Wednesday, 26 November 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.01) —I move: That, in response to the petitions of Bernard Dominic Brassil and George Joseph Nutman presented to the House on 15 November 1985 and 14 October 1986, respectively, this House grants leave- (1) to the petitioners to issue subpoenas for the production in court of documents tendered by (a) the Aboriginal Legal Service Ltd and (b) Mr G. F. Burke, during the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs' inquiry into the effects of asbestos mining on the Baryulgil community, and (2) to an appropriate officer or officers of the House to attend in court and produce the said documents and the official report of the committee and to give evidence in relation to the conduct of the inquiry which led to the report provided that such officer or officers shall not be required to attend at any time which would prevent the performance of their duties in the Parliament, with the intention that the said documents be available in all proceedings to which they are relevant. On 15 November 1985 Mr B. Brassil, solicitor of the Aboriginal Legal Service New South Wales, petitioned the House to grant leave for the release of documents tendered to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs during its Baryulgil community inquiry by the Legal Service and Mr G. Burke. He also sought leave to refer to the Committee's report and to have an officer of the House attend the court to produce the report and to give evidence in relation to the conduct of the inquiry which led to the report. On 5 June 1986 the House referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs the question of whether the House should grant leave to a petitioner to serve a subpoena for the production in a court of the documents referred to in Mr Brassil's petition. During the Committee's consideration of this question a further petition was presented to the House on 14 October 1986 from Mr G. Nutman, a solicitor acting on behalf of Marlew Mining Pty Limited, seeking leave of the House for the release of documents tendered to the Committee by Mr G. Burke to a court in which proceedings had commenced to determine the question of ownership of the documents. The Committee presented its report yesterday on the question referred by the House. In considering the matter the Committee sought advice from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who stated that there was no reason why the documents should not be released to courts in which they were considered relevant as evidence. The Attorney-General also stated that the documents could be made available to both proceedings which were the subject of the petitions. The Committee endorses this conclusion and recommends to the House that it grant leave to petitioners to issue and serve subpoenas for the production to a court of documents tendered by the Aboriginal Legal Service and Mr Burke during the Committee's Baryulgil inquiry. This motion gives effect to the Committee's recommendation and to the other matters for which Mr Brassil sought leave in his petition. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(10.03) —The Leader of the House (Mr Young) has moved a motion which has the support of members of the Opposition. Our only concern is that the proper opportunities for making privileged statements within this Parliament be protected, not that those statements, having been made, should be denied for production in proceedings where properly they are matters before the court. There has been on a number of occasions concern expressed about the degree to which proceedings here are seen as being privileged and hence not available in forums outside this place. The most recent and most notable example, of course, is in respect of the inquiry into the affairs of the late Mr Justice Murphy. It is difficult to establish a common procedure and practice which ensures that matters raised here, properly and within the responsibilities of members, are available where they should be available. It is always true that, as a result of publicity accorded matters within this place, the public at large has access to whatever statements we make-and properly so-but when we look at the requirements of courts we see that a different status is given to Hansard and the reports of proceedings. It is for that reason that it is necessary that a motion of this character be passed by the House. The Opposition does not object to the proceedings in this instance and commends the Leader of the House for having moved the motion in this way. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate the Disability Services Bill concurrently with the Disability Services (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.05) —This package of legislation-the Disability Services Bill and the Disability Services (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill-which we are considering today is of great significance to the many thousands of people in Australia with disabilities. In broad terms the Opposition supports this legislative initiative by the Government, although in another place we moved amendments, one of which we were successful in having accepted. We will, with the concurrence of the Clerk, later be circulating our proposed amendments to these Bills. I believe that all Australians have a great deal of sympathy for those of their fellow Australians who have disabilities. It is important in our society, which by world standards is a wealthy society, a compassionate society and a Christian society by and large, that we, in framing our legislative approach to government and in providing welfare services, understand the special needs of those people who do not have the same capacities and advantages that the majority of Australians have. For that reason, we believe it is important that government in developing its welfare policies give considerable attention and thought to ensuring that the very special, indeed unique, needs of people with disabilities are catered for in general terms. This legislation represents a major review. In fact, it is a landmark piece of legislation in terms of care for people in our society with disabilities. The shadow Minister for Community Services, Senator Peter Baume, speaking to these Bills when they were introduced in the Senate, said in broad terms that the Opposition supported the thrust of the Government's initiative and was prepared to support the legislation to the extent that it moved towards setting goals and objectives and reflected the special needs of people with disabilities. That, of course, is our view in this place and we will not be opposing these Bills, although, as I said, we will be proposing certain amendments. I am told that in Australia there are at least 270,000 people between the ages of five and 64 with disabilities. That gives honourable members some idea of the numbers of people in our community who are interested in this legislation and underscores, I believe, the need for all members in this place and, in fact, in the community generally, to pay attention to the way in which we set up a legislative framework for the provision of community services for people with disabilities. Community services are very important. In recent years there has been a changed approach to the provision of these support facilities. By their very nature and because of the nature of our society, support for people with disabilities originally arose as a result of the concern and, dare I say, love of their families, their parents in many cases, and their immediate relatives. In recognition of the work done by informal groups, government began to provide services in this area. The legislative framework developed over a long period in co-operation with those voluntary groups, family groups and charities which have taken an interest in the provision of these very important support services for these very special people. This legislation seeks to change the basis of the government's approach. We on this side of the House do not have any objection to that basis of approach, although we differ on detail in some areas. We see that the Government has recognised some of the points made in a Senate report prepared some years ago which bore the title `Through a Glass Darkly'. The Opposition supports the general thrust of that report and is very pleased to see that the Government has taken the opportunity to introduce some of the reforms proposed with a view to achieving some of the objectives presented in that report. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), in the second reading speech on the Disability Services Bill, said that it had a number of purposes. The first of these was to provide a future legislative basis for the provision of financial assistance to organisations conducting services for people with disabilities to replace the present source of assistance, namely, the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974, which, apart from certain provisions, will be repealed. The second objective is to provide a specific legislative base for two related sub-groups-the program upgrading scheme and the assistance for people with print disabilities-by incorporating them into the new legislation. The third objective is to provide funding and other mechanisms by which, under certain conditions, existing subsidised services may continue to receive financial support while upgrading to meet the more stringent requirements of the new legislation. We are particularly pleased to see that this provision is incorporated in the legislation because undoubtedly there will be some difficulty for some organisations and people involved in those organisations in adjusting to the changed circumstances, the changed environment, for the provisions of this legislation. The fourth provision of the legislation introduces, according to the Minister, greater protection for the interests of both the Commonwealth and the people with disabilities who are the users of subsidised services. This, the Minister says, is to be achieved by a variety of provisions and features of the Bill, including a requirement that all services be formally reviewed at intervals of no more than five years. In terms of structuring a legislative program which is goal oriented, which is oriented towards the needs of people with disabilities, that is a major step forward in the view of the Opposition. We believe that it is very important to keep foremost in our minds and in the mind of government the need to ensure that the services we provide reflect the needs and requirements of people with disabilities. It is all too easy in government to structure legislative programs around budgetary constraints, to decide that the simple spending of money is ample evidence of concern. That, of course, is not an effective way of distributing resources in this sector, and it is very important that the adequacy and the efficiency of programs be reviewed on an objective basis. That review, of course, must take into account the changed needs of people with disabilities. We hope, and I am sure, the Government will engage in adequate consultation with organisations that are representative of people with disabilities to ensure that those reviews reflect the changing needs and the perceived changing needs of those organisations. The fifth objective, the Minister says, is to provide a range of activities, such as program related research and development, intended to ensure that the services funded under this program are designed to meet the changing needs of people. As I said, adequate consultation with those people who are the users of this program is very important. The research must take into account not only the views of the people who are employed by organisations providing those services but also the views of the people who consume those services-the people who, on a daily basis, are affected by the quality, standard and variety of those services provided under this legislation. Finally, the sixth objective of this Bill is to provide a new legislative base for the provision of rehabilitation services by the Commonwealth, which is currently provided under the Social Security Act. When this Bill was debated in the Senate considerable concern was expressed by many Opposition senators about the implications of that change and whether the Government would continue to provide adequate rehabilitation services. I hope that in the concluding remarks of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table, he might address the Government's policy on the provision of rehabilitation services and the implications for the current users of those services of the Government's decision to sell some of the facilities that exist in many places around Australia. It is of some concern to the Opposition that in drafting this legislation the Government has decided that it is appropriate to include States as organisations capable of applying for funding under this legislation. It is, I believe, a unique proposal that a sovereign State of this Commonwealth will be regarded as an organisation along with other organisations, many of which are community based or voluntary organisations, and able to apply for funding under this program. I know that in the other place Senator Grimes made some comments about this. I hope that for the benefit of members of the House the Minister here will also comment on the Government's underlying objectives in proposing this measure. One other aspect of the legislation that causes the Opposition some concern is the Government's intention to exclude under the legislative package organisations for people with predominantly psychiatric disabilities from becoming eligible as organisations for the purposes of the legislation. In making this exclusion we believe that the Government has breached the principle of equity. The Opposition does not believe it appropriate to differentiate between people with disabilities based on the nature of their disability. We are talking about people who for one reason or another have difficulties in coping with the pressures and requirements of modern life. Whether that difficulty arises from a physical or psychological disability, I can see no reason for making a distinction in this legislation. If people have difficulty, if they cannot cope, if they require special assistance and consideration, I believe that it is appropriate to deal with them on that basis and not to say that there are two categories of people in our society with disabilities, people with physical difficulties and people with predominantly psychological difficulties. For that reason I hope the Minister will explain again the basis for that distinction which sets apart a particular group of people. It is important that we do nothing to ostracise or separate people in our society any more than their existing disabilities already do. It is difficult for many people with disabilities to participate in the community when they recognise that their disabilities, whether physical of psychological, limit their capacity to take a full and complete role in our society. In framing legislation it is important for a government to demonstrate compassion and understanding of human psychology and to ensure that there is not inadvertent, and hopefully never deliberate, decision to categorise people of the basis of their disability. The status of people changes in the course of their lives. Many people who are born with no disability at all, with all their capacities and faculties, in the course of their lives encounter disability which changes their status. They are very much aware of what they were previously and of their former capacities. They are also conscious of the limitations that then apply to them. Conversely, there are many people who overcome their disabilities, some completely, others perhaps partially. They also understand what that means to them in terms of their capacity to be complete and active Australians and to participate fully in our society. Any legislation which seems to quarantine people on the basis of their disability, or implies that some people have a capacity to overcome that disability more so than others, or limits in some way the way in which governments respond in providing services to those people, is potentially dangerous. I hope the Government will consider the implications of this quarantining, this distinction between the basis of disability, before pursuing this legislation completely. The Opposition supports this package of Bills. It has been debated at some length in the Senate. We intend to move some amendments in the Committee stage, and on that basis I commend the Bills. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.19) —In rising to speak on the Disability Services Bill and cognate Bills, I wish to congratulate the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) on his dedication to the task of providing the legislative basis for improving the community support services and rehabilitation services for those Australians with disabilities. In just four years this Government has achieved quite a deal. It has introduced the home community care program which incorporated a number of wide-ranging initiatives in community care for aged and disabled people and families in need of home care services. It established the handicapped persons review, which called for all future work opportunities and services for people with disabilities to be designed to improve their image and develop their abilities to enable them to participate in mainstream community life. Out of this review came the `New Directions' report which outlined the major concerns of people with disabilities who wanted independent living options, realistic training and employment opportunities and better access to generic or mainstream community life. More importantly, it challenged both governments and service-providing agencies to re-examine their objectives and outcomes in the light of these aspirations. This legislation will reflect the new directions identified by the review and provide a basis for the provision of a more flexible range of services and associated arrangements designed to improve the opportunities for disabled people in the community-based settings. I wish to address my speech to a particular segment of the Bill-that is, supported employment services. Under section 5 of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974, the Minister may direct that paid employment by an eligible organisation at particular premises is sheltered employment. Chapter 9 of the `New Directions' report of the handicapped programs review identified a number of problems in relation to sheltered employment. In particular, problems were identified in the unchallenging and inappropriate work frequently found and the low level of wages paid. A new definition of `supported employment services' is included in clause 7 of this Bill which increases the range of services that can be funded by removing the current requirement that the employment be provided at particular premises. There are a number of work preparation programs already in existence for intellectually disabled people. An approach which features a concentration of professional resources in providing the necessary training and placement is the work preparation centre concept which, following the success of two experimental programs at South Yarra in Melbourne and Granville in Sydney, has now developed into a national system administered by the Commonwealth Department of Community Services. In the seven years since its inception, the system has been the subject of an extensive program of research and development and 385 intellectually disabled people have been trained in this centre. Although problems have arisen over the seven-year period, the assessment of the work preparation program is powerful evidence of a successful social intervention. Significant numbers of socially marginal young people have been helped towards productive and fulfilling lifestyles and in many cases have independently developed high levels of personal and vocational competence. This legislation will make it possible for more programs of this kind to be established. In Western Australia, Project Employment Incorporated was established in the private sector to increase the employment opportunities for intellectually handicapped persons seeking fully paid jobs in open employment. One such initiative was `Repeat Business' where a major corporation was targeted and an initial position developed into multiple jobs. The major corporation targeted was the G.J. Coles and Co. Ltd supermarket chain in Perth. One fully paid position soon increased to eight fully paid positions in seven months. The G.J. Coles initiative has already saved the taxpayer $55,000 in unpaid pensions and subsidies. In addition to these savings the workers are also contributing to the Australian Taxation Office. The cost of supporting this operation has been about $4,500, consisting of $2,700 in wages, $1,300 in travel costs and $500 in administrative support, but the success of this venture cannot be measured only in terms of savings to the community. More important is the impact that open employment has had on the quality of life enjoyed by the workers. On the measure of material possessions, these workers have individually purchased two horses, a speed boat, a motor vehicle and a 10-speed bicycle. On the measure of self-development, one worker has undertaken an adult literacy course and two have undertaken to gain drivers licences. On the measure of career development, one worker has been promoted to the shop floor and another is to be given supervisory responsibility for non-disabled casual trolley collectors. This very successful venture has worked with the co-operation of a sheltered workshop catering exclusively for intellectually disabled workers. This success story will be repeated many times. From the recognition that persons with dis- abilities have the ability to participate in the work force as an integral part of society, one fundamental philosophy which has emerged is the understanding that persons with disabilities need to be able to choose their employment freely according to their own knowledge, interests and capability. The incorporation of a work experience program as an additional sheltered workshop service will allow individuals to make a better choice and decision before applying for sheltered employment. The concept of supported employment grew out of research and experience which has proved that people with the most severe disabilities are capable of performing complex tasks with appropriate support and on the job training. There is a 10-year history of individuals taking out of institutional settings people who have been seen as the most severely disabled and the hardest to assist in proving their capacity to work. I will tell honourable members of an initiative in my office in Randwick which other electorate offices might like to follow. We responded to a request from a severely disabled young man for work experience in the office. Despite his severe physical disabilities he was a real computer whiz. It is a bit unfortunate that we did not actually have a computer in the office, both for him and for us, but his work and his help in our office was outstanding. We will certainly never forget the week we spent with Zell Goldman. I am sure that it is another example of how, given work experience, young people such as Zell can better choose the sort of work that they will go on to later. It is a magnificent opportunity for government departments and government offices to use the skills of young people such as this. The new services to be funded under this disability services legislation are crucial if we are to deliver a range of positive consumer outcomes which are aligned to the expressed needs of the people using their services and relevant to the local environment in which the service is to be delivered. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), who is the shadow Minister, mentioned the need for consultation. He correctly gives consultation with members of the disabled community very high importance. Certainly the Government in the last few years has given great importance to and place great weight on consultation. I am sure that more than adequate consultation will continue. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(10.27) —At the outset I mention that today marks the twentieth anniversary of the election to this place of the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), Senator Jessop and me. Madam SPEAKER —Goodness, you are being irrelevant to the Bill. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am being irrelevant, but it is worth noting on this day that not one of that group of members has lost the enthusiasm and drive that he brought into this Parliament in the late 1960s. I turn now to the Disability Services Bill. As has already been stated by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), the Opposition generally supports this legislation. Indeed, in the Senate we moved some amendments to the legislation. They were defeated because the Australian Democrats did not support them. I guess in many ways that any amendments that we move in this place or any views that we hold on this side of the House will not be listened to by the Government and the passage through this chamber of the Bill is a formality. Nevertheless, today I don the hat of a position that I hold outside this place; that is, the position of President of the Queensland Training and Placement Activity Therapy Centre for the Blind. I have held that position for 3 1/2 years. As a result of my experience over that period I have become better acquainted with the aspirations and needs of a section of the disabled community. Indeed, often there is a gross underestimation in the community of how many people suffer from some form of disablement. They would probably number in the hundreds of thousands. Although I have some reservations about this legislation, I congratulate the Government on the new direction it is following. I think 12 years has elapsed since this matter has been looked at closely. Time waits for no man and changes are obviously needed. If what happened to my organisation is typical of what happened to other organisations in the community, many organisations have been put through much concern, worry and even heartburn over the last 12 months while the Department of Community Services undertook its examination. On the positive side, I believe that the Department, in reaching out to the various organisations and foreshadowing what was to happen, has made the recipient organisations look at themselves closely and examine the role they have been playing in the provision of services to their various client groups. I believe that, in the long term, the training and placement centre in Queensland will be a better organisation as a result of the close questioning and examination to which it has been subjected by departmental officers in Queensland. I take this opportunity actually to compliment the departmental officers in Queensland with whom my organisation has dealt for their perception and, in many cases, their assistance. However, there were moments when there were gross disagreements. Indeed, we were deeply concerned, as were the clients of the organisation I serve, at the approach that existed in Canberra and thus propagated through the regional offices that under the Government's programs there was going to be no place for people over 50 years of age. The emphasis was all to be placed on younger people while jettisoning those over 50 years of age-an approach that was utterly and totally disgraceful. My organisation cares for blind people, many of whom became blind only in later years. If this rule were to be applied to a specialist organisation such as mine it would be very damaging, not for the numbers of clients that we have but for the older people. I have never really thought, as I approach the age of 50, that at 50 I would be considered elderly, but I have about three and a bit years to go before I reach the category which is regarded by the Government as being dispensable. Mr Griffiths —In your case that's true. Mr DONALD CAMERON —My friend opposite has been dispensable since the day he was born. He should just sit there quietly and make his contribution later. This Government has now changed that approach; it has walked away from it. However, I am concerned about the statement of objectives contained in the second reading speech of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). In objective No. 10 he states: That programs and services should provide opportunities for people with disabilities to reach goals and enjoy lifestyles which are valued by the community at large- and here comes the catch- and are appropriate to their chronological age. I am not certain beyond doubt that the Government does not still have in mind the jettisoning the elderly. I am not confident. If those few words were not included, I would have more confidence. I ask the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table, whether he will take these comments on board and see that those objectives are rewritten minus those words. I turn to the typed copy of the second reading speech, and to the section entitled `Mode of Administration'. The Minister correctly subscribes to the theory that the less legislation in the community, the better; and he goes on to say: The Bill has been drafted for flexibility and economy of administration. The basic approach taken in relation to Part II is that the Act should set the basic parameters leaving the more important administrative detail to be dealt with by means of gazetted instruments and regulations which would be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. Mr Minister, regulations and gazetted items and scrutiny of the Parliament! Such alterations are unlikely to be seen by even one per cent of the Parliament. What I hope is that this does not mean that the Minister is saying to his Department `The world is your oyster-go your hardest', because in the area of providing social welfare services there are always out there people laden with wild ideas. Someone produces a theory that it would be better done this way or that way, and chaos can be created for the service organisations if they are forced into exercises of tipping out the bath water at the whim of people, probably resident here in Canberra, who may well be theorists and who may have little practical involvement in the provision of services. I simply sound the warning and hope that the Government is not going to say to the Department: `This approach will give you a free rein to do things as you believe they should be done, without scrutiny'. I turn to objective No. 8: That no single organisation providing services should exercise control over all or most aspects of the life of an individual with disabilities. Generally I would agree with that without argument, but I suggest to the Minister that that statement is fraught with weaknesses because many disabled people regrettably have very little control over their lives. In the case of the training and placement centre in Queensland, and with the help of the Department, we have recently moved into a new region of assistance, that is, providing a form of training for people who are not only unfortunate enough to be blinded but also have multiple handicaps. Granted, these people go home at night to their families and are not with us on weekends. Nevertheless, there would be some organisations where clients live in. And one of the realities of life is that when people are living in a place there is going to be some form of control. I simply suggest to the Minister that, whilst it may be the ideal in itself the use of the words `no single organisation providing services should exercise control' is perhaps a little unreal. There is another matter which I wish to raise on this Bill. I notice that the Minister's departmental people are here today. They might be able to advise him so that he can answer this question when he rises to his feet to close the debate. The Minister's second reading speech states: The Bill also incorporates strict penalties for those disclosing information on clients and I believe that these penalties and the appeal rights which I have mentioned are a further indication that this Bill recognises the rights of people with disabilities. I do not argue with that for one moment but under the secrecy provisions of the Disability Services Bill clause 29 states that divulging anything about a client can lead to a fine of $2,000 and up to two years imprisonment. That is fair enough if someone is being malicious or is trying to harm a client. But I ask the Minister: What happens when organisations are providing accommodation? Our organisation has another service, called Bryce House, which provides accommodation for blind people. They stay at this residential facility and attend a technical and further education college. They live in. I do not give any particular example, but refer to what could happen. We have house parents, and the age of some of our clients is such that our house parents may well see their role as that of parents. Say one of our residents stayed out for two or three nights and did not come home. I think when cats do that we call it getting on the tiles. Will the Minister clarify whether or not the house parents, in their special position of providing a service to a disabled person, would have breached privacy if they divulged to the management committee the fact that Miss X or Mr X was staying out all night and this was causing concern? I would hope not because I believe that it would be difficult for the house parents to take decisions in relation to a person living a lifestyle which was beyond what they expected. It is natural that the management committee might see its role as one of either contacting the parents of the person or speaking to the person involved and issuing a warning. I hope that the Minister will answer that question. I said in the early stages of my speech that generally I congratulate the Government on this legislation but there is rarely any pleasure from Cameron without a touch of poison. I just want to say that the Government has been mean and nasty to so many organisations by removing the four-fifths subsidy for organisations that have to build headquarters for their operations. It has adopted the new approach of saying: `You can get out there and rent somewhere, we will subsidise your rental, but you cannot buy your own premises'. My organisation has been endeavouring for months and months to find premises that it can rent in the city of Brisbane. We have special problems because our clients have to use public transport but now, and this has hardly been noticed across the nation, the Government says that those four-fifths grants are a thing of the past. Just because the Government has headed off in a new direction, it does not mean that all the organisations that exist in the community do not need a central building. The Government is acknowledging that by telling them to rent such premises. We have spent six to eight months of utter frustration trying to find suitable accommodation, and the rentals are so exorbitant that in a few years an organisation would save money by constructing its own building. I know that the Department in its briefings in the various States has told people that there will still be some money available for capital expenditure in building, but when one inquires further one is told that there will only be a handful of dollars for that and to forget it. I ask the Minister whether he will also take this matter on board because whilst I well understand that by insisting that people rent the welfare dollar will be stretched, it will not necessarily work in all instances and to have a blanket rule is as unrealistic and almost as cruel as the directions in which the Government was heading earlier when it was intending to jettison all those poor elderly people beyond 50 years of age. I guess even the Minister is over 50 years of age, so I suppose under the earlier approach he would be dispensable. We on this side of the House have thought that for a long time but we will not invoke anything by rule of age but rather through the ballot box next election. I repeat that generally the Opposition supports the legislation, but it is not all perfect. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(10.46) —Whilst I am not within striking distance of 50 years of age, after listening to some of the comments of my colleague I certainly feel it this morning. It is worth noting that in a very real sense the disability services legislation before the House had its genesis in the United Nations International Year of Disabled Persons in 1981. Whilst we always seem by definition to have a year dedicated to one particular cause or group, it is important to acknowledge the very real impact, particularly in my own experience, that that United Nations International Year of Disabled Persons had. For example, I must confess on my part to not having had a very detailed knowledge of policy insofar as it affected disabled persons, apart from that which one would normally gain within the legal profession. After having been elected in early 1983 one of the first things I sought to do was ensure that my office provided basic facilities for disabled people, not only in terms of access but also in terms of toilet facilities and so on. It is worth placing on record the enormous difficulty that I confronted in finding suitable accommodation. It transpired in the final analysis that the only accommodation I could get that had access and toilet facilities for disabled people was available simply because the building-the famous building which includes the Moonee Ponds tavern in that great city-made provision in the office space above the tavern for handicapped people. That was only because the council, as a result of the International Year of Disabled Persons, adopted the policy that any buildings it went into or built would provide these facilities. So I commend not only those responsible for the United Nations Year of Disabled Persons but also the Essendon City Council and many other councils in my electorate and elsewhere that have acted upon the basic philosophy underlying that public education program. Arising out of that we have the home and community care program, one of this Government's major initiatives in this area and one that ought to be acknowledged in the context of this legislation, and the handicapped programs review which of course led to the well-known `New Directions' report. Coincidentally, I will be visiting a place called Northern Brite Industries, I think on Monday or Tuesday of next week. It conducts supported employment, to which I shall turn in a few moments. Before I do so I think it is worth commenting on changed public perceptions of handicapped people. I was very interested some nights ago-or perhaps it was some weeks ago, given our lifestyle-when my teenage daughter came home from school and I posed an oft-repeated question: `How was school today?'. She said it was in fact very interesting. In one of her lessons the members of her class had their eyes completely covered with dark tape and they were kept that way for, I think, something like 20 minutes. The purpose of the lesson was to let them know how difficult it is for people with substantial sight impairment just to conduct a very normal part of one's day. That included, for example, going to the toilet, walking along a corridor to a classroom and so on. I think that is another manifestation of how people, not only within the education system but also elsewhere, have become much more sensitive to those unfortunate enough to suffer various degrees of physical or psychological impediment in our community. Once again, that ought to be acknowledged and those people ought to be congratulated. I think one of the important points about the legislation before us is that it represents one of the few times in my experience in this House when a Minister has tried to set out a series of principles and objectives upon which the legislation is based. Whilst I do not have time to go through in detail the principles and objectives set out by the Minister, I think it is worth mentioning a few of them and also just stressing again that adopting that approach to most legislation in this House ought to be commended. I think too often we speak in this House on legislation that simply comes in in black and white terms, and very few people who have not addressed the detail of the legislation have any understanding of the amount of work and research involved and the underlying philosophy upon which any government initiatives are based. If one gets the principles and objectives right I think it is much easier and much clearer for people to understand where we are trying to go with these Bills. Some of the principles and objectives are worth repeating. They may sound a little cliched but in my view they are not. The first is: People with disabilities are individuals who have the inherent right to respect for their human worth and dignity. In my submission we have a long way to go before that underlying principle is accepted without demur by people in the community. I think there is still a vast gulf between those Australians fortunate enough not to suffer dis- abilities and those who do. So it is again worth stressing those underlying principles. Another is: People with disabilities, whatever the origin, nature, type and degree of disability, have the same fundamental rights as all members of Australian society. When I became a member of this House I was on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform which was in the process of revising the electoral laws of this country. I remember looking at certain, not significant but nevertheless important for disabled people, initiatives that we could take to assist those people to participate fully in a democratic system. That was another manifestation of the heightened awareness that I think came out of the United Nations International Year of Disabled Persons in 1981. Another of the principles is: Every person with a disability has the same right as other members of Australian society to realise his or her individual capacity for physical, social, emotional and intellectual development. To a very large extent, of course, the realisation of that objective, if you like, rather than principle will require a very much greater sensitivity, again by the non-handicapped people in our community. I could go through those principles and objectives, but I know that time is somewhat short and I do not think I have the same time allowed to me as has been allowed to my colleague on the other side of the House. We tend to give honourable members opposite a greatly better deal in this institution than they ever gave us when we were in opposition. As I indicated, I will be visiting Northern Brite Industries in Melbourne early next week. One of the reasons I am doing that is that I have an interest in the concept of supported employment. Certainly it has been around for a long time with varying degrees of success, but I think it is potentially one of the key areas where, rather than by rhetoric, governments can get involved in a meaningful way. I am reminded of the old saying about politics. If one is putting one's money on a horse in the political race, always put money on a horse called Self Interest, because one knows it will be in there trying. That might be putting it a little crudely, but really some degree of self-interest does flow as a corollary of government support in this particular area. It goes without saying that, in the extent that people can be encouraged into meaningful employment, they are removed, by definition, from most of the government support mechanisms that cost a amount of money. That is why I say that governments, even for reasons of self-interest, ought to be encouraged into these areas. Of course that is not the major factor in, nor indeed is it the major objective of, this type of legislation. It really does go to individual human rights and certain individuals' opportunities in a community that hitherto has not provided a lot of opportunities to them. Supported employment, of course, is for people with disabilities for whom competitive employment at or above the minimum wage rates is unlikely and who, because of their disability, need ongoing support to participate in a work setting. In this context I think it is worth acknowledging the role of the trade unions, certainly to my knowledge in Victoria-I have less knowledge of their role in the other States, of course. Trade unions have, over some considerable number of years now, tried, I think to the greatest extent possible, to accommodate the opening up of employment opportunities for people who, by definition, cannot often demand the same wage levels as more fortunate people. Supported employment should ensure that people with disabilities have access to a choice of wage generating work with job security and opportunities for job mobility and career advancement. I think that a couple of the key features of supported employment ought to be pointed out and then I will conclude and let some of my colleagues address the Bills. In the context of employment, the purpose of the programs is employment with all the usual outcomes of having a job. Obviously, wages, working conditions and job security are key considerations but, also obviously, status, to the extent that that applies, personal self-respect and so on ought to be included in terms of the desirable outcomes. The concept is one of providing the ongoing support required to begin and keep a job, rather than of preparing a person for a more independent job out of the support service. Another key criterion is opportunity creation, with the emphasis on creating varied opportunities to work rather than on providing services supposedly to develop skills for transfer to open employment. I think that is an important point to stress. Another feature is full participation. The concept of supported employment grew out of research and experience which has proved that people with the most severe disabilities are in fact capable of performing complex tasks with appropriate support and on the job training. There is a 10-year history of individuals taking out of institutional settings people who have been seen as the most severely disabled and hardest to assist, and proving their capacity to work. I will conclude on the theme with which I began; that is, by acknowledging the very real importance of the United Nations International Year for Disabled Persons in 1981. Certainly it significantly heightened my awareness. That was manifested at a micro level-perhaps it was not so important in the great scheme of things-when I refused to accept accommodation for my electoral office that did not provide basic facilities for handicapped people. It has been manifested, as I indicated previously, again in the micro sense, with my children, in that part of their curriculum provides a far more detailed understanding of the effect of disabilities than I, for example, was provided with in my student years. A degree of bipartisanship has been shown here today in relation to the objectives of the Bill. It is important that the Minister be congratulated, as I indicated at the outset, not only on the content and the objectives of the Bill but also on the provision of certain principles that underlie the legislation. That is an important concept and one that ought to be taken note of by other Ministers. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(11.10) —The report of the handicapped programs review `New Directions' indicated that substantial improvements were required in the accountability of subsidised organisations for service content and quality and that major changes were needed in the programs to reflect this consumer outcome focus. It also said that a restructuring of services, funding and other resources was required and that such changes could be effected only by legislative change, particularly the replacement of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974. In a ministerial statement in the Senate on 12 June 1986 the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, advised of his Government's intention to introduce new disability services legislation based on the principle that positive consumer outcome should be the rationale for program development, delivery and review. In the legislation that is before us I do not believe it is spelt out how the consumer outcomes will be measured or what mechanism will be used to see that they are being met. The Disability Services Bill 1986 provides a legislative basis for the provision of financial assistance to organisations conducting services for people with disabilities as well as a specific legislative base for two related sub-programs. I refer, of course, to the program upgrading scheme and assistance for people with print disabilities. It also provides funding for existing subsidised services which may, under certain conditions, continue to receive financial support while upgrading to meet the more stringent requirement of this legislation. The Minister also outlined seven principles and some 14 objectives which reflect the Government's belief about how all services for people with disabilities ought to be developed and delivered. The Bill clearly defines a target group to remove any doubt about the intended users of services receiving Commonwealth support under the program. Service must be predominantly for people having a disability deriving from intellectual, sensory or physical impairment, whose disability is permanent and whose debility results in substantially reduced capacity for communication, learning or mobility and a need for ongoing support. Those funded organisations which presently provide services to people who do not fit the target group will need to make some alternative arrangements. For the time being, I understand, separate carry-on funding will be provided. In the Senate Estimates Committee B on 16 September the Minister indicated that the other arrangements would be arrived at between the Commonwealth and the States. He later said that if no arrangements were made these people would not be defunded, because there are not many of them. When the target groups are considered in juxtaposition with those presently receiving funding, we discover a grey area comprising those groups which the Minister says will not be defunded. What concerns me and some of my colleagues is that other grey area groups will be in need of assistance in the future, but they will or may miss out because they are not included in the target group. The target group, which was discussed in some detail in the Estimates Committee hearing, was in the area of the psychiatrically disabled. The problem for these people is that the margins are blurred between State and Federal government responsibilities, with the Commonwealth saying that the provision of treatment for psychiatric illness is a matter for State governments to handle. It is to be hoped that a more rational delineation of the responsibilities between the Federal and State governments can be achieved through a consultative process because we do not want to see people with some form of disability, not necessarily psychiatric, outside the target group and left with no access to funding. Although this legislation provides funding to the States in their capacity as service providers, it can be only for services provided by them which are covered by the legislation. Any joint Commonwealth-State funding of services and projects considered as being of joint interest could possibly be broadened by the application of ministerial prerogative which permits the Minister to approve other classes of services, which would further the objectives of the new legislation. Maybe in this way the legislation can address the problem of groups outside the target area missing out on funding. It is significant that the work of self-help groups is recognised and that they will be eligible for funding so long as they intend to seek incorporation. The value of self-help groups has long been underestimated. In the second reading speech of the Minister mention was made in regard to the Bill widening the scope for what may be provided to an eligible person from `treatment and training', as it is currently described in the legislation, to `a rehabilitation program'. He then went on to mention that the new definition will still allow the Department of Community Services to arrange for the provision of treatment services where they are necessary and that the services will assist people with disabilities in the target group of this program to reach their social or vocational goals. I certainly hope that in that context of social or vocational goals the services will take into consideration matters such as those the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) brought up in regard to those people who are providing recreation services to the disabled. I noticed that in the report `New Directions' on page 130 there is a section on sport, recreation and leisure in which recommendations were made to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) in regard to what should be done for those disabled people. In the Bundaberg area I helped form an access and recreation club. That was some 10 or so years ago. At that time I was the chairman of the area committee for the Queensland Recreation Council. We foresaw a need to help these people by providing facilities. It is recognised that handicapped people have better access to jobs today. New technology has allowed people with disabilities to operate certain types of machinery. Over a century ago, of all the energy expended in the world over 90 per cent was from the muscle. Today less than one per cent of the total energy expended in the world comes from the muscle. So people with disabilities have a better chance of getting jobs today because what was done by muscle power previously is now done by machines which are mostly operated by pushing a button or some other simple method. It has allowed them to gain better access to the work force. We know that in the last 10 to 15 years moves have been made by local government, State governments and Federal governments to ensure that buildings that were being constructed provided access for handicapped and disabled people. At the same time many buildings which are used for active and passive recreation purposes but which were constructed long before that still do not provide the necessary ramps or other access for disabled people. I believe that this legislation, as I read it, will provide avenues for funding for some of those groups to upgrade their buildings to allow access for disabled people. It is most important that people with some disability or handicap be able to go into those buildings. It is just as important for people with disabilities to have access to either active or passive recreation as it is for other people in the community. I am sure that that will meet the social goals that were mentioned by the Minister in his second reading speech. I refer now to the aspirations of some service providers. Let us look at a centre which provides activity therapy for the physically and intellectually handicapped. It is conceivable that such a centre may be able to rehabilitate its clients to a level at which they may be capable of entering the work force, be it in a sheltered workshop or even the mainstream work force. An education program at a suitable facility is needed to provide special transitional training for individual centre clients to equip them with the basic skills needed to enter the work force. These people have progressed as far as they can at a centre; yet to confront and overcome the next challenge transitional education of the appropriate type is essential. A series of ongoing programs at TAFE colleges or similar institutions which tailor their training style and pace to suit the individual client or student would seem a possible way to go. The legislation is based on the principle that positive consumer outcomes should be the rationale for program delivery-and what could be a more positive outcome than having a disabled client satisfying his or her higher order needs through entering a new phase, the work force. We cannot take for granted that a client who has attained greater locomotive skills or a higher level of mental activity will be able to apply those gains immediately. These people suffer from a lack of sufficient education in social and other necessary skills, which must be remedied before they can advance to the next stage. The suggestion that the existing further education colleges look to providing that training is based on their reasonably wide dispersion through the country. This would dovetail reasonably well with the similar dispersion of activity centres. It would seem to me that if we are to consider the disabled as people first-that is, people whose abilities are more important than their disabilities-then we need to provide them with every opportunity to self-actualise. That is what will happen if we provide the link between rehabilitation and rewarding activity, such as work. The Minister indicated in his foreword to the Handicapped Program Review report that it was not an end in itself; rather that it was the start of an ongoing review of all matters affecting the quality of life of the disabled. As the Minister will have noticed, a fairly bipartisan view has been taken on this legislation. Some amendments will be moved in the Committee stage, but I believe that the Minister's work for the handicapped should be recognised. If the Minister closely examines the outcome of his measures to ensure that those for whom the services are provided will get the major benefit of any funding, that will go a long way to meeting the needs in that sector of our society. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.12) —in reply-I thank honourable members on both sides of the House for contributing to the debate on the Disability Services Bill and cognate legislation. It seems that on most occasions on which the House discusses reform in the community services area there is a great deal of bipartisan support and genuine interest among honourable members. I shall not take up a great deal of time referring to matters that have been raised in the debate, because for the most part they have related to concerns some of which were dealt with in the discussions in the other place. I refer particularly to the concern raised by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), the shadow Minister for Social Security. He referred to problems in defining who was covered by the legislation and the exclusion of people with long term psychiatric illnesses. I draw his attention to the statement made by Senator Grimes in the Senate. We are talking to some extent about a distinction in areas of responsibility between departments, but primarily between the Commonwealth and the States. Senator Grimes referred to this practice being traditionally, whether it is right or wrong, a State matter. I have always taken the personal view that the Commonwealth has to take more responsibility for psychiatric care. I believe that the tremendous problems associated with funding and the inequities that exist between psychiatric and overall health treatment may not have arisen if a different approach had been taken. I repeat that this is a personal view, but Senator Grimes was essentially saying that clearly there would be great cost implications for the Commonwealth: My concern is that we do not give people that impression, because if we did, it would cost not only $2m as Senator Powell says, it would cost many times that, and we would have to get more funds, or we would have to distribute the funds we have got now over a very small group of people. The Government's concern is to make clear that it is not the purpose of the legislation to cover people who are the responsibility of State health departments. I turn to a number of points made by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron). I think he is a little sensitive about his age. I guess that when one reaches 46 1/2 years of age, or whatever he is, perhaps the sense that life is terminal starts to intrude, with the feeling that perhaps one will not be eligible for the kinds of services one may need later on, perhaps a feeling of insecurity. This legislation is concerned with disability and is complementary to measures that have been adopted by the Government in respect of aged people, such as those in the home and community care program. It is not designed to exclude people who are aged or even aging, but distinctions have to be made on the matter of age in the field of rehabilitation. I wish to pick up the subject of penalties for disclosure on clients, a matter raised by the honourable member for Moreton. I understand that that applies much more narrowly than he was suggesting in terms of the legislation. It applies particularly to rehabilitation services where the Commonwealth provides direct services to clients. It does not apply to non-government organisations to which the honourable member was referring. The honourable member for Richmond mentioned the subject of funding of State governments. There is nothing unique about this legislation; it is no different from the provisions in the Child Care Act nor is it dissimilar from the cost sharing arrangements envisaged in relation to the home and community care program and supporting parent beneficiaries. The Government in providing funding under this legislation to States for individual projects will provide an avenue for greater use of Commonwealth-State co-operative arrangements. The example I have in my notes is that the New South Wales Department of Housing is to buy 10 group homes at a cost of some $1m. It will rent the houses back to the Spastic Centre for 28 people presently in nursing homes. The Commonwealth will subsidise certain recurrent costs such as salaries and equipment. The legislation provides for funding of State governments, which gives a great deal of flexibility as to the way in which cost sharing is achieved between the Commonwealth and the States. No insult is intended or any infringement of State sovereignty. We simply seek to achieve maximum flexibility. Several members referred to the closure of some rehabilitation centres. It is now coming to be understood that the Commonwealth wishes to see better use of existing resources and also seeks to achieve a much more comprehensive service in regard to rehabilitation than has previously been the case. That is the main thrust of the provisions. The Commonwealth seeks to ensure that during this transitional phase in which the Commonwealth reorganises its programs in consultation with the States services will not be reduced. It is important to state clearly that the Commonwealth's role is primarily in the provision of social and vocational rehabilitation. The provision of medical rehabilitation is predominantly a State responsibility. The Commonwealth will continue to provide specialised social and vocational rehabilitation programs to special needs groups. As I understand it, consultations are going on at present with a number of the States, and have been continuing all this year, to achieve a regional network of services which will be much more comprehensive and which will clearly distinguish the appropriate roles of the Commonwealth and the States. I conclude by thanking honourable members for their contributions to this very important legislation. A number of honourable members referred to the fact that the origins of this legislation go back to 1981. The Bill reflects the changing and improved social and public attitude towards people with disabilities. It is a mark of progress, not only for the Government but also for the Parliament, that these Bills are about to pass the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.23) —by leave-Having regard to the time constraints that apply to the House and also to the Government's co-operation in allowing my colleague the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) to speak over the agreed time, I formally move the amendments that have been circulated in my name. I move: (1) Clause 3, page 2, line 4, omit ``, and of Part VIII of the Social Security Act 1947,''. (2) Clause 3, page 2, lines 27 and 28, omit ``by the provision of comprehensive rehabilitation services''. (3) Clause 7, page 5, line 16, omit `` `State' includes the Northern Territory;''. (4) Clause 10, page 6, lines 19 and 20, omit ``to a State or eligible organisation in relation to the provision by the State or'', substitute ``to an eligible organisation in relation to the provision by the''. (5) Clause 10, page 6, lines 39 and 40, omit ``to a State or eligible organisation under sub-section (1) in relation to the provision by the State or'', substitute ``to an eligible organisation under sub-section (1) in relation to the provision by the''. (6) Clause 10, page 7, line 13, omit ``State or''. (7) Clause 11, page 7, line 38, omit ``State or''. (8) Clause 12, page 9, line 11, omit sub-clause (6), substitute the following sub-clause: ``(6) In this section `person' includes an eligible organisation, but does not include a State.''. (9) Clause 16, page 12, line 40, omit sub-clause (2), substitute the following sub-clause: ``(2) In this section `person' includes an eligible organisation, but does not include a State.''. (10) Pages 13 to 22, omit Part III (comprising clauses 17 to 30). (11) Clause 31, page 22, lines 30 and 31, omit paragraphs (c) and (d), substitute the following: ``and (c) an approval given under sub-section 9 (1).''. (12) Clause 33, page 23, line 23, omit ``(d) the power to make determinations under section 24;''. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.24) —The Government will oppose these amendments which were foreshadowed in the debate in another place. Amendments negatived. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Howe)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 25 November, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 11-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 12 to 14-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 15 agreed to. Clauses 16 to 46-by leave-taken together. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.26) —On behalf of the Opposition I formally move the amendment that has been circulated in my name. As these matters have been debated at length in the Senate, we will not delay the proceedings of the House. I move: Pages 7 to 12, omit Parts IV to VIII (inclusive) (comprising clauses 29 to 46). Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.27) —I declare our opposition to the amendment. Amendment negatived. Clauses agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Howe)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 25 November. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.28) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. As the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill originated in the Senate and the second reading speech was made by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in that House on 12 November, I do not propose to read the second reading speech but I will simply table a copy of it. I seek leave to do so. Leave not granted. Mr BARRY JONES —As there is no actual requirement to present the second reading speech and as the intention is to have a cognate debate at enormous length this afternoon, I suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you formally put the motion that the Bill be read a second time, following which I imagine someone from the Opposition will move the adjournment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(11.29) —We are faced with a situation in which the Government is endeavouring to use the Parliament as a rubber stamp. It is the convention that second reading speeches are delivered, yet the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) comes in here and moves a motion for the second reading with no speech whatsoever. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member seeking to speak to the second reading, or is he seeking the indulgence of the Chair? Mr N.A. Brown —I wish to obtain the indulgence of the Chair, but there would presumably be a subsequent motion that the debate be adjourned. I could probably speak on that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not speak to that motion, he simply moves it. Mr N.A. Brown —With respect, that is a correct ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. Motion (by Mr N.A. Brown) agreed to: That the debate be now adjourned. Consideration resumed from 25 November. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.31) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. As this Bill originated in the Senate and the second reading speech was made by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in the Senate on 12 November, I do not propose to read the speech, but simply table a copy of it. I seek leave to do so. Leave not granted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(11.32) —Mr Deputy Speaker, we cannot accept this quite outrageous procedure which is a breach of every convention that this Parliament is based upon. I am surprised that the Government should try to use the Parliament as a rubber stamp. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member wishing to speak to the second reading? Mr N.A. Brown —I now move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand it would suit the convenience of the House to resume debate at a later hour this day. Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a matter of procedure, if I can just have your indulgence very briefly, whether that is the case will depend on whether we receive a second reading speech from the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) or some indication as to what this Bill is about. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! That is another issue. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.34) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. As this Bill originated in the Senate and the second reading speech was made by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in the Senate on 22 October, I do not propose to read the speech, but simply table a copy of it. I seek leave to do so. Leave not granted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(11.35) —I move: That the debate be now adjourned. I do so for the same reason that I gave with respect to the earlier legislation. We will not accept a situation where Ministers pretend that they can table second reading speeches. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I understand it would suit the convenience of the House to resume the debate at a later hour this day. The question is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, if I could have your indulgence for a brief moment simply to say that we would expect the Government in due course to make a second reading speech. We will not accept the situation where the Government simply tries to table second reading speeches, nor would any Parliament worth its salt accept that procedure. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.36) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. As this Bill originated in the Senate and the second reading speech was made by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in the Senate on 12 November, I do not propose to read the speech, but simply table a copy of it. I seek leave to do so. Leave not granted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(11.37) —I move: That the debate be now adjourned. I do so for the same reasons I gave earlier. This is an absolute insult to the Parliament. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.39) —I also table-I understand this does not require leave-the explanatory memorandum to the Navigation Amendment Bill 1986 and the explanatory memorandum to the Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Bill 1986, both of which I hope will be of assistance to the Opposition. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill 1986 concurrently with the Navigation Amendment Bill, Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Bill 1986 and the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill 1986. If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —Mr Deputy Speaker, as I understand it, these are the Bills on which the second reading speech has not been delivered, as yet. They are the same Bills that have been introduced into this place by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). I wish to move that the debate on these Bills be adjourned until a later hour this day. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The House has already agreed that these Bill will be debated at a later hour this day. The Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill is now before the House. The Chair asked whether it was the wish of the House to take these four Bills cognately. Since there was an objection we will deal with the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill. The question is that the Bill be read a second time. Mr N.A. Brown —I seek you indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. I accept your ruling on that. I do not argue against it. Obviously we have to press on and do the best we can in the absence of second reading speeches delivered by a Minister in this House. This is not only a novel procedure, but also an abuse of every convention that this Parliament is based upon. We are being expected to debate legislation immediately without having heard a second reading speech. It should not be beyond the wit of the Government to make a short statement in this House as to what this legislation is about. We are being asked in this House to debate legislation in the dark without knowing what the Government proposes. We cannot accept that situation and we make the strongest possible protest about it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have granted indulgence. Mr Barry Jones —If I were in opposition, no doubt I would be saying the same thing. Mr N.A. Brown —It would not happen if you were in opposition. Mr Barry Jones —Oh, come on. It is common place in the Senate. Mr Moore —It is not a commonplace thing here. Mr Barry Jones —I said it is common place in the Senate. The whole purpose of the exercise was to provide as much time as possible for debate rather than having me go through what I think would have to be described as rather tedious second reading speeches, the details of which are simply a formal and rather mechanical explanation of what are fairly complex Bills. If the House is to get up at the end of the week-there seems to be a fair degree of consensus on that-it seems to me much more sensible, in the limited amount of time available, to make more time available for discussion so that people can have a free-wheeling and wide-ranging debate. Mr N.A. Brown —About what? Mr Barry Jones —It is naive for the honourable member to suggest-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the Minister has made his point. I have a list of speakers and the first speaker on my list is the Deputy Leader of the National Party. Does the Deputy Leader of the National Party wish to receive the call on the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill? Mr Hunt —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the Deputy Leader of the National Party on the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.41) —It is an extraordinary state of affairs when the Government tries to bring in by stealth-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I seek some clarification here. I ask the question again regarding all the Bills: Is it the wish of the House to deal with each of these Bills separately or together? Mr N.A. Brown —Separately. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If that is the wish of the House, that is the course that will be followed. Mr HUNT —I think the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) is very remiss in coming into the House and attempting to introduce into this place a practice that may be in force in the Senate. It is something that the Opposition parties would never have done or got away with when they were in government and I cannot understand why the Government has done it. I know that there are practical reasons and that the Government is trying to save time but it ignores the general practice and procedures of this House. I can understand why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) has taken the position he has on the issue. Having said that, I wish to devote most of my attention to the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill 1986. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I stress that there are some difficulties associated with the Opposition's rejection of the proposition that the Bills be dealt with cognately. I think the honourable member for Gwydir, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, has actually encountered one. Mr N.A. Brown —Because the Government will not make second reading speeches on the Bills. That is the only reason for it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Does the honourable member for Gwydir wish to speak to the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill? Mr HUNT —No, I am not addressing myself to that Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Very well. I call the honourable member for Ryan. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.43) —The second reading speech on the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill 1986, which is before the House, has not been read but I have had a sneak preview of what has come into the House. Mr Barry Jones —You are not in the dark. Mr MOORE —No, I am not in the dark; the light has been turned on. In Queensland one has to do that. One has to be up early in all respects. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) turns the light on in my back yard all the time. The problems addressed in this Bill relate to an area of ship repair in Australia where the unions have been remarkably adverse to the profitable execution of orders. Because of that the Government has brought forward this Bill in an attempt to bribe the unions and to coerce certain ship repairers into accepting a form of subsidy-$6m over three years. This bounty will be paid on the condition that certain work and management practices are brought into line. Quite clearly, this is a move by the Government to try to pay out some of its trade union mates around the place. I say that against the background of the Government's policy in this area for the best part of a year. Earlier this year the Government announced the long awaited $90m heavy engineering assistance package. This scheme has been under way officially for some months but, as yet, hardly anyone has met their prerequisites in order to receive assistance. One of the conditions for receiving assistance is the removal of restrictive work and management practices, but apparently progress in these areas has become bogged down while it is being decided what a restrictive work practice actually is. The proposed ship repair bounty is a more blatant attempt to buy peace on the waterfront. Peace on the waterfront would be wonderful but should taxpayers have to reward the badly behaved unions for doing what they should have been doing in the first place? In addition, given the noticeable lack of success with the heavy engineering package, especially its slowness, we must question how effective these packages can be in improving employee-employer relations. The reputation of our maritime unions extends internationally. The waterfront has had an infamous history of industrial strife. One of the ploys is to export payments for repairs and cleaning. A ship is virtually held to ransom and the shippers must pay for often unnecessary repairs before it is released. The Baltic and International Maritime Conference described these activities as `bordering on the criminal'. This year the painters and dockers have stepped up their extortion campaign. The dispute over the Caltex oil tanker in July is possibly the most outstanding example. In that case holding charges of $1.3m were sustained by the company while negotiations took place as to where certain repairs were carried out and the extent of those repairs. Eventually, the ship left Australia without the repairs. Dr Peter Stubbs, in a report on the maritime industries in the early 1980s, concluded: . . . until unions in Australia become fully aware of the implications of abusing their power one must doubt that there will be real harmony and prosperity in the maritime industries. We must question how the Government's bounty system will work towards this very desirable, indeed essential, objective. It can be argued that this scheme provides an incentive for unions to misbehave in order to extract a larger bounty. Importantly, the scheme does nothing to break the monopoly union power in this industry and this question must be addressed if our ports and shipping services are to compete internationally. Despite the reservations, which are quite clear in this case, and also the enormous history of disputation that has affected Australian ports over the years, the Opposition will not oppose the legislation as it appears to be one way in which some advance can be made. However, it is worth noting an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 23 August 1986 in which that paper refers to industrial disputes and shipping and provides a chart. In that chart the percentage of claims for shipping losses due to industrial action at ports from 1981 to 1985 is shown as 26 per cent in Australia, as opposed to 25 per cent in the United Kingdom, falling away to 9 per cent in Portugal, 7 per cent in Canada, 5 per cent in Nigeria and 2 per cent in Spain. We have the ranks in terms of handling shippage costs in this nation, in terms of repair, in terms of cleaning and in terms of docking. The record is a sheer disgrace. While this measure might do something to clean up the network, it is but a small start on a process which will need to be rapidly overhauled if Australia is ever to match international trading conditions. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(11.50) —I thought I was going to speak in a cognate debate, but I am now speaking only on the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill. Nevertheless, I am quite pleased to speak on this Bill. I might say as an aside that last night there was in this chamber a debate about giving back bench members more opportunity to speak. The nonsense that went on here this morning is just what part of that report was about. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) did was to deny some back bench members an opportunity to speak. We could have dealt with the four pieces of legislation in a cognate debate, each speaker dealing with the aspect he was particularly interested in. I turn to the Bill under question which, as I said, is the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill. Had I been an Opposition member, especially a senior Opposition member, I would have done what I did as an ordinary back bench Government member this morning when I knew I was going to speak on legislation which had been introduced in the other place; that is, I would have acquainted myself with the second reading speech. Here it is in Hansard. It was not difficult. If members of the Opposition were really interested in this legislation and wanted to acquaint themselves with it, there was no difficulty in obtaining that speech. The primary objective of the ship repair package of measures is to improve the competitiveness of the Australian ship repair industry. What this Government wants is to make the Australian ship repair industry more competitive. We want to win that work on our merit, not through industrial action or any other measures. As honourable members would be aware, the ship industry has been the subject of a number of government inquiries over the past 10 years or so. They commenced with a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission as far back as 1976, the most recent being an examination by a working party on ship repair which comprised representatives of the ship repair industry, the unions, ship owners and government and which reported in May 1985. This very broadly based working party concluded that there had been a substantial decline in the work available to the industry. This was due in part to major structural problems in the industry and the working party recommended that financial assistance by way of a bounty should be provided to the industry to assist the process of rationalisation and restructuring. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) was quite critical of the unions. He said that this Government measure was an attempt to bribe the unions. I would not see it as an attempt to bribe the unions. I wonder whether he said the same when the Government gave money to assist the steel industry. Was that a bribe to the unions? I would say no, and I represent a steel producing area. That measure revitalised the Australian steel industry. I hope that this bounty will revitalise the Australian ship repair industry. I must admit that there has been union activity. I am familiar with the fact that unions have delayed some ships in Australia. This has led to complaints to the Government by international ship owners, business people and various other people. It has not done our reputation abroad any good. Having said that, it is very easy to criticise unions, and I have no doubt that people, especially those honourable members on the other side who will speak on these pieces of legislation, will have a bash at the unions. Part of the area that I represent covers the industrial waterfront of Port Kembla, one of the areas where unions have held up ships. When I was elected to this Parliament I met the unions involved and I said to them: `If you are going to hold up any ships, will you at least let me know about it. If you are going to block any ships, I will come and look at them'. I have visited every ship that has been delayed in Port Kembla. I have inspected some of them. I have said this in the House before and I say it again: Some of them are no more than floating rust buckets and there is no way I would have travelled on them. If members of the Opposition are going to stand here and give the unions a bash, I ask them to prove their credentials by telling us whether they have actually inspected any of the ships they are talking about as having been delayed. I have inspected every ship that has been delayed in Port Kembla. I have gone on board and inspected each of them. We will hear a lot today about International Labour Organisation Convention No. 147. There is no way in which most of those ships which were delayed would have met ILO Convention No. 147. That Convention deals with health and safety at sea and living accommodation. In no way could most of those ships have met the terms of that Convention. This Government's package is based on the working party report and includes a $6m bounty for ship repair. It will involve an examination of the employment arrangements of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and there will be an extension of the Department of Transport ship inspection system to cover the health and welfare criteria under ILO Convention No. 147. I welcome this move by the Government because I think there is a lot we can do in the ship repair business in Australia. I would rather see ships repaired in Australia than in some of our neighbouring countries such as Singapore. I accept that if we expect ships to be repaired here we have to give certain guarantees that there will not be unnecessary delays or unnecessary union activity. I commend the Government. I heard the honourable member for Ryan say that this was a bribe to the unions. What I would put to him in all sincerity is that it is not a bribe to the unions at all but is a measure designed to try to bring more effectiveness and more competitiveness to the Australian ship repair industry so that we can go out and win contracts on our merit and have ships that are brought to Australia repaired here. I commend the Bill to the House. I congratulate the Government for introducing this measure. It is typical of this Government that, rather than coming forward with a heavy-handed, confrontationist policy, we have endeavoured to work with the ship owners, the unions and everyone involved in the industry. As I said before, I will not accept all this criticism of the unions which I know is going to come from the other side. I invite any honourable member to look at some of the ships. Perhaps it will not be necessary in future to do so, but 12 months ago in this chamber I offered an invitation-this matter was being discussed and the unions were being blamed-to any honourable member to come to Port Kembla. I said that the next time a ship was blocked at Port Kembla I would give an open invitation. I think I sent a telegram to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is at the table, inviting him to come to Port Kembla and inspect the ship that was being blocked there. No one from the opposite side-and very few on the Government side, I might add-took up my invitation. Had they taken up my invitation to go over some of those ships and seen what rust buckets they were, they would not be as critical of the union movement as I know they are going to be here today. I commend this Bill to the House. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.59) —in reply-I do not know that the issues that have been raised require substantial reply. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) claimed, I thought with uncharacteristic acerbity, that the bounty was just a blatant attempt to buy peace on the waterfront and to provide some incentive for unions who misbehave to extract a larger bounty allocation. I do not think he could have been serious. The ship repair industry has been of concern to the Government for some time following representations from the Australian Chamber of Shipping, the Australian ship repairers group and ship repair unions concerning the long term viability and the poor outlook facing the ship repair industry. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) established a working group in June 1984 to examine the industry and report on possible alternatives for assistance, rationalisation and restructuring. As the Minister pointed out in his eloquent second reading speech in the Senate-I wish you had been there to hear it, Mr Deputy Speaker-the ship repair assistance package of which this Bill is one element resulted from the Government's consideration of the working group's report. The Government is well aware of the difficulties facing the ship repair industry, the significant excess capacity, and the failure of the industry to invest in contemporary technologies and to adopt efficient work practices. Fluctuations in domestic demand have not provided a stable employment environment and have acted as a disincentive in investment. The introduction of this package is designed to increase throughput and to provide that stable environment in which the industry can improve its efficiency. As the Minister mentioned in his second reading speech, registration criteria to be specified in regulations would include codes of business and industrial relations practices. The Government considers it essential that these codes include the adoption by the industry of arrangements which facilitate improved work practices and labour flexibility measures to enable labour and capital to be deployed more efficiently with less demarcation problems. An important precondition to the implementation of this bounty scheme has been the agreement by the relevant unions to end their ship detention campaign. Clause 11 of the Bill, which provides a unique power to suspend unilaterally the bounty should the ship repair detention campaign be recommenced, is designed to ensure that this agreement is upheld. There is certainly no incentive for unions, as the Opposition might say, to `misbehave' in order to attract larger bounty payments; indeed, quite the contrary, because any action which was deemed to be misbehaviour on the part of the unions may lead to the suspension of the bounty. The result is that, if no bounty is made payable for any repair work commenced during the period of the suspension, it is of no assistance to members of the union. It should be noted that, although cessation of the Australian Council of Trade Unions ship repair detention campaign is an important factor which has an impact on this industry's reputation as a repairer, it is only one element of a package aimed at assisting Australia's ship repair industry to become a viable technologically advanced and export oriented industry. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the Bill be read a third time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(12.03) —I wish to make a couple of brief observations on the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill. Quite clearly, the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Mr Barry Jones) did not indicate in his response a great grasp of any details of the shipping industry. Any attempt to justify a ship detention determination made by the trade unions without any regard for the commercial viability of the shipping industry must act to the industry's detriment. To call for a rationalisation in an industry which the Minister said had overcapacity, to call for an improvement in work practices, and to call for an improvement in employer- employee relations in the shipping industry is to acknowledge that this area has been dominated by the trade unions for years. With the concurrence of owners there have been undesirable work practices and unofficial payments which have made the Australian ship repair industry, in the old sense, totally non-viable. In the current climate of high interest rates and excessive costs, the undesirable work practices and dargs that are imposed and the practice of ship detention, as mentioned by the Minister, quite clearly will do nothing to improve or encourage in any way investment in this area. Mr Hollis —Do you want it all to go to Singapore? Mr MOORE —People would have every right to go there if the trade unions continue to impose restrictions in the way they did on the Caltex tanker. Mr Hollis —But they are not going to. Mr MOORE —They did, and those restrictions cost the company $1.3m in fees and demurrage charges just to hold it in port. It is an absolute disgrace for the Government to come along here with this flimsy case to bribe the trade unions. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(12.06) —The points raised by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) are really a confession of ineptitude by the Opposition. The problems of the ship repair industry are not problems that arose suddenly after this Government came to office. The practices to which he referred are of decades standing. They were never addressed by the conservatives in government because it was too hard; they left them in the too-hard basket. They were aware of all the problems. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) in his way-he had bipartisan support from our side of the House at the time-sought to address the problems of the shipping industry, but the ship repair and ship building industries are very much dependent upon a viable shipping industry. In many ways the problems are interrelated. This package of measures entails an input by the ship repair industry itself; that is, investment. There has not been investment. We have an industry that in many ways is decrepit, an industry that has overcapacity, and an industry that has not for many years addressed the problems of how to make the industry efficient, how to make it competitive, and how to get Australian business sharing in the work that was quite properly available to the industry were it able to get its house in order. Separate from that is an element of contribution from the work force itself. There has to be an improvement first and foremost in reliability of delivery of vessels placed for repair and an improvement in efficiency and productivity. This package of measures picks that up. Then, from government, comes a contribution in terms of a bounty, under certain circumstances. I make it clear that there are three parties to this new movement. First, the industry has to have the will to invest and modernise its operations; secondly, the work force itself has to recognise that there has to be reliability in delivery, in completion of work on particular vessels; and, thirdly, there has to be a commitment from government. All these things can be achieved. These measures do provide a sound base for the Australian ship repair industry to be restructured, to be modernised, to become competitive, and to give this country access to a market that it has long neglected. I am pleased that the Opposition is supporting this measure. I understand the comments of the honourable member for Ryan but I say to him, in all sincerity, that this is not a new problem and we will do best for Australia if we address it in the way I have outlined, in the way the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) has put forward and as covered by the legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(12.09) —I want to raise briefly one aspect of the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill. I refer to the decision made by the Government last year which limited the number of shipyards that can undertake repairs of the kind referred to in this debate. I believe that this imposes an unfair and unwarranted restriction on certain shipyards. I refer to the Ballina slipway in northern New South Wales and to a slipway on the Clarence River in northern New South Wales, both of which are capable of undertaking repair work of a viable nature and creating employment. Of course, the decision which resulted in these shipyards no longer being able to undertake work was made prior to the decision of the Government as outlined in this legislation. I hope that that aspect will be reviewed. I appreciate the complexity of the whole matter. I understand what the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has just put to the House regarding the three elements of viability, the nature of the work to be undertaken and the historic problems that have arisen in these matters. But I just make a very brief plea that, because of the changed circumstances which have now arisen as a result of the Government's decision on the subsidisation of ship repair work, such locations as the Ballina slipway, and other locations I mentioned such as the Clarence River, be again considered as locations which could be approved for the undertaking of work of the kind that will be assisted by the measure now before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I just remind honourable members that there are limitations on the scope of speeches on the third reading debate. They should be restricted to the matters contained in the clauses and Schedules to the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(12.12) —The Opposition does not oppose the Navigation Amendment Bill 1986. But, once again, it draws attention to the procedures that are adopted by the trade unions in relation to shipping in Australia. Prior to this Bill coming to the House the ability of the Australian Council of Trade Unions ship repair committee to describe certain ships as banned seemed to be the criterion to which the movement of a particular vessel was subject. It is no wonder, under those circumstances, that the ability of the industry was slipping and that the incentive or interest of people to put money into that industry was totally eliminated. Why would anyone invest one shilling in a concern in which-- Mr Barry Jones —Or even 10c. Mr MOORE —Or even 10c-even a dollar; the inflation rate is much higher than that. The ACTU committee became the sole determinant of what could go on. This Bill is quite clearly an addition to the one which we have just seen go through the House. Under this Bill the provisions are widened to the extent that the Minister will now have the power to detain a ship on which conditions are such as to present a clear hazard to safety or health. This is certainly a step in the direction of giving the Minister a say in the movement of shipping in this respect. It is an attempt to take this power away from this committee of the ACTU. The Opposition sees at least some advance. It fits in with the previous Bill and because of that we will not be voting against it. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(12.14) —We should be dealing with the Navigation Amendment Bill together with the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill, the Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Bill and the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill in a cognate debate instead of dealing with them one by one. They all deal more or less with the same matters. The Navigation Amendment Bill is an extension to the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill that has just been debated. I noticed that the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) again attacked the unions, saying that the Australian Council of Trade Unions ship repair committee was the sole determinant. Since he repeated what he said I will repeat what I said: The honourable member for Ryan should have come to Port Kembla to look at any of the rust-buckets that were held up there to see whether they met the International Labour Organisation convention 147. Mr Simmons —He would be embarrassed. Mr HOLLIS —He would be embarrassed and he would wonder why they were ever allowed to go to sea from any port. The unions held some of them up in Port Kembla and I must say that I supported the action in respect of the ships I saw. I did not see the ships in the other parts of Australia; I saw the ships in Port Kembla. I agree with the Navigation Amendment Bill. I think that the power should go to the Minister. I know that the Minister will take all these things into consideration and it will be up to him to address the issues of substandard ships plying the Australian waters. I think that the ILO convention 147, which deals with ships that are a clear hazard to safety and health, is important and Australia should abide by it. I commend this Bill to the House. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(12.15) —The spirit of the Navigation Amendment Bill would clearly be supported by any fair-minded person but there are a few points on which I would like to seek assurances from the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in respect of the eventual outcomes of certain provisions. As is generally understood, a series of people from a master down to an interested person can draw the attention of the authorities to an alleged deficiency in the condition of a ship. At that point, it would appear that there is no power in the hands of the Minister to make a judgment of whether or not there is a sustainable case to argue. If an interested person, not specifically defined, draws the attention of the authorities to an alleged deficiency, it becomes necessary, I understand, for the inspectors to conduct a thorough inspection of the vessel in accordance with the checklist from A to Z. In other words, in essence, if the nature of the complaint is that a garbage bin lacks a properly sealing lid a fault is established and the mechanism then is for the inspection officers to conduct an inspection of the entire vessel from A to Z. This clearly would have an adverse effect on the operations of the vessel and on the benefits that would normally accrue to our country through the activity in which it was engaged. Ultimately, this could prove to be a massive disincentive for those who seek to purchase from Australia whatever commodity might be involved. I seek an assurance from the Minister for Transport that that would not be the case. In the memorandum of understanding it was clearly stated that, in respect of the ports under its control, the complaint must establish that the vessel does not substantially meet the requirements relevant to the instrument. Yet I am not satisfied from the legislation that there is any such requirement and the most frivolous complaint by an interested party would leave the Minister impotent to intervene and say: `That is not a substantial deficiency and the complaint should be disregarded'. As the Minister for Transport, who is at the table, will appreciate, it becomes particularly important in the present situation, when Australia is involved in a metaphorical state of war for economic survival, for us to be sensitive to every possibility that may militate against our best interests. If we are now establishing a situation whereby people with a mischievous turn of mind, or perhaps sincerely motivated, use the provisions of this Bill to achieve a result not consistent with Australia's proper ambitions, the Bill becomes counterproductive, because ultimately Australia's markets must be pursued and accommodated within the conditions that the global market would normally expect to attach. It we do not accommodate those expectations the buyers will purchase elsewhere. I put that matter to the Minister in order to obtain, I trust, his assurance that the situation I have described will not become the case. It certainly appears to be as I have described on my examination of the legislation and the background papers. I could, in my limited time, talk about flag lines and other matters of great interest and benefit to Australia but, mindful of the very limited time we have, as demonstrated by speakers preceding me, I will not impose myself on the House. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(12.19) —I will deal in a moment with the points raised by the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) which related to the criteria under which inspections will be carried out. But the problem, as he noted from the second reading speech, is that the definition of `unseaworthy' under the Navigation Act does not embrace the range of conditions that we want to bring within this package of legislation. In the legislation and the criteria to be established we are effectively broadening that definition of `unseaworthy' to pick up the provisions of the International Labour Organisation convention No. 147. I can say to the honourable member, as he will note from the second reading speech, that once the Navigation Amendment Bill 1986 has had passage the various criteria warranting detention of a ship as substandard will be finalised in tripartite consultation with industry, and they will be based on the safety and health standards established by the International Labour Organisation and included in convention No. 147. Those criteria will be published as a marine order under the Navigation Act and will govern the Minister's discretion to detain a ship. As is customary, the marine order will be tabled in the manner of a statutory rule for the scrutiny of the Parliament. So there will be ample opportunity for people to criticise, add to or detract from the provisions of the marine order and the discussions that will take place prior to the establishment of the criteria. I will run through very quickly for the House the types of deficiencies which are covered by ILO 147. I am quite sure this will meet the concerns of the honourable member for Wide Bay. Deficiencies to which regard will be paid in considering whether a ship is substandard will be listed in marine orders and cover the areas which I will mention and which closely follow the ILO 147 standards. They are items such as these: Access is unsatisfactory, ventilation is inadequate, cargo is in the accommodation, accommodation is not drained or is in filthy condition, wiring is defective or dangerous, garbage disposal is unsatisfactory, dirty galley, provisions are unsatisfactory, water is not fit for consumption, insect or vermin infestation, inadequate lighting or heating, steam pipes not properly lagged, badly deteriorated paintwork, unsafe work spaces, inadequate or ineffective sanitary facilities, inadequate hospital or medical equipment, unsafe or obstructed walkways. They are the types of deficiencies which the new criteria will cover in addition to those provisions already covered under the `unseaworthy' definition of the Navigation Act as it exists. The ILO 147 matters relate more to the safety of the crew and the conditions on board the vessel. I think any reasonable person would accept that those matters that I have mentioned are reasonable and ought to be given consideration. We are trying to put together a viable regime in which the proper interests of the crew, the safety of the vessel and the safety of the people who work on that vessel are taken into account and to put an end to the kinds of operations that have been occurring over many years. From the contributions made by honourable members on the other side of the House and those of my colleagues, particularly the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), and their interest in this issue, I have every confidence that this package will provide the basis on which our ship repair industry can become much more efficient and much more competitive, provide new jobs in this area and redevelop itself. The market is changing. Ships no longer have to be hauled out of the water for descaling as frequently as previously. With the longer life paints that are now used a vessel can stay in the water for up to five years at a time. There is a modular type of construction within the vessels, and a move to computerise engines. All the technology on board is changing, but we have to change with it. The market is there at our doorstep. There are some 6,000 ship visits to this country per year. They are blue-water ships, and we ought to make every endeavour that we can to get a share of their servicing requirements. With the co-operation of the members of this Parliament, as has been evidenced this morning, and the co-operation of the people in the industry, I am quite sure that we can reactivate the industry and get a substantial share of that market. I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Debate resumed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(12.25) —The rearrangement of the order of debate this morning has enabled the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill 1986, the Navigation Amendment Bill 1986, the Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Bill 1986 and the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill 1986 to be discussed individually. As a result, in speaking to the Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Bill I will raise a couple of broader issues. The constant debate in Australia on industry policy is something in which the House ought to take more interest. Debates on bounty and tariff come before us quite regularly. The sort of debate that takes place, as we have seen in relation to the two preceding Bills, always applies to the particular rather than the general. We ought to put aside some time to address ourselves to how the Australian manufacturing sector as a whole is going rather than just look at the smaller mosaic. Mr Barry Jones —That is why we wanted to give you time for a cognate debate. Mr MOORE —I thought it might have been to give the Minister time to go outside to get a briefing. In view of the circumstances that flow from that, we have seen in Australia in the last few years an attempt by industry to review its processes and to accept that many practices, both management and work practices, are totally outmoded and are ruining Australian manufacturing. The recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission and the approach to work practices by the Opposition, which I welcome, and in latter days by the Government certainly point in the right direction. No matter what one does in this area, no one will put into the manufacturing sector the money that is necessary until there is some surety in relation to profitability, some capacity to predict the future market in Australia for products and some capacity and confidence to predict what can be done in export markets. Uncertainty is resulting from movements in government manufacturing policy. Movements in tariff and bounty payments are extraordinarily potent in their effect on management decisions, but they are not as important as the overall economic structure set up by taxation policy, particularly in respect of depreciation, and the overall interest rate structure which is imposed upon the whole community. Who would invest in an industry of doubtful profitability? The shipping industry is being subject not only to the ravages of totally irrational union action but also to poor management decisions in many areas. Who would invest in such an area when the return is minimal, a loss is probable and, in most cases, everything is dependent upon government support, subsidy or tariff protection? One might as well buy debentures in a government or semi-government instrumentality guaranteed by a State government or the Commonwealth Government. The yield today on Commonwealth scrip is 13 per cent and on semi-government scrip up to 15 per cent. It involves no risk; it is government guaranteed. Investors are being invited to take the risk and invest in industry which is dependent on unpredictable union action, unpredictable interest rate charges, unpredictable Australian markets and unpredictable government policy movements in the area of manufacturing. Because of these circumstances, more than anything else, we are seeing a reluctance-there is almost a strike-by people to invest capital in certain areas of the manufacturing sector in Australia. Until those matters are seriously addressed, the nation's ability to come to grips with the balance of payments problem will be impaired. Many people have said that the devaluation of the Australian dollar is the answer to everything-indeed, I have heard it said by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Mr Simmons —It is not a bad start. Mr MOORE —It is a very poor start in a commentary on the Australian economy. The dollar goes down according to the economy; it does not go down in order to adjust itself to the manufacturing sector. The price of the Australian dollar is totally the perception of an outsider's view of our economy. That is caused through the Government's actions over the last couple of years. There is no doubt that a devalued Australian dollar is of advantage to people who sell their products outside Australia. One of the best examples of this is Fosters lager. It can now be manufactured in this country, sent abroad and sold in America and Europe-its greatest success has been in the United States-at a competitive price. In other items which are straight manufactures from our primary products the same sort of pattern is developing, but the success of Fosters lager is probably the most noteworthy. That has come about, firstly, through investment by Carlton and United Breweries Ltd, and, secondly, through the advantage flowing from a falling dollar; but the investment would not have taken place unless the profitability was there. No matter how much is put in in government subsidies, tariffs and the rest, that area is not subsidised in any respect. These matters must be addressed in determining manufacturing policy, but also to be considered is the subject of the transport industry in Australia, and we were talking earlier today about shipping. On average, up to 40 per cent of the input cost of every product in this nation is affected by transport costs. The transport system in this nation does not work smoothly. There are large areas in which transport costs are unnecessarily high. There are areas in which industries are directed to use State railway services. There are areas in which certain alternative transport systems are denied to those industries to protect certain enterprises or usages. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), as a former Minister, will know the difficulties in that area. Australia's manufacturing sector has to live with the consequences of the cost of transport, the inefficiency of delivery and poor container management. Mr Hunt —One of the biggest problems. Mr MOORE —Poor container management is responsible for an alarming cost to manufacturers in this nation. There is also in some areas a sheer inability to use modern techniques from overseas because they have been banned by trade union action; in some cases certain companies here have been unprepared to invest money to adopt new container systems or transport modes. Those are important considerations and should be addressed in debates of this kind. Far too frequently in our debates, in five or 10 minutes, we make ad hoc statements as to what is occurring in Australian industry. That applies particularly to the Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Bill 1986. In that industry for some time manufacturers have been afforded a tariff. The impact of tariff on the Australian consumer-in this case the farmer-does nothing but put up the price to the farmer. The conversion to bounty certainly reduces the cost to the user in the field, and is welcomed by the Opposition. Moves away from direct tariff to direct bounty payments should be welcomed at the best of times because it is a clear indication of the true cost. The cost appears in the Budget and is known. A tariff is a way in which people can conveniently hide a number of processes such as mismanagement and bad dealings, and the cost is borne by the Australian consumer. The only product from it in some cases has been some fairly dubiously built industries which in the longer term have not succeeded. The IAC has recommended that the tariff be eliminated and that a subsidy of the same amount be paid. I note that there has been some quibble from the producers as to the measurement of the subsidy. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the producers that they are getting a fair and just interpretation. I do not think it is ever possible to satisfy everybody; I have been around long enough to understand that. In this case I hope that the Minister in his reply will assure the prospective receivers of bounty that the former assistance in the form of tariff will be received in the right order. In Australia the four largest local producers-Horwood Bagshaw, Connor Shea Napier, John Shearer and E. Anders and Sons-are all having difficulties; there is no doubt about that. There is also a view within the farming industry that some of their products do not meet market requirements. I hope that payment of the bounty will bring about innovations and that the necessary import competition that will arise will bring about some changes within the industry. This will ensure that users of the Australian product will get the first class equipment to which they are fully entitled. This factor plays a huge role in our balance of payments and our position in the world in terms of primary industry products. The Opposition notes that in 1986-87 the subsidy is expected to cost $16.8m, considerably less than the cost of $39m announced by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in April. Removal of the tariff will result in revenue forgone of around $2m per annum. No estimate of administrative costs is given, but the Australian Customs Service reckons that it would cost around $550,000 per annum, which figure is taken from the IAC report. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill and commends the move away from the tariff structure to a bounty system. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services)(12.40) —I am not the Minister responsible for this portfolio but I have received advice from officers of the Department that there is a suggested reply to the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). Some industry representatives have raised concerns with the way in which the Industries Assistance Commission arrived at its proposed bounty rate for cultivation machinery. Specifically they have argued that the calculations in respect of wharfage and customs clearance were overestimated. In support of these arguments they have submitted a small number of specific examples and comments from one customs agent. These industry concerns have been discussed at length with IAC staff. Following a re-examination of the basis for its estimates and also after discussing these with a small number of importers, the IAC stands by its figures and sees no substantive basis for significantly revising them. While there are differences between the IAC figures and the few examples proffered by industry representatives in support of their case, these have not been considered sufficient justification for varying the bounty rate arrived at by the IAC. I am sorry that I am not competent to give the honourable member more detailed information. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.42 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I wish to advise the House that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is absent from Question Time and Government Business today, as is the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) will respond to any questions relating to the Treasury portfolio. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) will respond to any questions relating to the Health portfolio. Mr MACPHEE —My question is directed to the Minister for Communications. Will the Government's decision on the ownership and control of television result in a more rapid aggregation of viewing areas than was foreshadowed by the Minister last week? Will the result be that all Australia's commercial television stations could be owned by four or five corporations, instead of the present situation where 22 corporations are involved? Mr DUFFY —The first part of the question is a matter which involves a certain amount of conjecture. I would not have thought that the relaxed ownership and control rules would necessarily move towards quicker aggregation than was anticipated because that will depend on market forces. There may be a lot of potential buyers, but how many sellers there will be is not known at this stage. In relation to the proposal that there would be a lesser number of players in television in Australia, I think it is worth noting that for a long while we have really had four major players in television-the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, the Fairfax group, the Packer group and the Murdoch group. I find it intriguing that there seems to be some conjecture that because of the proposals currently under discussion by the Government there is some likelihood that only certain people will be able to expand in the television area. When one looks at the players who are now sitting at around 13 per cent and 15 per cent-that is the Bond group and the Bell group-I would have thought, and again it is a matter of conjecture, that they were likely to expand considerably. Therefore, I would have thought that rather than have four major players in television, which has been tolerated through years and years of conservative governments, we were more likely to move to five or six major players. As I said earlier, that is a matter of conjecture and something that I suppose will have to be worked out by market forces in the longer term. Mr SNOW —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the effect of the Government's policies on Australian families? Mr HAWKE —The first point we need to understand, which is certainly appreciated by the honourable member, is that when we talk about Australian families we have to remember that they do not live in a vacuum or on Mars, they are people living here in Australia whose welfare is determined by a range of factors affecting their income and a range of factors affecting the services provided to them. In other words, the welfare of Australian families is determined by policies in regard to housing, education, prices, health and those sorts of things. What happens in those areas will determine the welfare of Australian families. In that regard the record of this Government is a proud one and it compares outstandingly favourably with that of our predecessors. I have had occasion before in this place and elsewhere to make the point in regard to the fundamental issue of jobs. The availability of jobs is going to determine to a very real extent the welfare of Australian families. It is a matter of great pride, I know, to the honourable member who has asked the question, as indeed it is to all members of the Government, that this Government has created 670,000 new jobs. In broad terms, the simple fact which I put with pride to the honourable member is that in roughly half the time in government we have created double the number of jobs that were created by our predecessors. That is the fact, and the availability of jobs is a basic determinant of the welfare of Australian families. On the question of housing, I point out to the honourable member that under this Government new dwelling commencements-that is, the rate of creation of new home opportunities in this country-have averaged 142,000 a year, which is more than 10 per cent higher than the rate of new dwelling commencements under our predecessors. I refer in particular to the first home owners scheme. The honourable member would know and again be proud of the fact that that universally acclaimed scheme, the first home owners scheme, has provided 200,000 families with the opportunity of going into their first new home. Let us look at the question of funds available for public housing. I remind the honourable member that funds available in that area have increased by 86 per cent under this Government. Again, education is an issue which fundamentally determines the welfare of families. What is happening in education? The facts again are quite clear. The honourable member will recall that I have said again with pride in this House that when we came to office the retention rate for kids in the secondary education system was 36 per cent. It was one of the most intolerably low figures in the Western world. In the relatively short time we have been in government that has increased to 46 per cent. While I am talking about secondary education, I know, because I have spoken with him, that the honourable member who asked the question shares my great pride that in the area of education funding we have introduced certainty of funding in the government and non-government sectors. They have been given a certainty of funding enshrined in legislation over a four-year period which they never had before. This has enabled the public and private sectors to go ahead with plans to expand and provide better facilities for the kids of this country. That is at the secondary level of education. In the area of tertiary education, and again it is a matter of great pride to me and I know to the honourable member, this Government has already provided about 38,000 additional places in tertiary education in this country. These are the things which determine the welfare of Australian families. What happens to prices determines the welfare of Australian families. We more than halved the level of inflation we inherited from our predecessors. While it is true that as a result of the massive depreciation there has been an increase in inflation, it still has not got up to anywhere near the level we inherited from our predecessors. It is the case that as we go into 1987 the level of inflation will be coming down. Talking about prices, what is the prescription for the welfare of Australian families promised by the Leader of the Opposition? It is a double bind. He says: `We will freeze your wages for 18 months and we will lift all restraints from prices. So you will have no opportunity of getting any increase in wages and we will remove the prices surveillance system'. That is what he offers for the welfare of Australian families. In the area of tax, the Leader of the Opposition is going to take away the great reforms in capital gains and elsewhere, which have meant a significant increase in the Commonwealth revenue, and promises to return the rorts and ramps of the past, which will hurt the ordinary families of this country, to the wealthy, privileged interests the Opposition represents. Madam Speaker, if you asked me about families I would say that I speak with great pride because of what we have done in the areas of education, housing, prices and jobs-all the things that determine the welfare of Australian families. Against that we have these hypocrites opposite who, with their confected nonsense and pious phrases, talk about the families of Australia and promise in all those things a return to the past, a return to their last year of government which threw 250,000 Australians, members of families, on to the unemployment scrapheap. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. On the basis of available figures is the Prime Minister aware that, over the last five years of the previous Government, waiting lists for pubic housing around Australia averaged 88,000 a year? Is the Prime Minister also aware that, in the first three years of his Government, waiting lists for public housing have averaged 145,000 and are currently at a level in excess of 157,000? Despite the Government's self-congratulatory comments about its contribution to public housing and the welfare of Australian families, will the Prime Minister please explain to the House why public housing waiting lists are now 65 per cent higher than they were under the previous Government? Mr HAWKE —I will explain to the Leader of the Opposition that, because of the policies over which he presided, the level of housing starts was 105,000 when we came to office. The housing industry in this country-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. There is a requirement that the Australian people are entitled to an answer to a question. The Prime Minister is giving-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will leave the matter with the Chair. The Prime Minister has just started his answer. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my right are not assisting the Chair. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, are you advising me that the Australian people are not entitled to an answer? Madam SPEAKER —I advised the honourable member for O'Connor that the Chair is quite capable of putting the Standing Orders of this House into operation. Mr HAWKE —As I was about to say, the facts-they are irrefutable-are these: In the last year of the stewardship of the Leader of the Opposition the level of housing starts was 105,000 and the arrangements under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement had been allowed to degenerate into a farce. What did the Government do? The Government brought in a range of policies which significantly increased the level of housing activity in this country. I do not have to depend upon statements by the Minister for Housing and Construction or my own information. I ask the Leader of the Opposition simply to look at the statements of support that have come from the housing industry itself. It said of the first home owners scheme that it was the best housing scheme that had been introduced in this country by any government. Under our general macro-economic policies we allowed for a stimulation of the housing industry in a way which was calculated to do two things-- Mr Carlton —We are talking about public housing. Mr HAWKE —Why does the honourable member not contain himself and look at the polls? Mr Carlton —Just answer the question on public housing. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister is answering a question. The honourable member for Mackellar will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —As I have said, our policy in that area was calculated to do two things: To allow the housing industry to play its part in the general economic recovery that was necessary after the vandalism of our predecessors and, as well as doing that, to start to meet the needs of the people in this country. Honourable members opposite ask in their parroting way: `What about public housing?'. The simple fact is that, under this Government, the level of funding provided is an 86 per cent increase on the level of funding provided by our predecessors. In real terms I think that is an increase in the order of 50 per cent. Those are the facts. That is what has happened in regard to general housing policies. That is what has happened in the Commonwealth-State housing area in regard to public housing. But I make this point: Is the Opposition suggesting that the level of economic activity in this country should now be significantly increased? That is the question that members of the Opposition have to ask themselves. Presumably, they are saying implicitly that, despite the fact that we have an 86 per cent increase in funding for public housing, it is not enough and the level of economic activity should be increased further. Let them come clean. Are they saying, therefore, that we should impose further pressures on our external account? If they are saying that they know that, necessarily, as a result of economic certainties, if we do so we will be putting further upward pressures on interest rates in this country. Honourable members opposite can stand up in this House and make their noises and say that an 86 per cent increase in the funds for public housing is not sufficient. All right; let them say that. Let them say how much more funding they would provide. Let them say what the pressures would be on interest rates if we increased the measures beyond the 86 per cent that we have put forward. We have succeeded in substantially meeting and alleviating the crisis into which this country was plunged by their inept economic policies. The adequacy of our policies in the housing area has been acknowledged and endorsed by those involved in the housing industry who suffered so grievously under the previous Government. Mr ROBERT BROWN —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Science, refers to the recent report about the discovery of a nova, or an exploding star, near the pointers to the Southern Cross. It has been suggested that that may be the first discovery of its kind made from Australia. Will the Minister explain the significance of the discovery? Does this discovery confirm that Australian astronomy, under the Hawke Government, is maintaining and expanding its reputation as being among the world's best? Mr BARRY JONES —A nova is an exploding star; the Opposition has had a few on that side of the House. The latest one was first observed by Mr Rob McNaught, a satellite camera operator at Siding Spring on Sunday, when its brightness increased by a factor-- Mr Hunt —At Coonabarabran, in my electorate. Mr BARRY JONES —Exactly, in the electorate of the Deputy Leader of the National Party. Its brightness increased by a factor of up to 10,000 times more than previously observed. On a clear night it can be easily observed with the naked eye. For those honourable members who want to look for it tonight, it is about 3 degrees true north of Alpha Centauri, the brighter of the pointers, and the one further from the Southern Cross. We await further details about its size and distance-both very vast-which will be of international interest. A nova, which can be readily observed, explodes approximately once every 20 years. But in this case, the new nova is the brightest new star seen for 11 years. On the down side it is already starting to fade. The newspaper reports are incorrect; it is not the first nova observed from Australia. In the nineteenth century, John Tebbutt, the New South Wales astronomer, whose lugubrious features appear on our $100 note, discovered many new stars, including several novas. The most famous of all novae, the Crab Nebula, was so bright in the year 1054 that it could be seen in daylight and it was written up by Chinese and Japanese astronomers. Now it is a tiny fuzz south of Orion, very hard to pick up even with powerful binoculars. The nova explosion reminds us that the universe is in a constant state of change. It is not in a stable state. Mr Hawke —Like the Liberal Party. Mr BARRY JONES —Like the Liberal Party; it is not in a stable state. It also reminds us that we are a very tiny part of an almost unimaginably vast, inconceivably ancient and mysterious universe and that we know very little about how it works. We can be extremely proud of the enormous contribution to world knowledge made by Australian astronomers. The completion of the Australian Telescope in 1988 and the extensions of the Tidbinbilla dish will add to our capacity. The observatory at Siding Spring, including the Anglo-Australian Telescope and the Schmidt telescope, is often regarded as the most productive in the world. The most distant observed object in the universe, a quasar, was observed there. It was estimated to be 1014 light years away, that is, the distance that light travels in 100 million million years. Mr McGauran —Come on, Barry! Mr BARRY JONES —Well, this raises serious questions, especially for Queensland National Party members, about whether it makes much sense to teach children in textbooks that the universe was created in six 24-hour days and is less than 6,000 years old. Astronomy presents a completely different perspective to the issues that preoccupy our Opposition-the appeal to immediate self-interest, elevating selfishness into a moral issue, the fringe benefits tax, playing personality politics and never looking beyond the ends of their noses. Mr HODGMAN —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Defence, relates to Australia's U-boat program. Is it a fact that the IKL-HDW `paper boat' design is still deficient after the project definition study in that it has no proven powered discharge system and no noise signature figures of any validity? When will the Minister on behalf of the Government emphatically reject the recommendations on page 19 of the Dibb report? Specifically, when will the Minister answer my five specific questions raised in this House on 7 October last? Mr BEAZLEY —I welcome the honourable gentleman to defence debates in this House. I understand that, were circumstances to alter in the next few months or so, I might have to deal with him more frequently in Question Time. Let me also say that it is a fairly inauspicious beginning. Naturally enough, the details of the tender for both the Swedish boat and the German boat are matters of commercial confidence and are now being subjected to tender evaluation by the Navy. What I can say is that the naval personnel who have been involved with the two groups that have been given the tender for the project definition study are very pleased with how it has proceeded. At the end of that period they are confident that, whichever boat we select and whichever combat system for those boats we select, we are going to get a conventional submarine substantially in advance of any operating at this time in our region and that, whether we choose the German boat or the Swedish boat, a very substantial gain will have been made to the striking power of our defence forces. So I do not think that the honourable member need trouble himself about the selection process that we are going through. We are confronting, if you like, an embarrassment of riches and the choice is going to be very difficult indeed. The systems we are going to get are going to be very effective. Mr Hodgman —Come on! Will you answer the question? Mr BEAZLEY —Obviously I cannot answer the question in detail because, if I did, I would be breaching an evaluation process which effectively every government in this country has accepted. That would be daft. If the honourable member is going to start to make some serious interventions in the defence debate in this country, he should at least start to recognise some of the proprieties of that. What I can do, though, is give him those general assurances, and the submarines that we will be getting will be of a substantial order quieter than the already reasonably quiet submarines that we have in operation with our defence forces. We will be making a decision on that in March-April of next year and when we make that decision we will be making one which is not only going to be significant for our defence forces for the reasons I have outlined many times but which will also be of substantial benefit to our industry. Another pleasing feature of the tenders that have come in is that they have confirmed for us that the industrial gains here will be massive. Both sides have picked up significantly the industrial capabilities in this country and many areas of the Australian work force and Australian industry are going to benefit, whichever of the two tenders is selected. I would think that a very efficiently managed program which is coming in on time, on cost, with benefits both to our defence forces and to industry, is going to be a very interesting one for those opposite to oppose should they choose to do so next year when those decisions are taken. As to the question the honourable member asked as to when I will give him an answer to the interventions that he made here in Parliament recently in the adjournment debate, I will do so when I get the time. Mr MOUNTFORD —Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to claims by Amnesty International that Dean Simon Farisani of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in South Africa has been arrested by the authorities? It will be recalled that Dean Farisani visited Australia earlier this year as a guest of the Australian church groups. Given that Dean Farisani has been imprisoned before and has claimed that he has been severely tortured during his imprisonment, can the Minister arrange for the Australian mission in Pretoria to maintain a watching brief on what is a special case? Can the mission report back to the Government on whether or not Dean Farisani's normal human rights and physical well-being are being abused during his imprisonment? Mr HAYDEN —Dean Simon Farisani is well-known in Australia for the reasons which have been mentioned by the honourable member for Banks. He is Dean of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of South Africa, an outspoken critic of the civil rights record of the Government of the so-called Venda homeland. He has been arrested before by Venda authorities and there have been allegations that he has been tortured during imprisonment. The Government is disturbed about this case and, because of that, I have asked my Department to investigate the case with the South African Government. The Australian Government does not recognise the homeland Government of Venda and, if necessary, we will make representations on behalf of Dean Farisani to the South African Government. Mr BEALE —Will the Prime Minister advise the House why the Government has rejected a request by an African country, Botswana, for the Hercules aircraft presently on the tarmac in Cyprus to carry out famine relief work in Botswana? Is the Government denying Botswana this humanitarian assistance because Air Botswana, which would operate the Hercules through a company called Stridestar, has close links with South Africa? Further, will the Prime Minister give the House the details of an investigation being carried out on an officer and former officer of a government department into irregularities associated with the initial transfer of the Hercules to Ethiopia? Finally, when will the Prime Minister come clean on what is happening to all the Hercules aircraft with particular reference to the poor condition of the four aircraft at Laverton, the confiscation of an aircraft at Dothan, Alabama, and the million dollars worth of missing spare parts? Mr HAWKE —Let me go over the recent events in regard to the question from the honourable member. The World Food Program, WFP, had formally requested use of the Australian Hercules aircraft to which the honourable member refers, initially for one month with a possible extension for famine relief in the Sudan or other parts of north-eastern Africa. The Government gave its agreement to this request and it helped to expedite arrangements for a hand-over to the WFP, which was to have taken place on 13 November. However, at the very last moment the Government received advice from the World Food Program that it had decided not to proceed with the lease of the Hercules aircraft. It was explained by the WFP that the sudden changed position had been brought about by recent news of surface transport now reaching several places in south Sudan and by news of considerable food supplies en route to the south. In regard to that part of the question that went to spare parts, I am informed that an agent, Vision Air London, has been appointed by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau to reconcile spare parts in the Hercules with the Government's inventory of spares, and as I am informed there have been no reports to date of any missing spare parts. In regard to that part of the question from the honourable member which suggested that a request by Botswana had been rejected, I have no knowledge of such a rejection and the Foreign Minister has just come to the table to indicate to me that he is not aware of any such situation. That is all I can add. Immediately after Question Time has ended I will see whether I am capable of giving the honourable member any further information on any part of his question, as I have in the past. Mr BALDWIN —I refer the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the curious and picaresque secret arms trade between the United States and Iran which is receiving so much publicity lately. Does the Government share the evidently widely held fear that these official transactions might be interpreted as a reward for hostage-taking terrorism? Is the Government concerned that profits from these transactions are apparently being used to fund Contra activities directed at destabilising the Government of Nicaragua? Mr HAYDEN —The reports on this matter currently receiving publicity are as perplexing as they are disturbing. They are perplexing because it would seem that certain activity was under way without the authority or knowledge of the United States Administration, and steps have been taken in respect of certain people regarded as culpable for having taken some of the action. They are disturbing for the very reason that the honourable member has referred to-namely, the United States has taken a consistently firm attitude towards terrorism and has advised its friends and allies that they too should take an unrelenting position against terrorist activity. There should be no concessions. It would be most unfortunate, therefore, if these latest reports were to be interpreted by those with a propensity for terrorism, or potentially with such a propensity, as an indication that terrorism can be rewarded, that hostage taking can bring its profit. Certainly I believe that would not be the intention of the United States Administration, but there we have the facts as they are being reported currently, and they are perplexing and disturbing. An account is given in these reports that an amount of between $10m and $30m, profits earned from the sale of US arms to Iran, has been placed at the disposal of anti-Sandinista forces in Central America. In statements earlier this year I indicated that United States aid to the Contras would do nothing to promote a peaceful settlement of Central America's problems. I stand firmly by that statement. I also reaffirmed Australia's commitment to the role of the International Court of Justice in settling international disputes and to the observance of international law. Australia's views have since been reflected in Australia's votes in the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly. The Government believes that countries of the region have a right to conduct their affairs without foreign interference and that the best hope for peace in the region lies in diplomatic negotiations rather than military action. The situation in Central America remains very worrying. The Contra war in Nicaragua goes on, as does the war between the Government and guerrillas in El Salvador. People are dying every day as a result of these conflicts, and the economic costs are crippling. Human rights abuse remains at unacceptable levels. The only comprehensive approach to settling these problems in the Contadora process appears to be at a stalemate. In all of the circumstances these latest developments are most unfortunate. Mr McGAURAN —My question is directed to the Prime Minister and follows his professed concern for the family expressed in reply to an earlier question. Honourable members interjecting- Mr McGAURAN —Touching, is it not? In March 1983 the average period of unemployment was 31 weeks. After 3 1/2 years of his Government, the average period is 61 weeks. When will this period be reduced? Mr HAWKE —We on this side of the House never cease to be amazed by the Opposition's hypocrisy on the question of employment and unemployment. Let me remind the House again of just what those opposite inflicted upon this country. In the last 12 months of the previous Government, they added a quarter of a million to the unemployed of this country. I ask the honourable member to direct his mind, if he is capable, to what that meant in terms of waste. Mr Howard —Answer the question. Mr HAWKE —I will come to the specifics of the question, but I give some idea of what that additional 250,000 unemployed meant. In terms of earnings lost, it meant about $4.9 billion and, in terms of additional unemployment benefit, it meant about $1.5 billion. So if we look at both those aspects, forgone income and expenditure on additional unemployment benefit, we are talking about costs of the best part of $6.5 billion that the honourable member's colleagues in government, as they then were, inflicted upon this country. We promised that when we came to office we would create jobs and bring down the level of unemployment, which was in double digit figures. We have done that. We have created jobs at the most rapid rate in the history of this country. I remind the honourable member again of the facts: In half the time we have created double the number of jobs and the rate of unemployment has been brought down from the double digit figure which the previous Government inflicted on the country to about 8 per cent. Those are the facts, recognised within this country and internationally, as to what the previous Government did, as to the devastation it wreaked on the country and what we have done to reduce the level of unemployment. Of course we would like to be in a position now where, by macroeconomic policy, we could increase the level of activity and increase the rate of growth. We know that, if we were to bring in such policies, they would wreck this economy. Interest rates would go through the roof, the exchange rate would collapse and we would go back to the sort of unemployment figures that the colleagues of honourable members opposite unleashed on this country. At any stage of the electoral debate we will put our record on employment against that of the parties opposite. Mr BEDDALL —I ask the Acting Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: Has the present Australian industrial relations system recently received endorsement by international experts? Mr YOUNG —Madam Deputy Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Don't demote me! Mr YOUNG —I apologise, Madam Speaker. I just took about 20,000 bucks off your pay, too, which is almost as important in this House. Of course the Opposition has promoted industrial relations as it sees it as one of the great issues in the lead-up to the next election. The Government is quite happy about that. As I said yesterday in the House, the Government has as its present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations one of the most outstanding practitioners in the industrial relations field, the honour- able member for Gellibrand, who has done an excellent job in this country over the past 3 1/2 years. He has been one of the prime movers in getting the sort of economic growth we have had in this country and particularly the outcomes we have had on wages which have allowed the creation of so much work. So the debate on industrial relations over the next 12 to 18 months is something to be welcomed by the Government. I notice that the Opposition has decided to meet in February to talk about tax, but we do not know when it will meet again at Thredbo to talk about industrial relations. Today I am pleased to be able to inform the House that no less a person than Pope John Paul had something to say this morning about Australia's industrial relations. I would like to tell the House what His Holiness had to say about the institution which the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia are now so keen to destroy. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation news reported at lunchtime that on a visit to the Transfield Pty Ltd factory in Sydney His Holiness said that Australia had a great tradition of settling industrial disputes through its unique system of industrial relations. Further to that, he urged all Australian workers to take full part in the work of their unions, as they also had a unique right in this country to become members of their unions. Mr Goodluck —I rise on a point of order. As a practising Catholic I find this offensive. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the House that the Special Minister of State is merely quoting the words of His Holiness. Mr Goodluck —I still find it offensive, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr YOUNG —One of the major themes of this Pope, since he has reached that position, has been the settling of conflict. Industrial relations is all about settling conflicts. This is not a question of misquoting a person. The Pope has had the opportunity of observing the practices in this country and the practices in his own country, and he has had a lot to say about what happens in Poland and the destruction of trade unions in that country. The Opposition in this House is all in favour of unions in Poland, but it is not in favour of unions in Australia. Honourable members opposite all want full rights for the unions and the workers in Poland but no rights for the workers in Australia. Honourable members opposite ought to observe the words of His Holiness in Australia today, because I am not too sure where they will be able to find a better reference than that. Mr JULL —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Is it a fact that with the present value of the currency the average Japanese tourist arriving in Australia now has approximately $5,000 to spend during his one-week holiday here? Is it also true that the same tourist leaves Australia with about $2,000 unspent, primarily because of inconvenient shopping hours, lack of goods that are appealing to the Japanese, and in some cases because of the attitudes of Australian shop assistants? In light of the sums being spent by the Australian Tourist Commission on promotion in Japan, is the Government prepared to promote the concept of flexible hours to proprietors, unions and State governments and to promote the need to service these visitors; or are we looking at what is a somewhat inefficient use of tourism promotion dollars if we have tourists leaving Australia with our potential dollars in their pockets? Mr JOHN BROWN —I probably would have treated this question with scorn if it had come from most other members of the Opposition. However, the honourable member for Fadden does show not only an understanding of but also an abiding interest in tourism. It is a pity that his skills are not employed on the Opposition's front bench. Perhaps in the next month or two I might find that I have an adversary who knows something about the subject. Having said that, it strikes me that the question was rather negative, which is somewhat out of character with the usual style of the honourable member for Fadden. There is no evidence to back up this claim, which I have seen in the Press. However, it is probably worth making a few observations on this matter. There is no question that the growth of tourism from Japan to Australia is, to say the least, sensational. We are looking at something like a 50 per cent increase over this year in the number of Japanese tourists coming into Australia. They obviously would not come here if they were not very satisfied with the product they were experiencing. There is an argument to be made out for greater flexibility in shopping hours. It surprises me that the honourable member for Fadden, being a resident of Queensland, should ask this question. I must say that if all States followed the example of the Government of New South Wales in introducing flexible shopping hours-not just for tourists from overseas but also for its own residents-perhaps this question might not need to be asked. I am not suggesting in the least that everything is perfect, because it is not. However, there is not much this Government can do to induce State governments of varying political colours to come into the twentieth century with regard to shopping hours. As far as the availability of good products is concerned, I think the range of products that is available to Japanese tourists is much better than it was two or three years ago. It is a fact that it is a tradition of Japanese tourists to take home presents for their families and friends. I can tell the honourable member for Fadden that, as I understand it, the total spent on presents in Australia by Japanese tourists last financial year was somewhere around the $100m mark. So it is an enormous industry. All I can do as a Minister is to encourage State governments to have a look at their shopping hours and also to encourage unions to be part of that process. I can also ask State tourist commissions to encourage those people who are dealing in the souvenir and presents trade to raise the standard of the goods that are available. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to sub-section 31 (2) of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, I present a report relating to interceptions carried out under the Act for the period 4 June 1985 to 30 June 1986. 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 58 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Administrative Review Council for 1985-86. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to sub-section 9 (3) of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977, I present a report of the Committee of Inquiry relating to a review of efficiency and effectiveness in higher education. This report was made available to all members of the House on 24 October 1986. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of Primary Industry for 1985-86. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Honey Industry Act 1962, I present the annual report of the Australian Honey Board for 1985-86. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985, I present the annual report of the Honey Research Council for 1985-86. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —For the information of honourable members and pursuant to sub-section 49 (2) of the Audit Act 1901, I present an explanatory statement relating to an amendment to the format of the monthly statement of Commonwealth financial transactions. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Foreign Investment Review Board for 1985-86. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 27 of the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984, I present the annual report of the Authority for 1985-86. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972, I present the annual report of the Institute for 1985-86. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Building Standards Committee for 1985-86. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, I present a proposal to install standard high intensity lighting at the seven marked pedestrian crossings within the Parliamentary Zone. The views of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House are being sought. When those views are available I shall be in a position to take further action under the Parliament Act to seek the approval of the House for these works. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of Communications for 1985-86. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 32 of the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation for 1985-86. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 17 of the Victorian Grants Commission Act 1976, I present the annual report of the Victoria Grants Commission for 1985-86. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment for 1985-86. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 38 of the Australia Council Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australia Council for 1985-86. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Children's Television Foundation, incorporating ACTF Productions Ltd, for 1985-86. 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 Cadman,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Ian Cameron,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Nehl and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 Cadman,Mr Carlton,Mr Nehl and Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House of Representatives their concern at any change to the Australian Flag without first holding a Referendum to assess the opinion of the citizens of Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that no changes be made to the Australian Flag without reference to the citizens of Australia in the form of a Referendum. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, 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 Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Hollis,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 residents of Australia respectfully showeth: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. by Mr Baldwin and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable 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. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 is having a detrimental effect on the car industry generally in South Australia, and more particularly, on employment in that industry. 2. The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 contains many anomalies, inconsistencies and mistakes in drafting and its administrative implementation is an unwarranted burden on Australian business and the Australian taxpayer. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House repeal as a matter of utmost urgency this regressive legislation which imposes a disincentive to economic and employment growth, thereby jeopardising the well-being and living standards of all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: The Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is a vicious, punitive tax that unjustly affects employers, will have a major impact on small business and farm profitability, and will result in increased unemployment. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Repeal the legislation establishing the Fringe Benefits tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 Halverson and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: Australia until recently had no reported infestation of Potato Cyst Nematode (PCN), a potato disease that can reduce crop yields by 70% in a short space of time, an outbreak of PCN in Western Australia has heightened concerns within the Central Highlands potato growing industry that PCN infestations in the region would have disastrous effects on the regional economy and the livelihoods of many families, the further introduction of PCN to Australia must be avoided thus requiring that the most effective quarantine measures be applied. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to: 1. Cease the importation of fresh potatoes for any purposes because of the threat of introducing PCN; 2. Review as necessary arrangements with New Zealand under the Closer Economic Relations agreement; 3. Allow the importation only of processed potatoes, provided the processing takes place outside Australia, as processing destroys PCN; 4. As a further safeguard, place a ban on the importation of secondhand farm machinery because of the danger of inadvertently introducing PCN on machinery which has been in contact with PCN infested soil. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Mildren and Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strongly object to the sale of The Queen Elizabeth II Rehabilitation Centre at 59 Missenden Road, Camperdown, N.S.W. as it would be a disadvantage to patients who are incapacitated/invalid who require the specialised treatment/s which are now available in one Centre. We urge the Government to rescind the selling of this building and the breaking-up and loss of expertise in a centre that has every available facility for the disabled patient. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the Government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That we the undersigned are greatly concerned by, and totally opposed to proposed taxation changes and the introduction of new taxes, value added tax, consumption tax or retail turnover tax, capital gains tax, death duties, gift tax or inheritance tax. We wish you to repudiate any or all of these taxes in part or full. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Commonwealth Government of Australia will protect our society from these taxes, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. 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 employer and employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of their 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 control with adequate security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament: We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Capital Gains Tax on the following grounds: 1. Discriminates against Small Business; 2. Stops creation of new Small Businesses; 3. Down-values the worth of existing Small Business; 4. Disincentive to Small Business growth because it bites hardest on the Small Business which have grown the most; 5. Reaches beyond the grave and taxes profits on sales of most properties gifted to beneficiaries and thereby is death duty in disguise. 6. Destroys incentive to investment. 7. Hinders the growth of employment opportunity. 8. Discriminates against Small Business in taxing so called gains made on the sale of a business. 9. Will cause growth in the bureaucracy. 10. Hinders the flexibility of arrangements of partnership. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Capital Gains Tax Legislation forthwith. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- (a) that the escalation of terrorism in Sri Lanka has brought the spectre of international terrorism closer to Australian shores; (b) that this terrorism is exercised by political separatists seeking to establish a racist state in Sri Lanka based on the detested doctrine of racial separation and apartheid; (c) that the victims of these terrorists are for the most part peaceful citizens of Sri Lanka, but have also included many foreigners including Australian citizens; (d) that these terrorists are provided with sanctuary and assistance (including the provision of military bases and logistic support) by India; and (e) that the agents of the separatists have for a long time engaged in a campaign of misinformation in Australia seeking to justify their terrorism as a legitimate response to alleged discrimination of an ethnic minority in Sri Lanka, which is a claim completely without foundation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia: (1) condemn the terrorist campaign now waged in Sri Lanka for the purpose of the establishment of a separate racist state in that country; (2) call upon the Indian government, as a fellow member of the Commonwealth, to desist from giving support to international terrorists operating in Sri Lanka; and (3) call upon the agents of Sri Lankan separatism in Australia to cease transporting an internal Sri Lankan problem into Australia and creating dissension amongst Australian citizens of Sri Lankan origin. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government should cancel the Fringe Benefits Tax they intend to impose on businesses throughout Australia because: 1. The tax discriminates against charitable organisations, sports clubs, private schools and religious organisations; 2. The tax will mean employees around Australia will suffer reductions in their remuneration packages; 3. The Bill places another impossible burden of paperwork on small business; 4. The Bill is absurd in its application to Government employees, who now constitute 32% of the workforce. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the intention of the Hawke Government to unionise independent contractors, sub-contractors, the self-employed, partnerships, sole traders and family businesses will: Remove the freedom of independent small business to: (a) set their own prices (b) work their own hours (c) control their own businesses (d) negotiate their own contracts; and will create unacceptable and unjustifiable working conditions which will include: (a) the payment of union superannuation, compensation, payroll tax, annual leave loadings, public holiday loadings, PAYE tax deductions (b) limited incomes (c) inflexible awards and conditions (d) fixed hours of work. We the undersigned call upon the Government to restore incentive and opportunity to the Australian economy and to abandon these coercive measures. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson. 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: We are concerned that the decisions to be taken by Government with regard to the footwear industry in which we work may not recognise the continuation of a form and level of assistance which will maintain the security of our employment. Your petitioners therefore pray that: Every consideration and support will be given to this matter so that we are able to maintain our employment in this industry. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the 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 certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights that the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education that the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate that the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- That we believe Reference to God should be made in the National Anthem, as Australia is considered to be a Christian Nation and therefore we believe inclusion of His name in appropriate and desirable. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the last line of each verse of the National Anthem be altered to read; In joyful strains then we all sing God Bless Australia Fair. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the inequitable 33% cut to Education Centres program as announced in the recent budget; 2. That the impact of this will be to cut across programs and projects with a recognised National and International significance; 3. That this Education Centre Program received a 1983 grant of $2.2m and in that year saw $5.3m spent on Education and that a cut of $838,000 will have a devastating effect on this investment in our Nation's future. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray the House of Representatives and Government of the Commonwealth seek to have the Minister to arrange finances within her Portfolio in order that this program be restored to 1986 funding levels or such as may be nearly the same, given national economic constraints, in order to maintain this unique national program. 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: 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor government's productivity- superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognize that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects, namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The introduction of an administrative charge for annual enrolment will restrict access to higher education for a range of disadvantaged groups, particularly women, rural dwellers and some low income earners. 2. Students will be deterred from study because of the probable escalation in the charge in future Budgets, prohibiting students' ability to plan the long term costs of their education. 3. The introduction of an administrative charge is contrary to the education provisions of the ALP/ACTU Accord and ALP policy which states that the party ``will maintain the provision of free tertiary education.'' Your petitioners therefore pray that the annual administrative charge for higher education students not be introduced. Your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Mr Porter. 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 years olds will make it easier for young people to leave home and bring more pressure on State Authorities to find alternative accommodation for them at the community and taxpayers' expense. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. 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 in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: that all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable taxation deductions; that the Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is an unwarranted burden on the small business and rural sectors, which will severely affect their long term viability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government withdraws the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation without delay. by Mr Halverson. 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 Milton. 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain electors in the Division of Sturt, on behalf of the more than 600 electors who petitioned the Member for Sturt, dismayed with the distribution of the film ``Je vous salue Marie'' (``Hail Mary''), respectfully showeth that- whereas the film ``Je vous salue Marie'' (``Hail Mary'') has been held by His Holiness the Pope and other Christian leaders to be blasphemous, whereas the Film Censorship Board saw fit to register the film ``Je vous salue Marie'' (``Hail Mary'') in spite of the fact that blasphemous films cannot be registered under Regulation 13 (1) (a) of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House call for a review of censorship laws, regulations and administration to ensure that offence will not again be caused to the Christian community of Australia through the circulation of blasphemous material. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Wilson. 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 Mayo (Mr Downer) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Labor Government's wilful waste of taxpayers' money on politically motivated spending programs and its negligent attitude towards public sector profligacy. 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 Young-This is your big day, Alexander. Can you make the front bench? This is it. Everybody is watching. I have sent a telegram to your mother. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister might wait until the debate starts before he makes his contribution. I know he needs to get wound up. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(2.57) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I simply will not respond to some of the interjections that I have heard. A saying which is popular in the United States of America is that government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem. Nowhere is that more so than in Australia, where we have the biggest spending government in Australia's history and, concomitantly, the highest taxing government in Australia's history. The Government has constantly weaved and ducked from this issue, choosing not to address that major problem. But on Monday morning on the John Laws program we had the quite astonishing admission from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that much of this Government's spending is `indefensible silliness'. That is something which the Waste Watch Committee has been telling this Government for the eight months since that Committee came into existence and which the Opposition parties generally have been telling the Government since March 1983. We have been subject to ridicule, personal abuse and avoidance of the central issues that we have been raising. It is interesting to note that in the last Budget the Government increased its `indefensible silliness', that being its spending. Now, at last, we have the Government at least admitting that something is wrong. The Government has been taking the money of Australian taxpayers, the hard earned money of ordinary people, and using much of it, first, to promote the Government's political objectives by trying to buy off dissident groups. Secondly, it has spent that money on a whole range of entirely improper and inappropriate projects. Thirdly, like any big organisation there is a large number of inefficiencies in government, but this Government has deliberately turned its back on those inefficiencies. I start by addressing government expenditure for deliberately political purposes. The Government has taken millions of dollars of taxpayers' money and paid it dollar by dollar to dissident interest groups which traditionally have supported the Australian Labor Party but which for one reason or another have become disillusioned with the policies and the performance of this Government-and one cannot blame them for that. I shall take a few examples to show precisely how that money has been spent. One of the major beneficiaries of this expenditure in buying off dissident interest groups and traditional supporters of the Government has been the trade union movement. Trade unions have received millions of dollars in grants under the community employment program, they have received hundreds and thousands of dollars in International Year of Peace grants, and millions of dollars from the Australia Council-again taxpayers' money-for little projects of one kind or another. One union that has benefited is the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, a union that was the subject of the Costigan Royal Commission into the activities of that union. The record of that union is well known now to all members of this House and the Australian community. Yet that union has received funding from this Government for an artist's fees. The taxpayers have paid for the employment of an artist in the Ship Painters and Dockers Union, no doubt as a return for the support that union has given to the Labor Party over many years. The South Australian Trades and Labor Council has received hundreds of thousands of dollars of grants from this Government. Over $1,000 was paid for a May Day cabaret to be organised by the Trades and Labour Council; $80,000 has been paid for an arts program by the Trades and Labour Council; $3,000 has been paid for a storyteller in residence-and some story he would have told! A sum of $15,000 has been spent on peace banners produced by the Trades and Labour Council, and funding has been provided for the writing of a song for the Council's centenary celebrations. I have no objection to these things being done, but I and my Opposition colleagues strongly object to taxpayers' money, the money of ordinary Australians, being diverted by the Government for all those frankly absurd purposes. The list goes on and on. One could take the example of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association's Tasmanian branch which received a $2,000 grant for artist's fees for the production of an illustrated history of a local dispute in Tasmania. The Australian Council of Trade Unions gets $16,500 a year for an arts officer's salary, so that there is somebody to talk to the rest of the organisation about the arts. The Builders Labourers Federation, which this Government wanted to deregister, received nearly $13,000 in grants for a mural project. So when people see `Free Norm' banners flying on the top of buildings, they must remember that they as taxpayers have helped to pay for them. The Labour Council of New South Wales received $3,500 to employ a lyricist. Goodness knows what a lyricist would do for the Labour Council of New South Wales, but taxpayers must remember that they are paying for it. The Food Preservers Union in Victoria, so notorious for its industrial relations record, has received a series of grants adding up to around $22,000 for practical leadlight and ceramic classes at the Heinz factory. Really! I would have thought that anybody in the Australian community would think it utterly absurd that taxpayers' money should be used for such purposes. The trade union movement then has been one of the major beneficiaries of government largesse-money paid out from the taxpayers' hard earned funds-in order to buy off dissident parts of the trade union movement and to provide rewards. After all, we should not forget that the assets of the top 20 trade unions in Australia amount to $118m. It is hard to see that they need grants of this kind for storytellers in residence and for their arts programs and peace banners. Talking of peace banners, I point out that among the other major beneficiaries of taxpayers' largesse are the peace groups, those people who have shown considerable disenchantment with the Labor Party. The Labor Party is determined to win their votes back and the way it will do so is simply by buying them. It has used the $3m International Year of Peace program for precisely that purpose. A major beneficiary of peace grants is a group called the People for Nuclear Disarmament, a group which is unashamedly unilateralist, which says it is opposed to the Government's foreign policies, and is certainly strongly opposed to the policies of the Opposition and the mainstream view of Australia. But in the State of South Australia the Federal Government, undeterred by these facts, gave a $17,000 grant for the employment of an adult peace officer who is the head of the People for Nuclear Disarmament in that State. A whole lot of other rather weird sounding groups have also received peace grants. I take as an example, again in South Australia, the grant given to a group called the Movement Against Toys of Violence, which is opposed to the use of toy cap guns and water pistols. Extensive funding was also provided for what is known as a peace bus. That again is a project of the People for Nuclear Disarmament. When that bus came to South Australia, it was defected by the South Australian police and kept off the road for two weeks. That bus was funded by, again, the long suffering taxpayer so that the people in it could promote a whole lot of views which are right outside mainstream foreign policy attitudes in Australia, the policies professed by the Labor Party, and certainly the policies of the Liberal and National parties. Funding has gone not only to try to buy the peace vote, but also to what one could call the environmental fringe. I refer, for example, to the Friends of the Earth, who have been one of the major beneficiaries of this Government's generosity. The Friends of the Earth favour the closure of the joint facilities in Australia; they call for a nuclear free Pacific; they want to terminate uranium mining; they want to rip up the ANZUS Treaty-all things this Government says it does not support, and certainly things the coalition does not support. The history of this exercise is interesting. Towards the end of 1982 the Friends of the Earth made it public that they were very nearly broke. Since then the Hawke Government and the Cain Government in Victoria have provided them with some $300,000 of taxpayers' money. That money has come through community employment program grants, one of which was worth $35,000, and was paid so that that organisation could continue to produce its magazine called Chain Reaction. A whole range of other CEP grants have been provided to the Friends of the Earth again with the deliberate intention of trying to buy with taxpayers' money that group's support for the Labor Party. Another beneficiary is the so-called fringe women's groups, to whom a wide range of grants has been given. I am sure every member of this House now knows about the $11,000 grant given to the Wild Women Surfboard group, a group that wanted to design a new surfboard for women because their centre of gravity is apparently different from men's. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) admitted that that grant was not one he would like to be `counsel for the defence on', to use his words. Mr Jull —It came from his Department. Mr DOWNER —It did indeed come from his own Department. A sum of $5,000 was given to the Movement for the Ordination of Women in the Anglican Church. This was the first time in Australian history that the Federal Government has intervened in a doctrinal dispute within one of our major churches. Hundreds of dollars were given to the Union of Australian Women in Queensland. Why did that movement receive money? It was to enable it to produce plastic shopping bags advertising peace. I am sure no one objects to their producing shopping bags, but we object to taxpayers' money being used for that purpose. This is another example of the Government using other people's money to try to buy votes in the lead-up to the next election. There are a whole range of areas where government funds are being spent entirely inappropriately. I will just give a couple of new examples which have not as yet been publicised. The Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) are the first culprits. It is good to see the Minister here in the House because the Australian Development Assistance Bureau spent about $4,000 worth of grant money on a group called the Committee in Solidarity with Central America and the Caribbean, a group which is controlled by the Socialist Worker Party. The funds from that group were transferred by the committee to the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. The only country which gets any taxpayers' funding in Latin America is Nicaragua, the Government of which stands for everything to which most Australians are totally opposed. We have spoken before about the amount of money that has been spent on new ambassadors' residences, not least the residence of the Ambassador for Disarmament, Mr Richard Butler. I remind the House that Mr Butler's rent is some $258,000 a year-not for a three-year period but for one year-and an extra $1,800 of taxpayers' money a week is spent by Mr Butler on servants. Butler is certainly an appropriate name for someone who spends that much money on servants. In addition, $90m of taxpayers' money has been spent by this Government on advertising and promotion programs, the most recent example of which was the blatant political advertisement, paid for by the taxpayers at a cost of some $2m, to try to publicise the Government's tax package. This Government has also spent $30m on the America's Cup and all the signs are that New Zealand will be the challenger, not the United States, so one wonders what sort of return will come from that $30m investment. Also, $670,000 is being spent on what is described as `government hospitality' in Perth so that the Government can hold a whole lot of extravagant parties in that city during the America's Cup. Those are examples of taxpayers' money being used entirely inappropriately. However, there are examples also of money being used inefficiently and ineptly. Again, we have publicised some of these in the past. For example, the Government spends $624,000 worth of taxpayers' money on space in the Rockefeller Centre in New York for the Australian Consulate-General, which it does not actually use. Thus $624,000 is just going down the drain. The Federal Government is at present wasting some $2m a year on its electricity bills in Canberra because it did not know that it could get the cheaper commercial rate. The Department of Aviation has spent $1.5m on an air traffic control tower in the town of Gove which it knows it cannot and will never use. There are many other examples, which time does not permit me to elucidate, of the Government spending money inefficiently, ineptly, inappropriately and for blatant political purposes. This spending is `indefensible silliness', as the Government said. It should stop trying to buy votes with taxpayers' money. Instead it should face up to the responsibilities of a government and look after the taxpayers' money which it has in its trust. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Canning)(3.14) —One of the real disadvantages of being a member for a Western Australian electorate is that I have to travel 2,500 miles to listen to the sort of drivel that we have just heard from the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). If the Opposition wanted to put up someone to talk about waste, it could not have picked on a better bloke than the honourable member for Mayo. I have said it before and I will say it again: The honourable member for Mayo is a future leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. I will tell honourable members why-because in his previous vocation he supported the assets test and spoke in favour of it. Yet as soon as he came into this House he did a U-turn and started bagging it. Anyone who has that sort of moral manoeuvrability will be a future leader of the Liberal Party and it is totally appropriate that he should be speaking today about waste. He would not have a clue how ordinary Australians live. I am told that, from his family fortune, he could most probably write out a personal cheque for many of the programs that he criticised today. The honourable member has not come in to this House with any sort of knowledge about the way in which ordinary Australians live and work. He criticised arts funding that goes to unionists. I know where he wants arts funds to go-to the blue rinse set up in North Sydney. When those funds go to unionists, to ordinary Australians, he puts the boot in. I point out to the honourable member that the trade unions of this country contribute a significant amount of money to the same programs themselves so my advice to the honourable member is to get back to his doll's house and not to worry about the trivial nonsense that he has put forward in this House today. What are the real matters of public importance in this country? What are the real issues confronting us? The real issues include taxation. People are worried about the fairness of the taxation system. They are also worried about industrial relations, industry restructuring-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr GEAR —Judging by the noise it seems that honourable members opposite agree with me. Ordinary people are also worried about education, housing, trade and all those things. What do we get from the Opposition? We do not get a matter of public importance on any of those issues; instead we get the Waste Watch Committee. It should really be called the publicity seeking committee. It is only necessary to refer to one example in order to show the duplicity of the Waste Watch Committee. Not once has this so-called Waste Watch Committee ever put forward a constructive suggestion on how the Government could save money. All it does is put questions on notice, which cost the taxpayer millions of dollars, in a fishing exercise so that it can come up with the sort of claptrap that we have just heard from the honourable member for Mayo. Let us refer to just one example of the duplicity of the Waste Watch Committee. I refer to an article in the West Australian newspaper of 16 May by Lindsay Olney which was entitled `Ex PMs cost nation $370,000'. The ex-Prime Ministers of this country, most of whom were miserable failures, are still costing the Australian taxpayers $370,000 on top of all their pensions. The article in the West Australian stated: The Chairman of the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee, Senator Michael Baume (New South Wales), said he did not think that the bills incurred by former Prime Ministers would attract the Committee's attention unless there was some evidence of misallocation. I will let that sink in. The Waste Watch Committee is not interested in $370,000 of taxpayers' money going to those miserable failures as Prime Ministers, yet in one of its Press releases it bags $400 for a peace march in Perth. So $400 is important to the Committee, but $370,000 is not. What a bunch of hypocrites! Opposition members come here with no credibility at all when they put forward matters of public importance such as this. Yet the Chairman of the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee-the publicity seeking committee-comes out with a statement like the one I have just quoted. The Opposition does not come in here squeaky clean itself. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), who will follow me in this debate, will refer to just a few of the Opposition's expenditures. I will not waste my time on them. While we are talking about wasted opportunities and waste in this country, let us talk about the issues that matter-issues such as the 23 years in which former Liberal governments sat on their hands with a protection policy. If we are talking about waste in this country, that is where we should start looking. Previous Liberal governments did nothing. In fact, if we were concerned about social justice in this country we should bring back those Cabinet Ministers from the previous governments and put them on trial for public negligence. Not only did they adopt a policy that was harmful to this country in the long term, but they also did nothing. The rest of the world was restructuring on a massive scale, yet in Australia we had Ministers of the Crown doing nothing, taking advice from the Public Service. If the Opposition wants to talk about waste it should consider those wasted opportunities. The epitome of the previous Government's sorry neglect was the 1983 Liberal slogan `We're not waiting for the world'. I will tell honourable members something: The world had passed them by. They were so far behind they thought they were coming first. It is a sick joke to dish up this sort of stuff to the Australian people. How about another area of waste-tax avoidance? Every time we talk about tax avoidance we should look at the Opposition's record. Every time that we have put up Bills trying to get back the bottom of the harbour money, the Opposition has voted against it. Talk about waste! The bottom of the harbour schemes involved $600m of taxpayers' money and the Opposition opposed legislation to recoup that. Those opposite talk about $400 for a peace march but about $600m they say: `Well, don't worry about that'. Mr Dubois —They are their mates. Mr GEAR —Yes, they are looking after their mates. The old pay as you earn taxpayer paid that. Those opposite hit him in the neck every time. Every time we have tried to bring some decency back into the taxation system to eliminate the waste and to put incentive back into the system those opposite have opposed it. If there are wasters in this world it is those opposite. All they are doing is continuing a long tradition of Liberal Party waste, not only in what they do but also in what they do not do in their opposition to areas of tax avoidance and others since we have been in government. The tax on lump sum superannuation was a decision that ended the double-dipping in the social security area. It was $80m. Those opposite said that they would get rid of that tax and give the money back to the people who benefited from the lump sum superannuation, and they were not the PAYE taxpayers. I think that is a waste. This Government reintroduced the assets test at great political cost, but it was necessary. Those opposite would do away with it again-$150m. They would give the pension back to the millionaires. Is that not a waste? Would those opposite not call it a waste to give the pension back to millionaires who do not need it? I think by reintroducing the assets test we have eliminated waste on a grand scale. Fringe benefits, the good old rorts, are another area of tax avoidance. The fringe benefits tax puts some fairness and integrity back into the taxation system. Once again, those opposite opposed it. What a waste when all their mates could go to restaurants and book it up against the general taxpayer, when they could take cars and overseas trips and send their kids to private schools, booking it up to the general taxpayer. Was that not a waste? Why do those opposite not talk about those things? When we talk about waste in this country, that is what really matters, not those mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy little issues that the honourable member for Mayo on the other side indulged himself in. When waste in this country was really being tackled honourable members opposite were at the sideshow. The Government has been in the main ring addressing industry restructuring and getting a fairer taxation system in this country. We are putting fairness back into it and eliminating the waste. Those opposite do not want to know about those things and do not want to talk about those things; they would rather talk about the Government giving $400 for a peace march. That is the level at which they operate. They are at the sideshow. They do not even know what is going on. The Opposition putting up silly matters of public importance such as this reminds me that last night in the House we debated a report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, from which recommendation 78 states: The public importance procedure be re-named Matter of Public Interest; I tell those opposite that the drivel we have heard today would not even make public interest. No wonder the Standing Committee on Procedure had a look at the drivel those opposite have been serving up in the last few years and decided that it was time to rename this section of the debate in the House. Mr Downer —You are contradicting yourself. Mr GEAR —The honourable member has just given another example of a reason for such a change. `Matter of public interest' is much more appropriate, but the issue before us today does not do even that title justice. When this Government got rid of the entertainment expenses tax deduction those opposite, as usual, sucked up to their usual clientele and said that the restaurant industry would collapse, that a number of jobs would be lost and that there would be wide scale sackings across the hospitality industry. We can see with hindsight that there has actually been growth in that area. Those opposite would give the entertainment expenses tax deduction back to the people who have always enjoyed it. They would allow the people who took long business lunches at the expense of the taxpayer to continue with that policy. If I had time I would go through the rest of the list but, in all, the Opposition has promised to do away with reforms that we have introduced to make the taxation system fairer. The total cost of that would be $5,900m. Why do those opposite not come in here and tell us about how they would pay for that? Why do they not bring that up in their matters of public importance? Why do they not show us where they would make the spending cuts to bring in that $5,900m lost revenue in the taxation area alone on measures that they have flagged their intention to abolish or on concessions they would give? I think that would be a much more important matter of public importance because when we are talking about waste that is where the real waste is. On the issue of their policies we on this side are always at a disadvantage because we never know what they are. I would like to refer to two policies that those opposite have run up the flagpole. The first one is privatisation. Remember that wonderful policy called privatisation? We do not hear people talking about it too often because it got shot full of holes in the South Australian election and a couple of weeks later in the Western Australian election. Those opposite ran it straight down the flagpole and we have not heard anything since. Are those opposite still going to privatise Telecom Australia? Why do they not bring that up in a matter of public importance? Why do they not tell us why their privatisation policy is so good, instead of serving up the drivel that was served up today? After Thredbo they put the industrial relations policy up the flagpole. Mr Braithwaite —What is your margin? Mr GEAR —My margin is looking a lot better every day. With a mob of clowns such as those opposite I do not have to worry about the next election. Let us get back to the industrial relations policy. This is what the Confederation of Australian Industry said about the Opposition's industrial relations policy. I will quote from the Press release: These critics of our centralised industrial system- that is, those opposite, and honourable members should listen to this; this fits the honourable member for Mayo- virtually none of whom have been involved in industrial relations, threaten employers with changes which would create conditions far worse than those that already exist. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would not have to tell you that the Confederation of Australian Industry has never been known for its support of the Labor Party but here it is talking about the Opposition's industrial relations policy and it has just shot it full of holes. Further in the media statement it is stated: They advocate massive change with its commensurate risk of massive dislocation, without providing any clear idea as to how this change will be brought about nor any evidence that it will in the end be better for employers. Mr Reith —What has that got to do with it? Mr Downer —What has this got to do with it? You have missed the point. Mr GEAR —I notice there have been a few interjections: `What has this got to do with the matter of public importance?'. It has nothing to do with it. I think their matter of public importance is not worth talking about. I am talking about the real matters of public importance in this country. I will leave the drivel to those opposite because they are good at it. They are at the sideshow and they do not know what is going on in this country. They talk about giving $400 for peace marches, but they will not tell us what their taxation policy is. If we give those opposite time in this House, why do they not talk about something that the Australian people want to hear about? It is because every time they put up a policy it gets shot full of holes. That is why they will not give us another policy-they are too scared; that is, if they have got one, and I doubt whether they have. I will talk about matters of public importance, not the drivel that those opposite serve up. If we want to talk about real waste in this country, we need only to look at the past of those opposite and the things they have done on taxation. They have opposed the Australia Card. This Government has introduced a policy and the Australia Card Bill to overcome waste in this country, waste in the taxation system and waste in the social security system. What do those opposite do? They oppose the Australia Card. I have not spoken about the Opposition's matter of public importance a great deal because I think it is irrelevant, just as those opposite are. I am talking about the matters of public importance that matter in this country. All that those opposite are is a hopeless group of individuals led by a leader who is going nowhere. He will be replaced next February. Those opposite are going nowhere. If they want to talk about margins, mine is looking better every day. While those opposite serve up drivel like this, they are at the sideshow. This Government is getting on with the real job of getting this country back on the rails. At the next election those opposite can talk about this drivel and I will talk about what we have been doing. I can tell honourable members who will come off the better. Mr COBB(Parkes)(3.28) —After listening to the empty, shallow, irrelevant and pious waffle of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), let us knock on the head right at the beginning the concept that the present Government has been trying to perpetrate; that is, that the waste in spending by this Government is no different from what we have experienced under all previous governments. How wrong that idea is. Sure, all governments in the past, and no doubt all governments in the future, will waste some money. That is inevitable. What the coalition Waste Watch Committee is objecting to is the deliberate channelling of taxpayers' money in massive and increasing amounts into the most bizarre and wasteful projects imaginable. It is almost beyond belief what this Government will spend money on. The Government is using taxpayers' money in a blatant and unconscionable fashion to buy the silence, the support and the votes of their little mates and of vocal minority trendy groups right around Australia. Mr Slipper —Shocking. Mr COBB —It is. In many ways it is the most blatant abuse of the trust that taxpayers would normally expect from an elected government, certainly in the history of this country, if not the Western world. If the taxpayers of Australia, if the media of Australia knew the full story of what is going on in this area they would rise up in protest and demand that this Government be thrown out of office, pronto. Almost every area and every portfolio that has access to funds from the public purse has abused the spending of those funds in an immoral way. Mr McGauran —Every single one of them. Mr COBB —Yes. What is worse, when the Waste Watch Committee pointed out this horrendous waste, as it has over the preceding months, the Government ignored and shrugged off its revelations. The day of reckoning at the ballot box for this supreme indifference cannot be far away. Let us look at some of these grants so that the public knows what we are talking about. Community employment program grants totalling $1,200m have been a minefield of public waste. Let me list a small sample of them. This Government gave the Campaign for International Co-operation and Disarmament-it has close links with the pro-Moscow Socialist Party of Australia-a grant of $47,568 to employ three people for a year to celebrate its twenty-fifth anniversary. Boy, that must have been some party! The Government gave the Printing and Kindred Industries Union $172,644 for nine people to investigate the extent of sub-award employment practices. Mr Slipper —You must be joking. Mr COBB —I am not. The Government gave the Victorian Teachers Union $110,617 to fund its women's affirmative action handbook. It gave the Australian Broadcasting Corporation $334,890 to employ 21 young people of non-Anglo-Celtic backgrounds to provide an opportunity for accented voices to be heard on the air and win acceptance within the community. I ask you! Mr Hicks —What about SBS in the bush? Mr COBB —Yes. We all remember how the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) announced a grant of $31,000 to the Arts Council of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to employ four people to work and train for 18 weeks with a professional clown. I am told that these people will be coming up for re-election when the Government calls the next election. The list of such grants has now been stopped, although the grants go on, of course. In May this year some 700 CEP grants were for arts-related projects alone, totalling over $34m. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) refuses to give the details, although the simple push of a computer button would provide all that the taxpayers are entitled to know. The statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the John Laws program the other day that `information about the CEP program is quite readily available' is so far from the truth as to be an obscene statement for a Prime Minister. Mr Hunt —I bet it won't be available from now on. Mr COBB —That is right. If the Prime Minister is a man of his word I challenge him to release the details of these grants. Mr Slipper —But he is not. Mr COBB —No doubt his statements will become yet another sickening broken promise-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Fisher will cease interjecting and, in particular, he will cease interjecting into his colleague's microphone and from out of his seat. Mr COBB —Take the Women for Survival group, which assembled itself for a week in tent city on the lawns of Parliament House. We all remember how those women marked out their territory with urine. Mr Nehl —The feral women. Mr COBB —The feral lesbians. While all Australia was screaming for their removal the Prime Minister did nothing to offend them. He did not have the guts. In fact, he provided them with free electricity, and that came on top of a recent $2,000 grant so that they could produce a book on their Women for Survival movement. Not long before that, there was another Federal Government grant of some hundreds of dollars so that they could put on a photographic exhibition of their last demonstration at the Cockburn Sound naval base in Western Australia. Let us just hope that they left their hairy armpits out of the photographs. Regrettably, pop pornography is a specialty of this Government. It gave $38,402 under a CEP grant to fund the notorious Streetwize comics. In these comics police are drawn as pigs and depicted as savages, child bashers and bullies. Children are taught all their `rights' about having sex and the virtues of having their own drug needles. This Government conveys the impression that it is okay to mainline drugs as long as people have their own needles. Mrs Kelly —That is not true. Mr COBB —It is here. Girls are told-- Mr Slipper —Table it. Mr COBB —I will table it. Girls are told when they can have sex, when they can leave home, when they can buy condoms, when they can have abortions, and when they can buy cigarettes; and boys are told when they can have homosexual sex. It is all in these comics, and they are even being made available to six-year-olds, let alone teenagers. This Government has also poured money, running into hundreds of thousands of dollars, into a group called the Federation of Italian Labourers, Emigrants and Families. Mr McGauran —Commies. Mr COBB —Virtually every media report I have read over the last decade claims that this organisation has a close association with the Italian Communist Party, as the honourable member for Gippsland has said. The list of grants to FILEF goes on for pages and pages. This Government is pouring an ever-increasing amount of money into homosexual groups in an attempt to win the voting patronage of these groups and to make this alternative lifestyle acceptable in our society. The list of grants to the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras festival is now legendary. Grants have also been given to homosexuals to write anthologies and to put on homosexual plays in theatres. As I said yesterday in Question Time, the Prime Minister even made a grant of $5,000 through his Department to the International Year of Youth so that the National Network of Young Lesbians and Homosexual Men could come together for their first national conference. What an outrageous way for our Prime Minister to spend taxpayers' money in the International Year of Youth. The public is starting to learn of these efforts. I see in today's Illawarra Mercury that Wollongong truck drivers and their wives are even applying for a $125,000 government grant for a local truck driver to conduct a study into his `declining sex life'. Apparently the long hours he works mean that he is spending most of his time in bed asleep instead of doing other things. The Government has also given a $5,000 grant to a group within the Palestine Liberation Organisation to set up an office in Melbourne. It is in the Arts Council grants that the Government has gone truly beserk, pouring money into left wing groups. I have a nine-page list of grants from the Arts Council alone to left wing trade union groups. The other weirdo groups the Arts Council funds are too numerous to mention. Mr Slipper —Table it. Mr COBB —I would like to. The list shows grants of tens of thousands of dollars going to the Builders Labourers Federation and, as the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) said, to the painters and dockers and so on. The Government has given grants of thousands here, there and everywhere for May Day celebrations, yet at the same time pensioners in my electorate are having their pension increases deferred. Trade union banner projects get lots of money. One grant was given to the Austral Bronze combined unions towards the cost of a banner to highlight unemployment in the coin industry. The Chullora railway workshops have received several grants of thousands of dollars each for murals and to have songwriters in their workshops. It seems that just about every left wing trade union in Australia has a songwriter in residence, a lyricist in residence, a muralist in residence, a musician in residence or a storyteller in the community. To say that this is a ridiculous waste of taxpayers' money is to praise the concept. The Government claims that all this is arm's length funding. What a blatant cop-out that is. The Government, for example, appointed a Victorian Trades Hall Council official to the Community Arts Board. Guess what happened after it did that? The Victorian Trades Hall Council has just been given $131,000 in grants from the Arts Council, along with $158,000-worth of CEP grants that we know of. Mr Hicks —What do the pensioners get? Mr COBB —Nothing. The Government's behaviour in the use of taxpayers' funds has been monstrous. The $11,000 it gave to design a surfboard for females is typical. The intended surfboard design-led recovery has been exposed as a wipe-out and, because of it, this Government will face a massive wipe-out when it confronts the voters at the next election. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(3.39) —When I go around to the schools and I ask children to think about their image of politicians they come up with a very stereotype view. They always say that politicians are male, they usually say that they are old, they usually say that they come from the establishment, and they usually say that they have very stereotype views about society. I think all those things are fairly true of our Parliament. We have seen that in the debate in this House today. There is no doubt that many people in this Parliament would object to some of the money that has been given in grants to community groups over the years. I have some objections, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has some objections, and we have heard some of the objections of honourable members today. But I think it would be a disgrace in our democracy if we could not fund those sorts of groups. It is not as if we are just throwing the money away, giving it to these groups and saying: `Do with it what you will'. With all these grants there are guidelines, committees are set up to determine who gets the grants, and many of them also have a legislative base. As well as that, there are very legitimate processes of the Government to watch how that money is being spent. One thing that this Parliament should not get involved with is saying whether, say, a surfboard group should be funded. That is not the role of this Parliament. What we should be doing is looking at how the money is spent within the guidelines. If those opposite object to the guidelines, that is another thing, but all that an attack on these individual groups does is reflect their own personal prejudices. For example, one of mine is funding for the Australian Opera. The Australian Opera has just been funded $8m in the last 12 months. I personally find that quite offensive, yet I understand that a lot of people like to go to the Opera and they want to be subsidised for $55 every time they put their backsides on the seat. That is fine; I do not criticise that. The same with the Australian Ballet; it gets subsidised for over $2.5m. But we do not hear criticism of that in this Parliament. No, all we hear is criticism of the $11,000 that is spent for some surfboard thing to be produced for women or of some of the trade union sponsored arts funding programs. All I want to do is highlight in this debate that all of us come from different backgrounds with different views about what should be funded, but it does not mean that the views of those opposite are more correct than mine. For example, patronage under their Government, particularly under the National Party of Australia, reached new heights. But, of course, that is all right; it is okay if they give patronage to all their mates and all their pet projects, but if any program that does not fit in with their mainstream view of society is funded they say that that is an enormous waste of taxpayers' money. As I said, all this money is not just handed over to all these groups. There are set guidelines, set procedures, through which the funding has to be reviewed. Most of it is done, as previous speakers have said, through this arm's length funding. I will talk about that in a moment. I want to refer to some of the reports made by this Waste Watch Committee and the obsessions of its members. We have only to hear the speech by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) to hear what his obsessions are. Of course, his obsessions are reflected in this report which the Committee put out which is a collection of its media releases. I recommend it to any of my colleagues. The Committee's particular obsession is homosexuality and lesbians. Members of the National Party are very obsessed about those subjects. The particular obsession of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) is spending on residences. Of course, those opposite also attack public servants; they are always good for a bashing. Aid cops it in this little document, but the unemployed fare very well, as does the trade union movement. But one of the classics is the one referred to by the honourable member for Mayo and the honourable member for Parkes. I will read their headline for this one: `Hawke Government gives $300,000 to communist front organisations'. As one goes through this Press release one sees that this organisation is also supposed to have Mafia connections. Basically what it is all about is giving some funding to the Federation of Italian Labourers, Emigrants and Families, a legitimate organisation of Italians which I know very well. I know personally many members of the FILEF who work here in Canberra. To say that it is a front for the Mafia or for communism is just a joke. I think most Italians in the community that I know would be absolutely insulted by those sorts of comments. I quote another little headline from the Committee's Press releases: `Lefties busily pushing their snouts in the public trough.' Lefties are another obsession of those opposite and that obsession links up with their obsessions about the peace movement. Of course, they have also directed a couple of Press releases to the Footscray swimming pool and the swimming pool at Elizabeth, in addition to International Year of Peace grants. And, of course, supporting parents get another mention. If we were to have a guessing competition about the sorts of topics that would be referred to in these Press releases, we would be pretty correct if we listened to the comments of the honourable member for Mayo and the honourable member for Parkes. I want to refer to some specific points raised in relation to arm's length funding and the Australia Council in particular. When the Australia Council Act was established in 1975 the principle of arm's length funding was enshrined in the legislation. The principle is simply that the government of the day decides broad policy guidelines, but the decision on who gets the grants is for the Council and its boards. The principle of arm's length funding and peer group assessment was maintained throughout the 7 1/2 years of the Fraser Government and it is a principle that has been upheld by the Hawke Government. Frankly, we do not want to see this Parliament trying to work out how every dollar of taxpayers' money is distributed. It is the job of this Parliament to look at the guidelines and to supervise how those guidelines are implemented. Those opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot have arm's length funding and then, every time the Australia Council or one of its boards make a decision about a particular grant that someone does not like, interfere and try to change the decision. If they want interference by government in the decision making process, so be it-we will change the arm's length principles. But once we have that, some of the decisions we might not like. As I said, I do not like some of them any more than some of those opposite do. Cultural and artistic decisions will then be made by politicians. Imagine the sorts of cultural decisions we would get from previous speakers or from the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) or the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). The Opposition has concentrated its attack on only part of the Australia Council grants and only a very small percentage of the community employment program grants. Mr Cobb —We will do the rest. Mrs KELLY —The thing is that those opposite cannot do that. They concentrate on the odd one. They can always get publicity for those. But they are talking about less than one per cent of the Australia Council grants and much less than one per cent of the CEP grants-and the same goes for the Office of Women's Affairs. The conservatives, on the other hand, have their own values. I have not heard anything from them about the funding of the Opera or the Ballet but when we try to fund something for the trade union movement-probably the only chance most of these workers will ever have to see any kind of cultural performance-that is no good; we cannot do that. We cannot have artists in residence who might want to talk to the workers. Oh no, keep it for the blue rinse set; keep it for the people who get a $55 subsidy every time they attend one performance of the Australian Opera, but forget about the broad masses of the Australian population. Whileever I am in this Parliament and whileever I am a member of this Government I hope that we will be supporting groups who represent all interests in the community, not just the narrow views of those opposite of what this Australian community is. Mr GEAR(Canning) —On behalf of the Committee of Privileges I present a special report of the Committee, relating to the matter referred to the Committee on 18 November 1986, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr GEAR —The special report I have just presented is a technical one to do with the reference given to the Committee on 18 November. The Committee may wish to receive evidence from members of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception and, as this was a joint select committee, senators are involved. Standing Orders of the Senate and the House provide a mechanism to be used when a committee of one House wishes to be able to take evidence from members of the other. The report I have just presented asks the House to consider sending a message to the Senate, as provided in the Standing Orders, asking that it grant leave for those senators who served on the Joint Select Committee to attend before the Committee of Privileges of this House if and when invited. The matter is now one for consideration by the House. Debate resumed. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(3.50) —The Opposition parties oppose the Government's Fertilisers Subsidy Bill 1986. It opposes this legislation because it will add substantial cost to the Australian farmers. The cost estimated by the National Farmers Federation as the first line cost-it is not an estimate of the total indirect cost, but the first round effect-is something like $13m per annum. The NFF engaged the consultants Acil International Pty Ltd to undertake a thorough investigation into the Hawke Government's decision to transfer the subsidy or the bounty on imported fertilisers to domestically manufactured fertilisers, so removing the benefit of that subsidy from imported fertilisers. I want to read from a brief provided by the National Farmers Federation to the Government, to the Opposition, and to all those people who were involved in taking a decision on this issue. The Opposition parties did not readily come to a decision on the issue. We sought to hear the views of the fertiliser industry. The Opposition's rural committee gave a considerable amount of time to the fertiliser industry and to the National Farmers Federation to put their cases. The two cases were then taken to the shadow Cabinet and also to the party room. The Opposition believes that the farmers of Australia, embattled as they are at the present time, are in no position to carry an additional cost of $13m a year-the estimated cost of this Government's legislation. The brief provided to all parties by the National Farmers Federation uses the following words to describe the position: NFF strongly opposes the changes and seeks continuation of subsidy payments on local and imported fertilizer, for the following reasons. 1. Reduced Competition. The Minister's statements have admitted that the decision will reduce competition. Experience has shown that independent fertilizer importers cannot survive in the market as alternative suppliers if their product is at a $30-40 tonne disadvantage by not qualifying for the subsidy. 2. Assistance to Manufacturing. The decision is based solely on a desire to assist local fertilizer manufacturers, with little regard for the effect on farmers. The manufacturers continue to show a good financial performance and none are in danger of financial failure. 3. Cost to Farmers. Although the decision is revenue neutral to the Government, it will transfer $13 million from one group of farmers, principally grain growers- I want to talk about them later- to another group of farmers. It will discriminate very strongly against many farmers who have no option to using imported fertilizer. 4. Subsidising Imports? Contrary to manufacturers' and the Government's claims the past arrangements did not subsidise imports. Imported and locally manufactured fertilizer were treated on an exactly equal basis and there was no discrimination in favour of imports. 5. Manufacturing Capacity. The Australian industry does not have the capacity to manufacture farmers' demands for all high analysis fertilizer products. 6. Balance of Payments. The Australian industry may be able to produce an additional 85,000 tonnes of fertilizer to replace imports. After allowing for the cost of imported raw materials the net effect on balance of payments will be less than $10 million. 7. Fertilizer Prices. Claims that fertilizer prices fell after the budget decision are hollow, the reductions equalled the increased subsidy payment. When current stocks are exhausted prices of imported products will rise by up to $42 a tonne. In addition experience has shown that if there is no competition in supply of fertilizer prices can be $40-50 tonne higher than if competition exists. One of the most extraordinary things that the Government has done over this period is ignore the real difficulties that are facing the Australian agricultural sector. We are looking at a situation in Australia where the average farmer's net income is of the order of $3,500 a year. This seems to me to be an extraordinary action for the Government to take when we have a monopolistic situation amongst the fertiliser companies. Each fertiliser company has a monopoly position in each State. Those companies are earning good profits under the current arrangements, yet the Government has taken a decision which will undoubtedly increase the cost of fertilisers to the Australian farmer. I received information today that wheat growers in Western Australia have an average debt of $230,000 and an average interest repayment of $40,000 per annum and yet those wheat growers in Western Australia have doubled their production in the last eight years, to the advantage of the Australian community. They have made a real contribution to export exchange and to reducing the balance of payments problem, and they are going to be loaded with an additional cost. Last night in the other place the Hawke Labor Government, with the support of enough Australian Democrats, obtained the passage of the Fertiliser Subsidy Bill 1986. If one Democrat had changed his vote, this vicious anti-farmer measure would have been defeated. So bitter is the feeling within the Australian Democrats at the moment that Senator Siddons has resigned from the Party. However he chose, of course, to vote with the Government. Let the people of rural Australia judge who are their friends. Their friends are those who voted against the legislation last night. Those who voted for the legislation are no friends of the Australian farmers. They are obviously swayed by arguments to assist a fertiliser industry that is already earning very reasonable profits. As I said earlier, the direct cost from the first round effect of higher prices for imports, which does not include the indirect cost flowing from this decision, is estimated to be $13m. Let every Australian farmer understand that this Government and the Democrats have been prepared to sacrifice the welfare of the farmers who are battling to hold their market share and make any sort of living growing cereals. It will be the cereal industry, and the wheat industry in particular, that will be affected so badly by this legislation. Only two days ago we learned that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission did not feel that the rural crisis was sufficient to warrant any action against the latest 2.3 per cent wage rise and the 6 per cent rise in allowances, backdated to July, even though the average wage is equivalent to the net incomes of five farm employees. The Government did not intervene; it did not think it was necessary. It did not think that it was necessary in spite of the fact that wheat growers in Western Australia are bearing a debt load of $230,000 and annual interest repayments of $40,000-if they can find the cash to repay them. We are looking at a wholesale national smash in very significant areas of primary industry, and the wheat, rice, and sugar industries are those industries in the forefront of the crisis. Yet they are the industries that depend so much on the use of fertilisers to improve their productivity and their earnings from the farm. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has finally said that the farmers are in crisis. Why will not members of this Government believe him? Earlier this year we witnessed the fiasco over anti-dumping measures for fertiliser. The Government created its own nightmare by attempting to use the anti-dumping measures to buy votes prior to the Western Australian election. At that time the Government's only consideration was political expediency. There was no thought for fairness to farmers, or for what might be best for our primary producers; there was merely the desire to try to capture votes in an election. Instead of doing that the Australian Labor Party lost one of its Ministers when it lost a wheat growing seat to the National Party of Australia. The Australian Labor Party fared very badly in that election because of the quite obvious political manoeuvring of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Bill before us today is a further reflection of the Government's prejudice and indifference towards Australia's embattled farmers. Honourable members opposite do not seem to be able to understand that Australia's farmers are struggling for their very survival. They are in no position to have their input costs further increased by a government which sees them as a perpetual source of revenue. Farmers in this country are already paying an average of $9,000 per farm per year as their contribution to protecting jobs in inefficient, non-competitive secondary industries. This Bill will force many farmers to increase this pay-out in order to help an industry that is poorly located and unable to meet the demands placed on it by the end users of its products. In actual fact, the efforts of the Government to reserve the local market for the present manufacturers who are located in areas isolated from sources of phosphate rock supply serves only to entrench inefficiencies in production which cannot ever be overcome. Australia's farmers have, since the mid-1970s, been turning more and more to the use of nitrogen and the high analysis combination fertilisers, as they are better suited to modern farming techniques. These practices and these types of fertilisers offer economy in terms of transport, handling and application costs, as well as by providing the necessary versatility to supply a combination of nutrients for particular requirements. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in the other place has indicated that Australian manufacturers have the necessary production capacity to meet the requirements of farmers for fertilisers. He has ignored the fact that the plants are too small to be cost efficient and are located in areas quite distant from the points of utilisation. In reality, maximum high analysis phosphate fertiliser production capacity is effectively less than half its rated capacity and only two-thirds of current consumption. Even if existing plants were of a scale that could produce HAPF on an internationally competitive basis, Australia's cabotage combined with high cost shipping services means that it is not economically feasible to move the HAPF from Western Australia, where there is excess manufacturing capacity, to the eastern States while remaining competitive with imports. The domestic manufacturers have acknowledged this equation. They account for over 70 per cent of the total imported DAP and MAP and the ISP high analysis fertilisers. Our farmers are already struggling with high freight charges incorporated in many of their inputs and also for shipping their products. The Minister in the other place has acknowledged that some farmers will continue to rely on imported fertiliser products. The present structure of the industry means that individual manufacturers will have substantial market power. As I said earlier, the structure of the industry in this country is such that we have a monopoly in each of the States. Without the imported fertiliser we do not have the competition to ensure that we are getting fertiliser at the most efficient and most economic price. Unless imported HAPF products are treated equally with domestic products for the purpose of the fertiliser subsidy, there is a very real likelihood that domestic manufacturers could absorb the subsidy paid to them. The Industries Assistance Commission recognised this possibility in its 1982 report. I am not convinced by the Government's assurances that it can monitor price movements in order to prevent manufacturers from absorbing the subsidy-nor is the National Farmers Federation and those others who have been very involved in undertaking an analysis of the situation. The very real risk with this change to the fertiliser subsidy is that it will not be passed on to the final user to encourage greater use of fertiliser. This, after all, is supposed to be the intention of the subsidy. It was the rationale for the introduction of the subsidy by the Menzies Government. The rationale was to try to improve the productivity of Australian soils which had been depleted over a long period of geological history. It was the basis for extending the subsidy to imported fertilisers in 1982. The subsidy, costing taxpayers $55m, is the largest component of government assistance to farmers in this country. It pales into insignificance when placed beside government assistance for secondary industries in this country. Let it be known to all that the average level of effective assistance to the Australian farm sector is about 9 to 10 per cent, compared with between 27 and 30 per cent for the Australian manufacturing sector. The farm sector in Australia-the farmers-have to compete against those farmers of the European Economic Community with an effective level of assistance of 160 per cent and the farmers of the United States with an effective level of 100 per cent. Yet the Government has tampered with this subsidy, the only substantial measure of assistance to the farm sector, by converting the subsidy system into a system now partly designed to assist the manufacturing industry and no longer to the total benefit of the Australian farm sector. It is an incredible decision, as I said earlier. The Government has claimed that this measure will produce some benefit for Australia's balance of payments. The total annual balance of trade saving has been estimated to be less than $10m. This will make hardly any impact at all. What is $10m when the country's current account deficit has increased by more than $6 billion this financial year alone? Rather than trying to justify an attack on the Australian farm sector while claiming balance of trade deficit problems, the Government should be making some real attack on Australia's economic problems. The Australian farm sector does not borrow overseas to undertake its operations, it does not repatriate great profits to shareholders in other countries, it does not make big drawings upon capital inflow into this country, but it does make a tremendous contribution to Australia's export earnings by earning between 37 and 40 per cent of Australia's export earnings. No industry is more vital to remedying Australia's balance of trade deficit and its overseas indebtedness, expected to reach $110 billion this financial year, than the Australian farm sector. Yet the Australian farm sector will be disadvantaged by this decision. One wonders just what the Government is about. I might say that I understand that the Department of Primary Industry was absolutely horrified when it found that Cabinet had taken this decision. I think that what the decision really means is that the Minister in the other place, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, has proved to be too strong a Minister for the Minister for Primary Industry. He is making sure that he looks after his industry sector. I think it is an outrageous state of affairs that the Minister for Primary Industry has been put down once again. Mr Cobb —The farmers have been sold out. Mr HUNT —They have been sold out by this decision, to the benefit of the commercial side of the industry. It is the high level of domestic costs in this country which is undermining our ability generally to compete in the world markets. It is high time that the Government dealt with this problem. We have interest rates 10 percentage points higher and an inflation rate several times greater than those of our major trading partners. Australian farmers are in no position to meet increased costs for fertilisers. The farmers who make the most use of imported fertilisers are in the wheat, rice and sugar industries. They are the least able to meet this additional cost; yet these are the farmers who will face increased fertiliser costs. They are a significant cost to farmers, being the fifth largest individual input cost item. Farmers in this country spend $620m a year on fertilisers, and in some industries in some areas 25 per cent of their annual operating costs are absorbed by fertiliser costs. I think it averages out at about 10.2 per cent of their total cash costs in the cropping industries, which are suffering the most in the present cost-price squeeze. We have been warned that world wheat prices are likely to fall by another 20 to 30 per cent next financial year. Mr Cobb —That will be devastating. Mr HUNT —It will be devastating; yet the farmers are being asked to bear this incredible decision. Remember that it was a decision that got through the Senate by one vote. I call upon the Government to reconsider its stupid decision. It is a decision that will harm the Australian farmers when they are already in very great difficulty. I do not exaggerate when I say that. I am not exaggerating or making some idiotic, political speech. I am appealing to the Government to reconsider this decision. It is a stupid decision. It is a decision that will cause great difficulty to the wheat belt throughout Australia, to the people who are represented in this place by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), me and a whole range of other people. The wheat growing areas of Australia are facing probably the greatest crisis since the 1930s. Yet this decision has been taken, which will fall heavily on the shoulders of the wheat farmers as a further cost burden. The cost of fertiliser has already increased by 14 per cent in the last 12 months. At the same time the prices received for grains have fallen by about 30 per cent. Since the Budget decision some fertiliser prices have fallen, which is rather interesting. However, the price of all fertilisers will be lower only while the stocks last, and after that the imported fertiliser will be significantly more expensive than before the Budget. It leaves the margin there for the Australian manufacturers to put up their prices. The farmers who use imported fertiliser will be $13m worse off under this legislation. That is the assessment of the paper of Acil International Pty Ltd and also the National Farmers Federation. Mr Simmons —You can't believe the NFF. Mr HUNT —The honourable member says that one cannot believe the NFF. The NFF is an amalgam of all the primary industry organisations and it is the farmers' representative body in this country, just as the Australian Council of Trade Unions is the representative of the trade unions of this country. The honourable member for Calare says that we cannot believe the NFF. It got an independent body to undertake a searching review of this Government's decision. That report went to the Government, to the Minister in the other place and to the Minister for Primary Industry for their consideration. The farmers will suffer, and that report says so. The likely effect of this legislation would be to put further upward pressure on the price of fertiliser following an expected reduction in competition. Experience has shown that if there is no competition in the supply of fertiliser, prices can be $40 to $50 per tonne higher than if competition exists. The Minister in the other place claims that the Government has faced a difficult task in trying to reconcile the interests of producers and the users of this important commodity. Unfortunately, the farmers will face an even more difficult task in trying to cope with this decision. The Government has yet again failed the Australian farmers. It has opted to ensure jobs in secondary industries at the expense of the Australian farmers. The record of this Hawke Government is one savage attack after another on farmers, giving no regard to the export earning capacity of the most important export income- earning sector in the light of our disastrous trade slide. Farmers must understand that if they want to shoot themselves in the foot they should vote for this lot at the next election. Those in the other place who are idiotic enough can vote for the legislation. Farmers have already had to face cost increases in the past five years-3 1/2 years of which has been under the Hawke Labor Government-of 49 per cent for fertiliser, 32 per cent for chemicals and 66 per cent for electricity costs. Machinery costs are up 62 per cent, fencing and building materials up 49 per cent, rates and taxes up 83 per cent, freight up 53 per cent, and hired labour up 50 per cent. In that period what has happened to their returns? They have consistently had their returns discounted year after year as a result of falling prices for so many of their products. It does not apply so much to the wool industry or the meat industry, for sure, but the cereals industry, the rice industry and the sugar industry are suffering greatly from lower world commodity prices and higher costs. Mr Cobb —Especially interest rates. Mr HUNT —Interest rates are another factor. They have reached a record high and are killing so many businesses, not just the farmers, in Australia Labor's fuel taxes have sent revenue from excise soaring by over 300 per cent since it took office. We have seen revenue from excise on fuel increase from $1.3 billion in 1983 to $5.6 billion. Sure, the Government has restored the diesel rebate to the farm sector after having taken it away for two years, but 40 per cent of the fuel used in farming businesses happens to be petrol. Then farmers have the very expensive transportation costs to and from the farm gate. They have suffered the effects of the vicious assets test, which has affected the family farm. They have had the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax thrust upon them, and, of course, successive Budgets have ripped off more than $500m in resources from the farm sector, which is twice the total net outlays for farming in this year's Budget. In the face of all this, with an uncompetitive inflation rate and an inflexible, outdated wages policy, the Labor Government has exposed our farm sector to the full blast of American subsidies, which are 10 times the very low rate in Australia, European subsidies are 15 times greater than that given to the average Australian farmer. From this day on, Labor and, for that matter, Australian Democrats rhetoric of concern for the farmers will be meaningless. It is not words that they want; it is not expressions of concern; it is actions that count. It is an outrageous decision; it is a blatant decision designed to support the Australian fertiliser industry at the expense of the taxpayers and the farmers. I appeal to the Government to review this decision, which has some very serious consequences for the farm sector, particularly those industries that will face a very critical financial and economic situation in the next calendar year. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(4.20) —Having heard the comments of the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), one could be forgiven for thinking that this debate was a wide ranging discussion of the rural sector rather than on a specific piece of legislation, namely, the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill. It was my intention to confine my remarks to the nature of that specific piece of legislation now being considered by the House. However, with the indulgence of the Chair, since the Deputy Leader was allowed to make some wide ranging comments on the nature of primary industry and rural production, I feel bound to respond to some of the concerns he raised this afternoon. It is interesting in the context of such a debate to examine the National Party's record in government. It seems a long time ago but it is in fact just over 3 1/2 years since the National Party of Australia was the junior partner in coalition in this chamber. If one relates the comments of the honourable member for Gwydir to the types of things his Party did when in government up until March 1983, all one can say is that his words were hollow rhetoric indeed. The most interesting comment related to protectionism in Australia. In his remarks on another Bill this morning the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) touched on the wide ranging debate about protectionism, yet if ever a government was strongly protectionist it was the government in which the National Party was the junior partner in coalition in the Fraser period of government from 1975 to 1983. The facts speak for themselves. One remembers the decision taken by the Whitlam Government to slash tariffs unilaterally by 25 per cent across the board. Although I do not necessarily say I agree with that decision, I am saying that at the time the then Leader of the National Party, Mr Anthony, called it a cowardly act. Yet one of Mr Anthony's colleagues, the honourable member for Gwydir, and indeed the honourable member for Ryan earlier today in a previous debate, made the point that whenever they are returned to government, at some time in the next century, the Liberal and National parties will suddenly dry out. An examination of their record over many years shows that it does not take a drying out view on the subject of protectionism. So, I dismiss many of the comments made by the honourable member for Gwydir. I have some respect for his contributions to the rural debate, particularly his contribution to the very successful trip to the United States earlier this year, but the honourable member's comments in the debate this afternoon were hollow rhetoric of the sort that is preached at National Party meetings throughout Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! Given that the House is dealing with the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill, I suggest that the honourable member should now address his remarks to the Bill. Mr SIMMONS —I am happy to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was saying that the honourable member for Gwydir used this debate to make wide ranging comments. I shall relate my comments on protectionism to the provisions of the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill. I and many other Labor members support the Government's general thrust in moving away from a reliance on tariffs to greater dependence on bounties in order to assist industry. I say that for the reason which has been enunciated in this chamber from both sides of the House over a number of years-namely, that such a policy forces governments to be more honest. If a bounty is to be provided, it will show up in the appropriations, and I think that is desirable. The honourable member for Gwydir offered some trenchant criticism on the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill and dealt with comments made on the Bill by the National Farmers Federation. I interjected during his remarks and he took me to task for my comments on the Federation. One of the difficulties in quoting the views of such organisations is that at times their affiliate members seem to offer conflicting points of view on subsidy versus protectionism. We have seen that to be the case recently in the citrus industry, where there is a conflict between one section of primary industry and another. Let me relate some of my comments to the Bill. The National Farmers Federation has opposed the Government's decision and has referred solely to the circumstances under which some people will face higher fertiliser prices. The Federation claims that the decision will eliminate competition in the industry, allegedly at a cost of some $70m a year to farmers. But for each price increase there is an equivalent reduction to some other consumer. In particular, the decision does not eliminate competition in the industry. Farmers will still have access to imported fertilisers at world prices. As the total cost of the subsidy is $55m, it is clearly nonsensical rhetoric for the National Farmers Federation to claim that this decision could cost farmers $70m. The decision will withdraw subsidies from all imported fertilisers. It will increase the subsidy on domestically produced fertilisers from $138 per tonne of phosphate content to a sliding scale according to phosphate content. It will ensure that the increased bounties are passed on to consumers by domestic manufacturers. I refer to a Press release of 19 August put out by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on the day of the Budget this year in which he mentions the new arrangements for fertiliser bounty. In that statement the Minister made a number of points, the most significant relating to whether the Government will keep Australian manufacturers honest. The Minister said: The Government will closely monitor fertiliser prices to ensure that the increased bounty is passed on to farmers. That is a realistic statement. Clearly, no government will allow a subsidy to be paid to domestic manufacturers without attaching some conditions, as is the case with any contractual arrangement where there is give and take. In its approach I am sure that the Government, as the Minister said, will take all necessary steps to monitor the arrangements closely. Again, I relate some of my comments to some of the other broad ranging matters mentioned by the honourable member for Gwydir. He spoke of cost increases in the context of this decision. If we look at what has happened in the recent past in relation to farm costs, again we must dismiss many of the honourable member's comments as hollow rhetoric. Contrary to many claims by the National Farmers Federation, by the Livestock and Grain Producers Association and by a whole host of other people who have at times expressed political hostility to this Government and who cannot accept the democratic decision made on two successive occasions that this Government has been returned to power and is now in government, I point out that cost increases cannot be blamed for Australia's farming problems. The honourable member for Gwydir talked about the problems facing Australian farmers as a result of the European and American subsidisation practices. In a very bipartisan spirit we all recognise that factor, yet as soon as the debate comes back into this House the Opposition returns to the tired old rhetoric of blaming cost increases. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) pointed out during Question Time, either this week or last week, the annual rate of farm cost increases, which includes interest payments, has averaged 7 per cent in the last three years, compared with 11 per cent in the previous three years, while a rate of increase of only 2 per cent or thereabouts is expected in 1986-87. If one extrapolates those figures further, one finds that had the previous 11 per cent rate of cost increase continued, then all else being equal, farm incomes this year would be some 90 per cent lower than is currently expected. We all realise just how low farm incomes are. The main reason they are low is that international prices have collapsed. Why have they collapsed? They have collapsed essentially because the United States and the trading nations in Europe are not prepared to adopt trading policies that we would regard as being sensible. This Government has taken the decision to float the Australian dollar-a decision which, probably more than any other, has had an enormously beneficial effect on Australian farmers. Can honourable members imagine the financial plight of Australian farmers at this time if, somehow or other, the Government were still trying to struggle with an overvalued exchange rate? Quite clearly farmers would be in all sorts of strife. Yet it is Opposition members who are opposing-once more, for purely opportunistic reasons-this Fertilisers Subsidy Bill. Contradictory opportunism is how I would describe much of the Opposition's contribution to primary production. We are concerned with the fundamentals. If we can get some of the macro-economic positions correct, we will be in a much better position to assist Australian farmers. We all recognise that interest rates are a cause of some concern, not only to Australian farmers but also to people involved in business. It is a problem and we all recognise that; but surely it is not being suggested by the honourable member for Gwydir that somehow or other we should change the basic thrust of that macro-economic policy, which has been universally accepted as the right thing to do at this stage, particularly in terms of our balance of payments difficulties. We are not about opportunism in rural production or support for Australian rural production. We are concerned with getting the fundamentals right. As I said a few minutes ago in my comments on farm cost increases, those figures I quoted included interest rates. In other words, despite the fact that we all recognise that interest rates are a cause of concern within the Australian economy at present, they are still included in those farm cost figures-a figure which this year should be around the 2 to 3 per cent mark. The Government has faced up to a very difficult period over the last three years in trying to come to grips with this whole debate on protectionism and whether we should go down the line of tariff protection or move towards a system in which we favour the payment of bounties. There is no question in this chamber at all-certainly, I would hope, not from the National Party or even within the Liberal Party-that there is any movement away from the approach that where possible we should move down the line of the payment of bounties. As I said, we should do that to keep governments honest because those particular figures show up in the appropriations. What is more, as the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) commented earlier, it also ensures that people's management practices are scrutinised much more carefully. I support the Government's decision contained in this legislation to change the present fertiliser bounties and I believe that all fair-minded people who analyse the decision will support it. The honourable member for Gwydir mentioned that the National Farmers Federation opposed it and that everyone else opposed it. As I said to my colleague, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), my office has not exactly been invaded by people expressing all sorts of horror, concern, upheaval, revolt or whatever at this decision. Mr Snow —Neither has mine. Mr SIMMONS —The honourable member for Eden-Monaro agrees with me. His office has not been knocked down either. Perhaps this afternoon we are giving people an invitation to do that, but I suggest if this did happen it would be a rather orchestrated event. It has not happened to date. What we are really seeing in this debate has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of fertiliser subsidies. It has more to do with the whipping up of fears in rural Australia by the National Party, by the Livestock and Grain Producers Association, by the NFF and a whole series of other vested interest groups in the community who cannot accept the fact that we have a very good Labor government in Canberra. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(4.37) —The speech of the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) shows the difference in attitudes between honourable members on the Government side and honourable members on the Opposition benches. I suggest that most of the honourable member's speech was hollow rhetoric, rather than that of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia and the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, who put the position of rural Australia quite clearly and succinctly. He described the problems quite accurately, yet the honourable member for Calare suggested that this was just `hollow rhetoric'. I am appalled at the decision that has been made in the Senate on this Fertilisers Subsidy Bill 1986. At first glance this measure seems quite reasonable. Some form of subsidy has been provided to Australian farmers for the use of fertilisers since 1930. It has always been in Australia's interest to encourage farmers to use fertilisers to increase production. In recent years the emphasis has drifted from the intention to increase crop and animal production to the provision of some direct form of assistance to the farmer. Our agricultural industries receive little assistance compared with our manufacturing industries. Our farmers, who are on the end of the export cycle, have not been able to increase their prices, while their costs of production have risen out of all proportion. This is now the main reason for the subsidy. This legislation seeks to remove the subsidy paid to farmers on imported fertilisers and direct that money back to the locally produced article. I must admit that the rationality of that argument appeals to me. There is no reason why Australia should subsidise imports of products into Australia. The whole thrust of the Government's monetary policy is to reduce imports by encouraging import replacements and this legislation is consistent with that. Unfortunately what has been happening in the field destroys the purity of that argument. Again I must emphasise that the $55m fertiliser subsidy is intended for the farmer. As it has panned out in world markets, it is a superbly targeted assistance. Thirty per cent of all the phosphatic fertilisers in Australia go to the wheat belt farmers in Western Australia-a group of farmers with one of the highest levels of debt in this country. I believe that the Deputy Leader of the National Party quoted a figure of the average debt of those farmers of some $230,000 at the moment. They have the highest level of debt in Australia with the exception of the sugar cane farmers who use about 30 per cent of all the nitrogenous fertilisers used in Australia. Until now there has been no argument that the fertiliser subsidy has not been successful at delivering assistance to the right areas. However, the fertiliser industry in Australia is virtually a monopoly with one fertiliser manufacturer in each State. Two have merged. If we want to maintain competition in that industry it is the imported product that keeps our local producers honest. There has been quite a checkered history between imported and locally-produced fertilisers. Around 1982, when local manufacturers started experiencing difficulties they started importing and re-selling the product back to the farmers. A number of independent importers set up and undercut the manufacturing companies. The manufacturing companies then lodged a complaint that dumping was taking place and dumping duties were imposed on the imported product but returned so that the producer could still receive the cost advantage of the dumped product. The farmers-I believe they have a certain amount of history on their side-would say that by removing subsidies on imported fertilisers the cost of fertilisers will rise and the local manufacturers will eventually use that price as the competitive market price. Before long the $55m will be a subsidy to the fertiliser manufacturers and not a subsidy to the farmers. Whatever the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) says about the strength of the legislation to make sure that the manufacturers will continue to pass on the full benefit of the subsidy to the farmer, the legislation goes against the natural tendency of companies and individuals to follow the market forces. This legislation sets up a conflict. Presently we have a conflict between the manufacturers and the farmers in the farmers' favour. Under the legislation the conflict will still exist, but it will be in the manufacturers' favour. Clearly, the Government has not resolved the problem. As I said earlier, at first glance it appears reasonable, but under closer inspection the problem has not gone away, it has been shifted further down the line. The problem needs to be addressed in grander terms and then we might achieve what we are after. Our fertiliser manufacturers produce about 80 per cent, in terms of content, of phosphate fertilisers and 75 per cent of nitrogenous fertilisers. The fertiliser industry is not a heavily protected manufacturing industry. In fact, the Industries Assistance Commission in recent years has stated its effective rate of assistance to be zero to minus 2 per cent which is around the same level of assistance given to wheat farmers. In the meantime our fertiliser manufacturers are forced to use Australian National Line ships at an extraordinary cost and participate in Australia's notoriously inefficient industrial relations climate and yet they still compete well with the imported product, as the consumption statistics suggest. I do not think there is much to be gained by squabbling about two efficient industries. The IAC makes this point quite well in its 1985 fertiliser report. Our main aim must be to raise the real net value of agricultural production. To raise that by one per cent could be achieved in the following ways: Firstly, a 0.2 per cent reduction in real wages throughout the economy; secondly, a 5.1 per cent reduction in real government expenditure; thirdly, a uniform 6.1 per cent cut in nominal assistance to all manufacturing industries; and fourthly, a 0.6 per cent devaluation of the exchange rate assuming zero wage indexation. By comparison we would need a reduction of 18.1 per cent in the price of all fertilisers. Clearly, there are many ways to skin a cat. If this legislation is passed-I appeal to the Government even at this late stage to reconsider-it is likely that the imposition of dumping duties on high analysis imported fertilisers will be dropped as the domestic manufacturers will be receiving increased subsidies. I do not quite know where this will lead us. The IAC has claimed that all subsidies should simply be removed. I am sure many people would agree with that approach as long as a trade-off in other areas would be acceptable to the farming organisations. If we can substantially reduce the high transport costs to our farmers, the level of tariffs on machinery, the cost of petrol or reduce the stifling level of interest rates, we will begin to make a valuable improvement in the structural nature of our economy. But this approach of shifting $55m from farmer control to manufacturer control at a time when our farmers are suffering a cost price crisis and at a time when we are substantially reliant on our export income is ludicrous. It is on that basis that I do not believe that the Minister has found the best solution to the problem of maintaining the viability of our fertiliser manufacturers while at the same time giving our farmers the benefit of the cheapest fertilisers. I deplore the action taken in the Senate. I will continue to oppose the Bill. Even at this late hour, I ask the Government to reconsider its position on the Bill. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(4.46) —I am happy to talk on the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill 1986. I reject the suggestion of the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) that the Government should even think about dropping the legislation. I believe that the legislation is a result of combined consultation with the industry, the farming community and the Australian Public Service. I believe that it will be of benefit to the users of fertilisers, as well as the manufacturers. I intend to comment on some of the criticisms of the legislation made by the honourable member for Forrest a little later. At this stage I will comment on his assertion that Australia is in a difficult position because of its industrial relations climate. Our climate is far better than many of our competing countries. It is certainly a better climate than it was under the Fraser-Howard Budgets. Even the Opposition's current proposals can be of no comfort to those who work in the fertiliser manufacturing industry, nor to those working on farms. The Opposition's proposal for an 18-month pegging of wages would hurt not only those people but also shop assistants, bank officers, teachers, the Public Service and people throughout the country. At the same time, the Opposition is prepared to take no action on prices. I believe that the Australian industrial relations climate is good and improving as a result of the present Government's policies. It has to be conceded that world fertiliser prices are low; in fact, they have been falling for some years. The Government was confronted with a situation where there were accusations of dumping, and anti-dumping duties were brought in to counter that problem. Duties were paid back to the importers and to the Australian manufacturers to give them some competitive advantage. The imports were virtually brought back to world prices. This legislation takes the subsidy off the imports and allows it to be paid on local manufacturing. We have a situation where local manufacturing receives a subsidy and local manufacturers receive the anti-dumping repayments. I want to comment on the criticisms that have been made of the Government for this legislation. The first is that it will make it dearer for some farmers, particularly those who have less access to local manufacturers and who need to buy imports. This House had visits from people in Queensland who stated that they would be in a prejudiced position. However, overseas firms are mostly extremely large companies. There is every reason to believe that they will be competing as they competed before with Australian manufacturers. They are not small companies, they are firms which face stiff competition throughout the world. They will be facing stiff competition in Australia as they have always done. Another point that needs to be made is that the world price today is fairly low. It has been falling for some years. There is competitive pressure on overseas manufacturers to meet our prices. The honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) said that manufacturers' prices may drift upwards. This is a legitimate fear. But as the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) has said-this is my experience-there have been few complaints by farmers about that likelihood. Present indications are that manufacturers are responding, have been responding and will continue to respond, and will reduce prices as competitive pressures come on them-and there will be competitive pressures. I believe that the manufacturers owe it to the Government, and appreciate that fact, to keep their prices down and to give some dividend to the farming community, to the users and to the Government, which has shown its good faith, in reducing prices. I say to the honourable member for Forrest that time will tell which of us is right. I, with high users in areas such as the Bega Valley Shire, Cooma, the Bombala district, the Snowy River district, Yarrowlumla shire and Tallaganda Shire, along with many other members of this Parliament-including, I am sure, honourable members on the other side of the House-will be watching the trend very closely in the interests of the users, because they are in the majority in our electorates. We will be watching exactly what the manufacturers do. There is no doubt about it that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), in particular, will be looking after the users as we see this legislation work. I am happy to support the Bill and I am confident that it will have the desired effect. It will retain competition and possibly increase it. At the same time, it will be doing one of the important jobs of this Government, which is to keep down the level of unemployment. I am happy to support the Bill. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(4.52) —The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), in his second reading speech in the Senate, pointed out that a committee had surveyed the matter relating to the subsidy on fertiliser imports. I am wondering what that committee was. It was certainly a departmental committee but I am wondering whether it consulted the farming industry and manufacturers alike before it came to the conclusion that it should recommend this move to the Government. As many speakers have said, the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill, which is before the Parliament, eliminates the subsidy available on fertiliser imports into Australia. We have only to ask ourselves: Why was this subsidy initially granted? If we read speeches that were made in both chambers back in 1982 we see that they indicate very clearly and specifically why there was a necessity to give this subsidy. I do not know what the position is for manufacturers of all types of fertilisers in Australia. In the reports that I have seen from the National Farmers Federation and other groups it appears as though there is some monopoly with respect to the manufacture of fertiliser. I have had talks with farmers within my electorate who agree that there are times when they need certain types of fertilisers for different types of agriculture that are not available to them immediately and they must wait. This is a problem simply because if they have ground ready to plant they want to plant when the season is right and when the rain is there to get the moisture into the soil. Therefore, it is important that farmers apply fertiliser, particularly to a seed crop, when it is actually needed. I believe that there is some form of monopoly today with these companies in Australia. It surprises me that the Government should bring legislation before the Parliament, simply because monopolies are involved. I thought that the Government, to which we have grown accustomed, was opposed to monopolies. Undoubtedly, if we read and analyse the Bill properly we will see that one of the reasons that this legislation has been brought in is to protect the work of the 4,000 people involved in manufacturing of fertiliser throughout Australia. We have full sympathy for them. Undoubtedly the unions have put pressure on the Government and have said: `You had better stop this subsidy on imported fertilisers'. All honourable members have had proof over the years that we have to have competition in the industry with regard to the products that are available to farmers or to manufacturing industry to see that they can get the cheapest possible purchase price. The farmer, the main person who benefits from the lower cost of fertilisers, is the person who will export for Australia. We all know that 40 per cent of revenue earned from exports comes back to the land. This is important. We in the Opposition believe that fertiliser prices will be cheaper where there is competition and a subsidy on imported fertilisers. We believe that the farmer will benefit from that. That is the criterion that I am speaking about. Our attitude is different from that of the Government. If it were the same the Government would not have brought in this legislation. The important thing that we, as a primary producing country, have to remember is that we must support our farmers at all times. It may be that a farmer is different from other people within the community. I have found that the thinking and the balance of a farmer and his family on the farm are more wide ranging than those of most other people in the community. They read media reports, they see television, they sum things up and they have a realistic approach to matters. Mr Nehl —They know the realities of life. Mr COWAN —That is right; they know the realities of life, as the honourable member for Cowper has said. Farmers are out in the field working seven days a week for long hours every day and a large amount of capital is involved in their production. It is extremely important for Australia that we assist them in every way. As honourable members have said in the chamber this afternoon, the farmer is less subsidised than most other industries throughout Australia, particularly when we compare him with manufacturing industry, the car industry and other forms of production. He receives much less assistance, yet this nation is so greatly dependent upon him. I want to raise one aspect that we should not forget. Australia is going through bad times at present and perhaps we would be better off if we did not actually produce as many farming goods as we do. There will come a time-it could be in 1987 or very soon-when there will be a great responsibility for Australia to produce products to feed a world that needs them. This is the important thing. The quality of our soil must never be allowed to deteriorate. Australia is a very large continent indeed and it is vitally affected by the fact that we have lost a lot of our foliage, we have a lot of erosion, we have a very varied rainfall and this affects our actual soil types. Farmers are producing on most of these soil types, particularly around the coastal belts of Australia. It is, therefore, important for farmers to fertilise at all times that it is necessary, even their pasture paddocks if they are producing from them once a year. If farmers do not do that the effect would be the same as if they allowed their buildings and fences to deteriorate on their properties. I can recall the beef decline of 1974 when beef breeders in my electorate were forced to let the quality of their properties deteriorate because of a loss of income. The majority of those farmers could not afford even to put fertiliser on their land. It is terribly important for Australia that we give our farmers an incentive to fertilise every acre of the land on their farms that should be fertilised to keep up the quality of their soil, because there will come a day somewhere down the line when we, as a nation, will have to meet an added responsibility to feed people, not only in Australia but also around the world. I put that forward because I think a very pertinent aspect of this legislation is the farsightedness that we in this Parliament ought to possess in relation to this type of legislation. That is why I say that the Government should look back to 1982 to see why the original legislation came in and why the competition was actually created. I talk to farmers because I am a farmer myself. For many years they have asked: `Are we receiving the subsidy that the Government is paying for this?' The honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) said this afternoon that some forms of financial assistance have been available since right back in 1930. Are the farmers receiving the subsidy? I do not know how the department involved, whichever it is, is going to audit these figures to make sure that it is the consumer, the farmer at the bottom of the line, who is receiving the subsidies available, the $55m a year that will be paid out. I am just saying to the Government that it has to keep a keen eye on this to see that the farmer gets it. We can compare the subsidy on diesel fuel. The farmer buys fuel from the depot and then applies for the subsidy. The service is excellent and the system is good. Within a week or a fortnight the subsidy money is back in the bank account. That is a system whereby the farmer directly receives the subsidy back into the banking account. I sometimes wonder whether this should be the case with respect to fertiliser subsidy. Then the farmer will know the reality of it. He will know that it is there-and it is very important that he does. I do not think it is a matter of the balance of payments. I know that that is a very big factor for the Government. The whole of Australia is concerned about it at the moment because the balance of payments is on the wrong side. But this legislation will affect it very little. I do not think the Government must be very concerned about the competition that it is going to create in this whole thing. I do not know whether it is fully aware of the production capacity of fertiliser manufacturers in Australia, because we are told that certain types of fertilisers, particularly nitrogenous fertilisers, will not be available from them, at least for a period. That is why it is important that we continue to bring it from overseas. The Opposition is quite realistic. Our basis of thought in this whole matter goes back to the predicament that primary industry is in throughout Australia today. That problem is there and we know that, if the economy of this land is to come back, it will come back only through the productivity and the viability of the primary industries. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(5.03) —I rise to participate in this debate on the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill and in doing so I want to reflect on some of the statements made earlier in this debate by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons). Quite frankly, I do not believe that the honourable member for Calare was seriously suggesting that there is not a major cost-price squeeze currently being faced by every Australian farmer. He had the audacity to say that he does not presently have farmers knocking down his door with respect to the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill. But I know the honourable member for Calare well enough to know that he must be honest enough to accept that there are real difficulties facing every primary producer in Australia in 1986, real difficulties that the Government cannot escape and real difficulties that the Government must accept some responsibility for. Honourable members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable gentleman is not being assisted by the discussion on my left. Mr ANDREW —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was making the point for the interest of those of my colleagues joining in the debate that in fact there are real difficulties facing Australian farmers that the Government cannot escape responsibility for. This Government cannot escape the responsibility it has, for example, for rising interest rates in Australia. It cannot escape the responsibility that it willingly takes for our wages policy in Australia, and these have been a part of the rising costs that all farmers in Australia currently find are sending them closer and closer to bankruptcy. It has been too easy for the honourable member for Calare and other honourable members participating in this debate to suggest that in some way the Government is not to blame but that all the dilemmas which face farmers are the faults of our overseas trading partners or the fault of the Opposition. I do not envy the Government the present dilemma it has in dealing with overseas trading partners, but it is quite fallacious for any Government member to suggest that the problems currently facing the rural industry are a result of actions taken by the Opposition when in government. I remind you, sir, and honourable members opposite that almost seven of the last 14 years-almost 50 per cent of them-have been dominated by governments of the Labor Party's political persuasion. Mr Hawker —Say that again. Mr ANDREW —For the benefit of the honourable member for Wannon, who clearly has hearing difficulties, I will make once again the point that almost 50 per cent of the last 14 years has been dominated by governments of the political persuasion of the Hawke Labor Government. It is simply not honest to blame the Opposition for difficulties currently facing the Australian economy or Australian farmers. The decision of the Opposition to, as it were, maintain the status quo, the decision with respect to the legislation before the House to ensure that the subsidy flows both to importers and to local manufacturers, was not taken easily; nor does the Opposition pretend that it is an ideal decision. The Opposition has merely weighed up the pros and cons and acted without the sort of expediency which has characterised the decision made by the Government. The decision of the Opposition to oppose this Government move, to suggest that the subsidy ought to continue to apply both to imports and local manufacture, was taken because of the fundamentals that underscore the whole fertiliser subsidy question. The fundamental is that the subsidy on fertiliser was designed not to assist the fertiliser industry but to assist Australian farmers, and it is on that basis that the Opposition took this decision to oppose the Government's move. The Opposition maintains that its stand will maintain the status quo. The Opposition maintains that its stand will be of benefit to Australian farmers, and it is Australian farmers that the subsidy was originally designed to assist. We recognise that Australian fertiliser manufacturers have difficulties. We recognise that they are locked into precisely the same high cost of production environment as are Australian farmers. We recognise that they are obliged to use the Australian National Line and other protected Australian facilities that further force up their prices relative to overseas importers. But the facts are that this legislation and the subsidy are not about assisting fertiliser manufacturers; they are about helping Australian farmers. The subsidy goes to farmers so that the farmers can choose which fertiliser they will use for a particular crop and, furthermore, which fertiliser they will use regardless of where they live in this vast nation of ours. The Opposition is aware of the dilemma that this legislation poses because it forces us effectively to subsidise imports. We are not comfortable about that but, as the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) said earlier in the debate, even in the face of Australia's present disastrous balance of payments deficit `the total annual balance of trade saving has been estimated to be less than $14m'. This, he said quite rightly, is hardly going to make any impact at all. The legislation before the House, the legislation that would confine the subsidy purely to the locally manufactured product, runs away from what was the basis for the subsidy originally being brought in to assist Australian farmers. The subsidy was designed to compensate Australian farmers for the crazy cost of production and cost of living environment into which they found themselves locked. This debate is about a subsidy that was once $12 in $35 but which is now a mere $13 in $127. Compensation it scarcely is, but why should farmers forfeit one more dollar of that compensation simply because the Government wants to break away from the original fundamental aim, which was to have a fertiliser subsidy designed for farmers and not for fertiliser manufacturers? Every speaker, whether from the Government or the Opposition, has made the point that the farmers in his electorate need high analysis fertilisers. That has never been more true. The involvement in farming in Australia of air seeders and of modern seeding equipment has meant that fertilisers that flow, are readily available and are concentrated are essential to every successful farmer. We have no doubt that Australian manufacturers can compete with the product that the importers have made available, but the pressure on the Australian manufacturers to compete has existed only since Australian farmers have chosen to use imports. It is that measure of competition that has brought the Australian industry into line. I recognise the time constraints that have been placed on this debate. I conclude by focusing the attention of the House on the dilemma that currently faces Australian farmers, and I make the point that if ever there was a time to avoid loading any primary producer with additional costs, it is now. In spite of what has been in general terms a succession of good seasons, Australian primary production is on its knees. Australian farmers are barely able to survive, in spite of adequate sunshine and rainfall. How then can we determine as a Parliament that this is the time to load those same farmers with an additional cost? Every farmer in Australia is forced to produce his product in an environment which has artificially high wage constraints, artificially high fuel constraints and an artificially high cost of living. Are we about to ask those same farmers, as a result of this legislation, to make a further sacrifice? They are the very farmers who have been forced by the Government's policy on interest rates in many cases to hock what were once substantial and secure family farms. While we in this insular environment debate this legislation, there are farmers in Australia who are either cutting or loading hay or preparing to harvest the crops they have sown. Mr Drummond —Milking the cows? Mr ANDREW —In some cases, yes. Their crops will be adequate because of the sunshine and the rain that has fallen on them, but in many cases these crops will not meet the costs of production that those farmers have incurred. This is not the time to saddle farmers with an additional cost, and the legislation before the House does just that. The Opposition opposes this legislation because the subsidy was designed to help farmers, not fertiliser manufacturers, and the legislation before the House effectively takes away some of the subsidy from a portion of the farming community. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.14) —The difference of opinion in this Parliament as to who should prosper and who is best able to help Australia prosper is quite remarkable. It is quite clear, as far as this Government is concerned, that if people manufacture anything, however inefficiently, they should prosper. If they happen to be some of the few people who have managed through great pressure and through very difficult times to be still competitive in world markets, they are seen as the milking cow. It is quite okay for them to have a bit more of a struggle. If a person happens to believe in free enterprise and the right to make a living, and consequently supports the policies of the Liberal Party or the National Party of Australia, that is just another reason for this Government to deal it to him. This legislation is all about transferring assistance from the farmer, the user of fertiliser in this country, to the fertiliser manufacturers, who on a State by State basis produce a product that is freight intensive at every stage of its production and use. It is not a product, therefore, that can be easily shipped from State to State. There is a national monopoly because, although we have individual manufacturers in different States, we find that generally the tyranny of distance, perhaps leaving aside the borders of New South Wales and Victoria and Victoria and South Australia, means that there is no competition. Of course, the tyranny of distance is magnified by the policies of our State governments and in particular by their regulation of transport. If we wanted to freight some fertiliser down from Queensland to Victoria it would cost $45 a tonne. A farmer can buy the same fertiliser in Florida and have it transported to a port in Australia for $15 a tonne. One does not have to be a very good mathematician to know the substantial additional distance involved. Regulation and the forcing of Australians to use outmoded rail systems contributes substantially to that cost. Even the trucking industry, given half a chance, would probably do that trip cheaper. We have the opportunity to use sea freight but we know that sea freight around Australia is the most expensive and unreliable means of shifting anything. One day I heard you on the radio, Mr Deputy Speaker, bemoan the fact that only 3 per cent of our exports leave Australia in Australian ships. I bemoan that fact too. I bemoan the fact that we are missing the chance to give so many Australians a job and retain our international reserves. But I also know the reason. The participants in that industry will not play fair. They want stupid labour manning arrangements, they want to work five months in every year for $40,000 or $50,000, and when they get on board the ships-I have had this from the horse's mouth-they are so lazy that even the cost of maintaining a ship in dry dock is substantially increased because of the maintenance that is not done at sea but would be done on ships of competing nations. That is the situation we are confronted with, but the Government is going to help the manufacturers. Of course, the Government has this special clause in the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill to which it draws attention-clause 22, registration of premises. This is probably the most remarkable thing in this legislation. It says that the manufacturer must pass the subsidy on to the consumer. Of course he will. He will work out all his costs and profit, and he will deduct the subsidy. But there is no control on the manufacturer putting up the price by $10 a tonne because he says his costs have increased. I was driving around my electorate before last Christmas and I heard that one of the companies targeted by the metal unions for a superannuation push-an illegal superannuation push-was our State superphosphate manufacturing concern, Wesfarmers-CSBP. I wrote to all the directors and said: `If this push is applied to you, tell the unions that you will lock your doors and just become an importer, because that is what the unions deserve for such stupidity'. Here is an industry that is whingeing its head off but which put up the price of single super in my State by $18 a tonne last year as soon as it won a di-ammonium phosphate anti-dumping case. The industry tells us how efficient it is. DAP was becoming a direct competitor with single super in Western Australia. One farmer said to me that he could get the nitrogen for nothing. That is how the competition was operating, and that is why the manufacturers wanted an anti-dumping case on DAP. At that stage they were importing DAP and selling it to the farmers. They were not even prepared to manufacture it. They could profit better by that scheme, but they were worried about their single superphosphate production. These are the sorts of things with which we are confronted. We see just how good competition is when it is around. Let us consider the competition with urea. Urea manufactured in Queensland is sold in Toowoomba at $306 a tonne. That is a captive market. But in the competing areas of the Riverina the same urea can be sold for $242 a tonne. That is pretty good, is it not? It can be transferred all that distance and sold for less. When we see this sort of monopoly control, I am always reminded of how it worked in the circumstances with which I was confronted when transporting goods in and out of the town of Carnarvon where I live. We had free enterprise all right. We had a government granted monopoly, a franchise. When we complained that it was getting too expensive-it had not always been too expensive in our view-the Commissioner of Transport told me: `Mr Tuckey, it is impossible for them to do this work for any less'. I relate this to the decision to pass on the subsidy. The Commissioner said: `We checked the books. We checked their costs of production. They could not possibly freight goods into your town cheaper. We monitor their every movement'. Eventually we had the opportunity to tender to the Government for our own work. We formed a co-operative and put a transport company together. We put in a bid 30 per cent lower than the price that the Government said was the lowest possible price at which this operator could perform. It took us eight years but we got the business. Everybody said we would go broke. We were still operating eight years later. In fact, eight years later we eventually arrived at the same price that the other company wanted. We asked that it be left there as our competitor. It ended up with 10 per cent of the business, and it was prepared to do the 10 per cent at our price-30 per cent less than what it claimed was the price it needed to do 100 per cent of the business. All I am trying to prove is that it is only competition that will set a price. It does not matter how good the bookkeepers are. It is just an absolute farce for the Government to say that it will ensure that this particular subsidy is passed on to farmers. It is a manufacturing subsidy; it cannot be passed on to farmers in any sense other than the most artificial one. When the superannuation push is imposed on the fertiliser manufacturers-as it now will be; they have a little bit of fat in the system and the metal workers and others will want to drag it out-their costs will increase. The manufacturers will increase the price and then they will deduct the bounty. What a joke it is! They will go on doing that until their price, including the subsidy that they are given, reaches the price for the imported product. That is what will happen. We know it will happen and that is why we oppose this legislation. That is what the farming communities know through their organisation, the National Farmers Federation, and that is why it has asked us to oppose the legislation. They have done their sums; they have had surveys done; they know that it will cost them more. The fact is that high analysis fertilisers are made only in certain places in my State. I am the member for farming in Western Australia. I have an electorate which is as big as Victoria; but there is only one place in Western Australia where one can buy DAP. It is Kwinana. Single superphosphate is manufactured in my electorate in Geraldton but DAP is not manufactured there, so it has to be freighted on the hugely expensive rail system that farmers are forced to use for that product, unless they take a vehicle down to Kwinana and bring it back themselves. This is quite ridiculous. In the past they have brought imported fertiliser into Geraldton. That is the difference. Farmers cannot benefit by this legislation; they will be stuck with the manufacturing system that is imposed upon them, and that will not change. Let us look quickly at the other problems that are facing farmers, to which this subsidy measure is just an added burden. All these measures are about supporting the Australian system. We know that international prices are low; we know that they have been low before. We know that once Australia thought that it could not sell more than five million tonnes of wheat a year and so it imposed wheat quotas. Now we are selling 15 million tonnes, which shows the foolishness of that decision which was taken by our side of politics. But the reality is that we will compete, given half a chance. I represent people who average five bags of wheat per acre. Once they had an input cost level of two and a half bags of wheat per acre. Now they have one of four and a half. Of course, they just cannot stand that. It is the same with freight. Twenty years ago one could shift one's freight to market for two bags in the tonne. Now it is four bags in the tonne. Who is getting the money? That is on a tonnage basis; that is not mentioning dollars. This is what it is all about. That should never happen in a modern environment. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that it should. We have wharfies who are so busy imposing wage levels on foreign ships that they increase the freight in and out for our farmers. If they believe in that, that is all right. But why do they not go and picket the factories of Taiwan and Korea and demand that they pay the same sorts of wages? Why do they harass shipping when it comes here? They think they are beating the international shipowners. Of course they are not. They are just imposing freight premiums on Australian exporters and importers. That seems pretty silly to me. To digress just a little, Ralph Sarich told me personally as he flew back from the meeting where the decision not to manufacture his invention in Australia was taken that the reason for this decision was the Australian waterfront. He got all the way through his processes of calculation to that point. He could manufacture the engine and do everything else, but the unreliability of our waterfront, and the stocks of his product that he would consequently have to carry overseas to meet just in time assembly, are the reasons that the Sarich motors are not being made in Australia. That is a disgrace. Nobody is dealing with the problem and it just requires a bit of essential services legislation to do it. We oppose this legislation. We think it is wrong. We thing that the subsidy has always been presented as a subsidy to farmers. This is a subsidy to manufacturers and as such it will eventually cost the farming community, which cannot afford it, a lot more. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(5.27) —in reply-I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and I will try to reply to some of the points that were made. The Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), raised the question of prices. Fertiliser prices have all been reduced since the Budget decision and importers have matched these reduced prices. The users of domestic products will benefit, of course, and these are the vast majority of farmers. In the view of the Government competition will continue. There is no barrier to entry to the fertiliser industry in Australia. Local production is increasing significantly and increased throughput will lower unit costs, which will clearly be of benefit to farmers. The intention of the subsidies is to increase the use of fertilisers and the Bill continues this intention. It continues subsidies to the rural sector for the consumption of fertilisers at $55m a year. It removes an inconsistency of Australia subsidising imports as well as giving a bounty to domestic production, particularly at a time of severe balance of payments deficit-the subject of considerable interest to Senator Siddons, a former Australian Democrat senator. Mr Spender —What happened to him? Mr BARRY JONES —He resigned. The Bill provides the local manufacturers with indirect assistance through the potential to increase production. The Government, in reviewing the fertiliser scheme, has had to balance the interests of all parties involved-farmers, including the 25 per cent who do not use fertilisers, manufacturers, unions, importers and taxpayers. It was alleged that the result of the Bill will be to increase fertiliser costs. The problem of the farmers who must continue to purchase imports of especially high analysis phosphatic fertilisers, HAPF, we believe will diminish. The manufacturers have already stepped up their production and have committed funds to increase their capacity. Nevertheless, other factors, such as geography, climate, location of manufacturers and ports and transport, also impact on farmers' costs, as the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) pointed out. It is important to note that all manufacturers have lowered their prices of all fertilisers and importers appear to be matching these prices. It has been implied that the local industry cannot meet the farming industry's demands for high analysis phosphatic fertiliser. The fact is that manufacturers are prepared to produce more high analysis phosphatic fertiliser. In any regard, phosphatic fertilisers are highly substitutable. The arguments as to which particular fertilisers to use are complex. They include price, types of trace element, ease of use and, indeed, what one's next door neighbour is using. Manufacturers have integrated plants. One could not expect single superphosphate to remain at the same price if large quantities of high analysis phosphate fertiliser were imported. The 66 per cent of farmers who use single superphosphate would be disadvantaged. It is asserted that competition will be reduced because imports of fertiliser will be so much less and that this will lead to a monopolistic situation for Australian industry vis-a-vis imports. That has to be looked at very carefully. The honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) and the Deputy Leader of the National Party asserted that the measure effectively takes $55m from the rural sector and gives it to secondary industry. All Commonwealth fertilisers legislation subsidies are passed on in full, will need to be passed on in full and have always been passed on in full to the farmers. The Bill specifically requires the benefit of any subsidy payable to producers to be passed on to the end user purchaser. In addition, it makes registration of producers, which is a precondition to the receipt of subsidy, conditional on an undertaking by the producer that the benefit of subsidies will be passed on to the end user purchaser. Clause 10 provides that the Comptroller may direct that subsidy is not payable to a producer where the Comptroller is not satisfied that the price being charged by the producer in respect of sales of subsidised fertiliser is such as to pass on to a purchaser the full benefit of the subsidy. In the years in which this subsidy package has been in operation no complaints have been received on the mechanism of passing on the benefit of the assistance from the producer to the end user consumer. This point is even admitted by the National Farmers Federation. Local producers are assisted by this Bill only indirectly through the potential to increase production. In fact, the $55m is not being shifted from the farmers to the local manufacturers. Again, as I said earlier, the aim of the subsidies is to increase consumption of fertilisers, not simply to assist the farmers, 25 per cent of whom, as I said, do not use the fertilisers. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) suggested that the Government should model the fertilisers assistance on the diesel fuel rebate scheme. The scheme that is proposed assumes that either an import duty or an excise duty has been paid. It is these duties on which a rebate can be paid. No such duties are paid on fertilisers, so the analogy seems to fall. The Government has made the decision to subsidise the cost of fertiliser in terms of a consumption subsidy payable to producers and then required, as I have said about four times, to be passed on to the end user consumer. The Government is constitutionally constrained, when it employs industries assistance via bounty or subsidy, to pay that bounty or subsidy on local production. The unique end use condition on this subsidy, however, ensures that the benefit of the government assistance is passed on. At the moment we do not believe that there is a monopoly situation. Existing manufacturers compete vigorously where transport and other factors permit. Domestic industry, we repeat, can provide the full range of phosphate and nitrogen fertilisers. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) asserted that the original intention of the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill was to give a consumption subsidy to assist farmers and that therefore the status quo should be retained. The intention of the subsidies, as I have said, is much broader than that. The honourable member for O'Connor takes the view that the Government's action on fertilisers has led to price increases for farmers, entrenches the monopoly of the local manufacturers, is anti-rural, and in effect ignores the Government's commitments on fertilisers given in the economic and rural policy statement. Again, we believe that this is one of a number of industries that will be restructured, that we hope will be more efficient and that we hope will be more competitive. It is often very difficult, when representing the interests of farmers locally, to say `Take the big picture; look at what is happening to Australian industry overall', irrespective of what the sector is. As the honourable member and many members of the Opposition would be aware, we are going through a period of quite remarkable, quite dramatic change, and a number of industries which have been very weak will, I think, become very much stronger. Certainly it is not the intention that any industry that is currently strong, such as the agricultural sector, will be weakened in any way. I ask for the support of the House on this very important measure. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 11 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. Maher, M. J. Charlesworth, R. I. Martin, S. P. Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H. Cleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B. Cohen, B. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. (Teller)Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F. Hall, Steele Sinclair, I. McC. Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M. Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W. Hodges, J. C. Watson, D. J. H. Hodgman, W. M. Webster, A. P. Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Publications, I present the report of the Committee relating to the review of the cost and distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr BRUMBY —One of the major functions of the Joint Committee on Publications is to advise on the administration of the Parliamentary Papers Series. The series is a collection of the principal papers presented to Parliament each year. The series is designed to ensure a number of things, including that adequate copies of parliamentary papers are available for the use of members and senators; that parliamentary papers are available for sale to the public; that each parliamentary paper is available to be bound at the end of the relevant year into a series of volumes and preserved in a convenient and accessible form as a permanent record; and, finally, that in accordance with the Parliamentary Papers Act persons who publish any paper which has been ordered to be printed are afforded protection against civil or criminal proceedings. This report is the first major review of the series conducted by the Joint Committee since its 1977 report. The Committee believes that this review is most timely. Although the implementation of the 1977 report's recommendations resulted in major savings in the printing expenditure of the parliamentary departments, the Committee notes that the cost associated with the series remains high. For example, the Parliament's expenditure on the series in the past financial year was some $630,000. In resolving to conduct this review in May 1985 the Committee was aware, not only of the costs associated with the series but also of the increasing number of papers included in the series and other administrative problems. In conducting the review the Committee examined these issues in the context of the papers included in the series, the production of pamphlet copies and bound volumes, and the distribution of each. The result of this work is a collection of wide-ranging recommendations designed to improve the administration of the series. Today, I wish briefly to mention the recommendations relating to two major areas. I refer first to annual reports by departments and statutory authorities, and secondly and importantly to the use of advanced technology in the production of the bound volumes of the series. I come first to the question of annual reports. The Committee has become alarmed in recent years at the increasing number of organisations presenting prestige documents as annual reports. The Committee's previous work in relation to the production of annual reports clearly indicates that a simple, clear format is sufficient to meet the Parliament's needs. This guideline has unfortunately not been followed and the cost of these publications has added to the cost of the series. The Committee considered a number of options to redress this problem and has proposed a package of recommendations to tackle the problem. The major thrust of the recommendations is to encourage departments and statutory authorities to print annual reports that meet Parliament's requirements for information and do so in a modest production style. Thus, the Committee has recommended that the current three class production system operated by the Australian Government Publishing Service be reduced to two, by omitting the middle range production standard. The Committee, however, has considered the presentation concerns of some departments and statutory authorities, and has recommended that this reduction in standards be accompanied by the upgrading of cover designs allowable under class one production. Further, it has recommended that organisations wishing to publish prestige documents annually can do so separately from the annual report. The Committee noted that ministerial co-operation would be vital in ensuring that departments and statutory authorities adhere to the production guidelines when printing annual reports. The Committee will seek this co-operation and will continue to monitor the annual reports which are tabled in Parliament. The final component of the package was to recommend that the Government consider the introduction of an annual reports Act. The Committee believes that this Act should place a legislative requirement on federally funded organisations, not only to report on their activities and account for finances, but also to enforce the production standards which I have already outlined and have no need to repeat. The Act would link the current variations in legislative and other arrangements that exist relating to annual reporting requirements without over- riding the particular reporting provisions of the other legislation. The second matter relates to the use of advanced technology in the production of bound volumes. The production of bound volumes is a major component of the costs associated with the series. Currently, there are 110 sets of the volumes prepared annually. The last completed set for 1981 cost $70,300 for binding alone. The Committee considered four principal options to reduce these costs. These options were, first, the issue of papers and the relevant indexes to enable recipients to undertake a self-binding program; secondly, the provision of bound volumes by subscription in order to recover the cost of production and binding; thirdly, the cessation of production and distribution of annual bound volumes of the series; and fourthly, the issue of a microform version of the bound volume. Those were the four options that the Committee looked at. Mr Hollis —Which option did you decide on? Mr BRUMBY —The honourable member for Throsby asks me which option we decided on. The Committee finally recommended a reduction in the number of bound volumes prepared annually to 27. This will result in a total cost saving of the order of $98,000 annually. That is not a sum to be sneezed at; it is not an insignificant amount. This option would, however, still maintain the four principles of the Series and the Committee also recommended that further work be done on the demand for bound volumes in microfiche. In examining the issue of micro- fiche, the Committee became aware of exciting new technology offering a range of options to hard copy as a means of conveying information. A substantial amount of evidence was taken on these mediums, including CD ROM, optical disc and computer technology. Although the evidence indicated that this technology was available in Australia, it is still very much in its infancy and currently it is not a viable option. The Committee will, of course, monitor developments in these areas and may at a later date be able to recommend that one of these methods be used for the series. The Parliamentary Papers Series, although a costly production, is a vital record of the Parliament. The report of our Committee seeks to balance the competing concerns of achieving cost efficiency and maintaining the principles of the series. I wish to place on record my appreciation of the efforts of fellow members of the Committee in preparing this lengthy report, and also of the secretarial staff who have served the Committee so well. I have pleasure in commending this report to the House. Consideration resumed from 10 October. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 12, clause 23, lines 14 to 16, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Findings of Tribunal ``23. Section 60 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from sub-section (1) ``or as to the question to which the assessment relates''; and (b) by inserting after sub-section (1) the following sub-section: `(1a) The Tribunal shall not make findings in relation to an assessment that would, under section 61, have the effect of superseding any information that is, under sub-section 37 (2), deemed to be part of the assessment unless those findings state that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the information is incorrect, incorrectly represented or could not reasonably be relevant to the requirements of security.'.''. No. 2-Page 24, clause 39, proposed new section 92p, lines 5 to 9, leave out the proposed new section. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.53) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 1986 has been returned from the Senate with two amendments and I shall deal with both of them together. The first amendment, which was introduced into the Senate as a Government amendment, relates to the Security Appeals Tribunal and is an exercise in fine tuning rather than a substantive change. Since this Bill passed through the House of Representatives there has been a decision by the Tribunal which did not allow a security report to go through to the decision maker and in fact altered the report and the extent of its content, even though the report itself was not incorrect. In a nutshell, the Government is of the view that it would be worth while for the whole of the report to go forward rather than have the Tribunal interposed in the sense that it decides what should go forward. The Tribunal's function is to review adverse or qualified security assessments furnished to government agencies by ASIO. An adverse assessment contains opinion, advice or information which is or could be prejudicial to the interests of the person involved, together with a recommendation from ASIO that relevant action, such as the granting of a security clearance, be not taken. The qualified assessment contains opinion, advice or information, but does not contain a positive recommendation. The amendment proposes to clarify the effect of the Tribunal's findings in respect of information contained in a statement of grounds upon which an adverse or qualified security assessment is based. The efficacy of the process by which security-related decisions are made depends upon the decision maker having access to all relevant available material. Where material is provided by ASIO by way of security assessment, that material should become available to the decision maker unless it is incorrect or irrelevant. The amendment does not affect the Tribunal's power to include in its findings an opinion on the weight to be given to any particular information, nor does it affect the Tribunal's power to comment upon or make findings in respect of any opinion or advice of the Director-General contained in the assessment. The amendment makes clear that whatever findings of that kind may have been made, information provided in the assessment should go forward to the decision maker unless it is found by the Tribunal to be incorrect, incorrectly represented or not reasonably relevant to the requirements of security. The amendment compliments the other amendments to Part IV of the principal Act and I commend it to the House. The second amendment was moved by the Opposition in the Senate with the support of the Australian Democrats. It proposed the deletion of proposed new section 92p. That section concerns the privileges of witnesses appearing before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO. The Government does not accept the totality of the arguments made by the Opposition in support of its amendments. However, it acknowledges that the question of privileges is covered generally by the Parliamentary Privileges Bill, recently introduced into another place. For that reason the Government will not oppose the amendment. However, I make the point at this stage that the Parliamentary Privileges Bill is not in place and so we are dealing with this matter before that Bill comes into place, although it has been introduced. Mr Spender —Two of them have been introduced. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, two have been introduced, but the Opposition amendment to which, no doubt, the honourable member for North Sydney was privy, was moved on the basis that we should accept this amendment now because there would be adequate coverage of parliamentary privileges by legislation. Mr Spender —We are not privy to anything that happens in the Senate. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I take that point. I just point out that there is a slight gap at the moment because the Parliamentary Privileges Bill is not in place. Rather than delay this Bill, which is important, the Government accepts the Opposition amendments. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.57) —The Opposition supports the amendments. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has outlined the reasons for them and the only point that needs to be made from this side of the House is to stress again our support for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and to say that it is a pity that the Government support given to ASIO does not extend to the Left, which still regards ASIO as something which it would get rid of rather than have around. We need ASIO, and I know that many Government members would take the same view. Unfortunately, quite a few members take quite the opposite view and that is something that needs to be said again and again so that Australians will understand that on the Government benches, for all the declared unanimity, there are three separate factions on matters such as ASIO. It is a pity that some of them do not come into the House from time to time and say what they really think. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Consideration resumed from 15 October. Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate's amendment- Page 9, after clause 29, add the following new clause: Saving of existing appointments ``30. A person who, immediately before the commencement of this Act, held office- (a) as a member of the Board of Management of the Australian Institute of Criminology appointed by the Attorney-General under paragraph 9 (1) (a) of the Principal Act; (b) as a member of that Board appointed by the Criminology Research Council under paragraph 9 (1) (b) of the Principal Act; or (c) as a member of the Criminology Research Council appointed by the Attorney-General under sub-section 35 (3) of the Principal Act, shall continue to hold that office, subject to the Principal Act as amended by this Act, as if the person had been duly appointed- (d) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (a) of this section-by the Attorney-General under paragraph 9 (1) (b) of the Principal Act as so amended; (e) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (b) of this section-by the Council under paragraph 9 (1) (c) of the Principal Act as so amended; or (f) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (c) of this section-by the Attorney-General under sub-section 35 (3) of the Principal Act as so amended.''. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.59) —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. This amendment is required in respect of clause 30, which deals with existing appointments. This is a case in which the Criminology Research Act had to be amended to enable other appointments to be made. The question was to preserve existing appointments. Accordingly, the purpose of this transitional provision is to preserve the existing appointments of persons to the board of management of the Australian Institute of Criminology and to the Criminology Research Council. This would avoid the need, after the principal Act is amended, for fresh appointments to be made of existing members of the board and existing members of the Council. State members are appointed upon the nomination of appropriate State Ministers. We are preserving the status quo rather than having to make completely fresh appointments because of the Act. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(6.02) —We support the amendment. In doing so, I refer briefly to the work of Professor Richard Harding, the Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, who is now retiring. I think everybody will agree that the work he has done has been most valuable. In referring to that work, I mention the criticisms he has made of the way in which the Government goes about dealing with criminal law and what he calls the criminal pie in this country. He recently listed 16 government agencies that have a finger, as he put it, in some part of the criminal pie. They are the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of the Special Minister of State, the Australian Customs Service, the Health Department, the Department of Territories, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Department of Transport, the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security, the Australian Federal Police, the National Police Research Unit, the National Crime Authority, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Office of Youth Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs. The problem is well illustrated by the saga of the Taillon amendment. Honourable members of this House will recall that a Mr Taillon came to this country in July 1985. He was in transit from Bombay to Canada. Eleven kilos of hashish, worth an estimated $300,000, were found in his suitcase. But Mr Taillon was in transit and was not prosecuted because there were doubts as to whether or not he had committed an offence. I think all of us would believe that it is an astonishing state of affairs that because a person is in transit, and because he may not be carrying baggage in his hand, he can use Australia as a convenient conduit for the purposes of smuggling hashish, cocaine or anything else between one friendly country and another friendly country, or indeed between unfriendly countries. This matter came to the attention of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and Senator Button. Each had a finger in that particular pie. Let me remind the House of what has taken place. Nothing has taken place. Nothing has happened. The Government has said it has a commitment to stamping out organised crime. We all recall how high on the list of commitments is the Government's detestation of organised drug running. We share that view, but where is the action? On 24 September this year Senator Button was asked a question in the Senate about the loophole that was thought to exist in the Customs Act. He said this in the other place: The matter is in the hands of the Attorney-General and I will obtain an answer to the honourable senator's question from him. The question was: `What is happening?' On 9 October the Attorney-General in this House was asked a question on the same subject. He stated: Because the importation aspect is not a matter within my portfolio but one for the Australian Customs Service, that opinion- I interpolate and say that he was referring to an opinion that had been obtained from a Sydney Queen's Counsel on this loophole- and advice has been forwarded to my colleague the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. I understand that arrangements are now in place to amend the Act to ensure that, whether a case relates to importation and/or possession, prosecution can be launched. Senator Button thought the Attorney-General was dealing with it and the Attorney-General thought Senator Button was dealing with it. It is now November 1986. The act took place in July 1985. The amendment that is required is a very simple one, and nothing has happened. Time and again we are told of this Government's commitment to stamping out organised crime, to dealing with drug offenders and various other matters in the area of organised crime. The best way to test things is to say: `Well, what have you done?' If there is a simple and obvious loophole, what do we do? We move quickly to shut that simple and obvious loophole. That has not taken place. I conclude by saying that there are two things the Government can do: It can act swiftly to deal with obvious loopholes and, at the same time, it can state what its view is on the recommendations that have been made by royal commissioners such as Stewart and Costigan, recommendations by special prosecutors Gyles and Redlich and others so that we have an informed view of what the Government intends on recommendations, some of them made years ago, which have been allowed to gather dust in the archives of the Government. That is the first thing it can do if it is serious. The second thing it can do if it is serious about organised crime is to tell, in broad terms, what its strategic plan is for dealing with organised crime. Unless we have an understanding and a plan for dealing with such simple things as closing loopholes, it is perfectly plain that we can have no overall strategy whatsoever for dealing with organised crime. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.08) —Briefly, in answer to what the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has said, I think he was absent when we were last debating the Taillon case. Whilst the honourable member raised this matter, I think it was subsequently raised by the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) in the debate on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which dealt with a number of matters. Mr Spender —That was drugs through the post? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I answered during the debate and, in fairness, I do not think the honourable member had a chance to listen to the answer. It went something like this: I took a view as the first law officer that there was no reason at all why the Director of Public Prosecutions should not have proceeded with the prosecution of Taillon. In other words, Taillon was charged and the charge was not proceeded with on the basis that there was some doubt, because the narcotics were found in the baggage, whether that was possession. I took the view that we should have proceeded with it. I got the opinion of Mr Porter QC, who said: `Yes, it could have been proceeded with'. To that extent I can understand the honourable gentleman legitimately raising the issue, but I want to make the point that there was no neglect. The issue is that the Director of Public Prosecutions, of his own initiative, thought there was a gap in the law, but I do not think the gap was there. Nevertheless, what the honourable gentleman said is true. I referred the matter to the Australian Customs Service, and I am making no excuses. The Customs officers took the rather unusual view-I think it is a quite extraordinary view-that it might be better to allow the narcotics to proceed overseas so that, from an intelligence point of view, they might be able to trace the other people who might be interested in getting the baggage, or matters of that nature. I regarded that as being fallacious and to that extent I did have an objection to that view. My view now prevails. The Minister, my colleague, agrees with me, and there will be an alteration to the Act to cover any suggested loophole. I can understand the reasons raised about delay but, quite frankly, there was a conflict in the departments as to the need for the amendment, and originally it arose on the basis that a charge was not proceeded with when I think it could have been. That is the fundamental issue. The only thing to gather dust-I do not want to be too offensive to my colleague opposite because he did not have the real responsibility-was the effort to get extradition treaties, which were left in drawers at the time the Opposition was in government. We have negotiated 22 extradition treaties already, which is a record in view of the fact that only eight were ever negotiated in the previous 84 years of Federation. That gives honourable members an idea of how we should focus on the problems of crime. The honourable gentleman is right to raise the matter. We have to have negotiations, understandings, co-operation and treaties with other countries. We have also negotiated with a number of countries what are called mutual assistance treaties, particularly within the Commonwealth, and we will pick up 47 in one hit. We took the initiative and raised these matters at the Milan conference. We took the initiative at the conference in Zimbabwe to get them agreed to. We are also in the process of negotiating mutual assistance treaties with the United States of America and Switzerland which will be of untold benefit in a number of areas, not the least of which might relate, of course, to insider trading which is of some interest in view of recent happenings in Australia. I just make the point that the law needs to be fast, up to date and modern. We are in the process of doing this. Of course, at times the bureaucracy cannot see any need to change and that is a problem. We are having the same difficulties. If we are to talk about following the money trail, which we need to do, we want the financial institutions and structures in this nation to co-operate in what we would call the reporting of cash monetary transactions of $10,000 or more. Already they are objecting on the basis that it will be onerous and too difficult. But it is not too difficult or too onerous in the United States and we need their co-operation. At the moment that is the only thing that is holding us up from introducing further legislation which would relate to matters which I think are of paramount importance. I understand that the honourable gentleman is anxious that matters be proceeded with and so am I. I am hoping that those matters can certainly be brought to debate in this House early in the autumn session. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(6.12) —I take this opportunity to raise one matter with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). My recollection is-I do not have the report before me so I must rely upon my recollection-that the Director of Public Prosecutions, in his most recent report, referred to an interdepartmental study of the Costigan recommendations which I believe he said was included in about July last year. That interdepartmental examination has not seen the light of day. My recollection is that he said: `I was a member of it', that is, the Director of Public Prosecutions was a member of it, and that he would be interested in knowing what was happening. I raise that question again in the context of delay, just as I raised the Taillon amendment. I have heard what the Attorney-General has said. I am glad that we will have an amendment. I point out that we will not have one this session and, if there is any doubt on the subject, it will be one and a half years before that doubt is closed. It could be closed very quickly. Regardless of what views the bureaucrats may take amongst themselves as to what should be done, the Minister must make a decision. Ministers were aware of this problem back in July 1985. I would be very glad if the Attorney-General could indicate what is happening in regard to this interdepartmental examination of Costigan's recommendations, some of which go back, I believe, to as late as the latter part of 1983 and all of which were included in his final report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.14) —I certainly arranged for the Director of Public Prosecutions to be a member of the interdepartmental committee. As I understand the position, the IDC could not really agree on a number of matters. For example, the Australian Taxation Office is adamant that section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, the secrecy provisions, should not be altered to comply with what Mr Costigan recommended. Also, at that stage-this is not a criticism of Treasury-the view of Treasury on the IDC was that it would be inappropriate, unwieldy or cumbersome to have access to financial transactions. This is one of the views we have tried to change. That view is supported by the financial institutions themselves. They regard it as being difficult and cumbersome. That is one of the big factors and it is the only matter that is outstanding at present. From my point of view, I see complete validity in what Mr Costigan has recommended. Other departments see legislation which is being passed by the Parliament as giving certain secrecy provisions and confidentiality to returns such as this and they do not think the law ought to be altered. I think we will be debating that matter quite fulsomely in autumn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the House take note of the paper. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(6.15) —No issue is of greater importance to the world than the issue of peace and security. In our nuclear age disarmament and arms control are issues involving our very survival on earth. It is the gravest responsibility of any government to do all it can to defend peace so that our ideals of freedom and justice can thrive in an environment of security. The aspiration to banish the spectre of nuclear war is shared by all civilised human beings for we are faced with a basic truth. Stated simply and eloquently by President Reagan it is: A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Although the coalition disagrees with a number of areas in the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence that is before the Parliament now, the fact that it has been presented to the Parliament underscores the deep concern that all of us in this House, and indeed in the Parliament, have for such crucial issues. But preserving peace means more than avoiding catastrophe. In our pursuit of peace and arms control we must not forget our responsibility to do our part in defending our values in a world where free societies are the exception and not the norm. We are committed to arms control but it is a commitment based on neither naivete nor wishful thinking. It is based on the conviction that whatever the difference between ourselves as a member of the Western alliance and the Soviet Union, we share a profound and overriding common interest in the avoidance of nuclear war and the survival of the human race. A responsible disarmament policy must include both strong deterrence and active pursuit of arms control to restrain competition and make the world safer. But we must understand that our endeavour to control armaments and their proliferation does not operate in a vacuum. It is but a dimension of international politics and cannot be divorced from its political context. Arms control cannot resolve the geopolitical and ideological conflicts that lead to competitive arming in the first place. By itself, it cannot deliver security or prevent war. Arms, of course, are the product, not the cause, of East-West tensions. Disarmament can be successfully achieved only when these tensions are eliminated. In this regard we applaud the determination of the United States of America to press the Soviet Union for progress in resolving regional issues and for better respect for human rights. Without these it is difficult to build the confidence necessary for arms control negotiations to be successful. While arms control agreements themselves can contribute to reducing tensions, basic stability must underlie the political relations between the super-powers or else the process of arms control may not even survive. Of course, we have to be realistic. The nuclear age cannot be undone or abolished. As Secretary of State Shultz said last week in Chicago, it is `a permanent reality'. Nuclear knowledge is now universal. It is growing and it is irreversible. However, although the threat of nuclear conflict can never be wholly eradicated, it can be vastly diminished. Our arms control efforts must be guided by four basic objectives: Firstly, reductions; secondly, equality; thirdly, stability; and, fourthly, verifiability. Let me deal briefly, firstly, with reductions. The agreements we seek should not merely aim at freezing existing levels of weapons and forces but must actually constrain the military capabilities of the super-powers and substantially reduce their weaponry and forces. The second objective is equality. These reductions should result in equal or equivalent levels of forces on both sides. An agreement that legitimises an unequal balance of forces creates instability and actually increases the risk of conflict. The third objective is stability. Arms control measures must genuinely enhance the stability of deterrence in crises. This means that after reductions each side's retaliatory force should be secure enough to survive if the other side strikes first. Hence, under stable conditions the temptation to fire first in a confrontation is minimised. Fourthly, verifiability: Arms control agreements must include provisions for effective verification of compliance by all parties. Experience has shown us that agreements lacking such provisions are futile and in themselves become a source of tension and mistrust. The net result must be unambiguous and effective provisions providing the maximum incentive for strict compliance. The subject of verification is a major area of the coalition's dissent with the Sub-committee's report before the Parliament. The report failed to provide sufficient emphasis on the massive barriers to progress in disarmament and arms control which arise from the closed and secretive nature of Soviet society and the consequent impossibility of assessing arms control compliance when, in the USSR, the very means of verification are withheld. Verification involves the means to observe and detect an opponent's adherence, and compliance involves the adherence, whether detected or not. Both are equally critical. Proposals have to build confidence. In the jargon of the disarmament professionals, they must be transparent. They must be devised in such a way that the participants can be confident that the agreements that they enter into will be fully honoured by treaty partners. If agreements do not contain proper verification and compliance measures they are doomed to be ineffective. Soviet intransigence on critical verification issues constitutes a major and continuing barrier to progress towards genuine disarmament. The Soviets fail to accept verification measures where they really count-in chemical weapons, nuclear weapons and nuclear tests. Moscow's continued obduracy on on-site inspection raises the obvious and worrying question: What do the Soviets have to hide? Bluntly speaking, meaningful arms control cannot be achieved without compliance, and compliance is impossible to determine in a closed society like the USSR without verification. While proposing the complete abolition of nuclear weapons by the year 2000, Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev has not indicated even in the most general terms how such a ban would be verified. This is not a trivial point, since cheating becomes far more dangerous as nuclear weapons levels move towards zero. When cheating becomes more dangerous, verification becomes more important and must involve a commitment to agree to intrusive verification procedures, procedures which the Soviets to date have always totally opposed. Adequate verification is not merely a slogan, or an optional extra. Rather, it is a crucial factor in any disarmament agreement. Verification is in everyone's interest. The acceptance of obligations under an arms control agreement is in itself a recognition that states are willing to circumscribe their sovereign rights in this regard. Verification may appear to be a further encroachment on sovereignty, but it is only by accepting such measures that arms control can be effective and confidence would strengthen between states. It is imperative for the sake of arms control that we make it clear to the Soviets that a record of strict and literal compliance is essential to continuation of the arms control process. We categorically reject another of the primary assumptions upon which this report is based, namely, the equation of the two super-powers on the same moral level. The adoption of such a spurious `evenhandedness' defies not only history but morality and our basic national security interests. A further significant flaw in the report which cannot pass without comment is the incoherence in its analysis of what is necessary to ensure that deterrence is effective. We agree that the stress must be on the importance of avoiding nuclear war. That has to be the stress. But the disarmament process is only one part of the answer. The other is the continuing role of a viable deterrence policy. Deterrence serves as the essential regulating principle for arms control. There then follows from deterrence the ideal of disarmament, that is, a symmetrical diminution of nuclear stockpiles so that they may continue to deter each other as they are reduced. Australia's own security is intimately bound up with the security of the Western alliance and the viability of deterrence. The most menacing threat to Western security is weakness. Any scheme for dealing with the nuclear balance that would disarm, even in part, only one side or upset the balance between the two sides would leave us more, not less, exposed. In any discussion on disarmament we have to avoid the temptation-indeed, we would say the folly-of assuming that unilateral concessions and restraints on the part of the Western alliance would inspire reciprocal restraints from the Soviet Union. The West's capacity to succeed on arms control is, in our view, contingent upon and underwritten by its strength, its resolve and its ability to convey to the Soviet leadership its ability to deter, its capacity to seek new means of deterrence and its unity of purpose. Deterrence at this time remains the only effective and viable restraint to nuclear conflict. The report gives inadequate recognition, in our view, to the defence capabilities required in the Western alliance for deterrence to be realistic and effective. It gives inadequate recognition to the fact that the international deterrent has played the pivotal role in preventing world war for the past 41 years. We must pursue every responsible path leading to reduced world tension and to disarmament. In pursuing a more stable world, however, we remain consistent in our belief that Australia's relationship within the Western alliance is absolutely fundamental to our position in international relations. We, of course, must recognise that Western unity, in our view, is a vital prerequisite for arms control progress and for ensuring that the Soviets negotiate seriously. When the West is in disarray, it only encourages the Soviets to prolong negotiations and to seek every opportunity to exploit divisions within the Western alliance. I now wish to turn briefly to the report's assessment of the strategic defence initiative. The coalition rejects the report's negative assessment of the SDI research programs and its recommendation that Australia not participate in such research. We should be very clear that the strategic defence initiative offers the possibility of a better, more stable deterrence based on defences that are survivable. It has the moral aim of substituting a non-nuclear defence system to combat a nuclear offensive system. I underline that it is an endeavour to substitute a non-nuclear defence system to combat a nuclear offensive system. It is a necessary and prudent response to the Soviet Union's own intense research into similar technologies. However, the report before us, in which we participated, fails to sufficiently emphasise such Soviet research. Since the 1960s the Soviet Union has been engaged in research into advanced technologies for strategic defence, including high energy lasers, particle beam weapons, radio frequency and kinetic energy weapons. These are the same technologies that the West, after more than 17 years of Soviet research, is now embarking upon. History is littered with examples of sceptics of progress. How many times in our history has human ingenuity overcome human expectations and even expert predictions? To take just a few examples, Thomas Edison forecast: Fooling around with alternating currents is just a waste of time, nobody will use it-ever. Admiral William Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, in 1945 warned: The atomic bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives. One scientist argued in 1932: There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. That scientist was Albert Einstein. So, SDI technology is in its infancy. It goes without saying that the research requires major technological breakthroughs but, if successful, it offers us all the hope of an historic transition to a world in which the most sophisticated technologies can be applied against weapons of mass destruction and not against people. It provides an incentive to the Soviets to agree to deep reductions in offensive weapons, and to honour these agreements in the future. (Extension of time granted) I thank the House for its courtesy and shall ensure that I do not hold up the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) much longer. I thank my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) for his continuing co-operation. SDI's purpose is quite clear. It is not for the purpose of aggression, as its critics argue, but is rather for the purpose of strengthening deterrence by denying the potential rewards of aggression. It is consistent with present treaty obligations, including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. When the Soviets expressed to the Americans at Reykjavik their concern that SDI would be exploited to their disadvantage, President Reagan responded with an offer to share the benefits of strategic defence. It offers us all a potential key in unlocking a new future in arms control. In the few minutes remaining, I want to turn to an area of direct concern to Australia, and a subject of the report to which the coalition cannot agree. In particular, we do not accept the report's recommendation that the South Pacific nuclear free zone enhances our security. We reject the report's overly optimistic assessment of the benefits to Australia. The zone can only upset the global balance by contributing to a weakening of the West's nuclear alliance. It undermines existing security arrangements-particularly ANZUS-and thereby leads to an overall reduction in regional security. A nuclear war, wherever it occurred, would have catastrophic consequences for Australia, for there is no escape in nuclear free zones and in simply wishing we could opt out. The report implicitly denies the likelihood of a deteriorating regional environment and the consequences for Australia, and quite unnecessarily legislatively constrains our ability to respond to what conceivably could be a radically altered strategic environment. The Government, in supporting this Treaty, has placed itself apart from its responsibility to maintain a united resistance to the expansion of Soviet power. It has failed to appreciate that a principal Soviet aim throughout the post-war period has been to divide the Western alliance. The Soviet Union has always tried to develop and exploit differences within the Western alliance, leaving us to negotiate among ourselves while it sits back and waits for unilateral concessions that it need not reciprocate. The Soviet Union must understand that efforts to divide the Western alliance will not work, for unity is essential to the success of any East-West arms negotiations. The issues we are dealing with are exceptionally difficult and complex. Arms control is never easy, and it is important to keep expectations in check. Reykjavik confirmed that negotiations would continue to be difficult as long as the Soviet Union attempts to hold progress on intermediate range and strategic nuclear arms hostage to movement in SDI research. Ultimate success in arms reduction efforts depends on a credible deterrent; strong, united alliances; responsible international behaviour by the Soviets; and a willingness by all to compromise in recognition of our overriding mutual interest in the survival of civilisation. I conclude by thanking the Chairman and members and senators who have worked so hard on this momentous document. We have put in our dissenting report and others have dissented from the majority report, but together we have sought to put before the Australian people some differing views and in some cases some united views on the overridingly important subject of disarmament. I join the others who spoke yesterday in thanking Dr Graham Cheeseman, the defence adviser to the Sub-committee, and Dr Lee Kerr, Secretary to the Committee, as well as the other staff who assisted in compiling the report. It is a report which, despite our differences, can only serve to enhance constructive and, I trust, meaningful debate on this crucial subject. Mr KENT(Hotham)(6.35) —I was a party to the minority report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence that was criticised yesterday by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) as some Socialist Left conspiracy against the Western alliance. I listened carefully to the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), who asserted the same moral superiority of the West. It was his view that the majority report did not assert that enough. I found the report faulty because it asserted so much the moral superiority of the West. Who is to judge moral superiority? I give the recent example of the Iranian arms sales. Does that demonstrate the moral superiority of a Western power which professes to fight terrorists, to not negotiate with terrorists and to not give an inch to terrorists, and asks everybody else in the alliance to behave in that way? We find that, whether with or without the knowledge of the President, arms were sold to Iran and the $46m profit from that arms sale to the Ayatollah was given to terrorist insurgents on the Nicaraguan border to plunder and kill in a country which has suffered long enough from the Samozan dictatorship supported by the United States. Is that moral superiority? I do not know. I object to and condemn the Soviet intrusion into Afghanistan but I do not think that the American intervention in Vietnam was in any way morally superior to that Soviet incursion into Afghanistan. I do not think that we can pontificate, saying that all in the West is good and all in the East is bad. We may wish to start off from that premise and then talk about arms reduction, but of course we cannot achieve that because we cannot trust the other side. Recently I listened to the American Special Representative for Disarmament Negotiations, Ambassador Rowny, who was espousing exactly the same view as that put out by the honourable member for Kooyong, saying that we cannot trust the other side; there is no verification. Of course if we go for nuclear disarmament, what about conventional armaments? Every reason was put forward why there should not be disarmament step by step, and the honourable member for Kooyong found every reason why we should escalate. In my opinion the only answer to the arms race is disarmament. There is no other way. The theory of deterrence is nothing else but step by step escalation. We are trying to talk people into believing that there will be no more escalation, that there will be de-escalation, because we have now a new defence initiative-the strategic defence initiative, or Star Wars project, of the United States. Of course that is defensive. SDI does not attack anybody. SDI, if it is successful, will just knock the sword from the opponents hand. But, at the same time, the power that does that still holds in its other hand the sword of all its nuclear might. Who guarantees that one side-the moral goodies, the West-will not use its nuclear arms under the shield of SDI to start a war against another super-power? Who can guarantee that, especially in view of the fact that it was not the Soviet Union that used the atomic bomb, it was the United States. Of course it was a small experiment-- Mr White —They did not exactly start the war, did they? Mr KENT —No, they did not, but they used an atomic bomb as an experiment, not on nice white people in Europe but on a somewhat differently regarded race of people far away. They were the ones who used the atomic weapons. They killed 200,000 people in Hiroshima. They killed and maimed. It was a horrible weapon that they used. They unleashed that power on humanity. It is said that SDI is a good thing because it will knock the sword out of the enemy's hand. How does that go with deterrence? Deterrence is based on both parties having a sword but neither party using it because each is afraid of the other's sword. Now honourable members opposite wish to propagate SDI to knock the sword from the hands of those whom they consider enemies. I do not look on them as enemies. I look on them as super-powers who can with their armories destroy this planet. I do not care who starts it or who finishes it. We will not be here to judge it. Our children and our grandchildren will not be here to judge who was right and who was wrong. People must take their destiny in their hands and try to intervene. They should not leave this matter to politicians and negotiators-to Rownys, Gromykos, Reagans or Gorbachevs. I do not trust any of them when it comes to that. One has only to remember the arms negotiations between the two world wars. Mr Hodgman —Whose side are you on? Mr KENT —I am on humanity's side. I know whose side the honourable member is on. He wants to win the war. He will not win it, and that is what I am conscious of. No matter whose side we are on, if it comes to a nuclear war no one will win. All of us will be destroyed. That is the problem. It is no good taking a high moral stand, saying that the intervention in the Dominican Republic was okay because it was a Western power that was involved. It is no good saying that arming the Contras in Nicaragua is all right but the Soviet presence in Afghanistan is wrong. It is no good saying that the intervention in Vietnam, the sending of 500,000 Americans into that small country to kill millions, was morally right. Honourable members opposite talk about the two blocs. The honourable member for Kooyong said that the communist world wants to divide us. There is nothing more divided than the communist world. We should just look at China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and see how divided they are. Who is dividing whom? These arguments are childish. The only argument that holds water in the age of nuclear weapons, the atomic age, is to outlaw those weapons and get rid of them before it is too late, and to get to that position through verified de-escalation. It is no good saying that the super-powers do not trust each other. Of course they do not trust each other. That is the way they are. The Russians do not trust the Americans either. I do not trust anybody in this super-power business. Why should I? They are all looking after their own interests. They look after only their own interest, not yours, not mine, and not those of the ordinary people. Ambassador Rowny said: `Of course, the Soviet Union is a closed society and it needs an enemy; otherwise it cannot maintain the living standard of the people there'. I tell honourable members that the American industrialists also need an enemy because if peace breaks out tomorrow their industries will stop. There would be an economic crisis and a drop in living standards which they would not be able to explain. We can put the argument both ways. It is not good enough to say that the Soviet Union needs an enemy and that that is why we cannot trust it. The Pentagon also needs an enemy. The industrial-military complex in America needs an enemy to maintain the armaments industry. If there were no enemy, of course, if there were disarmament, and peace were to break out suddenly, without warning, somehow, the industry in the Western world would have another look at what it would do, what the metalworkers and others would do. Yesterday there were attacks on the three of us who brought down a minority report, both from the other side of the House and also from our side. It was interesting to note in the Hansard that the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) in introducing the report said: It should also be noted that the dissents to the reports are all from the so-called Left and Right of the political spectrum. I have therefore concluded that the report will be substantially supported by the vast majority of Australians. As an old political saying states: If you are being attacked from both extremes of the political fence, you must have done something right. Let me convey to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to my colleagues that we did not attack the report; we were critical of some aspects of it. I do not consider myself to be from either the extreme Left or the extreme Right. I just consider myself to be one of those people who believe that if we do not take our destiny in our own hands on the issue of peace, if we leave these matters to the former captains who are trying to interject, the people who wore military uniforms with such pride, as though that were the biggest achievement in their lives, we will be leaving them to people who would lead us into a holocaust. Mr Spender —Yes, and thank God for them. Where would you be, where would we all be, without them? Mr KENT —To my lawyer friend who is interjecting, I say that if I wanted to hear from an arsehole I would fart myself. So he had better stop that. I do not have to listen to it. I am trying seriously to-- Mr Hodgman —I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark. It was quite offensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I think the language was unparliamentary and I ask the honourable member to withdraw it. Mr KENT —The language was exactly the language of the primary school I visited the other day, and that is the language the Opposition often uses. I cannot see that the language- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to resume his seat for one moment. I think it would be appropriate for the dignity of the Parliament if he would withdraw. Mr KENT —I think that the interjections were unwarranted and that provoked me. However, I withdraw without any reservations. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask for some restraint to be shown in relation to the matter of interjections as well. Mr KENT —I think we are discussing a fairly serious matter, a report which I did not support in every aspect. However, I would say that many people put a lot of work into it, people who seriously desire to find a way out of the morass in which we in the twentieth century find ourselves. I believe that all the people who worked on this report had the intention to produce something which would give guidance. If I am critical of it I am critical only of some aspects, mainly because of the assertion that everything the West is doing is correct and everything that is happening on the other side is wrong. I do not think we can come to that judgment if we read history. After all, today there are people in the world fighting for their independence and fighting to achieve democracy, people who look for salvation to the Soviet Union, where there is no democracy, where there is not internal freedom in the sense that we know it; while the Americans use the Central Intelligence Agency to put down these people's revolts. The Americans, who have freedom and democracy in their own country, are not willing to tolerate it even on their own doorstep or nearby in Central America. They will not let the Nicaraguan people have the same freedoms that America achieved some 100 or more years ago. These are the issues I think we should look at and we should take a position. We should try to talk sense to the super-powers, we should try to achieve the complete outlawing of nuclear weapons to get rid of the shadow of that sword hanging over all of us. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(6.49) —What we have heard from the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) is the swansong of the Left. Let me put it in very blunt terms: Are we morally superior in the free countries? Yes, we are. Is the United States of America morally superior to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Yes, it is. Is democracy superior to dictatorship? Yes, it is. Is freedom superior to slavery? Yes, it is. Is the rule of law superior to the rule of the police state? Yes, it is. Are the pursuit of justice and the pursuit of freedom superior to systems that deny basic rights? Yes, they are. I hope that when the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) closes the debate for us he will deny what has been said by the honourable member for Hotham-we have heard it time and time again-about the two super-powers. The argument proceeds on a very simple basis: They are both bad and therefore they should be equally criticised, but let us focus our criticism on the United States. It is always that way. We hear very little criticism about the USSR. We will hear that it is a little wrong that there should be that minor incursion into Afghanistan, but we will hear a great deal about Vietnam. Nobody suggests that the United States is always right; nobody suggests that the free countries are always right, but they are free countries, and the USSR is a concentration camp-nothing less and nothing more-for the great majority of its citizens, with a few of those citizens living in great privilege. Let me take up another point that was made by the honourable member for Hotham. He was upset apparently by an interjection from one of my colleagues. He said, in effect: `Who are you, you captain?'. Honourable members may recall that there have been wars involving democracies but the last one, some time ago, was fought for what purpose? It was fought for the preservation of freedom. Why did we win it? We won it because people were willing to fight and die. Why will we stay free in the future? It is because people will still be willing to fight and die, for what? For all of its faults, for freedom because that is the only system which is worth while and that is the system that allows honourable members to sit in this House and to go on as though there were no distinction between other countries and the United States-a free country, a country which for all its faults, for all the faults which all the democracies have, strives for freedom, a people who strive for freedom, a society that is open, a society that moves, that changes, that reflects the aspirations of people, which is not what the other countries do and not what they would have us do. Mr Hayden —Some of our closest friends and allies do not meet the criteria you lay down for a free society. Mr SPENDER —We hear something from the Foreign Minister. I think his leftist sympathies, which he keeps cleverly hidden for the most part, are coming out. It is a great pity that this is not a broadcast day, because then we could hear a little more from him, and so could the Australian people. Whilst we are on this general subject, I ask again whether the Foreign Minister, when he wraps up this debate, will state whether it is his view that there is no difference in terms of morality between the system and the objectives of the United States and the system and the objectives of the USSR. There is a great difference, and it is a great pity that the honourable member for Hotham does not appear to acknowledge that fact. Let me say something else about the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which was referred to by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). The honourable member rightly pointed to the dangers inherent in that Treaty. What are some of the dangers? Let me outline them very briefly. The Treaty would prohibit Australia from offering home port facilities to the United States Navy or base facilities to United States nuclear capable aircraft and nuclear capable ground units. For example, in the event that a change of policy forces the United States to relinquish its naval base in the Philippines, we would be precluded, regardless of how vital it was in our national interest, from offering base facilities in Australia to the United States or, in the event of a war involving Australia, the Treaty continues to apply and it would, it seems, in law prevent us from offering base facilities to the US Navy or base facilities to US nuclear capable aircraft or nuclear capable ground units. The reason for that is very simple. The United States does not have a non-nuclear navy; it does not have non-nuclear ground forces; it does not have a non-nuclear air force. In general terms, most of its aircraft are nuclear capable, and for the convenience of its adversaries, since we are talking about adversaries, it does not signal very clearly which are nuclear capable, which are nuclear armed and which are not. There is one thing, however, on which we can all agree. We can all agree on the great problem posed by nuclear weapons. It is immense, and it is one of the great issues of our day because, by some means or other, in the decades to come, we must solve that problem. It is one that has interested me for many years. Over the last four or five years when I have gone to Washington, DC, I have seen Mr Paul Nitze on some four or five occasions. He is the special adviser to the President, the adviser whom, if newspaper reports are correct, the Foreign Minister had some difficulty in seeing. It was a difficulty that I did not experience. I hope the Foreign Minister sees him on other visits to Washington because the Minister could learn a great deal from him. In the debate we tend to focus simply on the difficulties of the nuclear negotiations between the United States and the USSR. There are major difficulties there, but one thing on which we should focus somewhat more is the problem presented by the proliferation of nuclear weapons to smaller states. In a sense that could be much more dangerous for the world than the great arsenals which the major powers presently have. The reason is very simple. The major powers have been living with these great arsenals for upwards of 30 years. They have managed things well enough, in the sense that there has been no use-indeed, no averred or possible use-of nuclear weapons. They understand the immense risks that nuclear weapons pose. What would be the consequence if nuclear weapons got into the hands of some of the regimes that exist around the world? One does not have to name the regimes in detail; one understands immediately what the problem is. There are inherent difficulties in the negotiations between the United States and the USSR. Let me name just a few. First, one has to determine what is in and what is out; what is counted for the purpose of negotiations and what is not counted. Next there is the problem of the differing view, the differing force structure, between the United States and the USSR. The United States relies on its trio-that is, submarine launched ballistic missiles, land based ballistic missiles and its air force. If one looks at the figures on the military balance issued for 1986-87 by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, one immediately sees the problem. The US has a total of 2,110 deployable intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Soviets have some 6,420 ICBMs. That, of course, raises a very real difficulty in negotiations. The Americans have a greater spread; the USSR has a greater concentration on ICBMs. When I saw Mr Nitze in the middle of last year I was struck by something that he said, and I will repeat it here because amongst Australians, amongst people in the democracies, there is a sense of frustration, a feeling that all we need is an agreement, whatever that agreement may be. Of course, it is extraordinarily dangerous to come to an agreement simply for the purpose of coming to one. After all, we have had only two agreements-SALT I and SALT II. We know that SALT II was regarded by many as an agreement which was fatally flawed. Mr Nitze said: The problem with negotiation on behalf of not only a democracy, but a coalition of democracies is that democracies want to progress so fast that they get impatient when things drag on, when the only way you can get a result is to be able to sit in the negotiations one day longer than the other fellow is willing to sit. That's easy if you're running a totalitarian state in a totalitarian alliance, but it isn't easy for a series of democracies. That remains as true now as it was when he said it. Let me add a reference to what I said in August 1985 in an article I wrote in the Age. Looking at the prospects for nuclear negotiations leading to a treaty I said: First we can put to one side for a very long time the prospect of abolition of nuclear weapons. I do not think there would be any doubt about that. We would all like to see nuclear weapons abolished but it will not take place, at least for a very long time: Next, we must not expect a quick agreement. On present signs, there is little prospect of anything substantial happening this year. That was in 1985, and the same holds true for 1986. It may be that there will be a breakthrough, and that would be a very great achievement, but if one looks to a breakthrough one has to bear certain things in mind. First, the arsenals presently available are huge and therefore even a cut of say 50 per cent would not in any real sense make a great difference to the devastation that one side could inflict on another or that nuclear weapons overall could inflict. The second thing that must be borne in mind, along with the remarks of the honourable member for Kooyong, is the difficulties posed by verification. The difficulties are made even more exigent these days with the increasing number of small weapons, in particular the cruise systems. Third, we need to understand that negotiations on nuclear weapons have to be tied in the longer term to negotiations on other systems. There is between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation pact countries and the Warsaw pact countries a very severe imbalance of forces. Whether one is looking at ground forces, air forces, tanks or troops, the balance favours greatly and dangerously the Warsaw pact countries. We must move down the path of negotiations in a way which reflects the realities of the nuclear age. We cannot uninvent nuclear weapons, no matter how much we would like to. Since we have to live with them, just as we have to live with conventional forces, we must negotiate with a sense of reality and purpose, and an understanding that there are no quick solutions. If we are to maintain our freedoms it is essential that at the same time as we negotiate for reductions in nuclear arms, we maintain the strength of our conventional forces. The great distinction, aside from the freedoms, between the democracies and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is that we do not seek to increase our power at the expense of others. We seek to safeguard rights. The Soviets seek to increase their power at the expense of others, and care not at all for the rights of others. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 14 October, on the following paper presented by Mr Beazley: Defence Budget-Ministerial Statement, 14 October 1986. and on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the House take note of the papers. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(7.05) —I shall keep my remarks short as I understand the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) wishes to speak in this debate. I wish to concentrate on one aspect of the ministerial statement on the defence budget. The fact is that at the moment the defences of Australia are in a state of limbo and are suffering from a lack of direction and purpose. I am pleased to see a former Minister for Defence present in the chamber, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes). If any proof is needed as to the problems besetting the Defence Force, one has only to look at the high rate of resignations which characterise the Defence Force at present. The Defence Force figures at the end of September were the lowest they have been since the Vietnam war. In the nine months of this year to the end of September the resignation rate of male officers from the Services was up 46 per cent on figures for the same period in 1985, and up 13 per cent on the whole of 1985. I would say to anyone who says that there are no real problems in the Defence Force that whatever the great concept of this Government may be, the Government is running out of people to carry it out. That is of great concern to us all. One of the reasons for the resignations is that the personnel concerned are not sure what the Government wants. We hear speeches such as that recently made by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent). He comes into the chamber within the security of the Australian democracy and all that it implies, and proceeds to tip buckets on the United States of America as though it is America's fault that we have nuclear powers in this world. He does not seek to share the blame at least between America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That sort of attitude is making members of the Defence Force worry how far this Government intends to carry the pacifist approach. I am not saying that all members of the Government share that view. I know they do not, but it characterises too often the sorts of debates that take place in this House and outside that pacificism at all costs is to be the objective. It started with the Vietnam war in recent years when members of the Government actively supported the Vietnamese at a time when Australian troops were still in Vietnam, and to some extent that attitude has carried through from that day. The attitude aims at peace at all costs-not bilateral and unilateral disarmament. There is nothing immoral about bearing arms in the defence of one's country. That is the point I wish to make and on which I take great issue with the member for Hotham. It is a profession of great honour. The Government's first priority should be to defend its territories and its people. If one is to carry out that role, obviously one needs a defence force. The Government appears to have a problem between the Department of Foreign Affairs, which seems to take the line of pacifism, in some cases at all costs, and the Department of Defence which is trying to put some credibility into our defence forces. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), not so much recently but in the last couple of years, has had a flirtation with attempts to bring Vietnam into the brotherhood of South East Asia, and has failed. That sort of attitude causes great confusion in the minds of our defence forces. The Department of Foreign Affairs also objects to displays of arms and equipment in this country, but against that I commend the Government and the Minister for the decision to build submarines in this country. I regard that as a great step forward. It may be that apart from giving Australian industry a much needed shot in the arm, it will be the basis of a defence industry in Australia. The Government must take a lead and say to members of the Defence Force: `We want you; we need you; we will stop assaulting you; we will stop taxing the Reserves and doing all the other things that have made the servicemen of this country doubt the determination of the Government-- Mr Lindsay —The tax has been removed. Mr WHITE —Of course it has but it should never have been put on in the first place. The honourable member, above all people, knows that, and so does the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). That tax should never have been put on because it caused great dissension and doubt about the Government's role and motives in looking after members of the Defence Force. On the question of pacificism and defeatism, I wish to mention briefly the Government's attitude to the Australian War Memorial, because it is germane to this discussion. If one looks at the members of the Australian War Memorial Council whom this Government has failed to reappoint and then looks at some of the members it has appointed, one finds that there is no doubt that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has tried to politicise that Council and is still in the process of doing so. Admiral Synnot was not reappointed as Chairman of the Council. Mr Davenport, Mr Woolan and Mr Corcoran were not reappointed. Mr Corcoran was about to board an aeroplane to fly to a Council meeting when he was sacked on the spot. All these people had very strong, firm views about the place of the Australian War Memorial in our community. Now those people have gone and in their place are people such as Mrs Elaine Darling. I am sure that her views are genuinely held, but they are not my views and I would take issue with them. Mrs Darling is trying to turn the War Memorial into some sort of peace museum and to make it a venue for peace rallies. That does not sit well with me when I remember all the men and women who died in defending this country. Mr Beale —Politicising it. Mr WHITE —There is a politicising going on in the War Memorial and I object very strongly to it, as I do to the sort of pacifism and defeatist attitude that we see among some members of the Government when they talk about defence. Strong defence is the best way to avoid war and we should take great pride in having people bearing arms in the defence of their country. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(7.13) —The debate on the statement made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in this House on 14 October 1986 has been somewhat wide-ranging, but the defence of our beloved country is a wide-ranging issue. The Minister for Defence in opening his statement made reference to what I believe to be the essential part of our defence policy. He said: The defence policy of this Government is to pursue a disciplined relationship between strategy and force structure within the constraints of what is financially feasible in a period of economic stringency. Indeed, since the election of the Hawke Government, the average rate of increase of expenditure in real terms has been 2.7 per cent. In contrast the average rate of expenditure on defence in real terms under the Fraser Government was just under 2.5 per cent. Since the election of the Hawke Government it has recorded the highest expenditure on defence since the Vietnam war. Despite the promises that were implied for increased defence expenditure in the 1976 White Paper, even the Fraser Government never fulfilled its solemn commitment to the defence forces of our country to provide a Defence Force structure and a capital equipment program that would meet not only the strategic needs of our country but also the concept of self reliance, which was, in part, adopted by the 1976 White Paper. It was also a response to the commitment required by America's allies on the announcement of the Guam Doctrine by President Nixon. So the Hawke Government has much to be proud of. It has increased defence expenditure on an average of at least 2.7 per cent in real terms since its election to office. Above all, I wish to place on record the commitment of this Government to the alliance with the United States of America. Australia is, under the Hawke Government, a firm, dedicated and guaranteed ally of the US. This Government has the utmost respect for the US and for its commitment to the defence of the free world and democracy, and, indeed, its commitment to the defence of its allies in the Pacific region. I stand proudly tonight-- Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(7.15) —I rise in this House tonight to comment on vandalism of public telephones, which is a social problem of great concern to many constituents in my electorate. I suspect that it is also a matter of great concern to many of my colleagues. Telecom Australia has provided data for the year 1985-86 which shows that $19m was spent on maintenance of public telephones throughout Australia, with an estimated $8m to $10m of that directly attributable to vandalism and damage caused by theft of equipment and coinage. There can be little satisfaction for the people of New South Wales to learn that, of that Australia-wide figure of $8m to $10m for vandalism and theft-related repairs, $6m, or about two-thirds, occurs in New South Wales. I am informed that there are 12,100 public telephones throughout Australia and that, because of damage, about 1,000 of those are out of order at any one time. I do not know about other honourable members, but I constantly receive complaints from my constituents that often they have to tour their suburb looking for a public telephone in working order. I have checked that out myself and I know that it is true. It is very difficult to find a public telephone in working order in the Manly-Warringah area at any one time. Mr Young —What about at the Harbord Diggers? Mr MacKELLAR —The public telephones in the Harbord Diggers are only available to members of that club and it has a very wide membership. Many people believe that all 1,000 of those unserviceable telephones are located in the area in which they are looking. I understand that more detailed figures are not available for vandalised and theft-related damage, but Telecom tells me that it undertook a survey of thefts from public telephones in the Chatswood district in Sydney over the 12 months to June 1986. In that period 255 phones were robbed in that area, with almost every piece of equipment subsequently needing substantial repairs. That rate of thieving is close to one theft every 1 1/2 days, a rate which, nationally, would explain why 1,000 public telephones are unserviceable at any one time. I am told that the revenue from public telephones in 1985-86 was $73m, of which $24m came from New South Wales. Therefore in New South Wales there are about 4,000 public telephones earning $24m income but requiring in excess of $6m in maintenance a year to repair vandalised and theft-related damage. I have not been given any estimates for the actual loss of coinage from thieving, but it must run into many millions of dollars. These are the physical and financial costs. But of equal concern must be the emotional cost of the inconvenience caused to a community that cannot readily get access to a serviceable public telephone. When these intangible costs are added to the actual repair bills and the loss of coinage, Telecom, the Australian taxpayers and those seeking to use public telephones are facing very serious problems. I am confident that Telecom is giving this matter much consideration and I understand and appreciate that there are virtually no easy solutions, particularly when one acknowledges the social problems that are very likely at the core of this thieving and vandalism. However, I wish to point out to the House that the public telephone is such an important means of communication for so many people that a solution must be found to substantially reduce the incidence of vandalism as such and also of damage resulting from the theft of coinage. In that light I wish to suggest that Telecom should consider the installation of STD public telephones only in very secure locations and that all other public telephones give access to local calls only on a no-charge basis. Such an arrangement would mean that most public telephones would not need to collect coins and thereby remove a very strong incentive of theft. I notice in my area that theft is the main reason for vandalism of the public telephones. I know I speak with the full support of my constituents in offering to have a selected area of my electorate used as a pilot project to conduct a cost-benefit evaluation of such a scheme. This is not a stupid suggestion, it is a very reasonable suggestion. I hope that Telecom will take it up. There is nothing more annoying, damaging or downright dangerous than to have the public telephone system destroyed by wanton vandalism or theft. It is a matter of great significance to thousands upon thousands of people throughout Australia and in my electorate. I urge Telecom to give this suggestion the very closest consideration. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the Minister asking to make a personal explanation? Mr YOUNG —Yes. Very briefly, on the television news this evening and I understand on some radio stations there is a suggestion that I, in some way, attempted to involve the Pope in a domestic political debate. My reference, of course, was to an extremely important statement made today by His Holiness on Australia's industrial relations system. Whilst I was anxious to draw the attention of the House to His Holiness's statement, I had no wish to involve him in any domestic political debate. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(7.22) —I believe the Queensland Association for Sri Lankan Unity has again circulated a document about me to honourable members. This time it did not have the courtesy to send me a copy. I can only assume that Griffith University has tightened up on who uses its postal facilities. The group has taken exception to a speech made by me on 19 September. I stand by everything I said in that speech. The group also appears upset that I identified the analyst of my speeches. The problems with groups such as the Queensland Association for Sri Lankan Unity is that they are so unsure of themselves that they will not identify themselves. This is different from, say, the Tamil groups who always identify themselves by signing their letters. While the Queensland Association for Sri Lankan Unity continues to operate in its underhand, shadowy way, it must accept that it and its publications will be treated as apologists for the Sri Lankan Government. I now turn to another matter. More than 30 Sri Lankans have been reported missing since Amnesty International called on the Sri Lankan Government in September to set up an inquiry into alleged atrocities and abductions by the country's security forces. In a letter to the Sri Lankan Minister for National Security, the human rights organisation said it was gravely concerned that the Government appeared to have taken no action to clarify the fate of 272 cases already submitted to it by Amnesty International. The six page letter sent to the Minister said the Government should now consider inviting the United Nations Working Group on Disappearances to visit Sri Lanka to examine such cases in the country. Amnesty International said it was reacting to an earlier public government invitation for it to file legal action on such cases before the Sri Lankan courts so that witnesses to the arrests of people who have disappeared could be examined. Although the Government, in a statement issued by its Media Centre on 29 September, had offered to guarantee the safety of witnesses filing petitions in the Sri Lankan courts, Amnesty International said nearly all relatives or other witnesses who had contacted it in such cases had expressed fears of reprisals if their identities were disclosed. In a report issued on 10 September, Amnesty International said that existing legal measures available in the Sri Lankan courts could not give effective relief to relatives searching for the disappeared. It said independent, impartial machinery was needed to investigate the cases, with powers to protect witnesses. Amnesty International said the Government had an internationally recognised obligation to take effective measures to clarify disappearances. A letter to the Minister of National Security said that, by inviting the United Nations Working Group on Disappearances to visit Sri Lanka, the Government could `substantially alleviate the sorrow and anguish of the families who, till now, have searched in vain for their relatives who have disappeared'. The Government's earlier statement criticised Amnesty International for not referring in its report to information on disappearances that the Sri Lankan authorities had already submitted to the United Nations, but Amnesty International said it had never been sent the information by the Government and its three most recent urgent requests for this information had received no government reply. I call on the Sri Lankan Government to respond to the report by Amnesty International on disappearances in Sri Lanka. I appeal to the Sri Lankan Government to reply as quickly as possible. Amnesty International has already waited for two months for the Sri Lankan Government to reply to this document. It has not replied. For it to maintain its standing in the international community there is an obligation on it to reply to the report. I think the families of the almost 300 disappeared Sri Lankans deserve an explanation from the Sri Lankan Government. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.25) —Last Friday, 21 November, was an historic day and certainly a most important day for all those who believe in the ultimate goal of freedom of the Baltic states-Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. In particular, I draw to the attention of the House that last Friday, 21 November, in order to celebrate the sixty-eighth anniversary of the declaration of independence of the Republic of Latvia, the Consul of Latvia in Tasmania and Victoria, Mr and Mrs Emils Delins, held a reception in Hobart at the McGregor Room of Lenna of Hobart which, as honourable members know, is one of Tasmania's finest hotels. Mr Emils Delins, who is well known to the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), is the continuing Consul for Latvia, having succeeded Mr Marconis, who was the Consul for Latvia from 1931 until his death. It is significant that, following the death of Mr Marconis, the Fraser Government accorded continuing recognition to the Consulate of Latvia in Tasmania and Victoria and recognised the appointment of Mr Emils Delins as Honorary Consul of Latvia in Tasmania and Victoria. That recognition has been continued by the present Government. To the best of my knowledge, it is the only example of a continuing consular representation, certainly in this part of the world and possible in the world at large. It is a very significant one because it is a representation which continues and in which, both personally and through his office, Mr Delins encapsulates the hopes and desires of many Australian Latvians, along with their Lithuanian and Estonian brothers and sisters, that one day we will see those three Baltic states regain their freedom. I am delighted to say that it has been accepted on both sides of this House that the submissions of the Baltic Council that Australia continue to raise in the United Nations the plight of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have been agreed to. In fairness, I should add that in the Senate it is supported by the Australian Democrats and, most importantly, by the independent Tasmanian Senator, Senator Brian Harradine. I was honoured to attend the function in Hobart. It was an extremely impressive ceremony. Mr Delins, as Consul of Latvia in Tasmania and Victoria, addressed the gathering. In response, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly, the Hon. John Beattie, MHA, spoke representing the Premier of Tasmania and the Government of Tasmania. The Rt Hon. the Deputy Lord Mayor of Hobart was present, along with myself, Senator Brian Harradine and a number of other parliamentarians. Significantly, I believe every member of the consular corps in Tasmania was also represented. I know that the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) and the honourable member for Deakin will join with me in paying a tribute to Mr Emils Delins for the work he does as Consul of Latvia in Tasmania and Victoria. I also know that honourable members on both sides of the House will join with me in wishing for Mr Delins and all Latvian Australians that the freedom which was taken away from their republic as a result of the Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty in World War II will one day be restored to them. I also know that all honourable members in this House will support notice of motion No. 92 of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), which is very similar to a motion moved by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). Again I think we should tell the Soviet Union that on both sides of the House, to the best of my knowledge without exception, there is a very strong view that the Baltic states must regain their freedom and the Soviet Union must get out of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. I congratulate those honourable members on both sides of the House who support the Baltic question. I hope that one day the United Nations will do the right thing and demand that the Soviet military occupation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia cease and those republics be returned to freedom. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(7.31) —Tonight I pay a tribute to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for the magnificent way in which it has responded to the challenge to televise the historic visit to Australia of His Holiness Pope John Paul II. The visit to Australia by Pope John Paul II is the most extensive visit by a head of state since the 1954 tour of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It has offered the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, as host broadcaster, one of its biggest challenges. Because adequate coverage of the papal visit is beyond the capacity of any one television network, the Hawke Government has requested the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to act as host broadcaster, pooling the contributions of its own television studios and those of the commercial networks in every capital city. The host broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, has to ensure coverage of a visit involving 57 events at 48 locations in nine cities in 6 1/2 days. No fewer than 49 separate papal motorcades are involved. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has established a special host broadcasting unit based in Melbourne to arrange and co-ordinate coverage. The host broadcasting unit will see to the placing of 1,263 production staff, 61 outside broadcast vans, 309 television cameras, 568 microphones, 181 link systems and 31 helicopter flights-truly a gigantic logistic exercise. The host broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, will also make available for transmission by contributing broadcasters in excess of 56 hours of live coverage of the papal visit. An additional 8 1/2 hours of recorded coverage will also be made available on a delayed basis. The ABC television coverage of the papal tour began last Monday afternoon, 24 November, when His Holiness arrived in Canberra and was given an official welcome. That was followed by a 12 1/2 kilometre procession to the National Exhibition Centre at Mitchell, where the Pope celebrated mass. I had the pleasure and privilege of attending that mass. Highlights of that historic day's events were screened by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. This included the Pope's reception at Government House and his visit to Parliament House, where he met the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and had the opportunity of meeting other government leaders. I would like to record also that I had the privilege of being present in King's Hall in Parliament House, where I had the opportunity of hearing the magnificent speech by His Holiness Pope John Paul II, on what was the first visit of a Pope to the Australian Parliament. I would like to congratulate the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on its magnificent response to the invitation by the Federal Government to provide telecommunication facilities to record this historic visit by His Holiness Pope John Paul II to Australia. I would like to single out for particular mention Mr Howard Parker, the project director for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and Mr Allen Pridmore, the head of television production, for their skill and dedication in meeting these challenges to provide the logistic services. I am confident that, when the visit of His Holiness is concluded, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will be able to say that it has provided to this country and to its citizens the most illuminating, historical record of what is indeed a very historic visit. I cannot let this moment pass without also recording that today is the fiftieth anniversary of radio station 4QN based in Townsville. For 50 years radio station 4QN has provided entertainment and educational services. Indeed, it is the only radio link for many people living in remote parts of Queensland. I would like to congratulate the management and staff of radio 4QN on its magnificent contribution to Australian radio. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(7.37) —Tonight I want to address the House for a few minutes on the question of the increasing cost of Christmas presents, but before doing so I want to put it in the context of certain policies of the Federal Government. If ever there were a mark of a government in decline it would be this Government's ever-increasing number of broken promises. In 1983 the Government promised pensioners that their incomes would be increased to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings-a promise that has been dashed in the meantime. The Government promised pensioners that their incomes would not be affected, and then we had the ill fated introduction of the assets test. A general promise was made to veterans that consultation would always precede any amendments or changes to their entitlements. We had that inglorious day in this Parliament when we resumed for a one-day sitting to ram through legislation which affected every veteran in Australia. In 1983, the Government promised to reduce petrol prices by 3c a litre. Petrol prices have gone up since as a result of ever-increasing Federal taxes. We had that great promise in the 1983 election that there would be no capital gains tax. Of course, following the 1984 election, we had the introduction of Labor's capital gains tax. As an example of a broken promise within a broken promise, we had Labor spokesmen saying that family homes would not be subject to Labor's capital gains tax when the truth is that the homes of tens of thousands of Australian families will be subject to Labor's capital gains tax. In December 1984 we had one of those grand promises, since broken in grand style, that interest rates would be reduced in the forthcoming term of the Hawke Labor Government. Mr Beale —They sowed the seeds and they will reap the harvest. Mr REITH —That is right. The honourable member reminds me of the wonderful words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in referring to the alleged successful policies of the previous 20 months, when he said: `We have ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the very near future we will harvest the crop'. When that promise was made in November 1984 the prime rate was 13 1/2 per cent and it is now 18 1/2 per cent. The small overdraft rate was 14 1/2 per cent. It is now 6 per cent higher and stands at 20 1/2 per cent. The Bankcard rate stood at 18 per cent but now stands at 22 1/2 per cent. I started my speech by talking about the cost of Christmas presents. I did so because many low income people will find themselves requiring a personal loan to buy Christmas presents for their children and families for Christmas 1986. So, today I rang a number of finance companies, and the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), who is at the table, will be interested to know that these are finance companies situated in Canberra, for which he is essentially responsible. These are the rates that people in Canberra will be paying on personal finance. I inquired about loans of $2,000, with repayments over a 24-month period. For HFC Financial Services Limited the monthly payments were $131, with an effective interest rate of 36.42 per cent. Mr Beale —How much? Mr REITH —It was 36.42 per cent, with a total interest payment over the period of $938. Other people contacted today showed that interest rates are in the vicinity of 27 per cent, and in one example the interest payable over the period was $616. Interest rates have gone up and up since this Government was re-elected and the people who will feel the bite and the disadvantage of Labor's deliberate policy of high interest rates will be those very people in respect of whom Labor claims a monopoly of compassion. A deliberate policy of high interest rates affects low income people, and those people will be feeling the impact of Labor's high interest rates as they purchase Christmas presents at the end of this year. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(7.42) —I would like to take just a few moments in the House tonight to raise a matter which was touched on in Question Time in an answer given by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) to a question which, as I recall, was asked by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). It concerned, at least in part, the lack of initiative displayed by Australian businesses in taking up the potential posed for them by the large increase in tourists coming to Australia as a result of this Government's creative and innovative policies in advertising overseas the wonderful country that we have. In doing so, I would like to refer to an article in the National Australia Bank monthly summary of November of this year which highlighted that in the first two months of this year, the latest period for which statistics are available, there was a further acceleration of tourist arrivals in Australia, and the figure is up 19 per cent on a year earlier. The tourists come from New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan. There is a tendency for tourists from overseas to spend more money, although spending patterns vary according to the country that visitors come from. The record of the Government in promoting tourism is indeed extraordinary. Since the initial Paul Hogan advertisements were screened in the Unites States West Coast cities in 1984, there have been 834,000 inquiries at Australian Tourist Commission offices in North America and the number of visas granted increased by 40 per cent in the six months to the end of last year. The tragedy is that a recent paper produced by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism contained a survey of Japanese overseas travellers which included a section on images of countries abroad. Of eleven countries considered, Australia was rated second last in terms of enjoyable shopping. It is perhaps no wonder that Japanese tourists, together with others, are voting with their feet and taking some of their money home with them. If honourable members would give some consideration to the quality of product offered to tourists as souvenirs, they would probably have a clear understanding of why this money is leaving Australia. One of the initiatives I took in the last few weeks was to go to a number of major tourist destinations in Canberra and inspect not only the quality of the souvenirs available but also the country of origin of those Australian souvenirs which overseas visitors are being invited to purchase. If any honourable members dare to take up my challenge and go to some of the major tourist venues in Canberra, they will see that what overseas tourists are being offered are not Australian souvenirs but souvenirs from Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan which all bear an Australian motif or some Australiana imprinted on them to give the impression that they are indigenous products. Quite frankly, many of our overseas tourists are being ripped off and conned by some of these attempts to sell them these souvenirs, and there are literally millions of dollars of lost opportunities that Australian souvenir manufacturers are just not taking up. Mr Deputy Speaker, in case you think that I am just making up my very serious allegations tonight, let me demonstrate not just to you but also to the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), who is in the chamber, and to other members just what I mean by this rip-off that is occurring not only in Canberra but right around Australia. Among the souvenirs that I managed to purchase here in Canberra are a small wallet with `Australia' written on it and a kangaroo on it, made in Taiwan; a small notebook with `Australia' on it, made in Hong Kong; and a small pencil case, also made in Hong Kong. The list goes on-Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan. The greatest rip-off of all occurs in relation to these cuddly little souvenirs that purport to be koalas and kangaroos. They have their country of origin tag cut off in a deliberate attempt to con tourists. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(7.48) —I appreciate the opportunity to address the House further on this important matter and take it as a recognition by members of the House of the great importance of this subject. I was talking about the interest rates payable by ordinary Australians on personal loans and plastic money and the figures that I had obtained today from finance companies in Canberra. HFC Financial Services Ltd is charging a rate, I was told over the phone, of 36.42 per cent. Among the other finance companies contacted today was Esanda Ltd-a monthly payment of $109 at an interest rate of 27 per cent. I understand that the minimum payment on Custom Credit Corp Ltd's Custom Card is about 4 per cent or $80, but again the interest rate is an effective 27 per cent. I contacted the Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd, which has an effective interest rate of 25 per cent with a monthly repayment of $106.74. Lastly, I contacted Avco Financial Services Ltd. Remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we are talking about $2,000 borrowed over 24 months. Avco's repayment was $124 a month, an effective rate of 30.62 per cent. This is not money that is difficult to obtain. One can simply ring up these finance companies and effectively get the nod over the phone. When I asked one finance company representative about the necessity to provide security, the answer was: `Not necessary really'. Another said: `You do not need security if you have a job'. Others said: `Provided you check out on paper'. It really is very easy to come by this sort of money. Before making any further comments on that, let me say that it is not my intention to shoot the messenger. What I am simply saying is that these figures represent a very clear message which says that Labor's deliberate policy of high interest rates is hurting ordinary Australians, in particular those Australians least able to afford them. The last year under Labor has been pretty hard for people. Let us not forget that unemployment levels in this country are very high, particularly high, of course, for the young unemployed in our nation. Who could suggest otherwise than that these people at the end of the year should be reasonably be able to look forward to providing some presents for their children and their families? The sad fact is that under Labor's deliberate policy of high interest rates these people will have a reminder of those rates, every month over the next 24 months, with their instalments on their 1986 Christmas presents. There is a real sense of frustration in the community because we have a government which relies upon monetary policy to keep up the Australian dollar and fails to look to fiscal policy as a way of doing something about our problems. In laymen's terms, our problem is simply that we are spending too much and we have to cut back. Unless Australia does cut back, people overseas will rightfully say that until we get our act together, until we start to clean up our financial affairs, they will put some downward pressure on the Australian dollar. That is what has been happening. As we have heard today during the debate on the matter of public importance, this is a Government that really has been throwing taxpayers' money away at a great rate. For example, I think $11,000 was given to a group to design a surfboard for women because their centre of gravity is lower than that of men. It is about time that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) acted upon his own words, which are that much of this expenditure is indefensible silliness. It is about time that the Government got off the monetary track and started to impose some real fiscal discipline into the Budget and bring things back into order so that we can get this country going again. On behalf of all those disadvantaged Australians who find themselves this year borrowing money from finance companies to pay for their Christmas presents, I make this plea to the Government: Get your house in order; get your act together for the advantage and benefit of disadvantaged Australians. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 7.53 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 26 November 1986: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for collection of information-1986-No. 11-Survey of the computing needs of small enterprises-South Australia. Defence Act-Determinations-1986- No. 68-Higher Duties Allowance. No. 69-Field Allowance. No. 70-Temporary Rental Allowance. No. 71-Overseas Rental and Utilities Allowance and other allowances. No. 72-Supplementary Living Allowance. No. 73-Reserve Allowance. No. 74-Post Allowance and other amendments. Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulation-Order-1986-No. 4-Meat Inspection (General) (Amendment). 3816 Adjournment The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 2996) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Is it necessary for both Houses of Parliament to approve any licences issued to permit the export of mineral sands extracted from areas listed on the national estate. (2) Are minerals sands being exported from any such areas. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. However, before export approval may be granted, any proposal to export mineral sands from any area on the Register of the National Estate must be considered in terms of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. This is designed to ensure that the national estate is adequately protected for the benefit of future generations as well as for the present community. (2) Export approvals have been given since 1975 in respect of mineral sands sourced from mining leases granted to Allied Eneabba in that year. The leases fall within two Reserves which were placed on the Register of the National Estate in 1978. (Question No. 3793) Mr Coleman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 16 April 1986: (1) Further to the answer to question No. 2203 (Hansard, 18 March 1986, page 1552) in which the Minister stated that universities are self-governing bodies and Commonwealth Government permission is not required for them to participate in research programs which have the approval of the responsible university authorities, why did the Minister state in a question without notice on 9 April 1986 (Senate Hansard, page 1481) that as far as the Government is aware no universities are engaging directly in Strategic Defence Initiative research and as universities operate within Government policy the Government does not expect that they will. (2) When were universities required to operate within Government policy. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) Universities are self-governing institutions and, subject to the conditions of legislation relating to the provision of certain Commonwealth grants, are responsible for determining the nature of their various activities. As I indicated earlier, I am not aware of any university being interested in making a contribution to the SDI Research Program and I would not expect any to do so. (Question No. 3837) Mr Tickner asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a letter circulated to members of the Government by the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies, dated 14 April 1986, alleging at least 6 errors of misrepresentations in a document entitled `Explanatory Notes to Constituent Queries' relating to the Governments housing package and, in particular to the Government's decision to lift the charges on savings bank home loans. (2) Which department was responsible for the preparation of the document referred to in the letter. (3) Which allegations of incorrect or misleading statements referred to in the letter are correct. (4) What action has been taken to correct any errors in the document. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The document was prepared by staff in my office, with advice on some factual aspects provided by the Treasury. (3) The references in the original document upon which the AAPBS commented were: (a) `Savings banks are also subject to Commonwealth taxation, building societies are not.' (b) `No building society is stuck with a portfolio of 13.5% regulated loans.' (c) `Many building societies now only have to lend 60% of their deposits for housing. In New South Wales building societies may now only hold 60% of deposits in housing.' (d) `Building societies have not been affected by the collapse in deposits to the same extent as savings banks. In the three months to January savings banks deposits fell at an annual rate of 10.7% bringing the rate of growth over the year to January to 2.3% and falling. By contrast building society funds rose by 11%.' (e) `The Commonwealth subsidy only restores the normal competitive position of savings banks. It does not put building societies at a relative disadvantage.' (f) `The Commonwealth subsidy merely enables the banks to preserve their deposits to finance the existing portfolio of regulated loans and the subsidy only restores the normal competitive position of savings banks. The Commonwealth is not subsidising deregulated lending by any institutions. For instance, it will not be subsidising the housing lending of trading banks.' (4) A revised document was issued under the title `The Government's Housing Decision, Explanatory Notes for Constituent Queries'. The references shown in 3 above were retained in the revised document with the exception of (a) and (c) which were omitted and there was a minor amendment in the reference in (d) from `10.7%' to `around 11.0%'. (Question No. 4405) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Has any Australian Government made any guarantees of financial assistance to African states bordering South Africa in the event that comprehensive economic sanctions are imposed against South Africa? (2) If so, (a) to which African states and (b) for how much in each instance? Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Australian Government has not made any guarantees of financial assistance to African states bordering South Africa in the event that comprehensive economic sanctions are imposed against South Africa. The Government is continuing, however, to provide development and humanitarian assistance to Southern African countries both bilaterally and multilaterally including through the regional development body the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC). One of the principal objectives of SADCC is to lessen regional economic dependence on South Africa. The Government supports and is contributing towards the fulfilment of that objective. (Question No. 4544) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Has the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation decided to reduce the number of Victorian export licences; if so (a) from what date does the decision apply, (b) how many licences will be withdrawn, (c) why will they be withdrawn and (d) what criterion will determine such withdrawals. (2) Has he or the Corporation discussed this decision or any impending decision with persons and companies affected by the changes. (3) If no such decision has been taken, is a reduction of licences in Victoria under consideration. (4) Is such a reduction being considered for any other State. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Apple and Pear Corporation's policy is to restrict the number of exporters so as to improve Australia's overall export performance by assisting export co-ordination activities. The Corporation has advised me that for the next licensing period beginning on 20 January 1987, the Corporation considered 6 licences to be the optimum number for Victoria. However, after considering the 21 applications received the Corporation has decided to grant 12 licences for Victoria for the new period. This compares with the 17 existing licences. Allocations in accordance with the policy were made consistent with the eligibility criteria laid down in the Apple & Pear (Conditions of Export) Regulations (Amendment) 1986. Unsuccessful licence applicants have the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of Corporation licensing decisions. (2) When formulating the new policy the Corporation conducted extensive consultations with all sections of the industry, and adopted the policy only after it had been supported by the Australian Apple and Pear Growers' Association and the Australian Apple and Pear Shippers' Association. All existing licensees were fully informed of the Corporation's policy and intentions. (3) See answer to (1). (4) The Corporation has advised me that the policy has been applied to all States. (Question No. 4780) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1985: (1) Is he able to say whether the Executive Board of UNESCO on 7 October 1986 appealed to member states to strengthen, by means of voluntary contributions, the financial resources of the Special Account of the International Program for the Development of Communication. (2) Is he able to say which countries have made contributions to the program and in (a) what years and (b) what amounts have they done so. (3) Has the Government given consideration to making a contribution subsequent to the answer he gave to part 2 of my question No. 3786 (Hansard, 7 May 1986, page 3329). Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) A Special Account for the IPDC was launched by the Director-General of UNESCO in June 1981 through an appeal to all member States. There was a poor response initially from member States, but the number of governments contributing to the Special Account has risen from 14 as at January 1982 to 32 as at June 1986. The following is a cumulative statement of contributions to the International Program for the Development of Communication (IPDC) received as at 30 June 1986 (expressed in US dollars): Government $US Special Account for the International Program for the Development of Communication (IPDC) Algeria... 10,000 Bangladesh... 2,000 Benin... 10,000 Cameroon... 10,714 Canada... 282,962 Cyprus... 1,944 Egypt... 10,000 Finland... 200,000 France... 596,817 Gabon... 17,094 Guyana... 2,000 India... 500,000 Indonesia... 93,505 Iraq... 100,000 Italy... 168,573 Jamaica... 2,000 Japan... 900,000 Kuwait... 100,000 Luxembourg... 1,961 Mexico... 10,000 Nigeria... 100,000 Norway... 4,390,416 Oman... 10,000 Pakistan... 25,000 San Marino... 5,000 Tunisia... 9,434 Turkey... 6,438 Trinidad and Tobago... 2,000 U.S.S.R.... 1,429,490 Venezuela... 250,437 Yugoslavia... 39,995 Zambia... 5,231 Funds in Trust for Special Projects FRG... 40,000 Canada... 141,500 France... 859,440 ROK... 720,000 Netherlands ... 452,877 Switzerland... 1,200,000 United States... 1,100,000 Sweden... 22,332 Contributions in Kind Experts-Cuba, GDR, Netherlands, Sweden. Fellowships-Algeria, Argentina, India, Nigeria, Poland, Mexico, Czechoslovakia, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, GDR. (3) No. The situation remains that there have been informal discussions among some agencies, but the Government has not given formal consideration to making a voluntary contribution to the International Program for the Development of Communication (IPDC). Competing priorities in the allocation of scarce resources have severely limited the ability of Government to commit funds to extra-budgetary programs such as the IPDC. (Question No. 4795) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) Is a consumer representative to be appointed to the ACT Medical Board. (2) Is it the role of the Board to (a) examine the medical qualifications of doctors for registration and (b) discipline doctors who have been guilty of a misdemeanor; if so, what role will a consumer representative have in these matters. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A community representative is to be appointed to the Medical Board of the ACT. The person's brief will include, but will not be limited to, consumer matters. (2) Yes, it is the role of the Board to: (a) examine the medical qualification of doctors for registration; and (b) discipline doctors who have been found quilty of unprofessional conduct or other offence under Section 30 of the Medical Practitioners Registration Ordinance 1930. The Board also has other responsibilities. These include the investigation and determination of complaints made against medical practitioners and the review of accounts for fees for medical services. Community representation on the Board will broaden the range of advice available to that body and will enhance its work, bearing in mind that one of the central aims of the Board is to ensure that the community's interest is protected through a high standard of care.