his critics in the most decisive manner where it counts most-at the ballot box. Sir Joh and the Queensland National Party had withstood continued attacks from the Australian Labor Party, aided and abetted by others, including the media, who had thrown support behind baseless Labor Party allegations. The Labor Party unfortunately continued its time-honoured tradition of throwing mud in the hope that some would eventually stick. Labor's failure to offer credible policies ensured its fate. It did not offer policies; it did not offer anything that anyone would require for government. It failed to entice Queenslanders to elect it to office. Yet it persisted throughout the entire length of the election campaign with personal attacks. In other words, it participated in and sanctioned a very dirty campaign. The election result also left the media with egg on its face. Headlines in the media read `Why Joh is fundamentally finished' and `The end of a legend-why Joh's days are numbered'. An early edition of the Sunday Mail on election night ran the headline `Joh in peril'. How wrong they all were. Throughout the election campaign the public was subjected to empty promises from the Labor Party. It claimed to be honest-- Mr Hand —Tell us how much money Joh got. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne has already spoken tonight. He cannot have two bites of the cherry. Mr SLIPPER —The public did not believe that the Labor Party knew what the term `honesty' meant; yet somehow Labor hoped to trick the Queensland electorate. People remember the infamous words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who was elected on the promise to reduce the price of petrol and who stated clearly that there would be no new capital gains tax. What does Australia have now? Higher petrol prices and a capital gains tax. People know that the Labor Party in Queensland, as in other parts of Australia, simply cannot be trusted. It has various factions, such as the one led by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), each promoting its own sectional and narrow views. People do not want such extremism. We had a situation in which the union movement entered the election debate by misusing members' funds to finance attacks on the Queensland Government. Unionists were not consulted or asked whether their money could be used for anti-Government advertising. That money was misappropriated by union officials. The Queensland Teachers Union and the Professional Officers Association are two unions which should be taken to task by their members-- Mr Hand —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Those are very serious charges to be levelling at individuals who are unable to defend themselves in this House. The honourable member said that people had misappropriated and misused funds. I find that an offensive remark and I ask that it be withdrawn . Madam SPEAKER —It is not unparliamentary and the honourable member is not out of order. Mr SLIPPER —Thank you, Madam Speaker. People who misappropriate money commit criminal offences, and I must say that the Queensland Police should investigate the actions of the POA and the Queensland Teachers Union. But the unions certainly got their own on election day because their members, along with other people, certainly rejected the ALP. Indeed, various letters appeared in the Brisbane media. One letter to the editor said: The ALP does not have any policies. They are simply a rubber stamp of the bully boys of the union movement. These are the people whom the honourable member for Melbourne defends in the House tonight. The majority of Queenslanders proved that they wanted the continued strength of the National Party Government. As Sir Joh stated on the night of the election: The good sense of Queenslanders has recognised that the National Party has a wonderful organisation in a wonderful State. Former Labor Lord Mayor Clem Jones said that the `Proctor factor' had been important. He said: Australians will not cop the sort of vilification Bjelke-Petersen was subjected to. What's being said about Wran is kindergarten stuff to what was being said against Bjelke-Petersen-it was a vicious, unsubstantiated campaign of vilification and it was not acceptable to the electorate. What won it for Bjelke-Petersen is that people hate uncertainty and they hate bastards. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(10.48) —We are almost at the end of 1986, which is the International Year of Peace. Already tonight the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) has referred to the year and has also referred to the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) who last week-- Mr Griffiths —A good member. Mr BLANCHARD —Yes, he is a good member. Last week he brought along students from the Kiama High School and we were privileged to have them in Parliament House talking about the issue of world peace. There is no doubt that one of the greatest contributions to the International Year of Peace in this country has been through the school children of Australia. I was fortunate enough last week to receive a letter from a teacher-librarian at the Wanneroo Senior High School in my electorate. I think I should read it and I will proceed from there: In an attempt to foster an awareness of the importance of peace in this International Year of Peace I am presently collecting material for a display entitled `WORK FOR PEACE' in our school library. Items included in this display will be student and staff `Peace Letters', music, posters, guest speakers etc. I wish to request from you a personally composed letter or article on the theme of peace to add interest and credibility to our efforts. Any theme on peace would be appropriate but suggestions could include; How Australia's youth could work for peace. Why you consider peace important. What you fear most about war. Any contribution would be most appreciated even if it is something more creative such as a drawing or doodle again around the peace theme. I'm sure you can understand the impact such external and high profile contributions would have on the success of the display and ultimately on the opinions of our young Australians and thank you warmly in anticipation of your co-operation. As I am not an artist at all, although my wife is, I decided that I would not doodle or draw. I decided that I had better compose a letter to the students. I hope honourable members opposite will listen carefully. My letter read as follows: Dear Students The idea of peace as a goal and vision for the human race is more alive today than it has ever been in the past. This is due to a growing realisation that unless we create a state of peace in the world there is every likelihood that we will destroy ourselves and all life on the planet. 1986 as the International Year of Peace has given a boost to this concept of peace as a goal. The United Nations has asked the world's people to place a special focus on peace this year. The most urgent task today however is to halt the arms race, particularly the development, testing and production of nuclear weapons. In the past lesser powers have tended to step cautiously where the conflicts of great powers are concerned. But all governments respond to pressure and the nuclear powers will respond to pressure from their neighbours if only pressure is strong enough. You, too, can be part of that pressure. Less than one day of the combined U.S. and Soviet military budget would pay for the combined budget of the World Health Organisation and the United Nations Children's Fund. Less than half a day of that budget would provide enough money to eradicate malaria worldwide. Governments spend an average of $19,300 a year per soldier but only $380 per school child. According to a study done by the Council on Economic Priorities in the United States, every U.S.$1 billion spent by the pentagon creates 28,000 jobs in the private sector but if the same amount of money were used in educational services 71,000 jobs would be created. The stark reality behind the statistics is that while arms expenditure multiply basic human needs remain unmet. Poverty and ill-health still remain major problems in many parts of the world. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.54) —Tasmania is an island with 400,000 people and a battling economy, but good, hardworking people live down there. Whilst I am not a jealous man-and my good friends opposite know that-I have got very jealous of a particular person who seems to have the media in Tasmania by the tail. He had a lot to say when the dams issue was on and I suppose that he in conjunction with many other trendies, including a lot from the Australian Labor Party, stopped the dam being constructed in Tasmania. That was economically bad for the future of Tasmania. All right, we lost that battle, and I have settled down to be the normal, nice and quiet Bruce Goodluck again, not causing any trouble to anybody, not fighting with anybody and not running people's characters down incidentally, but just being quiet and normal. I wish many other politicians would follow the same principle-you fight hard but you leave people alone. I want to give a person a bit of a serve tonight and he has the right to give me a bit of a serve in the State Parliament. I have no love for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Some of the people who work for that organisation are very nice, but some have given me and my family a rotten go over the years and I do not forget. I get sick and tired of turning on the ABC because every time I turn it on I see or hear Bob Brown. We have two wonderful industries in Tasmania-the timber based industry and the tourist industry. All right, the dams issue was lost; that is forgotten. I met a man in the street, a bloke I went to school with. He looked at me and he said: `Bruce, why don't you vote against the dam? It's a cause, Bruce'. He had tears in his eyes. I thought: `What about the poor workers, what about the trucks, what about all the hire purchase they have and so forth?' I met him again the other day. He looked at me again-he was always a bit of a sop at school, incidentally-and he said: `Bruce, we have a cause'. I looked at him and I said: `What is it this time?' He said: `We have to save the forests. We have to make certain that our beautiful trees are saved'. I said: `What about the workers of Tasmania? What about the trucks? What about the people who have families to look after?' He is involved down at the university-there are many trendies down there too, incidentally. On Saturday night I thought I would have a bit of relaxation and I turned on the television. There again was Bob Brown talking about Tasmania, pumped up by the ABC as the greatest thing since sliced bread and pleading with everybody to stop ruining the forests of Tasmania. I am afraid that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is getting involved too, incidentally, and that is a bit of a worry. The good thing about that is that-and sometimes one has to isolate one's enemies-when they are all on one side one thing is certain; there will be five Liberals back for Tasmania in the House of Representatives next time. Mr Beale —How many senators will you get? Mr GOODLUCK —I do not know about senators. Anyway, there will be five representatives back from Tasmania next time. But I only wish to goodness that the media would go down and have a look at Tasmania and realise that people like Bob Brown-I have nothing against him personally, but he gets far too much publicity-do not have the answers. I do not get much publicity. Mr Cunningham —You ought to talk. Mr GOODLUCK —Look, I would go into the electorate of the honourable member and teach him how to milk cows if I could get some votes. But I am not stuck at the moment. Where are all the jobs that Bob Brown was going to provide for Tasmania when the dam was stopped? There are nil. Where are all the jobs which were going to be resurrected when they stopped cutting down trees in Tasmania for all the timber products? Even in our own Parliament House dining room there is Tasmanian blackwood. People do not realise what an important industry it is for Tasmania. If they are going to stop it and impede it, it is going to be bad for the economy of Tasmania. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.58 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: Mr Keating —On 16 April 1986 (Hansard page 2395) the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) asked the Minister for Primary Industry a question without notice concerning the quarantining of farm losses. Mr Kerin undertook to refer the question to me. The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The facts on this matter are straightforward. The Minister for Primary Industry announced on 15 April 1986 in his Rural Policy Statement that the quarantining measure would not be proceeded with. The decision not to proceed with the measure, in the absence of other measures, will result in forgone revenue of $65 million in 1987-88 and $45 million in subsequent years. On 16 April, Mr Hurford referred to this cost in terms of `net revenue forgone'. He was, of course, referring to the revenue loss from not proceeding with quarantining net of the saving resulting from the decision also not to proceed with the improved income tax averaging arrangements proposed in association with the quarantining measure. Senator Walsh's reference to the figure as a `gross' amount was in terms of the revenue forgone from dropping quarantining and the improved averaging arrangements exclusive of any savings which may accrue from other measures announced in the Rural Policy Statement or measures arising out of the Government's announced review in the primary production area. The review being undertaken by the Government will examine existing tax legislation in the primary production area with a view to reducing the scope for tax avoidance activity. The review will consider more closely-targeted remedies to specific areas of abuse rather than the general quarantining measure with its catch-all character. As to the timing of the review, work has commenced at departmental level, but I cannot indicate when the review will be finalised. (Question No. 1884) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Is he able to say (a) when the US GEOSAT project was set up, (b) what its annual funding in each year was, (c) which agency or other authority (i) held executive responsibility for the project and (ii) provided funding for GEOSAT, (d) what was the US Program Element (PE) number for GEOSAT funding in each year since inception, (e) whether it is a primary function of GEOSAT to improve the performance of US SLBM delivery systems through the provision of accurate geodetic data as a basis for position-fixing; if not, is he able to say what is the primary function of GEOSAT, (f) whether the satellite has any other (a) major or (b) minor functions; if so, what they are, and (g) whether there has been any change in responsibility in the US for GEOSAT; if so, did the change reflect any change of (i) mission or purpose, (ii) application (iii) funding arrangements, (iv) administrative considerations and (v) any other matters and what are the details. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. In US Fiscal Year (FY) 1982 (1 October 1981-30 September 1982). (b) to (d) Yes. Details are given in the accompanying table. (e) to (f) The primary function of GEOSAT is, as part of the long-standing US program of research in satellite geodesy, to provide precise information on the shape of the Earth and on its gravity field. Like all scientific data, GEOSAT data will have a wide range of potential civilian and military uses. GEOSAT data will be made available to the general public for commercial and scientific applications. The US Department of Defence has advised that while data derived from GEOSAT will be used by the Trident II program, along with much other data, GEOSAT data has only indirect application to the TRIDENT II program and that the TRIDENT II program is not the primary user of that data. The principal objectives of GEOSAT are: (i) To provide an accurate map of the topography and roughness of the sea surface. It does this by means of a radar altimeter. The measurements give the height to the satellite which is then related to the surface of the earth by tracking the satellite from ground stations. (ii) To improve the earth gravity-model by measuring gravitational accelerations imparted to GEOSAT, and by analysing the data on the shape of the sea surface. A secondary objective is to provide oceanographic data on ocean thermal boundaries. (g) There has been no change in responsibility in the US for GEOSAT, which since its inception has been a US Navy responsibility. As a matter of budgetary convenience, GEOSAT was originally funded under the TRIDENT program, but in keeping with GEOSAT's broad multifaceted nature, funding for the project has been provided under the Defence Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) since 1 October 1985. Other changes, shown in the answer to parts (b)-(d) of the question, derive from administrative considerations and not from changes in the mission or purpose of GEOSAT, and underscore the multiple applications of GEOSAT data. The GEOSAT project is to be funded under the DMSP, until FY 1989. GEOSAT: CO-ORDINATION AND FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS Fiscal year Annual Funding Executive Authority Funding Authority Program element (PE) and PE title $USm 1982 ... 17.5 Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Submarine Warfare) Office of Naval Research 63371 N TRIDENT II 1983 ... 18.6 Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Submarine Warfare) Office of Naval Research 63371 N TRIDENT II 1984 ... 10.9 Director, Space Command and Control (Office of Chief of Naval Operations) (1) Office of Naval Research 63371 N TRIDENT II 1985 ... 4.2 Director, Space Command and Control (Office of Chief of Naval Operations) (1) Office of Naval Research 64363 N (3) TRIDENT II 1986 ... 1.4 Director, Space Command and Control (Office of Chief of Naval Operations) (1) Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (2) 31560N (4) Defence Meteorological Satellite Program 1987 ... 1.7 Director, Space Command and Control (Office of Chief of Naval Operations) (1) Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (2) 31560N (4) Defence Meteorological Satellite Program 1. This change occurred in 1984 as part of a reorganisation within the Office of Naval Operations. The Director, Space, Command and Control sponsors all US Navy space systems as well as all naval communications and naval command and control systems. 2. Formerly Naval Electronic Systems Command (NAVELEX), and renamed in 1985. The transfer of responsibility from the Office of Naval Research was done to centralize management of all Navy space systems development. 3. The change in PE number was made for fiscal management convenience. 4. The change in PE number reflects the change in PE title. The change of title was for fiscal management convenience. (Question No. 3388) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: When may I expect an answer to question Nos. 2438, 2439 and 2442, placed on notice on 15 November 1985. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Answers to the honourable member's questions were provided on the dates shown below: question 2438-19 August 1986 question 2439-26 May 1986 question 2442-15 October 1986 (Question No. 4537) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What action has been taken to prevent the wrongful payment of social security benefits to prisoners in NSW gaols. (2) Is he able to state the view of the NSW Privacy Committee on the provision of the names of prisoners in NSW gaols. (3) What arrangement did his Department suggest for obtaining prisoners' names. (4) What was the reaction of (a) the NSW Privacy Committee and (b) the NSW Government to the suggested arrangements. (5) What is the position at the time of answering this question. (6) What action is proposed. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (3), (5) and (6) Details of all persons imprisoned in NSW have been made available to my Department; this data together with information on admissions ensures that payment will be stopped where the individual has failed to notify his/her imprisonment. (2) and (4) The honourable member should seek these details from the entities concerned. (Question No. 4652) Mr Ruddock asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: Further to question No. 2686 placed on notice on 25 November 1985 (a) have more than 9 months passed since the question was first placed on notice, (b) when can I expect an answer to this question, (c) have 27 Ministers already replied to a similar question, and (d) what does this delay say about the efficiency of the internal reporting system in his Department. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The answer to question 2686 appeared in Hansard dated 8 October 1986 at pages 1690 and 1691. (Question No. 4659) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: Further to question No. 453 placed on notice on 26 March 1985-(a) have more than 17 months passed since the question was first placed on notice, (b) when can I expect an answer to this question and (c) what does this delay say about the efficiency of the internal reporting system in the Minister's Department. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: My Department's internal reporting system is extraordinarily efficient. (Question No. 4731) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) How many communities receive social security benefits under sub-section 135tc (2) of the Social Security Act. (2) What has been the cost of these benefits in each year since 1982-83 (a) in total and (b) for each community. (3) What is the estimated cost of these benefits in 1986-87 (a) in total and (b) for each community. (4) What benefits make up the total payment to each of these communities. (5) What are the details of each benefit paid to each of these communities. (6) For what period has each of these communities been in receipt of bulk social security benefits. (7) What checks ensure fraud is minimised. (8) Have there been any cases of individuals from one of these communities also being in receipt of a personal benefit; if so, what are the details. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Sub-section 135tc (2) permits a pension, benefit or allowance payable to a person under the Social Security Act to be paid to another person on behalf of the first mentioned person. Some institutions such as nursing homes and sheltered workshops receive payment on behalf of eligible persons through this mechanism; a single cheque payment is made to the institution with details of individual entitlement supplied. These payments are known as group cheques. There are currently 985 institutions which receive payment on behalf of residents by this means. Additionally, a number of institutions receive comparable payment through the direct credit method. National statistics are not available but there are 86 such payments in NSW. These are generally made up of small convents, religious homes and nursing homes. Other details are not maintained. Consequently, the answers below relate solely to group cheque payments. (2) (a) Total costs are as follows: 1983-84-$226m 1984-85-$285m 1985-86-$291m (b) See (1) above; in view of the large number of these payments I am not prepared to authorise the considerable commitment of resources needed to provide an answer to this question. (3) (a) The estimated total cost of payments for 1986-87 is $302m. (b) See the answer to 2 (b) above. (4) and (5) See answer to 2 (b) above: the payments covered comprise age pension, invalid pension, widow's pension and sheltered employment allowance. In total terms expenditure for 1985-86 was as follows: $m Age Pension... 175 Invalid Pension... 55 Widow's Pension... 2 Sheltered Employment Allowance... 59 Total... 291 (6) See answer to 2 (b) above; the arrangements are of long standing. In some cases these arrangements have prevailed for some 40 years. (7) Any application for payment under these arrangements must be approved. Where the pensioner is able to handle his or her personal affairs the request must be voluntary. Where the pensioner is unable to handle his or her own affairs a departmental officer may, after satisfying himself/herself that the institution is suitable to receive the pensioner's payments, authorise the payment to be made to the institution on behalf of the client. In both situations the institution must undertake to use the payments solely for the pensioner's benefit and to notify changes in the pensioner's circumstances. In all cases the arrangement is subject to revocation on request or if there is subsequent suggestion that the interests of the pensioner are not being safeguarded. (8) I am advised that no such case is known. (Question No. 4767) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 October 1986: (1) Further to his answer to question No. 1622 (Hansard, 11 February 1986, page 205), what was the estimated expenditure for road construction and maintenance in each year since 1983-84. (2) What percentage of expenditure was provided by the (a) Federal, (b) State and (c) local governments in each of these years for (i) Australia and (ii) each State. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Bureau of Transport Economics' preliminary estimate of national expenditure on road construction and maintenance in 1984-85 is $3708 million. Combined expenditure data for the three levels of government in 1985-86 is not yet available. (2) Percentages of the preliminary estimates of expenditure of each level of government in each State and for Australia in 1984-85 are detailed below. PROPORTION OF ROADS EXPENDITURE, 1984-85 Level of Government State (Per cent) NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Australia Federal... 30.2 30.4 35.6 44.6 38.5 37.0 54.5 34.5* State... 37.3 38.5 33.9 33.9 31.1 44.2 40.8 36.2 Local... 32.5 31.1 30.5 21.5 30.4 18.8 4.7 29.3 Total... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 * Includes Federal spending in the ACT. Source: Bureau of Transport Economics estimates.