Thursday, 19 February 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that Mr Robert Thomas Martin retired from the position of Assistant Principal Parliamentary Reporter on 5 January last. Mr Martin began his reporting career in South Australia in 1943. He served with the Australian Imperial Force and worked as a court reporter based in Adelaide and Melbourne before being appointed to the Commonwealth Hansard staff as a reporter in August 1962. His career at Hansard took him through all the reporting, editorial and administrative positions, culminating in his appointment as Assistant Principal Parliamentary Reporter in January 1985. Mr Martin won respect and appreciation from all senators and members, and on their behalf I thank him for his services to the Parliament and wish him and his wife well in his retirement. Mr B. A. Harris has been appointed to succeed him as Assistant Principal Parliamentary Reporter. Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Carlton had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) expresses its concern over the excessive delay in the introduction of the legislation, relating as it does to measures announced as long ago as 19 September 1985; (2) deplores the creation of uncertainty and confusion among taxpayers and in the business community due to the failure of the Government to present these and other measures to the Parliament within a reasonable time after their announcement, and (3) condemns the Government for imposing an excessive tax burden on business, thus inhibiting new investment in productive enterprises'. Madam SPEAKER —Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Income Tax Amendment Bill 1986. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.03) —The Hawke socialist Government has taxed Australia to the brink of bankruptcy. The workers of this country have had a gutful and the tax revolution of 1987 has now begun. I do not shrink from saying in this Parliament that the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the current Treasurer (Mr Keating) are the greatest tax bandits in the history of Australia. Together, they have robbed the taxpayers of Australia mercilessly. They have deceived and defrauded the workers of this country and their families. They have killed incentive stone dead. Mr Wright —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Yesterday when this debate was on, the Deputy Speaker repeatedly prevented Government members from developing any aspect of this debate except that pertaining to the legislation before the House. I ask: Will that be the ruling today because yesterday honourable members were prevented from canvassing all relevant issues and were told that they had to stick to the Bill. Madam SPEAKER —Order! As the honourable member knows full well, I was not in the chair during the debate yesterday. I take the debate up from today. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Madam Speaker. It does not surprise me that Government members are starting to get shaky in their shoes because, on tax, they have been caught out. They have killed incentive stone dead. Their so-called tax cuts, of which I shall speak in a moment, are nothing but a monumental confidence trick. To set the scene for this debate, I remind the Parliament, and the Australian community listening to this broadcast, that an average Australian family today is paying $31.50 more in tax each week under Prime Minister Hawke and Treasurer Keating than it was paying under Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. To put it in a simple way, they make Malcolm Fraser look like Father Christmas. Each week, to pay the costs of this exorbitant, extravagant Hawke socialist Government, each family is paying an extra $31.50-- Government members interjecting- Mr HODGMAN —I know that honourable members opposite do not like it, but they are going to get a lot more of this. They are going to get it right up the bracket. Mr Cunningham —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The legislation before the House does not deal at all with the matters that are being raised by the honourable member for Denison. He is misleading the House. The $14,000m which the Opposition is proposing is more likely to be today's issue. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for McMillan will resume his seat. I point out to the honourable member for Denison that I have not had an opportunity to read the Bill; however, I will expect him to stick to it. Mr HODGMAN —Absolutely, Madam Speaker. I will keep to the 35 clauses of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) and the amendment. Madam Speaker, you have not read the Bill; you have a very heavy work load. You would be shocked if you read this legislation and saw the blatant daylight robbery that is contained in it. Honourable members opposite can laugh their heads off over there, but I will tell them something: There are two three-letter words ending in `x' which attract the attention of all Australians, but the one which is going to attract the political attention of all Australians this year is `tax'. I make the following point. I have made it before and I will make it again. The average Australian family, which was promised tax cuts-lower taxes for all Australians-by the Prime Minister in 1983, is now paying an extra $31.50 a week in taxes as a direct result of the policies of this wretched, rotten Government. Mr Hand —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Given that the honourable member is talking about tax and the fact that it does not seem to me that the line he is running relates to the Bill, I ask him: Does he support John Howard's line or Andrew Peacock's line? Does he-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He does not have a point of order. Mr HODGMAN —Madam Speaker, is it not tragic? We have now had two honourable members rising in their places from the ranks of the Hawke socialist Government who clearly have not read the Bills and clearly have not read the amendment. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986 comprises 35 clauses. One clause in particular, which I will be arguing strongly about, concerns provisional tax. The amendment moved by my colleague the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), is worth re-reading. I will do so now to inform those honourable members in the Hawke socialist Government ranks who have not even looked at the legislation that is being put through this Parliament. My colleague the shadow Treasurer has moved that: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) expresses its concern over the excessive delay in the introduction of the legislation, relating as it does to measures announced as long ago as 19 September 1985; (2) deplores the creation of uncertainty and confusion among taxpayers and in the business community due to the failure of the Government to present these and other measures to the Parliament within a reasonable time after their announcement, and (3) condemns the Government for imposing an excessive tax burden on business, thus inhibiting new investment in productive enterprises. The third part of that is the crunch. Speaking directly to the amendment, if ever a government has taxed all incentive out of a country, it is the Hawke socialist Government. The situation today under its policies is that the harder one battles, the harder one works and the more one tries to earn a profit, the harder one is hit over the head by the office of the Australian Commissioner of Taxation. This is a government which has bled Australia white. It is a government which has robbed all incentive from this country. It is a government which has lied and deceived-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark. Mr HODGMAN —Misrepresented and deceived. Between them, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have robbed Australia blind. If honourable members do not believe me, let them go out into the streets. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister said to the Treasurer: `Spend a bit more time in the supermarkets'. We know that he did not spend much time in the supermarkets of Bankstown during the recent State by-election there. Honourable members should talk to the housewives of this country. They do not believe the Government's figures on inflation and their husbands who are paying the bills do not believe the Government, either. The Government's credibility is zilch. It has robbed Australia blind. On the question of tax, the Hawke socialist Government is now as dead as Julius Caesar. It is going to cop such a thrashing at the next Federal election it will not know what hit it. The sooner that day comes the better. Mr Wright —The fascist mouth. Mr HODGMAN —He can squeal as much as he likes, that retread, recycled politician from north Queensland. He will not put me off the thrust of what I am saying because what I am saying to him is that politically he is finished. This Government has deceived the people of Australia to the most monumental extent ever in the history of this country. Do honourable members recall that magnificent theatrical performance on the steps of the Sydney Opera House when the pretender to the prime ministership and, he thought, later the presidency of some Australian socialist republic, stood there and said: `Ninety-five per cent of Australian workers will get tax cuts immediately under my Government'? What do we have? The first of the so-called tax cuts has already come into effect and has been properly branded by every rational economist in this country as a fraud and a confidence trick. I repeat: The average Australian family today pays $31.50 more in taxes each week than it paid under Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. But it is not just the direct taxation; it is the indirect taxation. Look what this Government has done with the automatic indexation of excise. This Government stands to a win to nothing if it keeps inflation running high because the higher inflation runs the higher the excise goes. What is the situation today for the average Australian worker under this great workers' Prime Minister? If a worker wants an eight ounce glass of beer he has to pay a dollar for it. If he wants to drive his motor vehicle, 60 per cent of the price of the petrol he pays goes into the coffers of Canberra. If a pensioner in an old age home with only $6 to play with each week wants to buy cigarettes, he can get two packets of cigarettes. This is a government which has taken beer and a smoke out of the financial range of the average worker. But what has it done in relation to the cost of living? The level of poverty in this country has risen dramatically because not only has this Government taxed Australia and bled it white but, as part of its economic policy, it is also encouraging higher rates of inflation as part of its economic policies. It has nothing of which to be proud and everything of which to be ashamed. It has deliberately set out to kill incentive. Its fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax and lump sum superannuation tax are all designed to prevent people from being prudent and to prevent people from being innovative and having a go in business. Each one of those will be repealed by the incoming Liberal-National Party Government as soon as we gain office, which we will at the next election. Who remembers that lie, that mistruth, that misrepresentation: `There will be no capital gains tax'? What is there? There is the most vicious capital gains tax in the Western world. How can anybody ever again believe anything that that terrible little man ever said. The fringe benefits tax has killed the Australian passenger motor vehicle industry stone dead. There have been 160,000 fewer vehicles sold because of the Government's deliberate policies; yet it claims to stand for Australian manufacturing. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Could I suggest that the honourable member now return to the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to deal specifically with provisional tax, about which I have very strong views which I want to express clearly. I put it to this Parliament that it is about time we switched around the whole structure of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which we will do in government, as our shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar, has repeatedly and correctly stated. Where the present legislation is loaded with disincentives, we will load it with incentives. In other words, we will encourage Australians to get up and have a go. Mr Simmons —Incentivation? Mr HODGMAN —It will be something which will give the achievers of Australia a chance to achieve-incentivation, if one likes to call it that. I do not care how one says it; I want to see it, but we will not see it under this Government. Madam Speaker, let me put something to you, a reasonable and, if one might say so, very fair person. What do you think about this proposition? A young Australian decided to start up a business-and I will give you a classic case, one in Glenorchy in my electorate of Denison-and set up a panel beating business. After a couple of months he had two employees, one of whom was an apprentice. After a year he had seven employees. He worked very hard. What did this Government say to him? `You have worked so hard and you have done so well that we are going to get the tax from you in advance'. Just think of the logic of that-`You have done well, so we want the money from you in advance'. So he trotted around the corner to his bank manager and borrowed, at 18 1/2 per cent interest, the money to pay his provisional tax. The second year he did even better; he increased his staff to 14 and doubled his turnover. Business was flowing in. The Hawke socialist Government said to that young man: `You have done too well this year. We again want our money in advance, but this time we want more from you. What is more, we have changed the law. If you do not agree with our assessment of your provisional tax, you cannot go to your friendly Federal member for Denison and ask him to write a letter to the Deputy Commissioner; that is not on any more. You have to lodge a formal objection. You have to put up $200 and wait 18 months to have your case heard. If it turns out that you are more than 10 per cent out in your assessment of provisional tax, you are going to be thumped a penalty of 20 per cent and we will take you to the cleaners'. Mr Fife —Jackboots stuff. Mr HODGMAN —What is this? `Jackboots', says the former Minister. Is this Australia or the Soviet Union? Mr Katter —Heil Hitler! Mr HODGMAN —My honourable, distinguished and gallant colleague is so right. The plain fact of the matter is that that young man came to my office in tears the other day and said: `I am quitting. What is the point? The harder I work, the more I battle, the more Hawke and Keating hit me over the head'. He is now out of business and 14 employees are on the dole. I refer to the case of a lass who works as a casual-- Madam SPEAKER —I hate to interrupt the honourable member, but he is really straying very far from the provisional tax dealt with in the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —No, Madam Speaker, if you will hear me. What this legislation does is to change the payment of provisional tax from a 12-monthly basis to a 3-monthly basis. I will question the logic of that, because if the Government is prepared to move to three months, I question why we need to have it at all. This is just my personal view, of course, but I have talked to people who have been put out of business daily by this Government-not your Government, Madam Speaker, thank heaven. Take the case of the lass who came to see me the other day. She works as a casual cleaner in a Hobart metropolitan hotel. She has been presented with a provisional tax assessment which is 80 per cent higher than the assessment by her accountant, who is one of the most experienced and best accountants in Tasmania. Mr Simmons —Ha, ha! Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member can laugh, but it is not funny to her, because she will be required to pay an amount that is 80 per cent above what her accountant says should be her true provisional tax. She said to me: `Mr Hodgman, I cannot find $200 to lodge an objection. I cannot have this matter litigated. I will have to pay it, or I might just give up work and go on the dole'. That is what this Government's tax policy is doing to young Australians. They are saying: `What is the point of it?'. Take the person who pays tax at the maximum marginal rate because he or she dares to take a bit of Saturday employment. The Government does not just get into those who work overtime at weekends. The boundary umpires, football umpires and part-time drink stewards-the people who try to improve themselves-are also paying some provisional tax. Tell me what will happen to those poor old people whose only income happens to be interest. The pensioners of Australia, the people who put money away for investment, will be paying provisional tax on their interest three months before they receive it, and in some cases six months before they receive it. What will the Government do to the poor old pensioner who is paid interest once a year? I can say from my experience that that will apply to probably 40 per cent of widows, where the investment is locked in and the interest payment is once a year. This wretched socialist Government will demand payments from those persons every three months, before they have the income. The bandicoot and the ferret will take the tax from them. What will the Government do to seasonal manufacturers? It will say to the person who manufactures surfboards or swimming gear: `You will be paying provisional tax on your product in the middle of winter'. The people who manufacture football boots, footballs, ski equipment and the like will be paying provisional tax in the middle of a 25 degree, 30 degree or 35 degree summer's day. This is lunatic legislation. As my colleague the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar, has pointed out, the legislation has been in the making for nearly two years. Even then, this incompetent Government could not get it right. Mr Fife —Ned Kelly stuff. Mr HODGMAN —That is an insult to Ned Kelly. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer make Ned Kelly look like an apprentice choirboy. I have before me a document entitled `A guide to tax reform', which is a guide to the Government's draft White Paper on tax reform presented to the National Taxation Summit in July 1985. This legislative package was announced on 19 September 1985. Here we are debating it in February 1987. An elephant could almost have been made in the time that it has taken the Government to come forward with the legislation. The Australian taxation legislation is a shambles; it is a legal jungle; it is an accountant's nightmare. The Government is putting the most onerous obligation on the professional people of this country, because if they are out one iota people will not be faced with just fines and penalties; the Government is intimidating them with the threat of gaol. Worse still, the Government has taken upon itself the right to retrospectivity, to say that something which was legal at the time will not be legal. The Government will be able to go back seven years. If people think that the Government is interested only in the present, I assure them that it is not. We know that it is interested in the past, because it puts its greedy hands into the graves of dead Australians. We know that it is interested in the future, because it reserves the right to change the whole ball game as and when it thinks fit. Unfortunately, due to the interruptions, I do not have the time to go through all the details, the damning indictments, of this Government's outrageous treatment of the people of Australia. The tax issue will put the Government out of office. The Government has robbed the country blind; it has killed incentive; it has misled and deceived; and it continues to defraud the people of this great nation. It will be thrown out of office at the next election. The day cannot come soon enough for me. Roll on the tax revolution of 1987 which will be the Government's political epitaph. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.23) —It is always difficult to follow the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) in debate, mainly because after listening to him for 20 minutes one has to scrabble around to find anything to rebut. I will have to straighten out many of the misrepresentations that have been put forward in this chamber today before I can get to the substance of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) and the Income Tax Amendment Bill which deal with provisional tax. It is even more difficult to have a nationwide debate on tax reform when we have been almost crushed with the inanities that come from the mouth from the south and the mouth from the north. It is almost impossible to get any reason, any sense, out of the confusion that reigns on the benches opposite. For instance, the honourable member for Denison complained about the contents of the provisional tax Bills. One would have thought, if his complaints were substantive, that he would have been pleased that there had been a delay of some 22 months-the gestation period of an elephant, he reminded us. I remind him too: Better an elephant than to have two lame duck leaders on the Opposition coalition benches. The honourable member talked about a monumental confidence trick. If ever one were looking for evidence of a monumental confidence trick, one would not have to go further back in time than yesterday when the greatest monumental confidence trick ever was exposed in this House by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). He did the sums on the taxation reforms put forward by the current, the temporary, Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), which amounted to $14,000m. The expansion of the Budget deficit of this country would cost the community $14 billion. That is what I call a monumental confidence trick. Before the honourable member leaves the chamber I ask him why he did not say once in his 20 minutes of theatrics where he stood on a consumption tax. With the debate that is raging amongst his ranks, the toing and froing, the coming and going, the lack of policy which the Opposition promised month after month to bring forward and of which we still have not seen the light of day, one would have thought that in the 20 minutes for which the honourable member spoke, he would have had the decency to tell the people on broadcast day-he pointed out that all the people were listening to him-where he stands on consumption tax. Mr Hodgman —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I was ruled to keep strictly to the Bills. The Bills say nothing about a consumption tax. I would have loved to have spoken on that and on many of the other things that are not in the Bills. It is pretty rough when the Hawke socialist Government-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will please resume his seat. During the debate yesterday I understand that some strictures were placed upon honourable members. I am sure that the honourable member for Denison would agree with me that I gave him some latitude during his 20 minutes. Mr LAMB —That is an example of how the honourable member cribs yet another minute of diatribe to add to the twenty we heard before. Mr Hodgman —Madam Speaker, I raise a serious point of order. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison will wait until I call him. He is inclined to bob up too suddenly. Mr Hodgman —I do not want to hold up this person, but I object because, if I could have, I would have talked about the late lodgment of tax returns, people who say that does not matter and other things, but I was not allowed to do so. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr LAMB —Any scintilla of credibility, any minuscule evidence of what little the honourable member had, has vanished completely with today's performance. His credibility has gone out the window completely. It is no wonder confusion reigns opposite. Let me get on with the misrepresentations in the honourable member's contribution to this debate-to give it a euphemism. He said that this Government said there would be no capital gains tax. I remind him and the people that no promise was ever broken on that claim. In 1983 we went to the people and we said: `There shall be no capital gains tax.' During the life of that Parliament we held that promise true. We faced the people again, we canvassed this country over one of the longest campaign periods in history-the honourable member will remember it well-over six or seven weeks. We told the people that we would reform the tax system in this country returning equity and fairness. Then we introduced in this country the fairest and mildest capital gains tax in the world. He claimed it was the hardest, yet where else can he give an example of where a capital gains tax is based on an allowance for inflation? It is inflation-proofed. When it comes to the good will of a business there is an allowance before capital gains tax is calculated. So let us not have these sorts of myths peddled for the people to hear during broadcasts such as this. Let us get down to the honourable member's heart-break, heart-sob stories. I have a lot of time for panel beaters-I am sure that the panel beater in Glenorchy is one of the best-but the honourable member should not come in here and pretend that this Government introduced provisional tax. It did not. All the time the Opposition was in government it did nothing about reforming provisional tax. Later I will give one example of where it made it difficult for pensioners during the time it was in office. I will return to that in a minute. The Opposition should not come in here with sob stories about Glenorchy panel beaters and try to blame us for something that existed while it was in government. I come to a third misrepresentation. What credibility can the honourable member for Denison have, Mr Deputy Speaker? He made three blatant misrepresentations in one 20-minute speech. He said that casual workers pay provisional tax. We know that casual workers, boundary umpires and drink stewards-they are the examples he gave-are pay as you earn taxpayers. They pay tax at the source of income. This is the point at which I want to return to the Bills before the House rather than spend my time explaining to the people how much misrepresentation the honourable member for Denison puts forth in every one of his speeches. This Bill is part of the package of tax reform Bills introduced by this Government. It was announced-the honourable member did get this correct-over a year ago that the instalment system would be changed, and that that change would have effect from next financial year. It will not come into effect this financial year, so how could the honourable member's Glenorchy panelbeater be involved in paying quarterly provisional tax when it does not come into existence until next year? He has it all wrong. I am not surprised that he has got everything about tax completely wrong. So the system under which those who pay provisional tax in excess of $2,000 will pay in quarterly instalments will not operate until next year. The benefits of this are quite clear. First of all, this Government, as I have said, has promised to deliver and is delivering greater equity and fairness into the taxation system. People who pay provisional tax are being brought more into line with the PAYE taxpayer who has to pay his tax before he gets his pay cheque, before he goes home and has to spend it on the necessities of life. Those who do not have their taxation taken out at the source have had time-up to nine months-to pay. It is only in the first year that they have had to pay the double taxation; after that they get credits and they pay it annually according to their expected income the following year. So now at least the PAYE taxpayer will not be a second class citizen compared to those who pay provisional tax. This legislation restores equity and fairness to the system. Let us also look at the macroeconomic effect-something which the honourable member for Denison would know nothing about. We see every year that short term interest rates are forced up at the end of the March-April period as people scramble to find their provisional tax payments. That bunching effect is no good for those who have to borrow as it forces short term interest rates often to over 100 per cent. I can recall the overnight rate on one occasion nearing 200 per cent. This also has an effect on the Government's income liquidity. To return to the analogy of business, if business is to survive it needs cash flow, and that means it needs a continuous flow of income so that it can carry out its purchases. It is the same with government. We need a continuous flow of income into the Treasury so that we can continuously, throughout the year, make our purchases and spend money on infrastructure and on providing pensions and funds for the rest of the Government's Budget measures. If the provision of those funds lies entirely with the PAYE taxpayer, it is not fair. But quarterly instalments of provisional tax will mean that another group of people will be properly contributing to the continuous inflow of cash for government business. The Government thinks that is right, it thinks it is proper, and it thinks it is fair. The honourable member for Denison then said that this tax is daylight robbery. Those were his words. Yesterday the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) said that this provisional tax was a new tax. Nothing could be further from the truth. Provisional tax has been a feature of the Australian taxation system for decades; it was in place for the seven years that the Opposition so disgracefully sat upon the treasury bench. This quarterly payment system is revenue neutral. There is no new tax here at all. All that has happened is that the arrangements for paying the tax have been altered. It is true that $90m will be brought forward into an earlier tax or fiscal year, so the Budget figures will change a little. But on account of that, the taxpayer will benefit as the savings to the Government will be $100m because of the lesser need to issue treasury notes and, of course, because there will be a stabilising influence on short term interest rates. I do not know how the figures will even out, but there will be a saving there. The estimates are that there will be a $100m saving to the taxpayer, the Government, because of the new arrangements. They are the features of the provisional tax Bills in front of us. That is the truth for the people to hear and I suggest that the Australian public put out of their minds completely the misrepresentations that came forth from the mouth of the honourable member for Denison. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr LAMB —Are you not the honourable member for Denison? Mr Hodgman —I have not misrepresented; I have told the truth. I ask that the honourable member be required to withdraw. Mr Deputy Speaker, there must be the same rule for both sides of the chamber. I did not misrepresent and, as you would be aware, sir, it is a very serious reflection on a member for someone to suggest that he has misrepresented and misled the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -It might help the House if the honourable member for Streeton withdrew the suggestion that the honourable member for Denison had misled the House. I do not think that is what he was intending to say but if it has come across in that way he might withdraw. Mr LAMB —Mr Deputy Speaker, not once did I suggest that the honourable member for Denison misled the House. If honourable members look at the record of Hansard tomorrow they will not find the work `misled'; they will find the word `misrepresent'. I suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is an example of the normal cut and thrust of debate in this chamber, so I will continue. Mr Hodgman —You will withdraw. Mr LAMB —I will continue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison felt that the honourable member for Streeton had suggested that he had misled the House. It should not be difficult for you to withdraw any suggestion such as that and continue with your remarks. Mr LAMB —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is impossible to withdraw something one did not say. However, should the record show otherwise and support the honourable member for Denison, I withdraw. But to continue in the debate-- Mr Hodgman —It's about time-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Denison continues to interject no doubt that will cause some difficulty from the other side. I draw his attention to that and I will deal with him if he continues to interject. Mr LAMB —Thanks very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to pause at this stage to congratulate the Government on a move it has made allied to these provisional tax Bills; that is, its decision to increase the amount of earnings that a pensioner on a full pension may earn before having his pension affected. Currently for single pensioners the level is $30. It will increase to $40 on 1 July. For a married couple it will increase from $50 to $70. This means that single pensioners will be able to earn up to $2,000 a year, and a married couple up to $3,500-perhaps from interest earnings-before the pension is affected. The honourable member for Denison referred to this. Mr Carlton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is a party political announcement in the middle of a tax debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Mackellar will cease making silly interjections such as that. Mr Carlton —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I raised a point of order because the honourable member was reading out pension arrangements in the middle of a tax debate quite outside the motion before the House. The honourable member is out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. Mr LAMB —The honourable member for Denison also mentioned pensions. The honourable member for Mackellar may be deaf or he may have been absent from the House but to raise a point of order which could refer to his own colleague is a bit beyond the pale. Let me continue: This means that those pensioners who earn in excess of $1,000 are subject to provisional tax. I would have thought that a shadow Treasurer would have known that earnings, other than under pay as you earn arrangements, in excess of $1,000 were subject under his coalition Government, and now under this Government, to provisional tax. I am staggered to find that a shadow Treasurer did not know that and tried to raise a point of order on irrelevancy. But let me continue, Mr Deputy Speaker. The temporary high interest rates are necessary, as responsible macroeconomic management in this country, because of the external pressures on the dollar. Let us face it: High interest rates are an essential part of our economic climate at this time. We do not like it; no one likes it. But any responsible Treasurer, any government responsible for its fiscal actions, undoubtedly would have interest rates at their present level. But this does mean that some pensioners are earning higher incomes and paying provisional tax. For the first time some pensioners are crossing the threshold of $1,000 and paying provisional tax. This was not the intention of the Government. I am going to ask the Government, as did the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) yesterday, to review the provisional tax threshold for pensioners so that some relief might be given to them. I am suggesting that, in concert with the earnings that will now be allowable to pensioners without affecting their pensions, we might set the threshold at $2,000. I think that would be sensible. During the recess, when canvassing the opinions of combined pensioner groups in my electorate on the performance of the Government-which incidentally was very favourable indeed-this matter came up, and I undertook to raise it. I ask the Government to look seriously at a review so that something can be done to relieve the position of those people. In the couple of minutes left it would be remiss of me if I did not canvass what other speakers have, and refer to the slightly wider debate which, because of the tax package, must include provisional tax. I refer to the suggestions of tax reform including, of all things, a consumption tax. We were told repeatedly by the Opposition that lock, stock and barrel it would remove the fringe benefits tax, it would remove the capital gains tax, it would restore tax deductibility for the business lunch, and so on. I did some mathematics on that, and while members of the Opposition come in here and complain about the provisional tax requirements-- Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Previous Deputy Speakers ruled that honourable members were out of order when they went beyond the subject matter of the debate. This has nothing whatsoever to do with either the Bill or the amendment before the House. It is a party political statement, as the honourable member well knows. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The debate is about the Income Tax Amendment Bill. The whole of the tax system could be alluded to when dealing with income tax. I call the honourable member for Streeton. Mr LAMB —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been more than fair in keeping to the strictures of this debate. If the honourable member for Denison would sit down, I will finish in the few seconds available to me. He warned the public about this Government. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. As the Hansard will show, Madam Speaker said that we could not speak on a whole range of matters; we had to stick to the Bill. This man is flouting Madam Speaker's ruling, and he was in the House at that time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I was not in the House at that time. I call the honourable member for Streeton. Mr LAMB —The honourable member for Denison apparently warned the public about this Government. In these last seconds I would like to take the opportunity to warn the public about the false prophets opposite of easy tax cuts. That is where the danger to tax equity and fairness lies, and those opposite will never gain these benches at the next election. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.43) —In closing the debate I thank members from both sides for their contributions. I was here for part of the debate yesterday and for part of the debate today. I am sorry that I was not able to be here all the time during what has been a fairly wide-ranging debate, in spite of some of the rulings from various people in the chair. These Bills, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986 and the Income Tax Amendment Bill 1986, mainly introduce an instalment system for the payment of provisional tax. I must say I am pleased that the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) is here, because his was one of the contributions I heard, and I thought it showed an appalling ignorance as to what provisional tax is all about. He gave the impression that those who pay provisional tax are worse off than those wage and salary earners who pay as they earn; but that is not so. Pay as you earn taxpayers have their tax taken from the source of their income. They do not even see the tax at any time, whereas provisional taxpayers pay nine months in arrears. They have received nine months grace and they are paying their provisional tax in the year the income is earned. At the moment they pay it on 31 March or some time thereafter. They have had nine months use of their money and have paid three months in advance. That has been the position to this point of time. Yet the honourable member claimed that provisional taxpayers would be worse off under the instalment system in that the provisional taxpayer would have to pay his or her tax earlier than does the PAYE taxpayer. That is just not correct. The PAYE taxpayer pays tax week by week as the income is earned. I repeat that, under the proposed instalment payment system, provisional taxpayers who earn their income evenly over the year-there are special provisions to cater for people who do not earn their income evenly over the year-will pay each instalment of tax two-thirds of the way through the quarter in which they earn the income. The effect is to bring provisional taxpayers much more closely into line with salary and wage earners, but, generally speaking, not to make one group worse off than the other. I do not want to suggest that what we say here is as acceptable as the opinion of people in an independent position. I draw attention to the business pages of the Sydney Morning Herald either yesterday or the day before-I forgot to note the date when I tore an article out of my copy of the Sydney Morning Herald. It is an article in the `In Your Interest' column by Peter Freeman headed `Provisional tax: new rules to ease pain'. I will just read some of the paragraphs from it so that objective listeners to this debate and readers of this debate will know how a respected financial journalist sees what is being done by this Government. The article states: Due on March 31, provisional tax is a constant source of complaint for those people who have to pay it, with part of the problem being the fact that tax has long been levied as an annual payment. For people whose provisional tax bill exceeds $2,000, the burden will be eased from the 1987-88 tax year with a new system of quarterly payments. Later in the article it states: Essentially, the provisional tax system hits hardest in the first year. Then, with the introduction of the quarterly payment system, it should not cause taxpayers too many financial problems. For those paying the tax for the first time, the bill will be unpleasantly high since, in effect, you will be paying tax on your earnings for 1985-86 and estimated provisional earnings in 1986-87. That is the view of an objective observer, instead of listening to the appalling rhetoric from members on the other side who are misleading people on this reform that is going through. With this sensible set of taxation reform measures that we have before the House today, Opposition members even go so far as to move a second reading amendment. I will address that amendment. Paragraphs (1) and (2) refer to excessive delay, the creation of uncertainty and so on. The delay between the time of announcement of the measures covered by the Bill and the introduction of the legislation into the House is due entirely to the enormous amount of tax reform legislation required to correct years of neglect of the taxation system under the government of the people who are now in opposition, and who will stay in opposition because of those neglectful years. It was just not possible for our Government, given limited drafting resources-I pay tribute to draftsmen and draftswomen; they really are a very special group of people; their talents are very special; it is not easy to come by those talents; those people are enormously overworked-to have the legislation prepared sooner. Of course, we would have loved to have had it prepared sooner. We could have sat longer and enjoyed each other's company more. How could I want to be away from this House when I have such people as the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) here to be with and with whom to exchange pleasantries from time to time. Of course, we would love to get this legislation through. Mr Spender —I miss you on a daily basis when I am not here. Mr HURFORD —I wish I could believe the honourable member. Of course, the introduction of legislation some time after announcement is not new. It is a necessary part of government. I give my pledge that we will do our best to bring in legislation as soon as we possibly can after the announcement is made. But some things are just impossible to do, given limited resources. Of course, the previous Government found that. The provisional tax instalment provisions in the Bill do not have their first application until the 1987-88 income year. In that income year the first instalment is not payable until 1 December 1987. In other words, the legislation has been introduced more than 12 months before the first instalment falls due. It is difficult to understand why the Opposition should see this as creating, to use the words of its amendment to the second reading-which must be rejected by the Government-`uncertainty and confusion'. I have already addressed the contribution by the honourable member for Bradfield. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) was concerned about whether the Australian Taxation Office might put pressure on taxpayers to lodge their previous year's tax returns early to facilitate the calculation of the first instalment of provisional tax-due on 1 September at the earliest once the system is in full operation. The Bill clearly states that the first instalment in any year will always be based on the previous year's provisional tax. I draw the attention of honourable members to sections 221YA, 221YCA and 221YDAA. The taxpayer's ultimate provisional tax for the current year-calculated on the basis of the tax return for the previous year-is, therefore, irrelevant to the first instalment calculation. Even the second and third instalment calculations are based only on the current year's provisional tax if that amount is less than the previous year's provisional tax. In other words, the instalment system does not provide any incentive to the Commissioner of Taxation to seek tax returns earlier than at present. The Bill specifically avoids that result. Lastly, I address the contribution by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who suggested that a taxpayer is required to object against a determination of provisional tax to have it changed. That is not correct. Any practitioner in this field knows that that is not correct. Most experienced business people who pay provisional tax know that that is not correct. It is quite appalling that the honourable member puts forward that suggestion in this House. The ascertainment of provisional tax is not an assessment. A taxpayer who believes that the Commissioner's provisional tax calculation is too high is entitled to make an estimate of his taxable income for that current year and to pay provisional tax on the basis of his own estimate. The estimate is not an objection; and no fee is payable-contrary to what the honourable member suggested. There are some penalties if one's estimate of one's current income is, I think, more than 20 per cent out. From memory of my tax practice years, some time ago, I draw to the attention of people that they should not put less than a great deal of care into their application to change the basis on which their provisional tax is payable when they make an estimate of their income in the current year, because penalties will apply if they are too far out in their calculations. However, in no way is this an objection and in no way is there a fee when the application comes in. With those words, I reject the second reading amendment of the honourable member for Mackellar and I commend the Bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Carlton's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C.A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dubois, S. G. Milton, P. Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodges, J. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hodgman, W. M. Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C. Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Smith, W. Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Fisher, Peter Watson, D. J. H. Goodluck, B. J. Webster, A. P. Hall, Steele White, P. N. D. Halverson, R. G. Wilson, I. B. C. Hawker, D. P. M. Dawkins, J. S. Coleman, W. P. Cohen, B. Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(11.02) —I move: Clause 16, page 13, proposed section 221YBA, after sub-section (1) insert the following sub-section: `` ` (1A) Nothing in this section requires the payment of instalments of provisional tax by a taxpayer where: (a) the provisions of Division 16 of Part III are applied in the assessment of the taxpayer; or (b) Division 16A of Part III applies to the taxpayer.'' I remind honourable members that we are discussing the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5). The particular element I raise at the moment is the question of quarterly provisional tax. Under this Bill an additional $90m of extra tax is being extracted during this financial year as a result of bringing forward the payments by provisional taxpayers. The concern that the Opposition expresses in this matter, apart from the particular concern I will express in a moment, is that at a time when the business and farming communities-small businesses in particular-are reeling under the effects of 10 per cent inflation, 20 per cent interest rates, an additional $1,600m to $1,800m in additional business taxes and when there has been a recession for four successive quarters and the pulling out of that recession is very weak, this Government is imposing this additional tax burden on all those entrepreneurs on whom we rely for employment and wealth creation. The purpose of the Bill is to require people, instead of paying their provisional tax at the end of March in each year, to make payments on 1 September, 1 December, 1 March and 1 June. The effect is that an extra $90m in tax will be collected, in addition to existing taxes, in one year and, of course, it will be collected at a time when interest rates are over 20 per cent for business and farm borrowers. An additional $90m tax has to be paid. People have not got that in the kitty. They have to borrow from the banks and other lenders to pay it and they are borrowing at over 20 per cent interest. If they have to borrow the $90m, on average for six months, that is an extra $9m in interest costs they will have to pay. Not only do they have to find the additional $90m in tax well ahead of what they had expected and planned for, but they also have to find an additional exorbitant $9m for the extra interest bill. The amendment that the Opposition has moved is to try to relieve the situation of those whose income is highly irregular in its nature. I refer particularly to those who are already under the income averaging provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. These are farmers and businesses where there is a highly seasonal fluctuation and also a fluctuation from year to year. Under this Bill these people have been brought into a quarterly payment system. Quite apart from all the additional paper work, the additional work of taxation agents, the additional expense involved in professional fees and the additional expense in interest charges in borrowing the money to meet the tax at an earlier time than they would have planned, many of these people, under income averaging, will be paying out tax on income which simply has not arrived. Mr Hodgman —And may not arrive. Mr CARLTON —And may not arrive, as my friend the honourable member for Denison so correctly points out. There is one miserable little concession in the Bill and that is that if a taxpayer can satisfy the Commissioner of Taxation that more than 75 per cent of his assessable income will be derived after 1 December the Commissioner may graciously permit the taxpayer to pay his provisional tax in only two instalments-one on 1 February at 50 per cent and one on 1 June. Anybody who happens to be able to jump over that hurdle-and that is a pretty difficult hurdle to jump over-will have these gracious extensions. But they are still an additional burden over and above what the present burden is. The plight of farmers and people on income averaging is expressed extremely well in a letter to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of 10 February 1987 from Mr Andrew Robb of the National Farmers Federation, a letter to which the Treasurer has failed to respond positively. I will read out the relevant paragraphs as this letter describes very clearly why we in the Opposition feel that the measure, as it now applies, is totally unfair to people in the bush. The letter states: The proposed arrangements will result in many primary producers being required to make provisional tax instalments in advance of the accumulation of the taxable income to which the tax applies. This is contrary to the fundamentals of income tax and would be an unjustified imposition on the taxpayer. The provision applying to primary producers in the proposed arrangements also make no allowance for the unpredictability of primary production income. Seasonal conditions affect both receipts and expenditure to the extent that taxable income cannot be estimated with any reasonable accuracy until the year is well advanced. I interpose here to say that this 75 per cent provision is totally worthless in the case of farmers because how the devil would they know before the year started that 75 per cent of their income was going to be derived after 1 December. How would they know about stock sales? How would they know about all the other things that can affect farm incomes such as shipping and so on, or even climatic conditions and drought? They would not have a hope of estimating that before the beginning of the financial year and could not take advantage even of that miserable concession on the 75 per cent income provision. Mr Robb's letter goes to say: For example, summer storms or fires in a mature crop may totally alter income expectations from one day to the next. Similarly, the temperature and rainfall patterns in late summer and autumn can substantially alter expenditure on stock feed and cultivation for crops. NFF considers that it is impractical to require primary producers to estimate taxable income any earlier than is currently required. Earlier estimation will necessarily result in substantial errors and over or underpayment of tax instalments. The government has recognised through income averaging that separate arrangements are necessary to maintain equity for those taxpayers who have variable incomes. A large majority of those taxpayers using income averaging will also face problems under the proposed provisional tax requirements because of unevenness of income and unpredictability of income. The Opposition is requesting the Government to accept this modest amendment, to take into account the very practical considerations outlined by the National Farmers Federation. That is surely a reasonable request, because if people were to make estimates of income which were incorrect and those estimates were more than 10 per cent out, a 20 per cent penalty on tax would be imposed on them. All the dice, in this case, are loaded in favour of the Commissioner of Taxation, so people are very wary indeed of making individual estimates. It is a major trap and one that is highlighted even more by this legislation. Mr Braithwaite —There is the cost of those estimates, too. Mr CARLTON —Of course. My friend, the honourable member for Dawson, has had a great deal of experience in his professional accounting life of the difficulty that people have in making these forward estimates. All I can say is that the Government does not seem to have the slightest idea about the practical realities of running a farm or business. The Government seems to think that the farmer or business person can spend half of his or her time back in the home, office or shed trying to work out all the paper work-tax records, fringe benefits and all those other sorts of things-instead of being out there making a dollar for Australia. So the Opposition's amendment is designed to help those people who are out there making a dollar for Australia. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.12) —This is a very reasonable amendment. I note with some interest that clause 16 provides for what will become new section 221YBA. We are into triple letters after the numerals in this wretched Income Tax Assessment Act. I thought to myself: `What does YBA mean? It must be a message from the Hawke socialist Government to the taxpayers of Australia'. It means `you're belted again'. This is a disgraceful provision. `You're belted again'-that is the theme of this legislation. As the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), correctly pointed out, this measure will rip out of Australian business another $90m. If the amounts are borrowed at 20 per cent for six months-my colleague, the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) will check my mathematics so that we do not have any more quibbling about misrepresentation-that is an extra $9m of interest. If the amounts are borrowed over 12 months, it becomes another $18m. This legislation, which the Government says is a mere bagatelle, will rip out of Australian business more than $100m, when businesses already are slugged to the tune of $1.8 billion under the Government's wretched new business tax. Mr Blanchard, as you have studied the legislation, you will know that you cannot just consider clause 16 on its own. To get a proper interpretation you also have to look at clauses 17, 18 and 19 because they basically comprise the package. I make it quite clear that I am not attacking the Parliamentary Counsel, nor even my friends in the Australian Taxation Office-- Mr Hurford —And you would not attack me, would you? Mr HODGMAN —I would not attack the Minister. Today is the twenty-fifth anniversary of my admission to the Bar of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. I was admitted to the Bar on 19 February 1962, which is 25 years ago today. As one of Her Majesty's Counsel, I am saying that I cannot understand this. Government members interjecting- Mr HODGMAN —Moscow corner is very noisy this morning. This legislation has been 18 months in the gestation, from September 1985 to February 1987. It has taken even longer than it took the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to file his tax returns; that is how long it has taken. One could nearly breed an elephant in that time. Mr Cunningham —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman: The honourable member for Denison is speaking way outside the terms of the matter before the Committee. The Treasurer's tax returns are a personal matter and have nothing at all to do with the debate before this Committee at present. I ask you to call him to order. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —There is no point of order. Before the honourable member for Denison resumes, I note that there is a tortuous path that the honourable member was following. Mr O'Keefe —It is just because he doesn't understand it. Mr HODGMAN —I understand two things about this. This legislation will impose on the taxpayers and businesses of Australia more stringent conditions than the Government is prepared to impose on itself. That is my point. In the speech of the Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), in his reply in the House this morning, he said: `You will have to pay quarterly instead of annually'. That will mean that payments will supposedly have to be on time and, secondly, one will have to predict accurately the amount of tax to be paid by way of provisional tax, because if the estimate is out by a mere 10 per cent, down will come the nulla-nulla. That person will be branded as a tax cheat and slugged 20 per cent additional tax. I put it to you, Mr Blanchard, that that is taxation by blackmail and thuggery. Why does this Government, which preached and sermonised on tax morality last year ad nauseam, impose on taxpayers and businesses stricter standards than it is prepared to impose on itself? I take the honourable member's point of order. I would dearly love to speak, as I know the facts of the Keating performance and I also know the facts of the Dawkins performance, but I will not go into those matters. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! I again remind the honourable member not to transgress my ruling. Mr HODGMAN —No, but I do know that the Australian Taxation Office in Hobart has a code which goes on files, which is HLL. That stands for `habitual later lodger'. Apparently it is now on the computers. Mr Cunningham —How do you know? Have they been chasing you up? Mr HODGMAN —I pay my tax when required and as required. The honourable member should not have a shot at me when cheating Keating is prepared to be two financial years late in filing his returns. I ask him to withdraw. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the honourable member for Denison to withdraw that remark. Mr HODGMAN —He will withdraw the imputation against me. I do not owe the Tax Office one cent. I am not like Dawkins, I am not like Keating and I do not want to be in prison. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr O'Keefe —I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Chairman, it is not on for the honour- able member for Denison to refer to the Federal Treasurer as cheating Keating. I insist that he withdraw that remark. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I take your point of order. I have asked the honourable member to withdraw those words. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Deputy Chairman, I will withdraw, provided you make him withdraw that I owe the Taxation Office, because I do not owe it one cent. I will withdraw, but he should withdraw. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The honour- able member has withdrawn. He will proceed with his speech. Mr Donald Cameron —I raise a point of order. The honourable member for McMillan made an imputation against the high-standing reputation of a Queen's Counsel of 25 years. I think you should play it fair and make him withdraw. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —That is a frivolous point of order. Please resume your seat. Mr HODGMAN —I am sorry, Mr Chairman, but I have to speak to the point of order. May I say that, as tax evasion is grounds for striking legal practitioners from the roll, I call on you as a fair Chairman to make the honourable member withdraw what he said. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! I did not hear the words that were uttered on the Government side of the chamber-- Mr HODGMAN —He said: `Have you paid your tax?'. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —That was mainly because I was trying to listen to the honourable member for Denison and trying to get him to stand down. I ask the honourable member to proceed with his speech. Mr HODGMAN —I will inform you of what he said and then I will ask him to withdraw it. He said `Have you paid your tax?', the imputation being that I had not. The fact is that I have. I call on the honourable member for Cunningham to withdraw the imputation. Mr Deputy Chairman, you made me withdraw my comments about cheating Keating and Dawkins and the bottom of the sandpit tax fraud. I ask you to make the honourable member withdraw what he said. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I again remind the honourable member for Denison that I did not hear those words. As I did not hear them, I am not in a position to ask for the honourable member for McMillan to withdraw them. It would help the Committee if the honourable member for Denison continued his speech. Mr HODGMAN —I will. Mr Deputy Chairman, it is a tragedy that you did not hear those words. Let me put on the record that my accountants in Hobart are Wise, Lord and Ferguson. If the honourable member has anything to say about my tax, I invite him to say it outside the chamber. I will very happily meet him on the right end of a Supreme Court writ for substantial damages. He is on the way out politically, anyway. If I can help him on his way, I am happy to do so. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! Once again, I invite the honourable member to continue with the debate. Mr HODGMAN —The Government says: `We want everybody in Australia to pay provisional tax, right on the knocker, every three months, and we want you to be so correct that you are not out by more than 10 per cent'. When are we to hear in this Parliament the amount involved in the case of the habitual late lodger the Treasurer? If the Government is prepared to demand that the taxpayers of Australia be on time, why does it not demand that he be on time? Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. Once again, the honourable member is attacking the personal life of a member of this Parliament. I ask him to withdraw that statement. Mr HODGMAN —He ought to be in prison-the honourable member knows it, and I know it-and so should Dawkins. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member has been asked to withdraw a statement. Mr HODGMAN —I did not hear what he wants me to withdraw. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I ask you to withdraw the statement. Mr HODGMAN —I am sorry, but I did not hear what he wants me to withdraw. I am told that the Treasurer has made a full confession in the Parliament, so what is the secret? It is public property. Why is the Government putting the axe into the taxpayers of this country when its front bench is riddled with tax cheats and crooks? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He will heed the Chair; otherwise he might find himself in some difficulty later. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(11.23) —I rise to put a few points regarding the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) concerning provisional tax. After listening to the honourable member for Denison-- Mr Lamb —Hodgman. Mr CUNNINGHAM —No, the honourable member for Denison. He gets it wrong; I do not get it wrong. The honourable member spent his 10 minutes of the debate trying to be abusive and making personal attacks on the Treasurer (Mr Keating) when, in fact-- Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Chairman, you heard what he said. I ask you, as a fair Deputy Chairman, to call on him to withdraw it. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Will the honourable member withdraw the remark? Mr CUNNINGHAM —I withdraw the remark. The people of Australia have heard what he has said. In deference to you, Mr Deputy Chairman, I withdraw. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar once again illustrates the Opposition's approach to the taxation reforms put forward by the Government; it attacks them. The Bill relates to provisional tax. Provisional tax is a taxation measure that has been in the statute books of Australia for a long time. I can remember, from my experience in running a farm and of agricultural contracting, that people paid provisional tax-- Mr Hawker —Once a year. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Yes, once a year. We must not forget, however, that in the past provisional taxpayers have had the advantage of not having to pay the tax, normally, until April of the following income year. Therefore, they had the advantage of using the money in that period. The changes contained in the Bill are quite simple. It will be up to the taxpayers themselves to assess how much their provisional tax will be. I have no doubt, from my past performance as a business operator, that it would be simple for my accountant to work through the figures of the averages of how I was performing and put forward an assessment to me so that I could comply with the law. What is more, being able to pay in four equal instalments would help the cash flow of a business. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), in his attacks on the Government and its tax reforms, appears to be taking a line that is so simple to him; that is, the Hawke socialist Government must be attacked, regardless of whether the reforms are for the good of Australia. I am sure that business houses in Australia fully understand and appreciate what the Government has done. If members of the Opposition want evidence of how they are assessing the Government's performance on tax measures and whether they are completely afraid of paying provisional tax by instalments, they should look at the movements in the stock market. They will see how investors in Australia are reacting to the Labor Government's policies. They will have all the evidence that they wish to see. There is a difference between the two sides of the chamber. We legislate for fairness and equity. We want to see people who have a tax liability pay their fair share. We do not want to take their profits. We just want from those profits, for the good of the running of Australia, a fair share in the tax they pay. There is nothing wrong with that. It is accepted by the community. However, that is something which the Opposition appears to reject. The measures contained in the tax package will allow us to collect tax from those who have not paid their fair share, so that the 60c in the dollar and the 46c in the dollar tax rates can be reduced to sensible levels. That is occurring. It has taken three years of hard work to reform the tax measures of Australia, including this piece of legislation. On 1 July, business people in Australia will have their tax reduced, by way of the dividend measures, from 78c in the dollar to 49c in the dollar. They appreciate that. This measure on provisional tax will also assist them with their cash flow. There is no doubt that those who are listening to the debate today are fully aware that the tax measures are fair and equitable. The evidence of that has been shown clearly in investments and stock market movements around Australia. One can ask people involved in the share markets why they have confidence, why we are seeing so much activity in relation to the future and why we are seeing the great push by the cyclone from the north to try to take over the treasury bench. He wants to transfer some of the good times that are coming in Australia back to the white shoe brigade. We are here to see that they are shared by all Australians. I fully support the Government's measures. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(11.28) —I support the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). In so doing, I wish to take up a couple of points raised by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham). I am pleased to hear that he has an accountant. I suggest that he advise the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that it would also help him if he had an accountant, because he might find that he does not have a problem in getting his tax return in. The honourable member for McMillan made a pathetic defence, overall, of the Government's changes to the provisional tax system and the fact that it is to be paid quarterly rather than once a year. I remind the honourable member of some of the reasons why, in the past, provisional tax has been due and assessed to be paid in late March or early April. Mr Braithwaite —The Labor Party hates the country people. Mr HAWKER —Of course it does. That is why I wonder how the honourable member for McMillan got into that Party. The reason people have had to pay provisional tax towards the end of the financial year rather than earlier is that, in many cases, they cannot estimate properly what it will be because of the seasonal nature of many businesses, particularly that of the small, self-employed person, and the fact that not only does income vary from year to year but also the timing of the earning of income can vary dramatically. I will come to a couple of examples which might explain to members of the Government, particularly the Treasurer, why this measure will cause considerable hardship to many people, especially farmers who have seasonal incomes which can fluctuate not only during the year but also from year to year. For those reasons I am very disappointed that the honourable member for McMillan, who claims to have some understanding of country people, has failed to realise that those who are not getting a reasonably regular milk cheque may find that the change in provisional tax will cause them many headaches. As the honourable member for McMillan has admitted, and as the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) also has admitted, the Government stands to make quite a lot of money. One of the reasons why the Government stands to make a lot of money out of this change in provisional tax is the high interest rates. I wonder whether the Government's priorities are right, and whether it should not be concentrating on ways of getting interest rates down. The Government would not feel so much out of pocket by, as it claims, having to raise Treasury notes to get that extra $90m. The main objection to this change in provisional tax is the fact that it is making tax-and tax collection-far more complex for people who have highly fluctuating incomes; in particular, people who are in the situation of using the averaging provisions. It will be an absolute nightmare. As I said in this place yesterday, those who are in that situation will need to use a computer with a spreadsheet to be able to assess whether they will be eligible for the so-called concession. People who believe that more than 75 per cent of their income comes after 1 December will be eligible to pay two instalments rather than four. The Government has failed to understand the simple practicalities of running the type of business where, in many cases, it is well nigh impossible to estimate prior to 1 December or even by the end of December whether one's income will fall into the 75 per cent category after 1 December or whether it will fall into the category where income is spread more evenly over the year. I will give the Committee a couple of examples. People who find that the bulk of their income comes from producing fat lambs would normally look to market those lambs at the best possible time to gain the maximum price. In one year that could be early in November; in the following year it could be late in December. Those people will be faced with another decision. If they decide in November that they want to market those lambs then, they will not know what to do as they will have already missed the first quarterly instalment. What will the Australian Taxation Office do? I put it to the Minister for Community Services, who is at the table, that this is a very real, practical problem. A person in this situation could find himself unwittingly choosing not to pay until 1 February and finding himself no longer eligible for that so-called concession. I hope that the Minister will take the time and trouble to consider this point because it is quite a serious one. Another category of people may find themselves in a similar situation. On 1 December they may opt for saying that 75 per cent of their income will be earned in the second half of the year and, therefore, they will not pay the early instalments. A person in that category could be someone who is relying for the major source of his income on, say, a wheat crop. If a week before that wheat crop is due to be reaped, a hail storm wipes it out, that person will suddenly find that because of the elements-reasons totally beyond his control-he is no longer eligible for the concession. Where does that person stand? I put that to the Minister and I hope that he will take it up and have another look at it. Under the present situation people, quite unwittingly and because of reasons beyond their control, may find themselves being slugged by a surcharge for not paying the first instalment of provisional tax although they believed in good faith that they were eligible for the 75 per cent concession. Again, I point out to the Minister-as the honourable member for Mackellar clearly pointed out at the beginning of this debate-that for people who have fluctuating incomes, whose incomes vary seasonally and from year to year, the new provisional tax will be a nightmare. It is completely impractical. It obviously has been dreamt up by someone in a little office who has never really looked at what goes on in the real world. I suggest that the Government look very closely at the Opposition's amendment because it goes, in a small way, towards trying to make this provision a little more sensible. If the Government had any real sense, it would withdraw the whole legislation and have another look at it. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.36) —The speech from the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) put sincerely and well the case for primary producers with fluctuating incomes, not only from year to year but also within the year. The cases he put before the Committee I know well. Let me tell him that before I came into this place 17 1/2 years ago I was a chartered accountant in a tax practice and I looked after the taxation returns of many primary producers-partnerships, companies, the lot. I would have lodged as many tax returns as the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). I am aware of the problem that the honourable member for Wannon, in particular, has sincerely articulated; it is one that has needed to be addressed. The Government rejects this amendment because we believe that the existing legislation before the Committee addresses the problem. We would in no way wish to put through legislation that did not take into account the seasonal flow of income of people such as primary producers, and the fluctuating income from year to year of those people. I say to him briefly that there is a capacity for primary producers, like everyone else, to put in an application to vary provisional tax, and not just once. They can put it in four times during the year if their particular problems are not being addressed. A number of factors are motivating this change, but the most important is one that the Opposition has paid lip service to from time to time, and that is equity in the tax system. It has been totally unfair that pay as you earn wage and salary earners have had tax taken from the source of their income, yet those who are not PAYE wage and salary earners have paid provisional tax nine months in arrears and three months in advance. The measures in this Bill achieve greater equity between the PAYE wage and salary earners and those who are in the other category. The other reason is a perfectly proper financial one, and that is to have a more even flow of funds into the Treasury. We heard emotional statements from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) at the beginning of his remarks. These, of course, were taken up by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) who is incapable of being credible and of applying a sincere approach to any of these problems-along the lines that this Government was merely seeking to extract $90m from taxpayers. That is not so. It happens to be an outcome of achieving equity between PAYE wage and salary earners and the rest. It will have a once only outcome. It will not happen in future years. It happens to be bringing forward into one year from the next year money that would otherwise be payable anyway. In following years there will be no difference to the amount that is coming into the Treasury. Surely somebody who I think has had some tertiary education, such as the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), can understand that. But he seeks to be cynical by laughing, as he just did, at the point I made. It is a perfectly true point. The only reason there is $90m more this year is that the payment is being brought forward. Not one dollar more is coming from those taxpayers than would otherwise come from them, but they have to pay it earlier. They are paying it earlier in order to get equity between that class of taxpayer and the pay as you earn taxpayer-the vast majority of wage and salary earners. Does the Opposition not want a fair system? Does it not believe that all taxpayers should be treated equally, without fear and without favour? This is another example of the Opposition's distorted idea of fairness. Over many years of government, on every possible occasion the present Opposition penalised wage and salary earners in this country at the expense of the rest. That was not fair and the Hawke Labor Government has brought in these reforms in order to achieve greater fairness. I say again that I believe that the honourable member for Wannon and other honourable members were sincerely taking up the problems outlined in a perfectly genuine and proper letter from Mr Andrew Robb of the National Farmers Federation. Those problems needed to be addressed, and they are being addressed in this legislation. The way the Opposition suggests in this amendment-which the Government rejects-that they should be further addressed would bring back distortion into the Income Tax Assessment Act. It would bring back unfairness as to the way people are treated because the seasonal income concessions in this Bill already address the points made in Mr Robb's letter and in speeches here. The concession which, unlike the Opposition amendment, applies to all taxpayers and not just those on averaging, such as primary producers, authors, sportsmen, et cetera, has the effect that taxpayers who satisfy the Commissioner of Taxation that more than 75 per cent of their assessable income for an income year will be derived after 1 December will be able to pay their provisional tax in two equal instalments instead of four. The two instalments will be due no earlier than 1 February and 1 June respectively. That is, one-half of the person's provisional tax liability will be due two months before the existing due date for lump sum provisional tax, 31 March, and the other half two months after the existing due date. In other words, those taxpayers will not, on balance, be required to pay their provisional tax any earlier than they do now. It will be a matter for the Commissioner as to the manner in which he exercises his discretion in this area. No doubt he will issue a taxation ruling to guide taxpayers. In this regard, I am sure that the Commissioner will adopt a common-sense approach to issues such as that raised by the honourable member for Wannon, who in his speech on the second reading, expressed concern about the position of fat lamb producers who might ordinarily market their fat lambs in December but who might also market them in some years as early as October. If a taxpayer is unable either to seek or to obtain seasonal income status from the Commissioner of Taxation until after one or more instalment notices have been served-and perhaps paid-the following rules apply: Firstly, once seasonal status is obtained, the two instalment system commences and all instalments under the four instalment system are cancelled; secondly, if any of those four instalments have been paid and no other income tax is owing, the amount paid will be refunded; and, thirdly, if any of those four instalments are overdue but unpaid, penalty for late payment will not begin to accrue until 1 February. I come now to the second point raised in the Opposition's amendment, relating to unpredictable income. The question of a taxpayer's ability to satisfy the Commissioner of Taxation that his or her taxable income is derived seasonally is a different question from that of being able to estimate taxable income for the year in order to obtain a reduction in instalments. Both questions, of course, apply not only to people to whom income averaging applies but also to a wide range of other taxpayers. The instalment system permits a taxpayer to lodge an estimate of taxable income for the year at the time of each of the four instalments, varying the amount of the instalment payable from the amount shown on the instalment notice. Whilst it is accepted that it will often not be feasible for a taxpayer to make such an estimate early in the financial year, instalments are calculated in such a way that a variation application in respect of a later instalment will result in any overpaid earlier instalment being credited towards the later instalment. Mr Hawker —There is still a penalty. Mr HURFORD —There is no penalty. Well, it has to be a little prepaid; I concede that that may be a penalty, but that will be ironed out as the flow of income to that particular taxpayer becomes known, if it is not already known. If an estimate is made in respect of an earlier instalment and it turns out to be an underestimate, any penalty for that underestimate will apply only for the period until the estimate is corrected. Generally, in conclusion, in rejecting the proposal to exclude from instalments taxpayers on averaging, it is relevant also to note: Not all of the taxpayers in the classes of taxpayers who qualify for averaging, for example, primary producers, are on averaging; some people on averaging may derive their income early in the financial year and therefore be capable of paying and estimating early; and, lastly, taxpayers on averaging are not the only ones who may have seasonal income flows and unpredictable income levels. Many others have those unpredictable incomes and that is why we believe that the provisions in this Bill are not only sufficient but also a more equitable way of attacking and addressing the problem outlined. This has been a good debate. It has gone on for some time. The business of the House is such that other business must be brought on, and I am therefore obliged to move: That the question be now put. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr C. A. Blanchard) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. J. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dubois, S. G. Milton, P. Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Smith, W. Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Watson, D. J. H. Hall, Steele Webster, A. P. Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Dawkins, J. S. Coleman, W. P. Cohen, B. Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Carlton's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr C. A. Blanchard) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hodges, J. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dubois, S. G. Milton, P. Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Coleman, W. P. Dawkins, J. S. Hunt, R. J. D. Cohen, B. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.04) —Mr Deputy Chairman, I rise to speak briefly-- Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed: That the question be now put. Mr Hodgman —I just wanted to speak on section 221-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The question before the Committee is that the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment. Adoption of Report Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed: That the report be adopted. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.05) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak to that motion and complain that this debate has been gagged. These are Moscow tactics. Motion (by Mr Hurford) agreed to: That the question be now put. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The question now is that the report be adopted. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.05) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr HODGMAN —I am permitted to speak to that motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member cannot speak after the closure has been moved upon him. Mr Hodgman —This is a separate motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question before the House is that the report be adopted. Original question resolved in the affirmative; report adopted. Mr Hurford-I ask for leave of the House to move the third reading forthwith. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Hodgman-I desire to speak to that motion that leave be granted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat or he will be dealt with by the Chair. Is leave granted? Leave granted. Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.06) —Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an absolute disgrace and a scandal. This debate has been gagged. Motion (by Mr Hurford) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Mr Hodgman —Keating and Dawkins ought to be in gaol, and you know it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Denison. Debate resumed from 28 November, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.07) —I desire to speak to the motion. I condemn this Government for gagging this debate and preventing the truth from coming out. Motion (by Mr Hurford) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.08) —Mr Deputy Speaker, why should provisional taxpayers have to pay every three months when Keating takes 19 months to fill in his returns? Motion (by Mr Hurford) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(12.09) —I 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. I believe the House is entitled to some explanation about this. It relates to changes in the form and content of the monthly financial transactions statement, to bring it more closely into line with the Budget documents and to seek clearance of the wording of an explanatory statement to parliament, which accompanied the tabling in the amended form. Before I was able to get in touch with the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), his office kindly got in touch with mine, and I trust that he was fully apprised of this matter. The form was incorporated into the Audit Act 1901 in 1979 and it was based on the then Budget presentations of outlays and receipts. In May 1985 the Treasurer (Mr Keating) approved for tabling in parliament a proposed amended format of the statement of Commonwealth financial transactions, to bring the statement into line with the 1985-86 Budget documents. The amended format was subsequently approved by parliament during the autumn session of 1985. The amendments now sought are necessary in order to bring the format of the Commonwealth financial transactions statement into line with the 1986-87 Budget documents. As I have indicated, a fuller explanatory statement on this matter was tabled in the House on 26 November 1986. I commend to the House the motion relating to what is a very technical matter. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(12.10) —The Opposition does not raise any objection to this matter in that it seems to bring the form of the financial statements into line with the Budget. I just draw the attention of the Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) to something that is slightly odd. Five changes are suggested to the format. But one of those has already been made in the statement that was issued on 22 January. In other words, before the House had approved of the new format, the Government issued the statement partly in the new format. The particular item to which I refer is that on fringe benefits tax. I understand a certain amount of sensitivity on the Government's part about the fringe benefits tax because the statement which was issued on 22 January seems to indicate that the Government could collect more than twice its forecast revenue from the fringe benefits tax. The proposed change of format states that a new item, fringe benefits tax, is to be inserted above sales tax. We are being asked to approve that change in the format. When I looked at the statement put forward by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, on 22 January, I noticed that fringe benefits tax is already included as a separate item-this is before we have approved of its being so-and it indicates that $122m has been collected in the six months to 31 December as against a Budget forecast for the whole year of $325m. The extraordinary thing about that is that there are three payments of fringe benefits tax in the course of the financial year. That $122m ought really to relate to only half of one of them, because the period for lodgment of fringe benefits tax for tax agents was extended to 31 December for half their clients. It would be impossible for the Australian Taxation Office to process returns lodged on 31 December and for them to be included in a 31 December total. Since most of the returns that the taxation agents would have determined to lodge in the second lodgment would have been for the larger firms, it is quite possible that the $122m refers to less than half of one payment of fringe benefits tax. If that is the case-let us assume that it was half the amount-that means that the full first payment would be about $244m, which is getting up to two-thirds of the amount budgeted for the whole year. Indeed, if that pattern were maintained for the remainder of the year, the Government would collect $732m in fringe benefits tax, compared with $325m. It is no wonder that the rate of bankruptcies has gone up by 35 per cent this year compared with last year if, in addition to meeting interest payments of 20 per cent on borrowings, and additional taxes in various forms, businesses and farmers are having to pay an additional $732m in fringe benefits tax this year when even the Government said that they would be paying only $325m. I ask the Minister to explain exactly why the fringe benefits tax item was separated before the House had given approval for that to be done. Also, in the course of his answer, could he explain what that figure of $122m actually means? Does it represent about half of the first of the three payments for the year, in which case the total to be received from the fringe benefits tax would be $700m-odd as opposed to the forecast in the Budget of $325m? If that is the case, it is an absolute disgrace. Another matter in the figures relates to public debt interest. I note that the Budget estimate for 1986-87 was $7.5 billion in public debt interest. That is quite extraordinary as an item. In fact, it is more than we spend even on defence; it is more than we spend on health and it is more than we spend on education. It means that every man, woman and child in Australia is paying about $470 this year in interest alone on Commonwealth borrowings. If we look at the six months to 31 December, we see that, of that $7.5 billion, $4.1 billion has already been paid. The notes accompanying the honourable senator's statement indicate that, because of increases in interest rates which were not foreseen in the Budget, the amount is well over target. In other words, there is a blowout in this horribly large item of public debt interest. Those are the two matters that I specifically wish to draw attention to, but I certainly would like from the Minister some explanation as to why, of the five items of change, one change has actually been implemented before the House has given its approval. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(12.15) —in reply-I refer to the first issue raised by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) which, frankly, was the only one relevant to the motion before the House. Otherwise, he used the time, quite cleverly, to comment on what was in the financial transactions statement rather than relating his remarks to the motion. But I accept that the first matter was relevant. I can answer that by saying that the legal opinion of 13 February 1985 received by the Department of Finance stated that new items, provided they do not indirectly vary other particulars in the form, may be added without the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Of course, the fringe benefits tax is a new item and does not vary any other figures in that form, so it could be included for the information of honourable members. I am sure that the honourable member will agree that it was all very much to the benefit of honourable members that that extra information should be included. It was done not only to make that information known; it was also done legally. The other remarks of the honourable member need attention but, unfortunately, I am under certain time constraints. The fringe benefits tax is applied to people who receive benefits in kind, who, if they received those benefits in cash, would have to pay tax on them. In other words, it is absolutely fair that that tax should be paid. Secondly, let me state that, of course, I regret and every member of this House regrets the amount of public debt interest that is paid. That is one of the reasons why the Government has been hell bent on reducing the deficit. But people in glass houses should not throw stones. Those people who have been responsible for so much of this public debt, namely, those who sit opposite, should not raise this issue in a political way in this House. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 23 October, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(12.18) —The purpose of the Olympic Insignia Protection Bill is to assist the Australian Olympic Federation in raising money to send our teams to the Olympic Games. The AOF undertakes a major marketing program before every Olympic Games in order to raise the funds to send our athletes and team officials overseas. This Bill seeks to give protection to the Olympic insignia and any other logos that the AOF may wish to register. By doing so, it gives that insignia and those logos some exclusivity so that the Federation can say to the sponsors: `Yes, you can use that logo or insignia and no one else is entitled to use it'. It is the same sort of principle that has been adopted with the Advance Australia logo and the bicentennial logo. It seems to us an eminently sensible move and the Opposition does not oppose the Bill. We are just a bit surprised that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has not set up yet another of his committees to supervise the implementation of these measures. I am glad to see that the Minister is in the House, because I have some things to say about this Bill and other matters which will be of interest to him. The Minister is obviously planning to leave this Parliament. I ask the Minister whether it is true that he has leased his house in Parramatta-which he has done according to the local paper-and has now moved outside his electorate. This Bill will give the Olympic movement a chance to raise money and reduce its claim on the public purse. One of the biggest claims on the public purse has been this Minister. I take the case of his trip to the 1984 Olympic Games on which he spent $62,000-- Mr John Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. This honourable member is particularly prone to misquoting and misinterpreting absolutely whatever happened at the Olympic Games in 1984. This Bill is related to the Olympic Federation's desire to protect the Olympic insignia. What this has to do with my trip to the Olympic Games in 1984 is something I would like to know. I would have thought that this debate would have been above the personal innuendo at which this man is particularly adept. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for McPherson will address his remarks to the Bill. Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take the point about personal innuendo which the Minister specialises in, and in which he indulges in this House time after time. I refer to the activities in which he indulges in carrying out his portfolio responsibilities. I do not refer to him personally. He is the one who comes into this House and indulges in personal abuse. I will not accept his trying to shift the blame to someone else. I also put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when we are talking about the Olympic Games, and funds to be raised for the Olympic Games, the Minister's trip to the 1984 Olympic Games is pertinent to the debate-a trip on which he spent some $60,000-odd of taxpayers' money. We are talking about taxpayers' money. We are talking about the AOF's chance to reduce its claim on the public purse. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his point. His remarks are of very doubtful relevance. Some matters may be canvassed in passing. I think the honourable member has done so. I ask him to get back to the Bill. Mr WHITE —I will do as requested, Mr Deputy Speaker. Over a number of years the AOF has had the responsibility of increasing the size of our team and the amount of money raised. In 1948 some 88 team members and officials were sent to the Olympic Games. In 1984, when the last Olympic Games were held, 335 team members were sent to the Games and $5m was raised. It is anticipated that something like 400 athletes and officials will be sent to next year's Olympic Games in Korea. It is estimated that that will cost $10m. So the figure has risen from $5m in 1984 to $10m next year. The size of the team and number of officials will certainly be increased. The cost is a direct result of our devalued dollar. It is commendable that the AOF states that in due course it hopes to relinquish its claim on the public purse altogether-which has happened, for example, in the United States, where the United States Olympic Federation raises the money. The AOF has been very successful in recent years in reducing its claim on the taxpayer. In 1984 it asked for and got some $1.4m, which was about 28 per cent of its total expenses. For next year it has already been agreed, as I understand it-the Minister can confirm this-that the AOF will be given some $2m out of the $10m total the Federation wants, some 20 per cent. So the AOF is reducing its claim on the public purse, which is to be commended. The AOF is undertaking a most professional marketing program. Some 70 international and national companies have already agreed to participate in the national program. As a result of its activities, the AOF has already raised nearly $2m of the $8m share it is seeking to raise. I hope that, partly as a result of this Bill, the AOF will be able to pursue its marketing programs with more vigor because it will be able to say to its sponsors and those who are involved: `We can guarantee that this design and logo is for your exclusive use'. Some safeguards are built into the Bill, such as the fair use of the insignia and logos by the media for the dissemination of information. Those who have used the logos and the insignia or some form of the logos and insignia for some time in their business activities, when they were not under any sort of protection, will be able to continue on a reasonable basis, which is fair enough. An appeal system is in place, which involves the Federal Court of Australia, for appeals against decisions relating to the registration of designs, which seems sensible. The 12-year period of registration by the AOF for the insignia and the logos is of interest to me and, I think, to others. Twelve years seems a long time. However, it will cover three Olympic Games. These logos will be in use for that amount of time. Many of the designs which are registered under the Patents, Trade Marks, Designs and Copyright Act get protection for 16 years. So, on balance, it would seem that 12-year protection is fair enough. The maximum number of designs which the AOF can register is limited to 10. It will probably not use anywhere near that number. It is pertinent to this Bill to talk about our efforts in the recent Olympic Games. It is true that we have not done as well in recent years as perhaps we did when we were at our peak in 1956 when the Games were held in Melbourne. As the Minister pointed out during his second reading speech, it is pertinent to pay the compliments of the House to those who won: Glynis Nunn, Jon Sieben, Dean Lukin and our pursuit cyclist team-Michael Grenda, Kevin Nicholls, Michael Turtur and Dean Woods-great winners who did a great thing for Australia. One of the reasons that the Institute of Sport was set up some years ago was our declining relative performance in the Olympic Games. I hope that the Institute of Sport will play a very significant role in lifting our results in the 1988 Games and lifting the level of sport generally in this country. I take this public opportunity to congratulate Ron Harvey, the new Director of the Institute, on his appointment. I am sure that he will bring to the Institute the cohesion and financial accountability which unfortunately it has lacked in the past. The problems of the Institute have affected the coaches and athletes, so the Institute's performance as a whole has been below the level one might have expected. I hope that all that has passed and that we can now look forward to the Institute playing the role which it should be playing-the role of the major sporting institute in this country. I commend the decentralisation program which the Institute commenced and which has been going on for some years. I hope that the program will continue. Under the decentralisation program two sports are now going to Adelaide. The financial details surrounding these two sports still seem to be very vague. I have said before, and I will say it again, that the reasons for putting cycling in Adelaide seem to me to be very thin, especially when what is probably one of the best velodromes in the world is in Launceston. I have no argument with the cricket going to Adelaide-if it has to go anywhere, Adelaide is as good a place as any-but I have questioned before whether cricket, which is a wealthy sport with an enormous cash flow, should be taken under the wing of the Institute of Sport. If it is to come under the Institute of Sport, fair enough; but whether other sports are more deserving in terms of financial support is a matter for discussion. I realise as well as anyone else that an enormous number of Australians play cricket. It is part of our national heritage and prestige and it is a sport which generates an enormous cash flow. I question whether it should get assistance at this time. However, until I see the details of the assistance it will get and until the final financial package is worked out by putting the cricket academy in Adelaide, I will not make any further comment. I take this opportunity to congratulate the present members of the Australian Olympic Federation and all those members who served on it over the 90 years of its existence. The Federation has raised money to send teams to every one of the 23 Olympiads, and that is an effort which deserves commendation. The Federation and this nation are facing a much tougher sporting environment because our athletes are competing against the athletes of countries that have elevated sport so that it is totally professional-particularly some of the communist countries where sportsmen are full time and fully paid. They are looked after by the state and this is reflected in their performances. I do not think we will ever be able to compete with them on that basis. I do not want to see Australian sport become so professional that it becomes a business. Nevertheless, it will be a challenge to compete with that approach of some of the communist bloc countries. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson, and her team on their enormous and very nearly successful effort in trying to attract the 1992 Games to Australia. I do not think anybody could have worked harder or more successfully to attract those games. I think it was universally acclaimed throughout Australia as a most successful bid. The pity of it is that it was not successful. The cost of this Bill will be minimal, certainly to the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. It may have some slight effect on the Office of Patent, Trade Marks and Designs but it will be very small. I hope that the Minister takes note of the example of this Bill in terms of his own travel. We have been down that road before-Mr Deputy Speaker, I can see your beady eye upon me-so I do not propose to go down it again at this stage. On this occasion I am happy to join with the Minister and to support this Bill for the betterment of Australian sport. The Minister comes in here time and time again and makes pleas for us to take a bipartisan approach to sport and other matters. The trouble is that his personal conduct, behaviour and administration of his portfolio make it impossible to come to some bipartisan agreement on most of these matters. I talk about personal travel excesses, the proliferation of boards and committees and the growth in the administration expenses of his Department. Nevertheless, this Bill is a progressive step. It will give the AOF greater access to the private sector in terms of raising money and we are glad to support it. I wish the AOF, our athletes and our officials all the best for the 1988 Olympics. We hope that the problems associated with the bid by North Korea to get extra games will be resolved satisfactorily, that the 1988 Games will proceed and that they will be a great success as games for Australian athletes. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(12.35) —The Olympic Insignia Protection Bill allows the Australian Olympic Federation to regulate the use of the Olympic symbol-the five interlocking rings, with which we are all familiar-and other nominated Olympic designs within Australia. The commercial application of those symbols will allow the realisation of sponsorship and funding arrangements which the AOF is presently involved with. The Olympic Games is that celebration held at the end of each four-year period or Olympiad. Australia is one of only three countries in the world that has attended all 23 Olympics. To its eternal credit, the AOF should be thanked on behalf of the Australian people for its foresight, strength, autonomy and, indeed, its resilience in 1980 when, under heavy pressure from the Government, it decided it would attend the Moscow Olympic Games in spite of the incumbent Government's displeasure. As has been mentioned by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), it is an expensive business. We are looking at a $10m budget for Seoul and Calgary next year for the AOF. I am pleased that this Government has seen fit to come up with $2m towards that cost. Certainly that is a significant contribution. It is a contribution which has no strings attached, which is as it should be. In the past there have been occasions of government intervention in the funding of Olympic teams. I hope that that will never again be the case in this country. I suppose we ask ourselves why it is important for Australia to field a team at an Olympics and why it is important that Australian athletes should have the chance to perform their best at Olympic Games. I do not necessarily agree with the views of Peter Veberroth, the Chairman of the organising committee of the 1984 Olympic Games, who said at the opening ceremony of those Games when the athletes were assembled before him that those athletes represented `the best hope for the future of mankind'. I did not entirely agree with his views then as I looked at the assembled throwers, pugilists, wrestlers, shooters, riders, runners and rowers, but I believe very firmly that sport, the Olympic Games in particular, contributes very significantly to the good will and understanding that exist between nations. That is not a simplistic view because I believe that one does not need to be an expert to sit in front of one's television and watch an outstanding performer in sport. There is a purity and perfection of performance which allows us in this country to applaud Russians, Chinese, Japanese or anybody whose culture may be completely foreign to us but who has a significant brilliance of performance. We can appreciate their talent, application and expertise. We can also identify very easily with the disappointment they may feel if they are unsuccessful or with the elation they may feel if they are successful. No other medium gives us such an opportunity to understand that we all occupy the same globe and that we all experience the same emotions. We can appreciate the expertise and skill of others without having a particular partisan view. Of course we support those from our own country, but through sport it is possible to look at a higher level and to understand the purity of performance and perfection of champion sportspersons. I believe there is no better advertisement for democracy than in 1980 when our athletes were able to go and compete in Moscow. From speaking with Russian athletes subsequently, I know that the thing that impressed the Soviet people more than anything else was that the Australian Government did not want Australia to compete in those Games, yet individual Australians and an Australian team were able to compete representing Australia. I do not believe there could have been a better advertisement for democracy in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics than the fact that our team was able to go to the Olympic Games in 1980 and perform in spite of the Government's reluctance. There is a significant aspect of participation generation that the Olympic Games bring to sport and to our society. I remember as a young person watching in awe on television the performance of Herb Elliott in 1960. His example inspired me to participate in sport. I did not have the same expertise at running long distances as Herb Elliott, but that performance made me aware of the possibilities and opportunities. We often hear in this House the word `socialism' used as a dirty word. My definition of socialism is that it provides equality of opportunity for people. Just as we provide opportunities for those with skills who desire to succeed in the areas of the arts, mathematics, music or metal-work, we should provide the same opportunities for those who have skills in sport to develop their potential, to learn, to improve and perhaps to become perfect. I hope that Australian governments will continue to recognise this. This Government recognises the value of sport in respect of the Olympic Games internationally and the opportunity it provides for individuals to participate in our society. The Government's support for the Australian Institute of Sport, which was mentioned by the shadow Minister, is a clear indication of that. The Institute of Sport was conceptualised by the previous Labor Government. The Australian Sports Commission, which was set up by this Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), encourages people who have sporting talent. That body, as well as the Australian Sports Aid Foundation, provides opportunities for excellence for those who wish to be successful at sport. For the first time contributions to the Sports Aid Foundation and the Australian Olympic Federation are tax deductible. I have no doubt that that will significantly increase the ability of the Australian Olympic Federation to raise funds for 1988. Not only does sport provide for individuals the opportunity for excellence but also it enables them to make links and contacts with people from other countries. I believe that that is very important for individuals, as it helps them to grow and develop as personalities. International sport and sport at the highest level is very competitive. It is becoming more and more difficult for our athletes to compete equally with athletes from overseas because of financial problems. Unless one is in the position of Robert de Castella, who has significant financial endorsements and sponsorship agreements, it is most difficult to compete. We often see examples of outstanding sportsmen and sportswomen who are not able to continue to compete in their sport. Indeed, Steve Evans, the stroke of the Australian rowing crew last year, has announced his retirement as a result of his inability to combine his sport with his other activities. It is important that we should provide assistance to those people to enable them to continue to compete. If one looks at Australia's international performances in sport, there is a clear contrast between our successes at the Olympic Games 30 years ago and now. Following the Second World War, Australia had significant advantages over other countries. European countries, which had been ravaged by social dislocation, starvation and the massive traumas of war, were at a disadvantage. Australia had significant advantages in terms of our climate and facilities. As a result of that, during the early 1950s Australia performed outstandingly at international sport, relative to its population. Clearly that situation has turned around. The best barometer of that is the performance of Australia at the 1956 Olympic Games when Australia, which had the same population as East Germany, won more than a dozen gold medals while the East Germans won only one silver medal. Twenty years later, in 1976, East Germany won over 50 gold medals and Australia won only one silver medal. It may be that the East Germans have raised sport to a purely professional level as a result of a massive participation program in that country, but that country has provided an enormous number of facilities for a broad-based participation program. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for Perth will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(12.45) —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise while the House is being presided over by your august presence, my fellow back bench mate. I use my time today to highlight the injustice visited upon one family in the Northern Territory by the actions of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) in applying the land rights Act in the Northern Territory. It is the declared intention of the Minister to amend that part of the land rights Act that allows an Aboriginal group to lay claim to land held by another Aboriginal group. True, we are not told when the Minister intends to bring in the necessary amendment, but the Minister has publicly acknowledged the need for it. Even he can see that a law that makes land available for claim on the basis of the colour of the present occupiers is in direct contravention of all the principles of law that we have in Australia. In simple terms, the current Act makes it possible for Aboriginals to lay claim to land held by others, as long as those others are Aboriginal, even if the claim is opposed. I am sorry that the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), who is interjecting, missed out on the ministry! I thought old Gordon would have been an easy mark for a guy like the honourable member. As the Minister is well aware, this provision has caused great hardship for one Aboriginal family, the Johnstons of Vanderlin Island. Despite this, in June last year, the Minister handed over title to Vanderlin Island and West Island in the Sir Edward Pellew Group to the Wurralibi Land Trust. He did not take the matter to arbitration, as he could have done. He did this in the full knowledge that he was worsening an already tense situation. Since then, predictably as long as outsiders continue to interfere with arrangements for the future of Vanderlin, the situation has worsened. The Johnstons have lived on Vanderlin for two generations. They operate an extensive property with around 2,000 head of cattle, goats, horses and other stock. Late last year, in direct dealings between the island's traditional owners-old Tim and Banjo-and Steve Johnston, it was agreed that the Johnston's occupation of the 250 square kilometre island could continue. The traditional owners moved by choice some 40 years ago to the mainland and I am told have no plans to reoccupy the island themselves. It seemed that agreement between the directly interested parties had resolved a problem created by the Commonwealth legislation. But then the Northern Land Council Chairman and the Northern Territory Director of Aboriginal Affairs stepped in. They decided that the acknowledged traditional owners-old Tim and Banjo-were too old to know what they were doing. At a meeting at Borroloola from 21 to 23 January, after asking Steve Johnston to leave the meeting, they overturned the agreement and decided to offer the Johnstons a lease over only a small southern corner of the island. Understandably, when Steve Johnston found out that decision through the pages of the local paper, he refused to accept it. He now intends to fight to the last for his family's years of occupation to be recognised. But, of course, although the Johnstons are Aboriginals when it comes to claiming land from them, they are not Aboriginals when it comes to asserting their rights to occupation of their home island. They are the pawns of legislators, the victims of legal draftsmen and bureaucrats. They are uniquely discriminated against by Commonwealth law-without the rights of Aboriginals to assert their claim, without the rights of non-Aboriginals to resist the claims of others, and without the right to reach amicable agreement with the acknowledged traditional owners without the interference of the Minister's Department in consort with the Northern Land Council. The result is likely to be that the island will be vacated by all, that some 2,000 head of cattle and hundreds of other livestock will be shot, that the Johnston family will move away, and that the traditional owners will fail to take up occupation. Vanderlin Island will be an empty memorial to land rights legislation. Its only sign of habitation will be the graves of a Scottish born fisherman and his Aboriginal Wurralibi wife, who together believed that they had established a permanent home for their several children and for children of those children. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(12.50) —Yesterday the Low Income People's Network and the Campaign for Economic Justice invited members of parliament to lunch on the lawn outside Parliament House. They provided for those of us who joined them the best of the meals they can provide for 81c for their family, even if all the money they receive for the children's allowance, that is $17 a week, were spent on food alone. We ate a tiny piece of meat, some carrots, beans and a potato and we had one strawberry for dessert. That evening most of us would have dined, as I did, in the parliamentary dining room. There was plenty of choice there; we all ate very well, particularly as those of us who had been across the road to eat with the low income families were pretty hungry after the meagre lunch we had had. Yet we, as members of parliament, are responsible for providing for those whose only form of help is government benefit. We are the ones making the policies, so I think it is worthwhile that we look at how each side of the House approaches this matter of very deep concern to all Australians. Recently a paper was put out called `Your Family: The Liberal/National Party Approach'. It is full of glowing descriptions of the family, love and mutual respect and it puts great emphasis on choice. Choice is what we had in the parliamentary dining room last night. There is not much choice when there is 81c for a family meal. The paper is full of assertions that the Liberal-National Party policies will help `form, support, encourage and maintain the family'. Of course the details are to be released later. The paper concludes by saying that the policies will `provide the environment in which individual responsibilities can be met and families can flourish and prosper'. That sounds great. However, the paper has been described by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) as blancmange. There was no blancmange for dessert at the 81c lunch outside Parliament House yesterday. We had the stark single strawberry for dessert and it seems to me that it was only because they were catering for quite a few of us that we got a strawberry. At home, probably, it would have been a slice of an apple or maybe a segment of an orange. If the parents and children who were there yesterday searched the paper put out by the coalition parties entitled `Your Family: The Liberal/National Party Approach', they would find not one concrete proposal to show just how they would benefit. But they would learn a lot about love and togetherness. On the other hand, the Government has undertaken a major and fundamental review of the social security system. Established by the Minister for Social Security in February 1986, the Social Security Review is taking two years and its Consultant Director, Associate Professor Bettina Cass, is working with officers of the Development Division in the Department of Social Security. It has already produced an enormous amount of detailed material and detailed options for future policy decisions by government. So far there have been 12 discussion papers and three issues papers. This Social Security Review is the most comprehensive appraisal of the Australian Social Security system in more than 40 years. The Review is concerned with several key issues and policy questions facing Government in relation to social security. It is designed to evaluate some of the principal policy aspects of the current system and to project a view of the future. The three major areas of policy are: Family income support; social security and the labour market; and retirement incomes. Dr Cass has visited every State for consultations. The Review is unique. The issues and background papers are being published with the intention of formulating both short and long term policy. One of the key objectives of the Review in reforming the social security system is to look at the anomalies and the inconsistent treatment of children. At no stage in the past has there been a systematic examination of this area, mainly because child payments have never been indexed. This Government has raised allowances for children but there has been a long history of erosion of real value, and that could be seen yesterday. Family income support must move in conjunction with new wage fixation discussions. The aim must be to alleviate family poverty, which has greatly increased over the past 10 years. The options that the Government will consider in trying to alleviate family poverty will be based on the hard facts revealed by this Review, not on pious, emotional and often judgmental assertions. For instance, how often do we hear from an ill-informed public that teenagers have babies in order to get the benefit; and that sole parents are taking so much money from hard working, deserving taxpayers that they are probably responsible for our economic problems? The coalition paper on the family itself makes pious statements like this one: The most urgent need of families in crisis is often counselling rather than simply bare income support. Tell that to the people who provided our lunch yesterday. They were the ones who had come to do a bit of counselling for the members of parliament. The paper also lends support to the ill-informed view of teenagers becoming pregnant solely to get the benefit by saying that `young people are vulnerable to the incentives provided by welfare benefits'. Here are some of the facts from the Social Security Review: Most sole parent pensioners are in their twenties or thirties; only 4 per cent are aged under 20. Most sole parent pensioners are separated or divorced; the proportion who are unmarried has remained constant at about 18 per cent since 1977-78. For almost 50 per cent, the pension is the sole source of income. Listen to this: . . . the majority of sole parent families are the result of marital breakdown. At that time-that is, the time the latest statistics were available-30 per cent of sole parents were separated while 37 per cent were divorced. Almost 19 per cent were classified as unmarried, but these figures include those who have previously been in a de facto relationship. Approximately 14 per cent were widowed. Thus, over 80 per cent of sole parent families in 1982 had been formed through the death of a spouse, divorce or separation. As for the age groups, as for the fact that so many are teenagers having babies just to get the benefit, the Review states: . . . the age groups amongst female sole parents which have shown above-average increases over the 1974 to 1985 period are the 25-34 year and 35-44 year groups while the proportions of 15-19 year olds and those aged 45 years and over have declined. So much for that particular myth. The Social Security Review is attempting to make recommendations regarding longer term directions for change in policy and to identify more immediate priorities for reform. The Review has discovered that the lowest median income for couples is when they have children of pre-school age. Housing costs in proportion to income are highest then and often one parent gives up work, at least temporarily. The situation begins to improve for most couples only when the child reaches the age of 15. What the Government intends to do is to minimise the poverty traps that are one of the major concerns of the Review. Sole income parent policies, it has been put forward by the Social Security Review, should probably create bridging payment for cases where sole parents are consolidating themselves in the work force. The coalition paper talks a great deal about how the individual has to put more into solving the problem that the Government is taking on on its own. It turns out, as Bettina Cass has done her consultation around Australia, that the thing the sole parents most aim for is to get back into the work force. It is just that the barriers to work force participation are so great. Through consultations Australia-wide, clear consensus has arisen regarding the role of universal family payments. There is an importance of the payment of child entitlement for low and middle income families to protect real income of families through the tax transfer system. One of the things that the Review points out is that the word `family' and the concept it implies needs to be made acceptable. It needs to dispel the myths associated with the family and per- petrated, continued and entrenched by the Liberal-National Party approach. Mr Deputy Speaker, when this Government makes its decisions for low income families it will well remember the excruciating embarrassment we felt yesterday in eating that meagre meal provided by the recipients of low income. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(1.00) —I wish to raise the incident of the travel expenditure of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and in particular an incident which occurred when the Parliament was not sitting. The incident blew up during the recess in October last year. The Minister no doubt will put on his usual air of injured innocence. He should realise by now that all his problems are brought on himself by himself because of the actions, half of them stupid, which he takes. This is the Minister who in 1982 was so high-minded during an incident called `the TV affair'. He was in the middle of that. He took the high-minded approach in 1982. On 20 April, in a debate in this House he said: O, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive. O, the high-minded Minister in April 1982! There are lots of other choice little quotes here. He talks about people putting pressure on employees to provide preferential treatment to a Minister of the Crown. Mr Deputy Speaker, that is exactly what the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism did in the incident which I will quickly relate. What he did was fiddle some airline tickets to advantage himself. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The statement `fiddle airline tickets' seems to me to be a statement that ought to be withdrawn. I think it reflects on another member of the Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr WHITE —I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. What he did was manipulate or rearrange some Government airline tickets to his own financial advantage. This is on top of the enormous excesses that he has spent on himself in the last few years as a Minister travelling around this country and particularly overseas. What happened was that his wife, Mrs Brown, was issued with a first class ticket to travel from Sydney to Adelaide and return. That was an Australian Airlines ticket. It was then exchanged for an Ansett Airlines of Australia ticket. That Ansett ticket was then exchanged for economy tickets for Mrs Brown and one son. It is illegal to downgrade a ticket. The Minister knew it was illegal but that did not apparently-- Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I understand from the drift of what I have heard so far that the honourable member who is on his feet within the context of a grievance debate is in fact making some charges about the conduct of the Minister in question. It is my understanding of the standing orders that if the honourable member wants to make charges of that kind it is perfectly open to him to do so, but he ought to do so by way of a substantive motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand the point made by the Minister. I am listening very carefully to the honourable member for McPherson. He may criticise the administration of the Minister. If he goes beyond that I shall certainly intervene. Mr Howe —Further to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I certainly have heard enough. There have been assertions made. I think the term was withdrawn but another term was substituted with respect to-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will get to the term he thinks is offensive. Mr Howe —It is not a question of the term being offensive, if I could just explain my point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I am seeking to make is that even with the rephrasing, which I did not object to, in terms of being within the standing orders, in terms of the phrasing that was actually used, nevertheless the substance of what was being suggested represented, in my view, a charge, if you like, or assertion against the Minister that ought to be made by way of substantive motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I understand the point made by the Minister. I take the information you have given me. It does not alter my earlier ruling. I call the honourable member for McPherson. Mr WHITE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I might add that I did warn the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism that I was going to speak and it is surprising that he is not here to speak for himself. What happened apparently was that this ticket exchange took place. The Minister then, and I have never seen any denial from him in the Press or in private, apparently rang up an Ansett employee asking for an exchange to be made, that is, for the status of a ticket to be downgraded. That employee, knowing it was illegal, then said no. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I must say that I am very concerned about your ruling because what is happening is that-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may not reflect on the Chair in that way but if he wishes to make another point of order I would ask him to do so. Mr Howe —If I may make a further point of order, it is simply this: We have heard the premise put in terms of the argument that the honourable member is making and the premise seems to me to constitute a charge that he is making of some kind of misconduct on the part of the Minister. He is now proceeding to argue-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the remarks that the honourable member for McPherson made latterly were getting to the stage where they reflect upon the conduct of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I call the honourable member but he may not proceed along those lines. Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, of course, I obey the ruling. I did wish to talk about that incident and I did wish to talk about the general excess of travel expenses which this Minister indulges in. As I understand it, that will also be ruled against. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If it helps the honourable member for McPherson he may criticise the Minister insofar as it relates to his administration of his portfolio but he may not reflect upon the character of the Minister. Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. I just continue by saying that here we have a Minister of the Crown who has been very critical of other people who have been criticised for being somewhat lax in their own administration of their ministerial duties, who is now in the same position, in that a ticket was exchanged. I want to ask the Minister-- Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I appreciate your ruling and I think you have very clearly directed the honourable member to restrict himself to questions of the administration of the Minister's portfolio but I am afraid he cannot resist it and he has immediately tried to get back into the previous question which I think you quite clearly ruled out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will listen to the honourable member for McPherson very closely. Mr WHITE —As time is running out, Mr Deputy Speaker, one would have to ask, in terms of the administration of the Minister's portfolio, questions about some of the other excessive expenditure that he has indulged in on some of his other overseas trips. In October 1983, he and a small party spent some $69,000. I would think that even the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) would be concerned about that. He is always beefing about not enough money to administer his portfolio and here is one of his colleagues tramping around the world, on one trip spending $69,000. Is he going to object to that on a point of order? No. In July 1984, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism went steaming around the world and spent another $62,000, including a trip to Milan. And we all know what that was for-to try to get one of his mates a job. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Once again the honourable member cannot resist it and is again reflecting on the Minister. If he wants to raise some issue we are open to debate but it must be done by way of substantive motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The last remark about the Minister getting his mate a job transgressed. But prior to that he was relating an alleged-- Mr Howe —Sure. But I think that last remark should be withdrawn because it does reflect on the Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for McPherson to withdraw. Mr WHITE —I withdraw. In conclusion, because these matters are going to be raised again, on that particular trip some $15,000 was spent on car hire. How one spends $15,000 in about three weeks on car hire is absolutely beyond me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(1.10) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate to canvass the issue that is centring on the aspirations of the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, to enter Canberra and become the Prime Minister. As all listeners will know, during the last few weeks public attention and media interest have been totally centred on the thrust by the Premier of Queensland into the Federal arena. I think at first it was taken as a bit of a joke. I think that, however, was the attitude of many people in the south; it certainly was not the attitude of a number of Queenslanders. At first the concept of the Premier of Queensland becoming Prime Minister was ridiculed and laughed at. But I think anyone who is concerned about the future of Australia needs to think again and take this matter very seriously. I know that members of the Opposition, particularly in the Liberal Party of Australia and those thinking members of the National Party of Australia, are thinking it through. Certainly the Leader of the National Party, Mr Sinclair, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), are no longer laughing. It is vitally important, I believe, that the people of Australia know the facts; that is, the facts about Queensland, the economic status of Queensland and the sorts of claims that are made by the secret multi-millionaires about Bjelke-Petersen. It is vitally important that the Bjelke-Petersen myth, as it is often put in the media, is dispelled. I was in State politics, as many know, for many years-some 15 1/2 years-before coming here and I saw what was taking place. The people in that State have been duped about the Bjelke-Petersen regime and now that duping is spreading nation-wide. People are being duped about the image of a low tax State, over claims about small government in Queensland, and over the reputation of Queensland as a State for private enterprise. They have also been fooled as to the strength of the Queensland economy. I realise that in the last week more and more thinking people have started to understand that this is a very serious situation. I note in today's Sydney Morning Herald that the editorial describes the policies being put forward by the Premier of Queensland as voodoo economics. The Premier is described as an unguided missile. An analogy is made between the Premier and Milan Brych. Honourable members will remember that Milan Brych was, as the Sydney Morning Herald puts it, a cancer quack. Many people went to Milan Brych grasping at straws, that last desperation. So the analogy is made here of some Australian people being like cancer patients grasping at Bjelke-Petersen. I note also in the Weekend Australian that John Hyde, a well-known Liberal, describes Joh Bjelke-Petersen as `snake-oil Joh'. So it is clear that more and more people are starting to understand that it is not a joke; it is very serious. But there are many ordinary Australians out there who do not appreciate what has gone on in Queensland. I would like to deal with some of these claims and some of the points put forward about Queensland's reputation. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen is always seen as the champion of private enterprise and yet the facts are that Queensland is the land of quangos, those quasi-autonomous non-government organisations, those semi-government bodies, those all sorts of little groups that have been set up by the State Government, not in private enterprise but within government. There are almost 1,000 of them. It is also the land of government-run bodies like Suncorp, and this was mentioned by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), a Liberal member from South Australia. It is the State of government-run marketing authorities. One cannot grow, nor can one sell, anything in Queensland without going through a government-run marketing authority. There is a fish board, a peanut board, a wheat board, a sugar board, a sorghum board, a tobacco board, a fruit and vegetable marketing authority, an electricity board and a bread committee; and so it goes on and on. We talk about private enterprise yet, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) pointed out in the House the other day, whilst the bankruptcy rate across this nation has increased by about 6 per cent, in Queensland the increase has been more than 40 per cent. In the State of Queensland almost 70 per cent, seven out of 10, of all small businesses fail within three years of their commencement. The corporate charges that are made on private enterprise are just unbelievable. The stamp duty, the State tax, on a piece of land that one buys for commercial purposes for $60,000 is $1,250. Yet people talk about low tax in Queensland. It is also not readily known that Queensland has been a claimant State for many years. For those who do not appreciate what it means, it means that because Queensland's services to the people have been below the average across Australia, because the standard of living of Queenslanders has been below the average across Australia, Queensland has been given special money by Federal governments, not just the Hawke Government, but the Fraser Government. We go on to the next point-that Bjelke-Petersen is put forward as a champion of low taxes. Again, this is not true. Queensland has the highest motor vehicle registration charges in Australia. We have the highest electricity charges in Australia, and Queensland's public sector debt and quango debt is the highest in the State's history. The electricity authority there has been borrowing overseas and now owes some $3 billion. That is about two-thirds of the total State revenue or expenditure in any one year. We also have the highest unemployment. We have a brain drain to the southern States of academics and others in business leaving the State and going south. There is no public accounts committee; there is no record of checking of the money spent in that State; and there is no public auditing of how that money is spent. The Premier and others who support him talk about a small government in that State. Yet the facts are-and these facts have been brought forward time and time again-that Queensland's growth in the Public Service has been 11.1 per cent in the last three years to September 1986. This is the highest growth in any Public Service across the nation, be it another State or the Federal Government. In that State we now have taxes on tourists. Recently in my own region, there was a tax put on babies who are carried on board boats at Roslyn Harbour going on some sort of tourist trip. We have taxes on some beaches; we have taxes on boats; we have taxes on almost everything that one can think of. There needs to be an understanding that Queensland is the land of big government, and it is a very expensive one. In the few moments that I have left, I want to canvass the proposals being put forward by the Premier on tax. If the Joh Bjelke scheme, as it is being called, of 25 per cent tax were introduced, without a threshold, in other words, without that amount of money that one does not pay tax on-at the moment no one pays tax on the first $5,100 one earns; it does not matter who you are or what you are, no pensioner pays tax on that; no worker pays tax on that-we would find, as the Leader of the Opposition said, not the Australian Labor Party but the Leader of the Opposition, that 80 per cent, eight out of every 10 Australians, would be worse off. A pensioner who now has a special non-tax position and is given a special rebate so that he can earn another $1,000 a year and still pay no extra tax would pay $30 a week under the scheme put forward by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. In an article in last Sunday's Times on Sunday, Kate Legge summed up the situation of the Bjelke-Petersen flat tax plan with a headline. She said: `Flat tax: rob the poor to give to the rich'. I put it to all Australians who listen to Parliament: You do not have to be an economist to realise that the multi-millionaires would not be backing this flat tax proposal unless it would benefit them. I put it to you that Michael Gore and those so-called 60 secret people behind him and behind the Premier of Queensland would not be putting up to $100m, he said, behind the Premier of Queensland to come to Canberra unless there were billions of dollars in it for them. The message must be put across. People have to understand that what the Premier is doing is dangerous. Just the other day I came across an article by Quentin Dempster, a well-known journalist in Queensland, who I might add has been highly critical of the Australian Labor Party, and he makes some very serious attacks on the Premier. He makes this point: Not content with the systematic subversion of the democratic institutions of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen wants to infect- notice the word `infect'- the rest of Australia. He goes on: But Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's solution, his so-called economic contract with the Australian people, has gaps so wide you could drive a bulldozer through them. There is no performance clause. He will not say how long it will take before his policy mix will achieve near-full employment and improved living standards. This deficiency has led to criticism that the Premier is pushing a barrow for the white shoe brigade, the new money men and property developers who would gain the most at the expense of the rest. And, It must be remembered, the small print in the Joh contract reads: subversion of democratic institutions-the Parliament, the judiciary, the media-with resultant cronyism and patronage. Who will sign such a contract? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(1.20) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would have thought that, of all of the people in this Parliament, the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) would be the last person in the world to get up and attack the Premier of Queensland because the honourable member for Capricornia has had his chance. He was the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland and he was presented as the Great White Hope. Here was a man who had `appearance'; he was `a breath of fresh air'; `another Bob Hawke'. I can remember all of the tributes being paid to him by the media, and by Quentin Dempster, a great lover of the National Party of Australia-like hell! He had his chance; he was rejected by his own Party and he has come down here like so many others and of course, he will perish down here. Mr Wright —Mr Deputy Speaker, it ought to be placed on the record that under my leadership we went within 6,000 votes of winning government and captured eight seats from the Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. He does not have the call. Mr KATTER —His scalp hangs above the mantelpiece of Joh and Flo like so many other people who attempt to destroy this man. Talk of voodoo economics; well they seem to work in Queensland. The Sydney Morning Herald can come out-- Mr Wright —Ha, ha! Mr KATTER —Let us go back to the State election in Queensland. `Voodoo economics' was flattery compared with what transpired when the media conspired to try to destroy all the members of Joh's Cabinet including my son. They succeeded to such an extent that not only did the Queensland Government go back into power in its own right but it did so with a dramatically increased majority. So much for the voodoo economics! I will agree with the honourable member for Capricornia on one point: Yes, the people of Australia do regard themselves as patients suffering cancer. And what worse cancer, Mr Deputy Speaker, could they be suffering than they are suffering at this moment? Or would more suitable words be `an AIDS onslaught'? That is more the thing that goes along with many of the standards of the Government we have at the moment, and I will deal with that shortly. Of course they are cancer patients. Of course they are looking for some cure, and they will get it from this side of the House; certainly they will never get it from this decrepit banana republic government. Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to deal with a particular problem. I am sure that there is no thinking person in this nation who would not agree that we have come to an economic cross-roads. The country is in a state of disaster. We have declined from being one of the most favoured nations in the world in any category. Financially, when we were in office, whatever be one's guideline, we were regarded as a most favoured nation. I concede that. But I would ask our leaders of all parties to understand that it is not just the material things of this world that are worrying the average Australian. Let us look at the material things of this world. What do we see? I have been here for a number of years and I have seen a few Prime Ministers; I have seen changes of government; I have seen a comparison of the fiscal status of this nation. But the clock has been turned back and it has been turned back in this way. When our government was in office over those wonderful years, this nation was a contented nation. The people who were gaining advantage were the middle class, the small businessman, the small producer, and the many people who were dependent upon them, the people whom I represent, out in the isolated parts of this nation. Strange to say, God in His wisdom decreed that the wealth of this nation would be out in those isolated places. They have lost one advantage, one concession, after another which was approved by our Government when it was in office; for instance, concessions on air travel and equalisation of fuel charges, and I have heard the honourable member for Capricornia pontificate on this matter at various times. Why does he not get into the Caucus room and why does not he say to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his fellow members of the Labor Party: `It is about time that you began to reconsider the rotten deal that people who are in the wealth producing areas of this nation are getting'? But let me get back to my point, and that is that there is a forgotten class. We now have the very wealthy. My goodness, every time one turns the radio on there is another takeover and another argument as to who is going to become a billionaire. This class is growing. It was an exception once. I saw a headline when I was in China recently that one of our great tycoons was part of a group that was going to invest not $1.8m-no, that is petty cash-but $1.8 billion in Hong Kong. What is happening? It is very obvious. We have this new situation: While these billionaires are becoming even greater in their financial status, there is a growing group of people who are becoming the poor of this nation. There is a Labor Government in New South Wales. We have learnt that 140 dockyard workers have been sacked. Is this the prosperity of this nation? So these underprivileged people, these people who are struggling for the little things in life, to pay off a car, pay off a home, are becoming a forgotten race. What about the small businessman that I was speaking of a little while ago and the small producer and all of those dependent on him? They are becoming the total underprivileged because they do not know what great big consortium is going to open in their particular town-it is not just in the provincial cities now. Let me say this: History has clearly proven one thing, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I know your background, I know you would appreciate this; that when one starts to squeeze out the middle class, the small businessman, the family man-we will get back to that in a minute-it is the beginning of the end for any nation. Have a look at any of them-the Gauls, the Carthaginians or the Brits if you like. Britain was the great shopkeepers nation once. The Brits have gone through their difficulties. Admittedly under the Thatcher Government they are showing a recovery. They are mending the fences that were built and destroyed by the Labour Government in Britain. However, let us deal with Australia. I want to get on to a final point. I concede that we should be stressing the necessity for the taxation fabric of this country to be reviewed-again the material things. But there is a more insidious degeneration occurring in this country, and that is the destruction of the family and all that goes with it. I would think that any family anywhere would tighten its belt a bit, not willingly, but under this Government it is being forced upon families. But what is the agony of a family which disintegrates? The norm is now, and let us accept it, that respect, child for mother, child for father, the average man in the street for women, is slowly degenerating. An old fellow said to me at the races in Mount Isa recently: `Bob, the trouble is that respect isn't around any more'. This is presented through certain elements of the media and through this Government which would step aside and see the muck and the pornography. It is said: `Oh Katter is preaching'. Of course Katter is preaching, and I would be betraying every decent person in this nation if I were not putting this argument forward. What about the video tapes that go through this city, the national capital, where we should be expressing the best things in this nation? This city has become the cesspool in relation to such matters. So okay, let us talk about economics, let us talk about the material things of this nation, but for God's sake let us restore some of the old, decent traditions on which the family is based, and on which the future of this nation could well depend. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(1.30) —I am pleased to follow the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) in this debate which appears to be about the Queensland Premier and his sortie south. I would also like to compliment my colleague the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) on his fine delivery. I would point out to the honourable member for Kennedy that when the honourable member for Capricornia was Leader of the Opposition he achieved a swing of 4 per cent towards our Party, and picked up eight seats, including one in the electorate of the honourable member for Kennedy which the Queensland Government had to change the boundaries to win back. Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to bring some sanity into a debate on Queensland and the economic abilities of the Queensland Premier, particularly as they apply to the national scene. Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, more than any other person in Australian political history, has proved that Australian politics is about perceptions and not realities. This man professes to care for the welfare of the ordinary Queenslander, and we are to assume that soon he will care for the welfare of the ordinary Australian, yet every action that his Government takes strikes at the very fundamentals of family life in Queensland. In all areas that affect the daily lives of people, the Bjelke-Petersen Government says one thing and delivers another. From education to rural assistance, from conditions of employment to incentives for business, the Bjelke-Petersen publicity machine sees Queensland through the largest pair of rose-coloured glasses that Australian politics has ever manufactured. The Queensland Premier is a professed Christian without compassion, a confessed family man who cares little for the children in poverty in his State, a confessed champion of free enterprise who strangles initiative and presides over the largest corporate State in Australia. Johannes Bjelke-Petersen is dangerous to the point of being frightening. His leadership has resulted in a bitterly divided party, the National Party of Queensland. That Party has not quite come to terms with its dual roles. It professes to represent the rural voters, and at the same time it supports its ideological enemies, the free marketeers in the New Right. The Queensland Premier has little regard for the people of rural Queensland who so loyally support him. I have spoken in this House of the outrageous treatment of Queensland dairy farmers, especially my constituents on the southern Darling Downs. I have seen their incomes decline while senior members of the National Party like Mr Holm and Mr Hinze have rorted milk quotas and made fortunes at their expense. The rural adjustment scheme was rorted so that hard pressed farmers paid crippling interest rates while the State socked away the money needed to assist them. The basic fundamentals of the Queensland economy have been neglected and abused during the 17 years of Bjelke-Petersen premiership. Queensland has the smallest manufacturing base of any State. For too long the Queensland National Party Government has relied upon the cargo cult mentality that primary industry is our salvation. It believes that all wealth comes from the ground, its article of faith is that as long as one can grow it or dig it up the resources of the land should be exploited. It claims to support agriculture but if you talk about soil conservation to Queensland National Party members, as I have to people in my electorate they think it is just another environmental crusade which has nothing to do with them. The lack of understanding of what is needed for the future is most adequately demonstrated by the Queensland Government's record in education. A look at the Grants Commission figures reveals that Queensland spends the least per capita on secondary education and the least per capita on technical and further education in Australia. All Australians should remember the interference in Queensland education from the loony groups led by people like Rona Joyner. This is the Dark Age Australian education will be thrust into if these people exercise their will over the Premier at a national level. Even those students who do complete their education in Queensland are not finding Queensland the sunshine State with job opportunities. According to the latest information, Queensland suffered a net loss to other States of 3,400 persons in the 15 to 24 age group during the 1985-86 year. Some 15,800 people in this age group left Queensland while only 12,400 migrated to Queensland. My colleague Senator Maguire has been studying this alarming Queensland trend for some time. He has concluded that young Queenslanders were voting with their feet and leaving the State looking for jobs. More young people are leaving Queensland than are going to it. Honourable members now see part of the nightmare that is awaiting young Australians if Bjelke-Petersen should come to Canberra. Another of the great Bjelke-Petersen myths is that because of his policies business has the confidence to invest in Queensland. The annual report of the Foreign Investment Review Board for 1985-86 shows that foreign investment in Queensland for that year was expected to be $352m, or only 6.1 per cent of the Australian total. In Australia, foreign investment was expected to rise by 113.4 per cent and to reach $9.81 billion in 1985-86. In contrast, Queensland's share of foreign investment was expected to rise by only a paltry 21 per cent. So if Australians want to see foreign investors lose all confidence in Australia let Bjelke-Petersen come to Canberra. With Australia attempting to improve the balance of payments through creating a more diverse economy, particularly an increased manufacturing industry, it is interesting to look at the Queensland Government's performance in manufacturing. Queensland manufacturing has declined in every year since 1982, resulting in the loss of more than 13,000 jobs. In 1984-85 new fixed private capital expenditure in Queensland manufacturing totalled $356m. The figure fell to $313 in 1985-86, a drop of 12.1 per cent. In 1986-87, Queensland manufacturing investment is expected to climb to $311m. Western Australia is expected to ease out Queensland in 1986-87 from third to fourth position in the investment stakes. Private enterprise in New South Wales is expected to invest $5.8 billion in 1986-87, followed by Victoria with $4.7 billion, Western Australia with $2.9 billion and Queensland slipping back to fourth spot with $2.4 billion. The June 1986 survey by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce of major manufacturing and mining investment projects showed that the total expected future expenditure on projects in Queensland's manufacturing industry amounted to only $90m. This was the lowest figure for any State in Australia. Queensland accounted for 3.2 per cent of expected manufacturing investment and a paltry 7 per cent of future mining investment. With a record like that, if the Queensland Premier made his journey to Canberra, even people such as the Mexicans would come here for cheap holidays when the international markets got hold of our currency. The other myth about the Queensland Premier that needs to be exploded is that he is consistent, that he always does what he says. Let us look at his record on taxation. Last year he ran around the State saying that he was opposed to a fringe benefits tax. At the tax summit the year before he came here with a tax package which relied upon a fringe benefits tax to help finance his flat tax proposals. He now says that he is opposed to a consumption tax because it will hurt rural dwellers, yet the main plank of his State's National Party policy for the State election of three months ago was a consumption tax. The fact is that Bjelke-Petersen is little more than a travelling evangelist who will say anything to anyone as long as it makes him popular. That is hardly the criterion for national leadership. The Premier's flat tax policies would flatten families earning less than $30,000. Under them a family earning $19,000 would pay increased taxation of $19 per week. Also, that policy would leave a budget shortfall of more than $9 billion. It represents the sort of voodoo accounting that has given Queensland the highest deficit of all of the States. Its deficit has risen from $391m to $1,703m in the last five years. Queensland has public sector debt which is increasing at a rate of $2 billion a year. I would like honourable members to compare these statistics with the myths being put around about Bjelke-Petersen. With respect to economics it is clear that he is still the bumbling incompetent who, after 40 years in the Queensland Parliament, still does not know its Standing Orders. Honourable members opposite, particularly those in the Liberal Party, should make no mistake-the Bjelke-Petersen crusade is geared to changing the political system in Australia. He is out to destroy the Liberal Party in Australia as he has destroyed it in Queensland. If members doubt my word they should ask their colleagues, the members for Moncrieff, McPherson, Fadden, Moreton, Petrie and Forde, how many State Liberal members they have in their Federal divisions. It is important that all Australians take the Queensland Premier seriously. He wishes to change the face of Australia completely and for the worse. The future direction of this country will be determined by the resolve of all Australians to rally against this fundamentalist nonsense. Bjelke-Petersen has been portrayed by cartoonists as the Australian version of the Ayatollah Khomeini. The analogy is quite frightening. Both men are self-righteous and believe that they represent the will of the Almighty. Both have a simplistic vision of a complex world. Both lack tolerance and compassion for their opponents. Both appeal to the bigotry which unfortunately exists in our society. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BURR(Lyons)(1.40) —In the grievance debate today I wish to raise the issue of Tasmanian forestry management. It is one of which I am sure all honourable members have been aware as a result of the recent publicity given to it. I want today to put aside some of the myths, politics and emotion that have been part and parcel of this debate for so long. The suggestion has been paraded around the country, by conservation groups and others, that the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmania forestry industry are denuding the State of all of its native and natural forest resources. I assure this House and the people of Australia that nothing could be further from the truth. Without question Tasmania has by far the best forest management program of any State in Australia, one management program of which we are justifiably very, very proud. In that regard I compliment the Tasmania Government, but I would also have to compliment previous Tasmanian governments of both political persuasions. Tasmania's forest management is not something that has suddenly been cooked up by the Premier of Tasmania for political reasons. I remind honourable members that forest management is not something that can be used for political purposes. It is not something that can be chopped and changed to suit expedience. Forest management must extend over the time that it takes for a native forest tree to reach its full maturity. In the case of the eucalypt tree of Tasmania that is a period of between 70 and 80 years. Therefore, any forest management program must extend over that period. We are seeing a very well prepared and thought out forest management program being distorted for very clear and obvious political reasons. While some politicians and groups within Australia might think that they can gain some political brownie points from doing that I assure them and the people of Australia that the result will be to undermine very seriously the forest management program of Tasmania. It will very seriously inhibit the regrowth, the regeneration, of our forests to the detriment of future Tasmanians. I ask them, please, to consider the serious long term implications. The history of Tasmanian forests for over 150 years has been one of trees logged at random, without any thought of regeneration. The old bushmen simply went into the bush, cut the best trees and thought nothing of regeneration. Consequently, over a long period all the best timber was taken with only the rubbish and the trees that had no commercial value being left. That situation reached a very serious point by 1970 when it was decided, very correctly, to introduce a forest management program which would clear away the uncommercial forest that had been left behind and replace it with good quality regenerated timber that would be of great value to future generations. As part of that forest management program it was necessary to clear away all the old and unrequired trees. That is what we call a woodchip industry. We then had available to us a commercial program that allowed us to clear those uneconomic forests and regenerate them. But we could do it on a commercial basis by getting some monetary value for the trees that were being cleared. Mr Goodluck —I wonder what the greenies want, Max. Mr BURR —I am not at all sure. I agree with my colleague, but I am not at all sure what they want. I assure the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there is no denuding of Tasmanian forests. What is happening is that the areas of old and uneconomic forest are being cleared on a mosaic pattern. They are being cleared by what is called a `coop pattern', which means that forests are being cleared by areas of 1,500 or thereabouts hectares. The areas surrounding those coop areas are not being logged immediately. The area of coop that has been logged is regenerated and at a later time when that regeneration has reached a degree of maturity-10 to 15 years on-the other areas surrounding it are then logged. That is done purposely to protect the habitat for wildlife and the native flora and fauna. It does not disrupt all of the conservation issues, or the conservation aspects, that the conservation movement seems to be so concerned about. What worries me at the moment, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that the well-based forest management program that has been in place in Tasmania since 1970 is being distorted for blatant political reasons. It will not win this Government political brownie points, but it will do enormous damage to the forest management program and therefore the regeneration and having good-quality forests in Tasmania for many years into the future. It takes 70 or 80 years for a eucalypt tree to reach maturity and what this Government is doing is distorting that management program halfway down its track. It cannot do that without distorting the total program over 70 or 80 years. I ask the Government to think seriously about that. What is happening is that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has now decided that, in light of a coming election, he wants to attract the conservation vote in Australia. And because he wants to attract the conservation vote in Australia, he is prepared to totally distort the forest management program in Tasmania. He is doing it for his own expedient political reasons. Nothing, I believe, could be more cynical. If we look at the forest management program, we see that areas such as the Lemonthyme Valley, Jackeys Marsh, and the southern forests in my colleague's electorate of Franklin have always been planned as logging areas But now we are finding that the conservation movement says: `Oh, no, you cannot log there'. Albeit that those areas have been in a forest management plan since 1970, they are now saying: `No, you cannot log there'. In fact, the area of Jackeys Marsh in my electorate has been logged for 150 years; for 150 years people have been taking timber out of that area. It has been logged under the present forest management plan since 1980, yet nobody has said a word about that. Suddenly, for political reasons, this Government wants to distort that program. It is now suggesting that there be a committee appointed to review the logging in those areas. I ask the House, Mr Deputy Speaker: Why should those areas by reviewed by a Federal Government committee or by any committee? Last year the Tasmanian Government and the Federal Government, through their respective Ministers, met and agreed on a program of logging of forest operations in Tasmania. That agreement was put into a memorandum of understanding and since that time the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian forest industry have struck rigidly to that memorandum of understanding. But now the Government has said, `We are going to tear up that memorandum of understanding because the conservation movement wants us to. Therefore we insist that you, the Tasmanian Government, have a review of this program'. I say to this Government that the Tasmanians, the Tasmanian industry and the Tasmanian Government, will not bow to this political browbeating, this political blackmail, that is being played out for blatant political reasons. We have much greater respect for our forest industry. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(1.50) —Madam Speaker. It is always a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), particularly in regard to his latest statements as to the concern of the Premier of Tasmania about what is happening in this country. We know now that the reality is that Premier Gray is now controlled by the faceless men of Queensland, the men who are putting up $25m to control the conservative forces. We do not know who these faceless people are, but we do know that Robin Gray, at the bidding and snap of the fingers of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, will fly to Queensland and have secret meetings. They are secret because no one knows who attends them. No one knows who is pulling the strings on this man from Queensland called Joh Bjelke-Petersen, but we do not know that there are in Australia forces which, in Queensland, have got what they wanted in profit terms by supporting the secret National Party funding up there. So when honourable member for Lyons talks about Premier Gray and his great concern, the people of Tasmania should ask the Premier what he is doing in flying up having secret meetings with the Premier of Queensland and why he says that he will support him in becoming the Prime Minister and then, when Mr Valder tells him to shut up, that he will not. That is what is happening in Tasmania. It is not a case of Gray's controlling the argument, controlling the forestry system. It is these faceless men from Queensland who are now trying to dictate the political agenda of this country. Every Australian should be very concerned indeed. I remember well in the days of that great Australian Arthur Caldwell, when Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister, how the Opposition was taunted by the conservative forces about the so-called 36 faceless men. But they were known. Everyone knew the structure of the Australian Labor Party. There is nothing secret about our Party. Its executive, its membership, is published for all to see. We will not find the Premier of Queensland publishing. We will not find the Queensland National Party publishing. We will not find the people who are putting up the money for the Queensland National Party publishing who they are. They will not say publicly how much money they are putting up. They will not say what demands they are making, what the payout to them for supporting the Queensland Premier is to be. Those men are truly faceless; no one knows them. All of the people on the other side of this chamber are frightened of the Queensland Premier, as well they should be. They should be very frightened of him. He has twice as much money to spend against them and the Labor Government as they have. His funds are apparently inexhaustible. He has the Queensland taxpayers, mind you, giving him an aeroplane in which to fly around Australia. It is not costing the Premier anything. He can fly anywhere he likes. It is being paid for from the Queensland purse. He is elected by the Queensland people to protect, one would think, their interests, but he spends little or no time now in Queensland. He is now up in the Northern Territory campaigning for these strange people they call the members of the Joh Party. If I were a member of the Opposition I would not be cheekily seeking to interject. I would be worried. He is after them as well. He has no time for them on their policies. He thinks that the Liberal Party is the greatest joke of all time, that its policies would destroy this country. We agree with that. We know it to be true. We know that if the Liberal Party's policies on taxation were put into effect they would put this country into a nosedive from which it would never recover. If honourable members opposite listened carefully yesterday to the world's greatest treasurer, Mr Keating, when he costed the promises that the Liberal Party had already published at $14 billion-if they were game enough to listen to that-they should be feeling pretty worried, if only as Australians surely. They should not be sitting in this House today trying to be cocky. They should not be sitting in this House pointing a finger at us and replying that we do not know what we are talking about, that we should be worried about Joh Bjelke-Petersen. They are the ones who should be worried, who should be panicking. The expenditure of that $25m is first to be directed to getting them under his total control. It is to be directed also to getting the people on the cross benches, the National Party members, to do his bidding and that of the faceless men from Queensland-the people we do not know about. Joh will not say who is giving him the money, so those National Party members will be coming under the control of faceless people from Queensland. They will not have control of policy. Mr Saunderson —They are bottom of the harbour people. Mr CLEELAND —Probably the bottom of the harbour people have all fled up there. Mr Saunderson —The Gold Coast tax evaders. Mr CLEELAND —The honourable member for Aston put it very correctly indeed. They are the people who gave this country some of the problems that it now has. Every Australian has great reason to be concerned. Let us have a look at some of this tax mythology, some of this mysterious gobbledegook that comes from the mouth of this geriatric from Queensland about this 25 per cent, of which he says: `Well, my golly gosh, my goodness gracious me, yes, do not worry, do not ask me questions, do not examine what I mean by 25 per cent; just listen to me and I will fix it all up'. My golly gosh, indeed. Frankly, he worries the pants off me. Let us have a look at what he says. The level of taxation is to be 25 per cent. Under this Government's proposed tax changes, a person on a gross income of $28,000 a year will from 1 July be paying at a tax rate of 25 per cent. That means that anyone who earns less than $28,000 a year, and the vast majority of Australians fall in that category-will under Joh's plan pay substantial increased taxation. Of course, the Premier of Queensland says: `Do not worry about it; you will be quite all right, by golly gosh' and all that triviality that he goes on with. He says that he is going to look after the farmers. He is going to make sure that under a 25 per cent tax rate the Australian farmers will benefit. He obviously does not read Bureau of Agricultural Economics statistics. He does not seem to understand that our farmers are undergoing a crisis, that most farming incomes are under $28,000 a year. So what he is really saying to Australian farmers is that under his big proposal of a 25 per cent tax, he will increase their rate of taxation. The Australian farmer, the person whom Joh is supposedly going to assist under his rather strange, unthought out proposals, will, in effect, pay more tax. Why Australian farmers would support the National Party in the first place has always amazed me. Why they would support Joh Bjelke-Petersen defies understanding because he wants to increase the rate of tax that would be applicable to them. That the Opposition has not enough honesty and integrity as a political party to enter the debate fairly and openly and say to every Australian that it is not the marginal rate of tax but rather the average rate that is applicable to one's income that counts, is to its eternal shame. The reality is that under the Government's proposed tax changes, which will operate from 1 July 1987, a person who receives a gross salary of $45,000 a year-every parliamentarian will be interested in these figures-will pay tax at a rate of 33 per cent-not 60 per cent tax, or 46 per cent tax but 33 per cent. That is the real rate of tax that will be applicable. Mr Cadman —You cannot explain that in your electorate. Mr CLEELAND —I know that the honour- able member does not understand it. I am using words of more than two syllables, language that is beyond his comprehension, but if he listens he may just learn something. My one hope in speaking in this chamber is that if one keeps talking long enough about taxation and sufficient of the Opposition stay here to listen, they may gain some insight into the taxation principles and laws of this country. Mr Cunningham —What were those figures again? Mr CLEELAND —The rate of taxation payable on a salary of $45,000 a year will be 33 per cent. I know that honourable members opposite will try to con the Australian people with their rather mythical proposals which one day we will be able to debate. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who is the Leader of the Opposition, has now entered the chamber. One day he may tell the Australian people exactly what he is going to do to them in regard to taxation. One day he may have enough courage to stand up and actually debate in real terms what he is talking about. When the National Party, when Joh and the faceless men of Queensland, tell him what their policy is, when it filters down through the system and he is told what to come out with, we will know what the policy is to be. Then we will be able to debate it and the Leader of the Opposition can tell the Australian people whether in fact he has a tax policy, whether the Opposition has anything at all to present. I look forward intensely to the day when all honourable members on this side of the chamber will be able to engage in a realistic debate with Opposition members about taxation. It is extremely difficult to do that right now. I do not understand what they are talking about and, of course, they have not a policy to present. I look forward to the day they do with a great deal of intensity. I am quite happy to engage any member on the other side of the chamber in any real debate about taxation. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr PORTER —My question is to the Minister for Health. I ask: Is it a fact that, prior to Medicare, the net weekly cost of medical and private hospital cover for a family on average weekly earnings was $9.66 and that the cost at the end of 1986 for the same cover was $14.30, an increase of almost 50 per cent in three years? Is it also a fact that, in the last calendar year alone, costs incurred by Australians for health care rose by over 26 per cent? What is the Minister's excuse for these appalling attacks on the incomes of Australian families caused by the Hawke Government's health policies? Dr BLEWETT —The proposals that have been floated as regards alternative health schemes by the Monash group will lead to a basic health rate of $27 a week for families. Those are the kinds of alternatives that the Opposition would offer the Australian people. As to the specific point about the increase in the consumer price index, if the honourable member had bothered to do his homework and looked at the effect of Medicare on the CPI, he would find that, in the three years from the middle of 1983 to the end of 1986, the Medicare effect was a negative effect; that is, there has been an 8.5 per cent decline in the impact of health costs on the CPI. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will not constantly interject. I point out to the honourable member for Barker and the honourable member for North Sydney that the Standing Orders of this House apply to them as well as everybody else. They may not interject at will, whoever is speaking. Dr BLEWETT —It is true that over the past year there has been a disappointing rise in health costs. However, if we compare the three years of the Medicare period, we will see that Medicare has had a negative impact on the CPI. In the Sydney Morning Herald, Mr Gittins pointed out quite clearly to the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Barker that, when one cuts Medicare by $2 billion, all one does is ask the consumer to pay a further $2 billion in an unfair and inequitable way. That would have a far greater impact on the CPI than any of the Medicare effects. Mr DUBOIS —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the effects of the Government's tax reforms on Australian working families? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. The Government's tax reform has eased the tax burden on Australian working families by obliging the wealthy in this country, for the first time, to pay their fair share of tax. Much to the consternation of those opposite, we have eliminated the free lunches, the tax free company Mercedes, and the entertainment rorts. All the things that we have done have eased the burden on the lower and middle income people in this country. We are providing from 1 July this year tax relief for Australian working families that will amount to more than $10 a week for a worker on average earnings. That is our track record on taxation. From July this year there will be a top rate of 49c in the dollar, against the rate of 60c which applied when the failed Treasurer walked out of office. Our track record is clear; it is progressive; and, in economic terms, it makes sense. As I said last year, we will go to the next election not only content but also wanting to make tax an issue. In a political debate on this issue, one has one's side, but one is entitled to ask: `Where is the alternative tax policy?'. I will refresh the memory of honourable members about the little contributions we have had along the way by those on the other side of the House. The shadow Treasurer heralded it- Mr Gear —Which one? Mr HAWKE —The fellow over there. He is desperately concerned that another member will resign soon and allow Professor Hewson to come in. Professor Hewson is the shadow Treasurer of the honourable member for Kooyong. Therefore, the current shadow Treasurer is very worried as to how long he will stay there. He heralded the tax policy on 12 November when he was questioned by Richard Carleton. Mr Carleton said: We don't know how long we've got to wait for it from you yet. The shadow Treasurer said: Well, not too long because there probably will be an election in March, the way they're going. He said that the Government was going so badly that there would probably be an election in March. The only reason that anyone in this country is speculating about a possible election in March this year is not because of what is happening on this side of the House; it is because of the chaos on the other side. He continued: In those circumstances, they'd have their policy by March. What happened then? The Leader of the Opposition came into the debate and, on 12 February, assured us that the details of the policy would be released a lot sooner than many people imagined. What he said is very interesting in light of what is happening today. He said: The details of that policy are going to be released a lot sooner than many people imagine. I know it's an important part of the debate, but you talk about Joh. Joh hasn't told us where the money is coming from. I wonder whether, after yesterday's performance by the Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition will tell us how his $14 billion credibility gap will be filled. There it was on 12 February. We got a bit more. Mr Carlton —There was nothing in that quote. What is your next one? Mr HAWKE —There is nothing in any of your quotes, my friend; you are exactly right. Senator Messner, the shadow Minister for finance and taxation, told us in his February newsletter that the policy had been constructed. He recited six points and said: These six points summarise the fundamental principles that form the foundations upon which the tax policy has been constructed. There it was from the shadow Minister. Of course, the whole thing has been thrown back into the melting pot because the Leader of the Opposition, who said that a consumption tax was a central element of his tax policy, has been torpedoed by the Leader of the National Party in Queensland. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen has said that a consumption tax is not on. Those people in that corner of the House are saying the same thing, are they not? It is not on, is it, Ian? Come on, Ian! A consumption tax is not on, is it? Mr Ian Cameron —No. Mr HAWKE —There you are. Thank you, Ian. So there we have it. Is it any wonder that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen yesterday called the Leader of the Opposition a silly little boy? He said that the Leader of the Opposition will not listen to the wise men in cockies corner; that is where fiscal rectitude resides. Ian is right; it is not on. It is quite clear that the chickens of the Leader of the Opposition are coming home to roost. I wonder whether he has the decency to look the honourable member for Kooyong in the eye and remind the honourable member for Kooyong of the gratuitous advice that he, the honourable member for Bennelong, gave to the honourable member for Kooyong when he was the Leader of the Opposition. Honourable members will remember the document which the honourable member for Bennelong leaked on his then Leader. He told-he lectured-the honourable member for Kooyong: We will be extremely vulnerable if Labor can successfully put the tag of `where's the money coming from' on our election offerings. He said: I do not believe the costings issue can be avoided. Mr Griffiths —Who wrote that? Mr HAWKE —The honourable member for Bennelong wrote it. He was not short of advice when he was trying to undermine the honour- able member for Kooyong, his Leader. He said: `You can't have this shallow approach. You've got to be honest; you've got to say where the money is coming from.' I suggest to the honourable member for Kooyong that he get the missive out and send it back to him, and he will probably hasten the day that he is seeking so earnestly, the day when he comes back here-a day which I might say I am also earnestly looking forward to. Mr PETER FISHER —I refer the Minister for Health to the massive Australia-wide growth in queues for public hospital beds and the fact that in my State of Victoria alone queues have more than trebled to 34,000 in the last three years under Medicare. Given the Prime Minister's promise that nine out of 10 Australians would have cheaper and better health care under Medicare, what is the Government's excuse for the 100,000 people-mainly low income earners-who are now on public hospital waiting lists? Dr BLEWETT —There have always been queues in our public hospitals, because any public system needs to have booking lists in order to operate efficiently. What the Opposition needs to do is some serious thinking about the causes of waiting times in public hospitals. First, the Opposition will notice that many of the waiting times have been produced by shortages of nurses. In many public hospitals in this country there has been, very obviously, a shortage of nurses which has led to a closing of beds and to a limit on the use of theatres. Second, if those opposite did their homework, if they were really concerned with the health of the Australian people, they would look at where the particularly difficult waiting lists exist. They exist in certain specialities such as in orthopaedic surgery and eye surgery. One of the major reasons for the waiting lists in those areas, which we all regret, is in fact a major shortage of specialists. We need a greater number of a orthopaedic surgeons and more eye surgeons. If there had been any planning for health by the previous Government we would not face today some of the issues we face in those areas. In addition if members of the Opposition ever bothered to do any real work about health other than to repeat these kinds of catch-cries-- Mr Spender —It did not happen-- Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for North Sydney. Dr BLEWETT —They would see that in these areas of difficulty there has been a significant technological revolution in the last 10 years. For instance, 10 to 12 years ago a hip replacement was a relatively rare operation because of difficulties with the immuno-suppressant drugs. The technological changes at the end of the 1970s enabled those operations to be performed so that today the most popular, or perhaps the most common, operation on people over 65 is a hip replacement. But, of course, it takes over 10 years to train an orthopaedic surgeon and these surgeons are not being produced in the numbers to deal with this kind of revolution. The Opposition, instead of making these simple anti-Medicare cries, needs to produce a health policy which will look at the real sources of the problems in the public hospital system. Mr FITZGIBBON —Can the Treasurer inform the House what would be the effects on the Australian economy of a trebling of the Budget deficit? Mr KEATING —Yesterday in Question Time I detailed the cost of the impact of the Opposition's policies on fiscal policy, saying that they would add a further $14 billion to the current deficit which would in the broad treble. I was met with a reply from the Leader of the Opposition that I had decided-in his words-to use a mixture of lies, errors and speculation to dent its plans to give Australians lower taxes. Let me say, for the benefit of the House, that there was no such resort to lies, errors or speculation on my part. Yesterday I published a list of those costings. It was published in the Press. I will take the House through those costings point by point and provide the references. The first item, the fringe benefits tax and substantiation, comes to $900m. I relied upon the following reference: ``On our election to government we will provide incentive to Australians by throwing out the Fringe Benefits Tax.''-John Howard, Budget reply 21 August 1986. There is no equivocation. On entertainment I used the words of Senator Messner. The list states: ``I refer to an article in the Australian today claiming that the Liberal and National Parties have cast aside their policy on allowing tax deductions for legitimate business expenses such as entertainment. It is wrong that there has not been any withdrawal of commitments in the taxation area.''-Telegram sent by Senator Tony Messner to the National Restaurant and Catering Association 22 August 1986. On capital gains the list states: ``On our election to Government, we will provide incentive to Australians by scrapping the Capital Gains Tax''-John Howard Budget reply 21 August 1986. There is no equivocation. The list goes on: ``The Coalition will oppose the decision to abolish negative gearing,'' address to the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party, 16 November 1985. There is no equivocation. Those commitments come to $1,345m. I move to the next group. The list states: ``Only the Liberal Party has a taxation policy that includes income splitting for single income families''-John Howard address to Victorian Division of the Liberal Party 16 November 1986. There is no equivocation. The list goes on: ``The wine tax will be abolished''-`The Liberal Direction for Australia', 1984 Policy Statement: A further reference states: ``On our election to Government, we will provide incentive to Australians by junking the Lump Sum Superannuation tax''-John Howard Budget reply 21 August 1986. There is no equivocation. A further reference states: Only a Liberal Party has a taxation policy that includes . . . tax rebates for child care expenses''-John Howard address to Victorian Division of the Liberal Party, 16 November 1985. Another states: `Ralph Hunt 1987 Rural Strategy-``The National Party believes these options must be taken to restore the farm industry and the rural economy-abolish automatic fuel excise indexation''-1 February 1987. Mr Ian Cameron —Hear, hear! Mr KEATING —I am glad the honourable member is endorsing my remarks. The list continues: Ralph Hunt 1987 Rural Strategy-``The National Party believes these options must be taken to restore the farm industry and the rural economy-fully rebate excise on all fuel in the business operations of farming, fishing and forestry''-1 February 1987. Another reference states: ``restore tax benefits of the Income Equalisation Deposits Scheme as a means of equalising variable incomes. That came from the Opposition rural policy statement of May 1986 which was leaked to the media. The list continues: ``restore the write-off in the year of expenditure for farm water, salinity, soil conservation, tree planting expenditures. That came from the Opposition rural policy statement of May 1986. Another reference states: remove the sales tax on lubricants used in farm, forestry and fishing operations on the freight component of farm inputs in these industries. That also came from the rural policy statement of May 1986. Another reference states: ``The Opposition will review the excise level for Australian brandy. That, too, comes from the rural opposition policy statement of May 1986. That item, Madam Speaker, comes to $3.84 billion. I move to the next category: `The Opposition remains committed to abolishing the assets tests-John Howard Budget reply 21 August 1986. There is no equivocation. I go on: Neil Brown ABC radio 23 October 1986-`We need a pause of at least 12 months in wage increases.' That would cost revenue $500m. Item 17 refers to the proposed new $6.65 billion tax scale I mentioned yesterday and which was reported in the Melbourne Age as part of Senator Messner's proposed new scale which he had costed by Professor Porter's Centre of Policy Studies. The next item states: `The rate of corporate tax will be reduced in line with reductions in personal tax.'-John Howard, Election Year Launch Speech at National Press Club, 4 February 1987. I have given the cost for that-$2,200m. Then, finally, we have Senator Messner's proposal for an 8 per cent consumption tax-now scrapped-as reported in the Melbourne Age two days ago, on 18 February. I now table the compilation of the costs I gave yesterday and the detail of the references I have just been through, for the benefit of my erstwhile friend over there who has had a lapse of memory. Mr N.A. Brown —Aren't you clever? Mr KEATING —No, I am not clever; I am honest. I will leave the House to judge who is the liar. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will not use that expression. Mr KEATING —I am not referring to anyone in particular, Madam Speaker, but yesterday I was described by the Leader of the Opposition as resorting to lies, errors and speculation. I have given the references, and it has hurt him. Well might it hurt him, because he is playing foot-loose with the finances of the Commonwealth. Opposition members would add $14 billion to the deficit by trying to run around and curry favour for themselves from one constituency to another when they know full well that such an addition to the Budget deficit would destroy any hope of Australia getting out of its current account imbalance or its international debt. They know that but they are quite happy to go along and buy off each constituency like they have bought them them off in the past, like they bought them off all through the 1970s, putting us in the position where we started to live on the back of world savings. Yet now, when the Government has apparently the hide to detail the costs of the Opposition's proposals, we are met with the charge `lie' and it is suggested that I am a liar for putting these figures together. I say this about the Leader of the Opposition: He learned well from his mentors, Sir John Carrick and Sir Robert Askin, who in the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party taught him tricks such as repeating things one knows are not true-repeat them on radio, repeat them on television, talk over journalists-but when it comes to the facts he is not so strong then, is he? We know who has been hurt. We know what the score is. The coalition has two leaders who will not come clean on their economic policy and their tax policy. For two consecutive days the Leader of the National Party has been denied confidence in his own party room. Contrast that with Sir John Gorton, who, having a majority of one, threw the vote against himself because he knew he could not lead a party with a majority of one. The Leader of the National Party could not even get a majority. He has been vetoed within the National Party by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the likes of the honourable member for Maranoa and the rest. We on this side of the House understand that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen knows that he cannot become Prime Minister, that the parliamentary Liberal Party will not support him as a Prime Minister while the Liberal Party has a leader who will not support him. Sir Joh has anointed his Liberal quisling; it is the honourable member for Kooyong. He obliged Sir Joh with the statement-the genuflection was there-that he would abolish the big programs, as he said in Western Australia; that he would make the big program cuts. The Liberal Party wet of one week is the Joh dry of the next week. So, members of the Opposition cannot talk to us about their economic policies. The Leader of the Opposition has been described by Joh, the true leader of the National Party, as a silly little boy-as the Prime Minister has said in Question Time. We on this side of the House are forced to make the numbers add up in our Budgets; we are forced to make them add up in the face of the international community, and now we face a $14 billion addition to the deficit which has been detailed and which has been referred to clearly in official statements by the Opposition. So all I can do is ask the public, the Press and the Parliament to judge who the liar is. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, as Leader of the Opposition I seek your indulgence. I do not ask the Treasurer to withdraw anything he said about me, but I ask him to withdraw the contemptible slur that he cast upon the reputation of my friend Sir John Carrick, a former Leader of the Government in the Senate. Government members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, are you going to ask him to do that? Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer has heard your request and has not responded to it. Mr Howard —I therefore assume, Madam Speaker, that you are no longer prepared to enforce the injunction that you extended to the Parliament last year. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition is asking the Chair to do something that the Chair has no right to do. Mr BEALE —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fall of 20 per cent in new housing starts, the rise of 52 per cent in new home loan interest rates, the increase of 45 per cent in the amount of average family incomes spent on mortgage rates-all increases which have taken place over the past two years-and in view of the fact that housing lending is being supported only by the Government's savings bank subsidy announced by the Prime Minister on 2 April 1986, will the Prime Minister advise whether he intends to continue with that $145m subsidy, with its adverse budgetary consequences, or whether he intends to allow the housing industry to collapse again as it did a year ago? If the Prime Minister will not give this advice, what is his excuse for not doing so? Mr HAWKE —Let me again, for the sake of the honourable member, go to the facts concerning what has happened in the housing area. I repeat what I said earlier this week: The housing package brought in by the Government last year, to which the honourable member refers, has been a success. I remind him that the latest housing finance figures show that savings banks met the package target of $6 billion in December, three months ahead of schedule. That figure of $6 billion compares with a pre-package annual rate of less than $4 billion. We know from everything that comes from members of the other side of the House that they are not particularly interested in facts; they are unacquainted with the facts, particularly in the area of economics. However, the figures I have put before the House are the facts. I remind the honourable member that the figure for private house approvals in December was the highest since February of 1986. The latest outlook for starts in 1986-87 is much better than the Government's pre-package forecast. That is the fact. The outlook for employment in the industry is also considerably brighter than it was before the package. Therefore, there is no basis at all for criticism of the housing package brought in by the Government. I remind the honourable member again, as I have before, of other actions taken by the Government in the area of housing which demonstrate to the full the commitment of this Government to the housing industry and to meeting the housing needs of the people. I remind the honourable gentleman again of the first home owners scheme. The fact is that for 30 out of the last 37 years the mob opposite was in power. They had all the time in the world to work out a sensible housing policy. They did not have the wit, the inclination or the compassion in any one of those 30 years to devise a sensible, reasonable and compassionate housing policy. That is why the housing industry-not this Government, the housing industry itself-described our first home owners scheme as the best, most effective, most imaginative housing scheme in the history of this country. We did not content ourselves with introducing that scheme to lift the housing industry from its knees where it had been put, with 105,000 starts per annum in the last year of the coalition Government. We did not rely on just that imaginative and effective first home owners scheme; we also acted in the area of public housing. The result is that under this Government there has been a 42 per cent increase in real terms in the funds provided for housing. It does not matter whether we have this pathetic apology for a politician talking about housing, the Leader of the Opposition talking about tax or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition talking about employment; in any area of macroeconomic affairs or microeconomic affairs the record of those opposite in all those areas in their 30 years in office shows a miserable failure. Our performance in government has outshone them in every area. Having compared our record after four years in government with the Opposition's miserable failure, people are entitled to say: `Perhaps they have learnt. Now that they have had four years in opposition perhaps they have policies for the future'. They would seek and search in vain to find them, because the members of the Opposition parties hate one another so much that they do not have the time to sit down to do the job of a responsible opposition, and that is to get viable policies together. Mr SAUNDERSON —Did the Minister for Social Security see today's Australian Financial Review, which reports a statement made by the honourable member for Maranoa-- Mr Ian Cameron —He can't read. Mr SAUNDERSON —The honourable member will be interested in this. The newspaper reports a statement made by the honourable member for Maranoa on the possible need to cut pensions in real terms. Can the Minister inform the House of the possible impact of such a move? Mr HOWE —I can do a little better than the report in the Australian Financial Review. I take the House to the transcript of the 12.30 Report yesterday. It is being suggested by some of my colleagues that it ought to be made clear to the House that the honourable member for Maranoa is not just an ordinary back bencher; he represents-- Mr Hawke —He is a surrogate. Mr HOWE —The Prime Minister has just suggested that he is a surrogate. I would suggest that he is the pro tem de facto leader of the National Party. I know that the honourable member's views on morality would make him particularly offended by the term `de facto'. It will be recalled that apparently within the National Party room yesterday there was something of a struggle. As I understand it, the honourable member for Gippsland, I think, and the honourable member for Maranoa got into holts and things got pretty rugged. So the honourable member for Maranoa rushed out to do some interviews. I have here a transcript of the interview. Honourable members will recall that he has already made clear to the House today his position in relation to consumption tax; he is against it. Presumably he is against it on behalf of Joh and-we are not so sure-probably on behalf of the National Party. Mr Ian Cameron —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am opposed to consumption taxes on my own behalf and my constituents' behalf. Madam SPEAKER —It is not really a point of order but a point of clarification. Mr HOWE —The honourable member was asked about the policies that he is advocating and he said, as has been said by the conservatives and by the New Right, that there have to be deep cuts. He said: . . . when I say cuts I mean cuts that every Australian is going to squeal like a stuck pig because they are all going to suffer. They are going to squeal like a stuck pig. That is the rural analogy coming from a pro tem member of the cowshed cabinet. He continued: because right now everyone of us has got his hand in the till and we got to get it out of the till if we're going to get this country up and moving again. Naturally enough, the interviewer was interested to pursue just where these cuts were going to be. That is something that oppositions do not like to reveal, but the pro tem leader was very frank. He was asked: Can we assume then that you would also advocate the re-introduction of tertiary fees, the means testing of family allowances, measures like that that will be necessary to achieve that sort of . . . The honourable member replied strongly: Yes I believe that we have to make those decisions and we have to bite the bullet on the whole range of government hand-outs and government finances. The interviewer said: Nothing's sacred. The honourable member said: No nothing's sacred. The National Party is something else. The interviewer said: Defence. Defence spending should be cut. The honourable member said: Defence spending, I guess that's something that we have to maintain. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. What the Minister is doing, apart from taking up a great deal of time unnecessarily and deliberately, is travelling well beyond his portfolio into all kinds of areas that have nothing to do with it. Therefore he is out of order in doing that and should be told that he is out of order in doing that so that Question Time can be properly run in this House. Madam SPEAKER —Ministers in this House for many years have chosen to answer questions in their own manner. I would suggest, though, now that the Minister get to the question. Mr HOWE —Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to relate my remarks to my portfolio almost immediately, but let me just complete the quote. The honourable member said: Defence spending, I guess that's something that we have to maintain. I guess that's probably one thing that is a bit sacred. The interviewer then asked: What about pensions? The honourable member replied: Pensions. I guess the pensioners might have to stand still . . . if we can have less taxes- less expenditure- there's no reason why we should be giving pensioners or anybody else in the community any more funds. The heart of the issue and the fundamental problem with the Opposition is that it is more than willing to talk tough and to run around the country making all sorts of promises but, when it gets right down to it, it gets down to very difficult decisions. The record of this Government shows such integrity because this Government has been prepared to make difficult choices, to take tough decisions and to avoid the kind of situation of the honourable member for Maranoa. I can understand why he would want to single out welfare for cuts. As I reminded the House, effectively he is acting as a front man for the northern warrior. Mr Goodluck —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification. I find this most offensive. Actually, I am sick of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Goodluck —And I am sick of some of the things that have happened this week. Madam SPEAKER —Sit down. Mr Goodluck —What about this country? Madam SPEAKER —Sit down. Order! The honourable member for Franklin will sit down. The Chair gave the honourable member for Franklin a fair amount of latitude then. I suggest he not repeat the performance. Mr HOWE —I conclude my remarks by pointing to the fact that the interviewer offered the honourable member a simple choice, on which he was clear. He said that it is pensions that have to stand still; it is pensions that have to be cut in real terms. Yesterday we heard something about bankruptcies in Queensland. The position that I have been dealing with today is reflected in the allocation given by the Premier of Queensland. If we look at the estimates for net State expenditure on welfare, Queensland stands at $34 per capita, which is lower than any other State in Australia. Mr N.A. Brown —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer the Minister to a report today that the Government apparently has abandoned its submission for a $10 and a 3 per cent wage increase and has given a broad hint to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that what it really wants now is a $12 and a 3 per cent increase. In the light of that, I ask the Minister: First, has the Government, as this report has suggested, changed its submission with respect to the national wage case? Secondly, if so, will the Government now state clearly what it really wants the Arbitration Commission to do and will it apply to re-open the case so that the Arbitration Commission can be let in on the secret? Finally, if, as we know, a $10 and a 3 per cent wage rise will give us an average wage outcome of 8 per cent-which is twice that of the 4 per cent of the major Western economies-what now is the Government's assessment of the wages outcome we can expect from a $12 a week increase? Mr WILLIS —I thank the honourable member for giving me the opportunity to deny that report in this morning's Australian, which is without foundation. There is no foundation whatsoever for an article which alleges, as the honourable member said, that the Government was really saying it wanted a $12 increase. The Government has made its position absolutely clear in the national wage case and nothing has been said outside the national wage case which would in any way alter the case that was put by the Government's advocate; that is, that there should be an outcome in the order of a $10 increase for the first tier increase in 1987, and a 3 per cent increase for the second tier increase. So I totally deny what was said in the article. I have no idea what source is supposed to be the basis for that kind of article. In terms of the overall wage outcome that would come from the position advocated by the Government in that national wage case, let us firstly get it clear that it would mean that there would be an outcome for 1986-87 which would be within the Budget forecast for wages for 1986-87; that is, that we would still have a wage increase for 1986-87 within the 6 1/4 per cent increase, which is the basis of the Budget forecast. For 1987-88 we would certainly have a wage increase which would be nowhere near the 8 per cent figure mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. The wage outcome for 1987-88 would, on our calculations, be in the order of 5 1/2 to 6 per cent. Of course, that also takes into account the possibility of a second first tier increase commencing not before the beginning of 1988. On that basis, with the feeding in of the 3 per cent over a substantial period, as would be expected to be the case, it is forecast that the wage outcome for 1987-88, on the basis of the decision in terms that we advocated, would be between 5 1/2 and 6 per cent. Mr HUMPHREYS —I direct my question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Leader of Government Business in the House. Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether the pattern of sittings, as circulated by him to all honourable members, will be adhered to? Mr YOUNG —I am pleased the honourable member for Griffith has found the opportunity to ask me this question. I have had some representations from the Opposition to cut the session short. As much as I would like to, I can tell honourable members opposite that the 37 days which are set down for sitting in the autumn session will be the minimum number that we will be sitting. I would just like to compare that with Queensland. The Queensland Parliament met on Tuesday of this week. It swore in its new members and the Speaker was elected. That was the first day. On the second day it had its official opening, and that was the second day. On the third day it is actually meeting for four hours. There will be a Question Time and two hours of debate. That is the first week. Then a massive program starts on the 24th, 25th and 26th, then continues on the 10th, 11th and 12th of March and the 17th, 18th and 19th of March, and that is the end of this massive parliamentary sitting for Queensland until August. So Joh will be in his $10m plane, at a cost of $1,800 an hour to Queensland taxpayers, scooting all over the country tipping buckets over Ian and John. But there are some other things which are being submerged as a result of the dispute between the Nationals and the Liberals. For example I refer to the dispute between the Liberals themselves that we have observed over the last couple of months. One of the major reasons-- Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Standing order 145 states quite clearly that an answer shall be relevant to the question. The question related specifically to the sittings of the Federal Parliament and has nothing to do with the areas that the Minister is now dealing with. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I would suggest the Minister heed that. Mr YOUNG —What is relevant to the sittings is what business we are going to discuss. Obviously a number of the issues that have to be discussed here include the Government's legislative program. We also have a committee report which tells us that the back benchers want to have more time available and I want more time. I want the honourable member for Mayo and the honourable member for Boothby to say the things in Parliament that they say about each other outside the Parliament. There is a terrific new gimmick we have in Parliament. We have given people research officers to help them to penetrate policy analysis and to do the right things to make us better parliamentarians. But we find that with John Howard and Dr Henderson and the honourable member for Mayo and his research officer, they all make not their own speeches but those of their research officers, so the honourable member can say: `That is not my speech; that is my research officer's'. The honourable member for Mayo has a research officer who has been in the Young Liberals for 12 years. I do not know what sort of crime one has to commit in Australia to get 12 years. But we notice that with people who spend a long time in the Young Liberals, such as the honourable member for Barker and the honourable member for Mayo, their voices never break. That is one issue. Now we want to know about Andrew. Of course Andrew is on the road back. Joh has blessed him and Andrew is coming back. We want to know how Andrew went from being a wet to a dry just by crossing the Nullarbor. The honourable member for O'Connor got him up there and said `You won't be reported up here', so out came the hairy chest and he said: `We are going to scrub all of these government programs. Everything will go'. Of course that appeared in the eastern States Press. So we want to hear from Andrew about what programs are going to go. This is one of the final sessions for the honourable member for the Northern Territory, who came down here to be Prime Minister. Now the Leader of the Opposition went up to seek Mr Pendarvis to become his successor. We would like to hear what the present member for the Northern Territory thinks about Mr Pendarvis and what he has to say about politics in the Northern Territory. We also want to know what will happen with the Nationals. We want to give all those fellows on the back bench plenty of time during this session to get on their feet and tell us about the policies that they have in mind for the remainder of Australia. Everybody is waiting to hear them. We have watched Joh every night. He says: `Don't you worry about that, don't you worry about that. Twenty-five cents, twenty-five cents, twenty-five cents'. The only other policy we have heard is from his son John who said: `No sex before marriage'. So the National Party has two policies: Twenty-five cents and no sex before marriage. Is that all that it has in mind for Australia? I thank the honourable member for Griffith and assure the House that we can fill in a full 37 days here. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business) —Madam Speaker, I seek your guidance on a matter of procedure. You may well recall that it is now a day from 12 months since you gave a message to this House regarding parliamentary behaviour. I draw your attention to Hansard-- Mr Holding —She controls the House better than you control your Party. Mr SINCLAIR —Tell us about the Aborigines, Clyde. It is interesting, Madam Speaker, for you to refer to page 946 of the House of Representatives Hansard. You will recall that you said that there were standards of behaviour that you required members to observe within this House. You will recall that, in the context of that statement, you said that honourable members recognise and expect that parliamentary politics is tough and that tough things will be said in the heat of debate. You said: While remarks may be made about a member politically, I will not tolerate,- these are your words, Madam Speaker- from either side, allegations or imputations of a personal nature- you then continued- particularly remarks or interjections which go into the private lives of members. You will know that, in the course of the parliamentary debate today, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) referred on one occasion to a member of the Senate, Senator Sir John Carrick. If you care to refer to the Standing Orders, you will see that standing orders 75 and 76 refer to the use of offensive words. Standing order 75 states: No Member may use offensive words against either House of the Parliament or any Member thereof, against any member of the Judiciary, or against any statute unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal. Standing order 76 states: All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. Madam Speaker, you will recall your ruling that the remarks made by the Treasurer about Sir John Carrick, associating him with matters pertaining to financial impropriety, were matters that are in accordance with the standards of behaviour where they are discussed. We on this side of the House regard that remark as not only grossly offensive to Sir John Carrick but also as quite contrary to the remarks that you made only 12 months ago about standards of propriety that you require of members of this House. I suggest that, if that were the intention of the Treasurer-certainly to those of us who heard his words that seemed to be the intention-- Madam SPEAKER —No way. Mr SINCLAIR —If that were the intention of the Treasurer, those remarks should be required to be withdrawn. Madam Speaker, I suggest that you again ask the Treasurer to assure us that that was not the purport of his remarks, and to withdraw them. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member will resume his seat. I point out to the House that I did not take it, from what the Treasurer said, that there was any reflection on the character of Sir John Carrick. If I had, in line with the statement that I made, I would have pulled the Treasurer up. I also point out to the House and to the Leader of the National Party of Australia that it has become fairly common for honourable members to quote back to me the words I said about not tolerating from either side allegations or imputations of a personal nature, particularly remarks or interjections which go into the private lives of members. I stand strongly by the statement. I would be particularly delighted if those members would read the rest of what I said, which referred to the standards of behaviour within the House. Would the Treasurer like to say something. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Madam Speaker, I thought that what I said was fairly innocuous. I certainly did not intend, and nor do I now intend, to reflect at all on Senator Sir John Carrick's propriety in any way. All that I intended to say, and said, was that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) lived his years in the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party of Australia under the then Mr Carrick, as General Secretary, and Sir Robert Askin, and that the cynicism that pervaded that Party then pervades his Press statements today. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence on another point of procedure. You will recall that standing order 145 is the only standing order that gives you any power over the answers to questions. I draw your attention to the fact that today there were eight questions during questions without notice. Whilst I understand your restraints, and the fact that the Procedure Committee of this place is now examining the question and has reported to this place upon suggested changes to our Standing Orders in respect of this, I suggest to you that, unless answers are relevant to the questions, protracted answers, given in the way that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) gave them in this place today, are against the intention of that section. I hope, Madam Speaker, that there can be reasonable opportunity in this place for there to be sufficient numbers of questions without notice to enable all members to ask their questions reasonably and get reasonably concise and precise answers from Ministers. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair would be most happy if that were to happen. However, I point out to the House once again that the management of this House and the Standing Orders in this House are the property of the members. They have appointed a Procedure Committee. They may put their ideas before the Procedure Committee and give to the person who occupies this chair Standing Orders that it is possible to put into operation. Mr Keating —On the point of Standing Orders, Madam Speaker, it has also been a part of the practice of this House that a person who represents himself as a leader of a party in this place gets the confidence of his members. Perhaps when the Leader of the National Party-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-I wish to report to Parliament on the visit I undertook from 23 January to 3 February to Jordan, Cyprus, Israel, Switzerland and Egypt. Before this visit, no Australian Prime Minister had visited the Middle East for three decades. Yet that region is not only one of major international importance, but also one of growing direct interest to Australia. Australia's interest in the region stems in part from the pivotal importance of the Middle East in international affairs; in part from its massive oil reserves; in part because it straddles our principal communications, trade and travel routes. Further, the Middle East is a growth area for Australian trade, taking exports totalling $1.8 billion in 1985-86 and providing imports worth $1.2 billion. Our multicultural society includes several communities with strong links to the region. And, not least among these interests, Madam Speaker, Australia has sincere concerns of principle in the region: We regard the conflict in the Lebanon as a human tragedy; we support the principle of self-determination of the Palestinian people; and, like successive Australian governments, we see moral as well as political imperatives in our commitment to the security of Israel and its right to exist within secure and recognised boundaries. Accordingly, the objectives of my visit to the Middle East were clear. The first objective was to demonstrate that, despite our geographical distance from the region, Australia recognises the significance of the Middle East, both in international affairs and specifically in relation to Australia. Secondly, I sought to acquire at the highest level an appreciation of the political problems and prospects of the region, projecting Australia not as a party principal to the resolution of the various issues, but as a responsible and concerned nation bringing to those issues a balanced and principled policy. Thirdly, I sought to cement friendly and constructive relations with the leadership and people of Israel and in the two key moderate Arab nations, Jordan and Egypt. This friendship had already been enhanced by visits to Australia by Middle Eastern leaders, most recently by President Chaim Herzog of Israel. My fourth objective was to develop our good bilateral relationships with these countries to our mutual benefit and, in particular, to assist Australia's commercial interests. In Cyprus, it was my intention to discuss with the Cypriot leadership the problems besetting that island and to underline Australia's hopes for settlement of those problems. The visit also symbolised the friendly relations existing between Australia and Cyprus, not least as a legacy of migration and settlement. Finally, in Switzerland, the objective of my visit was, at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, to highlight the precarious state of the international trading system, to argue the need for reform of agricultural trade and to promote Australia as a focus of increased foreign investment and as a trading partner. I am pleased to state that all these objectives of my visit were fully met. The Middle East On its election to office, my Government undertook a review of policy towards the Arab-Israeli dispute and reaffirmed the basic principles which have guided Australian policy. These principles are: Recognition of the urgent need to achieve a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement to the Middle East dispute. Fundamental commitment to the security of Israel and its right to exist within secure and recognised boundaries. Recognition of the central importance of the Palestinian issue for any settlement. Acknowledgment of the rights of self- determination of the Palestinian people, including their right, if they so choose, to independence and the possibility of their own independent state. During my visit to the region, I presented this policy to all my interlocutors, as an integrated whole. It was accepted by them all as a credible, principled, balanced and legitimate position. In my discussions in the Middle East-which were thorough, detailed and invariably most friendly-a fundamental theme that emerged was the desire for peace of the governments of the three countries I visited. The sincerity of this desire was marked not just by a yearning for the absence of conflict, but by a perception that real and lasting peace will permit economic development and yield improvements in the quality of the everyday life of the peoples of all nations there. However, there are differences among the parties concerned on the ways of achieving such a peace. In particular, there are differences on the question of the suitability of an international conference as a means of resolving the differences among the parties. Some parties want such a conference involving the five permanent members of the Security Council, the nations of the region, and the PLO. They do not envisage it imposing solutions on the parties concerned but rather providing a framework in which negotiations can take place between the parties principal. In this sense the gap between the concepts of an international conference and of direct negotiations may well not be as great as is frequently suggested. Australia sees merit in such a proposal. Determining details, such as the precise methods of procedure in such a conference, remains a complex task, but this is not a reason for the key players withholding positive consideration of the concept. I was impressed during my visit by the commitment of both Israel and Egypt to maintaining the peaceful relationship they established through the Camp David process. I commended both countries for the courage and creativity of Camp David, which remains a landmark in efforts to achieve peace in this troubled region. Egypt and Israel are, I believe, prepared to build further on the spirit of Camp David. At their Alexandria summit last September, 1987 was designated by them as a Year for Negotiations, and I believe that everyone in this Parliament would wish that this hope be realised. A central requirement in any resolution of Jordan's relations with Israel is to determine the future of the Palestinian people. In a number of the discussions I had in the Middle East, I encountered an emerging, important and strongly held view that the most likely and appropriate outcome for the Palestinian people is a confederation with the state of Jordan. While I was in the Middle East I had discussions with Palestinians themselves about the problems they face on the West Bank and in Gaza, including restrictions on their political and economic freedoms. I also heard from the Jordanian Government its plans for a program of humanitarian assistance to the West Bank. I was pleased to give this program the moral and political support of the Australian Government and I told the Jordanians that we would also, in our Budget context, consider giving it material support. A central obstacle to progress in resolving the Middle East dispute, I believe, is that factual realities are not fully reflected in formal positions. It is clear that there is no organisation at this point which speaks for the Palestinians more than does the Palestine Liberation Organisation, not just in the West Bank and Gaza but more broadly in what can be thought of as the Palestinian Diaspora. The PLO may not have an exclusive representative status but it does have a representative status. This is not a value judgment about the PLO but simply a statement of fact. I believe that this fact is understood in Israel. It is equally clear that Israel's antagonists, including surely the PLO or at least the more sane elements of the organisation, now accept that Israel exists and will continue to exist as an independent and viable state in the Middle East. They know this as a fact. But these realities are not yet explicitly recognised in the stated policies of those parties involved. Progress towards peace in the region could be made if both sides were to issue a simultaneous statement acknowledging each other's existence-if in effect each was explicitly to state what at present it tacitly believes. What I believe is required is for the PLO, for its part, to issue a formal statement of position which would entail (i) acceptance of resolutions 242 and 338 as a basis for negotiations and thus (ii) recognition of Israel and (iii) renunciation of terror in favour of the process of negotiation. For its part, Israel would be required, in the context of such a formal statement of position, to recognise the PLO as a party appropriately to be included in the negotiating process. In addition to this central Arab-Israeli dispute, my discussions in the Middle East also covered two other regional conflicts of very great concern to all the government leaders I met: The continuing tragedy of civil violence in Lebanon and the ceaseless and senseless slaughter and destruction in the war between Iraq and Iran. On Lebanon, I put Australia's view that all foreign forces should be withdrawn except those which are in Lebanon at the request of the Lebanese Government and whose presence is necessary to allow the development of conditions which can allow social, economic and political stability to be re-established within Lebanon and the authority of the Lebanese Government to be asserted. I made the point that the presence in Australia of a large and valuable Lebanese community, with close links to their country of origin, brought the tragic situation in Lebanon home to our national consciousness in a very graphic way. On the Iran-Iraq war, Australia has maintained a position of strict neutrality. Neutrality is not, of course, disinterest. On the contrary, we have tried wherever possible, notably at the United Nations, to contribute to a solution. We shall continue to do so. Australia has long proven its credentials as a country sincerely concerned for peace in the Middle East. To the extent possible we have been involved in measures to achieve it: We have for instance contributed personnel to peace keeping activities in the region and we have used multilateral forums and bilateral links to advance the cause of peace wherever possible. However, it would be idle to pretend that easy solutions exist in the region, or that Australia has any direct role in the peace process itself. To sum up, my visit took place at a time when the path to resolving the Arab-Israeli dispute again seemed obstructed. There are no immediate prospects for a breakthrough. At the same time I was encouraged by the fact that the commitment to peace by the parties concerned has not died. Indeed, I detected a sense of realistic determination to continue, slowly but persistently, the search for progress. Moreover, as I have described, I believe there are ideas and concepts which, if pursued, would offer a way ahead. I have said that Australia seeks no mediating or other role in the Middle East peace process. However, as I made clear during my visit, we are willing, if requested, to do all we can to help bring peace to this divided yet fundamentally interrelated region. No Australian government can or should offer less. Bilateral Relations with Jordan, Israel and Egypt I said at the outset of this report that Australia had several important interests in the Middle East. In Jordan, Israel and Egypt I was keen to advance the bilateral links Australia has with each of those nations. Australian trade with Jordan is currently weighted heavily in our favour. In our talks in Amman, the Jordanians expressed their desire to increase exports of phosphate rock, potash and other fertilisers to Australia. They believe there may be scope for this as our current sources of supply diminish. I undertook to study a draft trade agreement prepared by Jordan. Prospects exist for significant joint ventures, which will be further explored by both countries. These include the provision of fresh chilled sheep meat based on the importation of live sheep from Australia for fattening in Jordan, and Australian involvement in railway or road development and phosphate fertiliser industries. I also flagged Australia's interest in becoming a coal supplier to a new Jordanian power station. Australian aid to Jordan consists principally of support for a dry-land farming project. Funding for this project is due to expire at the end of the year; however, I told the Jordanians we would be prepared to consider a modest extension of this project. Beyond these government to government links, Australia is well presented in Jordan through its archaeologists. I had the very great pleasure of inspecting the site of Pella, one of the most important archaeological sites in the Middle East, which is being revealed to the world through the capable involvement of an Australian team headed by Professor Basil Hennessy of the University of Sydney. In Israel, I agreed with Prime Minister Shamir to establish a working party to examine the possibilities of further economic and trade co-operation between Israel and Australia. The working party's tasks will include the investigation of Prime Minister Shamir's expression of interest in industrial and agricultural co-operation with Australia and my suggestion of further coal exports to Israel. Australia and Israel also signed a science and technology agreement during my visit. This, I am pleased to say, is a result of the valuable contacts established by my colleague the Minister for Science (Mr Jones) during his visit to Israel in 1985. In a meeting with the mothers and relatives of refuseniks-Jews who have been denied exit visas by the Soviet Union-I agreed to raise at every appropriate opportunity the issue of the Soviet treatment of Jews. As I told Parliament earlier this week, I had steps taken to investigate the particularly pressing case of Sophia Landver, who told me in this meeting that she wanted to visit her terminally ill mother in the Soviet Union. She was subsequently granted permission to enter the Soviet Union, but I have learned only this morning that tragically her mother died before she was able to travel to see her. One consequence of the efforts made on her behalf, however, is that two other relatives of Mrs Landver have apparently been given exit visas by the Soviet authorities. This is a significant human rights issue but, to revert for a moment to questions of the Middle East peace process, the issue also has a political significance. A major factor in Israel's willingness to accept an international conference involving the Soviet Union will clearly be whether the Soviet Union is prepared to improve the position of Soviet Jewry. The Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) and I will raise this and other matters with the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr Shevardnadze, when he visits Canberra next month. Ties between this Parliament and the Israeli Knesset are very close. The Speaker's counterpart, Mr Shlomo Hillel, assured me that a warm welcome awaits her when she visits in June. There was also widespread approbation in Israel of this Parliament's unanimous call last October for a rejection of the United Nations General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism. It was apparent throughout my visit to Israel that one of the strongest links between our two countries is formed by Australia's large Jewish community. Its contribution to Australian society at all levels has been incalculable and invaluable, and its close contact with Israel has done more to promote understanding and good will between our countries than any policies, words or deeds by governments could have achieved. In Cairo, as in Amman, a principal area of concern was the strong trading imbalance. Egypt is one of Australia's principal markets for wheat. But Egypt exports little to us. I assured Egypt that we will do all we can to expand Egypt's opportunities to export to Australia. A joint committee will be established between the two countries, not only to foster trade but to help develop the bilateral relationship generally. I also agreed with the concept of establishing a joint business council, but this is in the final analysis, of course, a matter for the business community itself. The idea is being investigated. Closer agricultural co-operation is in prospect as a result of our talks, and I noted Australia's ability to supply technology and raw materials to projects such as the 2,400-megawatt Zafarana coal fired power station. Australia also indicated that efforts would be made to encourage increased Australian tourism to Egypt. Egypt's tourist attractions are, of course, well known already. But they will be even better known as a result of the very generous offer made by Prime Minister Sidky that Egypt would be pleased to participate in our bicentennial celebrations next year by providing a pharaonic exhibition. We are, of course, delighted at this offer and look forward with great anticipation to seeing the exhibition. Cyprus In my visit to Cyprus, I had detailed talks with President Kyprianou. We both noted the excellent relations that exist between Australia and Cyprus. Tens of thousands of Greek and Turkish Cypriots now live in Australia and continue to make extremely valuable contributions to our multicultural society. The substantive discussion with President Kyprianou focused almost exclusively on the tragic problems facing the divided island of Cyprus. Australia has been active in the search for a solution, both in the United Nations and through the Commonwealth. We strongly support the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and non-aligned status of the Republic of Cyprus, as provided for in United Nations Security Council resolutions 541 and 550. I also expressed our support for the UN Secretary-General's efforts to find a solution, while noting that none of his proposals had so far proved acceptable to all parties. Australia believes all sides should co-operate with the Secretary-General and take no action which could jeopardise his efforts. The President welcomed Australia's support for a solution and reiterated his Government's gratitude for Australia's role in providing personnel to the United Nations force in Cyprus. I took the opportunity to meet Australia's contingent of police and to express the Government's appreciation of the contribution they and their predecessors have made to the people of Cyprus, to the United Nations and to Australia's reputation as a co-operative and effective member of the international community. Switzerland In Davos, I attended and, at the invitation of the organisers, delivered the keynote address at the World Economic Forum symposium. I saw this annual conference as a valuable opportunity to highlight the achievements and potential of the Australian economy and to present before an exceptional audience of corporate and government leaders our case against the spreading plague of protectionism in world markets. My keynote address focused on the urgent need to free up world trade, particularly the trade in agricultural products. Agricultural protectionism, as practised by the United States, the European Community and Japan is not only damaging efficient agricultural producers like Australia and Third World economies which are heavily reliant on agricultural trade. It is also damaging the protectionist nations themselves. Accordingly, I launched at the symposium a proposal to freeze the level of subsidies and to reduce the gap between world and domestic agricultural prices so that market forces can again provide greater rationality to agricultural trade. These proposals are now being followed up bilaterally with other governments, including through the efforts of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins). Also at the symposium, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and I made a special presentation describing the significant investment and trade opportunities that exist in Australia as a result of my Government's economic policies. I outlined the strengths of the Australian economy and the principal elements of the Government's economic strategy, while Senator Button detailed the specifics of our industrial and investment policies. In Geneva, I took the opportunity to discuss with the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, Mr Miljan Komatina, in particular, our hopes for progress on a comprehensive test ban treaty, a chemical weapons convention and a halt to the escalating arms race in outer space. Australia has been active in pursuing each of these issues, including in the Conference on Disarmament. Mr Komatina praised the constructive role Australia has played, stressing the high level political commitment we have demonstrated, the practical and effective attention we have devoted to important issues such as verification, and the dedication and professionalism of our Ambassador for Disarmament and other Australian representatives. Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that as a result of my visit our relations with the key Middle Eastern states of Israel, Jordan and Egypt have been strengthened. I am pleased to inform the House that, on behalf of the Government, I invited King Hussein and President Mubarak to visit Australia. These invitations were accepted. Our commercial and other links with each of the three countries seem set to multiply and diversify. Our understanding of the Middle East in general has been deepened and our commitment to fair and principled policies in support of peace affirmed. Our friendly relationship with Cyprus has been fortified. Our arguments against protectionism have been advanced and our attractiveness for foreign investment and as a partner for trade has been highlighted. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-As with all statements of this kind made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) after his return from overseas visits, the Opposition welcomes the courtesy the Prime Minister has shown to the Parliament in reporting on the details of his visit. There are aspects of the Prime Minister's overseas visit that the Opposition views in a constructive light. We acknowledge the fact that the Prime Minister endeavoured, while he was in the Middle East, to make his way through the mine-field of Middle East policies with some care. We express the hope that there will always be in this Parliament bipartisan support for the maintenance of the territorial integrity within secure boundaries of the state of Israel. The Liberal and National parties have been second to none in their support of the state of Israel over the years. To the extent that the Prime Minister follows the approach that he has followed in relation to Israel, he will continue to have our support. There is equal bipartisan support for the proposition that there is a Palestinian problem and the need for a just and peaceful solution which takes account of the fundamental rights of the Palestinians. The Prime Minister is also correct in stressing that Australia cannot be a principal party to achieving resolution of these matters. If we are to have any role it must be in conjunction with our allies, rather than acting by ourselves. The Prime Minister made the obvious point that progress towards peace in the region could be made if both sides were to issue a simultaneous statement acknowledging each other's existence. But in the nature of the real world something of that kind is hard to conceive at present. Neither Peres nor Shamir accepts that the Palestine Liberation Organisation is reconciled to Israel's continued existence. In our view, we think that the Prime Minister is guilty of an overly generous interpretation of PLO policy. It certainly contrasts with the interpretation given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) on 31 January, when he said: There has been a long-standing attitude on the part of all political parties that the PLO, by its declared policy stands for the destruction of the state of Israel, and while that stands . . . we find it unacceptable to have PLO representatives visit. I say on behalf of the Opposition: Long may that remain the attitude of the Foreign Minister. It will certainly remain our attitude. The very contemplation of representatives of the PLO visiting Australia is abhorrent to all members of the Liberal and National parties. We do not attach a great deal of hope to the idea of an international conference, many of whose major participants would have widely differing interests. It is difficult to accept proposed Soviet Union involvement in an international Middle East peace conference. The Prime Minister's support for that conference, of course, is at odds with the Israeli Government's position. We understand Israel's view that it should not be forced to participate in an international conference when one of the major parties, the Soviet Union, does not recognise it and with the PLO, which is committed to the elimination and destruction of Israel. The Opposition's view is that Soviet Union participation must depend on a changing attitude to Jewish emigration. We will welcome and support efforts to persuade the Soviets to relax restrictions on Jewish emigration and we acknowledge the continued personal interest of the Prime Minister in this matter. It is to be regretted that Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union over the years has declined to a mere trickle from 51,320 in 1979 to 914 in 1986. Mr Peacock —The second lowest total ever. Mr HOWARD —The second lowest total ever, as the shadow Foreign Minister interjects. The Opposition might be less sceptical of Secretary-General Gorbachev's latest public relations push, promoting greater openness within the Soviet Union, if he gave substance to it by reversing that country's anti-Jewish policy. The issue of Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union must be a priority during the visit to Australia of the Soviet Foreign Minister. The bona fides of both the Government and the Opposition on this issue will, of course, be a subject for discussion. I would hope that high on the list of matters to be raised with the Soviet Foreign Minister when he visits Australia is in the continued Soviet military suppression of Afghanistan. I certainly hope that the present Foreign Minister does not adopt the attitude of the present Treasurer (Mr Keating) in 1979 when he was asked about Afghanistan and his reply was: `Who cares about Afghanistan? Where is Afghanistan?'. That is rather reminiscent of some remarks made about Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s. In these brief remarks I must draw attention to the public relations and diplomatic disaster that surrounded the invitation to Israel's Trade Minister Sharon to visit Australia. On behalf of the Opposition, I ask the very simple question: If in fact his visit is unacceptable to the Government-that is now clearly the case, despite all of the tissue-thin excuses that were offered for the cancellation of the visit-why on earth was the invitation extended in the first place? Why on earth did the Prime Minister personally approve the invitation to the Israeli Trade Minister and why on earth are we having the foreign policy of this country dictated to the Government by the reaction of PLO sympathisers in Australia? The concerns that different Australians may have about Sharon were well known before the invitation was issued. It is an absolute diplomatic bungle of the first magnitude for the Government not to have recognised that in the first place. But for the Prime Minister to have approved the visit and then appear to be backing down-in reality it did back down-to pressure exerted by PLO sympathisers in Australia holds the Government and this country up to ridicule. The Prime Minister concluded his trip by visiting what has now become a symposium resort of very considerable note, and that is Davos in Switzerland. That is where the Prime Minister's overseas visit went from the realm of, in some areas, attracting bipartisan support and bipartisan sympathy to the realm of the ridiculous and the absurd. He is the Prime Minister of a country whose gross overseas debt has gone beyond $100 billion, a country that had the worst current account deficit in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1986, a country that now has the worst inflation rate, relative to the OECD, since that organisation was formed almost 30 years ago, and a country that has followed policies that have reduced the competitiveness of its own farmers by imposing new levels of taxation and new imposts on those farmers. The spectacle of that Prime Minister standing up in front of an international business audience and delivering a sermon and a lecture about freer trade, and virtually declaring to the business world that, if people wanted to successfully invest in this country, as well as comply with the laws of this country, they had to negotiate with the de facto Foreign Investment Review Board of Australia-that is, the Australian Council of Trade Unions-to see that their business deals were acceptable to the trade union movement, is where the Prime Minister's overseas visit completely lost the Opposition and a very substantial section of the community. It is in that area that the Prime Minister's overseas visit descended into low farce and attracted many a horse laugh, given the appalling economic performance of this Government and the fact that, particularly over the past year, not only have we seen our balance of payments disintegrate and our inflation rate and interest rates soar, but also we have seen our once proud AAA credit rating grabbed from us by the two most prestigious rating agencies in the world. The Prime Minister's performance at Davos rang very hollow with those millions of Australian families who recognise that, whatever fine words he may deliver at an international symposium, his performance on economic management in Australia has been less than satisfactory, to say the least. I conclude by saying that, to the extent to which the Prime Minister advances the cause of reconciliation, and promotes it, in the Middle East-whenever he goes overseas-he will have our support. He will always have our support in defending the integrity and the independence of the state of Israel. To the extent that he promotes the cause of effective disarmament, he will have our support. However, to the extent that he continues his rather short-sighted and stupid opposition to the American Administration's strategic defence initiative, he will not have our support. To the extent that he continues his Government's misguided policy of adopting an attitude of moral equivalence towards the activities of the Soviet Union and the United States of America so far as world peace is concerned, he will not have our support. Until he and his Foreign Minister are prepared to pass the same moral strictures on the Soviet Union as they heap almost day by day on governments such as the South African Government, many people on this side of the House and in the Australian community will continue to regard the foreign policies of this Government as riddled with many double standards and many hypocrisies. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Aldred,Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. 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 service a community's needs and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of post offices should be to service the public with the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary 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 Ian Cameron,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Rocher and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are `relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses'. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Jull,Mr Shack and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth 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 Cleeland,Mr Halverson and Mr Macphee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth 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 National as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 Ian Cameron and Mr Jull. 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 Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That 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 Leo McLeay and Mr Uren. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that the anomalous Fringe Benefits Tax is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair on the grounds that- It adversely affects business throughout Australia, including farms, By creating a further tax burden it destroys incentive, It has caused unemployment, It is costly to administer and its complexities have caused confusion and widespread anger. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Fringe Benefits Tax legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. It is unjust for any person to be liable for tax on benefits received by another person. 2. Compliance with FBT will increase administrative costs for all employers including Local, State and Federal Government Departments. 3. FBT is an inefficient tax, which will require the Tax Office to employ an army of bureaucrats. 4. FBT is inequitable because liability arises regardless of capacity to pay. 5. The FBT laws are extremely complex. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, do respectfully show our opposition to the introduction of a Fringe Benefits Tax and related legislation. Such a tax will be an additional burden upon small businesses, and lead to increased bureaucracy. Your petitioners do humbly call for the repeal of this legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. We, the undersigned petitioners of the electorate of Farrer, do respectfully show our opposition to the introduction of a Fringe Benefits Tax and related legislation. Such a tax will be an additional burden upon small businesses, and lead to increased bureaucracy. It will also adversely affect the Australian car industry and primary producers. We, therefore, call for the repeal of this legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. 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. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the intention of the Hawke Government to unionise independent contractors, sub-contractors, the self-employed, partnerships, sole traders and family businesses will: Remove the freedom of independent small business to- (a) set their own prices (b) work their own hours (c) control their own businesses (d) negotiate their own contracts; and will create unacceptable and unjustifiable working conditions which will include- (a) the payment of union superannuation, compensation, payroll tax, annual leave loadings, public holiday loadings, PAYE tax deductions (b) limited incomes (c) inflexible awards and conditions (d) fixed hours of work. We the undersigned call upon the Government to restore incentive and opportunity to the Australian economy and to abandon these coercive measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: (a) that the escalation of terrorism in Sri Lanka has brought the spectre of international terrorism closer to Australian shores; (b) that this terrorism is exercised by political separatists seeking to establish a racist state in Sri Lanka based on the detested doctrine of racial separation and apartheid; (c) that the victims of these terrorists are for the most part peaceful citizens of Sri Lanka, but have also included many foreigners including Australian citizens; (d) that these terrorists are provided with sanctuary and assistance (including the provision of military bases and logistic support) by India; and (e) that the agents of the separatists have for a long time engaged in a campaign of misinformation in Australia seeking to justify their terrorism as a legitimate response to alleged discrimination of an ethnic minority in Sri Lanka, which is a claim completely without foundation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia: (1) condemn the terrorist campaign now waged in Sri Lanka for the purpose of the establishment of a separate racist state in that country; (2) call upon the Indian government, as a fellow member of the Commonwealth, to desist from giving support to international terrorists operating in Sri Lanka; and (3) call upon the agents of Sri Lankan separatism in Australia to cease transporting an internal Sri Lankan problem into Australia and creating dissension amongst Australian citizens of Sri Lankan origin. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jull. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That managed logging in the Tasmanian National Estate forests is essential for the economic and social well-being of Tasmanians. That controlled logging of the Tasmanian National Estate forests can proceed without adversely affecting the other multiple role uses of forests. That without the harvesting of sawlog and other timber from the Tasmanian National Estate forests, the jobs of thousands of Tasmanians would be put at risk and the export income capacity of the industry greatly reduced. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should: Honour the recent agreement made between the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania regarding timber resource use in Tasmania. Accept the agreed management plans established by the Tasmanian National Estate areas. Reject the emotional and misleading arguments put forward by radical conservationists who want to increase the area of the already large Tasmanian National Parks by including the National Estate areas within them. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Kerin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. 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 whereas: (a) Aboriginal and Islander languages, which numbered approximately 260 when Europeans first arrived, are even more seriously endangered-already 145 have become extinct. (b) English-speaking population expansion and English-speaking mass media expansion threatens the survival of the remaining languages of Australia. (c) Aboriginal languages reflect an ethos that is truly Australian and unless steps are taken to implement language maintenance, this ethos will be lost not only to Aborigines but to non-Aboriginal Australians, and to the world. We humbly pray the Government to: 1. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide $300,000 per annum for a guaranteed period of ten years to enable the Aboriginal community of Australia to establish a co-ordinating body to implement steps to prevent the extinction of the remaining languages, and to introduce programmes which will enable these languages to continue into the future for the sake of all Australians. This body will enable us to maximise existing financial, material and human resources, and is the least expensive way of implementing urgently needed maintenance programmes. 2. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide finance for the establishment of Regional Language Centres-ten are urgently needed-cost $200,000 each. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purposes for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Macphee. To: The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament We herewith draw your attention to the discriminatory situation of foreign medical practitioners in Australia. The recently imposed limit of examination attempts to three in number makes Australia the only country in the world that has a limit on such examinations. Some of the doctors who have been trying unsuccessfully to sit for examinations have already worked successfully in hospitals in Victoria for four years with temporary registration. Their ability in practical work has already been tested yet they find it difficult to pass written multiple choice examinations that employ the special examination techniques they are not familiar with. In the assessment of the written examination no standard pass mark is given. The pass rate is being kept extremely low i.e. less than ten per cent. After the failed attempt at written examination the candidates are not given an opportunity to see examination papers so they are unaware of the mistakes they have made. The structure of the examination is such that if candidates fail some of the subjects they have to repeat a full examination including the subjects they passed. This makes the preparation more difficult and frustrating especially for people who have to pass examinations in a foreign language. The application fee of $500.00 for each attempt of a written examination which is conducted at University of Melbourne with four to five supervisors and is then checked by computer is unreasonably high and this expense is difficult to meet by people who are not given an opportunity to work. There is no access to the hospitals for the majority of foreign doctors and no proper training course is conducted. Such courses are available in other countries where the examination if required is conducted on completion of the training course. It would not be that expensive for the Australian Community to have a one to two year duration training course for doctors who have completed their six year medical course overseas and have extensive practical experience in medicine. There is a group of refugee doctors here who went through the terrible ordeal and nervous stress prior to coming to Australia. They are given the same unfriendly treatment here as all foreign doctors even though they are unable to return to the country of origin. Australia is the only country they belong to now. They brought here their families, their hopes, their desires to be valuable members of the Australian Community and to keep serving people as medical practitioners. It seems a pitiful waste of human resources and brain power in Australia, a community that needs Doctors, who can speak the language and know cultural traditions of the Australian multi-cultural society. Foreign doctors are not given their chance to work. We are prepared to work in remote areas anywhere we are needed. There is a critical shortage of foreign speaking psychiatrists for example. The jobs are advertised overseas and psychiatrists are being brought here on temporary contracts. Some of us would only be happy to specialize in psychiatry especially as some of us have already had experience in working for the Mental Health Department for a period of four years as Medical Officers. Your Petitioners therefore Pray that appropriate measures will be taken to improve the procedure of foreign doctors registration in Australia, the country of migrants. by Mr Macphee. 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 ``Australian Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. we condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Porter. 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 Operation Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions on a reasonable sliding scale equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that persistent rumour suggests that the Hawke Government intends to reduce Government expenditure by contracting or eliminating programs for war veterans and war widows. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women by: Ensuring no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Reviewing the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceeding with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a nuclear test moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers. That such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to: 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the Establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Scott. 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: That we are dissatisfied with the present Federal Government's policy on Community Languages. And request that the Australian Government take urgent steps to formulate and approve a policy for the teaching of Community Languages, on a permament basis in the day schools, in order to safeguard the linguistic and cultural heritage of all Australians. Moreover, with the present petition, we request that Community Languages Resources Centres be instituted, to operate within communities, in order to assist schools in the implementation of Community Languages programmes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Webster. 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: We the undersigned residents of Australia totally reject any move to cut funding to Australia-wide English as a Second Language programs in schools. We request that the Australian government restore funding to the 1985 level in the 1986-87 budget. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Western Australia call on the Commonwealth Government to reverse recent decisions which deny Secondary Allowances to Year 11 students under the age of 16 years and make such allowances directly payable to students on attaining the age of 16. This request is made on the basis that: (i) Education Benefits as part of income support benefits generally are a Commonwealth responsibility under the constitution. (ii) It is the right of parents with children in Year 11 in Western Australia to receive the same benefits as parents with children at the equivalent stage of their education in other parts of Australia irrespective of their age. (iii) This decision by the Commonwealth Government will impact most unfairly on the capacity of low income families in Western Australia to keep their children at school in Years 11 and 12. (iv) Direct payment of the allowance to 16 year olds will make it easier for young people to leave home and bring more pressure on State Authorities to find alternative accommodation for them at the community and taxpayers' expense. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of Dawson respectfully shows that while most urban areas of Australia enjoy ABC FM radio transmission, the Mackay region of Queensland is still deprived of this facility. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will immediately take steps to rectify transmission anomalies which continue to prevent approximately 100,000 potential listeners in this region from receiving this service. by Mr Braithwaite. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: Labor's increase in the cost of health care for Australian families and the failure of Medicare to provide adequate health services. 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 PORTER(Barker)(3.38) —Today's matter of public importance is about the Hawke Government's policies which are failing miserably to address the major health issues worrying all Australians. Firstly, under Labor the out- of-pocket cost of health care is increasing at an unprecedented rate, and no relief is in sight. Secondly, families and individuals face the insecurity of not knowing whether they will be able to get a bed in a public hospital when they really need one. Thirdly, there is a growing fear in our community of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and the concern is about the lack of Government action. Fourthly, the Government's drug campaign has failed to attack the burgeoning drug problem. There is growing despair that the policies being pursued by the Government offer no hope. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is adamant that he will not change. It will be more of the same-no changes to Medicare, further substantial increases in the personal cost of health and no relief from the long public hospital queues. Australian parents are looking for relief from the high cost of health care. They are looking for the security that comes from knowing that their family's health care needs will be met. They can find neither in Labor's health policy. They are demoralised and depressed. The cost of health services under this Government has skyrocketed. Personal expenditure on health grew faster than any other group in the consumer price index in the last calendar year-a 26 per cent increase. Most of the increase is a result of the Government's action. For example, Labor has eliminated 50 drugs from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme forcing pensioners to pay for basic drugs for the first time. Labor has increased the patient contribution for drugs from a maximum of $5 to $10 per prescription. Labor has increased the maximum patient contribution for doctors' visits-the gap-from $10 to $20. Labor has increased the Medicare levy by 25 per cent despite its promise not to do so. At a time when people are looking to private hospitals for treatment because of the long public hospital queues, the Government has ripped $140m out of the private hospital system forcing up private hospital fees and in turn pushing up health fund premiums. Mr Braithwaite —It is trying to bankrupt them out of business. Mr PORTER —It is indeed. As I said at Question Time, the average wage earner who prior to Medicare was paying $9.66 a week for his medical and hospital cover is today paying $14.30. Labor has increased that man's health insurance costs by 50 per cent in just three years. Given the fact that Australians are now paying more for health care in this country, are they getting better care? The answer is neatly summarised in an article in yesterday's Age headed `In need of elective surgery? You'll be 34,309th in line'. Mr Carlton —It is a disgrace. Mr PORTER —It is a disgrace. With waiting times of up to three years in Victoria and with Press reports of 21 people dying waiting for heart surgery in Sydney last year one would think this Government would want to take some action-but no. The only response from the Minister-and he gave it again today-is to blame a supposed shortage of doctors in some areas and a shortage of nurses in others. Is it not extraordinary? There are no such shortages in the private hospitals. In fact, the private hospitals have spare capacity; they have empty beds; they can handle more people. But Medicare has forced 1.8 million people to leave the private health insurance funds. Of course now they are reliant on the public hospital system. As a result we have 100,000 people trapped in public hospital Medicare queues and the Minister has done nothing to assist in overcoming those queues. In fact, the actions he has taken have exacerbated the crisis. All he does is continue to push up the cost of private beds. The one thing that all people in those queues have in common is that they carry the Medicare card. The Medicare card is not worth the plastic it is printed on. The desperation of so many in those queues is heightened by the fact that they have no option. This Government has locked them into Medicare and into paying the Medicare levy. They do not have the choice of purchasing the insurance cover they desire to meet their needs and health preferences. Middle and low income families are caught in a poverty trap because they cannot afford to pay the levy and private health insurance premiums which is the only way they will gain the security of knowing they can access a hospital bed when they need it. Immediate action needs to be taken to take the pressure off our failing public hospital system. People must be allowed to gain access to the empty beds in the private sector and we will provide them with that choice. The coalition will reduce the queues by allowing people to opt out of Medicare and to take out private insurance instead. Those who do so will be granted tax relief. Levy payers who opt for private insurance will gain access to a private bed which is denied them by Medicare. The third issue about which there is growing concern is the spread of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The question being asked is: Is the Government doing enough? The Government is spending so much on its foolhardy Medicare program that it now says it cannot afford to fund the really needy areas. Only yesterday Professor Penington, Chairman of the National AIDS Taskforce, said that funding for research into AIDS needed to be doubled to minimise the financial and human cost of the disease in Australia. He said that our expenditure on research was relatively low compared with other like countries. Professor Penington is sounding a dire warning but the Government is turning a deaf ear. Action must be taken now. There is also growing concern about the action the Hawke Government has taken to combat the use of illegal drugs which are continuing to tear at the fabric of our community. Whilst the Government announced with great fanfare that it would spend $100m over three years on a drug campaign, too much of that money is being squandered on glitter, public relations, advisory groups, secretariats and grant grabbers positioned between the Government and the street level. Despite advice that its public relations campaign was likely to have a negative effect-I understand it got advice from two public relations firms that that was the case-because such a campaign was likely to promote interest in illegal drugs, the Government, nevertheless, pushed ahead with its $13m campaign. Meanwhile existing competent, practical, informed and effective organisations fighting the use of drugs at the street level and providing rehabilitation services, especially for our young people, have largely been passed over in this campaign. Instead of granting the funds to proven and capable organisations, grants have been frittered away on a vast array of new, well-meaning organisations with limited skills, limited experience and no idea as to how to gauge their effectiveness. Most have not even established criteria to ensure that they produce results. In addition some of the new organisations are merely duplicating the work of others. The Government has clearly failed to mount an effective attack against drug abuse. Not only has the Government failed to inspire the community with its so-called attack on illegal drugs, but also its handling of the granting of market approval for legal drugs is a matter of real concern. The cost blowout of Medicare has been so great that the Government has desperately tried to cut expenditure in other areas within the health portfolio. The Minister has therefore been pushing his Department to approve generic drugs for use in Australia instead of patent drugs because generic drugs are cheaper. Two years ago Dr Hall from the Department of Health went to the Gestalt Laboratory in South Africa to check the reliability of data which that laboratory was supplying in support of a number of generic drug applications for Australian market approval. Dr Hall's report indicated that there was real concern about the competence of the researcher involved in that laboratory and doubts about the validity of the data being presented. Nevertheless, the Minister buried the report and approvals for at least another four generic drugs were granted, based on data from the Gestalt Laboratory. It was only on 20 November last year-nearly two years later-when the report on the Gestalt Laboratory was leaked to the Press and a report appeared in the Press that the Minister was forced to act. Suddenly, the next day he withdrew the drug glimel from the market even though he had approved it only six weeks earlier on the basis of data from the Gestalt Laboratory. Subsequently, in January this year he warned doctors not to prescribe another 33 generic drugs for which market approval was granted based on information from the Gestalt Laboratory. It has taken the Minister two years to act on a report that he had in February 1985. It is a scandal that he failed to act in February when that report was provided to his Department and it is a scandal that he has continued to suppress the report. It was only after the Minister's cover was blown by the leaking of the report to the Press that he acted. Even now he refuses to come clean and release the report. No government should be allowed to push drugs on to the Australian community based on doubtful data regarding their safety and efficacy. There must be a full and open inquiry into the approval process within the Department of Health to ensure that no Minister for Health can again put cost considerations before the safety of the Australian people as this Minister has done with generic drug approvals. With skeletons like this in the Minister's cupboard, no wonder he has been trying to get himself transferred to another ministry. His administration of the Health portfolio has been a disaster. There is no confidence in the Government's handling of these vital health issues. The Hawke Government has totally failed to take the initiatives necessary to confront the Medicare-induced problems bedevilling our deteriorating health system. Initiatives must be taken to halt the dramatic Government-inspired increases in the cost of health care and pressure must be taken off our demoralised public hospital system. This can be achieved by allowing people to opt out of Medicare, thereby reducing the queues and increasing the use of private hospital beds. That, of course, is coalition policy which will be implemented after the next election. We will give people the opportunity to opt out of Medicare, to go back to private insurance and to gain access to the private hospitals which have spare capacity, instead of locking especially low income earners into long public hospital queues as this Minister has done. What does he care about it? Absolutely nothing. He has done absolutely nothing to overcome those public hospital queues. Normally he blames the States; today he blamed the doctors and the nurses. Yet is it not extraordinary that the queues have trebled only since the introduction of Medicare? They have trebled only in the past three years. It is just a coincidence, he says. And it has not happened in just Victoria and New South Wales; it has happened in every State in Australia. Medicare is the problem, not the doctors, the nurses or even the public hospital administrators. Medicare has forced people out of private health insurance into becoming reliant on a public hospital system which cannot cope with the demand. Not enough money is being spent by this Government on AIDS research because money is being wasted in other areas-for example, within areas of the drug campaign. The Minister has shown a callous disregard for the safety of the Australian community by inappropriately approving some generic drugs for use in the community. It is time for a new broom, for new ideas and for new initiatives as well as a dedicated campaign to remedy the ills of this Government's failed health care policy. Australians deserve better, and they will get it from a coalition government. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(3.52) —Having listened to the usual tirade, it is clear that we will not get from this Opposition new ideas, worthwhile policies or the kinds of health developments that this country needs. Once again we have heard an almost totally negative speech from the Opposition. There was scarcely a single idea on how it would meet the very real health problems that face this society. I must say that the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) did at least broaden his attack on the Government by discussing a few issues that he has not previously dealt with. I think that simply reveals the lack of credibility he has throughout the health community in this country. In relation to the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, the work of this Government in very difficult circumstances and in difficult economic times has been recognised internationally. We are considered to have taken some of the most effective responses to this disease of any country. Such comments have been made by independent observers at the United Nations, including within the World Health Organisation. As to the shortage of funds for AIDS research, of course we will need more money for that; but let me say that this Government has met every worthwhile proposal for AIDS research and we have indicated to the AIDS Task Force that it merely needs to come forward with properly evaluated and worthwhile research proposals and we will find the money, and we will do so as part of what has been, until today, a very effective bipartisan effort to deal with this problem. It has been a bipartisan approach not only by the Government and the Opposition here in the Federal centre but also around the country. We cannot fight the scourge of AIDS without the active co-operation of the State governments. The honourable member for Barker also raised the national Government's drug offensive. This came, oddly and ironically, from the member of a party which did nothing at the national level to develop policies to deal with the drug problems in this country. Never before 1985 was there a national effort to tackle the total problem of drugs. One of the great pleasures I have when going around the country these days is travelling from local community to local community to see the expansion at the grass roots level of services. The honourable member does not realise that in the last 12 to 15 months there has been a quiet revolution in support, rehabilitation and treatment services right around this country. That is exemplified in every State. Insofar as some criticisms have been made of the choice of projects, in nearly every case that choice has been made by the State governments, because we believe in a co-operative health policy and as part of our drugs campaign we said that we would share the costs of this expansion. The State governments and the local people know the situation on the ground; they have to make the decisions. Again, I have not the slightest doubt that history will record that 1985 marked a major step forward by this nation in tackling the problem of drug abuse. The third new element of the honourable member's contribution concerned the issues of generic drugs. I will not deal with that at length today; I merely say that this Government has continued with the Fraser Government's policies on generic drugs. In no way have those policies been altered, although increasingly, as is the case with every other segment of the health sphere, one has to look at the mess the previous Government left behind. As I announced today, an independent inquiry by the Public Service Board, outside of the Department of Health, will look into the whole evaluation process as it has developed over time. That will give us a new start in this area, just as we have made a new start in regard to Medicare, pharmaceutical benefits and drug abuse. I now turn to the usual material that fills every one of the honourable member's speeches on health policies. There is nothing new, nothing creative; we have the same old set of cliches. All around the country everybody, even our critics, believes that this Opposition has no credibility in regard to health policy-for one reason: It has no health policy. It has spent four years in opposition but it has not been able to produce a credible health policy. What we get-we got it again from the honourable member today-are mealy-mouthings about how the Opposition would pander to the well-off. Members of the Opposition sometimes disguise that, they sometimes hide it; but in essence they are saying that they will pander to the well-off and pander to the vested interests in the health field-the private doctors, the private hospitals and the private insurers. There is no doubt that the sort of vague health schemes that they talk about, or which they allow their think tanks to leak or suggest to the papers under pressure, would reduce the cost of health cover to the wealthy. But they would considerably increase costs for middle income earners and would involve very heavy payments for low income earners. Today a low income family can have complete and adequate health cover for approximately $6 a week-around $2.50 less than the cost three years ago, despite all the problems of inflation this society has faced. Of course, those sorts of people do not concern the members of the Opposition. They are not concerned with the fact that as a result of Medicare two million more people were able to gain health cover. Those people had no health cover at all before we came to power. So all they would do is alter the way people pay for their health cover, and that would mean that middle income earners and the less well-off would have to pay more while no doubt the better-off would pay less. Insofar as one can detect anything at all in the Opposition's three years or ramblings about health policies, it appears to promise us a return to the chaos of the Fraser years-that is, five health schemes in seven years. One of the difficulties in comparing our scheme with any of the previous schemes is that none of the five schemes of the previous Government had a life beyond 20 months. That is the same as the situation we are now promised. Indeed, when the final change was made-that is, in 1981 when cost sharing with the States was ended-there was such an explosion in health costs that we saw the biggest increase in charges for private hospital beds that we had seen in this country in the last 15 years. In 1981 they went through the roof. As a result of those five policies in seven years, the Fraser Government finished up with two million people totally without cover. They had no access to the provisions for the deprived and they had no health care cover. That is what the Opposition is proposing again, the same sort of instability. When the honourable member for Barker does say something positive, it is usually: `We will allow people to opt out of Medicare'. That is what the Opposition did in 1976, and that scheme lasted for a bare two years. Indeed, all the Opposition's talk about saving on Medicare I think was dealt with quite succinctly yesterday in the Sydney Morning Herald. I quote the article by Mr Ross Gittins: Mr Howard- and, I would add, our friend from Barker- has developed a new line: Why, we could save $2 billion just by abolishing Medicare. Perhaps we could, but we could do it only by reverting to the old position where everyone had to take out private hospital and medical insurance. We could wipe $2 billion off the Commonwealth Budget by adding $2 billion to the budget of the nation's households. Not only would it be added; it would be added in a totally unfair way. The basis of Medicare is that people make their contribution to that $2 billion through an income related levy. The private insurance system involves flat rate insurance. So not only would the consumers be saved nothing; a burden would be imposed on them in a most unfair way. Not that anyone worries much any more what the honourable member for Barker says about health costs because in the last year he has proved himself almost completely innumerate on health costs. Last year, between February and May-I can supply the dates if anyone would like to check-he had no fewer then seven guesstimates on health cost overruns. In one Press release, which was his best, he said that bulk billing would blow out the Budget by up to $300m. One has only to examine the seven widely ranging guesstimates to see how innumerate this man is. He tried the same practice this year. In the Budget debate he said: The Government has consistently underestimated medical expenditure under Medicare, and this year's Budget is no exception. He went on to suggest that we had cooked the books. He said: . . . its all-out effort to present a low Budget deficit figure. Has the Government again cooked the books? I am very pleased to say that the Medicare budget is running on target. It is in fact $2m or $3m below, but with the size of the total budget I will not claim that we are under budget. We are on budget, despite the allegations that somehow we have cooked the books. These allegations were made without any real basis. They were made from a lack of understanding of the health care system and the Medicare system. The latest effort of the honourable member for Barker is to try to claim that families are worse off under Medicare than under the previous health insurance arrangements. I have pointed out that the almost 50 per cent of Australian families who have only the Medicare levy are in fact $2.50 a week better off than they were three years ago. Let us deal with just his more general claims about the impact of Medicare on the consumer price index. If we analyse the consumer price index from 1980-81 to the December quarter 1986, it gives us the great advantage of looking at the impact of the Opposition's schemes and the impact of our scheme. The analysis shows that costs in the CPI rose much more under the Fraser schemes than they have since the introduction of Medicare on 1 February 1984. To use 1980-81 as a base index of 100, the following figures show the true impact of the Opposition's health policy compared with Medicare. For the health services group, the index had increased to 184.1 by June 1983. A year later, in June 1984, the first full quarter of Medicare, the health services group had dropped to 102.7 and by December 1986 had increased to only 138.4. Even if we take the health and personal care index, which includes the cost of pharmaceuticals, the index had increased to 167.9 by December 1983, had dropped to 118.2 by June 1984 and still-taking them all in-had reached only 153.6 by December 1986. Mr Porter —What happens if you add in the levy? Dr BLEWETT —The Opposition talks about the levy. There is not a single criticism of the fact that the decisions we made in relation to the Medicare levy were major elements in wage restraint in this society in 1984. It is quite clear that the deliberate policy which the Opposition is now advocating again-that is, shifting costs back from the public on to the private sector-has a much more serious impact on the CPI than the policies produced since the introduction of Medicare. If health care is put back on the private sector and private insurance, once more we will see inflation in this country fuelled by the health policies of the Opposition as they were fuelled by the Fraser Government. In the six-year period I mentioned, the increase in the health area was still below the increase in the areas of food, clothing, housing, household equipment and transport. Other areas of expenditure increased more dramatically in that period. I turn finally to the cost involved in the one policy which has been suggested-allowing people to opt out into private health insurance. Given the $2 billion saving which the Opposition talks about, the average cost of basic private insurance will be approximately $27 a week. If the Medicare element is taken off the Budget and people are allowed to opt out and to buy private insurance, it will cost something like $27 a week. Opposition members know that the only way they can sell that policy-it crept into the speech of the honourable member for Barker today-is by providing tax relief, which would eat up all the savings. I did such an analysis in the House for the Opposition last year. Once the Opposition moves in that direction and tries to reduce the cost of private insurance it loses all the savings and leaves us with an inequitable system whereby the poor have to pay as much for their health insurance as the well off. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(4.07) —The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has failed lamentably to answer the criticism offered so justifiably by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) this afternoon on this critical issue of the increase in health costs and the care of families in Australia under the present Medicare scheme. He has provided a catalogue of charges which deserve a positive answer by the Minister. We have heard this callous, dictatorial Minister clutching at his socialist health philosophy for the last 24 months, since he found very conclusively that the cost of the Medicare scheme was out of hand. In the last Budget he attempted to cover up. Since then he has offered nothing more or less than a flimsy and certainly badly based excuse for the out of hand situation in the health area. Let us consider the catalogue put down by the honourable member for Barker. He referred to the queues that are getting longer, the cost increases, the impact on the family and the tremendous impact on the consumer price index of health care costs. Yet what did the Minister say? He repeated something he said earlier in Question Time today and that was that the Opposition should come up with a policy to solve the problems in the health area and particularly in the public hospital area. What is the Minister clutching at? He says that the Opposition should come up with a policy; yet he had the opportunity this afternoon to answer in respect of this crisis and he failed to do so. We have the policies all right, but those policies will be very dependent on interlocking with the whole approach to the crisis that we face with the total economy of this country. The honourable member for Barker understands that. He is not making foolish statements. He is stating very clearly what the problems are. The first step towards alleviating them is to free the people of this country from the imposition of the Medicare scheme as it is today. The answer is simple. The number of people, particularly those with families, who have had to take out health insurance to feel the security that they need has increased dramatically. I understand that in excess of 47 per cent of people in the category of lower income earners have now taken out their own private health cover. The Minister has failed to acknowledge or to recognise that. He uses words such as: `The policy of the Opposition is merely to look after the rich of this country and to ignore the poor'. He is the one who is ignoring the poor of this country. He is the one who is leaving a noose around the neck of every one of those people who need public hospital treatment-those with young families, those who need to know that they have security in health and hospital treatment. That security is not there today. The costs are astronomical. What of the pensioners of this country who are facing ever-increasing costs in respect of their medication. They are expressing great concern about it. The Minister ignores that. Then we move on to the whole spectrum of the availability of health care. We find that there is total disaster in the public hospital system as a consequence of Medicare. We find that there is a shortage not only of nurses but particularly of resident doctors. In the past three months the crisis in New South Wales in hospital after hospital has been evident. There have been closures of high risk surgical sections in the metropolitan areas and there has been a contraction in the availability of resident doctors in most of the public hospitals. Why? The answer is that there is now a shortage of resident doctors, of people coming into the system, because of the changes that have been made in the public hospital system as a consequence of Medicare. There has not been one word about that in the Minister's response to the honourable member for Barker this afternoon. I move on to another very critical area. The honourable member for Barker expressed concern about the growing threat of acquired immune deficiency syndrome in this country, about the concern of the public and of those who are charged with the real responsibility of meeting this crisis. Those who are involved in this critical situation today in Australia understand the position in a very dramatic way, if we can take the statements that have been made by them. What did the Minister offer in this regard? He offered excuses for not giving the States sufficient financial assistance to carry out a real campaign against the AIDS crisis. When it got down to tintacks he said: `Oh, of course, there must be some responsibility for this at the State level'. Of course there must be, but the States need the wherewithal and a positive approach that is acceptable to the whole community, not just to some sections of it. I put one question to the Minister: Why is it that we are not seeing initiated, under his jurisdiction, a campaign that, for example, incorporates blood testing in high risk areas? No, that would be too difficult politically. It would upset some friends in the area that is so important to him-that matter of the philosophy of his side of politics. We must not have compulsion; we must not have anything that requires people to face up to the real responsibility. Let me remind him about past Ministers for Health in this country. I go back even to Sir Earle Page and to a number of his successors. Once there was a Federal approach initiated in this very House to deal with the health problems of this country. Let us remember what was done about the tuberculosis campaign. It was not that long ago. We all had to face up to a chest X-ray. The notice arrived in the mail and we were screened to ascertain whether we needed something to be done about our health. There was an obligation on us. What are we doing about AIDS? We are not doing a damn thing in respect of the real responsibility and where it ought to be placed-on the individuals of this country, particularly those in the high risk area. We get the nonsense about issuing needles for those who might be in the unfortunate situation where they are addicted to drugs. So we give them free issues to lessen the risk of infection. What about some compulsory blood testing of people in those high risk areas? It should be carried out effectively in this country. The Government should take heed of what has been said by the honourable member for Barker about the need for a real policy on the part of the Government and real support for those who are fighting this scourge before it is too late for this country. I come back to the fundamental of the financing of health care and all that goes with it-the hospital system and the requirements to enable families and particularly the very needy, to get a proper health care system. Today we have a mishmash, such a mess at both Federal and State levels that something has to be done about it. There is one answer and one answer only; A change in the philosophy of those responsible. The honourable member for Barker has put forward a case and a very sound and positive proposition it is: Start making changes now before it is too late. The Minister says: `But the Government's policy now is to introduce a new inquiry into the needs of health policy in this country'. What a joke! That is no proposition at all, the Government is taking no responsibility. We will have yet another inquiry. Yet the Minister has the hide to say that the Opposition has no policy. All he is doing is denying the fundamentals of what has been put forward by the Opposition and what has effectively been put forward by the honourable member for Barker. It is time that the community understood this. I am sure the reality is growing rapidly, day by day, and the Minister's tyrannical approach is certainly being denied by the majority of the electors of this country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(4.17) —I am not entirely sure whether the honourable member who has just spoken, the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson), was advocating the same sort of program with blood testing as we had with compulsory X-rays which, I might remind him, were abandoned as being more dangerous than helpful in the fight against tuberculosis. Does he feel that it would be an adequate answer to the problem-he might faint on the floor if we decided to do this-to put free condoms in every public place. That might be a little more practical and not nearly so much an intrusion on one's privacy. The very terms of this matter of public importance raised by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) simply do not make sense. The honourable member is concerned that Medicare fails to provide adequate health services. Medicare is not a provider of health services. I would have thought that that was blindingly clear. Medicare is a universal health insurance scheme, making it possible for every Australian to receive a repayment for the cost of health services provided by doctors of various types and through payments to the States to provide free of cost public hospital treatment. I do not know why an insurance scheme should be seen to be, or be expected to be, a provider of health services. I think that every provider of health services in this country would be rather opposed to the notion that the Health Insurance Commission should be providing health services. Other health insurance schemes, including Medibank Private-by far the best of them all, in my opinion-enable those who can afford to do so to take advantage of health services in addition to those covered by Medicare. None of the health insurance schemes provides health care; they provide insurance to help cover costs. The States provide public health care in the form of public hospitals, clinics and community health centres. It seems from the terms of the matter of public importance that the honourable member for Barker has a problem with clear thinking, but then we have all known that for some time. Yes, there are problems with parts of our health care systems, and there are reasons for those problems, which have nothing at all to do with health insurance. They are supply and demand problems. Of course, there is an area of health care in which there are few problems, and that is the area of general practitioner consultation. There is no shortage of GPs. The supply is sufficient to meet the demand; in fact I think it is an area of oversupply. The nature of the demand is fairly simple. GPs do not need several nurses each; they do not need beds for their patients; and they do not need the enormous infrastructure required by hospitals. So we have a more than adequate supply of practitioners, simple technologies and modest support needs. We do not have a problem there. Medicare covers 85 per cent of the schedule fee, or the whole fee if the doctor chooses the very efficient direct billing system. Doctors can, and often do, choose to charge more than the schedule fee; that is a matter between doctor and patient. It is fortunate that there are doctors around who do choose the direct billing system. Whatever the choice of fee, the supply is equal to the demand placed on it. However, in some areas, as we all know, the demand is greater than the supply; that has been so for many years, as I will show later. Sometimes this is because the number of practitioners in the demand area is not enough, and that is often due to self-limitation by the professionals themselves. One of those examples is orthopaedic surgeons. We simply do not have enough coming through the colleges of surgery. We do not have enough radiologists for much the same sort of reason; in this country five new radiologists are accredited each year. In public hospitals the supply of beds is limited largely because of a shortage of trained nurses willing to accept the pay and conditions of that profession. It is interesting that the Opposition had nothing at all to say about that. It is time we realised that for many years our public hospitals have ridden on the backs of underpaid and overworked nurses whose pay and conditions in no way reflected their responsibilities. The redress that is now taking place, with nurse education having been removed from apprenticeship-type training to the tertiary education system, is a long overdue recognition of the reality of today's medical practices. The improvement in pay still has a long way to go to make nursing a sufficiently rewarding profession to attract sufficient entrants. Until that situation is properly resolved, public hospitals will continue to have empty beds. There are several other factors. I simply repeat what the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) told this House last November. General surgery has increased by 77 per cent in the last five years. The ability to repair human defects has increased so much that the demand has well and truly outstripped the supply of professionals able to deal with it. That has absolutely nothing to do with health insurance, but it has a great deal to do with waiting lists in hospitals. I would like to remind people that waiting lists in public hospitals have always been longer than desirable. For example, back in the 1960s, people had to wait sometimes for up to two years for admission for non-urgent surgery, and that was long before the explosion in medical technology which has led to that 77 per cent rise in general surgery in the last five years. However, we did not hear too much criticism then from the conservative parties, who were in government federally and in the States. It seems a bit odd that long delays were acceptable then but are now suddenly morally repugnant to them. Perhaps it has something to do with the conservative parties not being in government. However, I do not want to dismiss the problem of these delays for admission to public hospitals as not important. We have talked about one cause; I now want to talk about another. We are looking at an increase in medical technology. The sort of treatment that is able to be given has expanded and this has put a great strain on our hospital funds. We have all sorts of new techniques: Nuclear medical techniques, computerised treatment, CAT scanners and biochemical analysis. That has meant that not only do the treatment and diagnosis now take longer but also the costs have skyrocketed. I go back to the point that no State government has actually claimed that Medicare has caused increased waiting lists. The Royal Australian Nursing Federation does not claim that either; nor do the administrators of public hospitals claim that delays are caused by Medicare. We are looking at a decrease in productivity in hospitals. We are looking at the need to allocate a much greater proportion of hospital budgets to wages rather than treatment; that has been compounded by the shortage of qualified staff. In conclusion, I remind the House of the situation that existed before Medicare. A pensioner or beneficiary with a health card could obtain free of cost public hospital treatment, or at least he could get on to a waiting list. It is no wonder that that card was known as the poor card. If a person did not have a health card and could not afford private health insurance, he was probably one of the two million Australians who could not afford to make use of the available health services. Such people were taxpayers too, incidentally, but they fell into that dreadful hole created by conservative government policies. The inability of such people to cover the cost of medical services or to obtain insurance to assist with those costs was one of the most shameful features of the health insurance schemes of our predecessors. The fact that Medicare provides insurance cover for the cost of basic health services for everyone apparently offends the ideology of the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), who seems to have found no offence in the plight of those two million Australians. Yes, there are problems with the provision of appropriate health care for all Australians. But we have not heard, and will not hear, from the Opposition any useful debate on these matters; we have simply heard blind, ideologically biased opposition to the Medicare health insurance scheme only because it is an act of a Labor government fulfilling basic Labor Party policy-that no Australian should be unable to afford basic health care. That is our philosophy. That is our policy. We have carried it out. All of the side issues that the Opposition will not tackle-the increase in technology, the need to train more nurses and pay them a great deal more, the infrastructure required in hospitals today, the sophistication of training and the shortage in some specialist surgical areas-are of no interest to the Opposition. What the Opposition wants to say is that Medicare is to blame for waiting lists in hospitals, that Medicare is to blame for the acquired immune deficiency syndrome perhaps, that Medicare is to blame for the drug problem and that Medicare is to blame for everything that the health system, which is struggling to cope with difficulties in all areas, is encountering. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Dr BLEWETT —The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) alleged that I buried the Hall report. I deny that allegation. The record will show that I took action immediately the report was brought to my notice. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation I present the report of the Committee on Fiscal Measures and the Achievement of Environmental Objectives, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MILTON —by leave-I think it is fair to say that, when the Committee in the previous Parliament agreed to accept the fiscal measures reference from the Minister, it did not fully appreciate the potential scope of the inquiry or the importance of the matters that were to be investigated. However, it quickly became apparent that a very large number of environment issues were relevant to the inquiry and that existing or potential fiscal policies could affect environment protection and conservation in many ways. We had in fact possibly taken on an inquiry which was beyond our resources. We put the fiscal measures inquiry aside while we dealt with more urgent inquiries. But, even after we completed these other inquiries, we were able to make substantial progress with fiscal measures by only concentrating on those issues which received most attention in the submissions and which we judged would be fruitful areas to investigate. Of course, other matters were raised which we have not specifically considered in our report, although we have referred to them in a more general way. I think these matters, which include issues as diverse as energy conservation and water pollution, could be considered in the future. Before proceeding to discuss each of the environmental issues in turn I want to make some general comments about fiscal measures as environmental policy instruments and the role of economic considerations in the resolution of environmental problems. For some time now there has been a general awareness in the community and in government of the importance of conserving the environment. Although there is room to debate the environment and conservation role which is appropriate for the Commonwealth Government, bearing in mind State constitutional responsibilities, there is no doubt that the Commonwealth has dominant fiscal powers and we have found that these powers could be quite helpful in pursuing environmental objectives. In many case these powers would be just as useful or even more effective than the powers that the States have at their disposal in achieving environmental objectives. It would, in my view, be an evasion of responsibilities if these fiscal powers were not put to the best use in the national interest. Despite the limited direct Commonwealth powers in the environment and conservation area, we have seen the clear statement of environmental objectives and policies at the national level. Many conservation issues are seen as national issues and there has been ample demonstration of the need to co-ordinate programs such as soil conservation across the States. It is appropriate, therefore, to look in some detail at how the Commonwealth can become involved and to ensure that such involvement is both efficient and effective. Unfortunately, there has been a spectacular lack of success in progress and achievements. Whilst I am a strong supporter of developments such as the national conservation strategy and the national soil conservation program, I remain sceptical that much can be achieved until we have a proper awareness of the environmental problems and until we develop effective measures to implement policies. In this respect I believe that the 1986 report entitled State of the Environment in Australia, produced by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, together with an accompanying source book, is a big step forward in providing the necessary information to assist in the formulation and implementation of environmental protection policies. In this respect the inquiry into fiscal measures is also important. Our report does not repeat what we already know about these problems. For example, we do not pretend that we have revealed soil conservation as a very serious problem because this has already been appreciated by government. Nor have we just repeated calls for something to be done. But rather, we have looked at how we can take steps to implement those policies which are already reasonably well accepted. The Committee briefly considered the different approaches that could be taken to achieve environmental objectives. That is, we looked at whether direct regulation is preferable compared to indirect inducement by fiscal measures and whether or not we should apply the polluter pays principle. The Australian Mining Industry Council submitted that the adoption of the polluter pays principle has not been effective. Most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries provide some form of financial assistance for pollution control measures by way of government low interest loans, accelerated depreciation or other measures which contradict the essence of the polluter pays principle. The Mining Industry Council suggested that the subsidised situation in other countries contrasts badly with that in Australia and suggested that in terms of environment protection and pollution control the Australian mining industry is highly regulated and thus at a competitive disadvantage. The problem seems to be not so much with the polluter pays principle as such, which seems to make good sense, but with the way the principle is applied or even avoided in some countries. It is a matter of some regret that other countries may not be adhering to all the elements of the principle and that this places Australia at a disadvantage. Although it would be preferable to conform to the principle, the Committee considers that it would be in Australia's interest in some special circumstances to adopt measures which would appear to conflict with the polluter pays principle. An important example of this is the cost of mine site rehabilitation. (Quorum formed) It is most disappointing that the Opposition finds it necessary to disturb the proceedings of the House by calling quorums. I assure all the listeners to the broadcast of these proceedings that this will go on time and again because the Opposition's whole aim, the only thing it seems to be able to do, is to try to disturb the proper proceedings of government. I will continue with my report on fiscal measures and the achievement of environmental objectives. In respect of mine site rehabilitation the Committee found the existing taxation provisions to be somewhat deficient. We accordingly recommended that there be a review of these provisions and that there should be appropriate taxation deductions for the costs of rehabilitation or for the cost associated with setting aside funds to cover anticipated rehabilitation at the end of the economic life of the mine. The Committee is also aware that in some cases the polluter pays principle may be difficult to apply-for example, with some soil erosion problems where the point source and individual contributions to erosion are difficult to identify. Therefore, the remedial measures which may have to be taken will be at a cost to the community that cannot be passed on. The difficulties with the polluter pays principle which I have cited are limited exceptions and do not detract from the need to use the principle as a general guide in our environmental and conservation decision-making. I would now like to briefly discuss those matters which we have reported on in some detail. The environmental issues which we have examined are commercial forestry, tree planting and general vegetation conservation in rural areas, soil conservation and land degradation, and heritage conservation. In each case we discussed taxation provisions but we also looked at other fiscal measures. The competing demands on our forests have in recent times generated some considerable debate within the community. For the future we need to be able to conserve our forests and in some cases protect them from logging altogether. We also need to ensure a continuing supply of timber for the wood-based industries. To achieve this we need to give more attention to privately owned forests. At present there are few incentives, and indeed there are outright disincentives, to the retention and proper management of privately owned and potentially productive native forests. In particular, the taxation provisions and various interpretations of the Income Tax Assessment Act made by the courts actually encourage land owners to either neglect or clear fall any existing native forest on their properties. The tax provisions also include disincentives which inhibit land owners who want to reafforest land that has been previously cleared. We considered all these matters in some detail and recommended that the taxation measures be reviewed to remove all provisions which act as either incentives for forest clearing or disincentives to the sound management of privately owned native forest. We also believe that taxation measures must ensure that gains from timber harvesting are treated equally under the Income Tax Assessment Act, regardless of whether the land was obtained with the intention of falling the forest or maintaining it. We considered the question of plantations, and although there are some environmental problems, the establishment of either native or even exotic softwood plantations on previously cleared land is a more attractive alternative than clear falling State owned native forest. There are financial problems here as well. We have recommended that the taxation provisions which apply to plantation forestry, particularly plantations of native species, be reviewed to remove existing disincentives and to introduce incentives for environmentally acceptable plantation establishments on previously cleared agricultural land. As I mentioned previously, we also considered the question of the retention of remnants of native vegetation and tree planting in rural areas for purposes other than commercial forestry. There are many benefits to be obtained from these activities and to a certain extent they have been recognised by the creation of the national tree program. We found that the benefits include the control of soil erosion, reduction in soil salinity and soil acidification, less siltation of reservoirs and the maintenance of wildlife habitats, including the encouragement of insects feeding birds, which are important to agricultural pest control. There are also benefits which individual land holders might reap, including increased livestock and crop production due to increased shelter; honey production; the provision of emergency stock fodder; and a supply of firewood and fencing material. Despite these benefits and recent public education campaigns, it seems that the assistance programs which have so far made available by the Commonwealth and some States give insufficient attention to vegetation conservation or the adverse impacts of land clearing. We have recommended that the taxation provisions which could apply to tree planting and vegetation conservation for nature and soil conservation purposes need to be reviewed, and that tree planting and vegetation retention be encouraged by the provision of taxation incentives to land holders. I consider that the most serious problem we examined was soil erosion and land degradation. The extent of soil erosion has been well documented and the rural community and governments are aware that it is a serious matter. However, the problem seems so overwhelming that governments have been stunned into inaction by the immensity of the problem. To a certain extent we have also been lulled into a false sense of security because the problem seems to be long term and, therefore, could be left for someone else to deal with at a future time. Until we can influence the behaviour of individual land holders in a significant way, the problem will only get worse. There have been calls for action, and the development of the Government's national soil conservation program, which provides assistance to the States, is a most welcome and timely development. But there is much more which can and should be done. The Committee found that once again the taxation provisions provide an excellent opportunity to put remedial policies into practice. We recommended that the Commonwealth, in consultation with the States, review all aspects of Commonwealth and State soil conservation programs to develop an integrated, comprehensive and effective program. A principal element of this review should be a comprehensive revision of existing taxation provisions and the introduction of new taxation measures, particularly rebates and tax credits. The final matter which we have dealt with in our report is heritage conservation. By this I am referring principally to the conservation of the built heritage in the form of historic buildings. This is another area where there is widespread agreement that conservation activity is worth while. For some time now people have been calling for action on the taxation front to encourage the owners of heritage properties to preserve and maintain these assets. We agree with this view and we recommended that the Commonwealth Government develop a tax rebate provision for expenditure on certified conservation works on properties listed on the Register of the National Estate. We also recommended that the Commonwealth Government, in consultation with the States, establish a jointly funded revolving fund to provide loans to State national trusts to acquire and renovate historic properties. Mrs Darling —We did that in Queensland. Mr MILTON —As the honourable member for Lilley has mentioned, that has been done in Queensland. That is one positive thing amongst, unfortunately, a number of negative things that have happened in Queensland. I have referred to only some of the Committee's recommendations. There are many others. I do not suggest that any of them will be easy to implement. There will need to be considerable co-operation between elements of the Australian Public Service and between the three levels of government in Australia. If this co-operation can be achieved and our recommendations put in place, I believe that we will have a more effective, efficient and comprehensive approach to environmental conservation. Before finishing, I have pleasure in once again thanking the Committee secretariat for its outstanding work, particularly Mr Ian Dundas, who was secretary to this inquiry. Regrettably, Mr Dundas has transferred to the Standing Committee on Expenditure secretariat, which will gain from his skills. We are sorry that he is leaving us, but we wish him well. I commend the report to the House. Mr MILES(Braddon) —by leave-I commend to the House the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation report entitled `Fiscal Measures and the Achievement of Environmental Objectives'. I would like to highlight a few points in that report. As has been pointed out by the Committee's Chairman, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), the purpose of this inquiry was to look into fiscal measures which influence environmental matters. We looked at a wide range of matters, including forestry conservation, vegetation conservation, land degradation and heritage conservation. It was interesting that we found that, the Treasury in particular, when making decisions about the environment, often uses a set of criteria which assumes that our national resources are unending. As a nation, when we make wise, sensible judgments about economic policies, we must also remember that our environment has not got an unlimited supply of natural resources such as forestry or timber products and soil. Just as we have overcut our forestry resources, partly because of the economic policies of this nation in the 1930s and 1940s when we thought that our resources were unlimited-we now find that they are terribly limited-we are also diminishing our soil resources. At the moment we do not appreciate that our soil resources, just like our timber resources, are unlimited. As we make economic judgments about the future of this nation it is very important that we ensure that the resource on which so much of our export income and earnings depend-our soil-is also preserved. This report has brought down recommendations which will enable that to occur. Even though economic issues seem to dominate continually, we must realise that certain resources are limited and one day we will have to wake up to ourselves and take our natural resources into account when we make our economic policies. I believe that is very important. Another point I would like to raise is the polluter pay principle. Our Chairman has noted that we have indicated that it would be a good thing if there were an obligation on mining companies involved in producing income and increasing living standards to restore the environment to a state which is beneficial and aesthetically pleasing. I think that is the only wise and sensible way to use our resources-to use them but then to try to restore the environment. The companies involved in mining should have to restore the mined areas. The Committee went on to say that if the community requires private individuals to incur added costs because they own a farm or other property classified as part of the National Estate the community should pay some compensation to those people. For example, people who live in a National Estate house incur an added cost. If the community wants those properties properly maintained as part of our heritage it should compensate those people for that added cost. Lastly, I would like to comment on the types of programs which have been put into place in relation to private forestry in Tasmania. Work has been undertaken by the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments, in co-operation, to ensure that there are eucalypt forests in Tasmania. The programs which have been undertaken by private companies and the State Government have been a real bonus to Tasmania. It would be good to encourage all States to take on programs to encourage private land-holders to do reafforestation. Large areas of Tasmania were cleared for agricultural purposes and those areas are now being replanted with eucalypt forests. In many cases they are in plantation form, but it would be better for the environment to use plantation form eucalypts for woodchips and saw logs in the future than to continue to cut down our natural forests. It is also a much more effective way of producing wood material, because a managed forest produces between 10 and 25 times more wood material than a natural forest. So it is a wise way to go about it. The amount of money that is available to undertake these programs is severely limited, relative to the number of people in Tasmania who want to take on that sort of program. One person in my area would like to plant 300 hectares of eucalypts per year, because he sees that as a viable economic proposition. It certainly is, but the funds and the capacity for an individual to do that are just not there. I believe that this report encourages us as a nation to put in place economic strategies which will encourage private people to undertake those types of programs. We would benefit as a nation if we took account of this report. Mr GEAR(Canning) —by leave-As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation I fully support the Committee's report entitled `Fiscal Measures and the Achievement of Environmental Objectives'. I remind the House that each generation leaves the environment in a poorer condition than it inherited it in, and today is no exception. There is much more awareness today of the environment and I hope that this report will encourage Australians to take a much greater interest in the environment and some of the problems which have been outlined by previous speakers in the debate. I refer in particular to land degradation. The largest problem we face in Australia today is the degradation of our land. The dimension of the problem is not known, but it is a huge problem that is growing year by year as we are losing more and more land. We talk about our external debt and deficits. They are very important to our economic well-being and we can gauge the extent of them, but the problem of land degradation is as big as our external debt. In dollar values it must be that big. The amount of land we are losing each year is increasing. The Committee would be well advised to take that up as an issue. We have discussed it and I hope that, arising from this report, we will look at land degradation in a much greater way than we have in the report, owing to the constraints of time. This matter is important to farming, our national exports and our national well-being. I am very proud to be part of the Hawke Labor Government, which was the Federal government to enact the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Act. The purpose of that Act was to promote a national soil conservation strategy and to set up the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee in the Department of Primary Industry, whose annual report was handed down just this week. I will not go into that report in detail, but it leads us to hope that in the future a comprehensive program will be worked out to identify those areas where soil degradation takes place and also to work out strategies to attack soil degradation. At the time I spoke on the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill in 1985 I mentioned a group in my electorate called Men of the Trees. Its director, Barrie Oldfield, had a very ambitious project to plant trees in an attempt to halt soil degradation. I know that Barrie has not been successful in gaining funds for his project under the Act, but I publicly tell him not to lessen his efforts to gain help from the Government. In fact, I will be talking to Barrie when I get back to my electorate to encourage him to keep on with his plan. This report refers also to heritage properties in the form of historical buildings. Australia is a young country which does not have many historical buildings. It is telling, when one visits other countries with histories older than our own, to look at the way in which they look after historical buildings and take a great deal of pride in them. We have not done that in Australia to the extent we ought to. In particular I am reminded of the Committee's visit to Adelaide when we looked at two private houses. The first was a very large house where the owner told us of the problems he had in maintaining it. We were of the opinion-it is in our report-that in cases where society has deemed a house to be historically significant, we should ensure that the owner is helped by way of the taxation system so as to ensure that the house is not lost to Australia. The other house we saw was much more modest, but again was freely available on the market. I remember walking through it with members of the Committee and it really was a historic building. The Committee recommended again that housing of the type should attract a taxation benefit to ensure that it is not lost the the Australian heritage. I am reminded also of the Committee's visit to Fremantle, which hosted the America's Cup just recently and received vast international exposure. We were happy to see that Fremantle's heritage in the form of buildings has been preserved. I remember that the Fremantle City Council was always thought of as being backward because it never knocked down its old buildings to put up new ones, but we can see, in hindsight, the benefit of that approach. Mr Milton —It was very impressive. Mr GEAR —It was impressive, as the Chairman of the Committee says. Not only are the old buildings retained, but also the new buildings going up are built in the same style to match the existing buildings. (Quorum formed) The calling of a quorum does not daze me. It has the effect of bringing into this House many people with talent and at the same time keeping out all the dopes. Any time the Opposition wants to call a quorum to divide members of the House by way of talent, it is quite okay by me. I must point out to the Opposition that I have unlimited speaking time, so it can call as many quorums as it likes. I will keep going. All the Liberal Party is good for is wasting the time of the Parliament. I can tell everybody who is listening that it will call another quorum pretty soon. All that does is waste a lot of time. One thinks of the amount of money it takes to keep this Parliament running and the way in which the Liberal Party abuses the right to call a quorum. We are talking about Australia's heritage. The Liberal and National parties show their real disdain for our national heritage by calling quorums in a debate on such an important Committee report. Mr Beddall —They are Bjelke's storm-troopers. Mr GEAR —As my friend the honourable member for Rankin reminds me, they are Bjelke's storm-troopers. Before the calling of the quorum, I was talking about Fremantle, Western Australia. It is a town of great character where heritage is taken seriously. I was reminding the House of the Committee's visit and how impressed we were at the way in which buildings in Fremantle are preserved. I am sure that the Committee will remember the building near the Roundhouse which was being redeveloped into housing units. The outside of the building was preserved by propping up the facia. The inside was taken out and the new development was put in. When the building was finished, one could not tell that any development had taken place. Mr Peter Fisher —The same as the marina! Mr GEAR —Yes. There is no doubt that Fremantle has shown Australia how to preserve a town and its heritage, and attract tourists to it. I am quite proud to come from Western Australia and to see what has been done in Fremantle. It is a town that is on the map. Fremantle has really benefited by not tearing down its old buildings, as Perth has done. I am afraid that Perth has not taken the same stand. Mr Ronald Edwards —It is very poor. Mr GEAR —Very poor, as the honourable member says. In Perth, we have taken down many of our historical buildings, in particular the old Esplanade Hotel. That is one building I can point to which was torn down. It was a very historical hotel at which many international visitors stayed; certainly the great cricketers of our time stayed there every time they came to Perth. When the building was torn down, it was found that the proposed skyscraper could not be erected because there was too much water in the basement. All the developers had to do was ask the yardman because he used to go down there every morning to pump it out. But, no, the hotel was torn down and then it was discovered that the skyscraper could not be put up. The lot stood empty for two years. The wonderful, old and historic Esplanade Hotel had been torn down, never to be seen again. That part of Perth down by the Esplanade would have been a fitting place to preserve a bit of our heritage. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! I remind the honourable that this is most interesting, particularly to a Western Australian, but we must keep to the report. Mr GEAR —Mr Deputy Speaker, with all respect, I am. I am talking about the heritage of our buildings. I am outlining to the House ways in which we can go about preserving our heritage. I am pointing out that, when we do not do that, the town concerned loses a lot of character. Between Fremantle and Perth there stands stark evidence of the fact that where we do preserve our buildings as part of our heritage they are there for future generations to enjoy. I am sure that the Committee kept that in mind in its deliberations. Honourable members will see that the Committee, in its report, made a number of recommendations that deal specifically with keeping our heritage. That has tremendous tourism potential. I notice that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has entered the House. People will not come to Australia to see skyscrapers; they will come here to see buildings of historical and heritage value. I move on to the issue of trees and forests in Australia, which the Committee also considered. I attended a breakfast in Fremantle a few weeks ago. Everything happens in Fremantle because of its historical significance. The breakfast was hosted by Greening Australia. We were told of the ambitious project it has of planting two million trees in Western Australia for the Bicentennial. That is a wonderful thing. It fits in with everything that the Committee has been saying in its deliberations and report. As the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) said, if we harvest trees and do so in a systematic way, we will get much more production and we can also preserve significant stands of trees, as has been done in parts of Tasmania, New South Wales and other parts of Australia. We have not always agreed on areas that have significant stands of trees. Probably one of the most significant areas which the Committee considered was the Daintree forest in north Queensland. The Committee recommended that a significant stand of trees should be preserved in that area, but the Queensland Government pushed a road through. Mr Chynoweth —Chopped it into blocks. Mr GEAR —That is right. The result has been significant environmental damage in Queensland. That could have been prevented if the Queensland Government had heeded the advice that was given to it not only by the Committee but by other people who were in the area at the time. If it had listened to people with common sense-- Mr Kent —It didn't want to listen to anybody. Mr GEAR —As my colleague points out, it did not listen to anybody. One can see the result. Not only the trees but the fringing reefs were ruined. Mr Peter Fisher —I take a point of order. This is a most interesting debate, but I want to speak and also get to my office in a short time. I hope that the honourable member for Canning adheres to the contents of the report. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr GEAR —I would have been much more advanced in my speech if the Opposition had not called a quorum. If it had not called a quorum I would be two or three minutes further into my speech. By calling a quorum the Opposition wasted time of the House and cost the taxpayers a couple of thousand dollars. But that does not matter to the Liberal Party. Now the Opposition is complaining because I am taking the time that is allotted to me. What about a bit of fairness? I shall continue to talk about forests because it is a significant heritage and environmental issue to this House and this nation. The Committee looked at Tasmania and at what could be done there. I was impressed with what the Tasmania Government was doing in terms of harvesting trees. However, that threw up a problem which was alluded to by the Committee Chairman; that is, private forests. In Tasmania we looked at some significant private forests. One of the real tragedies, from our point of view, was the fact that significant stands in private forests were being cut down because of the effects of the rural decline. It seemed to us that those stands of trees should be allowed to grow to their full height so that we could harvest a greater amount of wood from them. However, because of the need for capital in the farm now, the private owners were chopping down the trees and selling off the wood. I think that it took 15 to 20 years for the trees to get to the height and weight that they were at when we saw them. We said that, to gain the maximum potential, they should be allowed to grow for a further five to 10 years. However, the need for short term capital on the farm meant that the trees had to be chopped down. Therefore, not only the farmer but also the community lost a valuable resource. We have alluded to that in our report. We hope that the report's recommendations will go some way to easing the plight of the farmer when he is confronted with that situation. In Western Australia there are significant stands of trees in the south west. When one sees photos of the old trees that used to be cut down in the 1930s, one sees, with hindsight, that it will take 300 to 400 years for significant stands of trees to grow to the height of the trees that were cut down at that time. Karri trees are a resource that takes a long time to mature. They are magnificent. Mr Milton —There is a great push to woodchip there. Mr GEAR —As the Chairman of the Committee pointed out, and as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would be aware, coming from Western Australia, there is a great push in Denmark in Western Australia to go ahead with woodchipping in that part of the country. Woodchipping is the most inefficient way of gaining money that I can think of. The most efficient and the best way to gain the best value from our trees is not to chop trees down and turn them into woodchips but to add value to them by making furniture or carvings from them. For goodness sake, we should not sell tonnes and tonnes of woodchips at 3c a tonne when we can sell furniture overseas at a significant price increase. As an example of that point-this touches upon what we stated in the report-is that when visiting Japan I saw a cured sheepskin selling for $270 which we would have flogged off for $1. That is a price increase from $1, for which we would have sold it, to $270 in the shop. We are sending the raw material away when we could be sending away the finished product and gaining a lot more for this country. This example runs parallel with many of the problems we face. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! When the honourable member sought leave to make his statement, he said it was to be a short statement. I hope the honourable member will make it a short statement. Mr GEAR —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not think there was any time constraint. The clock has not been turned on and from my knowledge of the running of the House I have unlimited time. If the Opposition had not called a quorum I would have wrapped up my speech a lot faster. But it called a quorum, wasted the taxpayers' money, abused the House and now I am forced to take a bit more time than I would have otherwise. Before giving me your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was saying that the recommendations of the Committee, I hope, will go some way towards convincing Australians that we should be giving tax incentives to allow the trees to grow higher in order to get the maximum value from our products. Mr White —I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, twice you have asked the honourable member to bring his speech to an end. There are other people-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr GEAR —I accept the point of order, but of course the honourable member was not here when-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member does not accept a point of order or refuse it. Mr GEAR —No, but I accept the spirit in which it was raised. I remind the honourable member that if the Opposition had not called a quorum I would have been finished much sooner. But the Opposition called a quorum, wasted the time of the House, wasted the money that taxpayers are paying to keep this Parliament going, and it has lengthened my speech somewhat. Mr Robert Brown —Now they whinge. Mr GEAR —And now they whinge. Members of the Opposition come in here and want it all ways. I may as well talk about this because they do not have anything to talk about. They will not talk about their policies or their record and, therefore, I will talk about the report before us. I will make a couple of general comments relating to the report-unless a quorum is called. The report highlighted the need for co-operation between the Federal Government and the States. That is always a touchy issue and, in particular, I refer to the Daintree Rainforest, which I alluded to earlier. This Government tried to convince the Queensland Government not to go ahead with the vandalism with which they ultimately went ahead by pushing a road through the Daintree, wrecking the canopy that protected the rainforest and allowing all the silt from the road to pour down into the fringing reef, killing it and significant stands of the Daintree Rainforest. When we talk about co-operation between the Federal Government and the State governments there are areas where we do not have a very happy record. The argument we always hear is one of States rights. I have never heard of a State having a right; people have rights. In areas as significant as environment and conservation issues, the co-operation between Federal and State governments should be of the utmost importance. Another area of conflict was the Franklin Dam. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, when we first became the Government that the first piece of legislation we put through this Parliament was to save the Franklin Dam. Once again, there was to be vandalism, this time by the Tasmanian Government. It intended to wipe out significant stands of forest by flooding them. We stopped the Tasmanian Government from doing that. In hindsight, the Federal Government was correct. Tasmania did not need the electricity that it said it needed. In fact, the Tasmanian economy is collapsing. If it had had more power I do not know what it would have done with it. It could have lit up Tasmania like a Christmas tree I suppose but that would not have been too good. There are sorry examples of breakdowns of States rights, but I hope that in the future State governments take a much more responsible view of States rights. Another area I wish to touch on before I finish is the use of the taxation system to encourage tree planting, soil conservation, and preservation of the National Estate. It is an area that needs investigation. I am happy that the Committee made that recommendation because I believe it is one way in which the Federal Government can play a constructive role in ensuring that we preserve our heritage to the maximum extent possible, that we look after our significant stands of forest, and that we look at preserving our National Estate. The use of the taxation system is one area which I think is worthy of recommendation by this Committee. But one aspect concerns me. When an area of taxation is opened up we always get the tax dodgers. Of course the tax dodgers and the loopholes go hand in hand. I point out to the House the situation with arts funding. There was a significant tax incentive for people to donate art to galleries which was a very laudable proposal, but as we say that incentive was abused by people who gave insignificant amounts of art but overvalued it by many times. They gained a taxation advantage at the expense of the arts. That is one area on which the Committee should keep a close eye. When we try to do something good for the community, whether it is in the arts or the heritage area, we always get the smarties, people who try to exploit those tax loopholes. They always have their mates who sit on the other side of the House who are prepared to support them even to the extent of allowing the old boozy free lunches and other things. The Opposition promises to bring them all back in. Mr Humphreys —All the old rorts. Mr GEAR —All the old rorts; the Mercedes cars and the boozy lunches at the expense of the taxpayer. That is one area on which we should keep an eye because whilst the recommendations of the Committee are laudable in trying to preserve our National Estate, our soil and our trees, we want to ensure that the tax dodgers do not move in. I thank the House for allowing me to make this short statement. I damn the Opposition for calling a quorum, wasting the time of the House and taxpayers' money. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee) —by leave-I support the report by the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. I am a member of that Committee on behalf of the National Party of Australia. It is a very significant report which looks at a range of fiscal measures affecting and also benefiting our environment. The Committee's recommendations are wide-ranging. One of the most important features about the recommendations is that they are not costly for the Government to implement. Not being costly does not mean that they are not practical or effective. I support the report in total. I want to refer briefly to two recommendations. I had wished to speak for a longer time but the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) has covered the ground rather adequately and there is not much point in expanding on some of his views. It is interesting to note, however, that he is a great supporter of the woodchipping industry, which I think is a great compliment to him. Mr Milton —I thought it was entirely the opposite. Mr PETER FISHER —I thought he said we should woodchip everything and make furniture out of it. I refer in particular to two recommendations in the report. The first is in fact the Committee's first recommendation-that the setting aside of funds should be allowed to cover anticipated rehabilitation costs associated with the mining industry, with a view to providing tax deductions for such measures. This is a significant recommendation because, as our report states, rehabilitation must be recognised as a major part of mining operations irrespective of costs or company profitability. Therefore, it is only reasonable to suggest that costs associated with mine rehabilitation be allowed as part of the normal costs of that activity and be treated the same as any other cost-in other words, they should be deductible as a business expense. The second recommendation I refer to is recommendation 11, which discusses soil conservation, tree planting and soil degradation, and so on. It is important that this recommendation be carried out and that existing taxation provisions be looked at particularly with a view to introducing new provisions that allow for rebates and tax credits. It is unusual in a debate on a report such as this to go back over history, as the honourable member for Canning did, but we should look back a little to see some of the great mistakes the Parliament in the past and we in the present Parliament have made. The report refers to the problems that arise sometimes when on the spur of the moment major drought assistance programs have to be implemented throughout our nation. Often the aftermath of those well intended assistance measures has effects contrary to those intended. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that a very satisfactory scheme, called the income equalisation deposits scheme, was implemented by our Government. It was intended to overcome these short term drought problems, but the present Government removed it. As a result, we do not today have an effective drought assistance program and our tax system does not enable primary producers to develop within their own business management operations an effective financial capacity to cope with the droughts that affect our country from time to time. So I draw the attention of honourable members opposite to the fact that there has been within our taxation system a very successful measure available to meet the short term needs of primary producers, but of course it has been removed. This report relates very much to soil degradation, including both dry land salinisation and salinisation brought about by irrigation. A major watershed has been reached in the State of Victoria in recent weeks concerning this whole question of what to do about salinisation problems. I refer to the class action undertaken by a group of about 30 primary producers and their families in the Swan Hill region. At great cost-some $800,000-they stopped an engineering project, developed by the former Victorian Government but which the present Victorian Government also intended to carry out, to flood 3,000 acres of prime agricultural country to develop an evaporation basin. That was to be part of an engineering technique to control the salinisation problems we have. That class action has resulted in the project being delayed, and hopefully, stopped. I believe that it has emphasised and focused attention on the fact that engineering solutions alone cannot improve the Murray River basin's salinisation problems. More government funds have to be put in. In other words, fiscal measures should be applied to allow primary producers and the providers of urban water supplies, et cetera, the ability to improve their farming and management techniques in order to bring about the resolution of our salinisation problems. This is a vital report. I would like to speak longer about the impact of the clearing of timber in this country. We need to recognise that we have changed from the developmental phase to the stabilisation phase of our economic development; but I believe that other members have covered that matter quite adequately. To conclude, I just say that the one serious problem facing this country at the moment is the degradation of our soils. Salinisation plays an important part in that and there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the chemical changes taking place in many of our soils and the subsequent genetic changes that have taken place in our flora-which I quite genuinely believe are filtering through to cause genetic changes in human beings-must be looked at. I hope that this report will in some way bring about changes in government policies that will allow the people involved in these areas to take measures that will bring about an improvement. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley) —by leave-I wish to cover a few of the areas looked at in the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. First of all, I refer to mine rehabilitation. We went to Kakadu to look at the development at Ranger and on the way we called in to see what had happened at Rum Jungle, where rehabilitation had been carried out by the Commonwealth. I think the Commonwealth spent nearly $20m making that area look something like it did many years ago. However, the benefit to Australia from the mining of uranium there totalled only, I think, around $6m. So it cost taxpayers a huge amount to rehabilitate this mine in the Northern Territory. Rehabilitation is a matter that all mining companies should be made to consider when starting to mine an area. There should be some sort of fee placed on them to make certain that the area is rehabilitated. I know that at Ranger millions of dollars each year are paid into a trust to make certain that the mine is rehabilitated in the future. I trust that it does not have any problems with water storage, et cetera, which will really ruin the environment, but the money that is put into the trust fund, if used in the correct manner, may enable the area to be brought back to almost its original state-though it will never be what it was like originally. The other area that the Committee looked at was soil erosion. Soil erosion has been brought on mainly by overgrazing and the fact that many farmers had been forced to put in unsuitable crops and to till very marginal land. One has only to go across to Western Australia on the highway to see some land near the South Australian border that has been used for agricultural purposes. It was used for a couple of years and now is just laid to waste. That particular land has been ruined and all the soil had been exposed to the elements. It will be blown away; the natural coverage has gone. Maybe because of economic circumstances some farmers have been forced into these sorts of practices, but a lot of farmers, and city people, have just abused the soil and the land of Australia. We should look at it very closely, and I trust that the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation will take this on as a reference in the future. We have discussed it. Also destroying our land very rapidly is the growth of our cities. They are spreading out too quickly. There is a lot of land but maybe we should be looking at increasing urban density a little instead of just spreading our cities willy-nilly over some of the best land in the country. We also looked at effects on trees. The honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) raised the matter of the greening of Australia. We can all do a little bit to assist in the greening of Australia. There is a shopping centre close to where I live and I remember that shown in the plans, about 13 or 14 years ago, was a series of trees. When the shopping centre was completed about five or six years later there were no trees. I made representations to the council and now we have 50 trees, they have all grown to 15 or 20 feet and the area looks very nice. That is the sort of thing that we can all do. We can make certain that we plant a certain number of trees to replace those which are being chopped down very rapidly by rapacious woodchip companies. The Committee went to Tasmania to have a look at what was happening there. The companies have left some areas, and in other areas trees are being replanted but they are being planted in plantation form. As I mentioned in the adjournment debate Tuesday night, many of our native animals nest in trees. Seventy per cent of all Australian birds nest in holes in trees. If all the old trees are knocked down and are replaced by younger trees where will our fauna breed? Naturally, the paper and woodchip companies do not want trees with holes. We had a look at an area in Tasmania where a company said it was preserving the trees. As we drove along a road the chap who was showing us around said: `Have a look at this. We leave 20 feet or 30 feet of natural bush and knock down all the trees behind it so the tourists cannot see that the trees have been felled. They actually think they are going through the bush. It makes it look good and the people feel good going through the bush'. I said that to me this looked like a frontal lobotomy. There was a little bit left but behind it was all gone. I must congratulate the Victorian government. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) congratulated the Victorian Government on agreeing with the farmers that the evaporation basin project should be stopped. The Victorian Government has recently introduced a scheme involving millions of dollars to overcome the salinity problem caused by overpopulation and overprocessing of land in the Mallee area and around Shepparton. Another area I would like to touch on is historical buildings. In this report we recommend that the owners of such buildings should be looked after. In the electorate of Dunkley there are many historical buildings in the Mornington and Frankston areas. Some of the buildings there have been looked after, mainly through community employment project moneys. Residents are still in a few of the old buildings and they should be given some sort of relief if they are obliged to look after these buildings and maintain them because this involves more expense than caring for modern buildings. A beautiful building called the Briars is just outside the electorate of Dunkley. There is a raging debate at the moment on the Briars area because the Mornington Peninsula and District Water Board wants to build a huge industrial complex just behind it. The Board intends to build the complex in the catchment area of Balcombe Creek, which runs into the wetlands around the Briars. There are bird hides and it has been developed into a beautiful little spot. However, the local residents and I are up in arms against this development. It not only may affect the natural environment in the area; it will affect the visual environment, which is very important in a historical area. These are some of the areas which we have covered in the report. I recommend it to everyone to read. I trust that the Government will adopt many of the recommendations we have made in this report. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —by leave-I commend previous speakers; the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton); the Secretary, Mr Ian Dundas; and my colleagues on the Committee. The report is very worth while and it sets a number of benchmarks for the Australian community. Previous speakers have addressed those; so I do not intend to cover the area again. I would like to raise three or four matters in the House and in doing so bring them to the attention of the Australian community. A fundamental matter which is mentioned in the report and which must be attacked is the argument that somehow conservation is anti-economic and development is pro-economic. The Committee makes the observation that very often sensible conservation strategies can have a long term economic benefit. Honourable members have referred to historic buildings. Speaking as an economist, I say that sensible conservation measures for historical buildings mean that we end up with a net economic benefit to the community because of the attraction of tourists. There is also the visual benefit to the immediate community. Other speakers have said that there is clearly an economic benefit through tourism from people going to look at forests. A matter that has not been properly addressed and that must be addressed is that if we do away with forest we do away with a substantial tourism resource. It can be well argued that there is a great benefit in having substantial stands of trees that people might come to look at as part of the tourism experience. I said to visitors to Western Australia recently for the sporting activities there that they should have a look at the south-west of Western Australia because there are some wonderful things to see which one can benefit greatly from. Many people did this and I am certain that they found that this was a worthwhile resource. Let us pay attention to preserving that resource. The honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) and our Chairman, the honourable member for La Trobe, referred to the use of forest products. I would like to make a correction on behalf of the honourable member for Canning. What he was trying to say was that one gets greater value added for the economy if timber is converted into finished products which are sold overseas than if it is simply woodchipped. Mr McVeigh —That is right. That is sensible and we should be doing it. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —In our trip to New Zealand we noted the benefit of that. I thank the honourable member for Groom for his contribution. It is clear that the community must consider the question of value added. Members of the Committee and members on this side are clearly of the view that woodchipping gives the least value added and is one of timber's least productive uses. It enables us to get a resource out very quickly but the greatest long term benefit-talking about our balance of payments and so on-would be gained from increasing the value added. I am sure that the Chairman is aware that people have totally different views about using timber for woodchipping or for making furniture. People increasingly are opposed to woodchipping but they are easily persuaded about the sensible use of forest products to make furniture because they can see the benefit immediately. They can see beautiful furniture being turned out which ultimately can be exported. There is a lot of value added in terms of the trades people employed. Mr Milton —It is more labour intensive. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I thank the honourable member for La Trobe for his interjection. We as a community must have that as our objective. That is one of the aspects that this Committee is addressing. I commend my colleagues on the Committee. I turn now to the polluter pays principle, which the Chairman spoke about. It is frequently raised in relation to urban communities. Often spills and accidents result in a loss to the environment. I know that this is of concern to many people in metropolitan areas of Australia. The Committee previously addressed the problem in its hazardous chemicals report. We should examine whether certain industries should have surcharges to cover responsibilities in relation to fire and other protection agencies. For example, what does it cost when a fuel tanker is lost on the road? Petroleum is washed into rivers and waterways and the community has to pay for it. My view-I think others on this side would agree-is that industry should pay for its negligence: Firstly, for having drivers who are undertrained; secondly, for perhaps not having efficient hazardous chemical warnings; and thirdly, for not having quick recovery systems. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) and I recently saw a fire in the Welshpool area. There were inadequate hazardous chemical codings on the warehouses involved. The fire people did not know what they were dealing with and there was chemical fallout. That is a very important issue. People in urban areas are getting impatient about it and we should be addressing it. I turn now to soil conservation and degradation. The Committee came up with an estimate that Australia has lost 420,000 square kilometres of land because of the degradation of soil quality. We are looking at areas that in 40 to 80 years time will be useless; the soil will have no utility. We are confronting a major crisis. The members of the Committee have addressed this and said that there is a need for us, as a committee, to examine that. Let me make this point: It is not the case that all farmers are being negligent, because I do not think that is the case. There are many farmers who are well intentioned and who try to do the right thing. I recently saw a report of a farmer in the south-west of Western Australia who is attempting his own afforestation program. Unfortunately the grasshoppers have tended to wipe out the new trees that he has planted. We have talked about rebates and tax credits. I think that, as the Committee is saying to the community, we have to examine the question of tax rebates and tax credits to encourage effective farm practices. The honourable member for Mallee mentioned the question of salination. Salination is a major problem. It is a big problem in Western Australia and it is a problem throughout Australia. We really must make a major effort in this area. When we look at the amount that is being spent at a national level on soil conservation, we see clearly that we are not spending nearly enough to preserve this important area in terms of our national strategy. Let me conclude by saying that in tropical and wetland areas we have this simple question of soil erosion. The Chairman will remember when we visited the Kununurra area and saw the impact there of overstocking and overgrazing and the loss of top-soil in the Ord River irrigation area. It is a very serious matter. That is one area. We then have dry land salination, which is another area to be dealt with. The honourable member for Mallee has referred to that. (Quorum formed) Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to see my colleagues here because they are intelligent in their debating in this place, and they always make an intelligent contribution. It is unfortunate, but the Opposition is very disruptive. In fact, it wastes public money. As the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) would know, the Queensland Premier uses that $10m plane at a cost of over $1,000 an hour. He is wasting the Queensland taxpayers' money. Some here are trying to emulate him. It is just that they are a little smaller in their efforts. They are not quite as good at wasting public money as Mr Bjelke-Peterson is. It costs the Queensland taxpayers over $1,000 an hour for a $10m plane. Mr Brumby —It is $1,800. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —It is $1,800 an hour. Mr Robert Brown —Plus the pollution. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —And the pollution-the by-products. My colleagues on this side would be aware that that is a waste of public resources, and we are seeing it every day. We on our side, however, are much more aware of our responsibilities; but those opposite, well, that is the way it is. They are not able to understand their wider responsibilities either to the Australian people or to this chamber, so we will see a continuation of these disruptive tactics. As my friend, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), said, the honourable member who called the quorum has been noted only for either being exited from this place or for calling quorums. Opposition members are behaving according to type, but we are happy. Honourable members should not worry about these things; we will deal with them all in good time. Mr Shipton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I want to point out the enormous waste of time by the Government during Question Time. Only eight questions were answered-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! Mr Shipton —That is why it is all happening, and the honourable member knows that. It is he who is being irresponsible. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Stirling. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The honourable member should worry about his pre-selection. He should not worry about what is going on here. Mr Shipton —I am not worrying about pre-selection. I am the endorsed candidate and I am going to win with an increased majority. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The honourable member has got me worried because the former honourable member for Diamond Valley, the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), is with him, and I think a coup may have occurred already. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Stirling will help if he does not carry on a conversation. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I will be happy to assist you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We will look at these things all in good time. I conclude by saying that I think there is a concern in this community about soil conservation and soil degradation. We, as a government, recognise our responsibilities. We have increased funding for soil conservation. We also recognise that many practices have been undertaken by State governments, in particular the Government of Queensland with the Daintree Forest. Honourable members would be interested to know that after the decision was taken to build the Daintree Forest road there were private approaches to the Federal Government to see whether it would repair the damage. So we did some costing. Honourable members would understand that the cost of repairing the Daintree road was a minimum of $50m. Mr Robert Brown —How much? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —A minimum of $50m. As an economist, the honourable member would know what that means. That would mean a $50m cost for the taxpayers when the road was built against the advice of many authorities, including the environment Committee and the Federal Government. Mr Bjelke-Petersen wanted us to put in another $50m of taxpayers' funds to repair the damage that was originally caused by his Government's irresponsible decision. Honourable members from Queensland on this side, and there are many of them and they are good quality people, would understand the situation. It is one of those issues that Mr Bjelke-Petersen does not quite understand. He wanted the taxpayers to spend $50m to repair the damage, but we are not prepared to do that. Mr Kent —So what? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Exactly, so what! Why should we bother? I conclude by saying that we are very pleased to be addressing this report before the House. We, as a Committee, have undertaken work that I think is important and sensible. I congratulate my colleagues on the Committee, the Chairman of the Committee and the Secretary, and I am pleased to commend the report to the House. Debate resumed. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(5.47) —Before I was interrupted earlier in the day I had spoken on the Olympic Insignia Protection Bill in respect of Australia's Olympic participation and about our outstanding record of having participated in all 23 of the modern Olympiads. Indeed, I mentioned that it was important for Australia to participate, because of the international recognition, goodwill and the relationships that have developed as a result. I said that in view of Australia's enormous participation in sport and the fact that it was an integral part of the fabric of our lives, it was important to Australians in general. I also mentioned that it provided opportunities for individuals to achieve excellence. I further pointed out that Australia's performance in international competition had fallen off over a period, and I made the comparison with East Germany, in which there had been a mass participation program. I said that that had been reflected in its medal performances at Olympic Games and that Australia had been left behind. While we may not subscribe to the same sort of philosophy that exists in that country, it is necessary for us to have the same sorts of levels of participation. Because of the initiatives of this Government there is at the moment a participation boom in Australia. Our coaching programs and our kids' sports programs such as Aussie Sports, through the Australian Sports Commission, have gone a long way towards bringing that about. There is also a need for us to continue to support excellence in sport. What is the Opposition's policy and what suggestions do we have from the Opposition in respect of this? The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) said that he hoped we did not become professional about sport; he hoped that some of the old amateur traditions could remain. But I remind him that already we are very professional about sport. Robert de Castella is not the champion that he is because he does anything else except run. Indeed, Greg Norman and Jeff Fenech are exclusively professional sportsmen. It is necessary for us to innovate and develop our sports science so that we can return to having a number of champions. Certainly, it is hoped that those champions will have an effect on participation levels in this country. Does the honourable member really want to see us return to the days when only the wealthy and the privileged were the amateurs? That was the case in the olden days, but, thankfully, those days are gone. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has another view. At the moment he is running around the country trying to see how he can save $14.7 billion. Indeed, last year, he described the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism as an irrelevant luxury, and certainly on top of the list of those departments that he would see as necessary to axe. I hope that, before the next election, the Opposition will enunciate that policy. Approximately six million people every week take the opportunity to participate in or enjoy watching sport in this country. I hope they will all understand that the Opposition's policy is that this Department should be eliminated. I must say that the Australian Olympic Federation is becoming increasingly self-sufficient. This Bill will protect its capacity to raise funds and I hope that it will cut out any unauthorised or deceptive use of the logos and symbols that the AOF has developed. Of course, the AOF has made a magnificent contribution to sport in this country. For nearly a century it has carried the flag for Australian sport internationally. To its eternal credit, it resisted the forces of the Fraser Government in 1980 and attended the 1980 Olympic Games. It showed resilience against coercion and, at times, outright blackmail. On occasions I have had the opportunity to question the allocation of funds by the AOF. Indeed, I remember asking a question in this House in 1984. I will continue to appraise its performances. Critically, I know that the likes of Kevan Gosper, Phil Coles, John Coates, Judy Patching, Bill Hoffmann and, from Western Australia, Jack Howson, have worked tirelessly for sport in this country and for sport in general. Today I acknowledge publicly their contributions. However, I hope that the AOF continues to have as its paramount consideration the interests of athletes. I hope that it will continue with its policy of allocating funds in advance of Olympic years so that prospective Olympic athletes have the opportunity-- (Quorum formed) Before the disruptive Opposition called a quorum, I was concluding my remarks in respect of the Australian Olympic Federation and this legislation which will assist it to raise money for future Olympic Games. I take this opportunity to make the point that the Leader of the Opposition has already very clearly told us what he intends to do with the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. He described it last year as an irrelevant luxury. Of course, we are aware that he is now fishing around for $14.7 billion in expenditure cuts to make up the revenue gap in the promises that he has been making for the next election in respect of taxation and expenditure. Indeed, if he were to abolish the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, that would save $40m. That would be one-fortieth of one per cent of the cost of all the promises that he has been making. Unless his arithmetic is very much astray, that amount will not go very far to solve the problem. But I am sure that all the sports people of Australia-all those who participate in and watch sport-will be interested to know that that is the Opposition's policy. I was saying, and I say in conclusion, that I hope that the AOF will continue to put the athletes as its first priority. I accept the need for it to establish a firm administrative base and a firm and sound economic structure to protect its autonomy so that future governments are not able to coerce it, as has been attempted in the past. But I hope that it will not neglect the athletes as a first priority. This Bill will assist the Federation to raise its funds and will protect its logos and symbols so that it can effectively market its products. I support the Federation and this Bill wholeheartedly. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(5.57) —On behalf of the National Party of Australia, I express our support for the Olympic Insignia Protection Bill. Many of us believe in the high ideals of the Olympic movement and of our sports people. Before proceeding with my speech, I congratulate the previous speaker, the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth), on his many splendid achievements for his club, his State and his nation on the international playing fields. My contacts in the hockey area tell me that he belongs to the all time greats of Australia in hockey and that, if a world team were being chosen at present, Ric Charlesworth would probably be the first person chosen. On behalf of all parliamentarians, I express the hope that the honourable member's splendid achievements to the present will be but stepping stones to greater achievements in the future. He is an example to all other Australian sportsmen and sportswomen. My information is that he has made his way by expertise and skill rather than by brute force and aggression. These are excellent traits and all young Australian people should follow his example. I believe there is a bipartisan approach to sport in Australia. I realise that the shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), expressed a slightly contrary view; but there is, and there should be, a bipartisan approach to sport. We all glory in our successes and it pains all of us when we lose. I want to develop a few criticisms of modern Olympics by detailing a little of the history of the Olympics. It is true that modern Olympics have been with us since 1896 when a French baron conceived the modern Olympic Games. They were pretty humble games. One has only to go to Athens to see the original stadium, which is very poor compared with modern stadiums. But the modern Olympics are but the aftermath of Olympic concepts which began in history as a pagan religious festival which, honourable members may believe it or not, centred on fertility. The first Olympic Games which can be verified were held in 776 BC. They continued for an unbroken period for over 1,000 years, with some 320 games staged. They were abandoned in 394 AD when christianity was adopted as the official faith of the Roman empire. The most important feature of the Games was the sacred truce which provided that during the Games no one was allowed to take up arms, all legal disputes were suspended and no death penalties were carried out. The personal safety of everyone travelling to the Olympics was guaranteed. This brings me to the sad realisation that the original ideals of the Olympic Games have been shattered. Those who had the honour of attending the 1956 Olympic Games-the honourable member for Perth spoke about the East Germans winning only one medal, a silver medal, with their bantam weight boxer-remember that it was just like a friendly Australian sporting contest. All of us are saddened to remember the slaughter of Munich. A tremendous amount of money is spent on security. I submit that that money would be better spent on athletic training and the development of sports medicine. It is about time that all of us got back to the original concept of the Olympics, which is to get the best person, irrespective of the circumstances. Again, I differ from the shadow Minister. I support the view expressed by the honourable member for Perth. Surely the Olympics are about the pursuit of excellence and perfection, about wanting the best person. It is about time we got rid of shamateurism. Last weekend a great Australian sprinter, Paul Narracott, an amateur, won the professional Coonabarabran Gift. He will be allowed to compete in the next Olympic Games. He will be good enough. At least there is a movement towards getting the best person, the best athlete, irrespective of whether he happens to be a professional or an amateur or of whether he engages in shamateurism. We have to realise that politics should not interfere in sport. We have talked about the Fraser Government's action in regard to the Moscow Olympics. Do honourable members remember the sad face of Raelene Boyle crying real tears on television because of her decision not to go to Moscow and possibly win her first ever gold medal? Did that decision change the policies of Moscow? Did the fact that that country stayed away from the most recent Olympics change the politics of foreign affairs in America? It is about time all of us woke up to the fact that sport is above politics. If we believe in trying to attack those who seek to plunge the world into war, it is about time we got away from our inhibitions and made the world our oyster as far as sport is concerned. I want everyone to know where I stand in regard to sporting contact with South Africa. If we are serious about that country, we must have sporting contact. Mr Cleeland —White sporting contact? Mr McVEIGH —Wide sporting contact, I agree, all across the sphere. Why should we prevent all except professionals engaging in sporting contact with South Africa. How stupid it is that the participants in the Davis Cup had a few weeks previously played in South Africa but amateur sports men and sports women are not allowed to participate because they have hanging over their heads the threat of a government withdrawal of their funds. One of the great things that could further world peace and overcome some of the divisions in society would be if we in Australia, free of government intervention and direction-none of this threatening to withdraw funds-sent our rugby side and our cricket team to South Africa. If we send our rugby side, one of the first blokes there to see the Australian rugby side annihilate the South Africans will be me. It will be a great sporting contest, great to see the power and muscle of people such as Rodriguez and McIntyre, whose parents live a few miles down the road from me. It will be wonderful to see the input of that great citadel and nursery of rugby union, Nudgee College make its contribution to sport. Of all the schools in Australia, Nudgee College has produced the real rugby players, the players up in the engine room, the players who can dictate play because it has been engraved in their hearts and minds. So let us cut away the red tape and have real sporting contact with South Africa. We could have pilgrims and official delegates running around the country and the world seeking peace. As previous speakers have said, the Olympic rings are the modern day symbol of the Olympics. The five rings signify the five then known continents of the world-people wanting to engage in sporting contact, free of politics. The original Greek idea of competition games was to practise sport, not for its own sake but in pursuit of physical perfection. The Games then, as now, were considered as being among the great events of the ancient world and a premier contest for athletes. I am not going to go into details about Australia's contribution. The suggestion of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) to give the Olympic movement rights to market things near and dear to the movement is excellent and fully supported. Hopefully, as the Minister said in his second reading speech, we will reach the stage where the Australian Olympic Federation will be able to fully fund Olympic teams itself. I want to draw a distinction between the Olympic Games and the training period between the events, which I will come back to. I hope that the Minister will be generous enough, if he has time, to sum up and to acknowledge what I have said. We have had this debate and the Minister has accepted that what I have said was right. He is not a man who seeks to make political capital on all occasions. The sum of $1.4m which sent the last Olympic team to Los Angeles was an amount of money which I personally piloted through the last Fraser Budget. So it was money which was allocated by our side of politics. Mr John Brown —Ten out of 10. Mr McVEIGH —One cannot get any better than 10 out of 10. That is perfection. I am gratified by the Minister's comment, to think that a humble back bench member of the Opposition could get ten out of ten. He should tell the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) that I am of that standard. I accept the Minister's acknowledgment that the $1.4m was our initiative. That was the amount which the Olympic movement at that time asked of us through Syd Grange and Judy Patching. I support the Minister's acknowledgment of their great contribution to the Olympic Games and to amateur sport. They are great people, different personalities. Syd Grange is a man of quiet dignity and simple charm. Judy Patching has the uninhibited freshness of a child-so keen about everything. They were a great combination and I support what the Minister has said about them. I do not want to correct the Minister. After all, he inherited a Department most of whose officers I trained very well indeed. If the Minister checks page 2665 of Hansard, his second reading speech, he will notice-it is only a simple thing-that Jon Sieben's name is spelt incorrectly. The spelling there is `John' Sieben. Just for the purposes of the record-his mother and father having given him a name-I think that, when one is officially recording things in Hansard, the greatest tribute one can pay a person is to spell his name correctly. Mr John Brown —You are embarrassing Hansard. Mr McVEIGH —It is the Minister's second reading speech. I had hoped that by the time Hansard came out in a weekly form some of the excellent officers I trained would have spotted that and have made the correction. I did not want to be seen as a know-all ringing up the Minister's Department saying: `You have insulted Jon Sieben'. After all, he is a Queenslander. At this stage it is too late; but maybe in the yearly volume the Minister will see that Jon Sieben's name is spelt correctly. I always like to pay people the great tribute of calling them by the names their parents so proudly bestowed upon them. The other point I want to make is that the Minister was very laudatory in his congratulations about the efforts of the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson, and John Coates. I want to record that, in return, those people were deeply appreciative of the Minister's intelligent interest in trying-that really is the word-like the de Castellas and others, to get those Games to Brisbane. I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks when, on a night which was obviously very disappointing to him, as it was to the rest of us, he put into his place the Labor leader of the Brisbane City Council, Brian Walsh, for his very unthoughtful words when he said that it was just a cheap political exercise. I thought that was so unkind and so unnecessary. We had the Federal Minister, the State Minister and the Lord Mayor-- Mr John Brown —We did not have the State Minister. Mr McVEIGH —No. He was over on other occasions. They were all over there fighting to get the Games to Brisbane and we had these unkind and uncalled for remarks. I am grateful to the Minister for not playing party politics and for his bipartisan approach in severely reprimanding the leader of the Labor movement in the Brisbane City Council. In pursuit of sport we also need to realise that it is a professional exercise. We have to do something about encouraging young people. I like the idea of what goes on in West Germany where, if a swimmer happens to be in the first five in the world in any particular event-and I presume, Mr Deputy Speaker, that one must never advertise on this program-one of the car companies makes a car available. But it makes a car available to that swimmer only while he or she remains in the top five. I think that is important. Not only must they be good; they most continue to be good. Let us be honest and frank. We have an enormous problem in Australia. We are isolated. The European communities have really top class tough competition, as it were, just down the track every weekend, but we do not have that in Australia. That has some unfortunate results. It is pretty sobering. We have not done very well in cricket or the America's Cup-let us be honest. It may be kind to say that it was a bit of a disaster. We were the world champions in swimming a few years ago. No swimmer in Australia in any event, individual or team, now ranks in the top three. Only one, Julie McDonald, a Queenslander, trained by Laurie Lawrence-a great swimmer, a great person and a former rugby union test halfback for our country-is in the top four in the world. Just to illustrate how tough the competition is, she is only four seconds outside of Tracey Wickham's 800 metres world record. When one brings that down to distance in a pool, it is not very much. But she cannot get tough international competition because no funds are available. Her coaches and her family have to resort to the old fashioned way of trying to raise funds through raffles and bingo parties to allow her to attend international competitions. I suggest, again in a bipartisan approach, that whilst legislation like this may make it possible for the Olympic movement to fund trips for managers and athletes to the Olympic Games there is a vacuum. This $1.4m, which was made available for the last Olympic Games, could be used to allow our athletes to go overseas to get the advantage of tough international competition. We have to realise that, no matter how good their talents are or how much training they get, unless they are tough enough inside they will not measure up. I happened to have dinner with one of Australia's leading swimming coaches a few months ago and I said: `My friend, if you were looking for a top swimmer, what would you do?'. Maybe he is an aspiring politician-he would certainly make a very good one; he would probably join the great Party-because I thought it was remarkable that he said: `Tom, I would go to a country school, possibly in Queensland- Mr John Brown —Nudgee? Mr McVEIGH —No, that is for the older age bracket. He was talking about the younger age bracket. He said: `I would wait outside the school, particularly in a poor area, and when some bully took on a little kid and the little kid took off his school bag and got stuck into the big bully. I would grab him and say: ``Come along, I will make a swimmer out of you because you have got guts''.' That is what we need-people who have got intestinal fortitude. Give them the facilities, but let us remember where Herb Elliott trained. He trained in the sand dunes. Where is Debbie Flintoff training? She is training with worn out surf lifesaving gear, pulling a rubber tyre up and down the beach. That does not cost much except guts and determination. Where did Bradman train? Let us make sure that in spending money we attract the right type of person-the person who has got the will and who can give something on which we can build a solid foundation. I support the legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(6.17) —Australia has a very proud record in sport and in the Olympic movement. As the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) quite correctly pointed out in his second reading speech, Australia's proud record in the Olympic movement is shown not only in its attendance at every Olympic Games since the modern Olympics began but also in its performances at those Games. Great changes have occurred in the Olympic movement and in the Olympic Games over the years, and more changes are yet to come. We have moved from the very strict and pure amateur status of athletes in those early years towards a more open status that recognises that prime athletes have very short careers. Unfortunately in some ways, business is very much intruding into that. The Olympic movement has had to change with the times. Accordingly the Australian Olympic Federation has had to match those changes. It has had to change the way and the extent to which it raises money to send bigger teams, the needs of which are greater, to build the infrastructure of sport in Australia to support and develop those teams and to keep pace with the technology that is needed today to train our leading athletes. The world of commerce has changed the way in which Olympic Games and Olympic teams are funded. The AOF is recognising that, as is the Government. It is fitting that the Australian Olympic Federation should have the maximum ability to deliver and to develop the Australian Olympic team, the Australian Olympic movement and, accordingly, Australia's sporting reputation. It is also fitting, therefore, that the use and control of the Olympic insignia-those five interlocked and very familiar rings-be vested with the Australian Olympic Federation. Australia's record in the Olympic Games is a quite commendable one. Its continuity at the Games is also commendable, despite the efforts of a previous government to have Australia pull out of the Moscow Olympics. I am quite proud of the role of my Party and of the athletes of Australia for their participation at Moscow. It is even more important when we look at the Olympic tradition in Australia. In 1956 we held the Olympic Games in Melbourne. A year later we were all looking up into the sky to see the Sputnik. That seems so many years ago. As a boy I remember those Olympic Games in Melbourne. It is sad to note that children in Brisbane and in other parts of Australia will not have in 1992 the experience that I had as a lad in Melbourne in 1956. They will miss the colour, internationalism and thrill of achievement that is part of having the Olympic Games held in Australia. I congratulate the City of Brisbane and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism for their efforts to gain the Olympic Games for Brisbane. In 1956 those of us who were in Melbourne remember the visitors who came here, the athletes who performed here-Vladimir Kuts, the Murray Roses, Betty Cuthberts-(Quorum formed) We have seen all afternoon the most abysmal and degrading signs of an opposition falling apart. We have seen what the Opposition considers to be the constructive use of the Parliament's time-all afternoon the Opposition has been calling quorum after quorum. The Opposition is falling apart. There are parties all over the place on the other side-members opposite do not know where they are. They are spread all over the dining room, one group in one corner and another group in another corner. People sit next to others and others get suspicious. All the Opposition has been concerned about today in running this Parliament is calling quorums. The Opposition is disintegrating in front of our eyes. It is a sad day for this Parliament and for once great parties. They did not do much that was great, but they governed this country for a long time. I am afraid that today we are witnessing the disintegration- Mr White —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We get pulled up often enough for straying from the subject matter of the Bill and I ask you to do the same to the honourable member. Mr John Brown —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I refer you to the speech made by the shadow Minister, most of which he spent in vituperation of me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —No, you may not. I ask the honourable member for Jagajaga to come back to the Bill, now he has got that off his chest. Mr STAPLES —I will not waste one more second on that Opposition. I will get back to saying that when I was a boy, I looked through the wire around the training track in the Olympic Village. Thirty years ago I watched the world's greatest athletes training, sprinting and doing their warm ups. When I was collecting their autographs through the wire, I had no idea that today I would be the local member representing the area of West Heidelberg. That was as far away from my mind as the Sputnik soon to be up in the sky. Today the Olympic Village is a very important part of my electorate. It is very important in many respects. Firstly, because of its historical and heritage value to the Olympic spirit and movement in Australia; and secondly, because of the people who live in that area, my constituents. I pay tribute not only to those constituents but also to Mr Geoffrey Ballard, who was the administrator of the Olympic Village at that time and today is keeping alive the records, memorabilia and heritage of that Olympic Village. Thirty years ago the Olympic Village in West Heidelberg was a shining, bright and exciting place. But today, after years of neglect from the Liberal, National and Country parties in government in Victoria-through the Bolte, Hamer and Thompson years-those people do not live in those shining quarters any more. Many have to live in low standard housing which the State Government is trying to build up, but throughout the Olympic Village area we see the Olympic insignia. The people who live there are very proud that the Olympic Games were part of that area. The Olympic Games are Australia's only tangible, real contact with the Olympic movement on Australian soil. In the shopping centre in the Olympic Village, at the bus stops, schools, public buildings, sporting and other clubs, one sees the Olympic insignia of the five rings. I ask the Minister to do what he can to ensure that the bona fide, legitimate and historical use of the rings in this area will be maintained. I will be writing to Mr Gosper of the Australian Olympic Federation, but I ask the Minister to do what he can to ensure that this tradition is maintained in this area. I also ask the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism to push harder, as he has done in other years, for provision in the Budget for a community sport and recreation program. At the site of the Olympic Village in West Heidelberg the old training track is not much different today than it was in 1956. It is an old, red ash track which is now breaking down. Today, instead of the world's greatest athletes running around the track, we have Australia's athletes of tomorrow-the kids from that area, the kids in the Little Athletics-even Gary Honey and Olympic coaches using the track. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), talked about kids with guts. These kids have guts. They have to have guts just to live in that area and survive often in poverty. Those kids are the fighters, the tigers and many are involved in the great Aussie Sports program-another commendable initiative of this Minister. Those kids are the fighters and tigers and they deserve really good community sport and recreation areas. I suggest to the Minister that this track should be upgraded because at the moment it is dangerous. The kids are falling over, skinning their knees, falling because of the cracks in the ground. It is not good enough. Many people use that area, which is very much a part of the Australian Olympic heritage. I praise the organisers of the Heidelberg Little Athletics for their dedication in training our young athletes. I will not name them, because I would leave someone out, but they do a tremendous job with hundreds of kids every week. Those kids need a track. The people in West Heidelberg are indeed trying to keep alive the Olympic tradition. Also in 1985 the kids from the West Heidelberg community youth support scheme held an olympics for the unemployed. Approximately 350 kids turned up from all over Victoria. Kids who have never won anything in their lives and kids who had never had a pay packet in their hand were out there. Disabled and unemployed kids were trying their best and getting the achievement of running around that Olympic training track, knowing full well that years before the world's greatest athletes had warmed up and trained there. The thrill of being in such a place was very important to them and that is something they will live with for a long time. Throughout West Heidelberg people are making such an effort. I commend the Minister for this Bill. I ask him to look at this community sport and recreation program and the protection of the Olympic insignia for this area. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.00) —The intention of the Olympic Insignia Protection Bill 1986 is to provide a proper protection for what the community has come to know as the Olympic symbol. (Quorum formed) The Australian community will be pleased to know that the Government is well represented here tonight. Many Government members have just attended committee meetings. Interestingly, the economic committee is meeting at the moment to discuss taxation matters. The welfare committee is meeting to discuss pensions, because there is a terrible story about to the effect that the National Party proposes to freeze pensions. The National Party wants to freeze pensions. We want to reassure the Australian community that pensions will continue to be increased in line with the consumer price index. Mr Connolly —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I understand that the honourable member is speaking to the Olympic Insignia Protection Bill. He will be relevant to the Bill. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I thought it was important to remind the House and the Australian community that the Opposition is wasting time when such matters are being discussed. I am happy to be guided by you, Madam Speaker, and to talk to the Olympic Insignia Protection Bill. It is good to see that the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) is in the chamber. We are quite relaxed in his presence. We on this side of politics are very interested in the Bill, because we are interested in excellence and performance. We have among our ranks an Olympian of great standing. The honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) has shown, by his efforts as the Australian Olympic hockey captain, that he is one of the highest calibre sports people in the world. I might add, when we talk about excellence, that the honourable member for Perth is among many other people of great excellence in terms of their electoral work; for example, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), my good friend the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall), who will be returned with an increased majority, and the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), who is the chairman of the primary industry committee. Those people are of olympian standard in terms of their electoral work. It is important that the Bill does something to protect the Olympic symbol. Previous speakers, such as the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) and the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), have been very thorough in their presentation on that, and I compliment them. I think that for many people in Australia the Olympic symbol has come to mean a great deal. Those early images in 1956 meant a great deal to us. Many honourable members feel very strongly about the Olympic movement. The honourable member for Perth talked about the standards, examples and ideas that it sets of, I suppose, non-partisan behaviour. Non-partisan behaviour is something that the Opposition could use a little of at the moment: but that is another story. A reason for protecting the Olympic Federation insignia is that the Australian Olympic Federation has had the task of having to raise funds itself. In the case of the most recent Olympics, the Australian Government provided $1.4m out of a total of $5m that was required to send our team to the Olympics. In 1960, the contribution that was required by government was $40,000. So, there has been a substantial increase in the amount of money required from the public sector. Also, an increase in funds is required by donation and private arrangement. The intention of the Bill is to give that degree of protection to the Olympic insignia so that the Australian Olympic Federation can raise its own money sensibly. We believe that that is important. I commend the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) on that very important initiative. Along with that, this Government has had a very comprehensive sports policy. As the honourable member for Melbourne said, that policy has been directed particularly to sports for the disabled and veterans-- Mr Hand —Underprivileged kids. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As the honourable member for Melbourne says, underprivileged kids-in many electorates. We believe that it is very important because, interestingly-here we can commend some sporting figures, such as Paul McNamee-those people have provided an example for younger kids. I think it is true to say that, for many underprivileged kids in the Australian community, the only way in which they have been able to gain any achievement has been through sport. It is with that in mind that I again commend the Minister for his persistence in getting in place tax averaging for professional sports people. That has enabled tax arrangements, not unlike those enjoyed by the primary sector. It has been our view that that is sensible. People who may have been quite handicapped or limited in terms of their background, income or experience have often made good in sport, but they have ended up having to pay a lot of money to the Australian Taxation Office for what otherwise would have been a successful career. For example, many members of the Aboriginal community have shown themselves to be outstanding in sport. Unfortunately, in the past they have had to pay out a lot of money in taxes. The Hawke Government has redressed that, because we now have in place tax averaging for professional sportspeople. I congratulate the Government, and the Minister in particular who was a champion of this cause and fought it through what was a very difficult Budget. We are very pleased about that. My remarks have been directed at the individual level. I now turn to the wider level. The existence of the Australian Sports Aid Foundation has meant that it is now possible for the corporate sector to contribute to the sporting fraternity in this country and to claim a 100 per cent tax deduction. Dr Charlesworth —And the AOF will benefit. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As the honourable member for Perth says, the AOF will benefit. That is very important, because we in the Government have the view that there is a partnership between the public and private sectors. Appropriate structures must be set in place to enable that partnership to occur. The Sports Aid Foundation provides that sort of balance. As the honourable member for Jagajaga said, balance is very important in terms of community expectations and performance, and we are able to achieve that. That is something which honourable members opposite might examine. At the macro level, if you like, the Sports Aid Foundation provides the 100 per cent tax write-off. Many laudatory phrases have been used about that Government initiative, none more so than by Mr Bernie Prinderville of the Western Australian Cricket Association, who said that it has completely transformed the funding position and has made things much easier because it is easier for business to get a tax write-off for its contributions to sport. I believe that that is very important. So at the macro level we have the Sports Aid Foundation and at the individual level we have tax averaging. Also, as the honourable member for Jagajaga said we have Aussie sports for kids so that young people can get involved in sporting activity, get a sense of achievement and participation, and feel part of this community. It is an important initiative because it goes into sporting areas and we are very pleased to have it in place. People listening to the speeches of honourable members would gain the knowledge that there has been a policy towards sport. It is a very sound policy which does not mean politicians just turning up on grand final days and enjoying the hospitality or just being there when the big events are on; it means having a foundation of sport. That is led by our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) with his genuine interest in sport, and it goes through to the back benchers of this Government. Mr White —But he only turns up for winners. Dr Charlesworth —But they want to abolish the department. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Unfortunately, as the honourable member for Perth said, the Opposition wishes to abolish the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. To the honourable member who said that the Prime Minister turns up only for winners, I say that the Prime Minister turned up in Perth when the America's Cup was being presented to Dennis Conner. He showed immense courage and stature and gave that occasion great significance. I spoke to many Americans, including the American Ambassador and there was a great recognition that the Prime Minister had the courage to go along and be part of a very important event. What the honourable member needs to understand-I do not think he has learnt it yet; there are other explanations as to why he has not-is that we on this side of the House are used to dealing with adversity and turning up to support people. We are not used to the quick sprint home. We are used to the long hard slog. That is what this Government is about; that is what members of this Government, including the Prime Minister, are about-courage and tenacity. The honourable member might remember that we have an example amongst our ranks of someone who can perform. We are very comfortable with that. I say to those listening that when it comes to talking about the Olympic area or individual sporting areas in this country, this Government has shown itself to be very positive in support. I say to the honourable member for Kooyong, who is at the table, that his interest in sport is also genuinely acknowledged. People in the community recognise that. One good thing about Australians is that they can see through these situations and they know when there is a genuine interest in sport, not only because we have skilled participants in our midst but also because our leadership is genuinely interested. That is very important and the community recognises that. Recently I was at a surf lifesaving association function. The members of that association are all well aware of the contribution to surf lifesaving that this Government has made, particularly as it has two benefits-firstly, a social benefit in training young people and, secondly, a community benefit in saving lives. That is very important and we ought to recognise that. In closing, I say that one other thing is pertinent. I mentioned this the other evening. There is a great interest in sport because this country has, very fortunately, a commitment to sport that is quite universal as a consequence. It is something that people, irrespective of their involvement in politics, can be involved in. That is a very good aspect and something we ought to bear in mind. In many respects it is heartening to look at this aspect of the Australian community over a long period. I was encouraged, as I mentioned in the adjournment debate last night, by people in Western Australia who have a particular interest in the Victorian Football League. I would like to thank them for phoning in to a telephone survey that we conducted on The Winners-a program on Australian Broadcasting Corporation television throughout Australia. I commend them for their interest. We were not interested in their political background; we were interested only in whether they were getting the service they wanted. I commend the ABC, its managing director, David Hill, and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) because the ABC has now reversed that decision and The Winners will be shown throughout Australia. I say to the honourable member for Kooyong that I think we will see a few Essendon wins this year on The Winners and, if I am allowed a personal indulgence, perhaps a few Collingwood wins. I thank those people in the many areas of Australia, who are perhaps listening to this broadcast, for their enthusiastic support of our survey. I thank the managing director of the ABC for being wise and sensible in reversing that decision so that more Australians can look forward to a good coverage of sport in the future. It is a pleasure to commend this legislation to the House because it provides further evidence of this Government's sincere commitment to sport. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(8.14) —In reply-In closing this debate there are a few things I would like to say. I thank four of the five contributors to this debate for the very positive aspects on which they focused in this debate. There are very few debates in this House about institutions as laudatory and, in some ways, as spiritually uplifting as the Olympic movement. It has given me great satisfaction to have introduced this legislation into the House. There are 157 countries in the Olympic family, 157 countries competed at Los Angeles. Australia is only the second country to introduce this legislation which is so desired by the International Olympic Committee to protect and maintain the dignity associated with its logo, the five Olympic rings. Juan Samaranch, the Chairman of the Olympic Committee, is so thankful to Australia for joining the United States in being leaders in this legislation that he is coming to Australia in the next week or so to thank the Government personally. Australia's record in the Olympic Games is without parallel. Only three countries have supported the Olympic Games on every occasion since 1896: Australia, England and Greece. We had the great satisfaction recently at the International Olympic Committee annual meeting in Lausanne of seeing a very distinguished Australian Olympian, Kevan Gosper, a friend of most honourable members in this House and certainly a friend of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), elected to the Executive Committee of the International Olympic Committee. There are only 11 people on that Committee. It is very likely that when Samaranch steps down in 1992 Kevan Gosper will be the front runner to be the next chairman of the Olympic Committee. That sounds like a pretty ho hum thing I suppose-chairman of another committee-but when one investigates it one realises that since 1896 there have been only four chairmen: the Baron Pierre De Coubertin, Avery Brundage, Lord Kalinin and, now, Juan Samaranch. So for an Australian to be aspiring to be chairman of what is one of the most powerful committees in the world, if not one of the most influential, is something of which we should all be proud. Dr Charlesworth —Hear, hear! Mr JOHN BROWN —The `hear, hear' comes from my colleague the honourable member for Perth, and I do not think I should add to the eulogies that have been contributed to Dr Charlesworth by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) and the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh). His record in hockey is unsurpassed in the history of hockey in the world, I suggest. Certainly the honourable member for Groom summed it up very accurately when he said that it has been proposed to him-and I am sure it is correct-that if a world hockey team were being picked at this minute Dr Charlesworth, who I am sure would admit that he is in the twilight of his career after a long period in Olympic hockey, would be the first person picked. It is an enormous rap for a very distinguished Australian. So Australia's record in Olympic Games is quite superb. I acknowledge very freely the statement made by the honourable member for Groom that the $1.4m that I mentioned in my second reading speech for the 1984 Games in Los Angeles was an expenditure I inherited. The honourable member for Groom, then the Minister for sport, had in fact shepherded that piece of legislation through the Government-I freely acknowledge that. I find great comfort in the words of the honourable member for Groom. We must agree to disagree on one aspect only and that is the subject of sporting contact with South Africa. Again, I freely acknowledge that the honourable member for Groom's comments are based on a real sincerity-not on some slavish devotion to right wing politics, but simply his sincere belief, although I believe it is misguided, that sporting contact with South Africa would help our relationship. I have not mentioned the contribution from the shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). It was a fairly petty speech, considering the nature of the subject we are discussing, and quite out of kilter with the contributions from other honourable members. I suggest to the honourable member for McPherson that there are better ways of spending his time in opposition than turning over rocks constantly to try to find some measure of corruption on my part. When I was in opposition-I am sure the honourable member for Kooyong will remember this and I think he will probably acknowledge it-the record of the previous Government in sport over a long period was not good. I must say that after Bob Ellicott's elevation to the Ministry as Minister responsible for sport, and subsequently with the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) and the honourable member for Groom, the record improved greatly. The only time I sought to criticise that Government, although I did not particularly fancy what it was doing in sport, in my whole period as shadow minister was during the boycott of the Moscow Games. I think that I managed to spend my time in opposition developing a sporting policy which I am quite happy for anybody to look at, and all the things that I said we would do in sport, we have done. Tax averaging was mentioned a minute ago. Tax deductibility for contributions to sport will help the Australian Olympic Federation greatly in its quest to raise the $10m required to send our team to Seoul. It has a $2m contribution, not from the Government but from the Australian public through the Government. It is not the Government's money, it is the public's money that we are giving to the Olympic Federation simply because we believe that that is what the Australian Government should be doing. Tax deductibility for contributions will help the Federation greatly in raising the other $8m. I could go through a whole range of things this Government has done that are set out in our policy. I am proud to say that the things we said we would do we have done. That is freely acknowledged by the sporting community. So I cannot see a great deal of benefit in the honourable member for McPherson constantly, on every subject, making his contribution on sporting matters a criticism of me. I am not above criticism, for God's sake-I am a politician, like everybody else here. I just wish sometimes that he would make a productive contribution. I do want to mention one particular subject he constantly raises-the cost of cars for me at the Los Angeles Olympic Games. I have been loath to comment on this, and I am glad that the former Minister for Foreign Affairs is sitting here because this involves a matter of international protocol. I ask the honourable member for McPherson just to open his mind a little and think of the stature of the Olympic Games in Los Angeles in 1984. Following the boycott in 1980 there was an enormous security problem in 1984. I have never bothered to defend myself before but I will do so now as I think it is worth making the point. At the insistence of the American Government-- Mr White —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I do not really wish to interrupt the Minister for Sport but I have never mentioned the cost of cars at the Los Angeles Olympics. Mr JOHN BROWN —You should check the Hansard. You mentioned $15,000. Mr White —No, it was cars on another trip. I am trying to help the Minister. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has a point of explanation which is not a point of order, and he is out of order. Mr JOHN BROWN —At the insistence of the American Government, I stayed at the Biltmore Hotel, along with every other government and Olympic official. At the insistence of the American Government, I was provided with a car-not chosen by us-with an approved security driver. If the honourable member bothered to check with the Olympic movement, and certainly with Dr Charlesworth, he would know that during the fortnight at the Olympic Games I may have travelled, for example, from 5 o'clock in the morning, taking the long trip down to see the rowing, until midnight when I attended the basketball. That is what I was supposed to do. I was there as the Australian Minister for Sport, supporting our Olympic athletes. I must tell the honourable member that I have some letters, which I treasure, from various sports people and from the Olympic Federation about the fact that a Minister of this Government bothered to do that. The cost of maintaining that car-which was not my choice; it was not my choice to have security guards and all the other paraphernalia-was about $15,000, and that has been the subject of constant criticism that I have never bothered to answer simply because there is an international protocol involved-the security factor. I am getting sick and tired of the honourable member constantly bringing it up, putting it in Press releases and dragging it out on every occasion, even during debate on a Bill like this, which involves the protection of the Olympic insignia. I would have thought that he had a more elevated view of the value of sport on a bipartisan basis than to use this occasion to make another petty attack. To all other contributors to the debate, I say that they have done something to elevate the stature of our bipartisan relationship on sport in this House. I only hope that in future, despite whatever legitimate criticism the honourable member for McPherson can make of my policy or my actions, he will at least take a more positive view about sport. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Madam Speaker, I table the explanatory memorandum for the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1987. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(8.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This legislation establishes the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation as the successor to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, which is to be abolished under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill. The Atomic Energy Act 1953 gave the AAEC the role of an active participant in the development of all phases of the peaceful uses of atomic energy, including the exploitation of Australia's uranium resources and the eventual introduction of nuclear power into this country. With the rapid development of Australia's major fossil fuel resources, it became increasingly apparent in the 1970s that there would be no need for the introduction of nuclear power into this country in any foreseeable future, and consequently research at the AAEC in this area was curtailed. In recent years the AAEC has ceased its involvement in the uranium mining industry, and the uranium enrichment research based on centrifuge technology, which has been undertaken by the AAEC since the mid-1960s, was recently terminated. In phasing down its enrichment program the AAEC, in conjunction with the Australian Safeguards Office, undertook a project on the development of safeguarding techniques using this centrifuge equipment. This project was part of Australia's program of assistance to the International Atomic Energy Agency and has now been concluded. While moving away from nuclear fuel cycle activities, in line with the Government's policy-which is that Australia not become involved in any stages of the nuclear fuel cycle other than the mining and milling of uranium and the disposal of waste-the AAEC has continued to apply its substantial expertise to research activities into the uses of radioisotopes and radiation. However, the AAEC's research program has been without firm legislative directions for the future. This new legislation will provide the direction needed to ensure that Australia is able to take full advantage of the many benefits to be derived from the peaceful application of nuclear science and technology. The creation of ANSTO is a wonderful new acronym to add to the galaxy of acronyms we already have-will be more than just a superficial change of name for the AAEC. The Government proposes to use the opportunity to rationalise the nuclear research and development programs of Australia's principal nuclear research establishment, and in this context I draw honourable members' attention to the report of the review committee of the AAEC which was tabled in the House on 11 November. The Government recognises that nuclear technology, when applied to areas such as medicine, science, industry, and agriculture, can make an important contribution to the social and economic well-being of Australia and accordingly these are the areas in which ANSTO will focus its activities. The AAEC has already made a major contribution to the development of nuclear medicine in Australia and currently supplies more than 50 hospitals with a wide range of radiopharmaceuticals. The medical radioisotopes supplied represent a total of about 100,000 patient doses per year. The Government believes that ANSTO will be able to build on the AAEC's success in the nuclear medicine field by expansion of the range of products it produces when the national cyclotron facility announced in the August Budget comes on line and by strengthening its research and commercial activities in the other areas I have just mentioned. The Government will encourage ANSTO to increase its commercial or cost recovery orientation, along the lines of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's Research Establishment at Harwell. Of course, the Government recognises that the Organisation will be unlikely to achieve the same level of self-sufficiency from commercial activities as Harwell, given the much larger industrial base in the United Kingdom. However, to promote progress towards this goal, it is proposed that ANSTO will retain its commercial revenue, subject to the agreement of the responsible Minister and the Minister for Finance. It is also proposed that, subject to specific ministerial approval, the Organisation may undertake non-nuclear research where this would make efficient use of its facilities and provided such research does not duplicate work undertaken by other Commonwealth bodies. In the past it has been suggested that the AAEC has undertaken research directed at nuclear weapons development, despite repeated denials by both the AAEC and responsible Ministers, including me. Of course, nuclear weapons development and related research is specifically prohibited by the Treaty on the non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which Australia joined in 1973. However, to make it absolutely clear that ANSTO's activities will be directed solely to the peaceful uses of nuclear technology, the proposed legislation will prohibit ANSTO from undertaking any research or development into the design or production of nuclear weapons or other explosive devices. An area where the AAEC has been subject to criticism in recent years is in relation to the safety of operation of its facilities. Much of this criticism has centred on the AAEC being self-regulating, in that the Regulatory Bureau's Director has reported to the Commission, whose membership include the Chief Executive of the Research Establishment. The AAEC has had an excellent safety record to date and I have no reason to believe this will not continue to be the case. However, in recognition of the criticism about self-regulation, a Nuclear Safety Bureau will be established which will be directly responsible to the Minister for monitoring and reviewing the nuclear safety of any nuclear plant operated by the Organisation. The Minister will also be required to establish a Safety Review Committee to review and access the effectiveness of the standards, practices and procedures adopted by the Organisation to ensure the safety of its operations. To ensure the independence of advice by this Committee, a majority of members will be required to be drawn from outside ANSTO. The structural arrangements proposed for ANSTO are intended to draw on a wide range of expertise external to the Organisation. It is proposed that ANSTO be governed by a board of directors of up to seven members, a majority of whom will be required to be drawn from outside the Organisation. To ensure that a broad spectrum of views will be available to the Minister and the Board, an Advisory Council of up to 11 members will be created. The majority of Council members will be drawn from outside the Organisation, including representatives of ANSTO user groups. The Council will also include at least one staff elected representative. The Minister will be able to establish specialist advisory committees considered necessary to advise the Board of the Organisation on particular matters. The Joint consultative Committee, a forum for consultation between management and staff, will also be given legislative recognition consistent with the Government's industrial democracy objectives. Conclusion I believe this Bill will establish a viable basis for the conduct of nuclear research in this country and will ensure that in future the direction and purpose of this research will reflect government policy and will be relevant to the needs of the Australian community. I commend the Bill to the house and tender the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(8.33) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is supplementary to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill. Its purpose is to ensure a smooth transition from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to ANSTO. The Bill provides for transfer of the property, staff, powers, rights, estimates of expenditure, liabilities and obligations of the AAEC to ANSTO. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(8.37) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This legislation repeals those parts of the Atomic Energy Act 1953 which deal with the establishment and operations of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and repressive security provisions. Repeal of AAEC enabling legislation A new organisation to succeed the AAEC, as I adumbrated earlier, will be created by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill which was earlier introduced to the House. The present Bill repeals those parts of the Atomic Energy Act which dealt with the establishment and operations of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to make way for the establishment of the ANSTO. ANSTO, of course, will take over all of the existing staff, property, assets and liabilities of the abolished AAEC. Repeal of Security Provisions The Atomic Energy Act was originally drafted in the political climate of the Cold War. At that time uranium was considered to be a scarce resource of major strategic importance as well as a potential future energy source for Australia. The Atomic Energy Act was therefore framed with the intention of using Australia's uranium resources as a lever to gain access to the emerging body of nuclear knowledge and expertise available overseas. It was also contemplated that uranium might be exploited for defence purposes. Section 17 of the Atomic Energy Act provides that the functions of the AAEC `should be performed only for the purpose of [inter alia] ensuring the provision of uranium or atomic energy for the defence of the Commonwealth . . .'. Against this background, repressive security and penal provisions were included in the Act. For example, section 48 places a general prohibition on any communication of `restricted information', whatever the intent of the communicator. The penalty provided is seven years gaol. `Restricted information' is defined in such a way that it would include almost any unpublished information one can think of in relation to a uranium mine, including information on the environmental or safety impact of production methods. Needless to say, these provisions quickly became irrelevant to the activities of the AAEC. Their repeal will remove from the statute book an offensive anachronism. The Government has been particularly concerned at the potential of these provisions to threaten the civil liberties of Australian citizens. All of the excessive security provisions and penalties, including those applying to the communication of restricted information, sabotage and the search and arrest of suspected persons will cease to exist. No longer will offences which are dealt with in other contexts by recourse to the general law be singled out as they were under the Atomic Energy Act for specific and excessive penalties. Nor will it be possible to apply the provisions of the Approved Defence Projects Protection Act 1947 to nuclear research and development activities. The only provisions of the Atomic Energy Act to be retained will be those dealing with the authorisation of the Ranger uranium project and Commonwealth title to uranium in the Northern Territory, and the requirement to report discoveries of uranium and production of yellowcake. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Debate resumed. Madam SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1987 and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1987. As there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(8.40) —The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1987 and cognate Bills have passed through the Senate where the Opposition sought amendments for what we believe would be the better functioning of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act. The introduction of this legislation tonight at this hour is, of course, no surprise in that that debate has already taken place. It is interesting to note that according to the second reading speech of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) the new organisation will be commercially orientated and cost recovery is contemplated. It is my earnest wish and hope that the commercialisation of the cost recovery program will succeed to a greater extent than Austrade did after 12 months in operation. I note also the orientation to the commercial side. There will be representation by user groups, which I think is always a good idea when trying to involve commercial activity. I think it is pertinent to note that this legislation is, of course, allied to the peaceful use of uranium and not to the aspect of warfare, because the arguments in this country for too long have been misdirected, mainly by the Labor forces, against one aspect of nuclear energy-something we all abhor-as opposed to the peaceful use of uranium. Anybody looking at the world today must realise that the peaceful use of uranium not only is necessary but, I believe, will be obligatory in the years ahead. The purpose of this legislation is to repeal the outmoded provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and replace the Australian Atomic Energy Commission with a new organisation to be known as-I will seek the Minister's correction if this is not right-the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO. Although we do not oppose this legislation, we are most concerned about the restrictions placed by the Government on the activities of this new organisation. The growth in the international nuclear industry offers many opportunities for Australia, and we should not be turning our back on the further development of indigenous nuclear technology where it relates to the peaceful use-I again stress `peaceful use'-of nuclear energy. I say from the outset that the Hawke Government should abandon its irrational policies on the development of uranium mines and the nuclear industry in Australia. To be specific, we see that Roxby Downs has been allowed to function, which apparently indicates that some uranium in Australia is good, some bad. I fail to understand how a government could have taken such an irrational or restrictive attitude towards a policy of such fundamental importance to Australia. In last year's Budget we had a specific item for the sale of stocks of uranium to France. I would have thought that the fundamental belief of the Australian Labor Party, if it does have one, would not be to approve such a sale and certainly not a sale to that country. Yet we have these sanctions in some cases but not in others, which makes Australia's uranium policy look like a pakapoo ticket. As I have said, in all of this irrationality, the argument has always been directed at the warlike use of uranium. It really sickens me that around Australia, basically under the protection of this Government and its policies, friendly ships from the United States of America are turned away from our ports or are having to be helped into our ports by other people than those belonging to the Seamen's Union of Australia because of this hang-up on what uranium is all about. I believe that the growing use of uranium for peaceful purposes around the world should be encouraged, but it will not be encouraged under the irrational policies of this Government. Australia has few industries which offer such scope for growth and development. We should not delay the opportunity for further development of the uranium industry in Australia. The Opposition supports the mining and milling of uranium, subject to stringent Australian health and safety standards and the removal of the veto on the development of new uranium deposits. We would also remove the present sanctions that have been imposed by the Labor Government against the export of certain uranium, as I said, and not other types. Most importantly, from a trade point of view, the export of uranium would be permitted subject to existing stringent safeguards agreements put in place by the Fraser-Anthony Government. Australia has low cost uranium resources totalling some 530,000 tonnes. This is a staggering 28 per cent of the world's low cost uranium resources, and the Northern Territory alone possesses 350,000 tonnes of this total. The Roxby Downs copper and gold deposits in South Australia will recover uranium as a secondary product. Again, this indicates the deceit of this Government in putting it in such a category. Total content of uranium oxide or yellowcake in the Roxby Downs deposit is over 400,000 tonnes, but much of this may never be mined. At this stage some 140,000 tonnes of uranium oxide have been classified as low cost resources. Other South Australian prospects include Honeymoon and Beverley. There are also other small resources of uranium in Western Australia and Queensland. I note the Ben Lomond deposit, which people are anxious to develop, but which the policies of this Government retard at this time. Nearly all the uranium in the Northern Territory is found in the Alligator Rivers region, at the Ranger and Nabarlek mines, and in the proven deposits at Jabiluka and Koongarra. Numerous other uranium anomalies are known in the region and it is probable that existing resources would be more than doubled if exploration in the region were allowed to resume. The value of the existing Northern Territory uranium deposit is over $A30 billion. I would like to comment on that figure. When we think of the foreign debt that we have of over $100 billion, I do not see how Australia can thumb its nose at such export potential and at such proven potential for industry in Australia. With over one-quarter of the Western world's estimated uranium resources, Australia should be a major force in the international market, rather than the very minor player that it is. We only have to look at these Bills to see what a minor player we are. The mine production is low, when compared to possible Australian capacity because of the irrational policies followed by the Hawke Government in relation to restricting the mining of uranium. The possible returns of additional exports, under stringent safeguards, are several times our existing earnings from uranium. The longer we keep our uranium in the ground, the more difficult it will be for our producers, both current and potential, to expand their exports. We are therefore denying ourselves one further means of support to our bleeding balance of payments. I think it is important that we stress at this time what those balance of payments are and the potential for uranium mining and export to fill that gap. I have just mentioned the foreign debt of over $100 billion. Whilst I acknowledge that that is, to a large extent, a commercial debt, we would hope that commercial enterprises would be able to develop those deposits of uranium and help close that gap. Apart from that, it should not be overlooked that that figure is three times what it was three years ago. But more importantly, the contribution that uranium mining could make to government revenue, indicates the seriousness of the Government's own position. That government portion of the overseas debt has, in the last three years, increased eight times. That is bad enough and it is out of proportion to the commercial debt. We must also realise that in relation to the economy of Australia, the mining of uranium could well satisfy the constant requests we get from the unions of this country for the further processing of resources to give Australians jobs. The potential for this is unlimited not only in the mining but also in the productive stage of uranium, where this might lead us. If we look further at the argument of our being a safe repository for waste, that represents a magnificent opportunity for improvement in the Australian economy. All of these things-jobs, waste disposal-are desperately required in Australia. To give one small indication of how desperate the Australian economy is, we see the record number of bankruptcies, with 8,000 businesses going to the wall in the recent six months, which is a great increase on previous years. We can only speculate as to how many of these bankruptcies have been caused by the policies of this Government, one of whose policies is to restrict and restrain a natural resource from being mined and further developed. It is really a pity that the Government could not get its troops into order, and control the left wing factions, to make sure that this did not occur. I also add that there is a world need for the production of a clean source of energy. Only the year before last I had talks in Canada with quite a few of the people involved in the energy industry there. There is a major problem around the Great Lakes, where all those major industries involving the base resource energy, coal, are located, with smog and acid rain. Those industries have gone to the step to which we should have gone, but for another reason. They have a very safe method-I think it is called Candu-of producing uranium for peaceful purposes. They have developed that from their own resources. They are also very heavily into hydro-electricity. I believe that the Minister for Science, who is at the table, has been taken on an inspection of those places. That is the direction in which Australia should be heading, particularly with its potential to supply uranium to the export market and of being available as a repository for the waste. Coal use in the future will be limited by environmental matters. I say this with some feeling because many areas of my electorate supply coal to international markets. We have only to see around the world today the decreasing use of coal for steaming and coking purposes to realise that Australia should be trying to capture that part of the market. Another reason to develop our uranium industry is the opportunity it affords Australia to make a significant contribution to the development of a nuclear fuel cycle. The biggest single problem with the nuclear industry today is the disposal of waste. Through the development of synroc, Australia has shown that it can make a vital contribution to the world nuclear industry and the safe handling of nuclear materials. It is by involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle that we will be able to do more to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy than by an ostrich-like burying of our heads in the sand as this Government is doing. A further important development that Australia should be involved in is uranium enrichment. If Australia were involved in enrichment, we would be able to help safeguard the security of movement of fissile material in the world. I note here that a commercial enrichment plant cannot produce material for weapons grade uranium. The report of the Australian Science and Technology Council, which I will mention later, states: Our overall conclusion is that Australia will be best able to make a significant contribution if it is actively involved in the nuclear fuel cycle. By such involvement we consider that Australia will be able to make a direct contribution to the development of the civil nuclear fuel cycle in ways that will increase global energy security, help to strengthen the elements of the non-proliferation regime and help to reduce the risks of misuse of civil facilities and the diversion of nuclear materials from civil to military uses. Without such involvement we consider that global energy security would be less assured and our ability to strengthen the non-proliferation regime and to influence future developments in the fuel cycle would be reduced. We do not wish to exaggerate Australia's role in matters related to the nuclear fuel cycle but, as in most other human endeavours, it is only by active involvement that Australia can expect to be able to influence the future course of events. It would be useful to examine briefly some of the background to this legislation and to Australia's nuclear energy involvement. In the early post-war years Australia developed a nuclear industry by mining and milling uranium; Mary Kathleen and Rum Jungle are the final reminders of that. That industry required an understanding of the uses of nuclear material and of preventative measures to stop abuse. The result of these developments was the Atomic Energy Act. This Act was developed under the defence power. During the 1950s, following increased understanding of the potential peaceful uses of nuclear energy, it became clear that Australia should not ignore these developments. A research establishment was set up at Lucas Heights. Lucas Heights was a purely research establishment. It had two small reactors of low power. It exists to train personnel such as science graduates and engineers to carry out research and development in aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle and to carry out technical work in support of Australia's international obligations and interests in the nuclear field. Since the fuel crisis and worries about long term supply of non-renewable fossil fuels and acid rain, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission has become more development oriented. World-wide, nuclear power stations have been developed. Lately, worries about pollution generated by coal powered stations has stimulated further appraisal of the usefulness of nuclear power. A number of reports have looked into aspects of the nuclear industry in Australia, from a major report by ASTEC in 1984 to the most recent review by the AAEC. The ASTEC report was commissioned by the Hawke Government. The reports were given in all honesty. It is rather a pity that some of the more important aspects of the recommendations have not been carried into this latest legislation. The development of nuclear energy for power generation is but one of the many peaceful uses possible of nuclear energy. The Opposition has urged the Government to implement immediately all the recommendations of the ASTEC report on the nuclear fuel cycle and to abolish the ban on the development of further peaceful stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. The ASTEC report is an independent and objective audit of the policies and practices of the Australian uranium and nuclear industries. As I have said, the report was carried out at the request of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It is a pity that the whole report was not acted on to the extent that we feel it should have been. The Government's response to the report has been predictably doctrinaire. The Government rejected recommendations 1 and 9 relating to the mining and export of uranium and the further development of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. Recommendation 1 was that exports of Australian uranium should not be limited as a matter of principle but should be permitted, subject to stringent conditions of supply designed to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. I will take the time to read into Hansard some extracts of the recommendations in the report. One states: Despite the fact there is at present an oversupply of uranium and that most consuming countries hold considerable stockpiles, there will continue to be market opportunities for Australian uranium. This is because assurance of energy supply is a basic requirement for national security and countries without adequate domestic energy sources seek to diversify and secure their foreign energy supplies. Countries with nuclear power programs therefore wish to obtain uranium supplies from several sources and to seek their supplies from politically stable countries. Australia is such a country, with an established record as a reliable supplier of raw materials to world markets. Others state: If international tensions are to be reduced and the prospects of a peaceful global environment enhanced, the importance of national and international energy security cannot be over-emphasised. . . . . It follows that, because of its substantial resources, Australia can make a significant contribution to the stability and reliability of energy supply through its uranium exports. . . . . The motivation for countries to move rapidly towards the development and utilisation of fast breeder reactors, which are fuelled largely with plutonium, would also be reduced by increased assurance of supply. that means Australia- Fast breeder reactors can produce as much fissile material as they consume and so offer a high potential degree of energy security . . . through being a reliable long term supplier of uranium, Australia is in a position to contribute significantly to international energy security. By so doing, Australia will also reduce to some degree the desire of nuclear power countries to seek greater energy security by the reprocessing of spent fuel and the commercial introduction of fast breeder reactors. Although there is public concern that, by being a supplier of uranium, Australia is likely to contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we conclude that this is not the case and that the risks of proliferation will be reduced. Australian uranium is supplied under very stringent safeguards against diversion to use in weapons. The ASTEC report's recommendation in this regard, which has been entirely disregarded by the Government, is worthy of consideration. Recommendation No. 9 is: That Australian participation in stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in addition to uranium mining and milling should be permitted, where such participation promotes and strengthens the non-proliferation regime. The report highlights this recommendation by stating: In the Asia-Pacific region, Australia could usefully take initiatives to seek joint national involvement in the provision of fuel cycle services. While a number of countries in the region can be expected to develop nuclear power programs, it would be undesirable, in terms of proliferation and economics, for most to have complete national fuel cycles. Similarly, it would be undesirable if such facilities were concentrated in one country. The complementary role of Australia and Japan as nuclear suppliers and the strong non-proliferation commitment of both countries could provide a focus for developing such an activity . . . We have already concluded that, as a reliable supplier of uranium under stringent safeguards, Australia makes a positive contribution to non-proliferation. Recommendation No. 9 has not been taken into consideration by this Government. The Government's policy was announced on 7 November 1983 and remains unchanged in the face of this report. The Opposition believes that this situation is scandalous. The Government's policy is irrational. It perpetrates a general lack of knowledge about the uranium industry, Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle and international safeguards, and it seems to concentrate on the negatives and not the positives that the products of a resource can bring to Australia. It does not recognise the distinction between the development of peaceful uses of the uranium industry, from which Australia stands to benefit, and the link between our uranium industry and international involvement in global energy security and nuclear non-proliferation. The policy of this Government is inequitable and unfair. It results in a net cost to Government and lost opportunities in terms of employment, exports and income. It is ridiculous to suggest that a $30 billion resource should stay in the ground and cost the Government money by way of outlays to keep it there. The ASTEC report was released in May 1984, almost two years ago, but the Government did not respond until May 1985. We are only getting this legislation now. The Government should not delay any further in regard to the matters I have mentioned before accepting and implementing recommendations Nos 1 and 9 of the ASTEC report. I would like to contrast the record of the Government with what the coalition has always fairly laid on the line, both in the original reports of the Fraser-Anthony Government and in indications since. The coalition totally endorses all the recommendations of the ASTEC report on the nuclear fuel cycle. I have mentioned our qualifications on some recommendations and there may be other recommendations of the report we would not follow through. However, the recommendations regarding the nuclear fuel cycle are thoroughly endorsed by the Opposition. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr BRAITHWAITE —I thank honourable members. The coalition supports the mining and milling of uranium subject to stringent Australian health and safety safeguards. In this area secondary processing of the resource can make a significant contribution to the economy and the work force of Australia. The coalition would allow exports of Australian uranium subject to stringent conditions of supply designed to strengthen the non-proliferation regime under bilateral safeguard agreements and supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, but we certainly do not believe in the indiscriminate sanctions which are applied by the Government at the moment. The coalition would remove the veto on the development of proven uranium deposits such as Jabiluka, Koongarra, Yeelirrie, Beverley and Honeymoon. We would support the exploration and development of further commercial uranium deposits. We would co-operate with industry in assessing the feasibility of establishing a commercial uranium enrichment industry in Australia for peaceful purposes only, and under IAEA supervision. The Opposition would encourage the continuing research and development in Australia of the technology of the safe disposal of nuclear wastes. We would promote improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of IAEA safeguard operations. We would maintain an active role in high international standards of safety and surveillance and advocate an expanded safeguard system incorporating the most stringent safeguards which are part of the existing bilateral arrangements. What is worrying about the legislation before this House today are the restrictions imposed by the Government on involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. These restrictions will severely limit the functions of ANSTO. The functions defined for this new organisation are likely not to be broad enough to allow adequate support for the further development for peaceful purposes of uranium and nuclear industries. The Opposition considers that the proposed organisation to replace the AAEC should be able to participate fully in any future research and development of all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. Furthermore, the Opposition believes that the Government should be able to educate the public and generally promote developments such as those we have mentioned. The coalition does not oppose this legislation but welcomes a fully-fledged debate, for the first time in many years I believe, on the subject of nuclear power in Australia and the mining of uranium. If we look at our energy resource projects throughout Australia, such as the petroleum industry, we see that the taxing policies of this Government are slowly but surely killing off a very important industry to Australia as far as liquid fuels are concerned. A visit to the Bass Strait oil fields will indicate that the well is drying up and is fully past its potential. The chances of exploration for what oil resources might remain in Australia are being diminished and restricted because of the taxing policies of this Government. I hope that in this debate members of the more radical sections of the Government might realise the mischief they are creating to the economy. The opportunities are there. They must be grasped now if Australia is to become energy efficient into the year 2000 and beyond. We must also take into account the problems which face the world in the development and mining of energy and consider what other countries have done about them. It is ironic that while the Government condemns the use of uranium this Government, which seems to take a lot of its messages from Moscow, has a nuclear power base for peaceful purposes. We had the disastrous example of Chernobyl last year, but at least the USSR is prepared, with all the resources it has-unmined petroleum and coal-to develop the fuel cycle. It should not be taken from my comments that the coalition adheres in any way whatsoever to a belief in the use of uranium in the cycle for the purposes of warfare. That is certainly not my view or the view of my colleagues. It is about time this Government took its head out of the proverbial sands-the tar sands I think, because it is up to its neck in them-- Mr Lloyd —They need a new clear policy. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It needs a very new clear policy in this regard. It is about time it took away the blinkers of the Left, the rearguards and all the other guards, which seem to bind them to the idiotic view that the use of uranium for any purpose is not on. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(9.10) —It would be a tragedy for the debate on such important pieces of legislation to degenerate into a mere exchange of slogans and some of the hackneyed and, I think, rather discredited arguments that have been trotted out in the uranium debate over the last decade in Australia. In the course of the debate I would hope that we can move beyond that to some constructive debate about not only the question of nuclear energy but also the role that Australia ought to play, given the events of Chernobyl and the resources that we have available to us. I speak on this package of legislation not just because I have a long-standing interest in the subject matter of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill but also in my capacity as the local Federal member for the electorate of Hughes, in which the Australian Atomic Energy Commission at Lucas Heights is located. This legislation replaces the Australian Atomic Energy Commission with a new organisation to be known as the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. This reform is decades overdue and is indicative, I believe, of the winds of change that are sweeping through the Lucas Heights research laboratories. These changes have long term implications and will promote a significant expansion of employment opportunities for residents of my electorate. The legislative package before the House will remove for all time what must be considered by a fair-minded legislature as a blot on the legislative landscape; that is, the Atomic Energy Act 1953. I propose in my remarks to look to the future but I do want to refer to that old legislation in order to stress the need for reform. That Act was a draconian and secretive piece of legislation born of the Cold War era. It was primarily based on what the then Minister for Supply, Mr Beale, described as the Government's-that is the Menzies Government-determination that newly discovered uranium deposits would `be vigorously and promptly exploited for the defence of Australia and its allies' or in the words of the more forthright W. C. Wentworth, the then honourable member for Mackellar: Our prime duty is, within the minimum time, to get the maximum amount of uranium into the arsenals of the free world. I quote from the Hansard of 1953. The aim, in other words, was to contribute to the greatest extent to the stockpiling of nuclear weapons. The Atomic Energy Act, which was of doubtful constitutional validity, was passed at a time when Australia was used as a testing ground for nuclear warheads developed in the United Kingdom. As an indication of the draconian nature of the legislation, it inhibited journalists, scientists or workers from discovering or disclosing any information about dangerous or doubtful activities at Lucas Heights or about occupational health and safety issues. These provisions are nowadays quite properly rejected as absurd by the Atomic Energy Commission and by all thinking members of the community. It is a strange irony that over a decade ago I was publicly campaigning for the repeal of that obnoxious piece of legislation, never dreaming that one day I would be representing the electorate of Hughes and speaking on the very Bill that was to give effect to that repeal. (Quorum formed) As the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) pointed out in his second reading speech, the Bills before the House constitute far more than a superficial change of name, as the Bills are intended to transform the Organisation to meet the expectations of the community. One matter worthy of comment is that the legislation will prohibit the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation from undertaking any research or development into the design or production of nuclear weapons or other explosive devices. The Labor Government has gone far beyond this by the passage of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Bill. That Bill, which my colleagues unanimously supported, closes off the nuclear weapons option for Australia. Australia has now become the first independent sovereign country in the world to have ever passed a law which prohibits the development or acquisition of nuclear weapons. That Bill also prohibits the testing of nuclear weapons in our country and the permanent stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia. That Bill was opposed by all Liberal and National Party members of the Australian Parliament, to their everlasting shame. The details of the legislation will be covered by my colleagues in their contributions to the debate. I propose instead to deal with broader issues of social policy, and environmental and employment questions relevant to ANSTO's future. I begin by reiterating my close relationship with the work force of Lucas Heights, ranging from senior research scientists to metal workers, drivers and the trade unions and associations which represent them. It was following my visit to Lucas Heights and discussion with scientists that I proposed to the Australian Labor Party Caucus that the Government initiate the establishment of a House of Representatives standing committee on science and technology. This proposal, which I believe has bipartisan support, has now been accepted by the Government. As I have indicated before, I believe that I am well qualified to talk about the future of Lucas Heights. I also mention that many of my close friends and supporters who work at Lucas Heights are active members of the ALP. I also reiterate my continuing public commitment not only to maintaining employment at Lucas Heights but also to supporting initiatives which will greatly boost employment opportunities. One reason why I welcome the new legislation is that the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation will be able to take up the recommendation of the 1986 Committee of Review of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission chaired by Professor R. E. Collins of the Australian National University, and become applications oriented and outward looking. The most interesting recent proposal for Lucas Heights is that a technology park be set up alongside the research laboratories for the development and manufacture of technology intensive products. It was reported correctly in the Australian newspaper on 31 December that the Sutherland Shire Council supports this proposal and that the park would have links with Wollongong University, the Illawarra Technology Centre and the Macarthur and Nepean institutes of technology. Of course, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission has been heavily involved with the proposal and supports it. The main advantage of siting a technology park at Lucas Heights is that the very considerable engineering, testing and computing facilities of ANSTO would become available for nuclear and non-nuclear research and development as needed by the park's private enterprise inhabitants. This would represent a considerable advance on some other technology parks in Australia. It is my view that in addition ANSTO would be strongly motivated to carry out contract research for the adjacent companies. Under the right conditions a technology park would stimulate that outward looking, applications oriented research development which I believe is so important. It is for this reason that I am a strong supporter of the technology park proposal and have had detailed discussions with members of the steering committee set up to investigate the park. The proposed site for the technology park is on the border of the 1.6 kilometre buffer zone around the Atomic Energy Commission in New Illawarra Road, Lucas Heights. I look forward to working closely with the steering committee and will be lobbying my colleagues in the Federal and State governments to give their support to the proposal. I urge the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation also to become actively involved in this exciting project. As the local Federal member, one of my aims has been to stimulate and promote greater government, scientific, trade union and community debate-informed debate-about the future of the Lucas Heights establishment. It is often mistakenly thought that concerns about the safety aspects of the Lucas Heights reactor are of recent origin. In fact, my predecessor, Mr Les Johnson, who is now the Australian High Commissioner to New Zealand, in his maiden speech in 1956, 31 years ago, said: Large numbers of my constituents have emphasised the need for placing the utmost importance on measures to ensure the safe operation of the reactor, the most stringent supervision of waste effluent disposal, and the many and complex safety considerations. That was a long time ago and showed a great deal of foresight by my predecessor, Les Johnson. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has rejected calls for the immediate decommissioning of the reactor, but both he and the Commission have repeatedly publicly indicated that the lifetime of the refurbished hifar Australian reactor will end in 1990 or the 1990s. That stated time is not very far away. In the light of that, it is vital that planning begin now for that time. There is no doubt that the technology park proposal and the development of a national cyclotron facility are vital parts of planning for that event. I turn now to what I see as the vital question of whether or not ANSTO will be able to meet the expectation of the Collins review; that the Commission should be outward looking and that the days of excessive secrecy should be put to an end. My hope is that the new leadership of ANSTO and its advisory bodies will ensure that ANSTO takes up the idea initiated by Sir John Carrick, a former Liberal Minister with responsibility for the Atomic Energy Commission, who spoke in a very moving and well thought out way in the Senate following the tragic Chernobyl accident. I quote what he said, because of the importance of his words: We must not simply say: `It has not happened to us so it cannot happen'. I talk of a world scene. In my judgment, there is a need for full and frank scientific discussions on an international level-international conferences and scientific seminars to bring out the details. There is a need to look at the International Atomic Energy Agency and to equip it with the full power not only . . . to examine whether any reactor is adding to nuclear proliferation of weapons, but also to look at the safety details and to report in a global fashion. I draw those words to the attention of the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). Sir John Carrick continued by stating that there is a need immediately to set up in Australia an expert task force drawn from the Atomic Energy Commission and our universities. He said: We should equip that task force with the power and the responsibility to collect all information about what has happened at Chernobyl, about the fall-out of radioactivity over the European land mass and about the various accidents that have happened in reactors around the world. It should have the power to look at the International Atomic Energy Agency to see whether we can give it more power to ensure that safety factors are being observed. I regard it as absolutely fundamental that we in Australia should not just sit here getting caught up in what will be the ugliest nonsense-all sorts of pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear arguments-when the real situation is that Chernobyl has sent us a message about the universality of radioactivity and the need for us all to act quickly. In the light of that, I turn to the record of the Atomic Energy Commission in this area. I note that the Commission has spent a vast amount of public money on public relations. Arising from a question I have asked in the Parliament, it has been revealed that the figures for 1978 to 1985 show that an amount exceeding $1m has been spent in those years. The tragedy for Australia has been that, in the past, sections of the Atomic Energy Commission's management have been, in my respectful opinion, unnecessarily paranoid. Rather than the Commission being independent and scientific in its approach to nuclear energy and research it has at times been little more than blinkered and at times even intellectually and scientifically dishonest in many of its official publications. I felt deeply saddened when, in the wake of the tragic Chernobyl accident, the Commission, with the wisdom of hindsight, purported to speak with authority about the dangers and faults of the Soviet nuclear power reactors. It should be the job of ANSTO not to express concern with hindsight but to be forthright, honest and open in its assessment of the safety of reactors, not only in Australia but throughout the world. As a graphic demonstration of the past failures of the Commission in this area, I refer the House to question on notice No. 3906, which I asked in 1986, directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I asked whether the Atomic Energy Commission in its entire history had ever once in its official publications been critical or expressed concern about the safety aspects of the nuclear power industry anywhere in the world. The answer to that question was no, on not one single occasion had that concern been expressed. I draw the attention of honourable members also to question on notice No. 4206 of 1986, in which I highlighted the fact that the uranium producers' forum had applauded the expansion of nuclear power in the Soviet Union and commented that problems encountered earlier had then been overcome. Regrettably, that was only two months prior to the Chernobyl accident. Those questions demonstrate graphically the need for the Lucas Heights establishment to be more open and accountable and to act in the public interest to independently assess the safety of nuclear reactors world wide. I believe that under the new legislation exciting new opportunities will be available to ANSTO. I compliment the Commission for its work and the recent announcement of the development of the gas phase enrichment monitor, which is an improved method of monitoring adherence to the terms of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. These are the sorts of initiatives which can bring great credit to ANSTO. I have two particular concerns which have not been adequately addressed in the Bills before the House. I believe that it is essential for proper local accountability that the Sutherland Shire Council should be continually and closely involved in the future work of ANSTO. I note with approval the Council's call for the monitoring of safety issues to occur with greater independence from ANSTO and the Council's call for involvement in this process. Local resident groups, which have expressed deeply felt and well researched concerns about issues of public safety at Lucas Heights, also should be involved in the future of ANSTO. I hope that my good friend the Minister for Resources and Energy and the new board of directors of ANSTO will act to involve the Council and local residents in the work of ANSTO. There will have to be a breaking down of barriers to achieve effective communication and accountability. I conclude as I began, by saying that the package of legislation before the House will enable the winds of change to continue to sweep through the Lucas Heights establishment, bringing benefits not just to nuclear science and the employees of ANSTO but also to the entire community of the Sutherland Shire and hopefully, dare I say, to the world. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(9.30) —The legislation before the House is supposed to be the culmination of-- Mr Hand —You have made more farewell speeches in this House than anybody. Mr EVERINGHAM —I am surprised that the cream puff from Melbourne is speaking out of turn. Mr Beale —He should be down here, Paul. He's in the wrong seat. Mr EVERINGHAM —He should be on the front bench but he could not tough it out against the poor old Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes). The legislation before us is supposed to be the culmination of the Labor Government's policies on the nuclear industry, or at least we are told that the legislation removes the outdated and anachronistic, and brings policy into line with the 1980s. We are told that once the legislation becomes law, Australia will be in a position to take full advantage of the many benefits of nuclear science technology. That is what we are told, but just how gullible does this Labor Government believe the people of Australia are? The legislation scales down the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and reduces its areas of research, diverting the new Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation into activities on the fringe of the nuclear industry. It confines, restricts, reduces and constrains. It is intended not to increase Australia's involvement in the nuclear industry but, in fact, to avoid it. Like Labor's extraordinary performance on uranium generally, this legislation does not tackle the issues; it tries to bury them. It is well recognised that the Government has experienced a failure of nerve-brought about by the politics of lunatic ideology-on the whole question of Australia's involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. This legislation is not a blueprint for the future; it is a blue funk. Since the nuclear industry is a subject close to the heart of my electorate, I shall review a few vital statistics. They are doubly vital in our present state of affairs, with the deficit blowing out in every successive quarter, and Australia owing $101 billion-plus to foreign creditors. Australia has about 30 per cent of the world's easily recoverable uranium. Even under the current totally ambivalent policies of this Government, uranium is Australia's fifth largest mineral export and our tenth largest export earner. Even the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) acknowledges its importance, forecasting that energy exports from Australia will increase by 150 per cent in the next decade, with much of that growth coming from uranium exports. We can see the present problems of the coal industry. Given those figures, it is completely irresponsible for Australia to bury its head in the sand like an ostrich in the electorate of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) and try to dissociate itself from the nuclear fuel cycle in tomorrow's world. Mr Cunningham —An emu. Mr EVERINGHAM —If the honourable member does not mind, perhaps I can have a bit of poetic licence. Those who oppose both uranium exports and Australia's involvement in the nuclear industry nominate their main concern as being that once Australian uranium leaves our shores it is beyond our control. They say that it may even end up in bombs that could be used against us. That is a legitimate concern. It is why we have the toughest international standards today to safeguard uranium sales-bilateral safeguard agreements with user countries that exceed accepted international standards and ensure Australian uranium is used only for peaceful purposes. If we are sincere in our concerns, it is up to us to do more than just moralise on the international stage. The presence of the uranium resource, the ability of Australian scientists, plus the existence of an arid environment and tectonic stability, give us a real opportunity to exert a great influence over the future development and use of nuclear fuel. The way to real influence is by embracing, not running away from, the nuclear fuel cycle. This legislation does not do that; it does quite the opposite, setting the scene for Australia to dig up our resources, undertake the first milling and then send it elsewhere for others to exploit to the full. The enrichment, the conversion to fuel, the reprocessing, are to be left to others. This is legislation that once again, as in so many industries, allows Australia the soft option-all care, no responsibility. Australia has the opportunity to pioneer techniques in the operation and management of the nuclear fuel cycle. More than that, we have a moral obligation to do so-a moral obligation which is linked to the projections for world power requirements in the next 20 years-and a moral obligation to put up or shut up on the international scene. The developed nations, comprising just 17 per cent of the world's population, today consume 50 per cent of the world's energy. The developing nations, about half the world's population, consume just 10 per cent. It is those nations that will add about 1.6 billion people to the world before the year 2000. As fossil fuels are exhausted and the population grows, the benefits of cheap and clean nuclear fuel will be crucial to the comfort and lifestyle of peoples everywhere. Australians can either meet that challenge or run away from it. There are a number of options available. The combination of nuclear fuel leasing, guaranteeing a stable supply to customer countries and safeguards against proliferation is one such option. The Atomic Energy Commission believes that it is feasible to design and build a centrifuge-type enrichment plant in Australia-an essential first step in the construction of a commercial plant. By the year 2010 it is quite conceivable to have in operation an enrichment plant, a fuel fabrication facility, a reprocessing plant and a vitrification and waste disposal facility. Such developments would mean two things: First, a responsible and mature approach to the moral dilemmas thrown up by the nuclear fuel cycle; and, second, jobs, investment money and new industry for Australia. Instead, this Government proposes, through this legislation, to kill off that opportunity, quite deliberately strangling new industry at birth. I ask the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating): Can we afford the continuing luxury of avoiding difficult questions rather than tackling them head on as is our moral imperative? Can we afford to lose jobs in mining, research, nuclear power and processing and conversion? Can we afford to allow our best brains to leave Australia in search of meaningful work in their field? Can we afford to cop out once again? If honourable members opposite are not sure about the answer, I suggest that they have a further look at the balance of trade figures, the current account deficit and a few other relevant statistics published in the life of this Government. So far I have dealt with general objections to the legislation but, as the Northern Territory representative, I also have a specific objection. The Minister has made much of updating an anachronistic piece of legislation. But one major anachronism remains in place-for no reason that I can discern. That outdated provision is the continued control and ownership of Territory uranium by the Commonwealth, preserved by the retention of section 35 of the Atomic Energy Act. There can be no logical reason for the Commonwealth to retain ownership and control of this one mineral in just one part of Australia. I ask the Minister to address the question seriously and to inform the House why, when he declares his determination to remove anachronistic provisions, this clause is retained. Given the Territory's steady advance to statehood and given that all states have ownership and control over their resources, including Australian uranium in other places, what possible reason can there be for the retention of this provision? In 1981 the former Government prepared the ground for the return of control and ownership of uranium to the Northern Territory. That groundwork was linked directly- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! I remind the honourable member that he is discussing a Bill which has no direct relevance to Northern Territory uranium. I have allowed the honourable member a fair degree of licence. Mr EVERINGHAM —Now that this legislation is before us I am really surprised that since section 35 of the Act relates to the ownership of uranium I am to be precluded from talking about the ownership of uranium-the ownership of uranium in the Northern Territory I point out. Now that this legislation is before us we find that the Commonwealth wishes to retain the status quo, namely section 35. That is what I am talking about, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is only one explanation: The continued paternalistic attitude of a Commonwealth which has identified the Territory as its last playground, a place where it can continue to exercise responsibilities unavailable to it in any other part of Australia. A transfer of the full range of State-type executive powers to the Northern Territory Government is consistent with the principles of Territory self-government. Any other action is inconsistent and discriminatory against the Territory's people. Continued Commonwealth control is in itself hard to bear, but in the light of the stop-start confusion of current Labor Government policies on uranium, it is disastrous. This Government is prepared to see its policies on an energy resource vital to the future of Australia decided by minority group pressure and deliberate State favouritism. In contrast, the Territory Government has consistently shown a responsible and proper interest in the enrichment of uranium here in Australia and in other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle all the way to waste disposal. If this Labor Government does not have the intestinal fortitude to tackle Australia's nuclear related industry in a serious and studied manner, it should at least allow others to make of the industry what they can. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(9.42) —Madam Speaker, in speaking to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill and cognate Bills it must be recognised-- Mr Martin —Deputy Speaker. Mr CAMPBELL —I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Beale —Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr CAMPBELL —Mr-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member that he knows how to address the Chair and I ask him to address the Chair in the proper manner. Mr CAMPBELL —I offer my humble apologies. I have trouble with my eyes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope you do not take it at all personally. It is my view that we should have Madam Speakers of both sexes. A lot has been said about the legislation already and there is not much more I can say about the mechanics of it. Much of it covers the setting up of a statutory authority and the provisions thereof. It is very much the same for any statutory authority. I notice in the legislation that there is one radical provision that the chairperson of the Commission shall be addressed as `chairman', `chairwoman', or `Chairlady', according to sex. This adventurous-dare I say radical-piece of legislation will gladden the hearts of the many Gareth Ryans or Susan Evanses who exist in society today. I certainly commend it as it is a very forward looking notion. As you will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, these Bills are highly technical and I am very grateful for the advice I have had from the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) and the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) in explaining to me the technicalities and intricacies of nuclear energy and radiation, all the facets in which I am not very well versed. I thank them very much. There are things about the Lucas Heights establishment which I find quite exciting. It is in the electorate of the honourable member for Hughes, and I have spoken to him at great length about this as he is particularly interested in the medical aspects of the developments that are taking place there. He has been good enough to explain certain aspects in detail to me. I will mention some of the vital research that is taking place in the establishment such as that into malignant melanoma-it is almost poetic, is it not? While we are talking about poetry I will draw to the attention of the House the poetic licence the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) took with my electorate. I found it most distasteful that anyone should take poetic licence with the electorate of Kalgoorlie. After all it is twice the size of the electorate of the Northern Territory as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker; but fear not, after the implementation of the Campbell plan there will be no Northern Territory; it will be divided amongst the adjoining States. The Australian Capital Territory will be returned to New South Wales, and Tasmania, of course, will be placed in the middle of the Gulf of Carpentaria where it will not doubt improve the breeding stock in Queensland. Malignant melanoma is an important issue. I am grateful to the honourable member for Hughes for explaining to me that boron is readily taken up by the dark pigment, or melanin, associated with malignant melanoma. He tells me that a boron solution injected intravenously concentrates within the dark pigment and therefore is directly within the melanoma cell. That is very important because right in the middle of the melanoma cell is concentrated the isotope boron 10. When that cell is bombarded, as the honourable member explained to me, with a low energy neutron beam, the boron 10 becomes very excited and lithium 6 ions and alpha particles are emitted. It is in this decay process that the good effects take place. These high linear energy transfer particles have the capacity to destroy the cells completely within a radius of 10 micromillimetres. The honourable member explained to me that this is about the diameter of one cell. That is very important. Hence we have a very effective device for destroying malignant cells while leaving others unaffected. This work is being undertaken at Lucas Heights in conjunction with the New South Wales State Cancer Council and is a further development of research done in Japan into the destruction of certain cancer cells in brain tissue where very encouraging results are being achieved. (Quorum formed) I was explaining how the isotope boron 10 when concentrated in the middle of these carcinoma cells can be destroyed when bombarded. This has relevance to brain cancer and there is the possibility in the future-possibly in the distant future-of providing a cure even for the National Party. Not only the National Party but also other affected organs will be cured by this method. This is extremely important for people in Australia particularly Queenslanders who run the highest risk in the world of being afflicted with malignant melanoma. This work is extremely important as about 1,000 people die or are seriously disfigured each year as a result of this disease, and the incidence appears to be rising. Mr Lamb —Brisbane is our skin cancer city. Mr CAMPBELL —That is probably right, and it is not the only cancer one gets there, of course. I am also grateful to the honourable member for Hughes for bringing to my attention the marvellous research being done at Lucas Heights into cystic fibrosis. He explained to me that this disease affects one in every 2,500 children born. It causes extreme discomfort, very poor quality of life and a very short life expectancy. The treatment has been to give supplementary feeding. The problem was that any weight gain was often merely retained water or fatty tissues when what was needed was muscle growth. The Atomic Energy Commission at Lucas Heights, in conjunction with the children's hospital at Camperdown, is developing a process whereby the patient is subjected to a low energy neutron source which activates neutrons in the nitrogen ions present in the muscle and gives doctors a precise measurement of muscle growth, enabling them to tailor precisely any supplementary feeding. This technique is also very useful in treating long term kidney dialysis patients. Cystic fibrosis patients normally develop a lot of mucous and require constant X-ray monitoring. This technique actively reduces the patient's exposure to radiation, as it greatly reduced the need for X-ray exposure. This is an issue in which the honourable member for Hughes has been very interested for many years. The process has the potential for substantial export earnings, a fact to be welcomed in our present economic climate. Another aspect at which we can look with great pride in Australia is the support given at Lucas Heights for the development of synroc. Synroc is unsurpassed as a method of waste containment as it locks up the nuclides in the lattice of the atomic structure of the synthetic titanic rock. Is that right? Mr Milton —It is experimental, isn't it? Mr CAMPBELL —Yes, that is right. It is experimental and it is going very well indeed. Borosilicate glass is probably safe, but synroc is a magnitude safer. Safety is one thing we should all be very conscious of. One aspect that concerns me is the development of the once through system, which dispenses with the need to reprocess nuclear waste. I find it very disconcerting that the world today seems to be prepared to use fuel elements once and dispose of the whole lot. This presents real problems for monitoring as the bulk is so much larger. I know that Professor Ted Ringwood is very concerned about this aspect of the industry. I believe Australia has the best geology, the best geography and the best technology, and has a clear responsibility to seriously attend to this problem. I am aware that some thought has been given at Lucas Heights to the technology for the recovery of the platinum group minerals ruthenium, rhodium and paladium from atomic wastes. This could be a major source of supply of these valuable minerals in years to come and will substantially offset the cost of reprocessing. When the uranium, which is a valuable high bulk component of nuclear waste, and the other valuable material is recovered, the bulk is drastically reduced and this obviously makes it easier for monitoring and containment. This is a very important issue because if we are to monitor where these various components are going, obviously it is much harder if we are dealing with a great bulk. Incidentally, it is probably not economic at the moment to store plutonium, and this could be permanently locked up in the synroc system. It could be locked up until the end of time-or, to be more dramatic, until enlightenment comes to Queensland. But I doubt whether anyone will live that long. This would remove the concern felt by a lot of people about the proliferation of plutonium and would give Australia a very good bargaining chip for a processing and reprocessing industry to give value added to our resources. Adding value to our resources is absolutely vital and is certainly a part of the Australian Labor Party's platform. It would provide us with an income of a couple of billion dollars a year and massive short term capital inflow as the industry was established. I wonder, Mr Deputy Speaker, how long we can go on pandering to the ill-informed, greedy, selfish, shortsighted environmentalists and ignore this piece of economic salvation that is staring us in the face. Mr Beale —Say that again. Mr CAMPBELL —The honourable member wants me to repeat it. This is a matter that concerns me, and it does seem to me that both parties tend to pander to greedy, selfish, shortsighted environmentalists and ignore the realities of our economic plight. Having said that, I would just like to make a few remarks on the speech of the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). It was predictably stereotyped; it was hide-bound-if honourable members will excuse me, I do get stuck with adjectives in situations like this-- Mr Fitzgibbon —Asinine? Mr CAMPBELL —Asinine-that sounds like a good word; yes, whatever that means. The truth is, and the honourable member for Dawson knows it, that the National Party and the Liberal Party, together or independently, have done nothing. That reminds me of that great line from Bjelke-Petersen, `No, no, no; I don't want to, er, I don't want to break the coalition-I just want them to go their separate ways'. It was the Australian Labor Party that allowed companies operating existing mines to write new contracts. The coalition in government did not dare do that because it knew that it had within its constituency many of the people who oppose this industry. So, while it postured a great deal, it never took the very positive steps of allowing companies to write new contracts for the supply of uranium in the ground at existing mines. Of course, it was also the Australian Labor Party that allowed Roxby Downs to go ahead-the largest uranium mine in the world-a fact of which I am particularly proud. I am sure that in the future it will be a great source of income and wealth for Australia. While people are perhaps a little pessimistic about the economics of Roxby Downs, I point out that it is probably the greatest source of rare earth minerals in Australia today, and those minerals will be extraordinarily valuable. I suggest that we have not yet begun to explore the value of rare earth minerals. New uses are being found all the time and this will be a tremendous long term advantage to South Australia. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak on this Bill because I think that the establishment at Lucas Heights has a very good record on safety, as has the Western world generally. The Chernobyl disaster has often been raised with me. The truth is that Chernobyl was the accident that the environmentalists had all been waiting for. This was the big one; unfortunately, it turned out to be a bit of a damp squib because, according to the Swedes, I think that country will lose only about eight people as a result of additional cancers, in a climate in which more and more cancer cures will be rapidly found. It always needs to be pointed out that Russia has the worst safety standards of any country-worse even than those of the United States, which are a magnitude worse than those that exist in Europe. I have had a very good look at the industry in Europe and I am very impressed with safety standards, as I am impressed with the safety and dedication of the people at Lucas Heights. The honourable member for Hughes and I have had many arguments and disagreements in the past but I recognise his dedication to his electorate. I know he is in constant consultation with the unions at Lucas Heights and, while he is probably more conservative than I am, I certainly respect his integrity and in a sense I am jealous that I do not have in my own electorate an industry as viable and as dynamic as that at Lucas Heights. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(9.59) —In speaking in this cognate debate on a number of Bills to amend the Atomic Energy Act and create the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, known as ANSTO, the first thing I would say is that the Government is divided on the issue and is divided on nuclear matters. We have just had a speech from the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) that proves the point I am making-that the Government is deeply divided, that there are deep divisions that go to the heart of the Australian Labor Party. I hear some laughter from the other side of the House. I see the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie going through the charade of appearing to have a sense of humour because the Government has decided that the best way to deal with the subject tonight in this debate is to make a laughing matter of it, to treat it as a joke. But through the mist of the sense of humour of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie and the feigned laughter of the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott), the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), the honourable member for Phillip and the honourable member for Hunter the deep divisions are revealed. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie decided that the best way to deal with the differences in his Party, the best way to attack his colleagues, was to take the so-called funny way, to regard the matter with cynicism and to treat his colleagues with complete cynicism. He has a perverse and strange sense of humour that is telling when one analyses his words. He started his speech by giving a backhanded slap to his colleagues in the Senate, Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Ryan, with whom he has fundamental disagreement. Then he laughingly referred to the honourable member for Hughes, the honourable member for Melbourne and the honourable member for Phillip, with whom he has fundamental disagreements. He relied on the sense of humour approach. Mr Campbell —No, it was all good fun. Mr SHIPTON —He interjects but he knows that it is not really good fun because he knows the Government is divided, that those in the Socialist Left and those in the Centre Left are against him. He would like to go a lot further than the Government has gone in its policy on these Bills. Whilst the Bills establish the new Organisation, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie would not agree with the restrictions government policy has placed on the legislation. Mr Campbell —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask your advice. Is it allowable for the honourable member grossly to misrepresent my position? How can my position be relevant to the Bills before us? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —There is no point of order. I do not see any irrelevance. It is a legitimate debating technique. Mr SHIPTON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your support. My comments have brought home to the honourable member and to the House the sensitivity of the matter and indeed the honourable member's sensitivity, and his real position, which is diametrically opposed to that of many of his colleagues in the House tonight, especially those on the socialist Left. The debate has brought out the differences in the Government. I said that it has tried the sense of humour approach but I do not know whether the honourable member's colleagues were laughing for him, with him or at him. Mr Cunningham —What about getting on to the Bill? Mr SHIPTON —As the honourable member has interjected, I repeat that the Government is deeply divided. Because of its division it has achieved a consensus and compromise which is irrational and which serves no one. I am sure the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, in his heart of hearts-sense of humour aside-would agree that whilst the Government has introduced this legislation it has placed so many restrictions on study and research by the new atomic energy organisation called the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation as to render it almost ineffective. We sought in the Senate to amend the legislation to get rid of some of these restrictions, to make more explicit the educative responsibilities of the new Organisation, but unfortunately the so-called friends of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie-but people with whom he really disagrees-had the numbers and they saw fit not to support our amendment. I think it would be useful to look briefly at the background of this legislation. Post-war, Australia developed a nuclear industry by mining and milling uranium. This required an understanding of the uses of nuclear material and preventative measures to stop abuse. This resulted in the Atomic Energy Act. During the 1950s, following increased understanding of the potential peaceful uses of nuclear energy, it became clear that Australia should not ignore these developments and the research establishment that we have been talking about this evening, the subject of this legislation, was set up at Lucas Heights. It was a purely research establishment which existed to train personnel such as science graduates and engineers to carry out research and development into aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle and to carry out technical work in support of Australia's international obligations and interests in the nuclear field. The old Atomic Energy Commission became more development oriented as the fuel crisis eventuated and worries were held about the long term supply of non-renewable fossil fuel. Lately we have seen concern and worry about pollution by coal-powered electricity generating stations, particularly the effects of acid rain in Europe and the damage and destruction of European forest resources, particularly the Black Forest in southern Germany. That has stimulated further appraisal of the usefulness of nuclear power. The development of nuclear energy for power generation is important but it is but one of the many peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The Government received an important report on the nuclear industry and Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle by the Australian Science and Technology Council, the ASTEC report. The Opposition has urged the Government to implement immediately all of its recommendations on the nuclear fuel cycle and to abolish the ban that the Government has in place on the development of further peaceful stages of that cycle in Australia. The Government has placed restrictions on the development of the fuel cycle and the further development of the peaceful processes in that cycle. The ASTEC report is an independent and objective audit of the policies and practices of the Australian uranium and nuclear industry. The Government responded in a doctrinaire fashion and rejected those recommendations relating to the mining and export of uranium and the further development of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. This showed the total hypocrisy of the Government and the deep divisions within it on nuclear issues. The Government's policy is irrational and it perpetuates a general lack of knowledge by failing to accept our amendments on the educative role of the new authority about the uranium industry, Australia's important role in the nuclear fuel cycle and the importance of inter- national safeguards. The Government's policy does not recognise the development of peaceful uses of the uranium industry from which we in this country stand to benefit enormously. It does not recognise the link between our uranium industry and global energy security and nuclear non-proliferation. We in this country today are in economic crisis. In the last two days figures have been released on Australia's international indebtedness. I think they show a debt of $6,300 per head of population. We are in debt up to our neck. We are on the road to becoming like Argentina, Mexico, Nigeria and Brazil. The standard of living of all Australians is falling. We are desperately looking for export earnings to improve our balance of trade. We have few industries which offer such scope for growth and development as the nuclear industry. It is not only the export of uranium from those mines that is locked up by this Government. The Government's restrictions placed on this organisation, formerly the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, have also hampered the further development of alternative uses of nuclear energy in the nuclear fuel cycle. We in the coalition endorse the nuclear fuel cycle recommendations in the ASTEC report. The Government rejects them. We support the mining and milling of uranium subject to stringent Australian health and safety safeguards. We would remove the veto-the Government's restrictions and limitations-on the development of proven uranium deposits at Jabiluka, Koongarra, Yeelirrie, Beverley and Honeymoon. The Government, by its irrational policy, is restricting the development of the Australian nuclear industry for peaceful purposes. It is denying Australian companies profits, it is denying Australian workers jobs and it is denying the Australian economy important and vital overseas earnings. Its policies are totally inconsistent and irresponsible. Mr Cleeland —Where would you sell it? Mr SHIPTON —We would sell it on the open market, because the figures show, I think in this ASTEC report, that there is enormous potential. But let the companies worry about that. The Government is obsessed with restricting people. It is obsessed with Government red tape, regulation and intervention. The honourable member interjects: `Where would you sell it?'. Let the companies be free to develop the mines. Let them to be free to find the markets. They will find them and they will sell the uranium. They will bring the export earnings to Australia. Mr Hand —There are no markets. Mr SHIPTON —The Socialist Left is coming in-the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand)-because he hates everything about the Government's policy, even the restricted policy he has been dragged screaming to accept. He really hates, loathes and detests it. He is on his feet because I have hit a sensitive-- Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I find the drift, or the drivel, coming from over there quite offensive. The last comments of the honourable member are totally untrue and I refute them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Hand —Andrew Hay is looking better every day because he is after the honourable member's seat, and the honourable member knows it. He is terrified. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr SHIPTON —I am not terrified of anybody. Mr Hand —You are absolutely terrified. Mr SHIPTON —I can assure the honourable member for Melbourne that I am not terrified of him. Mr Hand —You are terrified of Andrew Hay. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Calm down. I call the honourable member for Higgins. Mr SHIPTON —I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your support in telling the honourable member for Melbourne to calm down, because he gets very excited when we talk about nuclear issues. He does not agree with the Government's policy. As I have said, he has been dragged screaming-we can hear him screaming now-because he disagrees with what the Government has done. Yet he is responsible for all the restrictions that have been placed on the further development of nuclear energy and nuclear research in Australia. The Opposition considers that the new organisation, ANSTO, should be able to participate fully in any future research and development on all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. Nuclear medicine is important as well as other nuclear developments, such as the development of synroc. We should be able to examine the feasibility of uranium enrichment. Mr Cadman —Why not? Mr SHIPTON —The shadow Minister supports me by way of interjection. We cannot, because the members of the Socialist Left in this deeply divided Government have put the shackles on what the Government, the right wing and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) want to do. I have struck more sensitivity. I am hurting the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The last remark is again totally untrue. There is no division on this side of the chamber. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! No point of order arises. Mr Hand —We can see it. There is no one in the chamber to listen to the honourable member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Higgins. Mr SHIPTON —Not only have I struck sensitivity with the honourable member for Melbourne on the issue of nuclear energy, but he is upset that he is not in the Ministry. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.15) —Recently a constituent forwarded to me an interesting letter that he had seen in a Queensland newspaper. It concerned the extent to which the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Act and the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act have now intruded into our everyday lives. Mr Barry Jones —Joh will fix that up. Mr SLIPPER —Joh certainly will. Because of this Federal legislation, it is now not possible to place an advertisement in a newspaper asking for a married couple in regard to employment or accommodation vacancies. An example of the stupidity of the Acts is best described by the case set out in the letter. A property owner requiring additional help asked his agents to advertise: `Require young married overseer'. However, when the replies started to arrive he discovered that they were all from single and not married people. Quite upset at this he contacted his agents. They advised that he could not advertise for a married overseer and that consequently this term had been removed by the newspaper concerned. Mr Cadman —How shocking! Ridiculous. Mr SLIPPER —It is shocking, and it is ridiculous, as the shadow Minister points out. The paper in turn confirmed its action and informed him that his proposed advertisement contravened Federal law. He could advertise for `young overseer and friend', or `young overseer required-position suitable for married person as position also available for partner'. The letter stated: It appears we Australian citizens cannot now advertise for married people, but that we can legally advertise for gay mates, friends, partners-you name it. Clearly this sort of government interference should not be tolerated. People wishing to employ a married couple are now forced to advertise in a ridiculous, roundabout manner to avoid falling foul of the Federal Government's legislation. I, along with most other Australians, would like to know why the Government is discriminating against the usage of the term `married'. Perhaps given its pre-occupation with social engineering, as reflected in the two Acts mentioned earlier, it has failed to realise that the vast majority of Australians believe in the institution of marriage. The constituent who became aware of this case wrote to me complaining about the `somewhat incredible anti-family policy of the Hawke Labor Government'. It would appear, however, that there is no similar rule to prevent people advertising for Aboriginals. The Housing Commission of New South Wales, as recently as November 1985, advertised for an Aboriginal housing liaison officer at Wagga Wagga. Mr Hand —I raise a point of order. Madam Speaker, I would seek your guidance. I am not trying to be clever in raising this, but the honourable member has made a claim which is totally untrue. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Hand —No. Just bear with me. I am trying to get from you how I can approach the Chair. The honourable member claimed that this Government is anti-family, and that is not true. Therefore I cannot say that he is telling a lie- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will resume his seat. There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Fisher. Mr SLIPPER —It is sad that the honourable member for Melbourne seeks to take frivolous points of order to use up the five minutes allocated to me in the adjournment debate. I proceed to refer to this ad from November 1985-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair did not say that it was a frivolous point of order. The Chair said there was no point of order. Mr SLIPPER —It is a pity he raised it. It still took up time. The ad went on to say that the applicants must be of Aboriginal descent, and so on. So we a situation where one is permitted to discriminate in order to avoid discrimination, because the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), when replying to one of my colleagues, said that this sort of advertising was permitted because of previous discrimination suffered by Aboriginals. I believe that the Human Rights Commission legislation and associated legislation present an unnecessary infiltration by government into our daily activities. I have written to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) seeking his explanation for this legislative madness and I am looking forward very much to his reply. I hope that the Government will repeal the legislation and restore some sanity to this area. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.20) —I express some concern tonight about an issue on which I have quite publicly, and through the media, expressed some concern in the past. I refer to the effect on Australian farmers of the importation of foodstuffs, and in particular the importation from the United States of America of American navel oranges, and also from Israel of Jaffa grapefruit, among other fruits. Mr Cadman —It was Kerin who mucked up the whole trade. Mr CLEELAND —The honourable member does not care about farmers. He just shows his back, as do our friends from the National Party of Australia. He does not give a damn about farmers. He hates farmers. But I draw the concern of the House to an article in the Sydney Sun on Wednesday 11 February 1987 by a writer by the name of Cliff Ryan, who is described, would honourable members believe, as `the housewife's friend'. In this article he refers to the Jaffa grapefruit which are imported from Israel. He refers to them as being grown in the Holy Land and as having a wonderful flavour, a wonderful colour and great juiciness. He then says the local grapefruit are dry, puffy and tasteless. This is an Australian journalist, writing on behalf of Australian housewives, denigrating Australian fruit and giving preference to an imported product. Mrs Roberta Murphy of the Murray Valley Citrus Growers Association contacted Mr Ryan on the telephone and said: `Look, that is a load of garbage. The Australian grapefruit is not dry, is not tasteless and is in fact juicer because it is straight from the tree and put fresh into the markets'. I am reliably informed that, over the telephone, Mr Ryan laughed at her and said: `You farmers have never had it so good. You are always whingeing'. When Mrs Murphy, on behalf of the Australian citrus growers, offered to send him some grapefruit from the area so that he could taste them and retract the article, he refused to accept the grapefruit and refused to put in another article retracting his comments that Australian grown grapefruit were dry, puffy and tasteless. What happened after that phone call? On Wednesday 18 February 1987 the same writer then hit back at the Australian citrus growers, following Mrs Murphy's attack. This time he had a go at Australia oranges. He says that we should be buying imported Sunkist navel oranges from California because they are more orange in colour. Whilst he does admit that the Australian Valencia oranges are juicier, he says that they are not as orange. He says that they have a bit of a green tinge to them and we should go for the more expensive-they are a lot more expensive than Australian Valencias-California imports. I am on record as saying in public, and I will say it again, that I hope to hell that all the imported fruit in our supermarkets rots on the shelves because the Australian consumers refuse to buy it. It is about time some of the friends on the cross benches, who are allegedly concerned about farmers, started to raise some of these more fundamental issues and try to convince Australian consumers that our fresh grown products are good and that there is nothing wrong with them. Quite frankly, I get very angry when Australian journalists such as Mr Ryan use the media in the way that Mr Ryan has to denigrate the products grown by Australian farmers, particularly as, when he was approached by a popular spokeswoman such as Roberta Murphy seeking proper and reasonable redress through his newspaper, he refused the offer of fresh fruit from Australia so that he could taste it and make a valid judgment, and then said that farmers are whingers. I wonder at the Australian journalists profession and at the system that makes our farmers compete with expensive imported foodstuffs. I wonder why the members of the National Party, the so-called friends of the farmers, do not raise issues such as this. All they want to do is to increase the rate of tax on farmers. They go along with Sir Joh's proposal for a 25 per cent rate. The fact is that, according to Bureau of Agricultural Economics statistics, most farmers will pay a lot more tax with a 25 per cent rate because the Australian on average weekly earnings is paying 17 per cent tax. The strange people on the cross benches, who allegedly support farmers, are saying: `Let us increase the tax rate on farmers'. They do not come into this House and support Australian farmers. We do not hear them speak on issues such as this. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.25) —The funeral took place in Sydney today of Mr Ernest Marty who died last Tuesday morning, as was recognised by a number of senators in the other place on that evening. Ernest Marty was a lobbyist, in the best sense of that word, here in Canberra for a period of some 27 years. The role of lobbyist, of seeking to represent the interests of client organisations to members and senators, can be a difficult one. Ernest's approach to his task was in a quiet, very knowledgeable, courteous but persistent manner which has properly been described as exemplary. The interests he represented ranged over the coal industry, the wine and grape industry, the nuclear field and others. In more recent years Ernest was joined as a partner in his work by his charming wife Judy. It was sometimes my privilege, and a delightful experience, to join Ernest and Judy for dinner when the heavy discussion of the matter at issue was over. Senator Townley in the other place referred to Ernest Marty's love of flying-something I also shared with Ernest. Indeed, my last conversation with him in early January was to discuss arrangements for a fly into his holiday retreat at the end of the airstrip on Wallis Island near Forster. The sudden onset of the serious illness that beset him was subsequent to that, so the shock of his death was all the greater. Ernest Marty was a most capable, honest, courteous and humane man who served both his clients and the members and senators in this place faithfully and well. I express my deepest sympathy to Judy Marty and to Ernest's family from a previous marriage. May God sustain them in their great loss. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may be interested to know that last night two members of the House, one from each side, also paid tribute to his friend. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Madam Speaker, may I just intervene for a moment to say that I regret that I was not aware of this. I was not in the House for the adjournment debate last night, and I have not read the speeches in Hansard. I just feel stunned at the news and I would like to express also my high regard for Mr Marty, for his very high professional standards, my deep expression of grief at his death and my support for his wife, Judy. They were indeed a remarkable couple and I am simply aghast at the news. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister was out of order but, considering the topic, I let it go. I now give the call to the other side. Mr JULL(Fadden)(10.28) —Early in January, along with the Queensland Liberal Party Senator David MacGibbon and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), I attended the Pacific Forum conference in Honolulu. The Pacific Forum is an annual event conducted by a non-profit organisation in Honolulu. Australian parliamentarians have been represented at these conferences since their inception some years ago. I believe this conference is well regarded, especially by a great number of my colleagues who serve on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The Pacific Forum is an opportunity for parliamentarians to meet annually. The conference draws delegates from all over Pacific Rim countries, South East Asia and this year from a number of Pacific island states. Because of its unofficial nature, the Forum is a great opportunity for open debate. Because it is a meeting of parliamentarians, it is often an opportunity for no-holds-barred discussions on issues of mutual concern. There is no doubt in my mind that parliamentarians have a great capacity to tell it as it is to each other without the constraints of diplomatic niceties that often prevail at some more formal meetings. At this year's conference a number of issues of concern to the Asia-Pacific region were canvassed. These issues ranged from the present situation in the Philippines and Korea, the activities of the French in our region, the status of ANZUS, the ramifications of the Gorbachev Vladivostock speech of last July and the activities of the Soviets in the Pacific, to the very real difficulties of trade, especially in terms of their effect on Australia and other smaller countries. The meeting was also an opportunity for major briefings on the present strategic situation in the Pacific. One or two points were raised at the conference which I believe should be brought to the attention of the House. Most importantly for Australia, the situation of the ANZUS agreement and the continuing policy of New Zealand to restrict the passage of United States ships to and through New Zealand was very much in focus in continuing debates. Interestingly, and despite the broad cross-section of political affiliations at the forum, New Zealand received no support from any speaker for its present position. A New Zealand Government member tried to defend the position. His defence was not accepted by any delegates, whether from the small island states or from one of the major countries which were present. The stalemate in the ANZUS situation is of major concern to all the Pacific, especially in light of the efforts of the Soviets to gain access and influence in the region and their continually expanding military presence. While the trade debate initially centred on the ongoing tensions between the United States and Japan, it was an opportunity for the Australian delegates to present in a bipartisan way the great difficulties being forced on this country by United States agricultural policy. We all spoke up when we found that there was little or no knowledge of the fall-out effect of the dumping of grains and other commodities and the protectionist trends in the United States and Japan. There was also little evidence that the United States delegates had any knowledge of what was happening to a number of its most loyal allies and this brought home dramatically the need for the establishment of the Australian congressional liaison unit in Washington. This has been brought home even more so in recent days with the indications from Washington that the trade Bill and protection for United States farmers will go ahead, probably no later than March. We should have had our act together so that this unit was operating for the commencement of the congressional session early in January. I am sure that the Opposition can only urge the Government to get its act together and establish this unit immediately. If we do not, we are certainly going to miss the boat. The first area where we will miss the boat will be a major subsidised wheat sale to the People's Republic of China by the United States of America, which is already on the books. I urge my colleagues in the House to consider very carefully whether they could attend a future meeting of the Pacific Forum. This meeting, which is held in January each year, is one of the very few opportunities we have for an interchange between members of parliament only. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.33) —I rise to speak tonight because of something I heard on the news which concerned me. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) has called in security people to investigate whether the Party room has been bugged. I could have told him who was responsible for the leaks. It is not that the building is bugged. Any one of the National Party members one bumps into round this place is quite willing to tell one what has been going on at his Party meetings. Mr McVeigh —Hey! Be selective. Mr HAND —I could be very selective. I could name about a dozen of them. I have never been pulled into so many National Party rooms walking down the corridors of this place as I have been in the last couple of days. People have been quite willing to tell me about all the problems. I see the Liberals over there laughing their heads off. I would not laugh too much because I have been into about twice as many Liberal Party rooms last week hearing Liberal Party members tell me about their mates too. I see the two honourable members who the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) talked about today. They will not even let each other come into the chamber on their own. One follows the other to see what he is going to say about him. So let us cut out this nonsense and drama about bringing in the security people to investigate leaks in the Party room. The Party is leaking like a sieve. The state of the Opposition is very disturbing. I have a view about Parliament. Here comes another Opposition member. By God, they are pouring in tonight-literally pouring in. One of the problems we have in this country today is that we do not have an effective Opposition. When one is in government one needs an opposition to raise alternative points of view, an opposition to which people who want to put a case can come. But they cannot, because there is not an opposition at all. Opposition members are too busy tearing each other to pieces, talking about each other, leaking to the media about each other, and causing havoc around the country. It is an absolute disgrace. The Opposition is being controlled by a geriatric from Queensland who is dictating to it through the white shoe brigade of the beach circuit-what is it called?-on the Gold Coast. They are running the policies of the Opposition and the Opposition parties. This is a very disturbing feature for Australia. We have heard today on the news services that the Opposition wants to cut pensions. That would be of interest to the people from the poverty action groups who have been around the place this week. When Opposition members talk to them I hope they tell them that they intend to cut their pensions. I hope that when they go to the polls and promise things in their election speeches, they announce to the whole world formally that they are going to cut pensions. The Opposition would create havoc with the tax system. We hear two tax positions; no one quite knows which is the dominant one. That is going to create terrible confusion. According to the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), the Opposition is going to engage in an onslaught on the social security area. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is backing the wrong horse. He cannot get up. I have done a bit of a count tonight and he is well behind. He cannot make it. So the honourable member ought to switch horses again and stick with Johnny, because perhaps he is going to stay there for a few more weeks. The honourable member will then have time to move back to Andrew again. It seems to me that the honourable member for Kooyong is now being totally dominated by Joh and would slash welfare by some billions-not minor cuts, but billions of dollars would be hacked from the welfare sector. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) talked tonight about the Government's attitude to families. Our attitude to families has been quite good. The current social security review highlights a number of areas where we can further assist families. We intend to do that through our family package. We will please all families in this country when we introduce our very good family package. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), in a speech which was highlighted by frothing at the mouth and a whole range of hand-waving exercises, talked about honourable members on this side of the House being divided. I have news for him. There are no divisions on this side. Divisions on this side do not exist. Divisions on the other side are there for everybody to see: On radio talkback programs, on the television, in the newspapers. The Opposition is riddled with divisions. It is falling to pieces. There is absolutely no hope that it can be elected. Honourable member opposite will be lucky to be elected back here as Opposition members the way they are going. They should help the country by getting themselves together and working together in a cohesive way, otherwise they will fail in their responsibilities as a proper Opposition. At the moment Opposition members are a disgrace to the parties they represent. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.38) —On 9 December 1986 Mr Ian McLachlan, President of the National Farmers Federation, failed to have a meeting with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Instead, the Prime Minister berated and attacked the President of the National Farmers Federation and that organisation for questioning the Government's economic policy and raising issues of national importance. This is a far cry from the approach used by Mr Hawke as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in using the media on any occasion to put a point of view or, in public perception terms, to solve one of the many strikes which he helped to create. This outburst drew the attention of the Australian people to the fact that Mr Hawke, as leader of the trade union movement, has been one of the major factors in creating the industrial and economic climate that has brought about Australia's present economic crisis. High wage rates, industrial disputes and an attitude towards restrictive work practices make Australia the laughing stock of the industrialised world. Much of what was contained in the National Farmers Federation submission which had been prepared for discussion is in line with what the Opposition has been saying consistently and forcefully-the Government has got the policy mix wrong. Large public sector demands on the economy combined with an inflexible and centralised wage fixing system and an unwillingness on the part of the Hawke Government to take the hard policy decisions have led to excessively high interest rates to manage the dollar. The very good submission put forward by the NFF identifies interest rates as being one of the major problems facing the farmers of Australia and both small and big businessmen attempting to make profits and create jobs. The percentage of farms with negative farm incomes has increased from the period 1979-80 to 1986-87 from only 13 per cent at the beginning of the period to nearly 33 per cent at present. At the National Agricultural Outlook Conference which I attended in January this year Onko Kingma, the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, described this alarming situation, saying: There are many factors that contribute to particular farms having negative incomes. One of the contributing factors in recent years has been the rising level of debt in the rural sector and the high cost of servicing that debt when real interest rates are high. What makes it difficult for those adversely affected by high interest rates to accept the situation is that the Hawke Government has been directly responsible for pushing interest rates to record levels. The Government can take no comfort from the international comparison of interest rates, which supports the case of the National Farmers Federation that interest rates are too high. A comparison of movements in prime interest rates in Australia with our major trading partners between November 1984 and February 1987 clearly illustrates the dimension of the damage done to Australia's international competitiveness. Japan has a prime interest rate of 3.8 per cent, a fall of 1.7 per cent; West Germany's prime interest rate of 7.5 per cent represents a fall of 0.5 per cent; France, with 9.5 per cent, has undergone a fall of 2.5 per cent; Canada, on 9.3 per cent, has had a 3.2 per cent fall; and the United States of America prime interest rate has fallen by 4.3 per cent to 7.5 per cent. How does Australia's interest rate compare? Disastrously can be the only answer, with the prime interest rate under the Hawke Government having increased 5 per cent to 18.3 per cent, virtually double the closest overseas comparison. The prime interest rate is not the only interest rate to have risen since the Prime Minister made his fraudulent promise in November 1984 to reduce interest rates. Damage has been done to every section of the community because of the Government's high interest rate policy. The small overdraft rate was 14.5 per cent. Now, two years later and 6 per cent higher, that interest rate stands at 20.5 per cent. The Bankcard rate stood at 18 per cent in 1984, and it too has risen dramatically to stand now at 22.5 per cent. Farmers around Australia, like those in my electorate of Corangamite, find that the present interest rates are a crushing burden on their day to day activities. The National Farmers Federation indicated in its submission to the Prime Minister that high interest rates make it very difficult for farmers to service their current debt requirements, let alone make capital repayments. The NFF has correctly identified high interest rates as the major problem facing businesses in Australia in 1987. High interest rates will strangle farmers, shopkeepers, businessmen and the wealth creators of Australia. And what is more, interest rates will strangle the Hawke Government in 1987. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(10.43) —Whether it be the Joh variety or the Liberal variety of the new extreme policies now offered by the conservatives in this country, every pensioner in my electorate will be forced into squalor if the Opposition gets a chance to govern the country. I indicate to this House tonight that I intend to fight with every last breath in my body to expose the callous indifference to the aged that those opposite now represent and that those opposite now manifestly have exposed. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) yesterday on the Macquarie network finally exposed what we on both sides of the House have know all along but what hitherto neither the Liberal Party of Australia nor the National Party of Australia has had the guts to say publicly; that is, that should they win office, pensioners-the aged in our community-will be amongst the very first to have the jackboot of the New Right put into them by those opposite. It is worth while to recall what the honourable member for Maranoa said: Pensions. I guess the pensioners might have to stand still. The reason, if the economy, if we can bring the economy under control, if we can bring inflation under control, it's running at 10 per cent, if we can have less taxes there's no reason why we should be giving pensioners or anybody else in the community any more funds. That followed very closely the quote that I now go on to. In answer to the question whether that meant that he advocated the reintroduction of tertiary fees, the means testing of family allowances and so forth, he said: Yes I believe that we have to make those decisions and we have to bite the bullet on a whole range of government hand-outs and government finances. This is consistent with what Mr John Hyde, the original dry, said last week in his policy paper for an alternative regime of taxes and government expenditure; it is consistent with Dr Michael Porter and the Monash group and what they have had to say; it is consistent with Mr Brian Buckley, another member of the Liberal Party, and what he had to say last year on an alternative Budget; but, more importantly, it is consistent with the record of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in government when he was the Treasurer and it is consistent with what he has had to say here in recent times-that he is not afraid to make the cuts. Mr Cadman —I raise a point of order. I would like the honourable member to produce verification of the statements he is making. Where is the publication or document that he is referring to? Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr PUNCH —I remind this House of the cruelty and the fear over the assets test that the Liberal Party deliberately ran on in the 1984 election when it tried to convince people that every pensioner would be affected by the assets test when it knew all along that only 2 1/2 per cent of pensioners were ever likely to be affected. But now we really see what the thought processes of honourable members on the other side are and we see what their honest beliefs are-that every pensioner will suffer a real reduction. We remember what they had to say after the last Budget when we on this side unfortunately had to install a six to eight weeks delay in the pension increase. They cried discrimination against pensioners. There was discrimination by us against pensioners; there was discrimination in their favour. We asked every Australian to take yet another real wage cut but we did not ask it of the pensioners; we asked them only for a delay. I remind honourable members that under us in four years the age pension has gone up something of the order of 7 per cent in real terms compared with only 1 1/2 per cent in the seven years of government of those opposite. The truth is that those opposite want the vast majority of middle and lower income earners in Australia, including pensioners, to bear the full burden of economic recovery while they excuse the rich. The classic example of that is the assets test. They will abolish the assets test, they say. I am quite happy to go into the next election with the Opposition representing the wealthiest 2 per cent of the aged in this country who do not need government assistance to survive, because we on this side of the House represent the other 98 per cent of the aged. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILES(Braddon)(10.48) —I am glad to follow on from the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), who alluded to the fact that at least under a coalition government there would be economic recovery, so people can look forward to something in the future. With the way things are going at the moment under this Government-a government which really is run by economic vandals-there are more people in poverty than when it came into government. The way things are going in this nation, with the overseas debt increasing at such a rapid rate, there will come a day when nobody will get government benefits because there will be no money to give to them. That is the type of thing which this Government is engendering. It is sending the nation broke. There will be no benefits for people in the future if people cannot make profits. With the amount of interest that is accumulating on the overseas debt, the benefits to the needy, the poor and the underprivileged-and under this Government their number is increasing-will be reduced to a point where these people will not be able to live. That is the reality of it. Somebody has to get control of this nation before we are devastated by this Hawke-led Government. It is very interesting to read an article written at the beginning of this month by Robert Haupt in the National Times on Sunday: Where others might cry, ``Fire!'', Hawke would say, ``In respect of the situation in the immediate vicinity of our location at the present time, there does seem to be a proposition which might at some point in the not too distant future be put that there is a real possibility of overheating.'' That is exactly the type of statement being made by this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and this Government. They are beating around the bush, not coming to the point and not addressing the issues. What we find in Australia at the moment is that there is a rapid increase of interest in the conservative side of politics. Every poll that one looks at indicates that. Robert Haupt goes on to say: We have, in other words, a leader who is not only unwilling to warn us, but incapable of it. Not only are he and the whole Government incapable of doing it, but also they cannot recognise it. That is the fundamental problem. I was going to spend most of my time talking about the fact that many Government members have said-the Prime Minister said it today-that the years of the Fraser Government were a miserable failure. Quite frankly, they were not, when one looks at the facts of the period compared with the record of this Government. The facts are that the Fraser Government, on many economic indications, outperformed this Government, and will continue to do so. I will quote a few of those statistics. Unemployment is very interesting. The unemployment record of the Fraser Government is a good indicator as to whether things were ticking along reasonably well. In only one year in seven were the unemployment figures of the Fraser Government higher than in any year under the Hawke Government. Mr Cleeland —What were they? Mr MILES —As the honourable member wants to know and as they make a good comparison, I will read them out. In 1975-76, the unemployment level was 4.5 per cent; 1976-77, it was 5.6 per cent, then 6.2 per cent, 6.5 per cent, 6.3 per cent, 5.4 per cent, 6.8 per cent and 10.3 per cent. In only one year out of seven were the Fraser Government's unemployment figures higher than those under this Government. This Government's unemployment figures are 9.2 per cent, 8.7 per cent, 8.6 per cent and 8.2 per cent. We will wait and see whether over seven years this Government will outperform the last Government. Mr Cleeland —There are no worries about that. Mr MILES —No worries, that is right. The Fraser Government will come out on top in that regard. Under the Fraser Government Australia's credit rating never dropped from the AAA level. Why has it dropped under this Government? It is because the Government cannot manage the economy. The world is giving us its judgment. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.52) —It almost seems impossible to follow the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), who is a good friend, but who spoke about the record of the Fraser Government on unemployment. It almost seems irrelevant to talk about any other issue. Mr Barry Jones —Fraser is not a name they revere. Mr MAHER —That is the first time I have heard anyone on the other side of the House mention the former Prime Minister. I want to raise the matter of literacy of children in secondary schools in Sydney. Some very distressed teachers came to me last year from a high school which has a mix of boys from Australian homes and homes where English is not spoken. The teachers were appalled at the literacy rate of the boys. They made the point that it was not the boys from ethnic homes who were having trouble, but in most of the classes boys read at a level two years below their chronological age. So a 15 year old in the lower classes read only to the level of a 13 year old and some of them read only to the level of a 10 year old. That has terrible implications and consequences for young men who leave school at 15 and are able only to read up to the age of an 11 year old. How they can get work or training in an apprenticeship is beyond me and it distresses the teachers. I have written to the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and have spoken to her secretary quite recently in relation to the Government's release of a draft language policy. This problem is not confined to state high schools. I have spoken to the principal of a Catholic high school in my electorate, who said that the problem there is much the same with the girls. It worries me greatly when we hear the Opposition and forces in the community which support the Opposition talking about cutting funding and government expenditure. It is important that we realise the types of areas where cuts could be made. If we were to have a cut in revenue of $5 billion, as the Premier of Queensland is talking about, it should be realised that that $5 billion is almost exactly the amount of the education budget. Where will the Queensland Premier make cuts? Who will suffer? Will it be the children in state schools who cannot read to the age they should? That is all we are asking. Some children in high schools read above their age-whether or not they are ethnic-but other children cannot read and they will never learn to read properly. They will never have the ability to read for leisure, to read newspapers, Hansard or anything like that. This is a very important issue that I thought I would raise in the adjournment debate. It is possible that people will improve their skills as they get older by going to evening colleges and so on. But no government can reduce funding for education. I say with all sincerity to the members of the Opposition that they cannot possibly support a leader or policies that call for reduced spending on education, be it in state schools, catholic schools or the tertiary sector-particularly for technical and further education. The notion of cutting expenditure on technical and further education is absolutely barbaric. TAFE has always been the cinderella of education. This Government has increased expenditure to the technical colleges to allow people to do trade courses and even recreational courses. I praise the Minister for Education for what has been done there. This problem worries me greatly. One of the programs that has been designated for the axe is the community employment program. The people who end up in these programs are often the young people who have left school at the age of 15. The statistics show that the younger people are the more likely they are to be unemployed if they have left school early. These people are on the dole for long periods. They need training on the job. That is what councils do. Local shires and municipalities co-operate with the community employment programs. It would be a tragedy if funding were reduced, linked with the problem of young people who-through no fault of their own, perhaps just through the fault of the curriculum or other problems-come out of school unable to read up to their age level. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.57) —Australian businesses are facing absolute destruction under the hands of the Hawke Government. Figures released within the last week show that there has been a 35 per cent increase in the rate of bankruptcies half year on half year. The figures were confirmed-- Mr Barry Jones —What are the Queensland figures? Mr CADMAN —Queensland has a figure of 23 per cent half year on half year. That is way below the national average. The destruction that those opposite have caused as a government is really obvious in Labor States. For South Australia and New South Wales the figures are stark and serious. This country is facing the prospect for the second year running that there will be record numbers of bankruptcies. Last year was record breaking in Australia's history and it looks as though this year, for a full year, will be also. The Inspector-General of Bankruptcies says that it is perfectly proper to expect that the half year result will finish in a double figure, so it is possible to double the half year result and come forward with the figure of 8,004 bankruptcies for this financial year. The destruction of Australian business has been brought about by the economic vandalism of the Government in its effort to put extra charges, taxes and impositions on Australian businesses. Those results on bankruptcies will shortly come through with increasing unemployment figures. It is obvious that the downturn in economic activity, the cost imposed by this Government on businesses and employers, the cost of militant union leaders and the cost of interest repayments, are all factors which are dampening down business activity and business prospects. Those results will just exacerbate the already record level of bankruptcies. We are not talking about big businesses, about takeovers or the friends of the Australian Labor Party. We are not talking about those friends of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) who talks about the white shoe brigade but is the man who cannot remember to put in his own tax returns-a process which is not available to any businessman in Australia, large or small. That Treasurer is so remote from the real needs of small business that he is not prepared to go to his own electorate in a by-election campaign, to espouse his policies for the wrecking of the Australian economy. It is a sad day when the Government dismisses the shambles that it has caused in the economic structures and the economic prospects for employment and profits of small business. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 19 February 1987: Customs Act-Notices-1987-Nos. 1, 2, 3. Defence Act-Determinations- 1986- No. 90-Overseas Living Allowance. No. 91-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 92-Expense of Office Allowance. No. 93-Mackay Allowance. No. 94-District Allowance and other allowances. No. 95-Temporary Rental Allowance. No. 96-Air-conditioning Allowance. No. 97-Bindoon Allowance. No. 98-Common Duties Allowance. No. 99-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 100-Reserve Allowance. No. 101-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 102-Charge for Rations and Quarters. 1987- No. 1-Travelling Allowance and Education Assistance Overseas. No. 2-Cadet Forces Allowances. No. 3-Woomera Allowance. No. 4-Salary of Permanent Force Members. No. 5-Attendance Allowance and other allowances. No. 6-Post Allowance. Excise Act-Notices-1987-Nos. 1, 2, 3. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). National Health Act-Principles formulated under sub-section- 39a (6), dated 5 December 1986. 40AA (3C), dated 5 December 1986. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Principles formulated under sub-section- 3a (6), dated 5 December 1986. 4 (3C), dated 5 December 1986. Supported Accommodation Assistance Act-Agreement pursuant to sub-section 4 (2), amending the principal agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland, dated 3 February 1987.