Thursday, 26 February 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.01) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of air movements cargo hangar at RAAF Base, Richmond, NSW. The proposed work before the House, as I said, involves the construction of a new cargo handling facility at the Richmond Royal Australian Air Force base. Richmond, which is 60 kilometres north-west of Sydney, is the home base for the RAAF's air transport force. It is the main distribution point for Air Force cargo destined for shipment within Australia. The proposed work is necessary because cargo is currently processed in a small aircraft maintenance hangar which functionally is inappropriate for modern storage and handling techniques. Since the existing facilities were used in 1962, the number of air transport squadrons has increased from one to four. This has led to substantial cargo operating inefficiencies and the need to store cargo in the open. The proposed work comprises: The demolition of redundant facilities on the proposed site, including a diesel generator, air traffic control masts and underground services; construction of a new building to house receipt, dispatch, processing and storage areas, with associated administrative facilities and staff amenities; the provision of specialised equipment and racking to provide an automated pallet processing system; and construction of an access road, parking area and hardstand. The estimated cost of this project is $10.34m at February 1987 prices. Subject to this House's concurrence it is intended that tenders will be called in March next year and for construction to commence in May. Work should be completed two years later, by mid-1990. Before concluding, I would like to stress again to the Opposition spokesman on housing and construction, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), that the work will maximise private enterprise involvement. That is, and always has been, the normal practice of my Department. Let me repeat this for the benefit of the honourable member for Deakin, who has in the past displayed a severe mental block in comprehending this simple practice: Private industry involvement will be maximised in this project. I give him that assurance, in line with the standard practice of the Government and my Department. I table plans of the proposed work, and I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.04) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making available to me the details of the motion that he has moved today. The Opposition has no objection to the referral of the proposed handling facility for the Royal Australian Air Force base at Richmond to the Joint Committee on Public Works. It is truly one of the great ironies of politics that the Minister for Housing and Construction is the first Minister to come into the House today. I say it is ironic because, if I were the Minister, I would not want to show my face in this place in view of the document that was tabled yesterday in the Senate by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). The document - - Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will speak to the motion before the Chair. Mr BEALE —Madam Speaker, the motion before the Chair is for the expenditure of some $10m worth of capital works. The extent to which that is $10m or more than $10m is dependent on interest rates. What I am talking about here is interest rates. The document stated: The report of the Indicative Planning Council to be presented to the March 1987 meeting of the Australian Housing Council will contain an assumption that any reductions in market rates that occur this year will not be sufficient to allow reductions in housing loan interest rates in 1987. If the Minister is reported accurately in this morning's Press as saying that the document was of no importance, how can he explain that the assumption referred to - - Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Deakin will resume his seat. Mr BEALE —is based on information given solely by senior Treasury officials. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Deakin will resume his seat when the Chair requires him to do so. Mr West —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I remind you and the House that this motion is to refer to the Public Works Committee the construction of a cargo hangar at RAAF Base, Richmond, New South Wales. Normal practice in this House, even with a lot of latitude allowed, is for the remarks to be constrained to the matter before the House-that is, the reference to the Public Works Committee. To have a wide ranging debate every time one of these Public Works Committee referrals comes up, I put to you seriously, Madam Speaker, is not the usual practice on these occasions. There are ample times and occasions when economic debates can take place and this - - Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is debating the point of order. The honourable member for Deakin will speak to the matter before the Chair and will not indulge in a tax debate. Mr BEALE —With great respect, Madam Speaker, I was not indulging in a tax debate. I was indulging in a discussion of interest rates. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will not argue with the Chair. Mr BEALE —Already the costs associated with this facility have gone up from $10.1m as disclosed in the explanations for expenditure to $10.34m at today's prices, largely as a result of the Government's deliberate high interest rate policy. While the cost is currently cited only at $10.34m, if we add on the inflationary component the building may well cost at least another $2m by the time it is completed in 1990. In the overall defence construction program this is one small case, but it certainly highlights the abiding need to get Labor's galloping inflation under control or we will soon see many projects, some costing hundreds of millions of dollars, running way over budget. Richmond is the main distribution point for RAAF cargo destined for shipment within Australia. If Australia is to have a more self-reliant capability in its defence affairs, it is important that we have the necessary facilities, particularly in the vital area of air transport. Emphasis on northern defence undoubtedly will see a greater decentralisation of Australia's defence forces and facilities over the coming two decades. It is important that we develop the necessary logistical infrastructure to ensure that more remote centres are easily supplied. For this reason, then, the Opposition endorses the proposal to develop further cargo handling facilities at Richmond. Our only query concerns the demolition of existing redundant facilities on the proposed site. In his motion the Minister gives no account of the current state of these facilities. We can only infer that they are so obsolete as to be unusable, but perhaps the Minister could confirm that. Should they not be so run down, however, and should space be available, we wonder whether it would be wiser to complement existing facilities rather than merely replace one structure with another, albeit one that is more modern. In the House on 27 November 1986 I said: . . . in the past year I have consistently urged the Minister to ensure that the maximum amount of design and construction work is given to the private sector and I am glad that at last in his responses on these projects he is referring to this. The Minister interjected: But it has always been so. I remind the Minister again that it is not so. The Minister clearly does not understand what goes on in his Department. In fact, 50 per cent of the design work is done by the Department of Housing and Construction and 50 per cent by the private sector. Now that I have explained that to the Minister, I ask him yet again to ensure that more design work is given to the private sector and less to his Department. The Opposition does not object to the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.11) —The Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1987 amends two parts of the original 1983 Act. The first amendment changes section 13, which deals with the sales and supply of travellers' requisites, to enable AN to provide entertainment, including gambling facilities or other services for travellers, and allow travellers to use those facilities. The second amendment broadens section 70 relating to the powers of boards of inquiry to examine the causes of accidents and make the appropriate recommendations. The Opposition parties support the amendments. The reason for the major-or most interesting-amendment is to allow the attachment of an entertainment car to the Ghan, the passenger service to Alice Springs. That entertainment car will include a souvenir shop, video booths, eight poker machines, a hairdressing salon and some card tables. My understanding is that it is only intended to have that one car on that one service at this stage. One of the reasons for that is that it is the only interstate passenger service completely controlled by Australian National and obviously it is an innovation and an experiment which needs to be taken stage by stage to see whether it can increase patronage. At a time of generally declining long distance rail passenger services, AN management is to be commended for trying to do something innovative in order to encourage more passengers. I understand that the South Australian and Northern Territory Governments have given their approval, although that is not strictly legally required. That passenger service already has a conference car and the entertainment car will be managed by private contractors. I believe that is sensible because it will allow complete management of it and thus tighter cost control. There is a problem of declining patronage on passenger services everywhere, not just with AN and not just on long distance services. It happens on metropolitan services as well. There is the problem of determining the sort of passenger who can be encouraged to go by train. Obviously a time sensitive person cannot be encouraged. That person will fly. At the present cost levels one cannot beat the overnight interstate bus services for those who are budget travellers. I presume that here AN is looking at those who have a little more time-perhaps pensioners, retired people, families and so on. It is important for Australian National Railways, the Government and the taxpayers of Australia that the $70m deficit incurred by AN is continually reduced. I must make the point that there has been a continuing reduction in the deficit. Of that $70m, about $30m is for its passenger services, both intrastate in South Australia and interstate, east and west and north and south. AN has an additional problem with some of its passenger services where it does not control all aspects of those services. For its east-west services it has Western Australia on one end and New South Wales on the other, and the Indian Pacific in particular has been subject to declining patronage. I make the point again that it is not unique to AN. A seminar was held in 1985, and I think others here will also refer to it. It endeavoured to look at ways of improving the passenger services, particularly east-west and west-east. Two areas of action were taken following that seminar-management consultants were appointed and a market survey was carried out. A recommendation was made that there be a single organisation to control that passenger service, something akin to Amtrak in the United States of America or Via in Canada. The result so far, to my knowledge, has been restricted to the Railways of Australia establishing a national passenger group. If the present pace of improvements in intrastate and interstate rail services generally in this country is to be continued it will be a snail's pace, and it will be several years before we see any results whatsoever. The Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has established targets for Australian National railways, and I commend him for that. He wants to lift cost recovery on AN's passenger services from 45 to 60 per cent by 1988-89. If that is achieved-I believe it must be-that will also make AN's passenger cost recovery better than that of the State railway systems, which at the moment would have to be under 40 per cent. For example, my understanding is that in Victoria V/Line has a cost recovery at present of 25 per cent on its passenger services; Metrail hopes to have 50 per cent in five years; and the Inter-State Commission in its landmark report of April last year comparing cost recovery for interstate land surface transport said that for interstate passenger services, the cost recovery was about 37 per cent. On return to government the coalition will review the progress of cost recovery for AN's passenger services, look particularly at the degree of State co-operation and co-ordination that is essential to lift patronage, efficiency and cost recovery, and determine what future there is for long distance passenger services controlled by Australian National Railways. As I said earlier, the total deficit for Australian National in the last year was $70m. For the freight service Tasrail it was $20m, and for mainland freight-that means basically the South Australian and interstate services of AN-it was another $20m. I commend again the progress that AN is making in being more commercial and reducing in both dollar terms and real terms the level of that deficit. This is particularly so because in AN's main area of activity-that is, South Australia outside the metropolitan area-all forms of transport are completely deregulated. That is, there is competition with buses and planes for passengers and with road freight, particularly in those profitable sectors of wool, grain and superphosphate. There is no restriction whatsoever. That is not the case with most of the State systems. With timber in Tasmania and South Australia, road transport obviously does not provide the same level of competition. The second point that I want to make in AN's favour is that I believe its accounts are more honest and complete than those of the States. In some of the States superannuation payments, leasing payment and interest payments are not included in the annual railways accounts. By not only my calculations but also the calculations of State railway people talking about the other State railway people-therefore giving, I think, a slightly more honest total picture-the total railways deficit of the State systems is about $2 1/2 billion. Victoria, New South Wales and the metropolitan passenger services are the most significant part of that staggering loss. I believe that figure is a national disgrace. The State railway systems, together with the waterfront area-I just do not mean right at the waterfront itself but the whole stevedoring system-are the worst areas in the total transport chain in this country. They add tremendously to the cost of all of our exports and, for that matter, our imports. It is a dramatic cost to our consumers. The taxpayers of this country have to find an additional $2 1/2 billion every year to pay for this cost. If we want to reduce taxes-I believe that members on both sides of the House want to do this-we should look at the State railway deficits. This, to me, is the most significant area in the total tax load-not separating out the Federal, State, local and other taxes-on all Australians. Industrial problems are partly responsible for this national disgrace. Last year 44,836 working days were lost in Victoria. Productivity and restrictive work practices are also part of this problem. I make special reference to the Sydney-Melbourne corridor which should be a perfect route for the carriage of interstate freight by rail. I believe that progress has been made with the introduction of super-freighters along this corridor. However, 75 per cent of freight goes by road. One should look in a little detail at some of the work practices which are still in place on the railways in spite of the fact that we are told that there is now a super-freighter service. Four separate railway crews are used between Sydney and Melbourne. The old coaling and water changes still occur at Goulburn, Junee and Albury-Wodonga. I am told that on the New South Wales side a call boy-please do not misinterpret that; it is an official title-is still used to wake up crews. Of course, we all know that many railway crews, on completion of their shifts, are put in a taxi to be taken back home or to where they begin their next job. Mr Hollis —But that is a State railway; this is the national railway. Mr LLOYD —I agree. If the honourable member listens to me he will note that I am criticising the State railways. Mr Hollis —But we are not debating the State railways. Madam SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member reads the second reading speech he will see that the honourable member for Murray was quite within his rights. The second reading speech widens the debate quite considerably. Mr LLOYD —The honourable member should not knock somebody who is actually supporting the Government on this legislation. We cannot blame the road transport operators for the fact that they carry 75 per cent of the total freight along the Sydney-Melbourne corridor. The April 1986 Inter-State Commission report on interstate land transport-and as I said earlier, I believe that is a landmark report and I commend the Government and the Minister for instituting that investigation-stated that the cost recovery in respect of interstate rail freight is 66 per cent. The cost recovery in respect of interstate road freight transport is between 72 and 93 per cent. The Minister moved to reduce the Federal licence fees for interstate road transport because interstate road freight demonstrably has a higher cost recovery percentage than interstate rail freight. I want to emphasise the distance that freight has to be carried before rail becomes efficient and economic. This creates problems for Australian National because basically it has to link in with the State rail systems. This creates problems which are beyond its control. I also want to make the point that at present the Australian National north-south or south-north rail link ends at Alice Springs. I believe that it would be to the advantage of Australian National and to the overall advantage of Australia if the railway line between Darwin and Alice Springs were constructed. The coalition fully supports the progress that is being made by the Country-Liberal Party Government in the Northern Territory to obtain private finance for the construction of that railway. It seeks to have in place a railway that will be efficient and economic. That construction will allow a more complete use of the rebuilt railway which AN uses and which, at present, ends at Alice Springs. The frustration which I believe all parties in the Federal Parliament share is that they have no power, in a direct way, to intervene to improve the problems that we have with the State railway systems. One of the things that we must do is deregulate surface transport to allow competition with the railways at a State level; that is, allow competition which presently exists in some States, and which AN has to meet in South Australia with passengers, grain, wool and superphosphate, and at the same time, reduce the burden on the taxpayers and the exporters of this country. The point I want to make is that cost recovery, by itself, is not enough. If the railways have a monopoly, cost recovery is then just a matter of gaining a monopoly rent, which can be just as bad and just as inefficient as some other so-called system of efficiency when there is no ability for competition to test how efficient that system is. Federally, we are restricted to the power to expose. The Inter-State Commission, commissions of inquiry, royal commissions and the Industries Assistance Commission are the avenues by which we can expose. It is very important from a national point of view, for improving our exports and for keeping costs down for the consumers, that the railways, operations of the waterfront and the whole transport chain are exposed. I believe that what the present Government is doing is correct. The Inter-State Commission has carried out a land transport inquiry. The Minister for Transport, who is at the table, presently has a waterfront package, with the Inter-State Commission hovering over the top as a threat. I believe that the Government has to move with the Inter-State Commission. By exposure and by embarrassment all parties-I am not just thinking of the unions; I am thinking of all parties in that waterfront area-will be forced to be accountable to the people of this nation. This Government has also established a royal commission into grain handling, storage and transport. Commissioner McColl has released a paper ahead of the public hearings in which he has indicated that 47.3 per cent of a grain grower's gross return is taken from him beyond the farm gate. Sea freight costs represent 16 per cent, the Wheat Board 11 per cent, rail freight 10.4 per cent, and storage and handling approximately 10 per cent The tonnage of grain handled or moved per year is 24,000 tonnes per employee at the bulk grain terminals in New South Wales. In Canada, the lowest figure is 33,000 and the highest figure is 75,000. In the United States of America, it varies from 53,000 to 96,000 tonnes per employee. So we can see that Australia has a long way to go to provide a competitive transport system which will allow the primary producers and exporters of this country to continue to survive and to do something about reducing our international debt burden. Dennis Hussey, formerly the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has stated that, on a cents per kilometre basis, it costs two to three times more to transport grain in Australia by rail than it does in Canada or the United States. The costs are two to three times higher to move the grain from a silo in a country town to the waterfront. In Government the coalition parties will intensify the exposure process which this Government, to its credit, has begun. We have to expose, we have to make accountable, we have to embarrass all of those people who are involved in the total transport chain-I mean the railways and the waterfront. I believe that interstate road transport and overseas shipping are efficient-through the IAC, royal commissions, the Inter-State Commission and commissions of inquiry. At all times we will endeavour to encourage competition and to open up the monopolies that the railway systems have. We will push for increased productivity and end restrictive work practices. The coalition supports the legislation and commends Australian National on its progress. It has reduced its work force by 32 per cent and increased its productivity by 115 per cent since 1978 but more has to be done; AN has to become completely commercial. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(10.32) —Let me say at the outset that we on this side of the House recognise the objective manner of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), who is always quite positive and, I feel, very genuine in his contributions to the House. I acknowledge that to the honourable member for Murray who has just spoken. However, I would like to take up a couple of things with him. The first relates to the waterfront unions, particularly the seafaring unions which realise that change has to be made. They have entered into very positive dialogue with the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and significant changes have been made by, in particular, the Seamen's Union of Australia and other seafaring unions. They are prepared to make many further changes so that they can contribute to the economy of this country in a positive way. I congratulate not only those unions but also the Minister for Transport on the constructive roles they have played. I also take exception to the red herring that the honourable member for Murray trotted out again about the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line. Of members on this side of the House I have been, perhaps, the greatest supporter of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line. I pay tribute to the Government. The Hill Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory looked at the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line. Quite frankly, on economic terms, in no way can the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line be supported. Some people trot out that it would be great for the defence of this country. The Department of Defence is not prepared to put one dollar into the construction of the railway line so I think we are leading the people of Australia astray when we start talking about the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line again. There is no doubt that it will never be constructed, particularly with the construction of the Stuart Highway which now links Adelaide to Darwin with an all-weather, first class bitumen road. The railway will not be required, it is as simple as that. If we are going to talk about economic rationality and how we have to cut costs when we are experiencing difficult economic times, I think that we are really deluding ourselves and insulting the intelligence of the Australian people when we keep talking about the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line. We ought to be more positive and put that to rest because it will never be constructed. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today in support of the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1987. The Minister for Transport in his second reading speech outlined the success of Australian National since it was given the task of becoming a commercially orientated business operation. The Bill we are debating today will allow AN to continue to act in such a manner. Honourable members would be aware that my interest in the continued success of Australian National stems from the fact that many of AN's operations are within the boundaries of my large electorate of Grey. Many hundreds of my constituents rely directly on AN for employment and many thousands of others rely on it indirectly for their well-being. So it is of paramount importance to me that AN be given the opportunity to continue as a major freight and passenger carrier. I am pleased to note that AN increased its freight carrying by 12.9 per cent in 1985-86 and also increased its passenger revenue by 21.9 per cent in 1985-86. This Bill will help to improve the amenities available to passengers travelling with AN. This pleases me greatly because it was not too many years ago that the future of passenger rail was less than assured. One of the reasons for AN's improved efficiency is its commitment to improving its plant and equipment. An example of this is the maintenance and upgrading of mainline tracks. The innovation of concrete sleepers, which are manufactured in Port Augusta, has allowed AN to resleeper 1,326 kilometres of track. Manufacture by contract of 700,000 concrete sleepers was begun in 1985-86 in Port Augusta, providing employment and a much needed economic boost to a depressed region in my electorate. These indirect benefits of AN are often overlooked. Cities such as Port Augusta and Port Pirie depend heavily on both direct and indirect effects of AN. The primary objective of this amending legislation is to allow AN, consistent with its charter, to act commercially to improve the financial performance of its passenger operations, through improving the quality of service provided-being innovative in the selection of activities being offered to passengers-and to maintain and increase patronage. The passenger service operation is a major contributor to AN's losses, accounting for over half its mainland losses. This is clearly a matter of concern for the Government and AN. This legislation is part of a total package to improve the performance of AN. Initially, AN proposes to introduce an entertainment car on the Ghan to counter increased competition from bus coaches that is expected with the completion of the new Stuart Highway, which, as I said, now links Adelaide to Darwin with an all-weather sealed bitumen road. Consideration will be given to extending these facilities to other services, depending on their success. An entertainment carriage is being fitted out at the Port Augusta workshops, in my electorate. Facilities will include video and sound booths, in which one to three people can view videos from an extensive on-board library of tapes. There will be video games for children, tables for cards and board games, a hairdressing salon, a souvenir shop and a limited number of poker machines-probably around eight. There has been a wide call for these poker machines. I think that this really is innovative and I congratulate AN on deciding to have these operations in its rail coaches, which I firmly believe will increase particularly the tourist aspect of AN's operations. This legislation specifically limits the use of the gambling facilities to bona fide passengers, including passengers in transit. AN has been assured that the South Australian and the Northern Territory governments and their casino operators have no difficulties with these proposals. The amending legislation also broadens the power of boards of inquiry, established under section 70 of the Australian National Railways Commission Act, to examine the causes rather than just the circumstances of accidents. These powers are consistent with provisions for accident inquiries under the Air Navigation Regulations. The two boards of inquiry which have been established under the Act have proven to be valuable by virtue of having an independent body examine major accidents. It is considered that future inquiries would benefit from having wider powers to consider the broader causes of accidents. The major area of loss making activities now facing AN on the mainland is its passenger services-at around $27m per annum. These losses account for over half of AN's mainland losses for 1986-87. AN is involved in the operation of the interstate passenger services of the Indian Pacific, the Trans Australia, the Ghan, the Alice and the Overland, and operates intrastate services between Adelaide and Whyalla, Broken Hill and Mount Gambier. Over the past few years AN has taken action to rationalise and improve the viability of its passenger services. Major initiatives include the handing over of the Victor Harbor service to the South Australian Government for operations as a tourist service, which I am pleased to say has been a tremendous success; the upgrading of the Mount Gambier service known as the Blue Lake, which is now faster, with better on-board service, and which is recording a 15 per cent increase in patronage over the first 12 months of operation. I think AN can hold its head high for taking this initiative. It is marvellous. Other initiatives include the launching last year of a new Budd car service between Adelaide and Whyalla, known as the Iron Triangle Limited, currently running at 80 per cent capacity. If I might make a positive suggestion to the Minister on this matter, I would certainly like to see this service upgraded to the extent that we could perhaps look at running return services at the weekend on this particular trip. There has been a wide call from my constituents within the Iron Triangle for this to occur, and I certainly hope that this can be found to be economically viable and that the service can be included. The Budd car service was established to replace the former Port Pirie service. Another initiative was the diversion of the Indian Pacific to Adelaide, providing a direct Sydney-Adelaide service for the first time, without adding to the transit time. On 14 December 1986, AN launched an Adelaide to Broken Hill service, the Silver City Limited, which is currently achieving 70 per cent loading. This was brought in to replace the Port Pirie service. Another initiative was the launching by AN of its conference car in October last year. This car can be hired by businesses, clubs or organisations for mobile conventions. The introduction of entertainment activities is a continuation of the innovative approach AN has adopted towards these services. To develop further upon these initiatives the Government has agreed with AN's specific arrangements concerning AN's passenger operations. Funding provided by taxpayers to support these services will be specifically identified in the Government's financial contribution to AN. This will allow AN's performance on commercial operations to be visible, and therefore more easily assessed, and will also maintain the incentive for AN to improve the performance of its commercial operations. The Government, of course, has set AN a target of covering 60 per cent of the costs of providing its passenger services by 1988-89. This compares with the 1984-85 level of 45 per cent, which is higher than that achieved by State rail systems. Progress towards this target will be monitored annually. This target represents a realistically achievable goal, providing the incentive for AN's management, unions and employees to work together to improve passenger service performance. When this Government came to office in early 1983 the Australian National Railways Commission-AN-was in a very poor financial state. In 1982-83 it required a record contribution by the Commonwealth of $106m to support its operating losses. This can be contrasted starkly with AN's current financial position. This Government's support for AN's operating losses in this financial year has fallen to $64.5m-a fall of over 50 per cent in real terms since 1982-83. This, of course, has produced increased efficiency and, I think, a much more desirable railway in every respect. Also, this has been achieved with very little additional financial assistance. AN has been very efficient. I think it is vital that AN be efficient, as it is using taxpayers' money in its operations. The Government's overall aim is for AN to become a more commercial and competitive organisation. It has taken a number of steps to achieve this. It introduced legislation to improve AN, with a framework to allow it to operate as a commercially oriented business undertaking. This also places the responsibility on AN to be accountable for its performance. This Government provided AN with a grant of $17m to fund early retirement schemes which will generate net savings of over $50m over the next three years. Some 850 staff have taken advantage of these schemes. Let me say that the people who have taken advantage of these schemes have been highly delighted with the schemes and are full of praise for the Government's initiatives in this area. The Minister for Transport has initiated a process of consultation with rail unions to ensure that employees' interests are maintained and has met with rail unions on close to 30 occasions at national, State and regional levels. I would be remiss if I did not say a few words about the Minister for Transport in this debate. As a member of the Government's transport committee, and having access to the meetings with the unions and the Minister, I must say that I have found the Minister to be very co-operative and very understanding. Rail unions and railway workers in general have had some tremendous changes to their work practices. The Minister has been very sympathetic. He has listened to the problems, concerns and challenges that railway workers face as they make these changes. The Minister is always available to meet with unions and with members of parliament who represent working class people, particularly in the area of transport. The Minister on every occasion has been very co-operative. I cannot speak highly enough of him. I am sure that all members of the Government's transport committee concur with me. The Minister has done a superb job in the area of transport. I know, from speaking to railway workers, that they also concur with my remarks. I repeat that the Minister for Transport has initiated a process of consultation with railway unions to ensure that employees' interests are maintained. He has met with rail unions, as I say, on many occasions. I think that in the previous 12 months he would have met with unions at least 15 or 16 times to hear their problems. The Government has also moved to revitalise AN's Tasmanian operations, which has been renamed Tasrail. It has provided a $60m financial assistance package, including $7m to complete rehabilitation of the track, for the three years to the end of 1988-89 and has given AN and its employees, unions and customers the opportunity to work together to establish a more efficient rail system in Tasmania. This Government also announced in October 1986 a package of measures to further improve AN's competitiveness. This addresses passenger services, staffing initiatives, management and operating practices, and revitalisation of workshops. AN can be proud of its record in staff relations. While its work force has declined by 3,000 or by 30 per cent, since its inception no one has yet lost his job. The entire reduction in staff has been achieved through natural attrition and voluntary early retirement and with the minimum of industrial disruption. Australian National has engaged in vigorous competition in the market-place, for example, its improved performance in piggy-back traffic, which includes its recently developed multi-modal facilities at its Keswick yards. This innovation was assisted by a government grant of $2.3m to improve terminal facilities and purchase high speed rolling stock. AN now has most of the freight traffic from Adelaide to Perth, and 95 per cent between Adelaide and Alice Springs. These initiatives have begun to turn AN into a more commercial organisation, able to compete in the transport market-place. This has been achieved only by fully involving all parties in the process-government, management, employees and unions, and it clearly demonstrates this Government's willingness to achieve more efficient performance in all areas in the public arena. The Federal Government is committed to the continued development of a reliable and efficient national land transport system with each mode, rail and road, performing the task to which it is best suited. It sees a major role for an efficient rail system, particularly in the carriage of long distance freight where it has a natural economic advantage over other modes. However, there are significant problems facing rail which currently incurs losses of around $4m per day. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JULL(Fadden)(10.52) —I am happy to take part in this debate on the Australian National Railways Commission Bill and I join my colleague the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), in extending my congratulations to Australian National for what it has achieved in the past 10 years. I join other Opposition members in commending the amendments contained in the Bill. I believe that there is a very rosy future for long haul passenger traffic by Australian railways. I believe, too, that we have had some fine examples from Australian National in recent years as to how this can be brought about. I think AN probably has a fair idea of what it has to achieve if we are to see the long term viability of long haul passenger traffic continue. It is interesting that this debate today centres principally on the addition of an entertainment car to the Ghan. The Ghan is one of the great railway trips in the world. It is also interesting, too, that with this legislation and with the addition of an entertainment car on the Ghan, Australian National, has seen fit to put the car's operation out to private contract rather than have it operated by Australian National employees. That is one of the points I would like to get to in this debate today if we are to make sure that railways in Australia reach their full potential. It is interesting to look at the figures in respect of the Ghan in recent years. There is no doubt that as early as 1981-82 there was considerable concern about the Ghan's future. In that year 27,197 people used the service, but by 1983-84 that figure had jumped to 34,240. On the lastest figures I have for 1984-85 there is a slight decline, but all the indications are that the forward bookings on that service are magnificent. The whole point I am getting to is that if long haul passenger traffic is to have a long term future, the first thing that railways must do is make sure that they are market oriented. They must forget their old prejudices and look at providing the sort of services that long haul passenger traffic wants, whether it be Australians using the service or the ever-increasing numbers of overseas visitors who come here and use our passenger services. I was delighted that the honourable member for Murray mentioned the problems that exist between the State Rail Authority of New South Wales and Vicrail in the operations of the major long haul trains between the capital cities of those States. There is still a feeling afoot in some sections of the Australian railway network that those old principles and practices are so firmly embedded that maybe they can never be rooted out. An example of what can happen happened in my own State of Queensland. In 1983 there was a major inquiry into the operations of Queensland Railways. I would never have been game to defend the old Queensland Railways in this House. Many of the jokes made about Queensland Railways in the early days were probably well justified, but as a result of the PA Consulting Services Pty Ltd inquiry into Queensland railways I believe that in that State we now have one of the most efficient railway systems in Australia. There have been tremendous changes in management practices. On the trip between Brisbane and Cairns, for example, travelling time has been reduced by more than 16 hours by bringing in different work practices. Obviously Australian National is taking that type of route too and it should be commended. In Queensland there has also been an interesting movement in recent years. It is mentioned in this Bill and I mentioned a moment ago that this operation on the Ghan will be operated by private contract. If I dare mention that dirty word the Government hates to hear, privatisation, I think that there are some interesting examples of what can happen if we look at forgetting some of the prejudices and opening up our railway systems. I cite as an example the Kuranda railway that operates out of Cairns. That railway has existed for virtually 100 years. It was undergoing tremendous losses. It provided a tourist rail motor that travelled between Cairns and Kuranda a couple of times a week and nobody took much notice of it. But an entrepreneur in Cairns by the name of Gordon McKaugh went along to Queensland Railways and, not without difficulties, managed to get a lease on part of the train. That lease was for about four or five carriages. McKaugh went to Queensland Railways and selected some turn of the century rolling stock which he restored. He painted and did up the carriages and introduced multilingual commentaries. Half the train was operated by his organisation and the other half by Queensland Railways. The services went from two to seven a week. In the tourist season four divisions of that train go between Cairns and Kuranda every day, and it is now regarded as one of the principal tourist attractions in Australia. With the ever-increasing number of tourists flying into Cairns, one of the first things that they undertake is that trip on the Kuranda railway. It is one of the most magnificent train journeys in the world. Should we not apply that principle to other areas? I was interested to hear the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) mention the railway down to Victor Harbor in South Australia. That was another example of where a railway was virtually finished and was to be closed down. People with some vision went along and said that there was the possibility of doing something in the tourist sense with that train. They built it up and it has been an outstanding success. Principally what happened is that they met the market's requirements. This step by Australian National in respect of the Ghan is a step in the right direction if we are to continue along that road. One would hope that this principle would apply to some of the other trains in the Australian National network-the Indian Pacific or the Trans Australian and some of the other trains mentioned in other contributions to this debate. There will be a demand for long haul rail traffic provided that the service meets the requirements of the people who are to use it. I know that historically there are some tremendous problems facing the railway system. Some jealousy still exists between the various State transport departments as to the operations of their railways. I suppose that one of the greatest wishes of most of us in this House who have an interest in transport would be to see a greater co-ordination of the efforts, although steps have certainly been made in the marketing of Australian National and reservation systems, but I am sure that we would like to see greater co-operation between the various authorities so that the railways can reach full potential. In the West Australian newspaper this week there was a major story about what was hoped to be achieved on the Indian Pacific with greater co-operation between the Western Australian Government and the New South Wales Government. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) was right when he drew attention to the very great difficulties that we face in the eastern States of Australia in terms of the State Rail Authority of New South Wales and VicRail. It was sad that the Australian Railways Research and Development Organisation folded last year. In principle that organisation had a great deal to offer to the future development of Australian railways. But the New South Wales and Victorian divisions withdrew from ARRDO and the whole thing collapsed. Perhaps that organisation did not have any proper directives as such, or had very strict management controls on its operations. There were perhaps contributing factors to its demise. But there was no doubt that interstate rivalry and the differences in management policies of the State rail authorities led to the collapse. These are the types of problems that we would like to see overcome. The State Rail Authority of New South Wales is investing a tremendous amount in the XPTs, but a lot of that traffic is really fairly short haul and I wonder whether some of those investments are completely wise. The Authority is leaving some of its longer haul traffic in the laps of the gods. I would cite one example, the Gold Coast Motorail. That was potentially one of the great trains of Australia and for quite a while it did particularly well. There were two divisions of that train running between Sydney and the Gold Coast. Only one division of that train had full catering facilities. On the other train it was possible to get the traditional railway pie and a cup of tea, but not much more. If one is going for that long haul market-especially in a tourist area-one must look at the market one is servicing and provide the necessary facilities. The turn of the century facilities that we experience in some of these trains are not what are required by Australian travellers or those who come from overseas. I suppose that the history of the Gold Coast Motorail is fairly well known among honourable members. The service now has one division and bus services to feed into various points along the way. I understand that the passenger acceptance of the bus connection in northern New South Wales has not been very popular. If they could, people would rather go by rail all the way. We also have a similar situation with the Brisbane Limited express, which is a very popular but pretty primitive train. I wonder whether the State Rail Authority of New South Wales might do better by upgrading that service than by concentrating on some of the projects that it is proceeding with at the moment. Mr Tim Fischer —At least it now runs into Brisbane. Mr JULL —The honourable member reminds me that with the advent of the new bridge and the magnificent transport interchange that exists in Queensland, the Brisbane Limited express now actually runs into Brisbane and not to South Brisbane. That train has the potential to pull a great deal more traffic and I hope that the State Rail Authority of New South Wales, in conjunction with Queensland Railways, will look at upgrading that particular service. All these examples that I have given are really indicative of the decisions that must be made by railway authorities in Australia. They must go along the same line that Australian National has been given in the amendments in this Bill. They must provide the services that are wanted by the clients of the railways. If those conditions can be met, there is a very bright future for long haul passenger traffic in Australia. The railways have the potential to provide some of the most efficient passenger services and one would hope that with a spirit of goodwill between the various State authorities and the continued expansion of the tremendous management practices now being undertaken by AN, we would proceed in that direction. If we do so there indeed will be a very great future for long haul passenger traffic in this country. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(11.05) —I am particularly pleased to speak on the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1987. I see that there are quite a number of members from both sides of the House who wish to speak on this Bill. One can only assume that Australian National is doing very well, as so many members wish to speak. This amendment will permit AN, consistent with its charter, to act commercially to improve the financial performance of its passenger operation. As previous speakers have said, passenger services are usually a loss-making part of any railway operation. Australia has no monopoly on this; it is true of many parts of the world. As the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) and other speakers have pointed out, there is a potential to turn that loss-making operation into a profit-making operation. I agree with many things that the honourable member for Fadden said. There must be an emphasis on the market. We must give people the services that they want in order to attract them back to the trains, especially the long haul services. I agree with much that the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) said. I do not think there is much argument between any honourable members about what needs to be done on the railways. However, it will come as no surprise to the honourable member that I do disagree strongly with him over his support for the Darwin-Alice Springs railway. This proposal has really been discredited. It is not an option open to us. I have no doubt that the Northern Territory Government would welcome that service, but of course it would be paid for with our money. The taxpayers of Australia would be pouring money into another grandiose project in the Northern Territory which would cost us all an immense amount of money. This Government will not do it. We are financially responsible and we will not agree to such a grandiose and irresponsible scheme as building the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. It could not be justified in any way at all. I am very pleased that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is also in the House today with the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris)- Mr John Brown —I came in especially to hear you, Colin. Mr HOLLIS —I thought you might have done. It is good to see you here with the Minister for Transport. Mr Robert Brown —A great combination. Mr HOLLIS —Yes, it is a great combination, as the honourable member for Charlton reminds me. Under this Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, tourism has been revitalised in this country. We have seen the great advertising project in the United States that has lifted the number of tourists coming to this country. We have seen other tourist advertising in various parts of the world. As the Minister would agree, however, tourism in Australia is about a lot more than `putting another shrimp on the barbie', our magnificent beaches or our fine cities. I believe that Australia is losing an opportunity to promote tourism. In the next round of Paul Hogan advertisements-or advertisements by whoever might be doing them-I would like to see a unique style of Australian tourism promotion overseas. I would like to see our trains promoted. Can honourable members imagine a tourist coming from the United States, Japan or somewhere, arriving in Perth, spending some time in that magnificent area and maybe going to the south-west corner of Western Australia then returning to Perth, and then crossing the Nullarbor on the Indian Pacific railway? It would be a magnificent trip. Some friends of mine came out from England two years ago. They spent three months in Perth working at the university and then they crossed the country on the Indian Pacific. They told me that the trip had meant more than any other that they had done in Australia because it gave them an appreciation of what Australia is about. I would like to see that sort of trip promoted. Imagine the tourists coming here spending some time in Sydney and, hopefully, Wollongong- Mr Robert Brown —And Newcastle. Mr HOLLIS —And Newcastle, as the honourable member says-then going to Adelaide and taking a trip on the Ghan to Alice Springs. That is a magnificent trip. I have actually made both these train journeys. Last year I was in Adelaide for a committee that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were chairing. I then had to go to Darwin for another meeting and I travelled from Adelaide to Alice Springs by the Ghan instead of flying as we usually do. The Ghan leaves Adelaide at 10 a.m. and arrives at Alive Springs at 10 a.m. the next day. It is a magnificent trip. More and more Australians should be taking advantage of that. I do not have many criticisms of the Ghan, but it should have a commentary on the trip, as does the Indian Pacific, and I also suggest that it update its postcards. It is a magnificent trip, and that is the sort of thing that we should be promoting as well as our cities and our rivers. We should be promoting these opportunities to our potential tourists overseas. We should also be promoting them much more to the Australian people. Many more Australians and, I might suggest, many more younger Australians should experience train travel. Travelling on the Ghan was a magnificent experience for me. It has been mentioned here that the Indian Pacific now goes directly to Adelaide, and this provides a direct Sydney-Adelaide link. I was with the Minister last year when he made this trip. That also was a great innovation for the Indian Pacific. Now people can go directly to Adelaide whereas before people had to leave the train. I listened to what the honourable member for Fadden said about the Kuranda railway outside Cairns. As may be obvious from my speech, I am a bit of a train buff. I have also been on that railway. I seem to have been on most of the railways in Australia. I agree with him that it is a magnificent line.. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) is in the House, and I think he would also agree with me when I argue that another line would match that line outside Cairns, and that is the Unanderra-Moss Vale line, which is within my electorate but I do not want to be parochial about it. I have discussed with the New South Wales rail people the promotion of this line. I share the view of the honourable member for Fadden that we have magnificent scenery in this country and the railways usually go through it. But we have fallen down in promoting it. We have fallen down in promoting to our overseas tourists our long haul lines such as the Indian Pacific and the Ghan. They are unique. Nowhere else in the world are there railways such as these. We have also fallen down, I believe, in promoting local lines locally. If people have not been on the Moss Vale-Unanderra line-people can go on it only once a week, unfortunately, now-I suggest that anyone who has a Saturday to spare go down there and do that trip because it is magnificent. It is from the coast to the highlands at Moss Vale. I was one of those local members who fought very, very strenuously, and lost, to keep it a daily service. The inevitable bus now runs a daily service, and only once a week does the rail service run. It is my hope that one day, with more and more tourism and with it being promoted more, that will return to a daily service. Mr Tim Fischer —It should be a round trip XPT-tourist XPT. Mr HOLLIS —As the honourable member says, it could have the XPT. When the XPT first came in we did that trip on it with David Hill and other people, and it was a tremendous trip. Some comment has been made today about the state of our trains. Originally coming from Kempsey in the electorate of the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), I have travelled on the old North Coast Mail, the old 14-hour horror, from Sydney to Kempsey. I have also travelled on the Brisbane Limited-when it stops. I have had the pies and the peas and the cup of coffee that were usual railway fare. I thought the honourable member for Fadden was a little unfair in some of his criticism because on some of our better trains the food is tremendous. Some of our long haul trains not only equal but are better than trains in other parts of the world. Yet we tend to criticise our trains. Last June-here we go on one of my travelogues again-I travelled from Stockholm to London by train, something like 38 hours, and 38 very uncomfortable hours it was, I might add. Nothing on that train could match what we have on any of our trains. It does not have the sleeping compartments that we have. Mr John Brown —Have you mentioned the Southern Aurora? It is the best train in the world. Mr HOLLIS —Of course it is. I am saying that we have these facilities on our trains; we have the cabins; we can have a shower in the cabins. This is unheard of on European trains. People have to sit up. I thought I had a sleeping berth on one of these trains, but it was a sleeping compartment with six other people. There was no food on the train. People had to race out at various places-we went through Denmark, the northern part of Germany and Holland-and try to manipulate the different foreign currencies to get food to keep body and soul together. Here we have our meals on the trains. The food, I believe, is quite good. As I said, I would like to see more and more Australians, especially the younger people, using our trains. Only last month I travelled on a train in Chile, from Santiago to Osarno. This was a journey of 18 hours. It was supposedly one of the top trains in South America, but it was nothing to compare with our trains such as the Southern Aurora, mentioned by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the Indian Pacific and the Ghan. I must say I have not yet travelled on the new Sunlander-from Brisbane to Cairns. I travelled on the old Sunlander about 15 years ago, but I have not yet travelled on the new Sunlander. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I do not wish to dampen the honourable member's enthusiasm, but could he please relate his comments more closely to the legislation. Mr HOLLIS —With great respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I took a point of order during the speech of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), I was told that the second reading debate allowed a wide range of debate. In this speech I am talking about how the passenger service will contribute to the financial viability of AN. In my speech I am relating, as the honourable member for Fadden and the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) and other preceding speakers have related, how promoting tourism and train travel this will lead to the objectives of this legislation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am glad the honourable member is relating it to the legislation. Mr HOLLIS —I have been saying that many of the trains on which I have travelled overseas cannot compare with the trains that we have in Australia, especially the AN trains. Last year when I was in Adelaide with the Minister, I inspected the business car which AN launched in October. I would like to make a suggestion through the Minister to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about this. The business car is for conferences. It can be hired by businesses, clubs or organisations to hold a mobile convention. Mr Tim Fischer —Is it broad gauge or standard gauge? Mr HOLLIS —It goes on the Indian Pacific and the Ghan. I know that the Prime Minister is moving the Cabinet around. In fact, there will be a Cabinet meeting in Bathurst in May. I would like to suggest to him that a Cabinet meeting be held in this business car. It would be great to do some lobbying of our Ministers, travelling on the Ghan between Adelaide and Alice Springs, and they could have a Cabinet meeting on the way. It would draw attention to this business car and it would promote it. It would also promote the Ghan. That would be very important. I suggest to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, that he take up the suggestion with the Prime Minister that this business car be linked to the Ghan or the Indian Pacific. All the Ministers could spend a night on the train. They could get on it in Adelaide in the late afternoon, have a very nice dinner and, the next morning as they cross the Nullarbor or as they go into Alice Springs, they could be deciding the fate of this nation at a Cabinet meeting. I would like them to take up that suggestion. In my opinion, the record of AN has been very good. I think congratulations to the Chairman, the commissioners, the management and, of course, the unions and the work force are in order. As I have said, I think AN has a great future. I believe that the long haul passenger service in Australia has a great future. However, it has to be promoted. This is just not going to happen if we sit back and say: `Everything will be okay'. As I have said, we have great trains. We have trains that are equal to or better than any in the world. We have tremendous facilities on our major trains. But this cannot be a secret that we keep to ourselves. We have to get out and promote what we have on our trains. We have to sell them. The purpose of this Bill is to try to turn around some of the loss making activities that are now operated by AN. I think that can be achieved. I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(11.21) —Along with the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), I have much pleasure in supporting the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1987. I support the objectives and the aims as set out in the Bill and the general attitudes and approach by Australian National. Australia's large land mass is envied by the rest of the world. But that same land mass has brought with it one of our major disadvantages-that of distance. Railways were seen as a means of bridging that barrier of distance. Consequently, they have played a significant role in the economic, social, political and historical life of Australia and the progress of this country. Economically, they allowed for the growth and development of towns and farming areas that otherwise would have been slower to occur. Socially, they brought sparsely settled areas and Australian pioneers closer together. Politically, they caused politicians to campaign on the platform of `railways and progress'. This political angle has also caused many of the problems we are trying to confront today. Railways sprung up within State boundaries with no national co-ordination. Tracks of different sizes and routes in uneconomic areas are a manifestation of these political pork barrelling campaigns. Australian National demonstrates an economic approach to long haul traffic-that is, heavy goods on good tracks being carried over long distances. According to the annual report, the bulk commodities of wheat, coal, iron ore and other heavy goods carried by Australian National help in terms of profitability. With a quick turn-round, railways around Australia can be profitable in a long haul situation. I think a very important aspect of the operations of Australian National is that it sets a benchmark of performance for State rail authorities. I will refer later to those authorities, which, of course, have an abysmal record of loss, inefficiency and ineptitude. The State rail authorities around Australia have incurred something like $2.5 billion worth of losses. On the other hand, the Bill before the House provides for the profit motive by proposing another service for Australian National. I note that private contractors with commercial attitudes will be employed to provide this service. I commend the Bill for promoting this sort of attitude. In 1977 the Fraser Government changed the approach of Australian National by bringing about a more commercial outlook. In 1987 Australian National was given a decade in which to achieve a break-even position of financial performance for its commercial business operations. The General Manager of the Commission, Dr Williams, reaffirmed the commitment to this goal and has predicted that, given a favourable economic climate, Australian National can be expected to achieve its target by 1988-89. This is a far cry from our State rail authorities which are looking at ever increasing losses. Dr Williams's views were reinforced and supported by the Chairman of the Australian National Railways Commission, Mr Marks, who in his annual report stated: 1985-86 was another good year for Australian National, in which almost all key performance targets were matched or bettered. Barring any prolonged reversal in Australia's domestic economy, the way is clear for AN to achieve its long-term goal of break-even on commercial services before the end of this decade. According to the 1985-86 annual report of the Commission, the deficit for the year ended 30 June 1986 was reduced by a further $14.3m, from $83m in 1984-85 to nearly $70m in 1985-86, representing a reduction of 17.1 per cent. This result was close to $11.1m better than the deficit budgeted by the Commission itself and approved by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). The result is all the more pleasing when one considers that only four years ago AN had recorded its highest ever loss of $106m. The overall result reflects the sound commercial practices pursued by the management of AN. Indeed, as a result of the Australian National Railways Commission Act of 1983, AN is charged with the task of becoming a commercially orientated business operation, the parameters of which the amendment currently before the House seeks to extend. I am delighted, as a member of this side of the House, to support that sort of attitude and approach. Australian National's performance in the last financial year reflected not only an increase in earnings-up 11 per cent on 1984-85-but also a continued tight rein on cost levels, credit control and supply management. Indicative of the success of the Commission's business-like approach to its operations is that, despite a 13 per cent increase in traffic tasks, total working expenditure was up by only 6.9 per cent over last year. In general, the Commission is independent of direction from the Federal Government. However, where the Minister believes it is in the public interest, he may give directions in writing to the Commission. Where in such cases the Commission can satisfy him that it has suffered financial detriment, it may be reimbursed by the Commonwealth by an amount determined by the Minister. The General Manager of AN, Dr Williams, in talking about this aspect of Australian National's operation, said: Consistent with the policies of successive Federal governments, AN's planning has assumed that support from taxpayers for commercial transport services is unjustified. Losses will continue to occur in AN only where they are explicitly mandated and financially supported by governments for recognised social or other objectives. Early in the 1985-86 financial year, following discussions with AN the Minister directed the Commission to continue operating the Government railway system in Tasmania, Tasrail, at least until June 1988. At the same time he committed the Federal Government to provide revenue supplements totalling $52.4m and further interest bearing loans were made available to assist with permanent rehabilitation. The condition of Tasmanian railways when AN gained control in 1978 was very poor. Substantial progress has been made in rectifying this situation and losses incurred by AN in Tasmania have been reduced in real terms by 37 per cent since that time. The chairman of the Commission, Mr Marks, reports that deficits will continue to decrease but Federal revenue supplements will be needed at least for another decade. Submissions have been made for all of AN's passenger services to become a `community service obligation'. These are regarded as non-commercial business activities by AN, with losses from this area amounting to some $30m in 1985-86. Where AN can obtain specific revenue supplements to meet losses incurred, services will be maintained. AN is continuing measures to improve service quality and efficiency, and where such revenue supplements will not be available, service rationalisation to minimise losses is proceeding as quickly as constraints will allow. I am delighted to see that approach. I think State governments should be looking carefully at their operations and following this lead. It is pleasing indeed to note that, with the exception of Tasmania, AN operates in an environment of totally open competition with other modes of transport. I think it is important, in terms of the current debate, to identify some of the management and operational practices which assist in the apparent success of AN. Australian National's marketing strategy focuses on improving reliability, extending the scope and competitiveness of intermodal freight services, and improving or sustaining AN's market share of grain and other bulk commodities. AN has an excellent relationship with the farming community and, through successive grain agreements, has sought to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of transport for this key export crop. Corporate strategies have included: Improving the quality and reliability of all services; continuing staff attrition, assisted where necessary by voluntary incentive schemes; other cost reduction measures; the extension of computerised information systems for operational, financial and marketing management; upgrading and rationalisation of assets; and improving the revenue yield from certain critical traffics, especially in Tasmania. In line with the restructuring of AN's freight business management and the computerisation of systems for costing, pricing and planning, mainland wagon-load freight is now segmented into four business groups: Rural products, intermodal, metals and non-rural bulk, and automotive and general freight. In conjunction with the grain authorities, AN is assessing alternative grain handling, transport and marketing strategies, with a view to reducing total costs to growers. The future location of deep-sea port facilities in South Australia will be important in determining the outcome of AN's assessment. The revenue from grain remained constant at $19.1m in 1985-86, which I believe is indicative of AN's operational departure from what one has come to expect from government railways. This was due to the improvement made to its freight services with the increase in its grain hopper fleet of 24 by the ingenious conversion of surplus covered vans. All too often State railways and innovation are seen as contradictory terms. I would like to turn to some of the other States and compare their rail operations with AN. In examining the operations and functions of AN, especially with regard to the proposed changes to the functions to that body contained in the amendment before the House, it is of vital importance to gain an insight into the problems and the drain on the public purse posed by other State-operated railways. In my home State of Victoria the transport system is in a state of collapse. It is losing $1,270 per minute. The Cain Government has promised a value for money system but a major analysis of government documents by the Kennett Liberal Opposition has shown the truth to be an expensive story of ministerial mismanagement, escalating debt, waste, feather-bedding and a total failure of the system. After four years of Cain Government propaganda and expenditure of over $1.5 billion on capital, Victoria has a worse transport service that is deteriorating steadily, with the community being saddled with horrendous bills that will take years to pay off. The public transport system in Victoria is losing $1.830m every day. Honourable members should think about that cost. The cost of the public transport deficit for employed person in Victoria has doubled since 1981-82 and is running at $380 per annum. Despite increases in fares and freight rates, revenue is not keeping pace with cost increases. The Cain Government, therefore, is funding the transport deficit by borrowing at interest and the amount and proportion of borrowings have increased greatly. In 1981-82 borrowings comprised nearly 60 per cent of a capital expenditure of $182m. Last year, borrowings constituted 91 per cent of a capital expenditure of $462m. The use of capital funds to cover operating costs has been criticised by the Auditor-General in Victoria. In order to evaluate AN's freight service performance, it is enlightening to view the performance of the Victorian Government's transport system. In one three-month period last year, industrial action by V-Line State Transport Authority employees cost freight revenue $10m. Such is the disruption and cost of industrial action in that State that the General Manager for Freight Services was moved to say: We're losing customers hand over fist . . . because we can't give them a reliable service. In New South Wales it is estimated that that rail service will lose $1 billion in 1986-87. In passing, I observe that the Japanese railway system has now taken strong action to reduce its feather-bedding arrangements and to reduce its staffing. It was regarded as one of the best railways in the world. However, it, too, has had to reduce staff numbers and a number of its feather-bedded operations in the hope that it might break even as we are hoping that AN will do. Finally, I wish to refer to a small railway operation in the electorate of Corangamite. Mr Tim Fischer —Point Lonsdale, Queenscliff. Mr McARTHUR —The Queenscliff-Bellarine railway, which the honourable member for Farrer is aware of, provides a very good tourist facility. It reminds young people of the role of steam railways in developing Australia. Mr Tim Fischer —It is narrow gauge. Mr McARTHUR —That narrow gauge railway is being maintained and repaired by workers from the Steam Preservation Society. They do this in a voluntary capacity over the weekends and provide a very valuable tourist facility during the holiday periods. I am delighted to be able to report to the House that they had a very successful season over the recent summer period. They play a very important role in clearly demonstrating what railways were like historically, the sort of contribution that steam made to the development of Australia and the way in which Australia was able to transport its heavy commodities. I support the Bill. I support the attitude of the AN. I hope that it achieves a break-even point when it says it will. I commend the management approach and the way in which it provides a basis for comparison with other State instrumentalities. Those State railways are of great concern, losing $2.5 billion in any one financial year, which further adds to Australia's debts, overall inefficiencies, and current economic problems. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(11.37) —It is quite a pleasure to take part in a debate such as this when there is so much unanimity of feeling about a matter of such importance. I am sure it is because there is nobody in this House today who really fails to understand the major contribution which the rail systems play in Australia's industrial development and the contribution which they make to our economy. Of course, each and every one of us here is also aware of some of the problems which have been inherited as this industry has aged. I think we are also aware of the fact that rail systems throughout the world face the sorts of problems of change which can be dealt with much more easily by other areas of transport which are not built into a total system. While it is certainly very expensive for somebody who wishes to move into the road transport area to buy himself a truck, at least when he buys himself a truck he is not concerned about laying down the roads and, in most instances, he is not concerned about setting up the depots. As a haulier, his relationship is usually with the consigners. Of course, it is not quite the same with rail as we are dealing with the entire system. Because of that we are dealing with the maintenance of permanent routes, we are constantly dealing with the necessity to upgrade rolling stock and we are dealing with the necessity to compete with other land transport systems which are able to upgrade their facilities and their resources somewhat more easily. So I think it is a matter of credit to our Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), who is an extraordinarily diligent Minister-I think honourable members on both sides of the House recognise this-an extremely assiduous worker, and a man who probably knows the transport portfolio better than any Minister for Transport has ever known it, that he has made an enormous contribution in every sector of transport. It is a tremendous credit to him that he has been able to get that area of the national rail network which falls under his portfolio's responsibility to make an extremely conscious effort to upgrade its standards and to move towards a far more commercial operation than it has been previously. It is also to the credit of all those who have been involved in this industry-the management and the unions, which have co-operated with the Government in ensuring that Australian National moves with particular targets towards becoming a more commercially oriented enterprise. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) indicated earlier in the debate his concern for the degree of co-operation between the Commonwealth and State governments. It must be said that the Minister has shown his determination to forge a very sound relationship between the State governments and the Commonwealth Government through the formation of the Railway Industry Council which has the support of all the States, unfortunately with one exception and that is Queensland. It is to be hoped that ultimately Queensland will concede that it is part of Australia and take part in the workings of the Council. One of the great difficulties encountered by railway services throughout the world is trying to compete on a profitable basis with other major transport modes. I have already alluded to some of the problems associated with rail transport that one does not necessarily find with road transport systems. Most honourable members will know that profitability has come via the reduction of services which really means the elimination of some services. For instance, for people in the United States that meant the elimination of passenger services from the private system. Ultimately, the Government instrumentality-Amtrak-had to fill the vacuum that was left by the private companies leaving the transport industry and just servicing what areas could be profitable. I think there is a message in that for all of those people who preach privatisation; they ought to look at what happened in the United States. There also may be an absence of any alternative transport. Obviously, it would be fairly easy to make some kind of a profit if there were no alternative services and there are not very many examples of that. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) has alluded to the novelty effect. I congratulate the Queenscliff tourist railway and all other tourist railways which provide a novelty service. However, they are not mainstream operators and we are not in the business of comparing them. Novelty railways-God bless them-make a big contribution to our tourist industry and that is very good. But we are not in the position of comparing them with the mainstream operators and I think that has to be understood. One of the targets which Australian National has set itself-it was set by the Minister-is to reduce its operating losses. That is extremely important to the Government because it has been responsible for picking up the tab for the losses. The contribution which the Federal Government has to make has been able to be reduced from an alarming $106m to $64.5m. That indicates the determination not just of the Minister but also of Australian National to get itself on a more commercially viable basis so that it can become responsible for its own destiny. One of the major challenges that face all those engaged in the rail industry is that of upgrading their rolling stock, their business expertise, efficiency and productivity. As in any other industry that is what has to happen and that is what is happening with Australian National. It is putting into operation the plans which it has devised along this line. It ought to be understood that it is not simply a matter of transporting people from A to B. Today, when railways are stuck with competition from bus lines and air lines they have to make certain that they are able to attract people. People are under absolutely no obligation to use rail transport. We cannot dragoon people on to trains but we want to ensure that they want to travel by train not just because it happens to be cheap. Cheap can also mean nasty and that is the last possible thing which will attract people back on to rail transport. We want to attract people to use rail transport so that they can say: `Boy, I enjoy travelling by train'. Train travel becomes a very attractive holiday in itself. Travelling across the Nullarbor ought to be an exciting experience. Mr Robert Brown —It is. Mr MILDREN —That is quite right. It ought to be a very enjoyable experience in itself, not just as a means to an end because it is a large enough journey to be part of someone's holiday. The Government will enhance, through this amending legislation, the possibility of Australian National becoming a part of someone's holi-day, something which he will remember and pass on to somebody else. That is important; in that way it becomes a commercially oriented enterprise. It lets people know that Australian National is part of the tourist industry. We want to attract tourists on to the trains; we want to make that experience something about which people can say: `Anybody who comes to Australia ought to travel by train because it is a great experience'. That is one of the things which the Government had in mind when, in amending the major Act, it introduced certain kinds of entertainments which people will be able to enjoy as they share them with other people. They will be able to say: `You should go along to it'. We also want people from other countries-not just Australian tourists-to say: `There is a great experience in Australia-travelling on the Australian National line'. That is what I think people are tending to do. When the entertainment carriage is put on to the trains, either on the Ghan or the trains across the Nullarbor, at least they will have videos, sound booths, video games for the children, tables for cards and board games. That may sound a little nineteenth century but it is a little more updated than that. One does not have to carry guns; in fact I am sure one will not be allowed to carry guns. Mr Nehl —What about a dartboard, John? Mr MILDREN —That is one of those things to which people seem to have certain objections. There will be a hairdressing salon, souvenir shops and a limited number of poker machines. I must say that I am not terribly good on things such as poker machines. I have an objection to losing so I probably would not spend a great deal of my money on a poker machine but I know there are people who find that those sorts of activities are part and parcel of modern life. It is very innovative, very imaginative, that the Government should, through this legislation, enable Australian National to offer such activities. We cannot talk about reducing our overall debt simply by cutting services, by cutting labour or even by just putting in new plant. We have to talk about encouraging people on to trains. I also want to make a few points about the problems that face rail transport. Much of the debate has been devoted to looking at the overall problems of rail in this country and the difficulties which the States have. One of the great problems which face people in my area-it is a very serious problem and I am sure any honourable member who happens to have an electorate in rural Australia would agree with me-is the unknown factors relating to freight transport. It is to the Government's credit that it has instituted the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport. We need to have the body of facts before us so that at least when we address this problem we will be addressing it with up to date data. One of the problems that strike people in electorates such as mine is that farmers are voting with the wheels of their trucks against the use of rail freight. On roads which were built many years ago and have long passed their acceptable life span we now find that instead of having farmers' cars going down those roads, very large transports are hurtling along carrying anything up to 20 or 30 tonnes of wheat. The effect upon the roads is catastrophic. There is no doubt about that. The Minister is aware of this. He is coming to my electorate within the next couple of months and will be discussing the matter with members of the local government there who are particularly concerned. This is one of the reasons why we have to try to encourage all States to make their rail systems far more efficient in order to attract much more of the bulk freight back to freight trains. If we do not, the enormous costs that will be incurred anyway in upgrading rural roads will be increased out of sight. I think that the Minister is aware of this. I am aware of it and I am sure that all honourable members are aware that we have a very major problem which perhaps metropolitan Australia is not quite as aware of-or if it is aware it is not quite as interested-as those of us who live in rural Australia. It is a major concern to me that we have an increased traffic load using those country roads when, in many instances, if we had more far more efficiency in our rail systems, that transport could be off the roads and on to the rails. One of the facts that people ought to realise is that a 38-tonne pantechnicon has an axle load which is equivalent to about 2,200 motor cars. On a road which was built to take 50, 60 of 100 cars per day, if several of those trucks go over it, it does not take long for wear and tear on that road to show up. I am not digressing; I am pointing to a very serious matter. All Australians have to take account of it. The rail system has to be seen not as part of our history, but as part of our modern life. If it is to be like that, it has to become a viable alternative to roads. I am sure that this is what our Minister is doing. He is showing the way, along with AN, for the rest of Australia. Since he is doing so, it is now imperative that the rest of Australia comes in behind. This is why the Minister set up such bodies as the Railway Industry Council. I repeat that I want all States to become involved. There is no opting out. The problems are too great. I exhort all people who have any kind of influence in Queensland-probably not a great number of the people here-to try to ensure that the Queensland Government falls in behind the Railway Industry Council so that it also can be part and parcel of the national grid and takes part in the upgrading of Australia's rail system. I do not want to take up any more of the time of the House because, by and large, this Bill is agreed to by all members of the House. Everybody is excited about the prospect of an enterprise such as this moving towards commercial viability and providing a great example to the rest of Australia, taking its rightful place in the development of the tourist industry. I commend the Bill. I commend Australian National and the Minister for the work that they have done. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(11.55) —I would like to add a new dimension to this wide-ranging debate on the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill. I indicate my support for the Bill. Before considering it I would like to refer to the comments of the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), who suggested that the Federal Cabinet should take to travelling by train for a future Cabinet meeting by using the Australian National Railways Commission business car. I have only one fear about that: In the same way that the Federal Cabinet is derailing this economy, the danger exists that it would end up derailing the train to which the Cabinet business car is attached. So there is some risk. Nevertheless, there is some merit in the proposal advanced by the honourable member for Throsby that a future meeting of Federal Cabinet should be conducted on an Australian National train in this special business car. I also join him in supporting the concept of greater tourist promotion-especially for international visitors to one of the key gateway points, Sydney-using the magnificent escarpment line to the south of Sydney down to Wollongong, back up to the tablelands and then back into Sydney via Campbelltown by operating some form of escarpment tourist XPT on the weekends. That line is under-utilised. It goes past some of the truly magnificent vistas that are in close proximity to Sydney and which are accessible only by rail. It is a round route, so people would not have to travel on the same route twice in one day. The trip would be of about four to five hours in duration, which would be almost perfect timing for such a venture. Yet the State Rail Authority continues to drag its heels on this matter, despite the efforts of the honourable member for Throsby and others. Turning to the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), his comments, particularly at the end, injected a much-needed note of reality as we look at the future of rail. He referred to the Royal Commission on Grain Storage, Handling and Transport. I highlight to the House that that Commission has decided to take its meetings on to rail-the Royal Commission on Wheels-because it travelled by special Commissioner's train from Sydney to Junee, the Rock and Boree Creek in January. I happened to hear about this, almost accidentally, the day before and thought that it was very secretive of the Commission that its members proposed to travel down one of the controversial branch lines under review without notifying the wheat growers and other local people, giving them an opportunity to meet informally with the members and staff of the Royal Commission on Grain Storage, Handling and Transport under Commissioner Jim McColl. I moved very quickly and was able to get on radio early in the morning and notify all my wheat growers that this special Commissioner's train was coming through later that morning and suggested that they might like to meet its occupants informally. I sent a message to those on the train once I found out the train's exact times of arrival. I do not know whether members of the Commission were overly impressed by my initiative in this regard but we mounted one of the most successful ambushes of a special Commissioner's train that has ever been mounted in the Riverina. I am pleased to say that large numbers of wheat growers met the train at the Rock, further down at Lockhart and finally at Boree Creek. There were two reasons. The wheat growers were genuinely interested in discussing informally with the Royal Commission on Grain Storage, Handling and Transport the branch line situation, the so-called option 3 of the State Rail Authority, and the costs for wheat growers of grain handling and the like. The other thing was that it was the first time that any carriages of the Southern Aurora had ventured down this very delicate branch line. It was billed to some extent as perhaps the last ever passenger train to go down that branch line, which is mainly a wheat-only branch line-so interest was attracted in that regard. I thank the Royal Commission for going along with the exercise and for offering information and liaison to the wheat growers who turned up to meet that important special Commissioner's train. Reverting to the Bill before the House in a fundamental way, I would like to say that not only do I support the Bill but I also recognise the need for Australian National and all railways to become more commercially oriented and more viable, especially in these tough economic times. Undoubtedly we almost have a situation of two economies existing side by side-one more related to the capital cities, which are enjoying boom conditions in some respects; and one in the rural sector of the economy, where there is a great deal of economic agony at present. That economic agony is partly tied up with the railway infrastructure of the country, and the costs associated with moving grain and the like by rail. Yet in making that comment I want to say to the House that I fundamentally believe in the future of railways as a mode of transport in Australia, as long as they are modernised and commercial viable, and as long as work practices, which have dinted the commercial viability of railways for far too long, are dealt with solidly and savagely by governments at State and Federal level. It is a matter of proven record that so many of these State railway systems have work practices and employment levels far in excess of what would be required using modern equipment and productivity procedures. It should nevertheless be pointed out that railways, when properly operated, still have a fundamental advantage over road transport. I guess it all revolves around the statistic that a steel wheel on a steel rail produces one-seventh of the friction of a rubber-tyred wheel on a bitumen surface. So there is one-seventh of the friction, or thereabouts, using rail as against road. Therein lies the great strength of economy of movement of bulk grain, and bulk commodities of all types, and large numbers of passengers-in that one particular statistic. As we look to the future we must also look to the next generation of rail transport and, to some extent, this legislation before the House does point to the future in its provision of an entertainment car on the Australian National passenger trains, initially on the Ghan. The Sydney-Melbourne transport corridor is undoubtedly the most important corridor in Australia. Other members may disagree but, in terms of actual population at each end, potential for freight movement and the like, and the fact that our national capital is also in the same transport corridor, I think it is a fair comment that the Sydney-Melbourne transport corridor is not only the most important but also, to some extent, the most congested. Yet, in the search for a solution for the future of transport links between Sydney and Melbourne, an exciting, dynamic new proposal is offering which would do much not only to boost rail transport between Sydney and Melbourne-with or without entertainment cars-but also to ease the pressure on this Minister for Transport in respect of the Mascot airport congestion and the very complex issue associated with the second airport for Sydney. Of course, I refer, quite properly in the context of this debate, to the very fast train, or VFT, proposal for the route between Sydney and Melbourne which Dr Paul Wild, formerly of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and a consortium are developing and to which a number of companies including TNT Ltd have now committed a great deal of money in order that an initial feasibility study may be carried out and completed. Honourable members and those people listening might like to know that what is envisaged is a commercially viable, profitable operation of a very fast train on standard gauge overhead electrified line between Sydney and Melbourne, running through Sydney's Mascot airport-which would have a new underground station-Campbelltown, Goulburn, Canberra, to Cooma, then across the border to Orbost, Maffra, Warrugul and into Melbourne. Interestingly enough, this new route would be some 868 kilometres, some 92 kilometres shorter than the existing main line which runs from Sydney through Goulburn and Albury to Melbourne. I have made representation to the VFT consortium to look also at a Sydney-Canberra-Albury-Melbourne route but I am advised that the geological features immediately to the west of Canberra make that an impossibility. So we have to revert to this Sydney-Canberra-Cooma-Gippsland-Melbourne route, saving nevertheless some 92 kilometres. What the VFT proposal offers is a three-hour rail service operating, possibly on the hour, from Sydney to Melbourne with one stop at Canberra. For other services there would be additional stops along the way. Its introduction would be patterned to a large extent on the TGV service operating in France, which operates on standard gauge and which is now operating at around 300 kilometres an hour. A newer generation of TGV will operate at around 350 kilometres an hour, and faster still. So it is a very realistic proposal being advanced by Dr Paul Wild and others; yet it is one that, to some extent, has fallen on deaf ears with the current Government, and that is very disappointing indeed. Not only would it provide a new dimension to the transport corridor between Sydney and Melbourne; it would also help to underpin the existing State rail system of New South Wales and, to a lesser extent, Victoria by facilitating connections, for example, at Goulburn and Campbelltown so that trains could cut over to the express system for the dedicated line running through Mascot airport and through the existing empty tunnels to the two vacant platforms which already exist underneath the current eastern suburbs railway platforms at Central station. This is a realistic and reasonable proposal. I will not dwell at length on the matter other than to highlight once again to the House the need for the Government of the day to consider the VFT proposal, to co-operate in the more detailed feasibility study which is now to take place in respect of the Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne very fast train concept, and to realise the enormous economic benefit it would provide, along with resolution to the problems of Mascot by reducing the number of domestic flights which would be necessary on such short haul and very awkward routes as Sydney-Canberra and Sydney-Melbourne. The legislation is quite narrow in its actual detailed application. In the provision of this entertainment car it represents a step in the right direction for Australian National. I join with other members in hoping that the railways at State and Federal level will do all they can to become further commercially oriented, to become more viable, to be less of a drain on the taxpayer, and yet, through boosting and modernising their infrastructure, to fulfil the vital role which is available to rail in the transport future of this nation. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(12.08) —I rise to support the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill. It is a Bill which deserves the unanimous support of this House, and it appears to be getting that-rather surprisingly in view of the present political climate. It is a further step in bringing the Australian National to a role of being a commercially viable business undertaking. I would like to join colleagues on my side of the House who have indicated praise for the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), who is at the table. He has won accolades from both sides of the House for his determination to make sure that the transport system-I refer to the whole transport system of the country-is brought up to the present day. There is no doubt that he has an enormous task to carry out his portfolio commitments, but he is doing it in an extremely capable way which has brought respect from both sides of the House. I believe, obviously, that the Federal Government has a major role to play in improving the efficiency of railways in Australia's national transport system. We all know that parochialism in Australia years ago led to five separate railway systems, using three different gauges-5 feet 3 inches, 4 feet 8 1/2 inches and 3 feet 6 inches, using the old measurements. Over the years governments comprised of parties from both sides of the House have made attempts to overcome those problems by unifying and standardising the national rail network. We still have a long way to go. But over the years an attempt has been made to overcome the parochialism of the past. The primary object of this amendment is to allow Australian National, consistent with its charter, to act commercially to improve the financial performance of its passenger operations. This can be done through improving the quality of service provided and being innovative in the selection of activities offered to passengers. In this way passenger traffic will be maintained and, the Government hopes, will eventually increase. On this point I note that, according to the 1985-86 annual report of the Australian National Railways Commission, patronage in 1985-86 increased over the figure for the previous year. The figure in 1984-85 for passenger journeys was 310,100, whilst in the last financial year it rose to 322,300-a healthy sign which arrests the decline in passenger journeys which has occurred in previous years. As a Western Australian, I note that the Indian Pacific and Trans Australian had increased patronage during that past year. Certainly, I would encourage those who are travelling west to take advantage of the facilities available on the east-west line. I would like to reinforce the point made by the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) that a comparison of our national railway with overseas railways systems would be to our advantage. I, like the honourable member for Throsby, have travelled all over Europe with the aid of a Eurail pass. I have also travelled in Finland without a Eurail pass because it does not cover travel in that country. I can say, having travelled east-west on several occasions in this country, that our train services on main lines compare very well with those in Europe. I think that those who, like the honourable member for Throsby and I, have crossed the Nullarbor by train are well aware that it is one of the great train rides of the world. The fact remains that passenger service operations are still a major contributor to Australian National's losses. They account for over one half of the mainland losses. It is in that context that I welcome the news that Australian National proposes to introduce an entertainment car on the Ghan to counter the expected increased competition from coaches, following the completion of the new national highway link to Alice Springs, the Stuart Highway. I trust-I am sure that it is the Minister's wish-that this will prove successful, as it could lead to this facility being extended to other services. I understand that an entertainment car is currently being fitted out at the Port Augusta workshops. I pay tribute to the staff at those workshops. I lived in Port Augusta 25 years ago. I got to know many of the men and women who worked in the workshops at that time. I have a sincere appreciation of the work that they do. I will refer later to the question of apprentice training. The facilities on this entertainment car, as the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) mentioned in his contribution, will include video and sound booths, with a library of tapes. There will also be video games for children. I think this is most important because many family groups, rather than individuals, travel by train. There will be tables for cards and board games, a hairdressing salon, a souvenir shop and a limited number of poker machines. I am not quite sure whether I am completely in favour of the latter, but it is a phenomenon that appears to be increasing its hold on our world. Australian National, though, has been assured that the South Australian and Northern Territory governments and their casino operators have no difficulties with the proposal. As the honourable member for Ballarat stated in his speech in support of this Bill, when this Government came to office Australian National was in a poor financial state. In fact, its operating losses at that time were $106m. That deficit has now been reduced to $64.5m. This represents a fall of over 50 per cent in real terms since 1982-83. The introduction of the separation gratuity incentive scheme has allowed for a reduction of staff in Australian National. In 1985-86, 532 employees were retired under the scheme, which makes a total of 757 employees who have retired since the scheme began on 29 March 1985. In fact, during the last financial year direct Australian National employment fell by 672 to 8,127. This has allowed management to streamline operations. I note that over 300 employees have passed through the successful management development program which began in 1981. This program allows for specialised courses in industrial relations, financial management, problem solving and decision making. I turn to the question of apprentice training. I am very pleased to note that the apprentice training syllabus has been upgraded. I remember that, 25 years ago, when I was living in Port Augusta, I was very disappointed with the syllabi offered to apprentices at that time. Notwithstanding what I have just said, many good tradesmen did emerge subsequently from the workshops. But it is interesting to note that last year Australian National apprentices won 11 medals at the South Australian Work Skills Australia contest, and two were chosen to enter the national competition. So I think the change in syllabi has been successful in regard to the performance and expertise of those apprentices. All of these programs have been designed to make Australian National a more commercial and competitive organisation. Mr Deputy Speaker, up to now I have spoken mainly about the passenger scheme in relation to this Bill. I am sure you will be very pleased to know that I will now return to the Bill. I refer to the other provision of the Bill which will amend section 70 of the Act. This will allow boards of inquiry to have expanded powers to investigate the causes of accidents involving Australian National. Up to now these boards of inquiry have been able to look only into the circumstances of accidents. Now, as a result of this Bill, they will be able to look at the causes of accidents. The powers which are being introduced are consistent with provisions for accident inquiries under the air navigation regulations. I understand that two boards of inquiry which have been established under the Act have proven to be valuable in having an independent body examining the major accidents. It is considered that future inquiries would benefit by having wider powers to consider the broader causes of accidents. This Government and, in fairness, previous governments have recognised the parochialism of the past, to which I have referred, in having different railway systems with different gauges and have attempted to bring the railway systems of this country into the modern age. Transport is a very competitive world and if the railways are to survive they must do so by increasing their freight carrying capacity and their passenger transport. I feel that this Bill, in common with the legislation introduced in 1983 by the Minister for Transport, will go some way to meeting the demands of the 1990s. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(12.22) —It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak on the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill and to support its provisions. The move to put an entertainment car on the Ghan, the train that runs between Alice Springs and Adelaide, is a most imaginative innovation and is to be commended. I congratulate the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and the Australian National on taking these steps. Mr Goodluck —Not too much praise. Mr NEHL —Not too much praise, but just a little. The entertainment car will include video and sound booths, video games for children, eight poker machines, a souvenir shop, hair salon and tables for cards, chess and other board games. I hope that this is the start of a major change, a complete turnover in Australian railways. I hope that it is successful-I say this with all my heart-because the railways of Australia can do with a fillip, a boost and a lift. The potential for international tourism associated with Australian National Railways has not yet been tapped. I do not believe that we have even started to tap our local tourism potential, but there is an enormous potential in respect of overseas visitors. I shall speak in a little more detail about that later. I was also pleased to note that the Minister in his second reading speech made the point that the cost recovery level on passenger services on AN in 1984-85 was 45 per cent. He set a target by 1988-89 to get that figure to 60 per cent. This is in line with a definite policy of making the Australian National Railways more commercially viable, and I certainly support that move. It is a pity that the other railways of Australia are not necessarily following the same commendable course. The New South Wales State Rail Authority in 1976-77, the first year of the Wran Labor Government in New South Wales, ran up a loss of $274,627,392. That was a jump of 34 per cent on the previous year which was the last year of the Country Party-now the National Party-Liberal Party coalition. The Liberal-National party coalition in New South Wales will be back in government after the next State election, there is no doubt about that. Everybody in New South Wales knows it, and everybody in Australia knows it, just as the coalition will be back in power here as soon as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is game enough to call an election. If he wants to have a go, let him call an election tonight. I shall be happy to go along with him. That loss in the New South Wales State Rail Authority by 1985-86 was up to $330m, but to be fair it was down from a loss of $375m in 1984-85. The total accumulated loss for the New South Wales State Rail Authority for the 10 years of the Wran Government was $3.527 billion. That is not including interest, it is just the loss on operation costs. I wish briefly to refer to a statement in the Australian Financial Review of 20 May 1986 which was as follows: NSW, it turns out, is shelling out more than $500m a year between SRA losses and interest payments on decades of accumulated debt. That accumulated loss of $3.5 billion does not even include the interest. But in New South Wales the Labor Government has adopted a very special terminology. The railways there do not lose money any more, they are not losses. They have changed the name and called it a revenue supplement. What a delightful euphemism that is. The railways are losing millions and billions of taxpayers' dollars. They do not regard it as a loss of money but as a revenue supplement. One way in which that revenue supplement could be reduced is by examining the number of sick days taken by rail employees in New South Wales. In 1985-86 41,000 employees on average took 11 1/2 days sick leave per employee. The private enterprise average-that is the fair dinkum, genuine private enterprise; I am not talking about the monolithic enterprises such as Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd-is only 1 1/2 days. That is 10 days less than the average taken by the 41,000 SRA employees in New South Wales. If one costs that at $10 an hour and they work only 7 hours a day, that is $70 a day. We are talking about a saving of $28m if the SRA employees took the same number of sick days as do employees in private enterprise. One may not think that $28m is a great deal of money, but to wheat growers in New South Wales who are facing disaster, with prices tumbling down, people committing suicide and families breaking up because of the stress and the strain, $28m off the cost of wheat freight charges in New South Wales is not an inconsiderable amount. On 23 January this year the Australian Financial Review in an article headed `Ambitious plan to cut NSW freight costs hang in balance', by Peter Le Gras, said: Acceptance of the plan by the New South Wales State Rail Authority to cut rail freight costs by $30m a year hung in the balance yesterday as wheat farmers, local governments and railway workers continued negotiations in Moree. That was an ambitious plan to cut rail costs by $30m, but if SRA employees took fewer sick days, those wheat growers would also have something to grasp on. I wish to mention an article by Peter Hemphill in Stock and Land of 19 June last year relating to the cost of rail freight, particularly for wheat. He made the point that for a 650-kilometre haul, the cost in Canada would be in Australian dollars-all these figures are in Australian dollars-$15.57 a tonne, of which $4.73 would be paid by the wheat grower and $10.83 by way of direct subsidy to the railways by the Canadian Government. Let us compare that with Australia's costs. As I said, the grower in Canada pays $4.73 a tonne, but here in the Labor State of New South Wales a grower pays $25.48 a tonne, in the Labor State of Victoria, $27.34 a tonne, up to $35.40 a tonne in the Labor State of Western Australia, and $22.50 a tonne in the Labor State of South Australia. In Queensland there is not a Labor Government, there is a National Party government, a good government, led by a great team of Ministers. What is the cost there? The grower pays $17.39 a tonne-the lowest rate of any State in Australia. That is fairly significant. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Chair would be derelict if it did not draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that this is rather a narrow gauge Bill and he has travelled a considerable distance off the rails of relevance. I invite him to bear that in mind when he proceeds. Mr NEHL —I most definitely defer to the Chair. It would be far from my heart to see you, Mr Deputy Speaker, derelict in any circumstances. Mr McGauran —What about the Minister at the table? Mr NEHL —Well, I will not be rude. I am seized with goodwill, even for the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). If he could get rid of the assets test, I would be very nice to him. I was very pleased to see the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) in the chamber earlier during this debate because this Bill has a great deal of significance for tourism. The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), who was present earlier, is a self-confessed train buff. I did not realise that he had been overseas so many times, travelling on trains all around the world. I do envy him that opportunity. I travelled by train from Coffs Harbour to Sydney a fortnight ago tonight. Mr Tim Fischer —Very brave! Mr NEHL —It was very brave indeed because I had a very sleepless night. The honourable member for Throsby referred to the tourism value of a train in his electorate, the Moss Vale-Unanderra line. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) also spoke about that line. I would like to see greater use of our railways in Australia for tourism. I wish to inform the House that before too long I hope that all honourable members will have the opportunity to travel on the Dorrigo line once again. Mr Hicks —The who? Mr NEHL —The honourable member for Riverina-Darling asks: `Who?' I know that he is a marvellous man and that he has in his electorate Broken Hill, Griffith and all the marvellous towns in the Riverina, but all I can say is that it is about time that the honourable member, who is the National Party Whip, came to the electorate of Cowper for a holiday. He would then know where Dorrigo is. Mr McGauran —He never takes a holiday. Mr NEHL —He is very hard working; that is why he never takes a holiday. But he really needs one now. The Glenreagh to Dorrigo railway is on the verge of being restored. It has been taken over by an organisation which was formerly the Hunter Valley Steam Museum and is now the Dorrigo Steam Rail Museum, which has the largest collection of railway rolling stock in the Southern Hemisphere. When that railway line really gets going it will be a great delight. I invite the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) to come and ride on it. It passes through some marvellous mountain scenery and superb rainforests and by some beautiful, quietly running mountain streams. It will be a marvellous tourist attraction. I had the good fortune to travel on the Ghan from Alice Springs to Adelaide in June 1985. Mr Downer —A great train. Mr NEHL —As the honourable member for Mayo says, it is a great train. Regrettably, I never had the opportunity to travel on the old Ghan. I think that would have been the experience of a lifetime, almost like going to Antarctica on the Ice Bird. Certainly, my trip on the Ghan was very interesting and enjoyable. That brings me back to the question of the potential for tourism. It has an enormous potential. The train itself was quite comfortable. The service from the staff was very good indeed. There was one waiter who consistently reminded me of a character out of the television program Fawlty Towers. Those honourable members who are television buffs as well as railway buffs will know about Fawlty Towers-- Mr Slipper —We haven't got time to watch television. Mr NEHL —I used to watch it before I came into the Parliament. I have not had time since I have been a member, but perhaps that program has not been showing. I really do not know. Honourable members who saw the program when they were not working will recall the waiter called Manuel, who would go around saying `Que'. One of the waiters on the Ghan was very reminiscent of Manuel-just in his mannerisms, not in his service because the service was excellent. However, in my opinion there was one shortcoming-the times of service on the Ghan. The times of bar service, the times of showing the video on the one video machine and the meal times seemed to be set more for the convenience of the staff than the passengers. That was nearly two years ago and I hope that this new commercial attitude, the thrusting to make AN more commercially viable and give the Ghan a more forceful marketing attitude will mean there will be an improvement in this area. There were two meal sessions. The announcement would come and if one had to wash one's hands before going to the dining car one would find one's soup already on the table when one arrived. If one was 10 minutes late the soup had been not only delivered, but also taken away. I am not speaking about the present day service, because my experience was two years ago, but certainly at that time there was a great need to make the service more user-kind. I believe that there is an enormous potential for overseas tourism. As an example I wish to tell the House about a service in Scotland. I do not know whether the honourable member for Throsby has ever travelled on this particular train, the Royal Scotsman. He told us how he went from Stockholm to London, so perhaps he went on the Royal Scotsman. If he did, his constituents might be slightly upset by his wealth, particularly as he is a good socialist. It is a train which travels for six days. It leaves Edinburgh at 2 p.m. on one day, is away for five nights and returns at 11 a.m. on the sixth day. This has to be the most luxurious train in the world. I would love to go on it but I would never have enough money. The state cabin costs #2,590 per person, or $A6,038. That means that for a couple it would cost $12,076 for six days and five nights. That is an incredible amount of money. Honourable members might think that there would not be many passengers at that price. The train has been booked out for five months. One cannot get a state cabin until June this year. A little less luxurious, a little cheaper-if cheap is the right word-is the luxury twin cabin, which is #2,320, or $A5,408 per person and $A10,816 per couple for five nights. Mr Slipper —Australians could not afford that. Mr NEHL —No, Australians could not afford it under this Government, as my honourable friend points out. They certainly could not afford it, not with our high interest rates and the inflation that is killing us. That amount that I have quoted includes meals, drinks and visits to country houses. I do not suggest for one moment that the Ghan should be turned into such a luxurious train or that other railways in Australia should go that way. However, it is an indicator that overseas tourists are, in many cases, big spenders. They have a great deal of money. If, by intelligent marketing and an innovative approach, such as this one being made by the Minister for Transport and Australian National Railways, we can bring a great deal more tourist money into this country, it will be effective in promoting jobs and improving our terms of trade. I commend the Bill to the House. I think, I hope and I trust that this is only the start, that there are much greater things to come for Australian National Railways. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(12.39) —In the few minutes that remain before the debate on the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1987 is interrupted I would like to make an observation about the course that the debate has taken so far and indicate my pleasure at the fact that there appears to have been considerable unanimity of thinking and attitude towards the questions that have been canvassed during the debate by members of the Government and members of the Opposition. I am pleased that that has been the position. The opportunity has not been taken by members of the Opposition to score very many political points. I do not think this is a piece of legislation in relation to which that type of approach would have been appropriate. There has been a recognition on the part of all those members who have spoken of the importance of Australian National to Australia, and some very interesting contributions have been made by members, particularly about the important role that AN will play as a national line in connection with tourism. We know that the particular problems that we face at present concerning the deficit on the current account will, to a very large and increasing extent, be resolved as a result of the development of those aspects of Australia's capacity where the opportunities appear to be greater. There is no doubt that one of these will be the area of tourism-that has already been indicated-not only as a result of the devaluation of the Australian dollar, which has made it comparatively much cheaper for overseas people to tour Australia and spend time here and which at the same time is discouraging our going overseas because it is now comparatively more expensive for us to do so, but also because there is the growing opportunity now for people to take advantage of all the great tourism facilities, services and opportunities which exist in Australia. References have been made to the developments in Queensland and New South Wales. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), drew attention to the development of that historic rail line at Dorrigo. The people who are developing that and the rolling stock that they have taken with them came from the Hunter Valley, from my electorate, as the honourable member indicated. I am pleased to see that they have been replaced in the Richmond Vale museum by another group, which is laying track and developing, restoring and operating rolling stock there in much the same way as are those people in the electorate of the honourable member for Cowper. Mr Nehl —And Page. Dorrigo is in Page. Mr ROBERT BROWN —In the adjoining electorate of Page. Australia is the only country which occupies an entire continent. It is possible for people to travel anywhere in Australia, anywhere across this continent, from east to west and from north to south and not move outside the boundaries of one nation. It is not possible for that to be done anywhere else in the world. That reflects the great privilege that applies to Australians, wherever they happen to live. The great tourist rail services include the Trans Siberian Railway from Vladivostok to Leningrad, the Orient Express from London to Venice, the whole Eurail system and the east-west rail lines in North America. We have some to match them, and reference has been made to them. There is the great Ghan service between Adelaide and Alice Springs and the great Indian Pacific service between Sydney and Perth. I hope those people who are taking advantage of the opportunity to remain in Australia for their holidays and to tour take the advice of the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), who suggested that they should be treating those great rail services of AN not simply as a means to go from A to B but as part of their holiday packages, as part of their tours of this nation, because they are magnificent services. Increasingly people are coming to recognise the facilities and the great variety of tourist attractions which exist in Australia. The opportunities are increasing, and people increasingly are realising that those facilities are there. I hope that the growth we have seen in the attraction of those services and the response of Australian holidaymakers to them will continue and that, as increasingly we have the opportunity to promote these great Australian rail services, expansion of their utilisation will continue. I look forward to continuing my speech at a later hour today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — 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 Charlton will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Ms FATIN(Brand)(12.45) —I move: That this House, noting the Government's objective set down in the Governor-General's speech to direct welfare assistance to the needy, believes that poverty among women in Australia is unacceptably high and, accordingly, calls on the Government to: (1) continue to pursue wage justice for women; (2) give women a high priority in job creation and training programs; (3) ensure that income security payments for supporting parents and children of pensioners and beneficiaries are increased; and (4) continue its efforts to provide adequate child care facilities throughout Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to address the Parliament this afternoon on what I and many others believe to be a very serious question confronting Australians today, that is: What can government do to make our society a fairer place for women? Before I examine each section of this motion in some detail, I must pay tribute to the Hawke Government for the proud record we have steadily built up over the last four years. In each of the areas I address in this motion, that is, job training, wage justice, training programs, income support and child care, this Government has acknowledged the special difficulties faced by women. We have at last started to recognise that the concerns of women, particularly women in poverty, can no longer be confined to the margins of political platforms and policy making. The first point I want to raise is wage justice for women. It comes as a shock to many to realise that Australia has the worst record of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country when it comes to equality in the work force. As I have reminded this House on several occasions, the majority of Australia's working women have remained in low paid, low status, segregated jobs. Wage equality is an extremely complex question. It has taken many years for women to overcome the status of `gentle invaders' in the work force. It will be some time yet before low paid, low skilled, occupations lose the tag of `women's work'. Additional problems in bringing about wage justice lie in the fact that as a society we still have a long way to go with the whole concept of part time work. The preponderance of women in part time work is a major contributing factor in women's lack of job security and career advancement, as well as the difference between the earning capacity of men and women. Obviously the issue of wage justice has to be tackled on a number of fronts. It is very closely related to improving women's labour market prospects generally. There can be no doubt that women in general have benefited from the employment policies adopted by this Government. The historic prices and incomes accord with the union movement saw 634,200 new jobs created between 1983 and 1986. Of these, 433,000 were for full time employment; over 60 per cent of these new jobs have been taken by women, who have filled 47 per cent of the new full time positions. During the same three years, women's work force participation rate increased by 3.8 per cent to 48.7 per cent. While these are impressive figures which amply demonstrate the Government's absolute commitment to giving women equity in the labour market and the work force, there is still a long way to go. The fact is that in August 1986 women could only expect to earn on average 65 per cent of what men earned. A woman working full time was receiving about 80 per cent of male average earnings. Sixty-four per cent of women are concentrated at the lowly paid end of the clerical, sales and service occupations. In addition, women's earnings are diminished by their domestic responsibilities which tend to prevent them from working overtime. Women still predominate in areas which have limited award coverage which makes them particularly vulnerable to substandard wages. Another factor affecting the ability of women to earn an equitable wage is the level of education attained by women. It is only in very recent years that women's education rates have begun to approach equality with men's. In purely practical terms this simply means that women are less qualified than men. Some interesting figures have emerged recently in issues paper No. 3 published as part of the Social Security Review. It appears that on average female sole parents have the lowest level of educational qualifications of all groups with children. More than 63 per cent have not completed high school. This compares with 55 per cent for mothers with partners, 49 per cent for sole fathers and 39 per cent for fathers with partners. Only 28 per cent of sole mothers have any post-school qualifications compared with 35 per cent of mothers with partners and 37 per cent of sole fathers and 51 per cent of fathers with partners. Obviously these figures are reflected in the employment statistics for women. Single mothers, for example, are much more likely to be in full time employment if they have high educational qualifications and not surprisingly they also earn more money from their employment and have a much wider range of options when it comes to obtaining work. The second part of the motion under consideration here today raises the vital issue of job creation and training programs for women. A particularly concise and, I must say, impressive account of the Government's actions in this area can be found in the employment and industrial relations section of the women's budget program for 1986-87. The high priority accorded to women in the community employment program is reflected in the fact that women's participation in approved projects reached 51.2 per cent in the 1985-86 financial year. There is another reason for singling out the community employment program for particular mention in the context of increasing women's opportunities in the labour market. Research has shown that the CEP is remarkably successful in placing women in non-traditional occupations. In 1983-84, 29 per cent of women employed on CEP projects were working in non-traditional areas. In 1984-85 this number rose to 34 per cent. This compares with about 9 per cent of all employed women in non-traditional occupations in the general work force. Women also reap significant benefits from the training programs run by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. In some areas, however, there is clearly room for improvement. For instance, in 1985-86 women accounted for only 11 per cent of all apprentices in training. Another disappointment is that the special trade training program which provides special courses for women who want to enter non-traditional trades has had quite a poor response. If women are going to break out of the poverty cycle associated with low status, poorly paid jobs, it is vital that these alternative employment avenues are explored. It is to be hoped that the Commonwealth-State working group on women and non-traditional apprenticeships can devise ways of increasing the appeal of these training programs to the women for whom they have been designed. Let me turn my attention now to the issue of income security payments for supporting parents and the children of people on pensions and benefits. Last week, as many honourable members would know, members of the Campaign for Economic Justice and the Low Income People's Network visited Canberra. Honourable members had the chance to listen to spokeswomen from two of the most effective and articulate groups representing some of the poorest people in our society. There is always a danger in this place that we get caught up in abstracts and statistics. The women who came to Canberra last week brought the stark reminder that when we are talking about poverty and particularly about women in poverty we cannot talk solely in terms of statistics. They made it quite clear that poverty is a situation where people do not have enough money to meet the costs of basic human needs like food, clothing, heating and housing. In 1976, 8 per cent of Australian children had parents receiving a social security benefit. By 1986 this number had nearly doubled. In all, 20 per cent or one in five children in Australia live in very low income families receiving income-tested payments from the Government. After years of neglect by the coalition parties the Hawke Government is tackling the poverty of these families in two ways. First, we have increased pensions and benefits in line with cost of living rises. The indexation of pensions by this Government is a most welcome move, as are the regular increases in the additional pension or benefit payable for children. No one on this side of the House would pretend that we have yet done enough to help single parents. The 81c meal we were provided with last week by the Campaign for Economic Justice and the Low Income People's Network showed honourable members in the most direct way what it means to live with a minimum level of income support. There is a second vital way in which the Government can and will act to alleviate the poverty of the sole parent family. One of the immediate ways of increasing the income of single people with children would be to insist that non-custodial parents provide the level of financial support which the courts have determined. The current system of maintenance simply does not work. Recent research in this area has shown that the majority of non-custodial parents make no regular maintenance payments. It seems that less than 30 per cent of the people who are entitled to regular maintenance payments are actually receiving them. Recognising the inherent problems with the collection of maintenance the Government has already made four in-principle decisions about reforming the system. First, a legislative formula, rather than the court, will determine the level of financial assistance to be paid by the non-custodial parent. Secondly, whenever it is practical this amount will be automatically withheld from the non-custodial parent's income at source. Thirdly, maintenance payments will be collected through the tax system. Fourthly, maintenance payments will be distributed by the Department of Social Security. There are still several issues to be resolved about the operation of these new arrangements. The community consultations that have been taking place around the new proposals have highlighted a number of possible options in various areas which are currently under consideration. Anyone concerned about the poverty of single parents, 90 per cent of whom are women, has to welcome these moves. Lack of accountability on the part of non-custodial parents is one of the major causes of poverty in our society. It is important to remember that it is legal as well as moral responsibilities that are being evaded at the moment. A fairer way of assessing liability and a more effective way of enforcing collection are prerequisites in any strategy to alleviate sole parent poverty. It is not, of course, the only long term solution. The fact is that most women would not choose to be financially dependent on their former partners. A study by the Institute of Family Studies into the economic consequences of divorce found that there was a very great reluctance on the part of divorcing women to claim maintenance for themselves and their children. This is despite the fact that the law makes specific provision for them to do so. The study found that there was an overwhelming rejection amongst women of the notion that they should continue to be financially dependent on their former spouses. What the great majority of women want in the long term is economic independence. Here we come to the great challenge for any government. The truth is that the alleviation of poverty amongst women depends on the implementation of a wide range of co-ordinated policies covering not only the area of income support but also education, the provision of adequate child care facilities and training and retraining schemes. In other words, the Government must address the whole range of factors which, on the one hand, prevent women from achieving economic independence and, on the other hand, drive them into poverty. The Hawke Government has a proud record both in identifying the barriers to women's participation in the work force and in acting to remove these barriers. I have already mentioned our achievements in the area of wage equality, job creation and training schemes. We have also taken very significant steps to increase the number and range of child care places. There are currently some 85,000 child care places provided by the Federal Government under the children's services program. A promise to create a further 20,000 places by the middle of next year is well on the way to being implemented. The supply of child care places has increased by more than 50 per cent in the last three years. The Labor Government has provided more funded child care places since we were elected in 1983 than all previous governments. The provision of adequate child care facilities is absolutely essential if women are going to overcome their disadvantages in the labour market. Governments can put job training programs in place to help them overcome these disadvantages, and our record in this area is impressive. However, if these programs are to be effective in the long run there has to be a rapid expansion of child care services of the dimensions that we are seeing now. The provision of child care has to be seen in the context of women's employment opportunities. Women's responsibility for children has been identified in the Social Security Review as a significant work force barrier. Increasingly, women are perceiving that the provision of adequate child care is as significant in the fight against poverty as the provision of adequate wages. We have heard a lot recently about what governments can do to improve living conditions for women and children. Unfortunately, not all the talk stands up to the kind of scrutiny to which I have been proud to subject this Government's record. The so-called family policy released recently by the Opposition reads more like a romantic novel than a political statement of intent. As my colleague the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) noted in this place last week, the pages of rhetoric about mutual respect and togetherness contain not one concrete proposal to improve life for economically disadvantaged women and their families. Poverty means a restriction of choice and the Hawke Government is showing what it means to expand people's range of options. We have done this both by giving people a degree of financial security and, equally importantly, by helping them to acquire the skills and motivation to become economically independent. The Liberal and National parties' family policy also emphasises choice, but there the similarity ends. The fact is that the dry, economic rationalists of the conservative parties cannot solve the problem of poverty amongst women because they will not tackle the root cause of poverty. They cannot see the structural discrimination women face when trying to gain economic equality with men. They refuse to recognise that women need child care as well as jobs, and training schemes as well as the motivation to work. But there is an even more frightening prospect to be faced in the context of poverty amongst women. Monash University Centre of Policy Studies recently released an options paper on the possibility of bringing in massive tax cuts. The paper is concerned to spell out the real political issues which have to be addressed by any politician seriously advocating a relatively low, flat rate of taxation. I stress that the paper looks at the real political issues which are a far cry from the gobbledegook coming from some people in some areas of this country. Let us take a look at the reality of introducing the kinds of tax cuts being advocated by the extreme conservative forces. First, the very big tax cuts go to the very high income earners-hardly a step in the direction of equality and equity, one might think. Second, cuts in government spending of about $8 billion to $9 billion have to be made to make up for the revenue lost by the tax cuts. Third, to quote Paul Kelly in the Weekend Australian, `the poor are sacrificed for efficiency'; that is, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There is no way to prevent households with incomes below $15,000 from being hurt by cuts such as this. What sort of spending cuts are the conservatives planning? According to the Monash paper they have to consider $5,000 tertiary fees; an end to Medicare; full cost recovery from direct charges by public hospitals; a reduction in assistance to the aged, the chronically ill and the disabled; pruning and means testing of the family allowance; far tighter eligibility criteria for unemployment benefit; and the abolition of many job training and labour market programs. In the light of what I have been saying about the causes of poverty amongst women, I probably do not have to spell out the disastrous implications of these measures for Australian families. It is truly frightening to think that a conservative government would sacrifice the disadvantaged women and children of this country. Imagine the effect of these massive education fees on the participation rate of women in education. Just think what the elimination of training programs would do for the participation rate of women in the work force. We already know from previous experience under a Liberal-National Party government what the abolition of Medicare means for the poor. All these policies spell disaster for the disadvantaged who would be pushed further and further into the poverty this Government is working so hard to alleviate. In moving this motion I have drawn attention to several policy areas which need to be addressed in the context of poverty amongst women. In the course of doing so I have noted the significant steps taken during the last four years and paid tribute to the achievements of the Hawke Government. In closing, it only remains for me to urge honourable members to scrutinise the intentions of the conservatives and make sure that the Australian electorate is fully aware of the attack being planned on the needy and particularly on low income women and children by the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later time. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(1.05) —There are two major ironies in the speech just given by the honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin). The first I will refer to in some detail shortly, but the second is the finishing point of the speech. In order to demolish the credentials of the Opposition on the subject which she has chosen to raise, she has seen fit to refer to some document by a Monash research group, which I certainly have not seen, which has scrutinised and analysed policies which have not been published. I suggest to both the Monash research group and the honourable member for Brand that they wait until those documents are public documents to assess their impact. Even so, I would have thought there has been enough publicity given to the principles of policies in such areas as education and health to have averted the sort of conclusion that was drawn, which I am confidently going to say to this point are a nonsense. I am not going to be drawn into a debate, obviously, on policies which are not yet published, because it is not my role to debate those policies yet. However, I am confident in my belief and knowledge that those policies will not disadvantage the people with whom the honourable member for Brand is so concerned. The first irony that I refer to now is that the motion that we are debating was moved by the honourable member on 22 February 1985. I note that for the record to point out that it was a motion that was moved early in the beginning of this Parliament, shortly after the flush of enthusiasm of an election campaign, and a successful election campaign at that. But as I looked at the motion and the wording I thought that this really does not reflect the propaganda of an election campaign and of the early days of government, rather than the facts of the two years that have followed since that motion. I want to read the motion out in full because I do not feel that it was fully and properly addressed by the honourable member for Brand. It is: That this House, noting the Government's objective set down in the Governor-General's Speech to direct welfare assistance to the needy, believes that poverty among women in Australia is unacceptably high and, accordingly, calls on the Government to: (1) continue to pursue wage justice for women; (2) give women a high priority in job creation and training programs; (3) ensure that income security payments for supporting parents and children of pensioners and beneficiaries are increased; and (4) continue its efforts to provide adequate child care facilities throughout Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stated at the outset that there is a substantial section of that motion that the Opposition would agree with, and has agreed with in its public utterances on a wide range of issues as well as those that are specifically mentioned in this motion. The Liberal and National parties in government have a proud record of assistance to women and poor people. The record of these parties in opposition has been one of support where appropriate for certain policies in relation to women, and particularly disadvantaged women. The honourable member for Brand, in the early part of her speech, paid quite some attention to the industrial situation. I say at this stage that it is going to be the lot of one of my colleagues to refer in detail, in another speech, to the industrial situation. I say simply that the issue of continuing to pursue wage justice for women is one that we have indeed in government and, by support in opposition, endorsed well and truly. I remind the House that the Opposition supported the sex discrimination legislation and it also supported the affirmative action Bill which was essentially an equal employment opportunities Bill. We had some disagreements on some of the detail but we voted for the passage of those Bills whilst attempting to amend and improve in some areas. So we have been committed to the continuance of wage justice for women, and to giving women a high priority in job creation and training programs. There is nothing at issue there. We have also in government and in opposition been concerned about income security payments, particularly for those beneficiaries who are rearing children. It is a matter of great concern, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there is such a large number of children in Australia today being raised on welfare. It is a matter of concern for quite a number of reasons. The first and obviously the foremost is the physical welfare of those children who are being reared in poverty and the second is the long term welfare of this country when we are raising so much of a generation dependent on welfare. I have fears for what that will mean for the future of this country in terms of the futures of those children and their expectations of life. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do, however, have to take issue with the honourable member for Brand on the record that she claimed for her Government when speaking to the third and fourth parts of the motion. There have been a number of speeches relevant to that area in the last six months and there have been a number of opportunities in the time since the election for the Government to prove its bona fides but the actions have not always squared with it. I took issue in more than one debate last year with a new compliance requirement for recipients of supporting parents benefits and widows pensions. It was a matter that has raised not one word of response from the Government in this House. It has been referred to only very briefly in a Government document which accompanied the Budget. The only reference to it was by way of an interjection from the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) in a speech that I was giving at one stage. In fact the issue has been ignored, apparently, one expects, in the Government's hope that it will therefore not receive public prominence and the condemnation that it deserves. I refer to the new requirement that the recipients of supporting parents benefits must report monthly for three months after they first begin to receive the benefit and quarterly thereafter to explain to the public servant designated to their case why they are not in employment, and the fact that widows are given a brief breathing space there, but subsequently also have to comply with it. I have pointed out that of course all the recipients of widows pensions are women, but the great majority, nearly 95 per cent, of recipients of supporting parents benefits are also women, and at a time when they are most distressed either by the breakdown of their marriage and the pressures on them to cope somehow with rearing their children, or by the grief that follows the loss of a spouse, they have to go, cap in hand, explaining why they should continue to receive this benefit that has always been considered to be an entitlement. I do not refer to it as an entitlement in the sense that it has been applied under the Family Law Act to which the honourable member for Brand referred. The Opposition has already indicated that it supports the principles of the moves that the Government is undertaking. In fact, not only does it support the principles of the move, but the Opposition when in government initiated the first study which is now eventually leading to some sort of action. As a member of this Parliament when the Family Law Bill was debated in 1975, I know that a scrutiny of the debates of that Bill will show that it was never this Parliament's intention that that section of the Family Law Act be applied in the way that it has been by the courts, namely, relieve a very large number of parents of the financial responsibility they have for their children after the marriage has ceased to be a fact. So there is no issue there. The issue is that the Government has moved extremely unsympathetically in this particularly vulnerable area. The honourable member for Brand referred to the representatives here last week of the Campaign for Economic Justice. I was one of the members who discussed the matters of concern that those women had. The discussions I had ranged over the point that I have just raised, and I was told that these women are being treated very unsympathetically indeed. Contrary to the assurances given by the Government that the purpose of this objective is to provide counselling, in fact these women are not receiving counselling when they are reporting on why it is they are still on a pension and not in jobs, and they are feeling very intimidated and overwrought indeed. I realise that the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), who speaks after me, is a person who has a very real interest and concern in disadvantaged people, and I would appreciate it if he, and some of his colleagues who might share silently, so far as the public is concerned, the sentiments that I have expressed, would prevail upon their Minister to do something about this quite disgraceful move that has happened under the Hawke Government. The honourable member for Brand said, quite erroneously, that this Government has, as I recall her words, increased pensions and benefits in line with cost of living rises. The honourable member for Brand knows very well that that is not so. She would have received the same material as I did last year from the Australian Council of Social Service on this subject, which included spelling it out for the benefit of those who had not realised it, that additional pension or benefit applicable for a dependent child of a pensioner or beneficiary, which was to be increased by $1 to $17 per week, in fact was not rising in line with cost of living adjustments. There was provided for in the last Budget an increase of 6 per cent, whilst the Budget Papers themselves anticipated an inflation rate of 8 per cent. The ACOSS document said: The so-called increases in additional payments for children of pensioners and beneficiaries, and in FIS- that is, family income supplement- are not real increases at all, since they are less than the increase in inflation. As a consequence of these real cuts in payments for children, plus other delays in pension increases and income test changes, it is pensioner and beneficiary families with children-the neediest group in the community-who will suffer the most in this Budget. There is a wide range of issues that could be raised in this debate about actions taken by the Government, which have disadvantaged the very people about whom the honourable member for Brand has expressed concern. I must refer very briefly, however, to the role for the principal Minister in this, in one particular area. That is, of course, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. It is that Minister who has presided over the introduction of an administrative fee for tertiary students. I have received quite a number of approaches from women constituents who are engaged in tertiary education as part time students, who have expressed to me, and spelt out to me, the real imposition that this $250 fee is to them. The Minister refuses to look at any pro rata application of the fee for part time students. The Minister knows that a very high percentage of part time tertiary students are women, and the Minister would also be equally aware that a very high percentage of those women are women with family responsibilities. I am not referring to those who are on benefit of some sort and who, through another activity of the Government in relation to the payment of tertiary education assistance scheme allowance-or non-payment of TEAS, I should say, in the future-to recipients of supporting parent's benefit, have been severely disadvantaged. She knows that the women I am referring to are indeed particularly affected, as women, by this move of hers. I have written her several letters on the subject. Mr Deputy Speaker, so embarrassed, apparently, is this Minister by her own actions, that she does not even acknowledge the receipt of my letters, let alone respond to the substance of them. I have been reduced to the point now when writing to those women, to say: `I will inform you of the Minister's comment if she pays me the courtesy of acknowledging that she has received my correspondence'. Mr White —She has a few other problems on her plate at the moment. Mrs SULLIVAN —She has had a few other problems in the last 24 hours, but they are-- Mr White —So your reply might be a bit late. Mrs SULLIVAN —I think, yes, there might be a few other memos she has to attend to before she attends to my correspondence of some months standing now. Mr Deputy Speaker, my time is nearly up, so I am constrained in giving much more detail in relation to points that can be raised on this particular motion. I finish just here: The Government, even in its child care program, has things that it cannot be proud of. There have been cuts in child care expenditure. There is a total reluctance to recognise that private enterprise has a role to play in the provision of child care. There is an unwillingness on the part of this Government to consider any form of taxation concession or rebate for child care expenditure. I just note that the honourable member for Brand did not refer to that part of our policy commitments, policy commitments we have spelled out, when she sought to raise furphies about policies that she has not yet laid eyes on. The non-provision of further assistance to extended hours child care, a decision recently made by this Government will, of course, particularly disadvantage the women for whom she expresses concern. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(1.20) —I have the great honour of speaking in support of the motion moved by the honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin). I listened with interest to the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) and I can assure her that the messages she relayed to me in her speech I will in fact take on board. I am sure the Government will address some of the points she raises. The motion is in four parts, as the honourable member pointed out. It is important to remember that this motion was, in fact, introduced in the House some time ago, so I think it is fair enough to reflect on some of the initiatives that the Government has taken since the motion was introduced. We have introduced affirmative action legislation. We have now a very detailed social security review under way, which honourable members on all sides of the House would welcome. It is an historical review taking place. There are initiatives encouraging more women into labour market programs and education, and there is a commitment-and it is something we will achieve-to provide 60,000 new child care places by 1988. I refer to some information supplied to me which I think puts to rest the last minute of the speech of the honourable member for Moncrieff. By June 1988, the Government will have established over 60,000 new places, taking the total number of places to some 106,000 or 152 per cent more places than were available when this Government came to office. As a result of our initiatives, an extra 85,000 children will have access to government-funded child care services. I make the point because of the concluding remarks of the honourable member for Moncrieff-an increase of 152 per cent over and above the figure that was in place when we become the Government. The principal aim of this Government, Mr Deputy Speaker, is to provide ways in which women can move out of the poverty circle and into economic independence. That is the substance of the motion that is currently before the House. Wage justice is an important area of the motion. The first part of the motion, as I said, calls on the Government to continue the pursuit of wage justice for women. The plain fact is that women still earn considerably less than their male counterparts. Since 1975, when the equal pay for work of equal value principle began to have real effect, the ratio of female to male earnings of all adults has narrowed only marginally. Women's average weekly earnings are still only 66 per cent of men's, or 79 per cent of men's excluding the part time work sector. The reasons for this are many and varied. Discrimination against working women in this society is based on a complex series of interlocking factors. The major reason is that women workers are found in a narrow band of occupations and industries. Women are concentrated in four main categories: The community services area, wholesale and retail trade areas, manufacturing-notably in industries such as the textile, clothing and footwear industries-and finance and insurance services. Nearly 40 per cent of women work in clerical occupations. Those industries in which women are disproportionately represented have the lowest average weekly earnings of all employees, while such male-dominated industries as mining, the power industry, construction, transport and storage are very much above the average. Historically, women's work has been undervalued. Today women's skills are still undervalued. Of course there is a host of other factors which determine women's lower wage rates and they include: The hours of work that women are engaged in in the work place, over-award payments, overtime worked, age structure of the work force, interrupted career paths of women and outright discrimination. The major obstacle to the realisation of wage justice for women is legislative and award restrictions on where and how women can work. These restrictive practices contribute to a very high level of occupational and industrial sex segregation in Australia. In 1981, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Australian Council of Trade Unions undertook a survey which identified discriminatory provisions in some 300 awards in this country. Legislation prohibiting women from undertaking certain tasks or working under certain conditions is also widespread. Of course, some of the legislative provisions discriminating against women were introduced for health and safety reasons but many more are based on outmoded concepts of what appropriate work and working conditions for women should be. In relation to this issue, major steps have been taken recently to erase these sexist provisions. An historic conference was held on 17 October last year under the auspices of the Commonwealth Government to seek ways of removing these outmoded legal proscriptions against women. The conference took place in order to bring together a range of parties who are responsible for ensuring that these legislative restrictions which are currently exempt from the Sex Discrimination Act are changed to ensure conformity with that Act. Participants included all States with the exception of Queensland and Tasmania. I repeat: With the exception of Queensland and Tasmania. Obviously they are two State governments which are totally uninterested in doing anything to overcome the problems faced by half of their population. Other parties to the conference were the ACTU, representing the trade union movement and the Confederation of Australian Industry representing the employers. An historic communique was issued by the ACTU and the CAI on a joint approach to handling such problems as manual handling, lead, shift work, overtime and night work, facilities provided on the factory floor or in the work place, apprenticeships, underground mining, industrial processes and a review of all awards. A task force under the Office of the Status of Women will oversight the implementation of the commitments that have been made. I would like to make a brief comment about the need to address the hidden pay inequalities of our society. We need to take action to regulate an area of work which I am sure the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) who will follow me in this debate would be concerned about, and that is the area of work described as work carried out by outworkers. At present tens of thousands of women work in unregulated or exploitative conditions as outworkers. Grossly underpaid, the work of these women is never taken into account in the official statistics on women's earnings. If it were, the discrepancies between men's and women's earnings would be even greater. I point out that I am not suggesting for one moment that we are against arrangements that these women have negotiated with a particular employer over a long period. However, as I am sure members of this House are well aware, if one stands on some of the housing estates or gets to know where there is an area where outwork is done one will see heavy machinery, sewing machines, being carted in and out of homes where people are required to work all night for very low return. Sometimes when they get the electricity bill for the month or the quarter, depending on the State, they find that they have actually been working for absolutely nothing. I would like to pay a compliment to the clothing trades union which has undertaken a national campaign to bring these people into the mainstream and into the work force so that they receive proper return for their work. I think that is all that anybody asks for: Proper return for the work done. Even parliamentarians, I am sure, would suggest that they ought to get proper return. It is mainly women who are being exploited. I have numerous cases of women who have come in and found themselves working on the production of a garment only to receive less than a dollar for the production of that garment. It is just totally wrong. Something needs to be done. I would hope all members of the House would join with the clothing trades and, incidentally, the employers to whom I have spoken, who are equally as concerned about this aspect of their industry. Of course real wage justice for women will occur only when the likes of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) are no longer with us. Honourable members will recall that the honourable member for Maranoa said in the affirmative action debate-something which we have just been told the Opposition supported-that women belong in front of the kitchen sink or in that other place. It is clear that a long educative process is required before such outmoded social attitudes are completely swept away from this place. I would like to move on now to another part of the motion, that which deals with work opportunities for women. It is interesting to hear members of the Opposition talking about what they support or what they do not support. Obviously we will hear from the honourable member for Bass about what they did in the past and what they have planned for the future. But there is a factor here that they do not talk about, and that is the factor of cuts. Both the Liberal Party of Australia, depending on what side of the Liberal Party one is currently on, or whether one is sitting on the fence, and the National Party of Australia, depending on what Leader of the National Party one is currently following, have a common position and that is to cut programs. There is a bit of a one-upmanship game going on in our society at the moment and that is in the area of what the value of these cuts ought to be. A couple of days ago the Confederation of Australian Industry wanted cuts of $2 billion. The Business Council of Australia had previously put in a bid for $3 billion. Lo and behold, the cockies, the leadership of the National Farmers Federation, come out and say that they want to cut $10 billion. Even members of the business community are somewhat mystified about how this $10 billion worth of cuts will be applied. But the Federation's President, Ian McLachlan, said that $7 billion worth of cuts have already been identified in health, welfare, education and the labour market. Details would be available in a few weeks. Everyone of those areas affects women. So members of the Opposition should not come in here and start telling us about their commitment to women when they support people like Ian McLachlan, when they support people like Joh, or Gray, or whoever else it is that they are currently putting their allegiances behind. But here we have the Farmers Federation, a group who are becoming more and more involved with the Liberal Party. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) is again under attack in his electorate by the farmers body. A survey is being conducted in the electorate of the honourable member for Higgins, paid for by private enterprise-I think Carlton and United Breweries or somebody is paying for it-to see whether or not people like the honourable member for Higgins-- Mr Duffy —That could not be right! Mr HAND —It is right. In the first group of 150 people they interviewed they said: `Do you like the honourable member for Higgins?'. A few people said they did. So do honourable members know what they did with the next 150? They changed the question. Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr HAND —There is no need to take a point of order, I have dropped off that point. I have made my point. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for Farrer. Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Melbourne has been around for long enough to know that he is now well outside the framework of the motion and I ask that you draw his attention to that fact. Mr HAND —The point I am trying to make, I say to the honourable member, is that it does not matter what political party a person is in, if he is off line with these people he is going to suffer the consequences of his opposition. The Farmers Federation has said that it wants to make cuts in the labour market area. There are some interesting statistics which I would like to include in the Hansard so I will read them out. They deal with the labour market. The community employment program is an area that has to go, according to these people. Strangely enough, the CEP, implemented by this Government, has been very successful as far as women are concerned. Women who have been denied the right to have training and enter the work force for a range of reasons are now able to get involved in the work force. The community employment program has been one of the most successful Government initiatives for unemployed women. Strict targeting guidelines have meant that apart from jobs on the roads component, where a quarter of the places went to women, in the rest of the CEP-and I ask the honourable member for Bass to listen to this-51.2 per cent of placements went to women; 30.2 per cent of Aboriginal approvals were for women; 46.4 per cent of non-English speaking background applications were for women; and 40 per cent of disabled people on the program were, in fact, women. These are the sorts of programs that members of the Opposition talk about cutting. It is simply not good enough for them to come into this place and parade themselves as the defenders of women when, in fact, right throughout their time in office they attacked and attacked and attacked areas of assistance for women. I will give honourable members opposite a couple more statistics, and I am responding to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Moncrieff, in this area. Since Labor came to office it has increased rates of additional pension-benefit and the family income supplement payments for children by 70 per cent. Mothers and guardians allowances have been increased by 100 per cent. Under the previous Liberal-National Party Government the number of children in low income families more than doubled from just under 9 per cent to nearly 20 per cent. At the same time additional pensions-benefits were allowed to decline by 32 per cent in real terms between 1975 and 1982. So for heaven's sake, honourable members opposite should not come in hear and tell me about their commitment to this area. I am not totally satisfied with the state of play at the moment; I want to see more money allocated. But when people opposite go out pandering to interest groups around the electorate trying to curry favour with them, they should be fair dinkum. They should tell those interest groups that they are going to slash until they start to squeal, as the honourable member for Maranoa said, or as the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) said: `We are going to slash, slash, slash.' And the areas they will slash are the areas that affect the poor. The area they are going to make gains in for people is the area that affects the rich. So I say to them: Be fair dinkum. I wind up by saying that I noted the comments of the honourable member for Moncrieff. I found them very interesting. I accept the challenge she threw out to me about talking to government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SMITH(Bass)(1.35) —I will make some remarks about the previous speaker, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). I note that at the end of his speech he said that he listened with interest to the remarks made by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan). I think that it is fair enough to say that because some of the things she did say were particularly relevant and they were beyond politics. It is a shame that the honourable member for Melbourne did not maintain that stance throughout his remarks. Mr Hand —Are you suggesting women are not political; is that what you are saying? Mr SMITH —When the honourable member started talking about McLachlan and others his remarks were not relevant to this debate. What we are debating today, looking at the motion, are four related topics. It is interesting that the motion has been on the Notice Paper for two years, and I dare say the honourable member for Melbourne has just dusted off a speech that has probably been sitting in his drawer for two years. It is fundamental to realise that women cannot be seen as an isolated entity within a community but must be seen as part of that community. Therefore, the assistance we give women must reflect the assistance given to the entire community. Accordingly, the motion being debated today impinges upon the three major areas that are under government control, and they are industrial relations, taxation reform and social security. In each of these three policy areas, the reformist and humanising policies-and I stress `humanising'-of the party that I stand for and represent in this chamber are in marked contrast to the failed, socialist remedies trotted out by the Government with such monotonous regularity, and on which we have again heard two speeches this afternoon; I understand we are to hear another. The four issues under discussion today involve wage justice for women; priority for women in job creation and training; setting of income support payments at realistic levels; and the provision of child care facilities. I would like to deal briefly with each of these and show really what a hypocritical motion this is. I believe only a Liberal government has the policies that will ultimately help the women in Australia. As I mentioned, the fact that this motion has sat for two years before being brought on for debate, in a way indicates the priority which the Leader of the House (Mr Young) attaches to these things. The issue of wage justice is of course one which all thinking Australians cannot fail to accept, and I do accept the genuineness with which the honourable member for Melbourne approached this question. It is, however, only one aspect of a veritable industrial relations mine field. Unfortunately women are more exposed than men to the degrading experience of unemployment. In January this year the unemployment rate for women stood at 8.7 per cent, as against 7.9 per cent for men-a real indictment of this Government's supposed employment policies for women. The honourable member for Melbourne did quote some statistics about the success of the community employment program, a billion dollar program which, I might add, went through this Parliament with the support of the Opposition. What we pointed out was that some of the programs which were being funded were absolutely anathema to wanting to provide the opportunities for training. Mr Tim Fischer —Some of these projects are designed to help left-handed lesbians. Mr SMITH —I thank the honourable member for Farrer for his assistance. What is of even more concern is the appallingly low participation rate of women in the work force compared with that of men. It is 49 per cent as against 75 per cent. Granted, many women do not wish to enter the work force, but there are a heck of a lot who do but cannot because of our present inflexible industrial relations system. If one examines the numbers of those looking for part time work, it becomes very clear that unless the reforms of the system advocated in our far-sighted, realistic and compassionate industrial relations policies are implemented, women will continue to bear the brunt of this Government's failed policies. I might just interpose that it was interesting to hear the honourable member for Melbourne talk about the restrictive practices in the work place and how that militates against work opportunities for women. I can but agree with that. But why did not those in the Government who have the unions as their friends at their 17 October conference, which was just another talkfest where another task force was set up, address those issues in a more positive way? It is all right to talk about them, but honourable members opposite profess to be the Government, to have the unions as their friends. Yet they are unable to do anything about these matters. The honourable member for Melbourne mentioned the problem with outwork. I think this is something that needs legitimate inquiring into, but we have to remember that the reason that people are involved in outwork activity is that formal entry to the part time work force is being stifled by the union movement itself and its treatment of the awards and part time abilities under those awards. The reason these people work is, of course, a matter of choice, and they choose to work because they require the funds for one reason or another. They are suffering increasingly from the policies that this Government is pursuing, and, of course, the need to work is even greater. Granted many women do not, as I said, wish to enter the work force, but if one examines the numbers of those looking for part time work, it becomes very clear that the reforms of the system advocated in our policy must be followed. I think I mentioned that there are currently 82,300 women seeking part time work in Australia, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. By contrast there are only 27,000 men seeking part time employment. I can think of few things which would more greatly assist in a practical sense the desire of women to re-enter the work force than to have greater availability of part time work and greater freedom to undertake training in apprenticeships. The trade union movement has persistently held a hostile attitude towards the achievement of permanent part time work. There is some sign of change in attitude amongst some unions, but in many areas it is far too little and for many Australian parents it is far too late. The practical desire of many Australian women to obtain greater access to permanent part time work should be facilitated. At present this desire is being thwarted by Australia's rigid and inflexible industrial relations system. The existing system penalises individual enterprises which want to make agreements to stagger their working hours to make them more acceptable to female and male employees who have family responsibilities or other interests. An interesting example which has been much cited but bears mentioning again involves an inner city suburban company where the employees, mainly migrant women, petitioned the management to alter their working hours. By starting 30 minutes earlier and having only half an hour for lunch they could be at home when their children returned from school because they had made up that extra hour. The employer obviously agreed. However, the firm was soon informed by the arbitration inspector in New South Wales that it was in breach of the standard working hours provision of the relevant award and warned that it would be penalised if the situation continued. What happened? As one would expect, the standard hours were reinstated and the children of the workers spent an extra hour of each day without parental care. The new Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), the man who has been charged with the task of going out and getting the migrant vote back for the Labor Government, perhaps ought to go to that factory in Sydney and explain to those migrant women why the system is such that they cannot come to an arrangement with their employers, a mutually advantageous arrangement if it were able to be implemented. I would be very interested to see him go and do that rather than what he is going to do next week, come to my electorate and make a menace of himself. Additionally, Australia's apprenticeship system is archaic and actively discriminates against women. It needs urgent reform. Women starting apprenticeships are still regarded as an exception. There will be no large intake of female apprentices under such a medieval system. Until it is reformed, women will be barred from most apprenticeships and most trades. The coalition policy will revamp our apprenticeship system. It will make it more available to women and will introduce adult apprenticeships which will be of particular value to women wanting to re-enter the work force. Women will be the big winners from our industrial relations policy. The motion under debate also makes mention of increasing income security payment for supporting parents and children of pensioners. The issue of children in poverty is indeed a very serious one, and is an issue which needs to be tackled in a bipartisan, non-political manner within this chamber. When 824,000 of this country's children live in poverty, something serious needs to be done and done urgently, and I think we would all accept that. Many of these children are in families of the new class, `the working poor', families that have been forced into this position by this Government's policies. It was interesting, was it not, to hear the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) in his concluding remarks say that he was not happy with how things were going. I do recall that he made similar statements late last year. I suppose that he is at least being consistently honest. Since 1981-82 the number of two-parent families living in poverty has increased by 30 per cent. Where do I get that figure? I get it from the Institute of Family Studies, the one specialist body set up in this country to look at the impact of Federal Government policies on the people of Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is now 1.45 p.m. and in accordance with standing order 109, as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mr Duffy) agreed to: That the time for the discussion of notice No. 1, General Business, be extended until 2 p.m. Mr SMITH —What happened in the May economic statement of last year? In an endeavour to save approximately $600,000, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) indicated that the Institute would be closed. Once the pressure got a little bit much they had a review. But where were the honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin) and the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) on this question of the public support of families? It is all very well for them to stand up here today and say that we did nothing. When there was a material matter on which their bona fides could be judged they were not to be heard. The three major reasons for this rapid increase are unemployment, barriers to women entering the work force and the current taxation system, which is obviously biased very much against families. As we all know, homelessness is a ready indicator of poverty. Therefore, it is disturbing to see that in the four years of this socialist Government waiting queues for public housing have increased by 60,000. The crisis in the housing market is directly the result of this Labor Government's policy on mortgage rates and rental market arrangements. I want to focus my remaining remarks on the taxation area, one that is in desperate need of reform. Under this Government we have higher taxes, and a damned sight more taxes than when the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) was Treasurer. It is an indisputable fact of life that most people are worse off under this Government. Indeed the honourable member for Melbourne made that very point last year and only last week Senator Button admitted the same in the Senate. Even after the second round of the Keating tax cuts occurs in July, the average Australian family with children will be between $8 and $15 worse off-I repeat, worse off-than they were four years ago when John Howard was Treasurer. One cannot argue against the facts. Under a Liberal Government there will be a flatter rate of tax, a broader tax base and a definite bias in favour of families. I do not know how many times one has to say it, but the continued distortion from the other side of the chamber will not be mirrored in the opinion polls. Families know, when they get that wage packet, that they are worse off. Under the current tax system there is no recognition of the differing needs of differing families. Our policy will recognise those needs and under the principle of income splitting will recognise that a single income family is discriminated against, by comparison with a dual income family, in the sense that the single income family has only one tax free threshold and not two; that it can take advantage of lower tax rates on only one income and not two. The tax system, as I have said, needs reforming, reforming in favour of families, especially those with one income and dependent children. That is the principle underpinning our tax package. It is the principle on which we fought the 1984 election, the principle on which we will fight every election. It is a principle that this socialist Government knows and cares nothing about. In fact, the Government knows and cares about virtually no principle but that of robbing everyone in order to fund artists in residence for the Builders Labourers Federation or some other union body. The Liberal Party and the National Party are the only parties that can really help not only the women of Australia but all of the people of this country. We believe in capitalism and make no apology for that. We believe in capitalism with a human face and a human heart. Where wrongs and injustices need correcting, we have worked to correct them and will continue to do so. So let not this Government seek to lecture us on this side of the chamber about the needs of women and how best to serve them. We do care about all Australians and our constructive policies stand in stark contrast to the warm inner glow socialist incantations that those who temporarily occupy the Government benches always seem to utter. In regard to child care, for instance, the Government has turned its face against involving non-government organisations. Just last week I wrote to all of the women in my electorate who use the play group association services. Their views and responses have been particularly illuminating. They demonstrate that the women feel a real need to involve themselves in the political process, to attempt to help themselves rather than just wait for crumbs to fall from the Government's table. So what we do need, in summary, is the provision of different types of child care facilities-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SMITH —the freeing up of our inflexible industrial relations system-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SMITH —and the reform of our tax system in favour of families and-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat and will heed the Chair in future. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(1.51) —I am very interested in the comments of honourable members opposite in terms of a particular aspect of this motion. Point number four calls on the Government to continue its efforts to provide adequate child care facilities throughout Australia. Both the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) have intimated that this need has not been heeded by the Government. I object to that statement and strenuously deny it. The Government has a proud record in the area of the provision of child care services. We have done more for child care in the last three and a half years than have all previous governments since Federation. That is not a claim that many governments can make. We recognise the importance of child care for the social development of children and the need to enable women to participate more fully in the community at whatever level they desire. As my colleague, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) indicated earlier, we have increased the number of long day care places from 42,000 in June 1982 to 85,000 in June 1986-and the figure would have increased since. Since April 1983 we have approved the provision of some 37,600 new places-16,400 centre-based care places. 15,000 family day care places, 6,100 outside school hours care places and 60 occasional care places. There are actually very many more child care places in my electorate than there were before the Government took office. We have had new child care centres in areas such as Duncraig and Carine. There is a new centre going up in Whitfords-an occasional care centre that will have 28 places and cater on an occasional care basis for up to 280 children per week. A new child care centre is currently being built in Padbury. Also another centre in Kingsley is on the drawing board and a community committee has recently been appointed. My area of concern is, of course, that of the electorate of Cowan in the northern suburbs of Perth. It is one of the fastest growing areas in Australia and is bordered by the electorate of the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard). That is also a very fast-growing area. Obviously, governments have a great deal of difficulty keeping up with the provision of services in areas of such great growth, but this Government has made a tremendous commitment to the provision of child care, in particular, in that area. By June 1988, as the honourable member for Melbourne also indicated-I think it bears repeating in the context of the criticism that we have just received-the Government will have established over 60,000 new places, taking the total to some 106,000, or 152 per cent more than were available when the Hawke Government came to office. As a result of our initiatives an additional 85,000 children will now have access to Government funded child care services. In addition to these achievements, we have increasingly emphasised the provision of improved access to children's services, especially on the part of disadvantaged groups. For instance, we have implemented a policy of needs-based planning for children's services so that new centres and additional places will be located in areas of highest need. That is what I meant before when I was talking about my electorate: Because it is such a growth area, it does have priority for the provision of these child care places. We have also introduced a fairer and more generous system of income-related fee relief, at an annual cost of some $75m, so that low and middle income families can afford to use child care. We have allocated substantial additional funding to enable special services to be provided for children with disabilities. Also, we have provided services for ethnic and Aboriginal children. Let me draw a comparison. In the last year of the Fraser Government only $65m was spent on child care. However, in 1985-86 alone, we spent $165m on children's services and have set aside some $195m for child care in this financial year. This is an expenditure increase of somewhere near 200 per cent in only four years. Some people are not aware that it costs approximately $100 per week to provide centre-based child care for each child. The Government subsidy is, of course, less than half of this, averaging about $38 per week per child, and fee relief can be as high as $90 per week in cases of need. In 1983, when this Government was elected, child care was available for 4 per cent of Australian children. By 1988, after the dramatic expansion of child care under our Government, 16 per cent of children whose parents work will have access to child care. The child care and supervision of pre-school children, in particular, is a time-consuming and resource-sapping responsibility for thousands of parents in Australia, most of whom are women in this instance. Child care services to assist families are therefore a need even in families where both partners are not in the paid work force. This point was emphasised by non-working women at a National Agenda for Women meeting which was held in my electorate last year. Women who attended that meeting came from all over the northern suburbs to draw their views to the attention of the Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan). My colleague the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) was also involved in organising this very successful gathering which showed the Government's true belief in getting the women's opinions, which is more than one can say for the Opposition under any circumstances. As most members on this side of the House are aware, the National Agenda for Women was a consulting mechanism designed to ensure that women were able to make a substantial contribution to Australia's development, whether they work or whether they are in the home. Although the 130 women who attended this meeting in Girrawheen had a variety of needs, a significant number of those present raised the availability of child care as a pressing need. I emphasise that this demand was being made by women across the spectrum. Very many people forget that women need child care in order to attend even to simple things like going to a dentist or a doctor. A study of the needs of women in the northern suburbs of Perth was carried out last year with the assistance of a community employment program grant. An unemployed women's research group did the study. The study also raised child care as one of the services to which women in the home desperately required access. The Whitfords Family Centre in my electorate has also been working for the provision of occasional care in the Padbury-Whitfords area for some time, and I am very pleased that this was agreed to by Senator Grimes, the then Minister responsible for funding. In my electorate, child care is currently provided in a number of ways. One of the most interesting ways is the family day care service, which most honourable members here, I am sure, would be aware of. Family day care centres conducted by an agency on behalf of the Wanneroo City Council and the Commonwealth Government work through a system of having a woman care for children other than her own, but as well as her own, in her own home. The family care centre ensures that approved carers are the sort of people who are capable of looking after other people's children, and that the environment in which the caring takes place is suitable and safe. As I indicated before, the number of day care centres in my electorate has increased dramatically in the last three to four years. Since I entered Parliament, a centre has been opened at the Carine Technical College to enable students to have access to child care. A further centre has almost been completed in Padbury. Funding has also been approved for the establishment of a care centre in Kingsley. In addition to these particular projects and facilities there are also a number of established services in the areas of Balga, Girrawheen and Koondoola in the southern part of my electorate. Out-of-school child care centres also cater for local demand in a number of suburbs. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It is now 2 p.m. In accordance with standing order 104 as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence of General Business has expired. The honourable member for Cowan will have leave to continue her speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next day of sitting. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House as a matter of courtesy that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is absent today from Question Time. He is unwell. Any questions which would normally be addressed to the Treasurer should be directed to the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford). The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) is absent today from Question Time. The Minister for Community Services will also respond to his questions. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is also away on Government business. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Enough are here to deal with honourable members opposite. Questions normally directed to the Minister for Primary Industry or to the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) should be addressed to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris). The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) will not be here for Question Time and questions to him should be addressed to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). Mr Porter —Will he be coming back? Mr HAWKE —Yes. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the document tabled in the Senate yesterday by Senator Susan Ryan regarding interest rates which stated: Accordingly, it appears unlikely that reductions in housing loan interest rates will occur until the first half of 1988 at the earliest. How does the Prime Minister explain the conflict between this official departmental advice and his own statements to this Parliament only eight days ago that interest rate reductions will occur later this year? Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, this question is not entirely unexpected. The document to which the Leader of the Opposition referred, which was tabled in the Senate yesterday, was not an accurate statement of government policy. Mr Connolly —Why was it given to a Minister? Mr HAWKE —Just contain yourself, my friend-you will be more than satisfied. It was a mistake that a background briefing paper, expressing an opinion of a section within a non-economic forecasting department, should have been allowed to give a wrong impression-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my left will come to order. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, I notice that the giggleometer is running high today but that is no substitute for a consideration of the facts. I repeat: It was a mistake that that background briefing paper from a section within a non-economic forecasting department should have been allowed to give a wrong impression of government policy. This is the statement of government position: We remain cautiously optimistic on the economic outlook, including prospects for falls in the general level of interest rates in 1987. I am confident, as I have said before, because the Government's policies of fiscal and wages restraint will enable us to rely progressively less on monetary policy, resulting in lower interest rates in the period that I am talking about. I note that the Housing and Construction document was in fact prepared before the Government's May statement intention was announced; and so it does not fully reflect the Government's fiscal policy stance, nor does it fully reflect the recent improvement in sentiment in financial markets. As I have often said in this place, the timing of this decline in interest rates depends on many factors, including international financial conditions and commodity price trends, both of which factors are manifestly and unarguably outside our control. Of course, the rate of improvement of the current account deficit is also important. I would add-and I believe that the Leader of the Opposition would agree with me-that another relevant factor will also be the borrowings of the States which, as I and the Treasurer have made clear, will be addressed at the next Premiers' Conference. Should there be any doubt, let me repeat that this Government is not in the business of artificially reducing interest rates. I do not want to spend any more time in labouring this obvious point, but it is significant in this context once again to make the obvious contrast between the firmness, the cohesion and the comprehensiveness of our macroeconomic policies and the irresponsibility being consistently exhibited by the Opposition. When we came to office in 1983 we inherited a Budget deficit of 5 per cent of gross domestic product under its policies compared with 1.4 per cent under our policies in 1986-87. That is what we have done in fact in the area of responsible deficit management. Of course, I contrast the responsibility of our wages policy with the total irresponsibility of the Opposition in this area. In conclusion, I repeat that I regret that in fact a background document expressing an opinion was used. Let me make it clear, by interpolation, that this Government does not say that a public servant does not have the right to express an opinion. Of course public servants have. But I suppose that the Leader of the Opposition would also concede, for instance, the right of the honourable member for Boothby to express an opinion, and the honourable member for Boothby has rightly described the concoction of policies of the Leader of the Opposition as snake oil proposals. Mr Goodluck —Will the Prime Minister table the paper from which he quoted? Mr HAWKE —The answer is no. Mr CROSS —Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to a Press statement released very recently in Tokyo by the Premier of Queensland, Sir Johannes Bjelke- Petersen? Does this statement attack the Australian economy in a way which will discourage foreign investment in Australia and undermine negotiations conducted in Japan by the Australian minerals industry? Is it a fact that the very highly regarded Brisbane commentator, Haydn Sargent, has described this action as `bordering on treachery'? Is the Minister yet in a position to assess the damage that has been caused, or is likely to be done to the national interest, by this action of the Queensland Premier? Mr HAYDEN —I have seen both a copy of the Premier's statement and the reports which seem to be accurately interpreting that statement. I would describe its effect as wantonly reckless and extraordinarily damaging. It will undermine delicate negotiations in Japan on the part of Australian mineral exporters. It will discourage Japanese investment in this country. It will erode quite seriously the good work which the Prime Minister did in reassuring potential Japanese investors and industrialists who were in this country a little earlier this year. It will weaken the undertakings which were given to the Japanese in respect of consultation with the trade union movement to improve industrial relations. It will certainly erode seriously the positive advances which were evident in the dialogue between Australian Ministers and Japanese Ministers at the Australia-Japan Ministerial Committee meeting in Canberra a few weeks ago. Nothing that the Premier has said is justified. The consequence will be that Australia will be the loser, and I suspect will be quite a serious loser. I am so concerned about the potential impact of the Premier's reckless statements in Tokyo that I have asked the Department of Foreign Affairs to carry out quickly an assessment of their likely impact and to come up with recommendations, hopefully for some sort of damage control. An article in the Courier-Mail- it is an accurate account according to a statement that the Premier has released-headed `Australia in big trouble, Sir Joh tells Japanese', states: Sir Joh's statement contradicted the image of Australia that the Australian embassy had been trying to promote in Japan. The statement said Australia had militant union leaders and high taxes, there was little confidence in the Australian dollar and Australia had not yet begun a sustained economic recovery. `Someone with determination and decisive action is needed to cut taxes in Australia, restore incentive and control militant union leaders,' Sir John was quoted as saying. `Only then can Australia begin sustained economic recovery.' It is quite clear from the context of that extract from the report that the Premier was aiming at extending his battle against the coalition partners and this Government into Japan. It is one thing to conduct that sort of crude political brawl in this country-Australians, not that far removed from the frontiers of pioneer settlers in this country, are used to rather direct and sometimes cudgel-using exchanges-but it is another thing to go to Japan, one of our most important trading partners and the third most important investor in this country, and conduct that sort of unseemly and unhelpful debate there. The attack was as much against the coalition partners as it was against the Government. There has been a long-standing tradition, which I have certainly always followed-I believe that predecessors of mine in this job and indeed the Leader of the Opposition and I when I was Leader of the Opposition have followed this tradition when we were overseas-not to engage in comments which would belittle our country or undermine what the Government might be trying to do in the eyes of other countries. It does not help this country. Haydn Sargent, a popular and respected radio commentator in Brisbane, had something to say about the Premier this morning. He was summing up the feelings of a lot of Australians who were aware of this comment and hordes of Australians after more of them become aware of it. He said: I think it's one of the most irresponsible, disloyal and treacherous things that an Australian politician has ever done. He went on to say: You see whether he likes it or not, whether he realises it or not, when you get out of Australia, Joh Bjelke-Petersen is an Australian as far as the Japanese are concerned. That is the salient and telling point. He is not a National Party Messianic leader about to create his own party on the ashes of the leaders of the Liberal Party and the National Party in this Parliament; he is an Australian-an elected representative speaking for Australia. Haydn Sargent goes on: Now he may have been called Mr President when he was in Turkey, and he may have had motor-cycle escorts and a lot of saluting and tooting, but he's still just the Premier of the State of Queensland. And I think that for the Premier of the State of Queensland to go to the trouble of issuing a press statement to the media of Japan in which he undermines the economy of Australia- the phrase `undermines the economy of Australia' is a quite accurate account of what the impact of the statement will be- in the minds of the Japanese borders on treachery. So it does! His statement concludes: I think it is just so stupid and so childish and so irresponsible that it almost defies description. I cannot believe that he would do it, but he's done it and it makes you wonder sometimes about the loyalty of the man ultimately to Australia. You don't bag your nation. I have never bagged this nation, nor any government of this nation, when I have been overseas. The Leader of the Opposition and my predecessor, as Foreign Minister, have not either. One does not do that sort of thing to one's country. One does not do it at a time like this when we are in an extremely difficult situation and when very delicate negotiations have gone on with the Japanese, both in the public sector and in the private sector, to try to improve confidence. One thing that struck me earlier this year at a luncheon at Kirribilli House hosted by the Prime Minister, at which several Japanese Ministers were present, was that the Prime Minister had to go to great lengths to reassure them about industrial stability in this country. The trade union official who was present-the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Simon Crean-gave undertakings which were then presented in the papers. They were enormously reassuring to these Japanese Ministers who, in turn, will be very influential on Japanese investors. That has been undermined by nothing more than a tissue of lies. Our relationship with Japan is important. Two-way trade totals $17.6 billion. Japanese investment in Australia, which is about $1.7 billion, is third behind the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The trade relationship is especially important to Queensland and, more particularly, to the export of coal. The Queensland Premier could have said certain things to help this country, to help his State and to help the people in Queensland whom he and I represent. I know their difficulties; he does not seem to be conscious of them. He could have quoted the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development December forecast which shows a growth rate in gross domestic product of 3.25 per cent for Australia which is greater than the OECD average. He could have illustrated the fact that nearly 700,000 jobs have been created since 1983 by the Hawke Government. He could have mentioned that there has been a 5 per cent growth rate annually for three years in succession. He could have drawn on the fact that working time lost through industrial disputation is one-third lower than in the Fraser years. He could have mentioned also, as much as he would have found it hard to be candid, that, unlike the Queensland Budget, the Federal Government Budget deficit has fallen every year since 1983. The man deserves to be scourged as one who has failed to live up to his public office responsibilities to this country, to private sector industry, to exporters, to investment and to future growth potential and opportunities for Australia. It is a shame that he sought to play such a cheap Jack political stunt in Japan as an extension of his conflict with his own colleagues and his hatred for this Government, thereby undermining the best interests of this country. Mr CARLTON —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Was not the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, as a Cabinet Minister, a participant in discussions leading to the decision announced by the Treasurer to have a mini-Budget? Is it not a fact that, in those circumstances, she was fully apprised of the economic advice given to the Government concerning interest rates? How, therefore, can it be claimed that Senator Ryan was unaware of the alleged inaccuracy in her briefing notes? Is it not a fact that Dr Hawkins, described by the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues as a `junior official', was employed in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in 1983 as an Assistant Secretary in the Economics Division with specific responsibility for monetary policy and interest rates? Referring to the Prime Minister's statement in his answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question where he said `Public servants have rights to their opinions', is it not also a fact that Dr Hawkins has received this morning strict instructions not to speak to the media? Mr HAWKE —Taking the last part of the question first, I do not know whether Dr Hawkins received such instructions this morning, nor do I recall having used the phrase `junior official'. I have no recollection of having used that phrase but it surprises me not one whit that the honourable member would attribute to me things that I have not said. The position is quite clear and, to her credit, Senator Ryan, has not attempted to disguise it. It is obvious that she had not read the document before she gave her answer. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —Members of the Opposition may laugh about that. I regret it and obviously Senator Ryan regrets it. It is quite clear that she had not read the document. However, it is a tribute to the Minister's candour and her honesty that she was willing to table the document when, as honourable members would know, under Senate Standing Orders she was not required to table a confidential document. As I said in answer to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, it was a mistake that a document which did not accurately convey government policy was allowed to be put forward in the Senate in that way. I have nothing to add to that, nor do I have anything to add to the fact that it was a mistake not only that this emerged but that the Minister had not read the document. In that way, something which was not a statement of the Government's position was before the Senate. Neither the Minister nor I can be any more direct, straightforward or honest than that. Madam SPEAKER —I ask those on my immediate left to cease interjecting while Ministers are answering questions. Mr CHYNOWETH —I draw the attention of the Minister for Communications to the recently announced arrangements by Telecom Australia to charge for directory assistance calls for telephone numbers already listed in local telephone directories. Will the Minister inform the House whether Telecom customers, who reside outside the Melbourne telephone district zone and who use, for example, the 059 area code, including residents in my electorate of Dunkley, will be charged for directory assistance calls when asking for Melbourne telephone district numbers or vice versa? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question. Not only has he raised a specific matter but also his question allows me the opportunity to give all honourable members some information on this matter. The demand for directory assistance services has increased considerably in recent years to the stage where the cost of providing the service has grown to some $58m in 1985-86. Two-thirds of calls to local directory assistance-to 013-are for numbers which are published in the current local directory which is delivered free to all customers. Yet, I repeat, two-thirds of the calls relate to those numbers. Mr Donald Cameron —What about books being missing from public phone boxes? Mr DUFFY —If the honourable member would just hold on for a minute I propose to deal with that matter. I know that patience is not one of his great virtues. The increased traffic, which is obviously related to the introduction of modern computerised equipment, has caused heavy congestion, especially in peak periods and a considerable number of complaints have been made to Telecom about this matter. I have been advised by Telecom that no charge will apply for inquiries for out of area numbers. Accordingly, residents, such as those in the electorate of Dunkley-which was the example given today-using the 059 area code number will not be charged for inquiries about other zone areas. Nor will they be charged for new and changed local numbers. For the information of honourable members, all calls for directory assistance from public telephone and mobile phones will be free and special procedures will be developed for disadvantaged and disabled persons who are unable to use the telephone directory. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Prime Minister: Do the conclusions of the so-called background briefing paper tabled by Senator Ryan reflect the views not only of Dr Hawkins but, more importantly, the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry, the Government's chief advisory body in the housing industry which includes senior officials from the Treasury and the Reserve Bank of Australia? As the most recent meeting of the forecasting committee of the Indicative Planning Council was held on 13 February, some time after the latest economic forecasts were prepared by the Government's joint economic forecasting group, do the views of Dr Hawkins's so-called background briefing paper reflect the attitudes of not only Dr Hawkins but also those in the Treasury and the Reserve Bank on interest rate trends prior to the announcement on Tuesday by the Treasurer of the Government's intention to bring in a mini-Budget on 14 May? Mr HAWKE —The views expressed by Dr Hawkins do not reflect the views of our forecasting departments because, in large part, the views which I and the Treasurer have expressed are, in turn, a reflection of the indications that have been given to us by the parties which are part of the forecasting apparatus of the Government. Therefore, I can quite categorically say that the opinions expressed by the Treasurer and me in this place and outside it have been in tune with that information which has been provided to us by those bodies. As I have said in answer to an earlier question, the views that would have been held in those quarters would have been strengthened by the firm decision of the Government to bring down the May statement. As to the first part of the question by the right honourable gentleman, I understand that to some extent the views expressed by Dr Hawkins may reflect some of the attitudes of the Indicative Planning Council. But I understand that the views of that body will be exposed in the near future. Any views which that body formed were-by definition of the date used by the right honourable gentleman-clearly expressed and formed prior to the Government's announcement of its decision to make its May statement. It is not irrelevant, if one is talking about reactions to that announcement by the Government, to note-as I hope the right honourable gentleman will have noted-that the market reaction to the Government's announcement has been favourable in that the exchange rate has firmed and there has been a marginal decline in relevant interest rates. Mr GRACE —Will the Minister for Science explain the purpose of the two new summer bases established this summer in Antarctica? Are we keeping pace with Russian developments in our area? Mr BARRY JONES —In the three years, 11 months and some days that we have been in office we have increased the number of bases in Antarctica from three to six. Three all the year round bases and three summer bases have been established. Mr Hawke —We've roughly doubled it. Mr BARRY JONES —We have roughly doubled the number as the Prime Minister, who is numerate above all things, points out. However, the Russians, who are playing an interesting chess game down there, have increased their effort from four bases to eight. In this season we have created two new important bases, one in Cape Denison in Commonwealth Bay in the eastern sector of the Australian Antarctic Territory and another in the Larsemann Hills, 120 kilometres west of Australia's Davis Station. The base in the eastern sector has been named, appropriately, the Commonwealth Bay Base, commemorating in part the work of Douglas Mawson there between 1911 and 1914. This is an area we have neglected, I think, pretty shamefully. It is the first base established there since 1914 and is in an area where the Russians already have quite a large base. This measure will be broadly supported by the House; there will be no partisan disagreement that we have to do more there. The base at Larsemann Hills has been named-again, I think this will meet with general approval-the Law Base to commemorate the work of Dr Phillip Law, first leader of the Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition after the Second World War. He deserves to be recognised with some of the great pioneers such as Mawson and Davis. I am sure that honourable members will be pleased that that recognition has gone to Phillip Law. The Commonwealth Bay Base will allow annual programs to be supported in an area from a site about one kilometre from Mawson's hut. The base will be developed over the next few years to support more research in that area and to allow further work on conservation of Mawson's hut, Australia's most significant historical site in Antarctica. The Law Base at Larsemann Hills will be used to support geological and biological students, The base can accommodate 17 expeditioners in a modular building and three igloo-shaped shelters. It has not been planned that major programs will be conducted in the Larsemann Hills area this summer. However, following Nella Dan's besetment and inability to land a party at Edgeworth David Station, something to which the honourable member for La Trobe can testify, this program was transferred to the Law Base. A field party from the Soviet Union has also established camp in the Larsemann Hills at a site approximately two kilometres from the Law Base. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is he claiming that he has received advice from the Treasury and/or the Reserve Bank of Australia or the Joint Economic Forecasting Group which directly contradicts the previous advice of the Treasury and the Reserve Bank, incorporated into the views of the Indicative Planning Council referred to in Dr Hawkins's memo? If so, will he table that advice from the Treasury, the Reserve Bank or the Joint Economic Forecasting Group? If not, on what basis can he credibly continue to reject the advice referred to by Dr Hawkins and, moreover, on what basis can home owners, farmers and small businesses ever again trust the Prime Minister's word on interest rates? Mr HAWKE —I understand why the Leader of the Opposition is trying so hard. I simply say to him that in my discussions on these matters with the Treasurer, the views expressed to me by the Treasurer as to the advice that he is receiving from the Treasury and the Reserve Bank are totally consistent with the view that he and I have been expressing-that as a result of the policies being followed by this Government we can expect through 1987 a decline in interest rates. Ms JAKOBSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. Can the Minister confirm media stories today that the Government has received a report recommending that contaminated water at the Ranger uranium mine be released into the Kakadu National Park? Can the Minister also confirm that this proposal contradicts an earlier position of the Supervising Scientist for the mine? Will the Government act to ensure that any action required will be at cost to the mining company and not at cost to the environment of Kakadu National Park? Mr BARRY JONES —The Government has received two reports on the Ranger uranium mine water management system-a draft report and a final report. In November 1985 the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment established a technical working group comprising the Supervising Scientist, the Northern Territory Government and Ranger to facilitate agreement on the best water management system for the mine. The technical working group's draft report was considered by the co-ordinating committee for the Alligator Rivers Region last November. Senator Gareth Evans then received a copy of the working group's final report from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment towards the end of last month. The two departments are preparing joint advice on the matter. The report referred to in today's media bears some resemblance to the draft report, but it should not be presumed that the final report now being considered by the Government contains the same recommendations. As to the second part of the question asked by the honourable member for Cowan, the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region has never expressly argued in favour of a no-release water management regime for the Ranger mine. It is understood that the position of the Supervising Scientist has always been that the water management system be kept under review. The Government fully recognises the significance of Kakadu as a World Heritage area. Any decision on Ranger's water management strategy will be the best one from an environmental viewpoint. Mr BEALE —My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. I refer the Minister to Senator Button's equivocation in the Senate yesterday over whether the Government would extend the current $145m interest rate subsidy to the savings banks when the agreement with them expires in about a month. Can the Minister inform the House whether this subsidy will be extended and, if so, what will be the cost to the Budget both this year and in 1978-88? If it is not extended, what will be the impact on home loan interest rates and the volume of savings bank lending for housing? Finally, can the Minister confirm that the 13 1/2 per cent savings bank home loan interest rate ceiling will not be lifted? Mr WEST —Of course I can confirm that the 13 1/2 per cent regulated rate for housing loans taken out before 2 April last year will not be lifted. I am not in a position at this stage to say anything about the continuance or otherwise of the subsidy, except-- Opposition members-Ooh! Mr WEST —If honourable members opposite want the answer to the question they should listen. I can say that negotiations with the principal parties, that is the savings banks and the Government, will continue. I should also add that there is no reason for the 15 1/2 per cent deregulated rate to be increased, as has been pointed out by the savings banks other than the National Australia Bank over the last few days. As for the number of dwelling commencements this year and over the next financial year, 1987-88, I think I can say that we expect-although the Indicative Planning Council report that has been under discussion today in this House has not yet been completed but will be verbally reported to the Australian Housing Council meeting on 5 March-the rate of commencements for this financial year to be about 120,000, which I note is 15,000 more than those opposite had in their last years of office. As the report is under advanced discussion I can say at this stage that we could expect a commencement level of about 130,000 starts in 1987-88. I regard that to be a slightly pessimistic assessment in view of what the Prime Minister has said today. Mr HAND —Madam Speaker-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAND —I have an updated list. It is much more accurate than the one I had the other night. I have had a lot of phone calls. I am starting on honourable members opposite next, so they should be careful. I ask a question of the Minister Assisting the Treasurer. Is he aware of a tax evasion rort known as `creaming'? Is it a fact that some businesses do not disclose all of their turnover and that proprietors pocket some of the cash and tax is thereby evaded on this income? What can be done about this rort? Those opposite should not yell too loudly or they might find out that this affects some people. Mr HURFORD —I can tell the honourable member for Melbourne that I have heard of creaming. It is, as he described it, a rort. It is the creaming off of cash in such a way that it is not included in taxable income. As an illustration of one of the industries in which this happens I will use the hotel industry. What should go from the cash till into the bank and be recorded properly for taxation purposes partially goes into the pocket. It has been brought to my notice that, to add insult to injury, in that industry hotel brokers, when seeking to sell a licence, often add back the amount that has not been included in taxable income-for the obvious reason that they wish to show what the real profits and taxable income should have been and increase the asset value of the licence accordingly. The honourable member asked me what can be done. I assure him that although in the late 1970s and the early 1980s the Australian Taxation Office was seriously deprived of the necessary resources to address this sort of problem, since this Government took over the Tax Office resources have been increased enormously and the cash economy problem is now being addressed properly. As somebody who knows a little about tax consultancy, I can also tell him that anybody who is indulging in this particular practice is doing so very foolishly, because we now have more tax auditors and tax investigators, and when a tax investigator looks into a problem such as this he looks at the net worth, the net assets, of the person in question seven years ago and that person's net worth today. The increase in net worth then has to be reconciled with what has been included in that person's tax return. Where that reconciliation is not apparent the onus is on the person concerned to show where that extra income came from. There is a lot of noise from the opposite side of the chamber, probably because honourable members opposite recognise that one of the usual explanations is that there has been a cash flow from the bookies. All I can say is that, from my experience, if that was the real answer there would not be any bookies in business today. We are addressing the problem. It is a serious one, and I thank the honourable member for drawing it to the attention of the House so that we can show, in the way that I have done, that creaming is a stupid activity and that people indulging in it will be caught up with one day. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction whether he will provide a guarantee to the House that the report of the Indicative Planning Council to be presented to the Australian Housing Council will not in any way be doctored or altered insofar as its predictions regarding interest rates are concerned as a result of the events of the past few days. Mr WEST —The report of the Indicative Planning Council is printed in booklet form three times a year, and the March report, as has been the practice in the past, will be presented verbally by Professor Fred Gruen to the Australian Housing Council on 13 March. I have the utmost confidence in the integrity of Professor Gruen. There is no possible chance that anything said in this House, outside, or in the Senate will be allowed to influence the views of the Indicative Planning Council. I regard it as a Council on which I place great reliance and upon which the formulation of much of Labor housing policy is based. While I am talking about policies, I would like to know when we will see the policy of the honourable member for Deakin. When will we see his housing policy? I am told that it was put back six weeks because it was going to advocate the abolition of public housing funding by the Federal Government and the abolition of the first home owners scheme, which has already helped 230,000 families in this country into home ownership. We have the policies. While I am at the table, I ask whether perhaps the honourable member for Deakin could explain to me what has happened in respect of a certain matter. I have here a cutting from the Melbourne Sun of the other day which says: The staff of Mr Beale, the Liberal member for Deakin and Opposition Housing and Construction spokesman, have had a busy year going by the overtime figures. According to Senator Michael Baume, Chairman of the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee, the honourable member for Deakin, of all the shadow Ministers, has topped the poll for staff overtime. I do not know what his staff were doing when they were burning the midnight oil, but they sure as hell were not working on housing policy. Mr LINDSAY —Is the Minister for Defence aware of persistent reports of increased naval activity by the Soviet Union in the Pacific Ocean? Can the Minister inform the House of the extent of this Soviet naval buildup, and of the extent to which it has altered the strategic balance between the Western nations and the Soviet bloc? Can the Minister advise the House of the ways in which Australia's defence policy and posture contribute to the Western posture to the Soviet military presence? Mr BEAZLEY —Yes, I have seen the reports to which the honourable gentleman refers, and I think they are in need of some discussion and consideration here, because in some forms in which they have appeared they have been highly misleading. I think they further need some discussion because the United States of America is now at a stage when, at least in planning form, the buildup of the United States maritime forces has largely been completed. So if the Soviet Union were to still maintain any form of naval superiority, the situation would be quite serious indeed because, as far as one can see, nothing further than that which has already been announced is planned for the development of the United States fleet. Finally, of course, when one is preparing one's own position in the defence area, one is required to base one's decisions not on just an assessment of what might be the Soviet position but on a net assessment of what is the value of the Soviet position up against that one's principal allies. I can say one or two things about that. Whilst the force structures of both the Soviet and American forces largely relate to different strategic concepts, which makes a simple comparison of raw numbers at least to some degree invalid, there is still at least some value in doing this. I notice that the Opposition spokesman for foreign affairs announced that the Soviet Pacific Fleet had 800 vessels. That is true if one includes tugs, river craft and coastal auxiliaries. If, however, one is referring directly to combat vessels, the figures come out something like this: Aircraft carriers-the US six, the Soviets two, and the Soviet carriers are anti-submarine warfare carriers, not attack carriers like those of the Americans; battleships-the US two, the Soviets nil; cruisers-the US 18, the Soviets 15; destroyers-the US 29, the Soviets 14; frigates and corvettes-the US 47; the Soviets 51. I might say something about those Soviet frigates and corvettes. That number of 51 includes a number of vessels of a size and capability which, if presented to my naval advisers for our middle tier new service combatant, would have been rejected out of hand and I would have been rightly accused in this place of selling our Navy short. So that roughly gives honourable members some indication of the relative balance. In respect of total major surface combatants, the US Pacific Fleet has 102, the Soviet Fleet 82-- Mr Spender —Submarines? Mr BEAZLEY —I will get on to that. In the case of amphibious assault craft, the Soviet has 18, the United States 31. That includes six assault carriers which, as ships of about 30,000 tonnes in size, are some 10,000 tonnes bigger than the carrier Melbourne was when we had it in service. In the area of missiled submarines-and we are not talking here about strategic forces-the Soviet Union has 25 and the United States does not have the equivalent, although it is putting the Tomahawk on its Los Angeles class submarines. The Soviets deploy their submarines in much the same way as the United States deploys battleships and, of course, battleships carry a much heavier load of cruise missiles and a much better cruise missile, in the Tomahawk, than does the Soviet Union. In respect of attack submarines, the figures are: Soviet Union 52, United States 42. In addition to that-because most of these forces are concentrated in the northern Pacific-it is relevant to consider the Japanese. They have 34 destroyers, 18 frigates and 15 submarines. So anybody who would argue the point that the Soviet Union has substantially gained political influence I think needs to think very carefully about the position he adopts. I happen to believe that it is possible to translate naval power into political influence, and one needs to be fairly careful about the psychological impact one has when one sells short an ally's position and discusses the position of that ally's principal adversary. That is a course which one should pursue with very considerable caution indeed. Therefore, I think it is necessary to point out the fact that the United States has over the last six years considerably increased its maritime power and, I believe, effectively checkmated any position that the Soviet Union had effectively developed in the Pacific. Further to develop that point, I add that the United States has also altered its naval strategy. One of the reasons why we see fewer United States ships in our ports, apart from those associated with the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy-and this impacts on the last part of the question asked by the honourable gentleman-is that a higher priority is not being attached to deployments in the northern Pacific, where most of the Soviet Fleet is deployed. The situation at Cam Ranh Bay is also worthy of comment, given the honourable gentleman's question. I have here the photographs, which I shall table for honourable members, that were seen recently. We see that in Cam Ranh Bay at that time there were two Soviet Foxtrot submarines-they represent 30 year old technology-one Echo guided missile submarine, one frigate and one patrol boat. That was on a bad day. Normally, the Soviets can do slightly better than that. The simple fact is that none of them are front-line Soviet craft. The Soviet Union does not deploy front-line craft in Cam Ranh Bay. I also table photographs of the airfield associated with Cam Ranh Bay. Honourable members will see that Soviet aircraft are lined up like 10 green bottles hanging on the wall. If we were to disperse aircraft at our new air bases in the way in which the Soviet Union did, I would be entitled to receive a few questions from honourable gentlemen opposite as to what exactly I intended to do with those facilities. Clearly, the Soviet position at Cam Ranh Bay will not be a position which will survive longer than day one of a general war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The true significance of the Soviet position in Cam Ranh Bay lies in the political influence that it gives. The question of political influence rather than military capacity is what we address. In conclusion, I refer to the final part of the honourable gentleman's question and point out the points that I made previously about our involvement in Malaysia. The activities of our P3 aircraft and Mirage aircraft in Malaysia-and soon our F18s-and the visits of our surface fleet to that area are all part of a political counter to what is going on there and are all thoroughly in keeping with the Government's policies as previously announced. They are also in keeping with the sort of suggestions that were made by Paul Dibb about the use of Australia's forces outside our area of immediate military interest. The types of ships that he recommended and the types of ships that we are bringing into our fleet are exactly suited to that sort of task-a task which, in those areas at least, whilst militarily very significant to our own defence is very substantially of advantage in a political sense in countering any activity elsewhere in conjunction, of course, with our ally. It does not do us any good to give any free advertising to the Soviet Union. I doubt whether we would be thanked by the United States for doing so. The United States fleet is highly capable. The strategy that underlies the deployment of the United States fleet is sensibly directed towards the northern Pacific where the bulk of Soviet forces lies. Ship for ship, the United States fleet has considerable capabilities over and above those of the Soviet Union. That is the situation now, and that is the situation which will be maintained into the future. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.53) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving a motion forthwith in the following terms: That this House calls upon the Prime Minister to table the latest advice received by the Government from the Treasury and/or the Reserve Bank of Australia and the current forecasts of the Indicative Planning Council regarding the level of interest rates in Australia. This issue is not about the credibility of Dr Hawkins; it is not about the credibility of Professor Gruen, the Chairman of the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry; it is not even about the credibility of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan); rather, this issue is about the credibility of the statements by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on interest rates. It is whether this man-- Mr Lionel Bowen —The Government will accept the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.54) —I move: That this House calls upon the Prime Minister to table the latest advice received by the Government from the Treasury and/or the Reserve Bank of Australia and the current forecasts of the Indicative Planning Council regarding the level of interest rates in Australia. This issue is about the credibility of the statements by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the most sensitive economic indicator for Australian families, Australian farmers and Australian small businesses-that is, the level of interest rates. Interest rates will be the political death of the Hawke Government. Every one of those members who represent marginal seats-the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer), the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow)-knows what a hole high interest rates are now burning in the pockets of their constituents. The honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) knows better than any the hole that those high interest rates are burning in his tissue-thin majority, because the issue of interest rates goes to the very heart of the Prime Minister's credibility. Over the past 24 hours we have seen a quite disgraceful attempt by senior Ministers in the Government to denigrate an officer of the Department of Housing and Construction, Dr Hawkins, because he had the temerity to do a very simple thing-that is, to give some honest advice to the Government. As Dr Hawkins has been so contemptuously dismissed by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), let me tell honourable members about him. According to the Prime Minister he heads what he describes as a non-relevant economic forecasting section of the Government. Senator Walsh claims that Dr Hawkins is only a junior official of the Department, and an officer who is not in a major economic department and does not have access to joint economic forecasting group forecasts. According to Senator Ryan, he is an officer in the Department of Housing and Construction who does not have the economic data that the Department of Finance and the Department of the Treasury have, and the briefing was really based on assumptions from somebody who is not close to the management of the economy. That is the disgracefully dismissive description of Dr Hawkins. It is the most outlandish example I have heard in months of shooting the messenger. All he did was to give some honest advice, and to give the advice that any economist worth his socks would give under the policies of the present Government-that is, there is no earthly hope that interest rates will come down in 1987. What does he get for his pains? He is rudely insulted by senior Ministers of the Government, he is gagged by his Department and he is told by our `trust me' Prime Minister that his advice is wrong, despite the fact that his advice was based upon the views of the Treasury and the Reserve Bank of Australia. The point that the Prime Minister appears to have missed is not only that the briefing paper reflected Hawkins's views but that, in turn, Hawkins's views reflected the views of the Indicative Planning Council on which the Treasury and the Reserve Bank-the authorities that advise the Government on economic matters-are both represented. I will tell honourable members about this man who is only a junior official, whose views are irrelevant and whose views are of no account. He is the First Assistant Secretary of the Department. He earns a salary of $60,000. He has a staff of 59 people. Some irrelevance! He has a staff of 59 people and as late as 1983-listen to this; this is the whopper of all-he worked as Assistant Secretary of the Economics Division of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. He would be well briefed in the macro-economic area. He only has a doctorate of philosophy in economics from the Australian National University. Listen to this: He worked in the Reserve Bank prior to his appointment to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. He has published various articles in the macroeconomic area, including a paper to the conference on applied economic research which was praised by the likes of Fred Gruen and Michael Keating, one of the Government's departmental heads. This is the latest in a long series of unfortunate deceptions by the Prime Minister about interest rates. It goes back to that fateful forecast that he made during 1984, a forecast that will echo in the ears of every Labor member representing a marginal seat between now and the next election. Everybody will remember that forecast. It will be written into every person's mind between now and the election. On 20 November 1984 the Prime Minister said: Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from the successful policies of the past twenty months. We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the very near future, we will harvest the crop. The struggling strangled home buyers of Australia-those people in Hurstville and Rockdale who are paying $152 a month more than they were paying when the Prime Minister robbed them blind with that promise in November 1984-may well ask when the crop will be harvested. In the rural electorates the farmers and small businesses will want to know what has happened to the small overdraft rate that has gone from 14.5 per cent when the Prime Minister made his promise to 20.5 per cent. They will want to know what has happened to the Bankcard rate that has gone from 18 per cent to 22 per cent. They will want to know what has happened to the large overdraft rate. They will want to know what has happened to every single sensitive interest rate indicator in the Australian economy. There will not be a shortage of people in the Liberal and National parties to tell the Australian people, and to tell the voters in those marginal electorates, the reason why they are paying through the neck for their interest bills. There will be no shortage of people to tell them that under the policies of this failed Government there is no hope of interest rates coming down. The reason why Dr Hawkins spoke the truth, the reason why the Prime Minister has been caught out deceiving the Australian people about interest rates, is that the policies he has followed since he was elected in 1983 have been counterproductive to bringing down interest rates. If he had followed a different economic course, if he had not squandered the gains that were available to the Government in 1984 in rushing headlong to a premature election, he would not now be in the interest bind that will dog him for the rest of this year. I am reminded of an article written by Max Walsh on 1 September 1984 after the 1984 Budget was brought down. It was called `The beginning of the end of the Hawke Government'. The central thrust of that argument was that the Government blew it in the 1984 Budget. In 1984 it had an opportunity, because of the surge that was available from the recovery brought about by the breaking of the drought and the improvement in the international economy, to do something about the structural Budget deficit and thus get interest rates down over the medium and longer term. But instead of doing that, the Government brought down an incredibly soft and irresponsible Budget, and that Budget carried Labor into the election. That Budget is now coming back to haunt the Government and it will bite it to political death. That Budget and the failure of the Government to do something about the structural Budget deficit has meant that this Government is now in an impossible bind. Even if it has the expenditure cutting nerve that so far it has lacked over the four years it has been in government to cut government spending in the May mini-Budget, it will be too late to bring interest rates down in 1987. Incredibly enough, the Prime Minister talks about the impact of the May mini-Budget on the level of interest rates in Australia. Dr Theophanous —Give us something new, John. Mr HOWARD —Well may the honourable member interject. He interjects from a position of relative safety, but I do not think the honourable member for Dunkley, the honourable member for Chisholm, or the honourable member for Barton, the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) or the honourable member for St George (Mr Dubois) will be so enthusiastic about interjecting on interest rates. They know that their Prime Minister has done them dead on the issue of interest rates. They know that no matter what they do in the May mini-Budget, it will all be just a little too late. They do not enjoy the truth any more than the Prime Minister enjoys the truth that came from Dr Hawkins who wrote the memorandum tabled by Senator Ryan. The other interesting thing about the Prime Minister's answers at Question Time was that, in effect, he was saying that if people a few days ago thought that interest rates might be staying up until next year they were all wrong because the Government has now decided to have a mini-Budget in May and because of that interest rates will come down. He was saying that the Government would be very tough and hair-shirted and would get stuck into the States and all the big spending and would get interest rates down. Interestingly enough, that is a direct repudiation of the professed strategy of the 1986 Budget. When the Treasurer (Mr Keating) brought down that Budget in August 1986, he said that its whole basis was to lay the groundwork for a reduction of interest rates during 1986-87. That strategy has been blown to smithereens over the last nine or 10 months. Now the Prime Minister is struggling to assert his credibility on this issue. As recently as 17 February on interest rates he had this to say: We look to 1987 with a cautious optimism about the economy, including a fall in interest rates in 1987. This is what the Treasurer had to say: This Government has done what very few governments around the world have done-it has reduced markedly its budget deficit so as to promote a better climate for interest rates and a higher level of activity by the private sector. . . All of that has been exposed by the candour of a public servant, a public servant the Government now wishes to disown, a public servant the Government has now gagged, a public servant who is merely reflecting the views of the Department of the Treasury, the Reserve Bank and the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry on interest rates. If my claim about the current advice coming to the Government from the Treasury and the Reserve Bank is wrong-I can assure the House that on a matter as sensitive as this the Treasury and the Reserve Bank would have reduced their advice to writing, because no self-respecting government or Prime Minister would run around the country making claims based on other than written advice-if there is no contradiction, if Dr Hawkins is completely wrong and if the Government now has advice from the Treasury and the Reserve Bank that interest rates will come down in 1987 and that the likelihood is that they will not remain high until 1988, the Prime Minister has a very simple opportunity at the end of my speech to indicate to the House that he is willing to table the advice he has received from the Treasury and the Reserve Bank. In doing that, the Prime Minister would be able to go some way towards clawing back his loss of credibility on the question of interest rates. The Prime Minister's word on interest rates is absolute mud to home buyers, small businesses and farmers. When my speech is concluded the Prime Minister has an ample opportunity to get up in this Parliament and say that he will table those documents and put at rest any concern that the Australian public may have. But if I and the Opposition are any judge of the Prime Minister, we know that he will not do that. He will say to the Parliament and to the Australian public that they should forget about Dr Hawkins and about the fact that the Minister for Housing and Construction was approached by Senator Ryan's staff and was asked for an assurance as to whether the advice in the memorandum was still correct. They should forget that his office said to Senator Ryan's office that that advice was still correct-in other words, Stewart West said that it was okay. The Prime Minister will forget about that and say to the Australian public: `When it comes to interest rates you have to trust me, despite the fact that I have got it all wrong, that I blew it in the 1984 Budget, that I have not had the guts to cut spending, that I am relying on a high interest rate policy, that I am propping up the dollar with high interest rates and that I am sending the home buyers and farmers broke with high interest rates. Despite that and despite the laws of gravity and economic arithmetic, everything will come well and by the end of 1987 interest rates will have fallen'. That is what the Prime Minister expects the Australian public to believe. If I am any judge of the Australian public, it will not believe that; it will remember that in December 1984 the Bankcard rate was 18 per cent and it is now 22 1/2 per cent. It will remember that the savings rate was 11 1/2 per cent. I remind the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) that his Government has now taken it up to 15 1/2 per cent. No wonder the average weekly take-home pay of the Australian family has fallen by $31 since March 1983. The public will remember that the prime rate has gone up by 6 per cent and the small overdraft rate has also gone up by 6 per cent. Between now and the election the Prime Minister and his colleagues will be constantly reminded of the enormous legacy that they have left upon the Australian public because of their high interest rate policies. The great culpability of this Government is that it has deliberately followed a policy of high interest rates over the past three years. It has had options available to it since as long ago as 1984-a mini-Budget in 1985, the 1986 Budget and so on. It has had opportunities to move away from its excessive reliance on interest rates to a greater reliance on wages and fiscal policies. The Government has refused to do that and, as a consequence, it is now in a position where what the Prime Minister says about interest rates is not being believed, will not be believed and cannot be believed. What he is saying about interest rates at the moment is sheer economic nonsense. When the Government has taken this country to a point at which it has a $100 billion overseas debt, the highest interest rates since the Great Depression, an enormous structural Budget deficit, a wages outcome that will still be higher than those of our major trading partners and a tax system which is making our industry uncompetitive, when all those factors are conspiring at the one time, for the Prime Minister to pretend for one moment that he can sustain a commitment that interest rates will come down in 1987 is sheer economic nonsense. Because he is an honest economist who was reflecting the views of the Treasury and the Reserve Bank and not just his own views or those of his Department, Dr Hawkins wrote in that memorandum that there was no likelihood of interest rates coming down before the first half of 1988 at the very earliest. If the Prime Minister is not talking economic nonsense, if he really imagines that he can be believed on the subject of interest rates, let him table the advice he has received from the Reserve Bank and the Treasury. He will not table that advice; he will run for cover and try to smear the Opposition with generalisations instead of facing reality. The reason he will not table that advice is that that advice is not available. Because the advice that was contained in Dr Hawkins memorandum was a reflection of the view of the Reserve Bank and the Treasury, until they see the colour of the Government's expenditure cutting nerve in the May mini-Budget, there is no way on earth that they will put their names and professional competence to any written advice to the Government suggesting that interest rates will fall in 1987. Mr Sinclair —I second the motion. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(3.14) —Before I come to the substance of the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), let me pick up some of the more ridiculous elements of his speech. He puts himself forward in this place as a proponent and upholder of the laws of economic arithmetic. He does so at a time when his credibility is entirely non-existent because he still has a $14 billion credibility gap. He has been invited day after day by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to explain or withdraw some of the commitments which make up that $14 billion credibility gap. He has declined to do so and he has no right to talk about the laws of economic arithmetic. Most surprisingly, the Leader of the Opposition also says that if he is any judge of the Australian people, they will draw certain conclusions. What is crystal clear is that the Australian people are clearly making a judgment and drawing their conclusions about the Leader of the Opposition. It is no accident, in the light of his purveying of snake oil remedies, that the judgment of the Australian people at this time is that he has the lowest credibility rating in the whole of his period as Leader of the Opposition. It is abysmally low and it is low because the Australian people have made their judgment about him. They simply do not trust him because either he does not understand the laws of economic arithmetic or he deliberately ignores them. I am quite happy in this debate to take the question of the judgment of the Australian people about the Leader of the Opposition and compare it with their judgment of me. Even if the Leader of the Opposition does not know the laws of economic arithmetic, he may know the laws of political arithmetic and be able to make the comparison. When he does he will see that he is repudiated, just as he is repudiated by the majority of those sitting behind him. Interestingly, he made the observation: `There will not be a shortage of people in the Liberal Party to tell this story'. That was the one part of his speech in which he was dead right. Certainly we are seeing no shortage of people in the Liberal Party of Australia to tell the story. What does the Press tell us? It tells us that the Liberals are not satisfied with the people they already have in this Parliament. I believe that the Liberals have a member for Higgins, but we understand that the Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party has said: `I want to be in the Liberal Party to tell this story because the story that is being told by Mr Shipton is not a properly told story'. So we have the gallup poll asking the electors of Higgins whether they would rather have that representative of the small people of Australia, Mr John Elliott, to tell the story. Let us get down to the substance of this matter. The Leader of the Opposition accuses the Treasurer and me of misleading the Parliament and the Australian people. He is reported as saying that the document tabled in the Senate yesterday `blows the cover of the Prime Minister's pretence that interest rates are on the way down'. There is no pretence, there is no cover. On several occasions already this session I have had to spell out for the Opposition the role of monetary policy in the current economic environment. As every reasonable person knows, there is a need to cope with a massive task of structural adjustment. The Leader of the Opposition acts as though I take some pleasure in having high levels of interest rates. No politician in his right mind would want for a single day to have an interest rate level that is any higher than it need be. I would like to see interest rates significantly lower. Does he think that I do not understand enough about politics to know that high levels of interest rates are a disadvantage for a government? Of course they are. The difference between the Leader of the Opposition and me is that I will not peddle snake oil remedies, as the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) has claimed the Leader of the Opposition is doing. I will tell the people the story as it is and we will have the policy-including currently a tough monetary policy-which is necessary to deal with those realities. If the Leader of the Opposition wants another tutorial on the effects of the current account difficulties on interest rates, he can have one. I do not resile one iota from the overall picture which I have been painting of the macroeconomic scene during the past two weeks. The Government's expectations that interest rates can begin to fall this year are based on a thorough and cautious assessment of all the factors which go to make up the total macroeconomic picture. I remind the House of what I said on 17 February. I said: It is the fact that high interest rates are an inevitable feature of adjustment to Australia's current account difficulties. As much as this Government obviously would welcome lower interest rates, it is quite clear that we are responsible economic managers who, unlike the Opposition, eschew politically expedient quick fixes. Or, to quote the honourable member for Boothby, `snake oil remedies'. I said: We have reduced the burden on monetary policy by pursuing appropriately restrained fiscal and wages policies. I said: We look to 1987 with a cautious optimism about the economy including a fall in interest rates in 1987, though, as I have said on many occasions-and I repeat on this occasion-the timing of such a fall will be affected by external factors, including what happens to world commodity prices and what happens to international financial conditions and sentiment. It will also depend on the pace at which the current account deficit declines. I do not take back one word of that statement. As I said, again on 18 February, and I quote briefly: We acknowledge the difficulties and we have introduced policies which, as I have said and the Treasurer has said, through 1987 will lead to a gradual lowering of the interest rate regimen. I am not, I repeat, in the snake oil business of trying to put precise dates or to nominate the precise order in which particular interest rates can come down. What I am in the business of doing, though, is to state some plain facts, and I plead with the Leader of the Opposition to listen to these plain facts. The most fundamental of those plain facts is that, unlike the snake oil merchants, we have the policies to achieve over time a lowering of interest rates. We are not, I repeat, in the business of artificially depressing them, which would result in massive unemployment increases and higher interest rates still as the value of the dollar plunged and interest rates went through the roof. This Government is not about condemning families to the poverty that that sort of approach would produce; nor is it about misleading the Australian people, giving them false hopes or vending snake oil remedies. The plain fact is that we have cut the Budget deficit. The Leader of the Opposition had the temerity to come in here and talk about the lack of political courage of this Government in framing Budgets and in pre-election situations. Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition of the plain, unarguable fact. It is that we have cut the Budget deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product from the 5 per cent that we inherited to about 1 1/2 per cent this year. It is not opinion; it is a plain, indisputable fact. The plain fact is that we as a government have cut the Budget deficit as a proportion of GDP in every single one of our four Budgets. The plain fact, not opinion, is that we remain committed to continued fiscal restraint and to achieving similar restraint at all levels of government. The evidence of that, if any more is needed, is our commitment to bringing down a further statement in May. That will be backed up by an approach to the State governments and to their funding at the forthcoming Premiers Conference, which of necessity again will be a tough conference with tough decisions flowing from it. Commonwealth direct funding of States was cut substantially last year. In addition, we negotiated with the States a lower level of gross borrowings on behalf of their authorities. But it must be said, as I have said, that the States have been able to circumvent that constraint to date. We know that they have done that by calling upon their cash balances. It is important for all Australians to understand that important point-that State borrowing levels need to be wound back over time, just as does the Commonwealth Budget deficit. The plain fact, not opinion, is that the wages policies of this Government have enabled real unit labour costs to decline consistently over these past years. We are becoming tired of, but accustomed to, the misrepresentation of the Leader of the Opposition. He said that Australian industry has become uncompetitive. The fact, not the opinion, is that Australian industry is now more competitive than it has been for some two decades. That is not an opinion; it is a statistical fact. In conjunction with the depreciation of the Australian dollar which has occurred, that level of competitiveness is bringing about a situation in which we are now exporting to markets and types and qualities of products which never before were within the reasonable contemplation of any Australian manufacturer. The plain fact is that the process of adjustment in our balance of payments has begun, and that is fundamentally the key to a sustained lowering of interest rates. Let me just review some of the evidence for the assertion that adjustment has begun in the balance of payments. Let me take as my premise that the key to longer term adjustments in the balance of payments will be our ability sharply to increase our exports of services and manufactures. Let us look at the facts, not the snake oil observations. Let us look at the simple facts. I note that the value of manufacturing exports, even excluding the irregular exports of aircraft, has increased by 30 per cent in the last seven months compared with the same seven months of last year. Our deficit on services trade-that is, for tourism, shipping, insurance and the like-has fallen 17 per cent over that period, and our deficit on merchandise trade, after allowing for seasonal factors, has fallen by 40 per cent in the past three months compared with the three months to October. On the basis of current figuring, the Government is confident that the balance of payments deficit for 1986-87 as a whole will be somewhat lower than the $14.7 billion figure predicted at the time of the Budget, with a significant fall in prospect for 1987-88, both in nominal terms and a fortiori, of course, as a proportion of gross domestic product. Those facts, not opinions, provide the basis for our confidence about the future for interest rates in this country. No snake oil remedies, no abuse of economic arithmetic-a listing of plain, indisputable economic facts. That is the basis for the confidence that the Treasurer and I have expressed about the future course of interest rates. I would add that, to hear the Opposition talk, to hear this temporary Leader of the Opposition mouth his gibberish, one would never expect interest rates to fall; but of course those interest rates have in fact already fallen. Let me give the facts again, not the gibberish, not the snake oil nonsense. The facts are that 90-day bank bills are now some two percentage points lower than the 1986 peak in September of that year and the maximum prime overdraft rate is some 0.75 percentage points lower. The Leader of the Opposition has talked about high interest rates. Let me repeat to this House that even current interest rates pale into insignificance compared with the 22 per cent peak for the 90-day bill rate inflicted on this country by the Opposition. It was not within the context of a massive decline in the terms of trade-it did not have that imposed upon it from the outside. That peak of 22 per cent in the interest rate was inflicted because of the incompetency of those opposite. They failed in government; they have failed in opposition-and the failure of this Leader of the Opposition will be a product of his incapacity to understand economic arithmetic and to withstand the forces of political arithmetic on his own side which will soon see him deposed from this position which he has so incompetently occupied since his election. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.30) —In case the people of Australia have forgotten what this debate is all about, let me remind them that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) moved a motion and Max Gillies, portraying himself in his current form of a shonky money dealer-medicine man, from the banana republic of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), has just refused to table the economic advice which justifies the claim, which he has just repeated, that interest rates are about to fall. What we have asked him to do is, not to come in here and engage in explosive, artificial rhetoric and then walk out in a huff, but to table the advice on which his answers in Parliament have been given, on which the speech he has just made in this House was based. But what have we had? We have had one of these bombastic pejorative sorts of speeches in which he has not told us anything that we have not heard before, and in which there was not one fact to back up his assertion that interest rates will fall. We have to begin by asking the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) why he gave Dr Hawkins's advice to Senator Susan Ryan. Was Dr Hawkins's advice correct? If it was not correct, what advice did the Minister give Senator Susan Ryan which would lead her to understand all the qualifications to which she would need to refer in presenting her answers in the other place to any questions with respect to future trends in interest rates? What basis, having presented this document from Dr Hawkins to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction in the Senate, did he have for believing that the advice he was giving her was correct; or did he believe that it was false? Are we to believe that, because the Minister in the Senate suddenly tabled the document which discloses the advice of public servants to the Minister, that advice is wrong; or is it really the Minister who is wrong? Really, that is what this debate is all about. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) makes a great deal of his credibility. He claims to be a man of honesty. He claims to wear his heart on his sleeve. He claims to be an honest man. Where is the honesty in allowing one of his senior Ministers in the other place-a Minister who was present at the Cabinet discussion at the beginning of this week when it was decided that the Government had to have a mini-Budget-to give an answer on written advice that we are told today is wrong? What is the Prime Minister's excuse for it being wrong? There are two excuses. The first is that Dr Hawkins is only a junior official. The second is that the Government is going to bring in a mini-Budget on 14 May and the advice is wrong. As the Leader of the Opposition has already said, Dr Hawkins, the man who it is claimed is a junior official, has worked in the Reserve Bank of Australia. He has been an assistant secretary in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. He is a man who was responsible for macroeconomic policy; a man who was responsible for giving advice on interest rates to the Prime Minister himself; a man who today has 59 people working with him; and a man who represents the Government on the planning council which gives high level policy advice on future trends as they affect housing starts and every financial aspect of the housing industry. That planning council includes representatives not only of the Department of Housing and Construction but also of the Treasury and the Reserve Bank. For the Prime Minister to come into this House and say `I am not going to table the advice that contradicts Dr Hawkins's advice' shows that the Prime Minister is no longer in any way to be believed. The last meeting of the Indicative Planning Council, from which this advice came-it is not peculiarly from Dr Hawkins-was on 13 February. The Prime Minister gave an entirely contradictory answer to a question I asked today. Honourable members will remember that I sought to get from the Prime Minister an admission that even if, after Monday's decision on the mini-Budget, there might be a change in interest rate trends, Dr Hawkins's advice, the advice of the Treasury and the advice of the Reserve Bank was correct before that Cabinet meeting on Monday and that the advice on which earlier statements made by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were based-in fact, the minute, or background notes as the Prime Minister calls it-was correct. The briefing paper stated: At this stage it appears that any reductions in market rates that may occur over the course of 1987 will not be sufficiently sustained or pronounced to result in reductions in housing loan interest rates in 1987. Accordingly, it appears unlikely that reductions in housing loan interest rates will occur until the first half of 1988 at the earliest. Then, to compound it all, what did the Prime Minister do today? He came in here and said that Senator Susan Ryan had not read the minute. Have honourable members heard anything more ridiculous? First, the advisers are no good; and, secondly, the advice was not correct before the Cabinet meeting on Monday. It certainly was not correct after the Cabinet meeting on Monday when it was decided that there would be a mini-Budget. Mr Carlton —Jim Cairns didn't read the letter he signed. Mr SINCLAIR —We all remember the letter that Dr Cairns signed. The credibility of this man who is Prime Minister is getting weaker and weaker, day by day and hour by hour. Really, this debate highlights that not only is the economy out of control, not only can no Australian expect to get any relief from interest rates, but also the Government does not even understand, read or care about the advice that is coming from the Treasury and the Reserve Bank on directions that the Australian economy must take. I would be delinquent in my duty if I did not remind all Australians about that absolutely appalling scene that many of us saw on television last night of an auction sale of farm machinery at Molong in central western New South Wales. That was illustrative of the genuine heartbreak, distress and concern that are being experienced by thousands of farmers and, parallel to them, thousands of small business men and women and thousands of householders who face the impossible consequences of the economic and interest rate policies of the Hawke Labor Government. Nobody should be under any misapprehension. That sale at Molong is just the beginning. It is the beginning because the Government does not have the answers. This sort of thing, unfortunately, is going to happen time after time because the Prime Minister has neither the intestinal fortitude nor the basic honesty to come into this House and say, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question: `There are no documents from the Reserve Bank, there are no documents from the Treasury, which contradict Dr Hawkins's advice'. That is what it is all about. It is not a matter of the Prime Minister being able to come in here and say: `Look, here is the advice. Dr Hawkins really was giving only narrow advice in another area'. What did we get? We got bombast and rhetoric, but we did not get a written paper. This matter is really about the contradiction in written advice given by the Minister for Housing and Construction to his colleague in the Senate on which that Minister gave her answer yesterday-written advice following a Cabinet meeting, following the 13 February meeting of the Indicative Planning Council, following advice received from the Treasury and following advice received from the Reserve Bank, all setting down the genuine concern of the officials of the Australian Public Service advising this Government and what they believe the trend in interest rates will be. What appalling news it is for those who, unfortunately, were the original owners of the machinery that was repossessed, for those who, as a result of the escalation in interest rates, are getting to the position where they will not be able to retain their homes, and for those young people who thought they might have been able to buy or build a house, that the written advice to the Government is being completely obscured because the Prime Minister is not prepared to come into this House and be honest with the Parliament or the people of Australia. To make it worse, we have a Treasurer-the world's worst Treasurer-who earlier this week told this House and the Press that the mini-Budget was going to cure all. But they are not prepared to be honest about the character of the advice on which that decision was taken. I cannot underline sufficiently the fact that today Australia is falling further and further behind other countries. While prime interest rates in this country have risen 5 per cent, from 13.5 to 18.5 per cent, they have fallen in the United States of America over that same period by 4.3 per cent. They have fallen in Japan by 1.7 per cent. I notice that, as a result of changes yesterday, that fall has increased to about 2.3 per cent. Interest rates have fallen by 2.5 per cent in France and by 3.2 per cent in Canada. We know that Bankcard interest rates have gone from 18 to 22.5 per cent, savings bank home loan rates have gone up to 15.5 per cent, the prime interest rate has gone to 18.5 per cent and small overdraft rates have gone to 20.5 per cent. The reality is that the Government's financial policies are out of control. The reality is that the policies that the Government is putting to the Australian people are different from the policy advice it is receiving from its senior officials. It is no excuse to blame Dr Hawkins. It is no excuse to say: `The Minister did not read the paper'. It is no excuse to say: `As of Monday this week all will be different because on 14 May we will bring down a mini-Budget'. Let me remind everybody that earlier this week, when we had another debate, I outlined a number of steps that will have to be taken. Nobody in this House should think that even a mini-Budget will be enough while we have this absolutely ridiculous accord that is out of control, while we have an industrial relations scene where, gradually, there are more and more strikes and more and more industrial difficulties, and while we have the left wing trade unions, the plumbers and gasfitters and all the rest of them out there saying: `We want more money'. It is not sufficient to bring in a mini-Budget. The Government has to free our industrial relations system and it has to lift the burden of government intervention in, and the regulation of, the Australian economy. This Government has to free Australia's overregulated and overcontrolled labour market. It has to lift the restrictions on foreign investment. It has to make sure that there is a significant increase in immigration. It has to make sure that the people of Australia are treated with honesty, equity and fairness. What are the people of Australia to think when the Prime Minister comes into this House today and says these things following the announcement of a $101 billion debt, following the failure of his Government and his Ministers to act on the advice of their senior officials? Frankly, all they can think is that not only is this Government out of control but also neither the Prime Minister nor the Treasurer has any idea of what is going on and they have no solutions to offer the people of Australia. I think we need to remember that for two weeks we have sought to get answers from the Government. For two weeks we have asked questions about interest rates, about overseas debt and about inflation. We have asked questions about the position of housing starts and about the position of small business. We have asked questions about primary producers and about the average family and its predicament. What have we had? We have had bluster, we have had rhetoric and we have had snake oil treatment as the Prime Minister likes to call it. At no stage has the Government been prepared to admit that the written advice that it receives is in complete contradiction to the answers that it gives us in this place. That is what this debate is all about. The Prime Minister has refused to produce any written advice that contradicts Dr Hawkins's advice that was tabled by the Minister for Education in the Senate yesterday. Of course, that advice completely contradicts those make-believe answers given by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in this place. Honourable members should remember that on 17 February-only a few days ago-the Prime Minister said: We look to 1987 with a cautious optimism about the economy including a fall in interest rates in 1987. He also said: We acknowledge the difficulties and we have introduced policies which, as I have said and the Treasurer has said, through 1987 will lead to a gradual lowering of the interest rate regimen. The reality is that this minute from Dr Hawkins dated 13 February completely contradicts the Prime Minister. It shows that either the Prime Minister has deliberately been misleading this House or perhaps he, too, has not read any of the written advice that he has received. Let me quote again from Dr Hawkins's advice: The Report of the Indicative Planning Council to be presented to the March 1987 meeting- this is still 26 February- of the Australian Housing Council will contain an assumption that any reductions in market rates that occur this year will not be sufficient to allow reductions in housing loan interest rates in 1987. whilst reductions in housing rates may occur in the first half of 1988, it is unlikely that such reductions would have any significant impact . . . The Prime Minister is wrong, the Prime Minister's advice to this House is wrong, the Prime Minister's word is wrong and the Prime Minister has not acknowledged the written advice to him from senior officials of the Government. How can the Prime Minister be believed? The Government has lost control of the Australian economy. Ordinary Australians can no longer have any faith that there will be any turn-round in the economy while this Government is in office. The sooner Australia goes to the polls and the sooner we get a Liberal-National Party government to correct the economic mismanagement of the Australian Labor Party, the better. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(3.45) —The Opposition's motion is nothing more than a smokescreen to try to take people's attention away from the real issues facing this country today. Of course, one of those issues is the Opposition's own problems. It is significant that we have just heard from the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), seconding the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Here is another attempt to shore up this dying coalition. Of course, it is also significant that the Opposition is trying to take the attention of this House and the people of this country away from the real and immediate issue of today. What about a condemnation from the Opposition of what the National Party Premier of Queensland had to say which has undermined our relationship with Japan? When will we hear from the Opposition about that real issue of today? Is that not something that should be worthy of immediate mention in this charade that is going on in relation to the leadership of this country? What about the tale the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) had to tell us in Question Time today? Where was the loyalty of this National Party Premier of Queensland when we see what he has done to the relationship between Australia and Japan? That is the issue of today. That is what this House ought to be debating right now. Of course, what we have is a smokescreen from the Opposition to take our attention away from that real issue. As for the tabling of documents, let this be said: This Government will table the information that governments have always tabled in this House. The report of the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry has always been made known in the past and it will be made known when it is ready, probably next month. Honourable members opposite have the latest report of the Indicative Planning Council that is ready for publishing and they will get the next report of the Indicative Planning Council. As I have said, this tabling nonsense is nothing more than a smokescreen seeking to take our attention away from the double standards and the duplicity of this Opposition. The real issue that it wants to raise is the issue of interest rates. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said earlier today that every politician wants interest rates as low as they can possibly be. The question we ought to be addressing in this House is how that can be achieved. In one breath the Opposition sheds crocodile tears for borrowers and in the next breath it advocates a policy which would inevitably lead to a huge blowout in the deficit and, in turn, a huge jump in interest rates. The attention of this House should be focused on those sorts of double standards that are leading the Opposition to advocate policies which would result in even higher interest rates. In other words, in both cases, the Opposition pursues the cheap populist course. That is what this Opposition is about. It has no realistic analysis of Australia's balance of payments difficulties and how these affect interest rates. It has no credible alternatives to the comprehensive and effective economic strategy of the Government. Instead, the Opposition goes for the lowest common denominator, seeking to bribe its way into power, which has led to that duplicity and those double standards to which I have just referred. The Opposition seeks, by motions such as this, to divert attention from its own shortcomings. I reject this motion and I believe that the people of Australia will see it for what it is. But it is clear what the Opposition is up to and I want to illustrate that further. It has put on record and it has documented $14.7 billion worth of tax promises. Without a consumption tax it has no means of paying for those promises. If only a fraction of its wish list of promises were implemented it would result in a severe blowout in the Budget deficit and a big hike in interest rates. Today, because the Leader of the Opposition wished to attack the Government on the subject of interest rates by this bogus motion, he has tried to hide that fact and he has not made any reference to his own policies. One would think that, instead of the Leader of the Opposition making only destructive comments, we would have heard something constructive about what the so-called alternative government of this country would do-heaven forbid!-if it ever came to power. The reality is that the Opposition has shown exactly the same weak, irresponsible approach today that it showed while it was in government in the 1970s and early 1980s. It is indeed fortunate that a responsible, credible government is in power to cope with Australia's biggest trading crisis since the Great Depression, a trading crisis which was imposed on us by overseas factors. If it had been left in the hands of this Opposition we would have ended up in a sorry state. As it is, we are not pretending that there are not grave problems for this country which have to be addressed. The majority of people in this country realise that they have a responsible government that is addressing those problems. It is very appropriate in a debate such as this that we look at the Opposition's record of weakness. Throughout the 1970s the Opposition left John Stone in the Treasury to run the exchange rate. As a blunt anti-inflation policy our exchange rate was overvalued and this led to the dismembering of our manufacturing industry, among other things. The results greatly contributed to our current trade problems because the overvalued rate ripped to shreds the returns of our exporters, including farmers, and a flood of cheap imports destroyed the manufacturing industry, as I have just indicated. Despite the fact that this Opposition had nothing like the 30 per cent depreciation of our currency to deal with-the Government allowed this to occur in order to make Australia more competitive-inflation was running at 12 per cent, ripping apart Australia's competitiveness. That is what this Labor Government inherited and it was because the Opposition had no workable wages policy. It thought that abuse of the trade unions was the substitute for policy and this resulted in a huge wages explosion. When the going got a little tough in 1982 the Opposition dropped the ball on fiscal policy. It let its then leader, Malcolm Fraser, write the Budget and blow out the deficit. This is the Opposition's record. We have a duty to point out to the Australian people that they should reject the sort of rhetoric we hear in debates such as this one and look at the record of these same people. The Leader of the National Party, who is at the table, was a senior Minister in that discredited Government. The Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer in that discredited Government. If the coalition parties had been in power in 1985 when the huge slump in our terms of trade struck there is no doubt that once again they would have resorted to weakness and squabbling and left this country in a far more parlous state than it is in at the present time. The Hawke Labor Government has taken the right steps to restructure and to refurbish the Australian economy so that we can trade our way out of our difficulty. We have a balanced credible policy. Of course monetary policy plays a part in that balanced credible policy. If we are running a balance of payments deficit we must borrow from overseas to fund the gap and that is one of the reasons for higher interest rates. Of course we are sorry that has to be so but it is one of the inevitable results that have been imposed on us as a result of the depreciation of our export prices. There will be no premature relaxation of monetary policy because the country has a responsible government. At the same time we have established, as the Prime Minister has said, the climate for interest rates to fall. Fiscal policy remains firm. Our commitment to this has been reaffirmed with the announcement of a statement of spending savings, to be made on 14 May next. Wages policy also remains effective with the Australian work force very responsibly accepting the need for wage restraint. All of this is a credible, workable policy, the best possible policy in the circumstances that this country could have at the present time. In contrast, let me go back to the little we know about the Opposition's policies. It is giving us very little in the way of details but let us look at what they are. There would be a deficit blowout which would result in a very high interest rate. If the Opposition slashed government spending, as it has been suggesting it will, it is likely that there would be a severe recession. There is likely to be a wages explosion because the Opposition talks about leaving the determination of wages policy to the market-place where the rich would get richer and those this Government seeks to protect would get poorer and poorer. A resurgence in inflation would be another result of the half-baked policies the Opposition is putting to this country. It has no fundamental long term cure for the trade imbalance, the great problem that has to be addressed by the Government. In short, the Opposition is putting to us a policy for disaster. The Opposition is full of empty rhetoric about how interest rates are too high, about how it would reduce interest rates if it were in government, but let us look again at its policies and some of the other details. Let us examine the effect that its policies would have on interest rates; let us return to what I said earlier and not just take the rhetoric that we hear in a debate such as this; let us look at the Opposition's record and try to put some clothes on the pegs that it has given us so far about what its policy would be if it took over the government of this country. The Leader of the Opposition has been critical of the Queensland Premier's flat tax proposals. I would be the first to agree that the Queensland Premier's policies, as I have already indicated in this debate, are the height of economic irresponsibility. However, the failed Leader of the Opposition, who moved this motion today, has a battery of promises that are equally outrageous. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) noted in debates in this Parliament last week, the Opposition has been running around the country making all sorts of promises. It is worth repeating some of those pegs about which more details have been sought. First of all the Opposition has said that it would repeal many of the tax reforms that have been implemented by this Government, reforms that have put equity and fairness back into the tax system. It has said that it would remove the fringe benefits tax and substantiation at a cost to revenue of $900m in 1987-88 prices. It would remove the capital gains tax at a cost of $25m, the tax on lump sum superannuation at a cost of $85m and the assets test at a cost of $160m. All of these measures would lead to greater inequity in our society. The Opposition would introduce many of the tax lurks and rorts that flourished when it was in government. The tax deductibility of entertainment expenses, which was one of those great holes through which people drove horses and carts, would cost $320m. The Opposition would remove negative gearing for property investment at a cost of $100m. This is not all the Opposition has promised. It would implement income splitting at a cost of $2,850m, provide cuts in personal income tax at a cost of $6,650m, reduce the company tax rate at a cost of $2,220m. These measures are just a small sample of the promises the Opposition has made. This is why the Government is so clear in putting to the people the irresponsibility of this so-called alternative government. These promises show the Opposition's total incompetence as an economic manager. The promises that I have outlined would cost more than $10.9 billion to implement. They would increase the Budget deficit by $10.9 billion unless we hear of the cuts that the Opposition would put into place. When will we hear of the cuts that it would put into place? Of course it seeks to deny the Australian people that basic information. If the Opposition did not introduce a consumption tax the $10.9 billion would increase to $14.7 billion. Yet the former failed Treasurer has the gall to come into this House today and criticise the Government's economic policy. It is not just the Opposition's budgetary policies that would be disastrous. It would do away with the Government's wages policy, a policy based on consensus and one that has served Australia so well over the last four years. As I have indicated, it would introduce rorts and rip-offs into the tax system-the same rorts and rip-offs that characterised the tax system when it was under the stewardship of the current Leader of the Opposition. What kind of effect would these measures have on interest rates, the balance of payments, inflation and the level of foreign debt? There is only one word for it; they would have a disastrous effect. Let us get on with the business of governing this country; let us reject this stupid motion that is nothing more than a smokescreen. I therefore move: That the question be put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. 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. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Ewen Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G. Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C. Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C. Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B. Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S. Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R. Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N. Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H. Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P.N.D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J. Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, 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. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S.P. Cross, M. D. Mayer,H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. 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. Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E. Hayden, W. G. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Everingham, P. A. E. Dawkins, J. S. Sullivan, K. J. Keating, P. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Madam SPEAKER —I present a statement on cost savings on the New Parliament House project from the Joint Standing Committee on the new parliament house. Honourable members will be aware of recent Press articles and public comments regarding expenditure cuts on the new parliament house and, in particular, the effect of cost-saving decisions on the landscaping for the building. Press articles have included a number of inaccuracies in respect of the role and responsibility of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House during the process which led to the final decisions. The Committee has considered the Press reports and has authorised the President and me as joint Chairmen to table a statement clarifying these matters. It is clear to the Committee that many of the inaccuracies in the Press reports would not have occurred if the authors of the statements had been aware of the contents of the report of the Committee entitled `Report on Certain Aspects of the New Parliament House Project' which was tabled in the House on 27 November 1986. Three particular aspects of the Press articles require some comment. It has been alleged that the Committee's mistakes were its failure to consult the architects, its selfishness and the secrecy of some of its deliberations. These assertions have been refuted in the Committee's statement, which I now table. I urge honourable members and others who are interested in the project to read the statement together with the report of the Committee which was tabled in November last year. Ordered that the paper be printed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —On behalf of the Special Minister of State, for the information of honourable members I present the text of a statement made in the Senate yesterday on the Government's response to the second report of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. Motion (by Mr Cohen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —I present the Government's response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled `A taxing problem', together with the text of a statement. I seek leave also to have the Government's response incorporated in Hansard. This has been discussed with the Opposition. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- STATEMENT BY THE TREASURER, THE HON. P. J. KEATING, MP GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT, `A TAXING PROBLEM', BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE The Auditor-General conducted five efficiency audits in the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) over the period January 1982 to December 1984. The areas examined were as follows: Collection of Sales Tax Controls over Processing of Income Tax Assessment Processing and Assessment of Income Tax Returns Processing of Income Tax Instalment Declarations Checking of Dividends and Interest Disclosed in Income Tax Returns. In September 1986 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure tabled a report on the efficiency audit reports entitled `A Taxing Problem'. This statement deals with each of the recommendations made in the report. Recommendations Relating to Australian Audit Office (1) The Australian Audit Office follow a more positive approach in its reporting by providing, in particular, detailed constructive recommendations and advice to audited agencies in cases where serious deficiencies within an agency's activities are observed. (Paragraph 2.9 of Expenditure Committee report.) (2) A summary of findings detailing the Australian Audit Office's findings and recommendations be included in all future efficiency audit reports. (Paragraph 2.10.) (3) The Australian Audit Office include time targets for implementation of its efficiency audit recommendations and indicate priorities among these recommendations, such time targets to be set after consultation with departments and authorities subject to efficiency audits. (Paragraph 2.13.) (5) The Australian Audit Office advise the Parliament at the first available opportunity of deficiencies in the implementation of efficiency audit recommendations. (Paragraph 2.23.) In response, the Auditor-General has, by letter of 13 February 1987, advised the Chairman of the Expenditure Committee of the effect that these matters fall within his statutory responsibilities under the Audit Act and has in that letter provided the Chairman with his comments on the recommendations as they relate to the operations of the Australian Audit Office. Recommendations relating to Department of Finance (4) The Australian Audit Office be given on a timely basis, a copy of all quarterly reports sent to the Minister for Finance concerning implementation of recommendations in efficiency audit reports. (Paragraph 2.23.) The Department advises that existing liaison arrangements between the Australian Audit Office and the Department of Finance for access to the quarterly reports from Ministers are considered to be satisfactory and will continue. (6) The Department of Finance actively follow-up the comments made by the Auditor-General and keep the Parliament informed by reporting regularly to the Parliamentary committees that examine efficiency audit reports. (Paragraph 2.23.) The Department has advised that since 1980 Prime Ministers have required all Ministers to furnish returns to the Minister for Finance, at three monthly intervals, outlining the action taken or to be taken to rectify adverse comments made by the Auditor-General to Parliament in respect of their department and any statutory authorities within their portfolio responsibility. The Minister for Finance is required to pursue with individual Ministers any matters which are not progressing satisfactorily and, if necessary, report to the Prime Minister. As noted by the Committee, these review arrangements now encompass efficiency audit reports. Any extension of this review process, as recommended by the Committee, to include the Department reporting to Parliamentary Committees, impinges on the relationship between the Parliament and the executive government. The Minister for Finance is currently examining a request of a similar nature from another Committee and an announcement will be made as soon as possible. Recommendations Relating to Australian Taxation Office (7) The Government establish a Joint Management Review to investigate the overall performance and operation of the Australian Taxation Office and inform the Parliament of the outcome of the review. (Paragraph 2.29.) The Government has responded to this recommendation by accepting a proposal from the Commissioner of Taxation that a broad review of the Australian Taxation Office be carried out. The review will be led by Dr Ron Cullen, former Chairman of the Victorian Public Service Board. Dr Cullen, who has conducted similar reviews in Victoria, has occupied senior management positions in both the public and private sectors. The present review will be carried out as a Program Management Performance Review, a form of review which has now replaced Joint Management Reviews. The review team led by Dr Cullen (other members being Mr Denis Cortese, Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, Sydney, and Mr Bill Geogiou, Assistant Commissioner, Public Service Board) will have as its primary aim the task of identifying and appraising the totality of the strategic initiatives introduced and planned by the Commissioner of Taxation to improve the performance and operation of the Australian Taxation Office. It is being asked to express an opinion about the probability of the success or failure of these initiatives and to propose, if appropriate, modifications or changes. To these ends the review is being asked to address, among other things, whether or not: the corporate goals and strategic directions set by the Commissioner are sound for the current and foreseeable environment and achievable the strategic management initiatives are comprehensive, appropriately ordered in priority and in logical sequence, having regard to their pivotal importance, cost, and relationship to the goals and strategic directions of the Australian Taxation Office the management processes for setting goals, strategic directions, ordering priorities, allocating resources, and evaluating outcomes are sound. The Commissioner of Taxation has welcomed this review, noting that it meets a point made by him to the Expenditure Committee, that it is difficult to adequately assess performance of the Taxation Office in particular areas without taking account of the wide range of matters to which resources must be deployed. Not only must the Taxation Office carry out its major task of collecting each year some 80 per cent of Commonwealth taxation revenue, it is also heavily engaged in implementation of the Government's very extensive program of tax reform. As well, a very wide range of major improvement initiatives is in progress. The review led by Dr Cullen will examine the way in which the Taxation Office is handling these tasks, whether they are on the right track and appropriately inter-linked, and whether there are significant matters requiring attention that have been missed. The review will operate under a Steering Committee chaired by the Commissioner of Taxation, and having the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chairman of the Public Service Board as members. The Auditor-General will serve on the Steering Committee as an observer. (8) Commencing immediately, the Australian Taxation Office develop adequate priority-setting mechanisms detailing areas that they consider require examination and that this mechanism and identified areas be outlined in ATO's annual report indicating the progress achieved at subsequent intervals. (Paragraph 2.29). In response, the Commissioner of Taxation has observed to the Government that the Australian Audit Office reports that are at the base of the Expenditure Committee's recommendations cover a period now some time in the past. Since then, the Australian Taxation Office has devoted considerable effort in the direction sought by the Committee. The results of this process will be among the things examined by the review led by Dr Cullen. A developing corporate planning process, a series of internal efficiency reviews, other major reviews, and the establishment of a Corporate Management Board as part of a re-structuring of Taxation Office top management are key features. The ATO Corporate Plan for 1985-86 documents those matters that have been seen as calling for priority attention. Major management initiatives currently being addressed within the Office are covered in the Commissioner's 1985-86 Annual Report to Parliament, in particular on pages 20 to 25. The Report was tabled on 27 November 1986. The Commissioner will in his next and subsequent Annual Reports cover these matters in the way recommended by the Expenditure Committee. (9) The Australian Taxation Office, as part of the proposed priority-setting mechanism outlined in Recommendation (8), detail in its annual reports the progress of staff numbers transferred from technical assessing duties to compliance areas such as field or in-house auditing activities. (Paragraph 3.6.) The Commissioner has advised that he will continue to adopt this course. In his 1985-86 Annual Report he reported (page 22) that there was a reduction of some 500 assessing staff as a result of the first phase of self-assessment implementation. Of this number, 422 additional staff years have been made available for compliance activities in the 1986-87 year with the balance being applied to the return examination function which now takes the place of the formal assessing routine. (10) In implementing its 1985 ADP Strategic Plan the Australian Taxation Office (ATO): (a) give priority to improving its income detection capability; and (b) examine the need for information supplied to it under Income Tax Regulation 11(2) to be compatible with systems in ATO and advise the Government accordingly. (Paragraph 3.20.) In response to this recommendation it is noted that the Expenditure Committee has recognised that, through actions commencing in 1984, the ATO has substantially revised its ADP strategy. That strategy, which aims to very substantially improve the ATO's capacity to detect omitted income, is heavily supported both by the Government's Australia Card proposals and by the in- principle Government decision, announced on 13 February 1987, to re-design ATO computer systems and, in association with that, to re-equip. The new ATO ADP Strategic Plan has set a strong course towards establishment of an integrated processing environment. As part of this, the new ATO Information Systems Plan aims to develop a major system to handle income matching and associated processing. The Government's Australia Card proposals are a key ingredient to maximising the effectiveness of this system. Even without these necessary enhancements, the ATO has been able to more than double over the last two years the dollar value of dividend and interest transactions that have been input into its systems as part of its income matching processes. It is also proposing to enhance these processes in the short term both to improve their efficiency and provide the capability for systematic checking covering a wider variety of income payments. In relation to sub-regulation 11(2) of the Income Tax Regulations, existing law does not specify any format or manner in which information is to be supplied to the ATO. Proposals for legislative change, for consideration by the Government, are being formulated. (11) The Australian Taxation Office establish a regular review and reporting mechanism in regard to its actual and proposed ADP operations; this mechanism to be along the lines suggested in Recommendation (8). (Paragraph 3.33.) General and particular processes now in place within the ATO (see response to Recommendation (8)) provide mechanisms of the kind suggested. In addition, led by the directions set in the Corporate Plan, the Systems Group is subject to an annual cycle of planning and review in accordance with the commercial systems development methodology known as Method 1 that has been selected for use in the ATO. (12) As a matter of urgency, the Australian Taxation Office advise the Government on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a withholding tax on interest paid to Australian residents by all companies and financial institutions, including the Reserve Bank of Australia. (Paragraph 4.19.) (13) The Australian Taxation Office undertake a study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative tax collection systems (with particular emphasis on a generalised withholding tax structure) and advise the Government accordingly. (Paragraph 4.20.) In response, the Government remains committed to its Australia Card proposals as providing at this stage the most appropriate solution to the tax evasion problems to which these recommendations refer. In the Draft White Paper on Reform of the Australian Tax System the question of a withholding tax system was discussed. It was noted there that: ``Consideration may be given to an extension of withholding tax arrangements after a national identification system has been in place for sufficient time to analyse its effectiveness in respect of dividends and interest.'' The Government's intention to proceed by way of the Australia Card proposals was affirmed with the September 1985 statement on tax reform, and is maintained. Accordingly, it does not propose to ask the Australian Taxation Office to pursue these recommendations. (14) The review of the Prescribed Payments System (PPS) announced by the Treasurer in his September 1985 statement be expedited and the report be presented to the Parliament soon after the completion of the review. (Paragraph 4.26.) (15) The review referred to in Recommendation (14) include an examination of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the current operation of the Prescribed Payments System. (Paragraph 4.31.) In response, the many demands of the Government's wide ranging program of tax reform have had to take priority over the proposed review of the Prescribed Payments System. That continues to be the position and accordingly it is not at present practicable to expedite the review. It will be carried out as soon as circumstances allow. The Australian Taxation Office is continuing to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of PPS. (16) The Australian Taxation Office examine alternatives to current salary and wage compliance activities, including a review of stricter disclosure requirements for Income Tax Instalment Declarations and advise the Government of benefits and costs of various options available to minimise tax revenue loss in this area. (Paragraph 4.39.) The Commissioner of Taxation advises that as part of its general compliance strategy the ATO is continuing to explore which particular techniques and approaches available under existing law are most cost-effective. A pilot project now under way involves the use of computer facilities to run checks against instalment declarations received. Beyond that, the Government believes that adoption of its Australia Card proposals, which include the compulsory use of the high integrity Australia Card number on instalment declaration forms, will provide a substantial boost to tax compliance in this area. It therefore will not ask the ATO to pursue the matter further at this stage. (17) The Australian Taxation Office seek from the Attorney-General's Department advice as to whether the late publication on 5 July 1983 of a Commonwealth Gazette notice required under Income Tax Regulation 54dag, legally reviewed Income Instalment Declarations furnished prior to 1 July 1983 for the purposes of determining the amounts to be deducted as tax instalments during the 1983-84 financial year. (Paragraph 4.42.) The Attorney-General has advised that the late publication on 5 July 1983 of a Commonwealth Gazette notice required under Income Tax Regulations 54dag did not legally revive the earlier Income Instalment Declarations. The Commissioner of Taxation advised that the irregularity did not give rise to any injustice or create a situation which now appears to require a remedy. In any event the ATO required all employees to lodge fresh income tax declarations in July 1985. It is normal practice to require fresh declarations after existing declarations have been in operation for a number of years. (18) With or without the adoption of the Australia Card, the Australian Taxation Office take the necessary steps to establish a high integrity identification system which would ensure maximum taxpayer compliance. (Paragraph 4.48.) In response, the Commissioner of Taxation has pointed out that action to establish a high integrity numbering system, based on existing or substitute tax file numbers, would be a large and costly task that would match in dimension that entailed in the Government's Australia Card proposals. On adoption of those proposals, the ATO would not have a need for its own high integrity numbering system. The Government notes the support that the Expenditure Committee, by this recommendation, gives to the concept of a high integrity numbering system to be used for tax enforcement purposes but, in the light of its more beneficial Australia Card proposals and in line with earlier responses, does not propose to ask the ATO to pursue the Committee's recommendation. (19) In view of the introduction of self-assessment, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) implement a taxpayer flagging and reporting system so as to allow taxpayers to highlight certain items within their returns where uncertainty exists for attention by ATO to assess the returns manually. (Paragraph 4.49.) The Commissioner notes in response that this has been done. In its June 1986 Circular to Tax Agents on 1986 Income Tax Returns, the ATO advised that it will respond to requests contained in returns for specific attention to be paid to a particular point of principle in a return. Tax agents were asked to identify returns containing such requests by ensuring that the requests were placed prominently in returns using separate pages clearly headed ``Request for Commissioner's Interpretation of the Law''. Of the returns subject to ``Self-assessment'' in 1986-87 the ATO expects that the vast majority will have been prepared by tax agents. For taxpayers who prepare their own returns, the ATO's 1986 instructions on the preparation of all form types incorporated the advice that where a taxpayer has any doubts about any item relating to the return, the taxpayer should include the full facts with the return. That ATO's administrative approach to the provision of advice in the ``self-assessment'' environment was reflected in the law on 24 June 1986 by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 1986. By that Act, new sub-section 169a (2) was inserted into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to require the Commissioner to give attention to any question raised by a taxpayer in the taxpayer's income tax return for a year of income where the question is relevant to the taxpayer's liability to tax in respect of that year of income. (20) Associated with the introduction of taxpayer self-assessment, the Australian Taxation Office in developing a national compliance and enforcement capability gives priority to the implementation of a fully integrated high quality database able to facilitate efficient taxpayer selection for investigation and tax audit. (Paragraph 4.50.) In response, the Government actively supports the Australian Taxation Office in attaching the recommended priority. Its Australia Card proposals and the approval announced on 13 February 1987 for ATO systems re-design and re-equipment are key features. The ATO has, with the aid of Government endorsement of plans for progressively increasing audit coverage and provision of resources to that end, in recent years significantly increased its audit activity. Some 27,200 audits and investigations are being carried out in 1986-87, compared with some 9,700 in 1983-84. It is accepted that substantial further enhancements are achievable. The Australia Card proposals will provide for greater information in a far more usable form to assist in audit case selection and more effective conduct of audits, as well as supporting computer based income matching processes. As a companion measure, the ATO will under its re-design and re-equipment proposals be introducing a fully integrated database. To this end its Information Systems Plan has identified the immediate priority as being the acquisition and establishment of a new computing environment followed by development of base systems such as returns processing. These base systems are prerequisites to providing the data that will be used by other new systems that select taxpayers for audit and match income, as well as support the conduct of taxpayer audits and the collection of outstanding debts. As part of a carefully planned process called for under the ATO's Information Systems Plan, a High Level Integrated Design project will be carried out in 1987 to specifically consider the approaches that will be required in order to achieve integrated systems that encompass all major tax revenue heads and taxpayer information sources. Pending the development and implementation of a fully integrated high quality database, the ATO will continue, subject to resource availability, to make enhancements to a number of its existing computer systems that support compliance activities. (21) The Australian Taxation Office undertake a comprehensive review of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. Where provisions are found to be ambiguous or in need of amendment advise the Government accordingly as to the appropriate actions necessary. (Paragraph 5.20.) In response, while the broad thrust of the recommendation is accepted, the need to carry through the tax legislation program required by tax reform and other initiatives has to take priority. As part of its recent top-structure re-organisation the ATO is creating a law improvement unit within its policy and Legislation Group. As soon as priority legislative tasks have been brought towards finality the ATO will be developing a program for review of the now very substantial income tax law. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr Sinclair —I say, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we anticipate that the debate will be resumed in this House at some convenient time when the Parliament resumes. Mr Lionel Bowen —Yes, I can indicate to the right honourable member that that will be the arrangement. It will be resumed as soon as we return for the next period of sitting. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a personal explanation under standing order 64. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SHIPTON —Yes, I do. I claim to have been misrepresented in this morning's edition of the Australian Financial Review. There is an article on page 1, continued on page 4, entitled `Elliott's supporters test the water for safe Liberal seat'. In the second part of that article on page 4 it is stated: The game plan appears to be to try to force Mr Shipton out, either by offering him corporate positions (which has already occurred) or change Liberal Party rules to allow Federal intervention. I would like to assure the House that I have received no such offers of any corporate positions. There is no truth in that report. Seats are not sold, traded or bought in the Liberal Party of Australia. I would like to point out that I am the endorsed Liberal candidate for the seat of Higgins; I have the support and backing of the Leader of the Liberal Party and all members of the Parliamentary Party, my colleagues here present today; I intend to stand for and win the next election with an increased majority as the endorsed Liberal candidate for Higgins. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That 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 Hawker and Mr Saunderson. 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 Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 joint the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Duncan,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife,Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Sinclair. 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 this 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 every pray. by Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the 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 and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: We are opposed to the imposition of a Capital Gains Tax. Your petitioners humbly pray: that the Honourable House repeal any Act and reject any Bill which imposes this disincentive to economic growth And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Right 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: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag; 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We 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. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal of the above said bill ``National System for Therapeutic Goods for Human Use''. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should: (1) Block the introduction of the above said bill ``National System for Therapeutic Goods for Human Use'' and (2) Continue to allow the free availability of vitamins, minerals, homoeopathic remedies, biochemic remedies and herbal remedies to the general public through the present distribution outlets. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should: 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and 3. Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights that the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education that the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate that the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month; and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Howe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government immediately divert national highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society, conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10 per cent of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing national recycling programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils. (c) Developing national employment programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Aboriginal people of Woorabinda (central Queensland) are tired of living in overcrowded, condemned houses which need major repairs. Many of these houses are not fit for animals to live in and yet the Queensland Department of Community Services (which owns the houses) charges high rents and refuses to carry out necessary repairs. Your petitioners therefore request that the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments decide urgently, on a co-operative basis, to provide the Woorabinda Aboriginal Council with emergency housing funds for at least thirty new houses by 30 June 1987. by Mr Wright. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Wannon electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria humbly pray that: The Government takes note of recent agitation for changes to our National Flag by minority groups and supports the Prime Minister's statement that there will be no change to our flag because any such change would be divisive and not in the national interest. by Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Page electorate respectfully showeth that: Rumour still suggests that the Hawke Government intends to further reduce benefits to ex-servicemen and war widows, by amalgamation of the Department of Veterans' Affairs with the Social Security Department. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women and war widows by: 1. Ensure the said amalgamation of these two Departments does not take place. 2. Abstain from repeated broken promises to ex-service personnel and families. 3. Leave our Department of Veterans' Affairs alone. We are not receiving a Welfare Pension, we receive a Compensation Pension. 4. Review and restore our Pharmaceutical benefits to Veterans' Affairs Department. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Right Honourable Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the assembled Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners at La Trobe University, Bundoora, in the Federal electorate of Jagajaga, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education student in Appropriation Bill 1986-1987 (Volume 1, page 98) is a regressive step for the education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all. We, the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-1987, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The crisis facing Australian families, farmers and businesses as a result of the Hawke/Keating Government's high interest rate strategy. 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- Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That the business of the day be called on. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I present the sixteenth report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-agreed to. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: That the following orders of the day, government business, be discharged: 63 Aboriginal Affairs-Standing Committee-Report on Effects of Asbestos Mining on the Baryulgil Community-Government response-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 65 Australian Forestry Council-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 66 Town Campers Assistance Program-Papers-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 67 Aboriginal and Islander Consultative Organisation-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 71 Better Health Commission-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 73 Road Safety-Standing Committee-Report on Education, Training and Licensing of Drivers-Government response-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 74 Commission for the Future-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 75 Telecom Australia (International) Limited-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 83 Defence Force Discipline Act-Papers-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 84 Fisheries-Agreement Between Commonwealth and KKFC Proprietary Limited-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 86 Bankruptcy Act-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 87 Chernobyl Nuclear Accident and its Consequences-Report by Australian Atomic Energy Commission-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 89 Legal aid needs of youth-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 91 Advance Australia Foundation-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 93 Harmonization of the Customs Tariff-Report by Industries Assistance Commission-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 95 Australian Postal Commission-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 96 Australian Telecommunications Commission-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 98 Administrative Review Council-Report-Review of Customs and Excise Decisions: Stage 4: Censorship-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 101 Compensation Arising from Social Security Conspiracy Prosecutions-Commission of Inquiry-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 102 Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations-Review-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 103 Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 105 Women's Business-Report by Aboriginal Women's Task Force-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 106 United Nations-Conference on Disarmament-1985-Report of Australian Delegation-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 107 Commonwealth Programs and Policy Development for Schools-Report by Commonwealth Schools Commission-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 108 International Labour Conference-Papers-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 109 Nuclear energy-Agreement between Australia and Swiss Confederation-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 111 Mechanisms for Technology Transfer into Australia-Report by Australian Science and Technology Council-Motion to take note of the Paper: Resumption of debate. 112 Taxation statistics 1983-84-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 113 Indigenous resource rights and mining companies in North America and Australia-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 115 Education resource agreements for 1986-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 116 Human Rights Commission-Report for 1984-85-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 118 Young Australia-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 119 Review of repatriation hospital system-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 122 Review of invalidity retirement benefits arrangements in the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 123 Australia's plant breeding needs-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 124 Access and equity in the delivery of federal Government services and programs to migrants- Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 125 Environment and Conservation-Standing Committee-Report on Administration of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974-Government Response-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 126 Remuneration Tribunal-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 127 Migration program for 1986-87-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 129 Prosecution policy of the Commonwealth- Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 131 Telecommunications research and development in Australia-Report by Australian Science and Technology Council-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 132 Parliament House Construction Authority- Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 134 Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 135 Health Insurance Commission-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 137 Museum of Australia-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 138 British Nuclear Tests in Australia-Report of Royal Commission-Papers-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1987 Australian Stock Exchange and National Guarantee Fund Bill 1987 Australian Protective Service Bill 1986 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(4.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr N.A. Brown —Is there a second reading speech? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Is the Minister going to speak to the Bill? Mr COHEN —I am now going to make a second reading speech. Mr Hodgman —This is unconstitutional and you know it. Mr COHEN —The honourable member will get the opportunity to test that. This Bill makes provision for the establishment of a commission of inquiry to examine and report on matters relating to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas in Tasmania. The Lemonthyme area defined in the Bill includes part of the upper catchment of the Mersey River. The findings of the Commission will assist the Government in giving effect to Australia's international obligations under the World Heritage Convention to take appropriate measures for the identification, protection, conservation and presentation of areas of world heritage. The inquiry will examine whether the two areas are, or include areas, which are of world heritage value or which contribute to the value of a world heritage area. The inquiry will also report on whether there are other areas in Tasmania with forestry resources capable of exploitation in a way which would fulfil certain criteria. First, the manner of exploitation would need to cause no detriment to the Tasmanian forestry industry. Secondly, the exploitation of such areas would need to be an environmentally and economically prudent and feasible alternative to the exploitation of forestry resources in any areas of world heritage value identified within the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas. the Bill also provides for interim protection of the two areas during the period of the inquiry. This protection takes the form of a prohibition, except with the consent of the Minister, of certain activities such as the cutting down of trees, construction of roads and excavation works. Before turning to the provisions of the Bill in greater detail, I would like to deal with the two fundamental issues which lie behind this legislation. The first is this Government's commitment to the protection of the environment, and the second is the sustainable development of the resources of this country within the context of such environmental protection. One of the most important expressions of the desire of mankind to protect the environment in which we live has found its form in the International Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage-the World Heritage Convention. This Convention was adopted by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation General Conference at its seventeenth session in Paris on 19 November 1972. The Convention came into force on 7 December 1975. It promotes co-operation among nations to protect areas and buildings which are of such universal value that their conservation is of concern to humanity generally. Australia was one of the first countries to ratify the Convention, in August 1974. Since then the number of parties to the Convention has steadily increased. Ninety-two countries from all parts of the world are now parties. Parties to the Convention commit themselves to help in the identification, protection, conservation and presentation of world heritage properties. They recognise that the identification and safeguarding of those parts of the world heritage which are located in their own countries are primarily their own responsibility, and agree that they will do all they can, with their own resources and with whatever international assistance they can obtain, to ensure adequate protection. They agree, amongst other things, to `adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of the heritage into comprehensive planning programs'. Parties also undertake to `take the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures' necessary for world heritage protection. In addition to the international obligations which the Convention places on individual countries, it provides a system for identifying the world's natural and cultural heritage properties and a system of collective protection for any such properties that may be in danger. The Convention also establishes a representative list of properties having outstanding universal value as cultural and natural heritage. This list is known as the World Heritage List. The Convention is intended to ensure that, unlike most of the seven wonders of the ancient world, properties which form part of the world heritage will be conserved in perpetuity. There are now 247 places on the World Heritage List. They include the Pyramids of Egypt, the Grand Canyon of the United States, the Taj Mahal of India, Chartres Cathedral in France and the Sagarmatha National Park, which contains Mount Everest, in Nepal. I add that during my trips overseas I have taken the opportunity to visit those places that are on the World Heritage List. Last year I had the opportunity to visit Lake Plitvice in Yugoslavia. I strongly recommend it to those who ever have an opportunity to go there. It is one of the most staggering sights in the world. Only a few weeks ago I had the opportunity-something that I thought would never be available to me-to visit the Galapagos Islands. I am sure that everyone is familiar with the fact that Charles Darwin, while visiting the Galapagos Islands in his ship the Beagle, developed his theory of the origin of species. Of course, the Galapagos is, I think, one of the few really great treasures of the world. It certainly would be on my list of the top three or four sights in the world. It was a great privilege and honour to be able to visit the country of Ecuador. A few days later I visited the capital of Ecuador, Quito, and I was able once again to visit an area on the World Heritage List, the old city of Quito. Mr Hodgman —These are National Estate areas that you are legislating about. Mr COHEN —I say to the honourable member for Denison, if he is listening, that I am now talking about world heritage sites. Mr Hodgman —Yes, but your Bill is talking about the National Estate. Mr COHEN —Australian properties on the World Heritage List are the Great Barrier Reef, Stage 1 of Kakadu National Park, the Willandra Lakes region of western New South Wales, the Lord Howe Island group off the coast of New South Wales, the Australian East Coast Temperate and Sub-Tropical Rainforest Parks-the New South Wales rainforests-and the Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks. I anticipate that within 12 months Stage 2 of Kakadu National Park should be on the World Heritage List, and also Uluru National Park, which is better known as Ayers Rock. I was referring, of course, to the Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks. This latter property is one of the last remaining temperate wilderness areas in the world and one of only eight places which meet the criteria of outstanding universal value in relation to both cultural and natural criteria. Honourable members will appreciate the unique value of this area. This Government has always acted responsibly in regard to its commitments under the World Heritage Convention. The Australian community increasingly looks to the Commonwealth to continue to protect Australian properties which form part of the world heritage. In most cases, this is being achieved in close collaboration with the States and Territories. I turn now to the series of events which have necessitated this action by the Commonwealth in relation to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. In late 1985 when the Government considered the environmental impact of Tasmanian woodchips exports, it was particularly concerned both with the sustainable utilisation of forestry resources and with the protection of National Estate significance and world heritage values. With this in mind, the Government's decision allowed woodchip exports under specified conditions set out in the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and Tasmania signed on 12 June 1986. Under that memorandum of understanding a consultative mechanism was established to facilitate co-operation with the industry and with the Tasmanian Government. In accordance with that mechanism, all new logging proposals in National Estate areas were to be brought forward by Tasmania for consultation with the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, however, towards the end of last year Tasmania allowed forestry activities to be undertaken in sensitive National Estate areas, including areas which may form part of the world heritage. Despite requests from the Commonwealth, Tasmania continued to allow forestry operations in these areas. Mr Hodgman —They are State areas. Mr COHEN —They are also part of our national heritage. The Commonwealth was most particularly concerned about logging in the Lemonthyme and the possibility of logging in the Southern Forests. Mr Goodluck —You have really got yourself an argument there. Mr COHEN —The honourable member has been having too much apple juice! These areas are immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Western Tasmanian Wilderness National Parks, an area which is already on the World Heritage List. It is likely that the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests may themselves be or include areas of world heritage. The Commonwealth was concerned that logging operations could therefore have a damaging effect not only on the Western Tasmanian Wilderness National Parks, but possibly on world heritage values in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas themselves. As soon as forestry operations commenced in sensitive areas in late 1986, the Commonwealth attempted to pursue with Tasmania the memorandum of understanding mechanisms for consultation, negotiation and the settlement of disputes. The Government suggested that no logging take place in the sensitive areas of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests pending a review of prudent and feasible alternatives. An open and comprehensive review would be seen by the whole Australian community as a responsible course of action, and could establish circumstances in which the forestry industry could continue to operate in Tasmania with assured future supplies, but without unduly damaging important heritage values. In taking legislative action, the Government fully recognises the importance of the forestry industry and its need for long term government and public support. Mr Hodgman —The conservationists have already said that they will not accept the result of the inquiry. What do you say to that? Mr COHEN —I suggest that the honourable member read carefully what Dr Bob Brown said. He said nothing of the sort. Mr Hodgman —You haven't read the papers. Mr COHEN —I have read them very carefully. I have also been in touch with Dr Brown. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, IUCN, the expert international body which advises the World Heritage Committee on natural environment matters, is also concerned about the situation in Tasmania. Let me add, in reply to the honourable member for Denison, that we will accept the findings of the expert committee and that will be our judgment. Mr Hodgman —But the greenies won't, and they have told you they won't. Mr COHEN —That is not what they have said. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! Honourable members on my left will cease interjecting and not hold conversations across the chamber. Any discussion should be made through the Chair. Mr COHEN —The IUCN reported recently on the world heritage area as part of its responsibility, on behalf of the World Heritage Committee, to monitor areas on the World Heritage List. The IUCN recommended that a review of the adequacy of the boundaries of the world heritage area be undertaken. The IUCN further advised that, in its opinion, the optimum boundary should include the full range of the natural and cultural features of the South West Tasmanian ecosystem. The views of IUCN strengthen the concern of the Government about forest operations near the boundaries of the area already inscribed on the World Heritage List. In spite of repeated approaches by the Commonwealth, the Tasmanian Government has refused to agree to mechanisms for establishing a public review to resolve whether there are alternative forest resources to those in the contentious areas. The Tasmanian Government has also refused to place a moratorium on forestry operations in the contentious areas. The point that needs to be noted is that we are not saying that there should be no logging in Tasmania. We are saying that it is alleged by the conservation movement that there are prudent and feasible alternatives. It is equally alleged by the Tasmanian Government and the industry that there are not. This review simply tests those two basic opposing points of view, nothing more and nothing less. Mr Hodgman —You have capitulated to the greenies to win mainland seats. Mr COHEN —Let me remind the member for Denison that he and other Opposition members here, not all of them, were strong proponents of the Franklin dam. It has now been shown that if ever in the history of this country the environment movement was 100 per cent right, economically and environmentally, it was on the Franklin dam. The member for Denison has not had the good grace to admit how wrong he was. Given its obligations under the World Heritage Convention, the Government has been left with little alternative but to enact legislation to establish an inquiry into the world heritage values of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests and into prudent and feasible alternatives to forestry operations which would adversely affect those values. The issues are complex, but there is a need to settle the debate once and for all. It would be nonsense to suggest, as the Tasmanian Government has implied, that the review would mean the end of forestry in Tasmania. It simply involves a cessation of operations in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests in certain areas for a limited period. The Bill provides for payment of compensation for losses directly resulting from that cessation. In establishing an inquiry the Government is addressing the question of obtaining optimum development and benefit to the community of a valuable resource without unnecessarily degrading heritage of outstanding universal value. I turn now to the Bill itself. There are two major aspects. First, in Part II it establishes a commission of inquiry to report within 12 months. Mr Hodgman —Unconstitutional. Mr COHEN —Secondly, in Part III it provides interim protection for the duration of the inquiry from damaging or potentially damaging activities in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas. Mr Hodgman —Again, unconstitutional. Mr COHEN —Well, an old small debts lawyer like you will get the chance to test it. Mr Hodgman —I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister reacts to a proper interjection that I made that this legislation is unconstitutional. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Hodgman —I ask the Minister to withdraw the offensive remarks he made at the end of his reply to my interjection. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the Minister made an offensive comment towards the honourable member for Denison, I ask him to withdraw it. Mr COHEN —Madam Speaker, I am not aware what it was that offended the honourable member for Denison. If something offended him, I withdraw it. Perhaps he can tell me later in what way I offended him. Mr Hodgman —You said I was a small head lawyer. Mr COHEN —I did not. I said `small debts lawyer'. Mr Hodgman —I take exception to that, with great respect. You are just a larrikin. As one of Her Majesty's counsel, I object to being described as a small debts lawyer. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has withdrawn the offensive comment. Mr COHEN —This has been a revelation to me, Madam Speaker. I did not think the honourable member for Denison was capable of being offended, but I withdraw. The areas which form the focus of the inquiry, that is, the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas, are defined in the Schedules. The Southern Forests area excludes areas already being logged or in which the Commonwealth has agreed forestry operations might proceed. An important definition is that of a `qualifying area', which is any area, the whole or part of which is within the Lemonthyme or Southern Forests areas and which itself forms part of the world heritage or which contributes to the integrity or values of areas of world heritage. Qualifying areas do not, however, include areas already inscribed on the World Heritage List. The function of identifying areas which contribute to the integrity or values of a world heritage area is important. Activities in areas adjacent to world heritage areas such as logging, forest fires or water pollution could have a damaging or destructive effect on those world heritage areas which Australia has an obligation to protect and conserve. They could also have a damaging or destructive effect on the manner of presentation of those world heritage areas. The Commission of Inquiry will be asked to report on the extent to which the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas are, or include, qualifying areas. The identification of such qualifying areas has not been wholly confined to the areas defined in the Schedules for the reason that the boundaries of those areas may inadvertently omit small areas of world heritage. The inquiry will also be asked to report on the extent to which there are environmentally and economically prudent and feasible alternatives to the exploitation of forestry resources in those qualifying areas. Consideration of alternatives will include delays in resource exploitation. In establishing the guidelines for the inquiry, the Government has had a number of considerations in mind. Mr Hodgman —Trying to win a few seats in Melbourne and Sydney. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will cease interjecting forthwith. The honourable member must have noted the amount of flexibility I have exercised towards him during this debate. If we are to carry on any debate and both sides are to be protected, when the matter comes forward and the honourable member has his opportunity, he will have to heed the Chair. Please cease interjecting. Mr COHEN —There is naturally concern for the future of the timber industry in Tasmania and the inquiry will be directed to search for alternatives that imply no diminution in the activities of that industry, taking account of recent trends and possible future developments. The inquiry will also be asked, where appropriate, to look at the opportunities for deferring logging of the sensitive areas for as long as possible. In pursuing its task the inquiry will always keep in mind the need for sound forestry management practices to be employed and for a sustainable yield to be achieved. If some logging in sensitive areas may be necessary to avoid detriment to the industry, the inquiry will be asked to determine how this might be carried out with least damage to the values of the areas. Thus the inquiry will be able to assess forestry resources within Tasmania which might be available as an alternative to damaging areas of world heritage. This is really the nub of our whole case. In setting out the functions of the Commission of Inquiry, the Bill recognises the need not to cause detriment to long term forestry operations and employment of persons in Tasmania. Provisions for conduct of the inquiry, the powers of the Commission, offences, and administrative matters draw largely on the provision of the Royal Commission Act. The Bill also provides for protection of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas during the period of the inquiry. Without the consent of the Minister it will be unlawful for anyone to carry out forestry operations or other potentially damaging activities prescribed by the regulations in those areas. There are at present some mineral exploration and small scale mining activities proceeding in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. Certain mineral activity will be allowed in these areas during the inquiry period in accordance with agreed Tasmanian guidelines for minerals activities in conservation areas. It could be expected that the appropriate consents for such activities, including fossicking, will be issued at the time the Act comes into effect. Apart from these exceptions, the prohibitions will apply until 42 days after the end of the inquiry period, or in any case 42 days after the date of the notices following the final report. In the event that part or all of the areas are identified by an interim report of the Commission as being `definitely not' qualifying areas, the prohibitions will cease in areas so identified on the date of the public notification of these areas following the interim report. This modification is required to be given within 14 days of the Minister receiving the interim report. Provisions are also made for compensation to be payable to persons who refrain or are prevented from carrying out actions made unlawful by this legislation and therefore suffer direct loss or damage. In the case of persons, other than those directly engaged in actions made unlawful by the legislation, who have a good case based on losses arising from the operation of the legislation, the Government will consider compensation, as a matter of policy. On two recent occasions, in December 1986 and January 1987, the Government has stated its determination to protect contentious National Estate areas in Tasmania which may be of world heritage value and its intention to undertake a review of alternatives to forestry operations which might damage these areas. The Government agreed that negotiations should be pursued as far as possible with Tasmania with the objective of reaching agreement on this matter. Since little progress has been made in these negotiations, Ministers have felt compelled to introduce this legislation. However, even at this stage, the Government would be prepared to proceed in co-operation with the Tasmanian Government if it would agree to suspend logging in sensitive areas while an inquiry takes place. The course of action proposed in this Bill is not one which the Government would have sought to employ if it had a choice. This Government's record on environmental and heritage matters has consistently been one of co-operation and consultation with the States and Territories. Indeed, the Government thought that it had established just such a mechanism with the memorandum of understanding relating to Tasmanian forestry operations. The Commonwealth would much prefer to move in co-operation with the Tasmanian Government and so will, over the next few weeks, continue to seek the Tasmanian Government's agreement to a co-operative approach. If agreement could be reached, the Commonwealth would not proceed with the legislation. As long as there seems to be no prospect of coming to an agreement with the Tasmanian Government on this matter, however, Commonwealth legislation, as a matter of last resort, is the only responsible course left open to enable Australia to give effect to its international obligations. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(4.47) —Before the debate on the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1987 was interrupted this morning, I had made two essential points in my contribution to the discussion. The first was that I was very pleased to see the extent to which there had been bipartisan support for the issues raised by the legislation. Secondly, I endorsed the comments that had been made by other speakers about the status of the two major Australian National rail services in this country-namely the Ghan and the Indian Pacific-as being among the great rail services of the world. I prevailed upon people-particularly Australians who, as a result of the devaluation of the dollar, are finding it comparatively cheap to take their holidays and tours here in Australia-to visit some of the outstanding attractions that the Australian scenery and social community have to offer, and to incorporate in their tours and holidays in this country a trip on either the Ghan or the Indian Pacific. I urged them not to treat these train services as just a means of getting from point A to point B. The Trans Siberian railway, for example, is not treated in that way. Neither is the Orient Express between London and Venice. The great rail transport links between eastern and western North America are not treated in that way. They are treated by tourists as part of their holiday. We have the same type of facilities here in Australia. This Bill attempts to do two things. The first is very much related to the matters about which I have already spoken. The Bill will give the Australian National Railways Commission authorisation to provide entertainment and other associated services for its passengers. These services will be introduced first on the Ghan. The second major provision of this legislation is to broaden the powers of boards of inquiry established under section 70 of the Act to examine the cause of accidents and make appropriate recommendations. Fortunately, as far as Australian National and other rail systems in Australia are concerned, that is not a provision of crushing importance but it is an important initiative in this legislation. Australian National was established on 1 July 1975 to take over the duties and function of the former Commonwealth Railways Commissioner and ultimately to assume control of the former Tasmanian Government Railways in the non-urban sector and also the former South Australian Government Railways. The latter functions required the signing of transfer agreements between the Commonwealth and the States of Tasmania and South Australia respectively. I am sure that most people recall the fact that those developments arose from an offer of a former Labor government, the Whitlam Government, to the States for the Commonwealth to assume responsibility for their rail systems. Had that originated with the start of the development of railway systems in Australia, we would not have finished up with the absurd situation that we have inherited of different gauge railway systems within each of the States. The only two States which took advantage of that offer were South Australia and Tasmania, and both of those States have benefited very substantially from those changes. Three years ago the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), introduced legislation to provide the Australian National Railways Commission with a charter which gave AN the task of becoming a commercially oriented business operation. In the year before, AN had recorded its highest ever loss, $106m. The period since then has been a story of continued progress. The credit for that progress can be taken by the Government and in particular the Minister who carries the responsibility of transport for the Government, the management of Australian National and the unions because those improvements have resulted from the co-operative effort and the commitment on the part of government, management and unions to the development of Australian National. The results of that co-operative effort and that commitment are becoming increasingly apparent. The fact is that, as with virtually every railway in the world, AN's passenger services are not currently commercially viable. This legislation attempts-in a relatively small way, I suppose, in terms of the total range and quality of services provided by AN-to do something about that, to increase its commercial viability, to make it more attractive to those people who use AN for both transport and holiday-tourist purposes. The Government has agreed with AN on a set of increasing cost recovery targets to be achieved in respect of these passenger services. From a level of around 45 per cent in 1984-85, AN now has the task of improving its passenger cost recovery level to a 60 per cent target by 1988-89. Progress in connection with that will be monitored annually. It represents an impressive improvement if it is achieved, and there is no reason to believe that it will not be. It has been based on a realistic assessment of the capacity of AN to do that, and there is every reason to believe that it will be achieved. In addition to the provisions in this legislation, AN has already launched a number of major initiatives to provide better, more efficient services to its customers. It considers that it should further extend the facilities that it provides to its passengers to make train travel a more enjoyable experience in itself. The particular provision which this legislation will facilitate is that of a special entertainment car so that it will be possible for people travelling on the Ghan to utilise video and sound booths, video games for children, tables for cards and chess, a souvenir shop, a hair salon, and a limited number of poker machines for those people who may find playing them a pleasurable type of pastime. The rail system in Australia has played a tremendously important role in the development of the nation. It has opened up the interior, the outback; it has provided an efficient means of transport from the great rural areas, with the production of bulk rural commodities, to the ports and the cities around the coast of Australia. Many of the improvements which are taking place today in the relationship which exists between the parties to the AN have been responsible in no small part for the type of commitment which the Minister for Transport has brought to his very special responsibilities within his portfolio, and that is recognised not only by members on the Government side but also, I am pleased to say, by members of the Opposition parties who are prepared to acknowledge it. Mr Cowan —That is right. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I appreciate the response of my friend the honourable member for Lyne, who acknowledges and agrees with that comment now. For example, the Minister has conducted about 30 separate meetings at regional, State and national level with the unions that are associated with AN. Not only does the Minister go out to meet them and to discuss with them the sorts of problems which exist within the industry and the issues that arise, in an attempt to seek solutions to them, but he also takes with him the Chairman of the Board and the General Manager. To make sure that it does not appear that the Minister insists on their accompanying him, I add that they do so willingly. It reflects great credit on all those people associated with AN that that is the attitude. I think we all need to understand that the problems associated with AN and railways systems generally throughout Australia will not be solved just by providing more and more money. We need operational and marketing improvements. As I have indicated, there has been a significant improvement already in attitudes, approach, commitment and the procedures that exist within AN and between the parties to AN to bring about many of these improvements. Rail has had a bad image with customers. More recently there have been very significant improvements in that image. It was indicated as well by some of the other members who have spoken in relation to this legislation that the Railway Industry Council which has been established by this Minister is now representative of not only the Commonwealth but also all the States, with one exception. It would not surprise either members of this Parliament or members of the national community when they learn which government that is. I would prevail upon and appeal to the Government of Queensland to realise that the Australian railway system is a national one. The fragmentation into six States is an accident of history. There is a need for co-ordination and co-operation. I appeal to the Government of Queensland to become as soon as possible a party to the deliberations and the general work of the Railway Industry Council. This Bill represents, too, an attempt on the part of this Government to bring about a revitalisation of public enterprises. There is no question about their capacity to provide the services that are expected of them and to do that efficiently and as well as is generally done as a result of the competitive situation which exists among private sector operations as well. The AN has shown itself to be just as capable of measuring up to the standards of efficiency that relate to other types of pursuits as well. In the early 1980s I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure when it reported on the Australian National Railways Commission. That inquiry was undertaken because of the concern about the large sums of money that were being voted annually by the Parliament to offset the Commission's operating losses. For example, for the four years to the middle of 1981 the losses had totalled $274m. It then appeared that, even if the Commission achieved its goal of eliminating the losses, by 1987-88 it would still have accumulated losses of more than $500m in the 10 years from 1977-78 to 1987-88. Some very significant improvements have taken place, even in the last two years. The revenue supplement or the taxpayer support from the Commonwealth has been reduced from $87.9m in 1984-85 to $72.5m in 1985-86, and in this year, 1986-87, to $64.5m. The accumulated loss, instead of reaching $500m, has fallen from $101m to about $89m at present, so there have been those very significant improvements. That $64.5m supplement from taxpayers this year will consist of $17.8m for Tasrail's operations and $27m for AN's passenger operations, and the remainder of about $20m represents the losses on the balance of AN's operations. So I commend the Government and particularly I commend the Minister for Transport for introducing this legislation. Again I am delighted that it has bipartisan support. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(5.00) —I think a feature of the debate on the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1987 is the fact that so many honourable members from both sides of the House have spoken. This legislation, which contains proposals of very great depth, indicates a change of thinking as far as the commercial side of railways in Australia is concerned. We have to appreciate the fact that the Commonwealth is responsible for only a certain part of the railway system generally throughout Australia-that is, in South Australia, the Northern Territory and Tasmania. Whilst the area involved is large, the population and the passenger and freight services are small. The rest of the railway systems are administered by the various States. I would like to compliment the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) on the legislation that is before the House. Although it is a step forward it has to be considered in the context of the transport needs of Australia. Whether one talks about railways, telephones, roads or shipping, Australia faces a great challenge so far as communications are concerned. It is interesting to look back and study the development of railways in Australia over the years. We appreciate the fact that in earlier days the States had the responsibility for establishing the means by which farmers in the outback or fellows in the towns could get to market the goods that they wanted to sell or export. The fact is that it was accepted at that time that railways could not be a paying proposition. As a result railways have been supported by the taxpayer over the years gone by. I suppose that this principle behind the establishment of the railways has led to a transport monopoly. The same can be said so far as roads are concerned. Our roads must always be kept up to standard to cope with the growth of this great nation of ours. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) and I were both vitally involved in this area when we were members of the New South Wales Parliament. We accepted the fact that this attitude must be taken. But maybe we have grown up now. As the Minister has pointed out, we have to look at the commercial side of this enterprise. It is of no use saying that the railways or any other area of communications should have a monopoly within Australia today. I was very pleased that only recently the New South Wales Government agreed to deregulate the transport system generally throughout the State. Private enterprise is now able to run the buses in competition with the railways. The railways themselves are using buses to take people from various parts of the State into the metropolitan areas. So we now have a system which is more open. Importantly, people are now able to travel on buses at a lower cost. People can travel by bus to Sydney from my home town of Taree for a much lesser fee than they paid previously. This is very important to the younger folk who are going to university or are searching for work. They can now travel to the metropolitan areas much more cheaply than they could if they had to fly or even go by train. I never thought that buses would be able to offer such a frequent service throughout Australia, and particularly in New South Wales, as they do today. The competition that we are seeing today within our transport system, particularly in New South Wales, is a breath of fresh air so far as we are concerned. I know that for many years our rolling stock and railway engines and certainly the railway lines that carry that equipment were inadequate and could not provide a fast service. I travel the highways a lot within my own electorate and it sometimes hurts me to see those roads being used by large semi-trailers. One consistently passes semi-trailer after semi-trailer, and they are tearing up our roads. I know that truck operators pay a very large tax to use those roads but a lot of freight that is carried on our roads should be carried by the railways. We have railway lines to handle this traffic. We need to build up the service and make it more efficient. We need to develop a service which is capable of paying for itself. I do not see why, with proper planning, such a service could not pay its own way and compete with road transport. I am sure that the Minister is trying to set the scene, as I hope he does with the Australian National Line in respect of shipping, to enable the railways to compete. As I said, I am sure the Minister would like to see this happen. It is encouraging to see the Minister involving private enterprise a little in the legislation before us. It has been said over and over again today that this move, small though it may be, is very important for the tourist industry in Australia. The fact is that there are tremendous possibilities for people to see geographical areas and unique countryside that cannot be found anywhere else in the world. If I were an American or a Japanese and I wanted to see what Australia was like, I would go to Sydney but I would also want to see the Dead Heart. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Great Railway Journeys of the World contains wonderful examples of seeing first hand the joy and possibilities of what good rail travel can bring to a continent. Admittedly, we are not part of the European scene. We do not have a population of 300 million. We have only a little more than 15 1/2 million people. We should be providing to average people a service based on luxury and comfort. This service should be provided to Australians first of all. We want to see our men, women and kids travelling in this way. We also want to welcome people from other countries. I spoke about the Dead Heart of Australia. That place is not dead-it is alive. I am sure that there would not be a member of this House or of the public who does not look forward to the day when we have a rail link between Ad- elaide and Darwin. It is important to the development of this nation that the Ghan continue from Alice Springs to Darwin. I do not want to go into all of the problems that exist and the discussions that have taken place on this matter. However, I want to go a little further and suggest that we need a railway that will run across the top of Australia-from east to west, from the Gulf Country right across the top of Queensland. We have to plan for a line which will be able to cart the natural resources of this nation. We need a line that will be able to transport our resources to our ports so that the resources can be dispatched around the world. Our thinking on these issues must not be small. Our thinking must be large enough for us to say that we are capable of doing the job. We need to have the foresight to be able to develop Australia. I said earlier that the railways grew in Australia because of a responsibility to cart goods to market and people around this country. In many ways, our railways today are still in their infancy. That is why I mentioned the need to construct crosslines so that we can develop Australia in the years to come. The cost of such a task cannot be left to the taxpayer. It should not be a Commonwealth or State responsibility. Is it not time that we woke up in this respect? The same argument applies to airports. I have spoken to the Minister about the taxpayers having to pay for an extra runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I believe that private enterprise should build airport terminals. Private enterprise is capable of doing so. It can recoup the money that it spends. The people who use the services are the people who should pay. The development of railway lines across Australia should be paid for by the people who are mining our resources. The people who want to live in those places should help to develop these services. The cost of paying for and maintaining the Sydney Harbour Bridge is being met by the people who use it. The proposed tunnel under Sydney Harbour will also be paid for by the people who will use it. I am basically talking about the need to adopt the user pays principle. Let our minds think of bigger things. Let our minds take us astray with these matters, but let us be positive in our thinking on what we can offer as far as tourism is concerned. I have never seen a nation with such a poor balance of payments position as we have today in Australia. Although our national debt has nothing directly to do with the Bill, we have to meet our balance of payments commitment and tourism can assist us tremendously in our long term and short term planning. The other night when I spoke in the House I said that Qantas Airways Ltd has predicted that, by the end of 1988, our income from the travel industry within Australia will double. Twice the number of people from overseas will be visiting this land of ours. My wife and I have been to Perth by train a couple of times. There is nothing more enjoyable than a 65-hour or 67-hour trip across Australia in a comfortable train, where services are available, where the food is good, where one can just take one's time and where one sees something not only of the land that we have but also of the Aboriginals, the people, and the way in which Australia was pioneered. That is a lovely trip for people to take but it is costly and that is the important thing. Today it is a job to get on that train. I believe that one has to book months ahead if one wants to get on it. We need to publicise and to upgrade our railway system. The entertainment carriage that will be added as a result of this Bill, which the Minister for Transport has mentioned, will be a way to upgrade the Ghan and to provide a service that we need. But I stress that this service must be commercialised. From a Commonwealth point of view, we have to treat the railways of this country as being in competition with private enterprise. As far as we are concerned, we need competition to upgrade efficiency and to bring wealth. Some of us have had a fair bit to do with the railways. In fact, I have a guest in the Speaker's gallery at the moment who is married to a railwayman in my home town. The railway people in my home town are very important to me and to the community because they are hard working, decent citizens. They want to see the railway system upgraded because they want more work. They know that if the railway system is competitive the average man who works on the railways will have more work. We are pleased to see the progress that is being made. We are pleased to see the attitude that the Minister has to this. I think it is a very important and progressive attitude. I think the Minister is trying to adapt himself because he and I have talked about the Pacific Highway. I know that we would both like to see that highway upgraded because it is very important to a growing Australia. We want the railways to be able to compete with road services by providing services which might relieve the highways, in particular the Pacific Highway, of much of the traffic. This traffic could be carried by the railways of Australia. I am pleased that this legislation is before us. I think it will upgrade the Ghan and the services that are available. I hope that the thrust of this legislation will continue and we will see upgrading generally throughout Australia. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(5.15) —It is a pleasure to speak briefly in this debate to support the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill and to pick up some of the comments made by previous speakers. I make the observation that this debate has been one of the most constructive exercises certainly in my time in this Parliament. It was a pleasure to hear members of the Opposition acknowledging the approach of the Government and paying tribute to the efforts of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in tackling what, in my opinion, will be the most difficult social issue that Australia will face, certainly in the remaining years of the 1980s and the early 1990s. When the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) was commenting on the need to encourage tourism in this country and the need for our national railways to provide adequately for that tourism, I could not help reflecting on the activities of the Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, in his news release in Japan, which today was described in various quarters as an act of treachery. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable gentleman is straying rather much from the Bill. I invite him to come back to the Bill before the House. Mr O'KEEFE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was trying to develop the point that was made by the honourable member for Lyne. We are talking about a national railway system which must operate efficiently and, above all, must provide a service for tourism. I think there is a general recognition by honourable members in this House that we must encourage and provide for tourists from other parts of the world-none more so than the Japanese who are showing a tremendous interest in this country now. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you will appreciate, the point I was referring to before was my concern about actions which-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has well established the point. I ask him to come back to the Bill. Mr O'KEEFE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want also to touch on a couple of points made during this debate, very constructively I thought, by my colleague the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). I noticed during the contribution of the honour- able member for Farrer that he acknowledged his commitment to the need for an efficient public sector enterprise such as the national railways. There is no argument on this side of the House about that point. In many ways, this is not a contentious debate but I think it leads to the broader issue of how this nation will address the national transport and infrastructure issues. Clearly, rail is the most efficient way in which to move large amounts of freight and people over distances between major centres. Clearly, roads are a more efficient method of breaking up the big parcels and efficiently distributing them over smaller areas. My electorate borders the Hume Highway. Where it reaches Melbourne I see what I call the great Hume Highway anomaly. Every night, truck after truck goes up and down this road between Melbourne and Sydney. Alongside this road run the competing freight and passenger trains. One has to ask: Are they doing it more efficiently or less efficiently? This takes me to the point that Australia has to face up to. It goes right back to the days when the late Mr Ansett decided to have his great constitutional section 92 debate to run in competition with the railways out of Victoria. From that time on we have seen the encouragement, I think irresponsibly, of the development of this road freight competition with the national railway system. I have another example. In the Mallee region of Victoria we recently had a boycott of the railways for carting wheat. As a member of the Country Task Force of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), I understand more than most the difficulties that our rural sector faces and the need for it to react to falling prices by finding cost efficiencies. But to boycott rail transport and to move to road transport has simply created an even bigger problem. In fact, if one thinks the thing through properly, one realises that one has a double problem. If we do not use rail, particularly in these remote areas, governments will have no option but to close it down. We would then find ourselves stuck with trucks and governments will run into the problem that we are now running into in Victoria. All the way from the Mallee down to the Geelong wheat silos and through all the shire councils-20-odd of which I represent-we find that roads and pavements, which were constructed 30 years ago or longer for small volumes and small weights, are now being torn up by these trucks. In case people are not aware the going rate at the moment is about $400,000 a kilometre to replace roads with pavements that are capable of carrying the big rigs that we now see. That is a national priority issue that the Minister for Transport has to address. I put to honourable members that it is one of the most important issues that this country will have to address. We cannot simply go on moving freight around the place in large trucks, replacing roads at $400,000 a kilometre and allowing the railway to run down. We have to rationalise. We all recognise that well run, fast, efficient rail transport is the way to move heavy weights and large amounts of freight between major centres. That fact has to be recognised and the Minister is recognising it. Mr Spender —Why do people use trucks? Mr O'KEEFE —The honourable member interjects: `Why do people use trucks?'. He invites me to say that during those years when his Party was in government it disgracefully allowed the Australian railway system to run down and it deprived State governments of public sector capital works funding and I will address that matter in just a moment. I say to the honourable member: He may not have these issues as a worry in North Sydney but he is out of touch with the rest of Australia where they do matter. The interjection from the other side of the House gives me some scope, I think, to wander on to the issue of public sector capital works. Every day we hear calls from some sector or other in the community for a massive cutback in government expenditure. It is an issue to which the Minister for Transport is obviously terribly sensitive. Every time we hear calls for cutbacks in the public sector, people think that means that we should sack public servants. They say: `Let us get rid of the Public Service'. But that is not what happens. We wind back public sector capital works; we wind back the railways, we wind back expenditure on roads, freeways, schools, hospitals, emergency services, airports, housing and so the list goes on. Most importantly, we wind back job opportunities and business opportunities for the many areas of the private sector which rely on these sorts of works. Today I could not help reflecting on the latest call by the National Farmers Federation for a cutback of $10 billion in government expenditure. The list includes health, welfare and, no doubt-I know the Minister will be sensitive to this-it includes the Australian National Railways. But it does not include the $250m aid package that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) announced in this Parliament about six months ago. It is hypocrisy, it borders on lunacy and it is the sort of stuff we now see emanating from the Premier of Queensland. I get back to the real point. This Bill represents positive action on the part of the Government to work towards and bring about an improvement in the efficiency of the Australian National Railways and an improvement in the service we have to offer tourists and those who need to move large amounts of freight and numbers of passengers around this country. It also brings to attention-I will focus upon this matter-the need for us nationally to address and to rationalise our approach towards public sector transport. I have mentioned the Hume Highway, part of which is in the Melbourne end of my electorate. One could take that as a microcosm and look at the section where the highway reaches Melbourne. Within five miles or eight kilometres of that area we have to come to grips with a major highway, a major railway and a major international airport which, itself, is focusing more and more on freight and export development opportunities. As a nation in the next four or five years we will have to spend many millions of dollars on transport and infrastructure. A very difficult decision about priorities will need to be made. The most difficult decision we have to face up to is the rationalisation of road transport versus rail transport. The continued support of those on the other side of the House which has been demonstrated in this debate today is necessary. I call on members of the Opposition to continue to address this issue constructively. We must continue to work towards developing a fast and efficient national rail service which will allow us to rationalise the use of heavy road transport and maintain a national road network which will not compete with, but is complementary to, our national transport objectives. In closing, I again commend the Minister. I know the work and the effort he has put into bringing about this Bill today and what it stands for. That is recognised by all contributors to this debate and it must be seen as a major feather in his cap. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(5.27) —in reply-I express appreciation for the very complimentary remarks that have been passed about me today in this very interesting and constructive debate. It is one of the most constructive debates on any transport matter that I have heard in the House in my 13 or 14 years as a member of parliament. It illustrates to the people of Australia that there are issues on which governments and oppositions are in accord and that both sides of the House have a positive view to put. It shows that when an issue is common, people can work together for the betterment of this country. There were some 13 speakers on this debate which is a large speaking list for an issue of this nature. All speakers in the debate today recognised the fact that the Australian National Railways Commission-or Australian National, AN, as it trades-is passing through a process of change. There is a very simple message in that: It is that if we are to survive we have to adapt and if rail transport is to survive in the scheme of things it has to adapt and that means change. After all, the test of efficiency is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. For the railway industry that is extremely difficult because it is a very proud and loyal industry, a very traditional industry which employs a very strong group of people. Much of our development in this country owes its origin to the development of railways and much of our social structure developed around the railway employees who staffed the railway system from its earliest days. Having said that, in the case of AN we are facing up to that change. Change breeds fear which breeds uncertainty which breeds instability. It is essential that in that process of change there be good quality communication between government, the authority of management and the work force, through its trade unions. The reason we have been able to gain the change that is taking place in Australian National is the quality of communication and the fact that the people involved understand what the objective is, what the task is. There has been a general recognition that not only must the railway industry adapt to changing circumstances and improve its efficiency, productivity and reliability but also we, as a nation, must do similarly in the railway system. Some of the speakers in the debate this morning and this afternoon referred to what kind of service we are providing. When railways were set down they were the basic passenger service-before the time of road transport. They replaced in the main horse-drawn transport, river transport or transport by sea. The service and the nature of the service were acceptable and desirable at that time but have been superseded in many cases by better forms of personal and freight transport. So we find today that for a price-sensitive service people look to roads; for the cheaper service to coaching; and for a speed service, for the time-sensitive person, to air. Railways in many cases, particularly for long distance passenger services, are stranded somewhere in the middle, not being one or the other. There is an essential problem of identifying the market: What does the public want, what kind of service and product? Having identified that product it must set about providing it in the most efficient and competitive form possible. That to a large extent is what has been happening with AN passenger services. As I said in my second reading speech, passenger services across the world are generally not financially viable. With Australian National, where we have a cost recovery rate of about 45 per cent, we have set an objective of 60 per cent by 1988-89 and then we will modernise and improve the service and make it more attractive to encourage people back to long distance rail passenger services. This amending legislation enables Australian National to provide entertainment services. They have been detailed by some of my colleagues on both sides of the House in earlier contributions-as well as by me. But it is the provision of that service, its efficiency and its reliability that will attract people back. It has to be a service that people want to use. Reference is made to the fact that the entertainment service will be introduced first on the Ghan service-the Adelaide-Alice Springs service. It is not generally recognised that the rail link from Tarcoola to Alice Springs of 830 kilometres contains two pieces of steel-two continuous welded strands of steel. Those who travel that service will find that they miss the clickety-clack because the joins are no longer there. It is a more silent service. Some people complain that they miss the magic of the clickety-clack noise which puts them to sleep. That is one of the best pieces of rail track in the world. It is an example of what Australian rail technology can provide. The extensions to the service pick up the quality of ride that is involved. In my view AN is the best performing of all our rail services. We have mentioned earlier that AN has reduced the real level of revenue supplement from government by some 50 per cent since 1982-83. We will continue to work at improving that further until we get the freight services, particularly, on a fully commercial basis and meet the targets set for the passenger services. I will quickly run through some of the comments made by other speakers that I think are worthy of response. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) made a constructive contribution when he expressed support for the Government's initiatives, particularly the Inter-State Commission and its working relationship with interstate road-rail cost recovery. It is encouraging on this side of the House to receive such whole-hearted support, apart from a couple of discordant notes that I will come to about the legislation. The honourable member mentioned the Alice Springs-Darwin railway, which is an intraterritory service. Everybody is fully aware of the history of that matter and I do not propose to go over it again; but suffice it to say that it is a matter for the Territory to decide in its own time and way if it feels that the financial investment is worth while. It is the Territory's concern and I do not propose to go into it. The honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) represents a major section of the area serviced by Australian National. We all know the energies he put into representing that area, particularly the railway workers of the towns of Port Pirie, Port Augusta and Peterborough. He properly has a major concern for the performance of AN and the welfare of its employees. Earlier today I was pleased to have in the House to see me the well-known, well-respected and energetic Mayor of Port Pirie, Alderman Bill Jones, who again has a task in representing railway interests in that area. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) referred to the new facilities that are being provided by AN being extended to the Indian Pacific passenger service. That may well happen. We are starting out on a stage by stage system of providing them first on the Ghan service and we will develop from there. The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) wants a Cabinet meeting on wheels. I heard that suggestion, and we shall put it to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It will be for the Prime Minister and Cabinet to decide. Certainly it would be something new. From AN's point of view, we would like the business. We want every dollar's worth of business that we can get. I will put it to the Prime Minister on behalf of the honourable member. Who knows, we may have a Federal Cabinet meeting on wheels. Mr Tim Fischer —As long as the train is not derailed. Mr PETER MORRIS —These trains are providing that most efficient and reliable service in the nation and I tell my friend that they will continue to do so. But at the same time we want every bit of business that we can get. The honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) emphasised that progress was already being made in the need to attract passengers back to rail. I think I have covered that generally in emphasising that rail has a difficulty, because of the provision of other passenger services, in identifying a role in long distance passenger services. The comments of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) related to the very fast train. Clearly, that proposition will stand or fall on its own merits, but it is really an interstate matter, a matter for State governments, not this Government. I am quite sure from the comments that he was making that he is not looking to this Government, at a time of utter discipline upon public spending and at a time when his colleagues are calling for a nil Federal deficit, to put money into that. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), in his usual courteous style, put very well the case for railway workers and the services being provided by railways generally-and more specifically by Australian National. I thank all the 13 speakers who participated, from both sides of the House, for their comments and contributions to the debate. I particularly thank them for their kind words about me. This is a task that I enjoy and it is extremely important in the interests of this nation. I just end on the note that, generally, people do not realise the impact of transport on their lifestyle, their standard of living, or the performance of this nation. When all is said and done, this nation rides on the shoulders of its transport systems. When we get to the time when each form of transport performs the task to which it is best suited technically, economically and socially, only then will we be able to maximise our export opportunities and the benefit of the resources with which this nation has been endowed. I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.39) —The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill is a Bill to amend the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act of 1977. That very innovative piece of legislation, as it has been described by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech, was introduced by Mr Ellicott, who was then the Attorney-General in the Fraser Government. It is worth going back to his second reading speech to describe generally, and in the words he used, what was intended. He said: The present law relating to the review by the courts of administrative decisions is in a most unsatisfactory state. A great deal has been written about the shortcomings of the present procedures and it is not, I think, necessary for me to elaborate on these deficiencies in the present context. The law in this area is clearly in need of reform-indeed, it could be said to be medieval-and simplification and to be put into statutory form. What the present Bill seeks to do is to establish a single simple form of proceeding in the Federal Court of Australia for judicial review of Commonwealth administrative actions as an alternative to the present cumbersome and technical procedures for review by way of prerogative writ, or the present actions for a declaration or injunction. When referring to the functions of the Federal Court, he also said this: The only question for the Court will be whether the action is lawful, in the sense that it is within the power conferred on the relevant Minister or official or body that prescribed procedures have been followed and that general rules of law, such as conformity to the principles of natural justice, have been observed. The court will not be able to substitute its own decision for that of the person or body whose action is challenged in the court. It will be empowered to enjoin action or to quash a decision it finds unlawful and to direct action to be taken in accordance with the law. It will also be able to compel action by a person or body who has not acted, but who ought to have done so. Mr Justice Brennan, who was then the Chairman of the Administrative Review Council, in his foreword to the first annual report of that Council, referring to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and generally to the operation of the review process, pointed to `the dynamics of administrative decision making'. Referring to remedies which are now open, he pointed to the fact that the citizen is `enabled to challenge, and challenge effectively, administrative action which affects his interests'. The review process available under the Act, specifically under sections 5, 6 and 7, is extremely wide. I do not intend to take up the time of the House by going to the detail of those sections. I simply give some indication of their width by referring to the generality of review which is open under those sections. Under section 5, a `person . . . may apply to the Court for an order of review in respect of the decision on any one or more of' the grounds listed in that section, and a large number of grounds are listed in that section. Under section 6: Where a person has engaged, is engaging, or proposes to engage, in conduct for the purpose of making a decision to which this Act applies- the Act applies to a wide range of decision making processes- a person who is aggrieved by the conduct may apply to the Court for an order of review in respect of the conduct on any one or more- of the grounds enumerated in that section, which, again, are extremely wide. Again, review provisions are provided for in section 7 to deal with failure to make a decision. I take up one point in particular; that is, the rights commonly known as the rights of natural justice, which have been developed through the processes of the court, and which apply to cases which come within the Act. The width of the principle-that is, the width of the right to have a case reviewed because one claims that one has been denied natural justice-is now very considerable. This cannot be better stated than in the words of the present Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. He said: It is a fundamental rule of the common law doctrine of natural justice expressed in traditional terms that, generally speaking, when an order is to be made which will deprive a person of some right or interest or the legitimate expectation of a benefit, he is entitled to know the case sought to be made against him and to be given an opportunity of replying to it. He went on: The reference to `right or interest' in this formulation must be understood as relating to personal liberty, status, preservation of livelihood and reputation, as well as to proprietary rights and interests. I say here that it is obvious how wide that statement of `right or interest' is. He went on: The reference to `legitimate expectation' makes it clear that the doctrine applies in circumstances where the order will not result in the deprivation of a legal right or interest . . . The law has now developed to a point where it may be accepted that there is a common law duty to act fairly, in the sense of according procedural fairness, in the making of administrative decisions which affect rights, interests and legitimate expectations, subject only to the clear manifestation of a contrary intention. The purposes of this Bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum and were stated by the Attorney-General when he introduced the Bill. That was some time ago, of course. The Opposition supports the Bill and I think that the purposes may be stated very simply in terms of the explanatory memorandum: to strengthen the provisions in the Act under which the Federal Court . . . has a discretion to refuse to grant an application for review where provision is made by another law for review of the relevant decision by a tribunal, authority or person; to discourage the disruption of administrative proceedings, by narrowing the scope for resort to the Act during the course of those proceedings, where legislative provision exists for the review of the decision complained of at the conclusion of those proceedings; to make specific provision in relation to the Court's general discretion under the Act to refuse to grant an application. The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, referred in particular to cases which arose under the review provisions as they apply to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. He pointed out that in respect of the Tribunal's hearings into the granting of a third commercial television licence for Perth 16 cases were decided by the Federal Court under that Act. The effect of this litigation, he said, was to delay the decision of the Tribunal on the third licence by some 12 months. I think most honourable members would agree that 16 applications arising in the course of a contest over who would get a television licence is an abuse of what we would think to be the proper rights of review. If cases like that arise, surely they must be curtailed. Where real problems arise, they can, I think, be dealt with under the streamlining provisions which the Attorney-General has introduced with this Bill. By way of illustration of the case load of the court, let me point out that the 1986 report of the Administrative Review Council, in its table of applications to the Federal Court of Australia for an order of review, shows that at the commencement of the 1985-86 period 128 cases were pending. There were 264 received in that year. Forty of the applications were granted, 102 were refused, 97 were withdrawn and a total of 239 were finalised. At the conclusion of that 1985-86 year there were 153 applications to be heard by the Federal Court. That, of course, does not determine the Federal Court's review processes. There are also applications which may go up to the Federal Court relating to matters such as committal proceedings and, whilst there appear to be no reliable statistics kept on those matters, from inquiries that I have made from the Attorney-General's Department it seems that in the last eight months at least six such cases have gone up to the Federal Court. In committal proceedings there should certainly be a right at the end of the proceedings to test the validity of the committal order. But it is as a general rule in the interests of the administration of justice that committal proceedings should be heard, and should be heard to their finality, before any review process is allowed to be brought to bear on it; otherwise, very obviously, the proceedings can be interrupted for a considerable time, and that is not in the interests of the proper administration of justice, which must be fair to the defendant and, as well, fair to those who have to present cases, and fair to the public, which has an interest in criminal cases being brought on and being determined as speedily as possible. The proposals before the House, as I said, are supported. They rationalise the existing structure of the Act. The spirit of the Act is maintained and adequate revenues are maintained. The Opposition commends the Bill to the House and wishes it a speedy passage through the Senate. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(5.51) —The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill 1986 was introduced in this House on 22 October 1986. The main purposes of the Bill are, firstly, to strengthen the powers of the Federal Court of Australia to refuse to grant an application for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, where provision is made by another law for review of the relevant legislation by a tribunal, authority or person; secondly, to discourage the disruption of administrative proceedings by narrowing the scope for resort to the Act during the course of those proceedings, where legislative provision exists for the review of the decision complained of at the conclusion of those proceedings; and, thirdly, to make specific provision in relation to the court's general discretion under the Act to refuse to grant an application. This Bill picks up the recommendations made by the Administrative Review Council in its report No. 26 entitled: `Review of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977-Stage One'. This report provided advice to the Government in relation to claims that the Act was being abused in some areas. It calls for appropriate action to be taken to prevent such abuses occurring. The report observed: . . . the purpose of the Act was to provide a relatively simple means of obtaining judicial review of administrative action. The Act purports to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the need to provide individuals with a means by which they may effectively obtain judicial review of the legality of public administrative action and, on the other hand, the need to protect public authorities from unwarranted action. The fundamental issue is whether experience of the Act's operation has demonstrated that, in the course of achieving its primary aims, the Act has left public authorities open to unwarranted litigation. The policy of the Federal Government on this issue is clear. The policy is that where there is an administrative remedy in relation to administrative action, people should be encouraged to use it, rather than first approaching the Federal Court on a question of law. This policy is soundly based. Firstly, the Parliament has provided administrative tribunals specifically to deal with appeals by dissatisfied citizens; secondly, the Federal Government's system of administrative review-in particular the Administrative Appeals Tribunal-is widely regarded as amongst the most advanced in the common law world; and thirdly, in many cases administrative tribunals are able to deal with the whole of the matter of concern to the citizen, whereas the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 only addresses questions of law. It should also be noted that the administrative remedy is likely to be less expensive. The Administrative Review Council's report, to which I have already referred, expressed a particular concern about the use of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 during the course of administrative proceedings before a tribunal in circumstances where the particular decision could be challenged at the conclusion of those administrative proceedings. Concerns of this kind were raised with the Council, in particular, in relation to the inquiry of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal concerning the granting of a third commercial television licence for Perth. The 1984-85 annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal expressed concern about some aspects of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The Tribunal referred to its experience with its inquiry into the grant of a third commercial television licence for Perth. During the course of those proceedings, 16 cases were decided by the Federal Court under the Act. The effect of all this litigation, as the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has already said, was to delay the decision of the Tribunal on the third licence for some 12 months. The Tribunal stated in its report: A significant cause of delay and expense in the inquiry has been the use of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act as a means of obtaining judicial review of decisions made by the Tribunal during the course of the inquiry and before its completion . . . in general, the Perth inquiry litigation indicates the need to consider appropriate limits of the use of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 in the interlocutory proceedings. These concerns are addressed by proposed new paragraph 10 (2) (d) set out in clause 2 of the Bill, which aims at preventing resort to the Act to delay or frustrate legitimate administrative action in an attempt to obtain a mere tactical advantage rather than to assert a genuine legal right or interest. Proposed new paragraph 10 (2) (d) goes further than the Administrative Review Council recommended to the Government, by requiring the court to refuse to grant the application unless the applicant satisfies the court that the interests of justice require that it should not refuse to grant the application. The Administrative Review Council in its report considered that it should be left to the court's discretion to refuse to grant an application in these circumstances. One of the amendments proposed by clause 2 of the Bill is the addition of a new paragraph (c) at the end of sub-section 10 (2) which deals specifically with the availability of review by a tribunal, authority or person-not being a court-as an alternative to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. This amendment strengthens the existing powers of the court to refuse an application for review where there is a right of review by another tribunal, authority or person-but not a court-by placing the onus on persons seeking review to persuade the court that review should be granted. The new paragraph reverses the effect of Kelly v Coats 1981, Australian Law Reports, page 93, in which the Federal Court said that the onus under section 10 (2) (b) of the Act is on those seeking to persuade the court that it should not exercise the jurisdiction conferred under the Act to hear the application. In practice this has meant that the court is empowered to entertain an application for review, notwithstanding the availability of an adequate alternative remedy. Furthermore, the Federal Court in Domaine Finance v. Federal Commission of Taxation and Mercantile Credits v. FCT has pointed out that section 10 of the Administrative Decision (Judicial Review) Act 1977 expressly contemplated that there will be cases in which aggrieved persons may have alternative remedies available, and therefore it was not a reason to decline to hear the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 because there was an alternative remedy. Proposed paragraph 10 (2) (c) does not change the burden of proof where the alternative avenue of review is to a court under paragraph 10 (2) (b). In such a case the onus remains on the party seeking to persuade the Federal Court that it should not exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it. This amendment goes further than the Administrative Review Council's recommendation to the Government by requiring the Federal Court to refuse to grant the application unless the applicant satisfies it that the interests of justice require that it should not refuse to grant the application. The change to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 made by this amendment is an important one. It is to be hoped that the court takes a liberal view of the expression `the interests of justice' in cases where the alternative right of review is unsatisfactory. Clause 3 of the Bill inserts a new section 10a in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The new section empowers the Federal Court to stay proceedings or refuse to grant an application where the court considers it inappropriate to grant the application or to continue the proceedings. The section gives statutory recognition to the court's present wide discretion to refuse relief. This discretion has been emphasised by the court in cases such as Lamb v. Moss, 1983, 49 Australian Law Reports, page 533. New sub-section 10a (2) is intended to ensure that the exercise by the court of its powers under the section takes place at the earliest appropriate stage in the course of proceedings. The provisions of new section 10a give effect to recommendations of the Administrative Review Council's report. In the report the Council said that the exercise of the court's discretion as early as possible in the proceedings should assist in avoiding unnecessary delay, inconvenience and expense for the parties. These amendments are aimed at striking a balance between, on the one hand, the need to provide individuals with a means by which they may effectively obtain judicial review of the legality of public administrative action and, on the other hand, rationalising and ensuring the proper use of the existing review mechanisms and protecting public authorities from unwarranted action. The limited restriction on the rights of the people to take action under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 in the circumstances described in the Act and in the Bill can be contrasted with the restrictions imposed in the United Kingdom, and in the Victorian Administrative Law Act 1978. In the United Kingdom no application for judicial review shall be made unless leave of the court has been obtained. In Victoria, the court is empowered to refuse an application for review, notwithstanding that a prima facie case for review is disclosed, if it is satisfied that no matter of substantial importance is involved or that in all the circumstances the refusal would impose no substantial injustice on the applicant. A general power to refuse to grant an application or to allow proceedings to continue is also provided where the court considers it appropriate so to act. The amendments are to apply only to applications made after the commencement of the Act-that is, 28 days after it receives royal assent. The Australian Administrative Law Bulletin of 9 November 1986 had this to say on these amendments: The amendments are to be welcomed. It is most appropriate for the court to avoid intervention in cases where other means of review are available, and more particularly where they have been invoked. The court should in general be the last point of review-recently it is appearing to become the first. It is also appropriate that the court recognise that other means of review are often superior to it, particularly as it cannot review a decision on the merits. If some members of the court had not been inclined to take the attitude that the court should always exercise its jurisdiction and had not been prepared to recognise the advantages of other means of review, the amendments would probably not have been necessary. It is to be hoped that the clear message in the amendments will be read in the light of the explanatory material and the court will moderate its interventionist approach. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.04) —I intend to make only a brief contribution. I congratulate the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) on his remarks on the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill. The original legislation was brought in by the Fraser Government. This legislation followed a very substantial inquiry by committees of the coalition parties and, I believe, responded to a genuine need in Australia. In my opinion, the legislation has probably worked better than even its most enthusiastic supporters would have predicted at the time. A number of matters have, however, caused concern, one of which was adverted to by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech. That related to the recent proceedings in relation to the issuing of a third commercial television licence in Perth. As is mentioned in the second reading speech, in the course of those proceedings some 16 cases were decided by the Federal Court under the Act. The effect of all this litigation was to delay the decision of the Tribunal on the third licence for some 12 months. Anybody who has had the fortune or misfortune to be Minister for the Capital Territory will know that in this little corner of Australia are some of the world's greatest experts in administrative law. When deputations call on the Minister for the Capital Territory, deputations allegedly comprising lay persons, one finds to one's horror that they have come along with the ordinances indexed and they probably know more about the legislation and the administrative decisions which have been made about what public servants, Ministers and members of parliament have said on the subject than one could possibly absorb in a month's briefing. One thing that stuck in my gullet after three years as Minister for the Capital Territory was that any process whereby the citizen has a right to question and query administrative decisions must be tempered with a balance of what is in the community interest. Otherwise, one finishes up in a situation where there is no finality at all. A case landed on me involved a planning decision which had been taken as long ago as when Mr Enderby was the Minister for the Capital Territory. The matter had dragged and dragged. I found in 1981 that there were concerted and strong attempts to reopen the whole matter yet again. Whilst the right of the citizen to seek a proper review-a judicial review, if necessary-of administrative decisions is a proper and precious right, the system has to ensure that one does not lose sight of the wood for the trees so that the situation never reaches finality. I have just spent two days on leave appearing before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Mr Spender —I hope you were well paid. Mr HODGMAN —I appeared in a completely honorary capacity for some of my Returned Services League veterans, diggers, who were seeking justice despite the iniquities of the Hawke socialist Government's Veterans' Entitlements Bill. I appeared in a totally honorary capacity and honoured a commitment to represent them. The AAT is another example of a tribunal, established again by the Fraser Government, which has in many ways provided an access to remedy to which the citizen would not otherwise have had access, and certainly more quickly than in the case of the matters in Denison that I look after more cheaply than by recourse to litigation by virtue of the prerogative writ. But again we are seeing a situation where people who are applying to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for redress are experiencing quite considerable delays because of the great buildup of work, even in a place like Hobart. A dispute over a fruit export licence, for example, will not reach its first preliminary conference until 3 April, and of course the season is under way. That is not a criticism, because the Deputy President, Jennings QC, and members of the AAT in Tasmania work extremely hard, but if that is happening in a small State like Tasmania, I shudder to think what is happening elsewhere, particularly now that the AAT is dealing with all taxation matters and we now have a taxation wing of the Tribunal in lieu of the old board of review. I wonder whether the Attorney-General might take a good look at the number of members and the number of sittings of the AAT. In short, I support the legislation. I believe that the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill is basically good. It was brought in, as I said, by the previous Administration. I feel that some of the comments made by the honourable member for Herbert deserve support and I commend them to the Attorney-General. I urge the honourable member for Herbert to continue his representations within the corridors of power to which he currently has access which, after the next election, will be taken from him. He will retain his seat perhaps, but the Hawke socialist Government will meet the defeat to which it is so richly entitled. Mr Lindsay —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: Are those facetious remarks about me made by the honourable member for Denison to be allowed? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —The honourable member's remarks may be precise, but I do not think that they fall outside the parameters of tolerance. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(6.10) —I rise to support the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill, which was designed to fine tune and streamline the Act which has been in operation since 1 October 1980. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has set out in the second reading speech the purposes of the Bill and the details of its provisions and I do not propose to take the time of the House to cite such matters again. My support for the Bill is with a degree of sadness and reluctance, however. The Attorney-General makes the point that the Bill does not remove any existing rights of review, but seeks to rationalise those instances where there are overlapping remedies. Where review is provided under some other law, it encourages applicants to avail themselves of that alternative review before seeking review under the Act. Whilst I accept that as a statement of fact, I am concerned that the tightening up and restricting of the exercise of those rights of review which this Bill will achieve will lead to fewer hearings, and that raises the question as to whether, in many cases, justice will be done and be seen to be done as quickly as is the case at the moment. In expressing my reluctance over the passage of this Bill, I do not for a moment indicate that I am reluctant to vote for it. Rather, my reluctance is related to my sadness that this Bill has become necessary as a result of rich people using and abusing the provisions of the Act and turning the courts into mere playthings and tools to be used in their gladiatorial struggles to make even more money. It is well known that this Bill became necessary as a result of the disgraceful way the Act and the courts were used in the tactical battles over the granting of the third commercial television licence for Perth during which 16 cases were taken to the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, effectively delaying the decision of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by about 12 months. It is indeed sad that the activities of the millionaire players in that case have led to a situation where the law must be tightened and, therefore, the rights of ordinary persons seeking a review of an administrative decision may be restricted. The real problem brought to light by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's hearing into the third commercial television licence for Perth was not a problem with the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act but rather a problem indicating yet again that with enough money and brilliant legal minds, the intention of this Parliament, the law and the courts can be overturned, thwarted or delayed. The additional discretions granted by this legislation will ensure that the Federal Court will now be equipped to confront misuses and abuses of the court's proceedings when these occur. For my part, I think that the courts generally should be more willing to recognise abuses of the courts' processes by rich people and their lawyers and should not only find against them in particular cases but should also publicly speak out against such abuse. I take this opportunity to call on judges throughout the nation to be more forthcoming in condemning the tangled legal webs that are not infrequently set up as a tactical measure designed to thwart or delay the due processes. There is one other matter which I would like to deal with in relation to this matter and that is the general question of delay, inefficiency and expense associated with legal proceedings. This Bill is designed to meet those concerns in a limited area but there are genuine public concerns over the wider issues of the cost of the legal system which should be addressed. Judges are highly paid and have expensive back-up staff. Court buildings are often set up in expensive, centrally situated accommodation and are often luxuriously appointed. The use of those facilities from 10.30 a.m. till 4 p.m. with more than an hour's break for lunch and time off for morning and afternoon tea as well, is patently inefficient. In addition, of course, the court rooms are, in many instances, only used for two or three days a week. I believe that a full review of the efficiency of the court system by persons not directly associated with court procedures is long overdue. Mr Hodgman —You are not recommending night courts, are you? Mr DUNCAN —Not necessarily, although that is an option that should be looked at in some instances, particularly with the lower courts, which are not generally a province of this Parliament. It should not be too much to ask that judges sit in court for a specified number of hours per week and that the court commence proceedings at 9 o'clock in the morning, as occurs with most of the rest of the business community- Mr Spender —And finish at what time? Mr DUNCAN —Often at 5 o'clock. I said that judges should sit for a certain number of hours per week. I am not suggesting that they should sit for a certain number of hours per day. I am suggesting that the resources-the court buildings and so on-should be used more fully than they are at the moment. Mr Hodgman —Mr Justice Staples has not been used at all. Mr DUNCAN —That is correct and it is another sad situation. Of course, many judges undertake such practices, as I have suggested, which are designed to ensure efficient operation in their courts. On the other hand, there are examples of judges who make a more limited contribution. An efficiency review by persons outside the court system would, I am sure, lead to recommendations which could vastly improve the archaic operation of our court system. In one area of the law this Bill should ensure that proceedings are more efficient and that delays are kept to a minimum. I can only hope that its provisions will not lead to any denial of justice currently available. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(6.16) —I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill 1986 and, as will probably become apparent very shortly, I do not intend to use up a great deal of the House's time. There are a couple of points that I wish to make about this legislation. I think the first would be endorsed by anyone who has had anything to do with the law and that is that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in particular and other tribunals can be an efficient and effective area of recourse for citizens. Any involvement with the courts obviously is, by definition, an expensive matter and to the extent that we can minimise the expense, time and inconvenience of citizens by testing their rights in a less formal way, we in this Parliament should encourage that. It is not something to which we can give carte blanche, but I believe the development of tribunals in Australia has vindicated the wise approach of those who seek to ensure that we do not clog the courts of this land. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has spawned some very famous names in the Australian judiciary and it has made many decisions. Its operations are such that it is widely regarded as being one of the most advanced tribunals of its kind in the Western world, or at least in the common law world. The AAT, to which we are referring, has had a huge work load over the years and that work load does not look like being minimised. It is growing and it encompasses a huge area of considerable importance to the citizens of Australia. The proposed paragraph 10 (2) (c) strengthens the existing powers of the court to refuse an application for review where there is a right of review by another tribunal, authority or person-not a court, of course-by placing the onus on persons seeking review to persuade the court that the review should be granted. I believe that is a significant change and one that very few in this House would dispute. I noted the comments of the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). On this occasion I do not wish to respond to his remarks. In short, I believe the legislation can be supported on a bipartisan basis and I believe that the AAT will continue to provide, as it has in the past, an effective and relatively inexpensive avenue for citizens to establish their rights. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.20) —in reply-I thank honourable members for their contributions in support of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill 1986. This Bill contains an amendment of a technical nature to overcome some of the difficulties that have been experienced. Some members were anxious to mention the work load of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal occasioned by the work that is now being given to it in taxation matters. The capacity of this Tribunal is shown by the fact that we have now inherited some 90,000 cases from the taxation boards of review, which shows that there was a log-jam somewhere, and the Tribunal has been able to cope with them. In many cases justice is often delayed because there is no opportunity to talk to the parties. All this means that at present we are very anxious to streamline the administration of justice. The most important thing always is to find alternative methods of dispute resolution, and we are working on that as well. Again I thank honourable members for their tolerance. There has been a limitation of time, but we have other legislation to deal with, and I would be very pleased if we could now pass this Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.22 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.03) —We are debating the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1987. I thank my colleagues for joining me. The quorum was called to enable the Opposition to get its house in order. However, I think we will have to wait until 1988 for that to happen. Although the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) has now arrived, I will continue with my remarks. This Bill seeks to levy an increased export duty to enable the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers region to supervise the activities at the Ranger uranium mine. For those who are listening to the debate, I point out that there has been a great deal of public controversy over this matter. During Question Time today the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) asked the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) a question relating to some newspaper reports about the issue of water release into the Alligator Rivers region from the Ranger uranium mine. This legislation focuses not only on a financial matter but also on a very contemporary matter which concerns the Australian community. It is of concern to the wider community and it is specifically of concern to the traditional Aboriginal community in the Magela Creek area adjacent to the Ranger uranium mine. That is the framework of the matter we are looking at tonight. This legislation is a financial measure to raise money. In effect, the Bill seeks to lift the levy on the export of uranium concentrate to enable the Australian community to fund the Office of the Supervising Scientist. I would like to give the House a quick piece of background to that. The Office of the Supervising Scientist was set up following the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. That inquiry was established in 1975 to look at the environmental impact of mining uranium in the Northern Territory. That inquiry reported in 1977 and the outcome is that we now have the Office of the Supervising Scientist there to look at a number of aspects, but particularly water management. People who are listening to this debate would appreciate that tropical regions such as the Northern Territory tend to be subject to both floods and droughts. During the wet season, which is right now, a very large amount of water accumulates in the restricted zone of the Ranger uranium mine. Some of that water is necessary for the operation of the mine for the development of uranium concentrate, but the rest of it is obviously not necessary for the operation of the mine and it is a question of how it is disposed of. To be a little technical just for a moment, there are some terms which we ought to deal with. The first term is the restricted release zone-the RRZ. That essentially is the perimeter of the mine site within which one can safely assume that there are degrees of radioactivity of which we ought to be aware. I do not want to beat up an issue here because quite clearly radiation is spread throughout the community. At the moment we are talking about the Ranger uranium mine and there are degrees of radiation which can be observed in the RRZ. A couple of issues need to be developed. One is the question of the tailings dam. Very clearly the tailings dam water at Ranger is not intended for, nor subject to, release into the wider community-into the Magela Creek system or the Alligator Rivers region. That needs to be made very clear. When the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, chaired by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), visited the area, one of the things that were made very clear was that there had been reports from time to time about the possibility of releasing tailings dam water. That is not on. That is not proposed by Ranger and we ought to reassure the Australian community of that. Therefore, we focus upon the question of the release of water from other holding ponds in the area, and subsequently upon the specific role of the Office of Supervising Scientist; in other words, in technical terms what is known as the best practicable technology for both handling and disposing of the water. The role of government intervention in this area is basically to protect not only the immediate environment-and that includes the traditional land owners and land holders-but also, obviously, the wider interests of the Australian community. I would think that by and large there is bipartisan support for this in this chamber. We might get some enthusiasm and excitement in this place from time to time on matters such as taxation, but on this matter by and large there is bipartisan support that the concern of the Office of the Supervising Scientist is to look at the effective and safest method of managing the water system there. I will focus specifically on the question that was asked today by the honourable member for Cowan because I think it was a sensible question she asked. It related to reports that contaminated water at the Ranger uranium mine would be released into Kakadu National Park. Now that I have mentioned the name Kakadu, obviously what we are focusing upon is a very special area of Australia. In a sense we have one of those interesting contrasts in public life. We have a very important resource in market terms-uranium-but we also have probably an even more important resource, Kakadu National Park, which happens to surround it. Clearly the Australian community has on its hands one of those delicate situations that from time to time present themselves to the wider community. I will deal just for a moment with the specific financial provisions of this legislation. The Bill basically gives effect to the increase in export duty on uranium concentrate produced from the Alligator Rivers region in the Northern Territory from 11c to 80c per kilogram from 19 August 1986. The export duty imposed on uranium since 1980 is to offset the special costs of environmentally monitoring the research activities-matters I have already mentioned-by the Office of the Supervising Scientist associated with uranium mining operations in the Alligator Rivers region. The increase in the duty will recover about 50 per cent of the costs. In the light of this wider financial climate of ensuring that by and large, where we can, some public sector authorities are able to pay their own way, we are asking this industry to meet some of the cost of its monitoring and management. If I were to make a general observation, it would be this: By and large, the operation at Ranger is one of the most closely scrutinised and observed mining operations in the world. That does not mean that it is not without some difficulty or controversy. In fact, when the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation visited the area one of the issues that it examined was the breakage of a pipeline within the perimeter of the RRZ. Very clearly, that was a matter of concern. It had been reported and material had spilt out of that pipeline. One of the interesting indices of good management of any site, be it an industrial site or a mining site, is very often the question of industrial safety and the observations that one can make about it. I make another general observation. The Committee did see examples of management practices that perhaps were not in the top drawer of management practices in relation to the mining or engineering trades, or other areas of manufacturing for that matter. I do not wish to cast a very heavy shadow over them but I simply make the observation that, when the Committee visited that site, members were aware-certainly from reports of the work force-that some of the safety aspects of that mine management were not ideal. Clearly, in order to keep the picture a little balanced, we also ought to observe that, when we are dealing with both a large scale mining operation and a uranium concentrate, quite obviously, we have a fairly large issue on our hands. In part of the process of concentrating uranium, kerosene is used. So, very clearly, we have a fire hazard issue as well. Let me now focus upon another aspect of what we are talking about here. As a community we ought to be asking: `What are the best methods of water disposal in that area?'. I referred earlier to the fact that Ranger uranium is located in the tropical zone where there is very heavy rainfall. At the time we were there Ranger uranium had too much water to deal with and it was looking at a particular disposal method. The Environment Committee recommended that there be some investigation and follow-up of this aspect. I quote from paragraph 87 of the Environment Committee's report which states: Approval has been given to Ranger to undertake land application trials on 33 hectares of land. Spray irrigation, at least on a trial basis, as a disposal method for excess water has the approval of all the organisations which spoke to the Committee. That is the House of Representatives Committee. The report continued: Both the ANPWS and the Office of the Supervising Scientist noted that land application is not without possible long term impacts. Both organisations believe that the trials should be accompanied by an increased experimental and monitoring effort. Territory authorities while supporting monitoring believe that further research is totally unnecessary. The Northern Land Council argues that the trial should be with treated water. The Committee supports the land application trials and agrees that these should be subject to further research. Some months ago the Committee considered that these trials should be conducted with treated water. It appears now however that treatment is unnecessary. On a matter of clarification, there was a question as to whether water from the holding areas should be sprayed into the area or whether there should be a treatment process before it was sprayed into the area. The advice we received at the time was, by and large, that untreated water could be sprayed. Incidentally, for the benefit of the House and the community, we looked at some areas where spray irrigation had been undertaken. Prima facie, we could see no evidence of environmental damage whatsoever. I would just like to shift the focus for a moment. The other aspect of this environment question is the social environment. Part of that social environment is the Aboriginal community associated with Magela Creek. The question that still has to be addressed-obviously it is a matter of negotiation, good faith and time-is that that traditional community has a very different understanding and conception of pollution in the environment than we do. It may well be that we are able to demonstrate, both in a rational and logical sense, that there is no quantifiable environmental pollution over and above background radiation levels, for example, that would cause us, a Western culture, to be disturbed. But we also have to recognise, as an Australian community and as an Australian Parliament, that there is a traditional community there that has a very different view of the environment. I note that my colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) is nodding his head in agreement. Clearly, from his experience he would understand that that is crucial in coming to terms with the traditional people. That does not mean that we cannot have a spray application technique, nor does it mean that we cannot have a uranium mine in that area. What it does mean is that when trying to deal with the people in the surrounding community we have to be aware of their particular viewpoint. The observation I would make is that they are not particularly obstructive in that. What they seek is good consultation and by and large they have had good consultation. The issue I have not addressed is whether or not there should have been a uranium mine within the bounds of Kakadu National Park. By and large, I think, those on one extreme of the conservation movement would say that it should never have been there. However, given that we as a committee went up when the uranium mine was in place, what conclusion could we draw as a parliament and as a community? I would say that the Ranger uranium mine is being managed very well in terms of meeting certain environmental safeguards. Nevertheless, it is also necessary to say that some of the management practices within the mine site leave a little to be desired. Accidents and problems have occurred on the site that we ought to draw attention to, and the Environment and Conservation Committee has drawn attention to them. If we had the time all over again, people might say that there ought not to be a uranium mine within the bounds of the park. Let me focus on that for a moment. There is a lot of debate in the wider community, and I suppose that the nature of modern technology has a lot to do with that. Why is it that everyone knows about Kakadu National Park? Obviously there has been a lot of publicity about it, but I would have thought that a film called Crocodile Dundee had done more than anything else to focus the attention of the wider community on Kakadu. I also think that the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has provided a recognition from us of this side of the House-- Mr Cohen —What about Environment? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —And the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment-that it is a very important area. In world terms Kakadu National Park is quite spectacular and I am sure that the Australian community understands the significance of that. I turn for a moment to the claims that are being made about Kakadu stage 3, and I think this is crucial. The Government has given an assurance to the wider community and to the world about its attitude to mining activity in Kakadu stages 1 and 2. Stage 3 is subject to other matters and to claims. The Environment and Conservation Committee took some time to look at this with respect to stage 3. I make this observation to the House: One of the things I find interesting is that there seem to be-and I suppose that there is a good geological explanation for this-an extraordinary number of claims associated with the water catchment area of the Alligator Rivers Region. I would also make the observation that I think it is interesting that the mining industry is putting pressure on the claims within the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. I think the community at large should perhaps also understand that outside the boundary of Kakadu stage 3 are other mining claims whose prospectivity may be of equal value to those that are being pressed within the bounds of the proposed Kakadu stage 3. I think on balance, and in conclusion, that what we have here is a test case by the mining industry to see whether it can establish claims within the bounds of Kakadu stage 3. What does the Australian community at large think of that? Perhaps we ought observe that, in terms of stages I and 2, this Government has no doubt about its responsibilities both to Australia and to the world at large. I think many honourable members on this side would also make the observation that they believe that it would have been better had there never been a uranium mine within stage I. Given that there is, can we assure the Australian community that the management practices are the best possible? Certainly in terms of intentions, it is clear that the parties concerned are proceeding along agreed paths and processes. There is regular consultation. As I said earlier, it is probably the most supervised and tightly managed mine in the world. I think there is good reason for saying that the Australian public might feel relatively assured on that. In another sense that does not remove any wider responsibility for the Australian Parliament or for that particular mine site to be sure that down the track its management practices are the best possible and that its water release programs are the most desirable so that the Australian community can have the due confidence that it ought to have in that activity. That takes me back, in a sense, to where we began, and we began by saying that this is a Customs Tariff Bill which is in fact to do with raising a levy. It may well be that the Opposition is concerned about the degree of the levy. However, given its focus upon matters economic, I say to it: What we are doing is looking towards setting a levy that enables us, as a community, to ensure that the management of that mine by the Office of the Supervising Scientist is the best possible. Honourable members should remember that we have responsibility not only to the immediate community, which is the traditional Aboriginal landholders, but to all of Australia. We also have a world responsibility because-honourable members should remember this-Kakadu has world status. We are talking about what would be, in geographic terms, one of the most splendid and spectacular places on earth. It is not as though this is an issue of some minor concern; it is an issue of considerable concern. Given that decisions were taken in the past about proceeding with mining, we have a duty to ensure that mining has the minimum possible impact on the surrounding environment. Should we say that down the track there will not be any problems? I do not think we can say that. Do we think, as an environment committee, that everyone can rest easily? I think the answer to that question is no. We have an ongoing responsibility, and that is where we, as a parliament, have to be sure that we provide the support-both political and financial-for the Office of the Supervising Scientist to undertake its work. I am quite confident about the quality of the work that it does. I am confident that, in association with other authorities, that Office will pay close attention to the needs of the traditional community and the wider community. As a community, as a parliament, are we undertaking the best possible management processes and are we sure that the best practical technology is being used? At this stage the answer to those questions is yes. Is it without problems? The answer to that question is no. Very clearly, as a parliament and certainly as an all party environment committee, we have at least had the opportunity to have fairly full and frank discussions with the interested parties. We reported to the Parliament on this matter in October 1986. The water management of Ranger uranium will be an ongoing responsibility. It is not something we can assume will go away because clearly it will not. The Ranger uranium mine will continue to be an operation of export value and mining value, but we, as a parliament, must ensure that we fulfil our responsibility to the Australian community and the wider community for managing both the mine and its surrounding area, which is Kakadu National Park. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(8.23) —First, Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise to the House for being late for this debate. The Opposition does not oppose the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill. The Bill increases the duty imposed upon exported uranium concentrate mined in the Alligator Rivers Region from 11c per kilogram to 80c per kilogram. Before looking at the more specific aspects of this Bill-I agree that it is a short and simple one-I would like to address the general topic of the Government's uranium policies particularly as they relate to not only the Alligator Rivers Region and the development of uranium mines but also the nuclear industry in Australia. To say the least of the policies the Government has adopted, as far as an overseas observer or an overseas importer of our products is concerned, they are irrational. For instance, Australia has low cost uranium resources totalling 530,000 tonnes. This is a staggering 28 per cent of the world's total low cost uranium resources, and the Northern Territory possesses 350,000 tonnes of this amount. Yet the policies we have seem to discriminate very much against the Northern Territory as opposed to some uranium-it is classed as good uranium-that is exported from other parts of Australia. However, because these reserves are undeveloped they are classed as bad uranium. One must ask the question: How do importers view our contradictory policies and the procedures that are followed? For instance, as well as this sanction against uranium mining, Australia is faced with a foreign debt that exceeds $100 billion. That has been recognised throughout the country in the last couple of weeks. Yet we have $30 billion worth of uranium in the ground just at existing Northern Territory mines. People see this sanction as being mainly at the whim of a minority of Australian people, at the whim of the left wing of the Government or the Australian Labor Party and at the whim of unions and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In fact, when the Mary Kathleen mine was producing, we had the ridiculous situation of the ACTU protesting against the mining and export of uranium while the workers in that area wanted to continue with their task. So there is an inconsistency. Even now I understand that there are always protests by the transport unions and the marine unions against the export of uranium through Darwin. Of course, this gives the impression to people overseas that we are a nation with uncertain prospects and irrational policies. This has led to some countries considering Australia as not reliable for some of its exports. It is interesting that just this month a mission of 60 business people from Tokyo, Japan, came to Australia for a couple of weeks. They visited all the States during that time. In the Australian of 11 February there was an interesting comment by the head of that delegation. The article states: The head of a 60-member Japanese investment team touring Australia . . . warned yesterday that assurances given by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, that Australia's image as strike-prone and unproductive was no longer accurate, would be closely scrutinised. ``There are persistent perceptions in Japan that Australia is a strike-prone country and that the productivity against wage-costing is not so good''. . . . If so, it was difficult to expect Japanese investors to establish new and lasting links with Australia. Of course, there is the economic impact of leaving uranium in the ground. On a daily basis in this Parliament we hear about the Budget deficit and about our foreign debt, which has blown out to over $100 billion. We also have to consider the high cost of the interest on that debt as we try to service those extravagances of expenditure. We also have a tax debate going on in this House on a daily basis. Somehow or other the people in Australia who make these irrational policies seem to think that we are quarantined from these problems, that those countries that import our products cannot see our industrial record, our high interest rates, our high debt commitment, our tax penalties and our government on-costs. At the moment the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) is overseas trying to tell the nations with which we would like to trade that their policies on subsidisation are crippling Australia's trade. There is no doubt that they are. The subsidisation policies of those countries are certainly making the terms of trade a lot more difficult and unfavourable for our basic resource exports on which we have traditionally relied. But what the Minister for Trade and those other Ministers who stamp around the world conveniently forget is that the problems relating to trade start on our own doorstep. Our domestic economic policies are a major burden for our exporters and producers in this country. Mr Campbell —Are you talking about Black Jack McEwen? Mr BRAITHWAITE —No. I am quite prepared to talk about Black Jack McEwen. The trouble with the honourable member is that he is living back in the 1960s and not in the 1980s. This is basically what we are talking about, and this is what the Government of the day cannot come to grips with. It thinks it is still dealing back in the early 1900s and not the modern 1980s in a competitive world. I suggest that competition in world economies is an important factor. I was rather surprised today at Question Time when the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and, I understand, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), representing the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), made a pretty concentrated attack on the Queensland Premier-as did the Queensland State Labor Leader-over alleged statements that the Premier had made to the Japanese. I just ask: Where is the quarantine against Australia's problems that the importers who deal with us would be entitled to ask for, particularly after the comment that was made in the Australian this week? Any nation taking our resources-and of course Japan is very important to us as a user of our energy resources and is a nation whose industry has a nuclear power capacity-is interested. I believe that the Minister for Foreign Affairs launched that attack today to divert attention from the terrible mistake-not a mistake but an act of honesty-by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who said in the Senate yesterday that interest rates are not expected to fall before 1988. That is really the type of thing that we should be talking about if we are to get our economy into shape and also trade in the world market as we should. The Bill addresses the problem of a levy and other matters. I want to say that the uranium industry, in relation to which such irrational policies are being adopted by the Government, offers the greatest scope for immediate growth and development and redressing that balance of trade deficit which increases monthly by about $1 billion. The Opposition has always supported, with the health and safety standards with which the industry has had to comply, the mining and milling of uranium in Australia. As I said, it is the safeguards and health standards that were set by the Fraser Government that gave us the certainty of being able to say that we support this mining. The Opposition would remove the veto on the development of new uranium deposits. Those people who say that there is no market in the world because of depressed prices are not really looking at the situation. Australia can fill a gap, even in those markets that may be depressed in price and be oversupplied, because of the nature of the product we can supply and its low cost. Most importantly, from a trade point of view, Australia should permit the export of uranium-always subject to the existing stringent safeguard agreements that have been put in place. With over one quarter of the Western world's uranium, Australia should be a major force in international markets, rather than the minor player that it is. Our mine production is low compared with possible Australian capacity because of the Government's irrational policies that I mentioned before, particularly in relation to restricting the mining and treatment of uranium. The possible returns from additional uranium exports under safeguards are several times existing earnings. 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 and find and keep the markets that exist at the moment. It always surprises me that for some reason or other in a Budget the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) can put his conscience to one side and sell millions of dollars worth of uranium, yet still restrict the mining of uranium that is in the ground. Australians are being denied one further support to our haemorrhaging balance of payments. The Bill before the House increases the export duty which has been imposed on uranium concentrate produced in the Alligator Rivers Region since 1980. This duty offsets the special cost of environmental monitoring and research activities by the Office of the Supervising Scientist associated with uranium mining operations in the Alligator Rivers Region. The Office of the Supervising Scientist was created because of the special need to protect the local environment, which includes Kakadu National Park, from the short and long term effects of uranium mining. On the inspection that I made of the park and Ranger some 20 months ago it was interesting to see the total support that mining had from the members of the tribes given rights over that park and also the way that area is developing under the sharing of the income from that park. I understand now that there is a particular problem, which is subject to a report, about the release of some of the waters from Ranger into the surrounding area. It appears that where uranium mining is undertaken it has the full approval of the mine workers and the people adjacent, who can share in the operation. Again, quarantining the development of further uranium in that very rich belt is nothing short of criminal. I have to admit that the Office of the Supervising Scientist performs a very useful role. During the visit I met one of the scientists. I was surprised to find that his headquarters were in Sydney and not on the job in the local area. He was probably costing more through travel expenses than the supervising was worth. The Office of the Supervising Scientist on occasions has exposed some of the flaws in the arguments of the conservation movement and it should be paid credit for that. The increased levy is expected to raise an additional $2.6m. It will recover about 50 per cent of the costs. Perhaps it is easier for us in this place to pass a Bill such as this to increase the Customs levy to pay for the Office of the Supervising Scientist, to pass the cost on to the uranium exporters, than to take a long, hard look at the empire that is being built up in the Office of the Supervising Scientist. Passing on the costs of what might be called cost recovery is yet another levy of this Government and another cost against the production end of industry in Australia. Mr Campbell —They are lucky they are not in Queensland. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am talking about governments in general, but I am particularly talking about this cost which is an on-cost and another penalty that is paid. If the honourable member wants me to expound on that, the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and others are also examples. I would like to know where he stands on those. In his own State and in his own electorate developers of the vast iron ore resources of that area are fighting with costs and with reduced prices for their product. Now they are hit with the additional fringe benefits tax and the other impositions. I suggest the honourable member take more notice of the impact of those government charges in his own electorate instead of flinging his eyes further afield, as some other people are fond of doing, and involving themselves in the politics of other States. I want to mention the additional cost brought about to the industry through this Office. The Opposition questions the need for the level of resources being invested in the OSS. The Office has facilities in three locations-Jabiru, Darwin and Sydney. I just mentioned that I came into contact with one of the scientists resident in Sydney. It is quite clear that the OSS for some years has been embarked on something of an empire building exercise. Its 1982-83 annual report states: The Supervising Scientists has consistently maintained that an OSS complement of 80 or so permanent staff, some 50 of them in the research institute, was necessary to enable him to carry out his functions. The report referred to a permanent staff of 80 people supervising the Ranger project or the Alligator Rivers Region. At that stage the Office had a staff ceiling of 54. The 1985-86 annual report, written in a year when the average operating staffing level achieved was 77.14, bemoans the gap in the research program caused by the lack of staff. One wonders at the use of the word `research' when we all know that the future for uranium industry under this Government is restricted and very bleak indeed. The 1985-86 annual report went on to say that the OSS sought an increase in staff of six for 1986-87 and a further four for 1987-88. So we have to ask the question: Where will all this stop? It is so typical of the authorities, particularly those that have been set up with the encouragement of this Labor Government, to be able to increase staff levels so indiscriminately. In this case, it is being done at a cost to the industry that the Office is intended not to serve but to supervise. The Government estimates that it will spend $4,485,000 on this Office in 1986-87. The total allocation will increase because of the capital works program, which suffered considerable delay last financial year, with the bulk of this expenditure now taking place in the current financial year. The Government has decided to reduce staffing by eight-in addition to across the board staff cuts of a further 0.5 per cent and a further reduction of four to come in 1987-88. The 1986-87 estimate provides for an average staffing level of 68.75, effecting a reduction of 8.25 staff years on the 1985-86 level. The fact that the Government has seen fit to review the level of staffing of the OSS is conclusive proof that all is not well within the Department. Perhaps it is easy for the Government to make these staffing cuts and let the Supervising Scientist implement them. In this situation we could only have the Sydney office maintained and the Jabiru research institute cut. The question the Opposition asks is: Will the cuts damage the working efficiency of the Office by taking people from the research institute at Jabiru, or will the cuts be made from the staff located, for some reason, in Sydney? We have seen this sort of thing happen so much with authorities under this Government. When financial cuts are made they always seem to affect the area where the real work is conducted, and never seem to affect the empires or the staffing arrangements in centres well removed from the place of action. Questions have to be raised about that expenditure incurred by the OSS in maintaining its office in Sydney. At the Estimates committee hearings, Mr Fry of the OSS said: The major part of the cuts will fall on the Alligator Rivers region research institute. Of the total cut of 12 positions, nine are expected to fall on the research institute and three on other parts of the OSS. Again, the majority is being taken from the research area and not from the administrative side. Clearly the reductions effected in the current financial year are just a beginning-but a lot more needs to be done. We need to see clear research priorities within a sustainable framework. The Supervising Scientist can hardly bemoan a lack of staff for undertaking the research effort when he has such a large complement of personnel situated in, and operating from, Sydney. It is not only a question of the division of labour between Sydney and Jabiru, but the expense of maintaining so much of the OSS in Sydney when the action is in the Northern Territory. For instance, the increase in payments in the current year for office services, requisites and equipment was caused by the increased rent for the Sydney office. This has occurred at a time when staffing is being reduced and the call by staff on office services, requisites and equipment could be expected to decline. If the OSS finds difficulty in retaining people and has a need for specialist research, it should investigate doing more of its research by contracting expertise for discrete projects. Further expenditure savings could very probably be made by a proper examination of the way the OSS functions. As I said, this Bill provides an opportunity to mention some of the flaws in the operation of the Office. While the Opposition does not oppose the Bill, we would just like to point out that the effect of it is again to burden industry with another cost-this in an industry which is not allowed to develop to its full potential, to put itself into the world market, which is its proper place, and also to strengthen the economy at this moment. I go back to the declaration made by the Minister earlier today when he commented on the Queensland Premier's quite properly alerting people within Australia and outside to the problems which exist and which are evident. Everybody in the world would know the comparisons between our country and others as far as interest rates, inflation and currency values are concerned. I thought that the Minister for Foreign Affairs made a rather venomous attack on the Premier's statement which, when read in its full context, says nothing new. It repeats many of the things I have said. For the Minister to react in such a way leads me to believe that perhaps he is out of the country too often on foreign affairs. If he stayed in Australia to observe the effects of the Government's policies on industries such as uranium, he might be able to make such comments. Mr Peacock —He hadn't even read the Press release. Mr BRAITHWAITE —No. That is rather critical in the observation because, had he read the Press release and had not reacted to a Dorothy Dix question from his back bench, he would have found out that the Premier was saying nothing that was not obvious and was not new. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I do not think that the Premier of Queensland has all that much to do with the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill. Mr Peacock —Did he call Australia a banana republic? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Kooyong will cease interjecting. Mr BRAITHWAITE —No; he did not call Australia a banana republic. We were talking about minerals, and I will return to that subject. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before you were rudely interrupted by the honourable member for Kooyong. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is right. Uranium could fill that very vital area which leaves Australia with a burgeoning balance of payments deficit and an expanding foreign debt. Uranium is mined in the most abstract ways, with union pressures all around, and the Bill seeks to impose extra costs on the industry. This Government should not continue to blame the state of the economy on outside or external factors when it is within the Government's power and responsibility to make the corrections. In view of the evidence we have had over the past four years, particularly the evidence on the Government's policies on uranium, I fear that the Government will never be tough enough or responsible enough to implement the policies that are required. I stress again the importance of Australia increasing its exports of uranium under stringent safeguards. The possible returns are several times existing earnings. The longer we keep our uranium in the ground-and perhaps our heads in the ground with it-the more difficult it will be for producers to develop an industry which could contribute so much to the easing of our trade and foreign debt crisis. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(8.47) —After hearing the speech of the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), I feel driven to depart from my prepared speech on the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill. His speech was substantially the same as the one he made the other day on amendments to the Lucas Heights legislation, and he must be refuted on many points. The Bill seeks to raise the duty on the export of uranium from 11c to 80c a kilogram which will recover half the cost of monitoring the site. I have a reputation in my Party for being hostile to environmental issues. That is not true. I believe that I have a very good record on environmental issues. However, I abhor those silly people who have become ill-informed on en- vironmental issues when, as I have said before, many of them are members of the urban, affluent, guilt-stricken middle class. Mr Peacock —They are members of your Party. Mr CAMPBELL —On the contrary, my friend, they belong to both parties. That is why, when the Opposition was in government it never took steps to export uranium. It never took steps to do so because it knew that those people inflicted both parties. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Kooyong and the honourable member for Dawson might hear the honourable member for Kalgoorlie in silence. The honourable member for Hinkler should return to his seat if he wishes to make any contribution at all. Mr CAMPBELL —I doubt whether the interjections will faze me at all. Self-deception is the greatest treason, as the honourable member for Kooyong would know. Those guilt-stricken people afflict both parties. They have done some things for Australia. If it was not for them we would not have had gazetted the greatest national marine park in the world-the Great Barrier Reef. If it was not for them we would not have the situation where we will drill for oil on that same Barrier Reef because those same people ran out of oil. I guess they do have a balancing function in society. I believe that the companies exporting uranium could well stand the charge of $1.40 a kilogram. This would be a very small price to pay, considering the good work that this Government has done in allowing those companies to write new contracts-something which the previous Government, for all its verbosity and rhetoric, never did. This Government has allowed those companies to write new contracts which, of course, has made an enormous difference to their overheads. The supervising function is carried out by the Office of the Supervising Scientist. It was established in 1978 as part of the Fraser Government's policy package for the Alligator Rivers area. It was the Fraser Government that instituted it. The reason why the Office has a large contingent in Sydney will become apparent. The Government at the time looked at the matter and decided that it made economic common sense. This policy of the Fraser Government arose out of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, commonly known as the Fox Inquiry. The responsibility of the Supervising Scientist was to devise standards and strategies to supervise and monitor the operation and to advise the Minister. There has been a lot of ill-informed comment about the Supervising Scientist having his office in Sydney. I observe that the honourable member for Dawson, before he came to this place, was an accountant. I think that to some extent he is performing a public service by being in this place and not practising as an accountant. It is alleged by ill-informed populists such as he that all the staff should be employed in the Alligator Rivers area. If you analyse this, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will see what damned foolishness it is. Two-thirds of the staff are located in the Alligator Rivers area. These are the people who are involved in the day to day monitoring-the people who must be on-site. But it is enormously costly to keep people in the Northern Territory. The cost of housing, schooling and all of the other things militate against locating people there, if it is at all possible to locate them anywhere else. The people located in Sydney-that is, about one-third of the staff-include scientists involved in mathematical modelling, which is essential for planning; some administrative and supply staff, who undertake administrative and co-ordinating duties and deliveries between Jabiru and Sydney-and other places, for that matter; management services staff, who simply make up wages; and the executive supervisory and co-ordinating staff. While it is true that some cost is involved in the Supervising Scientist travelling from Sydney to Jabiru, conversely, there would be just as much cost involved in his travelling the other way. He would have to make constant trips to Canberra to keep the Government informed of what was going on. The fact that we have modern communications these days-the Opposition may not have caught up with this-means that there is no lack of efficiency in these people being employed in Sydney; there are merely large savings in costs. Incidentally, in terms of cost savings, the staff of the Supervising Scientist will be cut by 12 over a two-year period as a result of the deliberations of the functional review committee. I must say that that makes me a little uneasy. I would like to be sure that monitoring in that area would be very secure. Having said that, I want to touch on some of the environmental issues that have been raised. Water control in the area is important. But many people whom I have spoken to seem to think that we are controlling the water for fear of the spread of radiation. The truth is that the real danger from water is heavy metal pollution. Australia has lived with that for centuries. In the early days in Tasmania, no attempt was made to control it and some environmental damage was caused. I would certainly like to limit that environmental damage. But heavy metal pollution can be contained and it can be treated. I am sure that we will devise methods of adequately handling the water at the Ranger mine site. But let us be realistic about this: Even if there was an escape of water from that mine site-an escape of tailing water-it is very doubtful whether there would be any damage, and certainly, there would be no lasting damage. That ought to be kept in perspective. So while I am in favour of monitoring, let us not get carried away with it. I remember that, a couple of years ago in the Ok Tedi mine in New Guinea, the Government of New Guinea, after some consideration, gave permission for the company to release its surplus water directly into the Fly River. The surplus water would have contained quite a high percentage of heavy metal. It is true that the Fly River has an enormous volume. It is for this reason that dilution was reckoned to be sufficient and the flow enough to avoid any environmental damage. Shortly after I returned from New Guinea a barge sunk there carrying 20 tonnes of cyanide. Many people said `shock, horror', but the results were absolutely nothing because cyanide is a substance which oxidises very rapidly and is very rapidly locked up into insoluble cyanates, which do no harm at all. So these things have to be kept in perspective. I want to touch on a few things the honour- able member for Dawson said because I thought he was allowed extraordinary latitude in his speech. He talked about on-costs in Australia and productivity. This is symptomatic of Opposition members, who seem to revel in selling Australia short, selling Australia down the drain overseas. The truth is that the costs of production in Australia, despite the rhetoric of many of these people, are substantially lower than they are in the United States. While these people opposite talk about how we must get rid of the 17 1/2 per cent loading and abolish long service leave and all the other things they do not get in America, they forget to tell people that in many equivalent industries in America the hourly rate is substantially higher. I had an experience of this in my electorate recently. Some people from North West Cape went to Florida to do identical jobs in an institution over there. The nearest equivalent rate they could get was $3.50 an hour higher in the United States, and that was the lowest rate. One can buy an awful lot of 17 1/2 per cent loadings, a lot of holiday pay and a lot of public holidays for an extra $3.50 an hour. So it is nonsense for honourable members opposite to go around dishonestly making these comparisons because they are not comparing apples with apples, and I believe that they know it. I believe that these people are prepared to sell Australia down the drain for the simple objective of grabbing power. Their lust for power is so great that treason is not beyond them. A matter concerning Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was raised this morning in the House-`Sir' Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a knighthood if you please, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure in my own mind that no one would have given Joh a knighthood except himself. Mr Peacock —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I have listened to the remarks just made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie and I cannot find them relative to any clause in the Bill. I draw your attention to their irrelevancy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The honourable member for Kooyong has a point. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie might address himself to the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill rather than to whether someone should or should not have a knighthood. Mr CAMPBELL —You are quite right, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour to sustain the very high standard of relevance which the honourable member for Dawson sustained. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, you will not endeavour to stay relevant. You will stay relevant. Mr CAMPBELL —I will do my very best, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If it is only your best, you might not get to continue. Mr CAMPBELL —It seems to me that the viability of Ranger is important to us and is relevant to the Bill. The viability of Ranger is not going to be enhanced if Australia's reputation as a reliable trading partner is destroyed. We had the spectacle in Western Australia of Ross Lightfoot, a State member of parliament, writing to Mr Shultz, the United States Secretary of State, telling him virtually to stick it up the farmer and cripple our trade because he saw that-and he was honest enough to say it-as a quick way to government. He thought that if the economy of Australia could be destroyed it would bring down the Government more quickly. It is interesting to note that Ross Lightfoot has just had a meeting with Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen which was described as very meaningful. I leave honourable members and the public to draw their own conclusions about that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Kalgoorlie might stick to the Bill that is before the House. Mr CAMPBELL —I was just returning to it. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I was not granting you any indulgence. I am bringing you back to the point. Mr CAMPBELL —And I was being sarcastic, because I think you are being far tougher on me than you were on honourable members opposite. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I would never be tough on the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. Mr CAMPBELL —I think you take advantage of my good nature at times, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am used to it. Productivity is an issue for Australia. I was one of the people who advocated the formation of the Iron Ore Industry Consultative Council. This is relevant because we are talking about mining. The truth is that productivity in the Pilbara has increased enormously since the formation of the Council. In some cases there have been improvements in productivity close on 100 per cent. Many of the work practices have been changed or abandoned. There has been co-operation from the work force and a great decline in industrial disputation during the life of this Government. But we get no credit for this, nor do the workers. Looking at the philosophy of the Opposition, as Professor Galbraith said, it has the strange philosophy that the rich in this country will not work because they are not getting paid enough and, on the other hand, the poor will not work because they are getting paid too much. That basically is the economic policy which is being put forward by the Opposition. We hear it every day. I am sure that it will come out again in due course, but it needs re-emphasising. The basis of this philosophy quite clearly-we hear it every day-is that we must reduce taxes. Mr Peacock —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether it relates to a lack of discipline or an inability, but the reality is that the honourable member's remarks are not directed to the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Kalgoorlie was making a point by explanation of his remarks, and I think that he is quite within order. Mr Peacock —A bob each way. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not debate the rulings of the Chair. Mr Barry Jones —He is showing leadership. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister is not helping. Mr CAMPBELL —I am touched. The apologist for the Bjelke-Petersen Government in this House used to be the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), but, since he has been exposed as a Sunshine Coast land developer, that mantle has now fallen on the member for Kooyong. I hope that we do not get something that will destroy his credibility so totally. Returning to the Bill, I believe that uranium has enormous potential for Australia. In the present context there is not a very large world market, no matter what the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) says. This is typical of these people opposite. They have imagination; they imagine things and then see them as solutions. The truth is that there is not a big market for uranium. What we should be doing in Australia, and this is something I am pursuing in my own Party, is looking much further afield. We should be looking for value added for our products. We should be mining uranium, we should be processing and re-processing uranium for it is in this way we can lock countries such as Japan in to Australia as a regular supplier. If we go that far, we must then get into the storage of uranium waste. We are the best situated country in the world to do this. We have the best technology and it is in the world's interest that this storage, which can be dangerous, should be done in the safest possible way. It is Australia that has the technology, the right geology and the right geography to do just that. We have an obligation to the world, to society, and I think an obligation that we should fulfil-a far greater obligation, I might add, than the preservation of some particular piece of Australia which some people think is of world importance. I am also on record as saying that stage 3 of Kakadu is, in my opinion, not worthy of world heritage listing. However, there are parts that are of significance. I would also add that much mining took place in that area before it was designated as a national park. This brings me to the wider policy which governments will have to address in Australia-and it will be no easier for the Opposition than it is for this Government-but it will have to be addressed one day when we have joint use of national parks. After all, this happens in the United States and in other countries, and we must face up to that here. In returning to the business of mining, which is what this Bill is basically about, we must look at costs. It is important in these days of reduced commodity prices and downward pressure on commodity prices throughout the world that we are very conscious of the costs involved. In this respect it is interesting to look at the performance as between States. In Western Australia the Government has performed very creditably, keeping State charges to an absolute minimum. In no year since the advent of the Burke Government have State charges exceeded in total the consumer price index rises. When one looks at Queensland one finds that that is not the case. We find massive increases in these State charges, most of which are hidden charges, such as railway charges. It is interesting to see that the mining companies in Queensland have estimated-this is not an estimate from the Australian Labor Party, it is from the mining companies of Queensland using Australian Bureau of Statistics figures-that hidden tax in Queensland amounts to $394m. That is $394m of unnecessary imposts on the mining industry. Yet the honourable member for Dawson had the indelicacy to get up in this place and complain about the rise in the price of supervision of uranium mining in the middle of one of Australia's great national parks. As I have said, this industry could well pay the full cost of monitoring, and I believe that it should. That money could then be used in some other vital area of environmental study and evaluation. Not just the mining industry in Queensland is controlled; it is interesting to find that even the bread industry is controlled. Queensland has legislation which sets a minimum price to the manufacturer and a minimum retail price. That is a good way to treat the public, the low income earner-to set a minimum price at which people can buy bread. There is no competition there, as there is in Western Australia. The responsibility of the manufacturer to take back bread also is limited. That imposes a very big cost on retailers, which is passed on to consumers. Yet Queensland is a supposedly great free enterprise State. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a fraudulent State and it is run by what are in fact very slick con men. I believe that the people of Australia, when they are exposed to all the information, all the facts-there are numerous facts which I obviously will not have time to go through-will see just what a fraud and a charlatan the Premier of Queensland is. Mr COBB(Parkes)(9.03) —Tonight we are debating the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill. This legislation will allow an increase in the export duty on uranium exported from Australia, which previously stood at the level of 11 cents a kilogram before 19 April 1986. The Bill will permit an increase in that level from 11 cents a kilogram to 80 cents a kilogram which, when one does the calculations, is an increase of roughly 7 1/4 times. That is an incredible increase and one wonders what the Prices Surveillance Authority would say if it had authority over this area of increased charges. We are told that this extra tax will collect another $2.6m over and above what is collected now. We are told also that this extra money will go to pay half the costs of those environmental monitoring and research activities of the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region which are associated with mining of uranium in the Alligator Rivers Region in the Northern Territory. Before I come to the almost unbelievable story of the Office of the Supervising Scientist, it is pertinent to relate a little background on the two mining companies involved. The first is Energy Resources of Australia Ltd-ERA-which owns the Ranger mine near Jabiru. This mine is surrounded by, but is not part of, the Kakadu National Park. The other mine in question, the Nabarlek mine, lies to the east and is run by Queensland Mines Ltd. It conducts the milling operation there from its uranium ore stockpile and exports the uranium it produces. It is pertinent to look at the contribution that ERA has made to the Australian economy through its Ranger mine. If we look at some of the figures over the past four years-- Mr McGauran —They are extraordinary. Mr COBB —They are. That company has earned over $1,000m in export income for Australia just from one relatively small mine. It has paid in excess of $210m in income tax and has made a profit of a little over $220m. From that profit it has paid a dividend of roughly $175m. Throughout that time it has employed approximately 400 people, and it currently employs 380 people. Let us add up the taxes that it has paid. In the last four years it has paid company tax of $210 million. It has paid dividends and the people who have received those dividends have paid tax on them which works out at approximately $60 million. Of the wages that have been paid, the wage earners have paid about $7m tax in the last four years and on top of that the company has paid a royalty to the Northern Territory Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account amounting to something like $52m since its inception. Mr Peter Fisher —Incredible. Mr COBB —Yes, it is incredible. If we total all that, we find that the company has shelled out $329m in taxes and so forth. By any standards that is an extraordinary contribution to the nation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the details of the payments to the Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account by ERA and Queensland Mines Ltd. Leave granted. The table read as follows- NT ROYALTY EQUIVALENTS-PAYMENTS TO ABORIGINAL BENEFITS TRUST ACCOUNT Mining company Year Amount $ $ Energy Resources of Aust. Ltd (uranium) 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 (to 30/11) 1,784,701.01 10,276,308.77 11,981,471.76 11,454,176.86 11,424,483.70 5,025,522.36 Total 51,946,664.46 Queensland Mines Ltd (uranium) 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 (to 30/11) 1,834,807.63 1,099,122.02 1,409,581.43 1,559,990.65 1,696,487.39 2,378,266.15 555,758.94 Total 10,534,014.21 Mr COBB —I thank the House. The table also shows that Queensland Mines Ltd has paid a royalty to the Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account of $10.5m in that time. On top of that these companies have been paying 11c a kilogram on every kilogram of uranium exported, and that is now to go up to 80c a kilogram. Last year ERA alone exported 2,810,000 kilograms of uranium, and with world demand on the increase there is no doubt that these figures will increase not only for ERA but also for other uranium mining companies in Australia. Last year there were 374 nuclear reactors operating in the world. They produced something like a quarter of a million megawatts of electrical generating capacity. Last year 150 more stations were under construction and another 116 were being planned. It has been estimated that by 1995 the world's nuclear generating capacity will double. Already, the United States of America, the major user of electricity, produces something like 16 per cent of it from about 100 nuclear plants. That fine socialist country, Sweden, already produces in excess of 50 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power plants. Mr Tim Fischer —France produces 70 per cent. Mr COBB —France produces more than 65 per cent-indeed, close to 70 per cent, of its power from nuclear stations and the amount is rising. Japan, another major user, already produces 26 per cent and that is destined to increase to 35 per cent by 1995. People might ask why there is such expansion in the world's demand for nuclear energy. The reasons are fairly simple and can be summed up by saying that it is the safest of all forms of energy despite what we hear. It is also the cheapest and cleanest form of energy. The alternatives, such as wind energy and solar energy, usually produce too little and are too costly, even though they play an important part in producing 1, 2, 3, or 4 per cent of energy needs. The other alternative is coal, and in many countries it is just too dear. It is too dirty for the more highly populated countries because of the acid rain and the greenhouse effect that it produces. Also, interestingly enough, coal produces more radioactive wastes when it is burnt and releases fumes into the atmosphere. The world is going increasingly nuclear and Australia is being left behind in the technology stakes. I am not implying that Australia should build a nuclear power station; it would be uneconomic because we have massive coal supplies close to the surface and near the population centres. But certainly we should be looking very closely at commercial uranium enrichment which would be worth millions of dollars to Australia by adding value to the relatively raw product that we now sell. I think it is safe enough to say that the coalition will support such a venture when it returns to government after the next election. We will also encourage research into the technology of the safe disposal of nuclear waste and we will certainly remove the restrictions on other uranium deposits being developed in Australia. I refer to deposits such as Jabiluka, Koongarra, Yeelirrie, Beverley, Honeymoon, Ben Lomond and Lake Way which are the main ones. Under a coalition government there would be no more of this jobs for the boys type approach, or mines for your mates agreements whereby only new uranium mines like Roxby Downs get the go ahead when it is needed to save an ALP government in a State election, which is what happened in South Australia. By not allowing Jabiluka to operate means that Australia is losing hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of dollars. Jabiluka of course is in the Northern Territory and there we have a Country-Liberal Party government. This rather inconsistent and nonsensical standard set by the present Federal Government in determining who mines where and who mines elsewhere cannot be substantiated and will certainly go when the coalition returns to power. The potential markets are there and the demand will double in a few years. We should have as many companies as possible out there on the world market seeking to sell. But this new tax on exports of 80 cents a kilogram that we are debating tonight will cut into the profitability and will lessen the chance of new investment in this area and new mines being opened up and developed. The present Labor Government policy says that it is good to mine here but it is evil to mine there. Australians are completely bewildered by that and the sooner that attitude goes the better. It is costing thousands of jobs and it is holding back decentralisation. It is estimated that if the four mines in the Northern Territory could be opened up-we are running two now-they could be earning something like $10,000m by the year 2000. It is criminal and almost traitorous that other countries such as Canada and South Africa are filling Australia's share simply because of this Federal Government's policy. Let me get back to what this new export tax is supposed to be spent on; namely, a quaint body called the Office of the Supervising Scientist. As I said earlier, this body is there for a whole range of functions concerned with the monitoring and protecting of the Alligator Rivers Region from the effects of uranium mining. Mr Barry Jones —It was set up by the Fraser Government. Mr COBB —Yes, the Fraser Government did have some faults-I am the first to admit it. It also set up the Human Rights Commission and look at how that has burgeoned. That is another area we will be getting rid of when we get back into power. Mr Downer —Blown out by three times by the Labor Party; that's good. Mr COBB —Yes. When one first hears about the OSS one expects three, four or five scientists to be employed. It might even have a secretary in a little office in Darwin. But I was absolutely astounded when I picked up the report of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region and saw just how the Office has grown. Imagine my surprise when I saw that there are 76 on the staff. Mr Hicks —How many? Mr COBB —Seventy-six. Mr Peter Fisher —Where do they live? Mr COBB —That is a very pertinent question: Where do they live? One would expect them to be living in Jabiru or Darwin. But as we heard earlier in this debate they have offices in Sydney with 27 staff. The Darwin office has one person in it-one person out of 76, but there are 27 in Sydney. The report says: The Sydney staff visit the Northern Territory regularly. I bet they do. It is interesting to look at the address of the Office in Sydney. It is located at the Triple M Tower, Bondi Junction. What is more, it is on level 24. Mr Cadman —With a view to the beach. Mr COBB —With a beautiful view to the beach, as the honourable member for Mitchell says. I give some credit to the Labor Party in that it has looked at the horrific number of staff and is thinking of cutting it back, but it was thinking of making a reduction of three-quarters from the people in the field. Hardly anyone in Sydney is touched at all. Mr Cadman —How many would that leave in Darwin? Mr Hicks —Half a person. Mr COBB —Yes, perhaps half a person. Those who work for the OSS can enjoy Sydney life while not being denied the pleasures of travel. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, if it is within the guidelines, a table of the places that the staff of the OSS have visited in the last two years. It is quite a revealing table. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —It does not meet the guidelines, so it cannot be incorporated. Mr COBB —I thank the House for its consideration. It is very interesting to go through some of the places that have been visited in the last two years. They include every capital city of Australia-Sydney a number of times; Melbourne a number of times; Lucas Heights; Adelaide is not left off the list; Hobart of course-one would have to travel to Hobart to inspect things relevant to the Alligator Rivers Region; Perth, of course; the national capital, Canberra, is not to be missed; and of course various interesting country centres, such as Townsville with a lovely climate, and Jarrahdale in Western Australia-I am not sure whose electorate that is in. Why restrict it to Australia? Looking at this table, I think the motto of the OSS is: `Join the OSS and see the world'. I see that it has been to Athens, Sweden, France, Singapore, Vienna, Great Britain, Vienna again, and it had various visits to establishments in Europe. I think it travels more than the whole of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation put together. Perhaps the OSS should be rechristened the SOS as far as the Australian taxpayers are concerned. It is nothing more or less than a bureaucracy gone mad-empire building of the most blatant and wasteful kind. I read in the report that even in 1988-it is going from strength to strength-it has planned a diamond jubilee celebration of international communication on radiological protection, of which the officer is a secretary- general, in Sydney at the Opera House. That should be interesting. Mr Hicks —Who is paying for all this? Mr COBB —The taxpayers, of course, and these efficient uranium mines to date. It is interesting to see some of the papers it has put out. One is on the workshop on thermoluminescence dating, presented in Britain at the University of Sussex. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Parkes will refer to material only if it is related to the Bill, not this material in particular. I am allowing some flexibility, but I am bringing it to the honourable member's attention to keep the matter relevant. Mr COBB —It is in the annual report of the OSS. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Certainly. Mr COBB —Another one was presented in Athens. Honourable members may wonder what the OSS was doing there. It was presenting a paper on the mobilisation of aluminium from a tropical flood plain and its role in natural fish kills. It related to a conceptual model. Another paper was on advances in the knowledge of Australian chironomid lavae since 1961 and was presented to the Australian Society for Limnology at Lorne in Victoria. Another one is the international conference on low levels measured of long-lived radionuclides in biological and environmental samples. That one had to be presented in Sweden. Here is another report-this is a beauty: Use of plastic enclosures in determining the effects of toxic trace metals added to Gulungul Billabong. It is good to see our money being spent well. Another one is the development of techniques for quantitative sampling of macroinvertebrates in densely covered macrophyte areas of Magela Creek. Another one is on the diet and feeding habit of frogs. Mr Cadman —On these fishing trips? Mr COBB —Indeed! One is on the underwater light climate of billabongs of the Alligator Rivers Region-something quite essential, no doubt. Lastly is a paper on the terminal stratification and the distribution of dissolved oxygen in billabongs of the Alligator Rivers Region of the Northern Territory. The list goes on. There are pages and pages of this stuff, showing how it has spent its money. No doubt these are nice things to do; they are interesting and, as a scientist, I can appreciate the worth of them. But I doubt very much that the farmers at Molong who yesterday saw their machinery sold from under them because of high taxes and a falling economy that is forcing up interest rates would approve of this. They would be enraged. No wonder the deficit has trebled to $101 billion in the last three years. It is also interesting to read in the annual report the research program for the last year. I see one on fish movement. I rang a fellow in the Northern Territory and said: `What do these fellows do?'. He said: `They sit on a rock near the stream and watch the fish go by; they count them'. Quite frankly, I did not believe it until I read the report, but it is true. The office also put out a report on the role of termites as geomorphological agents relevant to the long term containment of uranium mill tailings. I am sure that is relevant. Lastly, there was a report on the flora of the Alligator Rivers Region which was done under a community employment program grant of $60,438. That amount of taxpayers' money was allocated to employ some people to go along and compile a checklist of plants in the Alligator Rivers Region and, to quote the release of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis): The project will provide the participants with valuable work experience which should greatly enhance their prospects of future permanent employment. I am sure it will. The people employed under that program have been unemployed for over 9 months. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the honourable member for Parkes that we are debating the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill. Mr COBB —I see you are having difficulty finding the relevance of this to the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker; I had difficulty myself. What really alarms me about the OSS is that it appears that it is hardly needed at all. The Northern Territory has 34 pieces of legislation relating to this Bill, including Aboriginal land legislation and conservation and environmental assessment legislation, and all the OSS is doing is duplicating that. Under the rules and regulations, the Ranger mine has to employ monitoring staff, and it has been successful in doing that. Their employees only receive less than 10 per cent of the international permitted levels and the background radiation in that area is no higher than world-wide levels. So that monitoring has been successful, and this body is only duplicating it. Clearly the functions of the OSS need reviewing and, as it stands, I can only conclude that it is a blatant waste of money; it is a rort being carried out using taxpayers' money and it should be pruned severely. It is symptomatic of the ills crippling this country, and as soon as the coalition returns to government and does those jobs the better it will be for Australia. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(9.27) —In 1982 Australia's present Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that if the Australian Labor Party did not change its uranium policy on election to Government, Australia would loose its AAA rating. We all know what happened-the Labor Party did not change its uranium policy significantly and Australia lost its AAA rating. We on this side of the House know how important the uranium industry is and the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill is of course fundamentally about that industry. We know that it generates something like $400m worth of exports for our economy at a time when we desperately need to promote our trade. We know also that the uranium industry gives us a window into nuclear politics, ensuring that Australia can play its role in the international disarmament process. But the Government's response to this very important industry is a weak and compromising one. It has closed mines at Beverley and it has closed mines at Honeymoon, and that has cost the Australian community something like $1 billion in investment and in the vicinity of 3,000 jobs. I understand that although an agreement was reached that I would participate in this debate, the Government side would like fairly rapidly to bring the debate to an end. So what I will do is restrict my remarks to three or four minutes, just as the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) did, to draw the attention of the House to the operation of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. In regard to the objectives of this Office, one finds that its 1985-86 annual report states: The functions of the Supervising Scientists are limited by the Act to matters directly concerned with the mining of uranium within the Alligator Rivers region. It is a body with a budget of about $5 1/2m, which increased by about 15 per cent in 1984-85. At least some restraint has been exercised this year. The simple fact is that it does have a very large budget and it does have a very large staff of 77, which is to be reduced in a full year by some 12 people. The effect of that is, as the honourable member for Parkes pointed out, to cut nine people out of the Alligator Rivers Region Research Institute, which is the raison d'etre of the organisation, and only three out of its administrative headquarters in Sydney. We need to know whether the manpower of this organisation is being properly used and whether the research projects that it is involved in are, in any case, relevant to its terms of reference. There is the broader question: Is this body any longer terribly significant? After all, it was set up largely for political purposes and no similar body has been set up to monitor the other existing uranium mines, in particular the mines at Roxby Downs. The honourable member for Parkes pointed out that there are 43 staff at Jabiru which is where the office is supposed to be operating. A new administrative building was built there last financial year. Yet, in spite of building a new administrative building, in spite of the work of the office being at Jabiru, we find that some 25 staff are located in Sydney. As the honourable member for Parkes also pointed out, they are in a very fine office on level 24 in the Triple M Tower at Bondi Junction. These people work in Sydney not because it makes sense but because they find Sydney a more comfortable place to live in. I want to quote the words of the Supervising Scientist to a Senate Estimates committee. He said: The implication in your question- that is, a question asked by Senator Puplick as to why there was staff in Sydney- . . . is that you would expect that the research institute would operate better if everybody was talking to each other and all were located in the one place. That certainly is true. Why are they not all located in the one place? There are many other issues related to the staff which I would like to raise but apparently I am not able to do so tonight. I am disappointed about that. The Government is apparently unaware of the speakers list which has been circulated by our Whip. Many other questions also need to be raised about the relevance of the work of this body. The honourable member for Parkes pointed to many examples. I just want to point to a couple more before I wind up my remarks. I ask the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) why this body, whose charter is set out perfectly clearly in the Act, is doing things such as inquiring into the ecological modelling of the fish community structure, apparently at Jabiru, in spite of the fact that many of the staff work in Sydney? Why is it studying the shrimp life cycle in that region? Why is it quantifying Aboriginal consumption of bush foods? Why is it overseeing a community employment program project into the flora of the Alligator Rivers Region? Why is it modelling atmospheric transport and evaporation in the vicinity of the Ranger uranium mines? The office is going way beyond its charter. It is a body which strikes me as being grossly overstaffed. I repeat: I am very disappointed that I am not able to say more about this matter: The office is certainly a very real example of an organisation established by the Government which has fallen outside the scrutiny of the Parliament. It has fallen outside the proper scrutiny of the Minister himself. As a result, this organisation is causing additional costs and additional burdens to be imposed on the taxpayers of Australia, and that is something that I sincerely regret. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.33) —in reply-I thank the honourable members who have made a contribution to this debate. Let me take up some of the points that have been raised. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) made the point that the Government was speaking as if there were good and bad uranium. Nobody has ever suggested that and it is absurd for him to put the proposition. The Government's position has never been that there is no market for uranium but, rather, that the share of the market which Australia could reasonably expect to obtain in the immediate future can be supplied from Ranger expansion to 6,000 tonnes of uranium 308 per annum and Olympic Dam production from 1988 of around 2,000 tonnes of uranium 308 per annum. These two mines provide the basis for a two-fold increase in Australian exports from around the end of the decade. I think there is a somewhat exaggerated view from the Opposition about the unlimited prospects of the uranium industry. Particularly after the events of Chernobyl, a number of nations in Europe and, indeed, in North America, are rethinking the nuclear program. That is not to deny that the very serious problems related to acid rain and things associated with the very heavy use of fossil fuel make it necessary to look for alternative energy sources, of which nuclear power is a very important alternative option. I think it would be very unwise to put all our eggs into the nuclear basket. The honourable member raised a question relating to staff of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. Because of the cost of providing housing or laboratory facilities in the Northern Territory it is not cost effective to have all the staff located in the Northern Territory. About two-thirds of the staff are there. A lot of the work that is being done is very sophisticated-requiring such things as computer modelling-and does not have to be done on the site. It can be done anywhere where there is the appropriate computing capacity. The staff doing a lot of that work are in Sydney where they are in a position to use the expensive and modern facilities that are in that place. It would be far too expensive to replicate these in the Northern Territory. As I pointed out by interjection, the Office of the Supervising Scientist was establised by the Fraser Government. The Hawke Government has maintained the Office and has progressively increased funding as evidence of this Government's commitment to the environmental protection of the area. My colleagues the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) I think have adequately answered the issues raised by the Opposition, and I see no point in reiterating them. The honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) indicated that he was concerned with the sevenfold increase in the levy. It is public knowledge that Ranger returns $50m annually and that Nabarlek returns to its parent company $11m annually. The level of the levy is based upon the principle that the polluter pays. One can gather from the contribution of the Opposition this evening that honourable members opposite may no longer agree with this principle. I was particularly concerned with the remarks of the honourable member for Parkes, who is no longer gracing us with his presence, and I just draw some objection to his methodology. Particularly if one is talking to a hick audience, it is not hard to select a few titles of research projects-- Mr Downer —Are you suggesting that we are a hick audience? Mr BARRY JONES —No, I am saying that it is a well practised art. I put it to the honourable member that it is the worst kind of anti-intellectual populism, and he knows that perfectly well. Mr Downer —I raise a point of order. I ask the Minister to withdraw his suggestion that the members of this House listening to this debate and, indeed, the people listening on their radios to this broadcast are a hick audience. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —I did not take it from the Minister's words that he was referring to honourable members within this House, and that is the extent of the Standing Orders. Mr BARRY JONES —If I had been, I would have called it an honourable hick audience, naturally. It is not hard to select a few titles of research projects, read them out to a lay audience, especially if the titles are long, complex and use unfamiliar words, and then by appealing to the lowest common denominator provoke some cheap score by saying to a farmer or to a pensioner: `That is what they are spending your hard-earned money on'. This kind of hick town approach really is appalling. I think the honourable member for Parkes, who was educated as a scientist I think with an MSc, knows better and ought to be ashamed of that kind of approach. When he tries to link the modest expenditure on research projects in this area directly to Australia's unfortunate overseas debt of $101 billion and then says in effect that one has really caused the other, he knows better than that. I commend to him the words of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) that the arithmetic does not add up. That kind of cheap appeal to populist feelings, a hick town principle, will not do this country any good. It is an appalling thing when he says: `It's all right because when there is a change of government we will not have any more research and we will cut back on research'. I hope that we do not hear any more of that kind of approach in debates of this nature. In Australia we have a reasonably good record in research. It would be tragic to see that go. If we look at the titles of the papers and monographs that have been produced and we look at them in the broad context of what they are trying to do to understand the total environment, which is an extraordinarily fragile and complex thing, we see that every one of those projects could be vindicated if we had the time to do it. But I think the whole purpose of the legislation is quite simple and straightforward. I note that the Opposition is not opposed to the principle involved and it will be voting for the Bill. I just thank honourable members for their contributions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —by leave-The amendments which we propose to move in the Committee stage are the result of representations from the States. Details of the amendments are contained in the schedules and explanatory memoranda which have been circulated. The purpose of the amendments to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill is to make some adjustments to the proposals on cross-vesting jurisdiction between Federal, State and Territory courts contained in the Bill presented to the House of Representatives on 22 October 1986. The adjustments follow consultations between the Commonwealth and States about comments received from the Law Council of Australia since the Bill was introduced. I indicate to my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) that the ad hoc committee of the Law Council, of which Mr Alan Limbury is apparently the secretary, made representations to the Special Committee of Solicitors-General. I have in front of me a letter dated 19 February, addressed to Mr Limbury, which reads: Thank you for the comments of the ad hoc Committee on the Cross-vesting proposal. They have been considered by us, and in the discussions of the Special Committee of Solicitors-General at our meeting on 5th February. As a result of this fuller consideration we have now proposed amendments to be made to the Cross-vesting Bill. Having said that, I just want my colleague to understand that I have some evidence that there were consultations, and the amendments relate to those submissions. These amendments are designed to clarify or overcome possible ambiguities in a number of the provisions in the Bill-namely, those relating to transfer of proceedings, entitlement of barristers and solicitors to practise where proceedings have been transferred, exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to cross-vesting laws, and the laws which are to govern the conduct of proceedings. The purpose of the amendments to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill is to make some adjustments to the proposals on jurisdiction of courts contained in the Bill which I also introduced into the House of Representatives on 22 October 1986. The adjustments follow consideration of comments received since that date and further consultation with State and Northern Territory Attorneys-General. The Bill as introduced confers on the Federal Court of Australia exclusive original civil jurisdiction in intellectual property matters. Under the amendments, original civil jurisdiction in intellectual property matters, other than appeals from the Commissioner of Patents or from the Registrars of Trade Marks and Designs, is to be vested concurrently in the Federal Court of Australia and the State and Territory Supreme Courts. Appeals from decisions of the Commissioner of Patents and from the Registrars of Trade Marks and Designs are to lie to the Federal Court, but not to State and Territory Supreme Courts. The Bill as introduced also confers on State and Territory courts original and appellate Federal jurisdiction, concurrent with the Federal Court, in civil matters arising under Divisions 1 and 1a of Part V of the Trade Practices Act 1974. These are known as the consumer protection provisions. In all cases but one-that is the unconscionable conduct, section 52a provision-the Bill proposed that appeals from State and Territory courts were to lie within the respective State and Territory systems. Appeals in relation to matters under section 52a were to go to the Federal Court of Australia or, with special leave, to the High Court of Australia. Under the amendments, this exception will be removed and appeals from State and Territory courts on section 52a matters will also lie within the respective State and Territory systems. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross- vesting) Bill concurrently with the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. There being no objection I will allow that course to be followed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.46) —The rationale for the scheme which is before the House is a simple and sensible one. The Opposition has some objections to the proposals, but the underlying principle is sound, and that is, that jurisdiction should be shared between the courts in our Federal system. What is proposed here is that there should be transfers of jurisdiction between Federal and State systems, from State to State and from Territory to Territory, so that all jurisdictional problems can be overcome. These proposals apply to cases where there are pending in one court and pending in another court disputes which arise out of or are related to each other. As a general principle that should be supported. One of the problems of our constitutional system is that we divide powers in ways which may have seemed extremely sensible many years ago but which have turned out to pose practical problems, and practical problems in the administration of justice are precisely the sorts of things that should be avoided. Justice should be swift, efficient and administered in a way which avoids sterile and pointless squabbles over where a particular case should be heard or in which jurisdiction a particular case should be heard. I can give an illustration of this. I recall when these proposals were raised a case that had been put to me just after the Federal Court system had been set up. I was called at very short notice to get an injunction. I said to my junior: `Are you sure that the new Federal Court has jurisdiction in this case?' He said `Yes, I am absolutely sure the Court has jurisdiction', but I had my doubts. We were going into court reading the Act as we went, as sometimes happens in urgent cases. I said `Are you absolutely certain of that?', and he said: `Yes, I am quite certain'. I said `Look, if it turns out that the Court does not have jurisdiction, I expect you to commit suicide on the steps'. Well, we went up to the Chief Judge of the Federal Court, which had just been established. We sat down with him and started to go through the Federal Court's jurisdiction. There were certain proposals that the Court was going to have jurisdiction over, but those proposals had not yet come into effect so we had to go elsewhere. As we went out I said to my junior: `All right, here are the steps of the Court. Now you commit suicide'. That is in some ways perhaps a mildly amusing anecdote but it has a point behind it, and the point is that the kind of problem should never arise. The Government's proposals go a very good distance towards overcoming these problems but, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) pointed out in his second reading speech, certain matters will be reserved to the Federal jurisdiction, and one of those matters is tax. One of the matters to be reserved originally to Federal jurisdiction was intellectual property, but some submissions have been made, and I suspect there has been a deal of bargaining between the State and Federal court systems. It has been decided that intellectual property should be shared between the jurisdictions and should not be simply the province of the Federal Court. Our position is, in blunt terms: The constitutional system of courts that we have, with State, Federal and Territory courts, poses problems, as both the Attorney-General and I have pointed out, that we do not need. There is general agreement on cross-vesting so the proceedings arising out of, or related to, proceedings pending in another court can be transferred so that all related matters will be dealt with in the one court. The appropriate court will decide all issues and there will be no appeal on a determination as to which court is the appropriate court. In principle that is sensible. As the Attorney-General is aware, one of the difficulties that have emerged in recent times arises in cases of family disputes. Not so long ago there was a decision of the High Court. The High Court held, effectively on a three to two basis, that an ex-nuptial child was not a child over which the Family Court of Australia had jurisdiction even though the Family Court had jurisdiction over children of the marriage. In that case two sets of proceedings were ultimately commenced by the wife-one in the Family Court seeking orders in relation to a child of whom the father had been given temporary custody and the other in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Eventually the case went to the High Court to determine which court had jurisdiction. Again, that is a far more important example than the one I gave at the outset of what we do not need. For many months there was a dispute over the custody of a child, and that causes great trauma, great unhappiness, within a family and we do not need that. We then come to the question-the principle having been agreed upon that jurisdiction should be shared-of whether there should be specialist jurisdictions. There are arguments for and against. Let me put the argument for the specialist jurisdiction, the argument which the Government and the States are putting. I understand that we are looking at co-operative legislation. Whilst we propose amendments, we would need to get the approval of the States to those amendments. But I would like the Government to listen very carefully to what I have to say and I am sure the Attorney-General will since we are not here concerned with anything but the best way of working out jurisdictional problems within our legal system. The argument in favour of specialist jurisdiction being reserved to certain courts is that that court, or those courts, will build up a body of expertise; that therefore they will be able to deal with cases within that particular expertise more efficiently, more quickly and more cheaply than courts that do not have the expertise. I suppose that is the argument that would be advanced in favour of keeping the tax jurisdiction within the Federal Court. The problem about that argument is that it does not look at the way in which our legal system has developed nor does it look at the spread of quality of judges within our legal system. The Australian legal system developed from the English legal system and that proceeds upon the assumption that there is an appellate jurisdiction which covers all fields. That appellate jurisdiction gives finality on all problems. The High Court is the final arbiter not simply on constitutional questions which are of such great concern to parliamentarians and governments but on all questions of common and statute law and all questions relating to equitable principles in this country. That means that judges of the High Court have to deal one day with tax matters, another day with equitable remedies, a third day with common law remedies, a fourth day with statute law and a fifth day with constitutional cases. The system which developed within our country at the outset was modelled on the English system. Effectively, it meant that courts should be in a position to cover the waterfront so that judges within the courts would be able to apply themselves to whatever cases came before them. It could be argued that if we were a small and somewhat backward country, which we are not, if we had only a small and non-specialist Bar, which we do not have, if we had only a few judges of uncertain learning-we have many judges some of whom are of very great learning-perhaps there would be a good argument for the specialist jurisdiction. But, of course, if one looks at the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which is now to be stripped of any jurisdiction in tax cases, one can immediately identify judges of that court of profound experience in that jurisdiction. What that does is to illustrate very simply the spread of expertise within this country and the depth of expertise to be found on the benches. It should not be thought that simply because judges are appointed to the Federal Court they have some God-given expertise in Federal Court matters; nor should it be thought that judges appointed to the supreme courts of the States are simply barristers who, before being appointed judges, had experience only in State matters. Of course, the contrary is the case since those who go to the Bench represent for the most part the best the Bar has to offer. The best that the Bar has to offer means people of qualities that cover the various jurisdictions. I do not think the case in favour of the general cross-vesting and without any reservation of jurisdiction could be put better than in the words of Sir Owen Dixon when he was sworn in as Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. I quote from what he said in answer to the various speeches of congratulations. He referred to one of the High Court judges and went on to say: . . . I think it has become apparent to a larger number of people, and to all the judges of the Commonwealth, that the judicial system of the Commonwealth is an integral whole and that the High Court stands merely as the final appellate tribunal in Australia in that coherent and established system which is recognised as a unit in judicial administration. He went on to say-this is directly relevant to the question before the House: In saying that this represents simply the appellate tribunal and the tribunal for Federal questions in the judicial system of the Commonwealth, I do not overlook the distinction which we unfortunately- I stress the word `unfortunately'- maintain between State and Federal jurisdiction. This is an eighteenth century conception which we derived from the United States of America in the faithful copy which was made of their judicial institutions. It is to be hoped that at some future time it will be recognised that under the English system of law, the British system of law which we inherited, the whole body of law is antecedent to the work of any Legislature and that the courts as a whole must interpret and apply the whole body of law, so that there should be one judicial system in Australia which is neither State nor Commonwealth but a system of Australian Courts administering the total body of the law. The cross-vesting provisions in the Bills go a very great distance to achieving that goal. But by reserving specialist jurisdictions they do not go far enough. Consequently, the position that we take is that we support a second reading of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill. We will move amendments to that Bill in Committee. We oppose the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous) Amendments Bill and we do so for the reason that it simply is designed to reinforce or to create specialist jurisdictions. That is unnecessary. In the time that the Government will have between now and when this Bill is dealt with by the Senate, I ask the Attorney-General to reconsider the argument not simply in the light of what I have said, not simply in light of the views that are expressed by the various courts-one must recall that judges in courts, if they are judges of Federal courts, will perhaps have a natural inclination to believe that Federal courts should have specialised jurisdictions reserved to them just as judges in State courts are interested as lawyers in enlarging the jurisdictions that they have-but, most of all, to listen to the words that I quoted by Sir Owen Dixon, one of the very great lawyers this country has produced and one of the very great lawyers by any judgment that the English speaking world has produced in this century, and to consider what we seek to do, which is to provide effectively an Australia-wide system. That should be our objective. I commend the Attorney-General for going a far distance towards that objective. I ask him to go the extra mile. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —I ask for the indulgence of the Chair to say that I omitted to table the explanatory memorandum relating to the legislation. I state in answer to my friend the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), concerning the matters that I know he wants me to take notice of, that I would be grateful if he had the chance also to discuss those matters with all the Attorneys-General with whom I discussed them and who are in complete agreement with what I now propose. But we should not delay the debate here. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.01) —Tonight we are dealing with important legislation because in the long run it is meant to save litigants costs. Legal proceedings that actually reach court are extremely expensive. Any day in court can cost a family, a company or a business thousands of dollars. What should not happen is that the determination of the merits of the case be delayed by some argument as to whether the case is before the right court. Anyone who has known litigants involved in such a situation can have nothing but pity for such people or companies. The Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill is particularly relevant because it arises from a case of Stack v. Coast Securities (No. 9) Pty Ltd which was sorting out the jurisdiction of trade practices matters and confining them to Federal jurisdiction. Concurrent with the cross-vesting Bill is the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. This legislation is also extremely relevant because it will do a considerable amount to reduce the load of appeals that were flowing to the State courts on tax matters. There has always been, right from the earliest days of Federation, in the Judiciary Act of 1903 the right to remove certain cases-even if the parties do not agree-to the High Court of Australia if they involve certain areas of constitutional and Federal law. The right to move from one jurisdiction to another is not new but these Bills before the House tonight will give greater flexibility, not only for a court to deal with a case but also to protect the practitioners, be they solicitors or barristers, who might or might not be registered in a Federal court. If they are registered in State courts they can continue practising and no one can take the petty point that a State judge dealing with Federal law cannot proceed if some solicitor or barrister is not registered by the High Court of Australia. As I said, the transfer of proceedings is particularly important in tax matters. I am told that up to 3,000 cases on tax appeals are pending in State supreme courts. When taxpayers receive their tax assessments if they are not happy they can make a written objection to the Commissioner of Taxation. The Commissioner then makes a determination and says: `I am disallowing your objection but you have the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or, at present, go to a State supreme court'. The right to go to a State supreme court will be removed. The 3,000 appeals are not necessarily all waiting in line. Hundreds or thousands may be related to a type of scheme that has been disallowed and may all collapse when a series of determinations is made. If this legislation is passed, in future the correspondence emanating from the Commissioner of Taxation will give the taxpayer the right to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or to a Federal court. That is where this legislation will touch the average taxpayer. The Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction in matters of intellectual property. This will pass to State and Federal courts except in appeals from commissioners of patents or from registrars of trade marks and designs. Similar to tax matters, the very small number of appeals from decisions of commissioners of patents and registrars of trade marks will remain within the Federal jurisdiction because of the expertise that has developed there. In the case of Hinchen v. Hinchen in New South Wales Mr Justice Mahoney, who amongst other things is the Chairman of the Remuneration Tribunal, pointed out that there was a need to ensure that litigants were not defeated along the way by some error by the solicitor or by counsel in taking the initial hearing to the wrong court. There is a need not to waste a litigant's money. In some cases one side is represented with legal aid and the other side pays its own costs. This produces extraordinary financial problems for people who are sidetracked. There may be delays because the case has ended up in the wrong jurisdiction. Justice denied is an appalling thing. This can happen when a case is delayed in court because it is in the wrong jurisdiction. The litigants may not be able to afford changing to another court and fighting the jurisdictional point. The final point I want to make is that it is sensible to transfer the appellate jurisdiction under the Trade Practices Act. There was an old provision that a claim of unconscionable conduct had to be determined by a Federal court. It seems to be a very wise decision to drop that requirement. There may be many grounds of appeal. Probably many counsel or solicitors drafting appeals would throw in unconscionable conduct as one of the alternative grounds. If that phrase was mentioned it meant that the appeal was reserved for the Federal authorities. I commend the legislation to the House. If it saves litigants money, if it saves ordinary Australian businesses from being bankrupted or getting into serious financial problems by proceeding down the wrong line of appellate court or into the wrong jurisdiction, this legislation will be very important for the community. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clause 1 (Short title). Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.10) —The amendments I am about to move have been circulated. They relate to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill. The proposals here make some adjustments because of representations that have been made by the States and also the ad hoc committee of the Law Council. The amendments are designed to clarify or overcome ambiguities. They relate to the transfer of proceedings, the entitlement of barristers and solicitors to practise where proceedings have been transferred, and the exercise of jurisdiction-- The CHAIRMAN —I take it the Attorney is seeking leave to move all his amendments together. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. The CHAIRMAN —Does the Opposition spokesman wish to move amendments as well? Mr Spender —Yes. The CHAIRMAN —Then we cannot take the Bill as a whole. We can deal with the Bill clause by clause if we want to have amendments to individual clauses. If we want to take the Bill as a whole we can only deal with the Government amendments at that time. Mr Ruddock —Mr Chairman, I would have liked, if the arrangements that I had understood were current, to speak in general terms to the Bill. If you treat it clause by clause, in order to make the comments that I would like to make, which are general, I will have to try to speak at all relevant times in relation to all relevant clauses, and I really think that-- The CHAIRMAN —Is the honourable member for Dundas taking a point or order? Mr Ruddock —I am asking for clarification. The CHAIRMAN —I can give the honourable member for Dundas clarification. If there are two different types of amendments it is not possible to deal with the Bill as a whole. The Attorney-General has some amendments on behalf of the Government; the honourable member for North Sydney has some amendments on behalf of the Opposition. If those amendments are to proceed, we need to deal with the matter clause by clause. If the honourable member for Dundas wishes to participate in the Committee stage of the debate he will have to be relevant to the clauses. So that is the clarification for the honourable member for Dundas. Mr Lionel Bowen —Mr Chairman, I will try to assist the honourable member for Dundas. I would have no objection if, when it is the appropriate time for the honourable member to participate in the debate, he talks the way he wants to. I would not be anxious to take a point of order on the basis that he wanted to range perhaps a little more widely than the actual clause. The CHAIRMAN —That might suit the Attorney. The Chair will decide on that when he gets to it. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.14) —This Bill, as disclosed by its short title, is the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill of 1986. The reasons for having a Bill dealing with the matter of cross-vesting of the jurisdiction of courts is to enable the provision of jurisdiction to our State courts in relation to certain Federal matters. In the context of the title, I want to present some of the background to these proceedings and the reason that we are pressing on with legislation of this sort at this time. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I shall report progress. Progress reported. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.16) —I want to take the opportunity tonight to speak on a report issued by one of our parliamentary colleagues-not a member of this side of the House, but a Government member. It is a report on the tragedy of Kampuchean refugees. Earlier this year the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) visited refugee camps in Kampuchea to investigate the consequences of the closure of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees camp at Khao I Dang. I have read this most worthy document and I hope that other members will take the opportunity to do so. I have had occasion to speak about the prospective closure of Khao I Dang before in the Parliament. I raised it during an adjournment debate last year. It is a matter of considerable concern to me and, I have no doubt, to my colleagues. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Calwell was aware of the representations that I was receiving and that that prompted him to undertake his visit to the Kampuchean refugee camps on the Thai border. I know the area, having been there on two occasions. The honourable member described it as one of the most tragic visits that he had undertaken. The problems of Kampuchea, compounded by the circumstances of people on the Kampuchean border, made my visit the most emotionally draining experience of my life. I despair very much for the future of the people of Kampuchea, particularly those on the border who are jammed between their own country, which is occupied by Vietnam, and the Thais, who see the Kampuchean people in between them as, I suppose, an element of protection for them against what they see as their traditional enemy-the Vietnamese. If one can imagine that small nation, many of whose people are refugees, jammed between two larger nations each with their armies, that gives some impression of the circumstances in which those people find themselves. They are continually at risk. I wrote to the honourable member for Calwell and told him that, whilst I do not necessarily agree with every conclusion he draws, I find most of the report very persuasive and helpful. I want to highlight briefly one of the areas of concern to me, because the report gives some factual information about Australia's program for accepting refugees from that region of the world. I hope that honourable members will take the opportunity of looking at the report as to the number of people that Australia has taken under its program. The figures were given to the honourable member by the UNHCR. Honourable members will see that page 17 of the report shows that in 1983-according to the UNHCR-we took 4,399 Kampucheans; in 1984, the number was reduced to 816; in 1985, it was 1,082; and in 1986, it was 736. A small number of Laos were taken, but primarily we are taking Vietnamese people from the Indo-Chinese region. I do not in any way quarrel with the program designed to assist the Vietnamese. But I draw to the attention of the House the extent to which the number of Khmers taken has been significantly reduced over time. The Government does place some weight on the fact that it is increasing the numbers to be brought from Kampuchea by 40 per cent this year. If one looks at the figures to which I have referred, takes 700 and adds 40 per cent to it, the numbers that are likely to be taken next year can only be of the order of 900 to 1,000. Having regard to the enormity of the problem, I must say I regard that refugee program for Kampucheans as being most inadequate. I hope that the Government will review those figures very compassionately and that it will look at the ways and means in which Australia might be more helpful in that region. I very much agree with the honourable member that there is a need for a peaceful solution. I despair of the prospect of that happening very quickly. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(10.21) —During the last few months we have heard the only way to overcome our disastrous trading deficit is to develop new export products, and, of course, new markets for those products. We have seen massive government advertising campaigns, particularly the Buy Australian campaign, but we know that, despite those campaigns, manufacturing industry in this country is declining, driving many of our manufacturing industries and innovators overseas. It is sad to realise that Australia today pays at least $4 billion a year to import some of our very basic items. Very simple products such as office stationery-clips and staples-cost this country $300m a year in imports. Even an item such as dust-free chalk costs this country $10m, ball bearings cost $105m, chainsaws $40m, and a basic product such as vinyl floor sheeting costs $200m. Of course, we are anxious-and the Government has good intentions-to show manufacturers new business opportunities in Australia. We know we are very good at innovation. However, large numbers of our best inventions are still going overseas because of lack of faith by local manufacturers. The Government must recognise that advertising campaigns and marginal incentive programs through our taxation system simply will not be effective unless we correct our domestic economic environment. I do not wish to dwell on this point, but interest rates, restrictive work practices, the burden of regulations and, of course, associated government policies, are all factors that influence this tremendous drain of innovation and manufacturing industry that is leaving our shores. I would like very briefly to mention a few examples that are so important to my electorate, which has the capacity to grow anything of high quality that is needed almost anywhere in the world. I refer particularly, of course, to the citrus industry. The Australian citrus industry is now very much dependent, of course, on the world orange juice market. In view of the doubts that are being expressed concerning the continuation of adequate tariff protection for that industry and the knowledge that by 1990 orange production will exceed domestic requirements in terms of fresh fruit and juice, the Australian citrus industry has embarked on a plan to maximise our potential for fresh fruit exports. The market of greatest interest at present is the United States market because of our potential to sell navel oranges during the Northern Hemisphere off-season for navels. This is what the Californian citrus industry is doing in this country in our fresh fruit market. We all know that Californian navels have been marketed over the last two seasons in Melbourne and Sydney for up to $32 a case, in stark contrast to the price of Australian oranges, which is $6 to $9 a case. The industry has every reason to believe that reciprocal trade with the United States, given adequate and consistent quarantine measures on both sides, will be profitable for the grower and, importantly, will be a major factor in placing extra production which is expected in the next few years. This opportunity for reciprocal trade for Australian growers is denied because of unfair quarantine restrictions which are applied by the United States authorities. Our authorities must act with greater haste to settle this issue or this country must ban Californian navels entering our shores. We all know that the world is increasingly becoming a single global market, rendering obsolete the idea of companies sitting back here in Australia and simply expecting to export. In future Australian companies must become part of the international market. They must seek to tap, or at least must forge links with, companies and organisations that are already part of these markets. One of our industries which is doing this is the wine industry, which has a real prospect of increasing sales. Three per cent of Australian wine is exported. The world needs our quality wines. But, unfortunately, Government policies are forcing Australian wine manufacturers into producing and selling low quality wines. This Government has taken $100m out of the industry in the last two years through sales taxes and the removal of the stock valuation tax. This industry has an enormous potential to contribute to our export returns. The Government must realise that it cannot expect these industries, and particularly our horticultural industries, to meet this challenge if it does not remove from them some of the burdens that its policies are producing for them. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.26) —I rise tonight to speak briefly on the matter referred to by the previous speaker, that is, the Buy Australian campaign. I would like to show to the House two labels that were cut off from two T-shirts which were bought in a Venture store in Frankston. One label, which is for a large sized T-shirt worth $8, says: `Double Swan-Made in China, All Cotton'. That was bought about six months ago at a Venture store in Frankston. However the label on the other T-shirt, which was bought recently, within the last month, and which has a price tag of $8 says: `Double Swan-All Cotton, Made in Australia'. This is an example of the deception that is occurring in the marketing of various products. One tag says `Made in China' and the other says `Made in Australia'. I think the Government should consider bringing in legislation to make certain that this sort of thing does not happen. Mr McGauran —It is a State matter. Mr CHYNOWETH —Even if it is a State matter we should make our State colleagues aware of it and make certain that it does not happen. The fact that people are being deceived by simple little things like these two tags has not been pressed hard enough. If the tags could be incorporated in Hansard I would do it so that people could see that what I am saying is correct. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The honourable member may table the tags if he wishes to, although I do not think it is a good idea. Mr CHYNOWETH —I would like to, but I do not think I can. Another thing which happened recently in Frankston and which I thought was excellent was that a friend of mine went to Myer and purchased an Australian-made pro- duct. The shop assistant said to the purchaser: `Thank you for buying Australian'. That was a simple act but it was quite effective because the purchaser came and told me about the incident. If all our shop assistants did this simple think it would promote Australian goods a lot better than they are being promoted at the moment. People want to buy Australian-made goods, although there is probably not enough of them in the shops. It should be pointed out that we manufacture many articles at very cheap prices. We should all buy Australian-made, especially when we are buying motor cars. The production of cars generates an enormous amount of work. It generates a lot of work in the electorate of Dunkley. We have there a Japanese-controlled firm called Yazaki which makes the wiring looms for every car that is manufactured in Australia. It has recently won an export order to export wiring looms to New Zealand. It has an excellent research and development section and I am quite certain that in the not too distant future it will be exporting wiring looms and technology back to Japan. It is a very innovative and excellent company. We must all pay a little extra to buy Australian-made goods and make certain that after buying them if we have any comments we would like to make on the goods we pass those comments on to the factories and design teams so that they can improve their products. We have an opportunity, now that our dollar is so cheap in relation to the rest of the world's money, to sell a great deal more of these products overseas. I recently heard that in the next few months the Ford Motor Co. is to send overseas 12,000 engines from its Victorian plant. These sorts of exports no doubt will lower the deficit that has built up through government borrowings but mainly through borrowings in the private industry. These are some of the things that we can do-simple things such as buying Australian products. Shopkeepers and shop attendants can say to customers: `Thank you for buying Australian'. All of us can promote our products and do our little bit to help Australian industry in a time of crisis and help farmers and manufacturers throughout the nation. Mr MILES(Braddon)(10.31) —It is now recognised by all informed Australians that the record of this Government is one of high Budget deficits, high interest rates, big government spending, decreasing living standards and an unwillingness to bite the bullet when it comes to hard decisions. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) talk of the need for us to encourage exports and to buy Australian products. I should like to spend some time on that topic tonight There are some difficulties in Australia which we have to face up to before those hopes and wishes are achieved. Time and time again during four years of office this Government has been advised, counselled and indeed pleaded with to address the impending disaster of high overseas debt, coupled with a forecast of low demand for Australian export commodities, which are on the decrease. But instead of addressing the problems, the Government has buried its head in the sand. Nine months ago the Treasurer (Mr Keating) stated that we were fast headed towards becoming a banana republic and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that we faced a crisis as serious as war. Two days ago the Prime Minister said that the party is over. In other words, for eight months after declaring war the Prime Minister continued to hold a party in this nation. That is the tragedy that we face-a Prime Minister who will not face up to making the tough decisions. The rhetoric of the Hawke Government has not addressed, indeed has not recognised, the reality of the debilitating position of the Australian economy. Australia does have a bright future given the right policies. A major plank of such policies would be to enhance exports. At the present time there are many small businesses which are searching for new markets overseas but which find many difficulties in landing their products on time, in top quality, and at the right price. Let me give as an example in my electorate on King Island the kelp industry. The industry harvests kelp from the west coast of King Island and produces the highest quality kelp in the world. The product is dried and then shipped off to Scotland, where it is processed. Some 200 products come from that kelp. To transport a container from King Island to Melbourne, which is only about 150 kilometres, costs $1,084; yet to transport the kelp from King Island to the United Kingdom costs only another $560 for a 12,000-kilometre journey. That is typical of some of the costs which good Australian export industries face. Our local prices are far too high and the cost structure for these industries is quite debilitating. Another example in my electorate involves a person who wanted to export cauliflowers to Hong Kong. He was able to get a contract of 20 tonnes a week so long as he could guarantee that they would arrive regularly on time on a certain day and in good quality. That went on for a few weeks until there was a strike on the Melbourne wharf. The vegetables sat there for two days supposedly in a refrigerated container, but of course the power to the container was switched off. When they arrived in Singapore, of course, they were very poor quality. So the person who was purchasing those cauliflowers said: `That is it, the first time, no go any more. You are not reliable, you cannot produce'. That is the type of thing we are faced with in this nation. One of the great difficulties for our exports is not that we cannot grow them, not that the quality is poor and not that our rural people are inefficient but that the off-farm costs are so high. They are estimated at up to almost 50 per cent of the cost at the farm gate. Typically these off-farm costs will include transport, storage, handling and marketing. Inefficiencies in these services markedly increase the costs of production. We have to change this situation so that we can make sure that our costs are low, that we can compete on the world market and that we can deliver our products in a high quality. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(10.36) —I would like to talk tonight about the work experience program. I am prompted to do so by a letter which honourable members received at the end of the last session from the Department of the Special Minister of State. The letter outlined the conditions which should apply when and if senators and members provide for work experience opportunities for high school students in their electorate offices. During the past two years I have been in a position to assist a number of local students with work experience through my office and I am delighted that some guidelines are now available for other members who wish to participate in this scheme. I would certainly encourage them all to do so. Although it is not always possible for members to be involved personally in structuring the program for a work experience student, at the very least they should attempt to discuss the role of a parliamentarian and the electorate office prior to the commencement of any training. This discussion helps the student to understand the pressures which may arise from time to time in the office and renders the experience more useful. It also enables the student to raise any queries he or she may have about the job. Generally speaking, our electorate office staff are well qualified individuals who have a lot of experience of their own which they are able to call upon in these situations. For consistency it is preferable that one staff member should accept the sole responsibility for supervising any one work experience student in the office. This reduces confusion and improves the co-ordination of the general training program. Work experience benefits both the student and the employer, especially in situations where some basic training is available to the student, as is the case in our offices. The students who have been involved with my office have usually had a commercial course orientation and have welcomed the opportunity to tackle the mysteries of an electronic typewriter, electronic franking machine and a sophisticated photocopier. The telephone systems in our offices are also sufficiently sophisticated to provide the students with experience in the niceties of operating a small switchboard. Some of us are even fortunate enough to have computers in our offices at the moment and work experience students would be able to have a look at them. In order to provide these students with useful and relevant training, my staff and I have endeavoured to design a program of representative work activities for the two weeks' stay of the students. Towards the end of that time we arrange for a work experience student to undertake from go to whoa a task involving some area of interest to the student which in some way coincides with our office requirement. I hasten to say that the work we give them is not political. I have found that all the students who have worked in my office have been charming, diligent, capable, keen to learn and willing to assist in any way at all. Their attitude and ability gives the lie to suggestions that young people do not want to work. We can help them to obtain work by giving them meaningful and positive work experience in as wide a range of skills as possible. We can also assist them by taking the time to talk to them before and after their period on the job and by writing an honest and constructive reference which they can present to any prospective employer. To date the work experience students with whom I have had contact have been from the Girrawheen Senior High School. They have done their school, themselves and their parents a great deal of credit in the process and I have been delighted by the contribution they have made to my office operation. I would happily provide a place in my office for any student who feels that work experience in a modern office environment would be helpful to him or her in determining a career direction. On occasion it may be necessary or desirable to clarify a student's career choice by contacting local employers and job link co-ordinators to arrange for counselling and additional information on the area of employment being considered. All in all, involvement with work experience students is a rewarding and useful way in which our offices can assist the community we serve. I urge all honourable members to contact local high schools and offer their assistance for this worthwhile scheme. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(10.41) —During the Whitlam era I was involved in local government. I remember well how one day we received a message from the Government telling us to go down to Melbourne because there was to be a big handout of money there. Together with a friend of mine, a colleague who had been in local government for some time, I travelled to Melbourne. When we got there, imagine our surprise when we saw these people who had been termed `flower people' or `hippies'-they had long hair, beads, jeans and thongs-handing out money as if it were going out of fashion. My friend who was a returned serviceman who had been in local government for many years, said: `Noel, there is something terribly wrong here. No government can give out that much money in a free handout and enable this nation to maintain its position.' He then said to me: `You are a young man with a young family. If I were you I would get some chooks, put them in the backyard, grow a vegetable garden and wait to see what happens.' I did not do that because the Khemlani affair came about, and then, thank God, 11 November 1975 came along and we were spared the fate of having to get the chooks and grow the vegetable garden. Unfortunately Mr Fraser only lasted seven years. He stemmed the tide of socialism, but then in 1983 Mr Hawke got elected. What did Mr Whitlam say then? He said that the Hawke Government would be a continuation of the Whitlam years of government. Of course we all trembled, but how right he was. Today we have more than a $100 billion deficit, the highest inflation ever, high interest rates and a low dollar. The one thing about the low dollar which originally pleased me was that I thought it would help our trade position. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that the famous J curve would help us out. But what happened? The J curve has become an L curve and we are further down the drain. Then the Prime Minister told the nation that his Government would place this country on a war footing. It would make sure that things would be all right and it would tackle the problems. He said that the Government would tackle the problems as if Australia were at war. I must say that I agree with the Prime Minister. This country is in dire circumstances and the nation must be placed on a war footing. This is particularly so with our trade balance. If we look at the January trade figures we find that in the balance of goods and services we have a minus $287m figure. This is disastrous. We must look at the direction we intend to take from here, particularly in relation to our exports. We must try hard to overcome this problem, as many other speakers have said tonight. The average annual growth for world exports is 4.2 per cent by volume and 6.9 per cent by value each year. Mr Slipper —What is ours? Mr HICKS —Australia's is only 3.1 per cent by volume and 4 per cent by value. Since 1970 it has taken on average 3 per cent more exports each year to pay for the same volume of imports. It is easy to see the position in which that puts this country. Primary products and minerals are still our main exports, but we should be exporting 25 to 30 per cent of manufactured output rather than our present 14 per cent. In New Zealand they export 25 per cent of manufactured goods, in Canada 32 per cent, Korea and West Germany 30 per cent, the Netherlands 48 per cent and so it goes on. They are all doing much better than Australia. What should we be doing? Obviously we should be competitive in cost and quality. We should do away with uneconomic practices and outdated work restrictions. I believe that the Government has made some noises in that direction but we cannot see anything happening yet. For example, I went to a winery the other day and the owners told me that they had ordered some tankers to take the wine away but the tankers had got lost somewhere in the train system. We must overcome these problems. Any strikes and industrial disputes that occur must be settled as quickly as possible. The other day I was talking to a man in a plane and he told me that he had an $80m deal to supply timber to France. I asked him where he was getting the timber from and he told me it was coming from all over the world. I asked him why he did not get most of it from Australia and he told me that he was worried about strikes. That is not good at all. We need good management, we need initiative, we need good marketing intelligence, we need effective agents and we need to study the cultural and political life of the countries to which we are going to export. The export market is highly competitive-one delegate goes in the door and when he comes out a delegate from another country goes in. We cannot sell these countries our old technology or surplus requirements because we have the best technology in the world going to those countries. When we are overseas, instead of promoting New South Wales or Queensland-these could be islands of the Pacific-we have to keep talking about Australia, Australia, Australia. Australia is highly regarded overseas and we must promote Australia at all times. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GORMAN(Greenway)(10.46) —I wish to speak briefly on a matter which is very close to my heart. As a former member of the Royal Australian Air Force in the Second World War and as one who had two brothers who served in the Army in combat areas in the South Pacific during the Second World War-- Mr Slipper —You would have been too young. Mr GORMAN —Thank you very much. I am appalled by the remarks of the President of the Victorian branch of the Returned Services League, Mr Bruce Ruxton, who should be in South Africa as I believe he would fit that area very well. In my opinion he is a fascist and should take leave and go to South Africa. Fortunately, I have never had the pleasure of meeting Mr Ruxton. There appear to be some differences between Mr Ruxton's record in the Army and the official record of the war in the South Pacific. Mr Ruxton claims that he joined up at the age of 17. That would appear right because he was born in the same year as I was-in 1926. He joined the Army in 1943. He claims to have been in Borneo in 1943. The official war records state that Japan still occupied Borneo in 1943 and that it occupied Borneo until the American and Australian forces attacked in May 1945, which would appear to make Mr Ruxton's statement a little incorrect. He then served for some years in the occupation force in Japan. Many Australians fought for peace in the Second World War and, of course, in the First World War. To us, the end of the Second World War meant that we had fought for and obtained peace. Many returned servicemen, regardless of colour, class or creed, believed we would be able to live together in harmony. After all, we are all God's children and the world could do without Bruce Ruxton. He should be condemned for his outrageous racist statements. In the world's eyes Ruxton puts us at the bottom of the racist ladder. I seek permission to include in Hansard the following items: A copy of a page out of the Bulletin of 3 March-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —No, if it can be read you cannot. Mr GORMAN —I seek to table the documents. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted to table the document? Mr Beale —I would like to have a look at it. Mr GORMAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, also-- Mr Slipper-On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: My understanding of the rules relating to the tabling of documents is that documents can only be tabled if they are in a form which would not permit them to be read in the chamber. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Anything can be tabled by leave. Mr GORMAN —I also wish to table a copy of Who's Who in Australia, 1985 and also a page of the official war record. It is page 510, on the seizure of Balikpapan which is dated June 1945. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —You might show that to the Opposition spokesman too. Mr GORMAN —I thank honourable members for that courtesy. These documents cover the story pretty well. I believe that the RSL is fortunate to have Sir William Keys to enable it to be stepping stones for peace and harmony within Australia. As long as it keeps Keys there I believe it will cover the necessary requirements of peace and harmony within the area of the Returned Services League. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted to table the documents? There being no objection, leave is granted. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.50) —As part of an answer to a question from the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) last week about Australia's vast and crippling overseas debt, a gross $101.4 billion last September and rising every day or every hour or every minute, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that of the net overseas debt of $80 billion `a mere $8 billion' is Commonwealth Government debt and the rest is private debt largely. Since that day I have been endeavouring to get the call at Question Time to ask the Prime Minister- so what?-what significance does he seek to attach to the point that the Commonwealth overseas debt is-I quote him again-a mere $8 billion with the balance, non-official, mainly private debt? I can only presume that he would like to convey the perception that it is somehow not his Government but rather those greedy private borrowers who are the culprits in all this and are responsible for our huge, crippling overseas debt. That is absolutely a wrong perception. The primary focus of attention in all this, as we have all come to know, is the yawning gap, the massive deficit situation, in the balance of payments on current account. Mr Beale —Is that how the debt arises? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —That is how the debt arises, indeed. It comes from the vast excess of what we have to pay for imports plus the vast payment for interest overseas, on the one side, over what we earn from exports, et cetera. The deficit was, in 1983-84, $7.2 billion; in 1984-85, $10.8 billion; in 1985-86, $13.7 billion. It is on course this year, 1986-87, for almost $14 billion again. This external deficit situation is largely the result of the Government's policies of, firstly, the profligate overspending of the Hawke Government reflected in its vast Budget deficits and this `spilling over', as it inevitably does, as deficit in the balance of payments and, secondly, the effects of maintaining standards of living of the Australian people generally via, until recently, indexed money wage increases where the nation could not afford this. Both these factors result in this nation living beyond its means with the situation exacerbated-I do not put it higher than that-by the adverse change in the terms of trade. The right picture over this period is that, as a result of Government policy largely, there has resulted this sustained external deficit situation which has to be paid for somehow-namely, by overseas borrowing. I come back to what the Prime Minister said and put to the House: What significance is it whether the necessary overseas borrowing is done directly by the Commonwealth Government or with the domestic Australian loan market crowded out just because of the Government's excessive domestic borrowing, or whether the necessary overseas borrowing is done by someone else, private persons or corporations? Mr Beale —If the private sector borrows it, it may not spend it on consumption. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —That is just the effect of all this; in effect the nation is spending on consumption and not on investment. In this whole context, if others did not borrow, say for a takeover bid in this country, the Government would have to or would have to borrow much more than the `mere $8 billion' to which I have referred, or it would have had to use up reserves or further depreciate the Australian dollar. Whoever actually does the overseas borrowing, the Government, whose policies have largely brought on the yawning balance of payments deficit, is in that way responsible. Even more, it must accept responsibility for that part of the growth in the debt-in its very large proportion-due to, as the Prime Minister put it, the devaluation effect of the depreciation of the Australian dollar the way, say, with a 20 per cent depreciation a $50 billion debt becomes $60 billion overnight. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has laid claim to this responsibility in claiming, as he is fond of doing, that the depreciation of the Australian dollar has been a matter of `purposeful policy'. Only he, perhaps, would believe that. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.54) —Listening to the Opposition, one wonders why, if it has all the solutions to Australia's economic problems today, during the seven years in which it occupied the treasury bench it did not put any of the solutions into practice. I do not want to concentrate on the Opposition tonight. I want to draw the attention of honourable members briefly to what is a matter of concern to me personally and what should be of concern to all sporting people in Australia. I see the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) is here, and I know that he will support me in this appeal. My concern is about the future of Olympic wrestling in Australia. Olympic wrestling is likely to be no longer recognised as a sport in Australia and I am afraid that the State governments have played a part in this. There has been a serious dispute over the last 12 or so months within the Olympic wrestling community in Australia. I do not want to become involved in the merits of this dispute. In fact, I do not understand enough of the technical aspects of it, although I have spoken to the President of the Australian Olympic Wrestling Federation and others involved in the sport. There is also the likelihood that this matter will end up in the courts of Australia, so I will not comment on the actual legal implications. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —If the honourable member is telling the House that the matter is before the courts at present-I understand there are some matters being litigated between the wrestling federations of Victoria and New South Wales-he should steer away from that area. Mr HOLLIS —Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is why I said that I would not become involved in the actual dispute or the legal implications. What I do want to raise, though, as an issue is how one party to a dispute-whether it is this dispute or any dispute in the community-can receive legal aid to fight a case and another party cannot. It can be argued that the Australian Olympic Wrestling Federation, which represents young sports people in Australia, should not receive legal aid because it is a body, whereas individuals involved in the same case can receive legal aid. In any system that must lead to unfairness, as it gives one party to a dispute an unfair advantage. Sometimes governments, with the best intentions in the world, create bodies which can turn into monsters. I am afraid that in this case that has happened. Surely equity and fairness demand that if one side to any dispute receives legal aid, both sides should receive it. I believe that tomorrow there will be a meeting in Canberra between the Australian Sports Commission and representatives of the Australian Olympic Wrestling Federation, and I hope that the matter will be settled. I have discussed this matter with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and with the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). I have also discussed it with my State colleagues in New South Wales and with State members in Victoria. It seems to me that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism feels rightly-and I agree with him-that he cannot become involved in the internal affairs of a sporting organisation. Unfortunately the Attorney- General cannot intervene in the legal aid matter as it is a State matter. The New South Wales Attorney-General is prepared to assist, but I am afraid the Victorians are not. I am very concerned that we are going to lose a sport that Australia has excelled in at the last Olympic and Commonwealth Games. The former President of the Australian Olympic Wrestling Federation, Mr Reg Marsh, of Bowral, is a constituent of mine. He competed in the Melbourne Olympics, and his son is one of Australia's leading Olympic wrestlers. Mr Martin —The Secretary is a constituent of mine. Mr HOLLIS —The Secretary is a constituent of my friend the honourable member for Macarthur. I hope that good sense will prevail at this meeting tomorrow, and that Olympic wrestling can take its place again amongst the well- respected sports in the Australian community. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 11 p.m.-- Mr Beale —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: It is 10.59 1/2. Would you give the call to the honourable member for Fisher. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not give the call to anybody unless he is standing. I call the honourable member for Fisher. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.59) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I mentioned to the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) tonight that I intended to raise the Minister's unjustified attack on the Premier of Queensland in Question Time today. The Premier of Queensland did not say-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 17 March 1987, in accordance with Standing Order 40, as amended for this session. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 26 February 1987: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 23. Bankruptcy Act-Rule-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 21. Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 24. Federal Court of Australia Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 22. Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-1987-Postal (Staff)-Amendment-No. 1. Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 25. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1987/1-Chief Executive Officer, Federal Airports Corporation and holders of public offices on other bodies. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances-1987- No. 4-Credit (Amendment). No. 5-Electricity (Amendment). The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 4961) Mr Mildren asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 27 November 1986: Further to his answer to question No. 4726 (Hansard, 23 October 1986, page 2710) is he aware of any occasion where the life-saving equipment, including inflatable vests and rafts, prescribed in commercial aircraft for flights over water saved any lives; if so, can he provide details. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Since the beginning of 1969 there have been five accidents where life vests or rafts have played a part in saving lives following aircraft accidents. In all cases life-vests, for all persons on board, were required to be carried on the flights undertaken but rafts were not prescribed. Details are as follows: 18.1.70 Norseman UC64A VH-GSF, Commercial Charter, near Port Jackson, NSW. Following an engine failure the pilot abandoned the aircraft and parachuted into the sea. He was picked up by a boat 15 minutes later. He had been injured in the descent but was supported in the water by his life vest. 26.6.72 Cessna 150 VH-KQX, Commercial Aerial Work near Cape Banks, SA. The aircraft was `ditched' following an engine failure. Both occupants wore life vests of an unapproved type. The pilot was rendered unconscious during the landing and went down with the aircraft. The injured passenger made his way to the beach several hundred metres away. 9.4.73 Bell 206 helicopters VH-ANC, Commercial Charter and VH-UHJ, Private, Polmaise Reef, near Gladstone, Qld. Four passengers and two pilots were picked up by boat 80 minutes after abandoning their disabled aircraft. All wore life vests and two rafts were employed. 22.4.73 Piper PA23 VH-IAB, Commercial Charter, near Karumba, Qld. The aircraft was ditched after an engine failure. The pilot and five passengers were picked up by boat three hours later. Two life vests and a raft were employed. 27.4.81 Aero Commander 500s VH-EXQ, Commercial Charter, South of Hobart Airport, Tas. The aircraft was `ditched' at night. Life vests with lights, were available for all six persons on board but only one vest was recovered before the aircraft sank. Two passengers swam 500 metres to shore and the other four persons remained afloat with the aid of the life vest and a seat cushion until located by helicopter one hour after the landing.