Thursday, 27 November 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: (1) That, if the House is not sitting when the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform has completed its inquiry into the operation during the 1984 General Election of the 1983-84 amendments to Commonwealth electoral legislation, the Committee may send its report to Madam Speaker or, in the absence of Madam Speaker, to the Chairman of Committees, who is authorised to give directions for its printing and circulation, and (2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as it is inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(10.01) —The Opposition does not object to this motion. It seems to be sensible. The only thing that I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) is that privilege does not apply to any documents so released. I guess that, in the nature of this report, it is not one that really requires privilege and therefore, I do no more than draw it to the attention of the House. The Opposition does not object to the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.02) —I move: That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that leave be given to Senators Archer, Black, Cooney and Vigor, members of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception, to attend before the House of Representatives Committee of Privileges for examination. This motion has been moved to facilitate the inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges into the matter referred to it by the House on 18 November. The special report presented by the Committee yesterday reveals that the Committee wishes to be able to receive evidence from the members of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception and, as this was a joint committee, senators are involved. The Standing Orders contain special provisions governing the appearance of members of one House before committees of the other. The process in this case is that the House should consider sending a message to the Senate asking it to grant leave to those senators who served on the Joint Select Committee to appear before the Committee of Privileges if it wishes to invite them. I should stress that no question of compulsion is involved. It is a matter of the Senate being asked to give leave and, if the Senate so agrees, it is still a matter for individual senators whether they wish to appear. I commend the motion to the House. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(10.04) —I think the nature of this motion demonstrates how inadequate in practice are the processes of any such inquiry now required by the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges. When we have to seek leave of the Senate in order to enable this House of Representatives Committee to pursue an inquiry the whole thing tends to be a bit of a farce. I do not oppose the motion but I think it highlights the fact that inquiries of this character really are extraordinarily difficult to pursue. It is not as though anybody in the Senate is being accused of being responsible, but it makes it extraordinarily difficult in the climate of relations between the Houses. Unfortunately, I think the result will be that, whatever the quality of the original reference, it is highly unlikely that it will be possible for the House of Representatives, during committee, to be able to pursue its inquiries to an adequate conclusion. With those rather cynical remarks, the Opposition certainly does not object to the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(10.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 to prevent exploration and mining for minerals, and related operations in Kakadu National Park. The Bill applies to all mineral interests including those interests which existed prior to the proclamation of the park. The Bill also provides that no compensation will be payable by the Commonwealth to any person, body politic or body corporate by reason of the enactment of this legislation. I shall deal first with the Bill itself, then outline the general history of national parks, and of Kakadu National Park in particular. I shall then cover some of the more recent events which have led the Government to introduce this legislation. The scheme of the Bill is as follows: Clause 3 of the Bill amends the section of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act which currently preserves existing mineral interests from the provisions of the Act, park regulations and plans of management. Other existing interests will remain preserved. Clause 4 of the Bill prohibits the carrying out of operations for the recovery of minerals in Kakadu National Park, including mining, prospecting, exploration, milling, refining, treatment and processing of minerals and other related operations. There is no Commonwealth requirement for any compensation to be paid by the Commonwealth as a result of the enactment of this Bill. Clause 5 makes it clear that no compensation will be paid to anybody. The national park idea was born more than 100 years ago at Yellowstone in the United States of America. In 1872 Yellowstone National Park was dedicated and set apart for the benefit and enjoyment of the people. Regulations were prepared for the preservation from injury or spoliation of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities and wonders which were to be retained in their natural condition. It is worth considering the socio-economic conditions of the time in the USA. It was a period of severe social and economic stress after the Civil War. At such a time one might have expected that all thoughts would be on exploiting every available natural resource for profit. Yet it was in these circumstances that the grand concept of the world's first national park emerged. It was described as an adventure in the humanities based upon reverence for primitive landscape and beauty and all organic life. It is worth quoting the words of Senator George Vest of Missouri at the time: We should show the world that they are wrong when they say that Americans are interested only in the `almighty dollar'. Only seven years after Yellowstone was proclaimed and before Australia was a nation, the world's second national park was proclaimed near Sydney, New South Wales-the present Royal National Park. So the national park philosophy had early roots in Australia. Down through the years the ethic and principles enshrined in the national park idea have been reinforced nationally and internationally, as the demands of increasing population made inroads on the rest of our environment and its resources. In 1969 the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources agreed that national parks should be places where the highest competent authority of the country has taken steps to prevent or eliminate as soon as possible exploitation in the whole area and to enforce effectively the respect of the ecological, geomorphological or aesthetic features which have led to establishment of the park. In 1970 Australian Ministers responsible for national parks agreed that a national park should be a relatively large area, permanently dedicated for public enjoyment, education and inspiration, and protected from all interference other than essential management practices, so that its natural attributes are preserved. As recently as 1982 the Third World Congress on National Parks, representing 68 countries, reaffirmed the decision of the Second World Congress in 1972-the centenary of Yellowstone-that national parks must be strictly protected against efforts to exploit their natural resources for such purposes as commercial timber cutting, mining, hydroelectric works and other dams and public works, commercial fishing, sport and commercial hunting, farming and grazing of domestic animals. I have recounted these national and international affirmations because I believe it is important to realise that this Government is not alone when it declares its determination to conserve the magnificent natural and cultural values and the integrity of a national park and World Heritage area such as Kakadu. I want to make clear what this Labor Government, the Hawke Government, has done and is going to do about national parks in the interests of today's and tomorrow's citizens, including the young people sitting in the gallery now. Our philosophy is that the major national parks in this country deserve the best protection, conservation and management we can give them. To this end we are pursuing a program in association with the States and Territories to achieve the highest possible standards in the conservation of flora, fauna, landscape and genetic resources within large ecologically viable reserves which meet internationally recognised criteria of security of tenure. We oppose any activity in national parks which adversely affects the prime function of the park, namely, nature conservation. We believe that through wise management national parks can contribute greatly to the welfare of the nation by virtue of the recreational opportunities they provide. We have extended the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park from 14 per cent to 98.5 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef region, and accelerated the preparation of zoning plans in order to have the whole park zoned in 1988. I believe all Australians can look with pride to the progress and achievement in both conservation and development within the national parks proclaimed under Commonwealth legislation. The professional planning, management and development of these national parks is setting high standards of excellence acclaimed by international experts. We have broken new ground in the training and involvement of Aboriginal people in national park management on lands with which they have traditional ties, and this achievement in itself is attracting international interest and acclaim. The establishment of Kakadu National Park began with the 1977 Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, which recommended that a major national park be established in the Alligator Rivers region. As a matter of fact, I was the shadow Minister for Environment in 1978 when legislation to that effect was introduced. Stage 1 was proclaimed by the Fraser Government in April 1979, and stage 2 by the Hawke Government in February 1984. Both areas were proclaimed as a single park in December 1985. The establishment of Kakadu National Park was not a precipitate action but involved careful Government consideration and was the culmination of detailed investigation, inquiry and public comment over many years. It was done with the support of both sides of this House. Kakadu is characterised by an unrivalled combination of spectacular and varied scenery, a diversity of native flora and fauna and a wealth of ancient and recent Aboriginal art. Kakadu has become recognised as something very special-an Australian place of national and international significance. This international significance was recognised by the Fraser Government, which nominated stage 1 for inscription on the World Heritage List in 1981 and funded park operations and a program of capital works. Madam Speaker, I table a summary of the expenditure by the Commonwealth Government on Kakadu National Park since its proclamation. Honourable members will note that the Hawke Government has increased considerably the Budget allocation for management of Kakadu and for capital works, which have made Kakadu one of the great parks of the world. Since this Government came to power more than $15m has been spent on the park. The Government increased the appropriation by 32 per cent to $3.7m in 1983-84 and by a further 91 per cent to $7m by 1985-86. In the current financial year a further $7.7m has been allocated and there will be even more over the next few years. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a copy of tables relating to Kakadu National Park expenditure. Madam SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Connolly —I do not recall the tables being shown to the Opposition prior to the Minister seeking leave. Mr COHEN —I apologise for that, but there they are. Madam SPEAKER —Subject to the normal guidelines, if leave is granted the papers will be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- MAJOR CAPITAL WORKS COMMENCED IN KAKADU NATIONAL PARK (Expenditure may span more than one year) 1979-80 Major expenditure items during the year: Staff housing ... $712,861 Jabiru Headquarters ... $323,965 Compound/Carpark ... $300,730 Obiri Road ... $105,243 Communications ... $287,202 Road Maintenance ... $7,476 Mobile Accommodation ... $55,097 1980-81 Major expenditure items during the year: Radio Communication Network ... $255,443 Headquarters Building ... $442,737 Obiri Rock Access Road ... $103,000 Staff Housing ... $532,447 Day Use and Camping Facilities ... $60,710 1981-82 Major expenditure items during the year: Modular shelters... 47,145 Park furniture... 41,336 Water supplies... 264,643 Staff housing... 855,774 1982-83 Major expenditure items during year: Fire/Intruder Alarm System to Headquarters Building... 31,382 Nourlangie Camp Water Supply... 81,340 Roadworks at East Alligator and Jim Jim Districts... 511,548 East Alligator Electricity Upgrading... 44,505 Staff housing... 122,290 1983-84 Major expenditure items during year: Fuel Storage Compound... 143,815 Water Supply Ablution Blocks Muirella Park/Jim Jim... 146,108 Water Supply Muirella Park/Jim Jim... 371,892 Roadworks... 100,583 Staff Housing... 746,210 1984-85 Major expenditure items during year: Access Road to Nourlangie Rock... 485,490 Access Road to Muirella Park... 513,902 Staff Housing... 204,000 Access Roads to Jim Jim... 124,265 Water Supply at South Alligator and Wildman River... 48,500 1985-86 Major expenditure items during year: Nourlangie Rock Link Road... 699,308 Nourlangie Rock Walkways... 70,173 Boat Ramp and Car Parks East Alligator... 503,630 Headquarters Display... 38,762 Staff Housing... 1,263,959 Water Sewerage and Roads South Alligator District Centre... 592,327 Roadworks-Arnhem Highway Entry Station... 85,104 1986-87 Major expenditure items during the year: Roadworks at East Alligator District... 499,005 Ablution Block at East Alligator including civil works... 340,000 Toilet Block at Ubirr... 164,516 Toilet Block at Nourlangie Rock... 200,000 Carpark & Lookout at Mt Cahill... 200,000 Sandy Billabong Access Road... 150,000 Boatramp & Day Use Area at South Alligator River... 800,000 Jim Jim Falls Access Road Upgrading... 680,000 Yellow Water Bird Centre... 500,000 Balkanini Access Road, Nature Walk & Bird Hides... 650,000 KAKADU NATIONAL PARK EXPENDITURE Year Salaries Operations Capital Total 1978-79... N/A* 96,997 328,416 425,413** 1979-80... N/A* 374,594 1,560,584 1,935,178** 1980-81... N/A* 599,974 2,331,198 2,931,172** 1981-82... N/A* 637,222 1,608,803 2,246,025** 1982-83... 676,634 712,001 1,391,495 2,780,130 1983-84... 674,709 980,944 2,027,489 3,683,142 1984-85... 917,733 1,254,727 2,251,819 4,424,279 1985-86... 1,098,127 1,522,717 4,408,045 7,028,889 Proposed Expenditure 1986-87... 1,170,344 2,285,000 4,248,372 7,703,716 Total... 4,537,547 8,464,176 20,156,220 33,157,943 * Data not available ** Excluding salaries Mr COHEN —In addition to our financial contribution to the development of Kakadu National Park, we have had prepared new plans of management for both Kakadu and Uluru national parks, in close consultation with the Aboriginal traditional owners. In both cases the cultural and other traditional values of importance to Aboriginals in these parks are receiving maximum consideration in management. Unfortunately, some members, such as the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), who, so far as I am aware, has not even visited Kakadu National Park for some years, have chosen to denigrate the inherent natural values of the area. Mr Everingham —Oh, come on! That's a lie. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw that comment. Order! The Minister will sit down. The honourable member for the Northern Territory will withdraw that interjection. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order: Will the Minister take his seat as instructed? It is a requirement of the Standing Orders. Mr COHEN —Why don't you sit down? Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will sit down. The honourable member for O'Connor will also sit down. The honourable member for the Northern Territory will withdraw. Mr Everingham —No. I am certainly not going to withdraw that. What the Minister said is a lie. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member is defying the Chair. In the run-up to the end of this session, I suggest to the honourable member for the Northern Territory that he would be wise to withdraw. Mr Connolly —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —I am talking to the honourable member for the Northern Territory. I do caution the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Mr Everingham —If the Minister wants to say things-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will just give the two words: `I withdraw'. Mr Everingham —I am not going to accept that statement. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw his interjection. Mr COHEN —May I just make a point? I said `so far as I am aware' he has not visited. If he had visited, I am wrong. Mr Everingham —Well, why didn't you ask me? Mr COHEN —It is not a lie to say-- Madam SPEAKER —That matter is not at issue. The honourable member for the Northern Territory is choosing to defy the Chair. The House must not support defiance of the Chair. Does the honourable member for Bradfield have a point of order? Mr Connolly —I would just make the point that the Minister was being deliberately provocative. While there is nothing specifically in the Standing Orders on this point, it is most unusual for second reading speeches to contain personal attacks on the credibility of members of the House. Madam SPEAKER —I would accept the point the honourable member brings up. However, the Chair is not speaking to the honourable member for the Northern Territory on the content of the Minister's speech. The Chair has asked for a withdrawal and has given a certain latitude. In fact, the Chair has almost implored the honourable member for the Northern Territory to withdraw. However-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, may I present a compromise in this issue? If the Minister were to delete those remarks from his speech, I am sure-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the House that what is contained in the Minister's speech is of no interest to the Chair. The Chair asked the honourable member for the Northern Territory to withdraw words which have been considered by previous Speakers of this House to be unparliamentary. The honourable member for the Northern Territory has been asked four times to withdraw. I think I have given him plenty of latitude. He is refusing to withdraw. I now ask him again: Please withdraw. Mr Everingham —He said that I have never been to Kakadu in the past three years. Madam SPEAKER —The question of what the Minister said is not relevant. The Chair is asking for a withdrawal. Mr Everingham —It is to me. Mr Connolly —I raise a point of order. With respect, Madam Speaker, the words uttered by the Minister are relevant because they caused the reaction from the honourable member. Madam SPEAKER —Exactly. But what the Chair is now facing is the honourable member for the Northern Territory totally defying the Chair. The House must not support defiance of the Chair by its members. If the honourable member has refused his last opportunity to withdraw, I name him. Mr Young —Madam Speaker, I think, from what my colleague the Minister tells me, that he may have made a comment for which, if it is inaccurate, he is quite happy to apologise. If that were to happen, I think the honourable member could withdraw. Mr Everingham —If the Minister were to apologise, I would withdraw. Mr COHEN —I was trying to say that. I said `so far as I was aware'. If I was incorrect-- Madam SPEAKER —Will the Minister put it succinctly? Mr COHEN —I apologise. Mr Everingham —I withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the Minister and the honourable member. I also thank the Special Minister of State. Mr COHEN —Let me say something that I am aware is correct. The honourable member has also made some outrageous allegations that all the Commonwealth Government has done is to provide a few portable barbecues. Such a claim is patently incorrect. I table a list of projects completed or under way. One would have thought that the honourable member would have been promoting tourism by stressing the scenic and natural values of the area and praising the tourist facilities created at Kakadu in order to gain patronage for the hotel developments he encouraged in the Northern Territory. It has been argued that the Commonwealth has no right to be involved in the running of national parks in States and Territories. Honourable members will perhaps be aware that a number of other countries with a federal system have a limited number of national parks run by the national government, as well as state or provincial parks run by the states or provinces. The United States of America, Canada, Malaysia and the Federal Republic of Germany are examples. For instance, the great parks of North America-the Banff, Jasper and Kluane national parks in Canada, and the Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Yosemite and Everglades national parks in the United States of America are all under national administrations. Under the States co-operative assistance program, officers of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service have been working closely with State officers on a number of national park projects considered by States and agreed by us to be of national significance. The Government is also working in close co-operation with Tasmania to develop the Tasmanian World Heritage area. Examples are also emerging where a national park seems to be of such stature as to merit joint proclamation and co-operative management by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and its State counterparts. I believe the time is coming when it would be desirable to examine ways of strengthening co-operation with willing State and Territory governments for parks which are jointly identified as being of truly national significance and which meet recognised international standards. Already at least one State has approached the Government with a proposal for joint proclamation of such a park. Kakadu National Park was acknowledged by the Fraser Government, and has continued to be acknowledged by the Hawke Government, as belonging to all Australians. Its protection must be a national priority. Nevertheless, three years ago the majority of Australians would not have known where Kakadu was. The publicity given to the area by the film Crocodile Dundee and by the actions of the conservation movement to protect the park from marauding mining interests such as Peko-Wallsend has now put Kakadu on the map. Data on the known uranium mining potential of Kakadu are publicly available. However, Government policy on mining uranium is clear-no uranium mines other than Nabarlek, Ranger and Roxby Downs will be allowed to proceed. Present indications are that Kakadu embraces areas which are generally considered to be moderately prospective for gold, platinum and base metals. However, the Government does not possess any reliable data on either the total potential value of such mineral deposits or the overall benefits and costs of mining in the park. Tourist use of the park has been developing remarkably; it is increasing at between 25 per cent and 30 per cent a year. The number of visitors increased from 58,000 in 1983 to 75,000 in 1984 and 100,000 in 1985. Incidentally, although the honourable member for the Northern Territory may have been there in recent years, I was shocked to find that quite a number of former colleagues of his in the Northern Territory Parliament, including the Minister for Tourism, had not been there. That was a surprising admission to me. I was staggered that the Northern Territory Tourism Minister had not been to Kakadu National Park. This year more than 130,000 visitors are expected. The Government is ensuring that the development of tourist facilities is keeping pace with this increase, including the development of roads, caravan parks, camping grounds, motel accommodation and interpretive facilities. As a result of these developments Kakadu has become an even more attractive tourist destination. On my visit in September a decision was made to proceed with a new bird life interpretation centre at Cooinda, which will cost the Commonwealth around $400,000 and which will be one of the top interpretative centres in Australia. The attractiveness of Kakadu to tourists will survive only if the character of the park is preserved. A park dotted with mines would not be a pretty sight-never mind the risk to the ecology. There are those who argue-and I must say that, to his eternal disgrace, a man who is now totally discredited in the environment movement, Harry Butler, is one of them; he has a record now of being nothing but a stooge for the mining interests of Australia- Mr Connolly —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The Minister is defaming the name of someone who is respected in the environmental community in Australia. He is now being attacked in this Parliament, with no opportunity to defend himself. This is not a parliament in which individual citizens should be attacked in that manner. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr COHEN —As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, there are many people, including Mr Butler, who argue that one can put a circle around the environmental treasures in the park, be it the rock art, the wetlands or the escarpment, and say that those are the important parts which should be preserved. That shows a total lack of comprehension of what an environment is all about-the interaction between different parts of the ecology. Of course it is an obscenity to suggest such a preservation program for Kakadu. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made it quite clear on a number of occasions that mining in Kakadu National Park would be an obscenity. Further episodes such as the recent actions of Peko-Wallsend will not be countenanced. This Bill will ensure that the park will be totally protected from the actions of miners and will remain a top tourist attraction. I wish to conclude by emphasising my long-standing and deep awareness of the great pride which Australians take in their unique national heritage. I believe that the Australian community accepts a commitment to ensure that this heritage is not jeopardised for short term gain by inappropriate development in national parks. I believe that this country-not only under this Government, but also under the Fraser and Whitlam governments-has a record in preserving its environment that is second to none in the world. In my travels overseas I have not found any other country that has as much interest as we have in preserving the environment. We are setting an example to the rest of the world. Perhaps we could have done more and perhaps we could have done it better, but what we have done is an example to the world. The community will applaud the Government's actions in preserving for future generations of Australians the unique natural and cultural heritage of Kakadu. Before I conclude I wish to say how delighted I am to have in the gallery today the Prime Minister of England, Jim Hacker, or his alter ego, Paul Eddington. I commend the Bill to the House, and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Hou-sing and Construction)(10.28) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Provision of 50 replacement houses at Woomera, South Australia. The proposed work was first referred to the Public Works Committee on 20 March 1986. Woomera is about 500 kilometres by road from Adelaide in the hot, arid zone of Central Australia. At present the village provides a residential base and support service for the Joint Defence Space Communications Station at Nurrungar and for defence activities in the Woomera prohibited area. There are moves for Commonwealth control of the village to be taken over by the South Australian Government. However, these moves do not impact on the need for the proposed 50 houses. Apart from 20 houses constructed in 1983, the existing housing stock at Woomera is old and in poor condition, requiring replacement. Twenty houses constructed in 1983 followed a pilot study which showed that new construction was more economical than upgrading the existing dwellings. Although the Public Works Committee has supported the proposed construction of 50 houses, 43 three-bedroom houses and seven four-bedroom houses, the Committee's report recommended several amendments to the work's scope. The proposal, as submitted to the Committee, was for houses for civilian and service defence personnel in accordance with Australian Government employees' standards. The Committee recommended that larger houses be built to defence tropical scales. The Department of Defence has reviewed its requirements and will construct houses in accordance with its temperate rather than the suggested tropical scales. The Committee was also concerned that economies of scale be achieved in the provision of houses at Woomera. To this end, consultations have commenced with other Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities such as the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, Telecom Australia and Australia Post in respect of their housing requirements and funding arrangements at Woomera. My Department will continue these consultations in order to maximise the cost benefits to the Commonwealth through the co-ordination of contract arrangements. Co-ordination of the housing requirements of American personnel at Woomera is subject to the budgetary requirements of the United States, and it is unlikely that their requirements could be co-ordinated in the same time frame. The Department of Defence will continue to hold discussions with other users of Woomera village to cover maintenance costs. Current arrangements for maintenance of the village will continue, pending transference of Woomera to the South Australian Government. Other matters raised by the Public Works Committee including the size of building allotments, soil tests, supervision of construction, provision of additional heating, and improvements to the 20 houses constructed after the pilot study, will be adopted to the extent that that is possible. My Department will inform the Committee of the outcome of the ongoing consultations and it will advise the Committee of the final design solutions for the new houses and the upgrading of the 20 pilot houses. The original proposal as referred to the Committee was $4.1m at January 1986 prices. The estimated cost of the revised proposal for the 50 houses, including the upgrading of engineering services, landscaping and fencing, is $4.5m at November 1986 prices. This includes the upgrading of the 20 pilot houses at a cost of $60,000. When this House first referred the proposal to the Public Works Committee the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) said that the average cost of the dwellings being built at Woomera would be $80,000, an amount he considered relatively high. The per unit cost of the original proposal was $63,000. The honourable member for Deakin did not discount the project cost for the upgrading of the engineering services included in the work. This per unit cost of the revised proposal is $71,000. This is acceptable, given the Committee's recommendations for larger houses, the remote locality of Woomera and the additional cost of transporting the houses, labour and material to the site. The honourable member for Deakin also asked that maximum input of the private sector be sought, and this has been done. The houses will be selected by private sector designs and will be constructed in factories before being transported in sections to Woomera. At Woomera the houses will be installed by the private sector. I stress that this private sector involvement is normal practice for the Department of Housing and Construction, a concept which the honourable member for Deakin seems to have a great difficulty in understanding. The honourable member also suggested that alternative financing methods be considered. The proposed method of financing is appropriate. It is anticipated that tenders for this work will be invited in April 1987, that the contracts will be awarded in July 1987, and that construction will be completed by the end of 1988. On average, a work force of 10 will be employed on the site. I would like to thank the Committee for the support it has given to this proposal, and I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.35) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the information available to me. The Minister referred to the fact that, in speaking to the motion to refer this work to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I said that the unit cost of the houses seemed high. I still think it seems high. Even $71,000 per house seems high, particularly when one takes into account that, firstly, the engineering services that are necessary are part of the infrastructure that will go to the replacement of the houses and, secondly, that that price excludes the price of land. Mr Saunderson —Have you ever been to Woomera? Mr BEALE —Yes. I am glad to get an assurance from the Minister that recommendation 3 (B) of the Committee-namely, that all other government departments and statutory bodies be required to upgrade their houses-will not be proceeded with. The Opposition notes that the annual repair costs are running at about $3,000 per house a year-that is, $60,000 over a 20-year period, which is just about the cost of these replacement houses. We would also like an assurance from the Minister that these houses be built with maintenance free materials. Furthermore, the question of normalising the town is relevant because the Department of Defence has only 50 houses out of 300. The South Australian Government and the United States Air Force also have houses that are substandard. The Minister's timetable is obscure as to consultations with representatives of these groups. Again, I would be glad to have an assurance from the Minister that these discussions will continue in such a way that the best interests of Woomera township are protected. Furthermore, the landscaping costs for these houses seem to be, at best, pretty fancy. The Minister has said that I do not seem to be able to grasp the fact that the private sector is involved in construction. In the past year I have consistently urged the Minister to ensure that the maximum amount of design and construction work is given to the private sector, and I am glad that at last in his responses on these projects he is referring to this. Mr West —But it has always been so. Mr BEALE —It has not. Fifty per cent of the design work for the Department of Housing and Construction is done by that Department and 50 per cent is done by the private sector. Mr Saunderson —So what? Mr BEALE —So what? The Minister said that it is so. It is not so. The Opposition has no objection to this motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.38) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: 132kV subtransmission development, East Tuggeranong, ACT. To cater for the urban expansion of Canberra's Tuggeranong area the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority requires the construction of a substation and associated transmission lines. Tuggeranong is extending southwards and is expected to peak with a population of about 92,000 by the late 1990s. As a result of this urban development, the number of houses in the area will more than double, increasing the demand for electrical power. The continuing growth of the Hume industrial area and the establishment of the Tuggeranong Town Centre will also contribute to the demand for electricity. Ultimate power demand for Tuggeranong is estimated to be 170 to 200 megawatts, based on 1.8 to 2 kilowatts per head of population and 10 to 20 megawatts drawn by commercial and industrial interests. At present, the sole source of supply for the Tuggeranong Valley is the Wanniassa sub-station which also provides about 40 per cent of the electrical requirements of Woden Valley and Weston Creek. Therefore, an additional electrical power supply is essential. The proposal comprises the addition of two 132kV line bays at the Gilmore zone sub-station; twin 132kV sub-transmission lines along a seven kilometre route from the Gilmore zone sub-station to a new zone sub-station site on the common boundary of the suburbs of Theodore and Conder; and a zone sub-station consisting of a switch yard and control building on a 1.75 hectare site in a saddle between Theodore and Conder. The estimated cost of the work is $6.24m based on March 1986 prices and about 40 to 50 people will be employed on this worthwhile project. I wish to thank the Public Works Committee for its prompt co-operation and I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.41) —Again I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making this information available. The Opposition has no objection to this motion. I make a brief comment about the growth of Canberra. The Government's high interest rate policy, in order to protect the value of the Australian dollar, is necessary because the Government will not face up to the economic facts and deal with its expenditure and with freeing up the labour market. If the Government addressed the question of its expenditure and took steps to free up the labour market, this would mean that the demand for money would come down and, hence, interest rates would come down, encouraging private investment again in Australia. A manifestation of government expenditure is the need for this project. I ask the Minister to take back to his colleagues a suggestion from the Opposition that the Government should address itself to its expenditure. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Hous- ing and Construction)(10.42) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of a new wharf and seamanship school at HMAS Cerberus, Crib Point, Victoria. As I have said, the proposed work now before the House is for the construction of a new wharf and new seamanship school at HMAS Cerberus in Victoria. It was first referred to the Public Works Committee on 22 September 1986. The proposed work is the first stage in redeveloping HMAS Cerberus-the Royal Australian Navy's principal training establishment. The existing facilities are considered unsatisfactory for the operation and training activities of the seamanship school. Some of the school's buildings were constructed about 60 years ago while others were only meant to provide temporary accommodation. They are now in a sub-standard condition. The timber wharves, which were originally built in 1920, were condemned in 1981 as structurally unsafe. An inlet channel, Hann's Inlet, and the turning basin at the wharves require dredging. This has not been done since 1970 and patrol boats are unable to manoeuvre at low tide. Because the proposed work will involve the demolition of the existing buildings and structures at the school, temporary accommodation will have to be provided. The new seamanship school, wharf, marine and boat ramp will then be constructed. As well, Hann's Inlet will be dredged and the spoil disposed while piles mar-king the channel will be repaired. The work also includes the provision of associated engineering services. The estimated cost of all work is $14.1m in November 1986 prices. This cost represents the indexed equivalent of the $13.5m at July 1986 prices, which was originally referred to the Public Works Committee. When the House first referred the proposal to the Committee, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) indicated that he misunderstood some aspects. Mr Beale —No, I didn't. I said that you did not express it properly. Mr WEST —Yes, he did. I ask him just to listen and then he will clearly understand where his reasoning was deficient. The honourable member for Deakin considered that there had been a $400,000 blow-out in the cost and this is the explanation which gave rise to that misapprehension. The exact opposite is the case. There has been a net reduction of $400,000 in the estimated cost of the proposal. The honourable member for Deakin quoted an estimate of $13.9m for the work from the explanations for estimates of expenditure for 1986-87. But this $13.9m was in April 1986 prices as required for Budget purposes. My referral speech included an updated estimate of $13.5 million in July 1986 prices. That was the later figure. As such, a net saving of $400,000 has been achieved by offsetting increases in the costs of construction by real reductions to the scope of the work. Further savings were achieved by planning to proceed concurrently with the seamanship school and the wharf. The honourable member for Deakin also commented that only $100,000 would be spent this financial year. But I said in my referral speech that construction will not commence until July 1987. Hence there will be no expenditure this financial year. I understand that the honourable member for Deakin was again quoting from the explanations for the Estimates which were based on early planning requirements during the Budget formulation period. It is anticipated that tenders will be invited in April next year, contracts awarded in June 1987, and construction completed by December 1989. Consultants will be engaged to undertake about 50 per cent of the design and project documentation and that is a fair mix between the private and the public sectors. Mr Beale —What do you think a fair mix is? Mr WEST —The honourable member for Deakin appears to believe that a major, centralised government construction authority, such as the Department of Housing and Construction, can proceed entirely without any in-house engineering designers at all, which is clearly impossible. Let me repeat, so that he will clearly understand, that private consultants will be engaged to undertake about 50 per cent of the design and project documentation. Construction is to be contracted to private enterprise in accordance with normal Department of Housing and Construction practice. About 100 people will be employed on the work peaking, at about 250 people. I thank the Committee for its prompt examination of this proposal and for its support. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.49) —Yet again I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making this information available to me. I point out to the Minister that, if in his referral speech he had drawn the attention of the House to the changes that had taken place in the estimates of expenditure, there would not have been all this trouble. He would not have needed to go back through all my speeches, checking to see whether what I had said was consistent. The inconsistent information came from the Minister and I am very pleased that, as a result of my drawing this whole question to his attention, he has saved the taxpayers some $400,000. I am also delighted that the Minister has at last come out and said that 50 per cent of design and project documentation work for the public and the private sectors is fair. I want to know what the Minister thinks the word `fair' means. Surely, in the interests of the taxpayer, we give the work to those who can do it most efficiently. It is our contention that it is done most efficiently in the private sector. I have never suggested that the Department of Housing and Construction should work without any in-house specialists. The Minister is used to quoting from my draft policy paper on housing and construction. If he reads it, he will see that an inherent part of it refers to the fact that a department should maintain the sorts of in-house skills to which he has referred. The Opposition has no objection to the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 15 October. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 7, clause 16, proposed new paragraph 42a (2) (b), line 35, leave out ``or''. No. 2-Page 7, clause 16, after proposed new paragraph 42a (2) (c), insert the following word and paragraph: ``; or (d) specimens that are live native Australian animals of a species included in the sub-phylum VERTEBRATA, other than fish,''. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.50) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has asked me to make this contribution on his behalf. The amendments proposed in the Bill can be grouped into four categories: Firstly, to make controls on export and import of certain wildlife more appropriate to their status and the circumstances under which they enter trade; secondly, to simplify and improve administrative procedures which have proved in practice to be unnecessarily complex; thirdly, to clarify and tighten certain enforcement provisions; and, fourthly, to increase protection for those who provide information leading to the institution of proceedings under the Act. After the Bill was passed in the House of Representatives, the Government became aware of an omission from clause 16 which could be interpreted as enabling multiple transaction permits for the export of live native vertebrates, for example, koalas. This is clearly not the Government's intent. Controls over the export of live native vertebrates will not be relaxed. To remove any doubt about the Government's policy on the export of live native animals and to make it clear that this provision is intended to be consistent with existing provisions of the Act regulating the export of live native vertebrates, a Government amendment to clause 16 of this Bill was introduced into the other place. The amendment makes multiple transaction permits unavailable for the export of live native vertebrates other than fish. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Consideration resumed from 20 November. Clauses 1 to 7-by leave-taken together. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.54) —I would like to make a brief comment on clause 5 in relation to land trusts. While the Opposition is not opposing that clause, I think it is time to put on the record the fact that we believe that, in the fullness of time, it will be necessary and in the interests of the Aboriginal traditional landholders for the responsibilities of land trusts to be expanded so that traditional owners are in fact more closely involved with the decision making process than is currently the case. There is a range of amendments in the proposals put forward by the Government which cover this subject to some degree, but unfortunately the amendments have by no means been thoroughly looked through; nor, in my opinion and that of the Opposition, do they meet the long term objectives or needs of the traditional Aboriginal owners. What I have in mind is that, whereas there is obviously a need at the present time for the continuation of the involvement of land councils in the pre-negotiating stage and in the negotiating stage when traditional owners are putting their cases forward to the land commissioners for the decisions relating to claims, once the claims have been settled and the title to that land has been vested in a land trust I believe there is a strong case to be made that local communities should be given greater control and power over the ultimate utilisation of that land. As I said, there are in this Act some provisions which, if interpreted correctly-one has to be very careful about the words one uses, because interpretations of laws of this Parliament quite often are not necessarily in the context of the decision making at the time-will enable some progress to be made, but I think it is time to place on record that in due course further amendments to this legislation will undoubtedly be required. It is a pity that it has taken so long for amendments to be brought forward, limited though they be; and in some respects, if anything, they are a set-back and not an advance on the original 1976 legislation. Clauses agreed to. Clause 8. Amendment (by Mr Holding) agreed to: (1) Clause 8, page 7, lines 8 and 9, omit proposed sub-section 11a (7), substitute the following sub-section: ``(7) In this section, a reference to an estate or interest in land includes a reference to- (a) a mining interest; and (b) a licence granted in respect of that land.''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 9 to 11-by leave-taken together. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.56) —The proposal in clause 10 is to grant compensation from the Crown to persons or estates who lose interests in land. In the context of the Northern Territory this is a particularly important proposal. It goes some way towards meeting the long term concern of the pastoral industry in particular that, whereas the original legislation spoke of alienated and unalienated land, in practice there has been considerable evidence that claims can be made over existing pastoral properties. The question of compensation for the loss of licences, therefore, has not prior to this time been subject to legislative change. For that reason, the Opposition supports the proposal. It is obviously consistent with Commonwealth constitutional powers in relation to compensation payments for land taken over by the Commonwealth, on the one hand. In this case it is not land taken over by the Commonwealth specifically, but certainly as a result of Commonwealth legislation. Clauses agreed to. Clause 12 (Dealings, &c, with interests in land by Land Trusts). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.58) —It is the intention of the Opposition to move to insert a new clause after clause 12, and I refer to proposed new clause 12a. We will be moving that at the appropriate time. In the meantime, and as a result of that, the Opposition wishes to oppose the provisions of clause 12, which in its present form deals with interests in land by land trusts, for the very fundamental reason that it does not take into account the legitimate interests of the Northern Territory in the provision of essential services to Aboriginal communities. Clause agreed to. Proposed new clause 12a. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.59) —I move: (2) Page 10, after clause 12, insert the following new clause: ``12a. After section 19 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Part II: Grants to Northern Territory for an essential service `19a (1) Where- (a) the Northern Territory has requested a Land Council to direct a Land Trust holding land (in this section referred to as the ``relevant land'') in the area of that Land Council to grant an estate or interest in that relevant land to the Northern Territory for use for a particular essential service; and (b) the Land Council has refused or is unwilling to give such a direction, a Minister of the Northern Territory may apply, in writing, to the Minister for the matter to be dealt with in accordance with this section. `(2) Where the Minister has received an application under sub-section (1) and the Minister is satisfied that the particular essential service necessitates the grant of an estate or interest in the relevant land, the Minister shall appoint an Arbitrator to deal with the matter in dispute and shall refer the matter to the Arbitrator. `(3) The Minister shall not appoint as an Arbitrator for the purposes of sub-section (2) a person other than a judge of the Federal Court of Australia, or of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia. `(4) On a reference being made to an Arbitrator under sub-section (2), the Arbitrator shall determine- (a) what part of the relevant land is required for the particular essential service; (b) what form of estate or interest (other than an estate in fee simple) is necessary for that essential service; (c) the terms and conditions under which the estate or interest is to be granted; and (d) the compensation payable by the Northern Territory to the Land Trust in respect of any decrease in the value of the relevant land to the extent that the decrease is attributable to the grant of that estate or interest. `(5) Where an Arbitrator has made a determination under sub-section (4), the Land Council concerned shall direct the Land Trust to grant the estate or interest in the relevant land to the Northern Territory on those terms and conditions. `(6) Where the Minister is satisfied that a Land Council has refused, or is unwilling, to give a direction to a Land Trust to grant an estate or interest in relevant land in accordance with a determination under this section, the Minister may, in the name of, and on behalf of, the Land Trust, grant the estate or interest to the Northern Territory. `(7) Upon the granting of the estate or interest to the Northern Territory, the Land Trust has a right to compensation from the Northern Territory in the amount determined by the Arbitrator. `(8) In this section- (a) a reference to an estate or interest in land includes a reference to a licence in respect of that land; and (b) a reference to an essential service includes a reference to the provision of power, water, sewerage, communications, railways, boat landings, airstrips, health and education facilities, the provision of roads, and accommodation for Government employees.' ''. My proposed new clause as originally circulated has been amended to add to sub-clause (3) the words `or of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia'. As I briefly mentioned, the proposed new clause relates to the granting to the Northern Territory of land for essential services. As the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act currently stands, there is explicitly excluded from the provisions of the Act the opportunity for justices of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to be involved in the settlement of disputes between Aboriginal communities and other organisations or individuals in relation to Aboriginal land. This is a matter which causes the Northern Territory considerable concern, and rightly so. It argues the case that its legislative base is now extended to the point where, as a result of an agreement with the Commonwealth some years ago, it has its own Supreme Court and it has justices of that Court who have had considerable experience in this field. I am also aware, however, that there have been some limitations on the capacity of justices of the Supreme Court, by sheer weight of the work load they carry, to have their area of responsibility extended. Nevertheless, there is still a case that in this legislation the Northern Territory ought to be in a position where it can put forward to the Commonwealth its views on who arbitrators ought to be. If the provisions stand as they are, it would simply mean that arbitrators would be justices from the Federal Court of the Commonwealth, determined by the Minister, who is a Commonwealth Minister, without necessarily having to receive or ask for the views of the Northern Territory. The Minister needs to face the fact that it is only a question of time before the Northern Territory gains statehood, and in the meantime steps must be taken to ensure that the legislative base of the Northern Territory is adequate to take on these additional responsibilities. If they are to be excluded from having any legal input in the decision-making process in relation to legislation which affects the land mass of the Northern Territory and no other part of the Commonwealth of Australia, it is not unreasonable that the Northern Territory Government and the people of the Northern Territory should see such legislation as being directly aimed at excluding their legitimate interests from the decision-making process. Proposed new clause 12a grants to the Northern Territory land for essential services. What it really means is that the Northern Territory would request the land council to direct a land trust, which is the title holder to land, to provide a grant or an estate or interest in that land to the Northern Territory for use for a particular essential service. In a case where the land council may refuse or be unwilling to make such a direction, under the Opposition's proposed new section 19a the Minister of the Northern Territory may apply, in writing, to the Commonwealth Minister to have the matter dealt with in accordance with the section. It is in that context in particular that the status of Northern Territory judges is very important indeed. In cases where the Commonwealth Minister may receive an application from the Northern Territory and is satisfied that the particular essential service necessitates the grant of an interest or interests in land, the Minister shall appoint an arbitrator. The important thing is that under this amendment the Commonwealth Minister still has the final say as to whether or not he is satisfied that the request for land for services is a bona fide request. The Minister will undoubtedly respond to this by saying that in his opinion there is some evidence that in the past this may not have been the case. May I go on record as saying that if there have been any allegations of this nature in the past, that is simply because the original Northern Territory land rights legislation did not give to the Territory legitimate opportunities to have access to land for the provision of services to communities, whether they be white or Aboriginal. One of the fundamental weaknesses in the Northern Territory land rights legislation was that matters such as this were ignored. Mr Justice Toohey and also Mr Justice Woodward, who initiated the land rights legislation in his earlier report, made the point that from time to time this legislation would have to be fine tuned to ensure that it was meeting the legitimate needs of the Aboriginal Communities on the one hand while on the other hand ensuring that the overall interests of the Northern Territory, of which the Aboriginal communities form an important part, were also taken into account. There has been since 1976 the strong perception in the Northern Territory that this legislation is not working in the interests of the majority of the people. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs naturally will say that that is too bad and that he is here to look after the minority of the people-the Aboriginal people. But the best way we can look after minorities-this is an historical fact-is to give them the opportunity of becoming part of the mainstream of society while enabling them to have the opportunity to live their lifestyles and to maintain their social and community values as they think fit. Let there be no doubt about it: All the opinion polls in recent years have shown that whereas 10 or 15 years ago a substantial majority of Australians favoured giving Aboriginal Australians additional opportunities to encourage them to be able to catch up and be part of the Australian mainstream, the simple reality today is that as a result of the gross mishandling of the Aboriginal land rights issue in the Northern Territory, in Western Australia and elsewhere by the Federal Labor Government and by some of the State governments, we have seen a profound change in public perceptions on this issue. Those of us who are genuinely interested in ensuring that the objectives of our policy can be implemented, that Aboriginal Australians can feel that they have a full and fair share of access to the opportunities of Australian citizenship, now face the perception that they have been given more, not less, than most average Australians. This point has been brought forward by justices of the High Court of Australia, who have questioned people's attitudes towards this issue, but that does not alter the fact that to a large degree politics depends on perceptions, and it is the role of government, and a solemn role of this Federal Government in relation to Aboriginal Australians, to make sure that it does not initiate actions which will ultimately discriminate against the very minorities it is attempting to support. Where mixed communities in the Northern Territory live in areas where certain land has been assigned for public purposes, we are well aware of the fact that in Aboriginal areas this is not the case. There are complexities in relation to Aboriginal land tenure, there is no doubt about that, and people accept and understand that. Perhaps what we should have done in the past-it is still not too late to consider it for the future-was to build in a provision before land is granted, for the establishment of windows in communities which can then be used by State authorities for the provision of health, education, water supplies and the normal impedimenta of modern community living. While that is not the case, it will be even more difficult for the Northern Territory to proceed with its current policy, which the Opposition supports and to the best of my knowledge so does the Government, to give to Aboriginal communities essentially local government characteristics and powers. The problem we will then have, even if we have a localised local government structure in Aboriginal communities, is for those structures to be able to determine in terms of land what is their legal relationship with the land trusts which claim and have title to all that area. There are difficulties, especially in mixed communities, where it can be argued, as it has been argued to me by both the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council, that there are situations where one particular moiety or family group can generate the view that it has a responsibility for or relationship with a particular piece of land on which the State, for example, may wish to put a school. The fact that the rest of the community will gain from that school, including the actual owners of the land, is often misunderstood. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11.09) —I have listened carefully to what the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has had to say and I will bear his comments in mind. This is one of those clauses which will be considered by the Government in a further range of amendments that will be looked at early next year. For the honourable member to say at this stage that we should simply proceed to amend the legislation to meet the needs and the attitudes of the Northern Territory Government is to overlook completely the unfortunate fact that I have referred to previously of the very high level of mistrust that exists among Aboriginal communities in their attitude towards the Northern Territory Government. I argued for some time, I believe properly, that it is legitimate and appropriate that governments, irrespective of political complexion, ought to have what could be described as the normal powers of providing essential services. I put that to both the Aboriginal leadership and to my own Caucus committee. The Caucus committee and I were told quite frankly that the Aboriginal people and leadership do not trust the Northern Territory Government and that such is the level of distrust that they thought that clauses such as this could be used to destroy the whole concept of land rights. Certainly they were able to demonstrate situations where the Northern Territory Government had in the past behaved in a way which, unfortunately, found that level of distrust. Until that problem is solved-I hope it will be solved; certainly the Commonwealth stands ready to try to do anything it can to improve that relationship-simply to put the argument that has been put by the honourable gentleman is to overlook the reality of the situation. If his own policy committee had spent more time with Aboriginal people-indeed, if it had met with them-it would have realised the difficulty that confronts the Government. I make no apology. As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I have a responsibility to discharge my obligation to Aboriginal people, but not to the exclusion of other interests. Indeed, I spend a great deal of my time trying to produce balanced and rational assessments. For the honourable gentleman to say that all these problems can be laid at the foot of a Labor government is not only misleading but also deceptive. He knows-one only has to look at the Hansard debate on the second reading of this very Bill to see this-that while he puts what he regards as the Opposition viewpoint, spokesmen from his side say quite clearly and plainly to this House, without any apology at all, that although the honourable member can put whatever argument he likes, they stand opposed to any form of land rights at all. The perception of some of those honourable gentlemen is perfectly clear. They believe that to give Aboriginal people anything is to give them too much; it is to produce a level of inequality. It is a nonsense argument, but until that argument is addressed and resolved within the honourable gentleman's own party-- Mr Connolly —No, within the community. Mr HOLDING —No, within the honourable member's own party, because it is his own party's spokespersons who have led this argument right throughout Australia. They lead it in this House and they make no apology for it. Despite the honourable gentleman's own personal attitudes on this matter, when we hear him saying these things we really must ask ourselves: Which section of the Opposition is he speaking for? I am sympathetic to the argument raised by the honourable gentleman concerning representation of the Northern Territory judiciary. One of the problems I have, and the Government has, is that that is not a view that is strongly supported by the judiciary in the Northern Territory. It is not simply a question of being overworked and having a large court list and a somewhat limited Bar; it is also that the court continues to be reluctant to get itself involved in processes that it sees as simply involving itself in a level of political controversy which it does not feel is appropriate to the maintenance of both the integrity and the respect of its own Bench. Given the level of political vehemence that often accompanies this situation in the Northern Territory, I must say that I have some real regard for the views of the Chief Justice and other members of the Bench. There again, perhaps it is unfortunate that the Opposition spokesperson has not had that material available to him. If he would like it I would be only too happy to make it available. But there is a clear distinction in the view of the Northern Territory Government. Perhaps the honourable member will understand that for these reasons it is not possible for the Government to accept the amendment. But I will certainly be very happy to address some of the issues he has raised, as they will be addressed in February when we look at further amendments. Question put: That the proposed new clause (Mr Connolly's amendment) be inserted. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— 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. Burr, M. A. Macphee, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H. Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Klugman,. R. E. Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. Brown, John Lindsay, E. J. Brown, Robert McHugh, J. Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J. Charles, D. E. Martin, S. P. Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H. Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B. Cleeland, P. R. Milton, P. Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G. Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P. Dubois, S. G. O'Neil, L. R. T. Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F. Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. Lee, M. Dobie, J. D. M. Willis, R. Fisher, PeterPrice, L. R. S. Smith, W. Duncan, P. Shipton, R. F. Jacobi, R. Hodgman, W. M. Darling, E. E. Goodluck, B. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause 13 (Functions of Land Council). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(11.25) —The Opposition objects to clause 13, which relates to the functions of land councils. The primary problem with this clause is the proposal put forward by the Government that the responsibilities of land councils should be increased to enable them to carry out the protection of sacred sites on land other than Aboriginal land. The implications in the context of the Northern Territory are very serious indeed. One can take the somewhat extreme example, but I think it makes the point, that under Aboriginal tribal law there are sacred sites that females may not enter or be in the geographical proximity of. For example, a road may run quite close to a sacred site that fits that category. Although it is not necessarily suggested that Aboriginal land councils will misuse the power, the fact is that in the Northern Territory there is a deep-seated distrust of the manner in which land councils have utilised their power, in particular on the question of mining and non-Aboriginal land. This issue is fundamental and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs needs to explain why it is necessary to give land councils additional powers which assist in the protection of sacred sites on land in the areas of land councils, whether or not it is Aboriginal land, when the Minister is well aware of the fact that there is already on the statute books Commonwealth legislation as well as Northern Territory legislation in this regard. On numerous occasions during this debate the Minister has drawn attention to the report of Mr Justice Toohey entitled `Seven Years On' which was made to the Minister on Aboriginal land rights legislation. On page 133 of the report, in relation to matters such as this, Mr Justice Toohey made the point that the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1978, which established the protection authority in the Northern Territory, should be adequate to carry through these responsibilities. He emphasised the fact on page 132, at paragraph 833: There is force in the submission but the answer, I think, must lie not in amending the definition but in establishing workable administrative provisions. Instead of that, Parliament has changed the Act and given specific powers to land councils that are not spelled out. They are worded in such a way as to increase significantly the substantial fears of Northern Territory residents who are still in terms of the Northern Territory Government or of leasehold or freehold land the owners of some 50 per cent of the Northern Territory. Under Aboriginal land rights legislation claims have been made or already settled in respect of the other 50 per cent of the Northern Territory. Those residents question to what extent they are now to be able to conduct their affairs free of the interference of land councils which, for one reason or another, are not regarded in the Northern Territory as organisations one would want to have giving powers over non-Aboriginal land. The Opposition has always supported the proposition that bona fide Aboriginal sacred sites must be given adequate legal protection. We supported the legislation in this House; the Northern Territory Government already has its own legislation on the statute books. There is no legitimate case put forward by the Minister as to why it is now necessary to have yet a third tier of involvement-and, what is worse, involvement which in the context of the Act does not specify the rights of owners of land who are non-Aboriginals in relation to the activities that may take place on their land at the behest of Aboriginal land councils. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11.28) —The Opposition's position on this amendment is difficult to understand. Basically the clause does several things, one of which was supported by earlier remarks made by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, inasmuch as it validates the role of land councils assisting traditional owners to undertake commercial activities. It does not provide the land councils with any powers to undertake commercial activities in their own right. A few moments ago the shadow Minister suggested that one had to strengthen the organisations of traditional owners and enlarge their capacity. This clause enables that to occur and yet it is the subject of opposition. Mr Connolly —Only in relation to the sacred sites question. Mr HOLDING —Let us deal with the question of sacred sites. It seems to me that, yet again, Opposition members have blindly accepted the arguments-and, to be fair, these are not the arguments of the Northern Territory Government on this matter-of some of their colleagues who purport to represent the position of Territorians. The reality is that in many parts of the Northern Territory where there are Aboriginal sites, on both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal land, if those are sites of significance to Aboriginal people and if they are subjected to threat or damage, there will be concern among traditional people. It is true that the existing sacred sites legislation within the Territory gives considerable protection in that situation, but those provisions are currently the subject of examination by the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth certainly cannot predict the outcome of that inquiry, nor would it be proper for us to do so. Secondly, we also have our own legislation which enables us to act to protect the site under threat. This provision deals with a situation that is less than that. If traditional Aboriginal people have these fears, what do they do in reality? For the most part, they go to the land council which then formulates those concerns in a way which it, on behalf of those people, can address to either the Northern Territory Government or the Commonwealth Government. In some cases this may require checking with some anthropological evidence and the land council is in a position to provide that. The land council must act within the law. All this provision does-and it does nothing more-is recognise the facts of that situation. It says that the land council can provide assistance. I invite the honourable member to look at the terms of the legislation itself. Clause 13 (a) states: . . . to assist Aboriginals in the taking of measures likely to assist in the protection of sacred sites on land (whether or not Aboriginal land) In the area of the Land Council; That is not an in terrorem power; it is a power which enables a land council, on the basis of a request from traditional Aboriginal people, to provide a measure of assistance. There is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, this power virtually recognises the reality of what has been occurring. It is undesirable that a body that operates under legislation enacted by this Parliament should involve itself in practices which people might subsequently argue are ultra vires. This is a practice that has been occurring and it is a legitimate practice. No one would argue that it is not a proper responsibility of land councils, led by Aboriginal people, to respond to those requests. That being the case, all the Government is doing and all that this amendment is doing is recognising the fact and giving it legislative cognisance. The kind of argument that the honourable member put forward indicates again that the Opposition has not thought its way through the concept that is involved here. Clause agreed to. Clauses 14 and 15-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 16 (Register of traditional Aboriginal owners) Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(11.35) —The Opposition strongly opposes clause 16 which allows land councils not to continue with the registration of traditional Aboriginal land ownership. This was a provision in the original legislation recommended by Mr Justice Woodward. Some would argue that it has its genesis in the Western concept of the Torrens title system where everyone must have his or her land registered for obvious reasons in relation to estates and for the transfer of property. It is now being argued by the land councils, and apparently and most unfortunately supported by the Government, that the effort in trying to maintain a regular register of traditional owners is too difficult and not worth the cost involved. It has even been argued by the land councils that one of the reasons why mining development and the negotiation of agreements between traditional owners and would-be mining companies were delayed for so long was precisely the issue of who owned the land. I would have thought that that argument, if anything, would strengthen the case for, wherever possible, maintaining as reasonably accurate a record of ownership as possible. The Opposition recognises that there is no concept in Aboriginal land ownership equivalent to the Torrens title. But I think the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs needs to recognise the fact that, notwithstanding that current situation, there is an undeniable case that in the future it is in Aboriginal interests, as well as those of the community as a whole, that concepts or definitional concepts of land ownership be as similar as possible. One of the biggest difficulties in terms of Aboriginal ownership is that different families and tribal groups have specific responsibilities for the protection of sacred sites that may not necessarily be on the land which is normally assigned to that particular community or tribe. We recognise that fact. These are issues which the white community, frankly, is unlikely ever to be able to solve adequately. These are issues which the Aboriginal community must be prepared and encouraged to solve. The undoubted fact of the future will be that, as Western civilisation permeates traditional Aboriginal society more and more, there will be more crossings over of interests, whether they be Western or Aboriginal interests. These interests will cross over essentially on the question of land usage. If we are now to put in place a provision by which the land councils will be given the option of not maintaining accurate title to land, I honestly believe that we will create substantial difficulties for Aboriginal traditional owners in the future. We will certainly create major legal and administrative problems for mining or other commercial interests which may wish to enter into an arrangement with people whom they believe to be the traditional owners. It is not good enough for the land councils under this legislation to be covered in the case of their failing to find out whom the traditional owners may be, provided they have carried out reasonable efforts in that regard. These are all words which, in a court of law, have so many variations of meaning. Surely, if there is one thing that one needs in relation to land management, it is a degree of certitude. Because the Government did not have enough certitude in the original legislation, it is now deliberately missing this opportunity to ensure that provisions are put in place to ensure that the land councils, which were established as a result of Mr Justice Woodward's original report, keep an up to date and as accurate as possible register of land ownership. For example. let me take the question of Arnhem Land. If one looks at a map of Arnhem Land in terms of mining claims, one will see that there is no part of that area that does not have a potential mining lease or claim over it. These leases predate the 1976 legislation. Nevertheless, those claims have been made and at any stage in the future there could be difficulties with the traditional owners or allegedly traditional owners. That is the whole problem-the question of allegation or fact as to whether persons are entitled in terms of tribal law and Western judicial concepts to be able to claim that they are the owners of or the rightful negotiators for a specific piece of land. If we take the responsibility for the maintenance of this register from the land councils, we will certainly create very major difficulties for the future. I think the Minister would be telling only the full truth if he admitted that Mr Justice Toohey, in his report, did not come up with a formula which suggests that a form of register should not be maintained. I agree that there is a certain degree of ambiguity in what he said, but he has left the determination of the extent to which his recommendations should be put into legislative form to political control, to the Minister and to the Government. It is a definite step backwards, In Chapter 13 Mr Justice Toohey covers the question of the register of traditional owners. He says in section 375: The answer to these problems, it would seem, is to repeal s.24 or alternatively substitute `may' for `shall', thereby placing Land Councils under no obligation in this respect. I favour the latter because, over the years, a register properly maintained and understood could be of great value to the councils. There should also be provision empowering anyone who is placed on or omitted from a register to appeal to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory or to the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. The fact is that that latter provision does not seem to appear in the Minister's proposals. In other words, the Government has taken the easy way out. The land councils have simply been told: `You don't have the responsibility'. The land councils receive substantial sums of money, through the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account and through direct government support on various bases. It is expected, therefore, of the Commonwealth that land councils will be involved not just in the negotiation of agreements, as I referred to earlier, but also in maintaining certain administrative arrangements which will further the long term interests of traditional owners. Land ownership does change from time to time in relation to marriages, death, and so forth; we accept all that. Nevertheless, at least at the basis of land trusts, which ultimately are the legal holders of the title, there must be the capacity to maintain a level of legal endorsement in administrative form which people who are not Aboriginals can refer to as being the basis of later negotiations. For that reason, the Opposition believes that this is a derogatory step and it does not support this clause. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11.42) —I listened with some interest to the comments of the spokesman for the Opposition, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). Basically, he is repeating somewhat ill-informed comments that were made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) in the second reading debate. In fairness to him let me say that he does so with greater clarity and with greater elucidation. Nevertheless, intrinsically his argument does not rest easily upon the general attitudes taken by the coalition and certainly seems to me to be an off the top of the head response to the nonsense arguments put by the honourable member for the Northern Territory. I put it this way: This is an Opposition which at every level continually says to the public at large that it is against the over-administration of sections of public administration and that we are all under a duty-particularly the public sector-to cut costs and to eliminate red tape. Mr Connolly —You won't cut costs to the northern and central land councils. We have been watching your figures very closely on that. You don't even table annual reports in this chamber. We don't even know where our money goes. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member can easily find out if he is prepared, with some members of his Party, to sit down and talk to land councils. His problem and the problem of the Opposition-it is becoming clear throughout this whole debate-is that they will talk to the miners and they will talk to the Northern Territory Government, but the only people they seem to have a great reluctance to talk to as a party are the Aboriginal people and the land councils. If they did that, perhaps they would not be putting some of the nonsense propositions they are putting. The honourable gentleman says: `If you look at the area of Arnhem Land you will see all kinds of mining applications all over it'. That is perfectly true. If one looks at a map of my own State one will see that there is not one inch of it that is not covered by a mining application of some sort or other, although not a great deal necessarily takes place in respect of any of those applications. Let us follow through the logic of the honourable gentleman's argument. There are over 30,000 Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, many of whom are traditional owners of a number of properties. There is a cost of recording just that on the basis that at some stage it may be relevant if some miner wants to do something-- Mr Connolly —But Aboriginals may want to do something too, not just the miners. Mr HOLDING —Will the honourable member please listen? I listened to him in silence. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) -Order! The honourable member for Bradfield will cease interjecting. Mr HOLDING —He is getting upset, I suppose, because the simpleness of his arguments is being exploded before his very eyes. Does the honourable gentleman, who in so many areas regards himself as a member of the waste watchers committee, understand what is involved in trying to produce and keep updated a register for 30,000 Aboriginal people, many of whom, for traditional reasons, change their names? It would have to be kept updated in terms of births, deaths and marriages. The honourable member suggests that we do that despite the recommendation of Mr Justice Toohey in a very lengthy report that it ought not to be mandatory. We have had it examined by Mr Justice Toohey. He has looked at it and he is prepared to give some general advice. The detail of what he says is that he does not believe that this ought to be a mandatory obligation on the land councils. Has the honourable gentleman opposite talked to the land councils or to the Aboriginal people about the details and the problems with this? No. What happens is that, on one of his periodic visits to the Parliament, the honourable member for the Northern Territory walks in and says `You had better do this' and the Opposition says: `That's all right, let's do it'. It does not matter that we have had a distinguished former land commissioner, a judge of the Federal Court of Australia, saying that it should not be a mandatory power and that it should not be obligatory on the land councils. That is his recommendation. But the coalition walks in, half cocked as usual, and says: `It doesn't matter what he says. We will listen to the jaundiced views of the honourable member for the Northern Territory'. His opinion on any- thing is likely to change as often as we change our shirts. The coalition says: `We'll pick up his argument. We won't bother to look at the details, and we won't bother to look at the cost and the problems'. Land councils are there to serve Aboriginal people on a variety of day to day problems. They are not there to produce huge manifests which would be inordinately expensive and in many cases almost a total waste of taxpayers' money. Therefore, I commend to the honourable gentleman a closer reading of the comments of Mr Justice Toohey. The Government has no intention of accepting a proposal which makes mandatory an obligation on land councils which flies in the very face of the recommendation made by His Honour. Clause agreed to. Clauses 17 to 20-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 21 (Application of money of Land Council). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(11.48) —The Opposition opposes the contents of clause 21 relating to the application of money of land councils, specifically because of the time elements which are contained within the proposed clause. The moneys provided to land councils by mining companies, for example, have to be in the context of a very tight schedule set down in the clause. We believe that considerably more thought needs to be given to it. For example, sub-section 35 (1) provides that, where a land council does not require all the moneys it receives from the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account for its administrative costs, those moneys shall be paid, within six months of their receipt, to one or more of the specified types of Aboriginal bodies. I would like clarification from the Minister as to why he has chosen the six-month period. Again, I think it places the land councils in a very strong position relative to traditional owners. The Opposition believes that where traditional owners or land trusts have a bona fide right to the transfer of funds that transfer should take place as soon as possible. We do not see why there needs to be a delay; nor is it absolutely clear in terms of the future. I have emphasised throughout this debate that we see the role of the land trusts and land councils as one that should evolve over time. While we are dealing with conservative bodies, it does not necessarily mean that the evolution has to take place over hundreds of years. A case needs to be made for strengthening the role of land trusts in the context of their responsibilities to their members and to the local community, who hold the title to the land. We are not all sure that one has to continue to have a role for land councils in the transfer of funds in that way. It is worth noting that in terms of the ABTA the land councils are receivers of very large royalties transferred from the Commonwealth for mining on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. If the Opposition's amendments, which I shall be moving in due course, are accepted, there is not the slightest doubt that the funds which will flow to Aboriginal communities from mining in the Northern Territory will be substantially greater in future than they are currently. In that context a strong case is to be made for strengthening the role of land trusts, which must be the ultimate receivers of these funds, and therefore a specific diminution of the responsibilities of land councils. Clause agreed to. Clauses 22 to 24-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 24a. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(11.52) —I move: (6) Page 16, after clause 24, insert the following new clause: ``Repeal of Part IV and substitution of new Part `24a. Part IV of the Principal Act is repealed and the following Part is substituted: `PART IV-MINING INTERESTS AND MINING OPERATIONS Interpretation `40. (1) A reference in this Part to the warden's court is a reference to the warden's court established by the Mining Act of the Northern Territory at a place closest to the land to which the reference relates and includes a reference to the warden constituting that court. `(2) A reference in this Part to a mining interest includes, where the context so requires, a reference to the land to which the mining interest relates. Grant of Mining Interests `41. (1) Subject to this Act and the Atomic Energy Act 1953, a mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land may be granted under a law of the Northern Territory relating to mining for minerals. `(2) A mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land shall not be granted unless the applicant for the mining interest has first entered into an agreement in writing with the Land Council in whose area the Aboriginal land is situated relating to- (a) the compensation to be paid on the granting of the mining interest; (b) the guidelines to be adopted after the granting of the mining interest in relation to the identification and protection of sacred sites; and (c) the employment opportunities to be offered to Aboriginals in the operations to be conducted under the mining interest. Agreement Provisions `42. (1) An agreement referred to in section 41- (a) shall make provision for the distribution of monies paid to the Land Council under the agreement to or for the benefit of such traditional Aboriginal owners as are specified in the agreement; (b) may make provision for the applicant for the mining interest to lodge with the Land Council a security in such form, for such amount and from such person as the Land Council thinks fit, to secure the applicant's compliance with the conditions referred to in section 47; (c) may make provision for a process of arbitration, in accordance with a law of the Northern Territory relating to commercial arbitration, to determine disputes relating to compliance with the conditions referred to in section 47 and failing such provision in the agreement, the parties to the agreement shall be deemed to have appointed a warden constituting the warden's court as the arbitrator under that law of the Northern Territory in respect of such disputes; and (d) may provide that where a condition referred to in section 47 requires the holder of the mining interest to do anything in relation to the mining interest and the holder does not, within the time provided in the condition, do that thing, the Land Council or a person authorized by the Land Council may enter on the mining interest with such assistance as, and take whatever action, the Land Council or that person, as the case may be, considers necessary for doing that thing, and the costs reasonably incurred by the Land Council or that person in so doing shall be a debt due and payable by the holder of the mining interest to the Land Council or that person, as the case may be, whether or not at the time that the thing was done by the Land Council or that person the mining interest had been cancelled, forfeited or surrendered or had expired. `(2) A condition referred to in paragraph (1) (d) shall not entitle the Land Council, or a person authorized by it, to take any action in pursuance of the condition until the grounds on which the Land Council claims to be entitled to take or authorize the taking of such action have been referred to arbitration under a condition referred to in paragraph (1) (c), the arbitrator has determined that the holder of the mining interest is required under the agreement to do the thing to which the matter relates and the further time (if any) determined by the arbitrator for the holder of the mining interest to do that thing has expired. Aboriginal Consultation `43. (1) In consulting with traditional Aboriginal owners in accordance with the requirements of sub-section 23 (2) in relation to an application for a mining interest referred to in this Part, the Land Council shall ensure that the applicant is given an opportunity to present to the traditional Aboriginal owners for their consideration, in such reasonable form and manner as the applicant thinks fit, an explanation of the purposes for which the mining interest is required and the operations to be conducted thereunder. `(2) Where a Land Council entering into an agreement referred to in section 41 fails to comply in all respects with sub-section 23 (3) in relation to the Aboriginal land to which the agreement relates, that failure does not of itself invalidate the agreement. `(3) Where a Land Council, by reason of not being able to identify all of the relevant traditional Aboriginal owners of land, is unable to comply with the requirements of sub-section 23 (3) within 6 months after being notified in writing by the applicant for a mining interest of the applicant's wish to commence negotiations for an agreement referred to in section 41, the Land Council shall, in accordance with this Act and subject to section 45, negotiate for and enter into the agreement with the applicant and all monies subsequently paid under the agreement to the Land Council for the benefit of the traditional Aboriginal owners shall be held in trust for those traditional Aboriginal owners by the Land Council pending the identification of those traditional Aboriginal owners by it. Determination of Compensation `44. (1) The compensation to be paid under an agreement referred to in section 41 shall be limited to compensation- (a) for the traditional Aboriginal owners being deprived of the use of the surface or part of the surface of the land; (b) for damage to the surface of the land through exploration or mining activities conducted on the land; (c) for the traditional Aboriginal owners being deprived of the use of improvements on the land; (d) for the severance of the land from other land held in trust for or occupied by the traditional Aboriginal owners; and (e) for all other damage to the land or improvements on the land arising out of operations to be conducted under the mining interest. `(2) In determining the amount of compensation to be paid under an agreement referred to in section 41, no account shall be taken of minerals known or supposed to be on or under the land. Arbitration on agreement `45. (1) Where a Land Council and the applicant for a mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land cannot agree on the terms and conditions of an agreement referred to in section 41 within 12 months after the applicant having notified the Land Council in writing of the applicant's wish to commence negotiations for such an agreement or within that time the Land Council refuses or fails to enter into such negotiations, either the Land Council or the applicant may refer the matter to the warden's court for its determination of the appropriate terms and conditions of the agreement. `(2) In determining the terms and conditions of the agreement referred to in sub-section (1) the warden's court shall have regard only to the requirements of sections 41, 42 and 43 in relation to the terms and conditions to be agreed upon and shall determine as appropriate only those terms and conditions that, in its opinion, should in the circumstances be acceptable to the Land Council and to the applicant and the determination of the warden's court is binding on the Land Council and the applicant. `(3) In determining a term or condition of an agreement referred to in section 41 requiring a security to be lodged by the applicant for the mining interest to secure the applicant's compliance with the conditions referred to in section 47, the warden's court shall take into account any security that the applicant may be required to lodge under a law of the Northern Territory relating to mining for minerals in respect of the mining interest and shall make its determination so that, as far as practicable, the applicant is not required to provide more than one security in respect of the same matter. Applicant for mining interest not bound to proceed with application `46. An agreement referred to in section 41 shall not be construed so as to compel the applicant for the mining interest to which the agreement relates to proceed with the application. Implied conditions, &c., in grant `47. In addition to the terms and conditions subject to which a mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land is granted, that mining interest shall be subject to the conditions that- (a) the holder of the mining interest or his employees, servants or agents shall not unlawfully interfere with any historical site or object, or any Aboriginal sacred site or object, declared as such by or under a law of the Northern Territory; (b) the holder of the mining interest shall keep to a minimum the number of people associated with the exploration or development on the land to which the mining interest relates; (c) except for the purposes of consumption by its employees, servants, agents, contractors or sub-contractors at its camps, the holder of the mining interest shall not bring or permit to be brought onto the mining interest any alcohol; (d) the holder of the mining interest shall not bring or permit to be brought onto the mining interest firearms of any kind or, except with the prior consent of the Land Council, any animal; (e) the holder of the mining interest shall at all times give full consideration to the aspirations and welfare of the local Aboriginals and co-operate with the traditional Aboriginal owners and not interfere with the growth and development of the Aboriginal social, cultural and economic structures on the mining interest; (f) the holder of the mining interest shall employ and engage, and shall ensure that its agents, contractors and sub-contractors employ and engage, as many Aborigines or Incorporated Aboriginal Associations or groups associated with the mining interest as is practicable who are capable of carrying out, or being trained (including by on-the-job training) to carry out, in a satisfactory manner, the particular work required to be carried out in relation to the mining interest at the usual award rates for the type of work performed and subject to the usual conditions of employment; (g) the holder of the mining interest shall take all reasonable steps to adjust working hours and conditions of Aboriginal employees to suit Aboriginal culture or the reasonable requirements of their Incorporated Aboriginal Association or group; (h) the holder of the mining interest shall progressively rehabilitate and restore, as far as practicable, all areas disturbed by its activities in accordance with good environmental practice; (j) the holder of the mining interest shall liaise with the Land Council on the exploration or development programs in relation to the mining interest and discuss the possible relocation of proposed works and details of the program as it develops; (k) the holder of the mining interest shall, before carrying out a program involving substantial disturbance of the surface of the mining interest, advise the relevant Northern Territory authority and the Land Council, in writing, of that program and comply with such directions as the relevant Northern Territory authority considers appropriate for the protection of the environment in the carrying out of the program; (l) the holder of the mining interest shall advise the relevant Northern Territory authority and the Land Council, in writing, of the proposed location of all infrastructure facilities on the mining interest and the proposed method to be used in disposing of waste, and comply with such directions as the relevant Northern Territory authority considers appropriate in relation to the disposal of that waste. (m) the holder of the mining interest shall not erect a permanent building or facility on the mining interest except with the approval in writing of the relevant Northern Territory authority; and (n) the holder of the mining interest shall comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement referred to in section 41 in relation to the mining interest. Access to Aboriginal Land `48. Notwithstanding sections 68 and 70, where a person has the right under a law of the Northern Territory to occupy Aboriginal land by virtue of the grant of a mining interest, that person has for himself, his employees and his agents, a right of access from a public road to that land and across other parts of the Aboriginal land of which the mining interest is part and any contiguous Aboriginal land, by the shortest practicable route, being a route agreed upon by the person and the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated. Right of way in respect of services, &c. `49. (1) The grant of a mining interest entitles the holder of the mining interest to a right of way over Aboriginal land for all reasonable ancillary purposes in connection with the operations to be conducted under the mining interest. `(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a right of way extends to access for or in connection with- (a) the erection and use of conveyor apparatus in connection with the transporting of minerals or substances containing minerals; (b) the erection of electricity lines; (c) the construction of roads; (d) the cutting and construction of water races or drains; and (e) the boring, sinking for, pumping, raising of or conveying of water. `(3) Where the holder of a mining interest is entitled under sub-section (1) to a right of way, that right of way may be exercised by a route agreed to by the holder of the mining interest and the Land Council for the area in which the mining interest is situated. `(4) Where a Land Council and the holder of a mining interest cannot agree on the route by which a right of way under sub-section (1) may be exercised, the matter may be referred by the Land Council or the holder of the mining interest to the warden's court for determination and the decision of the warden's court in relation to that matter is binding. `(5) Compensation shall be payable by the holder of the mining interest to the Land Council for the benefit of the relevant traditional Aboriginal owners in respect of a right of way under sub-section (1). `(6) The compensation to be paid under sub-section (5) shall be determined on the same basis as under section 44 in respect of the grant of a mining interest. `(7) Where an amount of compensation payable under sub-section (5) cannot be agreed upon between the Land Council and the holder of the mining interest, the Land Council or the holder of the mining interest may refer the matter to the warden's court for determination and the decision of the warden's court in relation to that matter is binding. `(8) A right of way under sub-section (1) shall not be exercised until compensation has been paid in accordance with this section. Jurisdiction and supervision of warden's court `49a. Where by or under this Part a power is conferred or a function imposed on the warden's court, the warden's court has the jurisdiction to exercise that power or perform that function as if it had been conferred or imposed on it by or under the Mining Act of the Northern Territory and an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory from a decision or determination of the warden's court under this Part in the same manner as an appeal against a decision of the warden's court under that Act.'.'' This is one of the most important areas that is ignored by the Government in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986. As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) said in his second reading speech, he has ignored-or deferred, as he would rather say-some main elements for future dealing. They refer specifically to exploration and mining on Aboriginal land, the granting of an estate or interest in Aboriginal land to the Northern Territory Governments for essential services, the protection of sacred sites, and methods for calculating payments of royalty equivalents to the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account. It is important that in the last two years all those areas have been the subject of extensive negotiation between the Minister, the Northern Territory Government, the mining industry, the cattle industry, the Aboriginal land councils and all other groups. It is a matter of great sadness that the amendments which were put to those organisations earlier this year and which were negotiated with the land councils and a Caucus back bench committee resulted in these fundamental changes being left out. In some of the amendments I am moving today I have endeavoured to reintroduce into the Parliament virtually the same words as the Minister used in the proposed amendments which he said throughout Australia that he would move to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. I hope we will not wait in vain for the Minister to come forward next year with an agreed set of amendments to key areas of the land rights issue. While the Minister persists in ignoring them, we will not be able to have a situation in which, as I said earlier, residents of the Northern Territory-black, white, all nationalities alike-will be able to say with any justification that they do not see the issue of land rights as one of fear and one that is likely to have major negative economic impact on the future of that area. It would be completely false to assert that this Bill therefore contains a full set of the reforms we had expected. It is really a very sad reminder of the gap between the rhetoric and the action that has typified the Government's entire approach to Aboriginal affairs in the last four years. Last March the Minister told us of all the changes he would introduce. Now we have seen what little substance there was in that performance. Even in the 1983 election campaign the Australian Labor Party made the commitment: We recognise that in some areas the Land Rights Act does need amendment . . . excisions for Aboriginals living on pastoral leases . . . the ALP will be renegotiating amendments to the Land Rights Act with Aboriginal land councils and the Northern Territory Government. The people did not necessarily support all the changes the ALP was proposing. How can they trust the Government, which agreed to negotiations but which came back to Canberra and dropped the baby, bathwater and all? Once again it is simply lowering, in the perception of the people of the Northern Territory, the image that governments in Canberra, particularly Labor governments, can be trusted. While that situation is in place, the issue remains. I turn now specifically to mining. Last year Senator Bernie Kilgariff from the Northern Territory introduced into the Senate some far-reaching amendments to the provisions of Part IV of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act relating to mining interests and mining operations on Aboriginal land. Because the Government has not had the courage to face this vital issue at a time when the Australian economy is on its knees, when we must do all we can to encourage foreign investment in this nation and when the mining industry undoubtedly has an important role to play to get us out of the economic mess to which this Labor Government has contributed so much, we see yet again no attempt made by the Minister in this area. It is not necessarily an issue of a competition or a conflict between mining interests on the one hand and Aboriginal interests on the other, as the Minister would have us believe. In fact, it is an unwillingness by the Minister to look for solutions which are mutually acceptable, if that is possible. That provision was built into the Act in 1976, but it has never been utilised. In the national interest it is the responsibility of the Government to make mining in the Northern Territory a reality in cases where traditional owners prefer, unreasonably, that there should be no mining at any time. All he proposed in that context was to do away with the total veto in prior legislation and replace it with a five-year veto, subject then to further negotiation. What has been suggested by Senator Kilgariff and supported by the Opposition is that that five-year veto should be reduced to 12 months. On many occasions I have heard the Minister say in this chamber that Aboriginal interests are not necessarily anti-mining. I am glad he said that because there is some truth in that statement. Aboriginal interests may well fear that their tribal and other interests are not given adequate consideration in the context of the economic utilisation of their land. The Kilgariff amendments which are now being put forward adequately cover the legitimate interests of tribal owners, while at the same time ensuring that the community at large, and the Aboriginal communities as part of the Australian community, are given access to the wealth which undoubtedly is to be found in much of the Northern Territory. Earlier the Minister mentioned that his State of Victoria is covered by leases. He also said that very few of those leases in fact will be actively mined. Undoubtedly the same principle applies to the Northern Territory, where now nearly 50 per cent of the land is Aboriginal land or subject to claim. Why is there therefore such a problem in allowing miners to enter into negotiations with the traditional Aboriginal owners at least to carry out exploration activities and, if they are successful, to hold further negotiations in relation to mining? The simple fact is that since 1976, and not absolutely because of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act but because of the freeze which was introduced in 1972, virtually no successful negotiations have taken place. In fact there has been only one. Recently I think there was a second agreement in relation to exploration. The record is clear. Anyone who wants to examine it will see that the imposition of a total veto over Aboriginal land rights and the difficulties which the Northern Territory land councils have emphasised to me on numerous occasions of determining who are the traditional owners with whom negotiations should be carried out-which, if I may suggest, puts paid to the argument that the Minister used a few moments ago against having reliable registers of ownership-simply make the point that we are possibly leaving in the ground the opportunities which can come only from further mining, at a time when we need more, not less, economic activity in this nation. The point needs to be made that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) identified this. He said that there was no economic need to develop new mines in Kakadu. Now the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs refuses to lift the impediments to mining contained within Northern Territory land rights legislation. I would just like to read into the Hansard a letter which was sent to Geopeko by Dr Rex Patterson on 21 December 1973, which demonstrates why mining interests in the Northern Territory do not trust this Government. This is what Dr Rex Patterson had to say: Dear Mr Elliston, I refer to your applications for renewal of Exploration Licences Nos 219 and 220. These applications relate to areas that extend into the area proposed as a national park in the Alligator Rivers region. I wish to confirm the advice given on my behalf by the Secretary of the Department of the Northern Territory, to your company's representatives during recent discussions in Darwin. The Government is not opposed to renewal of the licences to 31 December 1974, in respect of so much of the areas applied for as lies outside the boundary of the proposed park. It is opposed to renewal of the licences in respect of any area that lies within the boundary of the proposed park. It is the intention of the Government, at the February 1974 sittings of the Northern Territory Legislative Council, to introduce new legislation providing for the creation of national parks in the Northern Territory, and for the issue of rights under that legislation to allow prospecting to be carried out within those national parks under suitable conditions. The letter went on to state: I am authorised by the Government to assure you that, if your applications for renewal of licences are approved only in respect of areas outside the boundary of the proposed park, you will, upon commencement of the new legislation, be issued with fresh licences under that legislation in respect of the areas within the park boundary to which your current renewal applications relate. Please be assured that my officers will be available to discuss any matter of concern to you. That letter was signed by Rex Patterson, the then Minister for Northern Development. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(12.03) —I wish to take a few minutes of the time of the House to enter the discussion and to point out that I was engaged somewhere else during the earlier stages of the debate. If I had not been perhaps I could have joined in the debate earlier. I have to respond to the comments of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) purely to state this Government's point of view. In his concluding comments he talked about the trust which the miners have for this Government. I have no hesitation in saying that I am sure that this Government does not have too much trust in the company that the honourable member referred to in his quotations. I certainly do not. The record of Peko-Wallsend Ltd around this country in terms of industrial relations and its attitude to people is abominable. That has been the comment of a lot of journalists and political commentators around this country. So honour- able members opposite should not drag up Peko-Wallsend as a support group when they come into this chamber. The amendments which have been moved by the Opposition are known as the Kilgariff amendments. I am sure that Senator Kilgariff has expressed the views of Peko-Wallsend and other mining interests in the Senate. The amendments that the Opposition has moved today are a re-run of Senator Kilgariff's private member's Bill. I would just like to ask: How many Aboriginal communities have the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Senator Kilgariff consulted about these amendments? Yet they have the audacity to come into this chamber and the Senate and talk about consultation. I want to say again what I said during the course of the debate before we entered the Committee stage. The Government has had consultation after consultation with Aboriginal groups in the Northern Territory. Since I have been a member in this place I have seen no other piece of legislation receive more consultation than the legislation or the amendments before the House today, and that ought to be understood by the broader community. Representatives from the Northern Territory land councils have been to Canberra time and again. A government party visited the Northern Territory and spoke to Aboriginal people, the mining companies and the Northern Territory Government. That has to be understood by honourable members opposite. They come into this chamber and talk about consultation and trust, but I can tell them that a distinct lack of consultation and trust has been displayed by them, and that is recognised by large sections of the Northern Territory community, particularly the Aboriginal people. I suggest that, when members of the Opposition parties talk about discussions and consultation, they ought to start consulting with the Aboriginal people. Instead of flying into some outlying area for an afternoon or a day, or into Darwin on their way through to somewhere else, they should stop, talk and mingle with the people. They will find that the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory support the legislation. I guess that it would be remiss of me if I did not mention that some areas still need to be addressed. I said that also earlier in the debate. The Government recognises that. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has stated publicly that, unless certain things happen, the matter will be re-examined in the very near future. So I make that point as a sort of guarantee to those people in the Northern Territory community who are listening to this debate. Those commitments that have been given will be honoured. The shadow Minister would do well not to come into this chamber and criticise the Government. I do not want to sound repetitive, but one gets a little tired of hearing these sorts of criticisms about this Government's consultations with Aboriginal people. Honourable members opposite rely on one honourable member who represents that area but who has spent most of his time, since he has been a member of this Parliament, living in another State. They rely on his comments and on his expertise to guide them through. Honourable members opposite are making a terrible error in proceeding with these amendments because they are not supported by the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. Honourable members opposite should not come into this chamber and say that these amendments will benefit Aboriginal people. These amendments will benefit a special interest group-the miners. That is what it is all about. The miners have campaigned and advertised throughout Australia in the most dishonest of ways. Recently, they engaged in a new campaign in Victoria which was equal to the dishonesty that they displayed in Western Australia; there was lie after lie right throughout their advertisements. The mining councils have displayed no concern for the environment or Aboriginal people. If anybody could show me where they have I would be amazed because no one has yet shown me. We need to understand who the Opposition's amendments represent. Honourable members opposite should be honest and say who their amendments represent. They should not say to us that their amendments represent the views of Aboriginal people and that they will assist Aboriginal people. I see that the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) has come into the chamber. No doubt he will have a few words to say. That is good because the more exposure he gets the better. If ever there was a oncer on that side of the chamber it is the honourable member for the Northern Territory. So honourable members should get a good look at him because he will not be here for too much longer. The honourable member for the Northern Territory does not spend much time in this chamber but he should spend a little less time here and get back to his electorate because he will be a member for only a short period. Honourable members opposite have to come clean with the Australian community. I say this sincerely to the shadow Minister because I think deep down he does not really go along with these amendments. He is not a bad bloke really when one gets to know him, when one travels with him and mingles with him in the communities. I know that he does not support all these amendments. I do not want to do him an injustice when I say that. Mr Connolly —I would not be moving them unless I supported them. Mr HAND —That is not necessarily true. We all have to do things that we do not necessarily agree with. This may be a case where the honourable member is involved in one of those exercises. But I wish that he would come into this chamber and say: `These amendments are designed to assist the miners'. The Australian community could then make a judgment on the honesty that the honourable member would display. But he should not come into this chamber and say that the amendments are designed to help Aboriginal people because they are designed to strip benefits from Aboriginal people that were given by the coalition's Leader Mr Fraser, when in government, as a result of legislation worked out by the Whitlam Government. Honourable members want to strip away large sections of the legislation which are beneficial to Aboriginal people. The amendments are nothing more than a mechanism to advance the welfare of the mining lobby. If members of the Opposition said that, people might have a bit more respect for them. People then would be able to make judgments on members of the Opposition because they would really expose what they are on about. I just say to those opposite in a sincere way that they would be better off doing that than pretending that they are doing something else. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(12.10) —I take it as some sort of perverted tribute that the justification by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) for his opposition to these amendments and the intervention of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) have largely taken the form of a personal and vitriolic attack upon me and my activities. I absolutely rebut and deny their allegations that I do not spend plenty of time in my electorate. It seems to me that, however little time they say that I spend in my electorate, my time there apparently is so well spent that I have become a thorn in their side. Turning to the wishes and desires of Aboriginals, let me say that, whatever the Government says about consultation with Aboriginal people, the fact is that the consultations of the Government's Caucus committee and of the Minister have largely taken the form of consultation with the land councils. To say that consultation with Aboriginals means consultation with land councils is quite incorrect. In the last few weeks I have been talking to Aboriginals in Arnhem Land, on Groote Eylandt and west of Darwin, and let me tell the Committee that there is a large degree of dissatisfaction amongst Aboriginal people with the land councils. To say that amendments which would facilitate mining on Aboriginal land is inimical to the wishes of Aboriginals is quite untrue, because this Government has itself intervened to prevent mining at Koongarra and Jabiluka which Aboriginals wish to see happen. Obviously the Minister takes great liberties, but for him to say that I have not read the Toohey report entitled `Seven Years On' is laughable. The thing about the Toohey report is that its terms of reference were set by the Minister and provided a bridle-or perhaps a halter-on Mr Justice Toohey. Certainly he was not able to report at large. Whilst I have every respect for the gentleman in his legal capacity, I feel that he was in effect being asked to report on his own administration of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act as Aboriginal Land Commissioner. That is probably the worst sort of perspective from which a report could have been drawn. The report should have been carried out by someone who had not had such close connections with the workings of the Act as Commissioner over a period of years. I simply wish to say that I regard the claims by the Government of consultation with Aboriginal people as false. It has consulted land councils; it has not been into the Aboriginal communities. I have received representations expressing grave dissatisfaction with the operations of the land councils, and those representations have come not just to me. For years throughout the Northern Territory there have been activities to try to create additional land councils. The Minister is fully aware of that. The areas of Groote Eylandt and East Arnhem have been very strong in wanting to have their own land councils. To say that talking to the Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council to get their views is consultation simply will not wash with me or with people in the Northern Territory. In any event, even if it were, is this legislation not to be for the benefit of the whole community of the Northern Territory? Is it not an attempt to assist the Northern Territory to obtain a degree of economic self-sufficiency? We are berated by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in another place as being a mendicant area dependent on the largesse of the Australian taxpayer, and here in this chamber this Government is perpetuating that situation. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(12.15) —I just wish to take a few more moments of the Committee's time to answer a couple of the comments made by the short term representative of the Northern Territory. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) made comments about consultation by the Government. I just want to put it on the record that I have talked to the Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council on many occasions. I also point out to the honourable member-and he knows this-that I have visited the Northern Territory and talked to a whole range of people outside the land council structure. He knows that to be true, as does the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). There are not many members of this place, other than the honourable member for the Northern Territory, who live there, and the Minister, who have made as many trips to the outlying areas and talked to as many communities. Mr Everingham —I am glad you now acknowledge that I live there. Mr HAND —That is true. Mr Everingham —That is not what the Minister says. Mr HAND —What I am saying is that this is a very delicate issue and that people ought not to come in here and make comments about me and think that they are going to get away with it, because I am going to respond to them if they are not true. The point I am making is that I have visited the Northern Territory and talked to many people. The honourable member also talked about the Toohey report entitled `Seven Years On'. It is an excellent document. The honourable member knows that to be true and he knows that it is widely accepted by the whole of Australia as an excellent document. What we are about here is discussing proposed amendments to legislation which those opposite talk about as though they were some great gift to Aboriginal people. That is just not true. The legislation in its present form does not bar Aboriginal people from entering into mining arrangements, and the honourable member knows that to be a fact. What he is about is taking away the power of Aboriginal people to have some say in what goes on on their land and handing that power over to Peko-Wallsend Ltd and the people from whom he got his support to get here and from whom he got his support when he was the leader of the Government in the Northern Territory. They are the people who he is representing. Let us get that on the record and understood by people listening on the radio and in the gallery. That is what this amendment is all about. The honourable member should not pretend that he has been to this island or to that island, or to Arnhem or somewhere else, and had discussions with Aboriginal people and that they are wildly excited about the Opposition's amendments, because they are not and everybody knows it. What those opposite are about, I repeat, is changing the legislation to favour one section of the community in the Northern Territory, that being the internationally and Australian owned mining companies, over and above Aboriginal people and the whole of the Northern Territory community. That is what they are about. It ought to be understood by the community at large that the people who want to dig up Kakadu and wreck it are the people whom those opposite are here trying to protect by increasing their power over the people in the Northern Territory. That is what they are trying to do. The shadow Minister cited Peko-Wallsend. The people listening know all about Peko-Wallsend, and they know that that company wants to dig up Kakadu National Park. They are the sorts of people those opposite are here supporting. They have no concern for the environment and they are showing that by their carryings-on about Kakadu. They have no concern about Aboriginals, and those opposite know that to be true, too. I repeat that, if those opposite came in here and said that these amendments would help miners and would take away from Aboriginal people some of the advantages they got from the Fraser legislation, I would have more respect for them, but they say: `I have talked to this group of Aboriginals or this Aboriginal and I have a letter from 1975 from some other Aboriginal, and that supports these amendments'. Aboriginal people, whether they are from the land councils or are elders of the community or are traditional owners, do not support the amendments, because they are going to take away from them the fair and proper powers that they have been given by the legislation. That is what the amendments attempt to do. If those opposite said that they are supporting Peko and the plunderers of the Northern Territory, I would have more respect for them, but they should not say that they are supporting Aboriginal people, because they are not. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.20) —Naturally I must respond to some of the extravagant and extraordinary comments made by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). If he wants to describe miners generically as plunderers, so be it. But 16 million people in this country, including 160,000 Aboriginals, are facing a substantial lowering of their standard of living and the only way we can work our way out of the current economic mess which the policies of this Government and the attitudes of members such as the honourable member for Melbourne have brought to this nation is to see the facts for what they are. Members on both sides of this chamber would know that, if the 1976 legislation were being introduced today, under current economic circumstances the probability of the veto being in it would be absolutely zero because there is no way we could substantiate in the current circumstances approximately half of the Northern Territory, which contains known substantial reserves of minerals, being locked up for all time. To that the Government is now adding national parks, for good measure; so, well over 50 per cent of the Northern Territory will be locked up for all time. That is the essence of the case I put. I am not here defending any specific community group; I am here looking after the interests of all Australians. That is the fundamental difference between my Party and the Party of the honourable member for Melbourne. That is why the Australian Labor Party will lose the next election. People are sick and tired of hearing all this heartstrings stuff from those such as the honourable member for Melbourne about plundering the resources of Australia. He should go back to wearing skins and running down the beach at Port Phillip Bay if he wants to, but that is not what most people are all about. We need to develop the resources of the Northern Territory so that traditional Aboriginal owners can also gain from it. The honourable member for Melbourne, I and others, went out to the other side of Hermannsburg. We saw communities out in the desert which were surviving because they now had access, at last, to some royalties from the gas pipeline that passed through their land. Why should other communities be denied access to royalties just because elements of land councils simply refuse to allow negotiations to proceed in many cases? In hundreds of cases applications have gone forward but have not been successful for one reason or another. It is not always because of Aboriginals; sometimes it is because the cases were not properly put forward by the miners. The essential fact remains that, since this legislation has been on the books, only one agreement has been reached, and now the Government proposes in these amendments to lessen further the chance of agreement. There has been only one agreement over all those years since 1976. Mr Hand —That is not true, and you know it. Mr CONNOLLY —That is the truth; the record stands. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11.23) —I wish quickly to dispose of some of the issues raised. Let me deal first with the allegation that this Government has not consulted with Aboriginal communities. That is entirely false and entirely specious. The simplest thing I could have done, and the simplest thing the Government could have done, would have been to go to the Northern Territory and said to the land councils: `Righto, whatever you want, we will do'. Or we could have gone to the Northern Territory Government and said: `Whatever you want, we will do', or alternatively we could have gone to the miners and said: `Whatever you want, we will do'. The fact is that I, as Minister, and the Australian Labor Party's Caucus committee have spoken endlessly to all the organisations involved. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) says that there is criticism of the land councils by Aboriginal people. Of course there is, but there is not as much criticism by Aboriginal people of land councils in the Northern Territory as I hear about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) from some of his colleagues on the back bench. So, of course, there is criticism of the land councils, and that is why the Caucus committee and I not merely went to the Northern Territory to confer with the land councils but deliberately went out to remote communities, and those communities that we knew were critical, in order to get a balanced view. I do not believe that the honourable gentleman would have spent as much time with those communities, with land councils or with the leadership of Aboriginal people as the Caucus committee has on this issue. The honourable member for the Northern Territory and the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), have undertaken a very simple exercise. They have grabbed the views of the Northern Territory miners and the views of the Northern Territory Government-those views are very close indeed-and have said that they represent the views of the community. To them, that represents consultation. The coalition has an Aboriginal affairs policy committee, so let the shadow Minister tell the chamber what communities were involved in discussing the merits of Senator Kilgariff's proposals; tell the chamber how often they sat down not merely with the land councils but with Aboriginal people who may be critical of the land councils and what results they got from those discussions. The fact is that that information will not be forthcoming because the honourable member for the Northern Territory and I both know that there was no discussion of any significance at all with Aboriginal people and Aboriginal communities. Of course it would be easy for the Government simply to accept the recommendations of the miners but I remind the honourable member for the Northern Territory and the shadow spokesperson that on 17 occasions the very propositions put to us by the Australian Mining Industry Council were put to the Fraser Government-after all the principal legislation is Fraser Government legislation-and on 17 occasions they were rejected. So they cannot talk to me about Peko-Wallsend Ltd. The letter that the shadow Minister referred to was the subject of further correspondence by Peko to two Ministers of the Fraser Government-Senator Peter Baume, who responded to it, and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), who would not even see Peko. He would not even grant Peko an audience. In order to try to break through this nexus, I visited Peko at its headquarters in Sydney and spent several hours with Mr Copeman in order to see whether there was any kind of negotiating position which would break through the situation that existed. If those two Ministers in the Fraser Government had felt so deeply about this issue, they could have excised these areas. They did not, and it is a matter of record that they did not. So when we hear the bleeding hearts for Peko in this chamber, let us ask what the views put forward represent. They represent not any lack of principle on this side in trying to resolve these problems; they represent the considerable shift to the right in the coalition and its abandoning of principles and policies that it once held. It is accepting the view that, when one is dealing with Aboriginal land rights, the only people one is not concerned to talk to, the only people one is not concerned to consult, are the Aboriginal people. The honourable member for the Northern Territory is full of specious humbug on this issue. He knows and I know that he has not had any serious discussion with any Aboriginal community on the amendments that were simply picked up by Senator Kilgariff, who put them together in conjunction with the miners and sections of the Northern Territory Government, and brought in here as if we had to treat them in the same way as the Jewish people treated the tablets when they were brought down from the mount. What absolute rubbish. It is the prerogative of this Government to determine what aspects of its policy it will deal with. This question is still under negotiation, because very clear conflicts are involved. There is a clear conflict at this stage-I think we are close to resolving some areas of it-between the miners, the Northern Territory Government and Aboriginal hopes and aspirations. It is not a simple issue. It is not for the shadow Minister to say: `We all know that circumstances have changed'. There has not been an independent inquiry or assessment in which the Australian Mining Industry Council has not put these arguments time and again. There was such an inquiry less than two years ago. Those arguments have been rejected by-- Mr Connolly —But you backed off from the issue. Mr HOLDING —We have not backed off from the issue. The fact is that this Opposition has become an opposition which will lie down and let the miners walk all over it. Yet honourable members opposite come in here and purport to talk-- Mr Connolly —I hope to see you bring your amendments into the House next year. Mr HOLDING —If the honourable member were the shadow Minister for Resources and Energy I would not have any objection to his position; I would say that that was fair enough. But he should not come in here and tell us that the views he is putting represent any consideration or discussion that he has had with Aboriginal people. He has not had such discussions. The Opposition's amendments represent nothing more than a hotchpotch of submissions that have come from the miners and its political colleagues in the Northern Territory, and they are rejected for that reason. Question put: That the proposed new clause (Mr Connolly's amendment) be inserted. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S. Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J. Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R. Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Jull, D. F. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D, P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert McHugh, J. Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J. Charles, D. E Martin, S. P. Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H. Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B. Cleeland, P. R. Milton, PCross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G. Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P. Dubois, S. G. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Lee, M. Dobie, J. D. M. Willis, R. Fisher, PeterPrice, L. R. S. Smith, W. Duncan, P. Sharp, J. Jacobi, R. Hodgman, W. M. Darling, E. E. Goodluck, B. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause 25 (Functions of Commissioner). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.40) —The Opposition disapproves of the proposal in respect of clause 25 relating to the functions of commissioners, specifically because the proposed amendments will enable land claims to be extended over a further 10-year period. It should be noted that already land claims have been made since 1976, which effectively means that there would be over 20 years in which to make claims for land. It is also worth noting that under existing claims nearly 33 per cent of the Northern Territory has already been granted in land rights and a further 12 per cent is under claims yet to be decided. I am informed that there is virtually no claimable land left after the decisions on that 12 per cent have been settled. In view of that, I cannot see, nor can the Opposition, any reason why there needs to be a further extension of 10 years to solve that problem. The problem in regard to the question of land access in this context is related to mining. I wish to refer briefly to what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said on this subject. According to the Age on 20 October 1984, he said: We do not believe the right of veto is an integral part of having effective, fair and efficient land rights legislation. That is the Prime Minister's view, and is contrary to the position adopted by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and by the Australian Labor Party. The Prime Minister went on to say: We're not going to allow a position to arise where our resources, which are wanted by the rest of the world, can't be developed, because to develop them is in the interests of all Australians, including Aboriginals. I say `Amen' to that. It is precisely the basis of the argument that I propounded in this place this morning. The Prime Minister also said: . . . as a community we ought to ensure a blending of the concern for Aboriginal rights with the proper need of all Australians to have our mineral resources fully developed. That is what he said on radio 8DN on 13 December 1985. Furthermore, he also said: We do not believe the right of veto is an integral part of having effective, fair and efficient land rights legislation. That is the essential argument propounded today by me and other Opposition members. Obviously it is the view of the Prime Minister. It is clearly not the view of the Labor Party. For that reason we believe that the extension of further claims for a period of 10 years is unnecessary, and I am proposing an amendment that the period be reduced to 12 months. I seek leave to move amendments Nos 7 to 9 together. Leave granted. Mr CONNOLLY —I move: (7) Clause 25, page 16, line 10, omit ``10 years'', substitute ``12 months''. (8) Clause 25, page 16, omit proposed sub-section 50 (2b). (9) Clause 25, page 17, omit proposed sub-sections 50 (2d) and (2e), substitute the following sub-sections: `` `(2d) Where an application as referred to in paragraph (1) (a) has been made to the Commissioner before the day of commencement of this sub-section or is made to a Commissioner on or after that day and- (a) the land, or a part of the land, to which the application relates- (i) was reserved, dedicated or otherwise set aside, under a law of the Northern Territory, with effect from a time before the making of the application, as a stock route or stock reserve but is not that part of a stock route so reserved, dedicated or set aside that is, along each of its 2 longer boundaries, contiguous to other land to which the application relates; or (ii) was reserved, dedicated or otherwise set aside, under a law of the Northern Territory, with effect from a time before the making of the application, for a specified public purpose, and, in a case where the application was made before the day of commencement of this sub-section, the Commissioner had not, before the day of commencement of this sub-section, commenced an inquiry under paragraph (1) (a) in relation to the application as it related to that land or that part; or (b) the land, or a part of the land, to which the application relates has been reserved, dedicated or otherwise set aside, under the law of the Northern Territory with effect from a time before the making of the application, for a public purpose (not being a specified public purpose) and the Minister, by notice published in the Gazette, declares that that land, or that part of that land, is not land to which paragraph (1) (a) relates, the Commissioner shall not perform, or continue to perform, a function under paragraph (1) (a) in relation to the application as it relates to that land or that part. `(2e) For the purposes of sub-section (2d), land is reserved, dedicated or otherwise set aside for a public purpose if the purpose is related to health, education, community development, fire prevention or control, quarantine, energy supply and conservation and all other matters specified in Regulation 4 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Regulations and, in particular, for a specified public purpose if it is reserved, dedicated or set aside: (a) for forestry or re-afforestation purposes; (b) for the recreation or amusement of the public; (c) for the protection or conservation of wildlife; (d) for the conservation of native flora; (e) for the preservation or protection of places or buildings or historic interest; (f) for memorial purposes; (g) for scenic purposes; (h) for long term geological or geophysical research; (j) for aerodrome purposes; (k) for Commonwealth War Graves purposes; (m) for police purposes; (n) as a water supply area, water control area or water catchment area; (p) as a cemetery; (q) as a monument; (r) as a garbage reserve; (s) as a commonage reserve; (t) as a place of scientific interest.' ''. Amendments negatived. Amendments (by Mr Holding)-by leave-Agreed to: Clause 25, page 17, lines 14 and 15, omit `the making of the application,', substitute `the commencement of this sub-section'. Clause 25, page 17, line 24, insert `or stock reserve' after `route'. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 26 to 30-by leave-taken together. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.44) —In view of the position the Opposition has adopted in relation to proposed clause 24a, which is also consistent with our views on clauses 26 to 30, we oppose most vehemently the proposal to extend the powers of the commissioners, and specifically the extension of the rights to claim land for a period of 10 years. Question put: That clauses 26 to 30 be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McAthur, F. S. Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J. Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R. Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Jull, D. F. Lee, M. Dobie, J. D. M. Willis, R. Fisher, PeterPrice, L. R. S. Smith, W. Duncan, P. Sharp, J. Jacobi, R. Hodgman, W. M. Darling, E. E. Goodluck, B. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! It being past 12.45 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106a I shall report progress. The Deputy Chairman having reported accordingly- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The House may, at a later hour, again resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(12.53) —I move: That this House recognises the significant contribution that has been made by TAA and Qantas to the development of aviation in Australia and places on record its view that these 2 airlines should remain in public ownership. Since their inception both Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines have played a vital role in the development of Australia, economically and socially. In the early days, these airlines provided vital communication links not only within Australia, but also to the rest of the world. Because of their geographic isolation from mainstream world aviation, both companies have developed skill and resource bases that not only contribute to the nation's balance of payments but also provide critical support in the event of a defence emergency or national disaster. In Qantas we have an asset that, at today's costs, it would require about $5 billion to create. Current earnings exceed $2 billion annually, of which sum more than half is generated by the company's sales and marketing activities in foreign countries. Mr Deputy Speaker, this puts Qantas among Australia's top export industries. However, if its billion dollar overseas earnings are combined with the $700m that is spent in Australia by the overseas tourists that Qantas brings here, the total annual export sales value of the airline is seen to outrank that of each of the iron and steel, motor vehicle, machinery, metal manufacturing, natural gas, textile, clothing, meat, sugar and petroleum industries. Qantas further enhances our balance of trade by carrying Australians who, when they travel, choose their own national carrier in preference to overseas airlines. This ensures that nearly $1 billion that is spent in Australia for foreign travel stays in this country. Qantas plays a central role in Australia's bid to improve its share of the international tourism market. Indeed, the impact made by Qantas on the international travel industry overseas will be a deciding factor in meeting the Government's target of doubling the number of visitors to Australia by our bicentennial year. Qantas operates a world-wide network of 81 of its own direct sales offices in 30 countries. To maintain this network, pay commissions and meet advertising and promotion costs, it injects $100m each year into the development of tourism. This figure is larger than is the combined contribution made by the remainder of the Australian tourist industry. Traditionally, international passenger traffic had been dominated by Australians flying overseas but, in the case of Qantas, the trend has been reversed and today the company earns 54 per cent of its revenue overseas. As tourism expands this overseas share rises. The 1985-86 profit on the airlines' operations totalled more than $44m. This allowed the directors to recommend a dividend of almost $15m. The value of Qantas's contributions in the current financial year will be in the region of $2.2 billion. This figure includes a net balance of payments gain of nearly $107m, an Australian payroll of $445m, expenditure on Australian goods and services amounting to $520m, import substitutions totalling $1 billion, payments to the Commonwealth, totalling $79m, and payments of $24m to the States and $2m to local government authorities. Qantas provides direct employment for about 12,000 Australians and each year injects more than $400m into the economy by way of salaries, wages and related on-costs. Qantas manpower not only serves the national carrier but, as well, produces additional export income through contract work, for foreign airlines and other customers, involving engineering, training and aircraft servicing. In the last financial year the company earned $122m through contract work for its overseas customers. That was largely in its maintenance area. I will say a little more about that later. It is also estimated that the airline provides indirect employment for an additional 32,000 Australians in the tourist industry. By 1988 the number of jobs in tourism that are sustained by Qantas could exceed 60,000. Other Australian companies and individuals also benefit from Qantas's expenditures. Through its buy Australian purchasing policy Qantas provides a significant multiplier effect throughout the economy, spending some $520m on Australian goods and services. It is also a major supporter of primary industry through its catering operations, which each year absorb more than $21m worth of Australian goods, wines and support equipment. Qantas also plays a major role in the areas of national security and national emergency. To assist with defence preparedness, the airline takes part in Defence Force exercises, provides aircraft with which to transport troops, maintains military aircraft engines and provides a nucleus of technical resources that are capable of rapid expansion to satisfy the requirements of the defence forces if that should ever become necessary. It will be remembered, of course, that Qantas has provided relief aircraft and other forms of assistance during emergencies such as Cyclone Tracy and regularly assists in search and rescue operations. In the domestic field Australian Airlines, which was set up as a government enterprise just after World War II, has ensured a degree of competition in a stable and steadily expanding aviation industry and has assisted in the achievement of objectives such as equitable access to air services in the more remote parts of the continent. In 1983 the Hawke Government placed the airline, which was then known as Trans Australia Airlines, on a sound commercial basis by injecting capital and, in the following year, amending the enabling legislation to give the Australian National Airlines Commission greater autonomy. I will say a little bit more about that later. Since the Government made these necessary changes Australian Airlines has improved its performance considerably, and in recent years, has achieved substantial profits. It is currently carrying record numbers of passengers. Its name change in August of this year, together with the progressive introduction of 12 B737 aircraft, has provided a new image and has signalled the airline's determination to set the pace in the domestic aviation industry, and work towards increasing its share of the domestic market. The domestic airlines operate within regulatory arrangements that were introduced by the previous Government in 1981 and are to continue until 1990. This Government has established an independent review of the economic regulation of domestic aviation. The report on the review is due shortly. Its terms of reference recognise the Government's policy of retaining Australian Airlines as a wholly owned government enterprise. Like Qantas, Australian Airlines makes a major contribution to the Australian community. The airline's most direct contribution is through the employment of more than 8,500 staff and the purchase of goods and services which, in 1984-85, were worth $390m. Like its inter- national cousin, it also makes substantial injections of funds into Federal, State and local government revenues. In 1984-85 its contribution to Commonwealth funds exceeded $132m. Australian Airlines is also active in promoting both domestic and international tourism and its ownership of several major tourist resorts has enabled it to offer more attractive holiday packages to its customers. Again like Qantas, it can provide valuable logistic support to Federal and State governments during national disasters and emergencies. The Government's policy in respect of both its international and domestic airlines is clear. While we are talking about Australian Airlines it is interesting to note what was the policy of the previous Government. That Government was trying, in an indirect way, to sell off TAA. As the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) will remember, it did not get very far. I would like to quote from the second reading speech of the then Minister for Aviation, now Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), on the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill of 1984. The quotation is rather lengthy but the Minister's comments at the time are well worth recalling: The previous government, from the mid-seventies,- the Minister was referring to the Fraser Government- made numerous announcements about what it was going to do to allow TAA the freedom to compete more effectively. Initially, TAA was to be retained as a statutory authority, with its enabling legislation revised, to put it on a more commercial basis. In fact, in 1980, the previous government introduced legislation into the Parliament to achieve that aim. The then Minister made numerous statements that the Government would not sell TAA to private interests. But that legislation was never passed, and within less than 12 months, the previous government had done a complete about turn. Legislation was introduced in 1981 to repeal the Australian National Airlines Act with the specific purpose of setting TAA up as a public company. It was clear that the aim of the whole strategy of transforming TAA into a public company was to sell it off to private interests, indeed consultants were engaged to specifically address this question. This legislation, the Australian National Airlines Repeal Act 1981, was passed by the Parliament and received Royal Assent, but was never proclaimed. It was never proclaimed because the then Government ran into some awful problems and found, in a practical sense, that it was a rather bigger job than expected. But make no mistake, the then Government had intended to sell off TAA, as its successors would now sell off the airline under its new name, Australian Airlines, to private interests. Those private interests would, of course, be friends of the coalition parties. Mr Martin —What about Qantas? Mr CHARLES —The same would largely be true of Qantas. I believe that the coalition's policy-although like most of its policies there is a change every few weeks-is to sell off a substantial proportion of Qantas. That would have even more important deleterious consequences. Qantas is an international carrier with a reputation of being No. 1 in the world in both service and safety. I will cite further details of its export earnings in a moment. If we were to sell it off to private interests, what would happen to those earnings? There would not necessarily be a buy Australian policy, as there is at present. Australia would not necessarily be earning the $120m-plus that Qantas earned last year from carrying out maintenance work for overseas carriers. And so the list goes on. It is interesting to note that Qantas contributes more than $4 billion annually to the Australian economy, and the figure is increasing. Since 1984 its net earnings in foreign currencies have benefited the balance of payments on the current account by more than $700m. My friend the honourable member for Macarthur will say more about privatisation later. Also, the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) will talk about the competitive aspect. Qantas has the reputation of being the best airline in the world. In common with the Australian film industry it brings to Australia, as I am sure the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) would agree, massive indirect benefits beyond its earnings. I refer to the reputation that it brings to this country. Its safety record and other attractive features contribute to Australia's good name and helps to attract tourists. The money thus earned turns round the economy. I repeat, that is attributable to Qantas's reputation and the service that it has provided over a number of years. If I may turn to shipping for a moment, I remind the House that 97 per cent of our export trade is carried in foreign-owned vessels. Only three per cent of our exports are carried by Australian-owned vessels. That is something that this Government is attempting to turn round, but it illustrates what could happen if Qantas, in particular, were to be sold to private interests. There would be no regulation. One could not tell the new, private interests what they had to do. That just would not occur, especially if the coalition had made the change. It would be giving its mates the biggest free kick of all time. Mr Martin —As usual. Mr CHARLES —As usual. We have a drastic situation in the shipping area. One point that will probably bring home the honourable members the benefit of having a government-owned airline-and, hopefully, moving more in that direction in regard to shipping-is that Australian payments to foreign operators of all transport total some $6 billion a year. I am sure that our current account could well benefit if the flow were in the reverse direction and that sum was being spent in Australia. I have talked about the wonderful record of Qantas, its export earnings, the amount that it injects into the economy, what it does for our current account, and the vast amounts that it earns in Australia from maintenance and services performed for overseas operators. I have referred to the maintenance work that it provides, to its administration and to its catering activities-all sources of employment that this Government is concerned about and which, of course, the coalition parties have never been concerned about. In regard to these types of industries that I suppose would be loosely called the service industries, employment is growing rapidly we cannot and must not let it drift away, as previously has occurred under coalition governments when they have adopted the `do nothing' approach. This Government will not allow that to occur. We will not allow Qantas to drift into private ownership. The privatisation area is important. The coalition, when it wishes to sell off all or part of a public enterprise, tries to bolster the myth that private enterprise has built up the infrastructure of this country. Of course, the facts are totally the reverse of that. The great infrastructure of this country has been built up over many years by public enterprise. If we consider the airline industry or Telecom, to name just two, we see that their infrastructure has been built up by public enterprises owned by the Australian people. No private companies wanted to be involved in that process, but now that those industries are making a profit and doing very well the conservatives have decided it would not be a bad idea to flog them off. They did not want to take part in building them up, but now that the industries are profitable enterprises they want to flog them off. Naturally, they want to sell off only the most profitable parts. In regard to Telecom, they do not want to supply services to everyone. They want to supply only the cream. Mr Martin —Not the country areas. Mr CHARLES —Not the country areas. So too in regard to Qantas and Australian Airlines-if there were not regulation and government involvement one would not receive the facilities that are necessary right across the board in order to service all of the Australian people. One would have the airlines under total private control, serving private interests, serving private pockets and what suited the owners. That is just not good enough when such a massive investment is involved in creating these entities. If we were to start from scratch tomorrow to create Qantas we would need to invest around $5 billion. That is how big and important it is. Surely there are shortcomings in the tourist area. As I am sure the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) will mention, there have been shortfalls in that area on the part of both airlines, but this Government has bolstered it more than has any other. Notwithstanding the great support that was given tourism by the honourable member when he was part of the Fraser Government, that Government did very little really to help it. The late Sir Phillip Lynch tried to push tourism but the Prime Minister of that time did not really see in it a good and substantial potential benefit for Australia. This Government has, under the present Minister, pushed tourism and will continue to do so. With government enterprises such as Qantas and Australian Airlines it will be able to do that. I urge the House to support the motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Martin —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later stage. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(1.13) —The motion asks that this House recognise the significant contribution that has been made by Trans Australia Airlines-which is now Australian Airlines-and Qantas Airways Ltd to the development of aviation in Australia. There is no problem, as far as the Opposition is concerned, in joining the mover in recognising the significant contribution that both those organisations have made to Australia. The motion then goes on: and places on record its view that these 2 airlines should remain in public ownership. That is where we differ. Could I suggest to the mover that if in future he wants to talk about the coalition's policy he should first read it to save himself the embarrassment of being corrected the moment he sits down. Our aviation policy is out; it has been out for several months. It is quite clear and definite and has been widely acclaimed. Mr Martin —Is that the one that we got hold of prematurely? Mr LLOYD —Yes. The Government had a leaked version of the draft issue. It was not quite the final issue but has now been distributed to more than 1,500 people. There have been about 1,500 separate requests in Australia for that policy since it was released in August and it is still being sought frequently by people who want to see this very positive policy for the future of aviation in this country. When one talks about public ownership, Mr Deputy Speaker, one can refer to a government department, a government corporation, a crown corporation or statutory authority or whatever term is used in some of the countries under the Westminster system-in Australia we call them statutory authorities-or to a public company with all of the shares owned by the Government or the majority of the shares being owned by the Government. I emphasise the word `majority' because the entity still remains in public ownership. What is the position at present of these two airlines that we are talking about? First, Qantas is not a statutory authority or government department. It is a public company, with all of its shares being owned by the Commonwealth. The Labor Government has not attempted in any way to retreat from that position of having a company rather than a statutory authority. The policy of the Opposition is to sell a minority of Qantas shares; so, under a coalition government, Qantas would effectively remain in public ownership. That is quite clear, quite definite, quite distinct. What is more, Qantas agrees with that. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) should talk to Qantas occasionally. The Qantas management itself believes that there are tremendous positive advantages in a minority of its shares being sold to the Australian public because that would improve its economic performance. Mr Blunt —That is happening overseas. Mr LLOYD —That is right. It would improve the efficiency of management, it would improve the accountability of management and would put more commercial pressure on everyone in that organisation at either management or employee level. That course is favoured by Qantas. The organisation has confirmed that. As the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has indicated, there is nothing unique or revolutionary about this. Let us look at all the other countries where it is happening. Is Singapore a rabid, ideologically capitalist society? I think that it is one of the favourites of the Labor Government when it looks around the world. Germany, Japan and a whole range of countries are offering or have offered a minority of shares in their international airlines, their flag carriers, for the very reasons I have given-the very reasons that are supported by Qantas. Let me remind the Government that our policy offers Qantas interlining rights which, so far, the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) and this Government have steadfastly refused to approve. That would add to Qantas's ability to compete as the national flag carrier. Let us hear from the Labor Government what it is going to do in that regard. Just to make this point very clear, I quote from the coalition's policy statement on the matter: A Liberal-National Government will, as soon as practicable, offer a minority interest in Qantas's shares for purchase by the Australian public. Shares in Qantas will be offered with the aims of giving the widest possible shareholding participation to the Australian public, and of giving employees of the company . . . How about that? Does Labor intend to provide any shares for the employees, to give them encouragement? Not on your life! The policy statement continues: . . . and any superannuation or like scheme maintained by the company, the opportunity to take up shares on a preferential basis. The Liberal-National Parties will closely consult employees on any question that may affect them in relation to the sale of shares in Qantas. At the outset, restrictions will be placed on the number of shares that may be held in Qantas by any company, individual or nominee. These restrictions will be kept under review. Foreign nationals and foreign companies will be excluded from holding shares in Qantas, whether directly or indirectly, since their interests and the interests of Qantas as Australia's overseas carrier, the Australian Government's interest in Qantas's overseas operations, and the interests of the Australian travelling public, may conflict. Furthermore, Qantas's capacity to move military personnel and material in and out of Australia in times of emergency is of vital importance to Australia's security, and should not be compromised by questions of ownership. So, Government supporters should take into account what the Opposition is saying before making incorrect statements. When one looks at this question of private versus public ownership, one sees that, without doubt, the further removed is any form of public ownership from direct departmental control the greater is the benefit to the efficient operation of that organisation. It is essential that any organisation that is to operate in the market, to be efficient, and to be subject to competition, must be removed from direct government day to day control, from direct double checking of everything that it does-by its being sent back to a department for approval-from the control of the Public Service Board and from government superannuation arrangements. Look at the trouble that the Whitlam Government got TAA into with that. It should also be removed from the effect of Public Service provisions generally. Following the abolition by the present Government of our `no work as directed, no pay' legislation, a government controlled organisation has no ability to discipline staff or management. Above all, there should be freedom from the Public Service mentality-that the organisation exists for the employees, rather than for the public of Australia, in this case, the travelling public. Let us look next at the management aspect. What incentive, challenge or requirement is there for management to operate efficiently? Their job is not at risk. They are in no way accountable for their decisions. Australian Airlines has not always made sensible decisions. If we want to talk about that sort of thing let us look at Air Queensland. There is no accountability to shareholders. If anything that is wrong is happening the Public Service tries to hush it up. There is no exposure to shareholders' ability to raise these issues at meetings. Above all, there is no incentive to operate commercially because the organisation can always fall back on the taxpayer. That has happened, and I am sure that it will happen again. Similarly, in one of these government controlled organisations management suffers great restrictions on its ability to manage in a sensible and flexible way. There are delays, there are legislative restrictions, there is no flexibility of salary arrangements and there is no incentive. The Opposition's attitude to privatisation is neither narrow nor ideological. It is very pragmatic. It asks: Is it necessary or advantageous for the Government to continue to own that organisation? Are the reasons why it was originally in government ownership still applicable? If one looks at some of the Commonwealth-owned operations that have existed at various times, one finds interesting examples. In my electorate a ball bearing factory was in that category. It was sold. Does Labor say that it would keep that ball bearing factory? At one stage I believe the Commonwealth had part ownership of an oil refinery. Does Labor say that the Government should still have that refinery? I understand that at one stage we had, as a government, ownership or part ownership in a wireless organisation. Should that still apply? What about Belconnen Mall, which the Government has recently sold? Is the Government saying that everything that was ever government-owned should remain government-owned? Obviously not; it has sold Belconnen Mall. What about Australian Airlines? Australian Airlines was established by the Commonwealth right after World War II to make sure that in this country there was a comprehensive and effective domestic aviation industry. I would say that that proposition was supported on a bipartisan basis then and has been for many, many years, but the reasons why TAA, as it then was, was owned by the Commonwealth no longer apply and have not for some years. That is why in 1981-82 legislation was brought down, first of all, to turn TAA into a public company, with all of the shares being owned by the Commonwealth. It seems absurd that this Government should have repealed that legislation without repealing also the legislation that puts Qantas on a similar basis, so the Government's actions have been internally inconsistent. We make no apology for the fact that TAA would have been sold to the Australian public by the time the two-airline agreement came up for review, so that we could have a completely and genuinely competitive domestic aviation industry. What is more-and Labor supporters should note this-our proposed legislation guarantees that Australian Airlines will be owned by Australians. At present no legislation guarantees that a domestic aviation company in this country shall be Australian owned. Only the general Foreign Investment Review Board requirements apply. Mr Murdoch, who happens to own some television stations, is, following his recent decision to become a United States citizen, the subject of an Australian Broadcasting Tribunal inquiry as to whether he can still, in any way, be involved in those stations. But Mr Murdoch also owns half of Ansett Airlines of Australia. Is this Government conducting an inquiry as to whether he can do that? When Government supporters talk about maintaining things for Australians they should examine their own actions. Mr Murdoch became a United States citizen in their time in government but they have not moved one jot to determine whether or not he should still be a half owner of Ansett Airlines. Let us have no more rot from the Government about preserving for Australians the ownership of aviation companies in this country. The coalition guarantees that under its policy. The Government offers no guarantee whatsoever. As to why it is appropriate and sensible to sell Australian Airlines to the Australian public, apart from guaranteeing that there will be Australian ownership, there is the very real aspect of better management to which I have referred. There is also a real point to be made about savings to the taxpayer. Some interesting little things have been revealed by the annual budgets of Australian Airlines. Some $1m was spent last year on carpets and improvements to the terminal at Tullamarine. Also, several hundred thousand dollars were spent for kitchens at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The taxpayers of Australia should not be involved in those sorts of expenditures. They should be a responsibility of the private sector. Mr Jull —How much went into superannuation? Mr LLOYD —As to the point about superannuation, both sides have now agreed to carry about $350m which, to be fair to TAA, was forced on it by the Whitlam Government. We cannot have a genuinely competitive domestic aviation industry-which the great majority of Australians want-while one of the two major operators remains Government owned, with the ability to fall back on the taxpayer. No one who might be thinking of entering the aviation industry would be inclined to risk an investment while unfair competition existed. It is a question of competing with one hand tied behind one's back, because the competition is Government owned and can fall back on the taxpayer. The majority of Australians favour the sale of Australian Airlines to the Australian public. They have shown that repeatedly in gallup polls. A good percentage of Australian Airlines management employees also want it because they know that it will make their organisation better than it is now. The aviation policy of the coalition parties has been widely acclaimed and if the Government meant, by this motion, to criticise it directly or indirectly it has failed miserably to do so. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(1.28) —At the outset, I must say that I am pleased that the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has indicated that the first half of the motion that has been put forward today by my colleague the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), is supported by those on the other side. I am pleased that in fact it is a unanimous view, I would suggest, in this House, that both Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines have contributed significantly to the Australian economy, in very recent times particularly. However, I am disappointed but not surprised, as I continue to say in debates in this House, at the attitude of those opposite with respect to the subject of the second part of the motion-whether public or private ownership of Australian Airlines and Qantas is a good or a bad thing. I would like to address some of the points that have been raised and answer a little later some of that the honourable member for Murray has raised. It is worth just recounting some of the performance characteristics of Qantas, in particular, and Australian Airlines over the last few years. As my colleague the honourable member for Isaacs has indicated, Qantas contributes some $4 billion a year to the Australian economy. That contribution is expected to increase significantly in future years. Our international airline is already one of Australia's top export industries. The examples that the honourable member for Isaacs gave clearly demonstrated that. In terms of tourism, Qantas contributes some $1.5 billion to Australia's economy each year. This clearly demonstrates the reason for the importance that the Government attaches to Qantas and Australian Airlines. If we combine Qantas's overseas sales with the amount spent in Australia by overseas tourists, we see that our international airline is Australia's fifth biggest single export industry. I think that encapsulates exactly what we are talking about. As far as performance is concerned, let me very quickly give the House a few statistics. Qantas ranks among the top 50 airlines of the world. It is first in passenger journey length; it is first in average flight stage length; it has the seventh highest revenue payload per employee; it has the seventh highest production per employee; it is the tenth biggest producer of international traffic; and seventeenth biggest revenue payload carrier. I submit that all of these statistics clearly indicate that Qantas performs an extremely valuable task for Australia and, because of those very factors, anyone who considers that it should be sold into private ownership really has not put forward what I consider to be a viable argument. I suppose that directly brings one to some consideration of the points that were raised by the honourable member for Murray and also, generally, to the Opposition's aviation policy which, as he has indicated, did fall into the hands of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) some months before it was re-released. In fact, I understand that it was re-released somewhere around 12 August 1986, when the Liberal-National coalition announced that if it came to office it would sell Qantas. The Opposition's announcement indicated that clearly the Liberal and National parties were also prone to sell off Australian Airlines to private operators. Let us strip away some of the myths about this and get down to facts. I think it important that we do that. Firstly, I would ask the honourable member for Murray, in elaborating his contention that Qantas and Australian Airlines should be partly sold into private ownership, to tell us what proportion it is proposed to sell into that private market. Mr Blunt —Forty-nine per cent. Mr MARTIN —So a coalition government would retain 51 per cent and 49 per cent would go to private ownership. Honourable members opposite are suggesting that the myriad of private owners who would jump at the chance to come along and purchase Qantas shares would be the employees; that then all of these other people who dabble in the stock market-perhaps the little old ladies the Opposition talks about who have their money invested in BHP shares; there are not too many who support those on this side-would participate. I put it to honourable members that that is a fallacy; that the 49 per cent private interest, if it were offered, would quickly be sought by major owners of capital in this country. They perhaps would not even be from this country. I have not heard clearly stated that the coalition would not allow overseas interests to come into this particular area. I see that the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) is shaking his head. I am pleased that he may be able to clarify that point because it is very important. The reason that I think it is important is that the honourable member for Murray made reference to Singapore Airlines selling off major proportions of its equity, by inference to people within Singapore and remaining very much a national type of entity. Interestingly enough, Singapore Airlines at present is 77 per cent owned by Tamersak Holdings, a government-owned corporation. The balance is held by employees under a share incentive scheme. So I would agree that in a case like that one is talking about a majority interest remaining within the country itself. I applaud that. I think that is exactly what we are talking about on this side. In the debate on privatisation versus public ownership, we are trying to ensure that Australian ownership remains. I hope that we can get agreement from the other side that indeed that is what they are on about. The interesting thing about the Singapore Airlines example is that Tamersak Holdings, which as I have indicated is a Singapore Government-owned corporation, is currently endeavouring to reduce its 77 per cent holding to 63 per cent, with 25 per cent of that proportion being offered to international markets. What greatly concerns me in this debate is this: If we are talking, in the process of discussing privatisation, about selling off those assets which the Australian people already own, are we proposing allowing foreign equity ownership of Qantas, one of the major revenue earners for the people of Australia? Are we to allow foreign ownership of Australian Airlines? I take the point that has been raised by the honourable member for Murray in respect of the position that Mr Murdoch presently holds and the question mark as to whether he is to be categorised as a foreign citizen who owns part of an Australian airline, but I would be loth to take that too far because I could not see much space being obtained in the Australian or Sydney Daily Telegraph if one wanted to pursue it. Nevertheless I ask the Opposition whether it can give the Australian people a clear assurance that, in pursuance of its policy of selling off things that the Australian people own, it is not proposing that foreign ownership be allowed in. Again, the honourable member for Fadden is shaking his head. If he is in agreement with that perhaps he rather than the honourable member for Murray should be on the front bench speaking on behalf of the Opposition on this matter. It really comes down, I suppose, to a consideration of what privatisation is all about. It also brings into consideration just what has occurred in the three and a half years since this Government came to office and what it has been able to achieve for both Qantas and Australian Airlines. I think it is worth reflecting on that because it brings us back to a further consideration of public versus private ownership. When the Australian Labor Party came to government some years ago Australian Airlines was almost bankrupt. It required a $90m capital injection. I wonder whether, under the privatisation policy of honourable members opposite, they would have worried about that if the airline had been in private hands. Would a Liberal-National Party government have done anything about it or would it have been prepared to see the airline quietly disappear and perhaps Ansett buy it out? What would we have been left with in this country? We would have been left with a monopoly. I do not think that anyone can seriously suggest that that would be in the interests of anyone in Australia, least of all those who use public air transportation. In addition greater commercial freedom and responsibility were given to Australian Airlines management. Cost cutting programs were initiated and clear Government guidelines were laid down. As a result, although a loss was shown in 1982-83, within 12 months, a profit was achieved. In fact, in the last two years the profit margin has shown considerable improvement. Australian Airlines, through its image change through adopting its new name and through a range of other improvements such as better service, has continued to attract customers. I know that on occasions the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) travels on Australian Airlines because I travel exclusively on it and have sat next to him. We have discussed this and a number of other issues and I know that he endorses what I am saying. We have seen that in recent times the improvements effected have attracted more customers back to it. It has decided to purchase new Boeing 737-300 aircraft, the first of which is already in service. We have seen a new commercial confidence in evidence in the organisation. As far as Qantas is concerned, again under this Government an initial $60m in additional equity has been provided. In May 1984 new guidelines were laid down for the directors to give the company greater freedom and flexibility in managing its commercial activities. Again, this Government is not in the business of standing over Australian Airlines or Qantas and saying `This has to be done in a particular way'. They are given commercial freedom-freedom which they just would not get in any different sense in the public forum, through public ownership. It is just nonsense to say that the contrary is the case. What has been the result of this added commercial freedom? There are some very interesting statistics to which I will go quickly. As to profit or loss before tax on operations, in 1980 Qantas lost $6.99m; in 1981 it lost $37.09m; in 1982 it lost $20.17m; and in 1983 it lost $47.44m. Which party was in government then? It was not the party of those who are on this side of the chamber. We came to power and in 1984 a profit of $58.3m was achieved; in 1985 $62.7m; and in 1986 $44m. Honourable members opposite are trying to tell us that public ownership will achieve a better result. That is absolute nonsense, humbug, and should be shown for what it is. To return in a general sense to this question of whether public or private ownership is worthy of support, and just in what way we should go, I had thought this was an issue that had died off a little for the Liberal and National parties; that they had decided to let the old privatisation issue die a natural death. Honourable members will recall, I am sure, that back in 1985, when it was put on the front burner and turned up a bit, articles were written and great examples from Margaret Thatcher's Britain were quoted. Then, suddenly, people started to say: `You blokes over there do not know what you are talking about'. No interest was shown in what honourable members opposite were doing because people realised the potential dangers. It was a great con job. Honourable members opposite were trying to suggest selling off assets which the Australian people already owned. Qantas and Australian Airlines are prime examples. Even people in the coalition's own ranks were saying that it was a load of nonsense. Who could ever forget the famous John Valder tape, in the course of which he made a number of comments on privatisation and other issues. He called privatisation `fiddling with the edges' and I agree with him. On 23 August 1985 the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) was very forthright in a speech which he delivered at, of all places, the Canberra Grammar School. Why the school was concerned with the privatisation of the airline industry I am just not sure, but he went on to question whether it was a reasonable thing to even consider. He said . . . a government of any colour is unlikely to get extreme legislation through Federal Parliament. Imagine, therefore, some of my more conservative colleagues trying to get a Bill through the Senate to sell the Commonwealth Bank or to float off Australia's international flag carrier, Qantas. They can have a few token authorities to satisfy their appetite-they can get rid of the rundown, or the obsolete-but they can't and should not get their hands on the `Get with the Strength' elephant, or the `Flying' kangaroo. I think we can be sure the Senate will see to it that they don't. I agree with that comment, I think that it is as true today as it was then. Of course, the former Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock)-I will be interested to know whether this will be his policy in another couple of months-went on to say that he would embrace this whole concept of privatisation only if it was in the best interests of the taxpayer and the consumer. We on this side of the House submit that it would certainly not be in the best interests of the Australian people to consider selling off either Qantas or Australian Airlines. Mr JULL(Fadden)(1.43) —Mr Deputy Speaker, before I commence my comments on this motion, just for the edification of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) I will quote two paragraphs concerning the privatisation of Qantas Airways Ltd from the Liberal-National coalition's aviation policy. To assure him that those shares will stay in Australian hands, I advise him that the policy states: Shares in Qantas will be offered with the aims of giving the widest possible shareholding participation to the Australian public, and of giving employees of the company and any superannuation or like scheme maintained by the company, the opportunity to take up shares on a preferential basis. The Liberal-National Parties will closely consult employees on any question that may affect them in relation to the sale of shares in Qantas. At the outset, restrictions will be placed on the number of shares that may be held in Qantas by any company, individual or nominee. These restrictions will be kept under review. Foreign nationals and foreign companies will be excluded from holding shares in Qantas, whether directly or indirectly, since their interests and the interests of Qantas as Australia's overseas carrier, the Australian Government's interest in Qantas's overseas operations, and the interests of the Australian travelling public, may conflict. I think that puts the record absolutely straight. Can I say that it would be true that in terms of the first part of this motion there would be very little disagreement in this House that Qantas and Trans Australia Airlines, now Australian Airlines, have made a very significant contribution to the development of aviation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order. It now being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 109, as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mr Duffy) agreed to: That the time for discussion of notice No. 1 General Business be extended until 2. p.m. Mr JULL —I do not think there is any disagreement that Qantas and TAA, now Australian Airlines, have made a tremendous contribution to the development of aviation in this country. Indeed, they have done particularly well in a highly regulated world, but that world is changing. Out there it is a deregulated aviation industry that is starting to develop. That is one of the reasons why not only Singapore but also a number of countries around the world are moving towards the privatisation of their international carriers so that they can get out there in the real world, compete and make all that foreign capital of which honourable members have spoken. A few of those airlines are undergoing the process of privatisation at the moment. British Airways is probably the most prominent. It will be going out to shareholding very soon. Singapore is indeed looking at increasing the private ownership of its airline. Malaysian Airline System is going through the same process; Thai International is also. While we talk here about the tremendous contribution that government instrumentalities make let us go back to the favoured countries of most honourable members on the Government benches, the Scandinavian countries, in particular Sweden. It is interesting to note that the national carrier of Sweden, which incidentally is also shared by Denmark and Norway, is now to be further privatised. It has already been privatised to the extent of about 35 per cent ownership, since 1947. That airline has done particularly well. While I would never knock Qantas, it was interesting that the airline of the year last year was not Qantas. It was the Scandinavian Airline System. It has done particularly well under private ownership and private management. But as I said before, times are changing, are getting completely different out there in a deregulated world. The deregulation of the United States of America's airline industry over the last decade has probably caused most countries around the world to look at their entire operation. Indeed, there is tremendous pressure from the United States to make sure that other countries, with which they deal, undergo some sort of deregulation as well. The effects of deregulation are argued long and hard and there are admittedly two sides to the story. But there is certainly no doubt that what has happened in the United States under deregulation is that more people are being carried and fares have dropped dramatically. There has been a restructuring of the aviation industry but it has been the public, in fact, that has benefited. I took out some figures for today because there has just been an adjustment in the prices of fares in Australia. The current Sydney-Melbourne economy one-way air fare is $317.80. I went to the latest edition of the ABC World Airways Guide. I told myself that I would look not at the discount carriers in the United States, but at the fares of some of the big ones and thus should get a fair comparison of fares. The listed economy fare from Los Angeles to Washington, which is four times the distance from Sydney to Melbourne, is on American Airlines $340, bearing in mind that Sydney-Melbourne fare, for a trip which takes one hour, is $317.80. If one wants to fly by Republic Airlines, which is not a discount operator, the fare is $306. If one wants to fly by Eastern Airlines, which is not a discount operator, the fare is $299 for four times the distance and away we go! The fact is that under our regulated system in Australia we have one of the highest air fare regimes in the world. In terms of international fares Australians are paying some of the highest air fares in the world. I believe that we have an obligation to the public to make sure that air travel is accessible to everyone. One of the most significant statistics is that only 14 per cent of the public of Australia have ever been in an aircraft. That is almost unbelievable. All the surveys that are done around Australia indicate that the principal reason people are not travel- ling by air is that it is too costly. In the 22 months that I was out of this place I worked with the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation in a senior position. One of my responsibilities was to deal with airlines, both domestic and international, to see what could be done to promote tourism to Australia and in particular Queensland. We also looked at the domestic situation. One of the first things that we managed to negotiate was charter air fares between Sydney and the Gold Coast. The fare structure on East-West Airlines, operating four charters each way on a Saturday, was $99 return, $47.50 each way. To that we added a $100 a week holiday package and sold it in the western suburbs of Sydney, to people who could never otherwise afford to fly. We went further than that. Negotiations went on with the hierarchy of TAA about the proposition of putting in charter operations between, say, Melbourne and Cairns. Both domestic carriers go into palpitations when you start talking about charters because they say it is going to interrupt their normal business traffic. The proposition was that perhaps TAA could put on a charter Airbus at midnight on a Saturday night when no businessman flew, fly direct to Cairns and leave there at 3 o'clock on a Sunday morning. It would include a week's holiday package, which people could not get away from, so that we would not interrupt the normal business traffic, so that we would be just promoting pure tourism traffic. The return airfare Melbourne-Cairns on a charter operation would be $200. The point is that, with the restrictions that still apply to Australian Airlines, it is very difficult for it in this regulated area to get out there and make some of these promotional activities relevant-indeed, to try to break the iron-fisted grip that hangs over the airline industry in this country because of the regulations imposed by the Federal Government and the nature of the ownership of that airline. We have to start completely changing our thoughts towards the operations of Australia's domestic and international airlines. We are not going to do that until we can get to a stage where the two domestic airlines can at least operate on an equal footing. If we can privatise TAA and get it into a competitive situation with Ansett the fun can start. The beneficiaries will be the travelling public of Australia. There is no reason why we should be paying these tremendously high air fares. But exactly the same thing applies in an international sense and I am delighted that the people we speak to in Qantas say that the idea of opening up Qantas to private shareholding is really going to help them. They want the dead hand of the Government lifted from their operations as well. They have problems with the Department and indeed with the Minister. Of course, while we have this over-protective attitude and this highly regulated area, we are going to have some problems. Admittedly, over the last 15 years fares to and from Australia have decreased. They have decreased quite dramatically, but the plain fact is that Australians and people coming to Australia are still paying some of the highest air fares in the world. Only a fortnight ago on the Gold Coast in Queensland the Association of British Travel Agents had 4,000 delegates for the first time attending their annual conference in Australia. They gave Australia a tremendous wrap up. They saw very great possibilities for it as a tourist destination, but for one thing-the high cost of getting here. Mr Smith, the chairman of that particular conference, put forward the proposition that we really should be looking at charter operations. I was also involved in the negotiation of overseas charter operations into Queensland and, given the complete non-activity of the Department of Aviation, that particular application failed. A very big organisation-I think bigger than Qantas-called Stirling Airways of Denmark, was quite prepared to operate Scandinavia to Cairns charters at a fare of $830 return-$415 one way from Europe to Australia and back again. The cheapest possible fare that one can get from Qantas and the scheduled carriers at the moment is $1,399 for an off season special. The Japanese started to put some charters into north Queensland. Their tour basing fare on a charter basis was about $480. The cheapest possible tour basing fare under the present regime is around $930. So there are tremendous opportunities if we can establish both Qantas and Australian Airlines correctly and start eating into the tremendous income and employment opportunity that is offered by the tourist industry. It was interesting yesterday that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), in answer to a question of mine, should have pointed out that last year Japanese tourists who came to this country spent $100m. One of the sad aspects is that it has not been Japan Airlines, the national airline of Japan, that has carried most of the traffic from Japan to Australia. It has not even been Qantas; it has been Cathay Pacific Airways. Cathay Pacific was prepared to go into the Japanese market as a free enterprise airline, and compete for that business and do extremely well. I acknowledge the tremendous work that Qantas has done. I acknowledge that it is generating big revenue from overseas but we are really just scratching the surface. What we have to do is lift the dead hand from Qantas and let it get out there and compete. Qantas often speaks of the frustrations that it has in dealing with government in terms of determining new air rights. I would hope that once we get to the stage where we can take the shackles from Qantas, it will look at a lot of innovation that would be for the benefit of the whole of Australia. I guess that we have to pay tribute to Sir Freddy Laker, who was the first man who dared to suggest in Australia in 1971 that we should be looking towards a low air fare regime. Qantas at that stage immediately came in with some cheaper excursion fares. Laker came back twice. Both times that he came back Qantas answered him: Firstly by setting up its own charter subsidiary, Qantair, that has never been generated, and later by bringing in some more innovative fares. But it is a great pity that Qantas and the Department of Aviation have virtually got to be pressured by these overseas organisations before we can start looking at becoming competitive on the world scene. We would hope that once Qantas gets out there as a partly privatised organisation with lean, hard management, it too will be looking at areas such as the charter traffic, as was suggested by the head of the Association of British Travel Agents. There is a big world out there and there is tremendous potential in this country for the development of tourism. We are starting to see that development come through now and I acknowledge what the Government has done in the last few years to get those numbers up, but still we are scratching the surface; still Australia is attracting less than one per cent of the international travel market to Australia. Still we are very much a babe in arms in terms of delivering that traffic here with the tremendous amount of money that tourists can spend. If Japanese can be brought in by the charter load, never forget that while they are in Australia they are spending $90 per head per day buying Australian goods and using Australian accommodation. When we start bringing in European charter traffic, the biggest spenders of the lot, never forget that the Swiss spend about $90 per head per day; the West Germans spend $136 per head per day while they are in Australia. The major thing that is discouraging people from coming here at the moment is not the tyranny of distance, it is the tyranny of the high air fare. It is the tyranny of the high air fare that will continue to hold back tourism development in Australia until we can get some sense into our regulatory system and until we can get some sense into the physical structure of our international carrier, Qantas. In terms of the development of domestic aviation, until we can get Australian Airlines structured correctly, too, we are never going to reach the full potential of allowing Australians to travel in their own country. Mr GEAR(Canning)(1.59) —In the short time that I have available, I would remind honourable members opposite that although they criticise the shackles and all the impediments to travel within Australia, it was their government when they were in power that imposed the two-airline policy on Australia. The speeches we have heard today are nothing more than the Liberal Party professing to support free enterprise when it is in opposition, but when it gets into power, it takes the opposite view and regulates the industry to the extent that the airline industry is regulated in Australia today. This Government has taken a different approach. We have the Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation-the May review-in place which will recommend to the Government ways in which we can adequately service the airline industry within Australia. I would like to raise the issue of air service negotiations which have been held recently with a number of countries. In all cases, Madam Speaker, these countries have sought additional entitlements for their airlines without offering commensurate benefits for Australia, as would be required under the normal fair and equal opportunity requirements of both parties for airlines. Many of the airlines involved have sought the support for their objectives of various State governments. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It is now 2 p.m. In accordance with standing order 104 as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence to General Business has expired. The honourable member for Canning will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a matter of courtesy I advise the House that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will be absent from Question Time today and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) will be absent from Question Time today and the House tomorrow. Mr Sinclair —This is ridiculous! They ought to be here during Question Time. Mr HAWKE —Have a look behind you! Mr Sinclair —Your Ministers are in government. Mr HAWKE —Calm down, Ian, your torment is nearly over. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will continue. Mr HAWKE —The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) will respond to any questions relating to the primary industry portfolio and questions relating to the arts, heritage and environment portfolio should be directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). Mr REITH —Is the Prime Minister aware that since his Government came to office in 1983, government overseas debt has risen from the equivalent of $905 to $2,330 for every man, woman and child in Australia? Does he believe that as a consequence Australians are better off in this respect than they were 3 1/2 years ago? Mr HAWKE —There is no doubt that Australians today are infinitely better off than they were when they were in the condition that we inherited after the Opposition's pathetic performance. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —I know honourable members opposite do not like hearing this. Rather than go through the catalogue of our achievements and the dismal record of the Opposition's failures, I will once again remind the House of the judgment made by the Liberal Party's own Mr Hyde who unequivocally stated that this was a better government than the previous one. As on so many other occasions, he was 100 per cent right. Mr CHARLES —Is the Minister for Defence aware of the remarks made by the Opposition spokesman on defence in which he said that the Government had acted against Defence Force recommendations in approving the transfer of battlefield helicopters from the Royal Australian Air Force to the Army? What was the basis of that recent helicopter decision by the Government? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for his question. A number of statements made by the Opposition spokesman on defence recently have contributed to a pattern of comment which displays both ignorance of the processes by which decisions are taken in the Department of Defence and not a little menace to a couple of projects which are seriously at the centre of defence planning in this country. We have had the Jindalee project threatened. This is an Australian invention which largely solves the principal problem of Australian surveillance and intelligence gathering. The suggestion made by the Opposition spokesman that he would effectively halve this Government's program would place us in a situation where virtually none of the advantages accruing from Jindalee could be obtained. We have had the right honourable member's repeated threats to the submarine program, despite the considerable impact that that will have on Australian industry. This statement is in the vein both of ignorance of the processes of defence decision making and not a little degree of menace to the appropriate structuring of our armed forces. His Press statement, which in general was a farrago of nonsense-it was completely wrong-said this: . . . the decision was against Service recommendations. That decision was taken on the advice of the highest possible source of advice available to a government from the Services. It was a decision which emerged from the Chiefs of Staff Committee and conveyed to the Government by the Chief of the Defence Force. Far from being against Service recommendations, the decision was front and centre from the highest possible advice on Service matters that the Government could conceivably receive. It came forward from that Committee, not from a process which the right honourable member outlined as some form of cheapened `quid pro quo exchange' between the various Services-a sort of `you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' approach. In terms of projection, that is perhaps an interesting indication of the way in which the right honourable member viewed his management of the Services when he was Defence Minister. The decision came as a result of serious analysis over a considerable time as to which was the appropriate Service to develop a doctrine and management for those helicopters. That was not an unusual decision because in many other countries the ground forces control and operate battlefield helicopters. The decision is sensible because it accords with what has effectively become accepted doctrine now by a number of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries on how air-land battles should proceed. Those helicopters are integral to the operations of ground forces in the same way that an armoured personnel carrier is on the modern battlefield. That the right honourable member finds difficulty in grasping that is an indication of the extent to which he has difficulty conceiving defence issues at all. A second factor which impacted on the Chiefs of Staff Committee's judgment was the view held in the Royal Australian Air Force about the role of battlefield helicopters in the total RAAF structure. Persistently throughout the presentation of the Air Force argument was the concept that those battlefield helicopters should provide pilots for a surge capacity for the RAAF. That needs to be properly comprehended. A surge capacity effectively means that for the front line aircraft it is possible to deplete from other resources in circumstances in which the front line aircraft must be used. In the case of the Vietnam war this to some extent worked in favour of the Army because it meant fighter pilots were out among the ground forces. In this case, the effect is the opposite. In a situation where, effectively, both battlefield helicopters and front line fighters are engaged, then the battlefield helicopters cannot operate effectively. This situation is unacceptable in justifying the very substantial purchase of these helicopters. We are determined that the hundreds of millions of dollars invested should be used most effectively in the armed forces. On all grounds, the right honourable member's position was ill-conceived. The right honourable member went on to indicate in his statement that in some way or another the Government was attempting `to neuter the RAAF'. The Government's commitment to the RAAF is clear. We are acquiring FA18s-admittedly a program started by the Opposition, but it is being paid for by our Government. We have sent out requests for proposals for airborne early warning aircraft; we are purchasing airborne refuelling equipment; we are developing the Jindalee system which will primarily be a force multiplier for the RAAF; we will upgrade the F111s; and we are building bases at Tindal and Derby and we have another air base planned for Cape York. If that constitutes neutering the Air Force or being rough on it in some way, it is a hell of a way of showing it when we are prepared to spend several billion dollars on that Service. The fact is that we are deeply committed to the RAAF as the front line of effective defence of the air-sea gap off our coastline. We are supporting our convictions in providing the RAAF with a capacity to operate very important, strategically significant, front line aircraft effectively. We are not neutering the RAAF; we are providing the most effective dispersal of those aircraft to the forces that really need them, and the force that operates the helicopters is the Army. The Opposition defence spokesman has put out a cheap Press release which displays his complete ignorance of defence matters. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery today two former distinguished members of this House, Mr Lucock and Mr O'Keefe. On behalf of the House, I bid you welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr BEALE —Is the Minister for Housing and Construction aware that during the seven full years of the last coalition Government, housing commencements adjusted for population growth averaged 143,000 a year? Is he also aware that commencements for the four years ending June 1987 will average about 136,000-not 142,000 as the Prime Minister said in answer to his dorothy dix question in the House yesterday-with the 1986-87 year having only 122,500 starts? Can the Minister explain to the House, firstly, why the Prime Minister misled the Parliament yesterday in claiming the Government had averaged 142,000 starts-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will withdraw that comment. Mr BEALE —I beg your pardon. The Prime Minister incorrectly-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw first and then reconstruct his sentence. Mr BEALE —I withdraw the comment. The Prime Minister incorrectly stated in the House yesterday that there would be 142,000 starts when that number should be 136,000 starts. Secondly, why was the last coalition Government able to average 143,000 starts per year, which is consistent with the underlying demand, when the current year forecast is 122,500; that is, nearly 15 per cent below-not 10 per cent above, as represented by the Prime Minister-the level required to provide Australians with new homes? Mr WEST —The 1986-87 financial year is not yet over, but this country will always remember what the coalition achieved in its last period of office; that is, the 105,000 abysmal starts compared with a record of 137,000, 153,000, 136,000 and anything up to 130,000 that the Government will achieve this financial year. So this Government has a very firm record, it has in place very good housing policies that have provided jobs, have constructed houses, and have placed people in those houses. The Opposition has had a very bad policy in government and a virtual non-policy in opposition. What there is of Opposition policy has been entirely destructive instead of being constructive. I have waited all year for an update of housing policy from the honourable member for Deakin. While the Opposition carps about our record it has not been able to produce any policy of its own. One can only assume that the puerile statement that the honourable member for Deakin made earlier this year is still firmly in place. I remind the House what the honourable member for Deakin said in that policy, which I assume is firmly in place. The only two things that firmly come out of the Opposition's housing policy is that it would abolish the first home owners scheme and that it would abolish tied public housing programs such as the pensioner rental program and the local government and community housing program. We will stand on our record. It is very good that I am able to get on my feet today to remind the Opposition what that record is. Let me deal with employment first. We created 100,000 new housing and construction jobs in our first three years of office. We have made it very plain that we will protect those one million borrowers who have savings bank loans at 13 1/2 per cent. Mr Beale —What about your record of high interest rates? Mr WEST —You will not say what you will do. Mr Hunt —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is not referring to the honourable member through you as the Speaker, and I think he should. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will address the honourable member for Deakin by his correct title. Mr WEST —As far as lending is concerned, as a result of our subsidy the savings bank lending rate is currently running in excess of $8,000m at an annualised rate. The first home owners scheme is continuing and will continue, and, as the Prime Minister said yesterday it has assisted almost 220,000 Australian families into home ownership. The Opposition is saying that it will abolish that scheme. We have encouraged low start loans. I say to people to go out to see what they can get from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the other savings banks in the way of a low start loan if they are having problems at the moment as low income earners. I encourage them to do that. In fact, they are doing that. Let me deal quickly with public housing, because this matter was raised in the House yesterday. We have allocated, together with the States, an all-up total of $2,000m to public housing this year. That will allow something like 18,000 new acquisitions for the States. In the Opposition's last year of office the States were able to add on to their public housing acquisition lists only 7,000 compared with the 18,000 that they will get this year. That is the record. In our three years of office 150,000 Australian families have been placed in public housing accommodation. While we have these positive policies in place-and we are constantly refining them-the Opposition simply offers zero policies, but makes it very plain that it is intent on the destructive course of abolishing the first home owners scheme and the tied programs. Honourable members opposite were divisive in government, they are divisive in opposition and there is very little wonder that the Leader of the Opposition, as he sits there and stares into space contemplating his 30 per cent approval rating, is a bit concerned about his future. It is perfectly obvious that as a result of the Opposition's inability to put policies on the record more than half of the back benchers who sit behind him are at the moment contemplating his removal. Mr O'NEIL —Can the Minister for Transport confirm a recent statement in the Adelaide Advertiser by the South Australian Minister for Transport, Gavin Keneally, that all but 12 kilometres of the Stuart Highway will be opened for traffic by Christmas? Can he also inform the House when the remaining unsealed section will be opened? Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member for Grey has one of the largest electorates in this nation. He has been a great fighter for the improvement of the road system. When the national highway link from Adelaide through to Darwin is completed the constituents of Grey can turn to the honourable member for Grey and thank him as the man most responsible. The section of highway referred to by the honourable member is part of the national highway system, the full cost of which is borne by this Government. As a Government we have given major priority to improving the national highway system because that is a fundamental road grid that rings this nation and links it from north to south. The section the honourable member referred to is the link north to Alice Springs from Adelaide. Some 750 kilometres of road is being constructed between Pimba and the Northern Territory border. There are only three projects totalling some 215 kilometres yet to be finished. These, to which the honourable member has drawn our attention, are rapidly nearing completion. The 59-kilometre section between Pootnoura Creek and Mount Willoughby was opened to traffic on 31 October. A further 65 kilometres between Marla and the Northern Territory border will be opened to traffic by the end of this month. I can confirm for the honourable member and for the electorate of Grey that all but 12 kilometres of the remainder south of the Rose Hill will be finished by Christmas. I can tell the honourable member that that remaining 12 kilometres and the final finishing-off works will all be completed by March next year. That is because of the priority this Government has given to improving the road system of this nation. It is an area of responsibility long neglected by those who sit opposite. Long may they sit opposite because of the neglect they have accorded the road system. I should also say that along with the priority given to improving the road system has been a major priority given by this Government to improving road safety, to reducing road crashes, and to reducing road casualties. As a Parliament-I am sure every member in this chamber will agree-we can say that many Australians will no longer face the hazards and dangers that they would have faced on other occasions because of the improved road conditions that will be available for the Christmas and holiday traffic in the coming season. Much of the road system will be safer; much of it will be easier to travel; and much of it will be cheaper to use. That, I am sure, is a wish of all honourable members. I thank the honourable member for his question. I commend him for the interest that he has taken in this very important subject. Mr IAN ROBINSON —I refer the Prime Minister to recent statements he has made on the employment situation since the last election. I ask: Has the average period of individual unemployment risen from 36 weeks to 60 weeks? Has the average period of unemployment for people over 50 years of age risen from 59 weeks to 100 weeks? Further, has the number of people who have been unemployed for over 12 months risen by 58 per cent, from 124,000 to 196,000? Has the weekly average number of people unemployed risen by 68 per cent, from 332,000 to 559,000? Has the cost of unemployment benefit risen by 155 per cent, from $1.2m to $3.1m? In view of this appalling record, will the Prime Minister admit that the Government's employment policy has been a total failure? Will he tell the House what action he now proposes to take in order to overcome this massive financial and social cost of unemployment to the nation? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am reluctant, as everyone knows, to speak constantly about this Government's proud record of economic management, but honourable members opposite force me again to go to the facts. How anyone on that side of the House can raise the question of the respective records of this Government and its predecessor in the area of employment absolutely escapes any rational observer of the political scene. I remind the House again of the comparative records. Honourable members opposite should just try to get it into their skulls if they can. I have told them often enough, but I will try once again. They should try to get it. The previous Government was in office for over seven years. What was its employment achievement? Do honourable members opposite know what it was? I will tell them. In seven years it managed to create 350,000 new jobs. Have honourable members opposite got it? In seven years their Government created 350,000 new jobs. By comparison with that-remember that their Government created 350,000 new jobs in seven years-in 3 1/2 years we have created 670,000 jobs. Have honourable members opposite got it? Do they understand it? In half the time we have created twice the number of jobs. That is the comparative record. In the process, will honourable members opposite also understand this-after about the sixth time perhaps they will understand: We have brought down the level of unemployment in this country from the double digit level that their Government imposed upon it, with an additional 250,000 thrown on to the unemployment scrap heap in its last 12 months, to just over 8 per cent. Madam Speaker, that is the record of this Government. We have delivered the promise. And what was our promise? We said that we would create 500,000 new jobs in three years. We walked that in. We easily surpassed our promise and, in doing so, established the stark contrast between the economic competence of this Government and the hopelessness of you mob. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the Government's attitude to multiculturalism and, in particular, what new initiatives the Government has adopted to promote multiculturalism? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question on this very important matter. Of course, it is well known that no other member in this place has a more consistent and committed interest in this subject. I am very proud to be able to stand in this House and repeat that this Government has a strong and totally demonstrated commitment to a multicultural Australia. We are unequivocally committed to enhancing multicultural values in this country. This has been demonstrated no better than by our recent decision to establish the Office of Multicultural Affairs within my portfolio and under my ministerial responsibility. The Office, which will have both a research and an advisory function, will ensure that Mr Hurford, the Minister who will assist me in this area-- Mr Howard —A great vote of confidence in the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs! Mr HAWKE —And the Government and I will be kept properly informed and advised on matters of concern and importance to our ethnic communities. Associated with that Office of Multicultural Affairs within my portfolio will be an advisory council which will provide an important link between the Office and Australia's ethnic community. It will ensure that ethnic communities around Australia will have a more active and more effective input into the development of multicultural policies and programs. It is the Government's belief that the Office of Multicultural Affairs will be not only more effective than existing structures but also better placed to ensure the co-ordination and representation of ethnic and multicultural interests throughout government. The creation of this Office represents a clear step forward for multiculturalism. It is a step which the Government is proud to have been able to introduce. That is the complete answer to the question put to me by the honourable member for Calwell; but may I add, Madam Speaker, in response to some snide interjection that I heard from the other side that it is appropriate that I should say that this decision to establish the Office in this way in no sense represents any lack of confidence on my part. Indeed, the decision represents a point of view and a decision arrived at after mutual consultation between the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and me. I have total confidence in him. Mr BLUNT —I refer the Minister for Health to information provided to me by the Honourable Cyril Kennedy, MLC, the Cain Labor Government Whip for the Legislative Council in Victoria, in which he enclosed a Press clipping indicating his intention to shred his identity card. I also refer the Minister to a letter sent to all Australian Labor Party branches in Victoria and all ALP affiliated unions by Mr Kennedy, reaffirming his support for the Victorian ALP State Branch's opposition to the ID card. Is the Minister aware that Mr Kennedy has also encouraged others to shred their ID cards? Is it Government policy that in this instance section 5 of the Crimes Act, concerning aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring others to commit an offence would apply-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member may not ask questions on Government policy; otherwise proceed. Leave government policy out of it. The Minister does not have to answer that. You may ask for an explanation of government policy but not for a statement of government policy. Mr BLUNT —Madam Speaker, I will rephrase it. Does this mean that, under section 5 of the Crimes Act, the Government Whip in that State upper House would be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring others to commit an offence, thereby resulting in Mr Kennedy's losing his seat? Dr BLEWETT —It is of interest to note that the major contribution of the Opposition to the Australia Card debate over the past week has been suggestions as to how people can forge the card. The Opposition now wishes to advertise how people can burn the card. Its whole policy, its whole effort, has been devoted to trying to encourage illegal activities against the card. Of course, it is not surprising that an Opposition, now almost totally bereft of effective arguments against the card, resorts to these kinds of activities. Let me say in relation to the specific point raised by the honourable member for Richmond that the Government will face any such issues when they arise, after the Opposition has ultimately given its support to the card. Honourable members opposite introduce particular Labor members from Victoria when their own position on the card over the last 12 months has been almost unbelievable. Twelve months ago they started with enthusiastic applause for the idea. We found the whole elite of the National Party of Australia supporting the card. Six months ago, of course, decisions were getting nearer and honourable members opposite always become rather weak towards decisions; so their two leading figures on the Select Committee on an Australia Card supported an expansion of the tax file number as part of an identification system. Two weeks ago, when the decision was even closer, that was simply abandoned by the Leader of the Opposition and there was no mention of the proposals that the two front bench members had supported only six months before. We are not quite sure where the Opposition stands even now, because on Sunday the Leader of the Opposition had a rethink. When he was asked about the identification system based on the tax file number he said: `It is something we are examining at present'. I appreciate any rethinking by members of this Opposition, but when they do that rethinking-they will be forced by the people of Australia to do that rethinking-I would remind them of what the Commissioner of Taxation said: I expect by the time you take all the steps that need to be taken to get high integrity into, say, a tax file number, then there's the same effects, the same costs, the same privacy questions that you'd get with the Australia Card. By all means let the Opposition do some rethinking. Mr BLANCHARD —Has the Treasurer noted today's release by the Australian Bureau of Statistics which shows seasonally adjusted current account deficit figures for the September quarter? What do these figures demonstrate in respect of developments in Australia's trade position? Mr KEATING —Today the Australian Statistician released a totally recast format for the quarterly balance of payments publication. He has attempted to do a number of things in the recast format: Firstly, to present the quarterly figure in seasonally adjusted terms for the first time, secondly, to publish officially the effects on the current account of the terms of trade; and, thirdly, to publish changes in the volumes of imports. In today's release the Statistician has computed the September quarter in seasonally adjusted terms and put the current account deficit at $3,696m. Annualised, that comes to around $14.75 billion, which is just about spot on the Budget estimate for 1986-87. He also records the impact of the reduced terms of trade on these numbers that he has now officially computed and he says that, but for the terms of trade decline, the current account deficit in Australia would now be running at an annualised rate of $8.6 billion. He puts the cash value of the terms of trade loss at a staggering $6.2 billion. Of course, this indicates very much what the Government has been saying, namely, that Australia has been living through an adverse trading phenomenon the likes of which it has not seen before. If we were living with the same terms of trade as the former Treasurer was living with in 1982, we would have an annualised rate of around $7 1/2 billion. This decline in the terms of trade is an indication of the fact that, as a primary export-- Mr Cadman —Try that on the Yanks. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell! Mr KEATING —The decline in the terms of trade indicates that countries that are primary producers have borne this enormous burden of having the terms of trade decline in this way. I made the point in Japan last week that, while Australia's terms of trade have declined by 20 per cent in the last two years, the terms of trade for Japan's finished products have risen by 40 per cent in the same time. The other interesting piece of data in today's publication is that the volumes of all types of endogenous imports, that is, underlying imports, are now lower than they were as at September 1984. In other words, the import volumes are now back to the September 1984 level. The overall endogenous volume fall in the September quarter is 3.7 per cent and the overall endogenous volume fall since December 1985 is 11.6 per cent. In other words-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —I am interested to see that the Opposition takes this with such mirth. It is not even interested in raw data from the Statistician. Mr Ian Cameron —Why not tell us-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa and other honourable members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —Honourable members opposite are so irresponsible and empty headed that they cannot even listen. Mr Ian Cameron —Paul has told them-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member for Maranoa looking for a holiday? Mr KEATING —As I have said, the overall endogenous import volume fall since December 1985 is 11.6 per cent, which means that imports are falling and have been falling quite strongly and, as the national accounts also confirmed yesterday, endogenous imports are down for the third consecutive quarter. So, we are certainly seeing this very strong effect of the exchange rate cutting import volumes and lifting export volumes. But today we are very clearly seeing why the current account is masking this improvement because the terms of trade have cut the value by the enormous amount of $6 billion over the period that I mentioned. Of course, in this climate the Government has adopted a disciplined and responsible monetary policy to put the burden on the right arms of policy in this trading phenomenon. Hence, one views with disgust the terms of the matter of public importance this afternoon, which will have the Opposition saying that the Government ought to let interest rates fall like a stone, that we should remove the monetary props to the exchange rate, that we should ignore the terms of trade and that we will not wait to see the volume changes on exports and imports which are part and parcel of the restructuring and part and parcel of the Government's strategy. Opposition members want to score some cheap political points by calling for interest rate falls when the parlous position of Australia's terms of trade exposes our country as never before to the people who need to fund the current account deficit abroad. They say that the reasons for running a responsible monetary policy ought to be simply abandoned by a party which has no understanding of rudimentary economics. I spoke to about 400 people yesterday at the Merchant Bank Administrators Association in Sydney. I get people saying to me that the only party in this country that understands Australia's problem at this time, the only party that understands the need for some real fiscal discipline and monetary discipline, is the Australian Labor Party; and that is why the confidence of Australian financial markets, Australian business and international financial markets is in the Labor Party. Let me make one final point. In the 1970s Australia went through very disadvantageous terms of trade: Coal prices were up and oil prices were up. What did the `prudent' Government of that time do with this terms of trade benefit? Did it use it to repay debt? Did it use it to rebuild investment? No, it spent it on a major consumption binge. It squandered it, as it would do with any terms of trade improvement in the future. I tell the House this: Any terms of trade improvement under this Government will not be spent on a consumer boom; it will be spent repaying Australia's debt-the very thing those opposite never did. They came along with a massive increase in coal prices, a massive increase in oil prices and increases in cereal prices and they spent the lot, because they had no semblance of a decent policy and no sense of the national economic interest. That is why Australia ended up in domestically-induced recession in 1982-83, the greatest depression for 30 years and the first negative growth in 30 years. Is it any wonder, when these figures reveal that Australia has lost $6.2 billion in lower prices, that the business world looks favourably upon this Government, its fiscal policy and its monetary policy and unfavourably on the Opposition's matter of public importance this afternoon, with its cheapjack proposition of dropping interest rates and putting the nation at risk for a few cheap political lines on the parliamentary pages of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age? That is what those opposite are about. They are about the cheapest and lowest common denominator politics they can possibly get away with. What this release today shows is that the Party on this side of the House has understood the problem, has responded to it and has put discipline in policy, and will lead Australia through this problem to a future of sustained non-inflationary growth and, of course, longevity of public office for the Labor Party. Madam SPEAKER —Before I call the next question, I point out to the honourable member for O'Connor that the Standing Orders of this House apply to him as well as to everyone else. Everyone in this House is expected to heed the Chair when the Chair asks him or her to stop interjecting. The honourable member has been continually interjecting. I ask him now to be silent. Mr ROCHER —My question is also to the Treasurer. Will damages awarded by a court or associated legal fees incurred by any Minister, former Minister or member of parliament which are reimbursed in whole or in part by a government be subjected to the fringe benefits tax? Mr KEATING —I would have thought that even the honourable gentleman would have understood at this stage that the fringe benefits tax is a tax on non-cash benefits to the extent that anything such could be described as a benefit. Why can the honourable member not get his mind, or what passes for a mind, or what he ludicrously calls a mind, around the concept that whatever may be a payment in this respect is not a benefit and that, secondly, it is in a cash form? Mr MILDREN —I address my question to the Minister for Trade. Given the undisputed urgency of the task of improving Australia's economic performance, particularly in the manufacturing and services sectors, will the Minister indicate to the House what initiatives the Department of Trade is taking in developing exports of educational and training services? Mr DAWKINS —I record the continuing and long-standing interest of the honourable member for Ballarat in the question of tertiary education in this country. It is about a year ago that my colleague the Minister for Education and I announced new policies to encourage the export of educational services and the response from many of our tertiary institutions has been very encouraging indeed. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission has approved some 251 courses to be offered in some 23 institutions. The first thing I want to do is to commend those institutions for their response, but also to say that we are somewhat disappointed that some of the other institutions have not responded with like enthusiasm. Indeed, some universities, such as the universities of Sydney, Queensland, Newcastle, Griffith and La Trobe, have yet to offer any courses to overseas students. The private sector has also responded, with 120 private sector organisations being registered to offer courses to overseas students. Whilst I was in Jakarta recently I was able to observe at first hand the marketing effort being undertaken by these institutions and Austrade, with 36 public and private sector institutions involved in an information forum which has been not only to Jakarta but also to Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok. In those centres some 2,500 people have visited those fora for the purpose of understanding what courses are available in Australia. In Singapore next week at the Association of South East Nations education fair some 80 per cent of the space will be taken up by Australian institutions. This is an important development. Australia is trying to diversify its export activities, and getting into the services area, particularly education services, is very important for us. It is entirely a result of the changes in policies which this Government undertook a year ago and more recently, when we allowed institutions to retain a proportion of the capital element of their fees to be used within those institutions. We have also streamlined the issuing of visas to overseas students in order to make it easier for them to obtain entry into this country. The benefits from this development will first arise, of course, in a modest way in 1987, but in future years I think we will see this making a significant contribution to turning around our balance of payments. I want to take this opportunity, if I may, to table three documents which set out the institutions, the courses which they offer and those which have been participating in the international activities I have referred to. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 93 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, I present the annual report on the operation of the Act for 1985-86. Limited copies of the report are available from the Bills and Papers Office. The bulk copies are expected early in December and will be made available to all honourable members. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to the provisions of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977, I present the ninth report on the operation of Part II of the Act. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 10 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947, I present the annual report on the operation of the Act for 1985-86. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, section 3b of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and corresponding provisions of the general taxing statutes of Australia, I present the annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation for 1985-86. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 31 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, I present the annual report of consultants engaged under section 4 of the Act for 1985-86. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —On behalf of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and pursuant to section 22 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Act 1984, I present the annual report on the operation of the Act for 1985-86. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —On behalf of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and for the information of the House, I present a national forest strategy for Australia prepared by the Standing Committee on Forestry for the Australian Forestry Council, together with the text of a statement relating to the document. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of Housing and Construction for 1985-86. This report also contains the annual reports required by legislation of the administration and operation of the First Home Owners Act 1983 and the Home Deposit Assistance Act 1982 for 1985-86. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Government's response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety entitled `Passenger Coach Safety'. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report of the Maritime Industry Development Committee entitled `Moving Ahead'. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Pursuant to section 35 of the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956, I present the annual report of the Australian Shipping Commission-The Australian National Line-for 1985-86 together with the Auditor-General's Report. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to section 33 of the Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981, I present the annual report of the Committee for 1985-86. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Pel Air accident investigation report. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism for 1985-86. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —Pursuant to section 29 of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967, I present the annual report of the Australian Tourist Commission for 1985-86. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —Pursuant to sub-section 63M (3) of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report of the Australian Sports Commission for 1985-86. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —For the information of honourable members, I present the summary record of proceedings of the fourteenth meeting of the Sport and Recreation Ministers Council held on 31 July 1985 in Rotorua, New Zealand. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for 1985-86. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of Science for 1985-86. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Science and Technology Statement for 1986-87. It is a very good read and I commend it to honourable members. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to Section 19 of the Anglo-Australian Agreement Act 1970, I present the annual report of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board for 1985-86. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —In accordance with resolutions of the House, I present notifications of alterations of interests received by the Registrar of Members' Interests from members during the period 20 August 1986 to 25 November 1986. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 Mr Beale,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Reith and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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. 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,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Nehl and Mr Rocher. 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 Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operation Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operation Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions on a reasonable sliding scale equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investment. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. It is unjust for any person to be liable for tax on benefits received by another person. 2. Compliance with FBT will increase administrative costs for all employers including Local, State and Federal government departments. 3. FBT is an inefficient tax, which will require the Tax Office to employ an army of bureaucrats. 4. FBT is inequitable because liability arises regardless of capacity to pay. 5. The FBT laws are extremely complex. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. 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 the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Fringe Benefits Tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The Fringe Benefits Tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it, and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this legislation, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 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 and Mr Uren. 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 Campbell and Mr Drummond. 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 medicines 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 and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens 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 taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. 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 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 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 Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That the presence of American bases in Australia makes us a nuclear target in the event of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers. We thus strongly urge the Australian Government not to renew the agreement with the US Government on their use of the facilities at Pine Gap. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cleeland. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cleeland. 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 Lanka 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 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 renumeration 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. We, the undersigned petitioners, call upon the Commonwealth Government to reverse its recent decision which denies Secondary Allowance to year 11 students under the age of 16 years. In making this request, we give as an example the City of Redcliff, where approximately 91% of otherwise eligible students entering year 11 will not be able to receive Austudy at the beginning of the school year as they will not have reached the specified age of 16 years. We feel this decision by the Government will have a very detrimental effect on the ability of low income families to keep their children at school in years 11 and 12. Further, the decision to pay Austudy direct to secondary students means the assistance will not be targeted to those who bear the cost of this education-the parents. We humbly request reassessment of Education spending priorities and a restoration of payment of this allowance to the families of year 11 students, regardless of that student's age. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: Your petitioners call for Government intervention to provide economic justice for families and humbly pray that whatever action possible be taken to provide some price control in the following areas, which most directly affect the family budget: food and other essential items petrol rent and bond levels And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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. To the Honourable Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoola, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Federal Government immediately divert national highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the Capital Gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and wealth creation, has contributed to Australia's economic crisis and contains many anomalies. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately repeal the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Capital Gains) Act 1986. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. 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 Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we the undersigned are totally opposed to the Government's policy to tax pony club income. Your petitioners urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to allow tax exempt status for pony clubs. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned plead that the Parliament implement pro-family policies. In particular we appeal for: 1. the retention of the present graduated assessment system for payment of the Family Allowance; 2. indexation of the Family Allowance in order to keep pace with inflation; 3. an increase of 3.7% in the Family Allowance benefit to return it to 11.5% of the Average Award Wage (making it similar in value to the 11.5% of the Basic Wage when Child Endowment was first introduced by the Chifley Government in 1941). 4. retention of the Dependent Spouse Rebate and the amount of the Dependent Spouse Rebate adjusted so that it is equal in value to the tax-free threshold allowed when calculating taxable income. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: On 10.8.86 we saw Channel 9 programme `60 Minutes' which showed a `workfare' system being run in the United States of America and we think it is time the same is done in Australia. We, the undersigned taxpayers of Australia request the Australian Government to introduce a `work for your unemployment benefit system'. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefits Tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Western Australia call on the Commonwealth Government to reverse recent decisions which deny Secondary Allowances to Year 11 Students under the age of 16 years and make such allowances directly payable to students on attaining the age of 16. This request is made on the basis that: (i) Education benefits as part of income support benefits generally are a Commonwealth responsibility under the constitution. (ii) It is the right of parents with children in Year 11 in Western Australia to receive the same benefit as parents with children at the equivalent stage of their education in other parts of Australia irrespective of their age. (iii) This decision by the Commonwealth Government will impact most unfairly on the capacity of low income families in Western Australia to keep their children at school in Years 11 and 12. (iv) Direct payment of the allowance to 16 years olds will make it easier for young people to leave home and bring more pressure on State Authorities to find alternative accommodation for them at the community and taxpayers' expense. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. 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 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: (1) That in the past, because of their remoteness, citizens in rural areas have not been able to receive SBS (Multicultural) television through conventional means. (2) That recently those citizens have been able to receive the SBS television service from the Aussat satellite by means of receive-only earth stations. (3) Now express concern that by Government decision this service is to be terminated. Your petitioners therefore urge that SBS television continue to be made available to citizens in rural areas of Australia by means of the AUSSAT 1 satellite and receive-only earth stations. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. 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 petition of the undersigned residents of the State of South Australia respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the moves by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service to sell or close Payneham Rehabilitation Centre, situated at 411 Payneham Road, Felixstow in South Australia. We oppose and express our concern that vocational workshops and education services which were available at Payneham Rehabilitation Centre have already been discontinued while staff are still employed at the Centre. We ask that immediate steps be taken by the Government to fully utilize the Centre for what it was designed for i.e. the rehabilitation of sick and injured people to their maximum potential. We ask that the workshop and educational services be re-established immediately and that redeployment action of staff from Payneham Rehabilitation Centre be ceased. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The barriers to economic recovery imposed by the Hawke Government's tax and interest rate policies. 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 DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the Leader of the Opposition I ask honourable members to remain silent so the Leader of the Opposition and any other speakers can be heard. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.00) —During Question Time today the Parliament was treated to a homily on interest rates from the Treasurer (Mr Keating), but significantly that homily was not really directed at the Opposition. That homily was directed by the Treasurer at his own Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), because it is a matter of notoriety in the economic debate in Australia at present that there is a gaping void between the populist passions of the Prime Minister on interest rates and the rather more economically realistic approach that the Treasurer is taking with the economic albatross that he has to carry around his neck in the form of the Government's Budget and wages policy. An interesting thing about this Government is that whenever the Treasurer or the Prime Minister goes overseas leaving one or the other behind they always get into an argument about the direction of economic policy. The infamous and irresponsible banana republic statement was made while the Prime Minister was in China and the stupid populist promises of the Prime Minister on interest rates were made in this Parliament last week whilst the Treasurer was in Japan. No amount of bobbing, weaving, ducking or duckshoving can alter the fact that the Prime Minister is desperate to see a fall in interest rates. But the Treasurer knows that if interest rates are brought down now without changing the balance of Budget and wages policy enormous and immediate pressure will be put on Australia's exchange rate. The Prime Minister is the person who needs to listen to that homily, and the Prime Minister is the person who needs to be condemned. As this is likely to be the last significant economic debate of the parliamentary year, I would like to address my remarks to three fundamental flaws in what the Government has been saying about economic policy in Australia over the last six months. The Government has essentially been saying three things. It has been saying, first of all, that all of our problems, or the great bulk of them, are due to externally imposed constraints via a reduction in our terms of trade that this country has never before had to grapple with. The Treasurer repeated that argument in Question Time today. The great pity is that he really does believe-and some of his followers also believe-some of the nonsense he peddles about the terms of trade. It is simply not true for the Treasurer to run around arguing that we have had a decline in our terms of trade the like of which has never before been experienced. Today he repeated it. He said that the falls in the 1970s were nowhere near what they have been over the last 18 months. I remind the Treasurer that in the June quarter of 1971 there was a 14.5 per cent decline in the terms of trade. I remind him that the terms of trade fell by 11 per cent in the March quarter of 1975. I remind him that they fell by 13.6 per cent to the December quarter of 1977, right in the middle of the seven-year term of the Fraser Government. In fact, that fall exceeded the fall in the terms of trade of 13.3 per cent to the June quarter of 1986. So for the Treasurer to run around saying that poor little Paul has had to put up with a fall in the terms of trade that no other Treasurer in this country has had to grapple with is simply not true. The second part of the disinformation he spreads about the terms of trade is that all of a sudden this situation was sprung upon us; that everything was going marvellously until about May of this year, then, all of a sudden, out of the night came these disastrous unprecedented terms of trade. He knows better than anybody else in the Parliament that his own Department warned him and the nation in the Budget Papers accompanying the 1985 Budget. He also knows that his Government, his Department and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) wilfully misled the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the national wage case in March this year when dealing with superannuation, when this Government went to the Arbitration Commission, knowing of our disastrous terms of trade, and said that the national economy could afford the superannuation increase that it, then in cahoots with its mates in the union movement, was going to impose on the economy and the nation. Yet he has the gall to come into this Parliament and say to us: `We did not know it was coming; it is worse than anybody else has had, and please forgive us and excuse us for any of the problems we are experiencing at present'. So much therefore for the great canard of the Treasurer that the situation is all due to this unprecedented, externally imposed problem. The second great weakness of the Government's argument of the last six months lies in its saying: `We have had a bit of a problem, but all of the adjustments have been made. Nothing more has to be done. It is all starting to work. Sit back and relax and everything will start to turn around in the first six months of next year'. We say on this side of the House that not only were the adjustments made too late, but they were too little. The adjustments have not been adequate, and the reason why we talk about interest rates is that we in this country are being burdened by an intolerably high level of interest rates. The farming sector is being destroyed by debt at present. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has talked about home loans. Does he have any idea of the interest rate burden of single income families in this country trying to raise two or three children on $18,000 a year? Does he have any idea of what interest rates are doing to families in seats such as Barton, Dunkley, Chisholm and all of those other marginal Labor seats? I can tell him that the honourable members for those seats have some idea of what is happening. But the reason we are suffering these high interest rates is that the Government's action was too little and it was too late. All of the adjustments have not been made. The Government faces an horrendous Budget problem next year. It did not exercise real restraint. The Treasurer runs around talking about leather and whips. I saw him on television this morning talking about all the discipline he has exercised. He is the biggest spending Treasurer that this country has seen; yet he talks about discipline. The reality is that he faces an horrendous Budget problem next year, and there are four reasons for this. Firstly, there is the full year cost of the tax cuts; secondly, he will not have the freakish profit of $2.6 billion from the Reserve Bank of Australia; thirdly, there will be a sharp decline in crude oil revenue in 1986-87; and finally, most of the so-called spending cuts that were made in the Budget this year were in fact deferrals to next year of programs or of the commencement of programs such as the poverty traps changes. So to suggest that all of the adjustments on the Budget front have been made against that background is an absolute nonsense. The final weakness in the basic economic argument of the Government is the argument that all that is needed to stimulate investment and activity in Australia's manufacturing sector is to have a massive depreciation, and that the price advantage conferred by that depreciation is enough to get people investing. The Treasurer is right when he says that a massive depreciation confers an enormous price advantage, but he is absolutely wrong when he implies that that is enough-and that is the point of our matter of public importance today. What gets people investing in manufacturing is not just the price advantage; it is also the after tax return on investment. It is what one gets for the dollar that one has invested, and all the price advantage in the world conferred by depreciation will not get people investing afresh in manufacturing in this country, either in exports or in import replacement, unless there is a decent after tax return on investment. The sad fact is that after tax returns on investment in Australia are abysmally low. They are lower now than they were during most of the Fraser years. They are dramatically lower than they were in the late 1970s. Until that is faced by the Treasurer and recognised by the Government they will not get people to invest. If Labor members do not believe me, I invite them to look at what Charlie Fitzgibbon said on this subject. Before they impugn the patriotism of businessmen who call things as they are and do not echo the faithful propaganda handouts of the Labor Party, I ask them to look at what Charlie Fitzgibbon said. He said: `In the present investment climate, you would be crazy to put your money in anything other than Commonwealth bonds'. That is not a Liberal Party man speaking. That is the former vice-president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The reason why we have a poor investment climate is that our interest rates are too high; we are now suffering the highest real interest rates that we have experienced since the Great Depression. The level of interest rates is destroying and ravaging the rural sector. While interest rates overseas have gone down over the last few years, in Australia they have gone up. The interest rate on a savings bank loan has gone up 4 per cent over the last two years while the Bankcard interest rate has increased by 4.5 per cent. The prime rate of interest has risen by 5 per cent. The small overdraft interest rate has increased by 6 per cent. The 90-day bank bill rate has recorded a rise of 4.4 per cent. The 10-year bond rate is up by almost 0.5 per cent. The Treasurer is responsible for this. He cannot blame the world; he cannot blame us. He cannot blame anything other than the utter failure of his own policies and the utter failure of the Government to start responding at the beginning of 1985. If the Treasurer and the Prime Minister had argued from day one when the dollar began to fall that we needed a full discounting for the price effects of the depreciation, if they had had a tough Budget instead of a wimpy's Budget in 1985 and if they had done something about long term fiscal reform in 1985, we would not now be being screwed into the ground by the highest interest rates we have had since the Great Depression. We would not have a situation in which people would be unwilling to invest because of high interest rates. I refer to the second limb of the weakness, which was revealed in the national accounts yesterday. The Treasurer tries to draw comfort from the national accounts. Those accounts demonstrate that to achieve the growth forecasts of the Budget we will have to see average growth of 1.5 per cent in each of the next three quarters. That is taking off a base of a decline of 0.5 per cent in economic growth over the last 12 months. I hope that that is achieved for the country's sake, but I do not think the portents indicate it. The other great problem that inhibits economic growth and recovery is the total failure of the Government's taxation reform package. No matter where one looks on the taxation front, whether in business taxation, family taxation or personal taxation, the Government's so-called tax reform package has been a total failure. I repeat-I know to the Treasurer's embarrassment-that, even if all the so-called reforms he has promised us are brought in and passed next year, the average tax burden of a family with two dependent children will be 20.5 per cent compared with 17.5 per cent in March 1983 when the Hawke Government came to power. The Treasurer needs to be reminded, now that his taxation tables have been put out, that a person earning $200 a week would need to receive another $4.80 a week in taxation cuts to be in an equivalent position to what that person was in in March 1983-an additional $4.80! Somebody on average weekly earnings would need to receive another $14.60 a week in order to be in the same position as he or she was in March 1983. A person on $600 a week would need to receive $13.60 more weekly in order to be in an equivalent position to his or her position in March 1983. It is no wonder that the Government has been unable to answer our questions about its record over the past few years because, over the last 18 months, we have seen a fundamental failure of economic policy by the Government. Its failure to grapple with the problem early enough-its too little too late action-has meant that we have been burdened with a needlessly high tax regime, a needlessly stifling interest rate regime; and, as a consequence, both those factors have remorselessly stifled economic growth in Australia. We are all paying for it through sharply reduced and diminishing living standards. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.15) —We have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) a farrago of poor conclusions, half-truths and distortions-- Mr Tuckey —That was your answer to a question. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor has already been warned by the Speaker today; and he shall cease interjecting. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order: I have not been warned by the Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member was cautioned by the Speaker and his attention was drawn to the Standing Orders. He will resume his seat. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Tuckey —Is that what he told you? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Consider yourself warned now. Mr Tuckey —I saw him chatting you up. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition is trying to draw a whole lot of red herrings across the path, trying to distort arguments to try to cover the fact-- Mr Tim Fischer —Why don't you come out to Balranald, into the real world. Come out to the bush. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Farrer will cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —I listened to the Leader of the Opposition in silence. Opposition members should do me that courtesy in return. Let me deal with the Leader of the Opposition's first argument. He suggested that there are barriers to growth which this Government has not removed. He overlooked to mention for a start the change in the profit share and wages share of the economy-no mention. He overlooked the dramatic change in the public sector borrowing requirement which blew out under his treasurership. He made no mention of the massive cuts to the Commonwealth Budget deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product. He did not mention the financial sector reforms, which are massive, and did not mention the float of the Australian dollar. He made no mention of industry policy to reduce protection. He failed to mention all those marvellous achievements of this Government and talked about the terms of trade. Let me tell him something about the terms of trade-which he knows. For the record, let me put his argument straight, as it should have been. It is not simply the speed of the decline of the terms of trade which is important. It is the absolute level, plus the speed of the decline. It is the compound effect of years of declining terms of trade, and then another rapid decline. For his benefit, I have just secured from my office a terms of trade chart going back to 1972. He is not so far away from me now in this chamber that he cannot see this graph. He will see there, as I point them out to him, the terms of trade in 1972 and the terms of trade now. While it is true that we have had some terms of trade falls of substantial magnitude, we are now down at a much lower absolute level. It is the absolute level combined with the rapid fall and five years or large current account deficits, which was not the case in the 1970s, which he understands, which makes the terms of trade fall now of such critical importance, which it was not in that sense in 1972. It is the fact that one is running not just 2.5 per cent average rates of current account deficit, but going up to 5 per cent and 6 per cent in 1980-81, with high fours, fives and sixes over the last couple of years. It is that growth of the current account indebtedness, the major generator of debt, combined with the $6 billion in lost revenue, which the Statistician today identifies in putting a cash figure on the terms of trade, which is the critical killer punch. It is that which the Government has rapidly sought to adjust Australia to. That is the truth of the position. Dr Watson —It is even worse than the fifties, Paul. Mr KEATING —The honourable member for Forde is supposed to know something about economics, and he should be one person who is not interjecting on that point. Dr Watson —It is worse than the fifties. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Forde will cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —I heard the Opposition in silence, so listen to me. The fact is that this is a rapid fall in the terms of trade. It comes after a long trend decline in the prices of primary producing countries and after five years of fairly large, above average current account deficits. The growth in Australian indebtedness has come primarily from the current account deficit. The only way to change that current account deficit is to change the problem at source, and that is to rebalance the Australian economy and rebuild the secondary sector that the Liberals so happily destroyed in the 1970s. Opposition members stand up here and talk about the imbalance on Australia's external account. When the terms of trade were much more advantageous than they are today, Opposition members were quite happy to let our secondary sectors go down the tube. Now, with all of our fight-back machinery destroyed and with this Government facing the job of rebuilding it, Opposition members are quite happy to tell us that we are looking for an alibi. We have an alibi all right-the Opposition put the cleaners through the place. Mr Ian Cameron —Rubbish! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Mr KEATING —The crocodile tears that Opposition members shed for the farmers really make me chuckle. They overvalued the exchange rate for years and cut the farmers to pieces. The farmers were trying to sell products with an overvalued exchange rate-- Mr Ian Cameron —Tell him to make more sense. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —The Opposition had no wages policy and it would not float the exchange rate because it did not believe in market forces. Mr Ian Cameron —Oh, rubbish! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Maranoa. Mr KEATING —In the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, this is the first time since February 1985 that he has said that the depreciation is important. Both he and the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), have argued that there will be no J-curve effect. They have said that the J-curve is an L-curve and that there will be no price response in the market to the depreciation. Now, two years later, they have changed their tune. Mr Carlton —We did not say that; that is what you said we said. Mr KEATING —I am quoting you completely. The honourable member for Mackellar said that the J-curve was an L-curve. That is in the Hansard record. The fact is that the Opposition is now starting to crawl back off that branch. It is now saying that the depreciation is important, but it has not been important up to now. It is also putting this phoney case about a horrendous Budget next year. The Leader of the Opposition said that there will be no Reserve Bank of Australia profit. I do not normally bother giving the Leader of the Opposition that much information, because he is not entitled to it; but let me tell him this: The Reserve Bank profit for this year is in the bin. It is in the bin from the sales of reserves for the first month of the financial year. The Leader of the Opposition is wrong about that, just as he is wrong about all the other points as well. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the rate of growth over the next three quarters. Has it occurred to him that one of the reasons why the labour market has stabilised and there has not been a dramatic growth in unemployment is that the economy is running at about the level the Government predicted in the Budget? The national accounts figures, while giving the trend, are notoriously open to massive re-evaluation and adjustment. A clear trend is very obvious in yesterday's national accounts. The fact is that the Government has faced a massive drop in the terms of trade after a long trend decline over 14 years to levels which are now as bad as they have been at any time since the Second World War when post-war commodity prices were depressed. That does not apply just to Australia. If one looks at the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development terms of trade figures, one sees that they all show that the terms of trade are now as bad as they have been at any time since the Second World War. Australia is experiencing that on top of five massive current account accumulations and, therefore, the Government has taken drastic and urgent remedial action in the tightest Budget in years and in the adoption of a firm monetary policy. In lifting irresponsibility to an art form, the Opposition now says that the Government should not have a decent interest rate structure. It has failed to comprehend the situation. At the risk of these terms of trade-the absolute level and the rate of fall, as the Statistician says-after losing $6 billion in income through low prices, after giving us a 5 3/4 per cent current account imbalance, a rate of indebtedness to the rest of the world of $14.75 billion a year, the Opposition now says that in that position of vulnerability we should give our monetary weapon away, we should chuck it out, we do not need it; instead, we want cheap interest rates. That sort of policy would rebound on us in two seconds flat. This is the paucity of the Opposition's view. It has been in this House for 3 1/2 years, being educated by us in a few rudimentary economic points; yet it is now saying that we should drop our interest rate structure and that we cannot run a decent Budget policy. Opposition members are the people who let the States out of the Loan Council; they are the people who had the infrastructure program of 1980; they let the horse bolt in terms of State debt; they left us with a Budget deficit of nearly 5 per cent of gross domestic product; they had the 6 per cent current account deficit in 1980-81. Why? Because even with the terms of trade in 1980-81, which were much more advantageous then they are today, the deficit was 6 per cent because the secondary structure had been destroyed. It was destroyed because the Opposition had no policy. Basically, that mob opposite is fresh out of history and fresh out of ideas. The Opposition is in a shocking state. I do not mind that; it suits me. However, I do mind the Leader of the Opposition trying to draw straws about the rate of decline in the terms of trade when he fails to recognise the fact that we have had 14 years of decline-we are not talking about absolute levels and the rate of fall-and that that is sitting on top of five current account imbalances of much higher proportions than we are used to. That is why Australia has been vulnerable and that is why the Government has done everything imaginable to repair the position as quickly as possible. What really eats at Opposition members' political hearts is that last June the Leader of the Opposition-`the man for the times'-thought that there were good times for John Howard on the back of bad times for Australia. Now they understand that the Government has lived through these very bad terms of trade; it has now adjusted fiscal policy and it is seeing the adjustment come on the current account. As I indicated at Question Time, with the decrease in the volume of imports and the rise in the volume of exports, Opposition members can see that the game is changing against them. They can see the Government succeeding in all this. They are worried sick. So, they come in here with a bit of spooky stuff and try to get a few cheap lines about the real state of policy and conditions. I tell the Opposition this: Out there in the markets people understand. They know where the quality is in this Parliament, and it is all on this side of the House. They know where the remedial changes have come from and they know the underlying nature of the problems. They all know that if Australia fails to get the adjustments this time, with the courage that this Government has shown, Australia will be in an economic backwater for the next quarter of a century. They know that they will not see wage restraint and that happy tie between wages and fiscal policy, the discipline in wages and fiscal policies and the discipline in monetary policy from the Opposition. These are things that Australia has never had. People outside in the markets see this and they know that all these things would disappear if a coalition government came to power. Wages would blow apart and fiscal policy would fall to bits as the Opposition abolished capital gains and fringe benefits taxes and restored negative gearing. Everyone knows that the Opposition would not have the courage to try to cut outlays in the way that is necessary and that the result would be a catastrophe for Australia. It would also be a catastrophe for the people in the market. So what are they doing? They are keeping their Liberal Party tickets hidden-not in their pockets but in their top drawers. They are hoping that the discipline and foresight that this Government has shown to change Australia will pay off and that the Government will get another term of office in order to see the job completed. They will not have the Liberal Party back. In their heart of hearts, Opposition members know that. They sit over there on those benches saying: `What can we do about this crowd? We did not expect the Labor Party to have any economic brains, to be disciplined or to adjust structural policy, tax policy, exchange rate policy and industry policy. The Labor Party is not supposed to do that. But it has got off the floor and it has done that and basically we are now on the outer'. Opposition members are right-they are on the outer, and they are staying out there. That is the truth of the matter; they are staying out there. Perhaps it is a bit rough for them; but, in the ebb and flow of politics, political parties reach their zenith and then they fall apart. The fact is that the Liberal Party had some personnel in the 1950s. It did cut the mustard in the 1950s and very early 1960s. Then, through arrogance, it started to fall to bits. Now there is a shambling ruin, an historic ruin, left on the other side of the House. On the other hand, the Australian Labor Party is now at its high point. If Opposition members do not think that that is understood around this country, they are cracking jokes. When it comes to that big long run for the wire, when people have to put their choice on the ballot paper and ask where their future lies, will they opt for genuine economic security, out of the hands of the people funding the current account imbalance? Will they opt for the party that is curing Australia's external indebtedness by fixing the current account deficit? Will they opt for a Labor Party which is reducing tax rates from the penal tax rates of John Howard's 60 per cent to 49 per cent? Will they opt for a Labor Party which will remove the double tax on dividends? Will they opt for a Labor Party which fixed up the profit share, pulled down the public sector borrowing requirement and restructured the financial sector of this country? Will they opt for a Labor Party which has brought about a competitive banking industry? Will they opt for a Labor Party which has fixed up industry policy? The answer will be a resounding yes. When people look at the timidity, absence of ideas and pathetic opportunism of the coalition parties and make their judgment about where they will put their vote for Australia and themselves, they will vote for the Labor Party. All these things the Opposition talks about-cheap interest rate policies, irresponsibility-are red herrings. The days of irresponsible politics in this country are over. If the Opposition has not woken up to that it will go even faster. We reject the matter of public importance; it is just a manifestation of the symptom. The Opposition has no idea and it comes here, after a history of economic vandalism, with no integrity. We reject the Opposition, as will the Australian public. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.30) —I hardly believe all this. Here is this fellow telling us that if we look out there we will find enormous confidence in the Government, that in the business community there is enormous confidence in the Government. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) is saying that out there in the boonies, out there in Bankstown, where he is supposed to live but does not, there is enormous confidence in the Government. I have one piece of evidence here, produced by Mr Morgan, of an opinion poll of 1,827 electors. That is a pretty large number of people to use as a sample. The Treasurer a moment ago was telling us: `You're on the outer'. What does the Australian Financial Review say about the poll? It states: The full document shows that not only is Mr Keating performing badly, his disapproval rating at 57 per cent is, according to Morgan, almost 20 per cent higher than the previous most unpopular Treasurer . . . How about that? The report goes on: . . . his approval is not up to scratch in key sectors which usually should be the home base of the Labor Party. Mr Martin —Tell us about the polls. Mr CARLTON —We are ahead of the Labor Party in the overall polls, so what is the honourable member talking about? The poll asked respondents about what they approved of in the Treasurer's performance. The poll people had to do a bit of scratching about to find anybody who could think of anything they approved of, but here are the results: Reasons given for approving of Mr Keating included the belief that he's doing the best job he can (11 per cent . . . Another reason why those polled approved of the Treasurer was that his was a hard or tough job. Four per cent thought that. This is a beauty: About 3 per cent regarded him as economically astute. The people who were asked by Mr Morgan what they thought might have been from the investment houses in New York who were here on a holiday-some of the people the Treasurer was conning in New York-but 3 per cent said that, and 2 per cent agreed that he makes tough decisions. The Treasurer has been telling us that he has been making all these responsible and tough decisions and that everybody out there understands that it is difficult, that when it comes to the point they will understand that he is making tough decisions. If they thought the Treasurer was making tough decisions they surely would be saying it now. If there is any degree of hurt out there it ought to be there now, yet only 2 per cent of the sample say that the Treasurer makes tough decisions. What about the other side of the coin? The report on the poll goes on: Reasons for disapproval included taxes such as the fringe benefits tax, or that Mr Keating was thought to be incompetent or arrogant- Heaven forbid, this performance here is a prime example of incompetence, to which I shall refer in a minute. The arrogance is well known to the House. It is also quite evident to the general public. It continues: . . . with each category being mentioned by around 6 per cent of electors in unprompted interviews where they could come up with any reason. Obviously, what the Treasurer is saying about his general popularity and the degree of confidence in him and the Government is sheer, utter bunkum. One has only to walk around any electorate and talk to the general population to know that that is correct. When we come in here and listen to what the Treasurer says, we know that the fellow is in cloud-cuckoo-land. He lives in Canberra, he is driven around in a car with tinted glass windows, he travels to Japan and gives lectures there on how it should manage its economy-- Mr Robert Brown —They all listen, too. Mr CARLTON —Does the honourable member say that the speeches are different? The speeches he gives there are quite different from the speeches he gives here. They are also quite different from the speeches the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gives. There are two points I want to pick up from what the Treasurer said. He harped on and on about how the previous Government supposedly decimated the whole of our capacity to export outside the rural and mineral sectors. He said that over and over again. He had the hide to say that we destroyed manufacturing industry in the 1970s. Do we remember the 1970s? Do we remember the peak of destruction in the 1970s? Do we remember 1974? Do we remember when Gough Whitlam was Prime Minister and Mr Hawke was the leader of the trade union movement, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions? Have we compared the strike record of that period with the rest of Australia's history? Do we know that in that year six million man days were lost in strikes-the highest we have ever had in our history? It was Hawke and Whitlam who did that. Was 1974 the year in which manufacturing industry was destroyed, with a 30 per cent wage increase in one year, in addition to the highest level of strikes ever? The Government should not come into the House and tell us that we destroyed manufacturing industry. We also have the word of the Treasurer on a more recent matter. In Hobart he said to his mates in the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union: `You've got dead men around your necks from 1981-82-100,000 jobs, 100,000 dead men around your necks'. He said that when the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) was there for the economic debate and he would recall it. We have the evidence of the statistics in 1974 and we have the evidence of the Treasurer at the Australian Labor Party conference, speaking to a different audience, admitting that what cost the jobs, what cost manufacturing industry in 1981-82, was not the Fraser Government but the unions. The Treasurer said it himself and it is on record. The other canard that he keeps bringing up is that we destroyed manufacturing industry and the farmers through the overvaluation of the dollar. Mr Robert Brown —You did it and you know it. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member for Charlton has enough economic sense. He taught people in schools, and if he does not support this he ought to withdraw his textbook for schools. He knows that when his Government came to office in 1983 it devalued the dollar by 10 per cent but then managed the dollar up again. For nine months it managed it up again under the management system. It was at that level for nine months before the Government floated it and it stayed in a free float for 13 months, at the level it was under the previous Government. If the previous Government was overvaluing the dollar by management, why did not the Hawke Government keep it down for the first nine months and why did it not fall for the first 13 months after that? The Treasurer's argument falls to the ground. We had a new argument today. The decline in the terms of trade, which is the very nasty thing this Government is facing has been with us for 15 or 20 years, so the Treasurer says. Mr Hand —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. What has the fact that the Fraser Government destroyed manufacturing industry in this country got to do with the subject before the House? The Opposition, not this Government, destroyed the manufacturing industry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! There is no point of order. Mr CARLTON —The other point the Treasurer keeps trying to make on the question of interest rates is that the present interest rate regime is an essential component of his strategy of being on course. Whenever we have had bankruptcies in Australia to any great degree it is because interest rates have been high for a very considerable period. It is now 12 months since interest rates went through the roof. It is now 12 months since confidence was lost in this Government's economic policies on an international scale. The only thing that is keeping the dollar propped up today is the fact that interest rates in Australia are higher than they are every- where else, attracting short term foreign investment. The whole country is being kept on a knife edge by this Government keeping interest rates artificially high. They have been high for a year. They will continue to be high for another year, according to the Treasurer talking to his Japanese audience. Soon the businesses will fail. They will not invest under this lack of confidence regime, and very soon they will be crippled by the excessive costs of high taxes and high interest rates. It is time that this fellow woke up. Everybody else has woken up. The public has woken up. It is time the Treasurer of Australia woke up. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(3.40) —As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said a little earlier in this debate, the Government totally rejects the matter of public importance that has been put by the Opposition today. After listening to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), I am encouraged to find that he is finally starting to learn what were the effects of the fixed exchange rate, the interest rate policies of the coalition when it was in government and its off-shore investment policies. He is finally starting to understand that there is a lag in an economy, and the real measures of the decisions that have been taken by this Government are starting to flow through now. I will use this opportunity to cover a couple of the issues a little more rationally and a little more objectively than has been put to us by those on the other side of the House. Let us start with two key items that appeared this week. Today on the front page of the Australian Financial Review is a little graph showing that today's value of the Australian dollar is US65c. No comment has been made about this by members of the Opposition. Also a headline article on the front page of the Australian Financial Review of Monday anticipated an increase of 26 per cent in manufacturing investment in the coming financial year. According to this article, big manufacturers have begun major re-equipment programs which will lift total manufacturing investment by nearly 26 per cent in 1986-87. An industry survey conducted by that newspaper came up with that result. That is the point from which I want to start in this debate. The bravest decision of this Government, one that the previous Government was unable to take, was the floating of the Australian dollar. The previous Government maintained a fixed exchange rate, but it could not be sustained. High interest rates, speculative foreign investment and currency gambling against the Reserve Bank of Australia were the mechanisms used to hold in place that fixed exchange rate. The floating of the dollar, albeit misunderstood-I want to come back to that point-represents the catalyst to revive Australian industry as a currency earner. If honourable members opposite do not understand it, let me put it simply: Local products are now more competitive and imports are more expensive. That must stimulate business at the local level. That is exactly what that anticipated increase in local investment means. I mentioned earlier that the floating of the dollar has been misunderstood. I could not give a better example than this front page story in the Melbourne Sun-a paper which I generally like-in June. The headline was `Dollar Doom' when the Australian dollar had fallen to a value of US66c because the writer of the article did not understand; there is a lag in understanding in the community of economic policy and theory. In October, four months later, a member of the same newspaper stable, the Herald, had the headline `Australian Dollar Healthy', at US63.5c. Of course there is confusion in the economy. Of course there is confusion among people out there when they have to take that sort of advice, that sort of economic analysis, as the basis upon which they make their decisions. I turn to the question of interest rates. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) talked about the effect of high interest rates on single income families. That is true. None of us want to see high interest rates. When the dollar can stand alone, when the Government can cease relying on high interest rates to encourage inflow, interest rates will fall, and that is starting to come about through our policy adjustments. That is to be seen. There is also a stimulus in our economy from the Australian made campaign. This was not an initiative of the Opposition when it was in government. It should have been, but it was not. It was introduced by this Government. That represents a $2m advertising package for Australian business. Every business that is linked to local products, from manufacturers to transporters to retailers, stands to get a direct spinoff. Every one of us can now help each other by looking for and buying Australian products, whether they are hardware, clothing or cars. We can all examine our spending. This Government is encouraging that move in the economy, and it will produce results. I turn to a decision that the Government is likely to take tomorrow morning on the question of the textile, clothing and footwear industry. Of all the things that I have come across since I have been in this place, I have never seen anything like the mishmash of junk that was put in place by the previous Government as a form of protection for the textile, clothing and footwear industry. I pay an enormous compliment to my colleague the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) and to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) for the role that they have played in bringing together management, unions, the Government and all the other interested sectors in trying to undo this mishmash that was created and put in place a responsible economic policy. I want to talk a little about that decision. I want to talk a little about the politics of protection. An article in the Australian of 8 November, which was written by Bert Kelly, a member of the former Liberal Government, talks about the performance of the Liberal Government and that of our Government in this industry. He says: . . . `It was Malcolm Fraser who ducked any tough decisions on the TCF industries . . . Australia has paid dearly ever since. He also said: . . . a highly responsible and conscientious minister rightly described as neither New Right or New Left but simply as the Federal Government's brightest and best.' He then goes on to say: As a Liberal, I should not pay such a tribute to Senator Button however much it is deserved. Why do honourable members opposite not come clean and start to give merit? I also go to the editorial of the National Times of 7 September entitled `This is the wall the Right built'. I recommend it to everybody; it is about carpetbaggers. What is a carpetbagger? It is someone who picks up someone else's ideas and runs with them. It is someone who puts the junk in place. What did the editorial say about the humbug from the other side of the House? It says: It is fairly pointless identifying humbug in politics . . . But as they arrive at the free-market battlefield and unpack all those glittering `New Right' gee-gaws from their carpetbags, you might have hoped that even politicians could make some concessions to history and acknowledge their part in creating the evil they now so rail against. I could not put that any better. When we talk about the Australian economy and the role of the Opposition, let us also look at the question of wheat sales. Let us also look at the United States of America now subsidising heavily against our farmers. Let us talk about the Liberal member of parliament who wrote to the President of the United States, urging him to subsidise even more heavily. Why? What did he say? An article that directly quotes his letter to the President of United States said that if the President were to capitulate now-that is, if he were to stop subsidising-he would enhance the interests of the Hawke Government. There is the low point of politics in Australia. Our farmers, desperately trying to battle against the deciding terms of trade about which the Treasurer has talked, have to face the fact that a Liberal member of parliament has written to the President of the United States urging him to continue dumping so that it may help the short term interests of the Liberals. An article in the Australian Time of 1 November describes the Liberals as broke, desperate and directionless. I encourage members of the Opposition to look at it. The Liberals have practised the politics of hypocrisy. They have preached against off-shore debts. They are the ones who encouraged off-shore borrowings, talked up the resources boom and all that. They have talked about cutting welfare spending, but they say that they will get rid of the assets test. Honourable members opposite talk about cutting public sector expenditure. There is an article in this morning's Australian Financial Review about their proposal to create a new bureaucracy to oversee the Australian Taxation Office. When will it stop? They talk about government spending, yet they left us with a $9 1/2 billion deficit. It is almost a nonsense for honourable members opposite to come into this House and bring forward a matter of public importance such as this for debate and expect to be taken seriously. They are practising the politics of hypocrisy. As the Treasurer said, the Opposition will be seen through. It is being seen through and the electors will leave members of the Opposition right there on the other side of the House with reduced numbers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —On behalf of Madam Speaker, I present the following reports of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House: Report on the developed design of the New Parliament House, November 1986, together with a New Parliament House area schedule, and report on certain aspects of the New Parliament House project, together with minutes of proceedings of the Committee. Motion (by Mr Scholes) proposed: That the reports be printed. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(3.52) —I wish to comment briefly on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House in relation to certain aspects of the new Parliament House project. I sincerely recommend that all members of parliament read this report because it very much concerns them. I think all honourable members would like to be in the new Parliament House when it opens in 1988. This report is very much central to the condition of that building at that time. In a carefully but, nevertheless, clearly worded statement, this report expresses the concern of the Joint Standing Committee as to certain deficiencies that the Committee sees at present. This situation has not just suddenly occurred. Because of some recent action the situation has reached a point where the Committee feels it can no longer be silent. I want to add my comment in stronger terms than those included in this statement and I know that the majority of members of the Committee feel exactly the same. The Committee is faced with an impossible situation. It has been appointed by this Parliament to look after, on behalf of the Parliament, all the aspects of the new Parliament House building to ensure that when we, as members of parliament, move to that new building it will be as was intended in the design plan, the instructions and so forth. We have two very difficult situations. The Committee has the power only to advise the Parliament House Construction Authority but not power to require it to comply with the Committee's decisions. This has recently led to a difficult situation concerning furniture in the new Parliament House. Furniture is important to the presentation of the building but it must also be suitable for members. They will be the major occupants and users of that furniture in their work stations. As I understand it, the unanimous view not only of the Committee but also of every other advisory group was that a certain tender for furniture should be accepted. Yet the Authority refused to accept that advice from the Committee and made another decision. That creates an impossible situation for this Committee. Honourable members will see that recommendation 10 in the report states: The Committee regards the situation with extreme concern. Unless the matter is resolved Parliament has no assurance that decisions taken by its properly established client committee will be put into effect. The furniture decision is not the only problem-we had problems with carpet wool as well-but it is certainly the most serious. Another point that is made in the report refers to the $43m cost savings that the Committee has been required to implement on behalf of the Executive Government. It is headed `The impact of reduced expenditure on the new Parliament House'. At no stage was the Committee a party to those real decisions relating to reductions. We have been forced to make decisions, some of which have been rejected by the Executive Government and sent back to us. We accepted in good faith that we have a responsibility to comply. Nevertheless, this will mean that certain aspects-I refer in particular to landscaping and some of the other construction features of the building-will be presented in a less desirable way than they should be and will not reach the standard that we, as a committee, were entrusted to ensure. There is sure to be some criticism of the finish and presentation of that facility in 1988. We, as the Committee, will be seen to have done less than other members of parliament and the general public would consider was our responsibility. This has occurred against our wishes, our advice and our recommendations and without consultation. I believe that that is most unfair and it is a most untenable position for this Committee to be placed in and I know that a number of members of the Committee have considered resignation because of that. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 261st report of the Committee, relating to the review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit of the Department of Territories-Australian Capital Territory Internal Omnibus Network, ACTION, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr RUDDOCK —I thank the House for the opportunity to address this report briefly. This report is about the Australian Capital Territory Internal Omnibus Network, ACTION. I must admit that, when I saw the name ACTION on buses, I wondered what it was. The report's findings show that ACTION conducts a reliable, comfortable service which is generally of a high standard, but that there are significant problems which prevent it from maximising efficiency and accountability. This report addresses these problems. The Committee believes that ACTION's lack of suitable information systems and its administrative location within the Department of Territories are fundamental to many of its difficulties. ACTION does not appear to have full control and responsibility for its operations. While the Committee believes that ACTION should be given greater autonomy, it is firmly of the view that it should remain accountable to the Minister for Territories, the Parliament and the community it serves. As a consequence, the Committee has recommended that steps be taken to form ACTION into a ministerially accountable authority to serve the public transport needs of Canberra. The Committee is somewhat reluctant to accept that ACTION should become a statutory authority in order to improve efficiency. Honourable members will no doubt appreciate that there has been increasing concern over recent years at the proliferation of statutory authorities, many of which appear to be somewhat unaccountable. However, in the Australian Capital Territory a number of authorities operate which are now ministerially accountable and have that greater independence that the Committee believes is necessary if ACTION is to be accountable and efficient. The Committee also notes that, as Canberra's population continues to grow, this independence will become more vital to ensure an efficient bus service. The granting of greater independence to ACTION should not be, however, at the cost of accountability. The Committee became aware of several sensitive issues associated with ACTION and matters that might very well go to its efficiency. They include matters relating to the way in which industrial relations questions are addressed. The Committee agreed with Audit that, in the interest of achieving greater efficiency in ACTION's operations, a thorough examination should be made of alternative shift arrangements and it hoped that a joint study that is in the process of being undertaken at the moment might provide some information to assist in such an examination. The Committee noted that the Department had commented that the issue of shift arrangements is sensitive and regretted that the Transport Workers Union did not respond to two invitations to comment on evidence given by the Department. The Committee was persuaded by its inspection of facilities for another transport operator, Transperth, and other comparative information that the use of split shifts and part time drivers can lead to substantial reductions in public transport running costs. Given predictions of increased demand for peak services and the continuing requirement to improve ACTION's efficiency, the Committee recommended that ACTION conduct a detailed evaluation of split shifts and part time drivers in consultation with the Transport Workers Union. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see from those comments the direction of the Committee's thinking in relation to this very important question. The Committee was also concerned to find that ACTION had no bus acquisitions policy. ACTION now has five brands of buses in its fleet of 400. This variety of buses contrasts markedly with other transport operators and appears to lead to significantly higher costs in the number of spare parts needed, the training that mechanics have to undergo, the facilities for maintaining the buses and the like. If there is a multiplicity of brands, those costs are correspondingly increased. The Committee therefore recommended that ACTION develop a methodology for estimating the economic life of its bus fleet and then proceed to establish the expected bus life of the various types of buses in the ACTION fleet, to formulate a bus acquisitions policy and to review that policy annually. The Committee's report also addresses several other important issues connected with, firstly, ACTION's performance standards; secondly, inadequate information systems; thirdly, limited annual reporting; fourthly, problems of fare collection; and, fifthly, provision of bus services. While the implementation of the recommendations in this report will assist ACTION to overcome many of its problems, a joint study is currently being conducted by the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories which should provide ACTION with much needed information on which to base its future operations. The problems identified by the Auditor-General in the operation of ACTION and the necessity for further recommendations in this report confirm the importance of such audits and their review by this Committee and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure which shares the responsibility to review efficiency audits. As this is the last opportunity I will have this year to speak in relation to the activities of the Public Accounts Committee, I simply add my thanks to the secretariat of the Committee, particularly those of its members associated with this report. I thank them very much for their involvement and for the outstanding work they did in its preparation at the end of a very busy session. Mr NEHL(Cowper) —by leave-I merely wish to endorse the statement made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and add my compliments to his for the outstanding performance of the staff of the Public Accounts Committee. Those comments and that praise apply to every member of the staff of the secretariat whom I have had contact with. They are extremely hard working, assiduous and, I must say, efficient and tolerant. The work of the Committee could not be done without their dedication and enthusiasm. Dr WATSON(Forde) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 262nd report of the Committee, relating to guidelines for annual reports, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Dr WATSON —The 262nd report provides comments and recommendations by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on guidelines for the preparation of departmental annual reports. The Public Service Act 1922, sub-section 25 (6), requires a department to provide its Minister with an annual report on the department's operation for the year ended 30 June. As a result of an amendment to section 25 earlier this year, departmental annual reports are required to be in accordance with guidelines presented to the Parliament from time to time by the Prime Minister after approval by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. On 1 September 1986, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) forwarded a set of guidelines for consideration by the Committee. The proposed guidelines will replace the 1982 guidelines and reflect the Government's recent Public Service reform measures. The guidelines will require departments to provide details of, amongst other things, implementation of the financial management improvement program, staff budgeting and program budgeting. Information should also be provided on matters such as activities in the field of occupational health and safety, the operation of a department's industrial democracy plan and its equal employment opportunity plan. The Committee recommends the inclusion in the guidelines of several clauses which it believes will increase the accountability of departments and place emphasis on the performance aspects of departmental activities. The Committee believes that, in addition to giving an account of a department's administration and management, an annual report should provide an accounting to the Parliament and the public of the department's performance. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the guidelines provide that the orientation of annual reports should be towards the performance aspects of departmental activities as well as the administrative and managerial aspects. Since annual reports are a record of a department's operations, the Committee believes that users of reports should be provided with information about the reasons for any significant changes in a department's operations or procedures. For instance, an annual report should provide details about major judicial decisions and reviews of the objectives or structure of a department and also significant consumer complaints or suggestions which have resulted in a change to the department's operations or procedures. To ensure greater accountability of departments the Committee also believes that annual reports should include details about any breaches of forward obligation limits and any other breaches of the Audit Act 1901 and the Finance regulations and directions. In the same vein, the Committee believes that Parliament is entitled to know of the reasons for any significant delays to, or amendment, deferment or cancellation of, a department's programs. In view of the recent government administrative reforms aimed at providing departments with more responsibility and flexibility in managing resources, the Committee believes that a departmental Secretary should provide and certify a financial statement which will reflect his or her financial management responsibility. The Committee agrees with the Department of Finance's view that financial statements provided in annual reports should do more than merely elaborate on data already provided in the financial statements prepared by the Minister for Finance under section 50 of the Audit Act 1901. The Committee recommends that the guidelines require financial statements in annual reports to provide, at least, the details specified at pages 10 and 11 of the report until such time as section 50 of the Audit Act is amended and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) determines the form of the financial statements. The Committee understands that amendments to section 50 are expected to come into operation on 1 July 1988. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard pages 10 and 11 of the report. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The document is not in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Speaker. Dr WATSON —Perhaps I should read those points out so that they do get into the Hansard, because the Committee believes that they are fairly important. Pages 10 and 11 state: In line with the devolution of greater management responsibility to departments, the Committee agrees with the Department's proposal that- the Minister for Finance's responsibility for furnishing section 50 statements be reduced to include only aggregate information from each department; and responsibility for reporting detailed financial information be transferred to each departmental secretary who should provide audited certified financial statements in a form determined by the Minister for Finance, as part of the department's annual report. The Committee recommends that paragraphs B.1 and B.2 be omitted and the following paragraphs be inserted: 1. An annual report should include an audited statement prepared by the department and certified by the departmental secretary. The certification should state that all departmental expenditure for the financial year has been made with due consideration to economy and in accordance with the Audit Act 1901 and the Finance Regulations and Directions. 2. Financial statements should be in accordance with the form determined by the Minister for Finance pursuant to section 50 of the Audit Act 1901. Where section 50 does not provide for such a determination or no such form has been determined, the financial statements should include, as a minimum, the following information: (a) details of receipts and payments of annual appropriations on a program basis and explanations of variance from budget figures; (b) details of free services provided by other agencies with an estimate of the amount; (c) details of individual Trust Account operations under sections 60 and 62a of the Audit Act 1901; (d) a schedule of cash and investment balances; (e) a statement of amounts of debtors and creditors by program; (f) a schedule of amounts of prepayments; (g) a schedule of capital commitments and outstanding loan balances; (h) a schedule of major capital assets operated (by class); their value and the date and method of valuation. 3. Financial statements should be accompanied by an explanation of significant changes from one year to the next and must be consistent with other published financial data (any material differences should be explained). Data should include current year actuals and budget estimates and actuals for at least the previous year. 4. Where a department undertakes operations of a commercial or quasi-commercial nature in respect of which the Minister for Finance has determined, pursuant to section 41D of the Audit Act 1901, the form in which it shall prepare financial statements for those operations, the departmental annual report should: (a) incorporate financial statements in the form determined; (b) provide information as to the operational performance of the undertaking (eg the operating surplus as a proportion of working capital provided, trends in turnover, etc.) including, where practicable, non-financial performance measures. Committee Comment and Recommendation 14 The Committee recommends the insertion of a sentence providing that the financial statements referred to in paragraph B.4 must comply with the Guidelines for the Form and Standard of Financial Statements of Commonwealth Undertakings, issued by the Department of Finance. In concluding my brief statement to the House I wish to thank the staff of the Public Accounts Committee, and in particular Cathy Clune, who actually supervised the preparation of the report. I commend the report to honourable members. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —by leave-I wish to make a brief statement on the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts review of the Australian Capital Territory Internal Omnibus Network; but first of all I want to take this opportunity at the end of the session to congratulate the staff of the Public Accounts Committee on the high standard of service it has delivered to members of the Committee. The Parliament has seen a great number of reports from the Public Accounts Committee presented, and of course none of them would have been possible without the dedication of our staff. I thank all the members of that staff. I want to make some brief reference to the report on the ACTION bus service, obviously because I have some interest in it as it affects my electorate. I think that the report will provide a very useful and practical input into improving its operations and efficiency, and I congratulate the members of the Committee on their work. The Committee should be congratulated on many of its recommendations. The report fits in very well with the joint study on ACTION that has been undertaken and will enable ACTION to look constructively at the heavy demands expected to be placed on it over the next 10 years. In particular, the joint study and this report will provide a basis for gaining endorsement for ACTION's policies, objectives and standards and will assist it to develop improved planning mechanisms, including a corporate plan. I am sure that ACTION will welcome some of the recommendations of our report, particularly on the development of a corporate plant. Also, the report recommends providing improved performance, operating and cost data to the public, determining the extent of ACTION's independence in line with government policy, improving resource scheduling and developing an appropriate acquisitions policy, of course within Budget limitations, suitable for the future roles and demands of ACTION. Fare structures have also been reviewed, and collection methods have been looked at. It seems to me that one of the very positive things about ACTION is its collection method, which enables it to get people on and off buses in the Australian Capital Territory in almost record time. The report says some other very positive things about ACTION. It says how reliable, comfortable and generally of high standard ACTION's services are, and we should congratulate the management of ACTION and in particular the drivers, who are members of the Transport Workers Union. Obviously, there are opportunities for improvement and the report outlines some of those. Providing an effective bus system for the people, particularly in my electorate, is a great challenge for the future. In the Tuggeranong Valley we have one of the fastest growing areas in this country, and I think we will have to review the way the system works. At the moment it operates on an interchange basis, with buses operating from one interchange to another. Frankly, I think that that will be impossible in the future, principally because the philosophy behind the planning of Canberra has been that people live and work in the same area. That will not be the case in the future, particularly in the Tuggeranong Valley. There is not sufficient employment for a large number of people to work in the Tuggeranong Valley, so they will have to travel. Many will have to work in Civic and the most obvious way of getting there is by bus. That will provide an enormous challenge to ACTION in the future. We will have to look at ways of getting express buses straight through to the city, with minor bus links going into central areas. The interchange system will not be able to accommodate the increasing growth of the Tuggeranong Valley and the great movement of the work force out of the valley into Civic. So, it is necessary that ACTION look at the recommendations of the Committee. Again, I thank the Committee members for their support and their recommendations, because I am sure that in the long run those recommendations will work to provide a much better service for my constituents. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, I present the second report of the Committee Ordered that the report be printed. Mr GRIFFITHS —by leave-I thank the House. This is the second report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. The Committee's first report in November 1985 dealt with the problems it was then experiencing in attempting to establish an appropriate working relationship with the National Crime Authority. This second report acknowledges the improved working relationship now established between the Committee and the Authority. It reports on a variety of matters relating to the operation and performance of the Authority and to the Committee's activities over the past 12 months. The report also addresses the difficulties envisaged in establishing criteria for the evaluation of the work of the Authority given, of course, the existence of the sunset clause in the National Crime Authority Act 1984. It also considers the future direction which the Committee may take in performing its statutory and parliamentary duties. Following the tabling of the first report, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) convened a meeting between the Joint Committee and the National Crime Authority in an attempt to resolve the impasse which had prevented the establishment of an appropriate working relationship between the two bodies. As a result of this meeting, held in May of this year, it was agreed that the Authority would prepare for the Committee a comprehensive briefing on its operations. The Committee prepared a matters of interest document, detailing the areas of the Authority's operations on which the Committee sought information. In response, the Authority provided a large amount of written material and addressed the remaining issues by way of oral briefing in June. Further joint meetings took place in August and early November, enabling both bodies to address remaining issues of concern. The Committee has been satisfied with the amount of information the Authority has provided, especially on organisational and administrative matters. The Authority has also been forthcoming on operational matters, although the Committee has been careful not to pursue any matter involving current operations, the safety of persons working for the Authority or the reputation of persons under investigation. The Committee was particularly interested in receiving information from the Authority on aspects of its organisation and staffing. It noted with interest the problems encountered by the Authority in recruiting suitably qualified and experienced senior legal staff for the Melbourne office; and in differing perceptions and expectations on the nature and shape of the Authority on the part of some staff during its transitional period. The Committee believes that all possible avenues must be explored to rectify the recruitment problems the Authority has encountered. It is also of the view that the problems associated with the different backgrounds of some officers may prove to be an inevitable transitional problem. The Authority appears to have addressed these problems and is now closer to operating as a unified organisation. Other areas of concern raised by the Committee included the possible duplication of administrative machinery in the Sydney and Melbourne offices of the Authority; and the apparent lack of balance in the number of legal and investigative personnel employed in the Authority compared to the number of financial analysts and accountants. These matters are under review by the Authority. The Committee also expressed concern in relation to the security of the Authority's computer and information systems; and the possible threat to civil liberties entailed in a computer database. These concerns, however, have been allayed by the Authority's approach; that is, selective incorporation of material into the system and access to the database by authorised officers only. The Committee also sought information from the Authority on general and particular matters relating to its operations. General matters included the methodology adopted by the Authority in the exercise of its functions; the number and general nature of the references from the inter-governmental committee; prosecutions arising from Authority operations; co-ordination and co-operation with other law enforcement agencies; criminal intelligence requirements; and the operation of sections of the National Crime Authority Act 1984. Specific matters raised by the Committee have included, for example, the Bruce Cornwall and Barry Bull extradition proceedings, and a series of allegations relating to some aspects of the operations of the Authority. Whilst some of the these matters might be categorised as embarrassing to the Authority, the Committee acknowledges both the Authority's candour and the steps taken to ensure no repetition of these particular isolated incidents. The Committee has been satisfied with the operational material and briefings made available by the Authority as far as that material goes. The Committee, of course, shares the Authority's views that it should not reveal details of specific matters where this may jeopardise a current operation or proceeding, or endanger the safety or reputation of officers of the Authority or people under investigation by the Authority. Thus, though the Committee has not pressed the Authority on such matters, there may come a time when the Committee is placed in a position where it has no alternative but to pursue a particular line of inquiry. It may then be appropriate for the second leg of the Committee's recommendation in its first report to be invoked; that is, the presentation of a separate report or briefing to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Committee. This mechanism will allow a bipartisan view to be taken as to whether the Committee as a whole ought to pursue a particular line of inquiry. The option for the Committee to pursue matters of concern must remain open if its role as a parliamentary watchdog is to have any credibility. The alternative, of course, is to cede to the Authority the power to categorise any line of inquiry as operational and hence inappropriate for the Committee. It is the intention of the Committee to continue meeting regularly with the Authority as these joint meetings provide opportunities for the Committee to receive briefings on matters of interest raised by members. In the course of its activities the Committee has also examined the National Crime Authority annual report for the year ended 30 June 1985. In particular, the Committee noted the reports on investigations; legislative matters and law reform; and the preliminary investigative and evaluative work carried out by the Authority in determining its priorities. The Committee also noted the amount of time and the difficulties experienced by the Authority in the recruitment of suitable staff and the establishment of satisfactory administrative procedures. Since its inception, the Committee has been briefed by the commissioners and senior officers of the police forces of South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, as well as by senior officers from the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Customs Service and the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. As a result of these briefings members of the Committee are better placed to understand the overall background against which the National Crime Authority operates and to gain a greater appreciation of the difficulties facing law enforcement agencies in the fight against organised crime. In this context the Committee was disappointed that it was unable to receive a briefing from the Queensland Commissioner of Police. As mentioned in the Committee's first report, all States except Queensland agreed to the Committee's request for a briefing by their Commissioner of Police on organised criminal activities within their jurisdiction. A subsequent request this year to the Queensland Premier to reconsider this matter was also rejected by the Queensland Government. It is planned to continue this pattern of briefings from law enforcement bodies and to extend them to include officials from the relevant Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities who participate in, and advise on, the development of government policy in combating organised crime. One theme which has been stressed before the Committee is the crucial need for a high level of co-ordination and co-operation between all agencies involved in the fight against organised crime. The Committee therefore intends to examine and report upon the Authority's relationship with other law enforcement agencies and the degree of co-ordination and co-operation which is taking place between these agencies. It is also the intention of the Committee to conduct a major examination of one feature of organised criminal activities during 1987. The Committee will report on this examination and on any changes which the Committee thinks desirable to the functions, structure, powers and procedures of the Authority. As the Committee's report relates, an assessment of the achievements and impact of the National Crime Authority on the activities of organised crime is necessitated by the inclusion of a sunset provision in the National Crime Authority Act 1984. This will entail an assessment of the effectiveness of the legislation with the view of making recommendations as to the future of the Authority. The Committee intends to play a major role in this review of the operations of the Authority. While the Committee has canvassed the general issue of evaluation criteria, the only conclusion it is prepared to make is that at this point it will be extremely difficult to establish such criteria. However, it is the Committee's belief that its meetings with the Authority and with other law enforcement agencies, government officials and others involved in, or observers of, the fight against organised crime will allow it to make a substantial contribution to the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Authority. Finally, the Committee thanks Mr Justice Stewart and his colleagues Mr Bingham, QC, and Mr Greenwood, QC, for their co-operation and assistance during the year. The Committee also thanks members of the staff of the Senate who have assisted it in its work, particularly Robert Walsh, Rosa Ferranda, Christine Hall, Jacqueline Bradley and Elizabeth Malone. I thank the House for its indulgence. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —by leave-As the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority said in presenting the Committee's second report, the relationship between the Committee and members of the National Crime Authority has improved markedly since this time last year on the advent of the tabling of the Committee's first report. I would stress, however, that I feel that it will take even more time before there is a proper understanding between the members of that Committee and the Authority itself. The Authority has special responsibilities, not least those spelt out in the legislation as to confidentiality. On the other hand, members of this chamber, the elected representatives of parliament, also have responsibilities to oversee a body which has been given powers equivalent to that of a royal commissioner. There is a need for the two bodies to reach a similar approach and an appreciation of each other's different spheres of responsibility. There has been an excellent improvement in relations between the members of the Authority and members of the Committee. I am certain that over a period of time a better understanding of each other's respective positions and a greater degree of trust and confidentiality will emerge so that each of us can perform the responsibilities with which we are charged. I would also add that I still am concerned that the Authority can use its coercive powers-that is to summon witnesses, call for documents and employ its personnel, with all their specialist training and professional expertise-only upon reference from the Inter-Governmental Committee which is made up of the Commonwealth Minister, the Special Minister of State, and Police Ministers or Attorneys-General from the various States. Other than a specific reference from that group of-and I do not mean this in a derogatory sense-politicians, the National Crime Authority is unable to employ its special coercive powers. That does not prevent its using the normal techniques of investigations and surveillance if only to acquire intelligence. I believe that, at worst, this amounts to a degree of political control and, at best, presents restrictions in respect of definition. I remain unconvinced that the NCA has sufficient power to tackle the evil crime organisations that exist throughout Australia and pose such a grave threat to the most basic moral and traditional fabric of our society. I do not intend to take up very much more time of the House, as the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), the shadow Attorney-General, will be making his comments on the report. I am concerned about a whole number of matters regarding this Government's approach to organised crime. I welcome the Chairman's foreshadowing our investigations next year, particularly in regard to the relationship between the Authority and other law enforcement bodies. We have touched on this aspect a number of times with the Authority and other law enforcement agencies, but I and a number of other members would like to put a number of questions. We need to be satisfied that the NCA is without doubt receiving the assistance and co-operation of the more entrenched longstanding bodies. I note in recent days the public wrangle between the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence and the Australian Federal Police in which allegations have been made that the AFP is not sharing intelligence with the Bureau. That factor concerns me greatly. In conclusion, I wish to congratulate the Chairman on the performance of the Committee under his stewardship this year. It is not an easy role and I disagree with him fundamentally on a number of issues. Nonetheless, there is no doubting his willingness to allow all members to put their points of view, and in unrestricted fashion to examine the witnesses who may come before the Committee. I also add to the Chairman's comments my congratulations to the staff of the National Crime Authority who assist us so very efficiently. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —by leave-I welcome the news from the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority that there is greater co-operation between the National Crime Authority and the Committee. In so doing, I express my disappointment that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) is not present. However, if he were present he may have nothing to say about the matter, but the National Crime Authority is a very important body. It was set up by this Government following an attempt by the previous Government to set up an authority similar in kind but better in function. It is a matter of importance when the parliamentary Committee comes to the House to present its report. The absence of the Special Minister is fully consistent with the way in which this Government has gone about its so-called attack on organised crime. I will come to that matter in one or two minutes. Before I do so, I shall refer to some of the comments made by the Chairman of the Committee. He referred to the existence of a sunset clause and to problems of recruitment in Melbourne, and later referred generally to difficulties in recruitment in the NCA. There is a sunset clause in the legislation. The Authority was set up for a period of five years. That five-year period runs from 1 July 1984. It is not to be wondered at that there are difficulties in recruitment in the Authority when we see that it has now gone more than two years of its appointed five-year period and there has yet to be a statement from this Government whether it intends to continue with the Authority. It staggers one that the Government could not understand that if staff members do not know whether they will have a job it will be pretty hard to get people to give up work to take on a job on the prospect that after two or three years they may or may not have a job. It is equally astonishing that the Government is unable to say simply whether it intends to continue with the Authority. The Opposition, the coalition parties, are clearly of the view that the National Crime Authority should stay. We will make sure when we are returned to power, if the Government does not legislate in the next few months of the period it has in office, or as long as it is before the next election, that the Authority will remain. But it is a matter on which the Government should come out, and come out quickly. One commissioner, Mr Justice Stewart, is due to finish in a year and a half or so, and I think that Mr Bingham is due to finish in about 12 months. It would obviously be difficult to get people to replace them-to replace Mr Bingham, for example-if no one knows whether the Authority will remain in existence. The Chairman referred to some concerns that the Committee had, as I understand it, with the security of the Authority's computer. I also understand that those concerns have been allayed. That concern, expressed by the Chairman, illustrates the great concern that people can have about databases being kept secure when they are put on to a computer. The Authority is a very secure organisation and it operates under strict provisions of secrecy. It is a criminal offence for any staff member of the Authority to divulge information that has been acquired by the Authority; yet even in such a secure, confidential organisation concern has been expressed, similar to the concerns that we have been expressing about the integrity of the computer system associated with the ID card. The Chairman also had something to say about the role of the parliamentary Committee. He referred to his statement of last year and, as I understand him, he would persist in the view that there should be a right of access to the full range of information held by the Authority so as to enable the Committee to monitor and review the Authority's operations. That raises a very real question and a very real problem. The problem is simple: If a committee has access to operational material-names, events and transactions-then by having that kind of access, which necessarily involves staff members having access and Hansard reporters having perhaps a more limited access, more and more people will get hold of highly sensitive and confidential information. The question the Committee might have to consider is whether it should resile from that view and whether there may be some other form of oversight, along the lines of the form of oversight established for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, with an Ombudsman. That might be more appropriate. In saying that, I express no view as to what course of action should be taken but certainly nothing can be done which would in any way jeopardise the security and confidentiality of information held by the National Crime Authority. Lastly, I return to the question of the Government's intentions towards the National Crime Authority. The Authority has been in operation for well over two years. There are problems about the continuance of operations when doubts exist as to whether it will be in existence in under three years time. Obviously the Government needs to make a very plain statement of its intentions so that the Authority can get on with its business, can organise its affairs as effectively as possible and can recruit the best possible people for the very difficult and demanding work that it undertakes. One thing of which we can be perfectly sure is that, given the incidence of organised crime in this country, given its growth and given the haphazard and disorganised way in which the Government has gone about dealing with it, we will need the Authority for years to come. We may say that that is a pity, but it is simply a reflection of our times. Therefore, it is time for the Government to tell us what it intends to do. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(4.44) —by leave-At the outset I wish to say that, as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, I endorse the report which has been tabled here today. One of the most important aspects of the report and of the Committee's work-indeed, one of the highlights-is the vastly improved relationship which now exists between this parliamentary Committee and the National Crime Authority. Honourable members with an interest in this subject will be aware that in its first report the Committee drew attention to some very serious communications gaps and difficulties between the Committee and the Authority. I am pleased to say that considerable progress has been made in bridging those gaps and in permitting the Committee to report to Parliament in a much more informative way. I wish to make a few other comments about the report. In debate on this report the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) claimed that this Government was not doing enough to tackle organised crime and, indeed, that our record in this area had been less than satisfactory. Let me say simply that none of us would be talking in this debate were it not for the fact that the Hawke Government established the National Crime Authority and a parliamentary committee to oversee its activities. That is the first thing that needs to be said. It was this Government which established the National Crime Authority and which gave it the role, the teeth and the powers to make a meaningful attack on organised crime in Australia. That is not all we have done. We have also drastically improved and increased the resources which are made available to the Australian Federal Police. I know that that is a policy with which the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) is particularly pleased and of which he is proud. We have been able in the difficult budgetary circumstances to increase resources to the AFP. Thirdly, it was this Government which brought in and foreshadowed what I and, I believe, the community consider to be very tough legislation which really tackles organised crime head on. Those are some of the things that this Government has done to tackle organised crime. It is simply not true, as the honourable member for Gippsland said, that this Government has been less than satisfactory in its performance in that area. I wish to comment also on the question of the Committee's responsibility to report to the Parliament and to examine trends and changes in criminal activities. Over the last year the Committee has been able to have briefings from commissioners and senior officers of police forces in each of the Australian States and the Northern Territory. It is a matter of great concern to me-and this is highlighted in our report-that the Premier of Queensland has, on two occasions, refused to give the Committee access to his Commissioner of Police so that we can examine trends in organised crime in that State. That is a matter of concern and I know that the honourable member for Gippsland, who is a member of the National Party, is at a loss to understand why the Queensland Premier should restrict this Committee in its important work against organised crime. I turn to the comments that were made again by the honourable member for Gippsland, who said that the work of the Authority was being restricted by `political control'. I am totally at a loss to understand what he is suggesting by that meaningless statement. Let me make this clear: Mr Justice Stewart has said publicly and to this Committee that were any political imperatives or controls impeding the work of the Authority the National Crime Authority would say so publicly. In other words, he made it quite clear that there would be no political controls over the work of the National Crime Authority. It is quite incorrect and misleading for the honourable member for Gippsland to suggest that. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) made an interesting comment about the need for the Committee and the Government to decide now about the future of the National Crime Authority because, under its sunset legislation, it is due to be wound up in 1989. It is one thing for the honourable member for North Sydney to come into this House and make such statements, but it is quite another when one looks at the comments on this issue and the position taken by members of his own Party who serve on this parliamentary Committee. They have said that it is not necessary yet to make a decision about whether the Authority should be continued after 1989. Certainly the Committee acknowledges that deliberations on that subject will have to take place in the near future. However, when a Liberal member comes into the House and makes those statements criticising the Government it puts him way out of line with members of his own Party who are members of the Committee. The final point I make concerns comments made by the honourable member for North Sydney regarding the computer security system held by the National Crime Authority. The honour- able member for North Sydney, I think, made the rather tenuous link between a computer system in the National Crime Authority and the computer system which would be established for the Australia Card. This Committee would have been remiss in its responsibilities if it had not ensured, to the best of its knowledge and ability, that the computer system used by the National Crime Authority was itself secure. Clearly, it is our responsibility to ensure that that computer system is secure and, in our view, on the information available to us, it is secure. It is really stretching the imagination, and it is tenuous in the extreme, for the honourable member for North Sydney to say that in some way that suggests that a security system, a computer system, set up by the Australia Card registry would be a security risk to Australia. I find that a preposterous analogy. It simply does not hold water. The parliamentary Committee is doing a good job in reporting to the Parliament on the work of the National Crime Authority. The relationship between this Committee and the Authority has improved; and I look forward to further reports on the work of the Authority and on the extent of crime in Australia. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present the report of the Committee entitled `Report on a visit to Papua New Guinea', incorporating a dissenting report, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr CHARLES —Earlier this year the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence received what amounted to a request by the Government via official correspondence from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). In that correspondence I believe that he, through the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), urged the Committee to think about setting up a delegation to visit Papua New Guinea to familiarise itself with the situation in that country and to meet the new leaders there. That was a positive suggestion by the Foreign Minister. The Committee reacted positively to that suggestion and seven members-I was fortunate enough to be the leader-visited Papua New Guinea on a familiarisation trip in April this year. The report before the House is a relatively short, factual report on our trip. It does not make any political statements in regard to the number of subjects we discussed such as refugees, aid or defence co-operation, et cetera, except in the dissenting report-which I find disappointing-in which two members make comment in regard to the refugee situation on the border. No member of the Committee would disagree that there are refugees, but I think that that could have been argued somewhere else at another time. As I have said, it is a factual report. The primary aim of the visit was to increase contact and understanding between the two countries at a parliamentary level and to provide an opportunity for members of this Parliament to familiarise themselves with conditions in Papua New Guinea during a period of important change in its internal situation and at a time which is very important to our bilateral relationships. For Papua New Guinea, our visit provided their political leaders and officials with a wider range of contact with Australian parliamentarians and gave them opportunities to express their concerns and views to us. I think there were only a couple of members of the Committee who had been there before, and that was a number of years ago. We must remember when looking at the Papua New Guinea leadership, with Prime Minister Wingti only in his mid thirties, and a new ministry, that the situation has changed quite dramatically from the post-war relationship that built up between our two countries. The delegation reached a conclusion and made a recommendation. I will quote them from the report. The first relates to defence matters. It is: The Australian Government in consultation with the Papua New Guinea Government should consider developing a program to assist in the provision of improved defence housing for Papua New Guinea Defence personnel. We noticed that there was a problem with that in Lae when we were there. The report goes on: Alternatively, the Australian Government may consider granting inflexibility in the use of a proportion of the Defence Co-operation Program funds in order for the Papua New Guinea Government to target priority defence needs-of course, defence housing could well come into this category. Secondly, the major recommendation of the Committee is that we believe that a regular and reciprocal pattern of parliamentary exchanges should take place between our two countries. This would assist greatly with the build-up of the relationship between our two countries as an ongoing feature. The delegation recommends that course, possibly on a biannual basis. The Committee visited virtually all parts of Papua New Guinea from Port Moresby to the border areas. We visited a number of refugee camps on our way across to Wewak. We went to Goroka, across to Lae, and back to Port Moresby. All that was by Caribou aircraft. I thank the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) for his tremendous co-operation and the members of the Royal Australian Air Force, who are mentioned in the report, for their assistance. Without them we could never have completed the trip. The availability of the Caribou made the trip so much easier. The Committee thanks the Prime Minister, Mr Wingti, who made all his officials and Ministers to whom we wanted to speak available. He was available to spend an hour with the Committee. He was most forthcoming. We appreciated his availability and his forthrightness. As I said, it was a fact finding and a familiarisation trip. This was so in Ok Tedi. Earlier in my remarks, I failed to mention that gold and copper mine in the middle of PNG. We also thank the Ok Tedi people for their hospitality. Finally, I thank the members of the Committee, my deputy the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), who was of great assistance throughout the trip, the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) and the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) for their contributions on the trip. They are great members of this Parliament and their knowledge was very helpful on the trip. We also thank the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent), Senator Elstob, Senator Bolkus, and our secretary on the trip, Mr Phil Bergin, who helped us right throughout the tour. This visit was a first for the Committee. It was very worth while as we were in Papua New Guinea not only in our own right as a parliamentary Committee but also on behalf of the Australian Parliament and the Australian people, fostering the very good and sound relationship that our two countries have built up over many years. We wish that relationship to continue. We sincerely hope that the trip will add to and assist that co-operation and friendship in the future. Mr KENT(Hotham) —by leave-Time will not permit me to deal with the report of the Joint Committee of Foreign Affairs and Defence on its visit to Papua New Guinea. The report, as the leader of the delegation the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) said, is a factual report of the delegation's trip to Papua New Guinea. The intention of the delegation was to foster good relations between the two countries. I completely agree with that intention, as I completely agree with that part of the report dealing with that. However, I have had to issue a minority report to the majority report because I had to deal with a somewhat pusillanimous part of the report dealing with the refugee situation. Even though we travelled long distances by air and by land, and we sailed down the Fly River to visit the Niogomban refugee camp in the Kiunga district, and later visited the Blackwater camp near Vanimo, the report does not mention the word `refugee'. On pages 3 and 4 of the report, where the visits to the camps are mentioned, it calls the refugees `border crossers'. I looked in the dictionary, but I could not find the term `border crossers' anywhere. I looked up the Oxford Dictionary, which describes a `refugee' as one who left his place of residence because of religious or political persecution. That is the exact description of the 10,000 or 12,000 Melanesian people, of whom we saw hundreds, who left their place of residence because of atrocities committed by the Indonesian authorities. The only reason the majority report does not mention that is that we want to appease the kleptocracy in Jakarta. I cannot be a party to that part of the report with a clear conscience because I feel very strongly for the 12,000 people-mainly women and children-in camps, who have been kept there in abysmal situations for over 2 years by the authorities because of the fear of antagonising the Indonesians. The expression `border crossers' appears some five or six times in the report. The only time the word `refugee' is used is when it mentions the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I am surprised that my colleague the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), who was bending over backwards not to offend the kleptocracy in Jakarta, did not change the title of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to `the United Nations high commissioner for border crossers'. I am somewhat revolted by this blinkered attitude because I do not believe that appeasement, by not noticing and not describing a situation that we have seen, will lead us anywhere. I do not need a dictionary to establish what `refugee' means. I lived through the Second World War, and I have seen thousands of them. In 1981, as part of a parliamentary delegation to Pakistan and India, I stood with my colleagues over the Khyber Pass and looked into Afghanistan. In Pakistan we saw hundreds of refugees, some of the 1 1/2 million refugees there who were running away from Soviet aggression in Afghanistan. We called them refugees. We did not call them border crossers, even though historically those tribes in Afghanistan were criss-crossing the border because their people lived also in Pakistan. For family or other legitimate business reasons, border crossers crossed the border because they lived near it, and there was traffic in both directions. The Afghan refugees in Pakistan today are, without doubt, refugees, and we call them `refugees'. One hundred or 150 miles from our border human rights violations are committed by the Indonesian military in West Papua and the Melanesians, who fear for their lives, leave their villages and go over the border into Papua New Guinea. Then we say that they are not refugees; they are border crossers. This is something that not one of us should accept with a clear conscience. We are forced to call them refugees in one part of the report which I will read. It says: . . . Mr Charles, reiterated the Australian Government's position that the issue of the border crossers, and border problems generally, were principally the responsibility of Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. I cannot accept that, when people suffer from atrocities committed or fear of atrocities and threats, we say that that violation of human rights is not our problem. We do not say that when human rights are violated in other parts of the world; we stand up and say what we have to say. Time does not permit me to go much further, but I want to finish with a quote from Pastor Martin Niemoeller who, in dealing with apathy and appeasement, said: In Germany they came first for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up for me. I want to alter these words somewhat before I finish and say: First, they took West Papua, and we did not speak up so as not to offend them. Then they took East Timor, and we did not speak up so as not to antagonise them. Next, as their appetite grows, they will demand Papua New Guinea; and, when they come to our shores, I do not want my grandchildren accusing me of not speaking up when there was a time for me to speak up. I think the time is now. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —by leave-From 19 to 24 April 1986 a delegation of members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence visited Papua New Guinea. The delegation consisted of Mr Charles, the leader of the delegation, Mr Bob Katter, the deputy leader of the delegation, Senator Bolkus, Senator Elstob, Mr Gayler, Mr Kent, Mr Philip Bergin, secretary to the delegation, and me. The delegation visited Port Moresby, Kiunga, Tabubil, which is the site of the Ok Tedi mine, Vanimo, Wewak, Goroka and Lae. Members had extensive informal discussions with Papua New Guinea Government and provincial Ministers and officials, and met agriculture, industry and business representatives. The itinerary included visits to the border camps at Niogamban and Blackwater, the Ok Tedi mine and a coffee plantation, and a tour of the Institute of Medical Research in Goroka. The last Australian parliamentary delegation to Papua New Guinea before this visit was in August 1983. The last Papua New Guinea parliamentary delegation visited Australia in 1978. The visit was long overdue, and it was an important one. The decision that a delegation from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence should visit Papua New Guinea flowed from an initiative begun by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), in late 1985 and supported by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The idea was welcomed by the Government of Papua New Guinea, and its Foreign Minister, the Hon. Legu Vagi, who extended an invitation to the Committee during his visit to Canberra in January 1986. The primary aim of the visit was to increase contact and understanding between the two countries at a parliamentary level. In that, the delegation was an outstanding success. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) made reference to the plight of border crossers at the two camps I have just mentioned. The Australian Government has a very strong, a very definitive, policy in relation to this issue. It has been expressed on a number of occasions by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The issue of border crossers and border problems generally is principally the responsibility of Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. Indeed, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has welcomed the policy of the Wingti Government towards the border crossers, including a decision which was announced on 21 January 1986 that Papua New Guinea would accede to the 1951 United Nations convention and the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees, and that the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees would be directly involved in refugee processing. We had a quite good discussion at both camps containing border crossers. I do not know whether refugees were located in these border camps, but I did see, particularly at the Blackwater camp outside Vanimo, a high degree of political sophistication and activism on the part of the people living at that camp. I will say no more on the question of border crossers because, as I have indicated, the Foreign Minister has already made a statement on the Australian Government's policy in respect of this issue. I mention briefly the matter of Australia's aid to Papua New Guinea. In September 1985 the governments of Australia and Papua New Guinea negotiated a new five-year aid agreement under which Australia would provide some $1.4 billion in aid to Papua New Guinea. The agreement provided for a reduction in Budget support by 5 per cent per annum. Overall, Australian aid would decline by 3 per cent per annum in real terms, with the difference being made up by an expanded program of project aid and technical assistance. Given the new leadership in Papua New Guinea and the indigenous bureaucracy of the Papua New Guinea Government, which I would suggest does not have the same degree of empathy with Australia as did the older indigenous people of Papua New Guinea, it is essential that we ensure that there is an adequate level of dialogue between the governments of Australia and Papua New Guines on the design and use of the aid program. The Government of Papua New Guinea is not averse to seeking aid from other countries. It is not averse to establishing diplomatic relations, as is its right as a sovereign nation, with many countries that do not share the same traditions of freedom and democracy we share in Australia. Accordingly, I urge the Australian Government to devote a lot of time to developing a policy that can be used to strengthen the dialogue between the governments of Papua New Guinea and Australia on the design and use of the aid program. Australia has conducted a defence co-operation program with Papua New Guinea since 1975 and expenditure in 1985-86 was of the order of $20m. The main components are loan personnel, consultancy studies and particular projects such as the pacific patrol boat. We visited Moem Barracks at Wewak, Murray Barracks at Port Moresby, and the Air Transport Squadron at Lae. At all those bases we were briefed by the commanding officers and we toured the facilities. I am most impressed with the level of defence co-operation that has been given by the Australian Government to the Papua New Guinea Government. There is an urgent need for the Australian Government to ensure that the Papua New Guinea Defence Force has an adequate re-equipment and training program. I was at Moem Barracks nearly 20 years ago. When I visited the barracks in April this year the deterioration was quite marked. It spelt out that the Papua New Guinea Defence Force was starved of funds. I suggest also that it is essential that the Australian Government develop even closer links, through our Department of Defence, with defence officials of the Papua New Guinea Government to ensure that assistance can be given and so that they can develop a five-year program on defence expenditure planning. We have a number of agreements with Papua New Guinea. The consequences of Papua New Guinea being unable to defend its integrity will lead ultimately to the involvement of the Australian Defence Force in the protection and security of Papua New Guinea. To sum up, the delegation was extremely productive for both Papua New Guinea and Australia. It was able to establish close rapport, not only with the government officials it had the opportunity to meet and discuss matters with but also with a number of other people involved in highly sensitive areas in Papua New Guinea. I refer, for example, to Bishop Etheridge at Vanimo, who is vitally concerned with the border crossers, and Bishop Deschamps, the Bishop of Daru, who has a lot to do with a border camp south of Kiunga. The talks with each of those two bishops were highly productive. I would like to congratulate the leader of the delegation, the honourable member for Isaacs, on the expertise with which he led the delegation. He was a superb leader. He was able to ensure that there was a harmonious and extremely good working relationship between all members of the delegation. He was a credit to Australia in the way he conducted himself and in the level of leadership he provided. I would like also to pay tribute and give thanks to 35 Squadron, based at Townsville, which provided the Caribou aircraft to transport the delegation throughout Papua New Guinea. I pay tribute to the dedication, competence and cheerfulness of the crew, Squadron Leader Ross Pyers, Pilot Officer Chris Oborn and Warrant Officer Malcolm Monkton, who did a sterling job. In these brief remarks I would also like to pay tribute and express my gratitude to the Australian High Commissioner in Port Moresby, Mr Michael Wilson, who did much to ensure the success of the visit. The thanks of the delegation also go to our escort officer from the Australian High Commission, Mr Robert Webster. Mr WHITE(McPherson) —by leave-I wish to commend the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) on his sensible approach to some of the problems we face in Papua New Guinea. As someone who has spent a number of years in New Guinea I would not like to see, as the honourable member for Herbert has indicated, any lessening of interest by Australia in what is happening in that country. Many years ago, and for a long time, we had a very close relationship with that country. Since it has achieved independence those links quite rightly have diminished somewhat, and there is a tendency in Australia to think that we can cut those links altogether. We see that in the reduction in aid. On the other side, we hear and read reports that New Guinea is interested at least in talking to the Russians about fishing agreements in its waters. I do not know whether those sorts of things will ever come to pass but it is certainly not in our interests for it to do so. Honourable members have talked about the problems that New Guinea has with its refugees and borders. As someone who has tramped up and down those borders a few times over the years I can say that it is the most fearsome country one could strike anywhere in the world. The point I am making is that we in Australia cannot afford to neglect our ties with and the support we give to that developing country. No matter how much we think we might need all that extra aid money to use in Australia or to give to other countries, New Guinea is the closest country to Australia. It has an enormous significance for Australia, and I am very pleased to see that the delegation came back-it certainly appears that the honourable member for Herbert came back-with the view that that country is important to us. I simply wanted to take a couple of minutes to reinforce that view. Mr KEOGH(Bowman) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the third report of the Committee entitled `The standing orders and practices which govern the conduct of Question Time', incorporating three dissenting reports, together with extracts of the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr KEOGH —by leave-The report that I have just presented is the first major review for a number of years of the procedures of the House for questions without notice. The Committee has worked hard on this inquiry and has been very conscious of the need to table a report prior to the House rising for the Christmas break. I assure the House that the report is the result of some very detailed consideration. Our Question Time procedures have been subjected to a great deal of scrutiny and unfortunately also criticism in recent years, not only during the administration of this Government but also during the time of a number of previous governments. Recent criticism has been focused on the length and relevance of answers and the decreasing opportunity for members to ask questions. These matters came to a head in the House on 20 and 22 October last with Opposition members calling on Madam Speaker to intervene and curtail the length of Ministers' answers. Members' frustration was seen to be directed at the Chair and the Government accused the Opposition of attempting to disrupt matters and casting aspersions on the running of Parliament. The aim of the Committee has been to bring Question Time back to a real time for questions, a time when members have a reasonable opportunity to seek information and to press for government action by way of questions without notice and a time when the accountability of the Government to Parliament is clearly demonstrated. To achieve this end the Committee has made a number of proposals. The key recommendation is that set out in paragraph 153 where the Committee has proposed that the duration of Question Time remain approximately 45 minutes but that it be extended, if necessary, until a minimum of 16 questions are asked, unless major interruptions occur during Question Time. The background to this recommendation is that opportunities for private members have become severely limited to the stage where an average of 12 questions are asked each day and Opposition back benchers will average only 3.5 questions per year, while the coalition remains in opposition. It must also be noted that the size of the House was increased by 23 members at the last election, thus further proportionately reducing the opportunities for private members in this question period. What the Committee is proposing is that, rather than impose a time limit on answers that would be difficult to enforce and not take account of the fact that questions on some issues may merit a lengthy answer, the 16 question minimum, which would not include disallowed and immediate supplementary questions-part of our recommendations-would be self-regulating and would discourage unnecessarily lengthy answers. In 1970 an average of almost 17 questions without notice were asked each day that we had a Question Time. This rose to over 19 questions by 1976, but it has now dropped to 12 questions. This reduction in the daily opportunities for private members to question the Government is obviously unsatisfactory when compared with Question Time in the Canadian House of Commons. In its 45 minute period of questions without notice an average of 38 to 42 questions are dealt with, including supplementaries. Clearly the current situation in this chamber could dramatically change should it be the wish of the House. It is interesting to note that in the past this House itself has dealt with up to 43 questions and answers in 50 minutes. The Committee has made a number of other recommendations relating to Question Time. In particular, it is proposing that Standing Orders be amended to ensure that questions are brief and confined to a single issue. It has made a number of recommendations regarding the content of questions, including a proposal that the House retain the prohibition on questions without notice which are critical of the character or conduct of other persons. It is proposed that the requirement that answers be relevant to the question be strengthened and it has recommended that Standing Orders be amended to allow one immediate supplementary question to be asked. That proposal restricts the supplementary question to the subject of the original question. In regard to the Committee proposal that the relevancy requirement be retained and strengthened, the Committee also expressed the view that, in the event of any Minister contravening these provisions, the Speaker should direct the Minister to resume his or her seat. On 6 May this year Madam Speaker wrote to the Committee asking that it consider extending its inquiry to include a number of procedures and practices which have a bearing on members' behaviour in the House and hence the standing and dignity of the House in the eyes of the community. Madam Speaker suggested that a number of other procedures could be identified which were traditionally a source of quarrels between members or where the Chair had difficulty maintaining the standard of behaviour befitting the House. Many of the matters raised by Madam Speaker had already been raised in other submissions to the Committee and had been or were in the process of being considered by the Committee. However, as a result of Madam Speaker's proposal and others put to the Committee, the Committee has reached conclusions and made a number of recommendations relating to members' behaviour and the role of the Chair, including a revision of the practices relating to members making personal explanations pursuant to standing order 64 to ensure that the Chair has prior notice of their intention and the content of their proposed explanation; a revision of the guidelines that the Chair uses in determining whether words are offensive or disorderly; a proposal that the practice of members seeking to speak by the indulgence of the Chair be discontinued; a proposal that the provision for dissent from rulings of the Chair be removed; and a proposal that the Chair be given the power, not subject to a resolution of the House or a motion of dissent, to order a member whose conduct is disorderly to withdraw from the House for a short period. Those honourable members who follow that greatest football code of all, rugby league, will know of the great success of the sin bin provisions in the hands of the referee in that code. The Committee has also proposed that Standing Orders be amended, where necessary, to remove pronouns importing one gender. In total, these recommendations are not intended by the the Committee to dramatically change the question period in this House. Our Question Time has evolved into a format which the Committee believes, with one major exception, best suits the adversarial style expected and accepted by both Government and private members. It may be said it is a somewhat peculiar format-I use that description in a serious context-and a format that may not suit other chambers. In other countries it obviously does not, but the Committee believes that it is the format that best suits the adversarial style of this chamber at that particular period of the day's proceedings. However, the Committee believes that the public perception of our procedures is such that they leave a lot to be desired. Because of the important role this chamber should play in the nation's affairs, the way we conduct our business, particularly during Question Time, should be improved. We firmly believe that the recommendations, if accepted in total, will lead to some improvement. I stress that they must be accepted in total because it is fairly certain that the people responsible for the proceedings from the Government side might see some of those recommendations differently from those responsible for the conduct of the business of the House on behalf of the Opposition. If they look at the recommendations in that narrow fashion it will mean that Question Time probably will remain as it is now but if, with a sense of good will from those responsible on both sides of the chamber, they are prepared to look at the recommendations in total I am sure that the result we should all hope for, and the result that I am sure the people out there in the wider community would really like to see develop from Question Time, will be achieved. I record my thanks and appreciation for the diligence of the members of the Procedure Committee-members who often at great cost to their own personal commitments made a considerable effort to attend the heavy schedule of Committee meetings we held and to pursue this inquiry with a view to ensuring that we were able to get the report into the House before the House rose. I also record our appreciation of the work done by the Committee secretariat and the recent efforts made particularly by those who assisted in the printing of this report so expeditiously. I trust that the report will receive due consideration over the coming recess and that changes will be implemented early in the autumn sittings next year to enable as soon as possible an effective period of questions without notice. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —by leave-As Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure I am happy that the Committee's inquiry and report have been completed. The Chairman, the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), made reference to our being required to give up a lot of our own private time, or non-sitting time, in the preparation of this report. What he said really underscored the amount of time that has been required. I join him in thanking the secretariat for its diligence and patience and for the assistance it has given. I believe the most important thing I can do today is plead for the Government to have an open mind, to recognise that one day it will be back on this side of the parliament and to recognise that if it seeks to hold the advantages that it presently holds those of us on this side of the House may not agree to changes when we are back on the government side. The report makes direct reference to a number of most unsatisfactory practices in this Parliament. I recall clearly meeting, with the Committee, representatives of the Canadian Parliament, including the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons, and I recall being present only some days ago in this Parliament a delegation of United Kingdom politicians. The representatives of both countries left this chamber shaking their heads about the way Australia conducts its Question Time. That was one of the main points we directed our attention to during this rather lengthy inquiry. At least those who listen to the Parliament have the ability to turn it off when they hear politicians going on and on at Question Time. But because we are members we have to sit and listen to it. The fact that in 45 minutes the Canadian House has on average 38 questions says much about the Canadians as compared with us. A few years ago-I am not being political but it was under a Liberal-National Party Government-we averaged 17, 18 or 19 questions a day. That is now down to 12 questions a day, and I think that today there were only 10 questions. This chamber has become a place in which the government of the day simply stands with a bat blocking every ball, believing that it will block questions out by making the answers to each question as lengthy as can be. It has had the effect of reducing the number of questions asked in a 45-minute session. I say well done, Government; well done, Prime Minister; well done, Hawke Government Ministers. But the tragedy is that the entire institution is suffering. I can understand the Government's motivation but the thing I am fearful of is that when we get back into government the number of questions might go down to 10 a day because those opposite have taught us how to do it. They have been the teachers. Our Ministers might well say: `Anything Labor can do, we can do better'. The tragedy of that will be that the Parliament will suffer further. If we institute the suggestion of having at least 16 questions a day, regardless of how long it takes, it will mean that the Ministers themselves will be the sufferers as they will have to stay at Question Time longer than they normally do. I hope that the Government has an open mind on that. Another important matter the Committee discussed at great length was the question of privilege. I compliment the Committee on the way it was able to look at privilege without having allegiance to any political belief. It was completely bipartisan and free of prejudice. This matter involves my right to stand in this place and castigate and even denounce some citizen outside. If I denounce a member of this place I have to face the person I have accused. This right to criticise people free of the worries of defamation writs and the like is a precious commodity that we all possess as members of parliament. I regard that as the greatest privilege that has been given to me. In return, I have a responsibility to exercise that privilege with the utmost caution and in the total belief that any word I might utter about an individual is absolutely correct. The people in my electorate of Moreton have given me a weapon. When they elect a member of parliament, they are saying: `We trust you with that weapon'. Unfortunately, as history reveals, that weapon has been abused and misused. Sometimes it has been misused by a member who may well have genuinely believed in the correctness of what he or she was saying. But other times it has been done maliciously and without foundation. The Committee, after all its considerations, has come to the conclusion that this very precious privilege should be left exactly as it is. I believe there is one dissenting report from the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) who suggests, in keeping with the suggestion made in the last year or two by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, that such persons should be given an opportunity to come before such a committee and explain themselves. However, the vast majority of honourable members do not believe that this is the way we should go. We ourselves have to enforce a discipline strictly upon ourselves and recognise that we are privileged to have in our hands a most powerful weapon. At no stage should members of parliament misuse the responsibility that has been handed to them. I now make reference to the sin bin concept. We are well aware that sometimes in this place tempers become a little bit frayed, various things are said and it becomes very difficult to keep order. Many people are very critical of the Australian Parliament, and I can well understand their feeling that way. I have always said to such people that it is far better for Labor and Liberal members to be fighting it out in argument in the Parliament than causing revolution out in the streets. Thankfully, this nation, both at election times and most other times, is very peaceful. I believe we owe a lot of this to our parliamentary institution. So, for people to expect this chamber to always be peaceful, loving, caring and quite is totally unrealistic, because things are said, from both sides of the House, which inflame and hurt; and people react accordingly. Nevertheless, sometimes some people get out of control. Today marks 20 years and one day since I was first elected to this Parliament and, in that 20 years, I have never been named and I have never been sent out. But I am quite sure that had there been this proposed provision to allow Mr Speaker or Madam Speaker to say: `Cameron, to the sin bin' I probably would not have as pure a record as I possess today. I know that I have the ability to haul off; when I am right at the edge of the cliff, I can pull back. But there are other times when order would have been better kept if Madam Speaker, Mr Speaker or Deputy Speakers had been able to say that the honourable member for Moreton shall retire for one hour to cool off. Also it may well be that the honourable member sitting in front of me, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), would spend quite a time in the sin bin. But it would indeed be a release and a way of avoiding that catastrophic situation in which the Speaker names an individual and the proceedings of the whole Parliament are disrupted by divisions, et cetera. As one who may well end up in the sin bin one day if this measure is implemented, I say that those of us who would be sent probably would be deserving of that stricture. I notice the honourable member for Grayndler, the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees, already has a thumb in the air to send me out now. At times I worry a bit about the power in his hands and what it may mean for me. But, all that aside, I still support the sin bin concept as a worthy one. Of course, in the pages of this report there are many other progressive suggestions. I hope that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) does not think `We will let this one gather dust on the shelves; it is too hard to handle', because its recommendations are really worth while. I shall conclude where I started, by again complimenting the honourable member for Bowman for the manner in which he chaired and conducted the several committee meetings. I thank him; but, although I am flowing with flowery and charitable remarks now, that does not mean that, come the time of the next election, I shall not be leading the thrust against him. But I do compliment him on the way he has conducted the inquiry. I again thank my fellow Committee members. I notice the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) in the chamber and also the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar). I acknowledge also the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), the honourable member for Grayndler and the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford). I do not think I have forgotten anybody; I hope I have not. Yes, I also thank the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). What a line-up and a brains trust the membership of that Committee represents. I implore the Government to implement the recommendations of the report in a meaningful way. Let us change this Parliament before it is too late. Mr Tuckey —Thank the staff. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am reminded from my left that I should thank the staff. I thought I had already done that twice, but there is no harm in thanking them three times. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —by leave-The reason why I wish to speak is that, although I believe the report by the Standing Committee on Procedure is an exceptionally good one, I believe that it has a flaw in it in that the Committee has not bitten the bullet in relation to the protection of individuals who are not members of parliament who may be attacked under parliamentary privilege. This report represents the first time in my seven years as a member of various parliamentary committees when I have put in a dissenting report. But I feel so strongly about this matter that I felt that I should dissent from that section of the report which, in my belief, failed to give redress to individuals who felt their reputation or good name had been damaged by attacks under parliamentary privilege. Often, honourable members may inadvertently malign someone because of wrong information that is given to them. Sometimes, although less often, I believe, people in this House maliciously malign individuals. Those individuals have no chance to respond. If an honourable member attacks another honourable member, at least that honourable member has the right to stand up in this House and, using parliamentary privilege, defend himself. But a person out there in the community, who may not have a high public profile and might thus be of no interest to the media groups, is put in a very poor position as a member can say something extremely damaging about him in this House or in another place and he has no redress whatsoever. I think we should have a mechanism to ensure that those people have some form of redress. In 1984, the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privileges recommended a rather lengthy form of redress for individuals whereby they could go to the Privileges Committee, or a sub-committee of that Committee, and lodge their complaint. That report and the Bill that flowed from it unfortunately have not been dealt with by this House and at present non-members have no protection from attacks made on them by people in this House. I believe that we should be able to find some such mechanism, whether we do so by resorting to the Privileges Committee's recommendations or by providing for people to lodge a statement with the Speaker or the Clerk that could be incorporated in the proceedings of the House in which they would have the chance to rebut succinctly the allegations that were made against them. I think fair play and justice demand that there be some mechanism whereby injured parties can place their rebuttal in the records of the House should they so wish. While I support all the other recommendations of the Committee, I believe that it did not go far enough in this particular area of protecting individuals against the misuse of parliamentary privilege. I congratulate the Chairman of the Committee and the other members of the Committee on their work in producing this third report. I particularly congratulate the Committee Secretary, Mr McRae, and other officials of the Committee who put in a lot of hard work and time to ensure that we now have before the House three documents which, if implemented, will go a long way towards reforming the procedures of the House. I know that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who is present, is most interested in the Committee's deliberations and I am sure that he will implement most of its recommendations. That would ensure that the proceedings in this House were conducted in a far better manner than they sometimes are now. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —by leave-Apart from the comments of the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) as to which is the best football code in Australia, I very much agree with his remarks about Question Time and the recommendations which have been made on this topic by the Standing Committee on Procedure. The honourable member and his Committee have made some quite sensible recommendations. I imagine that I am as active a participant in Question Time as anybody in this place in the use of questions, points of order and interjections. That might have been the reason for the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) suggesting that I could become a prime contender for the sin bin. I do not disagree with that particular selection. But the people who are being left out of these discussions are the Australian people. Question Time has tended to grow over a period as a contest between Government and Opposition. I think that is most unfortunate. The Opposition of the day has a responsibility to elicit information from the Government on behalf of the Australian people. Members of this place may take a different view, but clearly at Question Time the Australian people should be able to get information through the forms of this place. In recent times in particular that information has been denied to them. For that reason, yesterday through a point of order I drew the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the fact that there are 16 million Australians outside this place who might like to know the Government's intentions in a certain direction or how a particular piece of legislation will affect them. There was a classic example of that in reverse when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) not that long ago informed us that in filling out the hated log book, about which the Government has had second thoughts, the person concerned had to fill in only the private kilometres. One has to think of the effects. Some people may only hear these things on their car radios, and in time, when they are visited by a field auditor from the Australian Taxation Office and present their log books as evidence of tax deductions, they will be told that they are out of order. There is a responsibility on the government of the day to give accurate information to this Parliament. That is why it is still felt that it is a grave sin to mislead the Parliament. In my view, that would warrant a much larger penalty than a little bit of time in the sin bin. There is a responsibility on government to give accurate answers and not to treat Question Time as some sort of contest between the Government and the Opposition. If the Opposition in its questions can highlight the deficiencies of the Government, that is quite proper. In this way the Australian people, who are the major beneficiaries of parliamentary broadcasts, will know whether it is a good government. Having arrived at that position, I consider it quite unnecessary for changes to be made to the Standing Orders to solve the problem so clearly identified by the honourable member for Bowman. He has pointed to the massive fall in the amount of information available to the Australian people during Question Time, and he well knows the reason. Irrespective of a change to Standing Orders-and I would not oppose such a change-the solution resides with the Government. The Government can fix it tomorrow. The Prime Minister, as the principal offender, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), as the second biggest offender, and the Treasurer, as the third biggest offender, can start coming into the House and giving the Australian people answers. The answers can be brief and concise and do not need to have included in them major political attacks that are totally unrelated to the question. I repeat that the Government can fix that tomorrow. When some tens of questions a day used to be asked in the Parliament, the Standing Orders were the same as they are today; it was the politicians who were different. They recognised their responsibility and took seriously that responsibility to advise the Australian people. One does not need to change the Standing Orders. I shall not object to the recommendations, because they highlight the problem; but the solution is available in the House tomorrow, and the Prime Minister can start off. In this regard the Government could stop using Question Time as a means of making statements to the House. We know why the Government uses this mechanism. There has not been a statement made to the House in I do not know how long, because statements are debated. A statement gets a response-that is a convention of this place-but if a statement is made during Question Time that does not happen. The Government can resolve that problem purely and simply by not taking that course. It does not require an instruction from the Chair or any amendment to the Standing Orders. It is something the Government can do-and it can do it tomorrow. I say now-and I have said publicly to people on other occasions-that the day this Government can lift its economic and administrative skills to the level of its political skills, I would recommend that the Australian people keep it and not pass it on. It would be a very good government then, but it is miles away from doing so. The Government has a political solution to everything, including Question Time. There seems to be some reason that I should hurry and finish-I do not know why it is my side that wants me to finish; I would have thought that that would be the wish of the Government-but I am bringing these things to attention. The honourable member for Moreton-the member for brinkmanship-- Mr Hollis —You are stopping everyone else from speaking. Mr TUCKEY —I am giving you good advice. You might get in a couple more questions, and those questions might help you in your electorate. I was there the other day, and they have not a very high opinion of you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will address the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am only too pleased to do so, when the interjections cease. All this has been done before. I have drawn to the attention of the House the actions of Speaker Snedden. It has been quite properly recommended by the Committee that a power be vested in the Speaker to call on a Minister to bring his answer to a close or otherwise to ask him to resume his seat. That is an excellent suggestion. The reality is that Speaker Snedden used to do it. Mr Holding —He did not. Mr TUCKEY —I could bring the Minister copy after copy of instances-I quoted them on another occasion in this Parliament-where Speaker Snedden took that line; and I recollect that he took it even with the Prime Minister. The reason Speaker Snedden did so but it is not being done now is that he had the support of his Party. He was given respect as a Speaker. We do not do `Copes' on our side. The reality is that if members give that sort of support to Speakers they will have the courage to act within the present Standing Orders. Nevertheless, it would not be necessary if these Government Ministers were to answer properly and give information. In terms of the behaviour of this side, and of me in particular, I am as interested as anybody else to listen quietly to answers to questions when information is being provided. I want to record it mentally and to take it back to my constituents. There is evidence that I do that. But, when we get all this rubbish and get into this garbage and the type of politics that is played by the present Ministers, it is no wonder that we get angry. We had misinformation produced by the Treasurer today. He was crossing figures. I have seen the Prime Minister do it, too. The Treasurer apparently developed it a bit more in America, where he stretched out the figures when talking to the most highly rated financial people in the world. He stretched out gross domestic products percentages by rounding them out, involving tens of thousands of millions. He does it here, and it is no wonder that we get angry. My final point is this: There should be an absolute rule in this place that nothing is removed from Hansard. If something is said, embarrassing as it might be, it should stay on the record. Certainly honourable members should not, as they have in the past-if anyone calls on me to give the evidence, I will do so-pressure the Speaker to have matters removed that are embarrassing to them although, in fact, they have precipitated the original remark. That should not happen, but it has happened. I hope that if any changes are made, severe penalties will be put on members who even attempt to influence the Speaker in that regard. Motion (by Mr Holding)-by leave-proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McGAURAN —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr McGAURAN —I realise that time is of the essence and that the House is anxious to proceed with the business. I shall be brief. During the comments he made a short time ago on the second report of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) commented on the fact that the Queensland Government was reluctant to permit its Police Commissioner to appear before the Committee. He then made this comment: `Even the member for Gippsland, a National Party member, together with the Queensland Government, is at a loss to know why the Queensland Premier refused to make available his Police Commissioner'. That is factually incorrect. Following inquiries at the office of the Queensland Premier almost 12 months ago, I am well aware of the reasons why the Queensland Police Commissioner did not appear before the Parliamentary Committee. It is because the Queensland Government- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made the point that something that was said was incorrect. That is all he needs to do in making a personal explanation. Mr McGAURAN —In drawing to a conclusion, I point out that I have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Bendigo, who made some sort of allegation that I would blindly defend the Queensland Premier's action. The representation is obviously false when one takes account of the fact that the National Crime Authority publicly expressed its appreciation of the co-operation received from the Police Commissioner of Queensland. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I present the fifteenth report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Motion (by Mr Brumby)-by leave-proposed: That the report be agreed to. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(6.03) —As a member of the Publications Committee, I wish to speak very briefly to the report. I think it is worth taking just one moment to place on record the fact that the Publications Committee, under the capable chairmanship of Senator Elstob, with Senator Archer, as the Deputy Chairman, and Chairman of the House of Representatives Sub-Committee, the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), does very important work. Its primary purpose is to make decisions about which of the multitude of papers, reports and so on that come before this Parliament should be printed, how many copies should be made and so on. This work goes on largely unnoticed and unheralded, but its effect is to yield very substantial savings in expenditure of the order of many hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. I take this opportunity to commend to the House the report prepared by the Committee, entitled `Review of the Cost and Distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series'. The cost of the parliamentary papers series represents more than 50 per cent of the total expenditure on printing of the departments of the Senate and the House of Representatives-more than $600,000 a year in the case of the Senate, as was mentioned yesterday. The recommendations of the Committee contained in the report should lead to a considerable rationalisation of the procedures in respect of the parliamentary papers and a significant saving of expenditure. The whole gamut of the printing task-the expenditure on printing-of this Parliament needs to be subject to similar close scrutiny. Questions resolved in the affirmative. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen) —by leave-I present the report of the Commonwealth of Australia Branch Delegation to the thirty-second Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, held in London in September-October 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr CLEELAND —by leave-I speak on behalf of the leader of the delegation, Senator Coates. In company with Senator Coates, Senator Lewis, Senator Cooney, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), I was proud to represent this Parliament at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in London. I pay tribute to our hosts, the British branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, who afforded us hospitality of the highest order and ensured that the Conference was conducted in a memorable fashion. Indeed, I suspect that there would be no other part of the world in which such a conference could be held, where the full splendour and history of Britain could be so displayed. Our hosts displayed it to us on that occasion. On behalf of all members of the delegation, I wish to pay a tribute to the Secretary, Mr Kieran Schneemann, who looked after us in an admirable way. He ensured that all our secretarial wants were adequately covered, that we were aware of the sessions that were being held and what was expected of us in our speaking roles. All the delegates who attended performed admirably. Delegates spoke on all the subject matters available, and for me it was, indeed, an interesting experience. Obviously when one attends such a function one returns with impressions, and I suppose that the impressions I have are peculiarly mine. There is no doubt in my mind that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has a future. At one session of the Conference we discussed whether there was a future for such an organisation. I believe that all the members of the 48 national branches that were represented clearly and without reservation expressed the viewpoint that there is a future for the Commonwealth. That is not to say that there is always uniformity of viewpoints, acceptance of those viewpoints by each of the 48 nations, or that there are not differences of opinion among the major national branches. In many ways that is the value of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It meets to discuss, not necessarily to criticise and not necessarily to formulate by resolution particular views trying to bind all the delegates and all the branches that attend. That was of very valuable assistance to me, and I believe that all delegates would agree. We all learnt something-individually and collectively-from the other delegates who attended from places such as Botswana, Zambia and Kenya in the African area, from the Caribbean and from Australia. Representation came from right around the globe. There was a wide diversity of people with a wide diversity of views representing a wide diversity of parliaments. One of the strongest perceptions I gained, apart from the fact that there is a future for the Commonwealth in meeting in such a way, was that there is a further role Australia can play. There is no doubt that there are changing balances in the world today. There is no doubt that the mother of the Commonwealth, Great Britain, increasingly and probably in her view quite properly, sees Europe as the area of closer allegiance than that which was traditionally and historically true in the past. That is not to say though that Great Britain views the Commonwealth any less favourably than she did in the past; she views the Commonwealth as having a future. The strong impression I gained there was that this country, Australia, must increasingly look forward to new allegiances in trade and in foreign affairs in the region of the world in which we have a perceived role and a greater role. For us to look backwards in history and across to Europe, across to Great Britain, on our traditional links, I believe, is to ignore our future, and the role we play in our region; it will do us damage in the long term. As an aside and in winding up, I mention that I learnt something very important in Great Britain. With Senator Cooney I attended Fortress Wapping from 11.30 one Saturday evening to about 2 o'clock on Sunday morning. I saw, with my own eyes, a building surrounded by a steel fence. On the inside was a moat in which there were rolls of razor ribbon. Spotlights surrounded the building and video cameras were on nearby buildings. Everyone there was being viewed and filmed on video cameras. I saw hundreds of policemen who every night are there ensuring that the workers can come in by bus to produce the newspapers. I saw and spoke to many of the 4,500-odd former employees who still congregate nightly outside the Wapping plant. I am not drawing a conclusion for or against the tragic circumstances which caused Fortress Wapping to arise but, if that is the way industrial relations are to develop in the world today, God help us. It was a sad sight to see. I lay no blame against the participants involved, but the fact that in a civilised country such as Great Britain that is the way industry has to work is something that I think all of us in this country must take into account, examine and ensure never happens here. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —by leave-I, as a member of the Australian delegation, join with my colleague the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) in saying that I appreciated very much the opportunity to attend the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in London. I endorse the words he said about the Conference. I too think it was very successful. The future of the Commonwealth is very much assured; that was unanimously felt throughout the whole Conference. I endorse the words of the honourable member for McEwen in saying what a marvellous job Mr Kieran Schneemann did in supporting the delegation. His work was absolutely outstanding, and everyone who went on the delegation certainly appreciated it. I remark on the last point made by the honourable member for McEwen. While in London I was very interested to read in, I think, the Guardian that an agreement was being negotiated between the management of that newspaper and the print unions. The print unions had agreed to what to me was an absolutely staggering thing; they agreed to reduce the work force by 60 per cent-that was by agreement. I do not want to cast aspersions on anyone or draw conclusions but I think that some things over there are being done in a more rational and reasonable manner. I thank the House for this opportunity to speak. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —by leave-I had the privilege of representing the Parliament at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in London. As the two previous speakers have already done, I, on behalf of my wife Jill and myself, thank the British Government for its hospitality. A number of wives went with delegates, and of course the British parliamentarians saw to it that they were also very well looked after and given many tours around the city while the Conference was on. I also congratulate the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) on being elected as the Vice-President of the Association. It is to be remembered that in 1988 the Conference will be held-in our new Parliament House-provided it is completed. It will be a great occasion for Australians, particularly for the honourable member for Griffith, to welcome the delegates from throughout the world to that Conference in our 200th year. I also mention that next year the Conference will be held in Malaysia, a very near neighbour of ours and a member of the Commonwealth. Obviously, delegates will be attending and I am sure that they will be well looked after. Without being too political, I guess our overwhelming impression while travelling concerns the value of our dollar. It was terribly expensive living in London, but I congratulate the British Government and the British people on the wonderful job they are doing in controlling pollution. The overall impression I got was that they are cleaning up the wonderful old buildings they have. They have re-gilted Big Ben. I give credit to the people there for trying to control the tremendous pollution problem they have had. We were fortunate enough to travel on to other places on our way home to see pollution in may parts of the industrial world. It is very bad and something of which we should take note and concentrate on in this country. I support any endeavours we undertake in this country to try to keep pollution under control. I thank the people from the secretariat here in Parliament House who did all the spade work and the girls in the office who helped to organise our travel and ensured we got there and returned in safe and sound order. Consideration resumed. Clause 31 (Payments out of Trust Account). Amendment (by Mr Holding) agreed to: (4) Clause 31, page 19, lines 9 to 17, omit the clause. Clause 32 agreed to. Clause 33 (Insertion of new section-67a. Estates or interests not to be granted while land subjects to traditional land claim). Amendment (by Mr Holding) agreed to: (5) Clause 33, page 20, lines 11 to 17, omit proposed paragraph 67a (3) (a). Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mr Holding)-by leave-put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) 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. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Ruddock, P. M.Conquest, B. J. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J.Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, D. J. H.Hodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C. Lee, M. Dobie, J. D. M.Willis, R. Fisher, W. C.Price, L. R. S. Smith, W.Duncan, P. Peacock, A. S.Jacobi, R. Hodgman, W. M.Darling, E. E. Connolly, D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.27 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 20 November, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(8.04) —As I rise to speak on the Plant Variety Rights Bill 1986 which is now before the House, it is a matter of some concern to all honourable members that one member of the Opposition is in the House on this most important topic of grave importance to primary producers, that is, plant variety rights. I would have thought that, even with the parliamentary session coming to a close, Opposition members would have shown more interest in this important piece of legislation which, over time, will be of considerable importance to Australian farmers. It is important at the outset to describe to members of the Opposition exactly what the purpose of the Bill before the House is. Its purpose is simply to provide a system of plant variety rights which will enable a proprietary right to be granted in respect of certain new plant varieties. Mr Humphreys —There are no members of the National Party here. Mr BRUMBY —We have one member of the National Party of Australia present in the chamber. About 30 Government members are in the chamber, one member of the National Party and one member of the Liberal Party of Australia. As I have said, this is an important piece of legislation. We have had a number of speakers so far in the debate. Of course, there have been excellent contributions by Government members, who have all spoken very persuasively in favour of this legislation. The concept of plant variety rights is to grant a proprietary right to a breeder of new varieties of certain plants that gives the owner of the right the ability to sell the new varieties in the market. Such a right can most easily be compared with the principles that underline patent and copyright legislation and they also give protection to inventions. So, in that sense, there is nothing new or novel about plant variety rights, although, of course, people in the community have differing views about the nature of the benefits that plant variety rights might bring to consumers and producers. I emphasise that there is really nothing new in its concept. It is simply the same old concept of patent or copyright which has been around for so many years. I think it is also worth while stressing that a system of plant variety rights exists in many countries. It exists in the United Kingdom, Japan, West Germany, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and New Zealand. When we look at the history of plant variety rights we see, and I am sure that honourable members would be interested to know, that they were first introduced in the United Kingdom in 1964 and the first rights were actually issued in 1965. So, that country has really pioneered this legislation. Under the system in the United Kingdom, rights can exist for between 15 and 25 years and they can apply to agricultural crops, field crops, vegetables, fruits and ornamentals. In the United States, a country for which many Australians have a great affection, plant variety rights were introduced in 1970 and the first grants were made in 1973. In that country, the rights remain in force for 18 years and cover a similar range of plants to those in the United Kingdom. As I have said, that system came into force in 1973 and the first rights were issued four years later in 1977. In addition to plant variety rights being adopted by a number of countries, there is an international convention dealing with them. The International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants was signed in December 1961. It aims to ensure the international protection for new plant varieties which are developed in member countries and it also encourages new varieties. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is in the House tonight. He has been present throughout the debate. In many ways he has pioneered this legislation and guided it through the intricate committee system of the Government and the Parliament. He has brought before us this legislation which, as I have said, introduces plant variety rights in Australia. It also recognises some of the concerns which have been around for many years about this legislation and it addresses those concerns. I have heard that one of the concerns that people have about this legislation is that, for instance, home gardeners will not be able to continue to grow their tomatoes, peaches or whatever. This legislation specifically addresses that concern. I assure honourable members that no home gardener who grows tomatoes, apples, peaches, peas or beans will in any way be affected by this piece of legislation. I have said that there are arguments for and against plant variety rights. I want to concentrate, of course, on the arguments in favour of plant variety rights. The major arguments in favour of the system are that it will encourage plant breeding in Australia as breeders will be able to recoup the funds necessary to create new varieties. It will also facilitate access to new varieties bred in countries that have a plant variety rights system and, very importantly, it will assist in the development of an export industry in Australia. I have said that in recent years plant variety rights have been discussed in Australia. In many ways it is an understatement to say that. In 1976, the Industries Assistance Commission recommended that a system of plant variety rights be introduced. Despite that recommendation, the Opposition parties, which profess a concern for primary producers in this country, really did very little about that recommendation. In 1979, three years later, a draft Bill was circulated by the Department of Primary Industry for comment. Following consideration of various suggestions, a Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in May 1981 to establish plant variety rights. The Bill passed the House of Representatives and was referred to a Senate standing committee. However, the Bill lapsed, following the dissolution of the Parliament in February 1983. That, of course, was when Malcolm Fraser called an election a year early and when there was a massive vote against him because he left this country in a state of economic chaos, with double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and a crisis in our rural industries. He was defeated at that election. The Senate committee reported in May 1984 and it recommended that a plant variety rights scheme be established. This Government introduced a further inquiry into plant variety rights. We commissioned Professor Lazenby, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania, to report on plant variety rights. His report was exceedingly comprehensive. I have it with me here in the Parliament tonight. It is nearly 200 pages in length and it was delivered in February 1986. Importantly, it contained the following statement: Having carefully considered all the arguments, my view coincides with that of the large majority of public breeders; on balance, the benefits for Australia stemming from a PVR scheme are likely to outweigh considerably any adverse effects which may arise from PVR. Further, it is neither desirable nor logical for Australia to stand outside the mainstream of developed countries in the hope of providing intangible benefits to Third World countries. Accordingly, I recommend that legislation for a Plant Variety Rights Scheme be enacted in Australia and that it should be framed such that no crops are excluded from potential coverage. As I indicated earlier, following discussions with many concerned bodies, including the Australian Agricultural Council, State Ministers, consumer bodies and so on, this Bill was introduced by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and it aims to outline this system of plant variety rights. Briefly, the system under this legislation will work as follows: Breeders will be able to apply for the exclusive right to produce and sell, other than for sales that do not involve production of the plant, new varieties that form part of a genus or species declared by regulation to be covered by this Bill. The rights will last for 20 years and the Bill contains a public interest protection provision, which I think is an important provision. There are a number of main provisions of the Bill. I have mentioned the 20-year timeframe. I should also add that the Minister may, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest, impose conditions relating to the assignment of the rights, the licensing of people to sell the variety, or other conditions. During the debate that has taken place in earlier days on this Bill, some speakers have expressed some concerns about plant variety rights. I would like to address some of those concerns briefly, because I think they are adequately addressed by this legislation. One argument is that the introduction of plant variety rights will cause concerns for Third World countries. That concern is based on the belief that plant variety rights exacerbate the differences which increasingly exist between the agriculturally developed countries and the underdeveloped or Third World countries. It has to be said that there are differences, of course, between developed nations and Third World nations in terms of agriculture and in terms of trade; but the view that PVR somehow has hastened or will hasten that difference is very difficult, I must say, to substantiate in any way. What we can say is that there can be little doubt that as better yielding varieties become available farmers in all parts of the world will replace their less productive varieties with more productive varieties. That needs to be emphasised. So, I do not accept the view that PVR will somehow affect or diminish agriculture in Third World countries. Moreover, I find the argument that Australia should divorce itself from mainstream activity in the world and that, because we do not have PVR, we will somehow be the saviour of Third World countries also very difficult to sustain. There are a few other points that need to be made. It is also suggested that PVR will lead to the loss of older varieties. Many groups have argued that, by giving impetus to the production of high yielding varieties of a similar type, older varieties, often more variable and adapted to a wider range of growing conditions than many new varieties, would soon become unavailable or even extinct. It needs to be said, as Professor Lazenby said in his report, that modern plant breeders have selected high yielding uniform plants to produce high yielding and good selling crops. The big increase in food production achieved partly as a result of breeding bears testimony to their efforts. Whilst farmers appear to be content with this situation, some small and backyard growers are concerned that they may be prevented from growing older varieties. Professor Lazenby said that there appeared to be a number of misconceptions in relation to that argument. He said that in Europe national lists of varieties that are sold commercially are drawn up by governments. As I indicated earlier, it is simply untrue to suggest that home gardeners or backyard growers will in some way be restricted from growing the varieties that they like and enjoy. They will always be able to do that, irrespective of whether there is PVR in Australia. I cite the argument that is around concerning some of the new tomatoes that one buys in the supermarket. I am sure that honourable members have seen them; they are sort of yellow-red. Sometimes, unfortunately, my family buys them. They are the tomatoes that one can bounce off the kitchen floor. They are very hard skinned. Those tomatoes will continue to be produced, irrespective of whether there is PVR. Home gardeners or small growers who wish to continue to grow the hand-picked, softer, plusher, riper and fuller red tomato that we have all come to enjoy in sandwiches and salads over the years will still be able to grow them, irrespective of PVR. A third point that people opposed to PVR argue is that under PVR many private breeders will breed for chemical dependence. They say that plant breeding for pest resistance will decline because new plant breeders, who they argue will be petro-chemical companies, will see no good reason why crops should not be sprayed with poisons to protect them. Professor Lazenby again argues that that breeding for chemical dependence argument is not sustained. He says: The suggestion that chemical companies will promote chemically dependent varieties is, in my view, mistaken. Much of the public breeding effort in Australia and overseas relates to developing pest and disease resistant varieties, thus reducing our dependence on chemicals. I emphasise the words `thus reducing our dependence on chemicals'. He gives one obvious example, which is the development of sorghum midge resistant germplasm by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries. It has a character which has been taken up actively by the private companies and incorporated in their activities. I have been told to keep my remarks to around 15 minutes tonight, so I should start to conclude. But this is important legislation and it is important that it is fully debated. I want to conclude by summarising some of the enormous number of identified benefits of plant variety rights. In doing that, I know that I have the support of the vast majority of members of this House. The Senate Standing Committee on National Resources in 1984 identified the following benefits of PVR. It said that PVR would provide access by Australian growers to improve varieties; that it would stimulate the overall level of plant breeding in both the public and private sectors; that it would stimulate plant breeding to improve the varieties of Australian native flora that were available for export; that it would assist the development of an export seed growing industry; that it would ensure the provision of a wider range of high quality produce for producers and consumers; that it would reduce covert and illegal introduction of patented varieties, with the consequent breach of quarantine risks; that it would stimulate research related to improving the genetic resistance of plants to pests and diseases; and, finally, that it would encourage reciprocal protection benefits between Australia and overseas countries. They were the Senate Standing Committee's views on the benefits of PVR. Professor Lazenby in his 1986 report said that PVR would increase breeding resources; that it would facilitate the better use of germ plasm; that it would provide better access to varieties bred overseas; that it would ensure the better use of public, and total, breeding resources; that it would enable a better integration with breeding of basic research and new developments in technology; and that it would bring about a more vigorous and stable seed industry. That is what Professor Lazenby said, but there is more. The 1985 Industries Assistance Commission report on apples and pears suggested that PVR was the most appropriate means of improving access to overseas varieties and stimulating plant breeding in Australia. It said that other benefits were that licensing arrangements and patent laws considered inadequate for the apple and pear industry could be overcome by PVR, and that PVR would reduce the risk of breaching quarantine with its attendant danger of entry of disease. Finally, the 1986 IAC report on vegetables and vegetable products said that PVR would provide access to improved vegetable varieties currently denied to Australian growers, who are facing stiff competition from imports of processed vegetables which come from countries in which they are covered by PVR. It said that PVR would stimulate export activities and bring about an improvement in disease resistance and productivity. I conclude by saying that, on balance, there is no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the Government that the benefits of plant variety rights far outweigh any of the disadvantages or concerns that have been expressed by groups in the community. The legislation has many advantages. I know it will be well supported in the House, including, I understand, by the Opposition. I only wish there were more members of the Opposition in the House tonight to take part in this debate. Mr Tuckey —The only reason you are getting your legislation is that we are helping you. Mr BRUMBY —No, that is not true. We would get this legislation through this House irrespective of how those opposite voted, but it is nice to see the Opposition supporting us on this. I again compliment the Minister for Primary Industry on his outstanding record in bringing reforming legislation before this House, legislation which will improve the position for Australia's farmers, horticulturalists and plant breeders. In the long term it will enable Australia to increase and expand its growing export industries, and we all acknowledge that the Minister for Primary Industry is the main person behind that. He has steered the legislation through many parliamentary committees, Caucus committees and difficult consumer groups, and it is now before the House. I support it and look forward to its passage through this House and the other place. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(8.23) —(Quorum formed) Madam Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity not only to address the Plant Variety Rights Bill but also to address it with an audience. I hope that those who have come to make up the quorum find what I have to say well worth listening to. Mr Scott —You called it. Mr ANDREW —Of course I did. There is in the book of Genesis a delightful little allegory that is the story of creation. It is the story of precisely how, so the allegory goes, Eve chose to tempt Adam with what was supposed to have been the fruit of the garden. Over the last 200 years that fruit has quite mystically come to be known as an apple. In fact there is no biblical evidence that it was an apple, but it has become known as an apple. After listening to honourable members opposite address the plant variety rights legislation, one could be forgiven for supposing that they imagine that apple, as it is sometimes painted in picture books and as it sometimes appears in the mind images we have, as a granny smith or a jonathan. In fact, much of the debate has suggested that all man has done with genetic engineering and plant varieties since time immemorial has been to spoil further what we originally had. In fact man, with his genetic engineering and his development of various styles of plant, has improved the available material at his fingertips. The honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), who is trying to interject, came into the House and bemoaned the fact that he had bought some cabbages that were no longer grown from seed. I wonder when it was that the honourable member for Dunkley last turned his hand to gardening, because the truth is that very few vegetables and very few, if any, of our horticultural products can be grown from seed. Does the honourable member for Dunkley realise that if he plants the seed out of a navel orange, he will not get a navel orange, and that if he plants the seed out of a peach, the fruit he will get is likely to be greener or smaller or softer or sourer than the peach he chose to plant? All the commercial peach orchards, all the commercial apple orchards, all the commercial citrus orchards in Australia and around the world come from grafted plants. So for all the fruit and vegetables we have at our fingertips in 1986 we have to thank what man has done with plant varieties. The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) rightly referred earlier to the fact that we have now developed tomatoes that can almost be bounced. It is just as true for varieties of peaches. It would not be possible for the peach industry across the world to have a canned fruit industry were it not for the fact that it had developed peaches that could be stacked in half-tonne bins and dealt with relatively roughly without bruising. In fact, the modern peach, I am told, is the derivation of a fruit that was once used by the South Americans to dip their arrows in in order to poison people. What we now eat has developed as a result of the selective plant breeding that man has had at his fingertips. I say to those opposite who have been so nervous about plant variety rights that this is 1986, and the Germans have had plant variety rights for over a 100 years. Twenty-two other countries have plant variety rights. The New Zealanders adopted plant variety rights 10 years ago and, as a result, their plant breeding increased by 500 per cent. But this blinkered view of the potential that plant variety rights has for Australia is held not only by some of the honourable members opposite-a minority, I will grant-but also, I am sorry to say, by people in the community. I will quote from a letter in today's Australian Financial Review in which Mr Maynard Rye, the deputy manager of the Public Affairs Department of the Australian Consumers Association, said: We find no evidence to suggest that patented seed varieties have been denied access to Australia because of the lack of Plant Variety Rights. Where has Mr Rye been? Is he unaware of the existence of the South Australian Labor Government funded Department of Agriculture which cannot undertake an apricot variety trial because it cannot get into Australia the varieties of apricots it wants? Is he unaware of a report by the Barossa Wine and Grape Advisory Committee which in 1985 pointed out that winemakers have been denied access to a new German breed of wine grape variety because we did not have plant variety rights? Is he unaware of the fact that the Americans have had access to navel orange selections from Australia, for example the leng navel and the lake lane navel, while access to American varieties, for example low acid grapefruit, is denied to Australian citrus growers because we do not have plant variety rights? Is he unaware that in the electorate of Barker we have the largest single free enterprise irrigation group, Simarloo Pty Ltd, which is pumping water out of the Murray River, and which cannot get the sort of plant material it wants in order to supply South East Asian markets which are waiting for horticultural products simply because we have not had in Australia a plant variety rights scheme? The majority of people in this House favour the introduction of plant variety rights, because they recognise that for the first time in Australian plant breeding we will have a measure of competition, incentive and reward brought into our plant industry. Henry Clay, speaking in the United States Senate in 1832 said about competition-I thought I had better offer an explanation since the word `competition' is not the most popular word with honourable members opposite: By competition the total amount of the supply is increased, and by increase of the supply a competition in the sale ensues, and this enables the consumer to buy at lower rates. Of all human powers operating on the affairs of mankind, none is greater than that of competition. Competition in the area of plant variety rights meant, as I said earlier, that the New Zealanders found 10 years after they had introduced a PVR scheme into New Zealand that they had a 500 per cent increase in the available plant breeding material. This occurred simply because they had been prepared to accelerate an adventurous approach to plant breeding and give a reward for the incentive that plant breeders were showing. In the absence of the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), I want to say that he too has expressed his support for the scheme before the House. He has expressed the desire that Tasmanian horticulturalists have for a plant variety rights scheme in order to develop further the Tasmanian apple industry, the Tasmanian berry industry and the many Tasmanian fruit industries with which we are all familiar. Australia desperately needs an opportunity to develop drought resistant plants. It desperately needs an opportunity to develop plants that show a greater measure of saline resistance. It desperately needs to develop plants that increase their yield without increasing the input required for that additional yield. The opportunity for this exists wherever we have adventurous plant breeding, and adventurous plant breeding will be fostered as a result of a plant variety rights scheme. Of course there are those who are rightly nervous about a PVR scheme, and no one would suggest that what we have before the House is perfect. But it is, after all, open to modification should we discover that it has shortcomings. The point has been made by some that to have a PVR scheme would in fact be to deny the Third World of the sort of cheap seed material it needs in order for its people to sow their crops. Madam Speaker, I put it to you and to the House that the converse will be the case and that the Third World desperately needs a plant variety rights scheme in order to encourage people to develop plants that suit the climate of various Third World countries. It is too easy to imagine that because there are food mountains in the European Economic Community and grain surpluses in the United States of America that the world itself has a surplus of food; we should not lose sight of the fact that while we stand comfortably in this chamber there are people who will die of starvation tonight who would have, as a result of better plant varieties, the capacity to overcome in some cases the drought and in some cases the salinity that has exacerbated the very starvation they face. There are those who have made the criticism that the plant variety rights scheme could limit the available genetic material because we would tend to focus on particular hybrid varieties. But few people have addressed that as adequately as has the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). I quote from what the Minister said in his second reading speech: To follow on the above example, I am advised that India maintains a rice genetic resource centre containing some 34,000 accessions under the IBPGR network. Indian breeders also have access to the collection of some 56,000 varieties at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. So, far from PVR denying that country additional genetic material, that country has widely accumulated genetic material. Where were the honourable member for Dunkley, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) and the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) when such projects as the Roseworthy wheat breeding project were being explained, or the wheat breeding project that is currently going on in the Wimmera? Anyone who has been anywhere near either of those centres would be aware that an enormous resource of genetic material is maintained at both of those places in the interests of every Australian primary producer. Some people have been concerned that one of the difficulties with plant variety rights could be that the scheme gives monopolistic powers to various seed companies. By so saying they deny the simple truth that there continues to be a number of small independent businesses in the seed industry which will expand as plant variety rights gives the the opportunity to be rewarded for the research they do. As I said earlier, the honourable member for Bass has expressed his enthusiasm for this legislation. He would endorse the remarks I made when I said that no one in the House suggests that the legislation is perfect. Concerns have been expressed about the configuration of the advisory board that the Minister is to appoint. Questions have been asked about the likely level of application fees. Questions have been asked about the criteria that will be used for assessing the uniformity of varieties to accede to the plant variety rights schedule. But anyone of these issues can be addressed by the government of the day. They will not be addressed by the sunset clauses proposed by the honourable members for Dunkley and Cowan. A sunset clause will destroy the very heart of this legislation, because the legislation is designed to ensure that anyone who develops a plant has the opportunity for up to 20 years to be rewarded for that plant development. What is most needed is for the Government to proceed to bring in this scheme without any further delay. The one criticism that must be levelled at the speech delivered by the honourable member for Bendigo was that he had the sheer audacity to blame the Opposition for the delay in this legislation. Minister Nixon in the previous Government introduced legislation in the House just prior to an election that the then Government lost. Had the present Government had any commitment to PVR, it would have proceeded with that scheme immediately. We had the proposal for a PVR scheme in this House as recently as 1976. The delay in the last four years has cost Australian horticulturalists valuable export markets. Whatever was wrong with the Nixon legislation could have been amended by succeeding governments. The delay by the Minister for Primary Industry, which was nothing more than a sop to his left wing, has cost horticulturalists those markets. Exports of fruit and vegetables in 1984-85 were valued at $115m. The estimate for 1990-91 is $300m and for the year 2000 is $1,000m. That rapid growth is at least four years behind schedule because of the delay caused by those opposite. The delay of four years is generous by my standards in view of the time it takes to plant horticultural crops and for them to come into production. I join other Opposition speakers in commending the Government on the introduction of this legislation, but I cannot conclude without condemning it for the delay. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(8.42) —The Plant Variety Rights Bill is designed to establish a national scheme which will allow plant breeders to apply for a grant of proprietary rights over any new variety which they may develop. I join the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) in congratulating the Government on this important piece of legislation. It is interesting to reflect on the reasons why this or a comparable Bill was not put through the House before 1983 when the Fraser Government lost office. The honourable member for Wakefield attempted to put up all sorts of strange reasons for the Government's alleged delay in introducing this important piece of legislation. When bringing down landmark legislation such as this Bill it is important to make sure it is correct. I accept the point made by the honourable member that, although there will be some losses in the interim period, it is far better to tolerate those losses than to go down the other track which could cause all sorts of other problems. The introduction of PVR has been a fairly controversial and widely debated issue within Australia ever since it was first mooted in the early 1970s. Unfortunately, at times the debate has been clouded with ideology and a certain amount of emotional rhetoric, and people have not let the facts get in the way of a good story. The introduction of PVR has been recommended by a whole variety of responsible organisations. There have been recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission on this topic following separate public inquiries into rural research in 1976, and in respect of apples and pears in 1985 and vegetables and vegetable products in 1986. One can also go back to the inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources in 1984. Also, a report on PVR has recently been completed by Professor Alex Lazenby following his investigation into the adequacy of plant breeding in Australia. He also recommended the introduction of PVR legislation in this country. An interesting publication has been put out by the Department of Primary Industry which no doubt has been seen by most honourable members who are interested in landmark legislation. That booklet attempts to put in a simplified form a number of straightforward questions and answers in which many people will be interested on the subject of plant variety rights. I would urge members to make sure that this publication is available through their electoral offices and to draw it to the attention of relevant organisations. Indeed, I am sure that has already been done by rural members. It is a useful booklet and contains an interesting synopsis of plant variety rights both within and outside Australia. It traces the history from 1876 when the German Patent Act was introduced and when plants became first eligible for patents. If one looks at some of the sagas dealt with in the booklet, one sees that in 1976 there was a working party of the Standing Committee on Agriculture in Australia which recommended PVR for this country-and in 1976, of course, Labor was not in government. Later in 1976 an IAC report recommended PVR legislation. In 1981 the Plant Variety Rights Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives and was open for public discussion. In 1982 the Plant Variety Rights Bill passed this House and the Senate referred the Bill to its Standing Committee on National Resources. Most honourable members are familiar with the rest of the history from then on. During this debate, which at times has engendered a certain amount of ideology and emotional rhetoric, in the community, people have lost sight of the principles of plant variety rights legislation. I wish to reflect for a few moments on some of those important principles, because we should not lose sight of those principles when we are examining important landmark legislation. One important principle is that the participation of breeders is voluntary. The grant of a right would be given only where a new variety can be clearly distinguished by one or more important characteristics from any other known plant variety. All plant species would be potentially eligible for inclusion in the scheme, but species or genera to which the scheme is to apply at any time would be declared by regulation by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on advice from a broad-based advisory committee. Ownership rights-a very important issue-include the right to collect royalties, including those from other persons who grow and sell protected varieties under licence for commercial purposes. Nothing in the Bill will prevent the retention of seed of protected varieties for sowing of crops or sale for human and animal consumption. Protected varieties will also be freely available for research purposes and to plant breeders for use in breeding programs. The protection of a right, once granted, will be the responsibility of the owner of the new variety, through the normal legal processes. Finally, there is the important principle that appeals against decisions on registration can be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. We must not lose sight of the principles on which such legislation is based. I also wish to deal with the recommendations by Professor Alex Lazenby, who brought to this inquiry a wealth of knowledge. He is a well respected academic, and I first remember meeting him when he was Vice-Chancellor of the University of New England in Armidale. He subsequently embarked on other careers before moving to Tasmania. Professor Lazenby recommended the introduction of legislation for plant variety rights as a broad based scheme to include all crops. He concluded that the benefits to Australia would considerably outweigh any possible adverse effects. As my good friend and colleague, the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) said during his speech, at times we lose perspective. I do not believe that we should lose perspective on this sort of legislation. We should look at the legislation, then look at the sorts of checks and balances that we build into the legislation and try to protect the interests of those people who have a valid concern about the introduction of plant variety rights. At the same time, we should not lose sight of the important benefits of plant varieties legislation. Professor Lazenby also talked about the need for the maintenance of a strong public program producing finished varieties. These were to be guaranteed long term funding at least as high as the present level. They were to be supported by strong government funded basic research and technology and the development of new varieties in minor crops. There were a whole series of other recommendations made by Professor Lazenby, and I found it a most interesting report. I hope that those people who have taken a keen interest in the whole concept of PVR legislation and who have not already done so will take the time to study the Lazenby report on the introduction of PVR. As I said, at times it is too easy to let the facts get in the way of a good story and we have seen a lot of that during this debate both in the Parliament, unfortunately, and in the wider community. We should also keep in mind that we are not a lone country in the introduction of plant variety rights legislation. A large number of countries involve themselves in PVR schemes. These represent a wide variety of political systems-Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, the Federal Republic of Germany, Israel, Japan, Switzerland, the United States of America and the Soviet Union. A whole range of countries have looked at this important aspect of plant variety rights legislation. The other important aspect that was touched on by the honourable member for Wakefield was the impact of plant variety rights on the less developed countries of the world. We have heard people talking before in this chamber about the problems of international trade in the context of a country such as Australia, which has a tremendous dependence on agricultural commodities, achieving a reasonable trade balance. Time and time again people have said-and this is absolutely true-that, while the green revolution which was talked about for many years, is a great thing in terms of humanitarian principles of social justice, it has certainly harmed the great trading nations of the world. Again, I would refer people who are interested in this subject to the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry on the Plant Variety Rights Bill because this question about the impact of plant variety rights on less developed countries is addressed. Another question which has been raised is whether PVR will improve access to overseas protected varieties. Australian agriculture is based on plants derived from other countries and, while we have well established and active breeding programs in Australia for major crops, we are still quite dependent on overseas programs for many industries, particularly in horticultural crops. Representing the electorate of Calare which includes the largest apple growing area in Australia, I am very conscious- Mr Gayler —And you represent it very well too. Mr SIMMONS —Thank you very much. I am very conscious of the importance of plant variety rights in areas such as Orange where apple growing is a very important part of the economy. Varieties developed overseas are increasingly protected by plant variety rights and are not available to Australian growers in the absence of PVR protection in this country. In other words, if we as a nation wish to use new varieties of horticultural crops and plants, we need to safeguard the rights of other producers overseas and make sure that they have the same protection in Australia. Thus, PVR will also assist the overseas registration and sale of developed varieties. This is an important piece of legislation and it is a bit sad that there are not many other members of Parliament here to participate in this debate. I am sure that those members from rural electorates are conscious of the importance of this legislation and its impact on their areas. There are very few rural parts of Australia in which this legislation will not have an important impact. To some extent it disappoints me that the so-called protectors of people living in rural Australia, some of the agrarian socialists in the National Party of Australia, are not represented in larger numbers for this debate. I assure the house that there is very strong support for this legislation from myself and many of my colleagues in the powerful and influential primary industry committee of our Party. I join the honourable member for Bendigo in congratulating the Minister for Primary Industry on the passage of this important legislation. It has been widely debated in our committee; we have looked at the Lazenby report; we have looked at all sorts of concerns that have been expressed within the community; and we have made sure that, in the general debate on plant variety rights, people have had an opportunity to make an input. While acknowledging the points made by the honourable member for Wakefield that delays cause inevitable cost problems for those who see natural benefits in plant variety rights, I think it is important to get the legislation correct. In this important Bill we have achieved that and I certainly join with other speakers in commending the Government for this most important landmark legislation. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.57) —I am quite happy to congratulate the Government on eventually getting its act together and introducing the Plant Variety Rights Bill to the Department. Mr Gayler —You started 15 years ago. Mr TUCKEY —We started 15 years ago and to my knowledge at that time the honourable member for Leichhardt was not in the Department, so he did not know much about what was going on. Mr O'Keefe —He knows more than you do now. Mr TUCKEY —What a stupid thing to say. Does he know more than I do? He is on the back bench and I am on the front bench- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Burke and the honourable member for Leichhardt will cease interjecting. Mr TUCKEY —The point is that at that time the legislation was introduced to the Parliament. It was laid on the table quite properly because it was quite a controversial piece of legislation and we knew there were concerns in the community. It was laid down for six months so that the community, the then Labor Opposition and the Australian Democrats could view it. At the end of that period, certain alterations were made. Mr Gayler —A decade and a half of inaction! Mr TUCKEY —For Christ's sake, shut up! You are a fool. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor is outrageous. Mr TUCKEY —I am not outrageous compared with that man over there. He is a fool. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member shall not shout oaths in the chamber. The Chair is placed in an incredibly difficult position. Many members-I expect all members-find what the honourable member has just said grossly offensive. Mr TUCKEY —Then I will withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not think that a withdrawal is either possible or satisfactory. What the honourable member just said was disgraceful. Mr TUCKEY —Well, I hope you mention that to the Leader of the House because he did the same thing. Could you please control that person over there. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think that rather than withdraw the honourable member should apologise to the House. Mr TUCKEY —I will apologise to everybody for using that expression but if you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are not prepared to deal with the honourable member opposite as you would deal with honourable members on this side- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member may continue his speech. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you. I am sorry about that, I am genuinely sorry, but- Mr Gayler —Tell us-- Mr TUCKEY —Cut it out. If smiling Sam over there, who does nothing in this place, wants to keep it up, I am quite happy-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member might just get on with the debate on the Plant Variety Rights Bill. Mr TUCKEY —We will both assume our roles, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will speak; you control him. I will repeat the history of this situation: The legislation was put before the Parliament. There was ample time for consideration-six months. At the end of six months it was brought back and it was then that the Labor Opposition and the Australian Democrats found it necessary to send it off to a committee. Apparently they lacked the wit and the will to consider the matter prior to that. They did not understand enough about the legislation. When it came back, the original legislation excluded cereal grains because at that stage the wheat industry thought, because of the propaganda that had been put out by certain people-I will refer to that shortly-that it was to its disadvantage to be included. In the six months the people in the industry had to consider it, because they were logical people they came to the government of the day and said: `We would like to have it included'. That was the industry's decision. The people in that industry stood to lose or gain by it. The reality was that the legislation was blocked. Eventually, of course, it was put to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, which recommended in its favour; but it still languished until the Opposition, through the effects of Senator Hill, brought in a private member's Bill. Apparently, that embarrassment to the Government eventually caused it to come forward with or produce this legislation that we are debating tonight. Mr Gayler —Tell us-- Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, he is at it again. I am quite happy to spend five minutes of my speech dealing with that idiot. I will deal with that idiot and a few of his mates from Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will not refer to other members as idiots. The honourable member for O'Connor will continue with his speech. Other honourable members should cease interjecting. Mr TUCKEY —I would welcome your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I am not going to get it, I will deal with them myself. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will not deal with anyone in this chamber. Mr Scholes —Can't you take it? You can't shut up for a minute when someone else is talking. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister does not help the proceedings. Mr TUCKEY —You want to interrupt, do you, punch drunk? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will withdraw that remark. Mr TUCKEY —I withdraw. Mr Scholes —The honourable gentleman will withdraw and apologise. Mr TUCKEY —I have withdrawn, and that is all you get from me. Keep out of the argument. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor is really about to get himself, in the words of Madam Speaker today, a holiday. He can proceed with the debate in a proper parliamentary fashion, or it might be best if he resumed his seat. Let us get on with the debate. Other honourable members might cease interjecting, seeing that the honourable member for O'Connor has become sensitive about this matter. I am interested to note that he was not so sensitive this afternoon when I drew his attention to the fact that he should not interject on the Treasurer all the time in the debate. The honourable member for O'Connor might get on with the debate and cease attacking other members and using unparliamentary language. Other honourable members might cease encouraging the honourable member for O'Connor by interjecting. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome again your interest in protecting-- Mr Humphreys —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not recall the honourable member withdrawing. Mr TUCKEY —I certainly did withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —Returning to the legislation, which I am most anxious to debate at length, I point out that there are circumstances in which people involved in the business of breeding plants in Australia could be well advanced in their efforts to improve Australia's productivity and our balance of payments and to reduce the disastrous circumstances confronting us in that area had the Government, the one-time Opposition, used the six months available to it when the legislation originally lay on the table to satisfy itself about the concerns about which it apparently has been able to satisfy itself because in fact the legislation before us tonight has very few differences from the original legislation. What we are talking about here is the business of incentive. I have read all sorts of criticisms over this period. I was involved in seminars and other things in looking at the pros and cons of this legislation originally. I listened with care to the critics because I recognised it as a sensitive area. I just could not be convinced by any of the critics as to what they were even talking about. It seemed that they were willing to protect plant varieties and to demand the rights of plant varieties that did not even exist. We know that this legislation is about the future. It is prospective; it is not retrospective. I received a letter today, and no doubt other members did. One of the things it says is basically that the earth and its resources are and should be recognised as the heritage and common property of mankind from which all are entitled to live and work. We do not disagree with a statement such as that; but somehow or other that is to be linked with the fact that if someone makes a new plant, something that does not exist in the world today, it should be handed over, if you like. Humanity dictates that people do not hand over; in fact, people do not invent if there is no incentive. We have had to rely on the public breeding sector, which I am most anxious to see survive. There is a very definite need for a public breeding sector-I will expand on that-and we have had to rely on it. There has been no incentive, of the type that we know and understand in our capitalist society, for a public breeding sector because we have managed to finance research by levies. The producers of Australia, the grain growers and others, are obliged to have some money taken out of the proceeds of the sale of their crops for research. They have done that willingly. But lump sums of money have gone off to various breeding organisations with no obligation to produce the goods. I did look for figures. I have seen the results of a research project, although it was a slightly old research project, which measured the value of grain productivity around the world received from research dollars expended. It compared countries all around the world. I can remember France, England, Russia and the United States of America, to name a few, being listed, and Australia was the lowest on the list. For all the dollars we put out, the gain in crop that we were gaining from public research was the lowest in the world. I do not want to argue the pros and cons of that now. As I have said, there is good reason to have public research. There is good reason for people to have a research project where there is no profit orientation. People have to go out and fiddle around, if you like, in the hope of making the big breakthrough. I think there is reason for that, and probably that up-front funding is the means by which that is achieved. What we are talking about with plant variety rights is not up-front funding; we are talking about payment for the effort of the inventor or his financial backers. People complain about the involvement of multinationals. Of course multinationals will become involved. They have the financial resources to invest in backing an inventor, a breeder. It will be their money that sees the breeder through what could be years of development, and they, of course, will expect a profit. But the opponents of plant variety rights get off the rails when they suggest that the buying public, the farmers, the orchardists and the horticulturalists are all fools, and that somehow or other some multinational company, having discovered a highly productive new variety, will be able to convince farmers to take that variety off them at a loss. We must remember that my wheat farmers already have a huge variety of grains to choose from, and they will not be covered by plant variety rights. Remember that they are a conservative group of people and that when a new product comes out they will not plant all their paddocks with that; they will plant a small section and they will assess the value of that in net terms. If the royalty is too high, if additional chemicals are required-I think that is a bit of a red herring-and it costs them more, and if the net return on that new product is below that on the old product, they will cease to grow the new product. It is as simple as that. Of course, there are certain people who have spoken in this debate who think those farmers and the horticulturalists are fools. I am surprised at the extent to which the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party have been able to convince the Australian worker that he is a fool. They keep telling him that he has to have Simon Crean to hold his hand to negotiate a labour deal. They believe that he is so foolish and so moronic that he could not do it for himself. Let me say a word on behalf of the Australian workers. They can do it on their own and I have had plenty of experience of making those arrangements directly with them. But I digress from the subject of the debate. I am saying that the Australian farmer is not a fool and that the Australian horticulturalist is not a fool. If the multinational cannot offer them additional profit, they will not buy the product. That is a totally fallacious argument. Mr O'Keefe —You are the only one talking about others being fools. No one else thinks that. Mr TUCKEY —I ask the honourable member to withdraw that, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is quite unnecessary. Mr O'Keefe —It wasn't unparliamentary. Mr TUCKEY —Of course it was. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I did not hear the honourable member. Mr TUCKEY —The gentleman referred to me as a fool. If he wants to interject-- Mr O'Keefe —I said you are the only one talking about others being fools, not us. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will cease interjecting. Mr TUCKEY —I am saying quite clearly that they are not fools. I add that only the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Labor Party think Australian workers are fools. I do not. I do not think they need the help that is forced upon them. I return now to this legislation. We can give people incentive; we can give people opportunity in this area. We are often told by those who oppose this legislation that they will turn to hybrids. The fallacious part of that argument is that we have hybrids already. They do not require plant variety rights protection. The process of the green revolution, if I can call it that, involved, first, chemicals, whether they were fertilisers or of a destructive nature. Big business moved in and it improved productivity. It has a down side, as we know, particularly with the destructive chemicals, and we have had difficulties. They took that process as far as it would go. The next step was hybrids. Hybrids are self-protecting; they are not self-generating, so one always had to go back to the breeders, and the breeders only had to keep their secrets. They were successful at that. The third step is to move into self-generating species. If we are to encourage private enterprise people to invest their money in that area and take the risk, remembering that there is no guarantee of reward, we must give them the opportunity of some guaranteed return if they are successful. That is what plant variety rights is about. For years we have recognised it in the area of ordinary invention. Why should we now see it differently? This legislation goes to great pains, to a degree that I do not think exists in ordinary patent-type legislation, to impose some control over whether or not the product will be provided. It demands, as did the legislation that was introduced by the previous Government, that a person who breeds these plants will not only make them available to the general public-they have an obligation to do so at a reasonable price-but also will make available samples for a genetic bank. I remember the criticism that we would lose all our genetic stock. In fact it is this legislation and the controversy surrounding it that have created the circumstances in which people are now creating genetic stocks. Previously it was a vacuum. It happened if somebody thought about it. There was no guarantee. This legislation gives a much greater guarantee. People say that plant stocks are to be denied to the undeveloped world. The undeveloped world suffers greatly from its inability to buy the types of grains and other produce we have today because it does not have any money. I am sure that if people in this country could produce more crops for the same money or produce crops for less money they would be prepared to compete on the world market and lower those prices. I think that argument is a furphy also. I am pleased that a large number of honourable members opposite are prepared to support this legislation. Mr Gayler —More than yours. Mr TUCKEY —I am prepared to say that our side of politics has supported it for as long as I have been in this Parliament, and that is six years. Mr Gayler —Fifteen years late. Mr TUCKEY —Our side of politics has supported it since its introduction. It is no good saying that we are 15 years late when the Government side had six months in which to consider it and failed to come to a decision. I have to remind the House that it was the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats which defeated the previous legislation in the Senate. They cannot get away from that; it is a matter of record. They have eventually come to the conclusion that Australia needs it in these difficult times. These are difficult times, and we need production in many areas. Because of the 38-hour week-superannuation argument Australia lost $10m worth of meat exports in the last week or 10 days. Honourable members opposite can say that that is wise because it was for a greater need. It was not for a greater need. The exports were important. The final point I want to make is that there is a new push for free enterprise in the world, and we have read about it recently. Mr Gorbachev in Russia has just discovered it; the Chinese are discovering it. That has a great message for Australia. If those two countries are able to get a private enterprise ethic and destroy the curse of socialism, there will be huge competition in agricultural productivity in the world. We must do something about it now. We have waited all this time. We have seen the corn-growing industry decimated by the lack of PVR; we have seen the berries industry almost decimated by the lack of PVR, and all because the present Government could not bring itself in opposition to support such legislation. I am pleased to say that the present Opposition has a much more constructive approach-- Mr Saunderson —We are supporting this legislation because it is ours and it is better than yours. Mr TUCKEY —There is practically no difference between the two pieces of legislation. The alterations are minuscule. In practice the pieces of legislation are the same, and therefore the interjector does not know what he is talking about. He does not have to be embarrassed. We are supporting the Government; it failed to support us. Mr Gayler —We fixed it up for you. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, I bet you did. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have completed my address. I am interested that again members on our side of the House get warned and kicked out for making interjections of the type I have been suffering for the last five minutes. Thank you. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(9.15) —Mr Deputy Speaker, earlier this week in the Parliament Madam Speaker drew to our attention the fact that there is a responsibility on members of this Parliament to behave in a way that attracts public support. I must express my disappointment at the way in which the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has conducted himself during this debate. (Quorum formed). Before I was interrupted by the calling of a quorum I was expressing my concern at the behaviour of the honourable member for O'Connor. I make the observation that he must have looked at the polls and is cracking under the pressure. In this debate we are looking at an issue which, as my colleagues the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) have said-they are both fellow members of the country task force of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-is controversial and of great interest in the community in general. The first thing I want to do in my small contribution to this discussion is assure people that the matter has been thoroughly considered by members of the task force. In reaching our decision we have taken account of a number of the key issues. I think it is fair for me to say that I entered consideration of this matter opposed to the introduction of plant variety rights and I had reservations in particular areas. I was concerned that we should not undermine the independence of Australia's food producers. It is self-evident to us all that we must not become subservient to chemical companies and that our food production must remain independent and in our own hands. That is a matter of national significance; so, we took that into account. I was also concerned that there should not be a concentration of food resource development or production around those who can best afford to get into plant variety development. In other words, we have a nation of small farmers and small food producers who must be protected from major interests that could swallow them up. We were concerned to address that issue. We were also concerned to address the question of non-chemical food production. Many people in our community are concerned about food, health and nutrition and they are worried, as many of us were, about protecting the ability of people to have access to wholesome, fresh food that has not been influenced, contaminated or controlled by chemicals, whichever way one chooses to look at it. We also had to look at another argument-the continuing claim that, through the introduction of plant variety rights, in some way we would become substantially more productive. I do not mind looking at the question of our becoming more productive but I think our farming community has to give serious consideration to one thing. Often in this House we hear members who claim to represent this sector saying that our farmers are the most productive in the world. I happen to agree that there is a lot of substance in that. Our farmers may be the most productive in the world as my colleague the honourable member for Bendigo has often drawn to our attention, but we also have to remember that these are the same people who operate in what they call the free enterprise environment. If we were really to apply the old free enterprise adage we would say: `If you can't sell it, don't grow it'. We have in the world at the moment, in a number of major commodity areas, an over supply of production. So it is not valid for honourable members to enter the plant variety rights debate and argue that the introduction of plant variety rights will make us more productive and somehow that will give us a better response in the world markets. We have to take it a little deeper than that. I must say that those arguments about volumes and productivity particularly in the major areas do not impress me. I agree with what the honourable member for O'Connor said about China and Asia. There are those, for instance, in the National Farmers Federation who claim that we have the potential of becoming the food bowl of Asia. I want to dispel that view. What the honourable member for O'Connor recognises and said is true. People in those countries are embracing a new approach to primary production. In the mass production and big volume areas they will be producing enormous amounts. As developing countries they have to earn export revenue from somewhere and, as we did a century ago, they will be relying in the future on those sorts of products to generate that export income. To my mind this is where we go to the heart of the PVR issue. We must use plant variety rights to develop specialty products and products that will hold their place in the export world. In my electorate, the Tullamarine airport-- Mr McVeigh —They grow a lot of wheat there. Mr O'KEEFE —The honourable member interjects and says that people grow a lot of wheat around Tullamarine airport. Let me tell the honourable member, who claims to represent farmers, that he does not have his geography right. They do not grow wheat around Tullamarine airport, not much anyway; but they grow apples, vegetables, horticultural products and specialty products and that is the issue that I am addressing. Mr Cunningham —They grow plenty of oats. Mr O'KEEFE —As my colleague the honourable member for MacMillan, has said-he is the Chairman of the Prime Minister's country task force, and I might say that he does a fantastic job-they grow plenty of oats. We get plenty of oats from them. Having addressed this issue with what I believe is a fair degree of healthy cynicism, I think we have been able to focus on the real issue. We need to have export potential, and be able to compete against Californian oranges and chillies and avocados from other countries and all these specialty products that generate high income from short-run production on. Through the efforts of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) and the Victorian Government it is clear that the Tullamarine airport will provide us with a gateway to the world for the export of fresh food produce, cut flowers, and a whole range of plants and specialty issues that we are tackling. I remember my colleague the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) commenting to me not long after the Chernobyl experience that one very big thing that is going for Australian food produce is that it is radiation free. There will be those opportunities, albeit from quite terrible circumstances, where we will need to be able to have the capacity to service those sorts of specialist needs at various times. Therefore, I have come to accept that Australian ingenuity and inventiveness exist in these areas as they do in other areas. I noted in the editorial of the Australian Financial Review of 21 November a comment that the lack of PVR legislation in Australia has led in the past to two serious consequences. It has discouraged our breeders, our nursery men and women and horticulturalists from investing the effort in developing genetic material because of their vulnerability to having their investment copied, and I accept that argument. The second consequence is that overseas producers who have developed extensive improvements in these areas are reluctant to allow those varieties to be grown in Australia because of the lack of protection. As a Government we have had to address those issues and accept them as valid arguments. I have had several discussions with groups in my electorate which have written to me and expressed concerns. One of these concerns is very close to the heart of this issue. I wish to refer to a letter from Mrs Smith of Sunbury who represents a group in that area. She has made the point that in the view of the group that she represents it is possible to reduce or to reverse the advance of cancer by the use of a fresh, raw vegetable and fruit diet, grape juice and other wholesome, pure vegetable and fruit products. I totally agree with that, without claiming any medical expertise. In that respect I want to assure groups who are concerned about that sort of issue that we have gone to great pains in this legislation to make sure that the future for non-chemical, non-additive products is solid in Australia and that, as the growing market for pure health foods of that kind takes its hold, there will be protection under this legislation. I go directly to the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in which he makes it clear that the scheme will be voluntary and that it will be open to plant breeders to apply for and receive a right. It is also going to be supplemented by heavy investment by government in research and development. I think there is a little message for those who get taken in by the question of privatisation from time to time. I know that there is a view that vigorously maintained and funded research programs in the public sector which act as a barrier to monopolisation of plants rights could be set at risk if an alternative government introduced a privatisation policy and ran down the public sector effort in plant variety breeding. I think that is a very valid point. Those who want to preach the privatisation theory are going to have to come clean with their attitude towards public sector investment in plant variety breeding because those of us who have accepted this legislation, having come to it with this cynicism, want to make sure that that public sector investment exists as a barrier to commercial monopoly. I also want to say that there are in the Minister's speech a number of clear statements about the long term operation of the legislation. It has to be seen that PVR introduced into Australia now does not mean tomorrow a bank of protected plant varieties suddenly coming on stream. We are starting a long time behind the rest of the world-we recognise that-and as such it is going to take time to develop in Australia the sort of PVR bank that we need. Our biggest asset, as I see it, from the introduction of this legislation is that the guarantees are in place that will enable our commercial trading partners and those interested in horticulture in Australia to now have the confidence to share and join with us. So PVR is not to be seen as an overnight panacea; it is a long term investment. I now want to address a point made by a number of members of the Opposition. They have come into the House here to debate this Bill really in support of it, and I accept that and acknowledge it, but in the traditional knock for the sake of knocking attitude they have had to find something wrong. I suppose that is how they see their role. One of the complaints they have continually made is about the delay in the implementation of the legislation. I simply say this: In the Minister's second reading speech he makes it clear that when he came to office he was not satisfied with the content of the Bill. There were many concerns in the Australian community that had not been addressed by the previous Government and it was necessary to throw it open for broader consideration to satisfy those groups. That has been done and we have a far better Bill as a result. I make no apologies for the role of the Minister in that. That brings me to my final comments. I endorse the comments of the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and others on our side earlier in this debate. I commend the Minister for Primary Industry for the way in which he has handled this issue. He has shown strong patience. He has been prepared to consult deeply and fully with members of his primary and provincial affairs committee and other members from conservation and environment sectors of our committee system who wanted assurances. He has been prepared to throw the issue open for public debate. We have not been a government that sits behind a closed door and suddenly throws a piece of legislation on the table. We have been prepared to have the Lazenby inquiry. We have been prepared to allow everybody to debate the issue fully before we introduced it. A few weeks ago, early in November, I had the honour of opening this year's Harcourt apple festival. Mr Gayler —You did it well, too. Mr O'KEEFE —Yes, it was a wonderful event, as my colleague here says. There I came across new breeds of apples which are being developed without the support of PVR. So, we have not been sitting still waiting for it all to happen. Those producers in Harcourt and the Bacchus Marsh area, where we have heavy concentrations of apple production, welcome this legislation. At the same time I acknowledge that they have not stood still but are making their way. They see this as a positive development for them. I support the Bill fully and, in doing so, give an assurance to those many people who have made representations to me that the issues have been fully considered and that I am fully satisfied with the content and substance of this legislation. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(9.36) —I, like many other members of this Parliament, have received many letters from horticulturalists, nurserymen and growers of a variety of crops supporting the introduction of a plant variety rights scheme. I suppose that Eric and Connie Bauer, founders and principals of the world renowned Bauer Gerbera nursery situated in Bundaberg in the Hinkler electorate, were probably the first people to draw to my notice the need for plant variety rights legislation in Australia. A lot of enthusiasm was expressed in the letters that I received, which has persuaded me to research the subject and to read the report of the Lazenby inquiry. I must say that I certainly had to go to the Oxford Science Dictionary to research some of the words mentioned in the Lazenby report. I talk, of course, of germplasms, cultivars, taxonomy and various other matters raised in the report. The matter of plant variety rights is extremely important to the district I represent, which is a very big producer of vegetables and horticulture of all kinds, particularly in the Bundaberg area. Whilst some people here this evening have been complaining about the hardness of tomatoes on the market today, I can assure them that the growers of these products are aware that they have to have market acceptability for their fruits and that, if they do not ensure that they put some flavour into tomatoes, somebody else will; and what with plant variety rights and other varieties coming into Australia they will probably have to meet competition from other types of vegetables. In August I had an opportunity to visit the Asian vegetable research development centre in Taiwan and I was most impressed with the work carried out there. It is an organisation international in its composition. It was formed by the Rockefeller Foundation initially and on its board has members from all over the world. It is carrying out a lot of research into vegetables. In the Bundaberg district also in recent months we have had the opening of a research centre for the State Department of Primary Industries. Further down the track, after it establishes itself in various agricultural pursuits that are taking place and in the soil problems of the Bundaberg district, it will be addressing itself more to research into various vegetables. I noted that the Lazenby inquiry received some 23 submissions and that some of them expressed doubts and concerns about the introduction of plant variety rights. I am sure that those who have read the reports and the letters from those people who expressed concern would also have taken time to do some research to see whether they were well founded. Whilst there can still be some concern, I am certainly assured that the plant variety rights legislation has the necessary safeguards and that the overwhelming evidence provided in the report is that the safeguards in the legislation will serve to allay the fears that some people may have in regard to this type of legislation. The Plant Diversity Protection Committee also said that the sole detailed report dealing with the effect of PVR is that of Butler and Marion in 1984, which received little mention in the Lazenby document. The Committee quoted from Butler and Marion as follows: There is no evidence that the Plant Variety Protection Act has triggered large investments in plant breeding research and development, nor of large improvements in either techniques (i.e. plant breeding) or in plant quality. So one may ask how the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) reconciles his observations against the contents of Butler and Marion's 1984 report. I recognise that the Minister says that it is essential that Australia maintain a strong public plant breeding effort for our economically important crops to ensure we continue to have varieties well adapted to Australian farming conditions and plant products suited to our principal markets. However, he did introduce a warning to some commodity groups when he said: . . . we just cannot afford the cost of public breeding programs for our minor crops and that we will continue to be reliant in this area on genetic resources from overseas and the programs of private breeders. This is particularly the case in our horticultural industries. If Butler and Marion's report is relevant to Australia, those growing these minor crops to which the Minister referred will see little or no benefit from plant variety rights, which is contrary to their expectations as they have expressed them in letters to me. I hope that the Minister will keep horticulturalists in mind should he consider the expansion of public plant breeding effort. Robert Bell is one who is concerned that there is probably no crop grown in Australia, with the exception of wheat, which has a seed market big enough to make it worthwhile for new commercial breeding to be carried out here, as royalties would not cover costs. Australia could become integrated into a world-wide marketing system of large corporations which would be granted patents, such as has happened with industrial patents. I am aware that the Minister referred in his second reading speech to `the large number of relatively small, often independently owned businesses in the seed trade' however, I wonder whether they can survive if the big companies do move in. Small Australian nurseries and seed merchants may survive but perhaps only by depending on licences and contracts from these companies. Another point raised by the Free Access to Seeds Committee is directly related to the small breeder. Its concern is that small breeders may be unlikely to gain from PVR because the infringement of rights can be stopped only by taking the infringer to court. Of course small businesses lack the financial resources of the big companies to fight lengthy and expensive legal battles. So, plant variety rights may be seen to protect the strong to the detriment of the weaker, little battlers we have in the smaller industries throughout Australia particularly, naturally, in these agricultural areas. We will need to keep our eye on that to ensure that the small businesses are not disadvantaged and that, if that is seen to be so, some remedial action is taken by the Government to help those businesses out. I mentioned earlier the horticultural and large vegetable growing area around Bundaberg. It is extremely important to understand the need in such areas for diversity. We all know that there has been a downturn in the sugar industry and, as a result, many cane growers have turned to vegetable production. This has not been without some trauma for other areas. For instance, the Bowen district was devastated by the higher production of tomatoes in the Bundaberg area, which is now the largest producer of market tomatoes in Australia. I understand that the Lockyer Valley has also felt the effect of the growth in this industry. So, it is quite clear that, if we are transferring the problems of the sugar industry to other areas, we have to look for a larger market, and that involves exporting. I believe that some of the varieties being established at the Asian Vegetable Research Development Centre in Taiwan could be brought over here, integrated into our agricultural pursuits and we could make a determined bid to capture export markets. Therefore, we can all gain. At least one port in Queensland is looking to see whether it can establish a facility to which vegetables from throughout Queensland can be brought and containerised, using new containers with new methods available to convert containers with the objective of encouraging shipping up the east coast of Australia and into the Asian market. We suffer at present from the fact that most of the shipping from Asia comes down the east coast of Australia and goes back via Western Australia; so, of course, Queensland is disadvantaged in the transport of its fruits. We do need to have shipping come up the east coast of Australia and into those Asian markets; we do need to have a variety of fruits that will carry, that will maintain their flavour and that will arrive in those Asian markets in an acceptable condition. I believe that the plant variety rights legislation will enable us to bring into our markets certain overseas strains. That is important. At present we cannot get them in, in most cases because they are not protected by any legislation. It is a pity, as mentioned by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), that this legislation lapsed with the change of government. It was about to be introduced and, over the intervening period, Australia has lost a tremendous amount of money that it could otherwise have gained from export markets. As I have mentioned, I am certainly in favour of the Bill. Concerns have been raised by certain people but, the overwhelming evidence shows that the legislation will be beneficial. We give notice that the Opposition will be closely monitoring the operation of PVR and will certainly react to any unintended consequences which may manifest themselves and which can be expected with new legislation. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(9.48) —At the outset, I welcome the contribution of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest). Frankly, it was a positive and realistic approach to the Plant Variety Rights Bill. No one, whether on this side of the House or the other, has said that there are not difficulties and that there are not some reservations in relation to this type of legislation. Of course there are. In speaking in support of the legislation, I note that many on this side of the House have reservations. I certainly do not underrate those reservations. This Bill should have been introduced into this place in excess of a decade ago. The legislation's history is lamentable. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) made a pathetic effort to cover this issue. A quorum having been called for, and the bells being rung- Mr Scholes —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Went- worth came into the House and then left. I ask that he be brought back into the House, as is required under the Standing Orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! There is not point of order. (Quorum formed) Mr GAYLER —Might we just get back to the positive side of this legislation, something which has been totally neglected by speakers from the other side of the House. This Bill should have been introduced more than a decade and a half ago. Why was it not introduced? It was because of the conflict between the then Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, and his predecessor, Mr Sinclair. Whatever the honourable member for O'Connor might wish to relate to this House, it was no other reason-- Mr Slipper —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Leichhardt has been here long enough to know that he ought to refer to other honourable members by the name of their electorate and not by their surname. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The point of order is taken. Could we have some order in the House while the honourable member for Leichhardt is addressing the House? Mr GAYLER —I might say that one does not take too much notice of the last interjector. Mr Slipper —On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Leichhardt suggested that I was an interjector. The Hansard will record that I took a point of order, which you upheld, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is correct. The honourable member for Leichhardt will please restrict his remarks to the debate before the House. Mr GAYLER —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I might say that one would have to attribute comments made by certain members of the rural sector in relation to this legislation to the foolish remarks of people such as the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). I suppose one could take that even further and say `the imbecilic remarks of the honourable member for O'Connor'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark. Mr GAYLER —Was that the `foolish' one or the `imbecilic' one? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Both of them. Mr GAYLER —Certainly, I withdraw. It is a sad state of affairs in our society that we have one of the spokesmen for the cereal industry indicating that he opposes such legislation on the basis, for example, that the Committee includes a representative of the Minister and of plant breeders but not of producers. Let me just quickly go specifically to clause 45 of the Bill. Paragraphs (d) and (e) read as follows: (d) one member who, in the opinion of the Minister, is an appropriate person to represent the interests of the consumers, and likely consumers, of new plant varieties or of the products of new plant varieties; and (e) 2 other members who, in the opinion of the Minister, possess qualifications or experience that are appropriate for a member of the Advisory Committee. Further, one member who in the opinion of the Minister is an appropriate person to represent producers. I believe that we have a problem with this type of legislation in that so much misinformation and disinformation is being spread amongst the primary producers of this country that they are unaware of the real thrust of this legislation. Might I say that it is not new; it is not novel. One has only to look at the radical legislation that we have introduced into this place. Such legislation is just beyond the comprehension of those honourable members supposedly representing rural and primary interests on the other side of this House. Rather than comprehend it, they spread fear amongst those it might affect in the long term. In simple terms, the purpose of this Bill is to provide legislation to enable plant breeders to apply for and to receive proprietary rights for new varieties of plants which they themselves develop. The Government believes that the introduction of the legislation will stimulate plant breeding efforts and further, and most importantly, encourage the development of new varieties of plants for our domestic industries and for export. Whilst the development of our domestic industry is of importance, the benefits for Australian farmers, horticulturists and plant breeders through access to new varieties from overseas is also of considerable importance. This is something to which we have not had access in the past. There is a long line of applications by horticulturists and primary producers in this country to gain access to varieties of overseas plants which have been rejected because legislation such as this is not in place in this country. Through the proposed scheme Australian plant breeders will improve their access to overseas markets for seed and nursery plants. These factors are expected to provide a significant boost to Australian agricultural industries, and eventually to allow our farmers and nurserymen to compete more effectively on world markets. The principles encompassed in the Plant Variety Rights Bill are based, in short, on the following: Firstly, that the participation of breeders is voluntary; secondly, that the grant of a right would be given only where a new variety can be clearly distinguished by one or more of its important characteristics from any other known plant variety; thirdly, that all plant species be potentially eligible for inclusion in the scheme, but species or genera to which the scheme is to apply at any time are to be declared by regulation by the Minister on advice from a broadly based advisory committee; fourthly, that ownership rights include the right to collect royalties, including those from other persons who grow and sell protected varieties under licence for commercial purposes; fifthly, that nothing in this Bill will prevent the retention of seed of protected varieties for sowing of crops or sale for human and animal consumption-in fact, protected varieties will also be freely available for research purposes and to plant breeders for use in breeding programs; sixthly, protection of a right once granted will be the responsibility of the owner of the new variety through normal legal process; and, lastly, appeals against decisions of the registration authority can be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In the Government's economic and rural policy statement, made by our most commendable Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on 15 April 1986, the Minister indicted that action on several fronts was necessary for Australia to maintain and develop its rural industries. The Minister, quite properly, outlined several new measures in that statement and several further measures in support of technology development. He indicated that the Government had received a report on plant breeding in Australia following an inquiry by Professor Lazenby. Judging by comments made earlier in this debate, everyone is well aware of that report. It follows recommendations for the introduction of plant variety rights legislation by the Industries Assistance Commission, and public inquiries into rural research in 1976, into the apple and pear industries in 1985, and into the vegetable and vegetable product industries in 1986. In 1985 the committee of inquiry into the grape and wine industry also concluded that plant variety rights would be of considerable value to Australia's grape and wine industry, more particularly through access to varieties and genetic material which would assist the industry in improving productivity and product availability. It would appear from the earlier comments in the debate that there is a bilateral approach to this Bill. It is unfortunate that the honourable member for O'Connor has tried to bury within his peripheral comments the fact that this Bill should have been introduced a decade and a half ago, but I refer to the inept approach of those opposite when in government. Mr Downer —Rubbish! Mr GAYLER —Well, one has only to bear in mind the efforts of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) who when Minister for Primary Industry put forward a scheme that was shelved by Mr Nixon, who succeeded him in that post. I support the Bill. I do so knowing that the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources in 1984 recommended such legislation, as did the IAC report on apples and pears in 1985, the 1986 Lazenby report on Australia's plant breeding needs, and the IAC report on vegetables and vegetable products in 1986. The only people who seem to be out of step on this legislation are Opposition members, who are supposed to represent the primary industries of Australia. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Brown, John Keogh, L. J. Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C. Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E. Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGuaran, P. J. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R. Cameron, Ian Rocher, A. C. Carlton, J. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cobb, M. R. Shack, P. D. Conquest, B. J. Sharp, J. Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F. Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC. Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N. Everingham, P. A. E. Spender, J. M. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —I seek your indulgence, Madam Speaker, to make a short statement. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr KEATING —Earlier this evening I received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) asking me to comment on a letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Sydney that had come into his possession. This letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, dated 3 November, was to advise me that my income tax return for 1985 was overdue and that I should now lodge a return for 1986 as well. I never received the letter from the Deputy Commissioner, which was obviously stolen from the mail. The first knowledge I had of its existence was on Tuesday morning of this week when I received a telephone call from the Commissioner of Taxation telling me that he had had an inquiry regarding the letter. I took the opportunity to tell the Commissioner that I had prepared my return for 1985 and that I was in a position to lodge it that day, which I did. The letter also refers to a conversation I had earlier had with the Deputy Commissioner. I had rung him to say that I was aware that my 1985 return was outstanding and that after the Budget processes had been completed I would attend to it. I am a PAYE taxpayer and my PAYE deductions are such that I expect to receive a refund on my 1985 return. As a consequence any cost involved in the delay in lodging the return is borne by me and not by the Commonwealth. This is not to say that I should not have lodged the return earlier; obviously I should have and I regret not having done so. I fill in my own tax returns and unfortunately, through oversight, I failed to lodge it on time. I am in the process of finalising my 1986 return, which I will lodge shortly. I might add that in this matter I have been treated no differently from any other taxpayer, but I appreciate the manner in which the honourable member for Mackellar chose to raise the matter with me. House adjourned at 10.13 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 27 November 1986: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 344. Canned Fruits Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 343. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 342. Defence Force Discipline Act-Rules-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 337. Excise Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 338. Public Service Act- Determinations-1986-Nos. 82, 84, 85, 86, 88, 91. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 340, 341. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinance-1986-No. 76-Poisons and Narcotic Drugs (Amendment) (No. 2). Superannuation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 339. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 3756) Mr Downer asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: What (a) were the amounts paid to and (b) projects undertaken by Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their associated companies or principals of those companies, for work on behalf of the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86 to the date of answering this question. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to my reply to a similar question on notice (No. 2051) from Mr Blunt which appeared in Hansard on 16 September 1986 at page 610. (Question No. 4353) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) How many prisoners on remand in the goals of each State and Territory are receiving unemployment benefits. (2) How long has each of these prisoners been in receipt of unemployment benefit? (3) What has been the cost to the Federal Government of these payments for each State and Territory for each of the last 5 financial years? (4) What advice has he received on whether receipt of unemployment benefits by prisoners on remand is contrary to his department's regulations and the Social Security Act. (5) What action, and when, has he taken to stop these payments; if no action has been taken, why not. (6) Has he received complete co-operation from the NSW Government and the NSW Corrective Services Department in respect of these matters. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Social Security is not aware of any prisoner on remand in receipt of unemployment benefit; under existing arrangements, when details are made available by relevant authorities action is taken to terminate payment. (2) See (1) above. (3) Information as to the number of overpayments over the past 5 years and the amounts involved caused as a result of people on remand in prisons receiving unemployment benefits to which they were not entitled is not available. (4) Persons on remand are not entitled to receive unemployment benefits because they cannot satisfy requirements in the Social Security Act that they are available for employment and are taking reasonable steps to obtain such employment. An amendment to the Social Security Act to take effect from 1 December 1986 specifically precludes payment of assistance under the Act to prisoners on remand. (5) See (1) and (4) above. (6) The relevant authorities in New South Wales have provided a comprehensive listing of prisoners, including prisoners on remand, and are supplying regular details of admissions to prisons. (Question No. 4642) Mr McArthur asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: Is the contribution rate paid by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund for the benefit of EFIC employees comparable with that paid by the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme; if not, to what extent does it differ and why? Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: With effect from 6 January 1986, the operations of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation were subsumed into the operations of the Australian Trade Commission. The Australian Trade Commission and the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, together with a number of other non-departmental bodies, are required under the Superannuation Act 1976 to pay employer superannuation contributions to the Commonwealth in respect of their employees who are members for the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS). The Australian Trade Commission currently pays employer superannuation contributions at the rate of 20% of the superannuable salaries of its staff, while the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation pays employer superannuation contributions at the rate of 20.7% of the superannuable salaries of its staff. In these respects, the contribution rates payable by the Australian Trade Commisison and the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation are comparable. The Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme is conducted by the Defence Service Homes Corporation. Because the Corporation dos not employ staff (it receives assistance from officers of the Department of Veteran's Affairs) it is not required under the Superannuation Act 1976 to pay employer superannuation contributions. However, a notional employer superannuation contribution at 20% of the superannuable salaries of staff assisting the Corporation full-time on the insurance activities is taken into account when assessing charges associated with the Insurance Scheme. Moneys recovered through charges in respect of superannuation costs are paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Question No. 2527: Answering Costs Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 23 September 1986: (1) On what basis was the sum of $250 calculated as being the cost of answering question No. 2527. (2) How many staff-hours were involved in preparing the answer. (3) At what rates were the staff-hours involved charged. (4) Were any other costs involved, other than the time of departmental officers. (5) To what extent has the cost been discounted to take into account the extent to which the information sought is now available for other purposes. (6) What proportion of the $250.00 is attributable to the cost of originally calculating that charge. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $250.00 was estimated as the cost of answering Question No. 2527 based on staff hours only. On-costs such as phone, electricity, stationery etc. were not included. (2) 17.00 hours. (3) Three rates were involved: (a) 0.75 hours, Typist Grade 1, $8.27 per hour. (b) 13.75 hours, Clerical Administrative Class 6, $13.89 per hour. (c) 2.5 hours, Director Class 11, $21.22 per hour. (4) Refer to (1) above. (5) None. No further use for the information compiled is envisaged. (6) $3.47, that is 0.25 hours at $13.89 per hours. This includes recording the time of each officer involved, obtaining the relevant salary rates and making the calculation. The cost of answering Question No. 4667 is estimated at $6.95, that is 30 minutes at $13.89 per hour (Clerical Administrative Class 6). (Question No. 4736) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) What was the (a) consumption and (b) cost of distillate used by the Tasmanian Region of Australian National Railways for each year since 1982-83. (2) How much of the cost was due to customs or excise duties. (3) How much of the cost was due to the excise raised through the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Fund. (4) What has been the nett tonnage hauled in each year since 1982-83. (5) How many locomotives has the Tasmanian Region operated in each year since 1982-83. (6) How many of these locomotives were (a) original Tasmanian Government Railways rolling stock and (b) transferred from mainland operations. (7) Was the distillate used of Australian or overseas origin. Mr Peter Morris —the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian National Railways Commission has provided the following advice: (1) The consumption and cost of distillate used by Tasrail since 1982-83 is: (a) Consumption (b) Cost litres $ 1982-83 ... 9,605,691 3,318,124 1983-84 ... 9,367,159 3,565,832 1984-85 ... 9,382,326 3,597,839 1985-86 ... 8,914,113 3,656,558 (2) The amount of the cost due to customs or excise duties is: 1982-83 $467,933.29 1983-84 $822,218.81 1984-85 $921,847.98 1985-86 $1,108,599.97. (3) The amount of the cost due to excise raised through the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Fund at 1c per litre effective from 18.8.82 to 30.6.83 and thereafter 2c per litre is: 1982-83 $83,495.62 1983-84 $187,343.18 1984-85 $187,646.52 1985-86 $178,282.26. (4) The nett tonnage hauled by Tasrail is: 1982-83 2,031,879 nett tonnes 1983-84 2,198,817 nett tonnes 1984-85 2,219,428 nett tonnes 1985-86 2,185,700 nett tonnes (5) and (6) Tasrail's locomotive fleet strength is: As at Original Tasmanian Government Railways Transferred from Mainland Total Operated 30.6.1983 ... 44 13 57 30.6.1984 ... 42 15 57 30.6.1985 ... 39 16 55 30.6.1986 ... 30 19 49 One additional locomotive has been transferred from the Mainland since 30.6.86. A further 16 locomotives have been purchased from Queensland Railways at a cost of $1.79 million. Delivery is due to commence in January 1987. (7) The origin of the distillate used is uncertain although the main supplier, Ampol Limited, has indicated the origin to be Australian. (Question No. 4816) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 September 1986: What costs were incurred by his Department in issuing new Health Benefit Concession Cards due to amendments to the National Health Insurance Act. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Postage costs were approximately $24,300 and $2,794 was spent on printing additional cards to supplement existing stock. The ADP and clerical work involved in issuing the cards was not measured as it was undertaken in conjunction with other changes, as part of normal systems maintenance. (Question No. 4825) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 21 October 1986: (1) What was the cost of (a) producing, (b) printing and (c) distributing the Aviation Charging Manual (Administrative guide on Separate Airport and Airway Landing Charges for International and Domestic Airlines (Including Supplementary Airlines)). (2) How many copies of the manual were printed. (3) What companies and individuals received copies of the manual. (4) Is the cost of the manual attributable to the aviation industry for cost recovery purposes. (5) Is the Avcharges Centre a new section of his Department. (6) Was the Centre created from within existing departmental financial, personnel and property resources; if not, what additional staff were or are required. (7) What is the administrative structure of the Centre. (8) Is the cost of running the Centre attributable to the aviation industry for cost recovery purposes. (9) What is the estimated cost of the provision of a toll free inquiry number and is it attributable to the aviation industry for cost recovery purposes. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The estimated cost of producing the Aviation Charging Manual is $1,150, the cost of printing $500 and the cost of distribution $1,220. (2) 164 copies of the manual were printed. (3) Copies of the manual were sent to all domestic, international and supplementary airlines who were to receive accounts under the separate charges system; to four general aviation representative associations (RAAA, RFACA, GAA, AOPA); To IATA's Australia representative, Mr R. Young; and, upon request, to British Aerospace Australia Pty Ltd and Scientific Information Retrieval Australasia. (4) Yes. (5) Yes. (6) The cost of creation of the Centre was absorbed within the Department's 2 per cent annum cost reduction target. (7) The administrative structure of the Avcharges Centre is one Clerical Administrative Class 7 (Manager), one Clerical Administrative Class 5, two Clerical Administrative Class 4, two Clerical Administrative Class 2/3, two Clerical Assistant Grade 4, one Clerical Assistant Grade 3 and one Clerical Assistant Grade 2. (8) Yes. (9) The estimated cost of the provision of a toll free inquiry number is $8,000 in 1986-87. This cost is attributable to the aviation industry for cost recovery purposes. (Question No. 4865) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) Is it a practice of his Department to recognise local public holidays in regional centres which arise as a result of district shows or race meetings; if so, (a) at what level is the decision taken, (b) is there a Departmental guideline on the matter and (c) is local practice used only as a guide or observed fully, for example, if the local practice is a half day holiday, would the regional office take a half day or a full day holiday. (2) What is the basis of payment to officers in these circumstances. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) Regional Director, Public Service Board. (b) No. (c) Local practice is observed fully. (2) Clause 2.2.4 of Public Service Board Determination 10 of 1983. (Question No. 4883) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: (1) Did he state that he did not believe that illegal drug use by Australian athletes was a big problem when launching the Sports Against Drugs Movement in Sydney on 23 April 1986. (2) Is he able to say whether the Australian Sports Medicine Federation has conducted a survey over the period 1979 to 1982 to identify the extent of drug use in Australian sport; if so, did that survey find that there was a significant problem with drug use in Australian sport and that many sportsmen and sportswomen had used and were using dangerous drugs or drugs that were banned from sport by international convention. (3) Has the Government, its agent, or any recognised sporting organisation conducted a subsequent survey or surveys of drug use by Australian sportsmen and sportswomen; if so, (a) when and by whom was it conducted and (b) did the results indicate an improvement or deterioration in drug use in Australian sport since 1982. (4) Is the Government considering compulsory drug screening for all Australian sportsmen and sportswomen who participate in international sporting events. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes, the survey referred to found that approximately 5% of survey respondents had used drugs which are banned by sporting authorities. (3) No. (4) No, however the Australian Sports Commission has decided to undertake random testing of athletes receiving Sports Talent Encouragement Plan grants during 1987. (Question No. 4907) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: Is he giving consideration to a prohibition on smoking on interstate coach services; if so, when will action be taken. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. The question of smoking on long distance coaches is primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of the operators concerned within the framework of arrangements administered by respective State and Territory authorities. I am advised that on most interstate routes non-smoking coach services are in operation and attracting patronage from people who wish to travel in a smoke free environment.