Tuesday, 17 February 1987 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Hansard 1987 FIRST SESSION OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT (FIFTH PERIOD) Pursuant to the Resolution of the House of Representatives passed on 28 November 1986, the House of Representatives met on Tuesday, 17 February 1987, at 2 p.m. Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House of the deaths of Mr F. W. Collard, a former member for the division of Kalgoorlie, and Mr S. M. Keon, a former member for the division of Yarra. As a mark of respect to these former members I ask members of the House to stand. Honourable members having stood in their places- Madam SPEAKER —I thank the House. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that Senator Don Grimes handed in his resignation from the Ministry last Thursday. His resignation took effect from the swearing in of new Ministers last night. Following recommendations made to the Governor-General, His Excellency has appointed Senator Michael Tate to fill the vacancy in the Ministry. He takes the portfolio of Special Minister of State. The Hon. Michael J. Young has been sworn in as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Hon. Chris Hurford replaces Senator Grimes as Minister for Community Services. Mr Young will also be Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Multicultural Affairs, and he will represent Senator Tate, the Special Minister of State, in this chamber. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a full list of the Ministry, showing Minister Assisting arrangements and representation in the other chamber. Leave granted. The list read as follows- COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT SECOND HAWKE MINISTRY Representation in other Chamber *Prime Minister The Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, AC, MP Senator Button *Deputy Prime Minister, Attorney-General, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Commonwealth-State Relations and Vice-President of the Executive Council The Hon. Lionel Bowen, MP Senator Evans *Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce Senator the Hon. John Button Mr Jones *Deputy Leader of the Government and Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Resources and Energy, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and Minister Assisting the Foreign Minister Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans, QC Mr Jones *Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters The Hon. Ralph Willis, MP Senator Walsh *Treasurer The Hon. P. J. Keating, MP Senator Walsh *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Leader of the House and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Multicultural Affairs The Hon. Michael J. Young, MP Senator Evans *Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters Senator the Hon. Peter Walsh Mr Hurford, Mr Willis *Minister for Foreign Affairs The Hon. Bill Hayden, MP Senator Evans *Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan Mr Dawkins *Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs The Hon. J. S. Dawkins, MP Senator Button *Minister for Primary Industry The Hon. John Kerin, MP Senator Walsh *Minister for Housing and Construction The Hon. Stewart West, MP Senator Ryan *Minister for Defence The Hon. Kim C. Beazley, MP Senator Evans *Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer The Hon. Chris Hurford, MP Senator Tate *Minister for Social Security The Hon. Brian Howe, MP Senator Tate Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation The Hon. Peter Morris, MP Senator Gietzelt Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence The Hon. John Brown, MP Senator Ryan Minister for Health The Hon. Neal Blewett, MP Senator Tate Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology & Commerce The Hon. Barry O. Jones, MP Senator Button Minister for Territories The Hon. Gordon Scholes, MP Senator Gietzelt Minister for Communications and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence The Hon. Michael Duffy, MP Senator Walsh Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial The Hon. Barry Cohen, MP Senator Ryan Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs The Hon. A. C. Holding, MP Senator Ryan Minister for Veterans' Affairs Senator the Hon. A. T. Gietzelt Mr Holding Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services The Hon. Tom Uren, MP Senator Gietzelt Special Minister of State Senator the Hon. Michael Tate Mr Young * Minister in the Cabinet Mr HAWKE —I also wish to inform the House that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) left yesterday for the United States on official business. He will return on 27 February. In his absence the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is Acting Minister for Trade. He will also represent the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, in this chamber during the absence of the Minister for Trade. The Minister for Arts, Heri- tage and Environment (Mr Cohen) left for South America and the United States on 29 January. He will return on 22 February. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) is the Acting Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to Australia's near double digit inflation rate and to our huge current account deficit, highlighted by the worst January figure on record. Does the Prime Minister still hold to the view that the strategy of the last Budget has laid the ground for a substantial fall in interest rates this financial year? If so, when will that substantial fall begin to occur? Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition, surprisingly, referred in his question to interest rates and inflation. Let me just say, on the question of inflation, that we inherited when we came to government-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair does not intend to put up with any vexatious interjectors. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, I understand the concern of the Opposition. The point I am making is that we inherited an inflation rate of 11 1/2 per cent and by the end of 1985 we had more than halved that rate. Even with the imposition upon this country of the enormous, adverse effects of the massive decline in terms of trade, and with the associated depreciation of the Australian dollar, the inflation rate in this country has not returned to that inflation rate which the Leader of the Opposition handed on to this country. It is still significantly below that inflation rate. I go to that part of the question of the Leader of the Opposition which deals with interest rates. It is the fact that high interest rates are an inevitable feature of adjustment to Australia's current account difficulties. As much as this Government obviously would welcome lower interest rates, it is quite clear that we are responsible economic managers who, unlike the Opposition, eschew politically expedient quick fixes. We have reduced the burden on monetary policy by pursuing appropriately restrained fiscal and wages policies. It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition and other honourable members opposite now to preach the virtues of low Budget deficits and of balanced Budgets. They were the people who bequeathed to this country a prospective deficit of 5 per cent of gross domestic product. Under the responsible economic management of this country-particularly under the management of the economy exercised by my colleague, the Treasurer-that inherited 5 per cent of GDP has been successively reduced to about 1 1/2 per cent. We look to 1987 with a cautious optimism about the economy including a fall in interest rates in 1987, though, as I have said on many occasions-and I repeat on this occasion-the timing of such a fall will be affected by external factors, including what happens to world commodity prices and what happens to international financial conditions and sentiment. It will also depend on the pace at which the current account deficit declines. The country is presented with a responsible, cohesive mix of economic policies which will produce those results, as against the pie in the sky nonsense which day after day is coming from the Opposition. Until the Leader of the Opposition was last night and this morning scuttled by his coalition partner, what we were looking at was an $8 billion deficit credibility gap of the Leader of the Opposition. Now that $8 billion credibility gap has been thrown up to $11 billion because the Leader of the Opposition has received his marching instructions from the Premier of Queensland, who is about to replace him. What was an $8 billion credibility gap of the Leader of the Opposition is now $11 billion. And this man has the hide to talk about inflation and interest rates! If those policies of the Leader of the Opposition were ever given an opportunity to be effected, the deficit would blow out and interest rates would go through the roof. He has no confidence and no credibility. Mr LINDSAY —Will the Minister for Primary Industry inform the House about the recent discussions he had in Europe and Asia on the Australian proposals to resolve the crisis in international agricultural trade? Mr KERIN —The interjections from members of the Opposition during the Prime Minister's answer to the previous question indicate yet again their absolute intellectual incapacity to cope with the fact that we have a massive balance of payments problem due fundamentally to the corruption of agricultural markets and also- Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr KERIN —Opposition members laugh. The problem is due fundamentally to the corruption of agricultural markets and also declining markets for mineral exports. That is the principal economic problem this country has today. The reason we are in this situation is basically the policies of the present Opposition over 30 years. They have left us in a situation in which we cannot capitalise on the fast growing areas of international trade. So we are expecting two sectors which have declining terms of trade-they have had that for a long time-to carry the whole external account. That is the problem we have. All the Opposition offers, if it offers anything, are a few quick-fix populist solutions. It has no real solutions. The Deputy Leader of the National Party wants to send a delegation to Washington with a begging bowl, and that is about the Opposition's policy on trade. All the Liberal Party Opposition-we will not call it a coalition any more-wants to do is to slap down wages by up to 60 per cent, and it believes that in that way we can become more competitive. It agrees with the New Right. It wants an average wage of $173. It says it agrees with everything that Joh says, but it really does not. What the Prime Minister put forward at Davos was a practical, politically feasible, range of options and proposals that could have some effect in dealing with the terrible problem we face with the corruption of world agricultural commodity trade. The seven proposals involve a commitment to hold the subsidy escalation and to freeze and progressively to reduce the gap between administered internal prices and international market prices for farm products. There are elements of freeze in the European Economic Community today, such as the Commission's proposals on farm prices. There are also elements of freeze in the commitments made by Japan and the United States. Those elements are there due to the work being done by Ministers in this Government. The second part of the Prime Minister's proposals was an early reduction in internal administered producer prices. We believe that we need to get action and we believe that the seven economic summit countries should provide the leadership. I say that without the efforts of the Australian Government President Reagan's proposal on agricultural policy, which is now on the floor of the Congress, would not have taken the form it did, because it proposed a 10 per cent cut in target prices over the next three years, and that will reduce the price adjustment gap that the Prime Minister has focused on with his proposal. The third element of the proposal refers to stocks. If we can get commitment and political action we can do something about responsible stock management and remove these great stock overhangs for the market. The fourth part of the Prime Minister's proposals refers to decoupling, so that policies which are attacking the problems of European agriculture, such as rural amenity, the environment, social distress and regional problems, are decoupled from farm policies themselves that centre on production units. The fifth point refers to principles for agricultural policy. We believe that the work that is being done by officials in the Australian Government, as well as by Ministers in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, will provide the basis for setting forth those principles. That will take place in May of this year at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ministerial meeting. If we work hard and get those things together we will get an accord regarding international agricultural reform at the economic summit in Venice, and that will prepare the way for the negotiations in the Uruguay round under the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. I can say to this House that the Prime Minister's proposals were welcomed, that the analysis was agreed to, and that they have had a major impact on opinion leaders in the Western World. In my journey to Europe, where I spoke with people such as Sir Geoffrey Howe, Prime Minister Martens of Belgium, the Deputy Prime Minister of Thailand and the Prime Minister of Malaysia, I found there is very broad agreement for this Australian initiative-the Prime Minister's seven proposals. I believe that elements of those seven proposals will take place. Unlike the Opposition, we are focusing on Australia's main economic problems. We are taking initiatives. We are due to get agriculture put on the agenda at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade meeting for the first time, and that will be dealt with in the Uruguay round. With this proposal we are capitalising on opportunity, to take steps in the six months leading up to the Venice summit. We will be unrelenting in our efforts. Unlike the Opposition, we are working hard on Australia's real problems, not putting forward quick-fix populist solutions and not failing to cope with the fact that we have this problem. Mr CADMAN —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that, comparing the number of bankruptcies in the first half of the 1986-87 financial year with the year before, there has been an increase of over 35 per cent? Is the half-year bankruptcy result not only the highest ever recorded in Australia but also the highest ever in those States with Labor governments? Are we looking at the prospect of Australia's largest ever number of bankruptcies-an horrific number of 8,000 businesses going broke this year due to the Government's policies? Do these half-year figures follow last year's record breaking result of 6,408 bankruptcies, which was also the highest number ever recorded? Mr KEATING —Surely the implication of the question is not that the Australian economy has not undergone a period of growth from 1983-84 through to the present. Even in this financial year, when we heard howls from the Opposition at Budget time about how we would be in deep recession and how unemployment would rise, the Opposition again has been proven to be wrong. Unemployment has stabilised; the growth has slowed. We are not in negative growth; we are still running at around the Budget forecast, after three years of very strong economic growth. Has it entered the minds of Opposition members why the Australian stock exchanges are about to move into their fifth year of growth, breaking their records for the fifty-second time last year, through 1986? Has it ever entered their minds why the profit performance of Australian business has been the way it has been? It is because of the restraint of the work force and the policies of the Government over the last four years. Has it entered their minds that the whole process of adjustment to the terms of trade, and the fact that the Government has kept Australia on its feet by adjusting the economy of this country without moving into the kind of recession that the Opposition urges upon us, has been anything other than simply good for Australian business? Mr Cadman —What about taxes? Mr KEATING —Has it entered their minds, when they talk about taxes, that in the past three years, the first three years of this Government, the increase in gross company tax rose by 60 per cent, or $10.8 billion, to $28 billion? Do Opposition members know that the tax from unincorporated enterprises-that is, small businesses, unincorporated enterprises-- Mr Cadman —What about-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell has asked his question; he will now listen to the answer. Mr KEATING —The tax on unincorporated enterprises in the first three years of this Government rose by 50 per cent, or $8.3 billion, to almost $25 billion. What do Opposition members think is the explanation for this massive lift in profitability through these years, and for the buoyancy of Australian business? It is because of the policies of this Government and the product of restraint in the accord. That is in marked contrast to what we had in 1982-83 when the economy was in collapse, and major companies were going backwards and, for the first time in their corporate history, were posting losses. There were not just bankruptcies. The honourable member for Mitchell makes no point about bankruptcies of small businesses. They occur all the time. Many people move in and out of small businesses. What one must look at is the buoyancy of the Australian economy, and the buoyancy of business in particular. That is what this Government has delivered to businesses, which is in contrast to what the previous Government gave them in 1982-83, when the terms of trade were massively more advantageous than those we have now. The previous Government, or in fact the present Leader of the Opposition, managed to give us the first domestic negative growth for 30 years. That was all his own work-not the work of international commodity markets, but all his own work. Opposition members should go out and ask people in business what they think of the policies of this Government compared with those of the Opposition, and they will get the answer. If Opposition members had been around over Christmas, as we were, they would know what the answer is: It is a big thumbs-down to the politics and the economics on their side of the House. I conclude the point: Australia is adjusting to the worst terms of trade since the Great Depression. It has done so, producing growth. It has done so, lifting the profitability of Australian enterprise. Even the inflation rate, to which the Leader of the Opposition referred recently in a question, is the product of that very process of adjustment, of lifting the profitability of the traded goods sector of the Australian economy so that it can draw the investment and produce the kind of current account outcome that we want. I reject any implication whatsoever in the question that the profitability of Australian business is other than what it has been on the record, in the taxation statistics over the last three years, and I reject any implication that the health of the Australian economy is not vastly improved by the policies of the Government and the policies of the accord. Ms McHUGH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security and concerns the recent initiatives by the Government in presenting new directions for family assistance through the work of the social security review. I ask: Is the Minister aware that a statement entitled `Your Family' has been prepared by the coalition parties? Could the Minister explain to this House how the Government's tax reform and income support provisions have affected the living standards of Australian families? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for her question. She referred to the social security review. The response to the early papers, and particularly to the first issues paper, on the social security review has been very pleasing. There have been more than 100 submissions from a very wide and representative range of groups, indicating a great deal of interest in the substance of the review, the very substantial issues raised by it and the various suggestions made with respect to policy. The paper contrasts with the kind of blancmange which was put forward in the name of family policy when the Leader of the Opposition issued his statement in December. Reading the Opposition's statement, I find it very difficult to find one concrete sentence which goes beyond talk of love, togetherness and emotional values. There is not one concrete sentence in relation to policy or which is not something which has not already been taken up by the Government. I was encouraged by one aspect of the statement in that the Government's proposals with respect to child support were not ruled out by the Opposition. I would not suggest that there, or anywhere else in the statement, it is clear exactly what the Opposition's policy is, but at least the proposals that we made-which have received very widespread public discussion-were not ruled out. The interest in this issue is very pleasing. A very large number of submissions have been received in relation to the proposal. If we want to talk about the difference between the Government and the Opposition in relation to questions of family policy and income transfers, we can simply consider where the priorities of the Government have been with respect to improvements in family income. In times of severe economic restraint those priorities necessarily have been with the lowest income families. I believe that our record in this area is very proud indeed. Let us look at the legacy of the Fraser- Howard Government. It is all very well for people to talk about four years ago. But what was the legacy? It was an increase in the number of children in pensioner and beneficiary families from around 8 per cent to 20 per cent-one in every five children was in a pensioner or beneficiary family. That is where the measures this Government has taken, within very tight Budgets, have been directed. In contrast to a 30 per cent real decrease in support for very low income families under the Fraser-Howard Government, in our time in office there has been a 30 per cent real increase in assistance to very low income families. We introduced the family income supplement, for which the Opposition can claim some credit, and increased it very substantially. There has been a great deal of talk about the family. I do not think anyone is going to be impressed by blancmange. People are going to look for substance and priorities. As the Treasurer has said, our priorities have been growth, employment and the provision of a number of improvements in the social wage which have added to people's real incomes. Where are the Opposition's priorities? Its priorities are to protect the tax cheats and the business lunches, to knock off the fringe benefits tax and to keep paying pensions to millionaires. That is the difference. The issue is all about fairness and equity. Opposition members can run around the country as much as they like displaying emotion, but people are going to look for the bottom line. The bottom line is that, with all the difficulties and constraints, this Government has delivered a range of measures which have improved the standard of living of the average Australian family and which have shown particular concern and compassion for families dependent on social security. Mr CARLTON —My question is directed to the Treasurer and it concerns the bottom line of welfare to Australian families. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that when Labor was elected in March 1983 a family on average weekly earnings was paying 17 1/2c in every dollar in tax and that even after the proposed second round of tax cuts in July this year that same family will be paying 20 1/2c in every dollar in tax. Is it a fact that such a family would need an additional tax cut of $15 a week merely to bring it back to where it was in 1983? What excuse does the Treasurer have to offer for his disgraceful tax treatment of Australian families? Mr KEATING —In mentioning 1983 is the honourable member referring to the 500,000 families the honourable member for Bennelong banished to the employment scrapheap? Are they the families the honourable member is talking about-families that did not have jobs to pay any income tax on? Are they the families he is speaking about? Are the 700,000 people who were banished to unemployment in the Fraser years and the 500,000 who were banished to unemployment in the former Treasurer's last 18 months the people he is referring to or does he think they are martians? Does he think that the people his Government banished to the unemployment queues were part of Australian families or not? Fancy honourable members opposite talking about families. The Opposition had nothing but contempt for Australian households all the years it was in government. It beat them to death and never at any stage did it give them tax indexation. It took the $3 billion of new cheap lazy oil money out of Bass Strait and spent it on the Burdekin Dam and everything else it could get its hands on when it could have relieved the taxpayers and families of this country. It never cared less. Since 1983 the Opposition has opposed every wage increase in contemplation. It has supported a wage freeze on every occasion since 1983 and did so well before that. But honourable members opposite get up here and bleat about the disposable incomes of families via the tax system-that is their point-and say that there should not be any wage increases; that we can have inflation from the Howard years of 11 per cent, but families should be given nothing. When this Government said `Let us put a decent policy together which has restraint and which tracks Australian inflation down', the Opposition said that there should be no wage increases. That is what the Opposition said. Now the honourable member is asking me a question about taxation. We know where he stands on taxation. He stands with the politics of greed. That is where he stands on taxation. He stands to hand tax cuts to the rich at the expense of the poor and the working class. That is where he stands. He now stands to sabotage the whole climate of restraint that this Government has created through its wages and budgetary policies. The principal saboteur, the man with the fistful of cheap dollars, is the honour- able member for Bennelong. He is the man who says `Give the rich-the white-shoe millionaires who have spent years paying less than their fair share of tax-a 40 per cent tax rate', but have we heard in the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition of any tax changes for the people who earn under $20,000? Have we heard of any tax changes for the people who earn under $30,000? No way. If a person earns above $35,000, that person is entitled to a 40 per cent tax rate, and it is paid for by the rest of us. That is what the Opposition is into. The whole fabric of restraint which the Government has built up-getting the work force and the Australian Council of Trade Unions to accept income restraint for four years, cutting transfer payments and basically controlling and reducing the Commonwealth Budget deficit-the Opposition would put at risk basically to go back to another fistful of dollars. It would blow the Budget deficits apart and even the foundation stone on which that handful of greed sat, the consumption tax, we now find today has gone up in thin air because it has been vetoed by the National Party of Australia and by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The Leader of the Opposition stands now without any fiscal policy, with $7.8 billion of tax and outlays promises and without any wages policy-and he is asking about the disposable income of Australian families. This Government is the only government that has given families substantial tax cuts which are paid for by making the urgers pay their way with the abolition of the fringe benefits and negative gearing and the substantiation of entertainment allowances and capital gains. The tax cuts are paid for by those things, yet the Opposition says `Let's give them back the free lunches. Let's give them back their free Mercedes and their negative gearing on their properties. Let's give them back all the profits in the stock exchanges by wiping out the capital gains tax, but let's have some crocodile tears for the low income earners.' The Opposition pushed the low income earners on to the unemployment scrapheap; it ran them into the ground with its high tax policies by letting the tax cheats off for seven years. We brought them to book and we have given Australia the fairest tax system it has ever had in the history of the Income Tax Assessment Act. When it comes to credibility with Australian families, as my colleague the Minister for Social Security said, honourable members should look at the record of this Government, at the Opposition's record and rhetoric, its constant complaints about wage increases, its advocacy of a wage freeze and the fact that it never gave any tax relief in all the years it was in government. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I preface it by referring to his recent commemoration of the Ben-Gurion Memorial Park in Perth and the enthusiasm this generated amongst the Perth Jewish community. Can the Prime Minister inform the House about Government efforts on behalf of the Jews in the Soviet Union? Mr HAWKE —I think it is well known that since coming to office the Government has taken every opportunity available to it to raise its concerns about the plight of the Soviet Jewry both in bilateral discussions and in appropriate international forums such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Mr Hayden, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, raised the matter directly with the Soviet authorities in Moscow in 1984. I think it is well known that I have raised it on occasions with the Soviet Ambassador. Madam Speaker, as you will clearly recall, the parliamentary delegation to the Soviet Union which you led last year again raised the question with high level authorities. You made a new appeal for the release of Jewish activists still imprisoned in the Soviet Union. Especially, you mentioned, Madam Speaker, the case of Dr Joseph Begun in detention for having taught Hebrew in the Soviet Union. I am very pleased to say that last month in Israel I had the opportunity to reaffirm-in meetings with Prime Minister Shamir and also in a very touching meeting with a group of refusenik representatives, who between them represented some 200 mothers separated from their children and grandchildren-that I would raise at every appropriate opportunity, the issue of the Soviet treatment of Jews. I am very pleased to say that there has been a development from that. In that meeting with the representatives of the refuseniks I was most particularly moved by the case of Sophia Landver, a woman whom I would judge to be about 40 years of age, who wished to enter the Soviet Union to visit her terminally ill mother. As a result of that meeting in Jerusalem I immediately had representations made here in Canberra and in the Soviet Union. On her behalf last Wednesday here in Canberra I raised the matter directly with the Ambassador of the Soviet Union. I am delighted to be able to report that permission for Mrs Landver to visit her mother was granted last Thursday. I have thanked the Ambassador for this. We have also been heartened to learn that Dr Begun is among a group of refuseniks released from detention in the last few days. I think it is fair to say-and I guess no one has been more consistent in criticisms on this matter than me-that there are some encouraging signs in Soviet policy on human rights, but very much remains to be done before the situation can be considered acceptable. This Government will continue to make representations to the Soviet Government to this end in the knowledge that our efforts and those of other democracies can produce some positive results. Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Prime Minister. I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the recent decision of Justice Pincus of the Federal Court of Australia in the matter of Western Television Ltd v. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in which Justice Pincus made it clear that the failure by a company director to lodge income tax returns is sufficient reason for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to refuse a television licence to that company. I also refer the Prime Minister to the recent decision of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to make the renewal of the licence of the highly rated and regarded Perth radio station 96FM subject to the resignation of the chairman of the board, who has been convicted of failing to lodge tax returns, which the Tribunal said was a `neglect of one of the basic obligations of a citizen'. In the light of this opinion of a learned judge and a government tribunal that failure to lodge tax returns, irrespective of subsequent remedial action, must require the resignation of a company director from the administration of a mere government licensee, how does the Prime Minister now justify his statement of 28 November 1986 that the Treasurer's non-lodgment of tax returns `is not one of immense consequence'? When will the Prime Minister lift his principles to those of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and require the resignation of his Treasurer, the late lodger? Mr HAWKE —I have said all that I intend to say on the question of the action of my friend and colleague, the Treasurer. Despite the intense desire of what passes for an opposition to see the Treasurer out of his office, I will not give it that pleasure. Mr PRICE —Has the Treasurer noted proposals to reduce income tax rates, with the highest rate being lowered to at least 40 per cent? What would be the cost to revenue of such proposals? What contribution to the funding of those tax reductions would come from a 7.5 per cent consumption tax? Lastly, what would be the impact on the Budget deficit if no consumption tax were introduced? Mr KEATING —There have been proposals around in the media which have emanated, amongst other places, from the Opposition that we ought to have a 40 per cent top marginal rate of tax paid for by a consumption tax of approximately 7 1/2 per cent and by other cuts in outlays. The first thing I would like to say about that is this: At a time when the national income is going down-because of cuts in primary industry commodity prices for cereal, metals, coal, oil and many other commodities-the Opposition is running around saying: `We will give people tax cuts and lift their incomes. We will lift the incomes of high income earners when Australia's national income is going down. We expect all those other people in the work force to have wage restraint-we expect their incomes to fall-but we wish to give our supporters, the people at the top end, a higher standard of living by reducing their top marginal rate, not to the 49 per cent which this Government has done and paid for, but down to 40 per cent. On top of that, we will abolish capital gains taxes, fringe benefits taxes, negative gearing, the wine tax and tax deductibility for entertainment and we will introduce income splitting, et cetera'. All of those things would total $7.8 billion. Those are not the outlays promised by the Leader of the Opposition, which he jumped in his Budget reply; those are the standing commitments of the Opposition, which account for $7.8 billion. Sitting under that proposal was a consumption tax which was supposed to yield $3.5 billion, but we have seen today that the National Party of Australia dumped the Leader of the Opposition in any proposal for a consumption tax. The Deputy Leader of the National Party, Mr Hunt, said at lunchtime: `Our Party room is very much opposed to a consumption tax because we feel that a consumption tax introduced at this time could have a serious effect on people out there in those regional areas, where they are in dire difficulties with their incomes. At the present time it would add to their cost of living and impose a tax upon them they could not afford to pay'. That is the position. In other words, the other half of the coalition says `no' to one of the principal tax planks of the Leader of the Opposition. One of the foundation stones of the tax planks, the $3 1/2 billion of income-to pay for the $7 1/2 billion, leaving a further $4 billion to be met by some unspecified outlay changes-has gone. All the computer models of the honourable member for Mackellar and the doodlings of Senator Messner in putting the final touches to his tax package are finito; they are gone; they are off the board. Sinkers struck them down on the front steps. Basically, they have gone because the voice form the north has said they must go. The great leader of the conservative forces, the honourable member for Bennelong-the saviour of the wealthy-has had his policies cut down by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Yesterday, the honourable member for Bennelong said: `I am backing Sinkers'. Sinkers is where other sinkers are. They are with their mates on the bottom of the harbour. Members of the Opposition are not too cheery today. Just look at them over there. The former Leader of the Liberal dries, Mr John Hyde, who was the first person in the Liberal Party in the post-war years to start talking economic rationality to them, had this to say today: What we don't want is cheap populism. Promising easy solutions is no answer. It's not courageous to say you are going to cut taxes. In other words, he is blowing the whistle on the cheap politics of the Liberal Party, and those of the Leader of the Opposition, who, knowing that Australia's national income is declining, runs around out there with a fistful of dollars a la 1977 and a la 1982, basically offering people tax cuts that he knows the nation not only cannot afford but also can never pay for. It is worth recalling that in response to the 1984 Budget Mr Howard said at the National Press Club: I don't think there is any doubt from an economic point of view that greater priority should be given to reducing the Budget deficit. I think if the Government is faced with a choice between giving a tax cut of, say, $1 billion and having a deficit that is a billion lower than it might otherwise be, I think it ought to choose the latter; that is, go for the lower Budget deficit. He continued: If the Government wishes, on top of that, to give taxation cuts, then it should cut further its own expenditures to find the room. That came from Mr Howard when he was worried about the fabric of the Australian economy and when he knew that fiscal policy played an integral and important role in any process of economic adjustment, especially in these times when the terms of trade have fallen disastrously, in the most disastrous fall since the Great Depression. What are we getting now? We are getting this attempt to sabotage the whole climate of restraint. For four years, the unions have copped wage restraint, seeing some decent policies in the tax system, and seeing cuts in outlays. The Opposition says that we should rip up all that restraint. It says: `Do not give the notion that there is restraint; dance to the tune of incentivation'-some madcap theme thought up by the greedy who want to rip off the top end of the tax system at the expense of the needy and the poor. Incentivation is now running the Liberal Party-not economic rationality, and not the Hyde view that tax cuts are cheap and lack all courage. Basically, what we have seen is just the old Liberal Party tune of greed. We are back out there with greed. Even on that greedy platform, we find that the Leader of the Opposition says now that a consumption tax, providing $3.5 billion, with all its attendant problems for inflation, is just an option. It has now diminished to an option because he knows that he cannot deliver his half of politics in that respect. He stands here today, two years into this Parliament and one year into his leadership, with no wages policy, no fiscal policy and no tax policy. He stands bereft of policy in a nation with a current account problem much of which was induced by his own policies and which has been dealt a very solid blow by the rest of the world. Yet we are all about to say: `Look, 49c is enough'. As Treasurer, he let the 60 per cent rate sit there for five years. He had the new oil revenue, the $3 billion from Bass Strait, to cut the 60 per cent rate with. He left it and it came to this Government to cut the rate to 49 per cent, to provide relief from the double taxation of dividends and to cut other rates by introducing the fringe benefits tax, by making people pay their way. We have introduced the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and negative gearing provisions but, no, the Opposition wants to wipe all the decency out, wipe the fairness out, wipe the equity out and just provide a fistful of money to people who have not made enough-as if the millionaires and the people investing on the stock exchange had not made enough in the last four years. The Opposition says: `Give them a tax cut that we know the country cannot afford. Let us not say how we will pay for it or, if we do, let us talk about a consumption tax that we can never deliver'. That is the position on marginal tax rate changes in this country. The only tax change is this Government's massive $4.5 billion tax reduction now under way, paid for by making the tax system broader and fairer and by making sensible cuts in public outlays. That will be the only reform in taxation that this country will see, and if the people want to fall for the policies of greed being propounded by the Queensland Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party of Australia they will have a very clear choice at the next election. Mr BEALE —Will the Prime Minister confirm that since 1984 new dwelling commencements have fallen from a rate of 153,000 a year to the current level of 118,000 a year? What is the Prime Minister's excuse for this deplorable situation which is preventing young Australians from buying their own homes? Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, I know that you would regard a question on housing as being broad enough to enable me to make a comment on bankruptcies, which I will do very quickly. I was interested in the question addressed to my colleague the Treasurer earlier about what had happened to bankruptcies in this country. It is relevant to note just what happened to the bankruptcy rate in the years 1983-84 to 1985-86. I ask honourable members to note this in light of the now well-known remarks of the incoming Leader of the National Party in this place, the Premier of Queensland. He said on a national program the other day that he wants to do for Australia what he has done for Queensland. I see the smiles on the faces of my Liberal friends the honourable member for Ryan and the honourable member for O'Connor. They agree with me because in the last two years the increase in bankruptcies in Queensland has been 43 per cent; the increase for the rest of Australia has been 6 per cent. So that is what the incoming Leader of the National Party wants to do. Is this what the honourable member for Maranoa wants his friend to do for the rest of Australia-give them a 43 per cent increase in bankruptcies? What he will do is sink not just the honourable member for Maranoa but the whole lot of his colleagues. Madam Speaker, I know that the question was about housing. In the difficult economic circumstances that confronted the economy in general and the housing industry in particular, this Government brought in a housing package last year and it has been a significant success. Let me very briefly give the figures. The housing finance figures show that savings bank lending is up markedly since the package was introduced, and is now running at an annual rate of above $7 billion compared with the pre-package level of less than $4 billion. In December private housing approvals were at their highest level since February of 1986. The outlook for starts in 1986-87 and for employment in the housing industry is much brighter than before the package was brought in. Therefore, we are satisfied that the steps that we took last year to meet the problems of the housing industry in those difficult economic circumstances have been successful. Madam Speaker, you will be aware, as will all honourable members, of the other actions which the Government has taken to demonstrate its commitment to support the housing industry. We introduced the widely acclaimed first home owners scheme which has put more than 200,000 Australians, particularly young Australians, into homes. The circumstances were such that before the introduction of that scheme they could not possibly have contemplated the ownership of their own home. In terms of funds for public housing, under this Government there has been a 42 per cent real increase in the funds made available by government for public housing. When we came to office we took steps to lift the housing industry from the doldrums into which the incompetence of the Opposition had plunged it. We are confident, in the difficult economic circumstances, that the package that was brought in by the Minister for Housing and Construction on behalf of this Government will be appropriate to lift the level of activity, as it has in the period since it was introduced. Madam SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of the Parliamentary Library for the year 1985-86. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the 1985-86 annual report of the Attorney-General's Department, incorporating the 1985-86 annual report of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel as required by section 16a of the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1971. These reports were tabled in the Senate on 2 December and made available to all honourable members. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, I present a report by the Law Reform Commission on civil admiralty jurisdiction. The report was tabled in the Senate on 2 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 83 (2) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979, I present the annual report of the Security Appeals Tribunal for 1985-86. The report was tabled in the Senate on 2 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present the Human Rights Commission report on complaints relating to the protest at Pine Gap, November 1983. The report was tabled in the Senate on 3 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present the Human Rights Commission report on `Civil Disobedience and the Use of Arrest as Punishment: Some human rights issues'. The report was tabled in the Senate on 2 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —On behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), pursuant to section 7 of the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations Act 1976, I present the annual report of the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations for the year ending 31 August 1986. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations for 1985-86 incorporating the annual report of the Commonwealth Employment Service for 1985-86 in accordance with the provisions of section 22 of the Commonwealth Employment Service Act 1978. The report was tabled in the Senate on 4 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 58 of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1985-86. The report was tabled in the Senate on 4 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Police Ministers Council annual report on the administration and activities of the National Common Police Services for 1984-85. The report was tabled in the Senate on 4 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present a report by Mr A. C. Menzies, OBE, on the review of material relating to the entry of suspected war criminals into Australia, together with the text of a tabling statement made when the report was tabled in the Senate on 5 December 1986. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Australia-China Council for 1985-86. The report was tabled in the Senate on 4 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Pursuant to section 39 of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act 1982, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research for 1985-86, together with the Auditor-General's report. The report was tabled in the Senate on 4 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 19 of the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Act 1985, I present the annual report of the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee for 1985-86. The report was tabled in the Senate on 4 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 33 of the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983, I present a report on the financial assistance granted to each State in respect of the participation and equity program in 1984. The report was tabled in the Senate on 2 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971, I present the 1985-86 report by the Minister for Education on child migrant education. The report was tabled in the Senate on 2 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of Education for 1985-86. The report was tabled in the Senate on 2 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Pursuant to section 66 of the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian National Railways Commission for 1985-86, together with the Auditor-General's report. The report was tabled in the Senate on 3 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to section 29 of the Air Navigation Act 1920 and sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of Aviation for 1985-86. The report was tabled in the Senate on 2 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to sub-section 40 (3) of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945, I present the annual report and financial statements of Australian Airlines for 1985-86, together with the Auditor-General's report. The report was tabled in the Senate on 4 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 36 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978, I present the annual report of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region for 1985-86. The report was tabled in the Senate on 4 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to sub-section 17 (2) of the Customs Administration Act 1985, I present the annual report of the Australian Customs Service for 1985-86. The report was tabled in the Senate on 4 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 46 of the Management and Investment Companies Act 1983, I present the annual report of the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board for 1985-86. The report was tabled in the Senate on 5 December 1986 and circulated to all honourable members during the parliamentary adjournment. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Industry and Technology Council's annual summary of proceedings for 1985-86. The report was tabled in the Senate on 2 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Recombinant DNA Monitoring Committee on Monitoring Recombinant DNA Technology: A Five Year Review. The report was tabled in the Senate on 3 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 63H of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority for 1985-86 together with the Auditor-General's report. The report was tabled in the Senate on 4 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 45 of the Pipeline Authority Act 1973, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Pipeline Authority for 1985-86 together with the Auditor-General's report. The report was tabled in the Senate on 3 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Madam Speaker,-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I am sure the Minister applauds the welcome. Mr SCHOLES —I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). I am optimistic that I will be around longer than he will be. For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Registrar of Co-operative Societies for 1984-85. The report was tabled in the Senate on 3 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board for 1985-86. The report was tabled in the Senate on 2 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Canberra Development Board for 1985-86. The report was tabled in the Senate on 4 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 63M of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report and interim financial statements of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority for 1985-86. The report was tabled in the Senate on 10 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 27 of the Services Corporation Ordinance 1984, I present the annual report of the Christmas Island Services Corporation for 1984-85. The report was tabled in the Senate on 2 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 50B of the Defence Service Homes Act 1918, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Defence Service Homes Corporation for 1985-86 together with the Auditor-General's report. The report was tabled in the Senate on 1 December 1986 and made available to all honourable members. Mr NEHL(Cowper) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr NEHL —I certainly do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr NEHL —A report that appeared in the Armidale Express newspaper on 24 November 1986, and which subsequently appeared in some other newspapers, carried a story about the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Peter Morris. It stated, in part: A proposal by the National Party Member for Cowper, Mr Garry Nehl, to transfer Federal funds from the New England Highway to the Pacific Highway would severely disadvantage the New England region, according to the Federal Transport Minister, Mr Peter Morris. No such proposal was ever made by me. The article continued: Mr Morris said that a document prepared by Mr Nehl gives first priority to substituting the Pacific Highway for the New England Highway in the National Highway system. The document I put out, entitled `The Pacific Highway-Towards 2001', does not allocate any such priority. The article continued: Mr Morris said that this means the New England Highway would lose its National Highway classification and revert to being a State road if Mr Nehl's argument is to be heeded. No such argument was made. The Minister has certainly misrepresented me. I would like to read out two paragraphs from the document entitled `The Pacific Highway-Towards 2001', of which every honourable member has received a copy. It presents a detailed argument for upgrading the Pacific Highway, but at no time and in no place does it indicate what the Minister says it indicates. I have always respected his veracity until now, and I am rather disappointed. I said that there were four options: First, the Pacific Highway could be removed from the Rural Arterial Road category and made a National highway (not a likely possibility); secondly, the Federal Minister for Transport could use his powers to declare it a Development Road; thirdly, the Minister could channel additional funding by declaring it a Tourism Road; or, fourthly, it can remain in its present classification but with additional funding from both Federal and State governments. The one relevant recommendation in this document reads as follows: The NSW and Federal governments should make an irrevocable decision in principle that the Pacific Highway should be upgraded to a four lane, dual carriageway, divided road. At no time did I make the claims that the Minister for Transport said I made. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the Minister wish to make a personal explanation? Mr PETER MORRIS —I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr PETER MORRIS —I am sorry if the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) feels that I have disappointed him; but, as he said, I deal only in the facts. The facts I quoted are those as put by him. He has had a campaign for the transfer of national highway status from the existing route, which goes through New England-through the electorate of the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) and that of the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt)-across to the Pacific Highway. The document which he has circulated-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: When will we get to the point where the Minister has been misrepresented? We know thr rules relating to personal explanations. The Minister might make a statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. I am sure that the Minister is getting to his point. Some latitude was allowed to the honourable member for Cowper. Mr PETER MORRIS —As I explained in my preamble, the fact is quite clear. If one looks at the statements and performance of the honourable member for Cowper on earlier occasions in respect of this matter, his objective is clear; namely, to change the status of the national highway from the existing route across to the Pacific Highway. This view is not shared by his colleagues. As he quoted from his document, I will also quote from it. The same paragraph 3 on page ii states: First, the Pacific Highway could be removed from the Rural Arterial Road category and made a National Highway . . . The honourable member knows the national highway route. He knows the import of this. He wrote it himself. It is very clear what he meant. His view is not shared by this Government, or by his colleagues. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: The Minister sunk to argument-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many post office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purposes 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 Braithwaite,Mr Cadman,Mr Carlton,Mr Dubois,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Free,Mr Hawker,Mr Rocher and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth 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 Aldred,Mr Beale,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Reith. 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 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 a 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 Aldred,Mr Lamb,Mr Lloyd,Mr Peacock and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to Irradiate Food in Australia Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in parliament assembled, should: (1). Block the introduction of Food Irradiation into Australia and (2). Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Caesium 137 and Caesium 134 to be used to Irradiate Food products, And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Blewett and Mr Wright. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hodges and Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Hunt,Mrs Kelly and Mr Sharp. 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 consider- ation 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 Hawker,Mr Lamb,Mr O'Keefe and Mr Scholes. 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 impossible working conditions which will include the payment of- (a) union superannuation (b) compensation (c) payroll tax (d) annual leave loadings (e) public holiday loadings (f) PAYE tax deductions (g) limited incomes (h) inflexible awards and conditions; and (i) 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 Beale,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their business 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 Benefit 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 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 Braithwaite. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional cost it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. 5. We also feel it is morally wrong for one person to be forced to pay the taxes for another. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 is having a detrimental effect on the car industry generally in South Australia, and more particularly on employment in that industry. 2. The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 contains many anomalies, inconsistencies and mistakes in drafting and its administrative implementation is an unwarranted burden on Australian businesses and the Australian taxpayer. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House repeal as a matter of utmost urgency this regressive legislation which imposes a disincentive to economic and employment growth, thereby jeopardising the well-being and living standards of all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable 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 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefit 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. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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. 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 Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: (1) Guarantees to every 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 shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: Ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duncan and Mr Hawker. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a Nuclear Test Moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Duncan and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should: 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and 3. Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and 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 shows that: * Because video cassettes are a particularly powerful media form now easily accessible to the general public for private home viewing, and * Believing that the likelihood of minors obtaining or otherwise viewing obscene and pornographic video cassettes is very high even with careful parental oversight, We the undersigned protest at the removal of previously existing censorship bans, and in particular request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith, which now allows into the community such pictorial material as ``relished descriptions of violence'' and ``publications which mildly advocate the use of soft drugs such as marijuana'' (Category 1), and ``sado-masochism'', ``extreme fetishism'' (e.g. necrophilia), ``anal intercourse with consent'' (Category 2), and other such depraved and repugnant activities; and non-pictorial material referred to as ``hardcore'' paperbacks containing ``relished child pornography, e.g. incest, and school teacher/student'', and ``extreme sexual torture'' (both Category 2), * In the conviction that the ready availability and increasing public consumption of same will be a blight on our society, stimulating individual dissoluteness and leading to unlawful behaviour with innocent persons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodges and Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Mr Staples. 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 supports the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the United States Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The introduction of an administrative charge for annual enrolment will restrict access to higher education for a range of disadvantaged groups, particularly women, rural dwellers and some low income earners. 2. Students will be deterred from study because of the probable escalation in the charge in future Budgets, prohibiting students' ability to plan the long term costs of their education. 3. The introduction of an administrative charge is contrary to the education provisions of the ALP/ACTU Accord and ALP policy which states that the party `will maintain the provision of free tertiary education'. Your petitioners therefore pray that the annual administrative charge for higher education students not be introduced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerin and Mr Shack. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. by Mr Maher and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; (2) That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth the legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. by Mr Beale. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the 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 yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it 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 Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the 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 yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax evasion 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 Porter,Mr Lloyd and Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled to Petition of Peace, your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government is more committed in establishing peaceful relations with the People within and outside of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth that- The high interest rates on home loans of 13.5 per cent and above has and is placing the recipients in a financially disastrous position, as thousands have lost their homes and thousands more will do so if these appalling conditions continue for the young and established home purchasers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge all politicians that no Government or Opposition in a power position should continue to tolerate this cruel, vicious procedure that shatters the very structure of family life, from the farmers to the city dwellers. We need a five year period to reduce this absurdity by tackling it at its source. Firstly, interest repayments on home loans to be reduced by 2 per cent annually for the next five years or until it is down to 8 per cent or less. This would, or should diminish union demands, and cause no hazard for investors, who could reinvest in Government projects, or other worthwhile ventures and also ease the burden on Social Securities. Your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duncan. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefit tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life; that we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, request that the Members of the House consider our appraisal of the war in Eritrea, and support the adoption of the suggested method of peaceful solution by the United Nations and other international bodies. We believe that the illegal, forcible and unjust annexation of Eritrea by Ethiopia in 1962, and the subsequent war waged by the Ethiopian military government, initially backed by the U.S.A. and more recently by the Soviet Union, against the Eritrean people, are gross violations of the rights of Eritreans to self-determination and peaceful existence. We therefore support the proposal by the Eritrean Peoples Liberation Front (E.P.L.F.) that the United Nations conduct an internationally-supervised referendum for the Eritrean people to choose from the following alternatives: 1. Full independence 2. Federal association with Ethiopia 3. Regional autonomy We petition each person to urge the Australian Government to do all in its capabilities to initiate and promulgate world-wide discussion in support of this referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: We strongly condemn the Australian Government's reversal of its electoral policy to restore land rights, dignity and economic security to the Aboriginal people. We call on the Australian Government to immediately set about negotiating a treaty with the Aboriginal Sovereign Nation, and that this treaty with full land rights, be implemented under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, before 1988. We call on the Australian Government to adequately fund and support the negotiating process of the Aboriginal nation. Should the Government fail in this resolve, we call on the Australian people to demonstrate their solidarity with the Aboriginal people by boycotting the bicentennial celebrations and sharing a national year of mourning in 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights; that the Bill of Rights leaves our vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education; that the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate; that the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 Redcliffe, 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 the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: That we are completely dissatisfied with the increase from $5.00 to $10.00 for pharmaceutical benefits on the N.H.S. list which takes effect from 1/11/1986. Our petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Abolish this increase and revert to the old price. That due consideration be given that basic pharmaceutical items are an essential item and not a luxury for the well-being of families with children. That such basics should be affordable and not put beyond the reach of most low to middle income earners. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Barry Jones. To the Right Honourable Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners, who are citizens or residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students as specified in the Appropriation Bill 1986-1987 (Volume-1, page-98) is a regressive step for the education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge would force certain students (e.g. part-time, mature age and full-time students who are from lower income families and who are just above the cutoff level to receive Tertiary Education Assistance) to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fee and as such puts an end to the principle of free education for all; That the Administration Charge could stop some prospective students from entering higher education and as a result deny them the opportunity in acquiring an award; That the Administration Charge is an additional tax that will be a burden for students greatly; We, the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-1987, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. To the Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners at La Trobe University, Bundoora, in the Federal Electorate of Jagajaga, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students as specified in the Appropriation Bill 1986-1987 (Volume-1, page-98) is a regressive step for the education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge would force certain students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We, the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-1987, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that the 1986 Census deprived housewives of the right to record their occupation and instead forced them to give the negative response: ``No, did not have a job''. That the 1986 Census could have been used, at no extra cost to taxpayers, to give a genuine ``Fair Go'' to all women to record their views on the government's National Agenda for Women. That coinciding with the 1986 Census, the Office of the Status of Women is conducting a costly, selective survey titled: ``A Fair Go for Women''. This survey requires no identification of respondents, making the results of the survey highly suspect since it is known that various groups and individuals have obtained bulk supplies of the brochure, while the majority of women are not aware that their views are being sought by the Government. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will restore to the Census a category for Housewives, and that the ``Fair Go for Women'' survey will be recognised as a costly exercise of dubious value in determining the real views of Australian women, as this should be done through the Census, or a Referendum held in conjunction with the next Federal Election to minimise costs, and to give All women a genuine ``Fair Go''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strongly object to the sale of the Queen Elizabeth II Rehabilitation Centre at 59 Missenden Road, Camperdown, N.S.W. as it would be a disadvantage to patients who are incapacitated/invalid who require the specialised treatment/s which are now available in one Centre. We urge the Government to rescind the selling of this building and the breaking-up and loss of expertise in a centre that has every available facility for the disabled patient. by Mr Mountford. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the 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 Woolgoolga, 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 humbly pray. by Mr Nehl. 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 showeth 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 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 within 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 O'Keefe. 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 the post office at Balwyn West, Victoria, be closed. The post office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel further for our postal requirements, or even to collect registered letters and parcels. We maintain that the purpose of post offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or to help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of the Balwyn West, Victoria, Post Office. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Peacock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering Systems. by Mr Porter. 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 concern for current and future funding for road construction in the shire of Cranbourne, Victoria. Your petitioners therefore pray that- The Commonwealth Government increase the moneys allocated to the Victorian State Government for road funding, so as to allow adequate funding for the construction and maintenance of roads within the Shire of Cranbourne. 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 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 every 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. The petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established to work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10 per cent of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. 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 serving members of the Australian Defence Forces are frustrated and disillusioned at the continuing erosion of their conditions of employment, benefits and entitlements traditionally provided in recognition of the burdens placed on themselves and their families by service in the Defence Forces; 2. That the Government's decision to discount by 2 per cent the retirement benefits of members of the Australian Defence Forces has broken a trust that should exist between servicemen and the Government concerning the financial security of themselves and their families in retirement; 3. That the Government's decision to discount the retirement benefits of members of the Australian Defence Forces has seriously lowered the morale and commitment of servicemen and will further increase the number of experienced servicemen leaving the Defence Forces. Your petitioners humbly pray that you establish or expedite reviews of conditions, salary, allowances, entitlements and benefits for servicemen and reverse the decision to discount by 2 per cent retirement benefits for servicemen. by Mr Webster. 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 and Mr Free. 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, Felexstowe 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 Duncan and Mr Young. The Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. We, the undersigned, being residents of the Ipswich and West Moreton region believe that we have for some years been disadvantaged by not being served by a Regional Radio Station based on the City of Ipswich and the surrounding Shires of Moreton, Boonah, Gatton, Esk and Laidley and we further believe that the Provincial City of Ipswich and surrounding towns and rural areas constitute an economic and social region with a community of interest separate from the City of Brisbane and that our needs are not adequately or comprehensively served by Brisbane Metropolitan Radio Stations. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled will call upon the Government to call applications for a Commercial Radio Lease for a service area encompassing the City of Ipswich and Shires of Moreton, Boonah, Gatton, Esk and Laidley. And your Petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hayden. 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 Mr Millar. Petitions received. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty 1986 Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment 1986 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment (No. 2) 1986 Australian National University Amendment 1986 Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment 1986 Maritime College Amendment 1986 Home Deposit Assistance Amendment 1986 International Financial Institutions (Share Increase) 1986 Overseas Students Charge Amendment 1986 Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment 1986 Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) 1986 Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 3) 1986 Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment (No. 2) 1986 Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 2) 1986 Superannuation Legislation Amendment (No. 2) 1986 Pig Industry 1986 Pig Industry (Transitional Provisions) 1986 Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment (No. 2) 1986 Social Security Amendment (Reciprocity with Italy) 1986 Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) 1986 Taxation Laws Amendment (No. 4) 1986 Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment 1986 Australian Capital Territory Tax (Transfers of Marketable Securities) 1986 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment (No. 3) 1986 States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment (No. 2) 1986 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment (No. 2) 1986 Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) 1986 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) 1986 Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Repeal 1986 Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) 1986 Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment 1986 Banking Legislation Amendment 1986 Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment 1986 Message received from the Senate granting leave to Senator Archer, Senator Black, Senator Cooney and Senator Vigor to attend and give evidence before the House of Representatives Committee of Privileges if they think fit. Assent to the following Bills reported: Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) 1986-87 Appropriation (No. 2) 1986-87 Appropriation (No. 1) 1986-87 Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment (No. 2) 1986 Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment 1986 Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment 1986 Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment 1986 Criminology Research Amendment 1986 States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment 1986 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 1986 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) 1986 Bounty (Books) 1986 Bounty (Ship Repair) 1986 Disability Services 1986 Disability Services (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) 1986 Fertilisers Subsidy 1986 Navigation Amendment 1986 Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) 1986 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment (No. 2) 1986 Australian National University Amendment 1986 Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment 1986 Maritime College Amendment 1986 Overseas Students Charge Amendment 1986 Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment 1986 South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty 1986 Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment 1986 Home Deposit Assistance Amendment 1986 International Financial Institutions (Share Increase) 1986 Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) 1986 Cheques and Payments Orders 1986 Bills of Exchange Amendment 1986 Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment 1986 Australian Capital Territory Tax (Transfers of Marketable Securities) 1986 Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment (No. 2) 1986 Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 3) 1986 Superannuation Legislation Amendment (No. 2) 1986 Social Security Amendment (Reciprocity with Italy) 1986 Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) 1986 Taxation Laws Amendment (No. 4) 1986 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment (No. 2) 1986 States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment (No. 2) 1986 Pig Industry 1986 Pig Industry (Transitional Provisions) 1986 Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment (No. 2) 1986 Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 2) 1986 Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Repeal 1986 Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment 1986 Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) 1986 Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) 1986 States Grants (Territory Education Assistance) Amendment (No. 3) 1986 Banking Legislation Amendment 1986 Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment 1986 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) 1986 Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr Spender be discharged from attendance on the Committee of Privileges and that in his place Mr Smith be appointed a member of the Committee. 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 disastrous impact on all Australian families, farmers and small businesses of the Hawke Government's economic policies which have produced high taxes, high interest rates, high inflation and massive foreign debt. 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 HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.18) —During Question Time when we had the benefit of the advice of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on a whole range of subjects he said that during the parliamentary recess he had been around talking to the business community. I can believe that, because he certainly was not anywhere to be seen around Bankstown during the recess. In fact, his electorate did not see hide nor hair of him during a very important by-election. I can also believe that the Treasurer had been around the business community during the recess because I do not think he has been around middle Australia, and I do not think he has been in any of the marginal electorates that will determine the fate of his Government at the next election. If he had been around those marginal electorates he would have gathered a very clear idea of one fundamental fact-that the Australian Labor Party is utterly on the nose in middle Australia. Nobody represents that rejection of the Labor Government better than the present honourable member for Blaxland, the Treasurer of this country, because his policies, his Prime Minister and his Government have been seen to let down Australian families, Australian individuals, Australian farmers and Australian small businesses. It is a tired government. It has lost direction. It has lost touch with ordinary people, and middle Australia is hurting a great deal under this Government. Interest rates have gone up, inflation has gone up, taxes have gone up, debt has gone up, and the dollar has gone down. All of this is the legacy of the man who could not even fulfil what a Federal Court of Australia judge described as a fundamental obligation of an ordinary citizen. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) may want to think that chapter is closed, but I can assure him on behalf of the constituents of middle Australia that that chapter is far from closed. There was one thing that the Treasurer said during Question Time with which I agreed. He said that this country faces a parlous balance of payments situation. He was absolutely right. He hit the nail right on the head when he said that this country faces a parlous balance of payments situation. It is not a time for anybody to advance irresponsible economic alternatives or instant fix economic propositions; it is a time when the Australian public are looking for a credible, responsible alternative to the present Government. That credible, responsible alternative has to be built around a credible, responsible, believable economic package. A number of things constitute a believable economic package. The first thing we have to do is to have a mini-Budget in May and do something about expenditure. People talk a lot about cutting tax. I will say again to the House that we cannot cut tax in this country unless we are prepared to take the knife to government spending. People who pretend otherwise are misleading themselves and the Australian public. We say again to the Treasurer: `You bring in a mini-Budget in May and if you are prepared to cut the Commonwealth's outlays to the tune of 3 or 4 per cent in real terms you will get support from the Opposition, you will not get condemnation. If you want to do something to ease interest rates and to put a floor under the dollar at the same time you will adopt a responsible fiscal policy, because up to date you certainly have not done it'. That is the first thing that has to be done to redress what is happening to the economy. The second thing we have to have is a fundamentally reformed Australian taxation system. I do not yield from anything I have said in the past about what should underlie the reform of the Australian taxation system. We need a simpler taxation system, one that is based upon expenditure reductions, with a more intelligent mix between direct and indirect taxes. We need to get rid of the incentive deadening effects of the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the lump sum tax on superannuation. The Treasurer begs the Opposition not to be populist, but he is a craven populist when he accuses every one of his opponents on the taxation front of being a friend of the taxation cheats. He knows as well as everybody in this House that I did more to smash the tax avoidance industry than any Treasurer since Federation. I do not apologise for having done that because I am not prepared to stand by and see ordinary people carry a tax burden that has been shifted upon them by the misdeeds of the greedy and those people who would despoil the reputation of capitalism. We need a reformed taxation system; a taxation system based upon putting greater incentive; one that walks away from the existing progressive taxation system; one that is far flatter in terms of personal rate scales; and one that has a more intelligent mix between direct and indirect taxes. We need also urgently to lift totally all of the existing restrictions on foreign investment, except in one or two extremely sensitive areas such as media ownership. If we were to do that we would bring about a recycling and replacement of debt and investment to the benefit of our long term balance of payments situation. It is absolutely essential for the Government to go much further than it has in the area of freeing up foreign investment. The fourth thing we have to do is to be willing to free up Australia's overregulated and excessively controlled labour markets. I remember a year ago when my colleagues and I were talking about freeing up the labour market and talking about reform. What did the Government, newspapers, commentators and trade unions say? They said that we could not do it, that we would not even get a policy through our joint party room. They said that blood would flow out under the door as we debated the policy. They said that it would divide the Liberal Party down the middle and that it would divide the Liberal Party from the National Party. We produced the policy and it has drawn overwhelming support from the Australian business community. It has been endorsed by the Confederation of Australian Industry, farmers, small business, the Business Council of Australia and by those who want a new deal in industrial relations. Even more significantly, major industrial figures in the labour movement, such as Charlie Fitzgibbon, have talked about the very things that underpin our policy. If ever there was an example of what was seen as radical at the beginning of last year becoming the conventional mainstream of a political debate, it is what the Liberal and National parties propose in the area of industrial relations. Absolutely fundamental to that policy is one very important principle; that is, that the trade unions of this country must be brought within the reach of the ordinary laws of this country. One of the greatest legislative achievements of the Fraser Government was the introduction of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. I remember it well because I was the Minister responsible, if honourable members will forgive me for saying so. Without that section it would never have been possible for Jay Pendarvis to have had his triumph at Mudginberri, because that was the legislative backing for Pendarvis's triumph. That triumph has been rightly hailed as a new dawn in industrial relations. Mr N.A. Brown —Who opposed it? Mr HOWARD —It was opposed by the present Prime Minister and, I regret to say, many sections of the business community. It was opposed by the then leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). Not only did section 45D play a very important part in the Mudginberri dispute; it also played a very important part in the historic victory of the Queensland Government over power workers in that State, which is the other significant milestone along the hard march towards a far better industrial relations system in this country. That piece of legislation has played a very important role. That is the fourth thing that we need if we are to improve this country's economy. The fifth thing that we need-I think that there may be some measure of bipartisanship on this-is a significant boost to the migrant intake of this country. We should not be ashamed to say it. We know in our hearts that it is the right thing to do. We know that migration to this country has enormously boosted our economic growth. We know that without further migration we will not realise the growing economy and provide a greater level of demand for the goods produced by our manufacturers. The final thing that we need in order to start turning around the Australian economy, and which constitutes an element of our policy, is to make a massive assault on the lather and the layers of regulations that constrict and constrain the business community and many aspects of the Australian commercial sector. That assault must not be restricted only to the Federal Government; it also needs to reach into the activities of State and local government. My experience in politics is that State and local governments are the greatest regulators of all. Regulation at a State and local government level needs to be significantly attacked and assaulted. Not only do we need to attack that regulation; we also need to go much further in freeing up areas such as transport and communications. The Government's media proposals have a number of basic flaws. One is that they maintain the ridiculous barriers that exist on entry. If people are really worried about concentration of media ownership, they should be prepared to free up the barriers to entry. They should allow more players on to the field and not allow the existing players to wax fatter. If the Government is serious about freeing up the system, and if it wants a diversity, that is what it should be prepared to do. The Government has been a miserable economic failure. Over the Christmas recess, it found the false dawn that it promised us. The Government said that the trade account would turn around. It said that things were getting better. All of that was exploded by what happened over the past two months. This Treasurer has presided over an inflation rate which in relative terms is the worst that this country has had since the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was formed. The trade figure released yesterday is the worst January trade figure that this country has ever had. One may well ask when on earth his fabled J-curve is going to arrive. How much longer must the Australian community wait for the Treasurer's J-curve? How much longer can the Australian community put up with month after month of promises that it will get better next month? We were told in December that the dawn had arrived. We were told that everything was starting to turn around, but what have we found over the Christmas recess? We have found that we have double digit inflation which is not twice that of our trading partners, not three times that of our trading partners but four to five times that of our trading partners. We have also found that we are back on the rack of $1 billion to $1.5 billion current account deficits every month. This is the legacy of the man who the Prime Minister certifies to us today is going to remain Treasurer until the next election. All I can say is pity help Australia. It might boost the electoral prospects of the Opposition for him to remain Treasurer until the next election, but pity help Australia. This is the man who was too ashamed to go into his own electorate during a by-election. They kept him on holidays until the Sunday after the by-election. They trotted him out the day after. They kept him well and truly under wraps in his own electorate. They were not even prepared to send him into his own electorate in that special car he has, with the darkened glass. It is no wonder they kept him under wraps, because I can tell this Parliament and the people of Australia that this Treasurer has failed. He is seen as a wrecker and a destroyer of the living standards of average Australians; he is seen as a man who has abandoned the very battlers that he craves acceptance as a representative of; and he is seen as a man who has wreaked havoc upon and pillaged the Australian economy. He and his Prime Minister will be thrown out at the first available opportunity. Mr KEATING(-Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.33) —Mr Deputy Speaker, whatever the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) may think of me, I will be around long enough to see him rolled in the political dustbin. The speech we just heard had a melancholy quality to it. It sounded like a political valedictory, a recital of objectives once sought by a more ambitious politician who is now seeing those objectives leave him and become unattainable, a recital of objectives without means, impractical views clothed with emotional rhetoric. Why is all this recital of the things that the Leader of the Opposition once stood for relevant today? The answer is that he has lost the political supremacy of the conservative forces in this country. It has been taken away from him. The only reason why Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen is running wild, pushing his conservative philosophy and his opportunist views, is that Howard is no good. He is not up to the job of leading the coalition parties. That is why. Joh has smelt the weakness and filled the void, and he has pressured a weak Leader of the National Party into denouncing an even weaker Leader of the Liberal Party and all he stands for in terms of his tax policies and his economic program. Like a dentist going over someone else's bad work, I have gone over the Leader of the Opposition's bad work. He knows I know about the fabric of the Australian economy. I know where the tears and the stitches are because I have had my hands on it for four years. It really makes me sick to read a matter of public importance such as this. The Leader of the Opposition refers to the disastrous impact on families, farmers and small businesses. He then refers to high taxes, high interest rates, inflation and all the rest. Let us recite the facts. In years of massively advantageous terms of trade compared with now, when oil prices were up, when coal prices were up and when iron ore prices were up-when all of our great commodity prices were up-and when we had all of the new revenue from Bass Strait, when this man had an opportunity to remodel Australia, get if off the back of international debt and rebuild its secondary structure, he was quite happy to jump on the rhetoric of the resources boom, he was quite happy to see the secondary structure fall apart, he was quite happy to sit and watch the current account deficit slowly start to grow, he was quite happy not to tell Australians that they could not have a recurrent living standard built upon overseas savings, and he was quite happy that the current account deficit in 1981-82 was 6 per cent of gross domestic product. He knew that any perceived improvement in 1982-83 and 1983-84 was simply because of his recession, because it cut imports and there was no attendant real improvement in the current account. He knew he had put us on the inexorable road to debt. He had no wages policy, so he overvalued the exchange rate. The farmers he talks about in this cheap matter of public importance were the people who were robbed of decent prices during the 1970s by an overvalued dollar. He knows that. He knows at the same time that his failure to control wages and hence inflation and interest rates robbed Australians of their living standards over the years and pushed three-quarters of a million of them into the poverty of unemployment. That is his record. If this were any other parliament in the world, or, if we operated under almost any other political system, he would not have the hide to show his face and talk about economic policy and no party with any respect would elect him as its leader. But the Opposition has and the fact that it did now matters for naught because he stands bereft of any political authority. That is the truth. Australia is in a period of almost unparalleled problems in terms of its trade accounts. It is in a period when tomfoolery with fiscal policy will not be tolerated on the financial market. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —The thing that the Liberal Party has never reckoned upon is that this Government and this Government alone is the first to live with the discipline of a floating exchange rate, to wear the daily assessment of the international markets. That is something those opposite never lived with. They always cheated on the exchange rate by overvaluing it. They cheated on fiscal policy and they cheated on monetary policy. They would never put interest rates at their proper levels so they could sell the required number of bonds to soak up liquidity. Their monetary policy always ran way over target as they financed one property boom or inflationary surge after another. They always cheated. They went for protection when they should not have. They, as a coalition, always cheated on the fabric of the Australian economy. This Government came along and said: `Right, if we are going to do anything with this country we need to expose it to the fresh breezes of international competition. We will wear the discipline, wear the burden, of a floating exchange rate; we will open it up to the criticisms of fiscal policy, wages policy and monetary policy, and we will silence those criticisms by making the appropriate policy changes'. That is what this Government is doing. But the Opposition parties thought that because they always had the people out there running business, who were once the old Establishment and who all carried Liberal Party tickets in their pockets, they were immune to economic forces. Let me say this to them: Much of what they say now is based on those views, but the people on the Reuters screens in Melbourne or Sydney, or Tokyo or New York, would not care whether people hold tickets in the Gordon branch of the Liberal Party, whether they are born to rule or whether they are just remnants of Australia's failed upper class. They could not care less and they will strike members of the Opposition down in two seconds if they follow a stupid, crazy fiscal policy. The Leader of the Opposition now stands with a $7.8 billion set of tax promises. The honourable member for North Sydney interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr KEATING —A $7.8 billion addition to the Budget deficit would send the financial markets into a frenzy. They would squash this country with interest rates the likes of which we have never seen. They would damn us to a recession the likes of which would only be a repeat of the Great Depression, with an interest rate structure which would be punishing. People will not tolerate the kind of fiscal stupidity which is part and parcel of the Opposition's stated policy, and while those opposite may think there is some cheap support for their chopping the top end tax rate, basically the hard assessors, the international assessors, would give them the thumbs down in 24 hours if ever they thought their policies could become reality. Today we saw one of the principal revenue planks of the Opposition-the consumption tax proposal-torn from under the Leader of the Opposition. Notice that today he has already changed the language. Ever adaptable, the India rubber man, he has turned around and he is now talking about a more intelligent balance between direct and indirect tax. There is no more talk about a consumption tax or a retail turnover tax because Sinkers has sunk it, on the word of Joh. The Leader of the Opposition stands there now with basically no fiscal policy. On top of that, he says that what we need is some tax decency. But, in a contradiction in terms, he says: `We will repeal the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, the disallowance of the tax deductibility for entertainment expenses and negative gearing-the lot'. In other words, in gestures of indecency he would wipe out the equitable tax reforms of this Government. He talked about the need to flatten the tax system-in other words, to give the people on high incomes an increase in their living standards when the nation's national income is going down. That is all it is. If one is talking about a flatter tax system one is talking about lower rates of tax for high income earners, who have already got a tax cut from this Government, when the nation's income is coming down. One is talking about tax cuts and higher living standards when one knows one could never pay for them. The Leader of the Opposition talked about wages policy. His remarks had a melancholy quality as did those of John Howard at the National Press Club in 1984 when he said that we needed a deregulated labour market. We have the British craft union structure; we do not have industry unions. If one goes, all go. The Leader of the Opposition has not faced that fact. He is still going on with this nonsense as if something different would happen. We would quickly have a situation similar to that in 1981 all over again. The climate of restraint would be gone. When members of the Liberal Party stand up and say that they want to give the rich a tax cut when the country is going through a period of economic problem, when people in the wage system have been making sacrifices for four years-five years if we count 1982-83-and when we are cutting outlays and programs, they try to tear the whole fabric of restraint away. They are sabotaging the whole climate of restraint. Do they not realise that? The more noble objective of trying to get the nation to live within its means is being put asunder by their quest for the response of greed. We have a group of millionaires putting their hands out. They have been paying less than their fair share of tax and through Joh and the Leader of the Opposition they are trying to shanghai the Federal Government into giving them tax cuts at the expense of the poor. That is what the Opposition is proposing. That is not tenable in this country in these circumstances. The Leader of the Opposition stands up and says that we need a better wage policy and a better tax policy. What does he mean by a better wages policy? Does he mean further wage cuts for those at the lower end while people at the top end, the high income professionals and the millionaires, get tax cuts when the value of their property, their stock on the stock market and the profits of their companies have risen inexorably. Is that what members of the Opposition really stand for? The Opposition talks about a media policy. I remind the Opposition that it gave Frank Packer and the Melbourne Herald the two-station rule, pretending that two stations in Sydney and Brisbane are the same as two stations at Mount Isa and Broken Hill. They are not. That was a rort. This Government has changed the situation. It is decontrolling the media. No longer will the print barons control television. But the Opposition cannot even see any decency in that. The fact is that members of the Opposition are not-as the Leader of the Opposition said in his opening remarks-a credible, responsible alternative; they are incredible and irresponsible and they have no alternative. That is the fact of the matter. The Leader of the Opposition talked about my being a craven populist. If anyone wants to be a craven populist he should stay away from fringe benefits tax, abolition of tax deductibility of entertainment expenses, capital gains tax and the hard changes the Opposition never had the decency to introduce. He should stay away from the things that matter. The Leader of the Opposition tried to make cheap points about high inflation. The Leader of the Opposition must know, and I remind him, that the price of imports has risen by 50 per cent in the last two years because of the depreciation of the Australian dollar. That impacts on our consumer price index. It gives our traded goods sector the chance to lift its prices, therefore to draw investment to it, therefore to turn the current account around. It is a necessary part of the process of adjustment. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. He knows that the wage policies in place will pull the present inflation rate down rapidly. At the end of that process we will have a far more dynamic and competitive economy. Yet the Leader of the Opposition took cheap shots about inflation and high taxes. He sat back with a 60 per cent marginal tax rate and did nothing about it. Now the 49 per cent rate is not good enough for him! He says it has to go to 40 per cent. He did not change the 60 per cent rate. With all the new money out of Bass Strait, he did nothing about outlay changes and he did nothing about the double tax on dividends which had been in place since 1936. For all those years business asked: `Why should we be penalised because we are a company? Why do we have to pay tax twice? Why do you not relieve the double tax on dividends?'. Did the Leader of the Opposition do that? No, it did not happen until the Labor Government came along. It was the second government in the world to take such action. We said: `We will give you a total relief of tax for a corporate rate of 49 per cent'. West Germany is the only other country in the world with a full imputation, for a corporate rate of 56 per cent. But no, that is not good enough! The Leader of the Opposition does not believe in imputation. He did not take such action. He says that the 49 per cent, 40 per cent, 29 per cent, and 24 per cent rates are not good enough; we must grease the tracks for the millionaires whose net wealth has gone up enormously. Mr Carlton —What is this about populists? Mr KEATING —This is about fact. The honourable member had his chance. He was a Minister in the last coalition Government. John Howard was the Treasurer. He had the chance to do all this. He was not living through the kinds of fiscal disciplines this Government is living through. He never had to bring a deficit down from 5 per cent of gross domestic product to 1.4 per cent of GDP; we did. We have cut the tax rates, we have got rid of the double tax on dividends and we alone have removed the poverty traps for the poor in the bottom end of the social security system. Right across the spectrum-high taxes, high interest rates, high inflation and massive foreign debt-the previous Government did nothing about these problems. The fundamental problem of our lack of competitiveness springs from the Howard years. The growth of our debt started in that time and has increased inexorably since. We now see an Opposition without any thread of credibility, without any policy framework. I repeat, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was melancholy. It sounded as though it was simply a recital of the things he once wanted and stood for and which he can see all slipping away. He is right. It is slipping away and he will slip away. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) will also slip away and if many honourable members opposite are not careful they will slip away with them. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.48) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Government members-Where's Joh? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer was heard in relative silence. I would hope that the Leader of the National Party also would be heard in silence. Mr SINCLAIR —I am a bit disappointed; I thought Gerry Hand might have come in to see whether Gordon Scholes had moved aside. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) came into the House and talked about being a dentist. He talked about looking over somebody's old work. If I had that sort of a dentist looking over me in a patient's chair I would want a lock and key on my gold fillings. Over the last three years all we have seen has been a progressive decline. We all know that our country is now more than ever in need of economic direction. We are going flat out down a one way street the wrong way. We all know that the Treasurer's record, above all, bears little scrutiny. Indeed, people need to remember that it is now more than three years since the Labor Government came to office. The result is that Australia is now in a significantly worse economic position and so is each Australian. We all know that the Treasurer has been able to increase his public sector borrowings by $24,000m in his three Budgets. We know that his Government has lifted interest rates over those three years, over his three Budgets, from fifth to second in the items of expenditure. We know that because of his performance every statistic today sees Australia having lost that advantage which the wages pause, which the last coalition Government introduced, would have given us in overcoming our problems. We know that the benefit of the international revival which this Government enjoyed in 1983 was blown by the big spending, big taxing polices of the Hawke Labor Government. We know that since 1983 the situation for the mums and dads and the kids of Australia is worse than it ever had been. If anyone is in doubt, I think it is worth remembering the fundamental problem that not one of those areas that the Treasurer was speaking about sees an ordinary Australian better off. Indeed the Treasurer, who has just spoken to us, has not even realised that a taxpayer on average weekly earnings who in 1983 was paying 17 1/2c in every dollar in tax will be paying 20.5c in every dollar in tax after the proposed second round of tax cuts in July. None of these people are the high fliers that the Treasurer is talking about. An Australian on average weekly earnings needs $15 a week more in tax cuts just to bring him back to where he was in 1983. So much for the much vaunted tax reform that the Treasurer has just been talking about. We probably need to remember that there is a lot more to it than that. I am interested in the childish behaviour of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It is about as irrational as that of a man who has the responsibility of the most senior political office in this country being cut off radio because he made a bit of a joke that everybody in the radio station was embarrassed to hear him make. Here he is, holding it up. It is great! That is the sort of childish behaviour we would expect from somebody on the back bench. It is interesting that while the Treasurer is trying to get his tax returns done and while the Prime Minister is playing around the golf course Australia is going to the poor house. We need to worry about the present massive loss of our economic lifeblood through the current account deficit. Yesterday's figures were the watershed for the Hawke Government-nearly $1,300m. There has been all this talk about the J-curve. We heard over the last two months about the current account deficit publication and how suddenly imports were down and exports were up and that all Australians could expect the picture to change. But what happened yesterday? The moment of truth arrived for the Prime Minister. Suddenly we saw the inability of the Prime Minister's Government to escape and not from the consequences of its chronic balance of payments problem caused by other countries. This is the man who pretends to be Prime Minister. Honourable members will remember the `yap, yap' of men of yesterday. I suggest to this man that if he is unable to assume properly the mantle of being Prime Minister, it is about time we had the election that he has been considering over the last few weeks. He will find defeat very ignominious. I suggest that the blowout in our domestic deficit and our Budget deficit, high interest rates, massive taxes, wages and on-costs that are way out of line with those around the world, an inflation rate four to five times higher than that of comparable countries, pricing us out of world markets, and, above all, the steady increase in already massive government spending are the real causes of the economic malaise in this country. The reality is not the overseas market that he complains about, but his high taxing, high spending, wage conciliatory approach has given to this country a heritage which, sadly, is leading many Australians backwards. If he thinks it is all a great farce, I invite him to come up to my electorate or to any of those farming electorates where the wheat growers, the rice growers, the dairymen and the sugar growers of Australia are finding it harder and harder to survive; where the small businessmen-big businessmen yesterday and small businessmen today-will be bankrupt tomorrow and why? It is because this Government is driving them into an impossible economic condition. The Prime Minister thought he was being very funny during Question Time. He talked about the rate of increase in Queensland. He failed to realise that the rate of increase to which he referred was a figure taken over three years. His achievement is a 35 per cent increase in bankruptcies over the same period last year. Over a 12-month period the Hawke Government has achieved a 35 per cent increase in bankruptcies over the preceding period. We know that, sadly, we are looking down the throat of a new record, of reaching 8,000 for the full year. We know that our current account deficit in 1986 was the worst for 35 years. In 1987 it is again expected to be the second largest, after the United States, for the whole of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Yet this man has the hide-he has left, and thank goodness for that-to go over to Switzerland and to lecture countries such as Japan and Germany and the countries of the European Community whose inflation rates and interest rates are so much lower than ours. It would be far better if this man stayed at home and learned a few basic sums. The basic requirement of this country is that taxes must be reduced. We have a government whose revenues have increased by 61 per cent, from $44 billion in the last Fraser-Anthony Budget, introduced by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), to $71 billion in the revenue receipts of the last Keating Budget. The reality is that this Government is host to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Apart from all those other things, apart from its tax record, apart from its spending record, we now have, in mark III of an accord, which is better called the discord, a 14.4 per cent wage demand which is going to drive even more small businessmen and more farmers out of operation in any sort of a profitable way. The real problem is that wherever we go in Australia average Australians are being affected by the creation of this Government. It is not the product of other countries, it is the product of the Hawke Government. The three Budgets of this Labor Government have completely blown the tremendous opportunity that it had when it came into office in 1983. Let me reiterate: The drought broke, the world economy improved and the Government had the enormous benefit of the 12-month wages pause, introduced by the previous coalition Government. Not only has all that gone but today ordinary Australians, on average weekly earnings, would need a $15 a week increased tax cut before they would be in the same position they were in only three years ago. Sadly, the problem is not only there. We know, from figures for the commencement of homes and from the car industry, that in the Inter- national Year of Shelter for the Homeless every one of the statistics is worse. The public housing waiting list stands at 160,000 today; 60 per cent higher than when Labor came into office. But the sad part is not the effect on the pockets of the more affluent of our community, it is the effect on the pockets of ordinary Australians. Unless fundamentally different policies are adopted, Australia is going to go down the gurgle hole. What Australia needs now, more than ever, is direction. Mothers want security for their children. Prime Minister Hawke has given an economic speech. The Hawke-Keating combination is an unmitigated, unreliable, unnecessary and unacceptable disaster. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(3.58) —The sad thing really is that we are seeing the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), going down without much of a fight. In all my time in the Parliament, I have found that whatever one has felt about him when he is under pressure he usually delivers. But what we have heard today is a speech in which there has been absolutely no content. That is the fundamental problem with the Opposition. It is quite unable to cope with the pressures of opposition. It is unable to do the kind of disciplined work which is needed to produce any sort of detailed alternative policy. The Leader of the National Party reflects that malaise; an inability to come to terms with the hard questions that this Government has had to face, and any government would have to face, when governing during periods of very difficult economic circumstances. The first thing to be said about our period in government is that we have seen improvement in employment and growth, and that is the fundamental thrust of what we are about. We have seen results in the aggregate figures between 1982-83 and 1985-86. Real gross domestic product grew by 14.1 per cent. That meant a real increase in the after tax incomes of households, which grew by 12.4 per cent over the same period. In terms of the capacity within the Australian community to support family living standards, we need to look no further than at a recent survey by the Reserve Bank of Australia which showed a 51 per cent increase in corporate profits in Australia between 1983-84 and 1985-86. That occurred at the same time as a recognition by the trade union movement in this country, and I believe by most sections of the Australian community, that there needed to be a considerable degree of restraint. That restraint has been delivered in terms of wages-not so that those profits would be dissipated, but so that investment could continue to occur, to rebuild the Australian economy, and so that it would be possible to achieve some direction of expenditure in relation to the average living standards of Australian people. That theme of fairness, which we have seen throughout the life of this Government, is never reflected in the Opposition's policies. When Opposition members talk about incentive, they are talking about more incentive for people at the higher end of the spectrum who are already getting significant tax cuts. Opposition members do not talk about incentive for or assistance to people in the middle or low income groups. It would be extraordinary at this point in time if one were to advocate seriously policies to deliver the kinds of tax cuts that are being promised in the rhetoric of the Opposition's policy. Of course, all we have at present from the Opposition is ever more confusing rhetoric. We have failed to get from the Opposition at any point a real policy decision. We get words, and then the words are contradicted: Sometimes they are contradicted by the Liberal Party; sometimes by the wet side; sometimes by the dry side; sometimes by the National Party here, and sometimes by Joh in Queensland. There are always different voices, different messages and different themes; but it is all empty rhetoric. There is never anything of substance. Meanwhile, the think tanks are beavering away and producing ideas that are being knocked over in the Liberal Party room, in the National Party room, by Joh or by some combination of all three. What are the Opposition's policies? What can we really expect from the Opposition? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said today that the first thing on his agenda-what he is really about-is to achieve much greater cuts in expenditure than have been achieved by the present Government. He said that the deep knife has to go in. The shadow Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), suggested that there have to be program cuts-deep cuts into some of the major programs of government. It is difficult to understand, as we do not get any indications or statements from it, what the Opposition is about. But let us look at what the think tanks are coming up with. We know from a report in the Australian Financial Review this morning that the Centre of Policy Studies has been given $1m to help to develop policies for the Liberal Party of Australia. Spending cuts of the order of $5 billion are proposed to finance tax cuts for people on the very highest of incomes. What are the proposed cuts? The Centre talks about the reintroduction of substantial tertiary fees and an amount of $1 billion; a reduction in superannuation tax expenditure saving $1 billion in terms of retirement income; income testing of family allowances saving $500m; greater application of social insurance principles to unemployment and cuts in terms of unemployment benefits of half a billion dollars. Alternatively, we can look more towards another one of those think tanks, and no doubt a very influential one, given the influential role of John Hyde, which, in its publication entitled `Mandate to Govern: A handbook for the next Australian Government', made a number of other suggestions to the Opposition as to where it might achieve those deep program cuts. It suggested that we could end bulk billing and change the method of calculating Medicare rebates-in other words, to destroy Medicare; a 12.5 per cent cut in funding for universities and colleges, with the reintroduction of fees, and a new voucher system for secondary education; skipping one or more of the indexation adjustments of pensions and benefits; tapering family allowances; winding up the community employment program; terminating the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement; winding up the first home owners scheme; removing all interest rate controls; and abolishing the Department of Housing and Construction. One of the things about John Hyde is that there is a certain degree of honesty about him. We thought that was so about the Leader of the Opposition. It was thought that Honest John Howard was someone who would tell us where things were really at, where he was going and what he would do. But again today he called for deep cuts, significant cuts. The Liberal Party's ex-leader, its future leader, the honourable member for Kooyong, who left because he would not say what he was really about, also called for program cuts. But where do we get any concrete proposals? This morning the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) was involved in an interview with Julian Disney, the President of the Australian Council of Social Service Inc. The honourable member for Richmond was asked to state what the Opposition's policy is. But, of course, the honourable member for Richmond would not say what his policy is because he does not have a policy. He may have attitudes; he may have feelings; he may love the world. But he will not say one significant word about the Opposition's policy, except to make very clear and to defend the Opposition's very specific decision to repeal our taxes. The ACOSS news release states: In the course of discussion with the Opposition we will continue to emphasise our total rejection of proposals to weaken or abolish the existing taxes on fringe benefits, capital gains and lump sum superannuation payments. These proposals would inevitably disadvantage hundreds of thousands of families with children, especially those on low and middle incomes. It was very impressive to see Julian Disney, the President of ACOSS, look at both sides of the equation. Sure, he wants to see the Government do more in the area of expenditure on families. But he was prepared to look at the other side of the equation. He was prepared to come up with proposals which would contain some balance. We will never get that from the Opposition because it does not want such specific or concrete policies because, if its policies become specific or concrete, they become absurd. That is what the Premier of Queensland is; he is absurd. He has put up propositions which have no substance whatever. He runs around the country with his wild propositions and he is wreaking absolute havoc on the other side of the House. No one on the other side of the House, including the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Richmond and the honourable member for Kooyong, is prepared to come in and say anything specific or concrete about positive policies because the Opposition does not have such policies. That is not what Opposition members are working on. Opposition members are working on the numbers game. They are involved in constant battles to remove each other. It is as though there is some significant difference between the various factions of the Liberal Party, which have run absolutely riot in the Parliament. We have had members from the Opposition side come to tell members on this side of the House how the numbers are going and how soon they think there will be a change. But we know very well that it does not matter whether there is a change because there is no substance within the Opposition; it is empty. We on this side of the House share a belief in the basic intelligence of the Australian people. The Australian people recognise what the problems are that we have had to deal with and which have been outlined by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). They recognise that it is a time in which we have to make some hard decisions and in which some people have to give up what they have for the sake of overall fairness. People do recognise that and they are prepared to make that sacrifice. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, I present the second report of the Committee entitled `The Operation during the 1984 General Election of the 1983/84 Amendments to Commonwealth Electoral Legislation', incorporating three dissenting reports, together with the minutes of the proceedings. I ask for leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with this report. Leave granted. Mr MacKELLAR —The report I have just tabled is the second report from the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform appointed for this Parliament. The Committee, in March 1985, decided to review the operation of the 1983-84 amendments to the Electoral Act in the light of the experience of the 1984 general election. The report I have just tabled is the result of that inquiry. Honourable members will already have received a copy of the report, which was authorised for distribution by Madam Speaker during the summer adjournment pursuant to the resolution of the House on 27 November last. The inquiry found that the 1983 reforms had been effectively implemented and resulted in major improvements to the operation of the Commonwealth electoral system. Consequently, despite the fact that 156 recommendations are made in the report, it does not propose radical or dramatic changes. The recommendations relate to fine tuning rather than a general overhaul of the Electoral Act. The first recommendation proposes that future parliaments should appoint a joint standing committee to overview the electoral process and to monitor the work of the Australian Electoral Commission. As a statutory authority independent of direct control by the Government, the Australian Electoral Commission operates in a political vacuum. This inquiry has demonstrated that a forum in which the AEC can test party political and public opinion on proposals it has under consideration is a useful safety valve for the Commission. The Committee found that the 1984 redistribution of electoral divisions was undertaken and completed by the AEC in a most efficient and satisfactory fashion. It makes some recommendations in the report which relate almost entirely to improving the mechanics of the process of future redistributions. With regard to the electoral rolls and their maintenance, the Committee is proposing that the information on the rolls should be more accessible. As well as the hard copy of the electoral rolls now available to the public for purchase, the AEC should be permitted to sell magnetic tapes and microfiche at commercial rates. The Committee is also proposing that, as well as the elector's name and address, the publicly available information on the roll should be extended to include the gender, occupation and date of birth of the elector. This would not involve electors providing any additional information to the Electoral Commission beyond the information now provided on the electoral claim card. Honourable members will recall that gender and occupation were printed on the rolls prior to 1983 and that their removal engendered some dissatisfaction which was reflected in the submissions received. The report emphasises the importance of the maintenance of the rolls for the integrity of the electoral process. To ensure that rolls are up to date, the Committee recommends that annual habitation reviews should be undertaken by the AEC. This would ensure that electors are enrolled correctly for their divisions. The Committee reviewed the position of prisoners and their entitlement to the franchise. Currently, prisoners under sentence for an offence punishable by sentence of imprisonment for five years or more are not entitled to the Commonwealth franchise. The report proposes that the franchise be extended to all prisoners except those convicted of treason. There is a dissenting recommendation on that point. With regard to the registration of parties and candidates, the Committee has recommended the repeal of Part XII of the Electoral Act which requires the registration of political candidates. The inquiry found that this register served no useful purpose as it is essentially a duplication of the nomination for candidature process. These processes caused much extra work and expense for all concerned and no real benefit accrued from it. Part XI, registration of political parties, is not affected by this recommendation. The Committee considered whether patients in hospitals and people in nursing homes should continue to have a postal vote where they have access to mobile polling. It concluded that they should retain this right. Mobile polling facilities should, however, be made comprehensive and provided at all hospitals and nursing homes. The Committee recommends that it be an offence under the Electoral Act for a person associated with the administration of a hospital or nursing home to influence a patient or inmate as to the candidate or candidates for whom that person would vote. The Committee received evidence from the AEC and political parties on the question of the high informal vote for the House of Representatives in the 1984 general election. The Committee concluded that the rise in the informal vote does not justify changes to the formality requirements of the voting system. Reduction of the informal vote will best be achieved by an educative program at each election to ensure that electors understand the complexities and differences between the voting systems of the two Houses of Parliament and the requirement to be observed for recording a formal vote. Some technical changes to the Senate scrutiny procedures are recommended. In chapter 8 of this report, the Committee considers the operation of the electoral funding and financial disclosure provisions of the Electoral Act. The Committee found that the system had operated effectively and recommendations made relate mainly to machinery aspects of the scheme. Problems had emerged in relation to the disclosure of gifts by third parties where these were channelled through intermediaries. The Committee concluded that these problems were amenable to solution through a process of negotiation. Should there be evidence of attempts to subvert the intention of the funding scheme by avoiding the clear intention of the scheme then the AEC should employ its investigative and coercive powers to the full to ensure that the scheme operates as intended. The Committee itself would respond to any evidence that the scheme was being undermined and, if necessary, invoke the investigative powers of the Parliament to expose attempts to undermine the scheme. A development of considerable importance for electoral law and practice generally was the dispute over the election for the Legislative Council Province of Nunawading at the 1985 State election in Victoria. In the last chapter of the report the Committee analyses in depth the decision of His Honour Mr Justice Starke in the Nunawading Court of Disputed Returns and the implications of His Honour's findings for the Commonwealth electoral system The report makes recommendations chiefly to ensure that ballots are not excluded from the scrutiny as a result of electoral officials' errors that led to the nullifying of the Nunawading election result. The report recommends that the Electoral Act be amended so that, in the event of a deadlocked election, the result no longer be determined by a Presiding Officer's casting vote. In future cases of deadlock there should be an immediate recount of votes and, if the deadlock persists, the Presiding Officer should declare the election accordingly deadlocked. Upon receipt of this advice the AEC would take action to file a petition disputing the election. In these circumstances the Court of Disputed Returns would be required to determine the case within three months and either declare a winner or order the election be held again. The Committee wishes to acknowledge the assistance provided by all those who have made submissions to the inquiry. It particularly wishes to thank Dr Colin Hughes, the Australian Electoral Commissioner; Mr Andrejs Cirulis, the Deputy Electoral Commissioner; and the staff of the AEC. As well as providing, very promptly, submissions on all aspects of the operations of the Electoral Act, the Commissioner and his staff have made themselves available at short notice to give evidence or consult with the Committee or to provide additional written responses to requests by Committee members for supporting information and analysis. The Committee also wishes to praise the AEC for the high quality of its research and analysis which is a contribution of great assistance to all Australians concerned with ensuring a continuance of the tradition of equitable electoral practices for Commonwealth elections. The Secretary of the Committee was Mr Donald Nairn and the report was typed by Mrs Elizabeth Kemp. The Committee is very grateful for their assistance. I commend the report to the House. Mr LEE(Dobell) —by leave-The second report by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform is a very important report. I hope that honourable members get time to study its recommendations in detail. I say `in detail' because 156 recommendations have been brought down by the Committee. It will require intensive work by honourable members if they are to appreciate all the recommendations we are putting before the House. I would like to associate myself with remarks made by the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), praising Mr Nairn, the Secretary of the Joint Select Committee, his support staff and the many organisations and individuals who made submissions to the Committee during its hearings. I would like to pay tribute also to the Australian Electoral Commission for the high quality of its submissions and, in particular, of the evidence which was given to the Committee on many occasions by Dr Colin Hughes, the Australian Electoral Commissioner; and Mr Andrejs Cirulis, the Deputy Electoral Commissioner. I would like to make a few brief comments about several of the Committee's more important recommendations. The first point I touch on is the Committee's recommendation that the Electoral Act be amended to allow all prisoners to cast a vote in future elections. The current Act disqualifies persons convicted of an offence which has a maximum penalty of five years or more. The Electoral Commission reported to the Committee that it has had major problems in identifying which prisoners should be permitted to vote and which prisoners should be disqualified. The reason is simple. The Act requires prisoners to be disqualified from voting if the maximum penalty for their offence is more than five years. It does not refer to the actual penalty but to the maximum penalty which could have been applied by a judge. The prison authorities around Australia have great difficulty in telling the Electoral Commission the maximum penalty which corresponds to the offence for which a particular prisoner was sentenced. The Committee concluded that prisoners, like all other citizens, should be forced to meet their civil and political obligations by being required to vote at all elections. I was pleased to note that one of the first comments yesterday by the new Special Minister of State, Senator Michael Tate, was his call for an increase in the level of enrolment from young Australians. One of the more innovative amendments to the Electoral Act in 1983 was the provision for provisional enrolment. I can see that that has the support of my colleague the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen), who is nodding her head at the moment. The Parliament's decision to allow young Australians to obtain provisional enrolment when they turn 17 allowed almost 4,000 more young Australians to vote. The provision worked this way: People were able to enrol when they were 17-before they turned 18-but they were not allowed to cast a vote unless they turned 18 before the date of the election. Four thousand young Australians who were 17 at the close of the rolls-when they were no longer able to submit an electoral enrolment form-who filled out provisional enrolment forms and who turned 18 before the date of the election were able to cast a vote because we allowed provisional enrolment for 17-year-olds. That measure also has the endorsement of the Committee. The Committee has also made several recommendations for voting in nursing homes. There was a lot of discussion within the Committee about what were the best procedures to be adopted for people in nursing homes. I am glad to say that, while there was a lot of debate in the Committee, the final recommendation had the support of all members of the Committee. That recommendation provided for mobile polling facilities to be provided wherever possible in all hospitals and nursing homes so that voting by residents of nursing homes, wherever possible, could be supervised by officials of the Electoral Commission, whose impartiality is beyond question. The Committee has also recommended that it be made an offence for a proprietor of a nursing home or a staff member of a nursing home to seek to influence a patient when that patient is seeking to cast a vote. That recommendation certainly has my endorsement. The Committee has also recommended that the penalty for not voting be increased. While at the moment the Act provides for a maximum fine of $50 to be imposed by a court, through administrative measures the Electoral Commission can apply a maximum fine of only $4 to anyone who has failed to vote. In many cases that does not even cover the costs of inward and outward correspondence to those people who have neglected to cast a vote. The Electoral Commission submitted that this was ridiculously low. I agree with its analysis. The Committee, by a majority-I am sad to say that we did not have the support of the Liberal and National parties on this measure-recommended that that administrative penalty be increased to a maximum of $20. I think that is a reasonable fine which the Electoral Commission can apply through administrative measures. Following the 1984 election, when there was a large increase in the level of informal voting for the House of Representatives, there was a lot of debate in Australia. In fact, the level of informal voting for the House of Representatives on average throughout Australia increased from 2.1 per cent to 6.4 per cent. That massive increase was very disturbing to many members of the Committee. The good news was that the level of informal voting for the Senate fell markedly because of the introduction of the list voting system. In fact, the level of informal voting for the Senate fell from 9.9 per cent in 1983 to only 4.3 per cent at the 1984 election. The Electoral Commission carried out an analysis of the informal votes for the lower House. Seventy-four per cent of the informal votes were due to people using ticks, crosses or defective numbering and in most cases they were informal because people placed only a number 1 next to their preferred candidate and forgot that for the House of Representatives one must extend a preference to all the other candidates. As the honourable member for Warringah has stated, the Committee has decided on balance not to recommend a change in the voting system but to recommend that the Electoral Commission improve its advertising prior to the next election and also seek to mail out to all electors detailed information on the voting procedures to ensure that wherever possible ordinary Australians will cast a formal vote. I commend the Committee's report to the House. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —I seek leave of the House to move a motion to discharge certain customs tariff proposals which were moved earlier and which constitute part of order of the day No. 113. These proposals were incorporated in the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986, which has now been assented to. Leave granted. Mr SCHOLES —I move: That Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 3 to 15 1986 constituting part of order of the day No. 113 Government Business be discharged. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 14 November, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill concurrently with the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1986. If there are no objections, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(4.27) —The purpose of the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill 1986 and the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1986, which are being debated cognately, is to allow the Australian Industry Development Corporation to opt out of the requirements to have a government guarantee in relation to its fixed interest raisings and to impose a one half of one per cent fee on government instrumentalities that use a government guarantee. An allowance is to be made in relation to the Commonwealth Bank insofar as this fee will apply only to overseas loans and will be one quarter of one per cent. Special consideration is given to the bank because of the interrelated dealings in currencies as well as foreign debt. The Opposition is not opposing these Bills. However, it would like to raise just a few matters that come up as a consequence of these Bills. The Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill seeks to implement the proposal introduced in the Budget to allow the Commonwealth to charge a percentage, not to exceed half of one per cent, of the amount that is borrowed on or after 1 July 1986 by Commonwealth business enterprises-in other words, Qantas Airways Ltd, Australia Post, Telecom Australia and the like. However, special arrangements have been made in relation to Commonwealth financial institutions. In the case of the AIDC the charge is to be one half of one per cent. However, as I said previously, the Corporation will be exempt, as it will be at its discretion whether it applies for this guarantee or not. It was always my understanding in the financial world that when Telecom came into the market it was a raising by a government instrumentality with a government guarantee, for which in those days there was presumably no charge, and special status was given to it. It was much easier for the stockbroker and the underwriter concerned to place Telecom in the market in earlier days. It is the responsibility of the underwriter not only to place the prime instrument but also to secure a secondary market in that particular stock. That is no small responsibility of an underwriter to a client-in this case Telecom because of its ongoing demand for money. Telecom is always in the market, it is a substantial borrower of funds throughout Australia. Its ability to raise money is related to the secondary market which must be created. It is in the creation of the secondary market that the use or non-use of the government guarantee is significant. As a government guarantee is applied to the current Telecom issue, or to any other government instrumentality, it is acceptable as a trustee security. That market is substantial and that type of security is used widely. If a government instrumentality opts not to use the government guarantee, quite clearly the market would have to take into account the desirability or the commercial degree of difference of a precise government guarantee and the implied government guarantee. Because Telecom is owned by the Government one must therefore assume that in the end, if it went bust, there would be a possibility of the government of the day being called upon to bail out that instrumentality. Having drawn the distinction between the guarantee and the non-guarantee, and having pointed to the secondary market and the high probability that a difference would develop on that market, I bring the House back to the price that will be charged. One half of one per cent is, in commercial terms, a substantial amount to be charged for a 10-year bond. In fact, a seven-year bond is Telecom's most common instrument in relation to a government guarantee. Most of the underwriting fees for government securities are of the order of 2 per cent, depending on the market conditions at the time. An extra half of one per cent is a high price to pay. Because of that point, it seems to me that the Commonwealth Treasury has unduly given itself some extra kudos or dividend from its own instrumentalities. Those users of these instrumentalities are, of course, the people who pay for the increased government charge that flows from it. That is one of the principal items I see from the use of government securities in that area. The development of the Australian bond market is a significant factor in this. In the late 1950s the Treasury established the official market deal in Australia. It was hard to get takers in every State to join the capital market. I can well remember that in Queensland they virtually had to give a guarantee to a broker to join in a syndicate in the first official money market operations. The people who dealt in that were required to deal in government securities. They had to be government securities and there was no doubt about the guarantee. As time went by and as the markets developed we saw the additional players come into focus. I can recall that when the unofficial market got going and the commercial papers started to come into this the degree of measurement of risk came about for the first time, and that the spread of interest between the government guarantee, the semi-government guarantee-semi-government securities-and the commercial paper had a traditional spread of 3 per cent. This brought about enormous development in the capital markets of Australia and led to the involvement of merchant banks in this particular area and in some stockbroking areas. The reason they did it was that they funded in this area government paper, semi-government papers in terms of city councils, shire councils and more latterly bills of exchange written by clients and endorsed by banks or straight bank paper or merchant banking paper. This development has added enormously to the cash liquidity in the Australian economy. The flow from that has had a great bearing on money supply growth and on the use of these instruments in the whole of the monetary policy in Australia. The Bill before us which allows the Government to charge in this area up to half of one per cent for the use of the government guarantee is in my view an additional impost in an area which has functioned particularly well for 20-odd years. The cost imposed is a very high charge of a guarantee which the market determines, in assessing the risk and the classification of a security between a government, semi-government and the commercial sector, to be far less than that. I hope that those who will use it will look to it in relation to those judgments. The Australian Industries Development Corporation has been exempted from the compulsory use of the government guarantee. It is its option under this Bill to come to the Treasurer to seek his guarantee. I commend this move. There is no doubt that in the market-place the AIDC is known as a government merchant bank. It is substantially funded by the taxpayers of Australia. If I recall correctly, its paid up capital is some $87.5m. It has operated for a number of years and has established a wide clientele. In view of that particular enterprise it has carried out it is time that people saw the AIDC for what it is. When we take the last profit and loss account of the AIDC-and from memory I think it made something like $17m-and place that against the paid up capital, we see that it is doing not much better than the Commonwealth bond rate. I suggest that operating on the scale it does, with the borrowings it has in that account to fund, the charge of an extra half of one per cent is just another government impost on a particular instrumentality which it does not want and is not necessary in the main. It is a straight obligation to pay. Having said that, I will comment briefly on the operations of the AIDC. When it first got under way there was no doubt in the market-places of Australia that it was the last stop. When one could not sell securities anywhere else, one tried the AIDC. There is no doubt that in the first 10 years that its security bag was well laden with dead wood. It is certainly a credit-- Dr Theophanous —That was your fault when you were in government. Mr MOORE —That is a funny way to look at it. I did not know that government ran an investment policy on the AIDC. It is a strange way to look at it. It is the responsibility of the executives of the AIDC to make the day to day decisions in relation to their investment program. It is its investment programs that have got that body into this peculiar position. It is to the credit of Mr Thomas, who has recently retired, that in looking at recent accounts most of the past debt appeared to have been washed out of the accounts and it is now in a much healthier position than it ever has been in its whole period of operation. I read a recent review of its activities. They are spread over a wide range of areas from Siddons Industries Ltd, Mildara Wines Ltd, a substantial role in the rationalisation of the white goods industry, right through to the Australian Biomedical Corporation Ltd-with which it is in partnership with Wormalds-to a commitment of $200m to Woodside Petroleum for a gas project which I guess weighs heavily in its balance sheet at the moment, and some substantial involvement in real estate development. Those activities strikes me as a very wide-ranging commercial involvement, which raises again the question of what the Government is doing owning an institution such as this, when the functions it performs can most readily, and probably more wisely, be carried on by the private sector. What is the purpose of an $87.5m capital injection to run an institution such as this, which has nothing more than a commercial interest, rather than any particular government policy about its type of development? If that is the case, all we are doing is promoting a Government instrumentality to compete in the merchant banking sector; a sector which is vastly oversupplied. The Government is going along with an AIDC arrangement which fails to meet any policy objectives, as far as I can see, and when the AIDC is no more than a competitor in the area of merchant banks. That being the case, I can see a wonderful opportunity for the taxpayers to be lightened of that commitment and of the total funding operations of the Corporation. Finally, I refer to interest rates in Australia, because the Bills before the House undoubtedly will have some impact on interest rates. In the past few years the importance of merchant banks and the financial markets has been seen by the Government, particularly in relation to the freeing of the exchange rate. As the Government has freed the exchange rate it has depended more and more on the use of official money market dealers and the Reserve Bank of Australia to hold the currency at certain deemed levels. There seems to be a remarkably close relationship between the Australian dollar and the US dollars and a lesser propensity to support the trade weighted index in relation to currencies, but a great propensity to hold the Australian dollar against the United States dollar. In view of those things, the importance of interest rates and the structure which the Government is using through the money markets to hold the currency come into play. It is worth while looking at the movements in interests rates which have occurred in the past two years on official Treasury bonds. We can see a movement from 11.8 per cent in September 1984 to 14.3 per cent one year later and 15.15 per cent in 1986; a constant move upwards. This is where the Government has failed completely, because in the movement of its prime interest rate setting instrument, the 10-year Commonwealth bond, it has forced the commercial interest rates out of the reach of the average user. It is no wonder that business is struggling and is not investing in capital development. Whilst I mentioned in a straight line the comparisons for September 1984, 1985 and 1986 in bonds, let us look at the comparisons for the prime rate for trading bank accounts for the same period. In 1984 it was 13.5 per cent; in 1985 it was 18.5 per cent; and in 1986 it was 19 per cent-a constant upward movement of the prime rate for three years running. Little wonder that people are complaining about the Government, the management of the economy and the general level of indifference of the Government. If one is paying a 19 per cent prime rate, God help the person who is looking for consumer credit and living on Bankcard and the like. It is no wonder that people are having difficulty in meeting their commitments and no wonder, that the circumstances in which the Government has allowed the official bond rate to be used to prop up the currency, that must inevitably flow down the road to prop up interest rates right across the board. I have pointed out the prime interest rate for the past three years 13.5, 18.5 and 19 per cent. It is an appalling record. No wonder that bankruptcies are high, housing repossessions are going up, housing is declining and capital reinvestment is nowhere near the level adequate for this nation now. I conclude by saying that I welcome the Government's decisions in recent times to free up the capital markets to some degree-it was long overdue. That development has been most beneficial to the financial maturity of Australia and to the internationalisation of credit and money. Overseas interests in the Australian capital market have increased enormously in the past two years. Japanese purchases of Commonwealth securities and semi-government securities have been about $8 billion to $10 billion in the past 18 months. A substantial redemption of that will take place in March-April this year, which will have some impact on exchange rates, especially if the Japanese choose not to renew the deposits. As the Japanese are well in front, I would be surprised if they did not. That shows that we have been able to grapple with and handle the very complex areas, to match the overseas markets, provide the services and securities which enable this Government to fund its debts, and that Australian industries, in some cases through swaps of currencies and instruments, have been able to fund their business activities at a more reasonable level than the domestic rates, which has allowed Australian commercial enterprises to buy abroad, hedge currencies and protect their risks in a very changing and moving market place. The Opposition will not oppose the Bills. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(4.48) —The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) spoke for 20 minutes and said very little. I understand the difficult position which he is in at present, what with all the problems in Queensland, the push from Sir Joh and all the simplistic solutions that are coming down, but one would have hoped that we might have had some indication of the Opposition's industry policy, of what it really thinks about the Australian Industry Development Corporation and about the role of such a body as the Corporation in government and in the Australian economy. Unfortunately, he could not quite bring himself actually to state the policy which the Opposition brought up at the last election. Let me remind the House of the Opposition's policy at the last election. It was the abolition of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. The Opposition wanted to abolish the AIDC simply because of the ideological push to the extreme right, which we have seen taking place further and further in the past year or so. The situation is quite clear. The Australian Industry Development Corporation was ideologically objectionable to the New Right; that is why it wanted to abolish the Corporation. The honourable member for Ryan said something to the effect of, `Well, perhaps since this is a burden on the taxpayer we ought to consider ways of removing that burden'. He could not come out and say: `Look, it is still our policy to abolish the Australian Industry Development Corporation'. That is the policy of the New Right. That is the policy of the extreme Right that has taken control of conservative politics in this country. What would be the consequences for manufacturing industry, indeed for industry generally, of the abolition of the AIDC? Mr Tuckey —What would be the consequences? Dr THEOPHANOUS —The consequences would be disastrous. There would be a massive increase in unemployment in manufacturing. We know about the record of honourable gentlemen opposite on industry development and unemployment in manufacturing. All we have to do is remember that dreadful period between 1980 and 1982 when over a quarter of a million people lost their jobs in manufacturing alone. Factories closed down all over Australia. Mr Lee —Who was the Treasurer? Dr THEOPHANOUS —The Hon. John Howard, the present Leader of the Opposition. That is what the Opposition's policies would bring into place. The honourable member for Ryan mentioned that for a long time the AIDC could not really get going. That occurred under the Opposition's policies. The Opposition shackled it. It would not let it expand and do what it wanted to do. It could not invest in new and exciting projects in manufacturing. Instead, it was forced to invest in projects which had no foundation. It was hobbled by the Opposition. Since the Hawke Labor Government came to power in 1983, it has brought in substantial changes and has injected capital into the Corporation. There has been a massive increase in its activity and profitability. For those honour- able members opposite who think that public investment and enterprise are always foolish, that they never achieve the development of industry, and that they are always unprofitable, the Australian Industry Development Corporation, under the Labor Government, stands as a monument which shows that those statements are lies. There is no question but that public enterprise, done properly, through bodies such as the AIDC, can not merely help to stimulate our industries in manufacturing but can also help to save the situation for us. Let us consider what is happening in Australia in private enterprise and manufacturing. Record profits are being made in many industries. Are those profits being reinvested in productive enterprises and in manufacturing? They are not being invested at the level which one would have hoped and required. Why is that the case? It is because many of our entrepreneurs prefer the quick buck rather than investment in production in their own country. They like to make huge profits, but they are not interested in setting up new enterprises and in developing those enterprises. The Government has put into place a large number of schemes to increase their profitability and profit shares. In return, do we get sensible investment? No; we get ideological objections. Instead of looking at the matter in strictly economic terms, they object to investment. They listen to the gibberish of the New Right and the extremists who have dominated conservative politics. The people who are virtual traitors to this country-- Mr Downer —Ha! Dr THEOPHANOUS —A number of the honourable member's friends have made statements that he should be ashamed of, to the effect that people should not invest in this country and in its future, especially in manufacturing. They should be ashamed of themselves. The Corporation has a crucial role to play. It is playing that role. I have already mentioned that the Corporation has increased its profitability and its capital base. The Government is responsive to the desires of the Board of the AIDC. We should forget about the ideological objections of the New Right and honourable members opposite. Let us call for an even further investment program on the part of the AIDC. Let the public sector invest in productive, sensible and potentially profitable projects in our manufacturing industries. Let us reopen the factories that were closed during the period of the Fraser Government, modernise their equipment, and produce, because the circumstances are very good at present. The massive devaluation of the Australian dollar, which we have paid for through a series of painful adjustments, has made it profitable to invest in manufacturing. The circumstances are such that they warrant such investment. Unfortunately, because of ideological objections and the hoo-ha that has been developed by the New Right, we are not getting the level of investment in this country that we should be getting because of the objective circumstances, especially the devaluation. In those circumstances, the AIDC has a role to play. I support the Corporation. I call for an even bigger role for the Corporation. Let it be expanded even further. Now that we have the opportunities afforded by the devaluation of the Australian dollar, let it invest in projects. In the right circumstances, I believe that we can help to overcome some of the problems that exist in manufacturing industry. Mr Downer —The AIDC wants to be privatised. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The Corporation does not want to be privatised. That was an inane remark by the honourable member opposite. The Corporation wants to expand and it will be supported in that process by the Government. We support the expansion of the public sector in such matters. In view of the honourable member's interjections-he has only recently become a member of the House of Representatives and he has a lot to learn-let me say that the conservatives have done a good job in smearing the public sector of this country. They have attacked and smeared the public sector. They have reached the point where anything that is done by the public sector is seen to be nasty and awful. The record of bodies such as the Australian Industry Development Corporation shows that, if they are given the autonomy to make the investment decisions that they need to make, through a regulated process in the public sector, they can have both profitability and efficiency and they can continue with something that is owned by the people as a whole and is not merely in the hands of a few millionaires. Such bodies can take into account, as is the charter of the AIDC under the Labor Government, the national interest and, therefore, they can urge investment in certain risk areas in which some private capital is not prepared to invest, especially areas of high technology in which we need to invest. The people of Australia should recognise that the smearing job that has been done against the public sector is incorrect and that the Australian public sector is, and deserves to be, credited for the excellent role it has played in public investment in industry. I look forward to further expansion and development of that area. It is only through that process that we will achieve what is necessary; that is, a turnaround in our industrial development, especially the development of export oriented industries, as well as import replacement industries, so we can deal with a problem that was put on our shoulders by the conservatives for many years-the balance of payments and the extraordinary position which we got ourselves into because of neglect and mismanagement over many years by the conservatives. The honourable member for Ryan tried to make certain points about interest rates and the investment program. There are answers to these problems but he has not put forward anything at all. I do not speak about him personally, as I like the honourable member; I speak about the Opposition. The Opposition has not put forward anything at all. Even Sir Joh does not have any idea how we are going to get an investment program going. Let me tell honourable members that a flat tax cannot solve every problem in the universe. In fact, it will not solve any problem in the universe. So let me say this: What we ought to be seriously considering is a program which offers special interest rates or soft loans of some kind. We ought to seriously consider such a program for investment in the productive sector, in manufacturing. This is a real concrete proposal that the Opposition and the Government ought to be thinking about. It is my view that if we consider these sorts of suggestions rather than the gibberish coming from the Opposition side of the House we can look at moving capital from the unproductive areas into the productive areas of manufacturing. Finally, let me say once again that the Australian Industry Development Corporation, and public sector instrumentalities generally, have a very big role to play in the sustenance of our industrial development, and if those in the New Right and the mad extremists of the National Party get their way and such bodies are abolished this country will be faced with a massive employment crisis and the gains that we have made in difficult circumstances will all be lost. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(5.03) —I always find speeches by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) rich in irony. Not only do I share his view of the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) but I can also reciprocate that view. The honourable member for Calwell is a nice man, he is a pleasant man, but the way he calls anybody who disagrees with him an extremist and an ideologue is extraordinary because if ever there was an extremist, if ever there was an ideologue in this House, it is without doubt the very pleasant honourable member for Calwell. He is a man of the Left whose views are ignored by much of his own Party and are certainly ignored by the broader Australian community. The view that he has been expressing today in effect is that the Australian Government should be nationalising the commanding heights of our industry. That is the view that was popular back in the nineteenth century on the left of politics; it seems to be a view which has been abandoned by most thinking people in the world but which is still adhered to by the Left of the Australian Labor Party. Certainly proposals for the nationalisation of industry do not make any sense in Australia today when we are desperate for investment from the private sector. We are desperate for investment to rebuild an economy which is stalled by high interest rates, which is stalled by record inflation rates and which is stalled by union power and the exercise of that power through restrictive practices. Governments must make substantial changes to domestic economic policy and to economic policy in general if our investment prospects are to pick up. We cannot go on with the sort of mind-set that the present Labor Government has against productivity, against profitability and against development-those things which in the past have been the hallmark of the building of a greater Australia. Of course the attitude of the Government towards the public sector, towards public corporations, will be an important part of the way our country's economy develops and its investment prospects grow. The Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill and the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill do not do much by any standards to promote the prospects for investment in Australia. What they do, as has been pointed out by the honourable member for Ryan, is impose an 0.5 per cent charge for Commonwealth guarantees for borrowings by public enterprises. That 0.5 per cent charge is without doubt a very significant charge. As the honourable member for Ryan pointed out, it is a charge which would seem to be considerably more than a charge that the market itself would make for a similar kind of rolled gold guarantee. Those things being borne in mind, it would seem that this charge has two functions. One is the rather cynical function of raising more money for the Commonwealth's own Budget through the operation of public enterprises and through providing Commonwealth guarantees for those enterprises. In other words, it is just another way of raising taxes. Mr Peacock —The honourable member for Ryan was right. Mr DOWNER —The honourable member for Ryan, as the honourable member for Kooyong says, was entirely right in putting that proposition. It is also true that the Government argues that by imposing this charge those public corporations will be put on a more competitive basis simply because the private sector cannot get such guarantees and as a result has to pay more for its borrowings. I do not think there is any doubt about at least the theory of that. In a sense, these public corporations are being made more competitive with the private sector. In reality, though, does that argument really make any sense? Does it make any sense to impose additional charges on public corporations so that somehow they are more competitive with the private sector because it makes their costs higher? It seems to me a rather curious form of logic, because if those public enterprises are genuinely competitive in the market-place, what is the Government doing owning them in the first place? If they are not competitive, the whole issue of their competitiveness with the private sector is clearly irrelevant. So it does seem to me that there is a fundamental problem of logic in this whole exercise. This whole exercise draws attention to the fundamental problems of running public enterprises. If the Government is really serious about its objective of somehow putting public enterprises on a competitive basis with the private sector, perhaps it should sell off some of those public enterprises for which there is a market and which are simply involved in commercial activities-not, of course, public enterprises that provide a service that the private sector cannot provide. That is one way of going about it. I suppose the other thing that the Government could do-and it seems a rather impractical proposition-if it wants to put the public and private sectors on a competitive basis is sell Commonwealth guarantees to all borrowers at a charge of 0.5 per cent. Why not do that if the Government wants to make the public and private sectors somehow equal in the market-place? I suppose one could take that argument one step further and say that the Government would not give public enterprises any Commonwealth guarantee whatsoever. I do not think that is a particularly sensible option, particularly when we are talking about some public enterprises which are simply loss making operations because of the nature of the work they do. What I am really saying is that if we are going to talk about making public enterprise competitive with the private sector and we are going to maintain public enterprise we will run into a whole lot of problems of logic which I hope I have been expounding fairly clearly. When we run into those problems of logic we are faced with one simple solution, and that is that where the public enterprise is simply a commercial operation, such as the AIDC, we are better off not abolishing it, as the honourable member for Calwell says, but handing the control of that enterprise over to the private sector. The Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill is a particularly curious piece of legislation. It is the sort of legislation that has a bob each way, because it allows the AIDC not to use Commonwealth guarantees if it so wishes. That raises a very important question. What would happen, for example, if the AIDC entered into some investment and found itself in considerable financial difficulties? Would the Commonwealth then come forward to honour the obligations of the AIDC or would it say: `The AIDC did not get a Commonwealth guarantee so we will not honour those obligations.'? I think the answer would almost certainly be that at the end of the day the Government would honour the obligations of the AIDC. That leads one to the next question: What is the point of this legislation for the AIDC? One of the problems is that if the AIDC gets the Commonwealth guarantee it will increase the cost of its borrowings by 0.5 per cent. On the other hand, if it does not take the Commonwealth guarantee it will pay higher charges for its loans. It will end up paying higher interest rates because of the higher risk in there not being a guarantee. Again, that legislation strikes me as having a curious lack of logic. I see that there is not a Minister in the chamber at the moment but I hope that the Minister who responds to the debate will explain the logic of the legislation. Unlike the honourable member for Calwell, I have some real concern about the role of the AIDC-the ever expanding role of what is in effect the Australian Government's merchant bank. That bank lends something like $2 billion a year and invests $91m in ordinary equity in companies. The range of investments shows that they are not just romantic investments in the manufacturing sector, as the honourable member for Calwell tried to make out; they are investments in an enormous range of different activities. There are investments in companies such as Australian Biomedical Corporation Ltd. The AIDC owns 50 per cent of that company which is involved in biomedical inventions. I suppose that is new technology. Twenty-eight per cent of the equity of Barbeques Galore Holdings Pty Ltd is held by the AIDC. That company, not surprisingly, makes barbeques. AIDC invests in a company that makes microwaves. Believe it or not, it even invests in shopping centres. There are plenty of people investing in shopping centres in this country, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) must surely know. We have surely seen the sign `Westfield' up hither and thither around Australia. It is clearly diversifying its investments fairly significantly now. There is not a shortage of people wanting to invest in shopping centres but we see the AIDC getting involved in that kind of investment because it sees it as being the best way of maximising its profitability. But of course that is a concession to the point that it is not providing a significant social service; it is operating as best its board thinks it can in a completely commercial competitive world. That again raises questions about whether the Corporation needs to be owned by the public sector. That is not to say that it should be abolished; it is simply to question whether it is the role of government to be directing investment into such areas which can be handled by the private sector. There is no doubt that in recent years the AIDC has been successful commercially. It is also important to note that to some extent the AIDC has been hamstrung by the fact that it must at least enter into discussions with the government on what sort of policies it should pursue over the subsequent year. I understand that the informal agreement is that the AIDC and the government come to some kind of-let us use that long forgotten word-consensus about what the strategy should be. I am sure I am right in saying that the AIDC would much rather operate without any inhibitions whatsoever from the government, without any guidance on where investments should go. The people on the board of that Corporation, the people involved in that Corporation, are proud of its work-I think rightly so-and they want to see it develop as a truly strong Australian national merchant bank. Why should they not? That is why, as I understand it, the AIDC has formally sent a submission to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) suggesting that the Government consider selling off the AIDC to the private sector. I understand that this has happened relatively recently and so far the Minister has provided the AIDC with no reply to the suggestion. That should not come as a surprise to anybody in this House. The AIDC is on a sure footing. It is operating fairly efficiently as a merchant bank. It has a very strong management team and a very strong board with years of experience in the private sector. There is no doubt that it can fulfil the dynamic role of a merchant bank, in particular in creating investment opportunities in our economy, simply by being privatised-if one wants to use that word-simply be being sold to the private sector. The Government could then put the taxpayers' receipts from that sale to a much more constructive use which bears some relationship to the very major economic problems that our country faces. I do not make these suggestions because I am an ideologue of any kind. I would not argue that all members of AIDC are ideologues, even though they are asking to be privatised, but there is some ideological opposition from the other side of the House to the private sector-to private sector investment, to private sector involvement in and control of the Australian economy. Otherwise, honourable members opposite would not speak with such ridicule about proposals to sell some public enterprises to the private sector. It is simply ideological opposition, and not practical, economically based opposition, that comes from the Labor Party to building a productive and constructive private sector. It is important to note that the AIDC has apparently made this submission about its future. In conclusion, I say that I think the Government should take up that recommendation and ensure that the AIDC, like private merchant banks, plays a real and vital role in building a proper investment structure for our country. The Government, instead of concentrating on running public enterprises, might start to concentrate on bringing down interest rates, lowering the tax burden, reducing the enormous cost of government, getting rid of a great deal of the waste that is going on in government and ensuring that small business, primary producers and big businesses become profitable once more so that they can create jobs and create wealth, not just for the rich but for all Australians. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(5.17) —It is my pleasure to support the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill and the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill. Both of these Bills arise from a Budget proposal, outlined in Australia last year, to levy a charge in respect of any guarantee on borrowings or fund raisings by the Commonwealth's business organisations. The Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill does give effect to those Budget measures and in the case of the Australian Industry Development Corporation it provides that the levy, which is set at the rate of one half of one per cent, should apply only where the borrowings are actually guaranteed by the Commonwealth. This piece of legislation, in effect, gives discretion to the AIDC to decide whether it wishes to have Commonwealth guarantees placed on loan funds that it raises. I think it is worth mentioning a few points in background about the Australian Industry Development Corporation. It is a statutory corporation, it is wholly owned by the Commonwealth of Australia. In other words, it is a statutory corporation which is owned by the people of Australia. Its objectives are, I think, very good. They are to promote and assist Australian industry and to assist in the Australian ownership of industry. The Corporation is a financial enterprise and it operates on commercial principles. It is engaged in the business of borrowing money. It makes loans and it makes equity investments. It also provides related financial advice and other services including lead management of syndicated project financing. The Corporation does consult with the Government from time to time on its general policy, but it should be emphasised that its decisions on particular transactions are totally independent of government direction, influence or review. In that regard, any transactions which the AIDC has with its clients in industry in Australia are conducted in a completely professional and, of course, confidential manner. I should say also that the AIDC is taxed in Australia in exactly the same way as are public companies. In many ways its operation is no different from that of a public company. As I have said, it operates independently and professionally in the market and it operates confidentially with its clients. One half of its net profit after tax is paid back to the Commonwealth, in other words back to the people of Australia, as a dividend. In that regard it is worth noting that in the last financial year-I am talking about 1985-86-the AIDC made a profit of around $19m. Considering the economic circumstances of the time, that is a fairly good profit, and it is a profit which benefits the people of Australia. Since this Government came to power the AIDC has responded exceptionally well to government initiatives to support and foster industry in Australia. The total assets of the AIDC, as at 30 June 1986, amounted to more than $2 billion. That compares with about $770m just four years ago. So there has been a significant increase in assets held by the Corporation. I remember speaking in a debate in this House late in 1983, when this Government decided to inject additional capital into the AIDC and to allow it to gear up that capital and to borrow it at a higher rate. I think, from memory, we increased its gearing ratio to 15:1. Australians are now seeing the benefits of that increased capital with the further activities of the AIDC; with a large increase in the number of enterprises and firms assisted throughout Australia; and, as I have already said, with a return of profit in the form of dividends to the Commonwealth, in other words, to the people of Australia. I think the AIDC is doing a good job. As I have said, as a statutory corporation it operates effectively and independently from government and it has autonomy. In my view the AIDC is very much a success story. It is typical of what this Government is achieving in the area of industry policy. We came to government at a time when secondary industry in Australia was probably in its most parlous state since before the Second World War. During 1982 close to a quarter of a million jobs were lost in secondary industry, and we had the task in front of us in 1983, as a newly-elected government, to try to restore competitiveness, profitability and job prospects in Australia's manufacturing industry. I think the record to date shows that we have done a fair job of meeting that task which we set ourselves. There has certainly been increased profitability and a return to manufacturing industry in Australia. Increased employment has certainly been generated throughout manufacturing industry in Australia. If we look at the statistics and at the anecdotal evidence, such as new applications for industrial land in cities such as Bendigo, Ballarat and the outer suburbs of Melbourne, there is a lot of evidence that industrial expansion is still occurring and that with the turnaround in the competitiveness of the Australian economy, in allowing the dollar to find its appropriate level, this Government has provided a real boost to secondary industry. There is certainly anecdotal evidence in my electorate of the major turnaround that has occurred in manufacturing industry because of the policies of this Government. Just before Christmas I visited a clothing firm in my electorate which produces a name brand product which is produced identically in seven different locations around the world; in Hong Kong, Korea, Switzerland, America, the European Economic Community and so on. So this factory in Bendigo is one of seven which produces an identical garment to garments produced by other firms around the world. I was told that in United States dollar terms the Bendigo firm is now the most cost competitive of any of those seven firms located around the world. That truly does mean that at long last we have, in Australia, a structure and a government policy setting which has allowed firms to achieve real competitiveness. We have done that by letting the dollar find its right level, and also by producing a system of wage restraint in difficult economic circumstances. There is further evidence in my electorate of the strength of the economic recovery that is occurring in manufacturing industry. A firm in my electorate, Empire Rubber (Aust.) Pty Ltd, has increased its employment by about 150 people since March 1983. Bendigo Pottery (Epsom) Pty has increased its employment substantially. Nearly all the clothing and textile firms in my electorate have experienced considerable increases in employment. At the Bendigo Ordinance Factory there has been a significant increase in the exports that we are now winning overseas. Mr Price —What would happen under the Opposition? Mr BRUMBY —The interjection from my colleague from New South Wales asks what would happen to all of that progress if the Opposition were returned to government. I cannot answer that question because the Opposition has not announced any policy for manufacturing industry. I can say that if we look at its record prior to 1983 we could envisage a disaster of some considerable proportion for Australia's manufacturing industry. We could envisage an overvalued exchange rate. We could envisage a tax policy that would provide no assistance at all to secondary industry. We could envisage the dismantling of many of the excellent programs which are presently actively assisting industry in Australia. Let us not forget the shameful record of the Fraser Government in 1982, when a quarter of a million jobs were lost in manufacturing industry in one year. I now mention some of the good things that we are doing for industry in Australia. We have developed a new steel plan. We have developed a new motor vehicle plan to restructure and assist that industry to promote exports. We have recently announced a heavy engineering plan, a sectoral plan, specifically targeted at that industry. Another plan that we do not read much about in the newspapers is the computer hardware and software industries plan, which is a real success story. Literally tens of thousands of new jobs have been generated in that industry because of the proposals put in place by the Hawke Labor Government. We have given assistance to shipbuilding to make it a more competitive industry. We have developed the growth strategy for the communications industry and we recently announced a new program for the textiles, clothing and footwear industry which will make that industry more competitive and more oriented. In some areas of technology, which is crucial to Australian industry, we have developed a national industry extension plan. I know from experience in my area that that is going very well indeed. We have implemented the very important research and development measures-the 150 per cent tax deduction for approved research and development, and of course, we have reviewed the offsets policies which were in a shambles when we came to government. There are lots of other things I could talk about that we have done in industry policy, but I think the runs are on the board. I do not need to talk about them because our story in industry policy has been very much a success story. I mentioned earlier that we would not quite know what to expect from the Opposition if unfortunately it were returned to government. We have no policies from the Opposition on tax. We have no policy for industry. We have no wages policy. In relation to tax we do not know whether we will get the Sinclair policy, the Howard policy, the Peacock policy, the Joh policy or whether we will get the policies of some of the conservative think tanks. There simply are not any Liberal policies around, so we cannot tell what would happen to secondary industry if a conservative government were re-elected in Australia. There is no industry policy; none at all. During January I read the Business Review Weekly, and I do know that there is considerable disquiet in the Liberal Party that much of the policies which have been generated in the industrial relations and industry areas are in fact being written by organisations outside the Liberal Party rather than by the elected members of the Liberal Party in this place. In closing, I want to say a few words about the relevance of this legislation and industry legislation for that State in the north of Australia, Queensland. In recent weeks we have seen a new political phenomenon arrive in Australia, bearing claims to a place in this House. That, of course, is the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. If we look at industry policy in Queensland-this legislation concerns industry policy-we see that no one could be proud to be the Premier of Queensland. I think most honourable members in this House would know, and the Australian people would know, that Queensland effectively has the highest rate of unemployment in Australia. During January its unemployment rate soared to 10.3 per cent. That is possibly a model for Australia were Joh ever to be elected to any position of importance in this House. The average unemployment rate for Australia is about 8 per cent. I do not think anyone in Victoria, where the unemployment rate is 7 per cent, or in New South Wales, where the rate is 8 per cent, would really want to add another 2 or 3 per cent to their rates, as is occurring in Queensland. That is a marvellous example of what Joh might do for the nation. The real point on which I want to concentrate is the Queensland economy's performance in the area of new investment, because that is what we are talking about in this debate. I have with me some statistics from the 1985-86 report of the Foreign Investment Review Board. Of course, at the moment foreign investment is pretty important to Australia because of our balance of payments problems. But what the 1985-86 annual report of the Foreign Investment Review Board shows is hardly good news for the people of Queensland or for the Queensland Premier, who appears to be an aspirant for this place. The report shows that the amount of new foreign investment proposals anticipated to occur between July 1985 and June 1986, around Australia was expected to be $3.049 billion. The annual report breaks that up on a State by State basis. It shows that New South Wales was expected to receive $1.368 billion of that total amount, which is about 45 per cent of the total new foreign investment planned for Australia. It shows that Victoria, under the very competent government there, the Cain Government, was expected to receive $1.1 billion, which is about 37 per cent of the new foreign investment planned for Australia. But it shows that poor old Queensland, with its National Party leadership of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen-who has always claimed that Queensland is such a wonderful State in which to invest and such an attractive place for foreigners to invest-could expect new investment of a paltry $148m, which is 4.9 per cent of the national total. I will just repeat those figures, which compare New South Wales, with $1.37 billion, Victoria, with $1.12 billion, and Queensland, with a meagre $148m. Queensland has 16 per cent of the nation's labour force. We might have expected to to attract at least 16 per cent of new foreign investment in Australia. But, no, the best that Queensland could muster, with its National Party-led Government, was a paltry 4.9 per cent. What that shows is that foreign investors have snubbed Queensland. No one wants to invest in Queensland, because the Queensland economy is on the skids and because the Queensland Government is second rate. If ever there has been a clearer set of figures, I would like to see them. They simply show that foreign investors do not have the confidence to invest in Queensland. I conclude by saying that this Government's record on industry policy is a very good one. We believe that industry policy is crucial to Australia's future at a time when the prices we are receiving for our traditional exports-our energy exports, our resources, our primary industry exports-are falling. We have had about $6 billion wiped off our terms of trade, and manufacturing industry is crucial to the long term living standards and economic health of all Australians. We are helping manufacturing industry. The number of new jobs in manufacturing industry is growing rapidly. There has been increased profitability. We think our record is a good one. The only blot on what is otherwise a very good copybook is the performance of the Queensland economy in terms of new investment. But perhaps in three or four years' time we will see a change of government there and at last some new investment going into that State. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.35) —The Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill-and the cognate Bill, the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill, which is necessary only because of the change to this legislation-is another tax gathering measure. It happens to be the latest phenomenon. In his second reading speech, the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) stated: Similar loan guarantee charges have recently been announced by the New South Wales and South Australian Governments . . . We also know that it is the case in Victoria. We have the phenomenon that government entities have to make a profit and have to meet the market. That sounds fine in rhetoric but it totally overlooks the fact that these particular institutions make that profit only when they put up their prices. Who pays those prices? Today we heard our Treasurer (Mr Keating) crying crocodile tears about the fate of the less well off in our community. I am sure that we all concern ourselves with those people. It is a pity that the Treasurer did not get his tax return in a little earlier, to help with the efficiency of the Australian Taxation Office, if he is so concerned about these things. The reality is that, according to the second reading speech, this Bill will take an extra $3.4m from the Australian people, because, quite obviously, the institutions involved, which are to be taxed in this fashion, will pass on the charges. They have no choice. It is an interesting line-up of institutions. Part A of the Schedule lists Aussat Pty Ltd, which offers the alternative form of communication for many people today. We should remember that every time we go into many places to buy things there are electronic funds point of sale systems, involving credit cards, which now use the communications system. Many of the larger chains will choose to use Aussat. The Australian Telecommunications Commission is also listed. As the pressure goes on those two organisations to raise money to cover the new data transfer processes that are necessary, a tax will now be put on them if they require the Treasurer to give them a government guarantee. Of course, we already have plenty of taxes in that area. Already, the State governments tax the turnovers of their electricity authorities to the order of between 3 and 5 per cent. That is taxation by stealth-and this is taxation by stealth. It appears to be a relatively small amount of money. I guess some calculations have been made on it. The amount is 0.5 per cent. If the Australian Telecommunications Commission, Telecom Australia, is to be taxed at that rate on all its borrowings, the amount will have to be more than that. Maybe it will not seek a guarantee; maybe it will pay the higher interest rates that the market demands. But I see that in 1985-86 Telecom's new borrowings were $640m. Its total borrowings, which includes roll-over of old debt, were $934m. In 1986-87 the figures were approximately $640m and $1,033m in total borrowings. Neither the second reading speech nor the Bill is very specific about roll-over, but I gather that that is a borrowing and that as such it will be subject to this form of taxation. If the Government gets 0.5 per cent on $1,000m in one year, that represents a lot more than $3.4m. Maybe the Minister will enlighten us in that regard as to the extent to which Telecom seeks government guarantees for its borrowing program. The Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority is also in the list. We presume that it will borrow to meet its commitments of expansion in this new and developing area, in this very speedily developing city. Is it not wonderful? I soon worked out the Canberra property market: One buys under a Liberal government and sells under a Labor government, because prices have risen at a huge rate under this Labor Government. That is one of the major points about this legislation and in the speeches we have heard from Government members on this issue. All of the institutions involved provide services to the community. They seem totally incapable of reducing their costs internally. When governments say to them `Make a profit', it is seldom done by efficiencies internally; it is done by putting up prices. The Australian Postal Commission-Australia Post-is included on the list too. The Australian National Railways Commission, which is showing massive losses, is also included. How can it pay the charge from profits? Even the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission, which provides necessary drugs to Australians, is included, and will now be taxed. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, which is obliged to raise money to cover itself from time to time in giving insurance to that very important person in the community, the home owner, is included. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is the body which allows young home owners to get a second mortgage. It will be hit by the tax. Qantas Airways Ltd, our international carrier, will have its competitive situation somewhat damaged by this arrangement. I could go on. There is a huge list. Some bodies are to be treated differently, namely, the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia and the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Let me come back to the basic premises of this legislation: More taxation, more revenue. During Question Time today the Treasurer talked about the constraints which have been placed on the Government and the difficult times it has had. It entered office in one of the few periods of sustained economic growth throughout the world-growth which is now starting to stagger. It had the benefit of that period of growth. Yet how is that reflected in the Government's revenues? The only Budget inherited by this Government was the last Fraser Budget. This Government had three months of management of that Budget before it commenced its own Budget management in June 1983. It inherited only one Budget. Mr Hand —What about the damage you had done? Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member should listen to this. He might like to tell the poor people of his electorate-- Mr Hand —You wrecked the economy. Mr TUCKEY —That is not the case. Let us look at the Government's revenue raisings. This Bill is a Bill for revenue raising. The Hawke Government's revenue raising since the last Fraser Budget-in the last Fraser Budget we raised $44,000m-as suggested in the present Budget estimates for this year is $71,261m, representing an increase of 61 per cent. Honourable members opposite cannot say that that is evidence of the growth rate of Australia. The Government has increased its revenues by 61 per cent and has needed an additional $24,000m of borrowing to balance the books. It has pushed the cost of interest to the Commonwealth from $3,300m in its inherited Budget to $7,500m in this Budget. The massive effort of the Government to borrow money in the community is forcing Australian business to pay 18 per cent and 20 per cent for its money when comparable people in Japan are paying 5 per cent and in America about 8 per cent. Honourable members opposite may think things are getting tough for the small business sector and wonder about the figures that were mentioned today-8,000 bankruptcies have occurred in recent times. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) has suddenly stopped making speeches about bankruptcy. Mr Hand —Me? Mr TUCKEY —No. The honourable member for Charlton. He used to make all sorts of speeches about bankruptcy. Mr Hand —It has never been better in Victoria. The bankruptcies are in Queensland, and you know it-under that administration up there. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) — Order! I do not think the honourable member for O'Connor needs the assistance of the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member will get named in a minute and he will deserve it. He should be quiet. A machinery dealer in my electorate was contacted by his finance company the other day and told that his floor plan interest charge, the charge on the stock which he carries in his premises for sale, has jumped to 32 per cent. Mr Uren —What is he dealing with? Mr TUCKEY —He is dealing with a well known finance company. I presume that the others will follow. The charge is now 32 per cent. Honourable members should take my word for it. It is a disgrace. Mr Uren —One of your constituents? Mr TUCKEY —One of my constituents, who rang me the other day. Mr Uren —You represent the finance companies, do you? Mr TUCKEY —No; I am telling honourable members what the finance company is charging him. A lot of the reason for it lies with this Government because of its borrowing program of $24,000m over four years which it has needed because it has lacked the courage either to cut expenditure or to increase taxation. The Government should not tell us about its economic concern and caution. It has borrowed $24,000m in four years. In old fashioned prices it would take the wheat farmers of Australia six years to produce that much revenue. The Government has had a debt-led recovery. It has also massively increased government revenues. Let me repeat it: Revenue has gone from $44,000m in the last Fraser Budget to $71,000m in this Budget-an increase of 61 per cent. This Bill is just another revenue grab. It is being practised by State Labor governments in exactly the same way. Fancy this Government saying that it would create revenue by making these firms pay a dividend on capital outlay! The dividend is a direct tax against the community. We now see all those activities reflected in an inflation rate that is unheard of around the world today. I like to hear the history lessons of honourable members opposite about past governments. When we, as a government, had high interest rates they were common around the world. When we had high inflation rates they were common around the world. This time it is only we and the banana republics. It is only we and Mexico that owe the world $100,000m-up from $35,000m when the Fraser Government left office. These are the sorts of figures Australians have to understand. I will tell honourable members what an Australian has just discovered. When Fraser left office one could buy a Holden Commodore for $10,500. I priced the same vehicle the other day. It now costs $16,500. And the Government wonders why the car industry has had the lowest level of sales since 1968. After four years, let the Government tell me how it can blame anyone else for that. Whom does it want to blame for that? Mr Price —They are exporting them now. Mr TUCKEY —There must not be many cars being bought in Australia if they are exporting them. The car industry has had the lowest level of car sales since 1968. Mr Hand —Tell us what happened under Fraser. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. I have repeatedly asked the honourable member for Melbourne to cease interjecting. It might be as well if he were to leave the chamber if he intends to continue. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I will adhere to your request, Mr Deputy Speaker; but at the same time I ask for the Chair's protection from the abuse coming across from the current speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been addressing the Government. We know that the ambitions of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) to be a Minister and to be more involved in increasing government expenditure have just failed. He is now of such minority interest in this Parliament that he could not even win a vote. He was put out; he was cast aside. He is now an irrelevance in the Federal Parliament, and that is mainly because he lost his way. He led to that and he knows it. He thought he could do deals and he got caught out. Now the rug has been pulled right out from under him. Mr Hand —That is utter tripe, and you know it. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member should tell me why he missed out. He is still on the back bench. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The only two people I know who have been taking points of order and conniving of late are the former Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Kooyong, and the honourable member for O'Connor, as they wandered around behind trees in the electorate of O'Connor. They are the only two who have been conniving to overthrow anybody. They have been conniving to overthrow the present Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Bennelong-not anybody on this side. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Melbourne will resume his seat. Mr TUCKEY —That was a frivolous point of order. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Returning to this legislation, I have claimed again and again that it is a tax measure and that it will hurt small Australians in many areas. We have heard some amazing defences of government institutions this afternoon. One government institution mentioned in this legislation is the Commonwealth Development Bank. This Government made a big play amongst small business as to how, by expanding the role of this institution, it would help farmers and small business. I believed it at the time. I saw the bank in my electorate promote a new scheme to help farmers. It was going to buy up their hire purchase debts and put them on long term finance, which appeared to be an excellent proposition at the time, particularly as when it was able to make the offer interest rates were at 14.5 per cent and the Treasurer was predicting that they would go down. Huge numbers of farmers in my electorate, in great financial difficulty, went to the bank to apply for that money. The rejection rate was 90 per cent. The bank was not interested in those who were hard up. It was interested only in those who were not hard up. It was interested, as a competing organisation under government guarantee, in pinching the good customers the other financial institutions had at the time. So the poor were left where they were. The joke is that the poor have become the winners because, of course, the new deal was a flexible interest rate whereas the deal with the financial companies was fixed interest. The Treasurer's promise was not kept, interest rates have gone through the roof and some of those people who got what appeared to be an excellent proposition have suffered. They have suffered because of the Government's high interest rate policy, unique outside of the banana republics, which it created by excessive borrowing at the government level and which has put it on a merry-go-round it cannot get off. Let me again remind honourable members of the damage that has done to people who made investments believing the Treasurer, believing that whether they received loans from the Commonwealth Development Bank, the Primary Industry Bank of Australia or the AIDC-which gets a mention here-their interest rates would not increase. That is the major problem in farming and small business today. People believed the Government and believed that they were in a safe interest rate environment. They borrowed money and that borrowing is contributing substantially to the thousands of bankruptcies that are occurring at the moment and the plight of the thousands of other people who are losing their businesses without getting to that particular situation. These particular institutions do not deliver much in the way of help. They are government institutions competing with institutions of which, as has already been said, we have literally hundreds. We are not short of banks or merchant banks. We do not need those government institutions. In respect of these particular institutions, the Opposition's policy is not, as the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) said, to disband them or to put a torch to them. They will be disposed of and the arrangements they have, the loans they have made, will be transferred to people who will deal just as fairly and at the same prices. For a change we will not have a government trying to pick winners. We listened to the honourable member for Calwell saying that it all has to be invested in the manufacturing sector. Not only is that picking winners but the honourable member for Calwell might also ask himself why the manufacturing sector is not attracting investment from the private sector today. I have talked to those investors and the answer is quite simple. Those investors will tell us why all the money is flooding into a share market where $1 chases another in an ever rising spiral, as it did before the Great Depression. Those investors will tell us why they are in there-because there are no hassles. They can run a very successful organisation with half a dozen dedicated people who are not subject to the control of the trade union bureaucracy. Those people ask why they should invest $50m, $100m or $500m in some new manufacturing process and have some shop steward tell them when they can open their doors. Honourable members opposite have forgotten that their masters are the members of the trade union bureaucracy-they should get this into their minds-and not trade unionists, who are generally very good people. Honourable members opposite talk about the white-shoe brigade. What about the white fingernail brigade? They are the people who run the trade unions today. When did Simon Crean ever get out there and do a day's work? When did most honourable members opposite, who call themselves representatives of the working people, who do not know, who do not understand and who are being dictated to by people who are not even democratically elected, do a day's work? They should get into their minds that it is the trade union bureaucracy, the white fingernail brigade, which is damaging our society. I talked to Ralph Sarich not so long ago and he told me the reason he is not manufacturing his invention. We see all these programs on television on why all these inventions drift overseas. He went through it step by step and at every level he could make a viable operation until he got to the Australian waterfront. The unreliability of that sector destroyed the financial viability of giving jobs to Australians. For Sarich there was no problem. He sold licences, but he is deeply disappointed as he is a great Australian who wanted to manufacture those products in Australia. He got right through to that point but because of the cost of maintaining stocks in overseas countries and putting up with never knowing when things would get out of Australia-for that reason alone-he decided to sell licences. That is the only revenue that will come to our country. The investor gets his money; the worker does not. The Government is not fixing that up because it is dictated to by those people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(5.55) —The contribution by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) was typical of the Opposition's general approach-that is, to fill our X amount of time with hot air and rhetoric when we are talking about one of the most significant issues confronting this country, industry development. It is worth reflecting that he did not at any point in his whole discourse put forward any firm proposals or ideas that go to the very fundamental issues before us. As I indicated, that is merely a mirror image of the Opposition's general approach. As is his wont, he also embraced a bit of personal insult on the way through. Let me place on record my view of the trade union leader to whom he referred, Mr Simon Crean. I believe that history will regard Crean, Kelty and a few of their colleagues in the trade union movement as very significant figures. As reported in today's Australian Financial Review, there has been a broad acknowledgment of not only the difficulties that Australia is facing but also the opportunities that are presented by the process of change. The honourable member for O'Connor talked about the white fingernail brigade. I think I have done a little bit more work over the years than my old mate Wilson Tuckey but I do not feel the need to get up here and insult those who may not have had backgrounds in physical labour. Once again, that is irrelevant to the issues before us. I think it is very important to put this legislation, as indeed it is important to put any debate in this House, into some overall perspective. We should have an objective in mind and not simply indulge in rhetoric. What is the objective? It is certainly not the objective embraced by the Opposition when it was in power; it is the objective of creating a strong internationally competitive manufacturing base in Australia. Previous speakers have adverted to the fact that under the former government there was something of a crisis because an overvalued Australia dollar led to a massive loss of jobs and opportunities in the manufacturing sector. By definition, the manufacturing sector was the sacrificial lamb of the Fraser-Howard Government's overvalued exchange rate policy. I think it is appropriate to draw the distinction that, to the contrary, this Government's approach has emphasised making Australia's manufacturing and service industries more internationally competitive, export oriented and innovative. I referred earlier to the article in the Australian Financial Review. I think that article ought to be compulsory reading. Of course, the changes in attitudes have come about in a two-year period, when the Australian Labor Party has had stewardship of government of this country. I think probably one of the most important outcomes of the industry policies and a whole range of other policies embraced by this Government is that people now have a realistic perspective of the art of the possible for Australia and I think people are prepared to pursue more vigorously the opportunities to which I have referred. I thank my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) for providing me with a glass of water. I am not sure whether he is implying that my voice does not sound too good, but I thank him anyway. The Labor Government's policies have, as an objective, sought to develop new industries with growth prospects and to establish industry sector plans in key industries. That has largely been completed in the steel, motor vehicle, clothing and footwear industries. They are all very key industries which have all benefited very much from the fundamental changes brought about by this Government. This Government has upgraded the technological and research and development capacities of industry in a whole range of areas to which I will refer a little bit further down the track. Unlike the honourable member for O'Connor who simply criticised, I think it is worth reflecting on the Government's record. Criticising may be the constitutional role of the Opposition; nevertheless, it is sensible every now and then to inject a little bit of policy into debate. What we have heard from the Opposition has been bereft of policy. It ought to have been compulsory for all Australians to have listened to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) today go through in some detail the Opposition's political and economic position with respect to taxation policy. The Opposition is very much like the emperor with no clothes. The basis of its financial and taxation policies is non-existent. It will go to the next election heaping cliche upon cliche, catch-phrase upon catch-phrase, but with very little by way of sensible alternative policies. I hope Australians focus very much on what the real alternatives are rather than simply on the rhetoric. As opposed to rhetoric this Government has had a number of major achievements that it will seek to have acknowledged by the people at the next election. For example, it established the Australian Manufacturing Council. That has been a significant development. It was set up to work with the trade unions, the various governments of Australia and also the industries. The Government has also set up the Australian Industry and Technology Council and the Small Business Council. Earlier I referred to the steel plan, the motor vehicle plan and the heavy engineering package. One could go on with the various aspects that the Labor Government has been instrumental in bringing about, but I want to make one point which specifically relates to the Australian Industry Development Corporation. One of the very many initiatives of the AIDC has been to be involved in the financing of the Portland aluminium smelter project in Victoria, a project of very great significance to the economy of Victoria and, I acknowledge, a project that had its genesis in a government prior to the election of a Labor Government. There have been some difficulties with that project and they are widely known. Nevertheless, I believe that that project now offers the economy of Victoria a significant potential stimulus, particularly when the international recovery eventually comes about. The AIDC, through a 10 per cent interest in the joint venture, facilitated the involvement of the People's Republic of China. It was not that long ago that the mention of that particular country would have caused some people in this chamber to have apoplexy. Of course, people acknowledge that China is, certainly potentially, a major trading partner and has very significant economic potential for Australia. The AIDC in that particular project has sought to cement those long term relationships. That is just one of many examples of AIDC involvement in helping industry and long term planning in this country. There are a whole range of issues that one could address in making reference to the AIDC but I think it is worth going back to the comments I made at the outset-that the industry policy of this Government is seen and is acted upon not necessarily because of a desire to bring about change for change's sake but to acknowledge a fundamental and ongoing reality that without significant change this country's economic future will not be guaranteed. I referred to an article in today's Australian Financial Review. It is very important to acknowledge the widespread acceptance of the challenges that confront Australia. It is very much a function of the type of approach of this Government in terms of trying to encourage research and development, trying to move in all spheres for more innovative, technologically competitive industries, and so on. This Government has brought about that massive change and I believe that this country will be the beneficiaries of acknowledgments that people are now prepared to make. We hear about smashing unions and so on, but at the end of the day what will put this country firmly on the path to a prosperous future is a preparedness to take different approaches, not to believe that the world simply owes us a living, but to get out there and work a little harder. I believe that reality is acknowledged throughout the work force. I believe the old image of the ocker with the big beer belly and thongs is very much a false image of Australians. In my working lifetime I have worked in numerous industries at a professional level and as a worker. One of the things I learned over those many years is that that image of Australians as being a little lazy is really an unfortunate caricature. If one worked as I did as a scaffolder in the building industry one would know that there is no sloth in that industry because sloth brought about one hour's notice of the cessation of employment. It was a very physically demanding industry to work in. That was the case in many industries I experienced. This image is one that ought not continue. The average Australian worker has shown resourcefulness. If one travels around the world it is possible to draw comparisons with a whole range of other countries. I believe we stand up to analysis on any ground-contribution, intelligence, the infrastructure of this country. I believe the position we have in terms of the developing economies in the Asia-Pacific region are of themselves a significant, potential, comparative advantage that we enjoy, and so on. I conclude my contribution by making one point and perhaps a plea. The point is that the challenges that are confronting Australia ought not only be seen as difficulties; they are very much opportunities. The AIDC is in my view one aspect, but an important aspect, of a changed attitude in Australia that is seeking to take advantage of the opportunities that are before us. The Government's record in industry development is second to none and stands in very stark contrast to the rather embarrassing record of the previous Government. If the Opposition wants to be taken seriously out there in the electorate rather than simply parrot the rather cliched, immature debate that we have experienced over the last few weeks, it is beholden on it to come before this House with constructive alternative policy proposals. We have a record upon which we are proud to stand and we have the policies for the future. When I hear the Opposition challenging those on their merits I will be a very happy member of this Parliament; so far in my four years it has yet to do so. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.08) —We are dealing cognately with the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill 1986 and the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1986. Principally they relate to Commonwealth borrowings and, in specific terms, the Australian Industry Development Corporation and its work. It should be remembered by the Parliament that this legislation came into effect in 1970. It was the McMahon Government which moved to establish the Australian Industry Development Corporation. I think it is fair to say that in the intervening 17 years the Corporation has done an outstanding job. It is chaired currently by a great Australian, Sir Gordon Jackson, and I have no doubt at all that many businesses, many operations in Australia today, are there because of the assistance provided and the support given. But I have to say that if ever a government has shown itself to be two-faced, hypocritical and dishonest in relation to industry policy it is the Hawke socialist Government. Let me give just a small example of the deception we see in this cognate debate. We can read through and through the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1986 and the second reading speech of the Minister for Science and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Mr Barry Jones) but we will not see the amount of levy or the charge-in fact, I brand it as a tax-set out at all. However, if we look at the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill 1986 we will find that, after it deals with charges in respect of Commonwealth borrowings, semi-government borrowings and the like, on page 3 a direct reference is made to the 0.5 per cent per annum charge which can now be levied by the AIDC in cases where it determines-and I emphasise `it determines'-that borrowings or raisings of money made after 8 October 1986 are to be guaranteed by the Commonwealth. Once again this two-faced, hypocritical Hawke socialist Government shows its double standards, because effectively under the legislation one has Hobson's choice. I know that my colleague, the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who is at the table, would quickly pick up the point; that if one gets a Commonwealth guarantee, one finds that that evil department, the Department of Finance, will get its little sticky fingers in the honey jar and will levy 0.5 per cent. If one does not get a Commonwealth guarantee, one will have to pay higher interest charges, so either way one is over a barrel. I could not let the opportunity pass, as a former Minister, to say that once again we see the sticky, tacky little fingers of the Department of Finance. I find it extraordinary that this Parliament has been the subject of deception by the Hawke Socialist Government in relation to two consecutive measures which flowed from the 1986-87 Budget. The first was the absolute lie-which is what it is-that the $250 being ripped off the university and tertiary students of Australia is an administration charge. There is no question at all about it-it is a fee. But the Government came into this Parliament and deceived the House and the people by saying that this was an administration charge in relation to university students-totally fictitious, totally false, totally untrue-- Mr Connolly —And gutless. Mr HODGMAN —And absolutely gutless. The Government said that it is a levy-it is not a levy. I join with the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) in saying that it is a tax-no ifs, no buts. Who on earth will tell me that a flat, standard 0.5 per cent per annum charge bears any relation to the administrative work involved? In some cases the borrowings might be straightforward and simple-in some cases it might be a renewal or a rolling over of borrowings, which are processed almost automatically-but people will be slugged that 0.5 per cent. This Government seems to think that people on this side of the House do not understand the figures; that we cannot see through the fraud, cheating and robbery. That is exactly what it is. I turn to the second reading speech of the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, on which I base my case. The short point is that Australian industry should realise that whilst this Government on the one hand preaches support for it and preaches all good things to all good men at all good times, on the other hand it is robbing industry in this country. The figures are very significant. In the Minister's second reading speech he indicated, quite properly, that the AIDC had recently reported a record after tax net profit of $19.1m. Well done-good profit! Then a little further down we get an idea of the impact of this apparently small 0.5 per cent levy. The Minister talked about the assets of the AIDC amounting to $2,167.4m compared with $768.1m at 30 June 1982, which is an increase of 180 per cent. He congratulated the Corporation, then went on to say that the paid up capital stood at $100m. I am trying to pick up the figure in this rather extraordinary speech by the Minister where he indicated what the effect of the reduction will be. Of course-I am sorry, I am being tricked again, because it is not in that speech, it is in the other one. One has to read the two speeches to follow it. The figure is in the order of over $15m which will be saved-if I can use that expression-by the AIDC, but it will be paid by Australian industry. Frankly, it is a tax. Of that there is no question or shadow of a doubt. I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy of this Government claiming that it supports Australian manufacturing-it does not. This Government has betrayed the Australian manufacturing sector. If you do not believe me, Mr Deputy Speaker, look at the raw statistics. Last year imports increased by a massive 21 per cent. Twenty-one per cent in one year is an enormous figure. In June of last year the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) announced, as if it were of no importance at all, a 6 per cent increase in imports of textiles, clothing and footwear. Do you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that as I speak there are the ghosts of 350,000 Australians, who 10 years ago were working in Australian manufacturing, who are not working there today? Do you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when Australian manufacturing is under increasing pressure, when goods are being dumped in this country day in and day out, this wretched, disloyal and unpatriotic Government does nothing about it? The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went to Beijing last year. When he got to Manila he released information-he did not release it in Beijing-which he had conveyed to the People's Republic of China, with which I have no quarrel, that when the current textiles, clothing and footwear plan runs out it could expect a major increase in importation of clothing, textiles and footwear. Without wishing to shock the Parliament, I have to say that the day is fast approaching-it will probably come within a decade-when Australian kids will go to school wearing clothes and shoes that have not been made in this country and we will be hard pressed to buy shoes and clothes made in this country. The country is being flooded with imports by a government which says: `Be fair dinkum, support Australia'. We saw the Prime Minister pleading on television. He says `Be true blue' when his Government has permitted imports to increase by 21 per cent in one year. He cannot work out why the balance of payments figures have gone through the floor. One does not have to be Mandrake the magician to understand that if we permit massive increases in imports, when our exports have dropped, according to the January figures that have just come out, we will have the worst balance of payments figures on record. This Government says that it stands by the Australian worker, whereas in fact the Australian worker in the manufacturing sector is being betrayed day in day out by the people they thought were their friends and protectors. I have said this before and I will say it again: Everything I wear is made in Australia. That is a standard rule. I will not strip, but I will run through it. I am wearing an Anthony Squires suit made in Australia; an Austico tie made in Australia; a Van Heusen shirt made in Australia; John Brown socks made in Australia; and Florsheim shoes made in Australia. I am sorry that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is temporarily out of the chamber, because Mr Barry Counsel is the head of Flor- sheim Shoe Co. Pty Ltd and Julius Marlow Holdings Ltd. I am wearing Jockey underwear made in Australia in the colours true blue-Liberal true blue. I am not having a shot at anybody else who wears Gucci or anything like that, but I wear Australian. I drive an Australian car, I have an Australian family and I am proud of Australian products because I am one myself. I was constructed in Australia and delivered right on time on 16 November 1938, so I believe in things made in Australia. I talk about a government which says `Be true blue, be fair dinkum', then lets imports come in at the cost of Australian jobs. Look at the gutlessness of this Government which is absolutely hypnotised by the economic purists, these geniuses who come to bring salvation to us. They are the ones who look at the report of the so-called Industries Assistance Commission on the textiles, clothing and footwear industry. The implementation of the recommendations of that report could put 60,000 Australians out of jobs. This is a government which talks about being interested in women in the work force and in our ethnic communities. This is the same government which, with a stroke of the pen to implement that IAC report, could put out of work 60,000 Australians, of whom 80 per cent are women and of that 80 per cent of women, 90 per cent are ethnic. When the new Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) goes running around the ethnic communities, I hope that a few of them will say: `What are you going to do about women in the work force-those in the textiles, clothing and footwear industry?' They are about to be sent to the gallows by the Hawke socialist Government, which says that it supports the workers, but of course it does not. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the latitude which has enabled me to address my remarks to the manufacturing sector. As you would be well aware, the AIDC has played a significant role in two sectors which were referred to by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), whose speech preceded mine. I compliment him on a very thoughtful speech. He pointed specifically to the passenger motor vehicle industry and to textiles, clothing and foot- wear. I want to talk now about the slaughter of the passenger motor vehicle industry by the Hawke socialist Government. My old friend the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) is smiling. In his fairness, he will recall that when this Government introduced the steel industry plan I was but one of two members on this side of the House who stood in this Parliament and applauded it. The Government's steel industry plan is first rate. The runs are on the board. I believe that Australia's indigenous, Australian-owned steel industry will go from strength to strength. You may remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I was mildly embarrassed that night in the House because applause is not usually permitted. Even worse for me; when I sat down I was applauded by the Socialist Left in Moscow corner. They thought that it was a marvellous speech. I have been fair and have supported the Government when I have thought that a proposal was proper and fair. In the steel industry plan it was first rate. What has the Government done to the passenger motor vehicle industry in this country? It has effectively cut the throat of the industry. Sales are down a massive 160,000 vehicles as a direct result of the Government's iniquitous and vicious fringe benefits tax, the compulsory keeping of log books and the other cutbacks that have occurred as a result of the Government's full scale assault on private enterprise. How embarrassing and degrading it is to say to a reputable businessman: `We want to know exactly how many kilometres you travelled, where you went and what your journey was for'. Such a person is expected to have a much better memory than the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The Treasurer is so forgetful he forgot to lodge his tax return. It is a damned good thing that he is not a woman and on the pill. He would finish up very pregnant. The plain fact of the matter is that the Government is demanding a higher standard from the Australian businessman than it is prepared to apply to itself. The Government is turning this place into a second rate Soviet Union. It is a case of `Write it all down; tickey tack it in the little book; keep the dossier'. It is only a matter of time before we will have to put meters on the end of beds. I am concerned that this country is going down the gurgler-down the road to a socialist republic. I am concerned that most people in Australia are just lying there, half asleep, not believing that that will ever happen. They think: `Mr Hawke looks so nice on television. We like the way he does his hair. He always turns up when Australia wins at sport. He is never there when we get done, but you know what it is like'. He is one of the best political operators that this country has ever seen. But the Government has killed the passenger motor vehicle industry. It is wiping out decent Australians who have earned a living in the retailing of new and second hand motor vehicles. The people in the street cannot afford to buy a new vehicle. It is almost as expensive as buying a Sherman tank. The right of an Australian to buy a vehicle today has been knocked sideways. I like the little signs I have seen on the back of cars which state: `I own this car, but I am paying for the petrol on hire purchase'. That is what the Government has done. Mr Keating, a modern day Ned Kelly, is robbing the motorists of Australia. One does not see too many of them going for a Sunday afternoon drive. They cannot afford to even switch on the engine, because every time they do so money goes into the Commonwealth Treasury coffers. In the concluding moments available to me, I ask: What has the Government done to the workers? The ordinary Australian worker cannot now go into a pub and buy a beer and a packet of cigarettes. That is what the Government has done to the ordinary Australian worker. We in Tasmania have a standard eight ounce beer glass. The price of that glass of beer is now over $1. I know that the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services does not smoke or drink, but if I bought drinks it would cost me $1 for my eight ounce beer and about $2.40 for a packet of cigarettes. What would I buy him-a square and a lemon? I would probably get hit 85c for that. The whole thing would be over in 10 minutes. The Prime Minister said that he was a man of the people, that he was for the people, and would be with the people. Today, the pubs of Australia are like mausoleums. One could fire a cannon through them at 8 o'clock at night and not hit a soul. The ordinary worker cannot afford to go into hotels. He cannot afford a beer or cigarettes. So there we have it. The Government floats along on deception and deceit. It did not even insert `0.5 per cent per annum' in the second reading speech to the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill. I suppose it thought that the honourable member for Bradfield, the shadow Minister-he is at the table-and I might be a bit thick and we would not pick it up in the other Bill. It is not a levy; it is a tax. It is a tax on Australian industry which the Government says it supports. It is a tax on the development of Australian industry which the Government says it wants. Once again, it is an example of a government prepared to go the half truth in an attempt to get the legislation through the Parliament without much debate. It is a tragedy that a government can resort to lies and deception, as it has in this case and as it did in the so-called administration charge for university and tertiary students. That was not an administration charge at all; it was a tertiary fee. I would like to know why it costs $250 to administer the studies of a student in Tasmania who is doing an extramural course from Monash University and has never put a foot on Monash University in his life. Where does the $250 administration fee come in for that? The fact is that the Government has become very careless with the truth. The tragedy is that, unfortunately, many Australians are blind to it because they find the smiling face, the charisma, the coiffured grey hair and the handsome, tanned face of the current incumbent of the Lodge. They are prepared to accept what he says. He is on his last stay in the Lodge. He will be thrown out neck and crop at the next election, and I, for one, look forward-if I can afford it-to celebrating on that night the total defeat and, indeed, the total destruction of the Hawke socialist Government. Come the day; it will not come quickly enough for me. I thank the House. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(8.00) —Madam Speaker-(Quorum formed) It is very nice to have a large audience, but calling for a quorum is typical of the disruptive tactics of the Opposition when it has nothing useful to say. It is interfering with important parliamentary committees, not to mention the satisfactory eating of dinner. Although we are discussing two Bills, I want to comment only on the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill. The AIDC is sometimes described as a merchant bank but it is more accurately called a development bank because it concentrates on longer term lending for the development of Australia. The AIDC has had a remarkable history. It shows the benefit which can be received by the whole Australian economy through effective public sector enterprise. I want to hear `Hear, hear' to that. Government members-Hear, hear! Mr LANGMORE —The AIDC is a statutory corporation wholly owned by the Commonwealth. Its objectives are to promote Australian industry or Australian ownership in industry. It is a financial enterprise, operating on commercial principles, and it is engaged in the business of borrowing money, making loans and making equity investments. It also provides related financial, advisory and other services including lead management of syndicated project financings. The AIDC consults with the Government from time to time on its general policy but its decisions on particular transactions are independent of government direction, influence or review. Under the protection of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act the Corporation deals with its clients in a completely professional and confidential manner. The AIDC is taxed in Australia on the same basis as a public company, and we should not let the Opposition tell us otherwise. One half of its net profit after tax is paid to the Commonwealth. The AIDC has had a remarkably successful history. It was established over 15 years ago. In its earlier years there was some controversy about the value or appropriateness of active government involvement in development banking. This was linked with some decisions about overseas borrowings which caused foreign losses in some early years. However, that early phase was quickly over and in the last 10 years there has been a dramatic growth in the operations and profit of the Corporation. For example, during the last 10 years, between 1976-77 and 1985-86, new financing commitments and guarantees have grown from $27m to $1,6000m. Much of that growth has occurred in the last two or three years. Similarly, funds disbursed in development loans and investments have grown from $24m in 1976-77 to $574m in 1985-86. Net profit after tax-I hope that members of the Opposition are listening to this figure because they are so often critical of the net profit of government bodies-grew from $2.3m in 1976-77 to $19.1m in 1985-86, and that growth has been relatively steady. The directors in their most recent annual report write with pride that this growth in activity and profits was achieved by a staff of fewer than 200 people. Therefore, on average, each staff member brought in $8.2m of new business and produced after tax profits of nearly $100,000, which is quite remarkable. This is clear evidence of the high level of efficiency of a public enterprise and refutes yet again those extremists opposite who claim that public enterprises are inevitably inefficient. In December 1983 the present Government extended the Corporation's role to include all Australian industries, including the service industries where most growth in future employment is likely to occur. The amended Act also puts new emphasis on promoting the creation of new industries and facilitating the restructuring of existing Australian industries to enable greater efficiency and competitiveness. Government therefore has given the Corporation an important part in its policies for the revitalisation of industry, and the AIDC's corporate objectives show that very clearly. Those objectives are very impressive, and they begin by expressing the aim of being Australia's best and most innovative development bank. They continue by expressing the aim to actively seek out opportunities to encourage and assist the establishment and growth of viable, internationally competitive Australian industries and to facilitate the restructuring of industries within Australia. It is hard to imagine more important objectives in the economic sphere of government. The distribution of the Corporation's new commitments in 1985-86 clearly expresses those goals. A third of new commitments were to oil and gas production and distribution mainly through its involvement in the enormous North West Shelf project. Another 28 per cent of commitments were for other manufacturing industry, 22 per cent were for transport, distribution and service industries, nearly 12 per cent were for the other mining and mineral processing category, just over 3 per cent were for tourist facilities and accommodation and 1 1/2 per cent were for technology based industries. One would hope that that investment in technology based industries can be expanded in future years, though given the size of the Corporation's total financial activities-which I remind honourable members totalled $1,600m last year-it is never likely to predominate. However, it is clear from this year's annual report that some quite imaginative and innovative technological commitments have been made by the Corporation-for example, through its involvement in the Aussat satellite project; through helping to finance the commercial development of a continuously variable stroke automotive internal combustion engine; through fifty-fifty ownership of the Australian Biomedical Corporation through its wholly owned subsidiary, Interscan International Ltd which has received some very welcome publicity and which was established with government funds to develop a microwave landing system based on a principle developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and adopted internationally for the next generation of aircraft landing guidance systems; through its substantial investment in Nucleus Ltd, the holding company of Australia's premier high technology medical products and equipment manufacturing group with world-wide operations; and through support for innovative consumer products such as Gliderol garage roller doors, and solid fuel heaters. In June 1986 the Corporation, acting on behalf of the Australian Government, committed $9.2m for a 40 per cent joint venture interest in an anti-malaria research and development project being carried out by four of Australia's internationally famous medical research groups. The additional funds injected by the Corporation will accelerate the research and development program, which is becoming particularly urgent given the breakdown of other attempts to eliminate malaria. These are just a few important examples amongst many included in the Corporation's 1985-86 activities. The purpose of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill is to amend the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act to provide for the Commonwealth guarantee of moneys payable by the AIDC to be optional, at the Corporation's discretion. The amendments come about from the Government's intention to levy a charge in respect of the guaranteeing of borrowings or raisings by the Commonwealth's business enterprises. This would have cost the Corporation an estimated $7m on its borrowings and raisings in 1986-87, so the Corporation expressed a wish that the Commonwealth guarantee be optional rather than automatic so that the Corporation could avoid these additional costly charges if it wished. The Corporation will be able to call on a Commonwealth guarantee in future if it wishes but that will be optional on the basis of the Corporation's preferences. It is important that this is understood to be a commercial preference by the Corporation and involves no reduction of support for the Corporation by the Government. The practical value of the AIDC's work is evident from the examples that I have already given. There is also a profoundly important structural reason why the existence and work of the AIDC are essential and that is that within Australia there are few, if any, perfectly competitive markets. In fact, there is a high degree of market failure. The AIDC contributes to easing the danger of that situation by injecting additional competition and innovation into imperfect markets. In Australia, as everywhere else, market failure occurs for a number of reasons, of which five are centrally important: First, in Australia there are high degrees of monopoly and other market imperfections. When there are only one, two or a few firms in an industry and there are tariff or other barriers to trade, each firm has power to influence prices. Some firms in Australia are so dominant that there is little constraint from the market over their price setting, whilst many other firms have considerable freedom to control their own pricing. Second, many consequences of economic activity are not reflected in the price system; that is, there are external effects of externalities. Third, the actual price system reflects current scarcities and therefore cannot be an adequate guide to decisions affecting the future notes, such as those on investment. Fourth, risk and uncertainty always influence allocative decisions, tending to bias investment against risky activities. This is a particularly important reason why a public corporation with a longer term perspective on its activities can have a particularly valuable role. Fifth, perfectly competitive markets occur only when all buyers and sellers have complete information, which is a patently absurd assumption about any market in Australia. Because of market failure of the five kinds I have described, it is commonly essential for governments to intervene in order to increase the efficiency with which markets operate. There are various ways in which governments can intervene, ranging from simply requests to private corporations to behave in particular ways, statutory regulations, and competitive involvement in an industry to complete public ownership. In many ways, the least intrusive of these alternatives is competitive public sector involvement because this puts no constraints on activities by private companies but does increase the competitive pressure on them to operate efficiently. Publicly owned competitors can reduce the danger of exploitation of market power without the establishment of a paralysing labyrinth of regulations. This approach has been used effectively in Australia in banking and insurance for a long time. Commonwealth and State banks and insurance companies are subject to pressure to maximise their efficiency, to minimise prices, to respond to consumer preferences and to be innovative, and they increase the stimulus for private competitors to do the same. This is a particularly appropriate policy in what economists call oligopolistic industries; that is, industries where there are two or just a few companies, for there a public competitor can shatter cozy implicit collusion. It is particularly important to emphasise both the theoretical value of the AIDC and its great success in practice because there has been some talk within the Opposition in the past-even during this debate-of privatising the AIDC. Mr Robert Brown —Shame! Mr LANGMORE —It is extraordinary. The AIDC has ceased to be a matter of controversy. I am reluctant to raise this issue now, when the existence and role of the Corporation are completely accepted in Australia's financial markets. However, it is important to encourage people to look sceptically at the nostrums being spread by a few of the Opposition's more extremist and doctrinaire speakers. Privatising the AIDC would reduce the efficiency of the Australian economy. Privatisation involves the abandonment of public responsibility not only for equity and humanity in the community but also for efficiency. Although the Opposition leaders have been quiet for some time about the issue of privatisation-apart from on the AIDC in this debate-following the failure of the proposal to be an electoral success in South Australia, it apparently remains one of their key policies, so debate about privatisation is likely to be intense in the run-up to the next election. The privateers appear to believe that only the individuals involved in transactions have the right to be concerned about their nature or outcome. Privatisation involves rejecting the balance of community responsibility. It is a direct attempt to undermine the power of government to influence the economy on behalf of the community. Privatisation would lead to increased inefficiency, greater inequality in the distribution of income and wealth, greater conflict and less effectiveness in the delivery of services. In fact, it would lead to greater insecurity, less freedom and more injustice. Sale of the AIDC would reduce the efficiency of Australian industry by reducing the extent of innovation and by removing one of the sources of competitive pressures on private industry. It would tend to increase the extent of overseas ownership of Australian industry because one can be sure that many of the shares in a privatised AIDC would be bought by overseas companies and individuals. One of the results of the sale of the AIDC would be loss of a useful lever in building up Australian ownership of our enterprises. Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to praise the Corporation and to support this Bill wholeheartedly. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.18) —This legislation comprises two Bills which are partly complementary. The first is the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill and the second is the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill. The Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill imposes charges on government instrumentalities and the second relieves the AIDC from those levies or charges concerning government guarantees. Activities of the AIDC are well known to most Australians. It acts as a development bank. It makes a significant contribution by the sheer size of its activity in seeking to increase the contribution to national growth and development. It seeks out industries which are, in particular, internationally competitive, businesses which will earn export income. This year AIDC has posted a record income and a record profit as have most banks in Australia. I have heard members of the Australian Labor Party complaining about the size of the profits of banks. In particular, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) said that as banks are profitable they can afford lower interest rates. It is a fascinating factor in the Australian economy that at times of high interest rates banks make profits. We have exceptionally high interest rate charges in Australia today and therefore it is not at all surprising that an organisation favoured by the Government, such as the AIDC, is making profits, as are other financial institutions which lend funds in our society today. The interest charges that Australians are paying are at world record levels. I fear that some of the activities of the AIDC and the high interest that it is forced to charge will lead to the problems that are notable in the disclosure of bankruptcy figures and the failures of businesses. It is all right for banks and lending institutions to be profitable but it is very hard for them to get additional business when the charges for money are extremely high. I suggest that the new business AIDC is writing at this moment is not significant, because nobody will take a punt on whether they can make an investment succeed at the charges that are levied on people when they borrow funds today. One has only to look at some of the standard interest charges in our community. We see 90-day bank bills at 16.75 per cent, 10-year bonds at 13.88 per cent and Bankcard at 21 per cent. The lowest rate for home loans is 15.5 per cent but most Institutions commonly charge 17.5 per cent with second mortgages running at over 20 per cent. That is the market that the AIDC is operating in. Whether it be finance for second mortgages, on advance or for the longer term investment with large amounts of money that the AIDC favours the charges are great and the profits are small. It is an exceptionally entrepreneurial type of activity that will profit in a climate such as that. One wonders whether the small businesses, the farming organisations of Australia, can continue to survive in the current climate, because their overheads and interest charges are a significant part of their operating costs. One wonders whether they will continue to survive. One also wonders how our home buyers can go out on the market and afford to purchase a home. I know it is only an exceptional few within my electorate who can make those purchases. They are the sorts of people basically who pay cash for their homes. People who have to borrow or have some sort of a cocktail loan-part building society and part finance company funded-are making exceptional efforts to meet their repayments, and that also applies to the organisations funded by AIDC. Under this legislation the AIDC will be relieved of levy charges, and that is probably appropriate because the Corporation does make payments of a normal commercial type. However, it has some favoured aspects to it because of its association with government. The basic fact is, however, that, as an organisation, it is facing the same difficulty as any other lender in today's market. It is making profits but it is not writing new business. Mr Price —That is rubbish. Mr CADMAN —The honourable member should ask the Corporation today whether it is writing new business. Not enough investors are making significant investment in Australia today. The expectations of investors are not great and job opportunities are declining. That is what the Government has to face in its broad management of the economy. It is all right to take an example, such as the AIDC, and say that it has made a big profit, therefore, it is a good organisation. The Government has to look behind those profits to see whether they will continue and whether that organisation will fulfil its objectives, whether there will be propositions for it to invest in Australia, to create jobs and to roll over both the funds of Australian investors and the funds of its overseas borrowings, which are substantial. I believe that the indicative figures that have come through on the success of business are very strongly linked to the statistics on bankruptcy. We have seen a half year result on bankruptcies, which is a record high for Australia. The Inspector-General in Bankruptcy says that it is quite proper to extend a half year result to a full year result because the number of bankruptcies has remained consistent during record keeping. Over 8,000 bankruptcies in a year is a huge increase, from 6,408 during the previous year. How does the AIDC operate in a market like that, where not just small businesses but also large businesses are being squeezed tighter and tighter? I do not see how the AIDC can continue to be effective while the economy is running as it is, with high overheads and high interest charges. I turn to the performance of the AIDC and what it is facing. I refer to the quarterly business survey produced by the National Australia Bank Ltd and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and to capital investment in Australia. The expectation for capital investment is not good. One has only to look at the graph of expenditure plans on page 5 of this quarterly publication to see that the crunch point for capital investment started in the June quarter of 1985. That is when the nose dive commenced. Capital investment really took a dive. It hit a bottom on current figures in September last year, and has eased up very slightly. But it is a mirror image of what occurred to capital investment in 1981 and 1982. There is a similar depth of concern for the lack of expenditure. If one looks at the facts that have been collected on investment intention, one also notes that the proportion of firms anticipating a decline in capital investment is at a peak. It has fluctuated slightly over the last 12 months, but the proportion of firms anticipating a decline in capital investment is very high. Therefore today we have Government members saying: `What a fine organisation this great development bank is, which lends hundreds of millions of dollars to investment prospects', but they are behind the times. They are not with the current economic situation in the market-place and the prospects for investors. There is no prospect for large investors in Australia at the costs that they have to carry. The economic outlook for investment by the AIDC is best summarised by quotations from five top across-the-board Australian economists, one of whom the Government will not appreciate. The first one, John Stone, believes that the outlook for 1987-- Mr John Brown —You are not going to quote him, are you? Can't you get a credible source at least? Mr CADMAN —I will quote Stilwell. That might be preferred by the leftist learning attitude of my colleague. Let us look at Frank Stilwell and see how the honourable member likes him. He assumed that the Government would not follow his advice, and he said: I assume that it will carry on with its current policies . . . In that case the outlook is fairly bleak. Going back to John Stone, he believes that the outlook for 1987 is dismal. He said: I wish I could say otherwise, A reference to a Bill Shields, another prominent economist, of the Macquarie Bank Ltd, stated: Bill Shields looked into his crystal ball and saw the Government muddling through. Ray Block, a well-known name, thought that 1987 would be a difficult year. John MacLeod said: I'm very gloomy . . . It's a critical year for the economy. We're of the view that inflation will remain high. That is the economic outlook from a range of economists, all with different political views and attitudes. Those people are saying that the climate in which the AIDC will operate is extremely difficult. In debating this legislation I want to come briefly to the second part of the cognate debate, to the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill 1986. In doing so, I draw the attention of the House to the levy that will be imposed by this legislation; some of my colleagues have called it an extra tax. Mr Price —Are you supporting it? Mr CADMAN —We are not voting against it. If the honourable member wants to muddle along and have a difficult economy in 1987, he is at liberty to do so. The reckoning day will come, however. We will not oppose this legislation. The Government can go ahead and pass it. He thinks that is fine. Let him answer a few questions when he speaks. This Government is going to put a levy on these organisations. On which government organisations will it impose the levy to make them into more commercial type activities? It will put a charge on Aussat Pty Ltd. Will the price of overseas telephone calls rise? What will flow through to the consumer? In his second reading speech, the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) did not mention changes to consumer charges as a result of this levy. What about the Australian National Airlines Commission? What about the Australian National Railways Commission or the Australian Postal Commission? Will postal charges go up as a result of this additional levy, or will this cost have to be absorbed in the way that Australian businesses have had to absorb the stupid costs and taxes of the current Government? The result will be more expensive government instrumentalities because the Government will charge those instrumentalities, more expensive operation of those instrumentalities as a result of those greater charges, and the prospect of an increase in the charges imposed by those organisations. The Australian Telecommunications Commission is also to be subject to this levy under Part A and Part D of the Schedule. The total amount of tax being requested from those organisations is such that it will be written into the balance sheets of the corporations. Will charges rise? I would like the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is at the table, to say whether charges will rise. In six months' time we will see an increase in charges from these organisations and they will say that wages, salaries and overheads have necessitated the increase. Part of the increase will be due to a Government imposed levy on a government business undertaking. Also included in the list is the Federal Airports Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries. The costs of operation of airports in Australia, particularly Sydney's Kingsford-Smith Airport, are part of the responsibility of the Federal Airports Corporation. Will landing charges, et cetera, go up at airports? The Government is to have a double whammy. It will hit Australian Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd and other instrumentalities with the levy, as well as the Federal Airports Corporation. An interesting inclusion in the list is the Health Insurance Commission. The Government is to put a levy on the Health Insurance Commission. It is fascinating that it can put a charge on this organisation that will affect the payment of health costs of the people of Australia. The Government will do that because the Commission is supposed to be run as a business type organisation and this is a business type charge. What will happen to the cost of health insurance? Will there be any change in that? We know the figures in the Budget. The abysmally small amount that we pay by way of levy is just laughable. Will the Medicare levy rise with the levy going on to the Health Insurance Commission? Mr Porter —The Medicare levy will go up. It will go up. Mr CADMAN —As the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) notes, if the Government follows its previous practice, the cost will not be absorbed into the levy deducted from every taxpayer; it will be buried in the Budget, as most of the costs of Medicare are. So, secretly, the cost of the Health Insurance Commission may rise, but it will be the taxpayer who pays for it. This levy being imposed on government instrumentalities is a cost that will have to be paid somehow. It will be paid by the consumer. The thing that worries me is the Government's head in the clouds attitude to all of this. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) likes to sit back and wind up his antique clocks. He likes to give the flick pass to any suggestion that the massive and record number of bankruptcies being experienced in Australia has nothing to do with him. He likes to say: `Don't you worry about that. A 35 per cent increase in Australian bankruptcies is no concern of mine'. That is how remote the Treasurer is from these matters. But he needs to be aware that organisations such as the Australian Industry Development Corporation are dependent on economic health for them to be successful. I have to say that the Opposition does not see any real role for the AIDC but, while the Government holds to the principle that there needs to be an AIDC, the Government needs to examine the environment within which that Corporation operates. What I am saying about the Treasurer's and the Government's attitude to these affairs is best epitomised in the lead in to the feature article in the Melbourne Herald of 12 February, which states: Paul Keating has always been a man of contradictions. He's the working class boy from Bankstown, who now wears imported suits and collects antique clocks. He's the man who lives in Canberra and collects $17,000 a year-tax free-for living in Sydney. He's the Treasurer-- Mr John Brown —Nothing compared with what your blokes do. Mr CADMAN —The Minister need not talk. The article continues: He's the Treasurer who prosecutes people who don't get their tax returns in on time, but doesn't get his returns in on time. Then there was the Fringe Benefits Tax, which was to be changed only over his dead body. Bob Hawke got to fiddling with the FBT, but there seems to have been a problem with the second half of Mr Keating's boast: he's still with us. That is a pity because, if he were not still with us, maybe we would have as Treasurer somebody competent, who would understand the affairs of the AIDC and the impact of charges across a whole range of government businesses and corporations which must ultimately increase the price to the consumer, the Australian taxpayer. It is a double way of taxing people. It is the standard technique of the Labor Government of New South Wales; it puts up charges as a way to balance its books. The charges are increased and money is got out of people indirectly. The whole scene in Australia is one of more and more costs impacting on fewer and fewer productive people. The economic growth of Australia is abysmal. The Government ought to be ashamed of the way in which economic growth is going and the predictions for economic growth. We have massive foreign debt, to which the AIDC is in part contributing. We have a record inflation rate compared with our partners in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The cost of labour is high. The Government uses the term `unit cost of labour', which is a ridiculous term. Over the last few days we have seen the figures for our terms of trade. There are problems with the value of the Australian dollar and with the Government's general fiscal policies. All of these matters impact on the taxpayer. They are attacks on the Australian worker, the average guy, with his family, who wants a job and an opportunity. That is all those people demand, and yet the Australian Government is turning its back on them. It is fooling around with the economy. The Treasurer is winding his clocks while the country burns. He is a latter-day Nero in the way in which he regards the Australian community, the Australian worker and the Australian economy. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.38) —I am pleased to speak in support of the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill and the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill. It is significant that these Bills are being couched in general economic terms in that in a sense the Opposition is putting forward a series of propositions about the economy. Of course, we on this side of the House welcome that. When it comes to comparing performance, the Government has a lot to be proud of in terms of its performance vis-a-vis that of the Opposition. The unfortunate thing for the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), who has just sat down, and his colleagues is that they are regarded as failures by the electorate. Obviously, they are also regarded as failures by the Premier of Queensland. But we will not rely upon his judgment; we are happy to rely upon the judgment of the Australian electorate, which judged the Opposition very seriously in 1983, and again in 1984, as having a record of failure. The disturbing thing is that, even though the Opposition has been given time in opposition to come up with some policies, it has not been able to do so. We on this side of the house have been waiting for quite some time for the Opposition to develop some policies. It is interesting, when we look at the structure of comments made by Opposition speakers in this debate, that all we have really had has been random sniping about economic performance; there has been no cohesive development of argument or policy from the Opposition. Of course, the Australian electorate is not surprised at that because it sees the Opposition in its current tattered state. We on this side are not really sure with whom we are dealing in the Opposition. We do not know which particular groups or which particular faction to deal with. If we want to find out what the Opposition thinks, we do not know whether we should be ringing up Brisbane to find out what the Premier of Queensland thinks and whether perhaps he speaks for the Opposition. Mr Price —What about the faceless men? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As my colleague says, there are the faceless men, the white shoe brigade, who are in for $25m. Interestingly, the question asked of me by many people in the electorate is: What do these people, with their $25m, expect to get from their $25m investment? Very clearly, the independent Liberal Party, the independent Opposition that we had in the times of Menzies and McEwen, has been somewhat lost. I hope that Opposition members take some notice of the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) who is someone of principle and integrity in matters economic. Unfortunately, the experience is that they do not tend to do that. What they tend to do, which is the case with people of dogmatism everywhere, is to shout and scream loudly enough to silence the voice of reason inside their own heads, let alone anyone else's head. That is what we are seeing now-a lot of shouting and screaming, but no cohesive policies. If we ask whether there are policies in place for the Opposition-- Mr Price —What are they? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As my colleague says, what are they? There is no industry policy. There is no wages policy. In place of a wages policy we have random union bashing. We do not have a cohesive wages policy being put up by the Opposition. There is no taxation policy, although we know that ultimately the Opposition will cave in to the greedy, the $25m brigade, the white-shoe brigade from the Gold Coast. The Australian electorate understands that because it has had the experience of seeing it in recent times. Mr Porter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. It relates to the relevance of the contribution being made by the honourable member. There has been a wideranging debate, certainly on economic matters which relate to this legislation. To this stage the honourable member has not come anywhere near the legislation. He has talked about a whole lot of irrelevant matters concerning politics in other States. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to rule on the point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The honourable member for Barker has made his point. The debate before the House is a wideranging debate on a number of matters which relate to economic and fiscal areas. Honourable members on both sides have been very wideranging in their contributions. It would be inappropriate when the debate is nearly over to confine one honourable member to the pure terms of the Bills before the House. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your comments. The problem for the Opposition is that in a sense what we on the Government side are doing is holding up a mirror to the Opposition. Opposition members find that a very painful experience because what they see is that not only is the mirror somewhat cracked when they look at their own visages but they recognise that there are many pieces which they have to have on display. Nevertheless, the Australian electorate understands that as well because it is wise enough to make those judgments. I was talking about the relationship between economic policy, industry policy, trade policy and fiscal policy. Those are the areas which the Opposition has not addressed substantially. Nor has it addressed monetary policy. What we on this side are saying, I suppose, in terms of the Bills is that we recognise that there is an important relationship between the role of government and the role of the private sector. This Government has shown that very clearly. The AIDC also does so. Let me be specific in terms of the role of the AIDC. We on our side do not find it difficult to recognise that there are public sector institutions which perform an admirable role in delivering services to the community. Neither, might I add historically, did the Menzies Government find it awkward. The problem for the Opposition is that it is not really sure whether it is reflecting the past or whether it is being tugged some other way. But we on our side are very clear about it. We believe that if the public sector has a role in trying to provide opportunities for industry-that is, the role of the AIDC-we welcome it. It is interesting to observe, particularly with respect to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), that the role of the AIDC in providing support for tourism in this country has been quite substantial. I am advised that last year the AIDC provided some $30m for tourism. If we look back historically, tourism was an industry that was neglected by the Opposition. When the Opposition was in government it behaved as if tourism did not exist. Yet we have had no doubts. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism was very clear when we came to office that he had a role to perform in terms of the tourist industry and we have seen the benefits of it. It is not by accident that one of the great growth industries in Australia is tourism. It also is not by accident that tourism is one of the great employers. It also is not by accident that we are acquiring a great deal of foreign exchange, particularly as a result of the success of tourism from the United States. One of the difficulties in bland statements of ideology, which the Opposition tends to make, is that they ignore the realities of business. By and large Australian business is very mature. Australian business in recent times has been more accustomed to dealing with a competitive environment and, as a consequence of having a government which has competent economic policy, it has been prepared to take risks and to invest. An interesting test of the confidence of Australian business is the current performance of the stock exchanges. The stock exchanges, in terms both of the individual equity holder and the major movers in the stock market, recognise that we as a government have been doing the right thing. That is one of the important criteria we ought to be looking at. We have seen substantial investment in tourism, and substantial performance. It is important to note that the AIDC, viewed from the point of view of the Opposition, could have been disposed of. I know that the Opposition is having a great deal of difficulty with slogans. Privatisation was one slogan which it has buried. It now has a new slogan, which we will not add to in this House. The difficulty of the Opposition is: What does one do beyond slogans? What does one do in terms of the analysis and policy work, the hard work, required to bring about both a change in people's perceptions of voting and a change in economic performance? That is something the Opposition has not addressed yet. I put to the House and to the Australian community that it is something this Government has been addressing. On the demand side we recognise that it is important to provide a growing economy. Within this context let us talk about the AIDC. The AIDC recognises that it is important, if there are industry ventures which require support, to be prepared to commit itself to them. Let me be quite specific in terms of the AIDC's charter. One of the things we did when we took office was to increase the AIDC's gearing ratio to 15 : 1. That is the value we on this side place on having an organisation such as the AIDC. As a government we are not prepared to spend time badmouthing our fellow Australians, which seems to be a characteristic of some honourable members opposite, and certainly is a characteristic of the spokesperson referred to by the honourable member for Mitchell, that is, John Stone, who seems to take particular delight in criticising and badmouthing fellow Australians. We do not get any pleasure from that at all because we recognise that we have a joint responsibility to make this economy work. In no better area has that been tested than in the wages policy area. The Opposition has some difficulties with wages policy. It will take some time working them out because that policy is a reflection of its own internal difficulties. But, at the extreme, to be generous to the Opposition, what it has not been able to put in place is a recognition that, in terms of the supply side of business, it is important that business can predict some directions of wages policy. A characteristic since we have been in government has been that it is possible to see a direction for wages policy because an element of predictability has been put into the picture. The Opposition has to recognise that. When I spend time talking with people in business it is very clear--(Quorum formed) I say to my colleagues who are here that one of the difficulties that the Opposition is facing not only today but also this year in terms of the electoral process is that its destructive tactics we are seeing displayed in this place merely reflect the problems it has within its own parties. The problem for the Australian electorate is: Which Opposition are we dealing with? Is it the Joh led people and all the white-shoe brigade, is it the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and his people from Melbourne, is it the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and the remnants of the discredited National Party, or is it the dries around the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard)? Which group? I have my colleagues the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) and the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) supporting me but they must really be wondering who it is they are going to face-- Mr Hand —What about the rest of us? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —We also have the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) and the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), all the good people on the Government side, who really are prepared to face the electorate and say that all of this nonsense that is being talked about by the witch doctor from Brisbane is not going to tell when it comes to the real business of politics. We recognise that on this side. We are prepared to-- Mr Cross —What about me? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I recognise my colleague the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross). I am talking about the Premier of Queensland, the man who will be beholden to the $25m people who are backing him, the people who prior to the bottom of the harbour legislation were getting away with it tax free. They are now getting it from other sources, from overseas. But the point that we have to make is: Which liberals? Are there any liberals left in the Liberal Party? There is the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), one of the few liberals left in the Liberal Party. Even he, with his rather tattered visage, is still someone we can refer to as a member of the Liberal Party. But what about the rest of them? What a tattered mob they really are. I see the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) over there too. He must feel very lonely these days, being one of the people who is rational in terms of economic argument. How does he put up with it? How does he put up with this extraordinary collection of people opposite? Mr John Brown —What about the honourable member for Hinkler? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I must say about the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest), who is prepared to give up his seat, that his voters must feel really cheated. He is not prepared to fight about it even. What about giving Joh a bit of a hard time? What about making him get the Bible out and swearing on it or something like that? Do not give up like that, my boy, get in there and fight him. Just because the honourable member for Hinkler cannot stumble over his words does not mean that he has to give up his seat to the man. Make him contest it a little bit. I think there has to be a bit of courage. What would Jack McEwen think if he came back? What would he say? Where is this party of courage that cannot even stand up for its leader? What an extraordinary situation. Poor old Sinkers went into the Party room and could not even get the backing of his own troops. Would it have happened under Anthony or McEwen? It certainly would not. The poor old member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), decent bloke that he is, had to come out and prop up the National Party today. What a disgraceful situation. The honourable member for Hinkler must really wonder. I wonder whether honourable members opposite should even collect their pay because they are certainly not earning it and they are certainly not a political party. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Stirling might get back to the matter before the House. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Mr Deputy Speaker, we were enjoying ourselves. I am happy to enjoy myself by talking about industry policy and the role of this Government in relation to industry policy. We asked the Opposition whether it has an industry policy, but it has not got one. In fact, we asked the Opposition about a number of things. Does it have a tax policy? Only for the greedy does it have a tax policy. Has it got a wages policy? Only for Copeman and Robe River people to kick unions. It has not got a wages policy. Does it have a trade policy? You bet they do not. That is why we have had difficulties in terms of evolving a wages policy. Ever since 1971 when the National Party stood over poor Billy McMahon in that famous meeting in Martin Place and the then Government did not deal with the Australian dollar we have had trouble on the trade front. The Government would not face the tough questions and it was copping out. Little wonder the honourable members opposite can find $25m from the Gold Coast to prop them up. Goodness me, all the people over the years that they are beholden to! It is a terrible situation. We ought not to put up with this; my goodness me, no; definitely not. When we also turn to the question of fiscal policy, what is the Opposition's role? All we have from the Opposition is: `Reduce the deficit'. But what about all its promises? They are adding up. Mr Allan Morris —What a situation. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Absolutely. I thank my colleague the honourable member for Newcastle. I think we have to put the situation to the Australian people very clearly. Are we going to accept the witch doctory of the Premier of Queensland, the uncosted circumstances and all of these situations that have never been dealt with properly? These are things that really we ought to be dealing with. What we want to say as a Government is that we have some policies in place, our record is clear to the Australian people-and the Australian people recognise that-but I think the Opposition has a real problem to face. Who is going to be leading it next week or later this year? Who is it going to be beholden to? What kind of debt does it owe to people? As I have said to the honourable member for Berowra, no wonder he feels lonely. He has no mates over there any more who can talk economic sense. The Opposition has dredged up John Stone as an economic commentator. Goodness gracious me, what a terrible situation. The honourable member for Berowra can do better than that. He is a man who has a degree in economics. Why does he not tell the Opposition that there is a world of real economics other than witch doctory. It happens that the Australian Treasurer knows the real circumstances of this economy. It also happens that the Australian electorate understands those circumstances. The Australian electorate is not going to be fooled by the sort of nonsense that the Opposition parties as a tattered group are putting about. At least we on this side have a track record. However, with the Opposition's track record it is no wonder that it wants to run away from it. The problem is that the Opposition is saddled with a leader, the honourable member for Bennelong, who was rarely the architect of all the economic vandalism that went on. No wonder Joh says he is going to come down and save the Opposition. All I can say is that Joh and all the lot opposite do not have enough between them to worry this Government at all. We have a track record and we have policies, and the Australian community is saying to the Opposition: `When will you come up with your policies?'. Certainly we do not have to be beholden to the $25m brigade. We do not have to do that at all. We are accountable to the Australian community and our record is very clear. I am pleased to see all my colleagues here on this side. They certainly enjoy the view from this side and they are going to have this view for a long time to come, because they are led by a government which has policies in place and because they are facing a series of Opposition groups-not parties any more, but Opposition groups-that are led by a terrible collection of failed leaders with a record of failure. We on this side are confident about our economic record and about our performance. Mr Hand —Who does the honourable member for Barker support? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As the honourable member for Melbourne says, we wonder which side the honourable member for Barker is on. I suppose we will have to wait and see. Honourable members should not worry about that because there is an opportunity for us to find out. Mr Hand —We will fix that up. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —It will be a question and when the time comes we will fix that up. We are pleased with our performance. We have the record and the Australian people recognise it. The Opposition is merely a group of tattered individuals who have nothing to offer us. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(8.57) —I am ordinarily delighted to follow the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), who usually speaks in a calm and well reasoned way, albeit often in grievous error. I must say though that in the latter part of his speech one would think that he was speaking from a position of rock-like solidity and unity over there, although what we have just had, in terms of new ministerial appointments and changes in the other place, is the outcome of the protracted bargaining of the institutionalised factions on that side of the House. It reaches a peak of irony when he says: `We are willing over here to stand on our record; we have got our policies'. What record? I hope that the Australian people are listening. We have in this country a situation of quite dire straits. We have a desperate situation, one of real peril where we have a balance of payments deficit at an all time high level. We have a relentless progress to an overseas debt of the order of $100 billion with all its implications. Who brought it about? It was $30 billion when the Hawke Government came to power and it is now on course for $100 billion, with all that implies for what it will impose on our children and future generations. Associated with it we have a falling dollar, inflation in the range of 10 to 12 per cent and interest rates-pick up any issue of the Economist-seven to 10 percentage points higher here than practically anywhere else. It might be salutary for people on that side to do a few calculations sometime as to what that incidence of seven to 10 percentage points means in terms of additional costs for every man, woman and child in Australia, particularly for the young people of Australia who when buying a house work most of the working week just to pay the interest on the house they are endeavouring to buy. That is the sort of situation we have. We have a high level of unemployment with 25 per cent of our young people not in jobs. As my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) emphasised earlier, probably one-third of farmers, a particular area of small business, are about to go broke. Is that the record the Government is talking about, that it is willing to stand on? Mr Webster —It is a disaster. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It is a total disaster for this country. Whatever the Government might see as difficulties for this side, there is a determination to carry things through this year, to remove the Government from that side of the House and to restore the situation in Australia. I am not suggesting, incidentally, that there is any instant or overnight solution. It will be a long haul but we have to get the settings in place. This debate is about the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill and the consequential Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill. The Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill imposes a charge where any government guaranteed loan is involved and has a particular impact on the Australian Industry Development Corporation. That organisation is given the option of invoking a government guarantee. If it does so, a charge of 0.5 per cent will apply. If it does not choose to involve a government guarantee, the charge will not apply. The first thing to be said about this is that it is just another tax gathering exercise, another tax gathering initiative, and the ultimate effect will be to raise some prices somewhere for ordinary Australians. The second thing to be said is that in terms of its impact on the AIDC, by and large the most likely effect of the legislation will be that the AIDC will pay marginally more for its borrowings either because of a higher risk rating without the guarantee, or by paying the charge. It could be said that if that happens the Corporation will be placed on a more equal footing with competitors, which the Opposition basically supports. But one is bound to say at the same time that it seems rather unlikely that the Government would not honour financial obligations of the AIDC if the AIDC did get into trouble; so the AIDC could substantially retain its advantage in a sort of de facto way. To say that is to underline the question that has been raised in the context of this debate as to why the AIDC should continue to be a government owned financial institution-a development bank, or perhaps it is described more accurately as a merchant bank. In these days of widespread deregulation of financial systems throughout the world and the enormous variety of financial institutions that have developed since the AIDC was established in 1971, it is a good question why this Government ownership continues at all. What I have just said about the development of financial institutions underlines the absurdity of the claim by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) earlier in this debate that the consequence of such a change, of the Government divesting itself of the AIDC, would be `a disaster', or `a massive increase in unemployment in manufacturing'. That is absolute rot. I have no doubt that the actual job that the AIDC is doing today could be and would be done, and more cheaply, if it were left to the private sector. Mr Webster —Of course it would. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Of course it would, as my colleague said. That is not just ideology; it is supported by the weight of evidence when we look at many such activities. The word `privatisation' has been thrown around, but we are not interested in that or like words; we are interested only in the most efficient way of getting certain activities done. I remark in passing that we would not be taking up the time of the Parliament now with a debate on this Bill if it were not in itself an example of the sort of complications we can face when we have, in effect, government enterprise doing a job which is properly the role of the private sector. We have to look at this aspect of the matter and the impact of the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill on the AIDC and sort it out so that it can continue its role. The hour is late but I intend to go back a little into the history of the emergence of this institution. It was brought into being basically as one element in a policy of encouraging borrowing instead of relying too much on direct foreign investment. It was one element in a policy of promoting the assembling with a significant Australian initiative and participation, of funds to finance major development projects. It was almost superfluous even at the time it was introduced because the Australian Resources Development Bank in the private sector had been set up for that purpose. This was all in a context of widespread concern about the extent of overseas ownership and control of Australian industry and resources. With the less fluid and less developed financial system and the international financial system at that time, the AIDC achieved some success along with the private sector institution, the Australian Resources Development Bank. In the position Australia is in today we have almost the opposite requirement. Loan borrowings with the associated fixed interest obligations have burgeoned-I was saying a moment ago just how they have burgeoned. What is now important is the encouragement of long term direct investment, including perhaps some recycling of existing debts as direct investment. The Government should do that. We will certainly do it on return to government, by the removal of all remaining foreign investment controls, except for certain limited and clearly defined strategically important areas. If we did have some sort of balance of payments problem coupled with a concern at the extent of overseas ownership and control in the economy in those days of the latter 1960s preceding the setting up of the AIDC in 1971, what a problem we have today! If we had a problem then, what sort of a problem do we have today after four years of the Hawke Labor Government? What we have had is a deficit in the balance of payments of $11 billion in 1984-85, $13.7 billion in 1985-86 and currently we are on course for at least the same order of deficit, about $14 billion for 1986-87. We heard the figure yesterday for the deficit in the balance of payments for January-that is, the excess of what we have to pay overseas as compared with what we earn overseas. What we have to pay overseas includes very substantial sums for interest on those borrowings. The figure for the month of January we heard yesterday was $1,290m-nearly $1.3 billion. So when I say we are on course for another $14 billion we only have to multiply that by 12 and we can see where the $14 billion is. There is in excess of the order of $1 billion a month on average. That is worth thinking about; that is about $40m a day which is the measure of the extent to which as a nation we are going into hock. It is $40m more today than it was yesterday. The relentless impact of this building up of the overseas debt, which is on course for $100m, which is Third World stuff, is to put an enormous first charge on export earnings and a great burden on future generations. This country is living very much beyond its means, like an individual with an income of $300 but spending $350 per week. He has to borrow and keep on borrowing. The currency eventually becomes suspect and is devalued. We have listened to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) talking as if the currency being devalued was a considered measure of economic policy. It was visited upon us by overseas countries because of the situation we got ourselves into. That is the truth of the matter. Mr Barry Jones —Don't you think the dollar was overvalued? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I do not know about that. The Government floated it and immediately after there was a bit of a devaluation. Then it came back and stayed for quite a while at the level it was when it was floated. The Minister can form his own opinion from that. That is what has been visited upon us and if the situation continues a further devaluation will be visited upon us. That would then have its impact upon inflation. Inflation in the December quarter was 2.9 per cent, which can be annualised in the order of 10 to 12 per cent. In the United States of America the inflation rate is one per cent to 2 per cent and in Japan and Germany it is practically zero. Yet those are the countries against which we are supposed to do better in terms of costs and inflation, in order to work ourselves out of this situation. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) talked about the Government's record. I think he ought to be pretty quiet about that record. He should be quietly beavering away doing something about it, but I would not tend to publicise it too much. I raise the question of the extent of our balance of payments difficulties and the effect of overseas ownership and control. We are in hock and, like any borrower in hock, we have to dance to the tune of those who finance the difference. Mr Webster —It is a pretty high dance. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It is a pretty difficult dance, but if we were to be cut off-of course, we will keep interest rates up where they are in an attempt to avoid this-from major sources of international credit, we would have the trend really to become a banana republic with further devaluation, inflation and so on. It is a desperate situation which the Australian economy finds itself in. There has been a bit of a false dawn, with some reasonably favourable figures in December, but do not let us lose sight of the real situation. So we spend our time debating this Bill to impose charges, to increase taxes, prices and the consumer price index a bit more! I admit that the amount is not massive. I will conclude by looking at the AIDC itself. When one looks at the range of the present activities of the AIDC, as distinct from those sorts of activities which I set out to put in a historical context, one sees that it is financing shopping centres as well as a lot of industry development in, thankfully, high technology ventures. But there is not very much of what it is doing which could be construed as arising from some sort of social purpose which a government-owned body must do. In point of fact, there is a strong case for disposing of the AIDC to the private sector. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(9.15) —As I have listened to Opposition speakers who have spoken on the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill 1986 and the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1986, I have been struck by their contradiction. On the one hand Opposition speakers are saying that they actually support the Bills, yet everything they say has been virtually in opposition to them. I guess this is one of the reasons why politicians, particularly Opposition politicians, have such a low standing amongst the general public. Mr Cadman —What about the airport? Do you want to talk about that? Mr PRICE —I would love to talk about the airport. Mr Cadman —Did you change your mind? Mr PRICE —I have not changed my mind at all. Mr Cadman —Were you for it all the time? Mr PRICE —Indeed. I was trying to say that the Opposition speakers say that they support these Bills, but everything they have said is in opposition to them. I came from a statutory authority, Telecom Australia, and I was involved in an area which was originally opened up to a limited degree of competition and now is opened up to full competition-I must say, by a Labor Government. The important point I want to make is one of the points the competitors used to make, which I thought was fairly valid. Statutory authorities have certain advantages over competing private enterprise organisations. I would have thought that the Opposition would have welcomed the Government imposing a small fee of 0.5 per cent on those loans that statutory corporations raise on the private market where they are guaranteed, but that has not been the argument. The argument has been that this is some sort of taxation revenue measure. I thought that the only Opposition speaker who came close to a decent point was the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who talked about whether it was really worth the 0.5 per cent. If I understood his point correctly, it was that corporations such as the AIDC and Telecom, which have gone out into the private market, have developed their own market and by and large do not need government guarantees. Of course, it is one of the features of the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill that organisations may apply to the Treasurer, where the Treasurer has a discretion, to opt out of it. The other Bill makes specific provision for the AIDC to do that. A lot has been said about the AIDC, but I want to say something about two things which the dedicated people who have been working for quite some time in this organisation must have been very disappointed to hear. Firstly, the Opposition want to privatise the AIDC. If one clear message comes from the Opposition, it is that it wants to privatise it. They said, in effect: `Gentlemen, your work is of no value. Indeed, it can be performed by any other merchant bank'. I disagree, and I hope that I can prove the contrary later in my contribution. I take up the remarks of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) who suggested that the Corporation had actually written to the Government seeking to be privatised. It is absolutely disgraceful for the honourable member for Mayo to advance that proposition. It may be the case, where statutory corporations are finding difficulty in raising capital, that they want to diversify their capital base away from the Government and attract some private funds, but I put it to honourable members that to suggest that this is some form of privatisation is, with great respect, a canard. What is the AIDC? It was set up, I believe, in 1977, not by a Labor government. It is a statutory corporation which is wholly owned by the Commonwealth. Half of its profit, which I believe was some $19m last year, went back to the Australian people by way of dividend. The Corporation is a financial enterprise operating under commercial principles, which is another area where I feel that Opposition speakers have confused the issues. On the one hand, they point out that the Corporation operates under commercial principles. Yet, on the other, they feel that if it operates under commercial principles it should therefore, be privatised. The AIDC consults the Government from time to time on its general policy, but it makes its own decisions on transactions. The Corporation makes its own individual decisions, but generally it follows government policy line. This Government, in stark contrast to the Fraser Government, has quite a record on industry policy. The beefing up of AIDC is but one of the areas. If one looks at the summary of operations of the AIDC, one sees the dramatic change that has occurred under the Labor Government. For example, in 1981 the Corporation had about half a billion dollars worth of loans and investments. In 1982, the last year of the Fraser Government, it had $735m worth of loans and investments. What had happened by 1986? Was the figure $800m or $900m? No. Under the Labor Government, in 1983 the figure was $927m. In 1984 it was $1,145m and in 1985 it was $1,460m. This year the figure is $2.1 billion. What that means is that the Corporation is in the market-place-firstly, attracting funds and, secondly, putting them back into Australian industry. It has put the funds back into a variety of things. The Corporation has been involved in technology and innovation, manufacturing, and export developments. For example, it has been involved in penetrating the United States of America and other markets with novel products. It has been involved in industry restructuring in the wine, whitegoods, iron foundry and pump industries. The Corporation has been involved in generating new ventures. It has looked at resources, at tourism and accommodation, and at Australianisation, commerce, underwriting of public shares, industry initiatives, and funding capital market activities. The honourable member for Mayo seemed to make light of the fact that the Corporation was involved in Barbeques Galore Holdings Pty Ltd. Let me set the record straight. Barbeques Galore is Australia's largest vertically integrated producer and distributor of gas barbecues and solid fuel heaters. The group has a joint venture retail and manufacturing operation in New Zealand and has three retail barbecue outlets in Los Angeles. The company has established a joint venture for retail distribution of its products in the United Kingdom, which will commence operations in 1987. It also aims to expand its activities in the United States market. The AIDC has taken a shareholding in Barbeques Galore to support the company's expansion plans, particularly in overseas markets. If the honourable member for Mayo finds some objection to that, so be it. I think that that is what our Australian Industry Development Corporation should be doing. I noted a couple of things in the honourable member's contribution. He certainly did not mention the AIDC's involvement in Mildara Wines Ltd. On any occasion that wine has come up as an issue in this Parliament, the honourable member has been up on his feet. Does he not take exception to the AIDC's involvement in that, or is he keeping mute to be rather cute? He did not mention the rationalisation of the whitegoods industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware of the takeover and amalgamation of Simpson Holdings Ltd, a South Australian company, and Email Ltd. Why did not the honourable member speak up on that issue? It certainly affects his State. Would he privatise those industries? If so, would the private merchant banks be involved in Mildara Wines and the whitegoods industry? I have already talked about the Opposition's position on this matter. I have not heard one Opposition speaker, even my esteemed colleague the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), point out the Fraser Government's record on industry policy or the Opposition's platform-whether the Opposition is the Joh party, the National Party, the wets or the dries. At least we are entitled to an exposition of which industry policy the Opposition would advance. The honourable member for Berowra says that we should not be proud of the record. The Hawke Government has a lot to be proud of in terms of industry policy. I would have thought that the honourable member for Berowra would have at least given credit to the Hawke Government for its involvement in industry policy. Can honourable members opposite name an industry plan that Mr Fraser introduced to put a bottom line under employment in a particular industry, or to provide a future of growth and jobs in a particular industry? I would like to rattle off a few of our plans. There is the steel plan-- Mr Cadman —The car industry plan? Ha, ha! Mr PRICE —The honourable member for Mitchell laughs. At no time has the car industry started to export components, parts and cars as it is doing now. One may wish to talk about domestic demand, but the facts are that the industry has been restructured. There has been a bottom line-- Dr Harry Edwards —That plan was basically our plan. Mr PRICE —The Button plan is the Opposition's plan? Come on, Harry! We have a plan that is working, and we are exporting more. The problem with which the Opposition will not come to grips is that we are in a cyclical downturn in terms of our agricultural and mineral products. It has never occurred with such force. One hopes that in the years ahead those commodities will come up and that agricultural and mineral production will continue to play a significant part in Australia's exports; but we must broaden our base. If we just let the market-place sort it out, that will not happen. If a Liberal-National Party coalition gets into government, it will blast manufacturing out of the water. We need corporations such as the Australian Industry Development Corporation to put packages together. For example, we have had the heavy industry manufacturing plan announced last year and implemented by this Government. Does the Opposition intend to say that that was its plan? It is not the Opposition's plan; it is Senator Button's plan. The AIDC is playing an important part in that plan. We are looking for something like $130m worth of investment in that industry. About $30m is going in concessional loan subsidies to get it back on its feet so it can be competitive, replace imports, and have an export orientation. That is terribly important. Another plan that is costing the Government very little-perhaps it was Mr Fraser's plan; I will have to check-is the communications plan. No, it was not Mr Fraser's plan; it was this Government's plan. We have put some targets on it. We are looking for an increased performance, from about $200m to $600m by 1996. There has been a lot of criticism of the plan. The real criticism is that although we are doing better we can do much better. It has taken a Labor Party government to say, first, that manufacturing and services are very important; secondly, that we need to broaden our base in Australia; and, thirdly, that we need the involvement of government, business and unions in it. One can expect the Labor side to support initiatives such as the steel plan. But the AIDC plays a very important role. The Opposition has tried to say that it is nothing other than just an ordinary, average private enterprise merchant bank. Well, it is not. It is an organisation which makes its own individual decisions but which consults with the Government to ensure that its policies, its areas of activity, dovetail into the initiatives the Government is taking. Mr Peter Fisher —Who set it up? Mr PRICE —The previous Government did, and full credit to it. But, as I said earlier, look who has really developed it. We certainly inherited the AIDC, and full marks to the previous Government, but why does the Opposition disown it? Why will honourable members opposite not acknowledge the tremendous impact that it is making in a wide variety of fields? Why do they want to kill it off when it is proving to be successful? I just do not understand it. If we have an organisation that is meeting all our criteria, they want to say to the employees: `You might have done a good job, but go away; we want to privatise you. Whether you keep your job or not does not matter to us and whether or not your customers have loans does not matter to us'. The Opposition does not like successful statutory organisations. If such an organisation were banking up losses, those opposite would say to us: `There you are; it is a fallacy of your philosophy; it is a fallacy of intervention. We told you you were wrong'. But if such a body is successful, the Opposition says we have to sell it off. The AIDC has been successful, and the Australian people can be assured of a couple of things: Firstly, the Government's commitment to the continued involvement and growth of the AIDC; and secondly, the Government's continued involvement and commitment to the services sector and to the manufacturing industry sector. We will not implement the policies that those opposite had when they were in government that blasted industry and services out of the water. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(9.32) —As a strong supporter in previous years of the Australian Industry Development Corporation I want to have just a few words tonight about the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill, which of course is aimed at continuing the operation of this organisation. I have supported the AIDC in the past because the Australian financial system was reluctant at times, in years gone by, to fund those proposals which had any element of risk. I think it was well known through Australian business society that the Australian banking system bet only on certainties. In fact, there were no bets at all. We all knew, if we were involved in that area of operation, how difficult it was for the originators of new ideas and processes to get backing from the traditional banking facilities. Mr Barry Jones —You had to prove you did not really need the money. Mr STEELE HALL —Yes; the Minister at the table is quite correct. One had to prove that one was so viable that everyone was rushing to lend money. On those occasions people who had the idea and little else had to go away and beg to others or accept the fact that they just could not get their proposal up in the world of commerce. I ran into such a situation while I was Premier of South Australia. The Director of Industrial Development came to me one day and said: `Look, this fellow who makes a certain commodity has been making it at home in a garage. He submitted this commodity in response to a tender called by a multinational in Australia for a product to perform a certain task, which may lead to sales of the product throughout Australia. Despite the submission of tenders by huge companies, this little operator was successful because of the quality of his product'. Of course he was presented with this enormous order. Every month he was due to deliver this huge quantity of material, and all he had was a garage. What he needed first was a mixer. Way back in 1969 it would have cost him $10,000-a small amount by today's devalued currency. There he was-he had success staring him in the face, a contract waiting to be signed, but could he get $10,000 from the banks in South Australia? Of course not. It was not available to him. He could not go through the State parliamentary process of committee investigation and wait six to 12 weeks for a response; he needed the money within a fortnight. It was only by the appropriate State public servant bending friendships in the financial area that that gentleman was able to get his $10,000. Within five years he was employing 120 people. It was a dramatic failure of the financial system as we knew it in the late 1960s. Of course with the personal background I have always been a strong supporter of the AIDC. I have known personally the retired Chief Executive, Mr Bob Thomas, and I congratulate him on his stewardship in that position. Of course he left the organisation in the strongest position it has been in. Having said that, I must without prejudice or ideology ask the question: Is the Corporation needed now in its current form? Things have occurred since 1968. I am still in politics, but that is a long while ago. The Government itself, by its financial actions in the last several years, has indicated that things are different. It has made them different and it has opened up the financial scene. I look without prejudice at the annual report of the Corporation and I wonder now whether the financial needs of these companies being assisted could be met by the private organisations that we currently have. I think I would have to say in all fairness that in the newly competitive scene we now have this mania in the community for takeovers has bred so much debt that money is flowing throughout the community. Shares are bought up and the capital is flowing. One can get money anywhere-even on the value of a share one has yet to purchase. It seems to me that the need we once had, so dramatically illustrated to many of us, no longer exists as it did. I am not saying that the situation will not arise again; of course changes occur. I believe that the private financial system needs to be niggled now and again to let it know that it has to serve all its customers and not those who want $2 billion to take over another company. In saying this I would like to direct the attention of the House to the needs of the very small, often single entrepreneur. There are wise heads in the business community who say that the upwelling of ideas occurs within these individual innovators. I know in my own State of South Australia that I can reel them off on the fingers of my hand and double it to arrive at the number of people who have made these various commodities. Some of them have been very fortunate in the past that they have kept their innovations in their own hands and still own-or their families still own-those companies of great wealth which have been built often on the basis of a single initial innovation. The whole of the industrial world depends on the innovation and, as I have said, so much comes from the individual operator. If I had any advice to give, I suppose from afar, to an organisation such as the AIDC, it would be that I would like to see it aim at assisting smaller and smaller operators because I believe the bigger ones can look after themselves. They may not have been able to before but they can now in the current commercial situation. So I would like to see assistance in those areas involving risk taking expanded, particularly if it is directed to the smaller innovators. There needs to be an arm of government involved with this. Here I pay tribute to some of the State governments, which of course are involved. They get expansive at times and they get wasteful, as State governments are wont to do, but I believe if this organisation is to fulfil a need this Parliament must scrutinise its success by assessing what it does in areas in which other organisations cannot operate. Parliament will not year after year approve of this organisation because it is doing what banks can do. Why would it? I believe the AIDC has to turn more and more to the innovator. After all, why should it compete with the sort of socialistic attitude experienced in Queensland and put up by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland, who has turned his State Government Insurance Office into one of the most socialistic enterprises in Australia? I think it is called Suncorp. I do not know whether I have the name correct, but I think that is what it is. It is involved, like an octopus, with the commercial and industrial life of Queensland. It is a product of the man who now is rampaging around Australia as the head of the so-called New Right, the free enterprise party. But the product he has at home is one of pure socialism which would make the Hawke Government look like a rightist government, even in the United States of America. So let us not have this organisation compete with the sort of socialism of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. I direct the attention of the Corporation, as I have said, particularly to the need of the small innovator who represents the upswelling of new ideas which big business buys to the profitability of both and which will re-energise from time to time the commercial and industrial enterprise of Australia. In these few remarks I do not criticise the existence of the AIDC: I just draw the House's attention to redirecting our thoughts to new needs, to not decrying it, to giving it new life. The Corporation should redirect its attention to the small person who is the basis of the existence of the Liberal Party. We believe in fostering those who cannot get help from anywhere else, giving equal opportunity and certainly letting the new innovators come through to the benefit of the Australian community. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(9.41) —The constructive remarks that have just been made by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) are in sharp contrast with those of his Liberal colleague, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards). After listening to the honourable member for Berowra, the well known economist, I can understand why people lose faith with politicians and in politicians. It seems that for the sake of political point scoring he has presented the House with another lot of misinformation. He talked at length about Australia's foreign debt. There would be many listeners who would not fully understand the situation but the honourable member did not bother to explain that he was talking about the gross foreign debt. I believe he led everybody listening to this debate to think that the $100 billion that he talked about was owed by the Hawke Government. Dr Harry Edwards —I did not say that at all. Mr WRIGHT —The honourable member made no variation to that statement; he simply made that point. He purposely omitted pointing out that this nation has reserves of almost $14 billion and that another $7 billion is owed to Australians by overseas people. So Australia has a net debt-I think the latest figures are for the June or September quarter-of about $80 billion. The honourable member further attempted to mislead listeners to this debate because he failed to point out that for every $10 billion owed by this nation, more than 60 per cent-more than $6 billion out of $10 billion-is owed by the private sector. Dr Harry Edwards —So what? Mr WRIGHT —The honourable member did not say that. He made out that the debt was all owed by the Government. I am very pleased with the points made by the honourable member for Boothby. He referred to the takeovers that bred so much debt. Maybe the honourable member for Berowra ought to listen to the honourable member for Boothby. Let us go a little further. The honourable member for Berowra also did not bother to point out that another 20 per cent, or $2 billion out of every $10 billion, is owed by the States and the statutory authorities. To take up the case of Queensland, some $3 billion is owed by the electricity authority in that State. The Liberals particularly-I separate a number of the so-called wets who, I think, at least understand what this is about-are trying to make out that the Australian Government owes all this money. However, 20 per cent of the total debt is owed by the Commonwealth and we have reserves amounting to some $13 billion or $14 billion. Whilst it is not a satisfactory situation, it is not as the Liberals are painting it, and it is certainly not as the National Party members are painting it. I follow the point of the honourable member for Boothby and suggest that much of our trouble today stems from the recent takeovers. The high financiers have been providing as much money as people want to take over Australian companies. One can borrow $1 billion or $2 billion. There has been a campaign misinformation. I regret that it is knowingly or unknowingly supported by some members of the media. This Parliament has a special obligation to make sure that these facts are told. I watched the Channel 9 Sunday program on Sunday morning. I was amazed to see a well known and respected reporter, Charles Woolley, tell the viewers of Australia that a miner in the Northern Territory who is on $50,000 a year is paying almost half of his income in tax. It is totally untrue but because this journalist says it, people believe it because they see it on television. The facts are that under Labor's tax changes a person earning $50,000 a year does not pay $25,000 in tax or 50 per cent; in fact, he pays around 36 per cent. He pays $18,000 in tax. It is not 50c in the dollar; it is a little less than 36c in the dollar. People do not seem to understand that one does not pay any tax on the first $5,100 that one earns and that one pays 25 per cent on the next $7,000. I shall give an easy example. A person on $35,000 a year does not pay half of it in tax, as the Liberals are running around saying. They say that such a person is caught up in the 60 per cent tax bracket, which will fall to 49 per cent. That person on $35,000 a year now pays $10,676 in tax, which is just on 30 per cent-30c in the dollar. I suggest that the honourable member for Berowra has done his profession no good, nor his own reputation, in generalising here tonight and making out that this is the situation in other areas. I return to the legislation before us. The Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill provides for the current Commonwealth statutory guarantee on borrowings and raisings by the Australian Industry Development Corporation now to become optional at the Corporation's discretion. I noted in a report that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) released that the AIDC had a record after tax net profit of $19.1m. The amendment simply acknowledges the commercial strength of the Corporation and its proven ability to stand on its own two feet as a successful government owned development bank. I think that the success of the AIDC under the Hawke Labor Government has been one of the many triumphs that this Government has chalked up in the business-industry area since 1983. I congratulate the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) for the part that he is playing in this House. But because of the ignorance that exists in the community I regret to say that many people in the business world simply are not aware of the assistance that is available. I have spent some three months contacting department after department, both State and Federal, to gather information that I can put together in some type of booklet to explain what sort of assistance is available to business. I assure honourable members that an enormous amount of assistance is available, but regrettably most people do not know about it. The report shows that the AIDC approved 853 research and development grants worth $16m in 1984-85, so people ought to know that they can apply for some of that money for research and development programs. The report also shows that total AIDC assistance for 1984-85 was more than $64m. But it is very hard for a business person to find out what is available for him and where to go to get it. I am pleased that for that reason this Government has introduced a new scheme, the national industry extension service, with toll free numbers. Everyone understands the frustration of any individual trying to ring a department for information. The switch person may be keen to help but has to pass the inquiry to someone else. It may be the wrong extension and the person who answers has to pass the call on to someone else. Fifteen or 20 minutes later the person inquiring still does not have the information. The Federal Government understands this problem. Whilst there have been many types of extension services in the private sector, we now have a government set up national industry extension service using toll free numbers. I am sure it will do much to assist Australian industry. It will help us to develop world class firms in the internationally traded goods and services sector. It is so important that Australians understand what is available to them. We have had problems. Honourable members from both sides understand the problems. We need to understand also that these problems did not start in 1986 and 1987. In August last year I read the Metal Trades Industry Association report. It pointed out very specifically and clearly that our real problems occurred from 1979 to 1982 when the Liberals and Nationals, through their policies-or lack of policies-brought about the deterioration of our national manufacturing base. Many companies went off-shore. Many companies, simply because of the high cost of the Australian dollar, which was overvalued, and due in part to the high cost of labour, started manufacturing in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong an other places. It is vitally important that we rectify this situation. I heard an excellent speech made by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) recently, about the need to get quality into our products. If we are to do this, if we are to broaden our manufacturing base and if we are to get quality into our products so that we can compete, there must be government assistance. It irks me to hear members of the Opposition stand up and say that now is the time to privatise. I put it to all listeners that anyone going to the banks today has to bleed to get money out of them. Whether it be $10m or $10,000, people bleed for it. Then they find that other banks, because they consider some people to be a high risk, instead of charging 18 per cent, they put a loading on. One well known bank admitted to a committee of this House that the normal bank rate was 18 per cent but in some instances, because some applicants were a high risk, it was charging 23 per cent. That is not good enough. We need to come to grips with these particular problems. Now is not the time to walk away from the role of the AIDC or other government instrumentalities in helping business. Now is not the time to say, `Leave it to the banks' because, as I said, the banks make people bleed. The Opposition also believes that, just as we keep the AIDC in place, and just as we introduce the NIES, the extension service program, we have also to overcome the delays. I ask the Minister at the table, the Minister for Science, to take back to departmental heads, especially on a regional basis that whilst people are starting to understand that money could be available for grants through the gross expenditure on research and development scheme, through the export incentive schemes or from the money we are giving through the States for the Queensland Industrial Development Corporation and the small business development corporations, the delay is unbelievable. I also appreciate that it is government money, it is the people's money, so the Minister cannot just sign each application, say `It will be okay, mate' and then find out later on that it did not meet the guidelines or that the venture was not viable. But we have to ensure that that assistance is available and, moreover, that people know about it. I am most concerned about the failure rate of business in this country. I recently saw some figures that showed that in the small business sector some 60 per cent-six out of 10-of every small business that starts up, fails within three years. Regrettably, in my home State of Queensland, that statistic has jumped to 72 per cent. So 72 businesses out of every 100 that start up fail within three years. I often wonder whether this is because of not only a lack of management skills, but a lack of knowledge. It surprises me, when all the information is available, when we have, through the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, some 50 different booklets, films and cassettes on every aspect of business, such as on the buying and selling of a business, on small business and the law, on presenting a case for finance, on job costing and estimating, on advertising, on credit management that businesses still continue to fail. I believe that with the States we have a very serious task ahead of us. We first have to educate businesses as to their special difficulties and we also have to educate them as to the advice and financial assistance that are available, and then, importantly make sure that that assistance can be given to them forthwith. I am impressed with what we have been able to do in Australia over the years. I read recently of a fellow from Sydney, Arthur Bishop, a veteran Sydney inventor, who can now say that half the cars made in Australia use his steering gear components. I am told that a third of the cars in Germany now use his Australian invention, and that within a few years something like 30 per cent of all American cars will be using this invention. I read also of a new etching process, discovered by the Australian National University, which could develop into a multi-million dollar industry. A Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation scientist, John Coleman, has invented a high speed process for waxing cardboard boxes. It is so simple, but it actually means $5m to our country already and we can project this into tens of millions of dollars in the future. We also have an exciting world reputation for our inventions and our innovativeness. Back in 1870 the Smiths, Robert and Clarence, invented the stump jump plough. The rotary hoe was invented by Australians by the name of Cliff and Albert Howard. It was Falkiner who developed the mechanical cane harvester. In 1880 the Australian James Harrison invented commercial refrigeration. Four years later, in 1884, McKay invented the combine harvester. The rotary mower was the brainchild of another Australian, M. V. Richardson, in 1952. Barely a decade ago Graeme Clark invented the bionic ear. Everyone has heard about the black box flight recorder, which is another Australian invention which was invented in the 1950s by David Warren. There are all sorts of other inventions that we can be proud of. But I regret that so often the records show that these inventions have gone overseas and we have not gained from them. So it is important that we do not start privatising the AIDC. It is important that we take note of the innovativeness, the expertise and the skills of Australians and that we back them. I give full credit to this Government and to the Ministers involved for the role that is being played here. Recently a farmer in my electorate was given approval in principle for a $30,000 loan because he has come up with a quick freeze process for freezing paw-paw or papaya, as many people know that fruit. It looks as though we can crack the Japanese market with this process. Another fellow in my area has marble deposits which the other day were estimated to be worth about $400m. Regrettably, he cannot get money. Regrettably, he needs some $1m to get the project moving. He needs $350,000 for the saw, but under the rules that exist today he cannot get it. He can get a subsidy on the interest that he might pay on a loan up to $100,000 through the QIDC and he can get an export grant if he can get the things going. Austrade, the Australian Trade Commission, can find markets for him. We can subsidise interest rates and do all sorts of things for development and research, but many projects just do not fit into that mould; they do not fit those guidelines. I come back to my final point. We need to make sure that people know what assistance is available. We have to make sure that that assistance is available readily, that it can be expeditiously made available, and finally, we need to understand that today people do not need just an interest subsidy, they do not need just assistance in finding markets, they do not need just this back-up for research and development, they need up-front capital. There is a barramundi farm in my region. The locals have already spent $150,000 on it, but they need capital right now. Another project that they have developed is a harvester that can cut range grasses and inject nutrient feed for arid countries and for drought ridden Australia, but again, this needs up-front capital. I conclude simply by saying that Australia has the expertise. We have the potential in our population. We certainly have noted that, with the assistance given by this Government, and previously by the Fraser Government, in setting up the AIDC. But there is a need for this Government to understand that today companies need not only the other assistance that is available, but also direct, up-front capital. I would like to think that if we do this, Australian inventions will stay in Australia for Australians. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes. I did not say, as the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) said I did, that all the increase in the gross debt from $30 billion to approaching $100 billion was borrowed by the Hawke Government. Who actually does the borrowing which finances the balance of payments deficit largely resulting from the Hawke Government policies-whether State governments, private entrepreneurs for takeovers, or whatever-is not the issue. It has to be borrowed one way or another, and the dreadful legacy for our children is the same. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(9.59) —I find it interesting that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), claims to have been misrepresented. It is interesting to notice how the Opposition parties are quick to run away from their true responsibility, which is to examine the economics of the country as they exist. This debate has been characterised by the absolute failure of the Opposition to address the topic, and the topic is essentially industry policy. In looking at what has been put forward, the vacuum that exists in the industry policy area in both the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia in perhaps their most glaring failure. But we should not be surprised by that, because the fact is that in the best of all possible worlds we would not need the AIDC or anything like it because we would have Australian owned, aggressive, dynamic, organic manufacturing industries. The fact that we do not have such industries is largely a legacy of the previous Government, to which the honourable member for Berowra belonged for so long. In looking at the future of this country at a time when there is a need for a manufacturing culture, one has to be somewhat amazed by the emergence of an agrarian culture within the Opposition and within the so-called New Right. I do not call usually that group the New Right because that does not mean a great deal. The term I use for those people is neo-feudalists, because they hark back to feudal days when the worker knew his place and he thanked the lord of the manor for his house, his pittance and his right to work on the lord's land. He thanked the lord for the right to exist and to feed his children. If the lord of the manor was having a bad time, he did not mind conscripting his serfs into his armies in whatever form was appropriate. The neo-feudalists hark back to those days. In fact, virtually all of the policies coming forward from the other side of the chamber are aimed at saying to those people who have nothing: `Because you have nothing, your place is controlled and you will be dictated to'. The would-be lords on the other side of the House fail to recognise the change that this society needs. The second aspect that has been disappointing in recent years has been the business culture shock that we have experienced in this country. Our business community was born and raised on a diet of fixed exchange rates and high tariffs. For many years a number of businesses said that that was not a good culture or a good climate. Yet now, when the climate and the culture have been dramatically shifted and we have a floating and competitive exchange rate and much less importance placed on tariff policy in manufacturing decisions in Australia, the fact is that so many of the people who were brought up in the previous culture are having great difficulty handling the new one. I am quite convinced that, as our business community goes through this process of culture shock, at the other end will emerge a viable manufacturing society. This whole process is being slowed, retarded, and I suppose one could say sabotaged, by the failure of the Opposition to probe industry policy. That is where the vacuum is. One needs only to look at the ministries within the previous Government to see the significance of the Minister responsible for industry, the Minister for commerce or the Minister for business. The ministries involved a whole range of titles. The Ministers were invariably junior. They never had Cabinet status. They rarely had significance. To be honest, more importance was placed on the portfolios of customs and tariffs. The industry policy of the previous Government was one of customs and tariffs policy. The generation of manufacturing was inappropriate to that Government because it was generating the decimation of Australian manufacturing industry. After all, it was thought that, if we were to sell our resources, raw materials and primary products, it was fundamental that we had to import manufactured goods from the countries to which we sold our raw materials and commodities. As a result of the cultural cringe, the business cringe, the political cringe that this country exhibited for so long, it would not have been acceptable in trade terms to have suggested to the buyers of our raw materials and primary products that we should also sell manufactured goods, so we did not dare take the risk. We can look back at the 1960s and to the decimation of, for example, our aircraft industry by the purchase of the F111. We can look at the decimation of various other industries by a government and by a business community which tended to refuse to accept the responsibility for the future generations of Australians. The current evolution of the AIDC is a fundamental necessity in terms of changing, adapting and developing an appropriate manufacturing industry culture in this country. When we came to government we saw this need. Honourable members will recall that, when we came to government, industries were in crisis all over the countryside. In my area the steel industry was involved. Let me put on record that in 1982 the then responsible Minister and/or the then Prime Minister were invited to come to Newcastle to talk to the thousands of people whose jobs and whose businesses were at stake. Many of those small business people fed off or into the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. But the then Minister was too busy to come. In fact, even at the time of the election in March 1983, the previous Government's sole position on the steel industry was that it would be looked into at some stage in the future. That indicates the vacuum that existed. As I have said, when we came to government we were beset by a crisis of confidence, a crisis of investment, a crisis of industry but, most importantly, a crisis of morale. Very quickly, a number of our Ministers, including the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table and who then had responsibility for the AIDC, brought to Caucus committees and to Cabinet a number of proposals, which included, among other things, a massive injection of capital into the AIDC and an extension of its terms of reference and its objectives. One can argue that it was too little too late, and that, if we had had a chance five years earlier, we may not have needed such dramatic measures. The Opposition now talks about making the AIDC into a merchant bank. But we have a plethora of merchant banks. We probably have more merchant banks per head of population than any other country. Yet the Opposition suggests that the role of the AIDC should be of one of a merchant bank. The Opposition's statements and its actions indicate that the fundamental lack in the finance field has been in the form of appropriate finance for manufacturing industry. Our finance markets and houses were dictated by, geared to and oriented towards speculative capital gains in land and building developments, not manufacturing. The Opposition by talking now of letting the AIDC become a merchant bank is saying: `We do not need an investment capacity or a finance capacity that is geared towards manufacturing'. Opposition members should go around the country and talk to small business people. It is clear that Opposition members do not do that. They should find out how hard it is for a small company, compared with the big companies to borrow at a low interest rate. The smaller the business, the higher the interest rate; the greater the need, the greater the cost. Finance is psychologically and economically geared to the wrong end of the market: Those who have money can get it easily; those who do not have it have great difficulty in borrowing it. Therefore, the function of the AIDC is to fill the gap left in the Australian investment market by the previous Government's industry policy and in the whole spectrum of industry development and technological development. The Bill is an appropriate one to give the AIDC the choice as to whether it uses a government guarantee. There is nothing more sensible than that. I find it appalling that members of the Opposition have attempted to oppose the AIDC and the Government's actions in relation to it over the last four years. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.08) —As we approach the witching hour of 10.15 p.m., I just want to make a few comments to wind up. In the debate there has been heavy concentration on the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill and hardly any reference to the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill. I thank honourable members for their contributions. I just want to correct and restate one or two points. The AIDC paid up capital is now $100m, not $87.5m as stated by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). An additional $12.5m was paid as of 30 June 1986. The functions of the AIDC are set out in the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act. They are to promote sound industry growth and Australian ownership in industry. The Corporation is required to perform these functions in accordance with sound business practice. The focus of the Corporation is somewhat different from that of a purely commercial institution, although the distinction may sometimes be a subtle one. The AIDC also makes direct contributions to specific industry programs-for example, the very important malaria joint venture involving the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research and the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, the recent heavy engineering package and the consequences of the restructuring of the textile, clothing and footwear industries. The other point of correction is that the AIDC has not sent a submission to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, seeking to be privatised, as was suggested earlier. The Corporation has sought additional capital from the Government and has made a number of suggestions if budgetary circumstances preclude such a capital contribution. One such suggestion involved seeking capital from the private sector in the form of a perpetual debt. However, no detailed proposal has been put to the Government. Of course, the point of seeking additional capital is to assist the Corporation in contributing to the Government's industry policy. Such capital would particularly assist the Corporation in financing the high risk, delayed earnings equity investment essential to industry restructuring and high technology industry. I endorse the remarks particularly of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) and the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) when they referred to lost opportunities and the traditional conservatism of the banking system. I think we are going in the right direction now. I thank honourable members for their contribution and commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 14 November, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.13) —I raise the issue of the Federal Government's lack of involvement in Expo 88 and the dishonest way it is going about letting a contract for the Australian pavilion at Expo 88 to an American company. This has serious implications for Australia. Other countries are set either to diminish their involvement or to pull out if the Federal Government is not seen to be serious about supporting its own Expo. There are three elements of this fiasco. The first element is the audio-visual contract for the Australian pavilion. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is all set to let this contract to an American company. Four Australian companies were asked to put forward proposals for the audio-visual set-up in our pavilion. They were each given 30 minutes to make a presentation which cost them anything up to $15,000. One has to ask whether the Minister had made up his mind before these proposals were called, or whether the committee had made up its mind to give them such cursory attention. There is some evidence to suggest that some members of the committee which made the decision not to proceed with the Australian companies had at least been talking to this particular American company before the Australian companies made their presentations. There are also serious rumours to the effect that the system of tendering has been short-circuited. I, for one, intend to ask the Auditor-General to look at the system within the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism to make sure that all the proper procedures were followed. It is common knowledge that within the Department there has been great resistance to what the Minister has been trying to do, to the extent that some officers of his Department have refused to go along with his wishes. I have no doubt that tonight, tomorrow or on Thursday, when there is to be a launch of this exposition in front of Parliament House, the Minister will say that there are no Australian companies capable of fulfilling this contract. That in itself will be dishonest because there are Australian companies which are quite capable of fulfilling this audio-visual contract. In addition, no Australian company has been asked to tender for the contract. Australian companies have been asked to put forward some proposals but they have not been asked to tender for the contract which is in the process of being let to an American company. So it is rubbish for the Minister or anyone else to say that Australian companies have been given a go and have been found wanting. They have not been given the chance to tender for the contract. I say tonight that there is some way to go in this matter before it is finalised. If the Government thinks it is going to get away with putting an American audio-visual company's display into the Australian pavilion in the Australian Expo, which is the centrepiece of our bicentennial year, it is very much mistaken. I see the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) looking interested. He should be interested because it is his Government that is proposing to bypass Australian companies in a project which should be all Australian. There is another element to this fiasco. The Australian pavilion is some four months behind schedule and there is no sign yet that it is going to get off the ground. The effect on other countries which have said that they are going to come to Expo is very severe indeed, as I will show honourable members. The report of the Commissioner-General of the Bureau of International Expositions, Mr Galopin, which is floating around this country says: The presence of the Federal Government hardly makes itself felt. The Commissioner-General of the BIE goes on to say: The lack of commitment is equally noticeable on other fronts. He goes through a list of other fronts. The Federal Government's role in Expo 88, the centrepiece of our bicentennial year, has been abysmal. I remind the Federal Government that this is a Federal, an Australian, exposition and not a Queensland exposition, if that is the reason that the Government is stepping back. The Minister's response to all this, which has been floating around the media for the last week or so, has been to disappear entirely. I understand that for some three days he was completely out of contact and no one knew where he was. There will be a launch in front of Parliament House on Thursday to try to give the Expo a bit of a lift. No doubt the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will be saying what a great job the Federal Government is doing in relation to Expo 88. Let me say that it is an abysmal job and throughout this country the lack of commitment of the Federal Government to our own Expo is becoming quite apparent. If the Government decides to tough it out and give the audio-visual contract to an American company there will be an almighty row. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.18) —Tonight I rise to pay a tribute to those associated with the Hellfire Pass project located in the Kwai Noi Valley in Thailand. I draw the attention of the House to this very important project which is to commemorate the thousands of Australians who served on the construction of the Burma death railway and the thousands upon thousands of humans who lost their lives during the course of this project. On the Anzac Day weekend in April this year there will be a special commemoration and series of functions which, amongst other things, will include an address by Sir Edward `Weary' Dunlop on location and the unveiling of a plaque in memory of 16,000 prisoners of war who lost their lives on the construction of the Burma death railway. I might add that some 90,000 enforced labourers from Asia also lost their lives in this horrific and tragic chapter of World War II. Last week, in company with the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks), I visited the area, assisted by the Australian Embassy. Our escort on this occasion was Mr Ken Bradley, the Vice-President of the Australian-Thai Chamber of Commerce and the project convenor. The project is well along the path to completion in time for Anzac Day. It involves the construction of an easy walking path for visitors and veterans to make their way from the nearest highway down to what is known as Konyu Cutting, which was built by the bare hands of many Australian soldiers in World War II under the enforcement of the Japanese occupying forces. To bring about around the clock construction and speed up the progress of the Burma death railway, fires were lit on either side of the rock cuttings under construction. I understand that that is the aspect which led to the terminology `Hellfire Pass', which is an area located some three hours driving north-west of Bangkok. I want to pay a tribute to all those associated with this project, which I think will be a very appropriate commemoration of a very important chapter in Australian war history and in our heritage, and which is regarded equally importantly by the Thai Government, the people of Thailand and the many others who found themselves involved with this horrific railway line which, in some 12 months, was rushed through the mountain range between Thailand and Burma in many areas where human beings had not been before. In drawing the attention of the House to this matter I recognise that we live in volatile and difficult times. I suppose everything is relative. No one could give a better, more accurate or more moving description of all that took place in Kanchanaburi and in the Hellfire Pass than two members of this Parliament, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) and Senator Sir John Carrick, who served as prisoners of war and who were forced to work on this project, particularly in Konyu Cutting, which is a feature of the Hellfire Pass project. Both are very supportive of the project and I hope that the Australian Government will send both up there officially on the Anzac Day weekend to participate with Sir Edward Dunlop, the Australian Ambassador, and Thai Government officials at the dedication. I appeal to veterans and ex-prisoners of war, association members and others around Australia to take an interest in this project and, if at all possible, to travel to the area, difficult though it is for them to relive some very harsh memories from the past. I assure them at the same time that some war graves which were damaged late last year in a tragic accident at Kanchanaburi war cemetery have now been repaired and that the Kanchanaburi war cemetery is once again in excellent condition. The Thai authorities were very apologetic for that damage, which saw the earth removed from the top of some 108 Australian war graves. It should never have happened and, indeed, the position of supervisor for the Kanchanaburi war cemetery, where the special Anzac Day observance associated with this very important Hellfire Pass project will take place, is being readvertised at this moment. I commend to the House the whole project, all involved with it and in particular the Convenor of the Australian-Thai Chamber of Commerce, Mr Ken Bradley. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.23) —When the Hawke socialist Government came to power on election night 1983 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) pledged that he would be a Prime Minister for all Australians. On election night 1983 he said on national television that he would be fair as between the States and as between Australians living in the individual States. He sent a special message to Tasmania on that night. As he put it, he noted the way in which Tasmanian voters had voted. I remind the House that the Tasmanian voters had, in some cases with increased majorities, returned the five sitting members of the Liberal Party of Australia for the electorates of Denison, Franklin, Wilmot, as it then was, Bass and Braddon. The Prime Minister assured Tasmanians that they would be treated fairly and that our State would not in any way suffer or be disadvantaged because the voters had had the good sense to re-elect for the fourth term-in one case a fifth consecutive term-Liberal members to the House of Representatives. Sadly, within a few short months, Tasmanians to their horror saw the action of the Hawke socialist government in trampling on our State rights and moving to prevent the construction of the Gordon below Franklin dam. We suffered the indignity of having part of our State of Tasmania, to quote the former Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, hot-dogged by Royal Australian Air Force spy planes. We had the ignominious situation that part of the defence forces of this country were used to spy on a State of the Commonwealth. But worse was to come. Utilising what I regard still as spurious powers, the Hawke socialist Government, claiming that it was acting in accordance with the external affairs power, proceeded to take action which effectively negatived the will of the people of Tasmania as expressed in the State election of 1982, as expressed in a referendum and as expressed in several other polls, including local government elections. The upshot was that Tasmania was trampled on by a centralist government, Canberra dominated, determined to impose its will on the people of Australia's smallest but most beautiful State. We still smart at what was done to us with respect to the Gordon below Franklin. It is now history how the High Court of Australia, by the narrowest possible margin, upheld the constitutionality of the Hawke socialist Government's actions. We would have thought that the Prime Minister and his Government would have learnt a lesson. Following the 1984 Federal election in which again I and my colleagues the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) were re-elected and two new members, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), were elected, we thought that the Prime Minister would realise that Tasmania would not tolerate again the intervention of Canberra, the trampling and the treading down of a small population but very proud State. Sadly, over the last few weeks we have seen the tentacles of Canberra stretching in the direction of Tasmania. Unfortunately, some of the things that have been said about current logging operations in Tasmania are so untrue that they are almost beyond comprehension. There is a place in Tasmania called Jackeys Marsh. The Prime Minister should definitely be nominated for miracle worker of the year because he has talked about Jackeys Marsh as unique and untouched virgin rainforest. The plain fact is that Jackeys Marsh has been logged for over three generations and nearly 100 years. The extraordinary thing, if the Prime Minister would like to check, is that where trees have been cut down others have been planted two to one-two planted for every one cut down-and new trees have grown. Now we see the Federal Government threatening to intervene in the operations in Jackeys Marsh-not the Lemonthyme-once again trampling on Tasmania's State rights. The people of Tasmania have had a gutful of the Hawke socialist Government. We have been robbed by Canberra of over $200.25m in the last two years and now once again Canberra is trying to put over 6,000 Tasmanians out of work and on the dole, because that is the impact the Hawke socialist Government will have on our forest industries if it succeeds in closing us down. We will fight and we will win. It will never treat us like this again. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Tourism, Recreation and Sport)(10.28) —Madam Speaker-- Mr White —I request some clarification. As I understand it, I might be called upon to speak during the adjournment debate, and I query whether the Minister's right of reply might be affected. Madam SPEAKER —The adjournment debate will continue until 11 o'clock. Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) for notifying me of his intention to say something about my portfolio in this debate and I rise in sorrow rather than in anger to answer him. Mr White —You are always saying that. Mr JOHN BROWN —I think it is well to point out that the honourable member for McPherson is carrying the Joh line tonight. It is well known that he is a member of the white-shoe brigade on the Gold Coast. One of the leading protagonists of the Joh line has told me that he is part of the conspiracy to overthrow his leader, so I am not surprised to see him running the Joh line. Mr White —I raise a point of order. I take umbrage at that statement that I am a member of the white-shoe brigade and I ask that the Minister withdraw that. Madam SPEAKER —It is for the Chair to judge whether it is unparliamentary. I do not presume to judge it as unparliamentary. Mr JOHN BROWN —Well, the dirty white-shoe brigade. I am not surprised to find the honourable member for McPherson in here running the Joh line tonight because he is saying that the Commonwealth Government is not supporting the Brisbane Expo '88, which is a blatant lie. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will not use such terminology. Mr JOHN BROWN —Well, it is a blatant distortion of the truth. My apologies, Madam Speaker. The Commonwealth's proportion of the Budget for the Expo in Brisbane is quite generous; it is $18m. I notice that Llew Edwards, a former distinguished leader of the honourable member's own party in Queensland, has been at pains over many months to defend the Commonwealth Government against unbridled, stupid, mischievous attacks by the senile Premier in Queensland who constantly runs the line that the Commonwealth Government has denied any support for Expo. This Government, to use the words of Dr Edwards, has been magnificent in its support for his Brisbane Exposition and South Bank Redevelopment Authority Committee, in doing all it can to attract overseas countries here and in providing financial and spiritual support for Llew Edwards in his attempt to run the World Expo in Brisbane in 1988. I take great exception to the line that the honourable member runs that the Commonwealth is not doing its share. He is the same stupid person who comes in here complaining about government expenditure, saying that we should have smaller government, smaller expenditure, and who then runs around supporting some stupid line that the Queensland Press runs saying that more money is needed. Llew Edwards is saying that they need $30m from the Queensland Government to support Expo. I deny that the Commonwealth Government has been in any way delinquent in its support for the Brisbane Exposition. A line has been run in the Press. It was not in the written Press but certainly on the Schildberger show in Melbourne and on the ridiculously inaccurate 7.30 Report on Australian Broadcasting Corporation television. The other night its opening line was that this time nearly all of the $15m being spent on the Expo is being spent through American contractors, that an American company is building the pavilion and that an American animation expert is being asked to compile a theme about the Aboriginal dream time for $8m. First of all, that is a total fabrication. The person who was the research officer for the 7.30 Report-Basher, Dasher, Dancer or Vixen, or whatever her name is-ought to go back to school. The facts are that the Australian budget for Expo is $18m. The Australian pavilion will be built by an Australian company, designed by an Australian architect under the supervision of the Australian Department of Housing and Construction. The audio-visual contract for use in that pavilion has been let to an Australian company, AAV. Mr White —No, it has not. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member is exhibiting his extreme ignorance about this subject. If he shuts his silly mouth I will tell him about it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will be seated for a moment. The honourable member for McPherson had his say. He will have time to reply if there is time in the adjournment debate. He must not interrupt while the Minister is speaking. I call the Minister. Mr JOHN BROWN —The contract to which the honourable member for McPherson would like to refer, if he could only get his mind into gear, is the contract for the theatre. I might tell him that the Australian companies to which he referred, and which he says were not given a chance, were given every chance. Five Australian companies were commissioned to supply a tender for the provision of this theatre. The honourable member can shake his head all he likes. He is asking me for information and I am giving it to him sincerely and honestly. The companies were given every opportunity to put in their submissions. They were supposed to have been given half an hour but they were in fact given an hour with a full committee. I have to tell the honourable member with some sorrow that the propositions they put forward were nowhere up to the mark. They were nothing of the style or the quality that we as a government require for the Australian pavilion at Expo 88. It is after all a showcase for Australia. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The honourable member for McPherson may speak now. The Minister has another five minutes up his sleeve, as it were. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.33) —I welcome the opportunity to pursue this matter a little because I am not sure whether the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is genuine in what he is saying. In case the Minister does not understand, the proposals that the four or five companies were asked to put forward were general proposals as to what they could do, but those companies have never been given the chance to tender for the contract which the Government has let, or is about to let, to a company called Raffi, one of the principals of which is a man called Mr Rodgers. I am not disputing the $18m and the other things that the Minister mentioned. The Minister knows as well as I do that there is considerable concern in other countries about the Federal Government's support for Expo 88. If he is not sure, I will read from the report of the Commissioner-General of the Bureau of International Expositions who says that `the presence of the Federal Government hardly makes itself felt'. That is what the Commissioner-General says. He goes on to say that Canberra's lack of commitment is equally noticeable on other fronts. He goes on to say that funds for the Federal Australian pavilion have been juiced. This is the report of the Commissioner-General on the Federal Government's involvement in Expo 88. Of course, the States, except for Tasmania, taking a lead from the Federal Government, have all been reluctant to come forward. Let us get back to this audio-visual contract which is really the centrepiece of what I am saying. The Government is all set, despite what the Minister says, to give one company-AAV I think it is called-a $2m contract. It is about to let a $7m contract to a company called Raffi, a principal of which is Mr Bob Rogers. If that contract is not let and if it goes to an Australian company we will all be very pleased. I ask the Minister to look at the laughing stock he will make of this country if he puts an American company into the Australian Expo, the centrepiece of our bicentennial year, and bypasses Australian companies which are well and truly able to do the job. That is the guts of it. I ask the Minister in all sincerity, for the sake of Expo 88 to get behind it in a more meaningful way, to get the pavilion under way and to ensure that the audio-visual contract is let to an Australian company. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(10.38) —The report to which the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) refers is a report which he has obtained by dubious means. It is not a report of the Commissioner-General of Expo; it is a member of the Commissioner-General of the International Committee. Llew Edwards, the former leader of his own Party in Queensland, has been at pains to deny the substance of that report. It has been quite pooh-poohed by Llew Edwards and I think it would be fair to say that Commissioner Patrick Reid who is a Commissioner at Expo in Vancouver told me that the Australian Government's contribution to Expo in Brisbane has been quite magnificent. The Brisbane Exposition is in front of any comparable exposition, in terms of the international countries that have signed up at this stage, for the last 20 years. For the honourable member to stand there and mouth those sorts of palpable distortions does him no good at all. As far as the $7m contract that the honourable member speaks about is concerned, he is wrong again. The contract is something of the order of $5m. I do have a recommendation from my Committee, a committee of estimable, talented and first class Australian businessmen and women, headed by Geraldine Paton, the publisher of the Australian, which has given me the unanimous decision that we should sign a contract with Bob Rogers. For a minute or two I will paint the record of Bob Rogers. Bob Rogers is probably the most successful producer of trade and expo features in the world. Mr White —Can I just ask-- Mr JOHN BROWN —No, you cannot ask anything. Mr White —An American? Mr JOHN BROWN —Yes, he is an American. Does that make him an enemy? He happens to have perfected a theatrical device called holovision. He staged a theatrical concept at Vancouver which by any estimate was magnificent and was considered the best exhibit on the ground. He also had the second and third best exhibit. If it is any information to the honourable member as a Queenslander, the Queensland Government is presently negotiating with an American film producer to produce the exhibit in its pavilion. I cannot find insult in an American being the best in the world. We want Expo in Brisbane to be the best in the world. We want the Australian pavilion to be the best on the place so that every Australian who goes there can come away with a feeling of pride. The $5m contract, which we may or may not let to Bob Rogers, would include a substantial Australian proportion in its spending. Approximately $3m of the $5m would be spent in Australia. The actors would be Australian, there would be Australian Aborigines and the staff employed would be Australian. The only thing imported would be this magnificent technique that Rogers has developed. Unfortunately, the honourable member has been listening to a man called Browning who has been parading around the country as someone whom this Government has let down and mistreated. I would not take too much notice of Browning. Browning claims to be a sub-contractor to AAV-Australia Pty Ltd. If that is the case, why did AAV not produce him when that company had an hour with the committee to put forward its submission? It had an hour to put forward its submission on the audio-visual project and the theatre, yet it did not produce Browning. The company has disowned him. Nobody wants to know him, yet he has been the bloke on television with his little black box. Does the honourable member know what is in his little black box-his great Australian technique, where one can press the button and look in it? It is Garfield the cat and another cat, presumably Mrs Garfield, with a disappearing wedding ring. Is that what the honourable member wants us to show as an Australian exhibit in Brisbane? The Australian exhibit in Brisbane, the dreamtime, whether it be done by Rogers or whoever, will be a magnificent exposition of the marvellous legends of the Australian Aborigine. The Rogers thing in Vancouver was the legends of the Red Indians of Canada and it was voted by everyone who saw it as a stunning theatrical, if not spiritual, experience. All I want this Parliament to understand is that this Government is quite sincere about producing in Brisbane an exposition of which all Australians can be proud, particularly in the Australian pavilion. I can assure everybody here that if there were any possibility of finding an Australian company which could come anywhere within cooee of the concept that has been given- Mr White —They were not given a go. Mr JOHN BROWN —They were given a go. The honourable member cannot listen; he is too thick. Australian companies were given a go. The honourable member is now impugning very reputable Australians who have made this recommendation to me. On every ground of fairness, the Australian companies could not measure up. But he will not listen to that; he wants to turn over rocks and try to find some corrupt practice on my part. He will not find it; he should not waste his time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. I call the honourable member for Dunkley. I am sorry, I call the honourable member for Mayo. The call was on the Government side, to the Minister, and it is now on the Opposition side. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.43) —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I recognise your contribution to the concept of fair play. I want tonight to say something about a really substantial tax rort which has been perpetrated by one of Australia's so-called greenie groups. The Australian Conservation Foundation is the group to which I refer. The Australian Conservation Foundation is laundering funds for radical, left wing peace groups and fringe organisations by being the conduit through which donations to this group are made tax deductible. Mr Hodgman —Laundering? Mr DOWNER —It is indeed laundering money. This is a straight out rort of the tax system and an abuse of the status of the ACF as a recognised charity under the Income Tax Assessment Act. Contributions to the Foundation have long been tax deductible to encourage Australians to support its task of environmental protection. That policy existed under the Fraser Government as well as the present Government. However, it is quite outrageous that this recognised charitable status should be abused in the way the present management of the Australian Conservation Foundation is abusing it. Groups which are benefiting from this rort include the Campaign Against Nuclear Energy, which was one of the main groups responsible for the highly unpopular and at times violent Roxby Downs pickets which cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in overtime for the police. The Movement Against Uranium Mining, Friends of the Earth, the Peace Publications Co-operative and the major political group, People for Nuclear Disarmament, are other beneficiaries of this rort. Direct contributions to these groups are not tax deductible, yet the ACF is getting around this through the operation of its so-called preference grants scheme. Under this scheme, the ACF tells donors to express a preference that their donations be used towards a grant for another organisation. It then tells donors to make cheques payable to the ACF and to send those cheques to the Foundation. In turn, the ACF makes grants to the so-called approved organisations-they are approved, of course, by the management of the ACF-and those grants are made from the general funds of the ACF. So blatant is this rort that the ACF has specific pro forma circulars it sends out, which state: I prefer that this donation should be spent for the purposes of- The donor inserts the name of the organisation to which the money is to go. It continues: I understand that this donation is tax deductible and therefore look forward to your receipt. Mr Hodgman —That is tax cheating. Mr DOWNER —This is an absolutely disgraceful example of, as the honourable member for Denison says, tax cheating. Taxpayers would be disgusted to learn that they are, in effect, subsidising the activities of groups which are opposed to the Western alliance and which are trying to halt the development of Australia's uranium resources at a time when Australia's balance of payments deficit is sending us broke. This blatant abuse of the spirit of the Income Tax Assessment Act must cease forthwith and the ACF should immediately publish details of those groups which have benefited from this rort. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) should also set up a full investigation with a view to stripping the ACF of its tax deductible status, particularly bearing in mind that the ACF is a very significant beneficiary of government grants. This story, which I have now revealed for the first time to this House, is really one of the truly great scandals which the taxpayers will soon hear about. It is an example of the hard working, investigative Waste Watch Committee digging up and getting to the bottom of the sorts of things that this Government is allowing to pass by. More than that, the ACF is an organisation which this Government is very generously subsidising with taxpayers' money. The Government says that it supports the United States of America alliance and the Western alliance, yet it is allowing taxpayers' money to be spent with the view to undermining that alliance. The Government says that it will allow the Roxby Downs uranium mine to go ahead in my State of South Australia, yet it is using taxpayers' money to undermine the existence of that very beneficial project to my State. This is a blatant abuse of taxpayers' money. Taxpayers need to know about how this is happening, particularly now when they are crying out for tax relief. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.48) —I have never heard such a load of garbage in all my life as we have just heard from the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). The Australian Conservation Foundation does a great job in preserving for future generations the benefits Australia has to offer. What he has just said is completely wrong. I am quite certain that when the ACF replies to this scurrilous allegation that has been uttered out of his mouth, he will find that he was wrong. I have come here this evening to talk about trees, in particular about holes in trees. Honourable members might think that this is a very strange sort of subject; however, it is very important. Our forests, which the honourable member for Mayo wants to chop down and turn into woodchips to export, are for all Australians. That includes not just humans but also our native fauna. Trees are vitally important for nature conservation, their natural beauty, their recreational aspects for man and, where necessary, their value as providers of timber for homes, furniture, paper and so forth. But there is another very important use of trees of which very few people are aware; that is, as a home for a large variety of Australian animals. The hollows in trees provide nesting and breeding sites for many different animals and therefore constitute an important aspect of woodland and forest ecology. Very little is known about the cause, incidence or distribution of cavities in trees anywhere in Australia, largely because damaged trunks are of little commercial use and are therefore ignored, but as the native vegetation is cleared from land for primary production the total number of hollows available to animals for nesting purposes decreases very rapidly. For that reason, I believe that it is extremely important for all of us to try to understand the factors involved in the clearing of land and the effect that it has on our precious wildlife. The widespread clearing of forests has led to massive deterioration of our environment. In Western Australia, the arrival of Europeans heralded a period of rapid changes in the landscape. The area which was most affected was the agricultural region of the State, which lies between the mouth of the Murchison River in the north and Esperance in the east. Nine different cockatoos occur in this region, eight of them being present before 1827, while one, the sulphur-crested cockatoo, was introduced some time after 1930. All of these species have been influenced by the environmental changes that have followed European settlement. The cockatoos which occur in that area are obligate hole nesters and trees are the only source of such holes in the region. In other parts of Australia, some species do nest in holes in cliffs, but there are few such sites in the south-west of Western Australia. Some cockatoo species feed predominantly on native vegetation, but throughout the wheat belt there is little or no native vegetation under or around the remaining trees. Western Australia is one of the few places in the Western world to undergo large scale land development in recent years. Mr Hodgman —Where is your electorate? Mr CHYNOWETH —If the honourable member does not know, let me tell him that it is in Victoria. It is a very beautiful electorate. However, it has been cleared of trees and we do not have many cockatoos there. One of the problems in Tasmania is the reafforestation of areas where all the old trees are being pulled down. They are being replaced with those nice, you beaut, plantations. The only problem is that there are no nesting holes for birds, and so on. What is to happen to the bird population in Tasmania in a few years time? The birds will be gone forever because there will be no holes there. As I have walked through Telopea Park in Canberra on my way to Parliament House in the mornings I have seen a couple of cockatoos scratching a hole in one of the trees. It has taken them weeks to make any impression on the tree. Where will such birds nest if all the suitable trees are knocked down and turned into woodchip? The Opposition is all about destroying our native flora and fauna at a great rate. At present-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILES(Braddon)(10.53) —I rise tonight to respond to some of the comments which have just been made about the environment and Tasmania. The honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) said that the nesting places of various animals are being lost. That assumes that virtually every mature tree in Tasmania is being cut down. He has been to that State and he obviously knows that that is not the case. It is very interesting that only a week ago there was a meeting in my electorate of about 5,000 people who are involved in the timber industry. The meeting was addressed by people from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. They were united when they said that Tasmania was managing its timber resources very well. There is no doubt that in Tasmania the companies involved in woodchipping and milling are setting about a process of ensuring that we have an ongoing and viable timber industry in that State. Tasmania is dependent on wood as a resource. It enables people to have jobs and families to have good living standards. People such as the honourable member for Dunkley try to say to those in Tasmania that jobs do not matter, that they can go, and that it is better to look after holes for animals. That is not the case. There is no doubt that there are hundreds of thousands of mature trees in Tasmania which will provide ample places for animals to reproduce. It is about time that people on the mainland got the idea that in such areas there is never a single forest growing up without a variety of trees, even when they were fired hundreds of years ago. When they were fired hundreds of years ago, they grew up again very much like the plantations do today. That is how it occurs, even with stands of trees. There are a few old trees left around. There is no area in Tasmania in which there are not suitable places for the fauna and flora to develop naturally. The Tasmanian Forestry Commission has set about a program which is very sensitive to the environment-the streams, the plants, and the animals that need nesting places. No State in Australia is more sensitive to the needs of both the people and the fauna. Tasmania has looked after its natural environment very well. In fact, its area of national parks is three times that of Victoria. Why does not the honourable member for Dunkley clean up his own back yard first? Why does he not get 13 per cent of Victoria into national parks before telling the Tasmanians how to run their forest industries? Why does he not do something about it now? We have maintained our environment. That is why honourable members opposite want to stick their noses into our back yard. We have looked after our environment. Why do not honourable members opposite sort out their own States before telling us what to do? Tasmania is in good hands. We are looking after it sensitively. The big companies that are involved there and which are providing many jobs for Tasmanians are spending millions of dollars on reafforestation with eucalypt forest. They are spending millions of dollars on setting up research nurseries so that the right types of trees can be grown and so there can be a sensitive reafforestation program in Tasmania. Because we are doing it right, there is no doubt that the forest industries in Tasmania will be viable 100 and 200 years down the way. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(10.58) —In the couple of minutes that are left tonight, I rise to comment on some of the claims made, especially by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), about tax deductions for donations to the Australian Conservation Foundation. It was rather interesting to sit here in this House and listen to honourable members opposite talk about a tax rort-where people spend their money, in support of conservation, knowing that they will get a tax deduction for it. We also know that for the seven years that the same people on the other side of the House had the Treasury bench of this country they actively supported tax rorts to the tune of $7,000m a year. They made no effort whatsoever-- Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark. The honourable member said-I think, Madam Speaker, that you may not have heard it-that members on this side of the House had supported tax rorts amounting to $7,000m while they were in government. I did not do so. I take offence at that remark. I ask the honourable member to withdraw it. It is an allegation that we supported criminal tax evasion. We did not, and I certainly did not. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member did not impugn the honourable member for Denison. I call the honourable member for McMillan. Mr CUNNINGHAM —The honourable member for Denison was a Minister in that Government and was one of the guilty parties. I do not mind saying it. Mr Hodgman —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The honourable member is being definite. He is gone this time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for McMillan is being very provocative. He will withdraw that remark. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I will withdraw the remark that the honourable member was part of the Government. I do not think that he knew what he was doing when he was in that Government. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The honourable member said that I was one of the guilty parties. I demand a withdrawal. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will, at the Chair's direction, withdraw the comment about `one of the guilty parties'. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I withdraw any comment that is offensive to the honourable member for Denison. It is quite obvious that if honourable members opposite had seen their leader being interviewed on the Carleton-Walsh show-- Mr John Brown —Which leader? Mr CUNNINGHAM —I do not know, but I think that it was the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) who stood up and said that the figures of the leader from Queensland did not add up. The brawl continues and there will be another episode tomorrow. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Lloyd to move- That this House: (1) Condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its refusal to allow private investment in domestic and international terminals at Australia's major airports; (2) Condemns the Hawke Labor Government for handicapping Australia's aviation and tourism industries by not moving to upgrade Kingsford Smith Airport, and for refusing offers of private investment in Brisbane and Darwin Airports; (3) Calls on the Government to allow private investment in Australia's airports and terminal facilities, and to immediately commence the upgrading of Kingsford Smith Airport, including the construction of a parallel runway, as Sydney is still the principle point of entry for over 50 per cent of Australia's tourists. Mr Peter Morris to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983. Mr Young to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend the Ministers of State Act 1952. Mr Lionel Bowen to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend laws relating to companies and securities, and for related purposes. Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with sub-section 49 (2) of the Audit Act 1901, the House approves the variation to the form of the Statement of Financial Transactions of the Commonwealth presented to the House on 26 November 1986. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 17 February 1987: Acts Interpretation Act-Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report- Aboriginal Development Commission-Report for 1985-86. Australian Capital Territory Health Authority-Report for 1985-86. Australian Heritage Commission-Report for 1985-86. Australian National Gallery-Report for 1985-86. Barley Research Council and Wheat Research Council-Reports for 1985-86. Dairy Research Council-Report for 1985-86. Legal Aid Commission (ACT)-Report for 1985-86. National Museum of Australia-Report for 1985-86. Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 9, 20. Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 357. Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 398. Apple and Pear Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 11. Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 349. Australian Capital Territory Tax (Transfers of Marketable Securities) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 390. Australian Federal Police Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 14. Australian Film, Television and Radio School Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 374, 375. Australian National Railways Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 348. Banking Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 392. Christmas Island Act-Ordinance-1987- No. 1-Lands. Companies Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 376. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 346. Copyright Act-Declaration pursuant to paragraph 10A (1) (b), dated 28 October 1986. Currency Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 358. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 354, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 385, 388, 396. Defence Act- Determinations-1986- No. 80-Overseas Living Allowance. No. 81-Settling In and Settling Out Allowance. No. 82-Child Supplement. No. 83-Reunion Supplement. No. 84-Rental and Utilities Contribution. No. 85-Overseas Vehicle Contribution. No. 86-Complementary Allowances Payable to Member Serving on Duty Overseas. No. 87-Separation Allowance and other allowances. No. 88-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 19. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1986-No. 13-Export Meat as amended (Amendment). Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 350. Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 3. Family Law Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 393. Rules of Court, Statutory Rules 1987, No. 15. Fisheries Act- Notices-Nos. 166, 167, 168, 181, 182. Plan of Management-No. 12-Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions). Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules- 1986-No. 397. 1987-No. 1. Health Insurance Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 377. Statement of particulars of Ministerial determination made pursuant to section 106aa, dated 23 December 1986. Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 6. Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 351. International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 359. Interstate Road Transport Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 386. Judiciary Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 383. Lands Acquisition Act- Land acquired for- Aviation purposes-Jandakot, W.A. Pipeline Authority purposes, S.A. Statements (4) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 17. Meat Inspection Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 355. Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1986- No. 5-Meat Inspection (Fees) (Amendment). No. 6-Meat Inspection (Northern Territory). Migration Act-regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 384. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 353, 360, 391. National Measurement Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 370, 399. Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 (No. 18) Navigation Act- Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Order-1986-No. 16-Marine, Part 11. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 387, 400. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 352. Overseas Students Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 378, 379. Overseas Students Charge Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 380. Patents Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 12 Pig Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 2. Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-1986-Postal-Amendment-No. 4. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980-Amendments made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985-8 January 1987. Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Repeal Act 1986-1 January 1987. Australian Institute of Sport Act 1986-1 January 1987. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Act 1986-The Act, other than sections 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37-1 February 1987. Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment Act 1986-Part III-1 January 1987. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986-10 December 1986. Interstate Road Transport Act 1985-The Act, other than sections 1 and 2, sub-sections 36 (1) and 36 (5), section 37 and the provisions of Part V-1 January 1987. Navigation Amendment Act 1986-1 January 1987. Overseas Students Charge Amendment Act 1986-22 December 1986. Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Act 1986-5 December 1986. Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1986-Parts VII and VIII-1 January 1987. Student Assistance Amendment Act 1986-1 January 1987. Public Service Act- Determinations- 1986-Nos. 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104. 1987-No. 1 Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 369. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1986/20-Chief Executive, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and holders of public offices on other bodies. Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 347. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations listing fees and/or charges for purposes of- Building Ordinance, dated 28 November 1986. Health Authority Ordinance, dated- 27 November 1986. 18 December 1986. 22 December 1986. Mental Health Ordinance, dated 19 December 1986. Roads and Public Places Ordinance, dated 28 November 1986. Ordinances- 1986- No. 77-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 5). No. 78-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 6). No. 79-Legal Practitioners (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 80-Health Authority (Amendment). No. 81-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 7). No. 82-Legal Practitioners (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 83-Magistrates Court (Amendment) (No. 4). No. 84-Commercial Arbitration. No. 85-Air Pollution (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 86-Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) (Amendment). No. 87-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 8). No. 88-Real Property (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 89-Rates and Land Tax. No. 90-Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 91-New South Wales Acts. No. 92-Interpretation (Amendment). No. 93-Imperial Acts Application. No. 94-Canberra Theatre Trust (Amendment). No. 95-National Exhibition Centre Trust (Amendment). 1987- No. 1-Nature Conservation (Amendment). No. 2-Advisory Council (Amendment). No. 3-Crimes (Amendment). Regulations-1986- No. 25 (Co-operative Societies Ordinance). No. 26 (Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) Ordinance). No. 27 (Legal Practitioners Ordinance). No. 28 (Public Health Ordinance). Sex Discrimination Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 4, 5, 8. Social Security Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 16. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated- 15 December 1986. 13 January 1987. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Directions-1987- Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Stevedoring Industry Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 371. Student Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 381, 382. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules- 1986-Nos. 345, 356, 372, 373, 389 1987-Nos. 7, 10. Supported Accommodation Assistance Act-Agreements pursuant to sub-section 4 (2), amending the principal agreement between the Commonwealth and- New South Wales, dated 7 January 1987. Northern Territory, dated 25 November 1986. South Australia, dated 5 January 1987. Tasmania, dated 15 January 1987. Western Australia, dated 23 January 1987. Telecommunications Act- Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws-Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendments Nos. 73, 74. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 394. Trade Marks Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 13. Trade Practices Act-Statement of particulars of Ministerial approval pursuant to sub-section 656C (3), dated 2 December 1986. Trade Union Training Authority Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 395. Veterans' Entitlements Act-Instrument, dated 16 December 1986, varying Treatment Principles. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 3358) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: Further to the answer to questions Nos. 3216 to 3243, what (a) was the stated purpose of each overseas trip made by employees of the Minister's Department and of all statutory authorities that report to the Minister in 1984-85, (b) was the classification or job description of each officer making each trip, (c) was the duration of each trip, (d) were the countries visited during each trip and (e) was the estimated cost of each trip, with the air fare component identified separately. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based in part on advice from the statutory authorities within the Communications portfolio, is as follows: (A) Purpose of visit (B) Classification of Officer or job description (C) Duration of visit (D) Countries visited (E) Air fare Total cost $ $ Department of Communications Discussions with various companies and Government agencies on telecommunications matters Secretary 30 days Switzerland, Holland, England 12,734 18,985 Discussions with overseas officials on telecommunications Engineer Class 5 36 days France, USA, Canada, England, Japan 5,179 11,302 Attend Fifth Session of the OECD Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy (CICCP) and OECD Seminar on Information Technology Policy and Economic Development First Assistant Secretary 16 days France, Portugal 4,425 5,725 Attend Asia-Pacific Telecommunity (APT) 1984 in Seoul and Japan Society of Information and Communication Research Conference on Information Flow in Asia Deputy Secretary 7 days Korea, Japan 3,645 5,965 Attend the OECD/CICCP `1984 and Beyond' Conference; discussions with International Institute of Communications and Plessey PLC First Assistant Secretary 14 days West Germany, England 4,482 5,982 Inspect ADP licensing system Assistant Secretary 10 days Hong Kong 2,651 3,551 Attend International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR) Preparatory Meeting for World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC) ORB '85 and UN Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) Assistant Secretary 46 days Switzerland, Austria 5,000 8,600 Attend CCIR Preparatory Meeting for WARC ORB '85 Engineer Class 3 26 days Switzerland 4,402 7,461 Attend International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineer Class 4 8 days Japan 2,500 3,900 Attend International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Seminar on WARC ORB '85 Assistant Secretary 5 days Thailand 3,556 3,756 As above Assistant Secretary 5 days Thailand 3,435 3,635 Attend Sixth Session of the OECD/CICCP Committee and discussions with U.K. Government officials First Assistant Secretary 16 days France, England 4,425 5,725 Provide technical/policy guidance to management group of South Pacific Telecommunications Development Program Assistant Secretary 7 days Fiji 1,772 2,622 Discussions with N.Z. on World Administrative Radio Conference on use of Geostatic Satellite Orbit (WARC ORB) '85 Assistant Secretary 12 days New Zealand 885 1,185 Discussions with N.Z. on WARC ORB '85 Executive Officer 3 days New Zealand 805 1,075 Examine Federal Communications Commission (U.S.A.) development in `Low Power' broadcasting planning Assistant Secretary 25 days U.S.A., England 4,700 10,260 Initial B-MAC decoder tests at Digital Video Systems Corporation Engineer Class 5 11 days Canada 4,324 6,124 Testing of B-MAC Equipment Clerical Administrative, Class 11 12 days U.S.A., Canada 4,877 6,477 Test and take acceptance of first batch of B-MAC decoders Senior Tech Officer Grade 2 9 days Canada 4,383 5,733 Attend ITU Conference First Assistant Secretary 14 days Thailand, Singapore 4,775 6,574 As Above Clerical Administrative, Class 11 8 days Thailand 2,905 3,367 Attend World TelecommunicationsDevelopment Conference of ITU & Conference on High Definition Television Deputy Secretary 30 days Canada, England and Tanzania 6,032 10,532 Attend Conference on High Definition Television Acting Assistant Secretary 33 days Canada, Switzerland, West Germany, Sweden, England 4,987 11,187 Australian Postal Commission Investigate up to date technical information on use of automatic postal address reader sorter (O.C.R.) and industrial relations and human resource/personnel experiences of other postal administrations/organisations resulting from technological change. Manager, Level 135 days West Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, England, Netherlands, France, U.S.A., Canada 5,148 11,617 Manager, Level 135 days West Germany, Sweden, England, Netherlands, France, U.S.A., Japan 5,148 11,960 Engineer, Class 4 35 days West Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, England, Netherlands, France, U.S.A., Japan 5,400 11,179 Attend an electronic mail meeting and discussions with foreign postal administrations on extension of Intelpost service and with a potential equipment supplier Manager, Level 121 days France, Sweden, England, Canada, U.S.A. 5,148 9,161 Visit overseas postal administrations and investigate policies, system and practices associated with provision of counter services, technological improvement to operational procedures, and mail collection, processing and delivery. Participate in reciprocal visit to British Post Office (BPO) Manager, Level 238 days weeks England, Sweden, France, West Germany 5,555 12,997 Visit BPO as part of reciprocal visit program with that administration Manager, Level 124 days England 4,400 8,776 Attend annual meeting of Universal Postal Union's Consultative Council for Postal Studies. One officer also visited Papua New Guinea to discuss training requirements and attended a meeting of the Governing Board of Asian Pacific Postal Training Centre Manager, Class 11 General Manager, Level 421 days 17 days Papua New Guinea, Switzerland, Thailand Switzerland 4,374 4,373 8,111 6,121 Participate in seminar on ``Postal Services in the 2000's'' Managing Director 10 days Republic of Korea 3,986 4,841 Attend plenary meeting of International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee; hold discussions with overseas postal administrations on various electronic mail issues; visit equipment suppliers Director, Level 4 17 days Spain, Italy, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore 5,148 8,308 Inspect, and evaluate technically, manufacturing and design facility of New Zealand tenderer for plastic mail trays Supervising Engineer Class 5 3 days New Zealand 856 1,162 Hold discussions with an overseas postal administration and equipment/software suppliers to develop plans for application of new technologies to Australia Post's future information services Project Manager, Level 1 17 days USA 4,837 8,818 Attend symposium on ``Up to date Postal Equipment and Techniques'', arranged by French Government and the President of the Communications Authority of Thailand; visit Asian Pacific Postal Training Centre; discussions with Thai postal authorities Managing Director 10 days Thailand Nil 988 (Sponsored by French Government and postal administration) Attend electronic mail meeting Manager, Level 1 7 days Hong Kong 3,122 4,163 Attend annual Direct Marketing Symposium and Exhibition; visit overseas postal administrations for discussions on promotion of direct mail as an advertising medium Manager, Class 11 28 days Switzerland, West Germany, England 4,400 8,760 Attend international postal security conference; discuss Australia Post's revised protective service arrangements Manager, Class 11 14 days USA 4,837 8,207 Attend annual meeting of Executive Council of Universal Postal Union. One officer also visited Asian Pacific Postal Union for discussions on a study into Union's book-keeping system Australia was asked to undertake General Manager, Level 4 Manager, Level 1 Assistant Manager, Class 10 21 days 24 days 21 days Switzerland Philippines, Switzerland Switzerland 4,400 4,400 4,400 7,454 8,140 7,487 Hold budgeting/planning discussions with philatelic sales agents Manager, Level 1 24 days England, West Germany, Switzerland, USA 4,740 9,837 Discuss technical and service operations; inspect an operational electronic mail site; attend an electronic mail meeting; discussions with suppliers of electronic mail equipment Manager, Level 1 17 days Belgium, USA 5,181 9,853 Attend 8th International Mechanisation Conference; discussions with overseas postal administrations. Manager, Level 2 31 days Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, France, West Germany, Canada, USA 5,419 11,370 Special Broadcasting Service New Zealand election coverage Canberra News Bureau Chief 23 days New Zealand 1,259 3,927 New Zealand election coverage Camera Assistant 16 days New Zealand 1,199 3,989 New Zealand election coverage Cameraman 11 days New Zealand 1,199 2,551 Aust./China Soccer Series Sports Director 17 days China, Hong Kong 3,322 5,522 ``World News Report'' assignment Journalist 17 days China - 2,360 ``World News Report'' assignment Cameraman 17 days China - 1,265 ``World News Report'' assignment Sound Recordist 17 days China - 1,265 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting Journalist 8 days Papua New Guinea 1,087 1,987 China Film-Buying Corporation Program buying Head of T.V. 15 days China 4,956 7,056 South Pacific Forum Canberra News Bureau Chief 4 days Fiji, Tuvalu PM & C to bill 860 ``March to Freedom'' production consultations with overseas colleagues Head of Production 31 days Europe 5,779 11,399 ``English as Second Language'' program production Researcher 34 days Europe, USA, Canada 5,114 12,396 Attend Asiavision Conference Head of T.V. News 6 days Japan 2,498 3,948 Attend MIFED Conference Acquisitions Officer 14 days Italy, Greece 4,418 6,379 ``World News Report''-USA Presidential Elections Journalist 26 days USA 9,828* 6,282 ``World News Report''-USA Presidential Elections Sound Recordist 18 days USA 6,714* 8,934 ``World News Report''-USA Presidential Elections Cameraman 18 days USA 8,024* 10,414 ``World News Report''-USA Presidential Elections Journalist 18 days USA 6,714* 9,742 Attend Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union (A.B.U.) meeting in Tokyo Head of Engineering 13 days Tokyo, Hong Kong 2,806 5,406 Attend A.B.U. (Tokyo) International Instit. of Communications (U.S.A.) Conf. Executive Director 19 days Tokyo, USA, Hong Kong 16,336 21,086 Canvass joint ventures with overseas suppliers and demonstrate SBS local productions Marketing Manager 28 days Europe, USA, Hong Kong 5,978 17,621 (70% to be reimbursed) Ampol China/Aust. Cup production Sports Producer 20 days China 3,255 5,755 Aust. soccer team tour of Europe Presenter/Commentator 40 days Europe - 1,170 Location survey for ``Letters From Home'' production Producer 10 days Italy - 2,000 Aust. soccer tour of Europe Producer 32 days Europe - 1,995 Political situation in New Caledonia Journalist 6 days New Caledonia 830 1,390 Political situation in New Caledonia Cameraman 6 days New Caledonia 830 1,390 Political situation in New Caledonia Camera Assistant 6 days Political situation in New Caledonia 830 1,390 French P.M. Visit Journalist 4 days Political situation in New Caledonia 782 1,782 P.M.'s U.S. trip, report on world nuclear situation Cameraman 18 days Europe, USA, New Zealand 4,875 9,217 P.M.'s U.S. trip, report on world nuclear situation Canberra News Bureau Chief 27 days Europe, USA, New Zealand 7,183* 13,883 P.M.'s U.S. trip, report on world nuclear situation Camera Assistant 18 days Europe, USA, New Zealand 4,865 9,181 ``Dateline'' assignment Reporter 23 days India, Sri Lanka 6,374 *...12,110 ``Dateline'' assignment Cameraman 23 days India, Sri Lanka 3,422 *...6,917 ``Dateline'' assignment Sound Recordist 23 days India, Sri Lanka 5,015 *...8,738 News and Dateline assignment (Foreign Minister's visit) Journalist 22 days Kampuchea 2,914 8,650 Attend National Association of Broadcasting Convention Engineer 29 days USA, Canada, Japan 3,753 6,754 Meet B.B.C. reps.; seek new sources for sport and current affairs Assistant Acquisitions Officer 19 days England, France 4,536 7,584 Program buying Acquisitions Officer 33 days Thailand, Greece, Spain, Czechoslovakia, France, Turkey 5,551 10,750 Program buying Director of Programming 33 days England, Yugoslavia, France, Italy 5,281 10,316 ``Dateline'' program Reporter 32 days Greece, Cyprus, Israel (4,313 (6,000 **...13,963 ``Dateline'' program Cameraman 27 days Greece, Cyprus, Israel 4,313 7,963 ``Dateline'' program Sound Recordist 27 days Greece, Cyprus, Israel 4,313 7,963 Accompany Defence Minister for news assignment ``Dateline'' program Cameraman 8 days New Zealand 848 1,928 ``Letters from Home'' program Producer 11 days Italy - 1,950 ``Letters from Home'' program Producer's Assistant 7 days Italy - 1,200 ANZUS Visit by Defence Minister-``Dateline'' Program A.B.C. Journalist 8 days New Zealand 848 848 (to be reimbursed by ABC) ANZUS Visit by Defence Minister-``Dateline'' Program Editor/Camera Assistant 8 days New Zealand 848 2,685 ANZUS Visit by Defence Minister-``Dateline'' Program Chief, Canberra News Bureau 10 days New Zealand 848 1,908 A.B.U Sports Programming Committee meetings Executive Director 4 days Indonesia, Singapore 2,604 3,291 A.B.U Sports Programming Committee meetings Marketing Manager 39 days Singapore, France, Hong Kong, Japan 4,779 11,758 ``March to Freedom'' program; meet co-production partners Head of Production 21 days England, Yugoslavia 4,897 16,547 News and current affairs assignment Producer 31 days Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines 3,007 11,757 News and current affairs assignment Cameraman 36 days Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines 2,840 5,890 News and current affairs assignment Sound Recordist 36 days Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines 2,840 10,162 News and current affairs assignment Reporter 23 days Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines 2,754 7,054 Hitachi Camera Training Course Producer 17 days Japan - 3,630 Visnews Conference; meet Senior Executives (London) Head of News and Current Affairs 9 days England, France 4,539 5,999 Overseas production for ``Magazine'' program Producer 30 days Cyprus, Greece, Yugoslavia - 6,050 Overseas production for `Magazine' program Sound Recordist 30 days Cyprus, Greece, Yugoslavia - 3,200 Overseas production for `Magazine' program Cameraman 30 days Cyprus, Greece, Yugoslavia - 3,200 News/`Dateline' program on political situation in PNG Reporter 6 days Papua New Guinea 1,100 2,538 News/`Dateline' program on political situation in PNG Sound Recordist 6 days Papua New Guinea 1,100 2,377 News/`Dateline' program on political situation in PNG Cameraman 6 days Papua New Guinea 1,100 2,315 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Address conferences in Thessalonika and Berlin, and in Prague and Toronto, obtain information about satellites, broadcast programs and advertisements, and legal developments. Tribunal member 46 days Czechoslovakia, Greece, Switzerland, Belgium, West Germany, Canada, USA 4,823 12,290 * includes excess luggage ** internal travel plus excess luggage Australian Telecommunications Commission The information sought is not readily available in the form asked for by the honourable member. During 1984-85 114 Telecom staff travelled overseas on official visits and it would require the application of considerable resources in terms of time and cost at the expense of higher priority duties in order to collate the information in such a way as to answer each part of this question. However, the following details are provided: (a) The purpose of the visits was primarily to: (i) attend international conferences including participation in Study Group meetings of the ITU; (ii) investigate overseas technical developments, and management and marketing techniques; (iii) progress contractual commitments with equipment manufacturers. (b) The classification of officers involved ranged from Engineer Class 3 or equivalent, to senior management staff. (c) The average duration of each visit was 4 weeks. (d) Countries visited included the United Kingdom, USA, Canada, Japan, Sweden, West Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore and China. (e) On average, the cost of each visit was $10,000 of which approximately half was for air fares. Australian Broadcasting Corporation To provide the information asked for, the ABC would need to employ someone specifically to obtain the details from numerous files held on overseas visits. The Corporation could not justify the resource costs involved. The Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) OTC operates in an international environment with a consequent need for extensive travel by officers of the Commission to attend meetings dealing with operational and commercial matters, facilities provisioning and co-ordination. To provide the information sought would be a task of some magnitude involving significant resource costs which could not be justified. (Question No. 3198) Mr McVeigh asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 February 1986: (1) How many new residents moved from other parts of Australia to (a) N.S.W., (b) Victoria, (c) Queensland, (d) South Australia, (e) Western Australia, (f) Tasmania and (g) the Northern Territory in 1984-85. (2) Do the statistics show that more people moved to Queensland than to other States; if so does this indicate that Government policies pursued in Queensland attract more people to that State. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following table shows final data for net interstate migration in 1984-85:- N.S.W. Vic Qld W.A. S.A. Tas N.T. A.C.T. -8,732 -6,628 10,955 2,417 -5,110 501 1,533 5,064 Source: `Australian Demographic Statistics, March and June Quarters 1986', ABS Catalogue No. 3101.0 (2) Yes; however, many factors influence the decision to migrate interstate. A survey of the reasons behind interstate movements in population undertaken by the Statistician (`Internal Migration, Australia, Twelve Months ended 30 June 1985') shows that in 1984-85 employment was by far the most significant factor (accounting for 52 per cent of all interstate moves), followed by housing factors (6 per cent), change in marital status (5 per cent) and retirement (2 per cent). (Question No. 3966) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) How many federal (a) Government and (b) Opposition members have been interviewed on the A.B.C. (i) A.M. program and (ii) P.M. program since 1 January 1985. (2) What was the time given to (a) Government and (b) Opposition members. (3) How many interviews other than with federal parliamentarians were conducted which were in their tenor (a) anti-federal Government and (b) pro-federal Government. Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question is based upon information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: (1) Although the A.B.C. records the names of all interviewees who appear on A.M. and P.M., it would be an unreasonable strain on limited A.B.C. resources to go back through the Corporation's records to provide the A.B.C. information sought. (2) The same considerations apply as in (1). However, it would be expected that members of the Government are interviewed or reported more frequently than are members of the Opposition. (3) Again the same considerations as in (1) apply. Because the A.B.C. destroys tapes of interviews 6 weeks after the date of broadcast, in accordance with 117a (2) of the Broadcasting Act 1942, they are not in a position to make judgments necessary to answer the question. (Question No. 4395) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the Food Irradiation Newsletter, a joint publication of FAO and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vol. 9, No. 2 (August 1985), which states that at a meeting in May 1985 Australia agreed to fund the transfer of food irradiation technology to local industries. (2) What authority did the delegation have to make this commitment. (3) Who were the Australian delegates to this meeting. (4) How much is to be funded by (a) Australia and (b) other Governments. (5) Will he make available a copy of the delegation's report of the meeting; if not, why not. (6) Did the same issue of the Newsletter state there was to be another meeting in Shanghai on 7-11 April 1986 which was to be attended by government officials, scientists, food industry representatives and consumers. (7) Was Australia represented at this meeting; if so, who were the delegates. (8) If Australia was represented, will he make a copy of the delegation's report available. (9) If he will not make the report available, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) and (4) The delegation had authority to make this commitment by virtue of the fact that by Executive Council decision, Australia is a party to the Agreement Establishing the Asian Regional Cooperative Project on Food Irradiation (RPFI). Under this Agreement, Australia agreed to provide a total of US$260,000 from development assistance funds over the three years of the Second Phase of the RPFI. The First Phase was funded by the Government of Japan. (3) The Australian participants at the first Project Committee Meeting held at the AAEC Research Establishment on 13-15 May 1985 were Dr P. L. Airey and Ms P. A. Wills, both from the Isotope Division, Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Dr Airey chaired the meeting. Dr Airey and Ms Wills attended in their capacity as individual experts. (5) There was no separate report prepared by the Australian participants at the meeting. They contributed to the official IAEA report of the meeting, a copy of which is available from my Department. (6) Yes. (7) The article refers to a joint FAO/IAEA Seminar for Asia and the Pacific on the Practical Application of Food Irradiation, which was held in Shanghai on 7-11 April 1986, and to a tentative arrangement for the second Project Committee Meeting to be held in Shanghai following this Seminar. The second Project Committee Meeting was in fact held in Hangzhou on 14-15 April and was attended by Ms P. A. Wills from the AAEC. Aside from Ms Wills, the Shanghai seminar was also attended by Dr G. C. de Cean, Director, Food Administration Section, Commonwealth Department of Health and Mr M. Izard, Isotope Division, AAEC. (8) and (9) There was no separate report prepared by the Australian participants at the meeting. They contributed to the official IAEA report of the meeting, a copy of which is available from my Department. (Question No. 4475) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) Has the Minister seen the results of a survey of university students released on 8 August 1986 by Professor J Goldring. (2) Does it show no significant change in the students' socio-economic status since 1966. (3) Does it show that 47% of students at Monash University, 42% of students at Melbourne University and 40% of students at Sydney University attended private schools. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Minister has seen a report released by Professor Goldring on 8 August 1986. The full title of the report is ``An Updated Social Profile of Students Entering Law Courses''. In the process of preparing the report, Professor Goldring surveyed students commencing degree courses in law at six universities (Sydney, New South Wales, Macquarie, Australian National University, Melbourne and Monash) and one CAE (the New South Wales Institute of Technology). (2) In view of the survey's limited coverage of students, it is not possible to draw conclusions from it about the socio-economic status of university students in general. In relation to law students, however, the report does indicate a disproportionate number of students at the surveyed institutions had previously attended private schools and that ``an overwhelming proportion'' have parents with a relatively high socio-economic status. (3) The report shows that 47% of students commencing law courses in 1986 at Monash and 40% and 42% of such students at Sydney and Melbourne respectively had attended non-Catholic independent schools. The remaining students were drawn from government and Catholic systemic schools. These percentages, however, relate to those students responding to the survey not to all students. (Question No. 4563) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: (1) What is the estimated cost of the (a) acquisition of the site, (b) construction of the college and supporting facilities and (c) equipment for the proposed Aviation Central Training College in Canberra. (2) How many personnel will the college cater for. (3) When will it be fully operational. (4) Where is the proposed site. (5) Have any offers been made to lease holders regarding compensation; if so, what are they. (6) Has he investigated the feeling of lease holders regarding acquisition of land; if so, what was the result of the investigation. (7) Is much or all of the land for the proposed college low-lying and subject to flooding; if so, what will be the additional cost of ensuring that the college's buildings are safe from inundation. (8) Has there been an environmental impact study of the proposed site, especially its effect on water flow in the area; if not, why not. (9) If there has been a study, is it available for public comment; if not, why not. (10) If there has been no study, will he consider initiating one; if not, why not. (11) Has he or his Department received any alternative proposals for the college site; if so (a) what were they and (b) who made them. (12) Is he considering siting the college at an alternative site; if not, why not. (13) What consultation with the aviation industry has he or his Department had about the establishment of the college, including the necessity to site the college in Canberra. (14) If there has been no consultation within recent months, why not. (15) Have trade unions or employee associations been consulted regarding the establishment of such a college; if so (a) which ones and (b) what were the results. (16) Where is the present training carried out for those functions which the college would assume. (17) How many personnel are involved in this training and at what cost. (18) Is it possible to continue training at these localities; if not, why not. (19) Are there any advantages in establishing the college at a locality closer to one of the major airports in Australia; if so, what are the reasons for proceeding with the construction of the college at Canberra. (20) Will siting the college at Pialligo, A.C.T., cause difficulties in utilising staff from a major air traffic control facility as teaching staff and result in significantly higher salary and allowance expenditures through increased overtime and travelling claims; if so, what are the expected increases in these costs. (21) If difficulties are not expected, how will the apparent shortfall in teaching and training staff available in the ACT be overcome. (22) Will the type of air traffic control facility operating at Canberra Airport be able to be used for ``hands-on'' training of students or familiarisation with actual air traffic control facilities and conditions. (23) Could this sort of training be better carried out at a central training college located at or near a larger airport; if not, why not. (24) Will he postpone any acquisition of land or expenditure so that the need for a college can be more clearly defined especially in view of the present state of the Australian economy and the aviation industry; if not, why not. (25) Is any expenditure on the college to be attributed to the industry for cost recovery purposes; if so, what amount. (26) Will he allow the industry time to discuss the appropriateness of such expenditure and recommend through the appropriate channels its preferences on location, function and other aspects of the proposal, in view of the burden it will carry through the cost recovery scheme announced in the Budget; if not why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Department of Territories has advised that ``The estimated cost of acquisition of the site on withdrawal of the leases are of the order of $12,000 to $15,000. This amount covers fencing, timber treatment, pasture improvements and other compensable items.'' (b) construction of the College and supporting facilities is $10.8m at June 1986 prices and (c) equipment for the proposed College in Canberra including the new Simulator is currently $8.9m. However, contracts are subject to fluctuations in currency exchange rates. (2) When operational, the College will cater, at full capacity for up to 270 personnel. (3) The College is planned to be fully operational in late 1989. (4) The proposed site is located on part of lots 20, 21 and 22, section 2 at Pialligo, A.C.T. (5) The Department of Territories has advised that ``No offers have been made to lease holders regarding compensation''. (6) The Department of Territories has advised that ``The affected lessees were notified of the intentions for the area in July 1985. They have, through their lawyers, objected to the proposals.'' (7) The Department of Housing and Construction has advised that ``In the regional context, the site is located above the `probable maximum flood' line for the Molonglo River. This represents the highest zone mapped in areal flooding projections and water inundations above this line would only occur given a 1 in 5000 year flood event. In the local Pialligo area context, the site water conditions do not pose any serious construction problems or demand building solutions that involve costs above normal allowances to ensure a building free from inundation. (8) and (9) No. The Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment has advised that the site identified by the NCDC in Pialligo is appropriate for use as an Aviation College and, as no apparent physical, biological or visual impact will result from the construction, an Environmental Impact Study is not required. The Department of Housing and Construction has advised that drainage works for the proposed site will involve only the re-routing and enclosure of an existing open storm water drain for the extent of the site. (10) No. On advice from the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, my Department did not consider it appropriate that a study be initiated. (11) A number of alternative proposals for the College site were received by my Department The proposals were as follows 1979/83 Consultation between my Department and the A.C.T. Schools Authority regarding the possibility of utilising surplus school accommodation for the Central Training College in Canberra and suburbs Late 1981. From the New South Wales State Government Superannuation Board, owner of Morrisset House, Queanbeyan, offering use of Morrisset House for the Central Training College on a lease basis 17 March 1982. An expression of interest by Cooma/Monaro Shire Council that the facility be located in Cooma 22 March 1982. Suggestion from the Principal, Riverina College of Advanced Education regarding the possibility of using the Goulburn Campus for the Central Training College, collocating it with the N.S.W. Police Training School 23 June 1982. Correspondence from Ern Browne Real Estate proposing locating the Central Training College in a purpose designed building in Canberra City for lease by the Department 19 November 1982. Suggestion from Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd that the Bruce High Technology centre would be suitable as a site for the new College 27 August 1985. Suggestion from the Queanbeyan City Council that a site for the Central Training College could be made available in East Queanbeyan 23 September 1985. Representation by the current member for Eden/Monaro on behalf of Mr M. Buggy, owner of Morrisset House, Queanbeyan, requesting consideration be given to locating the new College in Morrisset House on a lease or perhaps lease/purchase basis. (12) No. My Department did consider siting the College at alternative locations, but the site at Pialligo was selected for operational and cost effectiveness reasons. (13) and (14) My Department wrote to members of the Aviation Industry Advisory Council (AVIAC) on 2 & 3 May 1986 outlining details of the proposals and indicating the intention to seek funds in the recent Budget for the work. The details included information on the scope, timing, justification and cost of the project. The project was discussed at the meeting of the Committee of Advisers to AVIAC on 22 May 1986 and the need for further consultation was considered at that meeting. Subsequently, my Department wrote to members of the Committee of Advisers on 15 July offering to further discuss the proposal. This offer was repeated on 17 September when Committee members were advised of the intention to hold discussions between my Department and interested members of the Industry. The invitation was extended to all eight members of the Committee of which four responded, with three declining the invitation. (15) Yes. Officers from my Department have been in consultation with unions and employee associations (a) Those consulted were Civil Air Operations Officers Association of Australia Administrative and Clerical Officers Association Australian Public Service Association Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia Association of Drafting, Supervisory and Technical Employees. (b) Associations consulted support the need for the new College but do not support its location in Canberra. (16) Air Traffic control and Flight Service training is currently undertaken in Government owned premises at Henty House, 499 Little Collins Street, Melbourne. Training for Search and Rescue officers is carried out in leased accommodation at Cooleman Court Weston ACT. Airworthiness training currently takes place in leased accommodation at 607 Swanston Street Melbourne. Administrative and Automatic Data Processing training are carried out in leased premises in Canberra City. (17) My Department has advised as at 13 October 1986, the following staff were involved in training and support functions which will be assumed by the Central Training College full time training staff: 35 part time training staff: 5 full time support staff: 18 part time support staff: 3 Salary costs associated with those staff are estimated at $1.54M annually. (18) Facilities currently being used by Air Traffic control and Flight Service training schools in Henty House Melbourne are neither functionally nor structurally suitable for upgrading to accommodate new generation Air Traffic Control and Flight Service simulators which are due for delivery in September 1988. Facilities for the other training functions included in the proposal, whilst interim in nature and not purpose designed, could continue to be used for training purposes. (19) Little advantage would be gained in establishing the College closer to one of the major airports in Australia as there are few operational facilities peculiar to major centres which cannot be found at Canberra Airport. However most operational facilities will be fully simulated by the new training simulator equipment to be installed in the Central Training College. In addition, 50 per cent of all Air Traffic Control and Flight Service operational training is carried out in the field, permitting sufficient opportunity for additional familiarisation with the airspace of the Region to which trainees will be ultimately posted. Locating the College in Canberra will also allow Central Office staff to fully utilise the new simulator equipment to develop new operational procedures and doctrine. (20) No. Permanent staff will cover foreseeable training commitments apart from occasional specialist courses where an instructor may be required from a Regional centre for short periods only. (21) Teaching staff currently attached to the Central Training College in Melbourne will either be relocated to Canberra with the new College or transferred to postings in the field. Any shortfall in teaching staff as a result of relocation will be overcome by transferring experienced field staff to Canberra. (22) No. Ab-initio trainee ``hands on'' training is conducted on the simulator at the Central Training College as it is inappropriate that this training be carried out in an operational environment. Additional ``on the job'' training is then carried out at the station of final posting. This does not represent any change from existing procedures. (23) No. There is no significant additional benefit to be gained from carrying out ab-initio training at a Central Training College adjacent to a larger airport. (24) No. My Department has advised that the need for the new College has been clearly defined. In addition, annual expenditure for the proposal has been reduced to a minimum commensurate with the completion of the new simulator building in time for the anticipated delivery of equipment in September 1988. (25) The Training College will provide training for Air Traffic Control, flight Service, Administrative and Automatic Data Processing Staff, which are wholly or partly attributable functions for cost recovery purposes. The College will also provide training for Search and Rescue and Airworthiness staff which are not attributable functions. Training for these functions is a necessary part of the Department's activities and the provision of a new training college is the most economic way to carry out that activity. Of the estimated $10.8M expenditure approximately $8.4M will be attributable for cost recovery purposes. This will be offset by reductions in expenditure on the existing training facilities. (26) Previous consultation with Industry has provided the opportunity to discuss the appropriateness of expenditure for the proposal. As the new College will be specifically for the training of Departmental staff in operational functions, aspects of the proposal such as location and function are not for consideration by the Industry. (Question No. 4716) Mr Fife asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) What is the estimated cost to Qantas of the fringe benefits tax in a full year. (2) Is this a significant additional operating cost and will it be reflected in higher fares. (3) Will this additional cost reduce Qantas' competitiveness with other airlines. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $3.6 million. (2) The extent to which the tax may be reflected in higher fares is difficult to establish, as Qantas' fare structure reflects the whole range of the costs faced by the Company, the net effect of which determines the level of the Company's fares. However compared with Qantas' total expenditure of $1,967.5 million in 1985/86, the additional cost of the fringe benefits tax to Qantas is not considered to be significant. (3) The Government believes the tax will not reduce Qantas' competitiveness with other airlines. In this respect it should be noted that overseas airlines are also required to pay fringe benefits tax on their operations in Australia. (Question No. 4867) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the National Times on 19 October 1986 dealing with social security abuse and accident and workers' compensation. (2) What action has he taken to ensure this abuse is minimised (a) in response to this report and (b) in each year since 1984. (3) What communication takes place between his Department and insurance companies to ensure there is no overpayment. (4) Is this information transfer effective; if so, why does the abuse continue. (5) If this information transfer is not effective, why has nothing been done to improve the system and what action does he now plan to make it effective. (6) What action has been taken under the (a) Crimes Act and (b) Social Security Act to recover money overpaid through this form of abuse in each State and Territory, in (i) 1983, (ii) 1984, and (iii) 1985. (7) What sum of money was (a) overpaid and (b) recovered as a result of action taken under the (i) Crimes Act and (ii) Social Security Act in each State and Territory, in (A) 1983, (B) 1984 and (C) 1985. (8) What effect did each of the Government's anti-fraud measures have upon this form of social security fraud. (9) Is there a reluctance to launch a major clean-up for fear of a repeat of the situation which developed in the Greek social security conspiracy case; if so, why. (10) If there is no reluctance, why have no major prosecutions occurred. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have seen the article. It refers to fraud perpetrated upon the insurance industry and an estimate that 30% of third party claims in Victoria could involve fraud. It also alleges that in one case an individual involved was also charged with social security fraud. (2) and (3) Combating fraud in the insurance industry is a matter for those concerned. As far as communication between the Department of Social Security and insurance companies is concerned, such companies were recently invited to provide to the department details of persons in receipt of compensation. According to a report in the ``Daily Mirror'' of 21 October, the Director of the Insurance Council of Australia regarded the request as ``bullying'' and stated that he was unaware of any firm co-operating. The honourable member for Richmond's position on the initiative was revealing-he is quoted as saying that the department was ``going through the back-door to compensate for slack administration''. In any case in which sickness benefit is payable to a person in receipt of compensation, the amount of sickness benefit otherwise payable is reduced by the amount of compensation received. This information is sought from the insurance company. Again, as a matter of course, where a claim for compensation has been lodged but no amount has been received, the insurance company is notified so that in the event of a lump sum settlement, a recoverable amount of sickness benefit must be remitted to the department before the balance is released to the person awarded the compensation. Similar provisions are to apply to invalid pension, unemployment and special benefit, sheltered employment allowance and rehabilitation allowance as from 1 May 1987. (4) These procedures are generally effective. (5) See answer to (2), (3) and (4) above. (6) The department's statistical system does not allow the separate identification of an overpayment arising from motor vehicle accident or workers' compensation fraud. (7) The department's overpayment statistics are not segregated into Social Security Act and Crimes Act categories except for the purpose of prosecution details. Statistics of total overpayments raised and recovered by the Department of Social Security are collected by financial year rather than calendar year. The relevant figures are: AMOUNTS OVERPAID 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $m $m $m N.S.W. ... 26.2 23.9 29.0 Vic. ... 16.2 16.4 18.1 Qld. ... 8.5 7.6 10.2 S.A. ... 5.6 5.4 6.9 W.A. ... 4.2 4.4 6.2 Tas. ... 1.6 1.6 1.6 N.T. ... 1.4 1.0 1.8 AMOUNTS RECOVERED N.S.W. ... 10.9 12.9 14.5 Vic. ... 9.2 9.8 11.0 Qld. ... 4.5 5.1 6.0 S.A. ... 3.6 4.0 4.6 W.A. ... 2.9 3.2 3.8 Tas. ... 1.0 1.0 1.1 N.T. ... 0.6 0.6 0.9 (8) I would expect the Government's anti-fraud measures to have the same general effect on any instances of this nature as they would on any other type of social security fraud. (9) No. (10) As noted in (1) above, the article refers to fraud in the insurance industry. No major instances of insurance fraud involving the Department of Social Security have been detected to date. (Question No. 4872) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 12 November 1986: (1) What restrictions currently apply to the importation of Australian fresh oranges into the USA. (2) What reasons have been given for these restrictions. (3) What representations has the Government made to the US Administration on this matter. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Australian oranges and other fresh citrus fruit are prohibited entry into the USA due to the presence in Australia of a number of pests and diseases which do not occur in the USA and which the US Department of Agriculture consider would pose a potentially serious threat to US horticultural industries. The major concern is with fruit flies, citrus black spot, Australian scab and septoria. (3) The Australian Government has made representations regarding the entry of fresh citrus fruit into the USA for more than 20 years. There are now regular technical discussions on quarantine issues including those affecting citrus, between senior officials of the Department of Primary Industry and USDA. The most recent round of these discussions which took place in the USA, 12-14 November 1986 established that there is no prospect of early resolution of difficulties which prevent the entry of Australian citrus fruit. Major concerns of the USA are with Australian internal quarantine measures to prevent the entry of fruit flies and diseases of concern into the areas from which fruit is likely to be exported. These export areas must also be continuously monitored to ensure that they remain free from the pests and diseases. Internal quarantine and other regulating controls are State responsibilities in Australia. The United States, like Australia, imposes strict quarantine provisions to guard against the entry of pests or diseases which could have disastrous consequences for its agricultural industries. (Question No. 4477) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) What is the present work load of the Albury Wodonga office of his Department. (2) What is the staffing level of this office. (3) What range of services does it provide. (4) What geographical areas does it serve. (5) On what date was the decision made to close this office. (6) What is the cost of maintaining the office. (7) What consultations took place concerning its closure with (a) The regional director, (b) the officers of the Albury/Wodonga office and (c) local migrant community groups. (8) What new arrangements are proposed to serve the requirements of clients of the office. (9) Will the same number of staff be required; if so how will these staff be deployed. (10) If not, why not. (11) What is the cost benefits of the new arrangements over the present operation. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of applications received in 1985-86 for the main work load activities were as follows: Citizenship... 414 Change of Resident Status... 52 Re-entry Visas... 338 Temporary Entry Permit extensions... 90 Reliable statistics on counter enquiries are not available. (2) At the time of the 1986-87 Budget, the staffing level of the Office was two; one Clerical Administrative Class 7 and one Clerical Assistant Grade 3. The average staffing level (ASL) allocation at that time was around 2.2. (3) The range of services at the time the decision was taken was as follows: migration (including family and occupational migration, and refugees), change of status to resident, temporary entry (including visitors and temporary residents), and citizenship. (4) The Albury Wodonga Office serviced an area which has no direct relationship to statistical divisions nor local government boundaries. In approximate terms the boundary encompassed (and included) Tallangatta, Mount Beauty, Wangaratta, Cobram, Deniliquin, Narrandera and Junee. (5) The initial decision to close the Office was made in response to portfolio savings targets developed in the 1986-87 Budget process. (6) The cost to maintain fully the operation of the Office during 1986-87 (at current prices) would have been around $90,500. (7) Because of the confidentiality inherent in the Budget process, it was not possible to undertake consultation before the initial announcement. Full consultation subsequently has been taking place with those affected. (8) An officer of the Canberra Office with local knowledge will be assigned to handle enquiries from areas affected by the closure. Citizenship interviews will be undertaken by Australia Post-this arrangement already applies to cities and towns throughout Australia, including those which are remote from DIEA offices. Other functions will be taken over by the Melbourne and Canberra regional offices. Similar arrangements now apply for many other cities which are distant from a DIEA office. (9) No. (10) A reduction of ASL in a full year from 2.2 to 1.0 is planned, ie. a saving of 1.2 ASL. This reduction is possible because the need for supervision and administrative support will be minimised. Work loads will be handled more efficiently by `streaming' work in the larger office rather than having one officer more frequently move from one function to another as happens in smaller offices. (11) Estimated net savings to the Commonwealth resulting from reducing the activity of this Office are as follows: 1986-87 1987-88 Staff... 25 000 37 000 Administration... 7 000 10 000 Total... 32 000 47 000 These estimates exclude possible redundancy payments/redeployment costs in 1986-87 which are not yet known. (Question No. 4478) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) What is the present workload of the Geelong office of his Department. (2) What is the staffing level of this office. (3) What range of services does it provide. (4) What geographical areas does it serve. (5) On what date was the decision made to close this office. (6) What is the cost of maintaining the office. (7) What consultations took place concerning its closure with (a) The regional director, (b) the officers of the Geelong office and (c) local migrant community groups. (8) What new arrangements are proposed to serve the requirements of clients of the office. (9) Will the same number of staff be required; if so how will these staff be deployed. (10) If not, why not. (11) What are the cost benefits of the new arrangements over the present operation. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of applications received in 1985-86 for the main workload activities were as follows: Citizenship... 940 Change of Resident Status... 63 Re-entry Visas... 1171 Temporary Entry Permit extensions... 191 Reliable statistics on counter enquiries are not available. (2) At the time of the 1986-87 Budget, the staffing level of the Office was four; one Clerical Administrative Class 7, one Clerical Administrative Class 5, one Clerical Assistant Grade 4 and one Typist grade 2. The average staffing level (ASL) allocation at that time was around 4.0. (3) The range of services provided was as follows: migration (including family and occupational migration, and refugees), change of status to resident, temporary entry (including visitors and temporary residents), and citizenship. (4) Geelong Area Office, in broad terms, services the Barwon and South Western statistical divisions and includes Ballarat which lies in the Central Highlands Division. (5) The initial decision to close the Office was made in response to portfolio savings targets developed in the 1986-87 Budget process. Further investigation revealed other savings options which allow the Office to remain open with reduced staff and functions. (6) The cost to maintain fully the operation of the Office during 1986-87 (at current prices) would have been around $119,500. (7) Because of the confidentiality inherent in the Budget process, it was not possible to undertake consultation before the initial announcement. Full consultation is taking place currently with those affected. (8) The Office will continue to carry out its current major functions of handling applications for citizenship, issuing re-entry visas and providing information. Some workload such as grant of resident status will be transferred to the Melbourne Regional Office. Citizenship interviews will be undertaken by Australia Post-this arrangement already applies in cities and towns throughout Australia, including those which are remote from DIEA offices. (9) No. (10) A reduction of ASL in a full year from 4.0 to 2.0 is planned, ie. a saving of 2.0 ASL. This reduction is possible because the need for supervision and administrative support will be minimised. Workloads will be handled more efficiently by `streaming' work in the larger office rather than one officer more frequently moving from one function to another as happens in smaller offices. (11) Estimated net savings to the Commonwealth resulting from reducing the activity of this Office will be as follows: 1986-87 1987-88 Staff... 13 452 23 059 Administration... Nil 4 932 Total... 13 452 27 991 These estimates exclude possible redundancy payments/redeployment costs in 1986-87 which are not yet known. (Question No. 4479) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) What is the present workload of the Launceston office of his Department. (2) What is the staffing level of this office. (3) What range of services does it provide. (4) What geographical areas does it serve. (5) On what date was the decision made to close this office. (6) What is the cost of maintaining the office. (7) What consultations took place concerning its closure with (a) The regional director, (b) the officers of the Launceston office and (c) local migrant community groups. (8) What new arrangements are proposed to serve the requirements of clients of the office. (9) Will the same number of staff be required; if so how will these staff be deployed. (10) If not, why not. (11) What are the cost benefits of the new arrangements over the present operation. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of applications received in 1985-86 for the main workload activities were as follows: Citizenship... 448 Change of Resident Status... 98 Re-entry Visas... 515 Temporary Entry Permit extensions... 230 Reliable statistics on counter enquiries are not available. (2) At the time of the 1986-87 Budget the staffing level of the Office was one Clerical Administrative Class 6, and one temporary Clerical Administrative Class 5. The average staffing level (ASL) allocation at that time was around 2.8. (3) The range of services provided at the time the decision was taken was as follows: migration (including family and occupational migration, and refugees), change of status to resident, temporary entry (including visitors and temporary residents), and citizenship. (4) Launceston Area Office, in broad terms serviced the Northern and Mersey-Lyell statistical divisions. (5) The initial decision to close the Office was made in response to portfolio savings targets developed in the 1986-87 Budget process. (6) The cost to maintain fully the operation of the Office during 1986-87 (at current prices) would have been $128,500. (7) Because of the confidentiality inherent in the Budget process, it was not possible to undertake consultation before the initial announcement. Full consultation is taking place currently with those affected. (8) An officer of the Hobart Office with local knowledge will be assigned to handle enquiries from areas affected by the closure. Citizenship interviews will be undertaken by Australia Post-this arrangement already applies in cities and towns throughout Australia, including those which are remote from DIEA offices. Other functions will be taken over by the Hobart Office. Similar arrangements now apply for many other cities which are distant from a DIEA office. (9) No. (10) A reduction of ASL in a full year from around 2.8 to 1.3 is planned, i.e. a saving of 1.5 ASL. This reduction is possible because the need for supervision and administrative support will be minimised. Workloads will be handled more efficiently by `streaming' work in the larger office rather than having one officer more frequently move from one function to another as happens in smaller offices. (11) Estimated net savings to the Commonwealth resulting from reducing the activity of this Office are as follows: 1986-87 1987-88 Staff... 25 000 50 000 Administration... 14 000 20 000 Total... 39 000 70 000 These estimates exclude possible redundancy payments/redeployment costs in 1986-87 which are not yet known. (Question No. 4480) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) What is the present workload of the Newcastle office of his Department. (2) What is the staffing level of this office. (3) What range of services does it provide. (4) What geographical areas does it serve. (5) On what date was the decision made to close this office. (6) What is the cost of maintaining the office. (7) What consultations took place concerning its closure with (a) The regional director, (b) the officers of the Newcastle office and (c) local migrant community groups. (8) What new arrangements are proposed to serve the requirements of clients of the office. (9) Will the same number of staff be required; if so how will these staff be deployed. (10) If not, why not. (11) What is the cost benefit of the new arrangements over the present operation. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of applications received in 1985-86 for the main workload activities were as follows: Citizenship... 1 776 Change of Resident Status... 293 Re-entry Visas... 1 735 Temporary Entry Permit extensions... 660 Reliable statistics on counter enquiries are not available. (2) At the time of the 1986-87 Budget, the staffing level of the Office was six; one Clerical Administrative Class 6, three Clerical Administrative Class 4s, one Clerical Assistant Grade 3 and one Typist Grade 2. The average staffing level (ASL) at that time was around 8.1. (3) The range of services previously provided was as follows: migration (including family and occupational migration, and refugees), change of status to resident, temporary entry (including visitors and temporary residents), and citizenship. (4) Newcastle Office services the Hunter and Richmond mid North-Coast and Northern statistical division. (5) The initial decision to close the Office was made in response to portfolio savings targets developed in the 1986-87 Budget process. Further investigation revealed other savings options which allow the Office to remain open with reduced staff and functions. (6) The cost to maintain fully the operation of the Office during 1986-87 (at current prices) would have been $374,000. (7) Because of the confidentiality inherent in the Budget process, it was not possible to undertake consultation before the initial announcement. Full consultation is taking place currently with those affected. (8) The Office will continue to carry out its current major functions of handling applications for issuing re-entry visas and providing information. Some workload such as grant of resident status will be transferred to the Parramatta Area Office. Citizenship interviews will be conducted by Australia Post-this arrangement already applies in cities and towns throughout Australia, including those which are remote from DIEA offices. (9) No (10) A reduction of ASL in a full year from 8.1 to 3.5 is planned, i.e. a saving of 4.6 ASL. This reduction is possible because the need for supervision and administrative support will be minimised. Workloads will be handled more efficiently by `streaming' work in the larger office rather than having one officer more frequently move from one function to another as happens in smaller offices. (11) Estimated net savings to the Commonwealth resulting from reducing the activity of this Office are as follows: 1986-87 1987-88 Staff ... 95 436 163 603 Administration... Nil 18 162 Total... 95 436 181 765 These estimates exclude possible redundancy payments/redeployment costs in 1986-87 which are not yet known. (Question No. 4429) Mr Price asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: In respect of the recruitment or promotion of officers in his Department (a) is preference given to Australians with English as a second language, (b) are special skills identified as a prerequisite for dealing with the ethnic community; if so, what are they and (c) is special training given to new recruits; if so, what is the subject of training, its duration and cost. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) My Department's recruitment/promotion policies ensure that a bank of people with bi-lingual skills is established. This skills bank is enriched by normal studies assistance for officers. (b) The Department's Access and Equity Plan places emphasis on the possession of cross-cultural communication skills by all public contact staff. Consequently selection criteria are being reviewed progressively to include reference to these skills. In the meantime a national training package specifically for cross cultural communication has been developed and implemented. In addition, where special skills for dealing with ethnic communities are required in specific positions eg. Grant-in-Aid, Social Workers, this is clearly stated in job advertisement and selection criteria. (c) Recruits are provided with induction/orientation programs. These differ in duration depending on their level at recruitment and/or the size of the region. The average duration would be 3 days. The cost is also variable depending on the level of presenters and participants. The content of the programs covers the broad spectrum of the Department's programs/functions, organisation structure and client base. (Question No. 4430) Mr Price asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What are his Department's guidelines for sending cables to overseas posts seeking information about sponsorship applications. (2) What are the targets with respect to time for a response to cables at overseas posts. (3) Does his Department monitor the performance of each overseas post in responding to cables. (4) For each overseas post what was (a) the average time taken to respond to cables in 1985 and (b) what was the longest response time in that year. (5) What action does his Department take in respect of poor performance by its overseas posts. (6) What such action has been taken in the last 2 years. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As a general rule, where the average processing time for the particular post has elapsed, and/or where there are special circumstances of an urgent compassionate nature, Immigration Offices in Australia will undertake to seek information about sponsorships being processed overseas. It should be noted that as sponsorships are generally lodged overseas by the relative(s) being sponsored, Immigration Offices in Australia normally have no record of these sponsorships. Sponsors in these cases are therefore encouraged to seek information from the relative(s) being sponsored. Sponsors who lodge their applications in Australia (answer PQ4428 (1) refers) should of course enquire at Offices in Australia. See also answer to PQ4424 (4). (2) The urgency or priority with which these requests are currently handled is usually dictated by the circumstances. This is determined on a case by case basis. (3) and (4) There is no general monitoring of overseas posts' responses to cables. Posts are expected to respond and normally do respond to cables within a reasonable period of time. The performance of overseas posts in responding to cables should be seen in the case by case context in which information is sought from overseas posts. The relative urgency of a request for information is indicated by the degree of priority given to the outgoing cable and the response is generally mindful of this. It should be recognised, however, that progress in processing applications in many parts of the world is comparatively slow because of local factors such as poor communications systems and difficulties in obtaining required documentation. As requests for information about a sponsorship frequently involve the need for an overseas post to contact the applicant or obtain a supporting document, these same local factors inhibit the timeliness of posts' responses. (5) and (6) See answer to question upon notice No. 4426. (Question No. 4431) Mr Price asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) When processing sponsorship applications at overseas posts does his Department use computers to assist in the maintenance of application records and to produce management information statistics. (2) If not, has his Department prepared proposals to implement such action. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. All applications for migration to Australia are recorded in the Migration Program Management System (MPMS). This is a computer-based system located in Central Office. It contains data provided by overseas posts on a monthly basis on the main stages of processing each application for migrant entry. The MPMS, supplemented by non-computerised data on overseas posts' pre-application and short-term entry workloads, is used as a management tool to monitor workloads and to assess the performance of individual posts against Government priorities and objectives. (2) Not applicable. (Question No. 4432) Mr Price asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) With the introduction of the new system of lodging sponsorship applications overseas did his Department anticipate staff savings in Australia. (2) If so, (a) what were the anticipated staff savings and (b) have these savings been realised. (3) If the savings have not been realised, what is the reason for this. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Anticipated staff savings of 16.5 in 1985-86 were realised. (3) N.A. (Question No. 4433) Mr Price asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) How does his Department assess the effectiveness and efficiency of an overseas post. (2) Does his Department classify some posts as more difficult than others; if so, what is the basis for such a classification. (3) Do these more difficult posts receive more high-level management attention; if so, what is the nature of such attention. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The performance of Immigration posts overseas is continuously monitored. This process is based on ensuring that staffing and its deployment is adequate to meet the government's policies and priorities. ensuring that an appropriate level of service to clients is provided. assessing the impact of policy and procedural changes on overseas workloads to ensure that the achievement of program objectives is not jeopardised. (2) In so far as conditions of service are concerned, the degree of difficulty at Australian posts overseas is determined by the Public Service Board. This determination takes account of the full social environment for officers and their families, not just the workplace. With regard to the nature of the work performed at overseas posts, degrees of difficulty in the form of local factors which affect posts' operations are taken into account in allocating resources and in assessing performance. (3) Yes. The nature of this management attention includes consultation on policy or procedural development, pilot projects to assess the viability of procedural change and assistance with workload management and streamlining office procedures. (Question No. 4435) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immi- gration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) How many appeals have been lodged with the Immigration Review Panel against decisions of his Department since 5 March 1983. (2) How many of these Departmental decisions were reversed before the Panel considered the appeal. (3) How many of these appeals has the Panel (a) considered, (b) recommended should be upheld and (c) recommended that the Department's decision be maintained. (4) How many Panel recommendations have been accepted in cases where the recommendation was (a) the appeal be upheld and (b) the Department's decision stand. (5) How many of the decisions adverse to the appellant were made (a) personally by him and (b) by a Departmental officer as his delegate. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Details of appeals to the Immigration Review Panel can be provided only in respect of cases recorded on the review management computer system which came into operation in July 1984 and which stores data on cases which were not finalised by the end of June 1984 and those which were received since 1 July 1984. The following answers refer to the period 1 July 1984 to 31 July 1986: (1) 8728 (2) 1651 (3) (a) 2690 (b) 316 (c) 2374 (4) (a) 228 (b) 2326 (5) (a) 250 (b) 2164 (Question No. 4436) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immi- gration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) What is the estimated number of persons who are in Australia illegally. (2) How many officers of his Department are engaged in detecting and detaining illegal immigrants. (3) How many illegal immigrants have been detected and detained by his Department in the past 12 months. (4) What has been the average cost of detecting and detaining each of these illegal immigrants. (5) How many illegal immigrants have been detained during the past 12 months by each of the other Commonwealth and State agencies whose officers are authorised to arrest prohibited immigrants under the provisions of the Migration Act. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department estimates that approximately 50 000 persons are in Australia illegally. (2) Detecting and detaining illegal immigrants forms part of the duties of around 70 officers. (3) During the 12 months ended 31 August 1986, 2362 illegal immigrants were physically located by my Department's enforcement staff and 1486 were subsequently taken into custody under the Migration Act. In addition, during the same period, 1993 illegal immigrants (many of whom had been in contact with my Department) left voluntarily without the necessity for enforcement action. (4) The costs of detecting and detaining each of these illegal immigrants cannot readily be separated from the overall cost of enforcement activities, for which the total expenditure under Item 360.3.01 ``Expenses Associated with Prohibited Non-Citizens or Persons Refused Entry to Australia'' was $2,870,212 in 1985/86. This expenditure included fares for deportees and escorts where necessary, use of motor vehicles, costs associated with detention centres, payments to escorts, legal costs and a variety of indirect costs such as interpreters, purchase of equipment and some repairs and maintenance. Item 360.3.01 does not include staff salaries, overtime, travel and other general staffing costs. Records are not maintained in a way which would enable these staffing costs to be separated readily in relation to the detection and detaining of illegal immigrants. (5) Statistics are not maintained on the number of illegal immigrants arrested by officers of other agencies, however, as far as my Department is aware, few such arrests are made. (Question No. 4437) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) How many applications for change of status are held at each regional office of his Department. (2) How many were held at each of these offices (a) 3 months ago, (b) 6 months ago, (c) 12 months ago, (d) 2 years ago, and (e) 3 years ago. (3) For each office, what is the average length of time between the date an application is made and the date it is approved or rejected. (4) What was the average length of time (a) 3 months ago, (b) 6 months ago, (c) 12 months ago, (d) 2 years ago, and (e) 3 years ago. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: CBR SYD MEL HOB ADL PER DRW BNE (1)... 210 5564 1778 32 415 637 62 700*** (2) (a)... 246 5536 2264 40 481 611 49 860 (b)... 289 5213 2353 39 698 583 43 885 (c)... 175 5327 2682 24 644 757 37 862 (d)... 134 3868 2007 16 526 799 37 930 (e)... 95 3978 ** 13 624 1058 32 654 *(3)... 7.3 13.9 10.8 3.0 7.0 8.4 3.5 6.0 *(4) (a)... 6.2 ** 10.9 3.0 7.0 9.8 ** 10.0*** (b)... 6.1 ** 11.0 3.0 9.0 12.0 ** 10.0*** (c)... 8.0 ** 15.8 3.0 9.0 13.6 ** 8.0*** (d)... 4.8 ** 17.6 3.0 10.0 9.0 ** 7.0*** (e)... 5.2 ** ** 4.5 10.0 8.0 ** 6.0*** * Months ** Information unavailable *** Estimate (Question No. 4439) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) How many persons have been appointed to the Immigration Review Panel since January 1982 (a) as chairman (b) as members. (2) On what dates were each of these appointments made. (3) What are the criteria for appointment as Chairman of the Panel. (4) How many members of the Panel have been (a) offered appointments as Chairman and (b) appointed as Chairman. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) (a) 8: one on 21.7.82, 17.1.83, 24.7.85, 4.7.86; and two on 31.7.84 and 23.4.86. (b) 32: 14 on 3.2.82, 16 on 31.7.84; and 2 on 22.4.86. (3) The criteria for appointment as Chairman are: Knowledge of and experience in the administration of legislation. Understanding of the interface between powers provided in legislation and the policy setting out guidelines for the exercise of these powers. An understanding of and some experience in decision making in the context of the requirements of administrative law. Some experience in the administration of the Migration Act consistent with the above criteria (desirable). Capacity to operate effectively as a Chairman of the Panel whose other members offer a range of qualifications, skills, experience and backgrounds. (4) None. (Question No. 4440) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: What explicit rights does a person other than an officer of his Department have under the Migration Act. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Section 66E of the Migration Act gives persons the right to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of my decisions under section 12 to deport non-citizens who are convicted of crimes and under section 48 to direct a person not to act as a migration agent. A person is not entitled to make an application in relation to a decision under section 12 unless he or she is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident of Australia. In addition, various provisions of the Migration Act confer rights in relation to the exercise of powers. Those provisions are sections 6, 6a, 7, 8, 11a, 11B, 12, 14, 14a, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 31a, 31B, 36, 36a, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 54. Those powers are exercisable by myself, ``officers'' and ``authorised officers''. ``Officer'' is defined in the Migration Act as meaning: (a) an officer of the Department; (b) a person who is an officer for the purposes of the Customs Act 1901; (c) a member of the Australian Federal Police or of the police force of a State or an internal Territory; or (d) any other person who is, or who is included in a class of persons who are, authorized by the Minister to exercise that power or to discharge that duty or function. ``Authorised officer'' is defined in the Migration Act as meaning a person authorised by me to exercise a power or discharge a duty or function. Examples of persons, other than officers of my Department, who exercise powers under the Migration Act include the following: (i) locally engaged staff at certain overseas posts who are authorised to issue visas under section 11a; (ii) Officers of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Protective Service, who among other things, exercise powers in relation to custody of prohibited non-citizens under sections 36 and 36a and in relation to the arrest of prohibited non-citizens under sections 38 and 39; (iii) Customs officers who exercise powers in relation to, amongst other things, detention of vessels for the purposes of enabling a search of the vessels under section 44. (Question No. 4441) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) How many persons have authority to arrest without warrant, someone they reasonably suppose to be a prohibited immigrant under the provisions of s. 38 of the Migration Act. (2) By what Commonwealth or other Government agency are these persons employed. (3) How many of these persons are employed by each of the agencies named. (4) Within his Department, what are the classifications and designations of the officers who have this power to arrest. (5) What training relevant to this power of arrest is given to these officers. (6) How many have undergone such training. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Statistics on the number of persons who are authorised to exercise this power are not kept. (2) The agencies involved are: (i) the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; (ii) the Australian Customs Service; (iii) the Australian Federal Police; (iv) the police forces in each Australian State and internal Territory; (v) the Australian Protective Service, Department of Local Government and Administrative Services; (vi) the Department of Territories. Under the provisions of section 38 of the Migration Act, an `officer' may, without warrant, arrest a person who he reasonably supposes to be a prohibited non-citizen. Under section 5 (1) of the Migration Act, `officer' means: (a) an officer of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; (b) a person who is an officer for the purposes of the Customs Act 1901; (c) a member of the Australian Federal Police or of the police force of a State or an internal Territory; or (d) any other person who is, or who is included in a class of persons who are, authorised by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to exercise that power or to discharge that duty or function. Persons authorised in relation to part (d) are: certain specified officers of the Australian Protective Service which provides the custodial staff at Immigration Detention Centres and which provides escorts for persons in immigration custody; and specified officers who work in the Territory of Christmas Island; (3) Statistics are not kept on the number of persons employed by each of these agencies who are authorised to exercise these powers. The authority to make arrests under section 38 in normal circumstances is restricted administratively to about 70 officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs whose duties involve enforcement activities connected with illegal immigration. State Police Officers also exercise these powers occasionally, usually in locations where there is no enforcement staff of my Department. Officers of the other agencies may be called upon to exercise these powers on rare occasions. Examples of the circumstances under which this might occur include: Customers Officers observing a person known or believed to be a stowaway evading authorities by jumping ship; an Australian Protective Service officer re-arresting an illegal immigrant who has escaped from his/her custody while under escort. (4) In the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the power to arrest is normally exercised only by field investigation teams which could include officers of the following classifications: (a) Clerical Administrative Class 7 (Senior Investigation Officer); (b) Clerical Administrative Class 6 (Investigation Officer); (c) Clerical Administrative Officer Class 5 (Assistant Investigation Officer). Officers whose primary functions is to investigate organised immigration malpractice sometimes locate illegal immigrants and, on occasions, make arrests. The classifications of these officers range from Clerical Administrative Class 5 to Clerical Administrative Class 11. (5) Many of the departmental officers engaged in field investigations and enforcement action against illegal immigrants have a prior background in law enforcement in other agencies. Training available to officers in relation to the power of arrest include: a comprehensive manual specifically written for the guidance of field investigation officers, a copy of which is provided individually to every officer engaged in enforcement functions, and is to be studied before starting on field work; a comprehensive instruction on the use of search warrants, arrests and custody, copies of which are provided individually to every officer engaged in the enforcement functions, similarly to be studied before starting field work; in-house training which includes a written training program produced especially for the Department and an extensive library of video film; attendance at relevant sessions of Police training courses from time to time subject to timetables and the agreement of the authorities concerned; training by police officers, former police officers and other external lecturers at departmental training courses; on the job training given during field activity under the close supervision of the team leader. (6) Every officer within the Enforcement and Investigations areas of the Department who could be required to exercise the powers of arrest has undergone some if not all of the processes of training described above. (Question No. 4459) Mr Reith asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) Is it the Government's intention to collect fringe benefits tax from employers for employees on a fishing boat engaged in commercial fishing for (a) accommodation and (b) meals? (2) If so, how are the values of these items calculated? Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The provision of meals and accommodation to an employee on a fishing boat does not give rise to a taxable fringe benefit. This is because those costs would have been deductible to the employee for income tax purposes had the employee been required to pay for them. (Question No. 4463) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: What consultants, and under what terms and conditions, have been appointed pursuant to Part 8 of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am advised that the honourable member has been provided under the Freedom of Information Act (1982) with all documents relevant to Question No. 4463 held by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. (Question No. 4498) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Are Australian manufacturers of high technology equipment effectively excluded from tendering for government contracts because specifications are written around the proprietary equipment of overseas manufacturers instead of specifications written around a functional or performance requirement? (2) Will he refuse to endorse recommendations for the purchase of foreign equipment in cases where Australian produced equipment fulfils the basic requirements? Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Those elements of the Defence Department responsible for procurement are required to avoid specifying proven products and systems unless essential and to use known and suitable Australian products when available. They must also acquaint themselves with those goods and services available from Australian manufacturers which may be suitable and must quote Australian standards whenever possible. (2) Whenever Australian produced equipment can meet the requirements, it is included in the ``short-list'' of acceptable offers, which are then considered on cost and other such factors. Defence purchases are subject to Commonwealth preference policy which automatically adds tariff duty and discounts the price of the Australian content of a local tender by 20 per cent for comparison with overseas tenders. When a suitable domestic tender falls within this price range it is Government policy to procure locally. As Minister for Defence I may, when the strategic benefit so justifies, authorise payment of a higher premium for procurement from Australian sources. (Question No. 4499) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What efforts are made to communicate the forward planning requirements of the defence forces for high technology equipment to Australian manufacturers? (2) Does he regard these practices as effective in enabling Australian manufacturers to undertake realistic and reliable corporate planning? (3) Is it a fact that sales of an item of new high technology equipment to the Australian armed forces can be a vital step in producing sales to foreign governments? (4) Does the usual requirement for proven performance in high technology equipment specifications discriminate against Australian manufacturers, if so will he introduce procedures so that Australian manufacturers are given opportunities to tender for this type of equipment on an otherwise equal basis with other suppliers? Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Strenuous efforts are made to communicate to Australian manufacturers Defence Force plans for procurement of high technology equipment. Australian industry is advised of selected major Defence projects via Invitation to Register Interest, Requests for Proposals and Requests for Tender. Five Year plans for Defence Force procurement of capital equipment worth less than $10 million were recently issued to Australian industry and are to be published regularly. Subject to experience with this exercise I envisage publishing Defence five year procurement plans for major capital procurements (that is those worth over $10 million). The major projects are, of course, generally well publicised and known to industry at an early stage of their development. (2) Yes, provided that Australian manufacturers realise and accept that Defence procurement plans are subject to adjustment in response to, for example, changed strategic or budgetary circumstances. (3) In considering equipment options many military customers take into account whether or not the equipment is used by the armed forces of the exporting country. To this extent operation of indigenous high technology equipment by the Australian Defence Force will facilitate acceptance of that equipment by potential overseas military customers. On 14 October 1986 I announced a package of measures designed to assist Australian Industry to bid for Defence work and to develop and export military and related products. (4) The Australian Defence Force, like other competent military forces, may insist on proven performance of high technology equipment for reasons of safety and reduced technical or financial risk. When buying high technology equipment, Defence project officers are required to acquaint themselves with Australian industry capabilities, use suitable Australian products when available and avoid specifying proven products or systems unless that is essential. Defence procurement procedures provide for Australian industry involvement in high technology projects via indigenous design and development, adaptation of overseas technology to Australian requirements, local production of overseas designs and, where overseas equipment like the F/A-18 is being bought for the Defence Force, via offsets, co-production, or Defence Designated Australian work in major overseas procurements. (Question No. 4500) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Are Australian manufacturers of high technology equipment effectively excluded from tendering for government contracts because specifications are written around the proprietary equipment of overseas manufacturers instead of specifications written around a functional or performance requirement. (2) Will he refuse to endorse recommendations for the purchase of foreign equipment in cases where Australian produced equipment fulfils the basic requirements. (3) Does the requirement for proven performance in high technology equipment specifications discriminate against Australian manufacturers; if so, will he introduce procedures so that Australian manufacturers are given opportunities to tender for this type of equipment on an otherwise equal basis with other suppliers. Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question is partly based on advice received from authorities within the Communications portfolio: (1) No. Specifications for high technology equipment are written around the functional and performance requirements of the equipment. (2) Preference is always given to Australian produced equipment that fulfils performance and reliability requirements as long as it is reasonably economic to do so. (3) No. My Department and the authorities within the portfolio already support the objective of enhancing Australia's capabilities in producing high technology products and they encourage Australian initiatives which are practical and commercially viable. (Question Nos 4504-4531) Mr Blunt asked all Ministers, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) How many (a) permanent and (b) temporary staff were employed in the Minister's Department and in each statutory authority responsible to the Minister at 30 June 1986. (2) What are the projected levels of staffing for 30 June 1987. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer on behalf of all Ministers to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) Information is provided in response in the attached table and is tabulated according to each Minister's portfolio. The table does not provide the information precisely in the form requested because, while the Department of Finance collects staffing statistics for departments and most Budget-dependent statutory authorities, there is no such central collection in the case of non-Budget dependent authorities. Thus the table only covers departments and those Budget-dependent statutory authorities subject to the Government's staff budget controls. Other points to note are: (i) the data collected by the Department of Finance does not distinguish between permanent and temporary staff although it does identify casual and part-time staff who are included in the table converted to the equivalent full-time number (ii) the data which is drawn mainly from the cental PAYROLL System represents the average staffing level paid for in particular fortnightly pay periods and not the number of staff on 30 June or any other single day (iii) while the data for the last pay period of 1985-86 is derived from a firm count, the figures for the equivalent period at the end of 1986-87 are the estimates shown in agencies' staffing plans for 1986-87 as agreed to by the Department of Finance. (iv) the data is for paid operative staff (ie those at work or on leave for less than 12 weeks) (v) the figures exclude the effects of staffing in the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the Population Census. It is also to be noted that the Public Service Board collects statistics of the numbers of Public Service staff at 30 June each year. This data is different from Finance's collection in that (i) it excludes significant numbers of employees of Budget-dependent agencies who are not Public Servants (ie are employed under legislation other than the Public Service Act) (ii) it is a count of formal members of the Public Service whether or not they are currently receiving salary payments (iii) the PSB does not collect forward estimates (eg for 30 June 1987). STAFFING PLANS (OPERATIVE STAFF) 1986-87 Staff at 30.6.86 Staff at 30.6.87 Aboriginal Affairs Department... 691.17 712.00 Aust. Institute of Aboriginal Studies... 59.00 58.90 Total... 750.17 770.90 Arts, Heritage and Environment* Department... 393.25 393.50 Australian Archives... 401.00 421.40 Australia Council... 130.00 124.25 Australian Film Commission... 208.00 211.00 Australian Film and Television School... 120.50 113.25 Australian Heritage Commission... 24.50 24.25 Australian National Gallery... 259.50 259.00 A.N.P.W.S. ... 142.35 148.50 G.B.R.M.P.A.... 68.95 82.75 Museum of Australia... 34.75 29.95 National Library of Australia... 642.58 626.75 Supervising Scientist for A.R.R.... 75.75 67.50 National Film and Sound Archive... 63.15 61.25 National Maritime Museum... 27.00 65.00 Total... 2,591.28 2,628.35 Attorney-General's Department (*)... 2,334.00 2,156.00 Courts and Tribunals (*)... 901.00 868.00 Australian Legal Aid Office... 216.00 49.00 Trade Practices Commission... 170.30 177.20 N.C.S.C.... 85.00 84.00 Institute of Family Studies... 27.00 27.50 Human Rights Commission... 54.00 0.00 Human Rights and Equal Oppor. Comm. ... 0.00 50.00 Parliamentary Counsel... 40.00 40.00 Australian Institute of Crimin- ology... 36.60 40.00 High Court ... 89.00 89.00 Law Reform Commission... 32.00 32.00 A.C.T. Legal Aid Commission... 37.00 37.00 Director of Public Prosecutions... 390.60 364.00 Constitutional Reform Commis-sion... 16.00 17.00 Total... 4,428.50 4,030.70 Aviation Department... 9,882.00 9,770.00 Independent Air Fares Commit-tee... 10.50 12.00 Total... 9,892.50 9,782.00 Communications Department... 819.08 829.00 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal... 130.00 140.00 S.B.S.... 534.80 460.00 Total... 1,483.88 1,429.00 Community Services Department... 2,869.00 2,717.00 Policy Coordination Unit... 19.00 14.00 Total... 2,888.00 2,731.00 Defence Department (Civil)... 25,827.50 25,484.00 Woomera Trust Account... 222.00 213.00 Munitions Salaries... 45.00 48.00 Shipbuilding... 5,091.00 4,745.00 Munitions Trust Account... 5,941.20 5,754.00 Defence Aerospace Trust Account... 2,289.30 1,981.00 Total... 39,416.00 38,225.00 Education Department... 1,602.00 1,715.00 Commonwealth Schools Commis-sion... 155.00 133.80 Commonwealth Trt. Ed. Commission (*)... 117.10 116.50 A.C.T. T.A.F.E. (*)... 1,037.00 1,046.00 A.B.A. Trust Account... 5.00 0.00 Aust. Council of Tertiary Awards... 5.08 5.08 Total... 2,921.18 3,016.38 Employment and Industrial Relations Department... 8,785.00 8,260.00 Conciliation and Arbitra- tion (*)... 242.00 250.00 Trade Union Training Authority... 115.00 116.00 N.O.H.S.C.... 198.00 247.00 Affirmative Action Agency... 0.00 20.00 Total... 9,340.00 8,893.00 Finance Department... 999.80 988.00 Australia Audit Office... 629.00 581.00 A.G.R.B.O.... 445.00 430.00 Total... 2,073.80 1,999.00 Foreign Affairs Department, Overseas Service (combined)... 4,173.00 4,147.00 Australia/Japan Foundation... 11.00 11.00 A.D.A.B.... 486.00 499.00 A.C.I.A.R.... 23.80 24.00 Total... 4 693.80 4,681.00 Health Department... 4,018.00 3,880.00 Australian Institute of Health... 118.00 112.00 Total... 4,136.00 3,992.00 Housing and Construction Department, Housing and Construction Trust Account... 8,804.00 8,860.00 Total... 8,804.00 8,860.00 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Department, Overseas Service (combined)... 2,234.00 2,191.00 Australian Inst. Multicultural Affairs... 34.00 0.00 Total... 2,268.00 2,191.00 Industry, Technology and Commerce Department... 859.24 857.60 Industries Assistance Commission... 295.00 294.00 Industry Councils' Secretariat... 22.02 24.60 Automotive Industry Authority... 16.00 16.70 Australian Customs Service... 5,209.28 5,200.00 Total... 6,401.54 6,392.90 Local Government and Admin. Services Department... 2,801.00 2,753.00 Transport and Storage... 2,222.70 2,182.00 Total... 5,023.70 4,935.00 Primary Industry Department... 782.20 763.00 Bureau of Agricultural Economics... 278.30 279.00 Export Inspection Service... 2,401.80 2,620.00 Australian Plague Locust Commission... 14.00 17.00 Total... 3,476.30 3,679.00 Prime Minister and Cabinet Department (a)... 459.60 495.70 Governor-General... 71.50 80.80 E.P.A.C. ... 42.00 25.00 Commonwealth Ombudsman... 67.02 68.00 Aust. Science and Technology Council... 20.00 20.00 Office of National Assessments... 87.38 77.70 Public Service Board... 799.00 659.00 Official Establishment... 14.00 14.00 M.P.R.A.... 60.00 48.00 Australian Bicentennial Authority... 200.00 291.00 Office of Inspector-General of Security... 0.00 5.00 Total... 1,820.50 1,784.20 Resources and Energy Department... 507.80 497.00 National Mapping... 291.00 287.00 Bureau of Mineral Resources... 638.00 590.00 River Murray Commission (*)... 15.00 19.00 Pipeline Authority... 132.00 130.00 Australian Atomic Energy Commission... 1,078.00 1,061.00 Total... 2,661.80 2,584.00 Science (*) Department... 239.70 233.70 Antarctic Division... 230.30 230.60 Bureau of Meteorology... 1,738.00 1,705.00 Industrial Property... 589.90 567.50 Australian Institute of Marine Science... 104.10 105.00 C.S.I.R.O. (*)... 6,233.00 6,300.00 National Standards Commission... 32.00 31.90 Analytical Services... 233.80 242.80 Ionospheric Prediction Service... 40.40 44.80 Total... 9,441.20 9,461.30 Social Security Department... 16,283.00 16,283.00 Total... 16,283.00 16,283.00 Special Minister of State Department... 322.80 315.50 Remuneration Tribunal... 7.90 8.90 Aust. Bureau of Criminal Intelligence... 19.00 19.00 Australian Grants Commission... 38.50 43.70 Australian Federal Police... 3,139.00 3,093.00 Australian Electoral Commission (*)... 913.00 879.70 National Crime Authority... 237.00 253.00 Royal Commissions and Inquiries... 22.80 0.00 Total... 4,700.00 4,612.80 Sport, Recreation and Tourism Department... 342.80 337.00 A.G.P.S. Trust Account... 1,089.40 1,032.00 Australian Institute of Sport... 121.40 154.40 Australian Tourist Commission... 89.00 87.70 Australian Sports Commission... 22.00 21.90 Total... 1,664.60 1,633.00 Territories Administrative... 3,366.00 3,216.42 External Territories... 202.00 227.00 A.C.T. Fire Brigade... 218.00 239.00 N.C.D.C.... 371.80 376.00 P.H.C.A.... 79.60 86.60 Transport Trust Account... 855.95 914.00 Forestry Trust Account... 95.00 92.50 A.C.T. Schools Authority (*)... 4,309.54 4,279.58 A.C.T. Health Authority... 4,227.90 4,194.10 Repairs and Maintenance... 517.00 529.00 Total... 14,242.79 14,154.20 Trade (*) Department (incl. Trade Representatives)... 465.15 500.00 Australian Trade Commission... 1,301.00 1,301.00 Total... 1,766.15 1,801.00 Transport Department... 1,546.40 1,546.00 Interstate Commission (*)... 21.61 15.50 Total... 1,568.01 1,561.50 Treasury Department... 569.60 553.40 Prices Surveillance Authority... 26.00 42.00 Australian Bureau of Statistics (b)... 3,639.00 3,534.00 Australian Taxation Office... 16,385.00 17,250.00 Royal Australian Mint... 262.00 297.00 Total... 20,881.60 21,676.40 Veterans' Affairs (*) Department (*)... 11,965.20 11,869.60 Australian War Memorial... 211.50 213.60 Defence Service Homes Corporation... 532.00 410.00 D.S.H.C. Trust Account... 47.00 45.00 Total... 12,755.70 12,538.20 Summary by portfolio Aboriginal Affairs... 750.17 770.90 Arts, Heritage and Environment... 2,591.28 2,628.35 Attorney-General's... 4,428.50 4,030.70 Aviation... 9,892.50 9,782.00 Communications... 1,483.88 1,429.00 Community Services... 2,888.00 2,731.00 Defence... 39,416.00 38,225.00 Education... 2,921.18 3,016.38 Employment and Industrial Relations... 9,340.00 8,893.00 Finance... 2,073.80 1,999.00 Foreign Affairs... 4,693.80 4,681.00 Health... 4,136.00 3,992.00 Housing and Construction... 8,804 8,860.00 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs... 2,268 2,191.00 Industry, Technology and Commerce... 6,401.54 6,392.90 Local Government and Admin. Services... 5,023.70 4,935.00 Primary Industry... 3,476.30 3,679.00 Prime Minister and Cabinet... 1,820.50 1,784.20 Resources and Energy... 2,661.80 2,584.00 Science... 9,441.20 9,461.30 Social Security... 16,283.00 16,283.00 Special Minister of State... 4,700.00 4,612.80 Sport, Recreation and Tourism... 1,664.60 1,633.00 Territories... 14,242.79 14,154.20 Trade... 1,766.15 1,801.00 Transport... 1,568.01 1,561.50 Treasury... 20,881.60 21,676.40 Veterans' Affairs... 12,755.70 12,538.20 Total... 198,374.00 196,325.83 (*) Estimate-Plan not Yet Approved (a) PMC staff at 30.6.87 includes 30 for the new Office of Multi-Cultural Affairs. (b) ABS staffing figures exclude the additional staffing required during the course of 1986-87 for the general census. (Question No. 4547) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What is the planned strength of the Cadet Corps for 1986-87. (2) What is the estimated strength of the Cadet Corps and are there plans to increase the level of participation of the Corps in 1986-87; if there are planned increases, what variations do these represent over 1985-86. (3) What changes to the activity rate of the Cadet Corps are planned for 1986-87 and what (a) areas are these changes occurring in and (b) is the estimated variation in cost in each of these activities from 1985-86 to 1986-87. (4) What is the estimated expenditure on the Cadet Corps for 1986-87 (a) in total, (b) on the officers of cadets who are (i) regular and (ii) reserve personnel, (c) on uniforms and equipment for Corps members and (d) on activities including parades, training and other special activities. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The planned strength of the Australian Cadet Corps for 1986-87 is 6,300. (2) The strength of the Australian Cadet Corps at 30 June '86 was 3,563. The planned strength of 6,300 in Fully Supported Units will be achieved through recruiting. Plans to increase the level of participation of the Corps in 1986-87 include the raising of new units (at least eight) and the development of existing units by increasing their strengths. (3) (a) The Corps activity rate will increase due to the planned increase in strength. (b) A 50% increase in costs will follow the increase in strength. (4) The estimated expenditure on the Australian Cadet Corps for FY 1986-87 is: $ (a) in total... 1,674,000 (b) on pay and allowances of Officers and Cadets (i) and (ii) Officers of Cadets are civilians not members of the Regular Army nor the Army Reserve 540,000 (c) on uniforms and equipment for: (i) Officers of Cadets... 50,000 (ii) Cadets... 179,000 (d) on activities... 905,000 (Question No. 4558) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: Does the 10% sales tax on fruit juice products (a) constitute a tax on food and (b) decrease effective protection against imported citrus products; if so, does this conform with the Government's desire to encourage the purchase of Australian products. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The Government announced in the 1986-87 Budget that the sales tax exemption previously applying to a number of non-alcoholic beverages, including flavoured milk, non-alcoholic wine and cider, and fruit juice and fruit juice products containing not less than 25 per cent Australian fruit juice was to be removed and those products taxed at 10 per cent of wholesale value. The measure broadened the indirect tax base and reduced the tax discrimination against carbonated soft drinks, mineral waters and similar beverages which have been subject to sales tax for a number of years (since 1982, at a rate of 20 per cent of wholesale value). Nevertheless, fruit juice and fruit juice products continue to receive comparatively favourable tax treatment by being taxed at a rate of 10 per cent. Whether fruit juice products may or may not be described as food is not considered germane since most beverages are already subject to indirect tax in one form or another. (b) The previous sales tax exemption for fruit juices and fruit juice products containing not less than 25 per cent Australian fruit juices was structured as an indirect form of assistance to Australian fruit growers, particularly citrus fruit growers. However, its protective impact was significantly undermined in practice through arrangements whereby fruit juice was imported for making up the volume of pure fruit juices (which therefore contained 25 per cent Australian fruit juice and 75 per cent imported fruit juice). The imported fruit juice was considered to be a `raw material' for sales tax purposes and accordingly escaped sales tax entirely. As a result, the Government believed that the sales tax arrangements were, in practice, a particularly ineffective form of protection to citrus fruit growers. The citrus fruit industry remains one of the most highly assisted rural industries. In 1983-84 (the most recent year for which reliable data are available), the effective rate of assistance provided to the citrus industry was estimated at 53 per cent, compared with the agricultural-sector average of 11 per cent. Further, the Government recently commissioned the Industries Assistance Commission to report on whether temporary assistance should be extended to the citrus industry. This report has now been received and is being considered by the Government. (Question No. 4570) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: Further to Question No. 3359 placed on the Notice Paper on 13 March 1986, (a) have more than 6 months passed since the question was first placed on the Notice Paper, (b) have 19 Ministers already replied to a similar question, (c) when can I expect an answer to the question and (d) what does this delay say about the efficiency of the internal reporting system in his department. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) The response to Question No. 3359 was lodged with the House of Representatives Table Office on 5 December 1986. A copy of the response was subsequently sent to you at your electorate address. (d) Considerable time and effort were required to collect, verify and standardise the information you sought and to thereby ensure an accurate response. You will note that my reply was 48 pages long and included details of 130 overseas visits undertaken by officers of my Department and the ten statutory authorities within my portfolio. Dr Blewett —On 19 November 1986 (Hansard, page 3396) Mr Carlton asked Mr Hurford, as Acting Treasurer, a question relating to changes to taxation reporting requirements under the Australia Card Bill and the compliance costs of those changes. The question has been referred to me. The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Persons who currently report information to the Tax Office will have only the additional requirement of reporting Australia Card numbers. Some persons who do not currently report to the Tax Office may well face future reporting requirements under tax legislation. That will be a matter for the Treasurer. In deciding on any such requirement, the Government would be conscious of their impact on the private sector. Any such requirements will be introduced over a period of time sufficient to allow reporting mechanisms to be put in place. The banking industry has concluded that establishment costs under the Australia Card program would be approximately $60.6m, with annual running costs of $4.6m. It is recognised by the Australian Bankers Association, however, that at the present time banks do not fully comply with current taxation requirements and to do so would involve costs of $25m, as well as a further $5m in reporting unverified accounts. (Question No. 4330) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report released on 24 June, 1985 by the International Task Force on the Prevention of Terrorism, a private group of Western scientists and engineers, in which it concluded (a) nuclear power plants and research reactors are vulnerable to sabotage by infiltrators and to attacks by truck bombs, (b) all nuclear-armed nations should equip their arsenals with safety locking devices (PALS) which prevent guerillas who manage to steal nuclear bombs from arming them to explode, and (c) anti-guerilla intelligence capabilities be upgraded and there be more sharing of intelligence on nuclear terrorism, including US-Soviet co-operation. (2) Has his attention also been drawn to press reports that the chief Soviet delegate to the Geneva Conference on disarmament, Mr V. Issraelyan, has called for (a) reliable measures to deter nuclear terrorism, and that the problem of protecting nuclear power plants against attacks should be a top priority item and (b) that such measures should be developed under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. (3) Given this support for action against nuclear terrorism, will Australia do all in its power in international forums and through our Ambassador for Disarmament to address this problem, including consideration of the measures recommended in parts 1 (b) and (c) above, and can he say what action Austraila has taken. (4) Will he take steps, in conjunction with his colleagues, to ensure that the nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights is adequately protected against the potential threat raised in parts 1 (a) and 2 above. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) My Department confirms that the points in these questions are correct. The Government agrees that the nations which have nuclear weapons thereby also have awesome responsibilities, including the responsibility to take every conceivable precaution to prevent the nuclear weapons from being stolen or getting into irresponsible hands. There is every reason to believe that the nuclear weapon States themselves share this appreciation. There has been considerable publicity about the comprehensive measures put in place by the United States to ensure the security of its nuclear weapons. The Government has every reason to believe that other nuclear weapon States take similar precautions. The Government appreciates that many of the details of security measures of this type must properly remain secret. The Government also notes that one of the purposes for the special channels of communication which have been established between the nuclear weapon States to handle nuclear emergencies is to be ready for the contingency, however remote, that nuclear weapons might be taken out of the control of one of the States concerned. The Government sees effective international cooperation as the key to combating all forms of terrorism and has consistently encouraged this in international forums. It would naturally expect all responsible members of the international community, including of course the United States and the Soviet Union, to share a close and common interest in protecting nuclear plant and weaponry from attack or theft by terrorists. Australia's activities, notably through its Ambassador for Disarmament, have been directed at the prevention of nuclear war and at the reduction and ultimate elimination of nuclear arsenals. This is of course the only long-term, completely satisfactory solution to the problem alluded to by this question. Australia also has signed and is taking steps to ratify the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. This convention obliges States Parties to take steps to ensure that nuclear material is subject to stringent measures of protection within its territory, on board a ship or aircraft under its jurisdiction, and during international transport. (4) I am advised that the nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights, which falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Resources and Energy, is adequately protected against potential threats. (Question No. 4346) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Is the Commonwealth Territory to the south and east of the Beecroft Peninsula on the northern entrance to Jervis Bay (a) part of the Jervis Bay Territory, (b) part of NSW, (c) a separate Commonwealth Territory or (d) does it have some other statuts. (2) Which governments are responsible for State and local government functions in the area. (3) Of which Commonwealth electoral division is it a part. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) No-The land remains part of the State of New South Wales but is owned by the Commonwealth. (2) The Government of the State of New South Wales. (3) Gilmore. (Question No. 4352) Mr Ruddock asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Has he received from Mr R. Faulkner a letter dated 29 May commenting on his answer to my question No. 2787 (Hansard, 21 May 1986, page 3702); if so, in view of the further information provided by Mr Faulkner, has he reconsidered his answer. (2) Did his answer omit certain proceedings involving Mrs S. Faulkner from its calculations. (3) What was the cost in present dollar value terms of the time of Commonwealth officers involved in investigating and defending these proceedings, using as a basis for the calculation the same methods used by the Minister for Territories in assessing the cost for developing proposals for ACT self government at $3 million. (4) What was the value of Mrs Faulkner's original claim. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have received the letter referred to and I am pleased to supply the additional information set out hereunder. (2) I am now informed that in addition to the sums mentioned in my reply to question No. 2787, an amount of $6,329.33 was expended by the Australian Legal Aid Office. The officers involved in supplying the earlier figures were unaware of the fact that legal aid had been provided other than that provided pursuant to the provisions of section 305 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. (3) As I indicated in my answer to the honourable member's previous question, this cost has not been calculated. Considerable work would be involved in providing a comprehensive answer to the question and I do not wish to deploy resources for this purpose. (4) The writ by which Mrs Faulkner commenced proceedings against the Commonwealth and another in the High Court on 8 May 1974 did not specify the amount of damages claimed but particulars were subsequently furnished showing the total amount claimed as $1,246,852. (Question No. 4362) Mr Everingham asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a group of Aboriginal people whose home during their formative years became Croker Island as a result of earlier federal Government policy. (2) Have these people been denied the right to return to live in this, their perceived homeland. (3) Have these people been denied legal assistance by the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service on the ground that it is already acting on behalf of the Minjilang Council. (4) Is it normal practice in such circumstances for the Legal Aid Service to brief independent counsel to ensure the applicants are not denied natural justice. (5) Will he ensure that such legal aid is provided to them urgently. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Under the provision of the Aboriginal Land Act 1978 of the Northern Territory the issue of permits to enter onto and remain on Croker Island is a matter for the traditional Aboriginal owners and the Northern Land Council to determine. I understand however, that there has been opposition to the issue of permits for permanent residence in respect of some of the people to whom to refer. (3) When some of these people sought legal assistance from the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service a few years ago, the Legal Service considered the matter to be a responsibility of the Northern Land Council and referred the people to that body. (4) No. (5) Under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 the Northern Land Council has a responsibility to attempt to conciliate disputes in respect of land in its area. I consider the action taken by the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, in referring these people to the Northern Land Council, was appropriate. (Question No. 4393) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Further to my question No. 3301, is it a fact that Mr H. Peterson, who resigned as a director of the Trustees Executors & Agency Co. Ltd (TEA) the day before it failed with debts of $93.5 million on 13 May 1983, has been charged with offences concerning $600 000 withdrawn from TEA by the law firm Cannan and Peterson the week before TEA collapsed. (2) If so, what are the details of charges laid against Mr Peterson and when were they laid. (3) Can he say whether Mr Peterson is currently the Chairman of the Queensland board of advice of the AMP Society, Chairman of Primac Holdings and a former member of the board of the Stanbroke Pastoral Co. (4) Can he say who were the directors of TEA in the period leading up to its collapse and what other directorships did they or do they now hold. (5) Can he also say whether (a) Mr Ogilvy, the Chairman, gave a guarded but optimistic report at the 1982 general meeting of TEA in which he claimed TEA's property involvement contributed substantially to the profitability of the group and that the accounts showed a profit of $510,000, (b) the liquidators of TEA have since indicated the company brought to account at that time unrealised profits and that TEA was able to appear in the black only by the creation of essentially paper profits and (c) in the week TEA collapsed, 20,000 shares were sold on the Melbourne and Sydney exchanges whereas the usual number of tradings per week was approximately 1500. (6) Do National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) reports recommend the prosecution of directors other than Mr Peterson; if so, when will action be implemented against these directors. (7) When will NCSC reports into TEA be made public. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that Mr Peterson was charged with an offence concerning the withdrawl of funds from TEA amounting to $656 819.21. (2) I am advised that Mr Peterson was charged on 5 June 1986 pursuant to Section 229 (3) of the Companies (Queensland) Code. The charge related to instructions allegedly given by Mr Peterson to withdraw certain sums from TEA shortly before its collapse. The charge against Mr Peterson was as follows: ``That between the 27th day of April, 1983 and the 4th day of May 1983 at Brisbane in the State of Queensland, Howarth Edkins Peterson being an officer of a corporation, namely TEA (1983) Limited did make improper use of information acquired by virtue of his position to gain indirectly an advantage for divers persons''. The committal hearing into the charge commenced on 6 October 1986. I am advised that the magistrate at the committal hearing, Mr Quinlan, SM, did not commit Mr Peterson for trial. (3) I am advised that Mr Peterson has resigned from the board of the AMP Society; I am also advised that Mr Peterson is currently Chairman of Primac Holdings and is a former member of the board of the Stanbroke Pastoral Co. (4) I am advised that the following persons were directors of TEA in the period leading up to its collapse on 13 May 1983. Other directorships held by those persons at and before 13 May 1983 are shown: Alexander Wills Ogilvy, appointed 10 October 1978, Chairman from 4 August 1980. Charles Moore (Australia) Ltd. Uniroyal Holdings Ltd, (Group). The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd. AWI Holdings Pty Ltd. Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd. Dampier Mining Co. Ltd. Groote Eylandt Mining Co. Pty Ltd. Tasmanian Electro Metallurgical Co. Pty Ltd. BHP Nominees Pty Ltd. Pacific Area Investments Pty Ltd. Rheem Australia Ltd. Astrapak Ltd. Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd. Repco Ltd. Pitt Wadell Bennett Chains Ltd.-Group. Anchor Holdings Pty Ltd.-Group. Costain Australia Ltd.-Group. Australian Eagle Insurance Co.-Group. Hill Samuel Group Australia Ltd.-Group. Mount Carrington Mines Ltd. Sir Robert Wentworth Norman, appointed 1 April 1980. Alfa-Laval Pty Limited (Group). Australia-Japan Society of N.S.W. (Inc.). The Australian Gas Light Company (Group). Bank of New South Wales (Group). Chrysler Australia Limited. CIBA-GEIGY Australia Limited. Hanimex Corporation Limited. National Roads and Motorists' Assocation. Partnership Pacific Limited (Group). Reckitt & Colman Australia Limited. Sydney Grammar School Foundation Limited. Cluff Oil (Australia) N.L. Consolidated Petroleum Australia Ltd. Westpac Banking Corporation-Group. Edward Patrick Mawbery Harty, appointed 9 May 1968. Australian United Corporation Ltd. B.N.P.-G.K.N. Holdings Ltd. (Alternative Director). Glover & Coctle Pty Ltd. Containers Ltd. CSBP & Farmers Ltd Group. Cuming Smith & Co. Ltd. Engelhard Industries Pty Ltd. Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd. Group. G.K.N. in Australia (Holdings) Ltd. Grosvenor International (Australia) Holdings Pty Ltd. Guest Keen & Nettlefords (Aust.) Ltd. Legal & General Assurance Society (Australian Board). London Australia Investment Co. Ltd. L.M. Ericcson Pty Ltd. Swiss Reinsurance Co. (Trustee only). Vickers Australia Ltd. Group. Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd. Peter Robin Bunning, appointed as managing director on 21 May 1980. Medical & Commercial Finance Limited. Maxwell Stanley Mainprize, appointed 5 July 1982. The Colonial Mutural Life Assurance Society Limited. Colonial Mutural General Insurance Company Limited. Colonial Mutual Permanent Building Society. CML Nominees Propretary Limited. Australian Agricultural Company Limited. The Alexandra Club Company Limited. Howarth Edkins Peterson, appointed 1 March 1982, resigned 12 May 1983 after being informed by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal that he had a conflict of interest. Australian Mutural Provident Society. Stanbroke Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd. and Group. Besser (Qld) Limited and Group. Murphyores Holdings Limited and Group. John Mowlem & Co. (Australia) Pty Ltd. Queensland Cancer Fund. Apex Oil N.L. and Group. Queensland Television Limited. University of Queensland Foundation Ltd. Primac Holdings Limited. Graziers Securities Ltd. Kennedy-Taylor Ltd. Sir Thomas Langley Webb, appointed 2 May 1957, retired 25 April 1983 on reaching 75. Alliance Oil Development Australia N.L. Group. Alliance Petroleum Australia N.L. (Alternate Director). Bulkships Limited Group. Email Ltd. E.S.C. Tools Pty Ltd. General Credits Holdings Ltd. Group. Lamson Industries (Australia) Ltd. Metals Exploration N.L. Group. McIlwraith McEacharn Ltd. The Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd. Group. George Edward Warwick Ramsden, appointed 6 August 1975, Chairman of TEA from 26 April 1978 to 4 August 1980, retired on 30 June 1982. Shell Group. Actrol Ltd. C.M.L. Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. C.M.L. Nominees Pty Ltd. C.M.L. Superannuation Pty Ltd. The Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd. Renold Australia Pty Ltd. The Alexandra Club Co. Ltd John Lionel Nave, appointed 15 January 1970, retired 5 October 1981. All States Commercial Mills Ltd. Furnace Engineering Pty Ltd. George Hicks Founation. Great Northern Investments (Australia) Ltd. Managed Deposits Ltd. (5) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) I am advised that 16675 shares were sold compared with an average of 1583 tradings per week. (6) The recommendations of the NCSC reports are confidential by reason that their disclosure may prejudice current court proceedings. Criminal charges have been preferred against Peter Robin Bunning (Managing Director), Alexander Wills Ogilvy (Chairman), Leonard Malcolm Reid (Secretary), Leigh Garfield Jamieson (Consultant); and Charles Percy Abbott, John Geoffrey Lennon Barnatry and Wilhelmus Antonius Jonnas Boerkamp as directors of Stirling Properties Ltd. (7) It would not be appropriate to publish the NCSC reports while the above matters are before the courts. It will be a matter for the Ministerial Council for Companes and Securities to determine whether the reports should be published after the court proceedings have been completed. (Question No. 4404) Mr Burr asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: 1. In which nations does Australia have a resident Ambassador or High Commissioner. 2. What are the names of each of those Ambassadors and High Commissioners. 3. When (a) did they arrive at their current posts and (b) might they be expected to leave those posts in the ordinary course of events. 4. What is the most widely used (a) spoken and (b) written language in each nation where Ambassadors and High Commissioners are currently posted. 5. Of those Ambassadors and High Commissioners who have been in their current posts for more than 12 months, which ones are (a) completely fluent, (b) generally fluent, (c) not fluent in the spoken and written language of the nation in which they are resident. 6. Of those who are not fluent, what is the reason for this situation. 7. Will he henceforth require all Ambassadors and High Commissioners to be completely fluent in the most widely used language of the nation in which they are resident by the end of the first 12 months of the posting; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Australia has Ambassadors and High Commissioners resident in a total of 72 nations. 2. See attached list, column 2. 3. (a) see attached list, column 3 (b) Ambassadors and High Commissioners generally serve in their positions for three years, but may on occasions be extended beyond that period. 4. (a) and (b) Column 5 of the attached table shows the most widely spoken and written languages in the countries in which Ambassadors and High Commissioners are posted. In some countries there is more than one major official language e.g. Canada. This is indicated in the table. In many nations a major European language is widely used in commerce, education, or administration, and this has been indicated in the list by including the relevant language in brackets. 5. The attached table shows the level of proficiency of all Ambassadors and High Commissioners. Those who are completely fluent in the main non-English language of the country, or another widely used non-English language, are indicated by two asterisks; those who are generally fluent, that is, who have a working proficiency, are indicated by one asterisk. 6. It is not expected that Heads of Mission with heavy work loads should become generally fluent in a language in part time study. With many difficult languages this stage could barely be reached in 12 months of full time study. For a Head of Mission to be fluent it would in most cases have been necessary for her or him to have studied the language at an earlier stage of their career. 7. One of the factors taken into account in selection of Ambassadors and High Commissioners is the requirement for a language other than English to ensure effective operation in their country of posting. There are, however, many qualities required of a Head of Mission other than the ability to speak the main non-English language of the country of appointment. Thus, language ability is not the only factor taken into account in selecting Heads of Missions to serve in a particular country. While it is possible to acquire a reasonable facility in many languages within six months of full time study, in other cases much longer periods of intensive study, reaching up to three years, are required. The relative priorities of Ambassadors or High Commissioners and the pressure of staff and monetary resources seldom permit this. Only by a program over many years of learning languages at junior level can it be reasonably assured that there will be a pool of officers with wide language coverage from which Ambassadors and High Commissioners can be chosen who speak the local language. Within the constraints of available resources, the Department of Foreign Affairs is following this course of action. HEADS OF MISSION-AT 2 DECEMBER 1986 Post 1 Name of HOM 2 Date arrived 3 Language/s used at country of posting 4 Fluency in languages other than English listed in 4 ** fluent * working proficiency 5 Addis Ababa J. P. C. Sheppard 4.6.85 Amaric (English) Algiers C. G. O'Hanlon 13.7.86 Arabic (French) (**) Amman T. J. Goggin 15.12.85 Arabic (English) Ankara P. F. Peters 3.5.84 Turkish (English) * Apia A. P. Godfrey-Smith 5.6.84 Samoan/English Athens D. J. Kingsmill 29.8.84 Greek (English) (French) *(**) Baghdad W. R. M. Steele 24.7.86 Arabic Bangkok R. J. Smith 23.5.85 Thai (English) Beijing R. G. Garnaut 21.11.85 Mandarin Belgrade J. H. A. Hoyle 3.10.84 Serbo-Croatian/Slovenian/Macedonian (Serbo-Croation) * Berlin D. W. Witheford 14.6.85 German * Berne D. A. Townsend 31.8.85 German/French */* Bonn C. R. Ashwin 26.10.82 German (English) ** Brasilia W. E. Weemaes 28.6.85 Portuguese ** Brunei J. M. Starey 5.2.84 Malay (English) ** Brussels H. D. Anderson AO OBE 10.1.83 Flemish/French (English) */** Budapest O. J. Cordell 2.5.85 Hungarian (German) (*) Buenos Aires K. R. Douglas-Scott 20.4.85 Spanish * Cairo K. H. Rogers 11.8.84 Arabic (English) (French) Caracas R. G. Starr 7.5.85 Spanish * Colombo R. L. Cotton 23.4.85 Sinhala (English) Copenhagen A. F. Dingle 12.10.83 Danish (English) Damascus R. A. Burns 17.3.84 Arabic (French) (*) Dar-Es-Salaam G. K. Miller 31.1.85 Swahile (English) Dhaka S. J. D. Boyd 8.9.86 Bengali (English) Dublin F. W. S. Milne MBE (arrives 3.12.86) English/Irish Hanoi I. S. Lincoln 16.1.86 Vietnamese (French) (**) Horare C. A. Edwards 22.4.84 Shona/English Honiara M. J. Gaylard 22.8.85 S.I Pidgin (English) Islamabad I. G. Bowden 3.5.84 Urdu (English) Jakarta W. L. Morrison 28.4.85 Indonesian (English) * Kathmandu D. K. Johnstone 23.6.86 Nepalese (English) Kingston M. A. S. Landale 1.12.84 English Kuala Lumpur D. W. Evans 1.2.84 Malay (English) ** Lagos R. H. Wyndham 30.5.86 English Lisbon B. W. Woodberry 12.12.84 Portuguese ** London A. R. Parsons AO 19.1.84 English Lusaka E. J. L. Ride 10.10.86 English Madrid H. A. Jenkins 18.6.86 Spanish * Malta N. R. Smith 14.2.84 Maltese/English Manila R. R. Fernandez 22.11.82 Filipino/English Mexico City J. P. McCarthy 25.3.85 Spanish (English) * Moscow E. R. Pocock 21.3.84 Russian Nairobi D. S. Campbell 23.5.86 Swahili/English Nauru J. G. Powys 24.1.86 Nauruan (English) New Delhi G. B. Feakes AO 17.7.84 Hindi (English) Nicosia D. B. Wadham 18.10.85 Greek (English) ** Nuku' Alofa B. D. B. Smith 6.3.84 Tongan (English) Ottawa R. S. Laurie 1.5.85 English/French * Paris P. C. J. Curtis 17.8.82 French ** Port Louis I. L. James 10.8.86 French (English) * Port Moresby M. J. Wilson 23.11.84 Tok Pisin/English * Port Vila G. L. Urwin 18.2.85 Bislama (English) Pretoria R. N. Birch 10.12.84 English/Afrikaans Rangoon G. L. Lamb 20.11.86 Burmese (English) Riyadh A. D. Brown 22.2.84 Arabic (English) Rome D. G. Nutter 7.6.85 Italian * Santiago W. K. Flanagan 13.9.83 Spanish (French) *(**) Seoul L. L. Jospeh 2.4.84 Korean Singapore W. P. J. Handmer 22.12.83 English/Mandarin * Stockholm M. R. McGovern 5.12.83 Swedish (English) Suva J. A. Piper 1.7.86 Fijian/Hindi (English) Tarawa W. C. Rowe MBE 8.4.85 Kiribati (English) Tehran J. L. Lander 22.7.85 Farsi Tel Aviv R. S. Merrillees 15.12.83 Hebrew/English/Arabic The Hague G. J. Price MBE 13.6.84 Dutch (English) Tokyo W. G. T. Miller 26.8.86 Japanese Vienna J. R. Kelso 13.5.84 German (English) Vientiane J. B. Campbell 7.6.84 Lao (French) (*) Warsaw M. W. Hughes 25.2.85 Polish Washington F. R. Dalrymple 24.6.85 English Wellington L. R. Johnson 22.5.84 English (Question No. 4691) Ms McHugh asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) What was the (a) number of person hours involved in and (b) cost of outside contract surveying and drafting services used by his Department and instrumentalities responsible to him in (i) 1984-85, (ii) 1985-86 and (iii) 1986 to date, including work contracted out to the Australian Survey Office and the Department of Housing and Construction. (2) Are there any instances where surveying or drafting requirements have not been satisfied due to limitations on the resources of (a) his Department or instrumentalists responsible to him, (b) the Australian Survey Office or (c) the Department of Housing and Construction; if so, what are they. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) (i) Nil (ii) National Standards Commission-238 person hours CSIRO-36 person hours (iii) Nil (b) (i) Nil (ii) National Standards Commission-$5069 CSIRO-$2072 (iii) Nil. (2) (a) Nil. (b) The Australian Survey Office is responsible for the staffing and funding of its drafting services. (c) The Department of Housing and Construction is responsible for the staffing and funding of its drafting services. (Question No. 4763) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 October 1986: (1) Is NZ butter and cheese served at official functions at the Australian Embassy in Washington; if so, in view of the Government's promotion of Australian products, why? (2) Is Australian beer and wine served at such functions? Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A variety of mainly local sources is called on for supply of food served at official functions at the Embassy. Preference is given to Australian products where they are available. In particular, Australian beer and wines are served at official functions. (2) At the Australian Ambassador's residence only Australian beer and wine are served. (Question No. 4848) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: (1) Has Mr Ken Davidson been commissioned to write a report for the Commission for the Future; if so, what is the nature of the assignment. (2) Will he receive payment from the Government for the assignment; if so, how much. (3) What criteria were used to select Mr Davidson for the assignment. (4) Were other persons considered for the task; if so, who were they. (5) Are other journalists funded by his Department to undertake projects; if so, (a) who, (b) for what projects and (c) what remuneration is paid to them. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, Mr Ken Davidson has been commissioned to write a report for the Commission for the Future. The nature of Mr Davidson's assignment was to prepare a position paper for a national conference on `Futures in Education' held in mid November 1986, jointly sponsored by the Commission and the Hawthorn Institute of Education. (2) Mr Davidson has received payment of $2,550 for this assignment. (3) The criteria used was the consultant's capacity to meet the objectives of the conference as outlined in the conference planning and program. Mr Davidson was selected for his background as an economist and writer. The selection was made by the conference organising committee, which included Professor Headley Beare of Melbourne University; Mr Noel Gough, Senior Lecturer, State College of Victoria, Rusden; and Mr Peter Auer, Centre for Curriculum, Hawthorn Institute of Education. (4) Yes, other persons were considered for the task. They were Mr Bill Hannan, Chairman of the State Board of Education and Mr Colin Thiele, writer and educationist from South Australia. Both were unavailable. (5)- (a) Mr Charles Wright (b) Compilation of Press Kit (c) $2,280 (b) Preparation of Report on the Commission's Management Futures for Australia Seminar in Melbourne 25 February 1986 (c) $3,650 (b) Preparation of Report on the Commission's Technological change and the Future of Australia's Cities Seminar in Adelaide 14 February 1986 (c) $4,500 (b) Preparation of Information Kit-`Future Options' (c) $5,900 (b) Preparation of articles on issues covering the future which may arise on an `ad hoc' basis (c) $3,870 (b) Preparation of Report on the Commission's `Education, Entrepreneurship and the Future-the Needs of the Small Business Sector' Seminar, in Hobart 20 August 1986 (c) $4,000 (a) Margaret Wertheim (b) Preparation of report on Commission's `Technological Futures for Women' Seminar held in Sydney on 21 May 1986. (c) $2,870.40 (Question No. 4935) Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: (1) What percentage of frail aged persons living in Sydney reside in the Inner West Sub-region. (2) What sum under the Home and Community Care Program has been allocated to this region and what percentage of the funding for the Program in Sydney does this represent. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The percentage of aged and invalid pensioners residing in the Inner West Sub-region is 15.21 per cent. There is no separate breakdown for frail aged persons. (2) The Central Metropolitan Region was apportioned 25.29 per cent i.e. $877,105 out of a total State allocation of $3,468,686. The Inner West Sub-region was allocated 10.60 per cent ($93.013) of the Regional portion. The sources used in planning the above allocations were the statistical tables compiled by the Department of Youth and Community Services in their booklet ``Information and Sub-Program Guidelines for Sub- Regional Planning-September 1986''. These tables were compiled from the Department of Social Security's ``Beneficiaries and Pensioners-Estimates by Local Government Area-December 1985'' and the Australian Bureau of Statistics 1981 Census. (Question No. 4974) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: Have there been any instances where Australian foreign aid funds have been used, at the discretion of the Fijian Government, as an incentive for Australian companies to establish businesses which bring jobs and training to Fiji; if so, will he supply details. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Joint Venture Scheme is a form of aid designed to provide Australian aid funds to enable the purchase of equity by South Pacific countries in joint business ventures with Australian partners. The Scheme is designed to ensure that Australian aid funds are available to contribute to the creation and expansion of income and employment generating activities in the South Pacific. There are two joint ventures active in Fiji, one is between Yaqara Pastoral Company and Dr Peter Blood, a private Australian, and the other is between West Australian Forest Industries and the Fiji Native Land Trust Board. The joint venture involving Dr Blood produced 100 tonnes of potatoes in 1986, 270 tonnes of onions and 100 tonnes of rice. It employs some 30 full time employees although contract harvesting requires another 30 for approximately three months each year. The joint venture involving West Australian Forest Industries produced in 1986 sawn timber, veneer, plywood and blockboard with sales proceeds of some F$13.9 million (A$18.3). At the end of 1986 it employed about 800 personnel. Both ventures have introduced new technologies and management skills as well as additional job opportunities. (Question No. 3915) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 6 May 1986: (1) What consultants have been engaged by the Aboriginal Arts Board since 1 January 1984. (2) For what purpose was each consultant engaged. (3) What fees have been paid to each consultant. (4) What was the term of each consultant's engagement. (5) Will he provide details of any reports or documents produced out of these consultants' engagements. (6) Will he provide copies of any contractual agreements for these consultants. (7) How were the consultants selected. (8) How many staff have been employed to service the Aboriginal Arts Board since January 1984 and what are their names and qualifications. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice provided by the Australia Council, is as follows: (1) to (4) Details of Aboriginal Arts Board consultancies engaged during the period of 1 January 1984 to 30 June 1986: Consultant Purpose of project Fees Term $ T. Miller Production of information video for the Aboriginal Arts Board on Board programs 4,404 17.9.84-29.2.85 S. Firkin Translation of German documents regarding proposals for Aboriginal arts projects in Germany 1,644 5.4.85-4.5.85 C. MacInolty Preparation of Submission to House of Representatives Inquiry-Aboriginal Homeland Centres 5,026 9.9.85-20.10.85 T. Widders Review and Report on Aboriginal Artists Agency 1,500 Mid March 86-30.4.86 (5) Details of reports or documents produced as a result of the employment of the consultants are as follows: Production of Information Video for Aboriginal Arts Board by T. Miller The video presents general background information on the Board including funding details, information on its programs, aims and objectives and a segment on a typical Board meeting. Translation of German Documents by S. Firkin A range of documents/correspondence from Bernhard Luthi, on behalf of the ``Society for the Promotion of the Art and Culture of the Aborigines of Australia,'' were translated from German into English. The letters contain advice from the Society to the Board on appropriate arts promotional contacts and museums throughout Germany, the negotiations for a visit by the Director of the Aboriginal Arts Board to Germany and discussions on anticipated projects for Aboriginal arts in Germany. Preparation of a Submission to the House of Representatives Inquiry-Aboriginal Homeland Centres by C. MacInolty The submission examined the social and economic circumstances of Aboriginal people living in Homeland Centres or outstations, and the development of policies and programs to meet their future needs. Review and Report on Aboriginal Artists Agency by T. Widders The review included a detailed examination of the structure, historical background, membership, staffing, budget, projects and programs of the Agency. Copyright issues were investigated and the review also considered the future of the Agency. All the documents and/or reports produced by each consultant are available on request from the Australia Council. The information video is available for viewing. (6) Details of the consultancies have been outlined in (1)-(4). The Australia Council considers the contractual agreements between the Council and its employees to be confidential. (7) The Australia Council has advised that the four consultants engaged by the Aboriginal Arts Board were selected on the basis of their relevant qualifications and experience for the proposed project and a significant consideration was the consultants' availability. The engagement of all four consultants was agreed upon by all Aboriginal Arts Board members. (8) A total of 27 staff have been employed by the Aboriginal Arts Board from 1 January 1984 to 30 June 1986. The following table specifies the names of staff, position occupied and period of employment. Name and position Period of employment Director G. Foley February 1984 Secretary/Assistant J. Callope February 1984-June 1985 K. Green July 1985 A. Conlon August 1985-March 1986 K. Bellear May 1986 Board Secretary H. Clothier March 1984-April 1985 C. Briggs (Acting) July 1985 L. Fogarty August 1985 Project Officer Class 8 K. Waddell January 1984-February 1984 C. McGuigan March 1984 Project Officer Class 6 M. Donovan January 1984 Project Officer Class 6 C. Fondum January 1984-June 1984 J. Williams July 1984-November 1984 W. Harrison (Partial Performance) March-April 1985 P. Williams May-June 1985 J. Newfong December 1985-March 1986 S. Bellear May 1986 Project Officer Class 6 E. Godden January 1984 C. George February 1984-September 1985 R. Lovelock November 1985-April 1986 Project Officer Class 6 M. Turner February 1984-June 1985 F. Kelly August 1985 Part-Time Typist C. Briggs January 1984-January 1986 A. Braithwaite March 1986 J. Purcell April 1986-May 1986 Clerical Assistant Grade 3 A. Montague June 1985-December 1985 M. Walker January 1986-June 1986 National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals I. Mason May 1985-September 1985 I. Mason was employed as a Trainee Project Officer, Class 4, from May-September 1985. From mid June-September, I. Mason was employed under the National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals. (NESA). Whilst no formal or specific qualifications were required for each position, the Australia Council has advised that all staff were considered to have met the following selection criteria for the relevant position. Director (S.E.S. Level 1) Sound managerial, financial and administrative skills. Demonstrated skills, of a high order, in policy and program development. Interpersonal skills of a high order (to facilitate and maintain extensive contact and liaison with the relevant art community). Ability to participate in and contribute to, the development of Council's objectives. High level of personal achievement in, and breadth of knowledge of, Aboriginal art, culture and community. Credibility within the arts community relating to the Aboriginal Arts Board. Project Officers (Clerical Administrative Class 6-8) Sound knowledge and experience of Aboriginal Culture, including a broad involvement in Aboriginal community. Sound administrative/financial skills. Sound interpersonal skills (including effective internal and external communication skills, both oral and written). Tact, discretion, sound judgement-especially dealing with clients, colleagues, sensitive issues, etc. Analytic ability and a capacity for policy development. Self-motivation and an ability to cope with stress and the pressure of a heavy and often complex/delicate workload. Ability to work in and help facilitate a team environment. Board Secretary (Clerical Administrative Class 4) Sound and demonstrated administrative ability, some financial skills an advantage. Sound interpersonal skills (effective communication, ability to express ideas clearly and successfully-orally and in writing). Sound organisational ability, including ability to maintain records. Supervisory skills. Ability to work in a team environment. Ability to work under pressure of a heavy workload; self-starter. Tact/discretion, ability to act in face of adversity, maintain confidence. Secretary/Assistant Good secretarial and administrative skills. Good typing speeds. Good interpersonal skills. Methodical and organised approach to work. Ability to work as a member of a team. Clerical Assistant/Typist Good typing speeds. Previous office/clerical experience desirable. Ability to work as a member of a team. Clerical Assistant Grade 3 Previous office/clerical experience desirable. Ability to work as a member of a team. (Question No. 3987) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the Annual Review of the Australian Insurance Association (AIA) for 1985. (2) Is the Government wholly satisfied with Australia's policy is general insurance of allowing any risks to be placed directly outside the Australian market. (3) Is it a fact that large overseas markets recognise the need to restrict to some degree flows of business out of their country, and so help them maintain a sound market home market base. (4) Is the Australian approach of no restrictions practicable, in view of the practices of the EEC, Japan and the USA insurance markets and the fact that those markets represent 84% of world insurance premium volumes, compared with the Australian market representing 2%. (5) Is is a fact that (a) the Australian insurance market has not developed statistics on its international insurance flows, (b) the Government does not know the full volume of these and only has estimates of whether insurance transactions result in a net debit or credit on current account and (c) overseas countries have statistics and other details on their international insurance earnings. (6) If Australia does not have these statistics and other details, will he consider proposals for the collection of statistics on the outflow of insurance funds as outlined by the AIA and in my question No. 415 of 1981 parts (5) to (8). (7) Is it a fact that (a) in overseas countries insurance/investment strategies complement each other by encouraging retentions and inflows of insurance moneys in a variety of ways such as tax concessions, establishment and management of overseas-based subsidiaries and international broking and (b) in Australia, in addition to comparable taxes, competitive disadvantage is suffered due to its system of statutory charges such as stamp duties and fire brigade levies, plus taxes on reinsurance. (8) Does the avoidance of these charges in Australia create an important incentive to place business outside the market and result in a very low level of Australian ownership of the reinsurance sector. (9) Is the definition of the Australian insurance market, as presently employed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, at variance with the definition and practices of leading markets, in that they recognise the need to limit the outflow of insurance related earnings, so that the Australian market, by ignoring direct overseas placements and working only on statistics given in returns to the Australian Insurance Commissioner, is making the task of ascertaining its invisible earnings unnecessarily difficult; if so, will he take steps to rectify the problem. (10) Does the definition make any examination of the question of Australia's invisible earnings unnecessarily difficult and will he take steps to rectify the problem. (11) Has he considered the approach of the AIA that a study be effected of the reinsurance activities of the insurance industry to analyse ways Australian companies can share more in Australian risks, as well as gaining reinsurance from overseas. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The present policy of permitting local purchasers of general insurance to arrange cover overseas reflects the need for access to overseas insurance markets to facilitate the placement of risks that are beyond the capacity and/or the expertise of the local market. The ability to arrange cover in overseas markets assists insureds in Australia in obtaining competitive prices for insurance services. (3) While some overseas countries may, for varying reasons, impose restrictions on the outflow of general insurance business, Australia and most other OECD countries seek to adhere to certain international obligations aimed at the liberalisation of current account external payments. By not imposing restrictions on residents insuring overseas, risks are spread around the world market-a tenet of insurance being that the larger the pool of risks the more stable the overall outcome. Given the present capacity of the Australian insurance market and Australia's vulnerability to natural disasters, restrictions on the outflow of reinsurance business could have a detrimental impact of the domestic market, particularly in regard to the levels of premiums that would be necessary to maintain a viable insurance industry. (4) See (3) above. It should also be noted that a signficant volume of insurance business where the genesis of the risk is in Japan, the USA and EEC (i.e. including countries other than the UK) continues to be underwritten at Lloyd's. (5) (a) Neither the Office of the Insurance Commissioner nor the Australian Bureau of Statistics is aware of any insurance market entity which has developed accurate, detailed statistics on international insurance flows into and out of Australia. (b) The Australian Bureau of Statistics has advised that it is inot aware of any comprehensive or detailed official data on the full volume of international insurance flows (with premiums and claims identified separately) relating to the Australian insurance market. However, some estimates of international insurance flows are made by the Bureau for inclusion in Australia's balance of payments statistics. As a result of improved methodology introduced in February 1986, the Bureau is now able to separately identify the service and income components of insurance transactions by direction of flow and these are recorded where appropriate in the items `insurance on exports', `insurance on imports', `insurance services nec' credits, `insurance services nec' debits, `insurance income' credits and `insurance income' debits. In compiling these items, the Bureau takes account of general insurance business placed overseas by Australian resident insurance enterprises, insurance brokers, insurance agents, and other enterprises. Account is also taken of general insurance business placed in Australia by non-resident insurance enterprises, insurance brokers and insurance agents. (c) The Bureau is aware that a number of overseas countries record statistics on their international insurance earnings in their respective balance of payments statements. These statistics are compiled broadly in accordance with international statistical conventions as is the case in Australia. The presentation of such statistics varies from country to country, largely because of the differing institutional structures of the respective insurance markets. (6) The Bureau has advised that it obtains adequate data on international insurance flows for the purpose of compiling balance of payments statistics. While it has no plans to expand its data collections in this area, it will continue to investigate ways of maintaining and improving the quality of the insurance component of its balance of payments statistics. In addition to the Bureau collections, however, consideration is being given to an amendment to section 34 of the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 to require the reporting to the Insurance Commissioner by insurance intermediaries of premiums they remit overseas by class of business and country of destination. (7) (a) While I am aware that some oveseas countries have adopted strategies such as tax concessions to assist the operations of insurers, it is not clear that these strategies are necessarily appropriate to Australian conditions. (b) The Government recognises the existence of certain competitive disabilities arising from the imposition of State taxes and charges. On 17 September 1986 the Prime Minister announced that the Commonwealth had decided to remove stamp duty on contracts of international marine insurance written in the ACT and he has written to the State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory advising them of the Commonwealth's decision and requesting their co-operation in removing the duty Australia-wide. (8) While there is an incentive to avoid State stamp duties and charges by arranging cover overseas, the extent to which this might be causing insurance to be placed outside Australia is unclear. See also 7 (b) above. (9) As indicated in the answer to 5 (b), the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not ignore direct placement of insurance overseas in estimating insurance transactions in the balance of payments. It uses data obtained from ABS surveys and taxation sources in estimating these transactions but not statistics prepared by the Insurance Commissioner. (10) The definition of insurance transactions used by the Bureau in compiling balance of payments statistics conforms with international statistical conventions. It is not restricted to transactions involving only the Australian general insurance industry. The Bureau is not aware of any difficulties in balance of payments analyses caused by its definition of the Australian insurance industry (market). (11) I doubt whether there is any need for the Government to undertake a study of this kind, particularly given that there are already approximately 30 specialist reinsurers operating in Australia and that a number of the direct underwriters authorised under the Insurance Act (approximately 150) also undertake some reinsurance business as part of their overall operations. It is, of course, open to the industry itself to explore ways in which its share of the overall insurance and reinsurance market might be increased. (Question No. 4040) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 21 May 1986: (1) Is it a fact that a container of radioactive technetium was stolen from Upper Ferntree Gully railway station on 1 May 1986. (2) Was his Department responsible for the transport of this material from Lucas Heights NSW to the William Angliss Hospital in Ferntree Gully. (3) If not (a) what section of the journey was his Department responsible for and (b) what other Government departments and private organisations also had responsibility. (4) What time did the container arrive at the railway station. (5) What (a) time was it noticed that the container was missing and (b) who discovered that it was missing. (6) Which Federal and State authorities (a) were notified of the theft and (b) were they notified immediately; if not, why not. (7) From which part of the railway station was it stolen. (8) Was the container unattended at the time; if so, why. (9) Did railway staff at Upper Ferntree Gully receive (a) prior advice of the consignment and (b) prior precautionary instructions; if not, why not. (10) If prior precautionary instructions were received (a) what were they and (b) were they followed. (11) What mode of transport is used to carry the material from the station to the hospital. (12) How long did it take to locate the container. (13) Had the container been interfered with; if so, was there any escape of radioactive material. (14) What are the destinations of radioactive material that his Department is responsible for transporting from Lucas Heights. (15) What modes of transport does his Department employ to deliver this material. (16) What section of his Department has direct responsibility for the transport of this material. (17) Are companies engaged by his Department to transport this material; if so (a) must they be specially licensed to carry the material and (b) does this requirement vary from State to State and according to the quantities being transported. (18) Is his Department responsible for ensuring State departmental staff involved in the transport of this material are instructed in its proper handling; if not, which department has this responsibility. (19) What (a) regulations must his Department comply with in the transport of this material and (b) were they complied with in the case of the Upper Ferntree Gully consignment. (20) What general precautions does his Department take to ensure that the material reaches its destination without interference or damage. (21) Has his Department experienced previous thefts or loss of radioactive material while in transit. (22) What steps has he taken or will take to ensure that such an incident is not repeated. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) (a) Pickup from Ansett Airlines at Melbourne Airport for delivery to Spencer Street Railway Station; (b) Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC)-delivery from Lucas Heights to Sydney Airport; Ansett Airlines-delivery from Sydney to Melbourne Airports; Metropolitan Rail Division of the Victorian Metropolitan Transit Authority-delivery from Spencer Street Railway Station to Upper Ferntree Gully Railway Station; Radclin Pty Ltd-delivery from Upper Ferntree Gully Station to William Angliss Hospital, Ferntree Gully. (4) 0825 Hours on 1 May 1986. (5) (a) 0830 Hours; (b) the group Station Master (6) I understand that the Victorian State Police were notified by the Metropolitan Rail Division immediately the consignment was determined to be missing. The Victorian Department of Health was notified by Radclin Pty Ltd at approximately 1400 hours. (7) Western end of the platform. (8) Yes. At the time it was unattained the material was under the control of the Metropolitan Rail Division. (9) and (10) At the request of the AAEC, my Department has been delivering radiopharmaceuticals to to Metropolitan Rail at Spencer Street for onforwarding to Upper Ferntree Gully Station for a number of years. Metropolitan Rail was aware of the consignment on 1 May 1986 which was transported by rail to the requirements of the Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail, and the Australian Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Substances. Packages of radioactive material despatched by the AAEC carry labelling and instructions as indicated in reply to the Member's question No. 4038 (refer Hansard of 16 September 1986). Any additional instructions to transport personnel are the responsibility of the carrier, in this case Metropolitan Rail. (11) The consignee Radclin Pty Ltd provides the transport from the Railway Station to William Angliss Hospital. I understand a vehicle with a portable lead container is used. (12) The empty container was located on 1 May 1986 and the contents were located on 9 May 1986. (13) Yes: No. (14) My Department is not responsible for transporting radioactive material from Lucas Heights. However, my Department does transport radioactive material on behalf of AAEC from Ansett Airlines at Tullamarine to the following destinations in Melbourne and suburbs: Sacred Heart Private Hospital; Radclin Pty Ltd, c/- Sacred Heart Private Hospital; Australian Radiation Laboratories; Austin Hospital; Mont Park Psychiatric Hospital; Repatriation General Hospital; St Vincents Hospital; The Royal Childrens Hospital; Peter McCallum Clinic; Queen Victoria Medical Centre; Prince Henry's Hospital; Alfreed Hospital; St Francis Xavier Cabrini Private Hospital; Box Hill Hospital; Radclin Pty Ltd, c/- The Royal Southern Memorial Hospital; Footscray Scanning Clinic; Royal Melbourne Hospital; Epworth Private Hospital; St Andrew's Private Hospital; Radclin Pty Ltd, c/- Mercy Public Hospital; Metropolitan Railway Division Spencer Street for delivery to: William Angliss Hospital, Upper Ferntree Gully, Frankston District Hospital, Radiation Clinic, Dandenong, Gippsland Base Hospital, Sale, St John of God Hospital, Ballarat, La Trobe Valley Hospital, Moe, Geelong Hospital, Geelong, Mount Alverna Hospital, Bendigo. (15) My Department delivers the material by road using its own dedicated vehicle. (16) The Freight Section of the Transport and Storage Division. (17) No, Apart from Metropolitan Rail which was engaged with the agreement of the AAEC. I understand that differences do exist between the various States concerning licensing requirements for the transport of radioactive materials. (18) No. The primary responsibility for ensuring that personnel involved in the transport of radioactive material are instructed as necessary in its safe handling rests with the carrier organisation. It should be noted however that the stringent packaging requirements specified in the Australian Code of Practices for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Substances mean that the contribution required by the carrier towards ensuring safety during transport is minimised. The overall responsibility for ensuring the implementation of the applicable requirements for the safe transport of radioactive materials by road and rail within each State rests with the designated Competent Authority in each State which in most cases is the State Health Department. (19) (a) My Department must comply with the regulations as laid down in the Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail, published in the Commonwealth Gazette No. P 8, 9 April 1984; (b) All regulations were followed except for the external placarding of the Commonwealth vehicle. Although the vehicle had a placard advising MEDICAL SUPPLIES it did not have the correct placard in accordance with the Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail. This has subsequently been rectified. (20) The precautions taken by my Department are as follows: (i) Consignments are collected in a radio controlled lock up van; (ii) All deliveries are either signed for or placed in special security areas to which the driver has keys; (iii) The drivers wear a film badge which is checked each week by the Australian Radiation Laboratory. To date all readings have been well below the acceptable safety level. (21) My Department has not experienced thefts or losses of radioactive material whilst it has been in its possession. However, it is aware that on three occasions radiopharmaceuticals whilst under the control of the Metropolitan Rail Authority were misdirected causing late delivery. (22) It is understood that the Metropolitan Transit Authority is implementing procedures to improve the method of control over the movement of the material. (Question No. 4058) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 23 May 1986: Is the Hamilton Island tourist resort discharging sewage treated only to primary standard into waters of the central section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; if so, has the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority issued a permit to the resort legalising this discharge. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The sewage discharge from the Hamilton Island tourist resort is treated to primary standard prior to release into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Hamilton Island Pty. Ltd. holds a Water Quality Council of Queensland (WQCQ) licence (issued March 1985 and renewed March 1986) to discharge sewage. This licence imposes water quality criteria on the discharge and imposes a deadline by which the criteria are to be met. The criteria are considered to be acceptable by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The Authority has issued a permit to the company giving permission to discharge sewage into the Marine Park. A condition of this permission is that the company will meet the WQCQ water quality criteria by March 1987. Recent advice from the company is that a treatment plant will be installed that will allow these criteria to be met. (Question No. 4428) Mr Price asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) How many overseas posts of his Department accept applications for sponsorship. (2) Which posts are staffed by immigration officers and what is the number and classification of the officers at each post. (3) At which Australian overseas posts are sponsorship applications accepted by other departmental personnel on behalf of his Department. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As a general rule, sponsorships may be lodged at any Australian Government office overseas. Sponsorships may, however, be lodged in Australia at the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs office nearest the sponsor's normal place of residence if the sponsored relative lives in one of the following countries: Bulgaria German Democratic Republic People's Republic of China Romania Socialist Republic of Vietnam Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Immigration offices in Australia should also accept sponsorships in other cases where sponsors can demonstrate sound reasons-apart from mere convenience-why this would facilitate processing in some appreciable way. For instance, acceptance in Australia may be appropriate in the following cases: children for adoption special need relatives certain close relatives in East Timor In all other cases the sponsor must send the completed sponsorship to the sponsored relative to lodge with the relevant overseas post together with their migration application and details of relatives form. The DIEA leaflet ``Helping relatives to immigrate'' contains a list of overseas posts and the countries for which they are responsible. (2) Departmental Staff at Overseas Posts at 1 July 1986: Arab Republic of Egypt-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Argentina-Clerical Admin., Class 11 (regional Director South America); Clerical Admin., Class 6. Austria-Clerical Admin., Class 8; Clerical Admin., Class 6. Britain, London-Senior Exec Level 1 (Regional Director UK/Ireland); Clerical Admin., Class 11; Clerical Admin., Class 9; Clerical Admin., Class 7; 4 x Clerical Admin., Class 6; Clerical Admin., Class 5*. Manchester-Clerical Admin., Class 9; 3 x Clerical Admin., Class 6. Edinburgh-Clerical Admin., Class 8; 2 x Clerical Admin., Class 6; Clerical Admin., Class 5*. Canada- Vancouver-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Toronto-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Chile-Clerical Admin., Class 8; Clerical Admin., Class 6. China- Clerical Admin., Class 7. Denmark-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Fiji-Clerical Admin., Class 9; 2 x Clerical Admin., Class 6. France-Med Off Class 2*; Clerical Admin., Class 8. Germany-Clerical Admin., Class 10; Clerical Admin., Class 7; Clerical Admin., Class 6; Clerical Admin., Class 6*. Greece-Clerical Admin., Class 10; Clerical Admin., Class 6. Hong Kong-Clerical Admin., Class 11 (Regional Director North Asia); Clerical Admin., Class 9; Clerical Admin., Class 7; 6 x Clerical Admin., Class 6. India-Clerical Admin., Class 8; Clerical Admin., Class 6. Indonesia-Clerical Admin., Class 9; Clerical Admin., Class 7; Clerical Admin., Class 6. Ireland-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Italy-Medical Off, Class 2*; Clerical Admin., Class 11 (Regional Director Southern Europe); Clerical Admin., Class 9; 2 x Clerical Admin., Class 6. Japan- Tokyo-Clerical Admin., Class 8; Clerical Admin., Class 6. Osaka-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Kenya-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Korea-Clerical Admin., Class 7; Clerical Admin., Class 6. Malaysia-Med Off Class 2*; Clerical Admin., Class 11 (Regional Co-ordinator Refugees); Clerical Admin., Class 9; 2 x Clerical Admin., Class 7; 6 x Clerical Admin., Class 6. Malta-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Mauritius-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Mexico-Clerical Admin., Class 9; Clerical Admin., Class 7. New Zealand-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Netherlands-Clerical Admin., Class 8. Papua New Guinea-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Philippines-Clerical Admin., Class 9; Clerical Admin., Class 8; Clerical Admin., Class 7; 5 x Clerical Admin., Class 6. Poland-Clerical Admin., Class 8. Portugal-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Singapore-Clerical Admin., Class 9; 2 x Clerical Admin., Class 6. South Africa- Pretoria-Clerical Admin., Class 11; 2 x Clerical Admin., Class 6. Capetown-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Spain-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Sri Lanka-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Sweden-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Berne-Clerical Admin., Class 7. Syria-Clerical Admin., Class 9; Clerical Admin., Class 8; 2 x Clerical Admin., Class 6. Thailand-Clerical Admin., Class 10; Clerical Admin., Class 8; 4 x Clerical Admin., Class 6. Vietnamese Family Migration Program-Clerical Admin., Class 7; Clerical Admin., Class 6. Turkey-Clerical Admin., Class 8; Clerical Admin., Class 6. U.S.A.- Washington-Clerical Admin., Class 11 (Regional Director North America). Chicago-Clerical Admin., Class 7. New York-Clerical Admin., Class 9; Clerical Admin., Class 6. San Francisco-Clerical Admin., Class 9; Clerical Admin., Class 6. Los Angeles-Clerical Admin., Class 8; Clerical Admin., Class 6. Vietnam-Clerical Admin., Class 9. Yugoslavia-Med Off Class 2*; Clerical Admin., Class 9; Clerical Admin., Class 7; 2 x Clerical Admin., Class 6 (1 attached staff). * Attached staff includes medical officers and technical advisers. (3) Australian Overseas Posts at which applications may be accepted on behalf of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are listed below. Australian Embassy-Algiers Australian Embassy-Dhaka Australian Embassy-Brussels Australian Embassy-Brasilia Australian Consulate General-Rio De Janeiro Australian High Commission-Brunei Australian Embassy-Rangoon Australian High Commission-Ottawa Australian Consulate General-Shanghai Australian High Commission-Nicosia Australian Embassy-Addis Ababa Australian Embassy-Budapest Australian Consulate General-Bombay Australian Consulate-Bali Australian Embassy-Tehran Australian Embassy-Baghdad Australian Embassy-Tel Aviv Australian Consulate General-Milan Australian High Commission-Kingston Australian Embassy-Amman Australian High Commission-Tarawa Australian Embassy-Vientiane Australian High Commission-Nauru Australian Embassy-Kathmandu Australian Consulate General-Noumea Australian High Commission-Wellington Australian High Commission-Lagos Australian Embassy-Islamabad Australian Embassy-Riyadh Australian Consulate General-Jeddah Australian High Commission-Honiara Australian Consulate-Geneva Australian High Commission-Dar Es Salaam Australian High Commission-Nuku `Alofa Australian Embassy-Moscow Australian Consulate General-Honolulu Australian Consulate General-Houston Australian High Commission-Vila Australian Embassy-Caracas Australian High Commission-Apia Australian High Commission-Lusaka Australian High Commission-Harare (Question No. 4817) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 October 1986: (1) Will the new woodchip arrangements for Tasmania reduce the income of Tasrail by 20%; if not, how will the new arrangements affect Tasrail income. (2) If the new arrangements will increase Tasrail's deficit, what action is the management of the Australian National Railways Commission taking to reduce the deficit. (3) What are the projected deficits until 1989-90. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) & (2) The Australian National Railways Commission (AN) has advised me that the new arrangements will involve a reduction in the tonnage of woodchips carried by Tasrail. However, an expected overall increase in nett tonne kilometres for this commodity will result in a consequent increase in revenue. (3) AN has advised that projected deficits for Tasrail operations until 1989-90 are: 1986/87-$19.3M 1987/88-$17.7M 1988/89-$15.5M 1989/90-$15.9M (Question No. 4805) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) What are the details of the requirements relating to passenger levels and corresponding cabin crew requirements. (2) What does his Department require for a licensed aircraft operator to change the seating configuration of the aircraft he is operating. (3) If a change to the seating configuration results in a corresponding change in the requirements for cabin crew, does this have any bearing on approval or non-approval of seating configurations for any given routes or combination of routes; if so, why. (4) Does his Department permit aircraft operators to change their seating configurations to match capacity requirements on differing routes which the same aircraft may fly; if not, why not. (5) Is he considering making these requirements more flexible; if not, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The requirements for cabin attendants are detailed in Air Navigation Orders Section 20.16.3. The relevant paragraphs are: ``6.1-Aircraft engaged in charter or regular public transport operations shall carry cabin attendants appropriate to their passenger complement as follows- (a) aircraft carrying more than fifteen but not more than thirty-six passengers shall carry a cabin attendant, except that aircraft- (i) having a passenger seat configuration of not more than nineteen; and (ii) carrying not more than nineteen passengers; and (iii) required to be crewed by two pilots need not carry a cabin attendant provided that duties and responsibilities of the flight crew concerning the briefing and control of passengers in normal and emergency operations are specified in the Operations Manual; (b) aircraft carrying more than thirty-six but not more than 216 passengers shall carry at least one cabin attendant for each unit of thirty-six passengers or part thereof; (c) aircraft carrying more than 216 passengers shall carry the number of cabin attendants as prescribed by the Secretary which shall not be less than one cabin attendant for each floor level exit in any cabin with two aisles; (d) notwithstanding the specifications of (a), (b) and (c) above, in an aircraft in which cabin attendants are required to be carried, there shall be not less than one cabin attendant in each separate compartment occupied by passengers, and, where the number of cabin attendants used in the emergency evacuation demonstration required by Air Navigation Orders Section 20.11 of this Part was in excess of the numbers required by (a), (b) or (c) above, the number of cabin attendants on an aircraft shall be not less than the numbers required by (a), (b) or (c) as applicable plus the excess number of attendants used in the demonstration. 6.2-Notwithstanding the requirements of para 6.1 above, the number of cabin attendants required need not be increased when infants or children are carried and the total number of passengers exceeds the number of passengers permitted by- (a) the number of cabin attendants carried; or (b) the number permitted by the emergency evacuation demonstration required by Air Navigation Orders Section 20.11 of this Part including any increase allowed without demonstration, provided that the number of excess passengers does not exceed five per cent to the nearest whole number of the lesser of (a) or (b) above and that the excess passengers are infants or children.'' (2) If a major or significant change in the cabin interior configuration is proposed by an operator my Department would require that the relevant Air Navigation Orders relating to aircraft loading, carriage of persons, cabin safety, weight and balance and structural integrity be adhered to. However an operator may change the seating configuration in accordance with any previously approved configurations, or minor variations thereto, without any further approval or Departmental requirement. This occurs, for example, where a number of alternative configurations were submitted and approved when the aircraft was first certificated or registered. (3) A change to the seating configuration would only require a change to cabin attendant requirements where there was a corresponding change in the number of passengers or compartments. (4) Yes. Provided that operators comply with safety and operational requirements they are free to adjust aircraft seating configurations in order to meet demand on differing routes in accordance with their commercial judgement. (5) No. The present safety and operational requirements are considered necessary and appropriate. (Question No. 4494) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: How many counter enquiries were there at the Wollongong Office of his Department during the past 12 months. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Reliable information is not currently available. My Department is in the process of refining the methodology for the collection of statistics on counter enquiries. (Question No. 4495) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What was the average daily turnover of Australian dollars in Australian foreign exchange markets in the most recent period available. (2) What was the average daily turnover of Australian dollars in the (a) London, (b) New York and (c) Tokyo foreign exchange markets in the same period. (3) Is evidence available on changes in the level of turnover in Australian dollars since 1981-82; if so, what does it show. (4) If there has been a growth in turnover, what factors have contributed to this. (5) Where does the Australian dollar rank in a table showing average daily foreign exchange currency turnover. (6) How does this compare with levels of overseas trade for the same countries. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The information sought by the honourable member is available in the December 1986 issue of the Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin. I have asked the Bank to send you a copy. I would draw the honourable member's attention particularly to Tables K4 `Foreign Exchange Turnover' and K5 `Foreign Exchange Contacts Outstanding' and to the article `The Forex Market-A Central Banker's View'. (Question No. 4829) Mr N.A. Brown asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 21 October 1986: (1) What are the objectives and characteristics of the (a) Community Volunteer Program (CVP) announced in the 1986/87 Budget and (b) Volunteer Youth Program (VYP) announced by the Fraser Government in 1979. (2) What (a) similarities and (b) differences do the 2 schemes have. (3) What benefits does the CVP offer that the VYP does not. (4) What community and business organisations were consulted regarding the CVP prior to its announcement in the 1986/87 Budget and when were they consulted. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The specific objectives of the Community Volunteer Program (CVP) are yet to be determined in detail. In general terms the CVP will aim to provide increased opportunities for the unemployed, especially young people, to undertake voluntary community work. Such work will enable participants to contribute to the community; broaden their experience; enhance their self esteem; and compete better for paid work. The characteristics of the CVP are to be determined on the basis of extensive consultations recently conducted throughout Australia. The new program will, however, be based on the following principles: participation will be voluntary; young unemployed people will be the principal target group (although all unemployed people will be eligible); participants will be given the opportunity to undertake worthwhile community service activities while retaining their entitlement to unemployment benefit; work opportunities will not be in areas normally involving paid employment, nor will they be a substitute for such employment; participation will be part-time, so as to allow unemployed people to continue their efforts to find paid employment in the open labour market; and relevant non-government groups and individuals will have a key role in assisting with the development and operation of the initiative to the maximum extent possible (1) (b) The objectives of the Volunteer Youth Program (VYP) are to assist unemployed young people to maintain and develop their capacity to obtain and retain employment and to promote their integration into the community. Under the VYP, grants are made available to and are administered by approved sponsor organisations to operate projects which act as referral agencies to facilitate the placement of unemployed young people in voluntary community service work. VYP project activities include: identification of relevant community service opportunities; regular placement of individual participants in voluntary community service activities; monitoring individual participants' progress; promotion of project activities to the community; provision of appropriate advice and information to participants within the limits of the project officer's competence to do so; and referral of participants to other agencies when appropriate. The main characteristics of VYP as announced by the Fraser Government included the following principles: participation is completely voluntary; the activities of volunteers must be controlled by the sponsor organisation so that no problems arise in relation to paid work already undertaken where participants are placed; and the placement of youth volunteers must be arranged by the sponsor organisation to avoid interference with the valuable services currently being provided by the existing network of volunteers in community service organisations. (2) (a) and (b) As the details of the CVP have not yet been determined the similarities and differences with VYP cannot be specified in detail at this time. However, CVP will not be restricted to unemployed young people. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The CVP was announced only in principle in the 1986/87 Budget. Community and business organisations were not consulted prior to this announcement. However, peak, national, state, community and business organisations were consulted as part of the CVP consultations conducted between 15 September and 17 October 1986. The business organisations consulted were: Confederation of Australian Industry Business Council of Australia Australian Chamber of Manufactures Melbourne Chamber of Commerce Victorian Employers' Federation Lions Clubs International Rotary International Hunter Development Board Brisbane Chamber of Commerce Queensland Confederation of Industry and Commerce Inc. Fyshwick Chamber of Commerce Belconnen Chamber of Commerce Canberra Association for Regional Development Confederation of WA Industry Inc. SA Chamber of Commerce and Industry SA Employers' Federation Inc. Tasmanian Chamber of Industries The community organisations consulted were: Baptist Community Service (ACT) Northside Community Service (ACT) Handicapped Citizens Association (ACT) The Salvation Army (ACT) ACT Council on the Ageing ACT Society for Physically Handicapped Inc. Woden Community Service (ACT) Caloola Farm (ACT) Tuggeranong Community Service Inc. Red Cross Society ACT Division-Volunteer Youth Project St Vincent de Paul Society (ACT) Tasmanian Council of Social Services Tasmanian Council on the Ageing Inc. Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled (ACROD)-Tasmanian Division Ethnic Communities Council of Tasmania St Vincent de Paul Society (TAS) Greening Australia (TAS) Inc. Hobart City Mission Inc. Community Youth Support Scheme Projects Association of Tasmania Salvation Army (TAS) Anglican Family Care Services Inc. (TAS) Centacare-Willson Training Centre Glenara Work Preparation Program Western Australian Council of Social Services Western Australian Council on the Ageing Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled (ACROD)-Western Australian Division Greening Australia (WA) Inc. Conservation Council of Western Australian Inc. Youth Affairs Council of Western Australia St Vincent de Paul Society (WA) Adelaide Central Mission Inc. St Vincent de Paul Society (SA) Greening Australia (SA) Youth Affairs Council of South Australia Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled (ACROD)-South Australian Division Volunteer Centre of SA Inc. South Australian Council of Social Services Inc. South Australian Community Youth Support Scheme Projects Association Ethnic Communities Council of South Australia South Australian Unemployed Groups in Action Inc. Henley and Grange Volunteer Youth Project (SA) Shopfront Volunteer Youth Program (SA) Victorian Council of Social Services Youth Affairs Council of Victoria The Brotherhood of St Laurence Victorian Council on the Ageing Carlton Volunteer Youth Project Task Force Prahran Volunteer Youth Project Bayside Volunteer Youth Project Ballarat Volunteer Youth Project Volunteer Action Centre Inc. (VIC) The Salvation Army (VIC) St Vincent de Paul (VIC) Melbourne City Mission Yooralla Society of Australia ``Life Be In It'' Australia Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria Australian Council of Social Services Inc. Young Achievement Australia St Vincent de Paul (NSW) Sydney City Mission The Smith Family (NSW) Local Community Services Association (NSW) Wayside Chapel of the Cross (NSW) Wesley Mission (NSW) Disabled Peoples International (NSW) Coalition on Employment Co. Ltd Uniting Church in Australia (QLD) Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission Greening Australia Queensland Inc. Queensland Council of Social Services Queensland Council on the Ageing Red Cross Society (QLD) Queensland Community Youth Support Scheme Projects Association Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled (ACROD)-Queensland Division Brisbane City Mission Blue Nursing Service (QLD) Share House Youth Accommodation Centre (QLD) Family Care (Cairns) Ingham Community Information Centre (QLD) Burdekin Community Association (QLD) Mount Isa Welfare Council (QLD) Upper Ross Family Centre (QLD) Open Youth Project (QLD) Endeavour Foundation Cairns Welfare Council Sommerville Community Services (NT) Many other business and community organisations were invited to the consultations but were not able to attend meetings. Some of these organisations have lodged written submissions. Unions, youth organisations, service clubs, local government associations, State Governments and Commonwealth Departments were also consulted. (Question No. 4483) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) Further to his answer to my question No. 2132 (Hansard, 11 February 1986, page 43), can he state the turnover volume in the deregulated foreign exchange market for the 6 months ending December 1984 as compared with the 6 months ending December 1983 in the regulated market. (2) Is it a fact that under current procedures it requires little ingenuity to bypass the requirement that a tax clearance certificate be obtained before money is transferred to a tax haven; if so, what action will be taken to close this loophole. (3) Will he give urgent consideration to establishing an inquiry into the extent of money laundering, particularly in overseas financial transactions, and to structuring appropriate monetary procedures to combat the role played by Australian financial institutions in assisting organised crime through illicit money laundering and in facilitating large scale tax avoidance. (4) Will he ensure that this particularly complex issue is not referred to an inter-departmental committee. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As indicated in the Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin for December 1984/January 1985, the daily turnover of Australian dollars in the deliverable foreign exchange market averaged $2,894 million for the six months ending December 1984 and $883 million for the six months ending December 1983. It should be noted, however, that the increased turnover in 1984 reflects a number of factors including the removal of most exchange controls in association with the floating of the $A in December 1983 and the authorisation of non-bank foreign exchange dealers from June 1984. This latter move has contributed to greater depth and competitive efficiency in the foreign exchange market. (2) Under Australia's current foreign exchange arrangements persons wishing to buy or sell foreign currency in Australia must do so through a dealer authorised by the Reserve Bank. Under the terms of their authorities dealers are in turn obliged, before making foreign currency available to their customers for purposes of effecting a specified range of transactions, to either: receive a tax clearance certificate where the transaction is to be directed to a designated (tax haven) country; or, in the case of transactions directed to other countries, require the customer to complete a declaration form where the amount of the transaction exceeds $A50,000 or the foreign currency equivalent. These forms are then remitted to the Taxation Office by the dealer. It is an offence under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations to make a false statement in the declaration form. The purchase by residents of Australia of foreign currency outside Australia and the placement by Australian residents of any amount of currency to the credit, in Australia, of non-residents is also subject to the tax screening requirements detailed above. Moreover, where funds in excess of $5,000 are transferred from Australia other than through an authorised dealer (by, for example, the direct remittance of a bank or personal cheque) the institution in Australia ultimately required to give value to the instrument is obliged to report the transaction to the Taxation Office. Exchange controls also prohibit, without the Reserve Bank's authority, the sending of Australian currency notes and coins abroad and limit to $5,000 per person the amount of Australian notes and coins that may be taken from Australia in any journey. As the honourable member will note, the above arrangements are quite comprehensive. The Government has no documentary evidence to support any claims of widespread avoidance of these requirements. I would also emphasise that the information which becomes available to the Taxation Office under these arrangements forms but one part of information which is available to it in detecting tax avoidance in Australia. (3) & (4) It is not proposed to establish an inquiry into money laundering at this stage. However, on 28 September 1986 the Government announced its intention to introduce legislation dealing with the proceeds of crime. That legislation will also create money laundering offences and impose a number of obligations on financial institutions in connection with the verification of the identity of persons seeking to open an account and the retention of banking records. It is expected that the legislation will be introduced shortly. The Government is also examining the practicability of introducing requirements that financial institutions report certain cash transactions, including remittances of funds overseas. (Question No. 4484) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) How many sponsorships and applications are currently awaiting determination at Australian migration offices overseas in respect of (a) family migration in (i) sub-categories A and B and (ii) sub-category C, (b) skilled labour and business migration for (i) skilled labour, (ii) employer nomination and (iii) business migrants, (c) independent and special migrants and (d) refugee and special humanitarian cases. (2) What were the comparable figures (a) 3 months ago, (b) 6 months ago and (c) 12 months ago. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) & (2) The following table sets out the number of migrant entry applications awaiting determination at overseas posts at the end of June 1985, December 1985, March 1986 and June 1986. Migration Category 30.6.86 31.3.86 31.12.85 30.6.85 Close family A... 5,852 5,538 5,124 3,968 Close family B... 4,620 4,440 4,135 3,007 Extended family... 10,936 10,576 10,072 7,119 Skilled... 5,423 4,812 3,748 1,531 ENS... 1,296 1,277 1,095 829 Business... 658 575 488 265 Indep... 43 37 32 38 Special... 509 457 402 202 Refs/SHP... 2,571 2,759 2,485 2,262 Total... 31,908 30,471 27,581 19,221 (Question No. 4486) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Does the Government require (a) government departments and (b) statutory authorities to purchase goods and services from small businesses as defined by the recent EPAC report `Some features of small business and its policy environment'. (2) What directions has the Government issued for this purpose. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The Bureau of Industry Economics in its recent small business paper `Government Procurement and Small Firms' noted `that information collected in surveys indicates that small firms do not face any significant constraints in supplying to government. Although small firms are less likely to be involved in government work than large firms, in most cases this is simply because they do not deal in, or have the capacity, to produce those goods and services normally required. For those small firms which do apply for Government work, the success rate is quite high.' I understand that the Small Business Council has made a submission to the Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements. The views of small business will be taken into the Government's consideration of this committee's report. (2) None. Small businesses are eligible to apply for all forms of general industry assistance provided by the Government. Such assistance includes the application of the policy of preference to Australian-made goods and related services in Government purchasing by departments and those authorities not exempt from the policy. The preference policy provides for the application of a number of measures directed to both large and small businesses interested in supplying government requirements. The directions are set down in Commonwealth Purchasing Circulars issued by my Department. The directions on preference require the use of unbiased specifications, consideration by purchasing authorities of alternative offers of Australian-made goods and related services, specification of Australian-made materials and services in certain construction-works tenders, use of minimum economic order quantities for Australian conditions, application in tender evaluations of a twenty per cent margin of preference applied to the local material and manufactured value-added content of tenders and, in the evaluation of low value quotations, to the total value of local supplies. There is also discretionary preference consideration by Ministers for tenders valued above $100 000 where a twenty per cent margin of preference is insufficient to award the contract to a higher priced, higher Australian content suitable offer. The margin of preference is also applied to the New Zealand content of offers in accordance with the Australia/New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement. As a consequence of the National Preference Agreement recently signed by the Commonwealth and the States these measures have been reinforced. (Question No. 4425) Mr Price asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Were workload studies undertaken at the Sydney regional office and the Parramatta area office of his Department. (2) What were the results of the studies. (3) Did the studies show that the Parramatta office was understaffed and the Sydney office overstaffed. (4) Has any action been taken as a result of the studies. (5) Has his Department failed to transfer staff to Parramatta because of an antipathy towards the Western suburbs; if not, what was the reason. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) and (3) The data collected in the studies has not been fully analysed. Preliminary assessment suggests some imbalance in resource allocation between the two offices. (4) and (5) Staffing at the Parramatta office has been and is being increased. By October the approved staffing level of the Parramatta office will have increased by about 17 since early 1986. This increase clearly demonstrates a commitment to servicing the Western suburbs of Sydney. (Question No. 4426) Mr Price asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: Have there been any departmental or other inquiries into the performance of overseas posts of his Department in the last 5 years; if so (a) what were they and when did they occur, (b) what were the principal findings and recommendations, (c) which recommendations were implemented and (d) which recommendations were not implemented and what was the reason. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as folows: (a), (b), (c) and (d) There is a need to distinguish between wide ranging reviews which, while not specifically concerned with the performance of Immigration funtions overseas, impinge upon those functions and management oriented reviews which are solely concerned with the Immigration function. Examples of the former are the Fraser Government's Review of Commonwealth Functions in 1981 and 1982 and the current Review of Overseas Representation. Management reviews tend to be on-going internal administrative exercises aimed at ensuring a continuing high level of performance. It would not be appropriate to give details of such a wide ranging exercise as the Review of Commonwealth Functions, except to mention that it did result in reductions to Immigration staff overseas. The current Review of Overseas Representation is a major Government initiative and is concerned with Australia's effort overseas as a whole and the extent to which it meets Australia's essential requirements. While a number of matters are still being considered by the Government, one major outcome of this review already has been a significant reduction in the size of Australia's overseas representation. This has involved a reduction in the number of Immigration positions overseas. The primary means of ensuring that overseas posts are functioning efficiently and effectively is through regular monitoring of their performance rather than by formal inquiries. Before the introduction of the computer-based Migration Program Management system (MPMS) in 1983-84, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs conducted annual reviews of workload/staffing ratios at individual posts in order to assess required staffing levels. The MPMS and supplementary workload reporting systems now enable continuous monitoring and assessment of overseas posts' activities. In view of the emphasis on continuous review rather than separate inquiries as a means of managing the overseas operation, administrative change tends to be incremental and derive from a continuing flow of proposals. Factors which affect the nature and volume of work overseas include changing immigration policy, shifts in the propensity of residents in Australia to sponsor relatives overseas, changes in the number of occupations for which there is a demand for skilled labour in Australia and variations in refugee and temporary entry patterns. (Question No. 4427) Mr Price asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: Have any studies been conducted in relation to the new system of lodging applications for sponsorship at his Department's overseas posts into (a) whether or not the handling and processing of applications has improved significantly, (b) acceptance by the ethnic community, and (c) whether Australian sponsors feel discriminated against by being unable to pursue inquiries in Australia. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: While no specific study of the new sponsorship arrangements has been undertaken to date, my department continuously monitors procedures and workloads at overseas posts to ascertain their efficiency. (a) A survey of client reaction to the new arrangements at nine key posts (London, Belgrade, Pretoria, Bonn, Damascus, Hong Kong, Manila, Santiago and Suva) showed that the streamlined procedures have been very favourably received. The new arrangements eliminate the need for Australian offices of the Department to check sponsorships prior to applications being considered overseas. Where necessary, sponsorship checks are now undertaken in Australia concurrent with overseas processing. This has clearly shortened processing. (b) and (c) There is no evidence of adverse reaction from the ethnic community or from sponsors to the new system. (Question No. 4772) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 16 October 1986: When may I expect an answer to my question No. 4058 placed on notice on 23 May 1986. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: An answer to your previous question is now available. (Question No. 4795) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) Is a consumer representative to be appointed to the A.C.T. Medical Board. (2) Is it the role of the Board to (a) examine the medical qualifications of doctors for registration and (b) discipline doctors who have been guilty of a misdemeanour; if so, what role will a consumer representative have in these matters. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A community representative is to be appointed to the Medical Board of the A.C.T. The person's brief will include, but will not be limited to, consumer matters. (2) Yes, it is the role of the Board to: (a) examine the medical qualification of doctors for registration; and (b) discipline doctors who have been found guilty of unprofessional conduct or other offence under Section 30 of the Medical Practitioners Registration Ordinance 1930. The Board also has other responsibilities. These include the investigation and determination of complaints made against medical practitioners and the review of accounts for fees for medical services. Community representation on the Board will broaden the range of advice available to that body and will enhance its work, bearing in mind that one of the central aims of the Board is to ensure that the community's interest is protected through a high standard of care. (Question No. 4482) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) What is the present workload of the Wollongong office of his Department. (2) What is the staffing level of this office. (3) What range of services does it provide. (4) What geographical areas does it serve. (5) On what date was the decision made to close this office. (6) What is the cost of maintaining the office. (7) What consultations took place concerning its closure with (a) the regional director, (b) the officers of the Wollongong office and (c) local migrant community groups. (8) What new arrangements are proposed to serve the requirements of clients of the office. (9) Will the same number of staff be required; if so how will these staff be deployed. (10) If not, why not. (11) What are the cost benefits of the new arrangements over the present operation. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of applications received in 1985-86 for the main workload activities were as follows: Citizenship-1,648 Change of Resident Status-136 Re-entry Visas-2,101 Temporary Entry Permit extensions-336 Reliable statistics on counter inquiries are not available. (2) At the time of the 1986-87 Budget the staffing level of the Office was eleven; one Clerical Administrative Class 8, one Clerical Administrative Class 6, one Clerical Administrative Class 5; three Clerical Administrative Class 4; one Clerical Administrative Class 2/3; one Clerical Administrative Class 1; one Clerical Assistant Grade 5; one Clerical Assistant Grade 2 and one Typist Grade 1. The average staffing level (ASL) allocation at that time was around 10.8. (3) The range of services previously provided was as follows: migration (including family and occupational migration, and refugees), change of status to resident, temporary entry (including visitors and temporary residents), and citizenship. (4) Wollongong Area Office services the Wollongong Statistical Division, part of the Wollondilly local government area and Jervis Bay. (5) The initial decision to close the Office was made in response to portfolio savings targets developed in the 1986-87 Budget process. Further investigation revealed other savings options which allow the Office to remain open with reduced staff and functions. (6) The cost to maintain fully the operation of the Office during 1986-87 (at current prices) would have been $423 000. (7) Because of the confidentiality inherent in the Budget process, it was not possible to undertake consultation before the initial announcement. Full consultation is taking place currently with those affected. (8) The Office will continue to carry out its current major functions of handling applications for citizenship, issuing re-entry visas and providing information. Some workload such as grant of resident status will be transferred to the Sydney Regional Office. Citizenship interviews will be undertaken by Australia Post-this arrangement already applies in cities and towns throughout Australia, including those which are remote from a DIEA office. (9) No. (10) A reduction of ASL in a full year from 10.8 to 3.5 is planned, ie. a saving of 7.3 ASL. This reduction is possible because the need for supervision and administrative support will be minimised. Workloads will be handled more efficiently by `streaming' work in the larger office rather than having one officer more frequently move from one function to another as happens in smaller offices. (11) Estimated net savings to the Commonwealth resulting from reducing the activity of this Office are as follows: 1986/87 1987/8 Staff... 139158 238556 Administration... Nil 18620 Total... 139158 257176 These estimates exclude possible redundancy payments/redeployment costs in 1986/87 which are not yet known. (Question No. 4481) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) What is the present workload of the Rockhampton office of his Department. (2) What is the staffing level of this office. (3) What range of services does it provide. (4) What geographical areas does it serve. (5) On what date was the decision made to close this office. (6) What is the cost of maintaining the office. (7) What consultations took place concerning its closure with (a) the regional director, (b) the officers of the Rockhampton office and (c) local migrant community groups. (8) What new arrangements are proposed to serve the requirements of clients of the office. (9) Will the same number of staff be required; if so how, will these staff be deployed. (10) If not, why not. (11) What are the cost benefits of the new arrangements over the present operation. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of applications received in 1985-86 for the main workload activities were as follows: Citizenship-550 Change of Resident Status-70 Re-entry Visas-579 Temporary Entry Permit extensions-66 Reliable statistics on counter inquiries are not available. (2) At the time of the 1986-87 Budget the staffing level of the Office was two; one Clerical Administrative Class 6 and one Clerical Assistant Grade 5. The average staffing level (ASL) allocation at that time was around 2.5 (3) The range of services provided at the time the decision was taken was as follows: migration (including family and occupational migration, and refugees), change of status to resident, temporary entry (including visitors and temporary residents), and citizenship. (4) The area serviced by the Rockhampton Area Office stretched from Mackay and its immediate environs to the North, Bundaberg and its immediate environs to the South and Longreach to the West. Much of this area falls within the Fitzroy and Mackay statistical division. (5) The initial decision to close the Office was made in response to portfolio savings targets developed in the 1986-87 Budget process. (6) The cost to maintain fully the operation of the Office during 1986-87 (at current prices) would have been $121 500. (7) Because of the confidentiality inherent in the Budget process, it was not possible to undertake consultation before the initial announcement. Full consultation is taking place currently with those affected. (8) An officer of the Brisbane Office with local knowledge will be assigned to handle inquiries from areas affected by the closure. Citizenship interviews will be undertaken by Australia Post-this arrangement already applies in cities and towns throughout Australia, including those which are remote for DIEA offices. Other functions will be taken over by the Brisbane Regional Office and Townsville Area Office. Similar arrangements now apply for many other cities which are distant from a DIEA office. (9) No. (10) A reduction of ASL in a full year form 2.5 to 1.2 is planned, ie. a saving of 1.3 ASL. This reduction is possible because the need for supervision and administrative support will be minimised. Workloads will be handled more efficiently by `streaming' work in the larger office rather than having one officer move frequently form one function to another as happens in smaller offices. (11) Estimated net savings to the Commonwealth resulting form reducing the activity of this Office will be as follows: 1986-87 1987-88 Staff... 30000 46000 Administration... 18000 27000 Total... 48000 73000 These estimates exclude possible redundancy payments/redundancy costs in 1986-87 which are not yet known. (Question No. 4424) Mr Price asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Has his Department issued new guidelines to staff for handling inquiries from federal Members of Parliament. (2) If so, when were they issued. (3) Have some regional or area offices refused to handle inquiries. (4) Under what circumstances can a Member of Parliament request a cable to be sent. (5) Does he approve of officers (a) refusing to handle an inquiry from a Member and (b) declining a request to send a cable. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)-(2) No. (3) The Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association (ACOA) in the Parramatta Area Office imposed work bans early in July this year on all inquiries from the honourable member. The bans were lifted mid August after extensive consultation between management, staff and the ACOA. (4) As a general rule where the average processing time for the particular post and the particular category of migration has elapsed, and/or where there are special circumstances of an urgent compassionate nature, Immigration Offices in Australia will undertake to seek information about applications being processed overseas. Equity requires that my officers prevent representations becoming a means of queue jumping. To ensure that all clients of my Department are dealt with in a fair and equitable way, an instruction to staff on the circumstances in which cables should be sent to overseas posts to enquire about a particular migration case is being developed. Answer to PQ 4430 of 20 August 1986 also refers. (5) (a)-(b) The staff of my Department are instructed to be courteous and helpful, where possible, to all clients of the Department and those who represent them. (Question No. 1845 and No. 4807) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) How many certificates have been issued under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 to enable court action to be brought for a breach of the Act. (2) What was the (a) number and (b) result of actions that have come before the courts. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Human Rights Commission, is as follows: (1) 33 certificates have been issued as follows: Year Certificates 1977 ... 4 1978 ... 3 1979 ... 2 1980 ... 1 1981 ... 2 1982 ... Nil 1983 ... 1 1984 ... 18 1985 ... 1 1986 ... 1 In the years 1977, 1978 and 1984 more than one certificate was granted in respect of complaints regarding the same alleged incidents. (2) (a) and (b) The Human Rights Commission does not keep records of court proceedings initiated by private individuals who have received certificates under the Racial Discrimination Act. (Question No. 2296) Mr Sharp asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) How many C130A Hercules aircraft are currently being offered for sale by the Government. (2) When were the aircraft first offered for sale. (3) Have any offers been made for the purchase of the aircraft. (4) Have any of the aircraft been sold; if so, for what price were they sold. (5) Who are the agents acting on behalf of the government for the sale of the aircraft. (6) Are 2 C130A Hercules aircraft currently in the USA; if so, (a) who financed their move to that country and (b) under what terms and conditions were they sent. (7) Has the US Government advised the Government not to sell any of these aircraft to particular buyers. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Currently eight aircraft are available. A further aircraft now proposed to be leased to an aid organisation would become available at the end of the lease. (2) Tenders closed 9 February 1978. (3) Yes. (4) Yes. The price received by the Commonwealth is considered confidential at this time for commercial reasons. (5) No agents are presently authorised to act on behalf of the Government. The Commonwealth Government made an arrangement on 15 June 1981 with Ford and Vlahos, Attorneys at Law of California, whereby the latter were engaged for the purpose of finding prospective purchasers for the aircraft, and notifying the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services of any such prospective purchasers, so that arrangements could be made to have them inspect the relevant aircraft, and so that, subject to the prior approval of the United States State Department to the sale of the aircraft to the prospective purchaser, the Commonwealth would sell the aircraft to such a person. The arrangement with Ford and Vlahos was renewed from time to time, until 31 January 1986, after which it was not renewed. (6) Yes. (a) The cost of repositioning the two aircraft was met by the intending purchaser. (b) Under arrangements settled between the prospective purchaser and Ford and Vlahos. (7) The aircraft cannot be resold without US Government approval. The US has in the past not been prepared to approve certain sale proposals. (Question No. 2403) Mr Hodges asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 November 1985: (1) Did the former Attorney-General and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs jointly announce on 17 March 1983 that a review for the needs of ex-servicemen and women and war widows for legal aid would be carried out; if so, was it stated that the review would be conducted by his Department in consultation with the Department of Veterans' Affairs and other bodies such as returned servicemen's organisations. (2) Has the review been completed; if so, have the results been announced. (3) Were the Returned Servicemen's League and other veterans' organisations consulted in the review process. (4) Does the Government intend to apply a means test on the provision of legal aid to veterans, their dependants and war widows. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, but the date of the announcement was 17 August 1983, not 17 March 1983. The review to be carried out is of the needs of ex-service personnel, service personnel, and their dependants for legal assistance. It was stated that the review would be conducted by the Attorney-General's Department and consultations would be held with the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Statutory Authorities responsible for the delivery of legal aid and other interested organisations. (2) and (3) The review has been delayed pending consideration of the implications for legal aid generally of the recommendations of the Legal Aid Task Force. In addition, there are implications for this matter arising out of the proposed merger of the Australian Legal Aid Office and the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales. (4) Means-test free legal assistance is available from my Department for veterans, service personnel and their dependants and war widows in proceedings before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Federal Court and High Court in connection with matters arising directly from disabilities incurred during war service. (Question No. 2938) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Was the US Communications Base at Exmouth North West Cape in Western Australia upgraded in 1978. (2) If so, was the Australian Government consulted prior to its upgrading. (3) Why was the upgrading necessary. (4) What is the relationship of the DSCS III satellite to the base and is the base now fully operational. (5) Has the US Government given a guarantee to the Australian Government that the base does not have the capability of being used to launch a nuclear first strike by that Government; if not, why not. (6) Does the US National Security Agency operate through North West Cape; if so, what are its functions. (7) During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, was the base put on DEFCON 3 without the Australian Government's knowledge. (8) Has the base been put on DEFCON 3 at any time since 1973 and when was the Australian Government informed on this fact. (9) How many persons work at North West Cape and how many of these are (a) Australian citizens and (b) US citizens. (10) Are any parts of the base off-limits to Australian personnel; if so, what parts and what parts are off-limits to American personnel. (11) Which members of the Federal Parliament have been shown over the base. (12) What sum is paid by the US Government for the rental of the North West Cape base. (13) Are all shifts worked at the base comprised of both US and Australian personnel. (14) For what period is the lease for the base and can Australia renegotiate the tenure of the lease. (15) Does the US Government have alternative mobile communication facilities which can be utilised in lieu of the North West Cape base. (16) Has the Government (a) been advised by the US Government or its agencies of any updatings, upgradings or additions to the base; if so, what are the details, and (b) any plans of its own for updatings, upgradings, or additions; if so, what are the details. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (2) and (3) The Naval Communications Station at North West Cape is not a `US Communications Base'. It was in 1978 and is today a joint Australian/US defence facility. In 1978 a number of changes were made to the equipment at the Station after consultations between Australia and the US. In addition, there was extensive public discussion of US plans to install a new satellite communications terminal, at that time designated AN/MSC-61. The new terminal, which was later redesignated AN/GSC-39, became operational in 1984. The changes were made to improve the efficiency of the Station but did not alter its agreed role and functions. (4) Procurement of third generation Defence Satellite Communications System (DSCS) satellites is being undertaken, but the DSCS communications terminal at North West Cape still operates with the second generation satellites of the DSCS. It has not yet been established when the DSCS II satellites serving North West Cape will be superseded. The Station has been operational for almost twenty years, having been commissioned on 16 September 1967. (5) No. US leaders have repeatedly emphasized that US nuclear strategy is defensive, that the US does not have a first strike strategy, and that the US would not be the first to initiate conflict with the USSR. Secondly, because the US lacks the ability to carry out successfully a `disarming' first strike on the USSR it would clearly be contrary to the US' own vital interests for it to attempt to conduct such an attack. Thirdly, the primary characteristic of strategic ballistic missile submarines remains their survivability, and this ensures that they will remain essentially second strike retaliatory weapons, notwithstanding improvements in missile capability. The US considers that deterrence of conflict with the USSR depends in part upon the credibility of its threat of nuclear retaliation in the event of major Soviet conventional attack upon the US or its allies-credibility which would be diminished significantly were a guarantee to be given that the US would not be the first to use nuclear weapons. For reasons such as these the US has not regarded such a guarantee to be appropriate. For its part, the Australian Government is confident that it is well informed of US strategic thinking and the part North West Cape plays in it, would know if there were any major changes in these matters, and would know if the US wished to make use of the Station's capabilities in support of combat operations. Australia and the US consult regularly and in detail not only on technical matters relating to the Station and its activities, but also on the broader strategic and policy issues covering the role of North West Cape and the international context for its operations. These consultations include the frequent Ministerial level talks in Australia and the US between the Australian Government and the US Administration, and the regular formal and informal meetings between Australian and US officials. The Government is satisfied that it is well informed of all issues relevant to the functioning of North West Cape, including possible changes to the equipment at the Station and the reasons for those changes, and that the operations of the Station do not impinge on Australian sovereignty. (6) No. (7) Yes. This occurred before the Station became a joint facility in 1974. (8) No. (9) As at 30 September 1986 there were 629 personnel working at North West Cape. Of these 354 were US and 275 Australian citizens. (10) US personnel do not have automatic access to the Australian national communications centre, and Australians do not have automatic access to the equivalent US centre. Arrangements are routinely made, however, for Australian personnel to visit the US centre, and for US personnel to visit the Australian national room. In all the other areas of the Station there are no limitations on access made on the basis of nationality. (11) Comprehensive records of all Members of the Federal Parliament who have visited North West Cape since the Naval Communications Station became operational have not been kept. Members who have visited the Station on one or more occasions between 1981 and 30 June 1986 (with their titles at the time) have been included: Hon. L. Bowen Hon. W. G. Hayden Mr R. Shipton Sen. R. Elstob Sen. K. Sibraa Mr K. Beazley Mr P. Falconer Mr A. C. Holding Mr D. Jull Hon. R. Katter Mr S. Lusher Mr R. McLean Hon. W. Morrison Mr G. Scholes Mr K. Fry Mr M. Maher Hon. I. Sinclair Hon. M. McKellar Sen. Hon. F. Chaney Sen. elect J. Vallentine Mr G. Campbell (12) No rent is payable by the US for its share of the use of the North West Cape Station. The provision in the original `Arrangements for the Use and Occupation by the United States Navy of Commonwealth Land and for Associated Matters' (the North West Cape Land Use Arrangements), providing for payment of an annual rental of one peppercorn, was removed as a consequence of the Station becoming a joint facility in 1974. (13) Yes. However, some facilities such as canteens or recreation facilities may not be jointly manned at all times, and the Australian and US national communications centres are manned only by Australian and US personnel respectively. (14) There is no `lease' between the Australian and US Governments covering North West Cape. However, the Agreement between Australia and the United States of America relating to the establishment of the Station, which entered into force on 28 June 1963 (Australian Treaty Series 1963 No. 16) is to remain in force for at least 25 years, and thereafter until either party gives 180 days notice of intent to terminate the Agreement. (15) Not with the same capability. The only mobile communications facilities which could be used in lieu of North West Cape are the TACAMO airborne relay aircraft which have a VLF capability to provide local area back-up support for parts of the US VLF fixed site network. These aircraft do not provide an alternative broad area VLF support or capability. The US Navy keeps TACAMO aircraft continuously airborne over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, operating from bases in Maryland, California and Hawaii. Since the aircraft are mobile, the potential exists for them to be deployed into areas covered by the VLF transmissions from North West Cape. However, the TACAMO aircraft have a relatively low power output compared to that of North West Cape, and a lower efficiency of their VLF transmitting aerial. When these factors are added to the present deployment areas of the TACAMO aircraft, it becomes clear that they do not provide an alternative to North West Cape. (16) a. Yes. The Government is fully and regularly consulted by the US on all proposed updatings, upgradings or additions to North West Cape. Some of the existing proposals for changes or additions to the equipment at the Station are not to be implemented before 1992. The US also provides preliminary advice on its tentative proposals for changes, but has asked that such proposals be kept confidential. However, the firm proposals for changes are as follows: (1) a new electronics maintenance shop; (2) a new automotive maintenance shop; (3) replacement of cryptographic equipment; (4) replacement of HF radio antennas; (5) replacement of secure-voice communication terminals; (6) replacement of HF radio transmitters; (7) conversion of the cooling system for the Station's generating equipment from salt to fresh water; (8) a new maintenance facility for harbour boats; (9) expansion of public works maintenance/storage shop; (10) emergency cooling system for air conditioning; (11) replacement of analog microwave system by digital system; (12) fire protection for fuel tanks; (13) fire protection for communications centre; (14) new voice communications at control site and HF site; (15) new time-standard clocks to be installed; (16) improved voice communication system; (17) support equipment for microwave upgrade; (18) improved word processing techniques; (19) new post office; (20) new electrical generators; (21) new storage area for commissary; (22) auto hobby shop. None of the planned upgrades to the equipment at the Station will alter its agreed role and functions. b. RAN submarine broadcast control equipment will be upgraded in 1987. (Question No. 3247) Mr Downer asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 February 1986: (1) Will he bring up to date the information contained in the answer to Part 3 of question. No. 3 (Hansard 19 April 1985, page 1544) concering the convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. (2) Has the Australian Government (a) signed and (b) ratified this convention; if not, why not. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answers to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since 19 April 1985, Hungary, the United Kingdom and Luxemburg have become parties to the Convention. (2) Yes. The Australian Ambassador to the Netherlands signed the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, for and on behalf of Australia, on 29 October 1986. Immediately after signing the Convention Australia's instrument of ratification was deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Convention will enter into force for Australia on 1 January 1987 in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention. Also, pursuant to section 111B of the Family Law Act 1975 the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations (Statutory Rules 1986 No. 85) will come into operation on 1 January 1987. (Question No. 3323) Mr MacKellar asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 March 1986: (1) Has the Human Rights Commission distributed to schools or teachers a teaching aid kit called ``Teaching for human rights''; if so, (a) when did the distribution take place and (b) how many kits were distributed. (2) Was the distribution made directly to (a) schools or (b) individual teachers. (3) What schools received kits or employed teachers who received kits at the time of distribution. (4) How were schools or teachers selected to be recipients of the kit. (5) Were the kits aimed for trialing with particular age groups; if so, what was the rationale for selection of age groups. (6) Are schools or teachers required to make an assessment of (a) student and (b) teacher responses to the trialed material; if so when is the assessment required by the Commission. (7) Is the Minister able to say whether it is the Commission's intention to prepare its own report of the assessments; if so, (a) when is the report expected to be completed and (b) will it be available for public consideration. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Human Rights Commission, is as follows: (1) Yes; the details requested are- (a) distribution commenced in 1985 and continued in 1986; (b) approximately 200 kits have been distributed. (2) Distribution was made to both schools and individual teachers. (3) The following schools received kits or employed teachers who received kits at the time of distribution: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Jervis Bay Primary School Weston Creek High School Flynn Primary School Hawker Primary School Melrose High School Wanniassa High School Miles Franklin Primary School Fisher Primary School Maribyrnong Primary School The Holt School Hughes Primary School Erindale College Theodore Street School Woden Valley High School NEW SOUTH WALES The Sir Henry Parkes Memorial Primary School Bowraville Independent School Endeavour High School The Scots College Cromer High School Fisher Road School for Specific Purposes St Mary's Star of the Sea Primary School John Paul College Port Hacking High School Balmain High School Tweed River High School Hare Krisna Primary School Bulli High School Kempsey High School Maroubra Bay Infants School La Perouse Public School Colo High School Kogarah Marist High School St Raphael's Primary School St Francis Xavier's College Orange Public School Chatswood High School St Anne's Primary School St Mary's Star of the Sea High School North Sydney Demonstration School NORTHERN TERRITORY Dripstone High School Milingimbi School Sanderson High School QUEENSLAND Burdekin Catholic High School St Joseph's Primary School SOUTH AUSTRALIA The Heights School Allendale East Area School Payneham Primary School Mitchell Park High School Wasleys Primary School Dover Gardens Primary School Willunga High School East Marden Primary School Morphett Vale West Primary School Morphett Vale High School Kingscote Area School St Dominic's Priory College Goodwood High School St Paul's College Marananga Primary School Dover High School Pembroke School West Beach Primary School Strathmont Primary School Glossop High School Aberfoyle Park High School Christies Beach High School Gawler East Primary School TASMANIA Wybra Hall School Unit Lambert Secondary School The Friends' Junior School Bridgewater Primary School Bellerive Cottage School Zoe Community School The Sheffield School VICTORIA Dallas Primary School Broadmeadows Technical School Thomastown Meadows Primary School Cranbourne West Primary School Clifton Hill Primary Upper Yarra High Technical School Darley Primary School Tandarook South Primary School Loyola College Wodonga Technical School Portland Technical School Dimboola Memorial High School Ferntree Gully Technical School Aspendale Technical School Campbellfield Heights Primary School P.S. 4929 Comet Hill Queenscliff High School Altona East Queenscliff Primary School Churchill Primary School Shady Creek Primary School Belmont Primary School Footscray Intensive Language Centre Brighton Technical School Plenty Primary School Derrinallum High School Colac High School Preston Technical School Broadmeadows Special School Moreland Primary School Geelong Special School Moreland High School Colac Technical School Chilwell Primary School Drysdale Primary School Brentwood High School Southern Cross Primary School Gellibrand Primary School Altona North Primary School Preston East Technical School Continuing Education Centre Cleeland High School Primary School No. 882 Seventh Day Adventist School Tarraville Primary School Bourchier Street Primary School Preston East High School Education Support Centre St Bernadette's Primary School Ferntree Gully High School Cato College Woori Yallock Education Centre Dallas North Primary Plenty Valley Montessori School Hurstbridge High School Seymour Technical High School WESTERN AUSTRALIA Balga Senior High School Quintilian School Scotch College Newman College Junior School Newton Moore Senior High School Rangeway Primary School Perth Modern School Mandurah Senior High School Byford Primary School Bunbury Catholic College (4) Schools and teachers joined the program in response the open advertisements placed in the major national newspapers. Those who responded were sent details of the program and an application form which asked them to spell out the nature of the human rights project they had in mind. In 1985 applications were assessed by the program director in the Human Rights Commission to ensure that the proposed project was relevant to human rights education. In 1986 applications were assessed by Education Department panels in those States (WA, SA, VIC, NSW) which had allocated project officers to supervise the program. The project offices were fully briefed by the Commission's program director. In those States or Territories where no project officer had so far been appointed, assessments were done by the program director as in 1985. The same criteria were applied. The successful applicants became participants and received copies of the kits. (5) The kit was aimed at school Year 5 and above. This was on the advice of the education consultants who trialed the original draft, and who considered it suitable for both upper primary and secondary use. (6) Schools and teachers who participated in the Commission's 1985 program were required, under the terms of the letter of agreement that each accepted, to provide a written assessment of their project on completion. Where this project involved use of the Commission's materials, assessments by participant teachers were made of both the students' responses and teachers' own appraisal of them. The same conditions applied in 1986. (7) No, it was not the Commission's intention to prepare its own report of the assessments. (Question No. 3676) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article written by Max Walsh in the Age of 17 March 1986 stating that (a) the interesting thing about sections 50 and 50B of the Income Tax Assessment Act is that, combined with section 6 and particularly sub-section 6 (4), the Commissioner of Taxation would appear to have a case to reclaim a lot of tax that has been avoided in both preference share issues and takeover deals and (b) what all this boils down to is that this would seem to be another instance when there has been a loss of major proportions in revenue that could have been avoided with aggressive administration of the existing tax legislation. (2) Has the Commissioner of Taxation a case to reclaim tax as suggested in the article; if so, what action has been taken to reclaim the money. (3) Is it a fact that there have been losses of major proportions which could have been avoided with appropriately aggressive administration of the existing law. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My attention has been drawn to the article. (2) The Commissioner of Taxation has advised me there is no case to reclaim tax in the circumstances suggested in the article. (3) No. This is not a question of aggressive administration of the law. The Commissioner's statutory duty is to administer the tax laws enacted by the Parliament having regard to the way they have been interpreted by the courts and other appellate tribunals. I am informed that his administration of the provisions of the income tax law referred to in the article is consistent with the interpretation placed upon them by the courts. I would also draw the honourable Member's attention to a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory in Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd v. Grace Bros. Holdings Ltd & Ors where the Commissioner's approach to the operation of sub-section 6 (4) of the Income Tax Assessment Act was referred to with approval. The decision is reported in the Australian Company Law Reports, Volume 8 at page 61. (Question No. 3721) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 April 1986: (1) Is he able to say how many (a) general insurance companies have gone into liquidation since 1980, (b) of the cases involved alleged misappropriation of funds by company executives and (c) claims were left outstanding by each collapse. (2) What was the final, or most recent, dividend payable in each instance. (3) Were the powers vested in the Office of the Insurance Commissioner by the Insurance Act adequate to prevent each collapse. (4) Was the exercise of available powers by the Office of the Insurance Commissioner sufficient to protect the public interest in each case. (5) Will he take action to empower the Insurance Commissioner to call upon an insurer to furnish any relevant information (a) not limited to statutory accounts or documents and (b) at any time; if not, why not. (6) When will he take steps to have a ``fit and proper persons'' provision inserted in the relevant Acts. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The following six general insurance companies have gone into liquidation since 1 January 1980: Palmdale Insurance Limited (formerly Palmdale-AGCI Limited) Service Extension Insurance Pty Ltd Consolidated Insurances of Australia Limited, Sapphire Insurance Company Pty Limited China Underwriters Life and General Insurance Company Limited Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd. China Underwriters Life and General Insurance Company Limited was a Hong Kong based company and was liquidated in Hong Kong. It operated only a small Branch Office in Australia. In addition, two other companies namely, Fleet Motor and General Insurance Co (Aust) Pty Limited (formerly Automobile and General Insurance Co Pty Limited) and Crest Insurance Company of Australia Limited were placed in provisional liquidation. While the former's provisional liquidation has been finalised by a scheme of arrangement approved by the creditors and assented to by the Courts, the latter is still at the provisional stage. (b) Two cases involved alleged misappropriation of funds by company executives. (c) See answer to Question (2) below. (2) I am informed that the liabilities of the following companies, which went into voluntary liquidation, were met in the normal course: Service Extension Insurance Pty Ltd Consolidated Insurances of Australia Limited China Underwriters Life and General Insurance Company Limited Information in respect of other companies on distributions made (and proposed distributions), which is based on material provided by relevant liquidators, is set out hereunder: Name of Company and No. of claims Dividends Sapphire Insurance- Insurance claims...36 Trade creditors...25 (No refunds on policies were made as policies were continued to maturity by the liquidator) A dividend of 75 cents in the $ has been paid A further dividend possibly of the order of 25 cents in the $, is likely to be paid Palmdale AGCI- Workers' compensation claims...8,200 Other insurance claims...7,000 Policy refunds...16,000 Trade creditors...190 (Workers' compensation claims have been paid in full through State Government statutory schemes) A dividend of 45 cents in the $ has been paid in respect of Palmdale and 50 cents in the $ in respect of AGCI. Most likely final dividend: * Palmdale-60-75 cents in the $ * AGCI-100 cents in the $ Bishopsgate Insurance- Workers' compensation claims...approx. 5,000 Other insurance claims...approx. 5,000 Policy refunds...15,000 Trade creditors...1,000 (Workers' compensation claims have been paid in full through State Government statutory schemes) The first dividends are expected to be paid early this year. (3) and (4) The Insurance Act establishes arrangements for the prudential supervision of authorised insurers so as to protect insureds. Improvements have been made to the supervisory arrangements in recent years, including more stringent solvency requirements and improved quarterly returns. The arrangements are subject to continuing review and monitoring. I should add, however, that the Act does not purport to be a guarantee against failure of an insurer; such a guarantee would involve an unacceptable and costly level of intervention in the affairs of insurers and insureds. (5) Powers of the kind proposed by the honourable member are provided for in sections 51, 115 and 115a of the Act. (6) As indicated in part (24) of my answer to Question No. 11 (Hansard 19 November 1985 page 3187), an examination is being made regarding the possible amendment of the Insurance Act to incorporate provisions concerned with oversighting the suitability of directors and owners of authorised insurers and associated matters. This examination, which also embraces the possibility of incorporating similar provisions in the Life Insurance Act, is nearing completion but there is a need to explore some aspects further with the Insurance Commissioner, the Life Insurance Commissioner and industry representatives. I am hopeful that this examination will be completed shortly. (Question No. 3842) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 May 1985: (1) When may I expect answers to my questions nos. 1856 and 2938 placed on notice on 17 September and 29 November 1985, respectively. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The answer to Question No. 1856 was published in Hansard on 19 September 1986 at page 1105. The answer to Question 2938 was lodged for tabling with the Bills and Papers Office on 22 December 1986 for inclusion in Hansard when publication resumes. (Question No. 3847) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to (a) the substantial evidence which suggests that at the present rate of maintenance and replacement, the infrastructure and fabric of cities such as sewerage, pipelines and underwater structures, developed during the last century or so in Europe and North America are deteriorating faster than they are being repaired or renewed and (b) estimates, that urgent renovation or replacement is needed for 7 000 miles of United Kingdom sewerage over 120 years old and substantial attention should be given to the 20 000 miles that are around 100 years old. (2) What is the extent and rate of decay of such infrastructure in Australian cities. (3) Is any long term planning taking place within Commonwealth, State or local authorities concerning the need for progressive replacement and repair of such infrastructure within Australia. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) Yes. (2) Some findings of limited research into the situation in Australian cities was provided at the National Infrastructure Conference held in Canberra in October 1985. Some further research is currently being undertaken by the CSIRO into the extent of the problem. However, more research needs to be carried out by all levels of government in Australia as comprehensive information on the extent and rate of decay of infrastructure in Australian cities is not available. It might be noted that the infrastructure (especially hydraulic systems) of some Australian cities is of equivalent age to those in Europe and North America. For example the water supply system of Melbourne was installed at a similar time to that for London. (3) At the 1985 Local Government Ministers' Conference it was agreed to establish a Task Force to examine the maintenance of infrastructure under the control of Local Government. The Task Force is chaired by a representative of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations and includes officers of the Local Government and Regional Development Division of my Department, the Department of Housing and Construction and the Institute of Local Government Engineers. The Task Force is required to report on the extent of information available on the deterioration of engineering infrastructure under the control of Local Government and to recommend what further action, if any, might be undertaken in this area. The Task Force is expected to complete its work and two reports by February/March 1987. As the honourable member is aware, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure announced in May last year that a sub-committee was to be appointed to inquire into Infrastructure in Australia. I understand that the sub-committee will be reporting its findings later this financial year. The 1986 Local government Ministers' Conference has agreed that the two reports to be prepared by the Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force should be made available to the House of Representatives' Inquiry. (Question No. 3869) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) What explanation did Senator Walsh give to the Senate in answer to question No. 990 that is relevant to the matters raised in my questions Nos. 1879, 2227 and 2283 and my question without notice (Hansard, 27 November 1985, page 3774). (2) Was he mistaken in referring to question No. 990; if so, was he intending to refer to question No. 900 answered on 4 September 1984. (3) Did question No. 900 seek information on the evasion of sales tax on motor vehicles through exemptions available to charities. (4) Did the question also seek information on departmental investigations, prosecutions, loss of revenue and the provision of information to the N.S.W. Government; if so, did he provide information concerning such investigations, the absence of prosecutions, the loss of revenue and details of co-operation with the N.S.W. State Police. (5) If an answer was provided in general terms to question No. 900, without divulging particulars of the affairs of an individual, corporation or organisation, why is he unable to provide replies, similarly in general terms, to the questions referred to in part (1). Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) None. (2) Yes; yes. (3) Yes. (4) Yes; yes. (5) As explained in my answers to questions Nos. 1879, 2227 and 2283 and the honourable member's question without notice of 27 November 1985, the secrecy provisions of the sales tax law preclude the Commissioner of Taxation from supplying specific information relating to the affairs of any individual or organisation. Questions Nos. 2227 and 2283 and the question without notice concerned the affairs of a specific organisation. I am therefore unable to reply to those questions in general terms. (Question No. 3901) Mr Wright asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to claims by the Queensland Government that the federal Government should subsidise interest rates on existing home mortgages with building societies. (2) What control does the federal Government have over the interest rates charged by building societies in Australia. (3) What control do State Governments have over building society interest rates. (4) What has been the growth in building society deposits in each of the last 5 years. (5) What tax are building societies required to pay on profits made. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) None. (3) I refer the honourable member to my reply to a similar question asked by the honourable member for Fraser (Question No. 3785), which was published at page 3186 of Hansard on 14 November 1986. (4) The estimated 12-months-to rate of growth of building society deposits (borrowings from residents excluding related corporations) over the last five financial years is as follows: June 1982-10.5% June 1983-12.0% June 1984-16.3% June 1985-3.9%; (15.8%) June 1986-8.0%; (12.6%) The figures in brackets are the estimated growth rates calculated on a constant population of societies-that is, after adjustment for the conversion of N.S.W. Building Society Limited to Advance Bank Australia Limited from 1 June 1985; National Mutual Permanent Building Society to National Mutual Royal Savings Bank Limited from 26 February 1986; and Civic Co-operative Permanent Building Society Limited to Civic Advance Bank Limited from 1 June 1986. (5) Building societies taxable income is subject to tax at the company tax rate on the same basis as other companies except to the extent that they meet the relevant tests in the Income Tax Assessment Act for treatment as a co-operative, in which case a co-operative society can deduct from its assessable income distributions to shareholders that are rebates or bonuses based on business done with shareholders and any dividends paid to shareholders on non-withdrawable share capital. (Question No. 3015) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What is the increase in real terms 1985-86 of expenditure on (a) culture and (b) arts in 1985-86 as compared with 1982-83. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) The following table indicates the increase in expenditure on arts and culture from 1982-83 to 1985-86. GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF CULTURAL ORGANISATIONS TOTAL COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY APPROPRIATIONS Units $m 1982-83 1985-86 Percentage increases 1982-83 to 1985-86 Australia Council... 33.60 48.75 (1)...45.09 National Library of Australia... 20.27 30.48 (2)...50.37 Australian Film Commission... 12.03 20.20 67.91 Australian National Gallery... 18.10 14.88 -18.22 Australian Archives... 10.20 15.65 53.43 Australian Film Television and Radio School... 5.87 8.66 47.53 Public Lending Right Scheme... 1.33 1.84 38.35 National Film and Sound Archive... -(3) 3.46 170.31 Australan Heritage Commission... .76 1.59 109.21 National Institute of Dramatic Art... .97 1.50 54.64 National Museum of Australia... .63 3.60 471.42 Australian Childrens Television Foundation... .50 .50 0.0 Artbank... .43 .70 62.79 National Maritime Museum... - 2.90 new 104.69 154.71 47.78 From this it can clearly be seen that each cultural authority has received funding well in excess of what would have been required to retain its financial position in real terms, with the exception of the Australian National Gallery. The Gallery was a special case in 1982-83 as that was its year of opening and it received a special allocation of $4.85 million for furniture and display equipment. (1) This figure includes a `once off' special cash injection of $1.737m for supplementary funding to The Australian Opera. (2) The 1985-86 allocation to the National Library of Australia comprised $27.188m for running costs and $3.295 for fire restoration funds. (3) Funding for the National Film and Sound Archive, as a separate entity from the National Library of Australia commenced in 1983-84. In that year the Archive received $1.28m. (Question No. 3027) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What specific programs are there within his Department intended or designed to achieve co-operation with State, Territory and local governments to facilitate the showing of works of art and craft throughout Australia. (2) What sums were provided under the programs in 1984-85. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Within the Arts, Heritage and Environment portfolio there are a number of programs which facilitate the showing of works of art and craft throughout Australia and which involve co-operation with State, Territory and local governments. The Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment administers a scheme whereby exhibitions of cultural property valued at greater than $2 million may be approved for Commonwealth indemnity against loss or damage. The purpose of the scheme is to ensure that the Australian public has opportunity to see major international and Australian touring art exhibitions which would not be possible without indemnity, because of the prohibitive costs of insurance. The International Cultural Corporation of Australia and the Australian National Gallery are approved managing organisations for these exhibitions, many of which are initiated by State Art Galleries. The exhibitions are shown in at least two States. The total value of the seven exhibitions of cultural property indemnified by the Commonwealth during 1984-85 was $254,353,029. However, there was no expenditure by the Commonwealth for claims under the indemnity scheme in 1984-85. The Australia Council provides a coordinated network of support for exhibitions at regional and State levels through the National Exhibitions Touring Support Program (NETS). There are three interdependent components of the scheme: (i) State and regional based exhibition development, including the coordination and facilitation of intra State touring, (ii) National communication of exhibition practices and broad based professional development and (iii) National management, coordination and facilitation of interstate exhibition touring. The Council allocated $87,454 towards the development of NETS in 1984-85. In addition, the Crafts and Visual Arts Boards, and to a lesser extent the Aboriginal Arts, Design Arts and Community Arts Boards of the Australia Council operate a number of programs to facilitate the showing of works of arts and craft throughout Australia. Such programs may include exhibitions, acquisitions of art works and craft demonstrations and are intended to meet perceived needs and/or complement existing programs. The Australia Council also provides funds to the Arts Council of Australia and the Crafts Council of Australia, for many purposes, some of which encourage the showing of art and craft works at a regional, State and Territorial level. It is not feasible to identify specific sums provided in 1984-85 through the Australia Council for these co-operative exhibition programs. The Australian National Gallery lends works of art to art museums and other institutions (including State and regional galleries) in all States and Territories. In 1984-85, 383 works were lent to 33 institutions to enhance their exhibitions and to enable the Australian National Gallery collection to reach a wider public throughout Australia. Two travelling exhibitions were organised for 1985 and three were organised in 1986. Under the Gallery's loans program all costs are borne by the borrower. The National Library of Australia, as part of its Exhibitions program, lends works including paintings, works on paper and photographs for exhibition by State, Territory and local organisations such as libraries, art galleries and museums. On occasions, the Library also borrows material for exhibitions displayed at the Library. The costs of individual loans under the Library's Exhibitions Program are negotiated on a one-off basis. It is not possible to identify the exact cost to the Library of the various components of its Exhibitions Program for 1984-85. Looking to the future, the newly established National Maritime Museum will also work with State, Territory and local government collecting institutions in its task of developing policies, collections and facilities which will adequately preserve, record and display all aspects of Australia's mercantile and naval history, as well as the life of Australians on its shores and waterways. (Question No. 3137) Mr Langmore asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) What statistical collections or other sources of information are available on the extent of crime involving the use of credit, cash and other plastic cards. (2) What does the information show about the incidence of credit and cash card crime. (3) How is such crime classified and what is the incidence of each type. (4) What methods are being used to prevent or discourage credit and cash card crime. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Federal Police (AFP), is as follows: (1)-(3) Statistics on crime involving the use of credit, cash and other plastic cards are not available as all offences involving abuse of such cards are categorised as theft. (4) Most credit card fraud results from the theft of credit cards. In this instance, the only preventative method is to increase the awareness of the community towards the security of such cards. I am advised that in the ACT the AFP endeavours to do this through the media (e.g. the Police column in The Canberra Times) and through addresses to groups and professional and community organisations. In the course of inquiries into credit card theft from letter boxes, the AFP has informally suggested to financial institutions that prospective cardholders be required to attend the institution, produce adequate identification and sign for receipt of the card. The AFP has also suggested to banks, building societies and credit unions that they: (1) not allow withdrawals of uncleared funds through Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs); (2) require adequate identification before opening accounts; and (3) not allow withdrawals from ATMs which overdraw the accounts. The honourable member will appreciate, however, that decisions regarding the adoption of these measures ultimately rest with the financial institutions themselves. Further, the Government recently endorsed the new procedures recommended by the Working Group Examining the Rights and Obligations of the Users and Providers of Electronic Funds Transfer Systems. These voluntary procedures, which are aimed at protecting the users of ATMs, have the support of major bank and non-bank financial institutions in Australia. The Working Group will monitor the implementation of these procedures and will advise the Government whether more formal arrangements, including legislation, would be warranted. (Question No. 3160) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Further to his answer to parts 16 and 17 of my question No. 11 (Hansard, 19 November 1985, pages 3186-9), has the Government, in the course of reviewing the Insurance Act decided whether to increase public disclosure of financial information of an insurer's solvency, and in particular to do so by requiring the publication of form 4. (2) Further to his answer to parts 24 and 27, when will he propose amendments to the Insurance Act to incorporate provisions concerned with oversighting the suitability of directors and owners of authorised insurers. (3) Further to his answers to parts 59 and 60, when will legislation be introduced to give priority to those insured who have suffered an insured loss and whose claims have not been paid in the event of the winding up of the insurance company concerned. (4) Further to his answer to part 62, what decision has the Government taken on my proposal that the responsibilities of both the Life and Insurance Commissioners be amalgamated in one office. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As indicated in parts (16) and (17) of my answer to Question No. 11, the Government is sympathetic to the idea of increased disclosure in this area. However, the publication of Form 4 in its existing format could convey a misleading impression of an insurer's solvency. This derives from that fact that the solvency calculation included in that return is based on the insurer's assessment of the relevant assets and liabilities which does not always accord with that made by the Insurance Commissioner. The Government will be considering measures for increased disclosure with industry representatives. (2) The examination referred to in part (24) of my answer to Question 11 is nearing completion. There are, however, some issues concerning possible approaches to fit and proper persons tests for directors and owners of authorised insurance companies that will need to be explored further with the Insurance Commissioner, the Life Insurance Commissioner and industry representatives. It is my intention, however, that these processes be concluded very soon. (3) It is envisaged that this matter will be considered in the context of assessing the Australian Law Reform Commission's final report on its general insolvency reference, which is expected to be available late in 1987. (4) The honourable member will be aware that, as announced on 11 June 1986, the Government is proceeding with arrangements for the existing life insurance and general insurance regulatory functions, as well as the proposed new superannuation regulatory functions and the functions of the Australian Government Actuary, to be brought together in one office under the control of a new statutory position to be known as the Principal Commissioner for Insurance and Superannuation. (Question No. 3210) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 February 1986: (1) How many agencies were invited to submit proposals for research into the Australia Card. (2) What were the names of the agencies. (3) Were less than 2 agencies approached, if so, (a) is this below the minimum required and (b) why. (4) Did Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls (ANOP) submit a written proposal. (5) Why was ANOP chosen apart from the fact that it had worked for the Government on previous occasions. (6) What was the fee agreed to in the contract. (7) Did it differ from the final cost; if so, (a) by what amount and (b) why. (8) Who authorised the contract. (9) What was the sample size of the survey. (10) When will the final report be tabled in Parliament. (11) What questions did the survey ask. (12) Will he supply me with a copy of the report. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) One. (2) ANOP. (3) (a) No. The Health Insurance Commission's Accounting Policy and Procedures state that Research projects in excess of $20,000 are subject to tender unless other relevant factors make tendering inappropriate. (b) In this instance: (i) ANOP had already conducted qualitative research into community attitudes to the introduction of a national identity system in July 1985; and (ii) the timing of the proposed research coincided with an existing research project affording significant cost savings as compared with conducting it as a free standing project. (4) The Health Insurance Commission provided a brief of the question areas it wished included in the research, with particular emphasis on those matters affecting its operational strategies. These were discussed and agreed with ANOP, the Commission and representatives of the Department of Health, Australia Card Secretariat. A written quotation was obtained. (5) See answer to part (3). (6) $22,000. (7) No. (8) The General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission. (9) A statistically representative sample of 2,000 adults (aged 18 years and over). The interviews were face-to-face, in-home, with the sample representing all States, capital cities, provincial and rural areas in proper population proportions. (10), (11), (12) It is not my intention to have the report tabled in the Parliament. The report, in its entirety, has been included at Attachment D to the Government Submission to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, and copies of this Submission were distributed to all members during the second week in February 1986. (Question No. 4583) Mr Mildren asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) What was the total Grants Commission allocation to the (a) City of Ararat, (b) Shire of Ararat, (c) City of Ballarat, (d) Shire of Ballarat, (e) Shire of Bungaree, (f) Shire of Buninyong, (g) Shire of Creswick, (h) Shire of Grenville, (i) Shire of Hampden, (j) Shire of Leigh, (k) Shire of Lexton, (l) Shire of Mortlake, (m) Shire of Ripon, (n) Borough of Sebastopol and (o) Shire of Talbot and Clunes for each of the years 1979-80 to 1986-87. (2) What was the annual change in real terms of the allocations for each year. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Table 1 provides the required information on allocations by the Victoria Grants Commission of General Revenue Assistance Grants to the Local Government Authorities specified in Mr Mildren's question, for each of the years 1979-80 to 1986-87. For comparison it also includes total General Revenue Assistance Grants provided to Victoria under the Commonwealth legislation. (2) Table 2 shows the annual percentage changes in the grants expressed in real terms. Table 1 GRANTS COMMISSION (GENERAL REVENUE ASSISTANCE) GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES IN THE ELECTORATE OF BALLARAT ($'000) (in current prices) Councils 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 Ararat C ... 230 310 351 430 453 440 473 510 Ararat S ... 225 312 357 459 458 483 518 527 Ballarat C ... 666 906 1,021 1,274 1,398 1,492 1,663 1,807 Ballarat S ... 400 525 586 674 695 730 820 900 Bungaree S ... 98 130 145 160 168 165 174 183 Buninyong S ... 206 290 343 406 436 450 511 562 Creswick S ... 116 165 208 260 288 310 351 380 Grenville S ... 103 146 176 206 222 235 268 300 Hampden S ... 215 297 349 441 468 491 526 555 Leigh S ... 61 91 107 128 132 142 153 160 Lexton S ... 35 48 60 74 80 88 96 96 Mortlake S ... 110 161 192 238 244 285 265 285 Ripon S ... 102 148 178 225 244 260 280 302 Sebastopol B ... 154 202 238 270 282 300 337 376 Talbot & Clunes S ... 78 112 134 170 182 201 222 259 TOTAL: ... 2,799 3,843 4,445 5,415 5,750 6,072 6,657 7,202 TOTAL VICTORIA: ... 56,436 76,554 89,300 108,037 116,907 123,829 136,410 147,664 Table 2 GRANTS COMMISSION (GENERAL REVENUE ASSISTANCE) GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES IN THE ELECTORATE OF BALLARAT ($'000) (in 1980/81 prices) Councils % Change 1979-80 to 1980-81 1980-81 to 1981-82 1981-82 to 1982-83 1982-83 to 1983-84 1983-84 to 1984-85 1984-85 to 1985-86 1985-86 to 1986-87 Ararat C ... 23.2 2.6 9.9 -1.5 -6.8 -0.8 -0.2 Ararat S ... 26.7 3.6 15.3 -6.7 1.2 -1.0 -5.8 Ballarat C ... 24.3 2.1 11.9 2.6 2.4 2.8 0.6 Ballarat S ... 20.0 1.1 3.2 -3.5 0.7 3.6 1.6 Bungaree S ... 21.2 1.0 -1.0 -1.8 -5.8 -2.7 -2.6 Buninyong S ... 28.7 7.1 6.2 0.5 -1.0 4.8 1.8 Creswick S ... 30.0 14.2 12.1 3.6 3.2 4.5 0.2 Grenville S ... 29.6 9.2 5.0 0.8 1.5 5.2 3.6 Hampden S ... 26.3 6.4 13.3 -0.7 0.6 -1.2 -2.3 Leigh S ... 36.4 6.5 7.3 -3.5 3.2 -0.6 -3.2 Lexton S ... 25.3 13.2 10.6 1.1 5.5 0.7 -7.4 Mortlake S ... 33.7 8.1 11.2 -4.1 12.0 -14.2 -0.4 Ripon S ... 32.6 8.9 13.4 1.4 2.2 -0.6 -0.1 Sebastopol B ... 19.9 6.7 1.7 -2.3 2.0 3.6 3.3 Talbot & Clunes S ... 31.2 8.4 13.8 0.1 5.9 1.9 8.0 TOTAL: ... 25.5 4.8 9.3 -0.7 1.3 1.2 0.2 TOTAL VICTORIA: ... 24.0 5.7 8.5 1.2 1.6 1.6 0.2 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 Deflator (a) ... 0.914 1.000 1.104 1.231 1.316 1.372 1.487 (b) 1.606 (a) Deflator applied to Table 1 to derive these figures was the Consumer Price Index. All Groups, Eight Capitals (A.B.S. Cat. No. 6401.0) (b) Estimated. (Question No. 4644) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: (1) What is the estimated annual costs per pensioner of (a) hospital services, (b) medical services, (c) pharmaceutical services, (d) nursing home subsidies and (e) administrative and other costs provided to age pensioners in Australia aged (i) 60-65, (ii) 66-70, (iii) 71-75 and (iv) over 76 years. (2) Are costs reduced in the case of pensioners living overseas. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The data sources generally do not enable the attribution of health costs to age pensioners, but most allow costs to be attributed to persons of age pension age (65 and over for men, 60 and over for women). I have therefore provided data for persons of age pension age. Approximately two thirds of persons of age pension age receive an age pension. POPULATION OF AGE PENSION AGE AND AGE PENSIONERS 30 JUNE 1986 Sex/Age Groups Total Resident Population (a) ('000) Age Pensioners (b) Number ('000) Proportion of Population Males 65+... 699.9 407.4 0.58 Females 60+... 1330.1 905.3 0.68 Total... 2030.0 1312.7 0.65 (a) Based on projections by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (b) Excluding pensioners paid overseas. (1) Estimated Annual Costs per Pensioner (a) Hospital Services: Under the Medicare agreements with the States, the Commonwealth provides funding for public hospitals. No data on the cost of providing hospital services to pensioners are collected by the Commonwealth. Some information on Commonwealth payments for private hospital patients of age pension age (but not necessarily pensioners) is available from the Private Hospital Bed-day Subsidy Scheme. Under this scheme, which ceased from 1 October 1986, the Commonwealth paid private hospitals a subsidy of $20, $30 or $40 a day, depending on the category of hospital, for each patient occupying a bed. Details of bed day subsidy payments in 1985/86 are as follows: PRIVATE HOSPITAL PATIENTS AND COMMONWEALTH SUBSIDY PAYMENTS, AUSTRALIA 1985/86 Age Group Number of Episodes of Patients of Age Pension Age ('000) Males Females Subsidy Payments ($m) Males Females 60-64... n.a. 21.1 n.a. 5.1 65-69... 18.7 19.6 4.5 5.5 70-74... 16.8 20.3 4.5 6.6 75+... 26.1 49.1 9.4 24.0 Total... 61.6 110.2 18.5 41.3 (b) Medical Services: Information on medical services for which a Medicare benefit has been paid for persons of age pension age (but not necessarily pensioners) is set out below. The data excludes services rendered to Medicare patients by salaried or sessional practitioners in public hospitals and services relating to compensation claims. NUMBER OF SERVICES AND MEDICARE BENEFIT PAID, AUSTRALIA 1985/86 Age Group Males Services Rendered ('000) Benefits Paid ('000) Females Services Rendered ('000) Benefits Paid ('000) 60-64... n.a. n.a. 4,315 93,331 65-69... 2,530 59,894 4,058 86,321 70-74... 2,536 57,788 4,012 83,805 75+... 3,644 79,485 7,369 148,775 Total... 8,711 197,167 19,754 412,232 (c) Pharmaceutical Services: During 1985/86 the annual cost of providing pharmaceutical benefits under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme was $175.40 per eligible pensioner. Eligible pensioners are categorised as holders of Pensioner Health Benefits cards or Health Benefits cards and their dependents. Included are age, widows, invalid and supporting parent pensioners as well as sickness beneficiaries. Details of age groupings are not available. (d) Nursing Home Subsidies: The Commonwealth provides assistance to nursing homes and patients under the National Health Act and the Nursing Homes Assistance Act. Total recurrent outlays for 1985/86 were $1010 million of which an estimated $915 million was attributable to residents of age pension age. Estimates of the average number of residents of age pension age and subsidies paid for 1985/86 are set out below. NURSING HOME RESIDENTS AND COMMONWEALTH SUBSIDIES PAID, AUSTRALIA 1985/86 Age group Estimated Average No. of Residents of Age Pension Age ('000) Males Females Estimated Subsidies ($m) Males Females 60-64... n.a. 1.0 n.a. 14.5 65-69... 1.5 1.8 21.6 25.1 70-74... 2.5 3.6 34.5 50.9 75+... 11.8 43.3 164.9 603.6 Total... 15.8 49.8 220.9 694.1 (e) Administrative and other Costs: Holders of Pensioner Health Benefits (PHB) cards are entitled to various concessions for services provided by Commonwealth, State and local Government agencies. My Department has no information available on the costs of providing such concessions or other administrative costs related to age pensioners. (2) Pensioners Living Overseas Medical Services: Pensioners and any other Australian citizens living overseas are eligible for Medicare (medical only) benefits provided they are considered to be Australian residents. The definition of `Australian resident' for Medicare purposes includes those persons who are overseas for up to two years. In certain circumstances, this period can be extended by one year, making a total of three years, but generally, someone who stays outside Australia for more than two years is not regarded as an Australian resident unless there is clear evidence of intention to return. A pensioner who does not satisfy the Australian resident criteria is not eligible for Medicare benefits. Pharmaceutical Services: Pharmaceutical benefits are only available to persons (including pensioners) receiving medical treatment in Australia. Pension Payments: Of the 1,324,600 persons receiving age pensions at 30 June 1986, 11,900 reside overseas. The same eligibility criteria apply to age pensioners living overseas as in Australia. (Question No. 4651) Mr Ruddock asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: Further to question No. 2501 placed on notice on 18 November 1985- (a) Have more than 10 months passed since the question was first placed on notice, (b) Have 26 Ministers already replied to a similar question, (c) When can I expect an answer to this question, and (d) What does this delay say about the efficiency of the internal reporting system in his Department. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The reply to Question No. 2501 was published on 15 October 1986 (Hansard, page 2107). I am informed by my Department that the delay arose out of the need to consult various Branches of the Department and Statutory Authorities for details. (Question No. 4655) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: Further to Question No. 3676 placed on notice on 8 April 1986 (a) have more than 5 months passed since the question was first placed on notice, (b) when can I expect an answer to the question and (c) what does this delay say about the efficiency of the internal reporting system in his Department. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The reply to Question No. 3676 appears in this Hansard. (Question No. 4656) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: Further to Question No. 3869 placed on notice on 1 May 1986 (a) have more than 4 months passed since the question was first placed on notice, (b) when can I expect an answer to the question and (c) what does this delay say about the efficiency of the internal reporting system in his Department. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Yes (b) & (c) The honourable member's question upon notice of 1 May 1986 was inadvertently overlooked as it referred to questions that had been replied to on 4 September 1984 and 10 April 1986. It came to attention when Question No. 4656 was placed on notice. I apologise to the honourable member and refer him to the answer to question No. 3869. (Question No. 4665) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice on 22 September 1986: Will he respond to the matters raised by me in the adjournment debate in the House of Representatives on 29 May 1986 (Hansard, 29 May 1986, page 4304) relating to serious allegations of sales tax avoidance; if so, when. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The matters raised by the honourable member in the adjournment debate on 29 May 1986 relating to allegations of sales tax avoidance centre on an isolated instance involving a single official of one charity. As the honourable member is aware, the secrecy provisions in the sales tax legislation preclude the Commissioner of Taxation from supplying specific information regarding the affairs of any person or organisation. I am therefore unable to respond to the honourable member's specific questions regarding this charity. In respect of the more general matters raised, the honourable member referred to the establishment of a prima facie case that serious breaches of the sales tax law occurred in this matter. As I understand it, the proceedings in the New South Wales courts did not canvass the question of breaches of the Commonwealth sales tax law. As I indicated earlier, this case was an isolated instance and the Commissioner has advised that there is no evidence to suggest that the fraudulent practices allegedly employed in this area have been used elsewhere. The Taxation Office has in place extensive procedures to safeguard the revenue where exemption from sales tax on motor vehicles is sought. The Commissioner also advised that breaches of the law of this type are ordinarily referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice on possible prosecution action. (Question No. 4666) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) Will he respond to the matters raised by me in the adjournment debate in the House of Representatives on 29 May 1986 (Hansard, 29 May 1986, page 4304) relating to the Parramatta Police Citizens Boys' Club. (2) Did he inform the House, on 21 September 1983, that he was a director of the club at the time it purchased and resold motor vehicles. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) On 21 September 1983 I inadvertently referred to myself as a director of Parramatta Police Citizens Boys' Club, however, my position in the Club has always been Patron. At no time have I been a director of the Club. (Question No. 4679) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 24 September 1986: (1) How many instances of alleged or suspected immigration malpractice were (a) received and (b) investigated by his Department in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86. (2) How many prosecutions resulted in each of the years. (3) What factors determine the priority for investigating instances of malpractice that are received by his Department. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Details about immigration malpractice, including statistics, are provided in my Department's annual report, for example on page 49 of Review '84 and pages 87 and 88 of Review '85. The following answers relate to the honourable member's specific questions. (1) and (2) The number of allegations of suspected malpractice received by my Department is not recorded. The available statistics exclude those instances in which preliminary analysis reveals that an allegation is based on mere speculation, supposition or is otherwise unfounded. Allegations from different sources sometimes point to the same incident or suspected racket. The available statistics therefore relate to the number of matters accepted for investigation and in respect of which investigations have been initiated. The relevant figures are: 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Investigations initiated ... 65 117 132 Investigations completed ... 108 109 134 Persons prosecuted ... 12 37 44 (3) All allegations or suspicions that staff or other officials are involved in corrupt practices connected with immigration matters are investigated, where appropriate, in conjunction with Police. The factors which determine priorities for investigating other immigration malpractice are: whether it appears that there is some degree of organisation or profiteering; whether it is likely that a substantial number of people are abusing immigration policies, procedures and rules; whether there is a threat to the integrity of or the orderly management of Australia's immigration program and large scale visitor intake; and whether there are special circumstances which warrant investigation, possibly in conjunction with other agencies e.g. possible association with organised criminal activity. (Question No. 4684) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 24 September 1986: (1) What is the estimated cost to his Department of the fringe benefits tax. (2) What fringe benefits are provided by his Department and which officers of his Department receive them. (3) How is the value of each of these fringe benefits calculated for tax purposes. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The estimated fringe benefits tax liability by the Department of Aviation in 1986-87 is $3.380m. This estimate is being reviewed in light of the changes recently announced by the Treasurer and rulings issued by the Australian Taxation Office on the interpretation of the relevant legislation. (2) Officers in various occupational categories receive fringe benefits. Records are not maintained on a basis which will enable easy identification of individual staff in receipt of fringe benefits. The total number of staff for which fringe benefits is to be paid in 1986-87 was originally estimated at 4750 and include: (a) Housing provided to departmental officers in both designated remote and non-remote localities (b) Return air travel on an annual basis for employees and their families in designated remote localities (c) Use of Commonwealth cars by Senior Officers for private purposes, in circumstances where suitable garaging facilities are not available at the office location and by staff who, by the nature of their employment, may be required to attend emergency situations (d) Those costs met by the Department for telephones in private residences, of certain departmental officers (e) Loss of licence insurance paid by the Department for air traffic control categories (f) That portion of the cost of official entertainment/hospitality that can be attributed to departmental officers (g) Cost of providing subsidised electricity (air-conditioning) to departmental houses in non-remote localities (h) Cost of providing spouse-accompanied travel for officers of the SES who are allowed one domestic spouse accompanied trip per year. In addition SES officers are, under certain circumstances, eligible for overseas spouse accompanied travel. (3) The estimated value of each of the fringe benefits provided by the Department of Aviation will be calculated in accordance with the Fringe Benefits legislation and rulings as issued by the Australian Taxation Office and Public Service Board on interpretation of the legislation. (Question No. 4686) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: Did he calculate the cost of a compulsory work for unemployment benefits scheme at $700 million; if so, what are the details and basis for the (a) Commonwealth contribution of $20 per placement in such a scheme, (b) $7.50 travel allowance and (c) CES staffing and administrative costs. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The calculation of the cost of a compulsory work for unemployment benefits scheme was carried out by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. (a) The Commonwealth contribution of $20 per placement per week was considered to be a conservative estimate of costs incurred in maintaining placements on the basis of the cost of placements in a similar but voluntary scheme in Canada where the cost of such provision is $C25 per placement per week (around $A30). The cost per placement per week in the Volunteer Youth Program (VYP) is around $30. (b) The basis for the average $7.50 travel allowance estimate is the current provision under the VYP of travel reimbursement of up to $15 per week. In light of this maximum level, a $7.50 average is not considered unreasonable. (c) Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) staffing and administration costs are based entirely on the standard CES Staffing Formula allowing for normal CES activity to fill the required number of positions. (Question No. 4688) Ms McHugh asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) What was the (a) number of person hours involved in and (b) cost of outside contract surveying and drafting services used by his Department and instrumentalities responsible to him in (i) 1984-85 (ii) 1985-86 and (iii) 1986 to date, including work contracted out to the Australian Survey Office and the Department of Housing and Construction. (2) Are there any instances where surveying or drafting requirements have not been satisfied due to limitation on the resources of (a) his Department or instrumentalities responsible to him, (b) the Australian Survey Office or (c) the Department of Housing and Construction, if so, what are they? Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) (i) 33,368; (ii) 23,580; (iii) 6,233 (Note 1). (b) (i) $616,448; (ii) $388,121; (iii) $114,772 (Note 1). (2) (a) No. (b) The Australian Survey Office is responsible for the staffing and funding of its surveying services. (c) The Department of Housing and Construction is responsible for the staffing and funding of its drafting services. Notes: 1. Information for FY 1986 covers 1 July-30 September inclusive. 2. Support costs associated with contracting of some surveying tasks eg aircraft lease costs are not included. (Question No. 4692) Ms McHugh asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) What was the (a) number of person hours involved in and (b) cost of outside contract surveying and drafting services used by his Department and instrumentalities responsible to him in (i) 1984-85, (ii) 1985-86 and (iii) 1986 to date, including work contracted out to the Australian Survey Office and the Department of Housing and Construction. (2) Are there any instances where surveying or drafting requirements have not been satisfied due to limitations on the resources of (a) his Department or instrumentalities responsible to him, (b) the Australian Survey Office or (c) the Department of Housing and Construction; if so, what are they. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The information requested concerning different areas within my portfolio which have used surveying and drafting services of the Australian Survey Office, the Department of Housing and Construction or outside contractors is as follows: Transport and Works Division ACT Water Supply and Sewerage (Transferred to Territories from Department of Housing and Construction on 12 December 1985): 1 (a) (i) NA; (ii) 8,540 hours from 12/12/85 to 30/6/86; (iii) 5,285 hours (to 1/10/86). (b) (i) NA; (ii) $127,900 from 12/12/85 to 30/6/86; (iii) $81,300 to (1/10/86). ACT Emergency Service (a) (i) 120 hours; (ii) 80 hours; (iii) Nil. (b) (i) $5,500; (ii) $3,500; (iii) Nil. Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island (a) (i) 500 hours; (ii) 500 hours; (iii) 32 hours (to 30/10/86). (b) (i) $10,946; (ii) $21,026; (iii) $13,517 (to 30/10/86). Note: the mismatch between hours and dollars arises because payments are not made immediately. ACT Cemeteries Trust (a) (i) Nil; (ii) 65 hours; (iii) Nil. (b) (i) Nil; (ii) $1,948; (iii) Nil. National Capital Development Commission (a) (i) 22,328 hours; (ii) 57,201 hours; (iii) 14,224 hours (to 30/9/86). (b) (i) $401,906; (ii) $1,029,637; (iii) $256,048 (to 30/9/86). ACT Electricity Authority (a) (i) 5,952 hours; (ii) 8,537 hours; (iii) 2,056 hours (to 30/9/86). (b) (i) $75,523.75; (ii) $117,864.16; (iii) $24,491.07 (to 30/9/86). 2 (a) No. (b) The Australian Survey Office is responsible for the staffing and funding of its surveying services. (c) The Department of Housing and Construction is responsible for the staffing and funding of its drafting services. The cost of answering this question is estimated at $930. (Question No. 4699) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) Can he advise on the progress of the domestic processes for ratification of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (2) When does he anticipate ratification of the Covenant will take place. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The question of ratification has been discussed with the States and the Northern Territory in the Meeting of Ministers on Human Rights. Agreement has not yet been reached and the question is still under consideration. (2) I am not yet in a position to indicate when ratification of the Optional Protocol might take place. The Covenant itself was ratified on 13 August 1980. (Question No. 4703) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: Is a building being constructed adjacent to the Little Forrest Burial Ground of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) at Lucas Heights; if so, (a) to what use will it be put, (b) does it have any use related to a sanitation unit for the AAEC, (c) what is its size, (d) will there be any discharge from it, (e) how far from residential housing is it being constructed, (f) was any approval sought for its construction from the Sutherland Shire Council, and (g) was the Sutherland Shire Council consulted in any way prior to its construction; if so, what was the nature of the consultation. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) and (b) A complex of buildings is being developed by the NSW Metropolitan Waste Disposal Authority (MWDA) over a kilometre away from the Little Forest Burial Ground as part of a regional landfill disposal depot which will replace the existing MWDA depot. A large portion of the development is on land owned by the Commonwealth inside the AAEC buffer zone and is subject to a lease arrangement issued by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services to the MWDA. The lease includes the following terms and conditions with regard to leachate and buildings: Leachate: Control and Disposal holding dams-etc. Disposal, storage, transportation, pumping and other ancillary facilities for maintaining full control of leachate to be the responsibility of lessee-leachate control during all phases of waste disposal on the Commonwealth lands will be subject to all State and AAEC conditions, and Local Government laws, by laws, rules or regulations and charges. Buildings: To comply to Sutherland Shire Council's standards, ordinances and/or regulations and to meet the approval of the Commonwealth which also reserves the rights to the retention or removal of the buildings at termination or cancellation of the lease. The AAEC has separately entered into an arrangement with MWDA which will provide the latter with easements for electricity, water and sewerage services across AAEC land. Under this arrangement, liquid effluents and leachate originating at the MWDA site will be fed into the AAEC's effluent system for discharge to the Metropolitan Water, Sewage and Drainage Board's (MWS&DB) sewer line. This arrangement will obviate the expense and environmental impact associated with the MWDA constructing a longer pipeline to connect with the MWS&DB sewer line at another point. (c)-(g) These are matters for the relevant State and local government authorities. (Question No. 4704) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a copy of a document entitled ``An Assessment of the Safety of the Nuclear Reactors HIFAR and MOATA, operating at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's Research Establishment at Lucas Heights'' prepared by the Lucas Heights Study Group for the Nuclear Free N.S.W. Coalition; if so, will the Minister ensure that a full investigation is made into the allegations and the results are made public. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: A copy of the Lucas Heights Study Group (LHSG) assessment has been forwarded to me both by the LHSG and by the honourable member himself. As most of the issues addressed in the assessment either have been dealt with in previous correspondence with the LHSG (for example, as I explained in a letter dated 14 July 1986 to the LHSG, the reflective layer of graphite in HIFAR is not subject to the conditions which could conceivably cause it to ignite as claimed by the statement on p2 of the assessment) or have been taken out of context from Australian Atomic Energy Commission publications, they do not raise genuine safety issues of a kind that would warrant further investigation. As I have pointed out on other occasions, both the Commission's reactors have operated with excellent safety records since being commissioned. (Question No. 4706) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) Is he aware that residents of the Electoral Division of Hughes have complained repeatedly about the noise pollution from Army shelling in the Holsworthy area; if so, what steps will be taken to eliminate noise pollution from this increasingly residential area. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There have been some complaints from residents in close proximity to the Holsworthy Range. The principal aim and objective of the Army in peace is the training of its members for war. Essential to this is the conduct of live firing practices. The Army acknowledges that live firing causes noise and vibration, the intensity of which is influenced by the weather, atmospheric conditions, ground structure and prevailing winds. Restrictions on timings when field firing can be conducted, which assist in the reduction of noise, are in force. The restrictions are as follows: (a) Monday to Saturday-7.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m.; and (b) Sunday and Public Holidays-9.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. Holsworthy Range is one of only two ranges in New South Wales where artillery live firing practices can currently be conducted. Live firing, for safety considerations, is normally conducted on Commonwealth owned land. For Army to fulfil its primary aim, there will be a continuing requirement to use the Holsworthy Range for field firing. Some noise will inevitably result from such training but unfortunately this cannot be avoided. (Question No. 4707) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a document entitled ``Western Australian Port Safety Scheme for the visits of Nucelar Powered Warships to Fremantle and Cockburn Sound''; if so, does paragraph 109 of that document provide a list of berths and anchorages evaluated by the Government as suitable for use by nuclear powered warships. (2) Does paragraph 110 state that anchorage D is cleared for use by nuclear powered warships with reactor power ratings above 100MW, i.e. NIMITZ class vessels; if so, (a) what basis exists for the assertion that the NIMITZ class has a reactor power rating in excess of 100MW, (b) who conducted the studies leading to this conclusion and (c) what sources were used to arrive at this conclusion. (3) Does Australia's ability to make reliable assessments of nuclear powered warship reactor outputs conflict with the US non-disclosure policy; if not, why not. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (a) The general characteristics of NIMITZ class vessels are well known-including dimensions, observed speed, displacement and the number of reactors. From these characteristics the minimum shaft horsepower of the vessel can be determined by a competent naval engineer. By making standard allowances for the energy efficiency of the propulsion system, and estimating the power requirements of ancilliary systems, a reasonable estimate can be made of the minimum power requirements of any naval vessel. In the case of NIMITZ class ships this is assessed as being in excess of 100MW (thermal) for each reactor. (b) The Australian Atomic Energy Commission in consultation with the Royal Australian Navy. (c) Unclassified technical literature together with standard principles of naval and nuclear reactor engineering. (3) No. See my answer to (2) (c) above. (Question No. 4711) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heri- tage and Environment, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: Further to Question No. 3010 (Hansard), 16 September 1986, page 613, does the Government have an action plan relating to each endangered species referred to in a publication by the Total Environment Centre entitled ``Our Wildlife in Peril''. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. The Total Environment Centre (TEC) publication to which reference is made lists a large number of species by conservation status categories similar to those used by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. These categories range from `very rare and believed to be decreasing in numbers' to `not endangered at present'. The preparation of individual action plans for each species would be a major undertaking. Conservationists now generally recognise that habitat protection is the key to species conservation. Prime responsibility for wildlife management in Australia rests with the Governments of the States and the Northern Territory. Where appropriate, liaison between the States and Territories and the Commonwealth on wildlife issues occurs through the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM). In 1974, CONCOM published an agreed national list of endangered vertebrate species, most of which are also included in the TEC publication. This list is updated periodically by a Working Group comprising research biologists from each State, Territory and the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth, through the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS), provides grants under the States Co-operative Assistance Program to State and Territory wildlife authorities for the development of co-operative nature conservation projects of national or international significance related to, amongst other things, wildlife which is rare, endangered or otherwise of national significance. One of the criteria on which ANPWS determines species-oriented research funding priorities is the inclusion of fauna on the agreed CONCOM list of endangered vertebrates. ANPWS is currently funding the following projects related to species appearing in the CONCOM and/or TEC publications: 1. Management of the Greater Stick-nest rat on Franklin Island-involves collation of population and habitat data for the rat and a feasibility study for re-establishing the rat in other localities. 2. Bettong conservation on Boodie Island-aims to eradicate introduced rats which threaten the Bettong's survival. 3. Orange-bellied Parrot Recovery Plan, Stage 2-continues work with Tasmanian, Victorian and South Australian wildlife authorities on the implementation of measures contained in the Recovery Plan designed to protect the species and its habitat and establish sound management principles for key locations. 4. Management of the Mountain Pygmy Possum, Stage 2-involves collating population and habitat data and preparing a management plan for the species. 5. Dugong status in Western Australia-involves an assessment of the relative abundance and seasonal changes in distribution of dugong in the Dampier region, the impact of hunting and the relative importance of seagrass communities to the species. 6. Superb Parrot Study-investigates the habitat requirements of the Superb Parrot with particular emphasis on breeding habitat, food sources and factors responsible for reproductive success. 7. Conservation of the Northern Nailtail Wallaby and Spectacled Hare-wallaby, Stage 2-aims to document the distribution and abundance of the two species and investigate their feeding requirements and factors having a detrimental impact in order to prepare guidelines for effective management action. 8. Conservation of the Forty-spotted Pardalote-involves investigations into the ecological requirement of the species with the aim of preparing recommendations on habitat management. 9. Ecology and conservation of the Long-footed Potoroo-aims to improve the understanding of the distribution and ecology of the species so that appropriate management strategies can be implemented. 10. Conservation of Marine Turtles-aims to increase understanding of the patterns of movement of turtles in Western Australia, assess the impact of harvesting and make recommendations for conservation management. 11. Ecology of the Ground Parrot in Relation to Fire Regimes, Stage 2-aims to study the effects of fire regimes on the feeding and breeding biology of the species by monitoring marked birds and eventually deriving management prescriptions for the conservation of the Ground Parrot in Queensland. (Question No. 4713) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heri- tage and Environment, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) What action is he able to take to protect the shore terraces at Christmas Island from environmental degradation. (2) Do these terraces contain one of the highest concentrations on the island of nesting seabirds, including 1500 pairs of the endangered Christmas Island Frigatebird. (3) Is he aware that the Phosphate Mining Corporation is alleged to have bulldozed island rainforest containing nesting sites of the endangered Abbotts Booby; if so, will he investigate the matter and take remedial steps to protect the species. (4) Have any international conventions been breached as a result of mining activities on the island. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government takes action to protect the natural values of Christmas Island, including the shore terraces, through the provision of advice to the Christmas Island Assembly on environmental protection and conservation matters, including the implementation of wildlife protection ordinances, the establishment of national parks on the Island and through the requirement that clearing proposals have the approval of the Government Conservator. Christmas Island National Park contains important areas of shore terrace. With the proclamation on 31 January 1986 of Christmas island (Stage 2) and Christmas Island (Stage 3) National Parks, additional areas of shore terrace were included within the national park, including very significant seabird breeding habitat around North West Point. The National Park now covers 2370 hectares or 17 per cent of Christmas Island, including approximately 25 kilometres of continuous shoreline. Under the terms of a 1984 agreement, the Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island submits all clearing plans for approval to the Government Conservator. Where agreement on a clearing plan cannot be reached, there is provision for the matter to be referred through the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS) to the Minister for resolution. I understand that a plan was recently submitted for the western shore terrace of South Point but that this has now been withdrawn following adoption of a new Corporation Plan which does not require phosphate rock from this source at this time. (2) Sections of the shore terrace do contain very high concentrations of nesting seabirds on a seasonal basis. Species using the shore terraces for breeding include Red-footed Boobies, Brown Boobies, endemic Christmas Island Frigatebirds, Great Frigatebirds, Red-tailed Tropicbirds and White-tailed Tropicbirds. Most numerous is the Red-footed Booby which nests in colonies in trees on many parts of the shore terrace and slopes of the inland cliff. The endangered Christmas Island Frigatebird nests only in colonies on the north-east terraces of the Island and measures are in place to ensure the protection of its habitat. (3) In the past, before there was a proper awareness of the conflict between mining and Abbott's Booby, nesting habitat of this species was extensively cleared. This does not happen now. The Phosphate Mining Corporation jointly funds, with the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, an Abbott's Booby Monitoring Program and, in accordance with the 1984 agreement, following any clearing undertakes rehabilitation on a routine basis. Extensive safeguards are now in place. (4) I am unaware of any breaches of international conventions as a result of mining activities on the Island since conservation guidelines were introduced. (Question No. 4718) Mr Fife asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) Is the Government responsible for the cost of repairs carried out on national highways. (2) When were the repairs on the section of the Hume Highway at the northern end of the bridge across the Murrumbidgee River at Gundagai (a) commenced and (b) completed. (3) What caused the break-up of this section of the road. (4) What has been the cost to date of the repairs. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Federal Government accepts full financial responsibility for construction and maintenance works on the National Highway. However repairs to faulty work required during the contract maintenance period are the contractor's responsibility. (2), (3) and (4) Programmed rehabilitation of a 4km section of both carriageways was carried out between August 1985 and May 1986, which is the preferred construction season in this area. Works were severely disrupted by unseasonal wet weather particularly during the placement of the surface seal. It was necessary to place the seal at this stage to prevent damage to the base course. Subsequently, in June and July 1986 some section of this work had to be repaired. The cost of these repairs was $67,000 which was borne by the Federal Government under the Australian Land Transport Program. (Question No. 4720) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) Is he aware of recent instances of defence contractors in the US fraudulently padding their invoices and selling dangerously defective equipment. (2) Is he able to say whether the General Electric Company admitted in 1985 that its Space Systems Division had defrauded the US Air Force and was subsequently fined US$1.04m. (3) Is he able to say whether the General Dynamics Corporation was charged with attempting to defraud the US Government during the development of the Divad anti-aircraft gun and of billing the Pentagon for the kennel fees for the dog of a General Dynamics executive. (4) What was the total cost of defence equipment purchased from US suppliers in each year since 1983-84. (5) What steps has he taken to ensure that (a) the price of equipment purchased from US contractors has not been grossly inflated or fraudulently invoiced and (b) material purchases from US contractors is not defective. (6) Are performance warranties included in contracts for equipment purchased for the Australian Defence Force. (7) What protection from victimisation exists for public servants or defence force personnel who disclose cases of waste or mismanagement in the acquisition of defence equipment. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) I am aware that a number of instances in the general nature of the honourable member's questioning have been widely reported over the last 12 years. The Department of Defence monitors reports that are likely to involve Australian orders. (4) Each year the Department of Defence places a wide range of orders with commercial suppliers in the US and the US Government through its Foreign Military Sales arrangements. The number of orders would aggregate to many hundreds for spares, replacement items and new capital equipment items. Payments for these orders would be spread over a number of years. Accordingly, to provide an exact answer to the honourable member's question would require the application of a great deal of Departmental resources for a considerable period. However, as an indication of the volume of business carried on with US suppliers the following are the totals of payments made since 1983-84: 1983-84-$907m 1984-85-$1,272m 1985-86-$1,391m (5) (a) Two avenues of procurement in the US are open to Australia: direct commercial purchase from a US Company; or through US Foreign Military Sales Arrangements, under which the US Government essentially makes the purchase on our behalf. In direct purchasing, Australian interests are protected through competitive pricing and acceptance of the lowest priced technically acceptable offer; or if no competition is possible, a number of checks such as previous price paid, price paid by other customers, and audit of costs. In procurement through Foreign Military Sales, US procurement agencies perform the same kind of function. If overcharging were proved, we would pay an amended price and receive any refunds due. (b) Two principal methods are used to ensure that US sourced material is not defective: we seek to include warranty provisions in contracts to allow the Commonwealth to seek appropriate compensation from the manufacturer, including the emergence of latent defects, and appropriate internationally and nationally agreed standards are specified within the contract. manufacturers' Quality Assurance (QA) plans are validated and a comprehensive system of QA procedures/inspections is imposed including the use of either the US Services' or Australian Services' QA organisations. (6) The Department of Defence seeks the inclusion of performance warranties as appropriate in contracts for defence equipment. The Department also requires that on delivery, equipment meets all technical specifications including performance specifications. (7) A Public Servant or member of the Defence Force who believes he or she has been victimised for any reason may pursue the matter through established grievance mechanisms. Public servants have a right to request the relevant delegate of the Secretary of the Department to review the matter; if the officer is dissatisfied with the outcome of that process he or she has a further avenue of redress through the Merit Protection and Review Agency of the Australian Public Service. A member of the Defence Force is entitled to submit an application for redress of grievance through his or her chain of command and to request its reconsideration at successively higher levels if dissatisfied with the outcome. A member of the Defence Force may also take complaint to the Defence Force Ombudsman subject to provisions under the Ombudsman Act 1976-83. (Question No. 4737) Mr Price asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) Has the Government established a target for Australian industry participation in the $1000m contract to lay a laser communications cable from Australia across the Pacific; if so, what is it. (2) To what extent will any decision on the successful tenderer be approved by the relevant Minister or Cabinet. (3) In the tender evaluation has any weighting been given to Australian-owned industry. (4) Is Australia the third largest owner and investor of submarine cables in the world. (5) Where does Australia rank as a manufacturer of submarine cable. (6) What role will the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce have in the tender process. Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question is based on information provided by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC): (1) The Government, through OTC, plans to use the opportunity created by Australia's participation in the proposed optical fibre Pacific telecommunications cable network to promote the establishment of a local fibre submarine cable industry that is competitive on world markets. Initiatives taken by OTC include: Placement of contracts for research and development studies on optical fibre systems with Australian industry. Early announcement of the full scope of the proposed network at industry briefing in May 1986. Insistence that all tenders include at least one offer for local submarine cable production. Inclusion in the timetable of a period up to one year for the successful tenderer to prove his capability to produce the cable before commencing full scale production. The scheduling of the trans-Tasman and follow on cables to allow continuity of local cable production. (2) OTC's plans for the cable network will be submitted to the Government before the end of the year. Under Section 38 of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946 the Minister has to approve contracts in excess of $2 million. (3) Tenders for the first phase of the project between Australia and New Zealand do not close until June 1987. OTC complies fully with the Government's Preference Policy and its Offsets Policy, and will be seeking the lowest cost technically compliant solution consistent with those Policies. (4) Yes. At the present time Australia ranks only after the United States and the United Kingdom in terms of owned mileage of submarine cables. (5) To date Australian manufacturing has been limited to the supply of repeaters, terminal equipment and processed materials for submarine cable systems. The only countries manufacturing complete submarine cable systems are the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Japan. The initiatives taken by OTC aim to substantially improve local manufacturing capability and to foster a viable submarine cable industry. (6) The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has been strongly supportive of initiatives taken to date. Prior to contract execution the preferred tenderers will be required to satisfy the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce that their proposal fully meets the Government's Offsets Program and is consistent with the industry development objectives. (Question No. 4738) Mr Price asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) What were the (a) equipment and (b) labour components of the $400 Anzcan and the $200m Australian-Indonesian Singapore submarine cable projects. (2) What was the (a) value and (b) percentage of (i) Australian industry participation, (ii) Australian raw materials and (iii) Australian assembled repeaters in the projects. (3) Did the projects satisfy Australian industry participation guidelines; if so, what are the details. Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question is based on information provided by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC): (1) It is not possible to identify labour and material components individually. (2) The values and percentages sought are as follows: Approximate Value Percentage of OTC's Share of the Prime Contracts $m % (i) Total Australian Industry Participation 122 58 (ii) Australian raw materials 24 12 (iii) Australian assembled repeaters (including shipment) 55 26 (3) The projects fully satisfied the Australian industry participation guidelines whereby offsets in excess of 30% of the value of the imported components were achieved for both projects as detailed below: $m OTC's contribution to prime contract costs 210 Australian Content 76 Imported Content 134 Value of Offsets 46 i.e. 34% of imported content. (Question No. 4746) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 9 October 1986: (1) What is the (a) annual salary and (b) hourly rate of pay of (i) a Draughting Officer Grade 2 and (ii) a Senior Technical Officer. (2) What is the hourly rate of the nearest equivalent of a (a) Draughting Officer Grade 2 and (b) Senior Technical Officer employed on contract from a private firm. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) (i) $26,555; (ii) $28,790; (b) (i) $13.85; (ii) $15.02. (2) (a) My Department's Regional administrative units are negotiating rates in the following range for personnel that roughly equate Draughting Officer Grade 2: ACT... $16.00-$19.00 NSW... $18.00-$24.00 Qld... $15.00-$18.00 SA/NT... $17.00-$25.00 Tindal Project NT... $24.00-$35.00 Vic./Tas... $12.50-$23.00 WA... $19.00-$19.50 Rates are negotiated with firms supplying such labour on the basis of the qualifications and level of expertise sought, the scope and duration of the task, and availability of such personnel. Rates include the firm's profit and its overheads. (2) (b) My Department does not normally engage personnel as `Senior Technical Officers'. To the extent that such staff are engaged, rates vary from $18.50-$34.90, depending upon the task and market factors. (Question No. 4749) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 October 1986: (1) Has the Government prepared model food legislation recommending prescribed levels of food additives; if so, what federal authority is responsible for the preparation and updating of the legislation. (2) Which States and Territories have not yet enacted the model food legislation and when does the Government expect them to do so. (3) Does the model food legislation contain a recommended maximum level for the additive monosodium glutamate; if so, what is that level. (4) In those States and Territories where the legislation has been enacted, have the recommended monosodium glutamate levels been adopted; if not, what levels have been adopted. (5) Does the recommended additive level for monosodium glutamate in the model legislation apply to all commercially prepared food, including meals prepared in clubs and restaurants; if not, what are the exemptions. (6) Is there any significant evidence to suggest a link between monosodium glutamate and harmful effects on humans. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The Model Food Act was prepared by a joint Commonwealth-State-Territory working party set up by and reporting to the Health Ministers' Conference. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), a joint Commonwealth-State-Territory body with the function of enquiring into, advising and making recommendations to the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments on health issues, develops Model Food Standards Regulations (MFSR) which include the control of food additives. These are then recommended to State and Territory health authorities for inclusion in their respective regulations. (2) While New South Wales has not adopted the Model Food Act, it has made major modifications to its existing Food Act to align it with the model act. Amendments to update the New South Wales Act are ready for presentation to Parliament. The Northern Territory Food Act has been passed by the Legislative Assembly and is awaiting assent. In the Australian Capital Territory, the Health Authority and the Attorney General's Department are developing an Ordinance derived from the Model Food Act. The date of completion of this is unknown. With regard to the Regulations, the NHMRC MFSRs are being redrafted into a format suitable for endorsement by Health Ministers and adoption by all States and Territories following gazettal before April 1987. (3) No. Monosodium glutamate is an approved food additive which may be added to foods other than infants' foods, where flavour or condiment may be added. No maximum level of use is specified. (4) See 3. (5) See 3. (6) There is some evidence that a small sector of the community is hypersensitive to monosodium glutamate and can react adversely to large doses of the chemical. With respect to the majority of the community, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Health Organisation Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives has studied the toxicology of monosodium glutamate and established an acceptable daily intake of 120 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. This is the amount which could be consumed every day over a lifetime without risk of adverse health effects. The scientific evidence on all food additives, including monosodium glutamate, is kept under continuing review by the food committees of the NHMRC. (Question No. 4754) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 10 October 1986: (1) Which communities in northern Queenland have been provided with a public telephone service. (2) Is priority dependent upon the size of communities. (3) Do Doomadgee, Mornington Island or Aurukun have public telephone services; if not, when will services be installed. (4) What is the programme for extending public telephone services to remote districts. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Bamaga, Hopevale, Horn Island, Kennedy, Laura, Murray Upper, Thursday Island, Weipa South and Yarrabah all have public telephone services. All islands in the Torres Strait currently have leased coin telephones. (2) No. In more remote areas, the provision of public telephones is determined by an assessment of the service needs of each community. This assessment takes into account factors such as remoteness, community needs and permanence of the community. (3) Doomadgee has no public telephone. It is planned to provide public telephone services when the Doomadgee exchange is installed early in 1988. Mornington Island has a public telephone service. Additional upgraded services will be extended to Mornington Island in 1989/90. Aurukun has a leased coin telephone service. A public telephone is in the process of being installed. (4) Telecom is currently undertaking a massive capital works programme in outback Australia. The Rural and Remote Areas Programme (RRAP) aims to extend access to modern telecommunications to people throughout rural and remote areas by 1990, at reason- able cost to the customer. This involves the conversion of manual exchange services to automatic, the replacement of privately provided and maintained lines by Telecom plant and the provision of new services in areas it has not previously been practicable to serve. As part of the RRAP, public telephone services will be extended to the more remote areas on the basis of the service needs outlined in answer to question 2. (Question No. 4762) Mr Scott asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 14 October 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether US State Department spokesperson Mr Bernard Kalb resigned in protest at the ``disinformation'' campaign authorised by President Reagan's National Security Adviser. (2) Was his attention drawn, prior to this question, to the article in the US journal Aviation Week and Space Technology of 17 March 1986 entitled ``US Using Disinformation Policy to Impede Technical Data Flow''; if so, when did the article come to his attention. (3) Does the article outline US disinformation issued in relation to the (a) USAF Advanced Technology Bomber, (b) USN Advanced Tactical Aircraft and (c) Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). (4) Will he give an assurance that no US disinformation relating to the SDI program, or other programs in which Australia either co-operates or has an observer's interest, has been (a) accepted as fact by the Government or its agencies or (b) used as a basis for policy decisions. (5) If he cannot give this assurance, why not. (6) If the disinformation has been used as a basis for Government decisions, on what basis has it been used. (7) Did he state in the House (Hansard, 15 April 1986, p. 2269) and in a press release the same day that he and the Minister for Foreign Affairs were privy to apparently compelling evidence of a direct line of command between Libya and the Berlin nightclub bombing; if so, why did he use the word ``apparently''. (8) Will he give an assurance in the light of Mr Kalb's resignation and the Aviation Week article, that the evidence to which he and the Minister were privy was genuine and not disinformation. (9) If he will give this assurance, what is the basis on which it is given; if he will not give his assurance, why not. (10) On his last visit to the US did he propose to President Reagan that the US make public its apparently compelling evidence on the Berlin bombing; if so, was he unsuccessful. (11) Is he able to say whether the US refusal to release the evidence was based on a desire to protect intelligence sources or capabilities; if so, is that refusal now suspect in the light of Mr Kalb's disclosures. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In announcing his resignation on 8 October, Mr Bernard Kalb stated that his action was in dissent from a disinformation campaign which US media reports claimed had been conducted against Libya. He did not respond to journalists' questions as to whether he had personal knowledge that such a campaign had been conducted, or confirm the existence of alleged documents on which the press reports were based. (2) and (3) No. I am advised that the article reports unnamed US officials as claiming that a disinformation policy is being conducted by the US Government to impede the transfer of accurate technological information to the Soviet Union. (4), (5) and (6) The Australian Government accepted the information supplied to it as genuine and therefore has no reason to believe that it has been subject to a disinformation program by the US Government on these particular matters. (7), (8) and (9) The Australian Government has no reason to believe that the evidence that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I were shown was not genuine. (10) and (11) I urged the US Government to make public as much as possible of the evidence that it held. I understand that the US Government made serious efforts in that direction but felt constrained by the need to protect sensitive intelligence sources. (Question No. 4768) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 15 October 1986: (1) At which Australian airports are inward duty free facilities to be established. (2) When will or did each of these facilities begin operation. (3) What is the business name of the inward duty free operator at each location. (4) Did the Government call tenders, or does it intend to call tenders, to select the successful inward duty free operator at each location; if not, what criteria are being used to select the successful operators. (5) Is there any commonality of ownership between operators already selected for inward duty free facilities, and the operators of existing outward duty free facilities; if so, what. (6) Does the contractual arrangement between each inward duty free operator and the Commonwealth incorporate any guidelines or requirements on the pricing policy to be adopted by the contractee. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3): Sydney (KS), 1 May 1986, Allders International Pty Ltd Melbourne, 1 May 1986, James Richardson Pty Ltd Brisbane, 1 May 1986, James Richardson Pty Ltd Adelaide, 1 May 1986, Taralba Pty Ltd Perth, 1 May 1986, Allders International Pty Ltd Darwin, 1 May 1986, Edamport Enterprises Pty Ltd Townsville, 1 May 1986, Michael J. Reynolds Hobart, 1 May 1986, Taralba Pty Ltd Port Hedland, Cairns, These airports are controlled by local authorities under the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan and my Department is not privy to the business dealings of those authorities. (4) My Department did not call public tenders. However, as each concession contract expires after 1 May 1986 public tenders will be called to operate a combined inward and outward duty free concession. The reasons for not calling public tenders were (a) when inwards duty free was introduced current operators were mid term in their contracts which were won in open competition, following public invitation of tenders (b) benefits should flow to consumers from economies of scale associated with the pooling of existing bond store arrangements, staffing facilities, administration, purchasing and marketing arrangements (c) there were practical problems with providing additional administrative and bond store areas that would be required by a second operator. (5) Yes. Both inward and outward duty free concession at each international airport are operated by the same concessionaire for the reasons outlined in answer 4. (6) As a consequence of (4) above, the inward duty free concessionaire is bound by the same conditions relating to pricing as stated in the lease and authority agreement for the outward duty free contract. (Question No. 4123) Mr Porter asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) How many cases of medical fraud have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions since the appointment of Mr Temby Q.C., to that position. (2) Of these cases, how many were referred by (a) the Department of Health, (b) the Health Insurance Commission and (c) others. (3) In each case, what is (a) the date of referral and (b) the current position, indicating, if a prosecution has been launched, whether it has been successful. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have been advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions that between his appointment to that position and the date of the Honourable Member's question 66 cases of alleged fraud by medical practitioners have been referred to his Office. It should be noted that a number of these cases were referred for advice only, or to the Australian Government Solicitor acting on his behalf. (2) Of these cases 9 were referred by the Department of Health, 3 by the Health Insurance Commission, 38 by the Australian Federal Police and 16 cases were transferred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from the Australian Government Solicitor in March 1984. (3) The date of referral and current position in each matter on a State and Territory basis, are as follows:- Date of Referral Current Position TASMANIA 1. 17 December 1984 No prosecution commenced 2. 17 March 1986 Further evidence being gathered NORTHERN TERRITORY 3. 3 January 1985 No prosecution commenced 4. 14 March 1985 No prosecution commenced 5. 14 June 1985 No prosecution commenced QUEENSLAND 6. 13 March 1986 Under consideration 7. 13 March 1986 Plea of guilty VICTORIA 8. 14 June 1984 No prosecution commenced 9. 14 June 1984 No prosecution commenced 10. 14 June 1984 No prosecution commenced 11. 22 July 1985 Under further investigation 12. 28 October 1985 No prosecution commenced 13. 6 December 1985 No prosecution commenced SOUTH AUSTRALIA 14. 14 May 1984 Plea of guilty 15. 14 May 1984 Awaiting hearing 16. 31 May 1984 Charges dismissed 17. 3 July 1984 Conviction quashed 18. 5 October 1984 No prosecution commenced 19. 8 November 1984 No prosecution commenced 20. January 1985 Awaiting hearing 21. 5 December 1985 Further evidence being gathered WESTERN AUSTRALIA 22. 21 August 1984 Nolle prosequi 23. 3 September 1984 No prosecution commenced 24. 22 January 1985 No prosecution commenced 25. 22 January 1985 No prosecution commenced 26. April 1985 Verdict of not guilty NEW SOUTH WALES 27. March 1984 Verdict of not guilty 28. March 1984 Nolle prosequi 29. March 1984 Awaiting hearing 30. March 1984 Awaiting hearing 31. March 1984 Awaiting hearing 32. March 1984 Nolle prosequi 33. March 1984 Plea of guilty 34. March 1984 No prosecution commenced 35. March 1984 Convicted 36. March 1984 Convicted 37. March 1984 Prosecution not continued 38. March 1984 No prosecution commenced 39. March 1984 Awaiting hearing 40. March 1984 No prosecution commenced 41. March 1984 Awaiting hearing 42. March 1984 Awaiting hearing 43. 23 March 1984 Awaiting hearing 44. 27 March 1984 No prosecution commenced 45. 23 May 1984 Plea of guilty 46. 25 May 1984 Matter part-heard 47. 28 May 1984 No prosecution commenced 48. 6 June 1984 Appeal to Supreme Court 49. 6 June 1984 Further investigation required 50. 26 June 1984 Plea of guilty 51. 28 August 1984 No prosecution commenced 52. 22 October 1984 No prosecution commenced 53. 6 March 1985 Search warrant executed 54. 12 March 1985 No prosecution commenced 55. 22 August 1985 Search warrant executed 56. 29 August 1985 First instance warrant issued 57. 9 September 1985 No prosecution commenced 58. 16 September 1985 Awaiting further instructions 59. 20 September 1985 Under further investigation 60. 21 October 1985 No prosecution commenced 61. 28 November 1985 Search warrant settled 62. 22 April 1986 Under consideration 63. 7 April 1986 Under consideration 64. 26 May 1986 No prosecution commenced 65. 26 May 1986 Under consideration 66. 26 May 1986 Under consideration Note: Cases 27 to 42 were referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from the Australian Government Solicitor. (Question No. 4172) Mr Campbell asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: (1) Who were the Treasury officials that visited the Western Australian goldfields in November 1971 as part of the review of the gold subsidy. (2) Were the findings of these officials made public. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An extensive search of Treasury files has not located any records relating to a visit by Treasury officers to Western Australian goldfields in November 1971 as part of a review of the gold subsidy. Three former Treasury officers, Dr R. J. Cameron CB, Mr C. W. Conron and Mr J. H. Garrett CBE, recall having visited Western Australia, possibly at about that time, in the course of investigating matters which may have included the gold subsidy. (2) No. (Question No. 4184) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: (1) With which nations have discussions been held regarding the Pacific Patrol Boat project. (2) Have any nations expressed reservations about (a) the Pacific Patrol Boat design announced by him on 9 May 1985 or (b) any other aspect of the project (i) at the time of his announcement or (ii) now. (3) How many nations have accepted the patrol boat offer and how many boats are involved in each case. (4) Have any nations refused the offer; is so, which nations and what were their reasons for refusal. (5) Will the ASI 315 design selected by the Government offer sufficient crew accommodation to permit the detachment of prize crews when necessary. (6) What is the projected yearly running cost of the selected design. (7) When is (a) construction and (b) delivery of the design scheduled to begin. (8) Has any provision been made for an Australian contribution to the running costs of the boats. Mr Beazley —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Discussions regarding the Pacific Patrol Boat project have been held with Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, Western Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Tonga. We have also consulted New Zealand on the project. (2) The design characteristics of the Pacific Patrol Boat were developed in consultation with all interested countries of the South Pacific Forum and the ASI 315 design represents a consensus of countries' views and requirements. Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon Islands and Tonga expressed reservations about some of the required characteristics of the vessel and whether it would satisfy their perceived operational requirements. These reservations were discussed with the countries concerned in the light of their proposed use of the vessel, operating cost penalties and the overall design philosophy. With the exception of Tonga, whose concept of surveillance operations is different to other countries in the region, all countries are now satisfied that the ASI 315 design will meet or exceed their requirements. (3) Five countries have accepted our offer with firm requests for 8 boats. PNG has requested four boats. Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Western Samoa and the Cook Islands have requested one boat each. In addition, Fiji is now also participating in the pro- ject and is finalising details of the number of vessels it requires. Kiribati and Tuvalu have expressed interest in participating in the project, but are concerned about their ability to meet operating costs. (4) Tonga has advised that its maritime surveillance policy is centred around a fast reaction principle, involving aerial surveillance supported by patrol boats capable of at least 30 knots reacting to specific incidents, and has therefore declined our offer to participate. (5) Yes. (6) Based on a usage rate of 1,200 hours per year operating costs (fuel, oil, amortised maintenance) for each vessel, would be in the order of $A100,000 per year at December 1985 prices. This figure could vary depending on the actual hours the vessel is underway per year and will vary from country to country, depending on the cost of fuel, oil, etc in each country. Inclusion of the crew salary, victuals and consumable stores components in the definition of operating costs would add an estimated $A100,000 per vessel per year to the running costs. This figure will also vary, depending on the cost of each item in individual countries. (7) Construction of the first vessel began in February 1986. The first vessel is planned to be handed over to Papua New Guinea in February 1987. Subsequent vessels will be delivered at about four monthly intervals. (8) Not at this point. (Question No. 4205) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Arts, Heri- tage and Environment, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: (1) What is the estimated duration, including commencement date, of the Committee of Inquiry into Folklife in Australia. (2) How many submissions has the Committee received from (a) individuals and (b) community-based organisations up until the time this question is answered. (3) Are the members of the Committee receiving a wage for their services; if so, what are the (a) hours of employment, (b) salary rate, and (c) other conditions and benefits of employment. (4) What are the (a) hours of employment, (b) salary rate, and (c) other conditions and benefits of employment of the (i) secretary and (ii) other full-time or part-time employees of the Committee. (5) What is the number of other full-time or part-time Committee employees. (6) What evidence has he to prove (a) Australian folklife is often poorly documented and understood and (b) Australia lags far behind other countries in documentation of our heritage. (7) What is the total estimated cost of the inquiry. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I announced the establishment of the Committee of Inquiry into Folklife in Australia on 26 March 1986; it is to report to me by 31 January 1987. (2) The Committee has now received written submissions from 114 individuals and 59 community-based organisations. A further 60 written submissions have been received from persons associated with tertiary institutions, and from Federal and State Government Departments and Authorities. (3) The Chairperson, Mr Hugh Anderson, is engaged as a consultant on a full-time basis, and is being paid a fee of $39,807. The other two Committee members, Mrs Gwenda Davey and Dr Keith McKenry, are engaged on a part-time basis, and neither is receiving any remun- eration in addition to their normal salary, although Ms Gwenda Davey's employer, the Footscray Institute of Technology, is receiving a payment of $13,302 to compensate for making her time available. Dr Keith McKenry is a Commonwealth employee and his costs are being absorbed by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. All three Committee members have their travel costs met from the Inquiry's budget. Mr Anderson and Dr McKenry receive the standard travel allowances for Senior Executive officers. Ms Davey receives travel allowances equivalent to those for a Third Division Officer of the Commonwealth Public Service. (4) The Committee has no employees. Modest Secretariat support for the Committee is provided by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment from within existing resources. (5) Nil. See (4) above. (6) In Australia, despite determined efforts by institutions such as the National Library of Australia, there has been no co-ordinated, nationally-based program of folklife collection and documentation. Rather, these activities have largely been left to a comparatively few self-funded private individuals with specialised interests, whose activities often have been focused in specific geographic regions. Despite their invaluable work, major aspects of Australian folklife are poorly documented and understood. For example inadequate attention has been given to the folklife of women, of factory and other urban workers, and of communities from other than English speaking backgrounds. Also, there has been very little collection generally of folklife in some major geographic regions in Australia. Material which has been collected often remains poorly indexed and uncatalogued, and thus is not generally available. In some cases this material has also deteriorated for want of proper storage and care. Most national governments in Europe and North America have recognised the significance of folklife to their national heritage and have supported its collection and subsequent conservation on a professional basis for generations. At least 46 member countries of UNESCO have participated in that organisation's program on the safeguarding of folklore at a national and international level. This program, which commenced in 1973, has resulted in agreement on action governments might take to safeguard their folklore. Australia participated for the first time only in 1985, and has been slow to take action. (7) The Inquiry is co-sponsored by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, the Australia Council, the National Museum of Australia and the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. These bodies have allocated the Inquiry a total budget of $152,000, exclusive of Secretariat costs mentioned in (4) above from within existing resources of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. (Question No. 4280) Mr Carlton asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) What is the March 1986 quarterly index for (a) relative exchange rate movements (b) relative CPI (c) relative GDP deflators (d) relative unit wage costs and (e) unit wage costs in Australia from the June quarter 1970 to the March quarter 1986 as defined in Panel B of Chart II on page 35 of the 1985-86 Budget Paper No. 1. (2) Is he able to say what the corresponding index is in each of Australia's 4 major OECD trading partners. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The changes in Australia's exchange rate, consumer prices, gross domestic product deflator, and unit wage costs relative to its four major import sources (as defined in Panel B of Chart II on page 35 of the 1985-86 Budget Paper No. 1), are shown in the following table for the period from the June quarter 1970 to the September quarter 1986. Similar information is also shown for Australia's four major OECD import sources (1) (2). Unit wage cost indices for Australia and the other countries are given in Table 2. A number of qualifications attach to the various indices, which should therefore be interpreted with care. Table 1 RELATIVE MOVEMENTS IN EXCHANGE RATES, PRICES AND WAGE COSTS Country Relative Exchange Rate Relative CPI Relative GDP Deflator Relative Unit Wage Costs (3) Percentage Change June Qtr 1970 to Sept Qtr 1986 Australia... -58.9 52.5 68.1 119.2 United States (4)... -4.9 -5.7 (6)-10.0 (6)-18.4 Japan (4)... 166.7 -10.6 (6)-23.5 (6)-33.4 Federal Republic of Germany (4)... 114.3 -46.0 (5) (6)-52.6 (6)-29.2 United Kingdom (4)... -56.9 101.2 (5) (6) 94.7 (6) 141.9 (1) A positive/negative number for the `Relative Exchange Rate' indicates an appreciation/depreciation of the relevant currency. For the `Relative CPI', `Relative GDP Deflator' and `Relative Unit Wage Costs', a positive/negative number indicates that costs or prices in the specified country have been rising at a faster/slower rate than its four major OECD import sources. (2) Major import sources determined from import statistics 1979-84 inclusive. (3) Relative unit labour costs in the non-farm sector for Australia and in the manufacturing sector for other countries. It should be noted that the rate of growth of unit labour costs in the manufacturing sector is lower than in the non-farm sector as a whole. (4) The import weights that were used are as follows: United States Trading partner...Weight Canada...18.8 Japan...14.8 Federal Republic of Germany...5.0 United Kingdom...4.6 total of four major OECD import sources 43.2 Japan Trading partner...Weight Federal Republic of Germany...1.9 Canada...3.5 Australia...5.3 United States...18.5 total of four major OECD import sources 29.2 West Germany Trading partner...Weight France...11.2 United States...7.3 Italy...8.0 Netherlands...12.2 total of four major OECD import sources 38.7 United Kingdom Trading partner...Weight France...7.7 Netherlands...7.5 Federal Republic of Germany...12.7 United States...11.5 total of four major OECD import suppliers 39.4 (5) Quarterly GDP Implicit Price Deflators for Netherlands estimated from annual data. (6) Latest available data to June Quarter 1986. Table 2 UNIT WAGE COST INDICES (1979-80=100) June Quarter 1970 June Quarter 1986 Australia (1)... 36.5 165.4 United States... 58.4 118.2 Japan... 52.1 100.2 Federal Republic of Germany... 57.8 115.5 United Kingdom... 27.4 143.3 (1) See footnote (3) above. SOURCES: International Monetary Fund, OECD Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade, OECD Main Economic Indicators and OECD Quarterly National Accounts. (Question No. 4328) Mr Fife asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What is the cost of the current media campaign being conducted by Australia Post concerning mail deliveries. (2) What is the purpose of the campaign. (3) What are the reasons for conducting this campaign in view of general reductions in Government spending. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from Australia Post, is as follows: (1) It is understood that the honourable member's question relates to a corporate ``Striving for Excellence'' campaign which cost $3m Australia wide. (2) About half of Australia Post's revenue is derived from services which are in direct competition with other enterprises and even the portion of Australia Post's business which is covered by the statutory letter monopoly faces indirect competition from other forms of communication such as telephone and facsimile services. Australia Post must, therefore, continually strive to increase its market share in order to guarantee postal customers that vigorous level of service which will meet their needs at the lowest price. (3) Australia Post is required by statute to cover its cost and fund at least half of its capital requirements from internal sources in any year. In the face of rising costs the organisation must, therefore, take every opportunity to increase its business and its revenue in order to meet those statutory requirements. The advertising campaign was designed to capture the attention of the business market, in particular, in order to lift Australia Post's market share in competitive areas of business as well as to improve Australia Posts' public visibility. (Question No. 4329) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Does he agree with estimates by the Australian Insurance Association that annual inflows and outflows of insurance payments for Australia exceed $2800 million. (2) If so, is it a fact that (a) general insurance is as large as the 3 service industries on which statistics are collected, that is, shipping, transport-other, and travel, (b) insurance balances its account whereas other services in the invisible accounts generally have deficits and (c) the insurance industry receives no Government assistance, not even by way of collecting statistics, whereas these other service industries gain considerable assistance. (3) If he does not agree with these figures, what is the basis for his disagreement and can he provide alternate figures. (4) Will the Government look at service industries, such as insurance, to concentrate on ways in which these industries can assist in building up a credit trade balance, if so, will the Government consult insurance industry representatives on these matters. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It is assumed that the estimates of ``annual inflows and outflows of insurance payments for Australia'' referred to by the honourable member relate to the total value of premiums paid and claims received on general insurance business placed by Australian residents with foreign residents and premiums received and claims paid on general insurance business placed by non-residents with Australian residents. Broad information collected by the ABS for purposes of compiling balance of payments statistics suggest that the total value of such premiums and claims would be considerably less than $2,800 million in 1985-86. (2) The following table provides details of service items in the Australian balance of payments in 1985-86. SERVICES IN THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS 1985-86 ($million) Credits Debits Net Shipment... 407 -2,758 2,351 Other transportation... 2,452 2,283 169 Travel... 1,806 2,746 940 Insurance services n.e.c. (*)... 12 216 204 Other services... 1,193 1,726 533 (*) `Insurance services n.e.c.' includes general insurance and life insurance (although the contribution of life insurance is very small). It excludes marine insurance which is classified as part of `Shipment'. The measure of insurance services provided abroad (credits) is premiums received less claims paid. The measure of insurance services received from abroad is premiums paid less claims received. (a) The above table shows that, in 1985-86, insurance services provided abroad (credits) were not as large as shipment, other transportation or travel services provided abroad (credits). Similarly, insurance services received from abroad (debits) were not as large as shipment, other transportation or travel services received from abroad (debits). (b) In 1985-86, the deficit (net result) on insurance services was significantly less than the deficits on shipment, travel and other services; the `other transportation' component recorded a surplus. (c) The ABS collects data on international transactions in insurance, as well as data on transportation, travel and other services, for the purpose of compiling estimates for inclusion in balance of payments statistics. There are several other statistical collections of varying content and detail, relating to transportation, travel, insurance and other services conducted by the ABS and other bodies such as the Australian Tourist Commission and the Insurance Commissioner. (3) The sources that the ABS uses in compiling insurance estimates in the balance of payments are taxation data and annual surveys of foreign investment. While details of gross premiums and claims relating to international insurance flows are not available, analysis of information from these sources suggests that, in 1985-86, the `annual inflows and outflows of insurance payments for Australia' would have been considerably less than the amount estimated by the Australian Insurance Association. (4) The Government recognises the need for close consultation with the insurance industry and maintains regular formal and informal contact with industry bodies and individual company representatives. The matter raised by the honourable member has been discussed during such consultations, both at the Ministerial and official level and the Government is always receptive to constructive proposals designed to improve out external trade and service balances. In this connection, I note that the Prime Minister announced recently that the Commonwealth, with the objective of removing impediments to the writing of marine insurance in Australia had decided to remove stamp duty on contracts of international marine insurance written in the ACT and that he has written to the State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory advising them of the Commonwealth's decision and requesting their co-operation in removing the duty Australia-wide. (Question No. 4769) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 15 October 1986: (1) How many staff are employed in the media liaison unit of his Department. (2) What is the annual operating cost of this unit. (3) What range of services does the unit provide. (4) Does the unit mail or distribute copies of ministerial or departmental press releases and other material; if so, what are the names and addresses of the clients to which the material is mailed. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Media Liaison Unit, located in my Department's Central Office in Canberra, employs four staff: three journalists and a clerical assistant. (2) The annual operating cost is $243,729 which includes salaries, administration and payments to translators. (3) The Unit monitors the media for items of portfolio interest including arranging the translation of ethnic media items; coordinates the preparation of most Ministerial and all Departmental news releases and their distribution in the mainstream and ethnic media; is the focal point of contact for journalists seeking information on portfolio matters; provides/coordinates background briefings for overseas media visitors; assists and advises Departmental officers on media and public relations matters; and prepares summaries of coverage in both ethnic and mainstream media. (4) Yes. The mailing list contains approximately 1250 names comprising media organisations, members of Federal and State Parliaments, and a variety of organisations and individuals with an interest in portfolio matters. A printout of the computer listing can be made available to the honourable member if he requires. (Question No. 4832) Mr Conquest asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 October 1986: (1) Has the Security Appeals Tribunal decided that the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) is not a security risk. (2) Is membership of the CPA no longer a ground for refusing public servants access to the most highly classified documents. (3) Has the Australian Security Intelligence Organization discontinued surveillance of Communists. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In a decision given on 1 June 1983 the Security Appeals Tribunal (SAT) concluded that the CPA was not subversive within the meaning of the definition of subversion in s.5 (1) (a) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979 (as the Act then stood) and that mere membership of the CPA would not justify an adverse security assessment by ASIO. The definition of subversion in s.5 (1) (a) referred to activities that involve, will involve or lead to, or are intended or likely ultimately to involve or lead to, the use of force or violence or other unlawful acts for the purpose of overthrowing or destroying the constitutional government of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory. The Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Act 1986 (which came into operation on 1 February 1987) repealed s.5 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979. Amongst other things, the term `subversion' is now deleted from the definition of `security' in favour of a concept of `politically motivated violence'. This covers the matters previously contained in the definition of `terrorism' and a more precisely defined and limited version of the matters previously covered by `subversion'. The matters previously covered by s.5 (1) (a) are now covered by a reference to acts that involve violence or are intended or are likely to involve or lead to violence and are directed to overthrowing or destroying, or assisting in the overthrow or destruction of, the government or the constitutional system of government of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory. (2) The responsibility for deciding whether to allow officers access to national security information lies with the head of each agency. ASIO assists the agency by furnishing security assessments. A security assessment expresses ASIO's recommendation, advice or opinion. Security procedures require the agency head to be satisfied on the basis of all availale information, including the ASIO assessment, that the person concerned is reliable and trustworthy. In considering whether to grant a security clearance, an agency head is not restricted to the requirements of security as that term is defined in the ASIO Act; for example, he or she may have regard to personal qualities, such as honesty, discretion, or loyalty. (3) It has been the established practice of successive Australian Governments to neither confirm nor deny the activities of ASIO. However, the SAT in the decision referred to in (1) above, pointed out that its decision did not and could not in any way affect the exercise of ASIO's functions, under s.17 of its Act, to obtain, correlate and evaluate intelligence relevant to security. (Question No. 4834) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 October 1986: (1) Does his Department have a policy on the handling and disposal of toxic wastes. (2) Do his Department's toxic waste disposal procedures comply with Commonwealth, State and Local Government legislation and subordinate regulations. (3) Does his Department engage civilian waste disposal contractors; if so, do the procedures followed by these contractors comply with the law. (4) What procedures exist for the disposal of hazardous wastes generated by defence force personnel overseas. (5) Will the new Commonwealth-State hazardous chemicals control scheme apply to his Department; if not, why not. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The policy for the handling and disposal of toxic wastes is reflected in various publications applicable to the functional areas of the Department. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. Contract terms require compliance with State and Territory laws. (4) Ships on overseas deployment stow and return wastes to Australia for disposal. In other cases hazardous waste may be disposed in overseas locations if the law of the country permits. (5) Yes. (Question No. 4837) Mr Hodges asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 October 1986: Has the Government issued directions to those academic institutions which sell research results to private enterprise concerning the duties of staff and the apportionment of their time between research and teaching activities; if so, what are the details of the directions. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government provides funding for the general teaching and research activities of higher education institutions. It has also encouraged institutions to seek outside sources of funding for activities such as research. Any guidelines covering research for outside bodies and the sale of results would be established by institutions. The Government has not issued guidelines to academic institutions. (Question No. 4838) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 22 October 1986: (1) What are the current staffing levels of the Office of Local Government (OLG). (2) What has been the growth rate of the OLG staff since its establishment in March 1983. (3) What advantages does the present staffing level of the OLG offer to Local Government. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2)-Following is a table showing the number of Office of Local Government Staff at March 1983 and at six monthly intervals from December 1983. Staff March 1983... 4 December 1983... 19 June 1984... 36 December 1984... 36 June 1985... 30 December 1985... 30 June 1986... 28 December 1986... 17 Note-In November 1986 the Local Government and Regional Development Division, of which the Office of Local government is part, was reorganised and a number of positions responsible for management functions and information support services were allocated to another part of the Division. (3) The staff of the Office of Local Government is playing an important role in the development of policy and the administration of programs of benefit to Local Government. Notable achievements have been: (a) the continuation of a program of general purpose financial assistance to Local Government, with funding in 1986-87 of $586 million; (b) the implementation of the Local Government Development Program, which encourages innovation, improvement and co-operation in Local Government and under which $13.3m has so far been allocated; (c) the implementation of the Natural Areas Enhancement Scheme which funds waterway beautification by Councils in capital cities and under which $18.1m has so far been allocated; (d) the introduction of the National Awards for Innovation in Local Government under which the best ideas in Local Government are spread throughout the industry; (e) the upgrading of the role of the Local Government Ministers' Conference and concentration on important work on Local Government's role in community and economic development; (f) the continuation of the Local Government Scholarship Scheme under which representatives of smaller, remote Councils are assisted to attend courses at the Australian Centre for Local Government Studies in Canberra; (g) assistance in the development of the case for constitutional recognition of Local Government; (h) the introduction of a regular newsletter to keep Councils informed of happenings at the Federal level; (i) the continuation of publications of interest to Local Government such as the `Digest of Local Government Statistics' and `Commonwealth Assistance for Local Projects'; (j) significant assistance to Local Government in providing advice to it on a range of issues relevant to its relationship with the Commonwealth; and (k) an upgrading of the advocacy for Local Government within the Commonwealth bureaucracy. (Question No. 4839) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 22 October 1986: (1) When was he or any of his departmental officers first contacted by the Minister for Aviation or his departmental officers concerning the acquisition of land for the proposed Badgerys Creek airport site. (2) Was a (a) time scale for the acquisition of land at Badgerys Creek and (b) 1986-87 budgetary allocation discussed or agreed upon; if not, why not. (3) Did he at any time indicate that the $9.5m allocated for compensation for Badgerys Creek was inadequate and would cause problems for his NSW departmental staff, as well as great distress for affected landholders; if so, when did he give this indication and was a more adequate figure proposed. (4) If he did propose a more adequate figure, what sum was proposed; if not, why not. (5) How many properties will the $9.5m acquire and when will the compensation be paid. (6) How many private and Government valuer valuations were made before the withdrawal of the offer of the Government-financed private valuations and will those valuations be valid in 1987-88. (7) Have there been significant differences between the valuations of property and houses by private valuers and Government valuers; if so, what were the differences and how did his Department settle the valuations and any subsequent compensation pay-outs. (8) Why, in August 1986, did he withdraw the option for affected landholders to have their land valued by a privately commissioned valuer at the Government's expense. (9) Who does the Government use as its independent valuer. (10) Are all real estate valuers employed by the Commonwealth to value properties for acquisition in the Badgerys Creek area qualified and registered with the appropriate organisations; if not, why not. (11) Have the Commonwealth valuers used for Badgerys Creek valuations been the subject of investigations by the New South Wales Government Real Estate Valuers Registration Board; if so, what have been the outcomes of any such investigations. (12) How many years will it take to satisfy the acquisition requirements for Badgerys Creek with an annual allocation of $10m. (13) Is legislation being considered which would require the Commonwealth to acquire all voluntary acquisitions within a far shorter time span than is likely to be the case with Badgerys Creek; if not, why not. (14) If a statutory limit is being considered, what period of time is being considered. (15) Does he have (a) an unallocated portion of the $9.5m allocated for compensation, (b) a special fund or (c) an ability to transfer finance from another program to allow special acquisitions in emergency situations; if not, why not. (16) If he does have the funds referred to in part 15, what sums are involved and will he allocate the maximum amount possible to the acquisition of land for the proposed airport. (17) What are the details of consultation and co-operation between his Department and the New South Wales Department of Environment and Planning over the siting of the airport at Badgerys Creek. (18) If there has not been any consultation and co-operation, why not. (19) Does the Macarthur regional plan released in 1986 contain provision for the Badgerys Creek airport site; if not, is a supplementary plan being prepared and, if so, when will it be released. (20) If the Macarthur plan makes no provision for Badgerys Creek airport, will this cause planning difficulties for the local councils involved and for landholders in the area, as there is a freeze on all planning permits in those municipal areas until the plan is released. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 15 December 1985, the Project Director (Second Sydney Airport), Department of Aviation visited the Sydney office of my Department to discuss the anticipated announcement of a selected site for a second Sydney airport. Discussions revolved around the requirement for planning controls, the method of acquisition and resources. There had been consultation between the Department of Aviation and my Department on the generality of the project during the planning and environmental assessment phase prior to that time. (2), (3) and (4) Given that any actual airport development (and therefore any need for physical possession of properties) was at least 5 years and probably 10 years away it was indicated that my Department would propose to respond to requests from affected landowners for acquisition of their properties rather than engage in an aggressive campaign of acquisition. At a meeting on 3 March 1986 the 1986-87 budgetary allocation was first discussed. My Department provided some preliminary estimates for acquisition costs. The estimate provided for 1986-87 was $9.5m on the assumption that about 20 per cent of landowners (i.e. about 50) would seek to sell immediately. By April 1986 a significant number of property owners had sought a valuation of their property although very few of those had indicated a firm desire to sell immediately. By 8 April my Department advised the Department of Aviation that the rate of acceptance by owners of offers made by the Commonwealth was increasing. During Budget considerations, Government decided to acquire in 1986-87 only those properties where the Commonwealth had already made a firm offer to purchase and for those cases where owners had entered into a commitment to purchase a replacement property on or before 25 July 1986. In late July and early August, the number of property owners wishing to sell increased dramatically. This coincided with speculation in the press over the lack of certainty about the timing of actual airport development and speculation over a possible limit on available funds in both the 1986-87 and ensuing financial years. (5) The $9.5m allocation will enable the purchase of 50 properties. Settlement of the purchases of these 50 properties is expected to be completed by February 1987. (6) 71 Commonwealth valuations had been completed and 21 private valuations had been received, prior to withdrawal (on 26 August 1986) of the offer to pay the cost of private valuations. The Commonwealth valuation program is being maintained and landowners are being advised of the results of valuations as they are completed to assist them with longer term planning. Valuations are current only for a limited period and would need to be reviewed at the time that acquisition of the property was to proceed. (7) There have been differences between Private and Commonwealth valuations. These have been up to 15% but mostly of the order of 10% which is more or less normal in commercial practice. Where there are differences the Commonwealth valuer is asked to review his valuation in the light of the Private valuation. In these instances the Commonwealth valuer usually contacts the Private valuer to seek out reasons for the difference. Where the private valuer produces evidence of which the Commonwealth valuer was not aware, and which is material evidence for valuation purposes, or if other reasonable grounds are advanced to indicate the Commonwealth valuer was low in his estimate then the official valuation is increased. An increased offer is then made to the landowner. (8) In those cases where my Department will not now be able to acquire properties this financial year, the offer to pay for a privately commissioned valuation was withdrawn for the time being. This action was taken to ensure the most effective use of the limited funds available and to ensure that the private valuation obtained by the property owner would be current at the time of negotiation for sale of the property to the Commonwealth. (The Commonwealth is prepared to pay the cost of only one private valuation for each property). (9) Commonwealth valuers employed in the Valuation Branch, Australian Taxation Office, Department of the Treasury. (10) Commonwealth valuers employed in the Australian Taxation Office are professionally qualified. Each valuer has completed an approved course of study (at degree or diploma level), and is eligible for Associate membership of the Australian Institute of Valuers. (11) The Real Estate Valuers Registration Board did contact the Australian Taxation Office about its policy on the registration of valuer personnel. The Attorney-General's Department advised that valuers working in the Australian Taxation Office are not required to be registered under the Valuers Registration Act 1975 (NSW). (12) No decisions have been made on the level of funding beyond 1987/88. (13) Revised Lands Acquisition legislation is at an advanced stage of drafting. It is intended that the draft legislation be tabled for public discussion in the not too distant future. In the meantime it is inappropriate to speculate on what the Parliament may decide upon. (14) See (13). (15) The Government has limited the funds available in 1986/87 to $9.5m to acquire those properties where the Commonwealth had already made a firm offer to purchase and for those cases where owners had entered into a commitment to purchase a replacement property on or before 25 July 1986. Requests are being received from owners who do not fall into these categories, seeking purchase of their property on the grounds of hardship. These cases are being considered on their merits and are to be referred to the Government as additional requirements. (16) See (15). (17) In consultation with my Department and the Department of Aviation, the New South Wales Department of Environment and Planning is finalising details of planning controls to be imposed over the site. A draft State Environmental Planning Policy has been prepared by the Department of Environment and Planning. Further consultations are proposed before the Planning Policy is implemented. (18) See (17). (19) It is understood that the New South Wales Department of Environment and Planning has prepared a Macarthur Regional Environmental Study and it is considering submissions in relation to that study. The study deals with matters around the site such as access and potential noise contours. It is generally independent of the State Environmental Planning Policy, which specifically addresses development controls within the site and the height of structures in the surrounding area. It is the intention of the Department of Environment and Planning to prepare a Macarthur Regional Environmental Plan in due course after considering submissions on the Study and after further consultations with the Local Government authorities and the Commonwealth-particularly the Department of Aviation in relation to development of the airport. Planning controls are initiated by the State in consultation with the Commonwealth and future planning is a State responsibility. (20) See (19). (Question No. 4840) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: How will the objectives of the Office of Local Government of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, as stated in the 1984-85 annual report of his Department, be achieved as efficiently as they have without the work of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A minimal amount of the Office of Local Government's work is currently related to the type of work undertaken by the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations (ACIR). Given the assessment of the Task Group which reviewed ACIR that ``There were few major issues remaining in the local government area that were considered to require investigation by the ACIR at this time'', it is likely that this situation would have continued to prevail, regardless of the fate of the ACIR. (Question No. 4843) Mr Mountford asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: (1) What do his Department's guidelines state is the procedure which the pilot of a light plane should follow if an engine or other mechanical failure occurs soon after take-off and at an altitude below 700 ft. (2) Can this procedure be followed at Bankstown Airport. (3) What areas are available for an emergency landing near Bankstown Airport. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Aviation's Syllabus of Training for the Private Pilot Licence requires that a student pilot must be trained by the Flying Training School in the actions required in the event of engine failure after take-off. All Flight Instructors licensed by the Department are required to provide this training to their students. The following factors specified in the Flight Instructors Manual must be covered: ``(a) the speed of action; (b) the gliding speed; (c) the choice of landing area; (d) the height available; (e) the use of flap; and (f) the position of undercarriage, fuel and ignition controls, and hatches Choice of landing area and height available must be considered together. The amount of turn should be restricted to the minimum dictated by obstacles ahead. It must be stressed that the rate of descent and stalling speed will increase in any turn.'' Student pilots are required to pass a flight examination prior to issue of the Private Pilot Licence and all licence holders other than students must undertake a flight review at least every two years to ensure the required skills are maintained. (2) This procedure can be followed with varying degrees of difficulty and likelihood of success at Bankstown Airport dependent on the following factors runway in use wind direction and strength (velocity) aircraft height at time of failure skill and reaction time of the pilot geographical position of aircraft at time of failure. (3) Pilots are trained to use the best area available in the case of an emergency (such as engine failure on take-off below 700'). Availability of areas depends on the factors listed at Item (2) above. A pilot using Runway 29 could possibly use several vacant paddocks, a golf course, picnic grounds or a river. A pilot using Runway 11 has a more limited choice, although areas are available. There are vacant paddocks, a sports field and race track close in to the airport. These might be used if the failure occurs below 500' above ground level. Above 500' the aircraft would be turning on to the crosswind leg of the circuit and could possibly, depending on wind velocity, return to the airfield. (Question No. 4844) Mr Coleman asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: How many prosecutions have been initiated under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act since it was proclaimed. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Since proclamation 31 persons have been charged under various provisions of the Act in 6 separate incidents with the following results: (1) Of 19 persons charged with offences under section 7 of the Act in relation to an assembly at Eden in NSW, 13 were committed for trial. One person was convicted, 9 persons were acquitted, and a nolle prosequi was entered in respect of the remaining 3 persons when the jury was unable to agree upon a verdict. (2) Of 3 persons charged with offences under paragraph 7 (1) (a) of the Act in relation to plans for the overthrow of the Federal Islamic Republic of Comoros, all were committed for trial but a nolle prosequi was entered subsequently because of a lack of evidence. (3) Of 3 other persons charged with offences under paragraph 7 (1) (f) of the Act in relation to the same plans for the overthrow of the Federal Islamic Republic of Comoros, all were subsequently convicted. (4) One person was charged with offences under paragraph 7 (1) (e) of the Act in relation to the sending of arms to the UK for use in Northern Ireland. For technical legal reasons, there was insufficient evidence for the charge to be made out, and the Attorney-General declined to consent to the prosecution of the person, who was subsequently convicted under the Customs Act for smuggling offences. (5) One person was charged with offences under paragraphs 7 (1) (e) and 9 (1) (a) of the Act in relation to an attempt to recruit mercenaries in Australia to lead PNG guerillas against the Indonesian Government in Irian Jaya. The matter is still pending. (6) Of 4 persons charged with offences under section 6 of the Act in relation to an attempt to smuggle arms to white settlers in New Caledonia for use against pro-independence Kanaks, the DPP declined to recommend that the Attorney-General consent to the prosecution of the 4 persons. It was considered unlikely that suitable evidence could be obtained to sustain the charge. (Question No. 4853) Mr Cobb asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) What is the average level of assistance given to the textile, clothing and footwear industries (a) as a whole and (b) on an industry by industry basis. (2) What would be the average level of assistance given to the textile, clothing and footwear industries (a) as a whole and (b) on an industry by industry basis after reducing the levels of protection by a ``tops-down'' approach to a maximum rate of (i) 25 per cent, (ii) 50 per cent and (iii) 75 per cent. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1 (a) The average level of assistance applying to the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industries as a whole on the basis of current arrangements (average 1982 to 1986 tender premium bids) is estimated by the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) to be equivalent to a tariff of 52 per cent. (b) IAC Report, No. 386, Volume 3, Appendix W, Table W.2.2 Page W.13 provides estimates of current assistance levels on an industry by industry basis. 2 (a) The average tariff equivalent levels for the TCF industries after reducing assistance levels by the ``tops down'' approach to maximum rates of (i) 25 per cent, (ii) 50 per cent and (iii) 75 per cent are estimated by the IAC to be 20 per cent, 32 per cent and 43 per cent, respectively. (b) See 1 (b) above. (Question No. 4854) Mr Cobb asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) What has been the real percentage increase in the level of protection to local industries due to the devaluation of the Australian dollar since 1983. (2) Have the benefits of the devaluation been revealed in (a) increased exports due to our domestic products becoming relatively cheaper to overseas buyers, (b) decreased imports due to overseas products becoming relatively dearer to local consumers or (c) exports falling less than they otherwise would have; if so, can the Minister give details. (3) Have the disadvantages to local industries of the devaluation been revealed in (a) increased costs to inputs, (b) higher inflation and (c) other effects; if so, can the Minister give details. (4) What is the approximate net effect of the devaluation to local industry after taking into account the benefits and disadvantages. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question in regard to the industries covered by his portfolio: (1) It is not possible to quantify the real percentage increase in the level of protection to local industries due to the devaluation of the Australian dollar. The impact varies from industry to industry and depends upon not only the existing level of assistance but also on a number of other factors. These include the effect of the devaluation on input costs for both imported and domestically produced goods; higher freight, insurance, and interest payments; and the flow on of higher prices to wages. These factors reduce the competitive boost to industry from the depreciation. (2) The widening of the current account deficit as a result of the terms of trade collapse has disguised a significant improvement in export and import volumes. In the first three quarters of 1986 the volume of imports fell by 2.2 per cent compared with the same period a year earlier while the volume of exports rose by 3.3 per cent. For 1985-86 as a whole, export volumes increased by 7.1 per cent while imports increased by only 9.0 per cent. Further benefits to the trade account are expected as Australian industries adjust to their new competitive position. (3) Local industry has been subject to direct price increases for the imported goods it uses due to the devaluation. In 1985-86 as a whole import prices rose by 13.7 per cent. Imported capital goods increased in price by 21.3 per cent, intermediate goods by 8.6 per cent and consumption goods by 18.4 per cent. The extent of cost increases resulting from the depreciation has been limited by the willingness of overseas producers and importers to absorb some of the currency movement. Import prices have not increased as much as would at first be indicated by the depreciation. The depreciation has led to some increase in the rate of domestic inflation. The ABS has estimated that in the September quarter 1986, for example, the direct effect of price rises for goods wholly or predominantly imported and of petroleum products was 0.66 percentage points of the 2.6. per cent rise in the Consumer Price Index. (4) It is not possible to quantify the net effect of the devaluation, nor is it possible to explain (with any certainty) trade volume improvements solely in terms of the devaluation. As noted above there has been an improvement in trade volumes. This reflects the impact of the devaluation but the slowdown in economic activity is also likely to have had a moderating effect on the volume of imports. (Question No. 4857) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) Is he able to say what estimate can be made of the impact on Australia's economy of Australian aid to Papua New Guinea. (2) What proportion of Australian bilateral and multilateral aid is spent on goods and services originating in Australia. (3) From which electoral divisions do the goods and services comprising Australian bilateral and multilateral aid originate. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am unable to estimate with any degree of precision the impact on Australia's economy of Australian aid to Papua New Guinea, although I can make some general observations about the size of Australia's aid to the country in relation to Australia/PNG trade and investment generally. In 1986/87 Australia will provide $328.2 million in aid to Papua New Guinea principally in the form of budget support. This represents around 28 percent of Papua New Guinea's budget resources. Australia's exports to Papua New Guinea totalled $558 million in 1985/86 while Australian imports from Papua New Guinea for this period totalled $174 million. After taking into account invisible earnings, this represents a trade imbalance of 5:1 in Australia's favour. In addition Papua New Guinea is Australia's third largest overseas investment base. Against this background, it is reasonable to assume that the Papua New Guinea Government would continue to draw on Australian budget support to finance its imports from Australia which in turn would have a beneficial although small impact on the Australian economy. The 1986/87 aid program to Papua New Guinea also includes an amount totalling $10.5 million for projects, training (including the contribution to the education of Papua New Guinea students in Australia) and technical assistance. This is an increase on expenditure in previous years, reflecting an increased emphasis on this form of aid within the overall arrangements between the two governments. In developing this program in accordance with Papua New Guinea priorities, the Australian Government is seeking to maximise the use of Australian goods and services. (2) About 91 per cent of bilateral aid expenditure in 1985-86, excluding aid to Papua New Guinea, was spent on goods and services sourced from Australia. Detailed information is not available on the proportion of all multilateral aid spent on Australian-sourced goods and services. In the case of the Australian funds supplied to the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, however, an average of about 65 per cent has returned to Australia for the purchase of goods and services. (3) The information needed to answer this question is not available. (Question No. 4860) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Tranport, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) When did the Government introduce indexation of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program 2 cents per litre fuel excise and what is the present level of the indexed excise. (2) What sum has been paid into consolidated revenue since the excise was indexed. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982 does not provide for indexation of the excise surcharge. (Question No. 4861) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: Has the Commonwealth reduced its grants for Victorian local government unclassified roads in 1986-87; if not, is he able to say whether the Victorian Government is responsible for the reduction in the funds allocated for these roads this year. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Federal Government has identified and declared a system of roads comprising four categories for the purposes of Federal funding. These categories are: national roads, urban arterial roads, rural arterial roads, and local roads. However, there is no direct comparison between the Federal road categories and the State classification of roads in Victoria. For example some two thirds of ``unclassified roads'' fall into the Federal category of local roads and the balance are arterial roads. Federal funding for arterial roads in Victoria has increased from $106.1 million in 1985-86 to $106.8 million in 1986-87 while the local roads allocation has increased from $52.0 million to $52.4 million. It should be noted that ``unclassified roads'' is only a State category. No published information is available on funds allocated to this category in 1986-87 by the Victorian Government. Consequently, I am unable to comment on the level of funding allocated to this category by a State Government. (Question No. 4862) Ms McHugh asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) Is any payment made to the US Government for the use of facilities at North West Cape; if so, why. (2) What rent does the US Government pay for leases for the facilities at (a) North West Cape, (b) Nurrungar and (c) Pine Gap. (3) Is he able to say what rents are paid by the US Government to other countries for the use of military bases. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) and (3) See my answer to question on notice no. 4254 (Hansard, 16 September 1986, p. 658). (Question No. 4864) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, 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 Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, it is the practice of the Department to recognise such local public holidays at regional centres; (a) decisions are taken by the Public Service Board, (b) there is no Departmental guideline on the matter, and (c) the Public Service Board follows local community practice when determining the length of time to be taken as a local public holiday. (2) Full pay is the basis of payment in these circumstances. (Question No. 4868) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) On what basis does his Department pay the benefits entitlement of one person to a third party. (2) How many people in each benefit category are affected by this practice. (3) Is this practice widely used in Aboriginal communities; if so, (a) which communities, (b) how many individuals are involved and (c) what is the total value of the payments. (4) Has this practice been adopted by any religious or charitable groups or organisations; if so, what organisations (b) how many people are involved and (c) what is the total value of the payments. (5) When did this practice commence. (6) What procedures are used to monitor the effectiveness, efficiency and integrity of this particular payment system. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Sub-section 135TC (2) of the Social Security Act permits a pension, benefit or allowance payable to a person under the Social Security Act to be paid to another person on behalf of the first mentioned person. Payment to a third party is usually made at the request of the pensioner or beneficiary. It may also occur where the pensioner or beneficiary is incapable of handling his/her own affairs. Payment of additional benefit payable for a spouse or children may be made to the spouse where it is shown that the beneficiary is not using the benefit for the maintenance of his/her dependants. (2) Statistics are kept nationally on group cheque payments of pensions to institutions, payments to sheltered workshops and pension payments to individuals. The numbers of individuals covered by such payments as at September 1986 are as follows: Age Pension...49,709 Invalid Pension...22,148 Sheltered Employment Allowance...9,986 Widow's Pension...593 Supporting Parent's Benefit...101 Rehabilitation Allowance...50 Comparable statistics for unemployment, sickness and special benefits are not available. As indicated in my answer to Question No. 4731 national statistics are not available on payments to institutions through the direct credit method. (3) No. (4) Some nursing homes and other institutions conducted by religious or charitable groups use this provision. In view of the large number of organisations involved (see answer to Question No. 4731) I am not prepared to authorise the considerable commitment of resources needed to provide an answer to this question. (5) A provision similar to Sub-section 135TC (2) was included in the Invalid and Old Age Pension Act of 1908 and the Social Services Consolidation Act of 1947. (6) See answer to Question No. 4731. This payment system is also subject to normal audit procedures and other departmental review mechanisms of administrative arrangements. (Question No. 4869) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) Further to his answer to question No. 2410 (Hansard, 20 February 1986, page 1031), why was the work undertaken by Chandler Hambleton Mier in respect of the Youth Support Program Priority One of a confidential nature and urgent. (2) What work was performed by the agency. (3) How was the agency selected and what criteria were used in making the selection. (4) Is he able to say, what other work has been performed by the agency for the Government; if so, for each job (a) what was the cost of the work, (b) what was the method of selection, (c) what other agencies were considered, (d) who were they considered by and (e) what was the basis for the selection. (5) Will he supply all documentation, including tender documents and responses for all jobs for which Chandler Hambleton Mier were selected for Government work. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As outlined in my response to question No. 2410 (Hansard, 20 February 1986, page 1031), the initial task was to urgently write and produce the Prime Minister's Address to the Nation, once the parameters of the Government's policy had been determined. Important work such as a Prime Minister's Speech to the Nation is always treated as confidential. (2) Chandler Hambleton Mier was responsible for drafting and producing the Prime Minister's Address to the Nation and for the design and preparation of advertising and information activity for the Priority One campaign (including advertising and promotional support for the Australian Traineeship System). (3) The names and brief profiles of three agencies were considered by the Government/the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs. The agencies were assessed against their background in Government work and their credentials. Chandler Hambleton Mier was selected because of the standard of their previous work for the Government and their credentials in creative advertising. (4) Other work performed by Chandler Hambleton Mier for the Government is as follows: Sex Discrimination Act Campaign (for the Human Rights Commission, Attorney-General's Department) (a) Cost of Campaign: $255,000. Amount paid to agency: $45,365 (b) In accordance with standard procedures followed by the Government's central advertising service, six agencies were invited to submit proposals for the campaign. The proposals were considered by a Working Group of officers from relevant departments and government bodies, and short-listed for further consideration by the Ministerial Committee on Government Information and Advertising, which made the final selection. (c) Ogilvy and Mather, Forbes McFie and Hansen, Fortune Communications, Pemberton Australia, Magnus Nankervis and Curl (d) See answer to (b) (e) The agencies were assessed against their understanding of the brief, their affinity with the project and the quality of their personnel. Referendum Proposals (for the Attorney-General's Department) (a) Cost of campaign: $22,832: Amount paid to agency: $9,500. (b) Three advertising agencies were briefed to allow them to submit campaign proposals. These proposals were then considered by the Steering Committee assisting the Attorney-General and his Department. (c) Connaghan and May, Paton Ayer, Ogilvy and Mather (d) See answer to (b) (e) The agencies were assessed against their knowledge and understanding of the brief, their creative ability, and their media rationale. (5) The central advertising service does not select agencies for Government work through the tendering process. The standard procedure is that a number of agencies are invited to submit proposals for a campaign and assessed on the basis of their submissions. Documents relating to advertising campaign work are commercial-in-confidence, and because of this, I do not believe it is appropriate to table such documentation in Parliament. (Question No. 4873) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 12 November 1986: (1) Did the Minister state, in the preface to Discussion Paper No. 1 in the series Energy 2000-National Energy Policy Review that more specific objectives of the Government's energy policy have included the encouragement of the preparation of contingency plans to cope with a sudden short-term loss of liquid fuel supplies; if so, what is the nature of these contingency plans. (2) Are details of these contingency plans publicly available, if so, in what form. (3) If details of the contingency plans have not been made available to the public, will the Minister undertake to make them available. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) I did state, in the preface to Discussion Paper No. 1 in the series Energy 2000-National Energy Policy Review, that more specific objectives of the Government's energy policy have included the encouragement of the preparation of contingency plans to cope with a sudden short-term loss of liquid fuel supplies. The nature of these plans is described in the Report of the National Petroleum Advisory Committee `Management of a National Liquid Fuel Supply Emergency', which was tabled in the Parliament on 16 September 1982 and adopted by Commonwealth, States and the Northern Territory Governments as the basis for contingency planning. The objectives of the plans are to ensure that in the event of a sudden short-term loss of liquid fuel supplies essential community services are maintained, that the impact on the level of Australian economic activity is minimised, and that the burden of the shortage is shared equitably amongst fuel users. (2) Details of the contingency plans against a national liquid fuels supply emergency have been developed under the auspices of the Australian Minerals and Energy Council by the National Fuels Emergency consultative Committee which comprises officials of Commonwealth, States and Territories. A comprehensive description of the plans is contained in the report `Management of a National Liquid Fuels Supply Emergency' and in the `Guideline Procedures for the Management of A National Liquid Fuels Supply Emergency' which were tabled in the Parliament on 16 September. Other information is available in the `Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984' and the `Guidelines' under various Sections of the Act, published as Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 92-99, the Department of Resources and Energy's `Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984-A Guide' and the National Petroleum Advisory Committee's `Strategic Stocks Policy 1986'. The Department's `Australian Liquid Fuels Emergency Management Manual' provides an operational hand-book for those involved in the day-to-day preparations against, and management of, a national liquid fuels supply emergency. (3) The following publications are available for purchase from Commonwealth Government Bookshops: `Management of National Liquid Fuels Supply Emergency' and `Guideline Procedures for the Management of a National Liquid Fuels Supply Emergency'. Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. Guidelines under various Sections of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. (Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 92-99.) The following publications are available free of charge on request to the Department of Resources and Energy: `Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984-A Guide, `Strategic Stocks Policy 1986', `Australian Liquid Fuels Emergency Management Manual'. I have arranged for copies of all of these documents to be forwarded to the honourable member. (Question No. 4875) Mr Everingham asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 November 1986: (1) Have there been inordinate delays in taxation assessments under the Prescribed Payments Scheme. (2) Have delays of up to 9 months been occurring even when the taxpayer has claimed credit for a num- ber of prescribed payments with the same payer number and the same payee number. (3) How has the situation arisen and what are the implications for the Australian taxation system, considering the recent introduction of complex fringe benefits and capital gains taxes. (4) What action does he propose to increase the efficiency of the Taxation Office in light of the increasing doubt about the Taxation Office's ability to handle the work imposed upon it. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Lengthy delays were encountered in the issuing of some taxation assessments, particularly in 1984, the first year of operation of the Prescribed Payments Scheme (PPS). Some of the delayed cases would have included those with a number of deduction forms from the same payer. (3) The delays in the issuing of taxation assessments came about mainly because of mismatches between credit claimed by the payee and that shown in Taxation Office records. The mismatches were caused by errors or omissions on the part of taxpayers or their agents. To a large extent new procedures have now been developed to overcome these problems. The Commissioner of Taxation does not expect that there will be significant problems with the administration of the Fringe Benefits Tax and the Capital Gains Tax. (4) The Government is confident that the Taxation Office is able to carry out its responsibilities in the collection of taxes and the administration of the taxation laws. (Question No. 4876) Mr Everingham asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 12 November 1986: (1) Has Heli-Muster Pty Ltd experienced problems with radiocommunications. (2) Was Heli-Muster allocated a particular radio frequency to allow the company interference-free communication. (3) Has this frequency also been allocated to a number of Aboriginal communities. (4) Does the lack of clear radiocommunication cause considerable inconvenience to the company and could endanger the lives of pilots in difficulty. (5) What action does he propose to overcome the difficulties presently being experienced. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Heli-Muster Pty Ltd have complained about problems associated with sharing the frequency 5059.5 kHz with an Aboriginal community. (2) No. While care is taken in assigning frequencies, there is no assurance in the assignment of any frequency that the licensee will be able to use it free from interference. Interference may be substantial or minor and may be as a result of sources within Australia or from overseas. Heli-Muster Pty Ltd were assigned frequencies 5059.5 kHz, 9307.5 kHz, 10184.5 kHz and 15675.5 kHz for a point to point fixed service. They were also assigned the frequencies 3705.5 kHz and 6861.5 kHz for an aeronautical mobile service. (3) Yes. The frequency 5059.5 kHz is shared with a number of other enterprises which include an Aboriginal community based at Tennant Creek. Only a limited number of frequencies are available to provide communication over long distances. In view of the heavy demand for high frequency communication and the shortage of suitable frequencies, the use of most high frequencies is on a shared basis. (4) As outlined in (2) above the frequency 5059.5 kHz was assigned to Heli-Muster Pty Ltd for a point to point fixed service. The use of this frequency by them for aeronautical mobile operations contravenes the conditions of the licence and is an offence under section 25 (1) ((a)) of the Radiocommunications Act 1983. Heli-Muster Pty Ltd should use the frequencies 3705.5 kHz and 6861.5 kHz for their aeronautical mobile service. (5) Officers of my Department have spoken with Heli-Muster Pty Ltd on a number of occasions with a view to regularising their operations and discussing other problems, without success. The New South Wales State Manager of my Department would be more than happy to discuss any communication requirements. (Question No. 4880) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) What sum is proposed to be spent on advertising changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which came into effect on 1 November 1986. (2) What forms of advertising will be used and what will each cost. (3) Are any funds being spent on advertising the 45 items deleted from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for pensioners and concessional card holders; if so, what sum is being spent and in what forms are the advertisements appearing. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $484,000 (2) Pamphlets $343,000; Poster for Pharmacies $10,000; Newspaper and Magazine Advertising $131,000. (3) No. (Question No. 4886) Mr Price asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) How many applications for the Defence Force Service Medal have yet to be assessed for eligibility in each of the 3 branches of the Armed Forces. (2) How many awards have yet to be submitted to the Governor-General for approval. (3) Are the awards submitted to the Governor-General for approval in order of application or in the order in which the applicant was assessed as being eligible. (4) What action is being taken to reduce the backlog of approvals. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Navy-nil. Army-nil. Air Force-257. (2) Navy-100. Army-162. Air Force-cannot be determined until eligibility of the 257 referred to above is assessed. (3) Navy and Army-in order of receipt of application. Air Force-in the order in which the person was assessed as being eligible. (4) Navy and Army have no backlog. Air Force expects to eliminate its backlog by January 1987. (Question No. 4893) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Are any airlines which use Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport incurring losses due to traffic delays and traffic congestion at that airport; if so, what is the current annual rate of those losses. (2) What decisions has the Government made to eliminate the causes of those losses. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In 1985, there were 183 958 landings and take-offs at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airpot, by aircraft other than helicopters. This level of use results in some traffic delays in peak periods. Using 1984 cost information the loss to all users including airlines is estimated to total between $9m and $10m per annum. This estimate is for aircraft operating costs, and excludes consideration of the delay costs to passengers and costs of airline schedule disruption. (2) Delay costs cannot in practice be eliminated at any airport as there remains the probability of more than one aircraft planning to use the airport at the same time, in which case one will take precedence, and the others will be delayed. The challenge is not to attempt to eliminate delays, but to properly manage airport congestion so that the cost of delay does not exceed the benefits of additional services scheduled during peak periods. At Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport a priority system operates which generally accords preference of use to scheduled over non-scheduled services, and this has proven effective during the period it has been applied. The options for management of peak traffic have been improved by the selection of the second airport site at Badgerys Creek and the efficiency of traffic movement is being enhanced by the taxiway improvement works currently in progress. (Question No. 4895) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) How many air traffic controllers are employed at each regional airport. (2) Which regional airports are (a) subject to a dispensation from air traffic control requirements and (b) listed to have air traffic controllers placed on their staff. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The numbers of Air Traffic Controllers employed at regional (non-metropolitan) airports are: Albury...6 Alice Springs...12 Cairns...10 Coffs Harbour...4 Coolangatta...8 Karratha...4 Launceston...18 Mackay/Proserpine and Hamilton Island...8 Maroochydore...6 Mount Isa...6 Port Hedland...8 Rockhampton...6 Tamworth...4 Townsville*...35 Wagga Wagga...4 * At Townsville Department of Aviation provides en route control and an Operational Control Centre. Department of Defence provides aerodrome/approach control (not included). (2) (a) Aerodrome (air traffic) control is provided when the level of aircraft movements, mix of aircraft types and other operational circumstances require control to ensure the safety of aerodrome operations. Airports at which regular public transport turbo-jet operations take place without air traffic control are: Broken Hill, Broome, Carnarvon, Casino, Cooma, Derby, Devonport, Dubbo, Geraldton, Gove, Groote Eylandt, Kalgoorlie, Kununurra, Learmonth, Newman, Norfolk Island, Paraburdoo, Tindal, Yulara. (b) None. Gove is subject to annual review of the possible requirement for air traffic control. (Question No. 4898) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: (1) Is it a fact that South Australian tuna boats are fishing off the east coast of Australia and taking marlin; if so, is that marlin being processed, canned and marketed as tuna. (2) Is he able to say whether State legislation, notably in New South Wales and Queensland, prohibits the marketing of marlin because of its high mercury content. (3) Will the Government prohibit the marketing of marlin, whether marked tuna or not, in light of its possible public health risk. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Two large longliners owned by a South Australian company have fished off the east coast and, I understand, have taken marlin, mainly striped marlin, and other billfish in addition to their principal target-tunas. The fish was transhipped in Eden, New South Wales to a Japanese carrier vessel for transport to the Japanese sashimi market. I have no knowledge of its being processed in Australia, apart from gilling and gutting aboard the catcher boats, nor of its being marketed as tuna. I am advised that striped marlin on the Japanese sashimi market averaged $A7.50 per kilogram in 1985/86 and that marlin does not make a suitable canning product. Consequently I doubt that there would have been either the opportunity or the intention to use marlin take for canning. Although marketing of fish in Australia is generally the responsibility of the State and Territory Governments I would be concerned if marlin were being misrepresented as tuna and I instructed my Department to consult with the fisheries and health authorities in New South Wales and Queensland. As the vessels are South Australian owned and given the availability of canning facilities in that State my Department made similar enquiries of South Australia. The Department of Primary Industry, as a result of those enquiries, found no indication that marlin was being canned and sold as tuna. (2) and (3) New South Wales legislation prohibits the commercial taking of marlin in State waters and its marketing in New South Wales. Marlin taken beyond State waters may be marketed subject to adherence to the requirements of the New South Wales Pure Food Act which sets the permissible mercury level at 0.5 milligrams per kilogram. Inspectors sample marlin offered for sale and if that level is exceeded the fish is destroyed and the vendor is liable to prosecution. Queensland legislation does not ban specifically the sale of marlin but under its Food Standards Regulations 1982 the permissible level of mercury for fish is 0.5 milligrams per kilogram. The South Australian Food Act 1985 prohibits the sale of fish in any form with a mercury content in excess of one milligram per kilogram. Also it is illegal to represent marlin as tuna. The questions raised by the honourable member are related mainly to the responsibilities of the State and Territory Government. Should it be established that marlin is being misrepresented as tuna then I would certainly bring it to the attention of the responsible Ministers. (Question No. 4899) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: (1) What sums (a) have been committed by the Government to Expo 88 and (b) will be committed by the time Expo 88 opens. (2) Of these sums, what has been or will be committed to (a) the Australian pavilion and (b) other purposes. (3) What are the details of the individual items that comprise the figures given in answer to part 2 (b). Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Government is committed to meeting costs associated with: The Operation of the Office of the Commissioner-General of Expo 88 The planning, construction and operation of the Australian pavilion at Expo 88 The provision of assistance to enable developing countries to participate in Expo 88 The provision of customs, immigration, security and other services needs generated by Expo 88. Expenditure against the Office of the Commissioner-General of Expo 88 was $28,848 in 1983/84, $225, 429 in 1984/85 and $217,385 in 1985/86. An amount of $310,000 has been appropriated in 1986/87. Expenditure to date on the Australian pavilion is $3m in 1984/85 (held in trust by the Brisbane and South Bank Redevelopment Authority) and $1,617 in 1985/86. There has been no Commonwealth expenditure to date on assistance to developing countries or the provision of customs, immigration, security and other services needs generated by Expo 88. (1) (b) A budget of $18m has been set for the planning, construction and operation of the Australian pavilion. The total amounts to be committed to the operation of the Office of the Commissioner-General of Expo 88 and the costs of customs, immigration, security and other services needs have yet to be determined. The Commonwealth is to contribute up to $1.28m (from the interest on the money held in trust by BESBRA) in 1987/88 towards assisting the participation of developing countries such as, for example, China, South Pacific countries and ASEAN nations. (2) (a) and (2) (b) see answer to (1) (a) and (1) (b) above. (3) See answers to (1) (a) and (1) (b) above. (Question No. 4904) Mr Tickner asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: (1) Are horse and pony clubs taxed on income and investments without the benefit of the limitations and exemptions from taxation granted to greyhound racing, horse racing and trotting. (2) Will he investigate this apparent anomaly with a view to correcting it. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Sections 23 (g) (iii) and 23 (g) (iv) of the Income Tax Assessment Act provide for exemption from income tax of a society, association or club which is not carried on for profit or gain to its individual members and is established for, or has as its predominant activity, the encouragement or promotion either of an athletic game or sport in which humans are the sole participants or of animal races. Pony clubs, motor sports clubs and many other sporting clubs do not satisfy the criteria for those specific exemptions. Nevertheless, as with non-profit clubs and associations generally, pony clubs do receive favourable treatment under the income tax law. They are free from tax on income received from members under the `principle of mutuality'. This principle recognises that members of an association, society or club do not make a profit from dealing collectively amongst themselves. Therefore, such organisations only pay tax on income from investments and from trading with non-members. In addition, a tax-free threshold of $4,416 per annum applies in determining tax payable. This threshold is phased out over the income range $416 to $2,542. (2) Pony clubs have not been singled out for discriminatory income tax treatment. The tax treatment of pony clubs remains unchanged, as it has for many years. Indeed, many other types of sports and games clubs are also not covered by specific exemption provisions. These include clubs such as motor racing clubs, motor boat racing clubs, aero and aerobatics clubs, and equestrian clubs generally. The Section 23 exemptions referred to above also do not cover non-profit clubs and associations established for predominantly social purposes such as RSL clubs, clubs serving ethnic groups, workers' clubs etc., as well as sporting clubs whose predominant activities are judged to be the provision of amenities for their members rather than the promotion of an athletic sport or game. Any extension of the exemptions, to pony clubs or others, would make it extremely difficult for the Government to refuse the numerous calls for similar exemptions that have been received from bodies representing other sports not presently receiving exemption and from non-profit clubs and associations generally. Such a development could have substantial budgetary consequences, which could not be contemplated in the current economic environment. (Question No. 4905) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: Did Australia protest to the Marcos Government on the occasion of the murder of Father Favali; if so, what was the timing and nature of the protest. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. The Australian Embassy in Manila has monitored developments in the case and subsequent trial, and an Embassy officer has met one of the prosecutors in the case to discuss the progress of the trial. (Question No. 4906) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: (1) Did the Australian Ambassador to the Philippines deliver a speech to the Australian Chamber of Commerce in Manila on the general subject of Australian-Philippines relations on or about 23 January 1985. (2) Was the subject of human rights not mentioned by the Ambassador during the course of his speech but raised as a result of a question from the audience. (3) Did the Ambassador reply with words to the effect that he was not going to ``bang on doors'' about human rights issues when asked what Australia was doing in relation to human rights. (4) Will he inquire into the record of Australian diplomatic representatives in the Philippines in taking up human rights issues during the latter years of the Marcos regime. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Ambassador spoke on Australian-Philippine relations to a breakfast meeting of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Manila on 23 January 1985. (2) The Ambassador did not cover the subject of human rights in his speech but spoke of the way ``attitudes towards the Philippines (in Australia) had been affected by extensive reporting of the case of Father Brian Gore and his co-defendents, and that this had created a highly unfavourable image of the Philippines''. (3) In response to a provocatively phrased question about what he was doing about human rights, the Ambassador responded that he was not ``banging on doors'' as he did not believe that such an approach would be effective. (4) The Australian Embassy in Manila has developed and maintained contact with a range of human rights interest groups and regularly reports on human rights issues. During the Marcos Administration, other Ministers and I made a number of statements in Parliament placing on public record, in a manner which the Philippine Government would take into account, the concern of the Australian Government and people about human rights in the Philippines. The Australian Government takes a close interest in the human rights situation in the Philippines in United Nations forums such as the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. At the forty-second session of the Commission on Human rights in March 1986 Australia welcomed the pledge of the Aquino Government to bring justice to the numerous Philippine victims of human rights violations. Specific cases on which representations were made during the Marcos Administration included the following: The case of child labour aboard fishing vessels in the Sulu Sea in which a fishing company was accused of violating Labour Laws concerning children. The Escalante incident of 20 September 1985 in which nineteen people were killed following the firing on a crowd of demonstrations by members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Civilian Home Defence Forces. The alleged abduction of Father Rudy Romano on 11 July 1985. The Free Legal Assistance Group Lawyers (Ilagan, Resonar and Arellano) who were charged in May 1985 with subversion and held in military custody and were released on 27 February 1986. Father Gore (arrested 18 October 1982 and acquitted in July 1984). The Sag-Od Massacre in which some 45 villagers in Samar were murdered on 15 September 1981. (Question No. 4909) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in The Sydney Morning Herald on 11 November 1986 headed ``Monday: How come you're at the beach?'' (2) Does Telecom employ a line serviceman named Mark Wilson. (3) What is a ``generous lunch'' at Telecom. (4) Is a generous lunch envisaged within the flexi-time arrangements. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) There is no such term within Telecom. (4) See answer to Part 3. (Question No. 4910) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 18 November 1986: (1) Does the Australian Maritime College annual report for 1985 show that income received from fees charged for specialist programs fell from $167,046 to $160,700 in 1985. (2) What are the reasons for the downturn in income from fees in 1985. (3) What is the nature of the specialist programs for which the College charges fees. (4) Are there any operational activities of the College training vessel Wyuna which are classified as specialist programs and produce income from fees; if so, what are the details. (5) What is the College's present policy in relation to the availability of specialist programs and their fees and is this policy presently being reviewed. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) The College offered short specialist courses during 1985, but due to the training requirements and economic conditions prevailing in the maritime industry, the demand for these courses decreased in 1985. There has, however, been a significant increase in demand during 1986. The income for 1986 is estimated at $300,000. (3) There is a wide range of short specialist course programs for the maritime industries for which the College charges fees. These programs are generally offered in response to a perceived or expressed need from industry and include by way of example such courses as the following: Elements of Ship Board Safety Navigation and Automatic Radar Plotting Aid Unmanned Machinery Spaces Courses on the College Engine Room Simulator Shiphandling Simulator Command Courses Advanced Fire Protection and Control Radar Simulation Courses for Certificates and Revalidation for Engineers, Masters and Mates Petroleum Tanker Safety Courses Chemical Tanker Safety Courses Proficiency in Survival Craft Human Relations and Management The College Council approves a list of short specialist courses to be offered each semester. This information is promulgated for information of the maritime industries. (4) Wyuna is generally used for the practical segments of courses for trainee officers and ratings rather than for short courses. Prior to the acquisition of the College's shiphandling simulator, a complete one-week specialist course on Bridge Team Work was conducted entirely on board Wyuna. There are currently no specialist programs entirely provided on board Wyuna. (5) Section 7 of the Maritime College Act 1978 sets out the functions of the College. These are in part: (a) to conduct an institution for the provision of such maritime and maritime related education and training as the Council, with the approval of the Minister, determines, or as the Minister requires, being principally tertiary education for persons who wish to become, or are, officers on merchant or fishing vessels or who wish to become, or are, otherwise engaged in connection with shipping or the fishing industry; (b) to use the facilities and resources of the College to advance and develop knowledge and skills in the fields with which the College is concerned. Section 9 provides that the College may, in pursuance of arrangements between the College and the Minister for Transport, conduct on behalf of the Commonwealth: (a) short courses of maritime training; and (b) Examinations and assessments for marine competency in accordance with the Navigation Act 1912. Section 32 of the Act empowers the College to charge fees with the approval of the Minister. The College has sought and has received Ministerial approval to charge fees for short courses. Fees are charged with the objective of recovering the costs of operating the courses but a full cost recovery position has not yet been attained in all areas. The general policy of providing short specialist programs for the maritime industries is not under review, but the types of courses provided are reviewed each semester as previously indicated. (Question No. 4911) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 18 November 1986: (1) Is it a fact that between one third and one half of residents of Tallaganda Shire, NSW will lose, or experience a reduction in, their television reception when Channels WIN 4 and ABC 5A, Wollongong, convert to broadcasting in the UHF band. (2) What steps are being taken by the Government to ensure that the residents of Tallaganda Shire do not suffer the loss of existing television services. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. It is true that some residents of the Tallaganda Shire, who presently obtain long distance reception of WIN-4 and ABC-5A from Wollongong, will lose that very marginal reception when these stations cease their VHF transmissions early in 1989. (2) While part of the Tallaganda Shire lies within the Service Area of CTC-7 Canberra, much of the Shire falls within the Service Area for the South East Remote Commercial Television Service (RCTS) and is not within the Service Areas of either WIN Wollongong or CTC Canberra. Apart from a few settlements, most of the Shire is sparsely populated and consists of terrain that is difficult to effectively serve by terrestrial means. Television viewers in these areas generally have patchy reception which is, at best, of marginal quality. The new UHF transmitters in Wollongong are not designed to serve these residents, who live well outside the stations' service area. On the other hand, CTC Canberra has recently undertaken to provide a new UHF translator to serve the township of Braidwood. As a result of the CTC decision, at least half the Shire's total population will shortly obtain access to high quality reception of CTC's programs and, under the Government's equalisation program, their choice will increase to include three commercial television services over the next few years. This will be a major improvement over the poor quality fortuitous reception they currently enjoy. It is residents in the sparsely populated eastern half of the Shire who are most likely to be affected when Channels 4 and 5A switch to UHF in January 1989. By purchasing domestic satellite earth stations (costing approximately $2500) they will gain access to the high quality RCTS and ABC Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service (HACBSS) television and radio services, which again will provide vastly superior reception compared with their present marginal reception of distant stations. With few exceptions, viewers living within WIN's formal Service Area will have access to high quality reception from the new terrestrial UHF transmissions-provided they install UHF receiving equipment. In most cases, their UHF reception will be noticeably superior to existing reception of VHF stations. (Question No. 4912) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 November 1986: Further to his answer to Question No. 3797 (Hansard, 16 September 1986, page 683), is he able to say what decisions were made by the Ministerial Council at its September meeting concerning the question of appeal rights and other issues related to the regulation of takeovers. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: At its September 1986 meeting, the Ministerial Council received a paper prepared by Victoria on the role of the Courts and the discretions of the NCSC in takeovers. This paper was subsequently made available to the public as a Victorian discussion paper by the Victorian Attorney-General the Hon. J. H. Kennan, MLC. The Ministerial Council decided to defer consideration of the paper to the February 1987 meeting of the Council. The Ministerial Council also considered reports by the National Companies and Securities Commission on (a) The Cross Investments between the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and Elders IXL Limited; and (b) Defensive Schemes and Duties of Directors. Both reports have subsequently been made publicly available. (Question No. 4913) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 November 1986: (1) Is it a fact that the Accounting Standards Review Board (ASRB) has been accepting, virtually without amendment, standards prepared by the Australian Accounting Research Foundation; if so, (a) is the ASRB performing a useful function in this area and (b) would it be less expensive and time consuming simply to accept standards prepared by the profession. (2) Further to question No. 3798 (Hansard, 16 September 1986 page 673), (a) does his answer to part (3) indicate that the ASRB is contemplating abandoning historical cost accounting and (b) is it a fact that current cost accounting is now largely discredited in Australia and overseas as an alternative to historical cost accounting. (3) Further to his answer to part 2 (b) of question No. 3798, is he able to say when the disclosure requirements of Schedule 7 will be replaced by approved accounting standards. (4) Is he satisfied with the rate at which standards are being approved by the ASRB. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It is not correct to say that the ASRB has been accepting, virtually without amendment, standards prepared by the Australian Accounting Research Foundation. Before approving a proposed accounting standard the ASRB has to consider whether: (a) the information generated by application of a proposed standard is relevant to informed decision making and discharges directors' accountability in a manner consistent with community requirements and expectations; (b) the proposed standard is well formulated and logically derived; (c) the proposed standard is consistent with approved accounting standards; and (d) the proposed standard is practicable (for some or all companies) having regard to the commercial and economic consequences which might flow from its implementation. I am informed that, as a result of applying the above criteria to the proposed standards submitted by the AARF, the ASRB has had to: (a) substantially re-draft most of the proposed standards; (b) reject one proposed standard and a substantial proportion of another proposed standard because the content was not considered to be correct; and (c) limit the application of some standards in order to avoid imposing onerous disclosure requirements on smaller companies. 2 (a) My answer to part (3) of question No. 3798 does not indicate that the ASRB is contemplating abandoning historical cost accounting. I understand that, for the foreseeable future, historical cost accounting will remain the principal method of accounting. However, this would not prevent the ASRB from monitoring the development of other methods of accounting, such as current cost accounting. 2 (b) World-wide interest in the various methods of accounting for the effects of changing prices (of which current cost accounting is one example) has, for the past decade or so, waxed and waned depending on the rates of inflation in major western countries. Consequently, with today's lower rates of inflation, it is true to say that there is now less interest in current cost accounting than there was some years ago. Some work is still being undertaken on current cost accounting, although it seems that such information may be used to supplement accounts prepared on an historical cost basis rather than replace them. (3) No. The ASRB has established a Working Party to consider the work involved in a transfer of disclosure requirements from Schedule 7 to approved accounting standards. However, the Ministerial Council has not yet received the Working Party's report on either the magnitude of the task or a time table setting out the period over which the transfer is to be achieved. (4) Yes. (Question No. 4917) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 November 1986: (1) Which staff employed on the Pilatus PC-9 Trainer Project have travelled overseas during 1986, and in each case, what were the (a) dates on which travel was undertaken, (b) costs to (i) the Commonwealth and (ii) other parties and (c) number of days involved on official business. (2) Was any advice on the need for such travel sought or obtained from outside his Department; if so, what was the nature of that advice. Mr Beazley —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The PC-9 Project Implementation Team travelled overseas to visit Pilatus in Switzerland, departing Australia on 3 January 1986 and returning on 8 February 1986. Days of official business numbered 34 and the cost to the Commonwealth for travel and allowances was about $48,000. The team comprised: GPCAPT R. N. Kelloway, Project Director, Air Force WGCDR J. B. Playford, Capital Projects, Air Force FLTLT I. J. MacKinnon, Technical Services, Air Force Mr B. C. Owen, Industry Development Division Mr K. Spencer, Defence Contracting Organisation Mr R. M. Stanier, Air Force Materiel. A Production Licence Advisory Team travelled overseas to visit Switzerland departing Australia on 14 April 1986 and returning on 22 April 1986. Days of official business numbered 6 and the cost to the Commonwealth for travel and allowances was about $18,000. The team comprised: GPCAPT C. E. Bradford, Technical Services, Air Force GPCAPT R. N. Kelloway, Project Director, Air Force Mr R. M. Stanier, Air Force Materiel Branch The Project Director Air Force (GPCAPT Kelloway) visited Pilatus in Switzerland on two further occasions 3-4 September 1986 and 17-18 October 1986. Both visits were made in conjunction with other travel in Europe associated with other projects under GPCAPT Kelloway's control. Days of official business numbered 4. The cost of the travel and allowances directly associated with the Pilatus PC-9 project was about $2,500. The Director General of Materiel Projects, Air Commodore Kee visited Pilatus on 11 June 1986 as part of a review of overseas projects under his control. Only one day of official business was involved. The cost of travel and allowances associated with his visit to Pilatus was about $400. Except for unknown internal costs incurred by Pilatus in hosting the visits there was no cost to any other party. (2) No advice was sought or obtained from outside the Department regarding the need for the travel. Before each visit, notification of the Commonwealth's intentions were forwarded to Hawker de Havilland, the prime contractor for the RAAF PC-9 project. Because of the nature of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the prime contractor, the February and April visits were made in conjunction with Hawker de Havilland executives. (Question No. 4918) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 November 1986: (1) What funding has been provided to the Kalkadoon Tribal Council by his Department or the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC). (2) To what projects of the Council have departmental or ADC funds been allocated and have the projects been completed within budget. (3) Does his Department know of any other funding provided to the Council under other government programs. (4) What action is proposed by his Department to assume control over matters relating to the Council. (5) Who are the members of the Council. (6) Does the Council adequately represent the interests of the Kalkadoon people. (7) Is it a fact that division exists within the community over representation of Aboriginal interests; if so, what is being done to (a) overcome this division and (b) establish a responsible representative group in the Mount Isa region. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has provided $89,800 to the Kalkadoon Tribal Council (KTC) since its inception in 1983/84. The $89,800 includes $27,400 for the current financial year which has not all been released as departmental releases are processed on a quarterly basis. The Aboriginal Development commission (ADC) provided $1,500 in 1983/84. (2) The departmental funding has been of a recurrent nature and is as follows: $ 1983/84 Establishment Grant... 6,000 1984/85 Employ and Train a Media and Field Officer for 12 months... 35,400 1985/86 Employ Administrator... 21,000 1986/87 Employ Administrator... 27,400 Total... 89,800 The ADC funding of $1,500 was to cover establishment and incorporation costs. Projects have generally been completed within budget with negligible overexpenditure in one year followed by a small surplus in the next year. (3) The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has provided $155,140 for a Community Employment Project under the Aboriginal segment of the Commonwealth component. The Council has also received a grant of $3,247 from the Public Broadcasting Foundation. (4) None. (5) The Council has 69 members throughout Queensland and the current Board of Directors is: Alf Barton, Clayton Hewitt, Reggie Sam, Alice Singh, Roxalee Price, Ronald Condren, Topsy Harry, Bing Malcolm, Patricia Kyle, George Thorpe, Puddley Condren, May Taylor. (6) There is often argument about whether a particular organisation adequately represents those people in whose interest it was established. I am aware that this is the case with the KTC as it is with some other organisations in the Mount Isa area. (7) I am aware that divisions exist within the Mount Isa Aboriginal Community. My Department has a role in resolving community divisions while at the same time ensuring that the rules and guidelines associated with government funding are observed. The objective of this process is that a number of responsible and representative groups will operate in Mount Isa. (Question No. 4919) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 19 November 1986: Are there any proposals to close suburban post offices; if so, which suburban post offices are being considered for closure. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: The policy of Australia Post is that it must continually review its post office and post office agency outlets, to ensure that they meet the reasonable needs of the community while bearing in mind their economic viability. The vast majority of existing outlets are required by Australia Post to achieve its objectives, but each year a small percentage is closed and a small percentage opened. In circumstances where a particular post office or post office agency is identified for withdrawal, Australia Post's policy provides that local Members of Parliament and the local community are advised as early as possible, and before firm plans are finalised. (Question No. 4922) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 20 November 1986: (1) What was the cost of publishing the booklet entitled `Sharing Community Care'. (2) How many copies of the booklet have been distributed and what did it cost to distribute them. (3) What criteria were used in determining the distribution list for the booklet. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The cost of publishing 30,000 copies of the publication `Sharing Community Care' was $36,950-$4,200 for artwork and make-up and $32,750 for printing. (2) 5,000 copies were mailed from Central Office. The remainder were distributed to State Offices of the Department for use in consultations and in response to inquiries from the public. The cost of posting the 5,000 copies was 90c or $1.00 each depending on the address. (3) The distribution list covers organisations funded by the Department, Commonwealth and State government departments, non-government interest groups, peak organisations, members and senators, local government councils, unions, libraries and the media. (Question No. 4926) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 November 1986: (1) How many (a) 26.5 cm x 4.5 cm and (b) 6 cm x 1.5 cm `Be True Blue' stickers have been produced. (2) What was the cost of producing the stickers. (3) What was the name of the company that produced the stickers and where is that company located. (4) What criteria were used in determining the distribution for the stickers. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 50,000; (b) 250,000. (2) (a) $5,597.50; (b) $2,029.50. (3) Artwork for stickers was done by John Singleton Advertising Pty Ltd, Sydney and printing by: (a) Quadtree Pty Ltd, Sydney; (b) Simplex Labels Pty Ltd, Melbourne. (4) As limited funds were available, it was determined that the stickers, which carry the theme line of the campaign and the logo and therefore reinforce the media advertising, should be distributed to people supporting the campaign with wide and frequent public contact. On this basis, the majority of the stickers were provided to Members and Senators. Each Member and Senator received 1000 envelope stickers (accounting for 224,000) and 200 car stickers (accounting for 44,800). The remainder were distributed between the Advance Australia Foundation, the companies and individuals involved in promoting the campaign. (Question No. 4929) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 November 1986: Is he able to advise on the fate of the four students who were alleged to be members of the Fretilin and who unsuccessfully sought political asylum in the Netherlands after taking refuge in the Dutch Embassy in Jakarta on or about 22 October 1986. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Four East Timorese students, Antonino Gonsalves, Joao Da Camara, Albilio Serena and Fernando Soares entered the Dutch Embassy on 20 October, seeking Dutch assistance for them to travel to Portugal. (The Netherlands handles Portuguese interests in Indonesia.) All four applied for Portuguese passports and left the Embassy on 22 October, after assurances were given by the Indonesian Government that they would not be prosecuted and could continue their studies undisturbed. I understand that the students are awaiting the outcome of their passport applications. (Question No. 4930) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 25 November 1986: (1) Is it a fact that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works recommended that a terminal building should be constructed at the new Brisbane Airport for general aviation aircraft. (2) What sum did the Committee recommend should be spent on the general aviation terminal. (3) Will the construction of the general aviation terminal at Brisbane Airport proceed; if not, why not. (4) Are there proposals for any facilities to be constructed by the Commonwealth at Brisbane Airport for general aviation use; if so, (a) what are they, (b) where will they be built, (c) how much will they cost and (d) when will they be ready for use. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department proposed that a general aviation common-user terminal be provided. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works (PWC) in its 6th Report of 1982 stated that it was satisfied with the siting and design of other buildings and facilities proposed for Phase 1 of Brisbane Airport, with the exception of the need and design of the proposed Department of Aviation hangar. The ``other'' buildings to which the PWC referred included the proposed general aviation terminal. (2) The PWC did not recommend that a sum of money be spent on a general aviation terminal. My Department advised the PWC that the estimated cost was $250 000. (3) The proposal was discussed with general aviation operators in Brisbane. As a result of lack of support by the industry it is now not proposed to proceed with construction of a general aviation terminal. In lieu, a minimum cost shelter with toilet facilities, road access and car park at an estimated cost of $90,000 is proposed. (4)- (a) The Commonwealth is providing the 14/32 runway and associated taxiways, a general aviation terminal apron, serviced sites for general aviation terminals to be erected by the operators, a hangar area and serviced sites for hangars. (b) (i) The 14/32 runway and the general aviation terminal apron are at the northern end of the airport. (ii) The general aviation hangar area is on the eastern side of the main runway at the northern end of the site. (c) The total cost of the development for general aviation is approximately $43M. (d) They will be ready for use when the airport is commissioned, currently expected to be in September 1987. (Question No. 4931) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 25 November 1986: (1) Was the runway alignments for the proposed airport at Badgery's Creek, NSW, determined on the basis of minimum noise disturbance to the surrounding areas; if not, (a) why not and (b) what factors were considered. (2) Was the alignment of any runway altered at any stage of the planning development; if so, for what reasons. (3) Which surrounding suburbs (a) were most affected in the original plans and (b) will be most affected in the final plan. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As stated in Section 8.5.1. of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Second Sydney Airport Site Selection Programme, the principal basis for selecting the chosen runway alignment was its lesser noise impact on people in surrounding areas. (2) Yes, numerous runway alignments were considered and the preference of planners changed during the course of the study as more data became available. The three principal alignments considered are depicted in Fig 8.2 of the EIS. Several factors are also very important in the selection of runway alignments, e.g. wind direction, topography of the site and obstacles such as high ground in the flight path. However, as stated previously, the principal factor in the case of Badgerys Creek was the desire to minimise the potential noise nuisance. (3) A north/south alignment would have affected mainly the rural areas of Cobbitty, Greendale, Bringelly and Orchid Hills. The total noise affected population within the 20 ANEF contour for this alignment was potentially 4380 persons. The north east/south west alignment, the one selected, will affect mainly the rural areas of Silverdale, Greendale, and Kemps Creek and a small residential area of Horsley Park. The total potentially noise affected population within the 20 ANEF contour for this selected alignment is 1951 persons. (Question No. 4936) Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: (1) What before and after school care services were funded within the Electoral Division of Lowe in 1985-86. (2) How many children were in care for each school day in each service. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The following outside school hours care services located in the Federal Electorate of Lowe received funding from the Department of Community Services in 1985-86: Croydon Before and After School Care, Abbotsford Before and After School Care, Concord Before and After School Care, Drummoyne After School Activities, Ashfield Infants Home After School Care (2) Daily records of attendances are not provided as a matter of course. A census of outside school hours services conducted in April 1986 provides the following information: Maximum number children in respect of whom subsidy is paid Number of children who attended during census week Croydon Before School Care... 45 No response Croydon After School Care... 45 No response Abbotsford Before School Care... 45 23 Abbotsford After School Care... 45 59 Concord Before School Care... 30 4 Concord After School Care... 40 29 Drummoyne After School Activities... 45 82 Ashfield Infants Home After School Care... 45 25 (Question No. 4937) Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: (1) what subsidies were paid to each nursing home within the Electoral Division of Lowe during 1985-86. (2) How many beds are permitted within each of these nursing homes. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: For all nursing homes in the Electoral Division of Lowe, subsidies paid during 1985-86 and approved bed capacities are enumerated in the following listing: Nursing Homes 1985-86 subsidy Approved bed capacity $ Abbeymere Nursing Home 5 Jersey Road Strathfield 2135 ... 352,038 27 Ainsley Nursing Home 23A Grantham St Burwood 2134 ... 379,346 31 Allara Nursing Home 126 Frederick Street Ashfield 2131 ... 689,624 70 Amor Nursing Home 78 Liverpool Road Enfield 2136 ... 320,088 27 Ascot Nursing Home 79 Cheltenham Road Croydon 2132 ... 493,800 43 Auderbury Nursing Home 25 Grantham Street Burwood 2134 ... 488,026 39 Austin Nursing Home 29 Liverpool Road Croydon 2132 ... 222,251 17 Clover Lea Nursing Home 14 Claremont Street Enfield 2136 ... 547,685 48 Concord Nursing Home 16 Flavelle Street Concord 2137 ... 782,285 87 Crescent Nursing Home 2 Abbotsford Road Homebush 2140 ... 445,357 39 Dorata Nursing Home 92 Liverpool Road Enfield 2136 ... 358,840 30 Fairlawn Nursing Home 35 Broughton Street Concord 2137 ... 407,676 34 Genista Nursing Home 28 Grantham Street Burwood 2134 ... 315,124 28 Gladstone House Nursing Home 10 Gladstone Street Burwood 2134 ... 304,710 24 Goondee Nursing Home 13 Jersey Road Strathfield 2135 ... 446,784 49 Helenville Nursing Home 1 Vernon Street Strathfield 2135 ... 286,464 22 Jesmond Nursing Home 83 Albert Road Strathfield 2135 ... 477,762 53 Kelby Nursing Home 35 Lindsay Street Enfield 2136 ... 343,503 29 Kathleen House Nursing Home 58 Weldon Street Burwood 2134 ... 369,866 34 Kurmala Nursing Home 255 Concord Road North Strathfield 2137 ... 361,449 32 Laureldene Nursing Home 221 Burwood Road Burwood 2134 ... 418,485 41 Linburn Nursing Home 27 Grantham Street Burwood 2134 ... 762,685 74 Llewellyn Lodge Nursing Home 4 Everton Road Strathfield 2135 ... 333,336 25 Meredith House Nursing Home 30-32 Meredith Street Homebush 2140 ... 791,790 63 Montrose Nursing Home 24 Phillip Street Strathfield 2135 ... 281,924 21 Newhaven Nursing Home 19 Badminton Road Croydon 2132 ... 280,568 21 Our Lady Help of Christians Nursing Home 80 St Georges Crescent Drummoyne 2047 ... 644,159 36 Our Lady of Loreto Nursing Home 167 Albert Road Strathfield 2135 ... 2,617,817 205 Parkview Nursing Home 29 Park Road Five Dock 2046 ... 762,245 77 Restwell Nursing Home 25 Phillip Street Strathfield 2135 ... 410,327 31 Romsey Hall Nursing Home 7 Dickinson Avenue Croydon 2132 ... 304,221 26 Ruby House Nursing Home 48-50 Park Road Burwood 2134 ... 390,697 37 Russell Lea Nursing Home 72 Russell Street Five Dock 2046 ... 207,365 25 St Marys Nursing Home 36-38 Burton Street Concord 2137 ... 468,981 34 Strathdale Nursing Home 67-70 Albert Road Strathfield 2135 ... 1,221,554 146 Tudor House Nursing Home 90 Shaftsbury Road Burwood 2134 ... 418,190 42 Wavertree Nursing Home 103 The Boulevarde Strathfield 2135 ... 490,512 39 Winston House Nursing Home 51 Croydon Avenue Croydon 2132 ... 484,628 43 Woodstock Nursing Home 88 Redmyre Road Strathfield 2135 ... 441,055 40 Wynleigh Nursing Home 9 Chalmers Road Strathfield 2135 ... 401,550 36 Wynoonga Nursing Home 179 Elizabeth Street Ashfield 2131 ... 270,078 26 Also the following capital subsidy was paid: St Marys Nursing Home 32 Burton Street Concord 2137 ... 40,190 (Question No. 4938) Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: What grants were paid to public benevolent organisations in the Electoral Division of Lowe during 1985-86. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government, through the Department of Community Services, paid grants (including both capital and recurrent funding) to the folowing organisations in the Electoral Division of Lowe during 1985-86: Children's Services Program Grant $ Drummoyne Community Centre Ltd... - Abbotsford Before School Care 19,664 - Drummonyne After School Activities 12,699 The Infants Home... - Ashfield Family Day Care 106,506 - Drummonyne/Concord Family Day Care 109,733 - Infants Home Child Care Centre, Ashfield 461,750 Sisters of St Joseph... - St Anthony's Pre-School 60,615 - St Gerard's Nursery 38,953 Croydon Public School Parents and Citizens Association... - Croydon Before School Hours Care 13,289 Grosvenor Hospital Parents and Friends Association... - Fran's 77,263 Burwood Neighbourhood Child Care Co-operative Ltd... - Burwood Neighbourhood Childrens Centre 40,973 Concord Family and Child Care Association Co-operative Ltd... - Concord Neighbourhood Childrens Centre 55,361 - Concord Before School Hours Care 7,088 - Concord Neighbourhood Centre Aide 9,879 Sydney Rescue Work Society... - Strathfield Family Day Care 175,423 - Kurralee Childrens Centre 91,385 Strathfield Occasional Child Care Service... - Strathfield Occasional Child Care Centre 2,810 Disability Services Program Aid Retarded Persons... - Sharpo Industries Workshop, Homebush 98,483 - Mawarra Hostel, Strathfield 15,702 Challenge Foundation (West Sub)... - Eurella Group Home, Homebush 29,629 - Eurella Training Centre, Burwood 80,588 Royal Blind Society... - Sheltered Workshop, Enfield 358,285 - Adult Training Unit, Burwood 479,887 - Field Assessment Unit, Burwood 67,289 Wesley Central Mission... - Pinaroo Hostel, Enfield 42,385 - Group Homes, Burwood 74,6934 - Residential, Five Dock 49,102 Emergency Relief Program Concord Community Aid... ... 15,000 Burwood Comunity Aid and Information /Service... 24,500 Home and Community Care Program (1) Welfare Officer Positions Royal Blind Society... 55,370 Burwood Municipal Council... 9,350 Concord Municipal Council... 12,700 Drummoyne Municipal Council... 16,350 Strathfield Municipal Council... 1,770 (2) Home Care Services The Home Care Service of NSW operated approximately 170 branches throughout the State. Commonwealth expenditure on the Service in 1985-86 was of the order of $20.5 million Statewide. It is not possible to provide details of expenditure by electorate. (3) Delivered Meals Services Ashfield Meals-on-Wheels... 15,872 Burwood Meals-on-Wheels... 12,296 Concord Meals-on-Wheels... 10,534 Drummoyne Meals-on-Wheels... 22,522 Homebush-Strathfield Meals-on-Wheels... 6,329 (4) Home Nursing Services Concord Municpal Council... 35,370 Residential Programs (1) Hostels Domremy Presentation Convent, Five Dock... 2,562 Our Lady Help Of Christians, Drummoyne... 70,476 Minnamurra, Drummoyne... 57,095 Croydon Guest House, Croydon... 26,369 St Christophorus Home, Croydon... 9,320 Lighthouse, Burwood... 43,006 Home for Aged White Russians, Strathfield... 110,286 Marian Villa Hostel, Strathfield... 42,151 Legacy Retirement Homes, Strathfield... 15,754 Concord Senior Citizens Home, Concord... 17,993 St Mary's Villa, Concord... 66,035 (2) Nursing Homes Our Lady Help Of Christians Nursing Home, Drummoyne... 644,159 St Mary's Nursing Home, Concord... 509,171 Woodstock Nursing Home, Strathfield... 441,055 Supported Accommodation Assistance Program St Vincent de Paul, Concord... 35,924 Underprivileged Peoples Association, Flemington... 8,161 (Question No. 4943) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: How many requests for review were lodged with the Immigration Review Panel in each month of 1985 and 1986. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Numbers of Requests for Review lodged with the Immigration Review Panel (IRP) for each month in the years 1985 and 1986 were as follows: Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June 1985... 246 252 246 253 297 279 1986... 487 522 488 542 662 637 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1985... 306 257 270 305 292 298 1986... 717 761 816 908 810 902 Total 1985... 3301 1986... 8252 In addition to review by the IRP, decisions made under the Migration Act 1958 are reviewed by the Adminstrative Appeals Tribunal, the Federal Court, the Minister and the Department. By far the largest of these categories are decisions reviewed in the light of representations to the Minister or the Department. It is estimated that 2500 cases were reviewed under this category during 1986 compared to about 2100 reviewed during 1985. (Question No. 4945) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: Are bone marrow transplants, when performed in private hospitals on privately insured patients, funded under Medicare. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Since 1 January 1986 Medicare benefits are payable for bone marrow transplants when performed on privately insured patients in private (or public) hospitals under the following items listed in the Medicare Benefits Schedule: Item 939-Harvesting of homologous (including allogeneic) bone marrow for the purpose of transplantation. Schedule fee: $182.00. Item 944-Administration of blood or bone marrow already collected. Schedule fee: $45.50. Collection of bone marrow from a person for the purpose of re-infusion at a later time (i.e. autologous harvesting) does not attract benefits under item 939. (Question No. 4949) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice on 26 November 1986: (1) Why did his media release, dated 7 November 1986, which referred to increased funding for the Pacific Highway, not appear in the Ministerial Document Service. (2) Is it usual for Minister's media releases not to be published by the Service. (3) To whom was the media release provided. (4) Were any of the local Federal representatives informed of the details of this media release; if not, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1-4) All media releases issued through my office are circulated, as a matter of routine to the Ministerial Document Service, as well as to interested Members and Senators and the press. It appears that the media release issued on 7 November 1986 was not received by the Ministerial Document Service in time for publication, and appeared subsequently in the Commonwealth Record. Vol. 11. no. 49 on page 2355. (Question No. 4951) Mr Sinclair asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) Did he, following his Address to the Nation on 11 June 1986 calling for restraint on income claims, write to the Royal Australian Institute of Architects seeking its support to urge its members to exercise restraint in the fees they charge, and state that the Government would be monitoring developments in this area as part of its prices and incomes policy. (2) Has the Government subsequently repealed the sales tax exemption for plans and plan printing materials used for construction. (3) What estimated increase in revenue is this action expected to produce in (a) 1986-87 and (b) 1987-88. (4) How is the monitoring of architects' fees referred to in his letter being undertaken. (5) Has the authority which is undertaking the monitoring of architects' fees been instructed to take account of increases in architects' fees arising from the decision to repeal the sales tax exemption; if not, why not. Mr Hawke —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. The sales tax exemption for plans and plan printing materials used for construction was formerly contained in Item 113F of the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. The First Schedule sets out sales tax exemptions. The previous Government removed Item 113F from the First Schedule with effect from 1 January 1983 and at the same time inserted the goods concerned into Item 7 of the Third Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. This resulted in such plans and plan printing materials being taxable at 7.5 per cent. Subsequently the Third Schedule 7.5 per cent sales tax rate was increased generally to 10 per cent as a result of this Government's tax reform package. In the 1986 Budget, Item 7 of the Third Schedule to the Act was repealed, resulting in the applicable tax rate being increased from the Third Schedule 10 per cent rate to the general rate of 20 per cent. (3) See answer to (2) above. It may be noted that separate revenue estimates do not generally exist for goods which are only a small part of one item in a sales tax classification schedule. (4) The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations reports regularly to the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes. As part of this process and in response to the national Economic Summit Communique a series of independent reviews have been conducted into professional fee setting procedures in Australia. A report on the review conducted by Mr Deputy President Isaacs of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission into the procedures used by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects was released on 5 March 1985. (5) No. There is currently no detailed review relating to architects' fees being undertaken. (Question No. 4953) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: (1) When will the world's seafaring nations adopt the 406 MHz frequency for emergency beacons. (2) What advantages does this frequency have over the 121.4 MHz and 243 MHz frequencies currently used. (3) What will happen to the existing frequencies if the new proposal is accepted. (4) Which countries are now members of the SARSAT/COSPAS international search and rescue satellite system and when will Australia join the system. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Resolution 6 of the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue 1979 invites the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to develop a Future Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (FGMDSS) to replace the current marine safety communications system. Part of the distress alerting element of FGMDSS involves the use of Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs). These beacons are detected and located by polar orbiting satellites of the current COSPAS/SARSAT system which will be integrated into FGMDSS. In early 1986, at the 52nd meeting of the Maritime Safety Committee of IMO, the Committee determined that the 406 MHz frequency would be used for float free EPIRBs operating as part of the COSPAS/SARSAT element of FGMDSS. The formal incorporation of the FGMDSS requirements into the Safety of Life at Sea Convention and the determining of an official implementation date will be decided at a Diplomatic Conference, scheduled during 1988. President indications are that FGMDSS equipment is likely to be fitted to those ships built after mid 1991, with full implementation for all ships in 1997. However, in anticipation of the introduction of FGMDSS some vessels are already carrying 406 MHz beacons on a voluntary or trial basis. (2) The 406 MHz frequency offers several advantages over the 121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz frequencies currently used: the most important being that 406 MHz is a frequency subject to much less radio interference and signal distortion. As a result the receiving COSPAS/SARSAT satellite can more quickly process the 406 MHz EPIRB signal and more accurately determine the beacon's position. This also allows 406 MHz EPIRBs to have built into them the ability to transmit to the satellite vital information, such as the vessel call sign and nature of the emergency, which is then stored by the satellite and transmitted to the next available ground station when it comes ``into view''. For a distress alert from the 121.5/243 MHz EPIRB to be received by a ground station it is necessary for both the station and EPIRB to be ``inview'' of the satellite at the same time; the satellite cannot store information from these types of EPIRB for later transmission to a ground station. (3) The two aeronautical distress frequencies of 121.5 MHz for civil aviation and 243.0 MHz for military aviation have also been authorised for use in marine EPRIBs. The continued use of these frequencies by aircraft is primarily a decision for the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). ICAO has not indicated any change of plans for the future use of these two frequencies. (4) The partners to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) covering the space and ground segments of the COSPAS/SARSAT system are the U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Canada and France. Certain other countries have installed the ground segment designated a Local User Terminal (LUT) and these include the U.K., Norway, Brazil, Bulgaria and Finland. The internationalisation of the COSPAS/SARSAT system and how it can be integrated into FGMDSS is currently the subject of negotiations between the MOU Partners and INMARSAT. Whilst Australia has no plans at this time to be involved with the space segment of the system, consideration is being given to the cost/benefit of acquiring one or more LUTs for detection and location of marine and aviation EPIRBs in the Australian search and rescue area. (Question No. 4958) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 27 November 1986: (1) Is it a fact that a Personal Names Index (a) was included in the 1985 and earlier editions of the Commonwealth Government Directory and (b) has been omitted from the 1986 edition of the Directory. (2) Why was this information omitted from a frequently used publication. (3) Will he consider incorporating a Personal Names Index in future editions of the Directory. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, and all departments were informed in a memorandum dated 4 April 1986, that the 1986 edition would not include a Personal Names Index. (2) In order to reduce the lead time on production. (3) Yes. The AGPS is well advanced on computerising the data for the Directory, and it should be possible to re-introduce the Personal Names Index in the 1987 edition. (Question No. 4959) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 27 November 1986: (1) What was the cost in 1985-86 for the distribution to post offices of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, including (a) Public Services issues (b) General issues and (c) Purchasing and Disposals issues. (2) Has consideration been giving to reducing the costs of distribution of these Gazettes; if so, what (a) consideration has been given and (b) measures have been introduced to effect savings in distribution costs. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Nil-my department was not responsible for the distribution of Commonwealth of Australia Gazettes to post offices in 1985-86. The distribution was arranged and paid for by Telecom Australia under a separate arrangement with Australia Post. (2) Not applicable. This is a matter for the Minister for Communications. (Question No. 4962) Mr Milton asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 27 November 1986: (1) Is the Minister able to say whether the commercial production of Synroc has commenced; if not, when will production commence. (2) Is the Minister able to say (a) where Synroc will be produced, (b) who will be responsible for its production, (c) how much will be produced and (d) what will be the unit cost of production. (3) Will the commercially-produced Synroc be cost effective relative to other methods of radioactive waste disposal. (4) What quantity of Synroc will be required to dispose of the world's present stocks of radioactive waste. (5) Is the Minister able to say whether there are plans to test Synroc with the radioactive waste encapsulated; if so, when and where will this occur. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Synroc process is at present at a research, development and demonstration phase and it is too early for any country or organisation to have firm plans for its commercial production. Australia has R & D agreements on Synroc with UK, Japan and Italy. (2) (a) See (1); (b) See (1); (c) See (1); (d) The unit cost of production is expected to be comparable with that of borosilicate glass containing the same weight percent of radioactive waste. Operative experience with the AAEC/ANU non-radioactive Synroc demonstration plant will be necessary before firmer predictions can be made. (3) See (2) (d). (4) Synroc is being developed as a second generation high level radioactive waste (HLW) disposal form. However, as Synroc is still at the R&D phase, it would be premature to estimate its impact on the disposal of world stocks of radioactive waste. In 1986, the OECD estimated that cumulative OECD spent fuel arisings to 1985 were 46 000 tonnes. If all of this were reprocessed and encapsulated into Synroc, 7000-14 000 tonnes of Synroc would be required. (5) Yes. (i) At the AAEC, low levels of radioactive waste has been incorporated in small laboratory scale specimens of Synroc and the product tested with excellent results. (ii) In the UK, HLW from spent fuel elements has been incorporated into small samples of Synroc at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment (AERE), Harwell. Testing will commence soon. (iii) In Japan, the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), will also incorporate HLW from spent fuel elements into small Synroc speci- mens in 1987-88. (Question No. 4966) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 27 November 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the National Times on Sunday, dated 31 August 1986, stating that marine researchers believe the development of large mines in Papua New Guinea poses a pollution threat to northern parts of the Great Barrier Reef. (2) What proportion of marine research is presently allocated to researching the effects of heavy metal pollution on the reef. (3) Will he increase funding to enable further marine research to be undertaken on the impact of this type of pollution on the ecosystem; if not, why not. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Marine Sciences and Technologies Granting Scheme, for which I am responsible, will spend $22 600 in 1987 on a project on biological indicators of heavy metal pollution on the Great Barrier Reef. Another project on the effects of heavy metals (such as copper, cadmium and zinc) on marine organisms in general will receive $31 460 in 1987. I understand that my colleague, the Hon Barry Cohen, Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment, is providing you with details about a baseline study to be funded by his department specifically on the question of heavy metals in Torres Strait waters. Torres Strait is the water mass which might potentially be affected by the Ok Tedi Mine in New Guinea. (3) I have no immediate plans to increase research funding in this area. However, the Government will continue to monitor the situation and act appropriately should there be any developments. (Question No. 4967) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 27 November 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the National Times on Sunday, dated 31 August 1986, stating that marine researchers believe the development of large mines in Papua New Guinea poses a pollution threat to northern parts of the Great Barrier Reef. (2) Have discussions between the Australian and Papua New Guinea Governments taken place regarding the pollution threat from mines, including that at Ok Tedi; if so, what was the nature and outcome of these discussions. (3) Is he concerned about the possible long term effects on the ecosystem of heavy-metal pollution. (4) What steps will he take to ensures that research is carried out to determine the long term effects of heavy metal pollution on the Great Barrier Reef and commercial fisheries. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Consultations with Papua New Guinea (PNG) regarding the possible pollution of Australian waters of Torres Strait from Ok Tedi mining operations have taken place at High Commission and Ministerial levels, and between officers. The matter was also discussed at the inaugural meeting of the Torres Strait Joint Advisory Council in July 1986. The Council, which was established by the Torres Strait Treaty ratified by the Australian and PNG Governments on 15 February 1985, noted that there had been expressions of public concern in both countries but that there was to date no scientific evidence of pollution in the Torres Strait area resulting from the effects of mining operations on the Fly River discharge into the Gulf of Papua. The Council also recommended that close co-operation between the Australian and PNG Governments continue to be pursued actively and that both Governments take all necessary measures to ensure that pollution of the Torres Strait area does not occur. (3) The Government is working closely with the PNG Government to monitor the situation so that, appropriate action can be taken if necessary. (4) The Government is taking action that will allow it to determine whether there is any increase in heavy metal concentrations in Australian waters in Torres Strait. $20 000 has been allocated in the 1986-87 budget for a consultancy to design a baseline study to monitor the impact of the Ok Tedi Mine on Australian waters in Torres Strait. It is anticipated that the design consultancy will be completed by early 1987. The baseline study will be considered for funding in 1987-88. Studies undertaken on the PNG side of the border are being monitored. (Question No. 4969) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 27 November 1986: (1) What action has been taken or will be taken to protect the safety and health of Aborigines at Tennant Creek, NT. in light of the NT government's proposals to build a toxic waste dump near the town. (2) Is he able to say what stage the proposals have reached. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are two organisations in Tennant Creek representing the interests of Aboriginals resident in the town and nearby communities, Julalikari Council and Jurnkurrakur Outstation Resource Centre. Both organisations are actively involved in expressing Aboriginal opinion in respect of the proposed toxic waste dump. In addition, the resources of the Central Land Council are involved due to the likelihood of effluent from the high temperative incinerator (dioxins, etc) being carried over and deposited on land held by the Karlantijpu Land Trusts. To date there have been no requests from any of these organisations for specific assistance on this issue. Departmental officers in Tennant Creek are maintaining a watching brief and are available to assist those groups should they request it. (2) I understand that the NT Government is currently awaiting completion of a feasibility study on the proposal being prepared by Bechtel International. Should this report be favourable it is believed the NT will circulate the study to potential contractors. The successful tenderer will then be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement which should be subject to public srutiny and comment. (Question No. 4973) Mr Shipton asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: Has he received a request for tax deductible status from the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers, Ballarat, Vic.; if so, will he support the request. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A request by the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers for access to the gift deduction provisions was considered during the deliberation preceding the 1986-87 Budget. Regrettably, the Government, although appreciative of the valuable work done by the Trust, was unable to extend the gift deduction provisions to include it as that time. In reaching that decision the Government was obliged to take into account similar requests from many other very worthy organisations as well as the general requirement for restraint in Budget outlays. (Question No. 4976) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: (1) Is it a fact that rural and regional councils in several States have received advice that Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) grants announced for their shires will not be paid in full in 1986-87 and in some cases will be paid over 3 years. (2) Why has this new practice of partially financing grants been implemented when recipient councils have budgeted on the basis of receiving all of the grants in the present expenditure year. (3) Does this initiative mean that there will be a further reduction below the $1245m level of expenditure on roads. (4) Does this represent a transfer of ABRD finance from regional to metropolitan areas. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) All States were advised on 12 June 1986 of their 1986-87 indicative allocation for local roads under the ABRD Program, and these proposed levels of expenditure remain unchanged. The Federal Government's intention is that financial assistance under the ABRD Program for local roads should be allocated between State and Local Government Authorities on the basis of mutally agreed principles. Approved principles, as agreed by each State and their Local Government Authorities, enable separate allocations of funds to be identified for each State and Local Government Authority. Projects approved for funding against each Authority's allocation receive reimbursement for expenditure incurred within the annual indicative allocations advised to each State. (3) No. (4) No. (Question No. 4977) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: Further to this answer to question No. 4562 (Hansard, 14 November 1986, page 3187), (a) what criteria must be met by an applicant for the Airline Transport Pilot Licence (ATPL) in order to gain the approval of the Secretary of his Department for the granting of the licence, (b) under what arrangements or dispensations are the airlines able to train pilots to qualify for the ATPL, (c) why is the ATPL not available to anyone who can demonstrate that they can meet the requirements on their professional merits, as is the case in the USA, UK and Canada and (d) why did his Department refuse to issue Mr G. Taylor with an ATPL even though he possessed all the appropriate qualifications, when it was known by his Department that Mr Taylor would be disadvantaged by the non-issuing of an ATPL and that his prospective overseas employer had made it known to his Department that possession of a current ATPL was a pre-requisite for employment. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Details of the general requirements for pilot licences and the particular requirements for the ATPL are shown in Air Navigation Orders Part 40 available from my Department. A copy is held in the Bills and Papers Office. Briefly, an applicant for a first-class ATPL must have: Been assessed as medically fit Passed the relevant theory examinations Acquired the prescribed amount of aeronautical experience, including at least 500 hours aeronautical experience on Australian regular public transport aeroplanes (or such other experience as the Secretary may accept as equivalent) Demonstrated his ability to perform prescribed manoeuvres in an aeroplane which meets the performance standards prescribed for airline aircraft. (b) Australian airlines train pilots to qualify for the APTL only in the sense that they train them to operate the aeroplanes used by the airline, provide a means whereby candidates for the first-class ATPL (ie a captain's licence) can achieve 500 hours in Australian airline aircraft and provide a vehicle for the proficiency test. It is now highly unusual for an airline to employ a pilot who is not already qualified in respect of theory examinations and all facets of the prescribed aeronautical experience except the one dealing with experience in Australian airline operations. Airline training consists of training on the type of aircraft upon which the pilot is to be employed. Company check pilots are authorised to carry out the flight test which is required before an ATPL may be issued. (c) In Australia there is no aviation activity other than airline operations which requires the practitioner to hold an ATPL. However, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has recommended that the Senior Commercial Pilot Licence should be discarded, and Australia, as an IACO signatory, is examining that proposal. Should it be adopted, then the field of application of the ATPL would be expanded. (d) Mr Taylor, an Australian citizen, held a licence issued by a foreign country but that licence was not acceptable to the licensing authority of a third country where he sought employment. In order to facilitate that employment Mr Taylor sought an Australian ATPL on the basis of his foreign qualification, notwithstanding that it had already been rejected as equivalent by the third country. Contrary to the honourable member's information, Mr L. G. Taylor did not possess the appropriate qualifications for the issue of a first-class ATPL. Specifically, he had not completed the flight proficiency test to the satisfaction of an authorised examiner, although every effort was made by the Department to facilitate the conduct of such a test. In the circumstances there was no substantive reason to issue him with an Australian licence, particularly as the assessment of his foreign qualification was shared by at least the country in which he sought employment. (Question No. 4978) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: (1) When will he determine whether trials are to be conducted at the Animal Health Laboratory in Geelong into disease risks associated with any future importation of uncooked pigmeat from Canada. (2) Has he at any time given an undertaking to pig industry or veterinary spokesmen that the trials at Geelong would definitely be conducted. (3) What sources will be use to make a decision on whether the trials are justified. (4) Has he discussed with pig industry leaders the economic aspects of allowing imports of uncooked pigmeat from Canada; if so, have these matters been settled to the satisfaction of the industry. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) At a meeting with representatives of the Australian Pork Producers Federation and the Australian Veterinary Association on 10 November 1986, I asked that representatives of industry, the Australian Animal Health Laboratory (AAHL) and my Department examine the feasibility and desirability of undertaking the trials at AAHL. I have asked that the group report back to me within 2 months so that I may determine whether to proceed with the trials or not. (2) No. (3) In establishing the group to report back to me on this matter, I have stipulated that any proposal to carry out trials must ensure that the trials are designed in such a way as to provide results which will add to the current knowledge on the transmission of transmissible gastroenteritis in pigmeat. The trials must have pre-determined objectives and the experimental protocols must be such that the results can be meaningfully interpreted. If agreement can be reached within the group then I will examine the proposal and, should I believe that the work will assist me to make a more informed judgment on this issue I will have the research proceed. If not I will decide on the basis of available information. (4) During my discussions with industry leaders on the quarantine aspects of the Canadian request for access to the Australian market for uncooked pigmeat some economic issues were raised. I have made it quite clear, however, that this Government will not use quarantine restrictions to give economic protection to industries. As a country which depends for its economic well being on agricultural trade, Australia would be a net loser if quarantine barriers were erected or maintained to provide no-tariff assistance to rural industries. I am sure that the leaders of the pig industry appreciate the need for a strong stand by the Australian Government on this issue and are also aware of the appropriate courses of action available if the industry's viability is threatened by dumped or subsidised imports. (Question No. 4979) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: (1) Does scientific evidence prove that the Australian and US strains of Septoria spot of citrus are the same; if not, what research is being undertaken to determine the exact relationship between the strains. (2) If the strains of Septoria spot are the same, what evidence is there to support this. (3) Will he suspend the importation of fresh citrus fruit from the USA until scientific research conclusively establishes the relationship between Australian and US strains of Septoria spot; if not, why not. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Investigations undertaken in Australia and New Zealand indicate that the Australian and US isolates of Septoria belong to one and the same species. However US authorities feel that further investigations are necessary to confirm this. Currently US and Australian plant pathologists are collaborating on definitive research which is expected to be completed by mid 1987. (2) The Australian view is that the disease in the two countries is caused by one species of Septoria is based on microscopic examination of specimens. This view has been confirmed by cultural, morphological and biochemical tests conducted recently by the Victorian Department of Agriculture. (3) There are no sound scientific reasons to suspend importation of US citrus because of Septoria. Imports from Florida area prohibited for a different reason. In August 1984 citrus canker was detected in that state and a prohibition was immediately imposed to prevent introduction of this serious disease. I should mention that Septoria spot is not the only reason for the US prohibition on entry of Australian citrus. Black spot and Australian citrus scab are not present in the US and are additional reasons for the US prohibition. (Question No. 4984) Mr Conquest asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: (1) Is it a fact that ammonium nitrate fertiliser is not available for farm use until after December 1986 because an ingredient is being used as a porous agglomerate in the preparation of a commonly used oxidant used in industrial explosives; if so, why. (2) Is it a fact that this shortage is a problem which recurs between June and February. (3) Will action be taken to allow farmers year-round access to this slow release fertiliser. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Ammonium nitrate for fertiliser use is manufactured by Eastern Nitrogen at Newcastle and CSBP and Farmers at Kwinana. I am informed that production of ammonium nitrate suitable for farm use has been limited recently on the east coast of Australia by a maintenance shutdown of the ammonia plant at Eastern Nitrogen. Ammonia is used to make nitric acid and this, in turn, is used to make ammonium nitrate. (2) I am not aware that the recent shortage of this product is an annual occurrence. (3) The availability of ammonium nitrate fertiliser is a matter for the suppliers concerned. (Question No. 2119) Mr Staples asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: (1) Does the agreement ratified on 9 September 1966 on Pine Gap expire in 1987. (2) Was the agreement ever ratified by the US Congress and is the agreement binding on the US Government. (3) Is the Pine Gap facility operated on behalf of the US Government under contract by TRW Incorporated and F Systems Incorporated. (4) Are these organisations independent of the Australian Government and in what way are they accountable to the Australian Government. (5) Has his attention been drawn to the reported statement of Mr Kealy, an F Systems employee, in the Canberra Times on 11 May 1977, that `some Australian Politicians had been through the place and believed they knew what it did and that he doubted if a politician would understand the place even if he was told everything about it'; if so, does this statement have any substance to it. (6) Is the Joint Defence Research facility at Pine Gap a satellite control station able to detect and track launched missiles and nuclear explosions in the atmosphere or space. (7) Does this facility relay to North West Cape data from orbiting satellites; if so, is this information processed by the US military command. (8) Did the United States refuse an Australian request not to use North west Cape for ordering submarine missile arming after the Cape facility had been put into a ``red alert'' in October 1973, without the knowledge of Prime Minister Whitlam. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Agreement relating to the establishment of the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap was signed on 9 December 1966. The agreement did not require Australian ratification, and does not expire in 1987. I refer the honourable member to the answer to question no. 48 given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 31 May 1985, Hansard, page 3268. (2) The agreement did not require ratification by the US Congress. It entered into force for both Parties on signature and is equally binding on both Parties. (3) No. The Facility is operated by the two Governments through the Australian Department of Defence and the United States Department of Defence as co-operating agencies. (4) TRW and E-Systems perform certain designated functions at the Facility under contract to the US Department of Defense. As is appropriate for an equal cooperating partner, Australian Government concurrence is required for all activities at the Facility, including those conducted by contractors. I am satisfied that the consultative and organisational arrangements in place, and the extensive involvement of Australian Department of Defence personnel in all levels of the management and operation of Pine Gap, ensure that the Australian Government is fully informed of all activities at the Facility. (5) Yes. Relevant Ministers and senior members of the Opposition are fully briefed on all aspects of the operations of the Facility. I am satisfied that all briefed Ministers understand those operations clearly. (6) & (7) On 6 June 1984, the Prime Minister explained to Parliament the general purpose of the joint defence facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. He said that among the functions performed are the provision of early warning by receiving from space satellites information about missile launches, and the provision of information about the occurence of nuclear explosions. (8) Searches of records in the Departments of Defence, Foreign Affairs, and Prime Minister and Cabinet have not revealed any evidence that such a request was made. (Question No. 3336) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: Further to the answers to question Nos 3216 to 3243: (a) what was the stated purpose of each overseas trip made by employees of the Minister's Department and of all statutory authorities that report to the Minister in 1984-85; (b) what was the classification or job description of each officer making each trip; (c) what was the duration of each trip; (d) what were the countries visited during each trip; and (e) what was the estimated cost of each trip, with the air fare component identified separately. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is provided in the attached schedule. It should be noted that Overseas Visits undertaken by ASIO officers have not been included in the schedule. ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT OVERSEAS VISITS 1984-85 Purpose of Visit Classification/Job Description Duration of Visit Countries Visited Estimated Cost $ Attend Conference on Private International Law Deputy Secretary 5-22/10/1984 Netherlands Other 1,386 Fares 4,400 Total 5,786 Attend meeting of UNIDROIT Governing Council Deputy Secretary (retired) 10-20/5/1985 Italy Other 1,300 Fares 4,200 Total 5,500 Attend LAWASIA Conference on Human Rights, Liaison with NZ Officials Deputy Chairman, Human Rights Commission 8-15/4/1985 Fiji New Zealand Other 814 Fares 1,000 Total 1,814 Social Security Negotiations Senior Assistant Secretary 2-19/11/1984 Italy Other 2,233 Fares 4,255 Total 6,488 Social Security Negotiations Senior Assistant Secretary 20-24/4/1985 New Zealand Other 381 Fares 650 Total 1,031 Extradition matters involving Mr Trimbole Principal Adviser 25/10/1984-2/4/1985 Ireland Spain Other 4,835 Fares 4,700 Total 9,535 Attend Workshop on joint exploration and development of offshore Hydrocarbon resources First Assistant Secretary 23/2-3/3/1985 Thailand Other 843 Fares 3,432 Total 4,275 Attend Pacific Islands Law Officers Meeting First Assistant Secretary 12-20/10/1984 Papua New Guinea Other 1,346 Fares 900 Total 2,246 Attend WIPO meeting of consultants (recall to duty) Senior Assistant Secretary 19/1-4/2/1985 Switzerland Other 370 Fares 2,000 Total 2,370 Investigate management approaches in Law Departments, Judicial Security, Court Administration and computer systems Deputy Secretary 4/8-9/9/1984 USA Italy Ireland Britain Other 6,433 Fares 5,225 Total 11,658 Hold discussions on professional and administrative legislative drafting First Parliamentary Counsel, Office of Parliamentary Counsel 10-29/12/1984 USA Britain Italy Other 2,141 Fares 7,000 Total 9,141 Attend 2nd International conference on film classification and control and have discussions on film censorship matters Chief Censor, Film Censorship Board 13-27/9/1984 USA Canada Other 2,163 Fares 6,286 Total 8,448 Seabed negotiations Senior Assistant Secretary 13-16/11/1984 Indonesia Other 502 Fares 2,100 Total 2,602 Negotiations on Torres Strait Treaty Senior Assistant Secretary 15-17/2/1985 Papua New Guinea Other 387 Fares 900 Total 1,287 Preparations for Trade Law Conference Principal Legal Officer 16-23/6/1985 China Other 1,729 Fares 3,790 Total 5,519 Attend UN Conference on review and appraisal of the achievements of the UN Decade for Women, Hold Discussions on Human Rights matters Senior Assistant Secretary 9/7-16/8/1984 Kenya Switzerland Britain France Other 3,500 Fares 1,124 Total 4,624 UNCTAD Trade Talks Assistant Secretary 2-20/11/1984 Switzerland Other 1,996 Fares 4,400 Total 6,396 UNCTAD Trade Talks Assistant Secretary 30/3-6/5/1985 Switzerland Other 2,657 Fares 4,400 Total 7,057 Extradition discussions Deputy Secretary 7/6-7/7/1985 Italy, Netherlands, Britain, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Germany, France, Ireland Other 6,500 Fares 6,724 Total 13,224 18th Session UNCITRAL, discussions with counterpart Solicitor General 31/5-28/6/1985 Austria Britain Other 9,934 Fares 6,822 Total 16,756 Discussions on Torres Strait Fisheries Act Principal Legal Officer, Office of Parliamentary Counsel 19-25/5/1984 Papua New Guinea Other 1,088 Fares 900 Total 1,988 UNCITRAL, Hague Conference on Private International Law, office discussions Principal Legal Officer 25/5-25/6/1985 Netherlands Austria Singapore Other 4,242 Fares 4,850 Total 9,092 International Copyright meetings Principal Legal Officer 11/11-14/12/1984 Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Austria Other 5,012 Fares 4,761 Total 9,773 OECD/UNESCO/WIPO meetings Principal Legal Officer 7/6-2/7/1985 France Britain Other 4,906 Fares 4,500 Total 9,406 OECD Meetings on Restrictive Business Practices First Assistant Secretary 5-16/10/1984 France Other 1,146 Fares 4,400 Total 5,546 OECD Meeting on Restrictive Business Practices First Assistant Secretary 22/6-1/7/1985 France Other 1,429 Fares 4,100 Total 5,529 UNCITRAL Meeting Principal Legal Officer 22/6-22/7/1984 United States Other 4,257 Fares 4,100 Total 8,357 UNCITRAL Working Group on Negotiable Instruments Principal Legal Officer 4/1-26/1/1985 United States Other 3,594 Fares 4,440 Total 8,034 Joint Trade Group Committee Meeting Senior Assistant Secretary 21/10-26/10/1984 China Other 501 Fares 3,251 Total 3,752 UNCITRAL Meeting Senior Assistant Secretary 30/11-17/12/1984 Austria Other 1,994 Fares 4,497 Total 6,491 Attend Seminar conducted by the Institute for Court Management in Denver, Visit Lord Chancellor's Department Britain Deputy Registrar, Federal Court of Australia 13/6-7/8/1985 USA Britain Other 7,818 Fares 2,519 Total 10,337 UN Conference on Conditions for Registration of ships Principal Legal Officer 13/7-6/8/1984 Italy Switzerland Other 4,470 Fares 4,415 Total 8,885 22nd Session Diplomatic Conference on Registration of Ships Principal Legal Officer 24/1-19/2/1985 Switzerland Other 2,823 Fares 4,393 Total 7,216 Judicial Conferences Chief Judge, Federal Court of Australia 6/8-7/9/1984 USA France Austria Other 2,831 Fares 7,000 Total 9,831 Discussions on Administrative Review Matters Director of Research, Administrative Review Council 21/9-23/10/1984 USA Canada Britain Other 4,695 Fares 5,630 Total 10,325 UNCITRAL, 6th Seminar of Working Group on New International Economic Order Principal Legal Officer 6/9-22/9/1984 USA Austria Other 2,800 Fares 4,257 Total 7,057 Senior Executive Fellowship, to ascertain and assess in an office environment ideas and developments in the management of overseas legal offices Director of Legal Services, Queensland 24/8-9/11/1984 USA Canada Britain France Other 13,846 Fares 5,275 Total 19,121 Family Counselling Conference and Official Discussions Principal Psychologist 9/10-30/10/1984 USA Other 2,646 Fares 3,304 Total 5,950 Forum Fisheries Agency Legal discussion on Torres Strait Principal Legal Officer 4/11-19/11/1984 Papua New Guinea Solomon Islands Other 1,062 Fares 1,000 Total 2,062 OECD Meetings First Assistant Secretary 23/2-17/3/1985 USA Paris Other 2,745 Fares 5,500 Total 8,245 UNESCO/WIPO Meeting Acting Principal Legal Officer 22/2-5/3/1985 Switzerland Other 967 Fares 4,402 Total 5,369 5th Session International Maritime Organisation Senior Legal Officer 22/3-2/4/1985 Britain Other 1,090 Fares 4,400 Total 5,490 Extradition discussions Principal Legal Officer 7.6-7.7.1986 Britain, France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium Other 5,500 Fares 5,732 Total 11,232 OECD/CCP meetings, discussions on consumer affairs matters Assistant Secretary 3.6-21.6.1985 USA Canada France Britain Other 2,062 Fares 1,292 Total 3,351 Discussions in relation to the training of legislative drafters First Assistant Parliamentary Counsel, Office of Parliamentary Counsel 8.6-11.7.1985 South Pacific Other 3,633 Fares 3,624 Total 7,257 OECD meetings of Ad Hoc Group of transborder data flows and Privacy Protection Assistant Secretary 21.6-9.7.1985 France Other 3,466 Fares 4,400 Total 7,866 Attend 5th Annual Conference of Asia and Pacific Correctional Administrators Steno-Secretary Grade 2, Australian Institute of Criminology 18-30.7.1984 Tonga Other 409 Fares 952 Total 1,361 Field trip in aid of major research project ``Aborigines and the Criminal Justice System'', New Zealand Senior Research Officer (Clerical Administrative Class 9), Australian Institute of Criminology 14.2-14.3.1985 New Zealand Other 1,859 Fares 913 Total 2,772 Attend Commonwealth Correctional Administrators meeting Deputy Director, Australian Institute of Criminology 16-24.3.1985 Hong Kong Other 1,048 Fares 3,006 Total 4,054 Attend 6th Annual Conference of Asia and Pacific Correctional Adminstrators Director, Australian Institute of Criminology 12-19.5.1985 Fiji Other 954 Fares 1,013 Total 1,967 Attend 6th Annual Conference of Asia and Pacific Correctional Administrators Principal Programs Officer (Clerical Administrative Class 9), Australian Institute of Criminology 12-19.5.1985 Fiji Other 872 Fares 1,013 Total 1,885 Study and discussion of drug enforcement policies in aid of major research project on subject Senior Criminologist Australian Institute of Criminology 19/5-16.6.1985 Singapore, Austria, Netherlands, Britain, USA Other 5,138 Fares 5,118 Total 10,256 Advise, Department of Justice, Wellington on demographic based forecasting of offenders techniques for criminal justice planning purposes Criminologist (Clerical Administrative Class 10) Australian Institute of Criminology 22-28.6.1985 New Zealand Unknown, all costs involved were met by the New Zealand Government Appear on behalf of the Commonwealth before the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests Principal Legal Officer 16.12.1984-27.3.1985 Britain Other 14,690 Fares 3,999 Total 18,689 Take evidence in the Matter of R. V. Clyne Principal Legal Officer 6-14.7.1984 Austria Unknown, all costs were met by the Taxation Department Interview witnesses in the Hughes Corporation vs Government Aircraft Factory Matter Principal Legal Officer 17.3-17.5.1985 USA Unknown, all costs were met by the Department of Defence Attend International Organisation of Consumers Unions 11th World Congress First Assistant Commissioner, Trade Practices Commission 6-18.12.1984 Thailand Other 1,239 Fares 2,723 Total 3,962 To investigate expungement of criminal records Secretary and Director or Research Law Reform Commission 2.10-6.11.1984 West Germany France Italy USA Other 1,451 Fares 4,400 Total 5,851 Attend International Conference of Securities Regulators and visit Regulatory Authorities Chairman, National Companies and Securities 7.9-2.10.1984 Britain USA Canada Other 6,003 Fares 5,097 Total 11,100 Attend 9th Annual Conference of the International Association of Securities Commissions and similar organisations visit Regulatory Authorities Deputy Chairman National Companies and Securities Commission 28.7-14.8.1984 Canada USA Other 4,832 Fares 7,568 Total 12,400 Attend 1984 International Conference on commodities and futures Senior Director Operations, National Companies and Securities Commission 28.8.-5.9.1984 Switzerland Other 1,180 Fares 4,220 Total 5,400 Attend Symposium on Economic Crime in Asian Pacific Region Senior Deputy Director, Director of Public Prosecutions 6-12.1.1985 Singapore Other 2,935 Fares 2,844 Total 5,779 Attend IRS Course and Federal Law Course Detective Sergeant, Australian Federal Police 19.8.-29.9.1984 USA Other 2,041 Fares 3,758 Total 5,799 Escort prisoner to Australia Detetive Station Sergeant, Australian Federal Police 22-27.10.1984 USA Other 727 Fares 3,877 Total 4,604 Escort prisoner to Australia Acting Sergeant, Australian Federal Police 22-27.10.1984 USA Other 694 Fares 3,877 Total 4,568 Extradition Proceedings Assistant Deputy Director, Director of Public Prosecutions 5-24.11.1984 Ireland Other 2,812 Fares 4,598 Total 7,410 Investigating enquiries and interview Detective Sergeant, Australian Federal Police 1-4.2.1985 New Zealand Other 513 Fares 644 Total 1,157 Investigating enquiries and interview Senior Advising Officer, Clerical Administrative Class 9 1-4.2.1985 New Zealand Other 513 Fares 644 Total 1,157 (Question No. 3822) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 April 1986: (1) Will the Government direct that no further promotion of food irradiation be undertaken until a federal public inquiry is held; if not, why not. (2) Is it a fact that the irradiation of food reduces the need to use insecticides, such as halogenated hydrocarbons, and other chemcials such as ethylene oxide; if so, does the Government expect food irradiation to be encouraged at State level. (3) Does the Government accept the need for a federal regulatory agency to set standards and to protect the environment and public health from hazards such as radioactive substances, radioactive waste and hazardous chemicals; if not, why not. (4) Does the Government accept the criticisms made by J. Braithwaite and P. Grabosky in `Occupational Health and Safety Enforcement in Australia' that State health departments rarely prosecute for infringements of radiation standards and that Government checking of exposure levels is aimed more at a diagnostic service to licensees with problems than at policing the integrity of their self-monitoring; if so, does this policy inevitably allow hazardous exposures to occur. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government has not been involved in promoting food irradiation. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) recently recommended to the States and Territories a Model Food Standards Regulation for the Irradation of Food. To allow adequate debate regarding the implications of food irradiation and also because of particular concerns raised by consumers, I have contracted with the Australian Consumers Association (ACA) to conduct a consumer inquiry to examine the impact of food irradiation on consumer health and the environment, and the cost of food irradiation to consumers. The ACA is to present its report to me by March 1987. I have also asked State Health Ministers to take no action on food irradiation until the report from the ACA is available. (2) Yes. As far as I am aware, only Queensland has so far shown an interest in this process. (3) A number of federal bodies are already involved in setting standards for the protection of public health, the workplace and the environment from hazardous agents. These include the National Health and Medical Research Council, Worksafe Australia, the Australian Environment Council and the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment which administers the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978. Standards, recommendations and codes of practice are prepared by these bodies, with State and Territory consultation, and these are made available for use by the States and Territories in their legislative programs to control these substances. Legislation to establish a National Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme is being prepared by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. (4) I am advised that such criticisms have been made. The approach to implementation of regulations and law enforcement by a regulatory authority in relation to radiation standards is dependent on the perceived risks to health arising in any given situation. Law enforcement is appropriate where the health of an individual is likely to be immediately affected due to non-compliance with specified safety requirements. Law enforcement is also appropriate in those situations where prescribed protective facilities have not been provided and prescribed work procedures have not been instituted or followed and where continuance of those situations could demonstrably lead to prescribed exposure limits being exceeded. (Question No. 4324) Mr Duncan asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: Has Australia ``caved in'' to Regan administration pressure and allowed US controls on high technology exports to be applied in Australia to Australian companies, as claimed on page 10 of the newsletter Inside Media volume 1, No. 5: if so, why. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. (Question No. 4770) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 15 October 1986: (1) Were the views of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) sought by him, his Department or the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee concerning the effects on the public's health of the 45 commonly prescribed drugs to be deleted from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Prescribers List from 1 November 1986; if so what was the nature of that advice. (2) Is it normal procedure to seek the advice of the NHMRC before listing or delisting drugs; if not, on how many occasions has the advice of the NHMRC been sought before listing or delisting drugs since 1976. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) The statutory responsibility for the listing and deleting of PBS items rests with the PBAC. Occasionally the PBAC has sought technical advice from the NHMRC. Records indicate that such advice was sought on five occasions regarding four matters since 1976: February 1986-listing of tobramycin eye preparations; August 1985 and December 1984-listing of tetracycline and doxycycline used in treatment of non-specific gonococcal infection; June 1985-penicillin listing, and October 1982-netilmicin and metronidazole listing. (Question No. 4827) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 21 October 1986: (1) What information does his Department maintain concerning the granting of licence dispensations for overseas pilot-licence holders. (2) Will the computerisation of departmental records assist in keeping this information; if so, when will (a) computerisation of records commence and (b) a fully operational system be in place. (3) If the computer system will not contain information on licences and dispensations, why not. (4) When and why did his Department discontinue the practice of accepting the US air transport pilots' licence as an equivalent to the Australian senior commercial pilots' licence without the need for additional requirements to be met. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honour- able member's question is as follows: (1) All information concerning the granting of licence dispensations to individual overseas pilot licence holders is maintained on that individual's Flight Crew Licence History File. This would include the original applications, copies of any correspondence and the decision advised to the applicant. Information concerning the formulation of policy in this area is contained in policy files held in Central Office. Internal guidance to Departmental officers implementing the policy is provided in the Department's ``Flying Operations Instructions''. (2) and (3) The HP3000 computer network recently implemented by my Department services a number of complex systems and has limited capacity available for each individual system. The flight crew licensing systems include, for example, details of the level of qualification held and its expiry date. It was not considered practicable to maintain information concerning the basis on which the licence was issued. However a Licensing, Aircraft Registration and Publications (LARP) project team is currently developing proposals for changes in these areas, including use of the Department's new high capacity General Computing Network (GCN). At this stage it is anticipated that details of exemptions from departmental requirements on the basis of overseas qualifications will be included in the data base. However the LARP team has not yet finalised its proposals or timetables for implementation of its recommendations. (4) The change of policy followed a review which showed that the written examinations for issue of either the Canadian ATPL or the US Air Transport Pilot Certificate are significantly less searching than Australian SCPL examinations. However it is recognised that practical commercial operating experience in the USA could lead to an equivalent standard through the influence of airline training organisations. Since 19 June 1975 the US Air Transport Pilot Certificate has not been recognised as the equivalent of the Australian Senior Commercial Pilot Licence unless the holder of the Certificate has made significant use of the qualification. ``Significant use'' means at least 200 hours pilot-in-command on heavy aircraft on scheduled commercial operations. (Question No. 4885) Mr Duncan asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Did officers of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) visit the home of a Mrs S. Sellenthin at Swinger Hill, ACT, during the week commencing 20 October 1986; if so, did they (a) possess a valid warrant and (b) enter the home by force. (2) How many officers were involved in the operation. (3) Were the officers armed; if so, with what weapons. (4) Were any of the occupants of the home threatened at gunpoint; if so, what were the ages of those threatened. (5) Was Mrs Sellenthin's 13 year old daughter not allowed to get up from a chair to go to the toilet. (6) How long did police remain in the house. (7) Did the officers search 3 bedrooms, upturn a garbage bin in the kitchen, and rifle through Mrs Sellenthin's personal papers. (8) Was anything found or confiscated on the premises. (9) Was any occupant of the premises apprehended. (10) Was the visit to Mrs Sellenthin's home conducted in accordance with standard AFP practices. (11) Does he endorse the practices which were employed. (12) Did the AFP compensate Mrs Sellenthin for (a) damage inflicted on her door in the course of entry and (b) the cost of cleaning her house in the aftermath of the search; if not, why not. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) AFP members, in possession of a warrant issued under Section 10 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, visited the home of Mrs Sellenthin on Wednesday 22 October. (b) Force was used to enter the premises as the occupants, clearly present in the lounge room, refused to admit the police and because the police had information that a wanted police suspect was on the premises and that he was armed and prepared to shoot to avoid apprehension. (2) Seven. (3) All members were armed with their police issue service revolvers. In addition, two of the members carried single barrel shotguns. (4) None of the occupants was threatened at gunpoint. However, police were informed that an armed offender could be on the premises and shotguns were pointed in the general direction of the occupants as police endeavoured to secure the premises. One police officer had also drawn his service revolver in support of the detectives with shotguns. A member also had cause to point a gun temporarily at a male occupant of the house, who had hidden in a bedroom and was believed to be armed. (5) No. When Mrs Sellenthin's daughter expressed a desire to go to the toilet she was escorted by an AFP member, who searched the interior for concealed items before allowing her to enter. The AFP estimate that the delay in the girl's access to the toilet was no more than a minute. (6) Police estimate they remained in the house for between 45 minutes and one hour. (7) Officers searched the three bedrooms of the house and examined some personal papers of Mrs Sellenthin. At no stage were any garbage bins upturned. (8) Police found a radio/cassette recorder on the premises which was later identified as being stolen and claimed by the owner. (9) A juvenile male occupant was identified by one of the detectives present at the house as being wanted on warrant for escaping from lawful custody in August 1986. He was arrested at the premises and conveyed to Woden Police Station. Another occupant, also a juvenile male, was apprehended at the premises, since he was in breach of bail conditions relating to another matter. (10) The AFP members involved followed procedures consistent with the threat assessment of the available information when executing the search warrant. (11) I am advised the practices employed by the AFP are Standard Operating Procedures having regard to the information available to police when the search warrant was executed. Actions by the police can of course be reviewed by the Ombudsman should the persons involved wish to lodge a complaint pursuant to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act. (12) (a) and (b) I am informed that the AFP has not received any request for compensation for damage done to the door of the house, or for cleaning the house after the search. (Question No. 4985) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: (1) Has Australia launched a measles-free Bicentennial program as a form of national immunisation campaign aimed at the complete control of measles in Australia by 1988 and its complete eradication thereafter. (2) Does this program meet the objectives of the UNICEF resolution of achieving universal immunisation of young children by 1990; if not, when will programs be established to ensure Australia's compliance with the objectives. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A National Campaign Against Measles (NCAM) has been established as a special Bicentennial health initiative. The aims of the NCAM are to: * increase community awareness of the potential seriousness of the disease; * encourage measles immunisation; * control measles in Australia by 1988, the Bicentennial year, with eradication as soon as possible thereafter. (2) Measles vaccine is provided free by the Commonwealth, but in the absence of compulsion the UNICEF goal of universal immunisation is unlikely to be achieved in Australia. The Commonwealth is encouraging the States to check immunisation records at school entry, and specific options will be discussed at the Australian Health Ministers' Conference in April. In conjunction with the present public awareness campaign, such a monitoring arrangement has a real prospect of improving the rate of immunisation to a level which will result in eradication of the disease. (Question No. 3020) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What steps has the Commonwealth taken to seek to include the Torres Strait in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park following ratification of the Torres Strait Treaty. Mr Cohen —In answering the honourable member's question on 11 February 1986 (Hansard, page 179) I expressed a view that inclusion in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park of the area up to the southern boundary of the Torres Strait Protected Zone would require amendment to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. Following further investigation I am now able to advise that a northerly extension to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to include the small residual area up to the southern boundary of the Protected Zone can be made by Regulation and Proclamation, without amendment to the Act. (Question No. 4466) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) Has the Government received any applications to provide funds for research into the effects of cannabis and other drugs on road safety and driving ability. (2) If so, what funds have been or will be provided and to whom. (3) If no funds have been provided, why not. This answer replaces the answer published in Hansard on 13 November 1986. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)-(3) Under the various research grant schemes administered by my Department only one application for funding for research into the effects of cannabis and other drugs on road safety and driving ability was received in the 1985/86 or in the current financial year. The application from Dr S. McLean, University of Tasmania was for a proposal entitled `Drugs and Road Traffic Accidents'. The proposal was not supported by the Research into Drug Abuse Advisory Committee which was established to advise on research proposals submitted for consideration under the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse. I am advised that in January this year the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) released a report of a major study entitled `The Interaction Between Alcohol and Marijuana: A Dose Dependent Study of the Effects on Human Moods and Performance Skills' by Gregory Chesher, Helen Dauncey, John Crawford and Kim Horn, Psychopharmacology Research Unit, Department of Pharmacology, University of Sydney, New South Wales. The study was commissioned by FORS in April 1983 and also received financial support from the NSW Drug and Alcohol Authority. An estimated 15 per cent of the annual budget provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council for its Road Accident Research Unit in Adelaide is related to studies of the involvement of alcohol in road accidents. For 1986, funding for this work thus amounted to $50 000. Mr Keating —On 10 October 1986 (Hansard, page 1880) Mr Andrew asked a question without notice of the Acting Treasurer, Mr Hurford, concerning the capital gains tax legislation. The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Under the existing provisions of the capital gains tax legislation, if a taxpayer ceases to be an Australian resident, he/she is deemed to dispose of his/her assets that would otherwise cease to be taxable under Australia's CGT (``ex-Australian assets'') and, accordingly, becomes liable for CGT on any accrued real gains on such assets. Examples of ``ex-Australia assets'' include shareholdings in Australian public companies of less than 10 per cent, ``movable'' assets such as jewellery and paintings which are not connected with a fixed business presence in Australia and all foreign assets that would be subject to CGT if the person were an Australian resident. Following a review of the operation of these arrangements, I announced changes to the provisions on 23 December 1986. Under the new arrangements, a taxpayer, upon ceasing to be an Australian resident, can elect to treat all his or her ex-Australian assets as taxable Australian assets until the assets are disposed of or until the taxpayer resumes Australian residence status. A taxpayer may decide not to take advantage of the election, in which case the rules which were in force prior to the announcement will continue to apply. This election will be an attractive option for a taxpayer who temporarily ceases to be an Australian resident, perhaps to obtain professional experience working in another country. It will not, however, be attractive to a taxpayer who leaves the country for an indefinite period because, under the election, capital gains which accrue during the period of absence would be subject to the CGT on realisation. The revised arrangements apply to taxpayers who cease to be Australian residents after 19 September 1985. (Question No. 3996) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: (1) What is the Government's assessment of international commodity agreements. (2) To which international commodity agreements does Australia belong. (3) To which international commodity agreements does Australia not belong; and why. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) International commodity agreements can provide a useful forum for exchange of information and discussion between producers and consumers of problems in international commodity trade. International commodity agreements which contain economic provisions may provide the additional benefit of a better outcome in terms of export prices and market stability than would otherwise be the case. This, however, will depend very much on the conditions governing international trade in each particular commodity. (2)- GATT International Dairy Arrangement GATT Arrangement Regarding Bovine Meat International Coffee Agreement International Jute Agreement International Natural Rubber Agreement International Wheat Agreement International Sugar Agreement International Tin Agreement (3) International Cocoa Agreement Australia is not a member because of the questionable effectiveness of the Agreement resulting from non-participation by the largest exporter (the Ivory Coast) and the largest importer (the USA). International Olive Oil Agreement. Australia is not a member because Australia is neither a significant consumer nor producer of olive oil. International Agreement on Tropical Timber. Membership of this agreement is presently under consideration by the Government. (Question No. 4004) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: What are the government's trade objectives for Australia's top 20 export markets? Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Australia's top twenty export markets in terms of the value of exports in financial year 1985-86, were: Country of destination Value of exports ($m) Japan 9,358.4 USA 3,253.6 New Zealand 1,507.6 China PR 1,498.0 Korea, Rep. of 1,322.0 United Kingdom 1,151.2 Taiwan Province 1,064.1 USSR 969.7 Germany FR 885.8 Singapore 725.8 Hong Kong 722.4 France 710.3 Italy 688.4 Egypt 560.9 Papua New Guinea 558.0 Indonesia 526.5 Malaysia 516.3 Saudi Arabia 493.6 Canada 460.4 Netherlands 432.3 Source: Based on data supplied by ABS, July, 1986. The Government's overall trade objective for these markets, as it is for all overseas markets, is to advance Australia's trading interests by developing and strengthening Australia's bilateral relations with individual countries through: (1) establishing a framework and environment to facilitate the development of Australian trade and investment with individual markets, e.g. by trade agreements, trade understandings, joint trade committees and other bilateral arrangements. (2) maintaining and improving access to markets, e.g. by seeking to encourage import liberalisation, elimination of trade barriers etc. (3) encouraging all sectors of the Australian exporting community to expand and diversify export markets through the provision of export marketing assistance and facilitation by the Australian Trade Commission e.g. advice on specific opportunities in individual markets. (4) maintaining a balance of trade opportunities for developing countries and centrally planned economies by providing assistance to their marketing efforts in Australia such as tariff preferences, trade and investment promotion programs etc. (5) encouraging Australia's trading partners to pursue a more liberal international trading environment. (Question No. 4421) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) In what countries do Australian consular or immigration personnel question prospective immigrants concerning their political views. (2) What form does this process take. (3) What questions are currently being put or proposed to be put by South African based Australian consular staff in order to screen prospective immigrants from South Africa. (4) Is there any presentation of Australian society made to prospective immigrants from South Africa, and if so, what form does it take. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since the 1940s, Australian immigration officers throughout the world have been required to assess the capacity of all prospective migrants to settle satisfactorily in Australia. This assessment includes screening for extremist views which would make settlement difficult and which would also engender conflict and divisiveness in our multiracial and multicultural society. Interviews often form part of this assessment process. (2) and (3) Details of arrangements for making assessments of all prospective migrants, including questions asked in interviews, are not made public in order to protect their integrity. This includes methods of making assessments of the possible security risks to Australia. (4) Yes. The presentation of Australian society to prospective immigrants takes a number of forms, including an extensive photographic display at the Australian Embassy in Pretoria which depicts the multicultural nature of Australian society. The material is currently being up-dated to provide additional focus on multicultural aspects of Australian society; the provision of a wide-ranging series of information leaflets at the various stages of processing; face-to-face counselling about the nature of Australian society and the Government's non-discriminatory policies. In addition, all applicants other than spouses and aged parents are required to attend group counselling sessions at which videos are shown which illustrate Australia's multiculturalism; all prospective immigrants from South Africa are, therefore, informed directly and personally that Australia's commitment to a multicultural society, free from racial discrimination, is totally incompatible with the kind of institutionalised racism prevalent in South Africa. (Question No. 4548) Mr Millar asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: Did the ABC program Four Corners undertake an opinion poll of West Bank Palestinian Arabs; if so, (a) what was the cost of the poll, (b) at what level of the ABC does such a poll require authorisation, (c) was it conducted together with the pro-Palestine Liberation Organisation newspaper Al-Fajr and (e) (sic) who framed the poll questions. Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question is based upon information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: (a) The ABC was an equal partner with the New York newspaper Newsday and the Palestinian newspaper Al-Fajr in funding a public opinion poll of Palestinian residents of the West Bank and the Gaza. The ABC's contribution was $US2100. (b) Depending on the nature of the poll and costs involved, authorisation would be in the hands of the Executive Producer or Department Head. (c) See (a). (e) The questions were constructed in discussion between several parties from the sponsoring media organisations and those conducting the poll. The poll was conducted in the field by Dr Mohammed Shadid, Head of the Political Science Faculty at An Najr University in Nablus on the West Bank. Dr Shadid worked together with two other distinguished pollsters on the survey: Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli academic and former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem, who runs the West Bank Data Project; and Professor Rick Seltzer from Howard University, Washington, DC. (Question No. 4831) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 21 October 1986: (1) Why was the item relating to the $11.1m contribution for Australia's share in connection with the Tin Rescue Plan (Tinco) included in his Department's explanatory notes for additional estimates in April 1986 when Tinco had failed on 6 March 1986. (2) When did his Department (a) become aware Tinco had failed and (b) finalise the text of these explanatory notes. (3) Why was the Senate Estimates Committee A not told that this money was no longer necessary when the collapse of the tin market was mentioned at the Committee meeting at which his Department's appropriations were discussed and the $11.1m contribution to Tinco was by far the largest amount in the relevant item. (4) Is failure to mention that the $11.1m was no longer required contrary to the Department of Finance guidelines on explanatory notes for parliamentary committees. (5) Has he taken action regarding the failure of his departmental officers to draw this matter to the attention of the Estimates Committee; if so, what action. (6) Did Mr E. W. Exell reply on behalf of the Department of Trade on 7 April 1986 to certain additional questions put to it by Senate Estimates Committee A following its consideration of the Department's 1985-86 additional estimates. (7) Did one of these questions seek details of the annual cost of running his Department following AUSTRADE'S separation from it, having regard to an apparent shortfall evident from a comparison between public statements about expenditure on AUSTRADE and forward budget estimates for the total Trade portfolio. (8) Did the second paragraph of the reply to this question, in conjunction with the last sentence of the first paragraph (a) indicate that this apparent shortfall in funding for his Department would be met, at least in 1985-86, by $14.6m sought in additional estimates and (b) imply that the annual cost of running his Department could be expected to increase by at least $14.6m. (9) Did the second paragraph of this reply also indicate that the reason this shortfall was apparent was because the forward budget estimates had been made prior to the commencement of the additional estimates process. (10) Given that $11.1m of the additional $14.6m sought by his Department in additional estimates was for a contribution to Tinco, was it not less than frank to (a) again fail to draw the Estimates Committee's attention to the fact that this $11.1m for Tinco was no longer required, (b) suggest that this and another once-only cost would cover the apparent shortfall in running costs for his Department and (c) imply that these once-only costs could be continuing costs; if so, does he propose to take action in relation to this lack of frankness. (11) Has his attention been drawn to the article in The Financial Review of 17 July 1986, relating to the International Tin Agreement, if so, (a) could the series of events referred to in parts (1) to (10) of this question be the reason for allegations in the article of misappropriation by his Department of the $11.1m set aside for Tinco and (b) does he still maintain, as he did in his press release of 17 July 1986, that such allegations are bizarre, baseless, mischievous and irresponsible. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (4) The Department's explanatory notes on the additional estimates for 1985-86 were prepared prior to the failure of the Tinco plan. The Department received advice on 7 March 1986 that the Tinco plan had failed but, because of some uncertainty about the likelihood that a proposal similar to the Tinco proposal might be forthcoming, in consultation with the Department of Finance it was decided that the proposed $11.1 million should remain in the figures at that stage. In line with Parliamentary budgetary processes the amounts shown in the Department's explanatory notes were the same as set out in the Appropriation Bills. At the Senate Committee hearings of 17 April 1986 on the Department's additional estimates, although Departmental briefing included reference to the fact that the $11.1 million was no longer required, no questions were asked relating to the Tinco plan (or its failure) and the Department did not raise the issue. On 27 May 1986 during the course of the consideration of the Appropriation Bills by the Senate, Senator Button informed the Senate of the failure of the Tinco plan and the fact that the funds were no longer required. As no other plan was subsequently developed, warrant in respect of the funds appropriated in Appropriation Bill No. 3 was never issued by the Department of Finance and the funds remained unspent and lapsed into the Consolidated Revenue Fund on 30 June 1986. (5) No. I do not consider any action to have been necessary. (6) Yes (however, the request was in fact dated 1 May 1986 with the reply probably despatched 7 May 1986). (7) Yes. One of the questions did seek details of the annual cost of running the Department following the separation from AUSTRADE. The relevant question and reply were as follows. Quote Question How much will the Department cost to run annually, now it is separate from AUSTRADE? With many public statements asserting that net expenditure on the Trade Commission will be in the order of, or in excess of $200m annually, and with Forward Budget estimates quoting expenditure for the total trade portfolio of $204.7m for 1986-87 and $201.6m for 1987-88, where is the money for the actual Department? Answer Appropriations in the 1985-86 Budget for the then Department of Trade were $242,487,000. An amount of $106,080,706 was subsequently reappropriated by a Determination made by the Minister for Finance to cover the operations of the Australian Trade Commission from the date it was established on 6 January 1986. The present Department of Trade has sought additional estimates in 1985-86 of $14,630,000. The Forward Budget Estimates of $204.7m for 1986-87 and $201.6m for 1987-88, referred to by the Senator were published in November 1985 before the additional estimates process had commenced. Unquote The Department's bids for additional estimates were not related to the establishment of AUSTRADE but rather represented unavoidable cost increases incurred in the normal course of the Department's operations which had been identified since formulation of the 1985-86 Budget. Details were set out in the Department's explanatory notes and included factors such as a National Wage Case increase, the appointment of the Special Trade Representative to Europe, and once only costs such as Australia's proposed contribution to the Tinco plan and the payment to Victoria to facilitate Chinese participation in the Portland aluminium smelter. (8) (a) There was no suggestion in the response that there was a shortfall in the funding agreed in the 1985-86 Budget context. The additional $14.6m sought in additional estimates was to cover costs which had been generated by Government decisions taken after the passage of Appropriation Bills Nos. 1 and 2. (b) No. (9) No. As I have already indicated there was no `shortfall'; rather the need was for funding in respect of decisions taken after the Budget processes were finalised. (10) (a) This question has been dealt with in (1) to (4) above. (b) It was not suggested that the $14.6m was to cover a shortfall in running costs for the Department. (c) No. (11) Yes. I adhere to my statement of 17 July 1986 refuting the report in the Australian Financial Review of the same date. (Question No. 4897) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: (1) Are the standards adopted by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal prescribed in regulations. (2) Is the Tribunal obliged to apply legal procedures, precedents and consistencies when it receives complaints regarding the standards. Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question is based upon information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: (1) No. They are determined by the Tribunal under S.16 (1) (d) of the Broadcasting Act 1942. (2) The procedures followed by the Tribunal in relation to the investigation of complaints concerning standards are set out in the Tribunal Practices Note PRN 06. Where the Tribunal considers the breach is sufficiently serious to justify consideration of the exercise of the Tribunal's substantive powers (eg to suspend a licence or reprimand a licensee), the Tribunal is required to follow inquiry procedures laid down in the Broadcasting Act and regulations. In all cases, the Tribunal aims to apply the standards consistently and in a reasonable manner to give effect to the purpose of the provisions. (Question No. 4925) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 November 1986: What amount was paid to each non-government school in the Electoral Division of Mayo in 1985-86 and, in each case, what was the enrolment of the school. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Commonwealth payments to non-government schools are made under several separate programs on a calendar year basis. GENERAL RECURRENT GRANTS Attachment A lists the amount of recurrent grants paid to non-government non-systemic schools and their funded enrolments, in the electorate of Mayo for the years 1985 and 1986. Attachment B lists the amount of recurrent funds allocated to non-government Catholic systemic schools and their funded enrolments, in the electorate of Mayo for the years 1985 and 1986. Attachment C lists the amount of recurrent funds allocated to non-government Lutheran systemic schools and their funded enrolments, in the electorate of Mayo for the years 1985 and 1986. Systemic Schools are those administered by various System Authorities throughout Australia. Grants are paid to each System Authority which allocates funds to its schools according to their needs. Recurrent grants are paid for each calendar year on the basis of the number of students enrolled at the census date for that year. Note: The figures provided for non-systemic schools include the supplementary payment made in late December 1986. The figures for systemic schools do not however include this last payment because system authorities have not yet advised the allocations made to individual schools. The December 1986 supplementary payment represented less than 2% of system's total entitlement for 1986. CAPITAL GRANTS Attachment D lists the amount of capital grants paid to non-government schools in the electorate of Mayo for the years 1985 and 1986. OTHER PROGRAMS Details of funding under the Special Education Program, Computer Education Program, Basic Learning in Primary Schools Program and English as a Second Language (ESL) Program for non-government schools in the electorate of Mayo are as follows: SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM 1985 1986 $ $ St John's Lutheran School, Lobethal: Integration-Non-government - 5,800 Mount Barker Catholic Parish School, Mt Barker: Integration-Non-government 13,029 - Murray Bridge Lutheran School, Murray Bridge: Integration-Non-government - 11,000 The Hills Montessori School, Nairne: Early Special Education-Non-government - 2,000 COMPUTER EDUCATION PROGRAM 1985 1986 $ $ St Catherine's School, Stirling... 190 Murray Bridge Lutheran School... 660 Mount Barker Catholic Primary School... 550 BASIC LEARNING IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS PROGRAM Three schools in the electorate of Mayo-Mount Barker Catholic Parish School; St Joseph's School, Murray Bridge; and St Catherine's Parish School, Stirling took part in the Literacy and Numeracy Program in the Southern Hills region along with four other schools. The total amount provided for this Program was $20,000. ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE (ESL) PROGRAM In 1985, The Adelaide Waldorf School for Rudolf Steiner Education, Mt Barker received a grant of $510 under the General Support element of the Program. Attachment A GENERAL RECURRENT GRANTS PAID TO NON-GOVERNMENT NON-SYSTEMIC SCHOOLS IN THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF MAYO School name and location Grants paid 1985 1986 Funded enrolments 1985 1986 $ $ 270 Marbury School Inc., 160 Mount Barker Road, Aldgate... 135,596 155,710 172 183.7 2611 Adelaide Waldorf School for Rudolf Steiner Education, Sims Road, Mount Barker... 194,230 240,835 233 267 2623 The Hills Montessori School, Main Road, Nairne... 35,325 46,200 45 55 4038 Hills Christian Community School Inc., Onkaparinga Valley Road, Verdun... 105,137 114,135 118.8 125.7 2632 South Coast Christian School, Yankalilla Road, Victor Harbor... 43,576 42,042 52 49 Total... 513,864 598,922 620.8 680.4 Attachment B GENERAL RECURRENT FUNDS ALLOCATED TO NON-GOVERNMENT CATHOLIC SYSTEMIC SCHOOLS IN THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF MAYO School name and location Funds allocated 1985 1986 Funded enrolments 1985 1986 $ $ 381 Mount Barker Catholic Parish School, Springs Road, Mount Barker... 185,930 226,085 181 182.5 344 St Joseph's School, 1 Florence Street, Murray Bridge... 145,727 119,683 211 213 397 St Catherine's Stirling Catholic Parish School, 22 Ayers Hill Road, Stirling... 187,016 198,393 191 193.2 Total... 518,673 544,161 583 588.7 Attachment C GENERAL RECURRENT FUNDS ALLOCATED TO NON-GOVERNMENT NON-SYSTEMIC LUTHERAN SYSTEMIC SCHOOLS IN THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF MAYO School name and location Funds allocated 1985 1986 Funded enrolments 1985 1986 $ $ 371 St Michael's Lutheran School, 6 Balhannah Road, Hahndorf... 152,385 155,386 163 161 329 St John's Lutheran School, 48 Main Street, Lobethal... 137,026 160,096 211 185 394 Springhead Lutheran School, Springhead Road, Mount Torrens... 26,134 35,996 27 35.6 2605 Murray Bridge Lutheran School, Owl Drive, Murray Bridge... 161,932 175,889 208 209 2626 St Mark's Lutheran School, 37 Hampden Road, Mount Barker... 90,310 98,587 116 127 Total... 567,787 625,954 725 717.6 Attachment D CAPITAL GRANTS PAID TO NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS IN THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF MAYO 1985 1986 $ $ Marbury School, Aldgate... . . . . St Michael's Lutheran School, Hahndorf... . . . . St John's Lutheran School, Lobethal... . . . . Adelaide Waldorf School, Mount Barker (Capital)... 50,000 45,600 Mount Barker Catholic Parish School... . . . . St Mark's Lutheran School, Mount Barker (Library)... 5,000 . . Springhead Lutheran School, Mount Torrens... . . . . Murray Bridge Lutheran School... . . . . St Joseph's School, Murray Bridge... . . . . The Hills Montessori School, Nairne... . . . . St Catherine's Parish School, Stirling (Library)... 3,600 . . The Hills Christian Community School, Verdun (Capital)... . . 53,027 South Coast Christian School, Victor Harbour... . . . . Total... 58,600 98,627 (Question No. 4940) Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: (1) In which (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Electoral Division of Lowe does a New Arrivals Program operate for non-English speaking students. (2) How many non-English speaking students in each school were enrolled in the program during 1986. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) Under the New Arrivals element of the Commonwealth English as a Second Language Program a per student grant of $979 was available in 1986 for each eligible newly arrived student of non-English speaking background undertaking a program of intensive English language instruction. A total of 4,706 eligible newly arrived students were assisted at government schools in New South Wales during 1986. Details of the schools involved and the number of students assisted at each school are not available. The number of students assisted at non-government schools in the Electoral Division of Lowe is as follows: Primary Number of students St Mary's Concord... 1 St Mary's Christian Brothers Jnr School, Concord... 1 Holy Innocents Primary, Croydon... 2 St Joseph's Primary, Enfield... 7 St Dominic's School, Homebush West... 1 Secondary Domremy College, Five Dock... 1 (Question No. 4964) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 November 1986: (1) What were the findings of the National Health and Medical Research Council's investigation into the pesticide Chlordimeform which is used widely in the cotton industry and which has recently been linked to bladder cancer. (2) Which States permit the use of this pesticide. (3) What are the international safety requirements for the use of Chlordimeform. (4) Is he able to say in which States these requirements are enforced and how they are enforced. (5) What Federal Laws exist to ensure that chemicals and pesticides with identified health risks are withdrawn from the Australian market. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The National Health and Medical Research Council investigation into the pesticide Chlordimeform noted that West German health authorities consider that 4-chloro-o-toluidine, a metabolite of Chlordimeform, caused seven cases of bladder cancer in workers exposed to 4-chloro-o-toluidine but not to Chlordimeform. (2) No Australian State currently permits the use of this pesticide. (3) There are no specific international safety requirements for the use of Chlordimeform. However, the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission does permit extremely low residue levels of Chlordimeform in edible cotton seed oil. Safety requirements for users, such as protective clothing and closed-systems for mixing the chemical are normally recommended by those marketing Chlordimeform in each country. These recommendations may be endorsed by the regulatory authorities of individual States/Countries in the form of a Code of Practice and partially in legislation. (4) The MRL (Maximum Residue Limit) for Chlordimeform in edible cotton seed oil recommended by the Codex Alimentarius is accepted and enforced by the States in their food legislation. As no State permits the use of Chlordimeform there are no regulations or industry codes to enforce. (5) There are no Federal laws to ensure that chemicals and pesticides with identified health risks are withdrawn from the Australian market. However, the National Health Act 1953 (Section 9 (1) (d)) enables the Commonwealth to provide advice to State health authorities. My Department is working closely with the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry in its current consideration of the feasibility of extending this advisory power of the Commonwealth to specific Federal legislation based on the Constitutional powers over Interstate Trade and Imports (51 (1)) and Corporations (51 (20)).