Tuesday, 17 March 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That this House expresses its deep regret at the death on 13 March 1987 of the Hon. Hugh Stevenson Roberton, a former member of this House for the Division of Riverina from 1949 to 1965, a former Minister of the Crown, and a former Ambassador to Ireland, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in its bereavement. A foundation member of the Country Party of Australia, Hugh Stevenson Roberton was elected in 1949 to the House of Representatives, holding the New South Wales seat of Riverina. He held that seat during his 16 years of continuous and distinguished service to the Parliament. He was a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs from 1952 to 1955, and was a member of the delegation representing the Commonwealth Parliament at the first meeting of the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory in its new council chamber on 25 March 1955. Hugh Roberton held the portfolio of Minister for Social Services from February 1956 to January 1965, when he resigned from the Parliament to take up an appointment as Ambassador to Ireland, a position he held until 1968. Before entering Parliament, Hugh Roberton was a farmer and grazier. He wrote on political, economic and general subjects under his own name and also the nom de plume of Peter Snodgrass. He was the author of the Roberton Wheat Stabilisation Scheme and Now Blame the Farmer. He was also the General President of the Australian Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales and the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. During World War II he served with the 3rd Anti-Tank Regiment, 9th Australian Division in the Middle East and was discharged in Australia in December 1944. Hugh Stevenson Roberton was a long-standing and well respected member of the House of Representatives who made significant contributions to his Party, the Parliament and his country. On behalf of the Government I extend to his wife, Eileen, and his daughter, Janet, our sincere sympathy in their bereavement. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I would like to join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in expressing condolences to the family of the later Hugh Roberton and to associate the Opposition and the Liberal Party of Australia with the words that the Prime Minister has used in praise of Hugh Roberton's contribution to public life in Australia. I had the opportunity of meeting him on a number of occasions during his visits to Parliament House, particularly in association with the retirement of a number of members of his own Party. He was a very lively personality. He had a very pleasant sense of humour and he had a remarkable store of political anecdotes. He had a very long career as a member of the former Country Party. He capped that career with ministerial and Cabinet office. Hugh Roberton was, as the Prime Minister observed, the first Australian ambassador appointed to Ireland. Perhaps it was a mark not only of the importance attached to that relationship that that ambassadorship was created then but also of some sense of humour in which both the late Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, and the late Hugh Roberton rejoiced; that a person born in Glasgow, Scotland, should be appointed Australia's first Ambassador to Ireland. But he was a person who was very warmly, widely and well regarded on all sides of the House. He made a very distinctive contribution to primary industry organisations before he entered Parliament. His capacity as a writer subsequent to leaving Parliament and the contribution he made in that field was to be expected from a very gifted gentleman, a person well loved within his own Party and very widely respected on both sides of the House. On behalf of the Opposition and on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia, I extend my very profound condolence and sympathy to his family. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I rise to support the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Hugh Roberton was one of those greats of the bush-a humble man, a man whose interest in the wider community, particularly in things agricultural, extended throughout his life. He was one who served his community well before he entered this place. Indeed, he was a Coolamon Shire councillor. He was a foundation member of the New South Wales Country Party and a member of the central council of that Party. He was a member of the Executive of the Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales and its General President for four years from 1945 to 1949. He was President of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation and Chairman of the Wheat Industry Defence Council. He was also a member of the Council of Primary Producers Association of Australia. Hugh Roberton brought to this place a fund not only of Scottish stories but also of good humour. He was one who certainly left his mark both here and, as a diplomat, overseas. In referring to some of the extracts in my records, I was interested to read what was said at the time he was appointed as Australia's first Ambassador to Ireland. The former Governor-General, Sir Paul Hasluck, commented as Minister for External Affairs that for many years Hugh Roberton had had a keen personal interest in Irish history and in his boyhood he had known personally many of the people who had contributed to the making of modern Ireland. I am not too sure whether at this stage that is something of which he should be proud or not. I think at the same time one can look at Eire and recognise the enormous achievements that have been made on that side of the border. One hopes that in due course there might be success in Northern Ireland too. Hugh Roberton was born in Glasgow, Scotland, in 1900. He was the son of the late Sir Hugh Roberton, the Scottish composer, who founded the famous Glasgow Orpheus Choir. Many members of this House and members of the public will recall that this choir, which is one of the great choirs of the world, was recently in Australia. Hugh Roberton's father conducted that choir until his death. Hugh Roberton was educated at the West of Scotland Agricultural College and Glasgow University. He came to Australia in the early 1920s. He was a jackeroo in the Riverina and finally bought a property of his own near Old Junee. During World War II he served in the Middle East as a gunner with the 3rd Australian Tank Attack Regiment of the 9th Division. He entered Federal Parliament in 1949 as the honourable member for Riverina. Hugh Roberton above all during his political life had a continuing interest in wheat stabilisation. I was interested in turning back to the Hansard of 22 February 1950 to read in his maiden speech of his concerns there expressed about the plight of Australian wheatgrowers. How sad it is that now in 1987, 37 years later, exactly the same concerns apply and so many of those who produce wheat are suffering and are finding it extraordinarily difficult to find their way out of their present economic plight. Hugh Roberton in every way was a great Australian. But in this message I would like to pay particular compliments to his wife Eileen. Many of us saw Hugh around this House during his latter years. There is little doubt that with his failing eyesight he was extraordinarily dependent upon Eileen. He certainly owed a great deal to her and she certainly is very much in our prayers at this time. He also had a very distinguished career as a journalist writing under the name of Peter Snodgrass. From 1930 almost until his death he was either a regular or an occasional correspondent for the Land newspaper. To his daughter Janet and his wife Eileen, on behalf of all members of the National Party I place on record our particular care for, affection for and memories of a great Australian. One thing my colleagues may be interested in is that, even on his deathbed, Hugh Roberton was urging the National Party to stay in coalition. It is a message that I will pass on to the House at this time. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —I rise to support the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) expressing condolence to the relatives of the late Hugh Stevenson Roberton. He was very well known to me over a long period of years and was a man for whom I had much personal affection. He was a foundation member of the old Country Party and played a very big part in the development of that Party and in giving the Party the real purpose it had during all those years of difficulty in the rural sector. He was a great Australian of Scottish descent and he had a tremendous impact on this Parliament, the Riverina region of New South Wales and country Australia. He will always be remembered because of his warmth and genial personality. Among his gifts was his ability to write with a rare fluency. For many years he wrote, under the nom de plume Peter Snodgrass, about political, economic and general subjects for the Land newspaper. As a farmer and grazier he had a very close affinity with the land, the farmers and their difficulties. He will be particularly remembered for the efforts he made to modernise wheat marketing to try to improve the profitability of wheat marketing and handling for wheat producers in the 1920s and 1930s. He was the author of the Roberton wheat stabilisation scheme, which was the forerunner of the Australian Wheat Board's operations in this country. The Labor Government of the day picked up the idea and ran with it, and for that it should receive some credit. He was an executive of the Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales, serving as General President for four years from 1945 to 1949. As President of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation and Chairman of the Wheat Industry Defence Council he gave monumental service to not only the wheat industry but also Australia. He showed a tremendous compassion, balanced with a recognition of the need for stable government in this country. He was a great Country Party figure, loyal right to the end to the purposes, aims and objectives of the present day National Party. His passing is a very sad blow to those of us who had the privilege and pleasure of working with him for so long over a great period of years. I join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), and my Leader, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), in extending my sympathy and my wife's sympathy to his wife Eileen and his daughter Janet. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling) —I join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and other speakers in offering my condolences and those of the people of the Riverina region to the wife of Hugh Roberton and his daughter. Much has been said about Hugh Roberton and I second all of it. I did not know Hugh Roberton all that well, but I remember going to see him after I was first elected to represent the seat of Riverina. He was already an elderly gentleman, but when one shook his hand one knew that he was still a strong man. Mr Ian Cameron —The salt of the earth. Mr HICKS —As the honourable member for Maranoa says, he was the salt of the earth. The people of the Riverina area, who knew him well, will miss him sadly. I am sure that all honourable members who knew him and all Australians regard him as a great Australian. Once again, I offer my condolences on behalf of the people of the Riverina. Mr FIFE(Hume) —I wish to associate myself with this condolence motion, which has been moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). I had the privilege of knowing Hugh Roberton for the whole period that I have been in public life. I first met him in 1953 during the State election campaign in New South Wales when we both attended a meeting of the Farmers and Settlers Association, which was the forerunner of the current New South Wales Farmers Association. We were both members of that organisation. I remember that meeting very vividly because I was fighting a campaign that I knew I could not win. The encouragement-and, might I add, the advice-given to me on that occasion by Hugh Roberton has remained with me for all the intervening years. As well as being personally associated with the condolence motion, and associating my wife and family who also knew Hugh Roberton, I wish to associate the residents of the electorate of Hume, and in particular the citizens of the city of Wagga Wagga, because although Hugh Roberton represented the Riverina division he was well known throughout the length and breadth of southern New South Wales. Indeed, he was a friend to everyone who knew him. He was the kind of parliamentarian who, once an election was over, did not try to assess how his constituents voted. He treated all men and women, regardless of their place in life, occupation, faith or politics, in the same way. On behalf of those people whom I represent in this Parliament I extend to his wife, Eileen, and his daughter, Janet, our deepest sympathy. I would like to add that Hugh Roberton was uncompromising when he defended our democratic system. Those who knew him would often find it difficult to understand precisely what he was saying when he was defending the democratic system. Being a Scot, he did not lose his accent throughout the whole of his life. He became very emotional when he was talking about the democratic system. He was forthright in debate but he was also very gentle when he approached other people. He was a man of honour. Truthfulness and service to his fellow man were his guiding principles. Those who read the articles under the pen name of Peter Snodgrass would also remember the name of Bill Smith, his driver. Perhaps many people thought that that also was a pen name. Members of this House will be interested to know that Bill Smith was his ministerial driver and is a senior driver today in the car pool in Sydney. He wishes also to extend to Mrs Roberton and Mr Roberton's daughter his deepest sympathy. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) has been appointed Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices and Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Consumer Affairs. As a courtesy, I also inform the House that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will be absent from Question Time today on official duty. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) will respond to any questions relating to primary industry. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is unable to attend Question Time as he is unwell. The Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) will respond to any questions relating to the sport, recreation and tourism portfolio. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) returns to Australia tomorrow from the United States of America. The Minister for Science is the Acting Minister for Education. Mr PORTER —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the statement of the Minister for Health of 5 February that the Government would amend its identity card legislation to demonstrate `its willingness to accept any reasonable suggestions' to improve the identity card legislation. In light of submissions made by business and others that the existing legislation is unworkable-and I particularly refer to the submission from the Australian Bankers Association which indicates that unless changes are made to clauses 32 and 40 existing credit cards such as Bankcard, Visa and Mastercard would be unworkable and banks in a substantial number of cases would be forced to refuse transfer of funds, cash withdrawals from automatic teller machines, debit transactions to another bank-- Madam SPEAKER —Would the honourable member get to the question. Mr PORTER —And direct entry transactions such as the payment of pensions-why is the Government reneging on its commitment to amend? Mr HAWKE —The position is quite simple. The Government is serious about getting as much done in the budgetary processes, both for the May statement and beyond that, to reduce the deficit as far as possible. We need to be in a position to know what our commitments are. A very considerable amount is written into the Estimates in regard to the initial costs of setting up the Australia Card. We are not prepared to take the risk of an undue delay in the consideration of an amended piece of legislation and leave ourselves with a lack of knowledge as to what our commitments may be. Therefore, we will be introducing the legislation in its un- amended form. The Minister for Health had discussions, going back to May 1986, with the Australian Bankers Association. We are not prepared to accept that everything that has been put to us, either from that quarter or elsewhere, is necessarily correct. As far as the Opposition is concerned, let me say just two things. Firstly, I can understand the unease that there is on this matter concerning the proposed course that the Government will take; secondly, I take this opportunity to make it clear that this Government is committed to proceed with the Australia Card concept because, as distinct from the Opposition, we are committed to do everything we can to stamp out tax avoidance and to stop social welfare fraud, and we will not be diverted from that course of action. Mr SIMMONS —Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to claims made at the weekend that the Government has a so-called `sinister secret strategy' to extend the uses of the Australia Card after its introduction? Is it a fact that the Government has such a policy? Dr BLEWETT —The Government has, of course, no such policy. The remarks are simply the result of the fevered and rather desperate imagination of honourable members opposite, because they in fact have no alternative whatsoever to the Australia Card. Indeed, of course, the Government's position has been clear to the rest of the Australian people, if not to the Opposition, for the last five months. The Bill, which will come before the House, the Parliament and the Australian people, makes it quite clear that only in three areas will the Australia Card be applicable; that is, in relation to social security, tax and Medicare. Indeed, when these fantasies are produced by the Opposition we should remember that those three areas were the areas defined by the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. It recommended the range which the Bill should cover and we accepted those views as we accepted most of the ideas from the Select Committee. The only question that the Parliament and the people of Australia have to ask is: Why do we get these nonsensical views paraded by the Opposition? The answer to that is the Opposition has simply no policy in relation to welfare fraud, no policy in relation to tax evasion and no policy in relation to illegal immigration. My colleague the Minister for Social Security has taken a number of important steps to deal with fraud in the welfare area-more than were ever tackled by the Fraser Government-yet each of those steps would be facilitated by an effective identity system in this country. Each of those steps would have had more effect, and would be more effective, if we had a proper identification system in this country. My colleague the Treasurer has taken major steps through the Australian Taxation Office-more than were ever taken by the Fraser Government-to deal with the problems of tax evasion and tax fraud. Again, each of the steps that the Treasurer has taken would be more effective and would be facilitated by an effective identity system in this country. It is the single most potent weapon one could have for dealing with these problems that face government. The Opposition has no answer to any of those problems. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to last Friday's report by the Indicative Planning Council in which the expected level of housing activity in this financial year was again revised down. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that the main reason for this revision is that the Council has now assumed that home loan interest rates will not fall from their current record levels in 1987? Is it a fact that this assessment by the Council is totally consistent with the confidential briefing document prepared by Dr Hawkins and tabled in the Senate by Senator Ryan last month? Would the Prime Minister describe the Indicative Planning Council as `a non-relevant economic forecasting section of government which does not have access to joint economic forecasting group forecasts and is not close to the management of the economy'-the words used by him in relation to Dr Hawkins? Does the Prime Minister now concede that home loan interest rates have no hope of falling in 1987 under the existing policies of his Government? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I am not entirely surprised that he asked it. A number of things need to be made quite clear. I hope that I will be allowed to do so. The IPC report to which the Leader of the Opposition referred is explicit that it has made `a working assumption' about interest rates. The report states: Restraint in labour costs, a lowering of inflation and steady improvement in the balance of payments would provide circumstances in which market interest rates would fall. The potential for reduction has been enhanced by the foreshadowed May Economic Statement. At this stage, the outcome of the May statement and the subsequent Premiers' Conference are not known. In the interim, the Council believes that it would be in- appropriate to assume that lower market yields will lead to a decline in mortgage rates much before the end of the forecast period. That is the quite straightforward, uncomplicated quote about the working assumption. It is absolutely clear from that that the IPC report is at one with this Government in identifying the basis on which one could expect to see a sustained fall in interest rates. As the Leader of the Opposition is interested, let us therefore look at the evidence-not the assertions of the Opposition's strange economic reasoning-which has been used by the Treasurer and me in our statements to support the position that we have put. First, the balance of payments is showing improvement. The February balance of payments statistics show only the second surplus on merchandise trade since mid-1985. Manufacturing exports are up by 32 per cent so far in this financial year, compared with the figures for last year. The service deficit-that is, of course, tourism, transport, et cetera-is down by 18 per cent. The seasonally adjusted merchandise trade deficit is down by 60 per cent in the last three months. The forecast overall deficit for 1986-87 has now been revised down to $14 billion, with a significant further fall expected in 1987-88. So that is the position in regard to what we see as the fundamental improvement that is occurring in the balance of payments sector. Secondly, I go to the quarterly movements in inflation. Those movements have peaked as the effects of the very massive depreciation have washed through. The figure for the December quarter-a very high figure-represents in the considered judgment of the Government a peaking of the inflationary impact of that depreciation. Thirdly, and most importantly, we now have laid down by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission a new two-tier wages structure which we believe provides a basis for a continued moderation in wages movements. That comes after a 6 per cent decline, I would remind the Leader of the Opposition, in real unit labour costs over the last four years. That is the positive outcome of the policies adopted by this Government which has produced, for the first time in the history of this country, a real decline in wages at a time of real economic growth. The contribution of the trade union movement in producing that decline and its associated 750,000 increase in new jobs should be recognised. The great contribution of the trade union movement should be recognised rather than the trade union movement being made a scapegoat by the Leader of the Opposition, who says that he is to introduce a referendum to abolish something that does not exist. That is the measure of what exists in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition. The third piece of evidence, after referring first to the balance of payments factors and to the inflation factor, is that what has happened in the area of wages will serve to maintain the significantly improved competitiveness that Australian industry is now enjoying. Fourthly, and most importantly, this Government, as is now well known, is clearly committed to another tough Budget, a commitment which our record clearly shows we will deliver upon. The figures are quite clear. They are increasingly in the minds of the Australian electorate. From those opposite we inherited a $9.6 billion 5 per cent of GDP deficit, and we have steadily, remorselessly and in a committed way reduced that deficit from 5 per cent of GDP down to 1.5 per cent, from $9.6 billion to $3.6 billion, and we will do more in this Budget. It is quite clear, therefore, that there exists on any dispassionate analysis evidence in each of these four areas to sustain the assumptions which the Treasurer and I have used to make the statements that we have. It is clear that the Government accepts that mortgage rates would be likely to be slower to change, as is always historically the case. We would say that the general levels of interest rates will decline and that mortgage rates will come down after that. The position is clear and indisputable that the conditions to bring about those changes are in place. I would also note-and I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will not be too distressed about the fact-that interest rates have already eased somewhat. The 90-day bills are already about 2 per cent below the peak of 1986 and the 10-year bonds have also eased significantly down a quarter of a per cent in recent days. Those are the facts, and it is completely misleading to claim in these circumstances that the IPC report is in any way inconsistent with the Government's statements on interest rates. Mr LANGMORE —My question is to the Minister for Territories and relates to the dispute between doctors working in Canberra's public hospitals and the Government about the doctors' contracts. What is the origin of the conflict? What offer has the Government made to settle the dispute? What are the reasons for that offer? What arrangements has the Government made to cope with the doctors' strike until the dispute is settled? Mr SCHOLES —The doctors in the Australian Capital Territory have undertaken Medicare work on the basis of contracts which are currently expiring and which provide a fee for service payment for treatment of Medicare patients. Under those contracts the agreement was that 70 per cent of the standard fee fixed for payment under the Medicare schedule would be paid in respect of cases dealt with by doctors in the Australian Capital Territory. Over a number of years the medical profession in the Australian Capital Territory has consistently rejected the principle of sessional payments and basically there is a very small salaried medical staff in the Australian Capital Territory. Negotiations on new contracts have taken place over a considerable time. They have not been finalised; there are still a number of matters outstanding on which agreement was not reached prior to the contracts expiring last night. The medical groups have sought, first, the recognition of the Australian Medical Association schedule of payments, which is a schedule fixed by the doctors themselves, and, secondly, a change in the basic principle under which doctors are paid in the Australian Capital Territory to allow for sessional payments. They have made claims for the Macken decision which was handed down in New South Wales and which the Federal Government does not accept as a reasonable determination. Had it applied to the Federal area, we certainly would have contested it. The Government has made an offer in respect of new contracts which represent a payment of 85 per cent of the schedule fee. This is an increase from 70 per cent of the schedule fee under the old contract to the medical profession in the Australian Capital Territory. This represents an increase on the previous contracts of some 21 per cent. That is a very generous offer in view of the conditions being applied to other wage, salary and income earners in the Australian community. The medical profession in the Australian Capital Territory has insisted that this is not a sufficient rise and has asked for the Macken principles to be applied. If these principles were applied it would represent an increase in excess of 100 per cent in some cases in the fees paid under the previous contracts. At present the doctors have indicated that they will continue to deal with patients who are seriously ill and I understand that that is the current situation. They do not accept the 85 per cent offer. The Government is not in a position where it can responsibly make a more generous offer, taking account of the present situation in the economy and the constraints which are being asked from all other sections of the community. Certainly it is not up to the Government, nor is it an acceptable proposition, to grant increases of the magnitude of 100 per cent. It is also not a principle that we could accept that a group of persons should be in a situation in which they have the right to fix whatever fees they so desire and extract from the public purse payment for those fees. I notice some lawyers around the place and their opinions may differ, but the facts are that we believe in a system whereby the fees are fixed by a proper method of arbitration. In this instance the doctors are complaining that the schedule fee is too low. They have some responsibility for that. This is a national matter, not a matter just for the Australian Capital Territory. Some time ago the AMA withdrew from the process of negotiating the schedule fee. If the schedule fee is not what the doctors think it should be, they should go back to the negotiating table and negotiate at a national level. Doctors' incomes have been rising at a rate at least equal to that of the incomes of the remainder of the community and probably, I would think, at a higher rate. Opposition members interjecting-- Mr SCHOLES —The Opposition may be in a position to pay anything to anyone who asks for it. It certainly never takes that line in respect of wage and salary earners, although I never hear it complaining about executive salaries either. The situation at the moment is that an offer has been made; it is a very generous offer by the Government in the current circumstances. I expect that the medical profession will honour its responsibilities and continue to treat the sick. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to surveys of housing and home unit rentals conducted by the Master Builders Federation of Australia Inc. which show massive rental rises, particularly in Sydney. Is the Prime Minister aware that in Bondi, in the seat held by the honourable member for Phillip, the rental for a two-bedroom unit has risen by 25.7 per cent to an average of $163 a week and that for a house in Strathfield, in the seat held by the honourable member for Lowe, the average rental has risen to $191 a week? What excuse does the Prime Minister have for those now facing a predicted 25 per cent increase in this coming year in home rentals, adding to the increasing worries facing those who are trying to stay in their own homes? Does the Prime Minister now acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of average Australians have been severely damaged by his decision to break his election pledge and impose a capital gains tax and abolish negative gearing? Mr HAWKE —I have seen the surveys to which the Leader of the Opposition refers. Of course the Government would wish to be in an economic and financial position where, by its resources and actions, it could immediately move to alleviate the situation. As distinct from the Leader of the Opposition, my Government and I move in the world of real economics, acknowledge the limitations upon what we can do and are not prepared to give ourselves the $16 billion sort of credibility gap which-- Mr Howard —Is it now $16 billion? Mr HAWKE —Yes, it is now $16 billion-with another $2 billion because the Opposition, under intensive questioning, has now walked away from its consumption tax proposal. The Leader of the Opposition was given four opportunities in his interview to say `Yes, I stick to my promise about the consumption tax', but under persistent questioning, as he does in every other area, he finally chickened out and walked away from it. So the Leader of the Opposition has had another $2 billion put on to his credibility gap. As distinct from his preparedness to go on in this voodoo economics area, we accept the harsh constraints and realities. I am also prepared to look with a great deal of pride at our actual performance in the area of housing compared with that of the Opposition when it was in government and when the responsibility for economic policy was in the hands of the now Leader of the Opposition. I remind the House of housing starts, which numbered 105,000 per annum, a figure we inherited from the Opposition and which we moved to increase significantly as a result of our first home owners scheme. Some one-quarter of a million people are now in homes, which they never would otherwise have had the possibility of doing, and there has been a 42 per cent real increase in housing provided for low-income people through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. In one of the few areas about which the Opposition has now released a policy, what does it say about housing? It would scrap the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, as characterises its whole approach to economic and social policy, as contained in its observations about the capital gains tax, and it would once again give the perks and the opportunities to the rich and bring down heavily to bear upon the poor the forces of economics. We would like to be in a position to remedy in a reasonably quick way the problems to which the Leader of the Opposition refers, but he has no credibility either in terms of his past record or in terms of his proposed policies for the future. I have been noting a great deal of what has been said, not only in the surveys to which the Leader of the Opposition refers. As would be well known in this place, a great deal has been happening on his side of politics and a great deal has been written about it. Amongst the most interesting things that have been said and written about that side of politics-I do not know whether it has escaped the attention of all members of the House; if it has, it is something that they really ought to share with me-in the Time magazine of 9 March the Leader of the Opposition, who is now putting himself up as a man who is to be listened to in relation to housing and everything else, is reported as having said: There won't be a leadership challenge. I am regarded as the messiah of conservative politics. Only two observations can be made about the claim of the Leader of the Opposition to be the Messiah of conservative politics: Whether it will be left to the Treasurer and me to undertake crucifixion or whether his own friends will undertake it. I think there is only one member on the Opposition side to whom the analogy of the Messiah should be applied and that is the honourable member for Kooyong who, I understand, is seriously considering the possibility of a resurrection. It will not matter whether the Leader of the Opposition stays there, whether he is thrown out or when he is thrown out. The nature of the Opposition's policies in housing, as in everything else, will bring no comfort to the poor and the underprivileged in this country. What the Opposition will do in the area of housing and in the area of taxation will be to go back to the characteristics of its previous period in government and it will give as much as it can to the privileged in this country and impose the greatest burden it possibly can on the poor. Mr LEE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. What facilities are available to new minority parties that emerge with parliamentary representation? Mr YOUNG —I understand that a number of questions have been raised with the Special Minister of State and he has given me certain information which I should give to the House regarding facilities. It has been speculated that another great conservative party is about to emerge in the national Parliament and people are wondering about what entitlements will be given perhaps to the new leadership. I understand that just before lunch the Hon. Tom McVeigh was favoured to be the leader and that Mr Slipper was going to be the deputy. I will tell honourable members what the Government will do for minority parties, among other things, and I will tell honourable members what we take off Sinkers. Firstly, according to the Special Minister of State, any political party that has more than five members will receive additional staff, additional salaries, expenses, an allowance of office and an increased travelling and charter allowance. The only bad news that I have for honourable members is that this is coming at a time when the Opposition has said that the Government must show great restraint. Because we were so generous early in the period of government in giving staff to the Opposition, staff numbers will have to be shared with the old National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia. Honourable members in all the Opposition parties will have to determine amongst themselves what staff they will get. The other good news is that at the moment the new leaders of the emerging Queensland National Party would be entitled to a trip to Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I understand that the right honourable member for New England is very keen for them to take that trip. Mr N.A. Brown —Do they get a state funeral? Mr YOUNG —I am not too sure about the state funeral. Honourable members opposite will have to pull themselves together and get on this side of the House and that looks like being a long way off. But the other thing minority parties will get is unlimited postage and the opportunity every weekend of playing scrabble with Joh and he has never been beaten. I also noticed among the Opposition's financial backers-this will not come officially through the Government-that the leader of the white shoe brigade, Michael Gore, who is the writer in residence for the Queensland National Party, is quoted as saying prior to the $10m loan being made public at the launching of Sanctuary Cove at which Sir Joh was present: I did but see him passing by, but I will love him till I die. If that was not enough, he then turned to Joh and said: I know I have much more to give, and you will have it while I live. And Joh was probably saying under his breath: `Not as much as I have to give you'. So Mike Gore got his $10m and in return he is going to raise $25m for the Queensland National Party. We are not quite sure what came out of the scrabble in the meeting this morning. Apparently the political parties which do not bear interference from their outside executives are now to leave it to the outside executives to determine what future action their parliamentarians ought to take. Members of the National Party in cockies corner will notice, if they look over to their right, Joh's deputies watching to see what they are up to. Old Senator Boswell is not far away. Question Time in the Senate was not very interesting. He just strolled across so that he can give a report to Joh just after Question Time about what National Party members in this place are up to. It looks like being a good Davis Cup set. Sinkers looks like winning 14-12 for the time being. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister for Science in his new role as Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. I presume that the Minister would accept that the price of fuel is an important element in the price of goods transported around Australia and in prices generally. I have no doubt that the Minister will also be aware that the excise on fuel has increased from 6c a litre when the Hawke Government was elected to 18.7c a litre today. The Minister would know that under the automatic indexation of fuel excise introduced by his Government there is a continued escalation of fuel excise which must contribute to the price of goods. What does he intend to do about that continued automatic indexation? Will he support legislation to terminate automatic indexation so that fuel prices will no longer continue to escalate and contribute to rising costs? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the Leader of the National Party of Australia for his question. As the right honourable member would know from his recollection of past Cabinet government, a decision of the magnitude of the pricing policy for fuel is not something that will be made by me in in my capacity as Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Consumer Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. Obviously a decision will be made at Cabinet level. Cabinet will consider in a Budget context precisely what we are doing. It would be absurd for the right honourable gentleman to think that he can get an answer from me off the cuff on an issue like that. Mr MOUNTFORD —Can the Treasurer inform the House of any developments in Australia's international trade performance? Mr KEATING —As some honourable members may be aware, today the balance of payments figure for the last month came out. The relatively low deficit figure for February is, of course, welcomed by the Government. But again I make the point that I have made at other times: One monthly figure is one monthly figure, and the Government tends to focus on a trend or period, a quarterly average or a six-months average, rather than simply a one-month number. Nevertheless, I think in focusing on perhaps quarterly averages, it is worth pointing out that the average of the three months to February was $860m whereas the average for the three months of the previous year was $1,030m. So it is down substantially on the average for the three months year to year-by nearly $200m. I think it needs to be understood also that that is notwithstanding a further substantial fall in the terms of trade during that year and, of course, another round of bad valuation effects in relation to the further depreciation of the exchange rate through the course of calendar 1986. So we actually have a $200m improvement in the three-month period, despite the fact that we have had a further sharp drop in prices and another round of bad valuation effects coming off the exchange rate. It may also be worth noting that last Thursday, I think, the Statistician produced the imports and exports numbers which showed that, if we had had the same terms of trade that we had at Christmas 1984, we would now have a current account deficit of $3.6 billion, not around $14 billion. This sums up very pointedly the burden with which the nation and the Government have laboured, with a decline in the terms of trade as sharp as they have been; yet we are now seeing, particularly in the Statistician's bulletin, a turnaround in the balance of merchandise trade which is a very discernible turn. In the three months to February, in current price seasonally adjusted terms, there was a 2.3 per cent rise in exports and a 3.5 per cent decline in imports. Not only are these figures welcome in themselves, but they also suggest that net export volumes have made a strong contribution to gross domestic product growth in this period. Honourable members might recall that both the Prime Minister and I have been saying that the contributions to growth this year will come largely from net exports and this, of course, is in evidence in the figures released today. In the eight months of this financial year there have been marked declines in our merchandise trade deficit and, more particularly, in our services deficit. The smooth seasonally adjusted merchandise trade balance improved for the eighth consecutive month, while the services deficit in the eight months to February 1987 is down 18 per cent on the deficit for the eight months to February 1986. Underlying the improvement in our merchandise trade balance are marked improvements in all rural exports, with the exception of cereals which have been particularly hard hit by conditions on international cereal markets, in the eight months to February 1987 compared with February 1986. Trends in the export of meat and meat preparations, which have increased by 31 per cent in this period, are particularly encouraging. Improvements in non-rural exports, particularly of machinery transport equipment, which is up by 30 per cent, other non-rural exports, which are up by 41 per cent, and metals and metal manufactures, which are up by 8 per cent, are also firm indicators of an improving export outlook. In other words, they are yet again firm indicators of the continuing J-effect inside the numbers. Regarding the improvement in the services deficit, tourism is undoubtedly one of the major factors. Further confirmation of this occurred last Thursday when the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development released figures showing that foreign tourism grew in Australia by more than in any OECD country during 1986. Of particular significance too is the fact that these improvements in the merchandise trade area and in services have occurred notwithstanding the continuing deterioration in our terms of trade. As I have indicated, that has been severe, but it is worth recording that we had a 3 1/2 per cent decline in the terms of trade in the December quarter alone. We are seeing a very clear trend improvement in these numbers, three months to three months over a year, despite a very large decline in the terms of trade. All that indicates is that the Government's strategy is entirely appropriate for the conditions in which Australia finds itself and is working. It must be interesting for the honourable member for Mackellar and the honourable member for Bennelong, who have been talking about L-curves and saying that there will be no J-curve, no pick-up in merchandise trade, to focus today on the curve in the Australian Statistician's bulletin. They will see very clearly the improvement in merchandise trade. It is always very interesting that the so-called people of the free market-as we know, in practice they have never been anything like free marketeers-believe that a massive change in relative prices via the exchange rate would do nothing to the balance of merchandise trade. Of course, they will look entirely and utterly stupid-as well they might look. Other commentators looking around at the statements of the Opposition that there is a massive depreciation, a massive change in relative prices and no change in export or import volumes see the figures, but we say that that again is one month's figure. One has to look at the trend improvements, the trend figures. Looking at the averages, there is a clear improvement. That is borne out by all of the detail in the Statistician's figures. So I repeat that the policies of the Government are right and working as planned. Mr GOODLUCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. Does the Minister remember the two now famous quotes from the 1983 Federal election campaign-one by the present Prime Minister, who said `We will reduce the price of petrol by 2 cents a litre'; and the second by the present Treasurer: `The price of petrol is taxation by stealth at the petrol pump.'? Is the Minister further aware that the price of petrol in this country has increased by an average of 13 cents a litre since his Government was elected? As the Minister responsible for prices, what does he intend to do to overcome this problem affecting the poor, the needy and the ordinary consumers of Australia? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Franklin for his question. What I do remember is that when we came into office in 1983 we inherited a fiscal mess, presided over by the now Leader of the Opposition-the most tragic Treasurer that this country has had since Sir Earle Page and who left us with a $9.5 billion Budget deficit. That was kept under the counter. There was no suggestion when we came in that we faced a problem of anything like that size. Those opposite know perfectly well-and we have said it so often in this House that they must have picked it up-that this country still has the third lowest petrol price of any country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Honourable members are aware of that. We ought to be going out and selling the record of this Government in our electorates so that people face up to the fact that on the matter of petrol pricing the attitude and policy of the Government has been responsible. The honourable member for Franklin, in the last part of his question-which was very important-said: `What about our responsibility to the poor and the needy?'. We are attempting to co-ordinate all the activities so far as price surveillance is concerned by having a proper consumer affairs bureau which will co-ordinate all the activities with the States. I look for the co-operation of the Tasmanian Government, the Queensland Government and the Northern Territory Government in making sure that we manage to keep prices under control. It is the poor, the people on fixed incomes and the people on lower than average weekly earnings who are affected most adversely by a $5 variation in a basket of goods that they get from a supermarket. If those opposite want to bring about substantial economic justice for the people at the lower end of the socio-economic pyramid, they ought to support what we are trying to do. However, we find that the party leader of those opposite-at least for the time being the leader-says that as far as he is concerned he wants a wage freeze, which would also impose severe constraints on those lower income earners, but that as far as prices are concerned he would abolish the Prices Surveillance Authority and `let 'er rip'. That is not our policy; that is not justice; that is not restraint with equity. We are on about fairness, to restore a proper quality of life to people on lower income levels, and if the honourable member opposite is dinkum about supporting the poor he ought to get right behind what we are doing. Ms JAKOBSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to recent Press reports suggesting that the French may be intending to move their nuclear testing from Mururoa Atoll in the Pacific to Kerguelen Island? Can the Minister comment on these reports and outline the Australian Government's attitude to such a change? Mr HAYDEN —The advice my Department passes on to me is that it is unable to establish any evidence of an intention on the part of the French Government to move nuclear testing from Mururoa Atoll to Kerguelen Island. Indeed, recently a statement was made by a French official on behalf of the Administration to the effect that the French intended to stay at Mururoa Atoll. My Department's advice to me is that there is a substantial capital investment in Mururoa Atoll which would be extremely expensive to replace at some other site. Beyond that, I cannot be helpful as to any intention that the French Administration may have. Kerguelen Island is a part of French territory and France would have a right to undertake whatever activity it might consider appropriate there as part of its territory and as part of the decision of a sovereign, independent nation. If, however, there was an intention to establish a nuclear testing site at Kerguelen Island and, obviously, thereafter to undertake nuclear testing, we would take whatever steps we could appropriately and properly take to register our very strong opposition to such a development. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to sub-section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978, I present a report to the Prime Minister by the Australian Science and Technology Council on improving the research performance of Australia's universities and other higher education institutions. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to sub-section 30 (3) of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1977, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee, together with the Auditor-General's report, for 1985-86. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services) —For the information of honourable members, I present a statement of expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for February 1987. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Research Grants Committee's report on grants approved for 1987. A copy has already been supplied to Senator Michael Baume. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Safeguards Office for 1985-86. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority, together with the Auditor-General's report, for 1985-86. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to sub-section 63m (3) of the Audit Act 1901, I present the financial statements of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1985-86. Honourable members will recall that I tabled the annual report and interim financial statements of the Authority on 17 February 1986. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report and financial statements of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, together with the Auditor-General's report, for 1985-86. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 irradiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radio- active substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Dr Blewett,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned in the State of Queensland respectfully showeth: That we wish to express our concern over the proposal to commence Irradiation of food in Australia. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will insure that no irradiation of food be permitted in Australia. We further petition a ban on the importation of the radioactive isotopes, Caesium 137 and Caesium 134 and Cobalt-60 which could be used for the irradiation of food. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Wright. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher 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 Federal Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office Agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 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 Peter Fisher,Mr Nehl and Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 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 John Brown and Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows that Raoul Wallenberg was arrested by the Russians in Budapest on January 17th, 1945. He has been sighted on numerous occasions since, the last in 1986. Your petitioners pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should approach the Soviet Foreign Minister to seek the release of Raoul Wallenberg and his return to Sweden. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Charles and Mr Millar. 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 that 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 divisions 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 and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: We the undersigned small business people and supporters wish to draw attention to and protest against recent tax changes and the horrific administrative burdens which will be placed upon small businesses by these changes. We request that Fringe Benefits Tax; Capital Gains Tax; Dividend Imputation; Negative gearing; Foreign tax credits; and Substantiation legislation, be immediately repealed. We also request that the proposed legislation yet to be tabled in Parliament in respect of self assessment be discontinued. To make up the shortfall in revenue as a result of these requests, the promised personal tax cuts should be deferred until such time as they can be funded by pruning government expenditure. Unless the above action is taken immediately the private sector of the economy will contract and Australia will be further down the road to becoming a banana republic. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr N.A. Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr 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 Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the price of petrol in this country; 2. That under a Labor Government petrol prices have continued to rise excessively, with recent Government decisions adding over 8c per litre to the price of petrol in some country areas; 3. The proposed consumption tax could lead to a further rise of 6c per litre; and 4. The high cost of petrol discriminates against country residents who rely on their cars for essential communication and transport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister during the 1983 election campaign to reduce petrol prices by 3c per litre. Further we strongly urge the Government to adopt a petrol pricing policy which does not cause unnecessary rises in the cost of petrol. 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 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 urge it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: We strongly disapprove of the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 as it applies to Sport for Students under the age of 12 years because: 1. The Act now discriminates against boys in that for a temporary period it will be only permissable to have Girls and Open Divisions. 2. Following the `temporary period' when there will only be an Open Division Girls will then be discriminated against for history and recent surveys prove that Boys perform better than Girls in most sports even at this age. We desire that the Act be changed to allow for three (3) Divisions: 1. BOYS-Boys competing together. 2. GIRLS-Girls competing together. 3. OPEN-Boys and Girls competing together if they wish to. This would rectify any past anomalies if in fact there were any. by Mr Allan Morris. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government immediately divert national highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will humbly pray: by Mr Nehl. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a nuclear test moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Scott. 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: 1. That we, the undersigned, are totally opposed to substantial Federal Government funding presently being wasted on undesirable, inefficient and incompetently run Government projects that are unacceptable to the vast majority of decent Australians. 2. That Government grants should not be directed towards projects that are of no, or dubious, worth to the improvement of Australia. 3. That public funding should not be used in encouraging lifestyles contrary to the Australian family way of life. 4. That public moneys should not be given to minority groups to support projects that are of a direct political nature. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to halt forthwith the public funding for the abovementioned purposes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefit Tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of Dawson respectfully shows that while most urban areas of Australia enjoy ABC FM radio transmission, the Mackay region of Queensland is still deprived of this facility. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will immediately take steps to rectify transmission anomalies which continue to prevent approximately 100,000 potential listeners in this region from receiving this service. by Mr Braithwaite. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e. set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 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 remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The Government's actions in changing levels of pharmaceutical benefits will adversely affect the infirm and elderly and that it will cause further unnecessary economic hardship and suffering among all people who are currently dependent on existing benefits. The Government's actions are little more than yet another burden placed upon our Australian citizens. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Restore pharmaceutical benefits to their former level, therefore lifting this inequitable burden now being placed squarely on the infirm throughout Australia. Give a firm undertaking not to further desert those citizens in need of medical support. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair; It will severely disadvantage both employees and employers; Employees will clearly lose many fringe benefits as a direct result of the additional heavy taxation burden being imposed upon employers; Employers will be forced to pay even higher levels of taxation to provide fringe benefits for employees. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to immediately abandon the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Asset to the following Bills reported: Australian Stock Exchange and National Guarantee Fund Bill 1987 Australian Protective Service Bill 1987 Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill, 1987 Plant Variety Rights Bill 1987 Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1987 Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1987 Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1987 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received advice from the Opposition Whip that Mr Miles has been nominated to be a member of the Standing Committee on Transport Safety in place of Mr Aldred. Madam Speaker has also received advice from the President of the Senate relating to changes in the membership of the following joint committees: The Joint Committee of Public Accounts-Senator Georges has been discharged and Senator Giles has been appointed; the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House-Senator West has been appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the election of Senator Sibraa as President of the Senate; and the Joint Committee of Foreign Affairs and Defence-Senator Sibraa has been discharged and Senator Morris has been appointed in his place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —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 high price of buying, owning or renting a home under failed Hawke Government policies. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.17) —Over the past week the Australian public has been treated to a deluge of propaganda and nonsense from the Government about one issue, and that is the issue of prices. We even had the ultimate in parliamentary comicry, and that is the appointment of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) as the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices-the man dubbed by my colleague, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), as the Inspector Clouseau of high prices in Australia. If ever a man will go down in the history of this country as the Minister for high prices, it will be the Minister for Science in the Hawke Labor Government. I welcome the fact that the Government is now giving such prominence to the high level of prices in the Australian economy. So much do we welcome that fact that the Opposition will dedicate matters of public importance on parliamentary sitting days this week to Labor's record on high prices. It is a pretty abysmal record and is not confined to the outrageous increases that have occurred in fuel prices, which have been highlighted at Question Time by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck); it goes into every aspect of Australian life. It is worth reminding the House that the great economic legacy of these great price watchers has been to produce an inflation rate, which at 10 per cent is the worst relative inflation rate that this country has had for 30 years-not 10 years, not 20 years but the worst relative inflation rate experienced in Australia for 30 years. That is the contribution to price restraint that we have had from the Hawke Government. That is the contribution that the now Minister for prices has given to the Australian public. There is one area of high prices that I would like to talk about today. My colleague, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), who knows something about the high prices of housing and rental accommodation in Brisbane, and I will be talking about the high price of the most important thing that keeps family life together in Australia, and that is the high price of having a home. The one thing that this Government has put out of the reach of average Australians over the last four years is the great Australian dream of every family owning their own home. This Government has done irreparable damage to that dream and that aspiration. In every area, be it renting accommodation, buying a home or paying off a home, this Government has presided over the disillusionment of the hopes and dreams of hundreds of thousands of Australians. Mr N.A. Brown —It's a nightmare. Mr HOWARD —As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, it has turned into a nightmare for hundreds of thousands of young Australians. Let me begin with a subject that is very dear to the heart of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-or it should be-and that is the simple question of interest rates. After spending a couple of weeks in the marginal electorates in New South Wales and Victoria-in electorates such as Hunter, McEwen, Ballarat, Aston and Burke, all of which are held by Labor with majorities of less than 5 per cent-I can tell the Prime Minister and all those Labor marginal seat holders who have gone skulking back to their offices that they will die the most miserable political deaths on the issue of interest rates. Interest rates will do more to burn this Government out of office than any other single issue. I have here a chart which represents more vividly the scandal of high interest rates under the Hawke Government. It shows a comparison of home loan interest rates in countries such as Switzerland, Japan, West Germany, the United States, France, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. This chart shows that Australia has by far the highest level of interest rates charged on new home loans. We are a full 3 1/2 per cent higher than the country with the next highest level, which is the United Kingdom. In the United States of America the rate is 9.2 per cent, in Japan it is 6.6 per cent and in Switzerland 5.3 per cent. Yet the Prime Minister has the absurd hide to get up in the Parliament at Question Time and say: `My policies on interest rates are working'. His policies are working all right! They are working to undermine the electoral futures of all the Government's marginal seat holders. No matter where one goes or what seat or area of Australia one visits, one finds exactly the same situation. In March 1983 when the Hawke Government came to power the average mortgage repayment in New South Wales was $472 a month. It is now $678 a month, which is a rise of 44 per cent. The rate of inflation has gone up by only 30 per cent in that period. Who has presided over that increase? The Prime Minister and the Hawke Government. In South Australia the figure has risen from $415 to $622, a rise of 50 per cent. In Victoria it has risen from $405 to $609, also a rise of 50 per cent. Everywhere one goes in Australia one finds exactly the same pattern-soaring interest rates, Australian families increasingly not having enough money each week to make ends meet and increasing disillusionment amongst young people who are trying to buy their first homes. Young people are struggling not just with the problem of trying to accumulate a deposit and to afford the monthly repayments of the loan from the building society or bank, but also on top of that while they continue to live in rental accommodation they are watching the most astronomical increase that has ever occurred in the price of such accommodation in Australia. This is so in the major cities and particularly the city of Sydney. In the past 14 months there has been a 25 per cent increase in the rental for a three-bedroom unfurnished property in Sydney. It has gone from $214 a week to $267 a week. I invite the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) or the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) to tell people living in suburbs such as Hurstville or Bondi what their excuse is for having driven up rents to such unconscionable levels. How on earth does the Government expect one person, let alone a family, to live on an average wage when one has to pay $267 a week to rent a cottage in some of the suburbs of Sydney? Let Government members give their excuse to the swinging voters of Hurstville, the swinging voters of Bexley or the swinging voters of Bondi. They will get a pretty dusty response because those people know that increasingly the policies of this Government have failed, and failed dismally. Do not rely on my strictures about the Government. Look at what Frank Walker, the New South Wales Minister for Housing and a factional soul brother of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) in this Parliament, said. He is one of Stewart West's left wing mates. What has Frank Walker said about it? He said that Keating has taken a colossal gamble on interest rates and, if it does not pay off, he will go out the back door electorally. Frank Walker, who lives slap-bang in the mortgage belt of Sydney, knows what he is talking about on this occasion, and he knows that rents have gone up all over Australia because of the stupid taxation policies of the Hawke Government. An ideologically blinkered policy abolished negative gearing. When the Government abolished negative gearing it did not put any of those wealthy developers in the gun sight and shoot them down. It shot down the poor and the underprivileged in the Australian community because when it abolished negative gearing it drove thousands of small investors out of the down market rental accommodation industry. They did not lose any money; they just took their money out of building rental accommodation and put it into something else. By that decision the Government has put the affordability of rental accommodation beyond the reach of average wage and salary earners, particularly in the major cities of this country. It has produced a scandal which the Master Builders Federation, the Real Estate Institute, building societies and banks are all saying now will get worse and, until there is a major change in Government policy, that rental accommodation crisis will continue. If honourable members want to hear more on it, listen to what Dennis Cleary, who runs the State Building Society Ltd in New South Wales, said. His brother happens to be Michael Cleary, a Minister in the Unsworth Government in New South Wales. Dennis Cleary said that the imposition of the capital gains tax and the abolition of the negative gearing were decisions out of touch with the real world. He said that the consequences were hurting most those people whom the Australian Labor Party always swore to help-that is, the single parent, the elderly, the low income family and others who are dependent on a private rental market. He said that soaking the so-called rich is doing nothing but hurting the poor and the disadvantaged. He went on to say that members of the Hawke Government ought to visit hostels and refuges around Sydney to see the appalling consequences of their misguided policy. That is not from a propaganda handout from the Liberal Party of Australia; that is from a spokesman for a major building society in Sydney, the brother of a Labor Minister in the Unsworth Government, who is giving the truth about the consequences of the taxation policies of the Hawke Government. Is the Minister for Housing and Construction not proud? Is he not absolutely delighted? Does he not feel proud to be the first left wing Minister for Housing in a Labor Government for 20 years to have presided over three quite disgraceful events? He has presided over the highest sustained housing interest rates that this country has seen for 40 years. He has presided over housing interest rates which are by far the highest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development area. The second thing over which he has presided is an absolute scandal in the increase in the cost of rental accommodation all around Australia. The third thing over which the Minister has presided is the unbelievable scandal that the waiting list for public housing in Australia is now 60,000 to 70,000 longer than it was in March 1983 when the Hawke Government came to power. Can honourable members believe that a government that is supposed to help the battler, that is supposed to look after the low income earner, that is supposed to care for the downtrodden and the disadvantaged in Australia could, under a left wing housing Minister who is supposed to wear the concerns of those people on his sleeve, have 70,000 more Australians on the waiting lists for Housing Commission accommodation than there were in March 1983? It represents the most appalling ideological failure on the part of this Minister. I reckon that he would be expelled from the steering committee in New South Wales if the full extent of the disaster over which he has presided as Housing Minister were really known. Perhaps we ought not to be too hard on the Minister. We should never be too hard on the monkey when the organ grinders are about-the real organ grinders of high interest rates and the destruction of the dreams of low income Australians to have a roof over their heads. It is not really the poor misguided man from Warilla-- Mr West —Cunningham. Mr HOWARD —I am sorry, I have got it wrong. What is wrong with Warilla? Are you not good enough to represent it any more? You leave Warilla alone; there are very decent people there. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will refer to the Minister by his title. Mr HOWARD —We really should not be too hard on the Minister. We should hold to account, as the Australian people will hold to account, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) for all the mistakes that they have presided over. But more than that, all those poor unfortunate Labor members in Lowe, Phillip, Dunkley, Hunter, Barton, St George, McEwen, Aston and Burke will hold far more against the Prime Minister and the Treasurer than I ever will, because their policies will burn them out of office at the next election. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(3.32) —Cunningham is the name of my electorate. The temporary Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), tried to make a little of the nature of interest rates during his misguided speech to the House. During Question Time today and during his speech he tried to raise the issue of the forecasts in the report of the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry to the Australian Housing Council last Friday. I might just start by referring to the general situation regarding interest rates. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I interrupt the Minister for a moment. There is far too much noise in the chamber. Those honourable members on my left who are holding mini- meetings might do so outside. Mr WEST —Let me refer, firstly, to the report of the Indicative Planning Council to the Australian Housing Council last Friday concerning housing starts and interest rates. The first thing that that report states is that the figure for 1986-87 is predicted to be 118,000 with 126,000 housing starts for 1987-88. Because it is illuminating just to study what has happened over the last six years let us have a look at what has happened. In 1982-83-obviously the last year of the previous Government-there were 105,000 housing starts; 137,000 for the next year; 152,000 for 1984-85; 135,000 for 1985-86; 118,000 predicted for 1986-87; and 126,000 predicted for 1987-88. The Indicative Planning Council, which the Opposition tends to call to its aid when quoting figures on housing starts and interest rates, predicts as part of the forward estimates for lending by savings banks and all significant lenders, that we will get $9.5 billion for savings bank lending in 1987-88 and an all-time record high of $12.1 billion by all significant lenders. Honourable members opposite never got near that figure back in their last year of government. Honourable members opposite got less than $4 billion for savings bank lendings compared with $9.5 billion for savings bank lending this year. So much for their record on housing starts. I turn now to interest rates. Obviously the level of interest rates for housing will be determined by the level of general interest rates and they, in turn, will be dependent upon what action occurs in the current account deficit. We were heartened today by a result of a $750m deficit. Of course, if we look at the breakdown we see, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said today at Question Time, that in the three months to February the current account deficit averaged $860m compared with $1,033m in the same period a year ago and this has occurred despite a continued adverse movement in the terms of trade. I might also point out-without trying to overstate the position, and we obviously cannot do that on one month's figures-over the last four months on only one occasion was the figure over $1,000m. So I suggest that, as far as general interest rates are linked to the future of the current account deficit, there is some cause for cautious optimism and similarly with regard to the state of the Australian dollar which I understand today is running at about US68.50 cents. Obviously other factors that will be important with regard to the general downward trend of general interest rates are the status of monetary policy and the time at which that can be relaxed and, as far as interest rates and their future are concerned, the current status of fiscal and wages policy. We know that there will be a May statement. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has assured the House that it will be a tight mini-Budget, so to speak. As far as wages are concerned I am always puzzled by the attitude of honourable members opposite. They say that they are concerned about the low and middle income earners with regard to paying off their mortgages yet despite the fact that there has been a cut in real unit labour costs they strenuously oppose even the most moderate of wage increases. Hence we get the hysterical reaction to what was a quite widely accepted very moderate wages policy decision by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for a flat $10 per week with a second tier to be taken not earlier than September with a 2 per cent ceiling and in July 1988, next year, a further second tier of 2 per cent with the alternative of full negotiations for those unions and employers that willingly enter into negotiations. Similarly, on the superannuation side, in January 1988 and in January 1989 the Commission will arbitrate the 3 per cent in two stages. I think the Australian trade union movement would be extremely responsible when and if it accepts that decision. The Opposition, in attacking that decision and at the same time deploring the fact that mortgages might be up temporarily and in deploring the effect on high income earners, is simply, in its usual vein, not being consistent at all. I have said that, as far as interest rates are concerned, the timing depends upon the factors I have just outlined; that is, future reductions in the current account deficit, the state and stability of the Australian dollar, the future status of monetary policy and the success with which we implement tight fiscal and wages policies. As we do all this there will be a downward trend in general interest rates and housing interest rates will decline in due course. We will not say that there is a quick fix or a snake oil remedy as the Opposition appears to be saying. We are saying that it will probably be a hard tough road to get interest rates down but when that occurs it will be a sustainable fall. Before I move off the question of interest rates let me just refer honourable members to a table for comparison's sake. In June 1982-we all know who was in office then-rates for 180-day bills were 18.35 per cent and rates for 190-day bills were 18.75 per cent. Currently they are on a downward trend and the latest figures are 16.4 and 16.5. Providing those other assumptions remain in place I think we will see a continued steady downward trend in bill rates. However, we will find that bill rates will have to decline significantly past what they are now before that is reflected in housing interest rates. That is the fact of the matter. As I said, there are no snake oil remedies over here-just steady, tough policies that will result in a sustainable decrease in housing interest rates in due course. I now want to compare the economic and tax policies, leading to a comparison of the housing policy, of the Opposition and the Government. What we are all about is fairness and restraint with equity. Honourable members should have a look at the Opposition's tax policies or, rather, lack of them because it is very hard to follow yet what they are. Maybe we will get a tax policy in a concise form fairly soon, but we have not had it yet. Let us look at the fairness and equity of the Government's tax policy. We have a fringe benefits tax and a prospective capital gains tax. We have quarantined negative gearing with regard to investment in property to stop the tax rorts in which write-offs funded by the ordinary wage plugs and the consequential loss to revenue were written off not only against income from the property or properties concerned but also against all other income. Of course, we will be implementing the imputation of company tax. In addition, there are the new tax scales which are not pie in the sky but which will be funded in a responsible way in terms of the May statement and the Budget. When the second stage comes in on schedule on 1 July 1987, the scales will be 24c, 29c, 40c and 49c. The 60c scale will come back to 49c. We should compare this responsible tax package with what we get from the Opposition-irresponsible tax statements and no sign of an overall tax policy which pulls the whole thing together. First of all we hear the Opposition saying that it will abolish the fringe benefits tax. It will restore tax deductibility for entertainment expenses, abolish the capital gains tax and restore negative gearing. All of this will cost about $1,400m. The Opposition will repeal the assets test. I understand from the wild statements made by the Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition will introduce some sort of two-scale income tax process that will probably cost it $6,000m or $7,000m. That, of course, does not include the flat tax proposal put forward by the Premier of Queensland; it is just a flatter tax proposal. So, just on the matters that I have mentioned, the Opposition is looking at a loss to revenue of $7,500m. Again I must ask: How will the Opposition pay? What is the future of the consumer tax that we have considered and firmly rejected? If the Opposition does not do that, will it introduce a retail turnover tax or will there be increases in wholesale taxes? Can the Opposition please tell us how it will fund this $7.5 billion worth of promises that it has made? Of course, I have mentioned only the tip of the iceberg-not the lot. Will these proposals be funded by a consumer tax or some form of increased indirect taxes or will there be cuts past what we envisage in the May statement? If so, where will the cuts fall? Will they be made in the areas of health or education? So far we know nothing of the Opposition's plans except when we turn to this remarkable document, the Opposition's policy statement on housing and construction. The first thing I can say is that there are two good measures in this document which are a direct pinch from our policy-my policy. The first is the retention of the 13 1/2 per cent interest rate ceiling. I am glad that the Opposition agrees with us on this point because certainly this will mean that the 900,000-odd loans that fall in that category will be protected. They will be protected because we are going to protect them. We will make certain that we remain in office in order to do so. The Opposition also says that it will retain the first home owners scheme and by that statement it implicitly infers that the first home owners scheme is the best housing ownership assistance program ever offered to first home seekers. Mr Hurford —Hear, hear! Mr WEST —My colleague, the honourable member for Adelaide, who is a former Minister for Housing and Construction, says: `Hear, hear!'. So he ought to say that because he was the one who introduced the scheme. I have only made sure that it remains. And, of course, it will remain. The Opposition took three years to write this remarkably light and inferior document which takes about three minutes to read. Mr Robert Brown —Once you have finished it you find it was not worth reading. Mr WEST —That is right. When one reads the document a bit further one finds, as the Prime Minister said today, that the Opposition would abolish the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. It would abolish the public housing agreement. The Opposition has placed itself in a delicious and exquisite contradiction. In one breath it says how terrible it is that the Government has reduced housing starts to 118,000. This is despite the fact that there were 105,000 housing starts in the Opposition's last year of office. However, it is whingeing about the number of starts. In the other breath it turns around and says that it will abolish the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement which, of course, is instrumental in delivering public housing to those on low incomes and pensions who cannot afford to rent on the private market or to buy their own home. So there we have it: The Opposition whinges about 118,000 starts and yet it would abolish the agreement. Let us see what the agreement delivers. The public housing agreement, over which my colleague the former Minister and I have presided, will add 22,000 starts this year-that is, there will be 118,000 starts of which 22,000 will come from the public housing agreement. The Opposition is whingeing about the 118,000 starts as being too low yet it would remove over 20,000 of them by abolishing the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. How stupid can one be? Let me just give the Opposition some facts about the people that it will be putting out in the cold, so to speak. At the moment the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is placing some 44,000 families in housing accommodation each year. As I have said, it is contributing 20,000 to 22,000 starts as part of the total number of starts. It is increasing the total rental stock by new starts and acquisitions at the rate of 18,000 this year. So that is what the Opposition is going to knock out. The Opposition has put itself in a contradictory and deplorable position. It supports tight monetary policy yet it whinges about the resulting high interest rates. It slides into contradictions. It supports as being necessary the policies which result in high interest rates and then it says that high interest rates are deplorable. It whinges about the number of commencements and then it continues to talk about abolishing the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. It proposes tax cuts and then it whinges about the size of the deficit. It is in a totally contradictory and untenable position. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(3.47) —Except for about two minutes of excitement at the end of his prepared speech the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) sounded for 13 minutes as if he was delivering a funeral service. The Minister reeks with the smell of lacking conviction every time he stands in this place and tries to defend the abysmal record of the Hawke socialist Labor Government on housing. The Minister stands up in the chamber, as did the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) the other day, and alludes to 90-day bills. Ninety per cent of the people of Australia would not even know what a 90-day bill was, let alone ever having seen one or bought one. The average Australian goes to a building society, a bank or some other lending institution to finance the purchase of a home. The reference to a 90-day bill is an utter insult to average Australians because when they set out to buy a home they do not wish to be rolling over their loan every 90 days. Average Australians like to know what they are doing when they buy houses. The Government has destroyed their ability to know just what is going to happen as a result of policies that it has followed since it came to power. The Minister is very happy to allude frequently and continually to the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry. I am going to refer to figures of the last 13 or 14 years. It is true that in 1982-83, the last year of the Fraser Government, there were 105,000 housing starts. There were 132,000 starts in the previous year. It is true to say that in 1983-84 the Government reached our performance of 1981-82. The Fraser Government was booted out of office because of what went on in this country. People were short tempered, even for the wrong reasons-a world recession and a national drought. Yet the Government's performance of 118,000 housing starts this year is minus the drought and minus the world recession, so in reality the Government has the lowest start figure for as long as these figures go back. This Government's housing commencements are worse than those before the Whitlam years. This is the lowest number of starts other than in the year when we paid a dear price, yet the Minister for Housing and Construction beats his chest and expects us to swallow it when he says what a great government this Government has been. People on public housing waiting lists are those who cannot afford a home and who, because of being struck with misfortune or for a number of other reasons, do not have the drive or the ability to get the money together to purchase a home or even put down a deposit. The Minister had better listen to this because he paraded himself as the caretaker of the poor and the downtrodden. Australia has never had as many people waiting for public housing as there are at this time. There are 157,000 Australians-the highest figure in this nation's history-waiting for public housing. I repeat: There have never been as many people lining up and saying: `Please, State government, provide us with a roof over our heads'. If the Government looks at it in those terms it might be brought back to reality instead of giving us the rot and the high-blown stuff which the Minister tries to push down our throats every day and which he does not even understand. What has happened to rentals in Australia? In today's Daily Telegraph-the Minister had better look at it and not look sideways like a crab-there is the headline: `Average house rent hits $267 a week'. To be charitable to the Government and uncharitable to the media, I thought that that headline could not be right, so today I made a number of phone calls. The great tragedy is that I have established that that figure is spot on. People in Sydney knock at a real estate agent's door and ask: `Have you got a house?' If they are lucky enough that the real estate agent says `yes, we have', on average in Sydney they are paying $267 per week for a house. To get that kind of money together-$267-requires two incomes. The tax rates mean that, for a family earning 400 bucks a week, after the Government has got its hands on that income, all that is left is probably about $267 to pay the rent. So families with only one income are today lining up at government housing commissions and saying: `Please help us. We are desperate'. That is why we have reached a stage when the largest number of people in this nation's history are asking the Government to provide housing for them. In early 1983 I lost the seat that I held in this Parliament-the seat of Fadden-on the promise by the Australian Labor Party that it would get interest rates down. Nobody likes losing his seat, but at least I understood what came over the people whom I represented in the outlying growth suburbs of Brisbane. They had mortgages and they thought that the interest rates at that time were killing them. The Government has brought in a new definition of death in relation to what interest rates can do. The interest rates that existed then, even without interference, were at a maximum of about 13 1/2 per cent. The Liberal-National Party coalition had a system of rebates and, incidentally, that is another lie that you people told in pitching to the Australian-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member knows that-- Mr DONALD CAMERON —I did not say that the Minister had lied. It was the Prime Minister really, but I did not say that he did it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will now withdraw. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The Prime Minister is not a liar. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton knows the rules. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Right, I withdraw. `Misled'-is that all right? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, the honourable member cannot claim that the Minister mis- led the Parliament. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I cannot even tell the truth. What kind of Deputy Speaker are you? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am sorry. I really do not want to push my luck too far. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —At this rate the honourable member is getting very close to not completing his speech. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I was trying to say that the interest rates that existed in 1983 were nothing compared with the interest rates that have been reached in this Government's time. The Government came to power on a promise. I will not refer to what happened because I get into trouble. All I can note is that the Prime Minister promised that there would be no capital gains tax and, for some reason that the Minister cannot give, there is now a capital gains tax. I do not think the Prime Minister laid as much emphasis on this, but he also said that he would wipe out negative gearing. Hymns of hate came from the Government when it looked at negative gearing. It thought: `Gee whiz people are into the system'. But what it did not understand was that what made negative gearing costly for the Government was the movement in interest rates. When interest rates shot up, as they have under the Government's administration, suddenly the cost that it is bearing in terms of negative gearing became unbearable in its eyes. What did it do? It said: `That's out and capital gains are in'. All those people who were providing accommodation for people who are now on the lists suddenly thought to themselves: `If I put my money in a bank I will get at least 15 per cent; if I leave it in providing accommodation I will be lucky to get about 8 per cent'. There has been a retraction of the private sector's involvement in the provision of housing for the very people that the Government parades itself as caring about. As a result of the implementation of the miserable policies the Government has pursued, we now have headlines which state that rent for an average three-bedroom home in Sydney has hit $267. The Minister should get back to his office and not trot out speeches such as that he gave today. He should start to see what he has really done, because those opposite are hurting millions upon millions of Australians, whether they are buying their homes, renting their homes or simply trying to find a house to live in. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(3.57) —Despite the verve and enthusiasm of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), we have had the tired, old story thrashed out by the Opposition. It tried to be a little cute in raising the matter of public importance today by putting in the pricing angle, but we have been subjected to a rerun of its housing debate of a couple of weeks ago. There was nothing new. What can we expect from an Opposition that is disorganised, disoriented, disillusioned and divided? It comprises a coalition of sorts-two conservative parties riddled by internal disputes, lacking leadership and unsure of their direction. A whole host of outside groups are trying to dictate policy to them. In listening to those outside groups, the Opposition lacks the ability to put into place appropriate policies because of the lack of a general philosophy. Recently the Australian Chamber of Commerce set out in a document entitled `Mandate to Govern' certain policies that it saw were needed for the housing industry. It is interesting to compare what the Australian Chamber of Commerce put out with the document that is supposed to represent the Opposition's policy statement on housing and construction. I note that the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), the shadow Minister, has not been in the House today. I believe that he is travelling around Australia trying to flog this policy. He has an unenviable job, because I do not think anybody will really believe it. It lacks substance and does not give any alternatives, and the debate today has indicated that. All the same old, tired stories have been rolled out by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Moreton. But there is not much substance or much detail about what they will do so we have to turn to their policy on housing and construction. What are the first two things that we see despite the debate here about what are described as failed Hawke Government policies? The first thing to note about this policy document put out by the Opposition is that the Opposition will continue to support the 13 1/2 per cent ceiling on home loans entered into before 2 April last year. Despite all the huffing and puffing of the honourable member for Deakin on behalf of the New Right we see in the document statement that those opposite have decided that their course of action is exactly that taken by the Government. Secondly-and again we have had a whole host of suggestions that the first home owners scheme would be done away with under a coalition government-the policy document says that a coalition government would continue the first home owners scheme. I will read straight from the document. It says: Maintain the present First Home Owners Scheme with particular emphasis on families and continue to honour existing entitlements to that Scheme. That is quite incredible because it is now acknowledged by the Opposition that what the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has been saying day in, day out to this House about the success of FHOS as a scheme to assist first home owners was correct. The scheme has assisted over 220,000 Australian families into their homes. Now at least we have some acknowledgment that it is an appropriate policy to continue. Further into this document, this new policy statement on housing by the Opposition, as the Minister informed us earlier, we see that the Opposition would terminate the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. What compassion! What those opposite are about to do is wash their hands clean of any involvement in public housing. So there we have it from the honourable member for Deakin-the Pontius Pilate of public housing. What did he say in his statement which accompanied the release of the policy document? He was talking about the States not becoming involved in public housing. He said that if they do not provide adequate funds for public housing they will have to answer to their constituencies. What about the Federal Government's role? Why should we not have a role to ensure that the State governments are doing their bit in public housing? Let us look at the record as indicated by the Minister. Of the 118,000 starts this year 22,000 will be public housing stock. Let us consider increases in funding. Earlier we heard a contribution from the honourable member for Moreton, an honourable member from the State of Queensland. What does he think will happen if the Federal Government withdraws from public housing and we allow the State Government of Queensland to dictate policies and efforts in the public housing area? Under this Government, Queensland has done quite well. This year there was an increase in funding of 25 per cent over last year, the largest increase in funds of any State. If we compare the amount of money put in this year as against the last year of the previous Liberal Government, we see that there has been a 166 per cent increase in funding for public housing in the State of Queensland. Why does the Hawke Labor Government see a need to give that support in Queensland? Simple statistics show that Queensland has only 10 housing commission houses per thousand of population compared with the Australian average of 18. It has the worst per capita ratio of all States. What does the honourable member for Moreton think would happen if, as under the policy enunciated by the honourable member for Deakin, a Federal coalition government were to get out of the State public housing arena? It is not very appetising to think what would happen, especially in States such as Queensland. We then look further into the policy document. Another thing which it is suggested that those opposite would abolish is the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. It insures housing lenders against loss on housing loans and thus encourages lenders to lend to those on low incomes with low deposits. But although the Corporation has a charter which is of great social value it is interesting to note that last year it made an after tax profit of $6.8m. It paid a total of $9.3m to the Federal Government. It paid $5.9m in tax and $3.4m in dividend payments. What of the suggestion of the Opposition? We are being told that by allowing this Corporation to be taken over by some form of private ownership the profits presumably and most probably would go into the hands of the rich-another illustration of a policy being put up by honourable members opposite to protect the rich and work against the interests of the poor. Mr Saunderson —Shameful! Mr JENKINS —It is shameful because it is not the appropriate way to act. We hear the diatribes of the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Moreton who say that there is a need to do this and that but do not come up with anything concrete. They do not come up with anything that has a glimmer of compassion or thought for those who are disadvantaged, who are in need of shelter or who need such things as public housing. So we get to the nitty gritties. This matter of public importance suggests that this Government in some way has failed in the housing arena. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in Question Time and as the Minister emphasised in his contribution to the debate, this Government is quite proud of its record in housing. We can easily trot out statistics that support this but that is just a glib attitude. It is really a matter of looking at the underlying policy and support for those in need of support-those in need of adequate housing. When we compare our record of housing finance with that for the last full year of the Fraser Government, even under the lower figures announced last week of 118,000 commencements, we see how it stands against the all-time low figure of 105,000 commencements in 1982-83. Since the Hawke Government has been in power we have seen an increase in the number of commencements. Hopefully, if economic conditions are favourable and allow for improvement, we will see a predicted upturn of between 124,000 and 128,000 commencements in 1987-88. That is an important aspect. We look at the value of loans under this Government, the increase in their value and the increase in number of commencements. But the main thing that I want to come back to-it needs to be touched on in any debate on what the Opposition considers it will do and what this Government is doing, whether in housing, taxation or welfare and whilst the Opposition is quite disjointed and reluctant to reveal its full policies-is that the Australian public knows that, underlying any policies put forward by the coalition or the two separate conservative parties at the next election, they can be sure of one thing: That those policies will militate against the disadvantaged and ensure that the wealthy and the greedy-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.09) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 (1987). The proposals I have tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 (1987) became operative on and from 27 February 1987. The proposals relate to goods imported for use, under Customs control, in the manufacture of excisable products, in terms of section 24 of the Excise Act 1901. When imported goods are used in the production of excisable product they become subject to the excise duty rate. However, the following difficulties can occur: In certain cases the rate of customs duty on the imported goods is greater than the rate of excise duty; in particular circumstances the imported goods are subject to the customs duty as well as the excise duty. The proposals provide for: The collection of duty on the difference between the rate of customs duty and the rate of excise duty on the imported goods used to produce the excisable goods; the elimination of the possibility of the goods incurring both customs and excise duties. What could be more reasonable than that? I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 26 February. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —by leave-Prior to the resumption of the Committee's consideration, I foreshadow some further amendments to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill and the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. Since the Bills were last debated, on 26 February, they were further considered by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in Adelaide on 5 March 1987. The latest amendments arise out of that consideration and from further consideration of technical points raised by Commonwealth and State draftsmen. The first amendment is to sub-clause 6 (5) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill. It will enable the Attorney-General to authorise payment of costs where an adjournment may have been granted under a corresponding State law, or partly under the State law and partly under the Commonwealth law. Under the Bill as it now stands, the Attorney-General can authorise payment of costs arising out of an adjournment of a proceeding only under the Commonwealth provision. The second amendment to the Bill is consequential on amendment 15, previously circulated, and corrects a drafting error. These two amendments are contained in the schedule of additional amendments to be moved by the Government which was circulated today. There are also to be further amendments to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. I will make further comments on this matter when we deal with that Bill. At present we are dealing with the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill. I table an explanatory memorandum which relates to the additional amendments that I have mentioned. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.14) —The Committee will recall that on the last occasion this Bill was debated I indicated that, having not had an opportunity to speak at the second reading stage and recognising that the clauses need to be dealt with one at a time at the Committee stage, I would necessarily have to make comments on every clause. Rather than delay the Committee in that way, I seek leave to make some general comments in relation to the Bill at this stage rather than on a clause. Leave granted. Mr RUDDOCK —I thank the Committee. I did want to speak in relation to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill because I see this as very important legislation and I have had some experience of the problems that have been occasioned as a result of courts not being able to deal with and address particular problems. The area which concerned me particularly was that of family law. It is an area with which I know the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is equally familiar. Because of my involvement previously as Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act that looked at some of the constitutional problems where these jurisdictional difficulties arise, I want to put before the Committee the matters that the family law committee considered to ensure that the difficulties which we noted and which are to be partially addressed by this Bill are before honourable members when considering this legislation. The purpose of this Bill is to establish a system of cross-vesting of jurisdiction between Federal, State and Territory courts in Australia. As the Attorney has told us, the Bill is the result of extensive consultations between the Commonwealth and the States in the forum of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Of course, the Bill is to be complemented by each State putting in place reciprocal legislation to ensure that it operates fully. The essence of this cross-vesting arrangement is such that it will ensure that, with complementary legislation, State and Territory courts will be vested with the civil jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, except in certain limited industrial and trade practices matters, and that Federal courts will be vested with the full jurisdiction of State and Territories courts. In the area that particularly interested me, that of family law, this no doubt means that State courts, in accordance with the arrangements that this legislation will put in place, will be able to deal with family law matters, and that the Family Court of Australia will be able to deal with the full range of family matters that would ordinarily be split between the Federal courts and the State courts. The problem has arisen because the Australian Constitution empowers the Federal Government to legislate with respect to marriage and divorce and matrimonial causes, but the way in which those provisions have been interpreted has meant that certain custody, maintenance and property questions that one might ordinarily think would be dealt with by the Commonwealth, exercising its marriage and divorce powers, cannot be dealt with by the Commonwealth. That has led to very considerable hardship in a number of cases. With respect to custody, guardianship and access proceedings and also with respect to child maintenance proceedings, the High Court of Australia has held that such proceedings could validly be dealt with under a Federal Act independently of divorce proceedings, but it has ruled that such proceedings could not involve parties other than parties to a marriage. That is the reason that this difficulty arises. Very often there can be questions concerning children, property, maintenance and guardianship where parties may have been living together but where a formal marriage is not involved. Sometimes there can be children whose parents have married after the birth of the child. Also, where parties have lived together originally, children can be born in and out of wedlock and if a custody dispute arises, theoretically, the children born in wedlock would be dealt with by the Family Court and the children born out of wedlock would have to have their custody question resolved by the State courts. The nonsense of having different judges determining where children will be placed should be obvious to anyone. But the fact is that this matter has been considered over a period and the way in which the relevant laws have been interpreted has given rise to this continuing possibility. Of course, there are numbers of other areas in relation to property and the like where these problems arise. Our Committee dealt with these problems. It was very troubled about them, and it commented on them. It ought to be noted, however, that this Committee reported in 1980. As I mentioned, I had the privilege of chairing that Committee and the Attorney was a member of it when it deliberated on these questions. A great deal of evidence was presented to us that suggested that this was one of the most urgent problems facing those who are interested in reform in the family law area and that this difficulty of constitutional fragmentation of the family law scheme needed to be addressed. Many examples were given to us by the family law committees of various organisations, such as the Law Council of Australia. Australian Legal Aid Office lawyers put before us a number of the problems that existed. The Church of England Social Questions Committee talked about a number of these difficult situations. I would like to mention a couple of situations that were posed by the Church of England Social Questions Committee. It raised the question of what was to happen in particular cases regarding illegitimate, step or foster children who are outside the Federal jurisdiction. I quote from its comments to us: A widowed mother of children remarries. The second marriage fails but the second husband wishes to obtain access to the children of the first marriage with whom he has built up a relationship during the second marriage. There is no power under the Family Law Act for him to claim an order for access and he would be forced to proceed in the Supreme Court under the Ward of the Court proceedings. The second case referred to was as follows: A household consists of a child born during the marriage and a child born to one of the parents prior to marriage or born to the wife after marriage but not to the husband. For such a case the child born before marriage or after marriage but to a person other than the husband is not a child of the marriage and again jurisdiction in the Family Court does not exist. These sorts of question were raised with us over and over again and a number of solutions were suggested by the Committee in its report. In essence, we saw that there were five alternatives, which were not mutually exclusive, but which could be pressed by government. The first was to obtain a reference by the States to the Commonwealth of the relevant legislative power to overcome this jurisdictional problem. The second was to establish State family courts, similar to the one that exists in Western Australia, which would administer both State and Federal laws relating to children and property. The third was the issuing of dual commissions to judges of the Family Court to enable them to exercise, in addition to their powers under Federal law, any powers granted to them under a State law. In essence, that is what we are dealing with now. This suggestion made by the Joint Select Committee of a system of dual commissions is notionally a form of cross-vesting that is being proposed in this legislation that we are discussing today. The fourth proposal that was before us was unilateral legislative action by the Commonwealth to test before the High Court the full extent of the Commonwealth constitutional powers with respect to marriage and divorce. In relation to that point, there has been further development since the Committee reported. Matters of this sort have been before the High Court of Australia. The courts have not assisted in resolving the problem significantly in those further cases. While there may have been particular changes, the broad difficulty still remains. the fifth proposal was a referendum to amend the Australian Constitution to give the Commonwealth full legislative power to deal with all children and matrimonial property. The Committee saw the reference of powers approach as being most preferable. That was its most favoured solution. It noted that in 1975 and 1976 the Australian Constitutional Convention had resolved that certain matters be referred to the Commonwealth, including illegitimacy, adoption and maintenance. I had the privilege, along with the Attorney, of attending a Constitutional Convention meeting in Adelaide in 1983. We expected that there would be certain advances, in terms of reference of power to deal with these difficult family law questions. Regrettably, we found that there was very considerable opposition and that the States were anxious to maintain aspects of the powers that are presently before them. So after 10 years of discussion there has been no effective reference of power by the States to the Commonwealth of the constitutional provisions to enable us to legislate adequately in this area. It was the most preferred solution, but 10 years has elapsed and we have not been able to get it in place. The second solution that we suggested was the State Family Court proposal. That has been adopted very successfully in Western Australia. I have always had doubts about the establishment of separate family courts because the jurisdictional problems remain. The problem remains because there would still be appeals to a Federal system in relation to those matters that are Commonwealth responsibility, and to a State appeal court system in relation to those matters that are dealt with by State law. While there have not been many cases, I understand, from the Western Australian Family Court which have gone different ways on appeal, it is still possibly a problem. More importantly, it was not possible to establish separate family courts in each of the other States, as one would be undoing the system of family courts that had been put in place nationally. It was too difficult to unscramble the eggs. The dual commission proposal which was first put to us by the Law Council of Australia was more forcibly put by Professor P. H. Lane, Professor of Constitutional Law at Sydney University, a very eminent constitutionalist. He proposed a dual court system. If anyone is interested in seeing his paper, it is reproduced in volume 2 of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. That volume contains extracts from Professor Lane's opinion entitled `A Dual Court System'. He was proposing at that point a system of ensuring that the Commonwealth jurisdiction could be exchanged with the States for theirs. It seemed to us at that time a very worthwhile proposal, and it was one that the Committee in its deliberations said, in addition to the reference of power question, ought to be taken up and pursued by the Commonwealth. The Committee stated: . . . the Committee considers that the possibility of joint commissions for federal judges or of a dual court system along the lines suggested by Professor Lane should also receive thorough examination by both the Federal and State governments. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the governments of the States and the Commonwealth examine the possibility of issuing State Commissions to federal Family Court judges and federal Commissions to selected State judges to enable the exercise of a unified jurisdiction in family law matters throughout Australia. The other two matters that were mentioned-that is, unilateral legislative action by the Commonwealth to exploit the fullest constitutional powers with respect to laws on marriage, and also a referendum proposal-were not seen as being at all desirable. They were seen as being somewhat confrontationist with the States and for that reason were not pressed by the Committee as being the most appropriate solutions. I have wanted to draw attention in this very difficult area of family law to the problems that have arisen over time. I am sorry that it is 10 years or so since these questions were first addressed in a meaningful way and we still do not have a solution in place. But I am delighted-and I congratulate the Attorney-that at this time we are proceeding with proposals that may well enable us to overcome some of the problems occasioned by this difficulty of split jurisdiction between the Commonwealth and the States in family law matters. I note that the Attorney has drawn attention to certain problems, particularly the difficulty of forum shopping; that is, people might decide to go shopping for a particular judge who they believe will give them a more satisfactory result. Difficulties can arise with people undertaking such steps. I would certainly hope that such difficulties do not arise, because the problems in this area are enormous, without people being faced with the fact that the law cannot adequately address their problems. I certainly hope that the States will move quickly to introduce and implement their complementary legislation so that this scheme can be put in place as quickly as possible in the general way in which the Attorney is proposing and particularly in dealing with the family law problems that I have addressed. Clauses agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation and application). Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.30) —I think that it will help if I trespass somewhat on to the other provisions of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill simply for the purpose of dealing expeditiously with the main point. The Opposition must move for the purpose of achieving that point a number of amendments to this Bill, and it is unnecessary to speak on each amendment. It is better to speak now and to outline our case. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —I think a precedent has been set and I am sure that the Minister is agreeable. Mr Lionel Bowen —Yes. Mr SPENDER —It is a simple position. We commend the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for bringing in these Bills, at least so far as the general cross-vesting proposal is concerned. We take the view, however, that the Government should go further. While what is being done by the cross-vesting proposals is a good measure to overcome jurisdictional difficulties, it contains within it certain provisions which would reserve specialist jurisdictions. Our view, a view taken many years ago by that very great jurist, Sir Owen Dixon, is that there should be full integration between the courts. I remind the House again of what Sir Owen Dixon said when he was sworn in as Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia and when speaking of the way in which our Federal Constitution has divided judicial power between State and Federal courts. After referring to the fact that the High Court stands at the peak of the appellate jurisdiction, he said: 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 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- and I stress these words- 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. I understand that the Government has to negotiate with the States on these matters, but what Sir Owen Dixon was saying was that we are one people; as one people we should live and be judged by one system of law. While the laws may be from the various States, the laws are to be one system in the sense that they will be administered by the courts. Be they Federal courts or State courts, each would be administering the whole body of Australian law, and that is what we as one people should seek to achieve. While this legislation goes a considerable distance in overcoming problems inherent in a system which divides the courts among Federal, State and territory courts, it does not go far enough. Furthermore, at this time a constitutional commission has been set up by this Government and a committee has been chaired by Mr Justice Jackson. That committee is considering the divisions of Federal and State judicial power and is looking to what recommendations it will be making to the Government and to the people for changes in the way in which we divide the judicial system of this country. It was fine to divide it in the way it was divided back in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, but is it not somewhat ludicrous, to take an example that arises under this legislation, that while there is now to be concurrent jurisdiction on intellectual property-that is, the State and Federal courts are to have concurrent jurisdiction with appeals through their various State and Federal systems, depending upon where the case at first instance was heard-there is to be no concurrent jurisdiction in tax cases? Those cases are to be taken from the State courts where they presently are to the Federal courts, and the State courts are not to have any jurisdiction whatever in those cases. It would seem that given the experience of the State courts-and I shall say something about this when we come to the other Bill-it is absurd that the State courts should not have jurisdiction to deal at first instance with those matters and the matters can then become part of the ordinary appeal system. Our view is that, as is enshrined in much of this legislation, the court hears the matter at first instance, it determines the matter, and then, if an appeal is desired, it goes through the appellate system that belongs to that court. In the case of a State court it goes to the State appeal system with an application for special leave to the High Court being the final appellate measure. In the case of the Federal Court of Australia it would go through the Federal appeal system, with once again an application to the High Court for special leave to determine any outstanding matter of sufficient importance to be granted special leave. We would ask simply for one system, and that view is reflected largely in the submission that has been made to the Attorney-General from the Law Council of Australia. It is a contradiction in terms to introduce legislation to achieve cross-vesting of jurisdiction where exclusive jurisdiction has given rise to problems and then to create within that legislation or to retain exclusive jurisdictions. That is the point on which we differ from the Government. It is not a political point. It is a view about the proper operation of the Australian judicial system. I move: Clause 3, pages 2 and 3, omit the definition of ``special federal matter''. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(4.38) —I wish to comment briefly on the Opposition's amendment to clause 3. I note from the list of Opposition amendments to be moved by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) that a majority relate to special federal matters. The definition of `special federal matter' in clause 3 includes matters arising under the provision of the Trade Practices Act 1974, secondly the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, thirdly the National Crime Authority Act 1984, and fourthly the provisions of section 39b of the Judiciary Act 1903. In fact, the Bill is very much restricted to those pieces of Federal legislation. These matters are at present within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court. For example, section 39b of the Judiciary Act relates to matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against certain Commonwealth officers. The Commonwealth regards it as important that certain matters of particular significance to the Commonwealth should be within the specialist jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Notwithstanding that specialist jurisdiction will be conferred on the Federal Court, it is important to distinguish those matters of particular significance to the Commonwealth. I pose the question, which was not mentioned by the honourable member for North Sydney, whether this specialist jurisdiction prejudices the right of litigants. I would suggest it will not. It would certainly not set up any unnecessarily long delays in proceedings. It is important to acknowledge that this clause takes into account the special or particular significance of certain Commonwealth legislation. I conclude by saying that this clause has been introduced after lengthy and detailed consultations between the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The result is a balanced and workable scheme. As I pointed out, it is restricted and it takes account of the particular significance of Commonwealth legislation. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.40) —I thank the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) for their comments. In reply to the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), who at the outset of this Committee stage raised issues which have troubled us for a long time, particularly relating to the ex-nuptial child, I point out that all States have now agreed to a reference of powers on that issue except Queensland, which objects, and Western Australia, which does not think that it is necessary. I have written to those two States asking them to reconsider the matter. In fairness I must also point out that the other four States have already introduced the legislation, so we will not have any problem in dealing with the child in any issue now, whether there is a marriage or not. This will be of some significance in handling the difficulties that the honourable member for Dundas mentioned. The honourable member for North Sydney is right in saying that it is a pity that we have never had full integration of the courts. But that is a fact of life and there has been the issue which has developed and which has brought about cross-vesting: By interpretation the High Court of Australia has been able to say quite effectively that, where there is a Federal element in a matter, it becomes an issue for the Federal Court of Australia. This concerned the State courts because they felt that they were losing jurisdiction. Whilst I can appreciate what the honourable member has said in the terms of a concept of one system which might be able to deal with both matters, because of the history of the matter and the Federal nature, it has not developed that way and a very successful Federal Court has been established. This has created the view that this Court should be related to Federal matters. I say that not because I thought that we should be trying to take over matters that were before State courts, but because the State Attorneys-General-all of them-felt that they were losing jurisdiction by interpretation. Therefore, it was their suggestion that we have a cross-vesting scheme. Their Solicitors-General sat down with my Solicitor-General and developed this proposal. What we have here is something that all the States want us to introduce because they see it as guaranteeing them a definite role in the areas of jurisdiction. It is counterproductive to acknowledge that there can be conflict and that one can have forum shopping. Therefore, a committee of judges will look at this matter from the point of view of whether the scheme will work. We think that it will work. Jurisdiction, or the vision of jurisdiction, has been the result of negotiations between the States and the Northern Territory. It was intended that the legislation should be jurisdictionally neutral. It was not intended to alter the balance-and that is the position-but was simply to solve the problems related to uncertainties. For example, clause 5 makes detailed and comprehensive provision for transfers between courts to ensure that proceedings begun in an inappropriate court will be transferred to an appropriate one. State legislation will contain similar provisions. It is quite legitimate for us, in the Federal sphere, to retain specialist Federal jurisdiction, both original and appellate. We have the law relating to these matters which are of particular concern to the Commonwealth-for example, restrictive trade practices. At present we have exclusive jurisdiction in a number of matters and we have developed an expertise. If we did not retain our specialist Federal jurisdiction, this Bill would not be jurisdictionally neutral. It would represent a significant tip in the balance towards the States and away from the Federal courts. As the honourable member for North Sydney might know, there has been some anxiety among the judiciary about whether they will lose jurisdiction. Basically they all feel that this system will work, provided they have a monitoring role in it. I am sure that it will work. We cannot agree with the amendment because the whole concept of and basis for introducing this legislation is that the States feel that it will give them a clear-cut jurisdictional area and will clearly define what they regard as the Commonwealth area. The honourable member quite fairly mentioned the difficulties of the State courts not dealing with taxation matters as they have done up to the present time. I will say a bit more about that when we come to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1986, but it has become very clear that because of the number of taxation matters-the statistics show that another 4,000 matters are coming into the courts-the State courts are unable to deal with them and have asked that we take them away. This will be done by amendments in the next Bill. The State courts do not have the facilities to deal with those matters. That will certainly create a problem for us, but by the same token I think it is appropriate that we deal with matters which are the subject of Federal legislation. I understand what the honourable gentleman says when he asks whether we could not have one court to deal with such matters, whether they were in Federal or State jurisdiction. I think we are getting there because by reference of powers we will be able to deal with a number of matters that have been in an uncertain area by saying that what is certainly a State matter will remain a State matter and, where there is a Federal element, it will remain a Federal matter. Certainly, Federal laws will be the subject of Federal Court determination. I believe that the profession readily recognises that the Federal Court is doing well. It caters for the needs of litigants and of the profession. It has a good reputation which it is anxious to preserve in matters such as trade practice, intellectual property and taxation. In such matters the Federal Court has developed an expertise which should be retained. In summary, we are unable to accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for North Sydney on behalf of the Opposition because it would be completely contrary to what has already been agreed between the States and he would be the first to agree with me that they would be horrified to think that we had suddenly decided to go back on arrangements that had been made. In fact, the States have been pressing me and to some extent doubting my bona fides as to why I have not been able to introduce the legislation earlier. They want to see it introduced and I have given them a firm undertaking that it will be done. That applies to all the Attorneys-every one of them. There are no exceptions. The Law Council of Australia has been consulted. I do not think it would be opposed to this. It probably would be more concerned that the State courts might be too weakened, but that is a view that they alone would express. The State courts themselves want some guarantee of their jurisdiction and by this agreed method that arrangement can be adhered to. I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the honourable member. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 4 agreed to. Clause 5 (Transfer of proceedings). Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.50) —by leave-The Government moves the following amendments: (1) Clause 5, page 4, line 12, omit ``(in this subsection referred to as the `other court')''. (2) Clause 5, page 4, line 14, omit ``other court'', substitute ``Federal Court or the Family Court''. (3) Clause 5, page 4, line 23, omit ``other court'', substitute ``Federal Court or the Family Court''. (4) Clause 5, page 4, line 34, omit ``other court'', substitute ``Federal Court or the Family Court, as the case may be''. (5) Clause 5, page 4, line 36, omit ``other court'', substitute ``Federal Court or the Family Court''. (6) Clause 5, page 4, line 37, omit ``other court'', substitute ``Federal Court or the Family Court, as the case may be''. (7) Clause 5, page 5, line 15, omit ``that other State or Territory'', substitute ``the State or Territory referred to in sub-subparagraph (a)''. (8) Clause 5, page 5, line 43, omit ``that other court'', substitute ``the other of the courts referred to in paragraph (a)''. (9) Clause 5, page 6, line 2, omit ``that other court'', substitute ``the other of the courts referred to in paragraph (a)''. (10) Clause 5, page 6, line 4, omit ``that other court'', substitute ``the other of the courts referred to in paragraph (a)''. (11) Clause 5, page 6, line 27, omit ``that State or Territory'', substitute ``the State or Territory referred to in sub-subparagraph (a)''. (12) Clause 5, page 7, line 2, omit ``that other court'', substitute ``the other of the courts referred to in paragraph (a)''. (13) Clause 5, page 7, line 4, omit ``that other court'', substitute ``the other of the courts referred to in paragraph (a)''. (14) Clause 5, page 7, lines 21 to 27, omit subclause (8), substitute the following subclause: ``(8) A person who is entitled to practise as a barrister or a solicitor, or as both a barrister and a solicitor, in a court has, if a proceeding (in this subsection referred to as the `transferred proceeding') in that court is transferred to another court under a law or laws relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction, the same entitlement to practice in relation to: (a) the transferred proceeding; and (b) any other proceeding out of which the transferred proceeding arises or to which the transferred proceeding is related, being another proceeding that is to be determined together with the transferred proceeding; in the other court that the person would have if the other court were a federal court exercising federal jurisdiction.''. These amendments are machinery ones and have been circulated. They are quite extensive. This clause allows for the transfer of proceedings between courts in certain specified situations. Concern was expressed by a committee of the Law Council of Australia that, until the Bill was drafted, transfer depended upon there being related proceedings pending in the second court. This was not the intention of the Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory Attorneys-General. While the Bill did give effect to the Attorneys' intention, its provisions were obscure. Amendments 1 to 13 to this clause, as circulated, are designed to clarify that provision. The right to practise is dealt with under subclause 5 (8) which provides for certain rights to practise in transferred proceedings. Following representations from the Law Council committee and discussions between the Commonwealth and State Solicitors-General, this is to be extended to cover related proceedings to be heard together with the transferred proceedings, and that is covered by amendment 14. That is the explanation for these amendments. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.52) —I will be very brief. The Opposition has no objection to these amendments or, if I can say so at this stage, to any of the amendments to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill, save an amendment to clause 6 which will be dealt with shortly. The others are agreed to. They improve on certain problems that exist and some are simply made for drafting purposes. I think nothing further needs to be said about them. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 6 (Special federal matters). Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.52) —I move: (1) Clause 6, page 8, line 17, insert ``, under a corresponding provision of a law of a State or under this section and under such a provision'' after ``section''. As I understand it, sub-clause 6 of this clause permits the Attorney-General to authorise the payment of costs arising out of an adjournment of a proceeding under clause 6. Because it is possible that an adjournment will be made under a State cross-vesting law or partly under such law and partly under a Commonwealth cross-vesting law, it is desirable to amend sub-clause (6) to cover that possibility. That is the reason for the amendment. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.53) —That amendment is opposed very simply on the basis that the Opposition opposed the original clause 6 for the general reason that I outlined, and that is that it was one of the provisions which worked against the general integration and cross-vesting of the jurisdictions of the various courts. A number of amendments are being moved by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and by me. Although the Opposition regards this as an important Bill, I do not think it is necessary to underline its importance by dividing on every provision which we put up and which is not agreed to by the Attorney-General or any provision which the Attorney-General puts up and to which we do not agree. I do not want it to be thought that in not dividing and not taking the heroic step which is so frequently taken in this House I treat the Bill any less importantly than other Bills. I most certainly do not because it is a most important package of legislation. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(4.54) —I reiterate what I said previously in relation to the definition of `special federal matters'. Clause 6 provides the machinery for the compulsory transfer of issues relating to special Federal matters from State or Territory supreme courts. Once again it is in the restricted form to which I have referred previously. I indicate once again that, whilst those opposite are raising the issue of exclusive jurisdictions and specialist jurisdictions, this is very restricted in its form. Further, I would maintain that it does not prejudice or disadvantage the rights of litigants or unnecessarily delay proceedings, because time factors are specifically dealt with in clause 6. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 7 (Institution and hearing of appeals). Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.56) —The purpose of the Opposition's amendment is to give effect to the general proposition that I have put to this chamber. I move: (3) Clause 7, pages 9 and 10, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Institution and hearing of appeals ``7. An appeal from a decision of a court shall only be instituted and heard in accordance with the appeal provisions which normally apply to that court.''. If this amendment were given effect to, together with the other amendments which the Opposition proposes to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill 1986 and taken into account with our opposition to the second Bill, the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1986, would leave us in the position where, once a court took a matter and determined it, an appeal would then lie through the ordinary appeal processes of that court, be it a Territory court, a State supreme court or the Federal Court of Australia. We think that is the desirable objective. I understand the problems to which the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has referred. There are always problems of negotiations with the States. I have always thought the Attorney-General was a man of great persuasiveness, and I should have thought that, with his golden tongue and his considerable charm, had he applied himself to getting a fully integrated system, we might just have managed it. As I said, this amendment gives effect to what we intend, and no more need be said about it because it is covered by what I have already said. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.58) —That is the nicest thing the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has ever said about me, so I must be careful on this occasion. Really the issue relates to the question of appeals from supreme courts in proceedings involving certain Federal matters. These matters are listed in the Schedule. I can tell the honourable gentlemen that I have had a lot of discussions with judges, particularly the Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, and they are very anxious to have some certainty about the areas. That is why a list of the relevant Acts is in the Schedule. If we did not do that and if we accepted the honourable gentleman's amendment, as well intentioned as it is, it would do away with the specialist Federal appellate jurisdiction. That concerns that court no end. It has developed a very good appellate jurisdiction, and it is anxious to retain it. Everybody has agreed with it. My eloquence, if any, has been to the point of clearly indicating to the State Attorneys-General that this is perfectly all right, and they have accepted that. I think I should say no more, seeing that they are in agreement. The honourable gentleman's amendment would destroy their hopes. This is something that they want to see introduced, and I would be the last to oppose all the Attorneys in toto. There are many things that I would love to do, with which they will not agree. On this occasion, as we have agreement and it is particularly of interest to the Federal Court, it is important that we proceed as drafted. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment to clause 7, as outlined. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 8 agreed to. Clause 9 (Exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to cross-vesting laws). Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.00) —by leave-I move: (15) Clause 9, page 10, line 39, omit ``a law'', substitute ``this Act or of a law of a State''. (2) Clause 9, page 10, line 42, omit ``law'', substitute ``provision''. I am advised that amendment (15) to clause 9, which has been circulated, clarifies the wording in clause 9 paragraph (2) (a) by providing that the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia or the Supreme Court of a Territory may exercise cross-vested jurisdiction conferred by a State law as well as that conferred by the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill. The additional amendment (2) is consequential on amendment (15) and corrects a drafting error. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 10 (Transfer of matters arising under Division 1 or 1a of Part V of the Trade Practices Act). Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.02) —I move: (4) Clause 10, page 11, omit subparagraph (c). Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.02) —For the reasons previously outlined the Government is unable to accept this amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 11 (Conduct of proceedings). Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.03) —I move: (16) Clause 11, page 11, lines 19 to 32, omit subclauses (1) and (2), substitute the following subclauses: ``11. (1) Where it appears to a court that the court will, or will be likely to, in determining a matter for determination in a proceeding, be exercising jurisdiction conferred by this Act or by a law of a State relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction: (a) subject to paragraphs (b) and (c), the court shall, in determining that matter, apply the law in force in the State or Territory in which the court is sitting (including choice of law rules); (b) subject to paragraph (c), if that matter is a right of action arising under a written law of another State or Territory, the court shall, in determining that matter, apply the written and unwritten law of that other State or Territory; and (c) the rules of evidence and procedure to be applied in dealing with that matter shall be such as the court considers appropriate in the circumstances, being rules that are applied in a superior court in Australia or in an external Territory. ``(2) The reference in paragraph (1) (a) to the State or Territory in which the court is sitting is, in relation to the Federal Court or the Family Court, a reference to the State or Territory in which any matter for determination in the proceeding was first commenced in or transferred to that court.''. Honourable members will notice that this amendment deals with a number of paragraphs. I am advised as follows: The amendment relates to the conduct of proceedings. The committee of the Law Council of Australia has raised a number of questions on the construction of this clause. There is uncertainty about the relationship between clause 11 (1) (a) and clause 11 (2) concerning the meaning of written law, the uncertainty in rules of evidence, and the procedure to be applied which is to be found in clause 11 (1) (b). All these matters were considered by the State Solicitors-General together with the Commonwealth. So the relationship between clause 11 (1) (a) and clause 11 (2) has been clarified in amendment (16) which has been circulated. The expression `written law' refers to statute law. Clause 11 (1) (b) in the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill, which is now clause 11 (1) (c), reflects a deliberate policy choice of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General and Solicitors-General. When dealing with different kinds of matters in combined proceedings, courts will need a broad discretion to find workable arrangements for evidence and procedure. This clause assumes that the courts will act sensibly. The clause has been changed to make it plain that the court can apply one set of rules of evidence and procedure for the determination of one matter in a proceeding and another set for the determination of other matters in a proceeding. I am advised that it has not been possible to devise a more satisfactory alternative. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.05) —We support the amendment. The very fact that the Attorney-General has had to move the amendment illustrates beautifully the need for a fully integrated system. More than that it illustrates the need for a common approach in Australia to matters such as rules of procedure, rules of evidence and the substantial law of this country. I know that it is a joy to all those who practice in the different State jurisdictions to uphold the laws of their jurisdictions and to rejoice in the differences that may exist between their jurisdictions and others. As a former practitioner of the New South Wales Bar I suppose that I was, no doubt, always convinced that our laws were better than the laws of the other States when there were differences between our laws and the laws of other States. But it is odd, is it not, that in 1987, on matters which are of common importance regardless of where one lives, there should be laws which may differ, sometimes slightly, sometimes considerably, in defining what are the rights and obligations that those law give rise to. I know that uniformity of law throughout the country is an ideal which we will never achieve but I think the greater the degree of uniformity of laws throughout the country that can be achieved between the various jurisdictions and particularly between the States, the better it will be for all Australians and especially for those who find themselves litigants in the courts. We therefore support what the Attorney-General proposes and we wish the courts well in applying this provision. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.07) —I just make the point that I welcome the Opposition's support. Certainly there will always be some trial and error but I think we are relying on the good sense of the respective members of the judiciary, whether State or Federal, to ensure that litigants are not disadvantaged. In passing, I also draw the honourable gentleman's attention to the fact that this Act will be on a three-year trial basis and there will be a review of it. I think it will work very well but the provision is there to have a look at it to see how well it is working in matters such as the honourable gentleman has mentioned which, I have no doubt, will be the subject of consideration. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 12 to 16-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. The Schedule. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.08) —For reasons which I have already given we oppose the Schedule. It is a necessary consequence of the position we have taken to this legislation as a whole and I need say nothing more than that. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(5.09) —I just reiterate what I said previously in my remarks relating to clause 3 and clause 6. I conclude my remarks in relation to this Bill by referring to the comments of the Attorney-General in introducing the Bill when he said: The scheme, although simple in concept, amounts to a radical change in the Australian judicial system. I fully concur with those words. I commend the Attorney-General for the efforts he has made. As he has just indicated, the Bill, when enacted, will be for a trial period of three years. Of course, there is provision for the judiciary to assist in the administration of this legislation. As I have said, I commend the Attorney-General for his initiative in introducing this Bill and for the lengthy and detailed consultations which he had with the Attorneys-General of the States and Territory. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.10) —I will not repeat what has previously been said. The Schedule really defines a number of Commonwealth Acts which are deemed to be specialist Federal jurisdiction. It just identifies them, clearly indicating whether they are in the copyright area, the electoral area or the bankruptcy area. In accordance with the arrangement, obvious Federal elements-not only elements, but the complete aspect of the matters-will be dealt with in the Federal jurisdiction. So the Schedule merely adds weight to the thrust of what the whole cross-vesting procedure is about and avoids any misunderstanding as to what particular Acts might be considered to be of some uncertainty. This happens in some areas of contract law which are involved with trade practices. But this legislation clearly identifies areas where the Federal jurisdiction is deemed to be exclusive and has been recognised as such because of the nature of the legislation itself. Schedule agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. 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.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hawker, D. P. M.Aldred, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hodges, J. C.Beale, J. H. Hodgman, W. M.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Jull, D. F.Brown, N. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J.Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Smith, W.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J.Fisher, Peter Watson, D. J. H.Goodluck, B. J. Webster, A. P.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C.Halverson, R. G. Brown, John Shack, P. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.21) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 4, page 3, lines 1 to 5, omit subclause (3), substitute the following subclauses: ``(3) Where, under a provision of a relevant tax law as in force before the commencement day, a decision on an objection, or an objection, had been forwarded to a Supreme Court but the hearing, other than an interlocutory hearing, of proceedings in respect of the decision or objection had not begun before the commencement day: (a) the proceedings are, by force of this Act, transferred to the Federal Court of Australia on the commencement day; (b) the proceedings shall continue in the Federal Court of Australia as if the decision or objection had been forwarded to the Federal Court of Australia under a provision of a relevant tax law as amended by this Act; (c) the Federal Court of Australia has jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceedings; (d) all documents filed of record in the Supreme Court in the proceedings, or lodged with that Court in connection with the proceedings, shall be transmitted to the Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia; (e) any moneys lodged with the Supreme Court in relation to the proceedings shall be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia and dealt with as if they had been lodged with that Court; and (f) all things done in or in relation to the proceedings in the Supreme Court shall be deemed to have been done in or in relation to the proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia. ``(4) The Federal Court of Australia has the same powers (including powers in respect of contempt of court and enforcing of orders) in respect of an order of a Supreme Court made in or in relation to proceedings referred to in subsection (3) as if it were an order of the Federal Court of Australia. ``(5) Subject to subsection (3), the provisions of the relevant tax laws that are amended or repealed by this Act continue to apply to: (a) a decision on an objection, or an objection, that was forwarded to a Supreme Court before the commencement day; and (b) an order made by the Supreme Court in relation to the decision or objection; as if those amendments and repeals had not been made. ``(6) Subsection (5) has effect notwithstanding the operation of subsection 7 (3) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 on its commencement.''. (2) Schedule, amendments of Advance Australia Logo Protection Act 1984, page 4, omit the amendments, substitute- ``Subsection 11 (2)- Insert `Federal Court of Australia or the' before `Supreme Court'. After subsection 13 (1)- Insert the following subsection: `(1a) The Federal Court of Australia has jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising under section 11 or 16.'. (3) Schedule, amendments of Copyright Act 1968, page 5, omit the amendments, substitute- ``Heading to Division 4a of Part V- Omit the heading, substitute the following heading: `Division 4a-Jurisdiction and Appeals'. Subsections 131b (1) and (2)- Insert `of a State or Territory' after `a court'. After section 131b- Insert the following section: Jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia `131c. Jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal Court of Australia with respect to actions under this Part.''. (4) Schedule, amendments of Designs Act 1906, pages 5 and 6, omit the amendments, substitute- ``Subsection 4 (1)- After the definition of `design', insert the following definition: ` ``Federal Court'' means the Federal Court of Australia;'. Subsection 4 (1) (definition of `prescribed court')- Insert `the Federal Court,' after `means'. Subsection 22b (2)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 24 (3)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 27aA (11)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 40g (1)- Omit the subsection, substitute the following subsections: `(1) The Federal Court has jurisdiction with respect to matters arising under this Act. `(1a) The jurisdiction of the Federal Court to hear and determine appeals from decisions of the Registrar is exclusive of the jurisdiction of any other court, other than the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 75 of the Constitution. `(1b) Subject to subsection (2), each prescribed court (other than the Federal Court) has jurisdiction with respect to matters arising under this Act in respect of which actions or proceedings may, under a provision of this Act, be instituted in a prescribed court. `(1c) A prosecution for an offence against this Act shall not be instituted in the Federal Court.'. Subsection 40g (2)- Omit `subsection (1)', substitute `subsection (1B)'. Subsections 40i (1) and (2)- Omit the subsections, substitute the following subsections: `(1) An appeal lies to the Federal Court from a judgment or order of: (a) another prescribed court exercising jurisdiction under this Act; or (b) any other court in an action or proceeding referred to in section 31. `(2) Except with the leave of the Federal Court, an appeal does not lie to the Full Court of the Federal Court from a judgment or order of a single judge of the Federal Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from decisions of the Registrar.'. Section 40j- Omit `prescribed court', substitute `Federal Court'. Subsection 46b (1)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 46b (2)- Omit `prescribed court', substitute `Federal Court'.''. (5) Schedule, amendments of Patents Act 1952, pages 10 and 11, omit the amendments, substitute- ``Subsection 6- After the definition of `exclusive licensee', insert the following definition: ` ``Federal Court'' means the Federal Court of Australia;'. Section 6 (definition of `prescribed court')- Insert `the Federal Court', after `means'. Subsection 49 (8)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 49a (10)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 50 (6)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 52 (8)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 52d (9)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 60 (5)- (a) Omit `the prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. (b) Omit `prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 63 (4)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Paragraph 63 (3) (c)- Omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraph: `(c) proceedings in a court; or'. Paragraph 66 (3) (f)- Omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraph: `(f) in a case to which paragraph (c) applies-the court or, if the proceedings are discontinued, the Commissioner directs; or'. Subsections 68b (11) and (12)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 73 (4)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 81 (2)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 81 (3)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Section 84- (a) Omit `prescribed court' (first occurring), substitute `Federal Court'. (b) Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 146 (1)- Omit the subsection, substitute the following subsections: `(1) The Federal Court has jurisdiction with respect to matters arising under this Act. `(1a) The jurisdiction of the Federal Court to hear and determine appeals from decisions or directions of the Commissioner is exclusive of the jurisdiction of any other court, other than the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 75 of the Constitution. `(1b) Subject to subsection (2), each prescribed court (other than the Federal Court) has jurisdiction with respect to matters arising under this Act in respect of which actions or proceedings may, under a provision of this Act, be instituted in a prescribed court. `(1c) A prosecution of an offence against this Act shall not be instituted in the Federal Court.'. Subsection 146 (2)- Omit `subsection (1)', substitute `subsection (1b)'. Subsections 148 (1) and (2)- Omit the subsections, substitute the following subsections: `(1) An appeal lies to the Federal Court from a judgment or order of: (a) another prescribed court exercising jurisdiction under this Act; or (b) any other court in an action or proceeding referred to in section 113 or 121. `(2) Except with the leave of the Federal Court, an appeal does not lie to the Full Court of the Federal Court from a judgment or order of a single judge of the Federal Court in the exercise of it jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from decisions or directions of the Commissioner.'. Section 149- (a) Omit `A prescribed court', substitute `The Federal Court'. (b) Insert `from a decision or direction of the Commissioner' after `court' (second occurring). Section 150- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Sub-section 154a (6)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 155 (2)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 163 (2)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Section 170- (a) Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. (b) Omit `the prescribed court' (wherever occurring), substitute `the Federal Court'.''. (6) Schedule, amendments of Trade Marks Act 1955, pages 12 and 13, omit the amendments, substitute- ``Subsection 6 (1)- After the definition of `Convention country', insert the following definition: ` ``Federal Court'' means the Federal Court of Australia;'. Subsection 6 (1) (definition of `prescribed court')- Insert `the Federal Court,' after `means'. Subsection 19 (3)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 20 (2)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 21 (5)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 23 (7)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 26 (4)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 30 (3)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 36 (3)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 42 (4)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 43 (4)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 46 (1)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 46 (2)- Omit `prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Section 51- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Paragraph 54 (3) (b)- Omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraph: `(b) proceedings in a court; or'. Paragraph 54 (3) (e)- Omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraph: `(e) in a case to which paragraph (b) applies-the court or, if the proceedings are discontinued, the Registrar directs; or'. Section 81- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 86 (3)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Subsection 112 (1)- Omit the subsection, substitute the following subsections: `(1) The Federal Court has jurisdiction with respect to matters arising under this Act. `(1a) The jurisdiction of the Federal Court to hear and determine appeals from decisions, directions or orders of the Registrar is exclusive of the jurisdiction of any other court, other than the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 75 of the Constitution. `(1b) Subject to subsection (2), each prescribed court (other than the Federal Court) has jurisdiction with respect to matters arising under this Act in respect of which actions or proceedings may, under a provision of this Act, be instituted in a prescribed court. `(1c) A prosecution for an offence against this Act shall not be instituted in the Federal Court.'. Subsection 112 (2)- Omit `subsection (1)', substitute `subsection (1b)'. Subsections 114 (1) and (2)- Omit the subsections, substitute the following subsections: `(1) An appeal lies to the Federal Court from a judgment or order of: (a) another prescribed court exercising jurisdiction under this Act; or (b) any other court in an action or proceeding referred to in section 67 or 124. `(2) Except with the leave of the Federal Court, an appeal does not lie to the Full Court of the Federal Court from a judgment or order of a single judge of the Federal Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from decisions, directions or orders of the Registrar.'. Section 115- (a) Omit `A prescribed court', substitute `The Federal Court'. (b) Insert `from a decision, direction or order of the Registrar' after `court' (second occurring). Section 115a- Omit `prescribed court', substitute `Federal Court'. Subsection 139 (5)- Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. Section 142- (a) Omit `a prescribed court', substitute `the Federal Court'. (b) Omit `the prescribed court' (wherever occurring), substitute `the Federal Court'.''. (7) Schedule, amendments of Trade Practices Act 1974, page 13, insert in proposed new subsection 86a (1) `and may also transfer to the court any other matter for determination in the proceeding' after `paragraph (b)'. (8) Schedule, amendments of Trade Practices Act 1974, page 14, omit proposed new section 86b. The amendments relate to proposed changes in relation to taxation appeals. I am referring to the additional amendments. The first amendment will provide for the transfer to the Federal Court of Australia of the existing backlog of cases awaiting hearing in Supreme Courts. Under sub-clause 4 (3) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, as drafted, matters referred to Supreme Courts before the commencement day of the relevant provisions where to remain with those courts. Some 4,000 matters have recently been transferred, whereas previously in one year the courts may have had only about 350 matters. Because of that, the State Attorneys have directed that the Federal Court deal with these matters because the State courts cannot do so. State judges have made it very clear, because of the congestion in their lists with State matters, that they cannot see their way clear to deal with these Federal matters-and they are not being dealt with. The Commonwealth was asked to make this amendment because of the concern as to the large number of taxation cases pending before State courts and the strain placed on those courts as a result. The amendment has the full agreement of the Attorneys-General of all the States and the Northern Territory. The second amendment to this Bill is to make it clear that appeals from taxation cases heard before State supreme courts are to continue to go to the Full Federal Court. This is the present position. A probable unintended effect of clause 7 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill is that such appeals would go to full courts of supreme courts. This amendment also has the agreement of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. These two amendments can be found in the new Schedule of Government amendments circulated today. I table the explanatory memorandum which is in substitution of the one formerly tabled. All of the amendments relate to matters such as those I have mentioned but they also relate to the Schedule of amendments of Acts. Honourable members will notice that the Acts which are the subject of amendment are the Advance Australia Logo Protection Act, the Copyright Act, the Designs Act, the Patents Act and the Trade Practices Act. These amendments relate to the fact that we have already introduced cross-vesting legislation, which was passed in the previous debate. An explanation has been given as to the reason why we need all these amendments to these Acts and I think it is self-explanatory. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.25) —The amendments which are proposed by the Government in relation to tax matters-that is, the amendments to the Government's own Bill-make the point that the Opposition has made: The failure in this legislation, good though the legislation generally is, lies in the absence of full integration. Let us see what happens in the tax field. Since 1973 supreme courts of the States have been hearing objections, that is, objections to decisions by the Commissioner of Taxation, which have been referred to them. Therefore, those courts have had 13 years' experience in this jurisdiction. From a decision of a supreme court until this legislation takes effect, an appeal would lie to the Federal Court and then by special leave to the High Court. What happens now? Jurisdiction is to be made exclusive to the Federal Court-not concurrent with the supreme courts which have exercised the jurisdiction for 13 years, since the High Court gave up its original, first-instance jurisdiction in tax work. No arguments as to relative competence have been advanced, nor could they be advanced, as between the supreme courts and the Federal Court. It is well known that on the supreme courts of some States are to be found judges with great experience, in taxation matters, both at the Bar and on the Bench. The supreme courts of the States and Territories have had 13 years to build up their competence in this area, something which incidentally has been denied to Federal Court judges. The consequence of what has taken place is that there must be a massive increase in the work load of the Federal Court. The honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), speaking in the second reading debate, said that some 30,000 cases on tax appeals were pending in State supreme courts. I do not know whether the number is as large as that, but certainly a very large number of cases are pending. All of these cases, including cases for which a hearing date has already been allocated, are to be transferred. The growth in this work and the numbers that will be transferred are illustrated by some figures taken from Federal tax cases filed in the Administrative Law Division of the supreme court of New South Wales. In 1986 there were 1,500 to 1,600 filings alone in that division out of a total of 1,737 filings. That is, more than 80 per cent of the Court's work was to be taken up with tax cases. All these cases are now to go to the Federal Court system. I would like to know from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) how many thousand cases are to be transferred and what time estimates have been given to him for their disposal by the Federal Court. What effect will the addition of this huge increase in the case load of the Federal Court have on its disposal of cases which are already before it in its present jurisdiction? In short, what arrangements have been made for this immense increase in the jurisdiction of the Court? The practical injustice that this occasions is illustrated in those great barriers to justice-time, delay and costs. The system of courts provides for cases to be called on and for them to be allocated hearing dates. Cases are called on to be allocated hearing dates only when they are ready for trial. What will take place is that all cases which are presently set down before State supreme courts-all tax cases-but which have not been heard will now be transferred. What does that mean? It means that the litigant will be denied a trial which he otherwise would have had because he once again has to take his place in the queue. It means that many litigants will be put to quite unnecessary expense as a consequence of the transfer. No doubt this was unintended, but it is a direct consequence of this legislation. It could have been avoided if, instead of vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal Court, concurrent jurisdiction had been given to the Federal Court, the State supreme courts and the Territory supreme courts. As I have said, I understand that the Attorney-General has to negotiate with the States to come to an agreement as to what will take place but it seems to be a case where it is impossible to justify vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal Court for cases which are to be heard at first instance-tax cases-when that jurisdiction has been vested in and exercised exclusively for the last 13 years by supreme courts. There is no reason in logic or practice now to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal Court. Concurrent jurisdiction should exist so that State and Federal courts share the jurisdiction in tax cases. This view has been put to the Attorney-General by the Law Council of Australia, which represents thousands of practitioners around this country. I quote from a letter dated 13 March which was sent to the Attorney-General, a copy of which was sent to me. It says: The Law Council is opposed to the removal of the concurrent jurisdiction of the Supreme Courts of the State and Territory to hear appeals against Federal tax assessments. Its opposition is based on the following reasons: All Australian Courts, so far as possible, should be able to administer the whole body of Australian law, both federal and state, with a minimum of jurisdictional problems; Federal taxation laws have an immense impact on every aspect of the nation's work and business; It is important that Supreme Court Judges retain some familiarity with Federal taxation laws, particularly when hearing the following types of matters. The letter then lists the various types of matters, including company, commercial and equity cases. Then it goes on to state further reasons why the jurisdictions should be concurrent: The regular contact of State Supreme Court Judges with company, commercial and equity cases assist the efficient disposal of Federal tax cases at the trial level and allows them to bring considerable commercial expertise to the resolution of tax cases; Uniformity of decisions in federal taxation matters at the appellate level is already achieved, as all appeals from the decisions of Supreme Courts are heard by the Full Federal Court; The granting of exclusive jurisdiction in first instance taxation appeals to the Federal Court will greatly increase its work load, resulting in increased delays in the Federal Court. Let me say that that last point is incontrovert- able, just as the balance of the argument which is put in the letter to the Attorney-General seems to be equally incontrovertable, coming as it does from a body which has no special interest because the practitioners get the work in any event, regardless of whether the work is to be heard by the Federal Court or State courts. The Law Council, in its letter to the Attorney-General, also sent a submission setting out in detail the reasons why it objected to what has taken place and pointed out that there had been no prior consultation with the Law Council of Australia. I think that it was speaking of taxation matters. Certainly there had been no prior consultation, so it seems, and it is a great pity that prior consultation on tax matters did not take place with the Council. I therefore ask the Attorney-General to seek to answer some of the questions that I have put to him so we can get some idea of the effect of the transfer of this huge burden to the Federal Court-that is, the practical effect. Perhaps he could also answer this question: Why should the Federal Court be given exclusive jurisdiction in view of the fact that the State courts have exercised this jurisdiction for 13 years? Is it in any way related to a departmental view, or a view that has been put to him, that Federal Court judges might give better rulings? In saying that I am not in any way critical of Federal Court judges but, obviously, we have a situation in which cases concerning the Commissioner of Taxation as the litigant are going to come before the Federal Court and the Federal Court judges appointed by the Attorney-General of the day. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.35) —Let me say at the outset that at no stage was it thought that we would try to transfer taxation matters to the Federal Court of Australia because it might give us more favourable decisions. I do not think that that is the issue. It never has been. It is a very reputable court. Mr Spender —It is. It is highly reputable. It has not been suggested otherwise. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, but an influence might be suggested when we are trying to regularise this matter of cross-vesting by giving virtually exclusive jurisdiction in a number of areas. Let us get to the issue that has arisen. I make the point that this is no criticism of the Commissioner of Taxation and that obviously we have a new lease of life in dealing with cases. For example, in 1984-85, 351 cases were sent to the supreme courts. Mr Spender —All supreme courts or the Supreme Court of New South Wales? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —They went to all the supreme courts. The honourable member might just take note that in 1985-86 we sent 3,528 cases and in the period from July 1986 to 7 January this year 627 were sent. We understand that the Commissioner wishes to send another 4,000 cases to the supreme courts. There are not 30,000 cases as the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) said-that is well above the actual position-but the honourable member will notice a 1,000 per cent increase in the number of cases between 1985-86 against 1984-85. When we drafted the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill, we had these matters remaining in the State courts. That Bill was sent to the Law Council of Australia. I acknowledge that it would not be aware of the requests made by State Attorneys-General to take over these matters as they could not deal with them. That explains the amendments we have been moving today. I have only just been handed the Law Council's letter. I acknowledge and appreciate the fact that the honourable gentleman was kind enough to read it out to me. I wonder what the Council would say if it knew that this is the position. Both the Victorian and New South Wales Attorneys and their courts have expressed concern about the increase in tax referrals to their supreme courts and the large work load which will remain with State courts because of what is deemed to be a cut-off date. The New South Wales Attorney-General has written to me about the burdens being placed on the New South Wales Supreme Court and has urged an amendment to the Bill to enable the Supreme Court to transfer pending matters to the Federal Court. We understand that the Victorian Chief Justice has expressed similar views. The New South Wales Supreme Court is I understand not to be filing or listing any new taxation matters. It is understood that the Victorian Supreme Court is not calling over any tax matters. I make that point by way of explanation. In other words, there has been a substantial offloading-if we can put it that way-from the Australian Taxation Office into the court structure. The courts are very busy with a number of other matters in these jurisdictions and have said that they cannot deal with these cases. I am sure that if the Law Council understood that, it would appreciate the significance behind this amendment. I want to make the point also when talking about the supreme courts and the great work they have done and continue to do in this area, that it must also be remembered that there always were appeals from the supreme courts to the Federal Court. It is not as though the Federal Court has not had any interest in these matters. This is a little wide of the mark but I want to say that we are also following the Administrative Review Council's recommendation that cases which have been the subject of appeal against the Tax Commissioner's decision be taken over from the Taxation boards of review. They are going to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. We have to take over 90,000 cases, so honourable members can see that a lot of taxpayers have views about the Taxation Commissioner's interpretation of the law. It might be appropriate if one day we could all sit down in this Parliament and devise a much simpler taxation law. It would be much more effective. I think that I could find ways to do it very quickly, but whether anybody would agree is another matter. Mr Peacock —You would not call another summit. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We would not have another summit; we have had our quota. The issue at the moment is that if there are 90,000 cases before the Taxation boards of review and in this area there are many thousands of cases, the courts cannot be expected suddenly to say that this is what they will do. For that reason I know that I will have difficulty giving enough resources to the Federal Court. Resources will have to be made available. It is not much good giving resources to the Taxation Commissioner so that he then gives us all the cases if we do not get additional resources. The amount of revenue involved in this matter is not insignificant. I am told that it is in the vicinity of $900m. So, there are substantial aspects that concern everybody; but I make the point that I appreciate what the honourable gentleman has said. If the Law Council of Australia now realises the position that the State courts are being faced with and that because of the request of the courts themselves and the requests of their Attorneys-General we are taking the matters over, I am sure that its objections will be withdrawn. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.40) —I wish to say something about a few of the points made by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). First of all, I entirely welcome what he said about the Federal Court of Australia. I agree with it without any reservation at all. Sometimes people do think it is a little peculiar if a government is changing laws so as to alter jurisdictions. But I am perfectly certain that those who go to the Federal Court will get precisely the same quality of justice as they would get in the State supreme courts, be they the Commissioner of Taxation or taxpayers. The Attorney-General gave some figures on the number of cases that had been referred by the Commissioner in recent times. Of course, those figures demonstrate very plainly something which is very bad about the system; that is, that the Commissioner has been sitting on cases. It is the task of the Commissioner under the taxation Act, where an objection has been made, to refer cases to the State supreme courts under the existing legislation or, under this legislation once it is passed, to the Federal Court of Australia. It is incomprehensible that there should have been such an extraordinary growth in the number of cases referred-from 351, I think the Attorney-General said, to some thousands the next year-if the Commissioner was conducting his business properly, fairly and with regard to the rights of taxpayers. It is incomprehensible that efficient administration of the taxation laws could admit a situation where in one year only 351 cases were referred and in the next year there were thousands. Those thousands did not just suddenly appear over the horizon; they were there but they were not dealt with. That would seem to be perfectly plain. It needs to be said that, on the basis of those figures, a bomb should be placed under the Commissioner of Taxation to make sure that this kind of delay does not take place again, since the delay very greatly affects people who are objecting against assessments which, as a matter of course, they will have paid, since the Commissioner can exact payment from a taxpayer and the taxpayer then has to contest at a later date. Sometimes the Commissioner does not do this, but the power is there. So, in many cases we are dealing with litigants, taxpayers, who have paid their tax, who object to that tax and who have to get in a queue-and the Commissioner has not been expediting the movement of that queue. In fact, on the basis of the figures given by the Attorney-General, he seems to have been doing precisely the opposite. If there is any other explanation I would be very glad to have it, not from the Attorney-General, of course-it is not his area-but from the Commissioner of Taxation. The Attorney-General said that the State supreme courts do not want the existing work. I can well understand that. If a jurisdiction is to be taken away from a court, one can hardly blame that court for wanting to get rid of the jurisdiction entirely, since otherwise what would be happening is that the State supreme courts would be dealing with a jurisdiction which they knew was going to end as soon as they had dealt with all outstanding cases. This will obviously have the consequence that I referred to earlier; that is, that there will be many cases where appeals which otherwise would have been heard fairly quickly-in some cases appeals which are set down for hearing-will not now be heard for a long time because of the very great increase in the work load this measure will bring to the Federal Court. The Attorney-General pointed out, of course, that the existing structure is to be maintained and that under the existing structure from the court of first instance there is an appeal to the Federal Court itself-a court of appeal of the Federal Court. Under the proposal that we advanced there would be an appeal from, for example, the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the Court of Appeal of that Court which, incidentally, has on it some of the leading tax lawyers in this country. This again makes the point that I made earlier; that is, that expertise and experience in tax work is to be found in the State courts and it is a pity that jurisdiction in this area will not be shared. Lastly, if I may return to the Attorney-General's cri de coeur about the state of the tax laws of this country, I entirely agree with him. Those laws have been written over decades. They are amended from time to time in a drafting style which is increasingly impossible to understand. I doubt that there is any single person in this country who understands fully our taxation system. There are people who do nothing but immerse themselves in the tax system. There are people who for years, even decades, of their lives have done nothing but advise on taxation work. Yet those people find some of the problems that our legal system throws up to be incapable of intelligent understanding. Some of the provisions were drafted in the 1920s; then others in the 1930s; and they have been added to bit by bit, so that the Income Tax Assessment Act of this country is now the worst single piece of legislation that we have. It is the Act which, of all Acts of parliament, should be as clear as possible so that citizens can know what their liability is under it and so that the law is accessible, because the more complicated the expression of the law is, the more the draftsman tries to catch every conceivable situation and the more he drafts the words so as to compass all the possible varieties of human conduct falling under some particular head of concern in the taxation law, the more likely it is that what we will have is a mess which is incapable of rational understanding. That is what we have in the Income Tax Assessment Act. I would join the Attorney-General entirely in a project to clarify our taxation laws. I do not for a moment think that all laws can be simply expressed; they cannot. But anyone who has had any practice in the drafting of laws, anyone who has had any practice in seeking to understand the Income Tax Assessment Act, knows two things: First, that that law is, as I have said, the most incomprehensibly drafted and worst piece of legislation we have in this country; and, secondly, that things could be made very much clearer, regardless of whatever tax regime happens to attract one. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.48) —In reply to the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), I agree with the last part of what he said. Section 25 of the Income Tax Assessment Act attempted to say what the definition of `income' would be. It would be a good starting point to say that everything one receives is income. We could then be much more effective in stipulating what one might be allowed to have by way of deductions, rather than trying to put in specific sections-which now run into hundreds in the present Act-on exceptions that arise. One day we might be able to get a group of lawyers who could do that on a non-party basis. In fairness to the present Commissioner of Taxation, in case he feels that he has been unfairly considered because of matters that I have mentioned, I think I should say by way of explanation that it is right that 351 cases were referred in 1984-85 and 3,528 cases were referred in 1985-86. The explanation is that the large increase in the referral of matters in 1985-86 follows recognition by the Australian Taxation Office of the failure of its test case approach in relation to paper avoidance matters. A large percentage of the cases referred to the supreme courts in that year were scheme cases only, and only about 10 per cent are likely to proceed to hearing. The rate of referrals in 1986-87 will be much lower and the majority of these cases are what are called non-scheme cases. It is the intention of the Taxation Office to clear the remainder of matters awaiting referral to the courts by 30 June next. On 7 January last there were 4,088 cases awaiting referral to the courts. It is expected that about two-thirds of those cases will be settled within the Tax Office and one-third will actually be referred to the courts. Having made that explanation, certainly a substantial number of cases could be referred to the courts. The Taxation Office must do this, but it is looking at the matter on the basis that perhaps only 10 per cent of the cases will go to hearing because a number of them relate to what are called scheme cases. If that is so, we will not have the problems that we appear to have because of the numbers that have been referred. But in fairness to the Taxation Commissioner, he is doing his job to get these matters finalised. I think that what we have here is a backlog that is now being dealt with. I hope that the courts will not be delayed too much. Additional resources will still be needed. Having said that, it shows the need for the court structures to be effective and efficient. Some cases involving people who are disputing taxation matters have been going on for years. The backlog of these cases, as well as those coming from the Taxation Boards of Review, clearly show that the system has not been working, for many reasons, not least of which, as the honourable gentleman has again referred to, are the complexity and the difficulty of understanding the Act. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —by leave-I accept, of course, that that is the explanation which has been given to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). But the Commissioner of Taxation has a statutory duty, and that duty is this: When a taxpayer is dissatisfied with a decision made by the Commissioner and serves a request on the Commissioner to refer the matter either to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or to a State supreme court, the Commissioner then has a statutory duty to comply with that request. It is not for the Commissioner to determine what cases he will seek to give priority to and what cases he will not seek to give priority to. He has an obligation which applies generally to any request made by any citizen or any other taxpayer. If priorities need to be laid down, that may be something that should be approached by amending the existing legislation. But it is not for the Commissioner to say what cases will go forward and what cases will not go forward. I have heard complaints from practitioners about the speed with which the Commissioner deals with requests that matters be referred. I refer to my own experiences years ago when I was practising when, if I recall, I had to threaten the Commissioner with a mandamus, directing him to refer a matter, before I was able to get the matter referred on behalf of a client. Whilst I accept entirely the explanation given to the Attorney-General, the plain fact is that the law requires the Commissioner to discharge his duties in accordance with what the law says, not in accordance with notions that he may have as to what should be given priority and what should not be given priority. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 26 February. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(5.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to extend indefinitely the life of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. Without this amendment the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 will expire on 27 March 1987 under the provision of section 54. The continuation of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 is necessary to equip the Commonwealth Government with the authority to prepare against and manage-in close co-operation with State and Northern Territory governments-a national liquid fuels supply emergency. I stress that the Act provides authority during national emergencies only. State-Northern Territory authority continues to apply during localised emergencies. In order to meet, as far as possible, the concern expressed by some States that the proposed Commonwealth liquid fuel emergency legislation might inhibit their own management arrangements, it was agreed in 1983 that the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory would work together, under the auspices of the Australian Minerals and Energy Council, to explore the possibility of developing common-form States and Northern Territory emergency legislation and compatible Commonwealth legislation. To provide a specific time frame for this exercise the Liquid Fuel Emergency Bill included a three-year sunset clause to come into effect from the proclamation of the Act. Recognising that it might not be practicable to develop appropriate replacement legislation, the possible need for the extension of the currency of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act was foreshadowed in the Parliament in 1983. In the event, this precaution has been justified. Despite considerable effort by all of the participating governments it is clear that it will not be possible at present to design consistent liquid fuel emergency legislation. Mr Peacock —Why? Mr BARRY JONES —That will appear in the debate. The removal of the sunset provision will not preclude the adoption of alternative emergency legislation at some future date if States' differences are reconciled and an appropriate, mutually acceptable, common-form legislation is developed. In the meantime, it is essential that clear legislative authority exist for the Commonwealth to act in the event of a national emergency. The State-Northern Territory counterparts of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) have indicated their willingness to act under delegated powers from the Commonwealth to manage national emergencies. So there is no alternative to this piece of legislation. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(5.58) —The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, did promise, as my colleague indicated, a further debate on the legislation, mention of which was left until the last two paragraphs of his speech. Basically, that debate is now left to those other stalwarts within the Government and the Opposition. Mr Peacock —The Government just did not give any adequate reasons. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It gave no adequate reasons. A second reading speech which is a page and a half long would indicate that the Minister is truly acting in one of this many capacities in this place. The effect of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 1987 is to amend the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 by removing the provisions for automatic expiration of the Act on 22 March 1987. The Liquid Fuel Emergency Act gives the Commonwealth clear legislative authority to act in the event of a national emergency. This Act, when introduced, had a specific time frame for the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory to explore the development of appropriate, mutually compatible, alternative legislation. In the event differences among the States on the nature and extent of the powers they require to deal with liquid fuel emergencies have indicated that common form legislation is not practicable at this time. The amendment Bill now before the House extends the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act by removing the sunset clause in the original Act, thus providing for the continuation of legislated authority to prepare against and manage a national liquid fuel supply emergency. The Opposition is not opposed to this Bill. There is now no intention by the States to move to common form legislation, as was envisaged in the original Act, and therefore the present Commonwealth legislation needs to continue. No new sunset clause is required, as this would be necessary only if the States and Commonwealth still intended to move to such common form legislation. Most States are happy with the legislation they have and to act under delegation from the Commonwealth in areas where they have no power. States indicated their preparedness to act under Commonwealth legislation at the last Australian Minerals and Energy Council in 1986. Let me give one example: The Commonwealth legislation covers movement of product interstate. Without common legislation this is one area where the States will have to act under Commonwealth direction, so the Bill before the House is fairly straightforward. It does, however, provide the opportunity to expand upon the general topic of ensuring that Australia has adequate fuel supplies in any type of emergency. The basic point I wish to make is that, under the current excessive and punitive taxation regime, on current projections indigenous Australian crude oil production will decline dramatically over the next few years, leaving a shortfall which will have to be met by either new discoveries or imports. In connection with our imports the trade balance figures today indicate that Australia is already severely in the red, and to put it more into debt on foreign exchange markets by oil imports to meet these shortfalls indicates a massive problem ahead. This will make Australia particularly vulnerable in the event of fuel shortages. Recent statistics released by the Australian Petroleum Exporters Association show a disturbing fall in exploration and development drilling and seismic work. This year petroleum exploration activity in Australia is expected to fall by more than 50 per cent to the lowest level since 1980. Probably only 136 petroleum exploration wells will be drilled this year in comparison with a record of 265 in 1985-almost half. Let us look at the supply demand outlook for Australian crude oil. Australia's crude oil demand is expected to grow at a modest rate of about one per cent a year. However, at the same time, as I have said, indigenous crude oil production from current discoveries will decline quite rapidly. The combination of decreasing domestic production and moderately increasing demand will leave a widening shortfall, which will have to be met by either new discoveries or imports. The consequences for Australia's balance of trade of increased oil imports would be most unwelcome in the current circumstances. But with low prices and the severe downturn in projected exploration activity the outlook for future discoveries is severely impaired. With only a few discoveries, Australia's self-sufficiency level will drop to only 35 per cent in the period 1995 to 2000. This compares with 100 per cent self-sufficiency last year. Clearly, this outlook demands that urgent steps be taken to encourage exploration and development. Only then will Australia have a domestic industry on which it can rely for supplies. The scenario I have just painted indicates that Australia will be facing an emergency in the continuation of oil supplies in the very near future. Certainly government action is required. There is no doubt that to allow the optimum level of exploration, development and production the Government must lower levels of taxation on the oil industry. The fact that the Government takes almost $7 billion in tax from the oil industry underlines the need for complementary restraint in government expenditure. The current pursuit of expenditure cuts of some $2 billion is only a part of what is required in the massive restraint of government expenditure. The Government needs to allow the oil industry to retain the financial resources that are necessary for optimum exploration and development. The Government must also allow oil producers to have free access to markets and let the market-place establish prices. Finally, the Government needs to review critically all existing regulations and to remove them wherever the benefits cannot be shown to exceed the cost. In all of this consumers have been massively affected. The United States price for oil has fallen from $27 to $28 per barrel in 1985 to $13 to $15 in 1986. In 1986 the Government take from crude oil collapsed with the price falling to about half last year's level. However, in a neat little shuffle, the Government increased the excise on petroleum products to offset the bulk of the cut in the crude oil excise. The Government should be criticised, and will be criticised, by the Opposition for not passing on the fall in world oil prices to consumers. This is the only time in the last decade that that has been the case and when the Government has sought to replenish its own resources by not passing on the benefit to consumers. By increasing excise on petroleum products, the Government has maintained its almost $7 billion take from the oil industry, despite the price collapse. As a result the motorist has seen only a small decline in the price of petrol. It is worth noting that when the Hawke Government took office the excise was 6.155c per litre. Over the period since the Hawke Government came to power the average retail price of super grade petrol has increased significantly. For example, the price in Melbourne has increased from 42.1c a litre in March 1983 to 48.8c a litre in June 1986. Today in Question Time the Minister was asked about the 13c a litre price increase in fuel since the time the Hawke Government came to office on a promise and undertaking to reduce the price of fuel by 3c a litre. It is very far from the promise of the Hawke Government to the realisation today as expressed in the excessive price of fuel. It is important for Australian motorists to realise that the high prices they are paying for petrol do not guarantee a viable domestic oil exploration industry or a continuity of supply in the event of interruption to imports. But that price is being kept extraordinarily high to benefit government revenues in a situation where expenditure remains unrestrained by this Government. I would like to deal with not only consumers but also the retailers of fuel throughout Australia and the prices they are forced to charge by oil companies and refiners. I know of cases-and this is true of my own home town of Mackay-where there is a price war at the moment. The normal price of fuel to return a reasonable amount to a retailer is about 56c to 58c a litre. Fuel is now retailing in Mackay at below 50c a litre. This is probably good news to the consumer but it means that leasehold properties under lease from major oil companies are forced under the Prices Surveillance Authority to pay a maximum wholesale price for fuel, whereas that same fuel is being made available to freeholders at a discount. It is also subject to rebate, sometimes at a price to enable freeholders to retail the fuel at less than the wholesale prices charged to the leasehold outlets. I understand that freeholders have to make a capital contribution not only for the sites but for tanks and pumps, but it must be remembered that oil companies charge a more than reasonable amount for rental of sites and for the cost of goodwill-key money-in order for people to establish themselves in business. I believe that while the Prices Surveillance Authority is setting a maximum price for wholesale fuel it should also set a minimum price. Those concerned owe it to their own clients in leasehold properties to make fuel available at the same price as they are prepared to make it available to jobbers and freeholders. What is the effect of all this on Mackay? I am told that leaseholders are selling fuel at a 2.5c per litre mark up when the cost of maintaining their retail outlets is at least 3c a litre or 3.5c a litre, so many of them are going into the red. It is a more than reasonable assumption that the oil companies responsible-I know that one could say they are responding to the marketing activities of others-should acknowledge that leaseholders, the people who pay the rent and the goodwill and who are obliged to buy from the owners, should have that fuel made available to them in exactly the same manner as it is made available to the jobbers. Over the Fraser years there was some deregulation, or perhaps I should say more regulation in that there was a reduction in the number of retail sites and there were options on purchase. I believe that there is a further problem to be addressed-the one I have just mentioned-and unless something is done about it quickly, many of the leaseholders will lose their capital, their funds, and will have to walk out. I wish to give an example of unequal treatment. As I understand it, in Tasmania the fuel retails at 68c a litre. That is a sovereign State separated from the mainland of Australia by Bass Strait. Yet in other situations refiners can make that fuel available to people in Sydney or Melbourne at 45c a litre. Thus there is massive discrimination between motorists right across this continent. Mr Nehl —Shameful! Mr BRAITHWAITE —The honourable member for Cowper regards this as shameful. No doubt he has been in situations in which this discounting on a massive scale has really brought the leaseholding retailers to their knees. Mr Beddall —It has happened to me, too. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am sure that it has happened to the honourable member as well. It is offensive that this type of discounting can be undertaken and that rebates can be made which discriminate so much between one and the other. I suggest that this is an area which the Minister might address. If the Government does not move to address this situation and reduce its take from the oil industry, then very soon it will have no choice in the matter. With the downturn in oil exploration, the Government shortly will have no indigenous oil to tax at all. Indeed, if it pursues its policies on taxation and regulation of the Australian oil industry, it will extinguish all local oil exploration and the Australian oil industry itself. Mr Barry Jones —I inadvertently neglected to table the explanatory memorandum. I seek leave to table it now. Leave granted. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(6.14) —It is a pleasure to follow my Queensland colleague, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). I shall expand a little on the very rational point that he was making about the intrusion of oil companies into retailing and the problems that that causes to the very small operator who has a retail site and is at the mercy of the oil companies. There is a very good argument, as the industry itself has said, for some restrictions on the operations of retail sites by the oil companies. That is something which we should expand in a later debate at a later date. I know that there is considerable feeling amongst petroleum retailers that the present competition is not fair for those who have a freehold site and is even worse for those who have a leasehold site. If a company-owned site has the advantage of cheaper fuel, that cannot be free and fair competition. I believe that is something that should be investigated. The purpose of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill is to extend the life of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. Without the amendment the 1984 Act will expire on 7 March 1987 under the sunset provisions of section 54. It is perhaps instructive to take the House back to the original reasons for the introduction of the 1984 legislation. A crisis in liquid fuel supplies developed in mid-1979. This followed the reduction in oil output because of the revolution in Iran. This prompted the setting up of a National Petroleum Advisory Committee to represent and advise the Commonwealth and State governments on future national supply shortages. In November 1974, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development set up the International Energy Authority. Australia acceded to this agreement in March 1979. An emergency oil sharing system has been developed to help cope with oil supplies disruption. As a result, contingency plans have also been developed. On 21 September 1982, the report of the National Petroleum Advisory Committee was tabled in the Senate. The report found that the total demand for petroleum products in Australia was 587,000 barrels per day of which 66 per cent was supplied from Australian crude and 34 per cent from imports of crude oil and refined products. The type of oil and oil products was said to be important. Australian crudes tend to be lighter than Middle Eastern crudes and better suited to transport uses. Australia has in recent years shown a trend away from fuel oil for industrial purposes and fuel oil demand is expected to decline by some 40 per cent in the 10 years following the tabling of that report. The principal uses of petroleum products in Australia are as follows: Transport and storage requirements, 67 per cent; manufacturing, 15 per cent; mining industries, 3 per cent; agricultural and fisheries, 7.3 per cent. The types of petroleum products used include motor spirit, which accounts for 43 per cent of total sales of petroleum products, and automotive diesel oil, which is used in road and rail transport. Plans for handling a liquid fuel emergency include the classification of users of petroleum products into essential, high priority and other users; the administration of coupon rationing for motor spirit and variety in refinery operation methods; and the means for encouraging reduced consumption and plans for management of stockpiles. The report tabled in the Senate recommended the Commonwealth powers should include standing powers to require the holding of stockpiles, the collection and notification of statistics and emergency powers including powers to determine allocation of available supplies to various States. These provisions will apply during national emergencies only. The States and the Territories were to take care of any localised emergency. It was hoped in 1983 that the Federal Government in co-operation with the States and Territories would develop a common-form States and Northern Territory emergency legislation with compatible Federal legislation. Because this has not occurred, it has not been possible to design the necessary legislation. Because of the failure of the States to agree, it is essential that the Commonwealth be equipped to deal with any national emergencies. The States have agreed to assist the Commonwealth in dealing with such emergencies. The Commonwealth will have the role as co-ordinator of any emergency operation. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is unfortunate that the agreed legislative procedure is not in place. I hope that the States will sit down again with the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to formulate emergency legislation. It appears indefensible to me that the parochial interests of each State should impair the entire country from having effective legislation to enact should a petroleum emergency again imperil the economic interests of the country. I cannot believe that in this day and age, when we have a National Securities Commission and when we have recently passed in this House legislation for a national stock exchange, we cannot secure agreement on national fuel legislation. I commend the Government for at least pushing ahead with the legislation and maintaining interest in the project. I understand that the previous Government, when Senator Sir John Carrick was the Minister, went to water at the first sign of opposition from the States. As a result we had no plan for emergency measures. Given the changing fortunes in Middle East politics and the fact that Australia will increasingly need to import more of its petroleum products, it is a measure of the lack of courage from the previous Government that it never proceeded with the legislation. This legislation will fill that vacuum. I wish the Minister every success in implementing it. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(6.20) —My colleague the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) has touched on the important issues associated with the Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill and has indicated the problems in arriving at national legislation that could be put in place. Hence the need for this amending Bill to take up the sunset provisions that existed in the Act. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) asked earlier this evening of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) why it was not possible for the States to agree with the Commonwealth. Apparently the reason behind that was that the Queensland Government had enacted some model legislation which had been put to the other States for enactment, but many of the other States could not, unfortunately, agree with what was contained in it. It is not surprising, I suppose, because essentially that legislation went to the very heart of industrial relations and put in place some very wide and far-reaching police powers associated with the fuel industry, and as a result many of the other enlightened States refused to embark upon a similar course of action. They saw what happened in the electricity industry in Queensland and did not want to see the same thing happen in another industry, particularly another essential service. The other States have legislation associated with liquid fuel emergency procedures, but it is all on a regional basis and does not apply to a national emergency. The need for a national policy was most clearly demonstrated in the 1970s when the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries problem emerged. One can well recall that very grave problem for Australia and other countries in the Western world when the OPEC members banded together and endeavoured to control the supply and price of fuel. In later years we have had a situation that perhaps has gone beyond their control and OPEC is not the closely knit organisation that it once was. As the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) said, this has led to an enormous decrease in the cost of a barrel of crude oil imported into Australia. As a result, the cost of such a barrel in 1986 was down to around $US13 to $US15. This has further implications because one of the points that were raised in the debate on this Bill when it was in the Senate concerned this Government being indifferent, therefore leading to a decline in exploration activity in Australia for added oil resources. The honourable member for Dawson mentioned this. I think he was being a little unfair, as he represents supposedly the market forces parties of Australia. As he comes from Queensland and is in the National Party of Australia, one would expect that naturally to be the case. We saw that he was not supporting that line. It is interesting because, as he would be aware, being market driven, oil exploration activity has declined world wide because of these continuing low oil prices to which he referred. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have prices that are low as well as massive exploration. If the prices are high, naturally the market driven forces will lead to greater exploration. The honourable member for Dawson also went to great pains to talk about fuel prices and how decreases in the international parity price have not been passed on to the average motorist and the average consumer. Naturally, any government faced with the circumstances with which this Government has been faced in broad economic terms would have to look very seriously at passing on the full flow-on effect of those fuel decreases when the cost of a barrel of oil dropped from $US27-odd to the $US13 to $US15 mark. Quite clearly, it is a major source of revenue for any government. It does not matter whether it happens to be this Government or whether it happened to be the Opposition when it was in power. One has to remember that the import parity pricing policy was put in place not by this Government but by the Fraser Government. This Government has simply continued that policy because it is a source of revenue which has enabled this Government to pursue a number of major and important initiatives. It leads to the funding of a variety of different things which this Government intends to pursue. One other issue which is important to consider in talking about pricing at the petrol pump and which was alluded to again by the honourable member for Dawson is the question of price discounting wars which go on in the oil industry. In my electorate of Macarthur, which is on the coast around Wollongong, we have seen this in the last couple of weeks. I am sure the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) would have also seen it at Jamberoo and Warilla. The maximum wholesale price of petrol is set, and the retail price is normally around 59c-odd in Wollongong, but it is presently being retailed for as little at 49c. In Sydney that is also the case. This is a direct result of oil companies, leaseholders and the service station proprietors competing against each other. Ships come in and a variety of crude oils is offloaded; the companies therefore decide to offload some supplies at a reasonable rate, and that is passed on to the consumer. Consumers naturally are confused because of these various policies but, as the honourable member for Rankin suggests, that is another matter which requires further debate in this place but which is not really associated directly with this legislation. The legislation is concerned with putting in place a national policy for dealing with emergencies in the provision of fuel. We hope that in the future, as the honourable member for Rankin has suggested, there will be further consultation between the various States, not along the lines of the Queensland Government's suggestion but rather in the form of a rational policy for dealing with matters before we can put in a national energy policy. I would certainly go along with the honourable member's hope that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) can achieve this national energy policy and that it is put in place in the not too distant future. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(6.26) —in reply-I want to respond to the courteous interjection of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) who wanted to know why agreement on uniform legislation could not be reached prior to this legislation. There were differences between the States and the Northern Territory on the common form legislation. All the States and the Northern Territory have some form of legislation for handling local emergencies-for example, those that arise from industrial disputes-but the legislation in each State is not capable of being implemented in a co-ordinated manner to cope with a major national emergency, such as could arise from the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries inspired emergency as happened in 1973-74. Queensland has an Act which its Government proposed as a model for a uniform Act in all States. It was discussed by a sub-committee of the Australian Minerals and Energy Council, AMEC, but agreement was not reached because of the differences in the approaches preferred by the States. For example, Queensland prefers stronger police powers than New South Wales. The differences could not be resolved in the three years set aside for discussion. Most of the differences were points of detail. All States and the Northern Territory acknowledge the need for legislation to respond to national emergencies. In the absence of agreement, the AMEC Ministers wish to see the Commonwealth legislation continue to be active. That necessitates the amendment before the House. It does not prevent the States coming to an agreement on uniform legislation in the future. The AMEC sub-committee on the legislation has been asked to continue its meetings to discuss the possibility of reaching agreement. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) raised a number of points about the falling levels of exploration, the operation of the free market and petrol discounting. The retail prices of petrol are generally determined by the refining companies and their distributors and agents. Differences between metropolitan and country prices are mainly due to the higher cost of supply to remote areas and higher costs associated with smaller sales volume. The Commonwealth subsidises costs over 5.7c per litre of freighting certain transport fuels to country areas. This has the effect of setting maximum wholesale prices for those fuels in country areas at 5.7c per litre higher than the maximum wholesale price in the State capital city. The Commonwealth Government has no control over the retail price market. The constitutional authority to control retail petroleum product prices lies primarily with the States. The Commonwealth is minimising the effect of crude oil price charges on petrol prices by offsetting increased revenue from crude oil excise as prices change by varying excise on petroleum products. 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. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-I wish to inform the House of the situation regarding the Government's response to the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee report on Disarmament and Arms Control. It has not been possible to respond to the report, which was tabled on 25 November 1986, within the three-month period in which the Government aims to respond to committee reports. As the Chairman of the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Sub-Committee on Disarmament and Arms Control said in introducing his report, it is the most extensive yet done by the Joint Committee. It is a major report covering a wide range of disarmament and arms control questions of immense importance to us all. The report contains 58 final recommendations. It reflects the solid work of the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee and its Sub-Committee on Disarmament and Arms Control over a period of nearly three years. Since the report was finalised, there have been dramatic and far-reaching developments in the field of arms control and disarmament. Most important has been the summit meeting between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev and subsequent events leading to the current cautious optimism about an interim intermediate range nuclear force agreement. In the region, Australia has ratified the Treaty of Rarotonga which has come into effect, thus instituting the South Pacific nuclear free zone. On a subject as important as this, with many substantive questions to cover, the Government obviously seeks to give as comprehensive and complete a response as possible. I rather hope that this will be possible some time late next month. Debate resumed from 26 February, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.02) —This Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill will have a long term effect on the economic and social viability of Tasmania. More significantly than that, it will also have a long term effect on the whole federal relationship in this Commonwealth. For the first time since Federation, leaving aside the whole issue of the Franklin Dam of a few years ago, this Government has now taken upon itself to effect the land management policies of a State government in a most fundamental way. It is using its powers and the legislation passed in this Parliament to establish, initially, arrangements by which protection could be given across Australia to areas which were seen to be of significant environmental importance. The point here, however, is that the Commonwealth wishes to use, and this Labor Government intends to use, both the foreign affairs power and also the corporations power. The Opposition believes and contends that this is not the purpose for which that legislation ought to be put into effect and we do not believe that the fathers of the Constitution, when they developed the external affairs concept, ever thought that a federal parliament would take unto itself powers to effect fundamental land management issues within the States. Let us examine the proposal in some detail. Initially, we are told that this legislation is only meant to establish a commission of inquiry to inquire into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests of Tasmania-an inquiry which will take about 12 months or so to carry out what the Government and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) have told us is a necessary review of the environmental elements which need to be protected because of the fact that parts of this area under contention are adjacent to the South-West National Park, the Franklin-Lower Gordon Wild Rivers National Park and the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park. Since the 1930s the Tasmanian Government has been well aware of the long term significance environmentally, as well as the responsibility of the Government to maintain a viable timber industry in south-western Tasmania. If the Government's proposals are endorsed by this House they will have the effect of locking up some 284,000 hectares of Tasmanian State forest which has been set aside for wood production. Mr Goodluck —Shame. Mr CONNOLLY —The honourable member for Franklin who just said `shame' does so knowing that he speaks for the vast majority of the Tasmanian people who have had enough of their affairs continually being subject to interference by this Hawke Labor Government. It amazes me that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, who has seen fit to join us for this debate, some time ago when we were arguing, as he then was, the issue of the extent to which a Federal government could protect the interests of rainforests in Queensland, said on numerous occasions to the media and to this Parliament that it was not appropriate that the Federal Parliament should interfere in the land management decisions of the State. I find it extraordinary that we now find ourselves in a situation once again where the same Minister has the gall to come before this House and present legislation which, by any interpretation, can only be seen as the most arrogant interference in the affairs of Tasmania. This Government has asked for this inquiry for purely political reasons. If the Minister had the courage why did he not simply make a decision that forestry should be allowed to be a basic industry of Tasmania and that these areas which had some problems at this stage should either be subject or should not be subject to forestry management? The opportunity has been missed. I want the people of Australia to understand quite clearly why that is so. This Hawke Labor Government at one time in its early history could claim, I suppose with some justification, that it had on its side the majority of the so-called environmental or greenie vote. But obviously surveys which were conducted demonstrated that that was no longer the case. So we saw, and we will see in the next few days, two pieces of legislation introduced into this Parliament-this Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill, which we are debating tonight, and in a few days we will be seeing another piece of most significant and interesting legislation preventing any searching, exploration or mining activity whatsoever in any part of stages 1, 2 or 3 of Kakadu National Park and, I might add, without any provision of compensation for those miners who have rights in that area and have had them for many years. At least the Minister has not been prepared to suggest that compensation may not be provided in this case. However, the point I am making is this: The Minister has not had the courage to make a decision. He is playing for time. He wants at least 12 months between now and the next election so that he will not have to face his environmental masters on this subject and have to tell them that there are times when even a Labor government has no alternative but to make the right decision. In this case the right decision undoubtedly is that the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian people have every right, subject to appropriate environmental controls-which this Minister knows as well as I have been in place-which his Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) agreed to with the Tasmanian Government. That agreement, which has been signed by both the Commonwealth Government and the Tasmanian Government, will set in place the arrangements by which areas of environmental sensitivity, especially areas adjacent to the national parks which I referred to earlier, are to be protected. Yet for some extraordinary reason, which one can only conclude is totally political, this Minister took to the Cabinet the proposal that the original agreement with his colleague the Minister for Primary Industry should be set aside and that Federal legislation should be put in place. As I said, there is no doubt that the real involvement of this Government in environmental protection is really a charade. What we are seeing in fact is a tawdry political exercise to avoid the need to make difficult decisions and a hope that an election will take place in the meantime and get you off the hook. It will get you off the hook all right, but you will not be there to pull in the line. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will speak through the Chair. Mr CONNOLLY —Certainly, Madam Speaker. The point is that this Government does not wish to make decisions which will disturb the environmental movement and particularly that element of the environmental movement which believes-I believe incorrectly-that wood production from native forests should cease virtually under any conditions. Let me refer to the question of the National Estate Register because this is one of the key elements of the whole package that the Government has put before us. The Government is simply saying that areas placed on the National Estate Register in this context should be free of any economic development whatsoever. The placing of areas on the register does not require agreement. It does not require negotiation. Neither the support of State governments nor the agreement or even the involvement of the owners of land is required in determining whether or not property-and this could involve anybody in Australia-will find itself on the National Estate Register. Legislation concerning the register was brought into this Parliament for a sensible reason. We need to know in advance what, shall we say, the bank account was of Australia's significant environmental property. The Minister finds this whole issue very amusing but I can assure him that the people of Tasmania do not. Mr Cohen —I was laughing at you laughing. Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister may do so but this is not an amusing subject for the people of Tasmania. Over 800 Tasmanians are now facing the fact that they are going to lose their jobs. These people, who have wives and children, will have to go on the dole because of decisions made by a Labor government and by a Minister who sits at the table and chortles about the lives of other people. Mr Cohen —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask the honourable member for Bradfield not to attribute actions to me that did not occur. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order, but I ask the honourable member for Bradfield to speak through the Chair. Mr CONNOLLY —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will endeavour to speak through the Chair if the Minister at the table will take the matter more seriously. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will continue his speech. Mr CONNOLLY —The National Estate Register covers 30 per cent of Tasmania. Thirty per cent of any State is a significant amount of land. That percentage is certainly more by far than in any other State of the Commonwealth. I think this Government would do well to realise that people living in Tasmania, who are well aware of the sensitivity of their environment, have the fundamental problem of trying to make a living. Right down the line all they ask of governments, State and Federal, is to be prepared to make sensible judgments on the balance between what is ecologically significant, what must be protected and how it ought to be protected, preferably in a manner by which the economic development of some of these resources can be carried out in an environmentally sustainable manner. I do not regard that as an unnecessary thing to ask for. I have been down to the Lemonthyme. I have been to Jackeys Marsh. I have been to most of those places and no doubt the Minister has. I have spoken to people down there who work in the timber yards and the timber mills. I have spoken to people who are involved with equipment and who move logs in and out of the forests and so forth. These men are doing a job. They are not doing it because they want to destroy something. They are well aware of the environment in which they are working. They are doing this work essentially because that is the living which they have chosen. It is the living which their fathers and grandfathers before them chose. One of the most absurd things about this whole matter is that much of the land which is often subject to environmental protection in the context of what the Minister is asking is in fact land which was the subject of timber getting 100 years ago or, in some cases, even more recently than that. Yet, if one looks at that land today and if one is prepared to be honest, one would have to admit that no serious environmental damage has taken place. I stood on a hill looking across a valley in the Lemonthyme area. I had pointed out to me copse which had been cleared of timber in the past, some as recently as a decade ago. With the exception of some caulification of the leaves which demonstrated younger growth, one would have to admit that there was really no significant change whatsoever. But we have been told by the Minister that one of the reasons this whole area had to be protected is that people going across tracks in the national parks-the Franklin-Lower Gordon Wild Rivers National Park and the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park-want to look out and see a vista which is totally free of human activity. Mr Chynoweth —Hear, hear! Mr CONNOLLY —The honourable member on the other side of the House says: `Hear, hear'. I trust that he has bothered to go there and have a look. Mr Chynoweth —Yes, I have. Mr CONNOLLY —If the honourable member had gone to the highest peaks of that area-and I hope he can say that he did-he would have to share with me the awareness of the fact that one can see areas of forestry and fairly substantial areas which have been cleared for grazing. But the point I want to make is this: One cannot say that one can look anywhere and find a totally natural vista. The Tasmanian Government, in the context of the Lemonthyme, suggested to the Commonwealth Government that it was perfectly prepared to organise the copse for the removal of timber in such a way that there would be lines of timber left in place to protect the vista of those few people who use the path across the ridges in case they experienced some emotional strain in seeing that certain areas had been cleared. The Tasmanian Government cannot understand-and certainly the Tasmanian people have every reason for not understanding-how the Labor Government was party to an agreement for the management plan of the Lemonthyme State Forest of December 1983, an agreement which it had accepted and agreed to, the terms of which were included in the agreement between the Tasmanian Minister and the Federal Minister for Primary Industry in 1986. Yet, we have legislation coming before us today. We have a Minister who introduced that legislation with a second reading speech which was noted for its arrogance and for its lack of concern for the welfare of hundreds of people in Tasmania and elsewhere who have to face the fact that the timber industry in Tasmania has come to stay. For those who wish to argue the point, let it be remembered that 14 per cent of Tasmania's land area is already allocated to national parks. That is twice the Australian average. As I said before, when the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment faced a similar problem he had in Queensland, he ran away from it. `We must not interfere in State decisions', he said. Why is it that the Government always wants to pick on Tasmania? Why does it blame the Tasmanians for saying to this Government: `We want no part of you. We will not send a single Labor Party member of the House of Representatives back to Canberra because there is nobody in the Labor Party who is prepared to protect Tasmania's interests'. Madam Speaker, I would like to stay on this theme a little longer. Mr Batt, the leader of the Labor Party in Tasmania, has gone on record on numerous occasions emphasising the fact that he supports 100 per cent everything the Gray Government is doing down there to protect Tasmanian interests from this grotesque takeover bid from Canberra. At least they are united on that. The Tasmanian political scene is united in the belief that one must always seek a balance between what is rational environmental protection and conservation on the one hand and the fundamental needs of Tasmanian men and women to be able to earn an income to protect their children and have a reasonable standard of living on the other hand. These are things that this Government once again wants to take from these people. On the one hand the Government is complaining about people having to go on the dole and on the other hand it is forcing people on to the dole. They are being forced on to the dole by the Government's policies. This is happening not because of the policies of the Tasmanian Government, not because of the policies voted for by the Tasmanian people but because of the policies forced on the Government by an extraordinary belief that if it does not win the greenie vote it will lose the next election. Be that on your conscience. I say that to the Minister through the Chair, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Actually you are not. If you were to say `they' instead of `you', you would be speaking through the Chair. Mr CONNOLLY —I think it is also worth noting that in 1985 the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment stated: There is no overriding environmental reason why wood production forestry should not continue in Tasmania. He made that statement. He will now probably defend himself by saying: `I am giving myself a way out in this proposal'. One of the conditions of this Commission of Inquiry is to try to find alternatives. I would be only too happy to show the map to the Minister, because I really doubt whether he knows what is on it. If he looked at a map of Tasmania and compared this area with the areas that are already listed with the Heritage Commission he would see it for what it is-a third of the island of Tasmania. And the Government is wondering why people are less than impressed with the arguments, the tomfoolery and the ridiculous way in which it has handled this issue! The Government is using the foreign affairs power and it is trying to use the corporations power-all to crush the rights of a State government and to protect the interests of its own people who have made it absolutely clear on numerous occasions that they do not want anything to do with it. They just want the right to be able to manage their own affairs in a responsible manner. No State in this Commonwealth has given more for environmental protection or allocated more of its land to achieve the standards of World Heritage listing than Tasmania. Yet the Minister has the effrontery to talk in his second reading speech about the glories of World Heritage listing and how the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources is concerned about the marginal areas around the edges of the World Heritage listing areas of Tasmania. How much nonsense does the Government really expect the Tasmanian people to accept? Apparently the Government is convinced-so it would have us believe-that there are alternatives to logging these areas. Some 2 1/2 years ago a review was done of the Tasmanian timber industry. The Hawke Labor Government gave funds to the Forest Action Network to produce a booklet on alternatives to logging in National Estate areas. It developed a document, which I trust all honourable members opposite who are so interested in this subject would know is a forest industries strategy for Tasmania. The most interesting thing is this: When this Hawke Labor Government made its decision to support forest industry by signing on 30 June 1986 the memorandum of understanding between the Minister for Primary Industry-representing the Hawke Labor Government, let me make it quite clear-and the Minister of the Tasmanian Government, it already had this report. It was not new intelligence; it was not something that just appeared many months afterwards. As I said initially, the simple fact of the matter is that what we are seeing is nothing more than a simple, plain, typical Labor political trick. Once again it is tilting at windmills; it is blowing up balloons and letting them off into the air, and it is hoping that it will convince other sections of the electorate long enough that they will be stupid enough to vote for it at the next election. One thing is perfectly obvious: The Government's vote in Tasmania will probably be worse at the next election than it was at the last election and it will certainly know the reason for that. There is not a single member of the Labor Party from Tasmania in this chamber-and I think that is the bottom line in this issue. Nevertheless, the Government has made these decisions and it has to live with them. When the Federal Department of Primary Industry gave advice to Ministers in the Cabinet, when the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment gave all his reasons why certain things were necessary, and while he had the support, we are told, of a certain senator from my State of New South Wales who became a born again greenie, the simple fact of the matter is that the Department of Primary Industry had already conceded that the document gave alternatives that were hopelessly optimistic in an attempt to justify the resumption of vast areas of Tasmania. Clearly, therefore, the whole basis of this proposed inquiry is specious. There is no economic or environmental basis for further inquiry. Just for the record, since the Minister seems to have some difficulty in this area, I wonder whether he is aware that there have already been no fewer than nine major public inquiries into forestry and forest-based industries over recent years. For the benefit of the House I would like them to be listed in Hansard so that nobody on the Government side can claim that he did not know this particular gun was loaded. They are: In 1972, the Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee `Inquiry into Forest Regeneration'; in 1975, the Federal working group report entitled `Economic and Environmental Aspects of Export Hardwood Woodchip Industry'-Parliamentary Papers Nos 116 and 177, for the benefit of those people who are interested in reading them-in 1975, the Senate Standing Committee on Science and Environment report `Woodchips and the Environment'; in 1977, the State Government Board of Inquiry into Private Forestry Development in Tasmania by Mr Justice Everett; in 1978, the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment `Woodchips and the Environment' supplementary report; in 1981, Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce report `Australian Forestry and Forest Products Industries'; in 1985, the Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee `State Forestry Report'; in 1985, Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee report `Woodchip Export Licences'; in 1985-in the same year; there were three inquiries that year-`Environmental Impact Study on Tasmanian Woodchip Exports Beyond 1988' and the `Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Tasmanian Woodchips'. Good heavens, if ever there have been in the whole history of this nation more inquiries into one little bit of earth which is called Tasmania-a beautiful island which is a part of this nation-or more inquiries into one industry in so few years, I would be very surprised indeed. Yet this is the sort of nonsense we have to go on with. I will quote the letter from the Minister for Primary Industry to the Tasmanian Minister in which he stated: . . . the view field of the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park. The Forestry Commission plan provides for management of logging operations so as to minimise any compromise to the visual amenity of the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair area. He continued: The Government does not propose to limit logging in the area beyond those limits already proposed in the Tasmanian Forestry Commission's 1983 management plan. I think this House deserves to get from the Minister some explanation of why it was that in 1983 an agreement was reached with his colleague, representing the Hawke Labor Government, and the Tasmanian Government in which it was said without any equivocation that no further change was proposed beyond the agreement reached in the context of that Tasmanian Forestry Commission 1983 management plan. I have already told the House that that management plan was not only agreed to by the Labor Government but was also a very well conceived document to protect the very areas which this Minister claims are under threat. I find it extraordinary that all the proposed boundaries in the areas adjacent to the national parks are the same boundaries which have been chosen by certain environmental groups as the basis of what they see as the greater South West Tasmania environmental protection area. Madam Speaker, in accordance with the rules of this House I cannot speak directly to the Minister, so I would be pleased to do so through you. I honestly think he has been sold a pup. I think he has once again been prepared to listen to a few voices which his Government helped to fund to prepare a report on precisely these issues. When that report came before the Cabinet the Minister's own Department of Primary Industry said that the report was absolutely optimistic beyond all realms of possibility because the fact is that Tasmania has very limited long term potential for forestry generation unless there is a sustainable policy. When those opposite take areas which are not within national parks, which it is not necessary to give 100 per cent protection for all time, and when they are trying to say now that these areas might-`might', not `will' or `do'-contain some aspect of world heritage significance I just remind the Minister that in the provisions of world heritage listing he has to be able to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that elements in that area are so unique that their destruction will be a lasting loss to humanity and to the environment, which I hope all of us wish to protect. What we are seeing in Tasmania today is a sell-out of the very lowest order, a sell-out of the interests of Tasmanian workers and their families, a sell-out by a Labor Party which claims to be one of compassion and concern. In fact we are seeing here a sell-out by a Labor Government that believes that the interests of the 900-odd Tasmanian workers, their families and their children are expendable. That is something that those opposite do not concern themselves with and, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Opposition, I assure you that we do. For all those reasons I move: That all words after ``That'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ``the House declines to give the Bill a second reading and condemns the Government for seeking to delay the making of a decision on the forest industries of Tasmania and calls on the Government to make a decision on that matter forthwith''. Those opposite should have the courage to make their decisions. That is what they are elected here to do. We as a competent Opposition will match them right down the line and will prove, if they want to destroy the forestry industry in Tasmania, how wrong they are. In a nation that at the present time has such massive economic problems, for the Minister to be gyrating around the world and trying to sell to the Australian people the alleged need to protect a relatively important nearly a quarter of a million hectares of land is absurd. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Smith —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Madam SPEAKER —Before I call the next speaker, I point out to members of the House that if they wish to speak to the honourable members opposite they are obliged to do so through the Chair. They have to use `they' and `the Government', not `you' and `your Government'. Otherwise they are personalising their entire speech. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(8.32) —I rise to speak on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill, not just about the Tasmanian wilderness but also about matters of fairness and the future of Australia's heritage. It is indeed a sad indictment on this great nation-a country that prides itself on its candour and egalitarian values-when the wills of powerful enterprises and the largely unabated industry lobby have been allowed to destroy vast tracts of Tasmanian forest and wilderness in a relentless pursuit of wooden wealth. Mr Cohen —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. For the last half hour we listened intently to the honourable member for Bradfield and nobody on this side interrupted. The honourable member for Dunkley has been speaking for about two minutes and has hardly been able to get a word in because of the rabble opposite. Mr Hodgman —Was this written in the Soviet Embassy? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison will keep quiet. Mr Hodgman —I was asking whether the speech was written in the Soviet Embassy. Mr Punch —Madam Speaker, I take offence at the remarks made by the honourable member for Denison when referring to the honourable member for Dunkley. I ask that he be made to withdraw them. They were absolutely and totally offensive. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair did not find them unparliamentary. The Chair cautions the honourable member for Denison to extend the same courtesy to the honourable member for Dunkley that was extended to the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr CHYNOWETH —Thank you, Madam Speaker. The honourable member for Denison is well known for those sorts of pointless interjections. Those opposite have sanctioned the disappearance of a precious resource that may never be seen again. Our shame is compounded in this penultimate year of the Australian Bicentenary by the irrefutable fact that in Tasmania within a fifth of a millenium some of the tallest forests in the Southern Hemisphere have been obliterated and wasted on products of dubious value. Vast areas of destruction of our forests is a pathetic legacy to be passed to future generations of this nation. Some members of the Tasmanian Government and forest industry claim sufficient debate has occurred on the issue of logging. This is not the case. The wilderness has had no voice and the aesthetic pleasure and long term benefits created by such areas have largely been ignored by the blind and visionless drive of the logging lobby and its avaricious friends on the opposite side of the House. Aside from the argument proposed by all protagonists, the fact remains that a bequest that has taken thousands upon thousands of years to evolve can be destroyed in a matter of months. Trees which have taken hundreds of years to develop are destroyed in minutes. A heritage is lost forever. A hearing is to be carried out by a commission of inquiry and those responsible for logging abuses in Tasmania will stand charged with the destruction of precious flora and fauna. Mr Hodgman —That is nazi legislation and you know it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Denison will cease interjecting or he will be dealt with. Mr CHYNOWETH —They are accused by this Government on behalf of the people of Australia and the world who believe that the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests must have a voice that can be heard loud and clear. It is the voice of the thousands that saved the Franklin River from destruction and, over the past decade or so, made others aware of the beauties and privileges of this magnificent planet. Undoubtedly, the sentence of this tribunal will be served by all future Australians. Hence the Commonwealth Government, through this Bill, seeks firstly to protect those National Estate areas in Tasmania that may be of world heritage value and, secondly, to resolve once and for all the issue of whether there are any viable alternatives to forestry operations in these very contentious National Estate areas. This Bill ensures that a careful and exhaustive review will take place. The brief is clear. Are there environmental and economically prudent and feasible logging alternatives within Tasmania to the existing logging plans for National Estate areas? This Bill could not be more fair because it calls on all combatants to submit their viewpoint for ajudication. Moreover, the Bill empowers the three-member inquiry board with the tools to overcome some of the parochial hurdles and the litany of misinformation that has confronted previous investigations into the forestry debate. Most importantly, the Bill provides for the future by giving everyone the time to ponder the almost incalculable natural values of the region and the difficult social, political, economic and ecological problems of the logging industry. If this is to be the inquiry to end all inquiries it is imperative that not one tree in the Lemonthyme or Southern Forests be felled for the duration of the inquiry's commission. Perhaps the solution for the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests can be best seen by standing on a sawn-off tree stump half way up a slope in this magnificent area. All around are trees. The biggest are high country eucalypts, with the softer, greener sassafras and myrtle and rainforest ferns running down into the gullies. I can see the smiles on the faces of Tasmanian honourable members who do not care about this sort of thing. In the Lemonthyme one witnesses a spectacular drop to the Forth River valley and the steep blue rise to Cradle Mountain in the Lake St Clair National Park, one of Tasmania's three world heritage areas. Twelve kilometres away the majestic Cradle Mountain peaks stand out, a monument to our creator's brilliance. What happens when the tranquillity is shattered by the shrill of chainsaws and the felling of prime quality trees that will be trimmed by a bulldozer and transported to a saw-mill-to be chopped into what? What happens? An environmental disaster. The Lemonthyme and Southern Forests form part of Tasmania's western wilderness area. Some parts of this area were inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1982. However, the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests do not have similar official listings only because they have never been nominated. The desire to gain the sanctuary of certification, however, is great. In a letter of 9 February 1987 to the Federal Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment the Technical Adviser to the World Heritage Committee, Dr Jim Thorsell of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, recommended, firstly, that the upper Lemonthyme and Mersey valleys and the Southern Forests should be considered for inclusion in the world heritage area; and suggested, secondly, that logging in the Lemonthyme Forest would result in an unacceptable level of visual impact in a high-use section of the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park. Clearly, we do not build schools next to armament factories, nor factories within residential zones. Neither can we expect an optimum boundary of a world heritage area to be clearly delineated. A zone between the natural and cultural features of the south-western Tasmanian ecosystem and men and machinery in pursuit of profit just cannot exist. Yet the Tasmanian Government proposes to do just this. It is interesting to note that the boundaries of the current world heritage area were not drawn by the World Heritage Committee but by past Tasmanian governments, very keen to exclude forests from national parks. Such enthusiasm has led to the withdrawal of parts of national parks to give the forests to pulp companies such as Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd and Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd. Curiously, while Tasmania has a large area of national park, most of it is not forest. In fact, the woodchip environmental impact study states that only 2.7 per cent of Tasmania's existing national park consists of forests with a potential height greater than 42 metres. Trees nearly 100 metres tall are found outside the national park. The very fact that only one per cent of all tall eucalypt forests is protected inside the national park means that almost all of the remaining 7 per cent of Tasmania's original stands of mature tall eucalypt forests remains in unlogged and threatened areas. The Southern Forests must be saved because they contain the second tallest trees, amongst many other outstanding features. Indirectly, logging presents a great danger in the form of forestry regeneration burns that will destroy sensitive alpine vegetation. The Australian Heritage Commission, in its report on the Lemonthyme, warned that a serious fire escape from a logged area into the world heritage area was almost a certainty. I have been to Tasmania and I have seen this. The alpine vegetation in these areas evolved during the Ice Age and has no natural defence against fires. It may take centuries to recover, if in fact it recovers at all. It has been fires of this type which have destroyed large areas of sensitive alpine forest on the central highlands and in the Western Tiers. If such a fire were to be lit at Farmhouse Creek it could wipe out the vegetation on Mount Bob's, the only mountain in Australia where the rainforest to alpine transition survives on all sides of the mountain. There must be alternatives to the logging of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests, and the answers must give a true account of employment in the logging industry. For too long investigations into this debate have foundered upon incorrect figures and selfish value judgments. Andrew Kemp, the Chairman of the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania, claims that locking up the National Estate will cost 400 jobs. Mr Hodgman —Correct. Mr CHYNOWETH —However, Bryce McNair, another member of the same organisation-the honourable member who interjected should listen to this-has stated that logging of the National Estate could be deferred for over 20 years without affecting employment levels. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I submit that the honourable member is not telling the truth to this House. I know Mr Kemp is a very honourable person-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Hodgman —He shouldn't defame decent Tasmanians like Mr Kemp. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Resume your seat! Mr CHYNOWETH —Mr McNair's case is supported by Dr Bob Brown who argues that the woodchip industry wastes two million tonnes of wood each year. It has already closed 93 small sawmills; it has cost 300 jobs a year since 1970; and instead of creating profits for the Tasmanian Forestry Commission it has produced a debt of $209m. The urgent need for the rationalisation of the logging industry is emphasised by these figures. This Bill seeks to find the common ground, forever mindful that the National Estate areas contain only 12 per cent of Tasmania's sawlog resource and only 15 per cent of the State's sustainable pulpwood resource. Loggers have overcut much of the remaining forest. So they really have a problem of their own making, brought about by their lust for dollars and their lack of care about their own future and the future of their fellow Tasmanians. However, the fair spirit of this Bill allows for the resource of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests to be made up in many other ways. Sawmilling, in the short term, has two alternatives. Firstly, it has been suggested that the Arm River area can provide the sawlogs that would have come from the Lemonthyme. Secondly, the unlogged or only partially logged forests in the Arve, Esperance Lower Styx, Russell and Lower Huon catchments can provide sawlogs that would have come from the Southern Forests. In the longer term, sawlogs can come from uncontentious parts of the ANM concession, instead of being pulped. In 1983-84 AMN turned 95,000 cubic metres of quality building timber into newsprint-that is according to the 1985 environmental impact statement which has been quoted in this chamber this evening. In 1985-86 the figure was approximately 75,000 cubic metres. These figures are in the order of 20 per cent of the State's yearly sawlog yield. Furthermore, the thinning of areas regenerated about 20 years ago will speed up the growth of sawlogs so that larger yields will be produced in less time; that is, another sawlog crop 50 years after the first rather 90 years after. Such areas can be found in the Arve and Florentine valleys. There are also a number of alternative pulpwood resources: The 2.5 million tonnes of wood wasted every year in logging operations; 40,000 tonnes of pulpwood burnt every year in ANM's concession; the wasted sawlogs that litter the logging cops near Lake Skinner in the little Denison catchment; and the wasted sawlogs and pulpwood that litter old log landings in regenerated areas throughout the ANM concession. Two vital questions must be addressed. Firstly, with most pulp companies in Australia changing over from cutting natural forests to using plantations they establish themselves, why are these companies so slow to follow? Is it because they are lazy or is it because the resource of trees has been so easy to obtain and at so little cost? Secondly, when will ANM adopt its stated policy of 1979 of using regrowth rather than old growth? If it changes sooner rather than later both forests and jobs can be saved and the problem can be properly resolved. There have been nine other inquiries into the Tasmanian forest industry. Each has been at public expense, and almost all have been covered up. We are determined that this Bill will not meet the same fate as the Kitchiner report, the Everett inquiry, the Stratham report, the National Parks and Wildlife Service woodchip environmental impact statement of 1985, the Forestry Commission report into the effects of logging in the southern forests, or the 1984 Legislative Council report on State forestry-all of which have never been released or never completed. Mr Hodgman —This is nazi legislation. Mr Cohen —Are you accusing me of being a nazi? Mr Hodgman —I was saying that this is nazi legislation. Mr Cohen —Don't you ever say that to me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister and the honourable member for Denison will behave themselves. Mr CHYNOWETH —The only one released is the Fortech report which reiterated Forestry Commission details. The Lemonthyme and Southern Forests Commission of Inquiry will not be a low budget exercise without legal powers to compel witnesses to release information. The Commonwealth's approximately $20m compensatory package is a large sum of money and serves as an outstanding testament to our determination to create a scope and time frame which is large enough to settle this issue once and for all. Mr Hodgman —Sieg heil. Mr CHYNOWETH —I utter these words of warning: Unless the protection of Australia's-- Mr Staples —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Throughout this contribution by the honourable member for Dunkley, the honourable member for Denison has made repeated comments about nazi legislation, Hitler and, just then, he said `sieg heil'. I and many other members in this chamber, especially the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, who is at the table, find this reprehensible and disgusting. I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have drawn the attention of the honourable member for Denison to the fact that he should behave himself. I guess that members on both sides might reflect that in the course of this debate it might suit some people to be dealt with harshly by the Chair. The Chair will not allow that to occur. But the Chair will insist that members on both sides are heard with the civility that is required. The honourable member for Denison, who has been a member of this Parliament for a while-and a Minister-should ensure that he gives to others the same courtesy that he would expect himself. Mr CHYNOWETH —Mr Deputy Speaker, if we are talking about fascism, one has only to look at what is happening-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It might help if the honourable member for Dunkley did not. Mr CHYNOWETH —With the proposed blocking of the candidate for the Senate. I utter these words-- Mr Smith —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I find that remark offensive. It has nothing to do with the debate. I ask that he be asked to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr CHYNOWETH —I utter these words of warning: Unless the protection of Australia's dwindling forest and wildlife heritage in Tasmania-the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests-is assured, we and our children will never again be able to see the wood or the trees. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before I call the honourable member for Franklin, I ask members on both sides, even though they may have strong views on various arguments in this debate, to listen to their colleagues respectfully. I am sure that the honourable member for Franklin will be heard in silence. Ensuing speakers should also be heard in silence. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(8.53) —I say from the outset that Tasmanians-I include my colleague and friend, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman)-found the speech by the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) hard to suffer and hard to tolerate. If ever any poetry was uttered in this House about the lives and livelihood of men who work in the forests of Tasmania, it was uttered tonight. I hope that that speech is recorded in Tasmania and is played during the next election, because it will ensure that all the Tasmanian members are re-elected to this Parliament. It has been said tonight that passions and emotions run high on this issue, and they do. A headline in the Hobart Mercury of Monday, 16 March, reads: `Violence in the Bush'. It refers to violence in the Southern Forests of Tasmania. The article reads: Violence erupted between conservationists and pro-logging demonstrators . . . Of course, there was an allotment of blame to both sides. But we, the Tasmanians, know only too well what has been happening in Tasmania. It started with the Franklin River. It started with the distorted media coverage of that incident, when men lost their jobs. The conservationists-I call them the extreme conservationists-were going to obtain jobs for decent, hard working Tasmanians. No jobs were forthcoming. The issue was distorted by the media time and time again. I will not allot blame tonight to particular sections of the media. I would like to, but I will not, because we all know that it was distorted beyond comprehension. The media made gods of men like Bob Brown, MHA, Senator Sanders and others that I could name. Mr Hodgman —Bellamy. Mr GOODLUCK —Bellamy, the man from England, who came here and knew all about Tasmania. They locked him up. They should have kept him locked up. They were portrayed as gods by the media. The reason the Tasmanian members tonight and the Tasmanian people at home are so bitter about this legislation-the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill-is that it is being developed by the media and the conservationists. I will go back in history. Do honourable members remember the blockade at Jackeys Marsh? Do honourable members remember that I named in this House 23 of those blockaders who were from this island of Australia? Most of them were unemployed. They came to Tasmania-- Mr Chynoweth —Don't you think that Tasmania is part of Australia? Mr GOODLUCK —Because of the way in which the honourable member has talked tonight, we dissociate ourselves from Australia, if he is a representative of it. Anyway, they came to Tasmania. They were mostly unemployed. They blockaded good, hard working Tasmanians. Mr Cohen —Are you an Australian? Mr GOODLUCK —The Minister's Party purports to look after the workers. Historically-that is what has always been shoved down my neck; I do not believe it-his Party has always been the Party for the workers. But honestly, it is really selling out the workers of Tasmania. The Southern Forests are in my electorate. I have been pretty quiet about it. I cannot get much media coverage on the matter because my name is not Bob Brown, Norm Sanders, or that other fellow who came from the Minister's office. Mr Hodgman —West. Mr GOODLUCK —West. I cannot get any publicity to tell the people of Tasmania that it is the biggest con job in the world. The Government knows that it cannot win a seat in Tasmania. It knows that it cannot oust the five Tasmanian members. I have done a little research on the history of the electorate of the honourable member for Dunkley. It has a lot of trendy socialists who believe that everything develops from the birds and the bees, that if one has a good professional education, one does not have to work, or worry about the poor workers of Tasmania and their families who have worked in the forests, and who have worked so hard to develop an industry in Tasmania that has been so important. This legislation really means that everything will stop for about 13 months. Let us talk very simply about it. What will happen to those people for 13 months? Compensation has been talked about. What will happen to their jobs? What will happen to their hire purchase payments? What will happen to their families and children? Most of them only know this industry. They do not know any other industry. They have not had the same opportunity for educational pursuits that other people have had. That is all they know. That is why they are relying on us. They cannot write letters to the papers. They cannot appear on television programs and talk lucidly-like I may be able to-to develop their arguments. They cannot do that. That is the reason why they depend on us to fight for their needs. Many Australians depend on people to put the other point of view, so that the trendy socialists, the left wing of the Press and all the other people who develop their arguments, are put into a corner so that their arguments can be heard. That is what this debate is really all about. We know that we will lose the vote tonight in the House of Representatives because we do not have the numbers. We know that we will lose the vote in the Senate. There are people who will lose their jobs as a result of it. The people of Tasmania will say that once again they are being trampled on and the media in Tasmania- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Could the honourable member for Franklin address this part of the House? Mr GOODLUCK —Certainly. Mr Spender —What about the Prime Minister during Question Time? He had his back to the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not need any assistance from the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr GOODLUCK —The people will say: `Look, we have lost and again we are being trampled on by a government that should know better'. The Government purports to support the worker, the poor and the needy, and all the other things that we constantly hear from it. I came from a very working class background. My father was a worker. Somebody asked me: `Bruce, what are you doing joining the Liberal Party?' By gosh, I am proud to be a member of the Liberal Party in Tasmania that supports the workers of Tasmania, a party that does not turn against them, a party that does not support the trendy greenies, the conservationists and some of these other public servants who can write books but who do not understand what is it like to get up early in the morning and work from daylight till dark. They do not understand that at all. All they understand is getting on television, like Bob Brown with his nice kind face, Norm Sanders with his yankie twang-- Mr Hodgman —Comrade Devereux. Mr GOODLUCK —Devereux, the one I licked at the last election. They get on television and say this and that about the wilderness, saving the trees, but nothing about the workers. Even in my electorate of Franklin at the moment in Geeveston where ANM Forests is trying to construct a mill which will bring life and energy back to that area, people are trying to oppose it from a distance of about three miles because the trucks will make too much noise as they drive past homes, and smoke from the chimneys will be against the environment. We have an unemployment rate of about 15 per cent down there; young people cannot get jobs. Obviously the trucks will need to use petrol, and soon, and there will be a flow-on effect that will bring life to the area, as it has done in New Norfolk with ANM. It supports the town and provides sporting facilities and so on. But now all that ANM gets is a downgrading, a denigration by people who should know better. That is what this debate is all about. It is about working people who will be thwarted by legislation that this Government should know better than to bring in. When people talk about the birds and the bees and the trees and the cockies living in the trees and all the other things, as consistently as does the honourable member for Dunkley-I have two cockies at home-one must have in mind that they are trying to lock up 30 per cent of Tasmania, a third of the State. If somebody had said these things years ago we would have laughed. We must bear in mind what the forestry industry is trying to do by way of regeneration and the economy of Tasmania. These things are urgently needed in Tasmania. People have the audacity to say that they support the workers of Australia when they are taking them to the slaughter. Such an attitude is beyond comprehension. Mr Hodgman —Tell them about Comrade Devereux. Mr GOODLUCK —Mr Devereux is another story. He is a union man who purports to support the workers, yet he is supporting the Hawke socialist Government in introducing this legislation. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Robin Gray over this matter, the fact is that if people are to be sent from Tasmania to represent that State in this House or in the Senate, those who are sent here should put the interests of Tasmania first. I only hope that Labor senators will be guided by their conscience in their vote. I hope that they will have the fortitude to vote against this legislation because in their hearts and minds they should know that it will affect the ordinary Tasmanian, the ordinary workers of Tasmania. If they do not vote against this Bill, they will sell those people down the chute. A lot has been said about this legislation, but I want to say a few words about the activists who have grown to dominate the conservationist debate in Australia. I rarely say anything about a particular person, but we have a gentleman down there called Jonathan West who made a remark the other night to which I took exception. He said this publicly, and every day I listen to the ABC and hear reports of what Jonathan West has had to say. He was not elected to represent the people of Franklin, yet he maintains consistently that the people of my electorate support this legislation. I say to him that he is not an elected member of parliament. He is a member of the Wilderness Society, and was formerly probably a good member of the staff of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. I do not know much about him, but he is in Tasmania now. If he is bargaining for a fight, he will get a fight on this issue. I hope and pray that all my colleagues-and I know that they will-will support the amendment that was so well moved by the shadow Minister. He did a very good job in presenting the case for Tasmania. I hope that the Labor senators will act on this matter, and I certainly know that our own colleagues there will fight against this legislation, but we just have not got the numbers. I hope that the people of Tasmania who are listening tonight will understand that the famous Labour Party that once stood for the workers is nothing but a trendy movement of politicians, limousine lefties, who seem to think that they can do what they want to do, but that the poor old worker has not the intelligence to back up against them. It is up to my colleagues to follow my remarks, and I know that they will. I only hope that they do not get too worked up, emotional or bitter because it will spoil our argument. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(9.06) —I hope that my contribution to this debate will be more logical and rational than was the speech of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). In supporting the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987 I first wish to express my regret that this Bill is necessary because of the intransigence and political chicanery of the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Robin Gray. Mr Hodgman —Come off it, comrade. Mr MILTON —It is true. As the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment (Mr Cohen) pointed out in his second reading speech, the Commonwealth Government has made every possible attempt to negotiate and consult with the Tasmanian Government on the sensitive issue of logging in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. The purpose of the Bill before the House is to establish a Commission of Inquiry which will examine and report on whether the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests form part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage as defined in articles 1 and 2 of the World Heritage Convention, or whether the two areas concerned contribute to the value or integrity of Tasmanian world heritage areas. The Commission will also report on whether there are forestry resources with Tasmania whose exploitation will cause no detriment to the Tasmanian forestry industry and would be an environmentally and economically prudent and feasible alternative to the exploitation of any forestry resources in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. I am also glad to note that the Bill provides for the prohibition of activities such as the cutting down of trees and the construction of roads and excavation works for the interim period of the inquiry, which would in relation to cultural or national heritage resources probably mean a prohibition period of 12 months plus 42 days. As Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I am particularly pleased to support this Bill. During the four years in which I have been Chairman and the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) has been an active member of that Committee we have visited all the world heritage areas in Australia, including the forests of South West Tasmania. As the Minister has pointed out, this Government is determined to protect Australia's natural and cultural heritage in conformity with the International Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Mr Hodgman —This is Canberra, not Moscow. Mr MILTON —The honourable member for Denison should be proud that his State has such beautiful areas that we will protect. Australia ratified the Convention in August 1974 and since the Convention came into force in December 1975, 92 countries have ratified and become parties to the Convention. The Commonwealth Government has an obligation to protect the world heritage areas in Australia not only for Australians but for all peoples of the world. Parties to the Convention commit themselves to use all their powers which include legal, administrative and financial measures-- Mr Hodgman —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker-and this is a valid point of order-this Bill does not relate to world heritage areas; it relates to areas which are not on the World Heritage List. Therefore, the honourable member has not read the Bill and is out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —There is no point of order. Mr MILTON —Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would point out to honourable members opposite that what we are talking about here are buffer zones which are necessary to protect the world heritage area. I know what I am talking about because I have been there, and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) was with me. Apart from world heritage values, it is also a fact that more than half of Australia's forests have been cleared for agriculture and urban purposes since European settlement. Accordingly, it is a matter of urgency that the remaining forests are protected and managed in a manner which will ensure that the present degradation of our forests does not continue. In May last year the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation visited Tasmania to conduct inspections and to hold informal discussions relating to the fiscal measures inquiry, the report of which was tabled in the House last November. Our Committee carried out inspections and held discussions with private forestry owners, representatives of the timber and paper pulp industries, Tasmanian Forestry Commission officers and officers from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Committee toured the Lemonthyme State Forest, the Tahune State Forest and the Picton Weld/Esperance area, in addition to visiting forest plantations. I wish it to make it clear to the House, despite all the interruptions from the other side of the House and the various babblings from certain members, that I am speaking as one who has some practical knowledge of the complicated issues involved. As one who has visited Tasmania on a number of occasions in order to gain an informed view, it is appropriate for me to be speaking to this Bill. In visiting the Lemonthyme Forest, which adjoins the world Heritage Cradle Mountain and Lake St Clair National Park, it was clear to me that the management of forestry operations in such world heritage buffer zones must be carefully prescribed and regulated. Note that these are buffer zones. The Lemonthyme Forest can be clearly seen by the many hikers and campers enjoying the rich beauty and grandeur of the wilderness area and it is difficult to see how the clearing of timber in the Lemonthyme would not degrade the value of the world heritage area. In fact, it seems quite strange to me that the Lemonthyme Forest was not included as part of the world heritage area because it would have been expected that the natural and logical boundary of the wilderness area would include the forest ridges and spurs of the Lemonthyme. It was as though someone had deliberately drawn the National Park boundary to exclude any areas of potential commercial forest in contradiction of the calls of the conservation movement since the early 1970s for the Lemonthyme to be included in order to provide proper protection for the area's unique alpine vegetation and wilderness values. Mr Chynoweth —Of course it was deliberate. Mr MILTON —It seems to me that the comment by the honourable member for Dunkley is correct-it was done deliberately. One of the problems we face when discussing the protection and conservation of forests is the view that managing a forest is a satisfactory method of conserving a forest. A managed forest is not a natural forest and, whilst a managed forest which has been logged may be preserved for future generations, it will inevitably lose certain unique environmental qualities which constitute a world heritage area. Inevitably the flora and fauna will be degraded and changed and the forest will no longer be natural and of wilderness status. A former Commissioner of Management of the Forestry Commission, Mr Cunningham, stated in 1983: Logging and roading in virgin forest adjacent to wilderness must reduce the area of wilderness. We cannot mitigate the effect of roads on access to the wilderness. We can, however, affect the visual impact of both roading and logging. This is what the Forestry Commission officials told us. We can reduce the visual impact, but the area is still degraded; and that is what we are particularly concerned about. I have no doubt that the visual impact can be reduced. The point is that the Lemonthyme should not be logged, not only because of the visual impact but also because the logging will inevitably degrade the value of the adjacent world heritage area. Unfortunately the Tasmanian Forestry Commission does not seem to recognise that wilderness means country that is both primitive and remote-a place that is remote from roads and other evidence of modern civilisation. Thus to protect a wilderness area, which is essentially what the South West Tasmanian world heritage area represents, it is necessary to maintain around it a tract of undeveloped and roadless country. It is essential for honourable members at least to appreciate that a wilderness area is one that offers challenge, adventure and a respite from the noise and stress of modern urban life. In addition, a wilderness is a place of spiritual refreshment which offers sanctuary in a world where much of the unique flora and fauna is rapidly being destroyed. Having said all that, let me make it clear that I understand the need for Tasmania to preserve and enhance job opportunities for its population. Despite what members on the opposite side-- Mr Hodgman —Crocodile tears. Mr MILTON —If the honourable member for Denison will listen I will put some positive suggestions for improving job opportunities. Mr Hodgman —We are going to replay your speech right up to the election. Mr MILTON —I will be very proud of this speech. Over a period of 12 years the forestry industry has lost about 4,000 jobs and those job losses have coincided with major expansions in production, mainly due to the woodchip export industry. This expansion was not accompanied by improvements in forest management and as a consequence the areas being logged each year in Tasmania have risen dramatically. Thus not only are jobs being lost in the forestry industry, but the last remaining stands of mature native forest are also being lost. Forest industries directly employ about 8,350 people or 4.5 per cent of Tasmania's labour force. That is true, is it not? Honourable members opposite will not argue about that. Total employment dependent on forest industries, which includes indirect and derived employment, is about 19,000 people or 10 per cent of the Tasmanian labour force. The forest industries in Tasmania are involved in five major activities-exporting woodchips, primarily to the Japanese pulp and paper industries; making printing and writing paper and newsprint for the Australian market; saw-milling and manufacturing wood products, primarily for the Tasmanian and Victorian markets. Mr Hodgman —The best in the world. Mr MILTON —Yes, I agree that they are probably the best in the world. The other activities are logging and carting, mainly by small contractors, and forest management by both the Tasmanian Forestry Commission and woodchip and paper companies. A number of criticisms can be levelled at the forest industry. Large areas are logged each year and relatively small investments of labour or capital are made to improve the growth rates or timber quality of the regenerated stands. I appreciate that a different approach is now being taken by both the Forestry Commission and the private forest owners, but that is no excuse for degrading areas such as the Lemonthyme and the Southern Forests. The Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation recognises that taxation and other financial arrangements have only served to discourage proper forest management and have encouraged land clearing and clear felling. In its fiscal measures report the Committee has made a number of recommendations which it believes will encourage improved forest management practice in the future. Particularly, there is a need for reafforestation programs and for incentives to be provided for an expansion of plantation forestry. However, it still remains that large amounts of commercially usable timber are left to burn on the logging coupe. Large quantities of timber suitable for fuel wood are wasted throughout the State each year. The saw-milling industry is in crisis due to severe cuts in saw log quotas and yet saw logs are pulped at the Australian Newsprint Mills Boyer plant. Saw-millers have told me in personal interviews that there is inadequate segregation of saw logs from pulp logs. Statements have also been made by saw-millers that future saw logs are being reduced by the pulping of trees which, if left longer in the forest, would have matured into saw logs. Several years have passed since the Forest Action Network, comprising the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, proposed a forest industry strategy for Tasmania to protect both jobs and forests. Forest research officers Keith Tarlo and Jonathan Miller produced an excellent booklet which outlined a strategy for dealing both with the jobs crisis in the forest industries and the need to protect some of the last remaining stands of unlogged native forest. The plan proposed a package of industry developments which included the following proposals-- Mr Hodgman —It sold very well in Moscow. Mr MILTON —I ask the honourable member for Denison to listen to this. He says that we cannot put forward anything positive. Well, here are some positive suggestions. The honourable member for Denison has left the House now. That just shows that he is not interested in hearing about these positive proposals. He just wants to take the same negative attitude as his Premier. The package includes, firstly, further processing of sawn wood into seasoned and dressed timber, mouldings and veneers; secondly, increasing the recovery of sawn timber from each saw log; thirdly, upgrading the design quality of wood products and furniture; fourthly, construction of a new pulp and paper mill to process some of the wood currently exported as chips into paper, employ as many or more people than the woodchip exports it replaces, and be in conjunction with increased cogeneration of electricity, improved pollution control and increased waste paper recovery; fifthly, converting some industrial boilers from oil to wood wastes; and, sixthly, sensitively developing tourism in forest areas reserved from logging. The plan also proposed eight improved forest management techniques as follows: Firstly, thinning of regenerated stands on selected sites to increase yields and speed up growth; secondly, establishing pulp wood plantations on selected sites; thirdly, increasing recovery of saw logs and pulp wood; fourthly, bringing forward logging of some areas outside the proposed reserves until intensively managed stands become productive; fifthly, replacing the pulp wood concession system with volume licences lasting 10 to 20 years; sixthly, increasing the harvest of fuel wood after logging; seventhly, specifying timber grades so that logs match the needs of each mill more closely; and, eighthly, increasing regeneration and plantation establishment on private land. Increasing royalties to provide a surplus over the Forestry Commission's wood production costs were also proposed-- Mr Hodgman —Get on with it. Why are you supporting nazi legislation? Not even Hitler would have brought in a law like this. It is nazi legislation. Mr MILTON —For the protection of environmentally significant forest areas from logging through assistance-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! Will the honourable member please resume his seat. I take this opportunity to remind the honourable member for Denison that his behaviour is conducive to a poor relationship in this House. Mr Hodgman —A point of order-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Hodgman —There is a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you cannot say there is not one before you have even heard me. They do not even do that in the Reichstag. My point of order is that this member has misrepresented the position. He has not spoken to the Bill-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Hodgman —With great respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would suggest you ought-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, if you are not prepared to hear a point of order this place has become Moscow. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Hodgman —This is Moscow. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call on the honourable member to resume his seat. Mr Hodgman —This is nazi legislation. This place is becoming Moscow. Communists. Mr MILTON —I can only think the honourable member for Denison must have been having a rather-- Mr Chynoweth —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Denison called me a communist, and I am greatly offended. I want that withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the honourable member for Denison please withdraw that remark? Mr Hodgman —You are supporting nazi legislation. You are saying exactly what comes out of the Soviet Embassy. No, I will not. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask-- Mr Hodgman —I will not withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member does not withdraw when the Chair requests him to do so, I will be inclined to name him. Mr Hodgman —I was not even talking to him, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Chynoweth —He pointed at me. Mr Hodgman —I never even spoke to him. You are supporting nazi legislation, as you well know, and I will not withdraw that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member for Denison please withdraw? Mr Hodgman —I will not withdraw what I said about nazi legislation, because that is what it is. Mr Cohen —You called him a communist. Mr Hodgman —You are all behaving like a bunch of communists. This place is becoming Moscow. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I name the honourable member. Mr Hodgman —For what? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —For refusing to withdraw. Motion (by Mr Cohen) put: That the honourable member for Denison be suspended from the service of the House. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr C. A. Blanchard) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, M. J. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P. Darling, E. E. Mayer, H. Dawkins, J. S. Mildren, J. B. Dubois, S. G. Milton, P. Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L. Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H. Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C. Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C. Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S. Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R. Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K. Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C. Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M. Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F. Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC. Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N. Hall, Steele Smith, W. Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Brown, John Shack P. D. In division- Mr Goodluck-On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for indulgence on behalf of my colleague the honourable member for Denison. He requests permission to speak in about three minutes time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER-There is no point of order. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison is therefore suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for Denison thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for La Trobe. Mr MILTON —Increasing royalties to provide a surplus over the Forestry Commission's wood production costs were also proposed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(9.34) —In addressing the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987 I would like to place on record immediately my tribute to those conservationists and environmentalists who awakened Australians from an innocent unawareness of the importance of maintaining our environment. But I am also moved to say that some possessed of an excess of zeal have lost their sense of proportion. The ultimate objective, of course, is to strike some balance between the requirement to maintain our environment and the need to succour man in his respective requirements and therein lies the difference. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall the anguish of a comparatively new member in this House in the 1970s who had to witness, by the use of an international covenant, the termination of sand mining on Fraser Island. As a consequence, from that time I have maintained an interest in activities of this nature to the extent that in January I found a few days to slip down to Tasmania to have a look at the Lemonthyme to get a keener appreciation of what it was all about. I must say that at first blush I was very much impressed with the quality of forestry husbandry in Tasmania, the thoroughness with which those activities are applied and addressed and the underlying concern of Tasmanians to ensure that that quite impressive and beautiful State should maintain its essential character. It was quite clear that the activities proposed and actually immediately under way are not new to the Lemonthyme area. There is evidence there of logging operations of years ago. It was rather nostalgic in a way to see the axe slots in logs where the springboards were placed in the days of axe and crosscut saws and to note also that nature, in her own way, is in the process of healing the scars. The stumps and the tops of trees that we left there are in the process of becoming humus in the soil to regenerate forestry growth and ancillary vegetation. It is somewhat striking that this Lemonthyme State Forest, which is in the vicinity of a national park, is seen as an abomination by those with an affinity for the wilderness area simply because it is in juxtaposition with a national park which is so extensive in dimension that it would take a week to walk from one end to the other. Yet because there are three vantage points, those enjoying parks and who have a mind to visit them will see evidence of human activity in the forest area. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you seriously: To what extent should we go to maintain a wilderness environment? It is a sheer contradiction when one recalls, as most members of this House will have done from time to time flying into or out of Sydney, the view from thousands of feet where great savage scars slash through one-time sleeping hills and magnificent wilderness areas to accommodate the physical requirements of those who need to commute or travel into or out of Sydney. Developments of that nature are still continuing and there seems to be no particular frenzy or consternation by those who derive the immediate benefit. But if we find something distant or remote where there is no injury to suffer ourselves it is easy to become enthused as to the justification of saying to other people, Tasmanians in this case: `Thou shalt not'. But I put it to honourable members fairly and squarely: Who would have a greater concern about Tasmania's well-being other than the Tasmanians? Mr McVeigh —Michael Hodgman. Mr MILLAR —The honourable member for Denison is temporarily absent but I have no doubt that he will be continuing his address about proper requirements for the State from which he comes. Indeed, he may be halfway there now. From time to time this House has contested the proposition that the Federal Government, under international instruments, can usurp the powers and prerogatives that previously applied to the State governments. The Tasmanian Government has gone to great pains to ensure that its logging activities can be sustained. The proposal for an 80-year cycle will provide for the regeneration of forests so that there can always be a viable forestry or logging industry in Tasmania. Actually, Tasmania is quite a small island compared with Western Australia and other States. One could drive off the island before lunch. This demonstrates no more and no less than that its resources are limited and, therefore, it has a responsibility to the residents of the State to ensure the maximum and proper utilisation of its resources. I am thoroughly satisfied in this case that the Tasmanian Government and the Forestry Commission have done exactly that. Of course, it is not a particularly pleasing spectacle to witness the felling of a forest giant that has probably stood for 300 or 400 years. It is brutal at first blush. The debris and the scars on the soil as the logs are driven away seem to be an abomination on the environment. However, as I mentioned before, nature has a remarkable capacity for healing. I also mentioned before Fraser Island, a great sand mass 78 miles long and 14 miles across at its widest. Timber has been logged from that island for over 100 years. The trees are still growing and are still being replaced. The logging activities are continuing. According to the conservationists, Fraser Island is a delicate environment. Indeed, it is worth noting that at the time of the furore over sandmining on Fraser Island an environmentalist and conservationist, one John Sinclair whom I regard as a friend and for whom I have considerable admiration-he gained the Australian of the Year Award for his activities-generated the impression in Australia that the island was so pristine in character that if one sneezed with the wind blowing from the wrong direction the whole sand mass would disappear in a twinkling and to mine the dunes would ensure that the island would disappear. With the benefit of hindsight we can see clearly that the rehabilitation has at the worst been fully adequate and at the best excellent. To further compound the mischief, the island now suffers a new threat. Because of the notoriety that the island gained from that event, four-wheel drive vehicles have descended upon the island in plague proportions, effecting much greater damage to the island than sandmining ever would have done. The Fraser Island Defence Organisation-FIDO-has a new plan for Fraser Island which proposes that the four-wheel drive traffic come off the beaches for the southern 20 miles and use, would honourable members believe, the bitumen road that was built by the sandminers. This is rather ironic. FIDO also proposes that to minimise the damage being done to the island, more trafficways and tracks be constructed on the island to establish a one-way traffic pattern. That is a long way from what is happening in the Lemonthyme, but I put the point that in hindsight what was done at Fraser Island, no doubt with the best of intentions, was a nonsense. I suggest that in hindsight what those well intentioned conservationists believe should happen in respect of the Lemonthyme will also prove to be a nonsense. The proposal agreed to with exquisite harmony at an earlier date by the Federal and State governments has somehow proved to be inadequate. No doubt it has become inadequate because the Government, with an electoral twitch, has yielded to pressures from those who it believes may have a bearing on its political fortunes. Let the Government stand up and demonstrate its worth. Let it adhere to its original undertaking which was based on a well informed understanding of what it is all about. Let the Government demonstrate to the people of Australia that it is a government of conviction and, having come to a conclusion, it will adhere to it. We have spent too much time seeking to accommodate the expectations of various groups and bodies within our community, ignoring the truth that in fact our planet is for man to use and that man is not on earth exclusively to serve the planet. Between those two poles there must be a compromise. The State Government of Tasmania has done a great deal to ensure that that compromise requirement is adequately met. Mr Goodluck —No compromise in this one. Mr MILLAR —There is no compromise at all except in respect of the principle. The State Government has compromised with nature to the extent that when extracting from the forest what is essential to its requirements and the well being of Tasmanians there will be ample scope within the natural scheme of things for revegetation and the recycling of forests and that there will always be jobs in the logging industry for Tasmanians. So the folly of it all is that much of what is being done now by the Federal Government under influence is done with laudable intent in a circumstantial way. Everybody believes in preserving the environment. Nobody wants to do a mischief to it. But we have a remarkable capacity for altering logic and reason to suit our own desire. We have no problem making hard decisions when they affect the man living next door. But when it comes to the person in our own house we have a thousand good reasons why we should be immured from the circumstances attaching to what otherwise was pragmatic reasoning and logic. I do not want to delay the House. I just say again that I went to the trouble to go down to the Lemonthyme. I rejoiced again in the fact that in the middle of January one can visit a part of Australia where snow falls. I have more than a degree of nostalgia, having lived in that blessed State for five years up to the point of joining the Air Force in 1943. I have a feeling for the island and I would not wish in any shape or form to effect an injury on it. I strongly recommend to the Government that prudence should dictate its actions. I ask it to put aside the emotive considerations, to be logical and reasonable and to adhere to the understanding of the agreement at which it arrived. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(9.47) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I commence by congratulating you on your actions earlier in the evening and the manner in which you expelled the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). It was quite plain to me, sitting on this side of the House, that the honourable member's actions were quite cynical and were designed to have him thrown out. He is clearly attempting to establish himself as a martyr to his one per cent margin in the seat of Denison. Tonight the Opposition would have us believe that this Government is all about two things: Firstly, locking up most of the available forest land in Tasmania; and, secondly, causing a massive job loss in Tasmania. Indeed, its rhetoric tonight and in other places has all of the hallmarks of conservative politics 1987 style. If one cannot win the argument on its merits, one misrepresents it; if one cannot be constructive about a complex problem, one simplifies and sensationalises it. Worse still, the conservatives' response again on this issue seeks to cheapen the Constitution of this nation by hiding behind the old furphy of States' rights to the exclusion of the rights of Australian citizens right across this continent who seek to speak their mind through the national Parliament. (Quorum formed) Far from this diatribe that we have heard from the Opposition tonight, designed purely for political purposes, the Government's legislation, by contrast, is a constructive, detailed and responsible attempt to reconcile our moral and treaty obligations to the environment in Tasmania and Australia generally and our proper responsibility towards the Tasmanian timber industry. The Government's purpose in setting up a commission of inquiry is to identify and to protect areas that should be included in the World Heritage area as recommended by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. I quote a recommendation from an IUCN inspector early in the year: That review of the adequacy of the boundaries of the existing World Heritage site be undertaken. In our view, the optimum boundary of the area would include the full range of the natural and cultural features of the South Western Tasmania `ecosystem' as called for in the operational guidelines to the World Heritage Convention. A modified boundary should also attempt to minimise factors that would lead to a diminution in value of the core of the property due to alterations from industrial activities. The importance of this action in world terms cannot be underestimated. The western Tasmanian wilderness national parks are one of the last remaining temperate wilderness areas in the world and one of only eight places which meet both the cultural and natural criteria of outstanding universal value. That is something that every honourable member should be cognisant of. The matter goes much further than that-indeed, much deeper. The inquiry has as one of its main tasks which are included in this legislation the necessity of seeking alternatives so that the timber industry, far from being killed off as the Liberal Party would suggest, would emerge after 12 months in a stronger and more secure position with assured supplies of timber country, having not a short term planning capability but the ability for longer range planning. On this issue the conservatives opposite take the same view as they take on industrial relations, for instance. They are not seeking to reconcile the very real and honest differences between the timber industry and the environmental movement in Tasmania. Rather, they are trying to encourage conflict for cynical political gain. Once again, as with industrial relations, for cynical political gain they are in the political market-place, not knowing one tree from another, I bet, and trying to encourage conflict between environmentalists, who come from all sorts of backgrounds in this country, and the timber industry. Tonight the conservatives, especially the Tasmanian members, talked about the timber workers and their families. I regard the double standards of those opposite as absolutely breathtaking. No doubt tomorrow, if not the day after, those same people will speak in the same vaulted terms about denying those very same workers pay rises so that their wages and salaries can at least partially keep abreast of the increase in the cost of living. They will deny them that, but tonight they talk about the workers and their families' interests as though they mean it. Tomorrow or the next day they will deny those workers the rights of their trade unions. (Quorum formed) As I was saying, tomorrow or the next day the very same people in this House will deny the very right of existence, the very right of operation, or those same timber workers' unions, but in the next breath they will stand on whatever stage they can find in Tasmania and claim to represent their interests. What has to be said is that those opposite who put on a mock appearance in this chamber tonight-and doubtless on the front page of the Hobart Mercury tomorrow morning-are not interested in the welfare of those workers or their families. They are interested in one thing and one thing only-and that is their votes. If and when they get them, they will not want to know them after that. Rather than this cynical operation by those opposite, the Government is looking towards a proper inquiry that will have the result of lowering conflict not only in Tasmania but also more generally on the conservation front line to the benefit of both the environmental cause and the timber industry in general, particularly that in Tasmania. In this context several points have to be raised about the Government's legislation. Firstly, the Government has excluded current logging areas as far as is known from this ambit legislation. Secondly, the inquiry makes it a priority to identify areas which are definitely not qualifying areas and, as a result, the interim protection accorded to the subject area in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill will be quickly removed for such areas so identified by the Commission. Thirdly, it has to be said-and this point has clearly been missed by those opposite-that the main effect of this legislation will be on the Lemonthyme. It must be remembered that this is a relatively small area with a resultant relatively small yield in comparison with potential alternatives. This whole dispute is about 80 hectares. That is what it boils down to. Mr Burr —How much? Mr PUNCH —It is about 80 hectares-30 in the Lemonthyme and 50 in the Southern Forests. I ask those opposite to compare this figure with the average farm in Australia, which is about 1,200 hectares. That point is so salient that those opposite really should re-examine their position on this issue. Earlier this evening the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), before he resorted to calling quorums, had a colourful map on which he attempted to portray by colour, unless I misunderstood him, greenie-occupied areas of Tasmania. It reminded me of when I was very much younger and saw Bob Santamaria on television with his maps of the red hordes coming down. The honourable member for Bradfield now has green hordes coming up from under. The Opposition's cynicism knows no bounds and, with that style of operation from the honourable member for Bradfield, I look forward to him once again bringing busloads of his St Ives branch members to my electorate to man the polling booths at the next election because the Barton Liberals cannot man one. I look forward to his further appearances and just hope that he lifts his game a little, at least to make a contest of it. On the issue of the loss of jobs, it should be said that every Liberal here tonight and outside this place has mentioned a different figure. We have heard that there will be 200 jobs lost, 400 jobs lost and 800 jobs lost. Unless I am quite wrong, the honourable member for Denison, before he was ejected from the chamber, was mumbling something about thousands of jobs lost. It seems that the Opposition has resorted to something of the order of its own taxation policies. Its members pick a figure, add a couple of noughts and claim the figure to be credible. If those opposite were really concerned about Tasmanian timber workers and the welfare of the environment in this country-on previous occasions they have shown that they are not-they would join the Government tonight in attempting to find a useful, workable formula for the long term security of those jobs and for the environmental protection of valuable areas across this country, and in particular in Tasmania. Those opposite have had trouble in the past in adhering to agreements on this. In particular, it must be noted that this legislation has come about after the Tasmanian Liberal Government ignored the dispute-settling mechanism that was previously agreed to by it and the Commonwealth Government for the facilitation of settlement of disputes of this kind. Earlier this year, Tasmania's relevant Minister, Mr Groom, a former member of this House, refused to meet the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). Five meetings after he was cornered into having meetings between the Commonwealth and the Tasmanian Government the Tasmanian Government refused to take a long term view in the interests of the people in purports to represent. The evidence of all these issues lies not in words but in actions. The compensation provisions of this Bill are more than adequate proof of this Government's bona fides in this matter. The Bill provides for reasonable compensation to those persons who refrain from or are prevented from carrying out actions that this Bill makes unlawful and who thus suffer loss or damage. It goes even further to provide, where there is disagreement on the extent of compensation, that this can ultimately be determined by the Federal Court of Australia. I ask those opposite: Is that not fair? Further, in this legislation the way is left open for those outside the immediate area affected who seek to claim damages to apply for compensation from the Commonwealth Government. It has to be said that this is not a matter that this Government has taken lightly or a matter into which any on this side of the House have entered lightly. World heritage listing extends to only 247 places on the globe. They are such places as Mount Everest, the Pyramids in Egypt and the Grand Canyon in the United States. South-West Tasmania is a world class piece of environmental real estate. Its continued existence and that of the timber industry is not incompatible in the long run if we on both sides of the House-and I ask once again for those opposite to join the Government in this matter-have the courage to take up the challenge to find a solution to this complex and often bitterly contested question. Once again, I commend the Bill to this House and call on those opposite to come clean and get serious about helping not only Tasmanian timber workers but also the cause of environmental protection in the long run in Australia and in particular in Tasmania. Mr BURR(Lyons)(10.04) —I have listened tonight with great interest to the contributions that have been made by honourable members from the Government side. I can conclude only that I have never heard so much emotive claptrap in my life. What it demonstrates to me is that those members from the Government side who have spoken know absolutely nothing about forest operations, forest management and forest conservation. If they knew anything of the subject on which they purported to speak they would not have made the comments and contributions that they have. I can conclude only that they have spoken tonight in absolute and total ignorance, and for that I condemn them. We need to look very closely at the objectives of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill, what it will achieve and the impact it will have on forest operations in Tasmania. It is for those purposes that I intend to address my remarks. I will quote from the second reading speech of the Minister for Environment and Conservation (Mr Cohen). In relation to the objectives of this Bill, he said: . . . 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. From those objectives that the Minister outlined in his second reading speech it can be seen that the purpose of this Bill is two-fold; firstly, to set up an inquiry into Tasmanian forestry operations and, secondly, to impose a moratorium on forestry operations in certain areas while that inquiry takes place. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has already pointed out to this House the numbers of inquiries that have been held over the years into forestry operations in Tasmania. I have lost count of them but the honourable member for Bradfield pointed out that in one year alone, 1985 I think, there were three inquiries. There have been innumerable inquiries over the years and each one has reached the conclusion that forestry operations and the associated wood chipping operations should continue. Yet this Government proposes now to hold yet another inquiry and while that inquiry takes place to impose a moratorium on forestry operations in the Lemonthyme Valley and in the Southern Forests. I question the motives of this Government in proposing to have yet another inquiry and imposing a moratorium when clearly all the evidence-technical, scientific and practical-is available for it to draw the conclusions that it might want to draw. The only reason that this Government proposes to have yet another inquiry is obviously to pacify the wishes of the greenie conservationist lobby and the electoral support that those people might be able to generate. But it will not stop at that objective. For the short term purposes of this Government it may well achieve some sort of electoral support but the Government clearly has ignored the impact that this moratorium will have on forestry operations in Tasmania. This House should not take a vote on this issue without being aware of the consequences that it will have for forestry operations in that State. In 1985 a memorandum of understanding was agreed to by the Commonwealth and the State Government in Tasmania which allowed four forestry operations to take place in that State, including in these areas. That agreement was signed by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the appropriate State Government Minister. Since that time, the Tasmanian forestry industry and the Tasmanian Government have abided by the provisions of that memorandum of understanding. Everything has taken place in accordance with that agreement. Yet now the Federal Government, for its own cynical political reasons, is tearing up that memorandum of understanding and saying: `Let us go back to square one and start all over again'. I question the motives and bona fides of the Government undertaking this action. Let us have a look at what this legislation will do. The one criticism on which honourable members on the opposite side of this chamber and people who understand forestry operations in Tasmania, or anywhere else for that matter, would agree is that in past years adequate consideration has not been given in forestry operations to environmental factors. Adequate consideration has not been given to regeneration, to ensuring that there is a continuation of the resource. That situation existed in Tasmania for over 150 years, when the old foresters, the old bushmen, simply went into the bush, cut down the best trees, used those trees for their commercial purposes and thought nothing and did nothing to regenerate the forests that they were using. As I said, that situation continued for over 150 years. Clearly, that action over a long period caused enormous damage to the forests. I am sure the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, who is at the table, would agree that what was desperately needed was a program that would regenerate good quality trees in our forests. I am sure we would all agree on that objective. But that is precisely what Tasmania has been doing now for the past 15 years. We realised the problems; we realised that there was not a management program; we realised that regeneration was not adequate. We addressed that problem and defined a plan that would adequately regenerate our forests in Tasmania for future generations. For 15 years we have been doing just that. Yet this Government now says that what we are doing in Tasmania is not adequate. It is saying: `We think we know better than what you have been doing for the past 15 years'. I remind the Minister and honourable members opposite that a forest management program is not something that one can fiddle about with. The term of a forest management program must extend over at least the period that it takes a eucalyptus tree to reach its full maturity, and that is at least 80 years. So, any adequate genuine forest management program must extend over that period so that one can cut a tree down, regenerate a tree to replace it and expect that one has a program, a plan of management, extending over 80 years that will allow that tree to reach its full maturity. If one fiddles around with that program and decides that it is not adequate and that one will not continue with it-if one fiddles around for short term political expedience-one disrupts the whole of that program over an extended period of 80 years. That is precisely what this Government is doing with this Bill. It is not just putting a spoke in the short term plans for the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests; it is distorting the whole forest management program of Tasmania which has so far been in place for 15 years and which is intended to exist for another 65 years. I ask the Minister and his expedient Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to think seriously about the consequences of their actions. Those honourable members opposite who spoke earlier-I recall very clearly the colourful language used by the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth)-clearly do not know what forestry operations are all about. What we have in Tasmania at the moment, as I pointed out earlier, is a forest that has been raped over a period of more than 150 years-with the best trees being taken and the worst or the rubbish trees being left. The only real value of many of those trees that have been left is that they provide a habitat for wildlife-and really nothing more. They have no commercial value; they could not be considered as good quality commercial forest. The Minister may not have worked in the forest. He may not have had that practical experience. But I have, and so has my colleague the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). We have worked in the forest. I remind the Minister that one may look at a tree and think it is a fine specimen of a tree; that it has all the attributes of a fine specimen. But if one brings that tree down one may well find that it is full of rot, full of ants, that it has absolutely no commercial value at all. The tree may be overmature. People do not understand that trees can reach overmaturity. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.15) —The other night I spoke about some of the things that are said about Tasmanians. I do not want to go on tonight with the argument that has arisen over the timber industry. But I have noted that on many occasions many people like to rubbish Tasmania. When I last spoke about this matter I quoted a particular newspaper that said that Tasmanians were only tinpot and so forth. I took offence at that and I tried to rebut it to the best of my ability. Alas, the McDonald's Cup final was held on Sunday in Tasmania, and we were beaten. But I have never heard so many stupid remarks come out as I did as a result of that. First, there was David Hookes-a very good cricketer, admittedly, and probably a very good ambassador for South Australia in the cricket field. He alleged that there were 12,000 Tasmanians there and they had 24,000 heads. That is another example of the sort of thing I mentioned the other night. If we allow these things to go on, this sort of thing continues. I thought I would overlook that, thinking that the fellow probably just said that in the heat of the moment and that probably there was a bit of a rumpus at the cricket when he made that remark. But then I picked up the Australian today and saw that the famous Bill O'Reilly, for whom I have the greatest respect, made some cutting remarks about the cricketers of Tasmania. He said that they were too fat and that, proceeding down the list of players, they got wider and wider at the bottom. I thought to myself: `What a remark to make when in fact a State of 400,000 people made it to the McDonald's Cup final'. In fact, he was trying to denigrate the Tasmanian team. He alleged that the team members were probably drinking too much of that Cascade stuff. That `stuff' happens to be beer, actually. If we do not stand up and say that we take offence at those sorts of remarks, if we do not tell Australia that we made it to the McDonald's Cup final and that we are just as good as any other State in Australia at playing cricket, we get those stupid remarks from a once famous cricketer, who probably has the right to criticise, but who, I think, of late is criticising Tasmanian cricket far too much. Somebody else said in the newspaper that Tasmanians should become more centralised. Good heavens! I repeat: The State has only 400,000 people with three cricketing parts; yet it made it to the McDonald's Cup final. Mr Deputy Speaker, you came from Tasmania. You can smile. You are probably ashamed now that you live in Western Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —You are getting close to reflecting on the Chair. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry about that. This happens time and time again and, frankly, we get a bit sick of it. That is the reason why the Hawke Government is proceeding with the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill which was being debated tonight. My colleague got thrown out tonight. I told him not to get too emotional. But Tasmanians do get emotional about Tasmania at the moment, because the rest of Australia seems to think: `It is a small isle; we will use 30 per cent of it. Nobody will fight back; they will take it lying down'. But we do take offence at it, and we do take offence at the Hawke Government trying to dictate the terms. We heard the rot from the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), who purports to support the workers of Australia, saying that in fact the workers of Australia will forget about this business tomorrow. The workers of Tasmania will not have any jobs. That is the whole trouble. When this legislation is enacted-it will go through, of course-the workers will not have any jobs. So, the Labor Government that purports to support the workers is really saying: `Tasmania, you do what you are told. You let us run roughshod over you. You let us tie up 30 per cent of the State'. While I am talking about the South West of Tasmania, I make the point that one could not walk through some parts of the South West with a bulldozer on one's back. The fact is that Government members do not know what they are talking about. They do not leave it to the Tasmanians to make their decisions. They come over for a holiday or, if they move from another State, they live in the peaceful surroundings of Tasmania. But they do not. I only hope to goodness that a few people wake up to the fact that the Government is trying to trample over Tasmania; it is trying to use it as a plaything for the greenies with their haversacks on their backs. That is all it is trying to do. It has stopped the dam in Tasmania and now it will stop the forest based industries from providing jobs to Tasmanians and jobs for the future of young Tasmanians, so that they will have to leave Tasmania to get jobs on the mainland. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for La Trobe. Mr Tim Fischer —Tell us about the Nella Dan. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.20) —At some future date I will tell the honourable member about the Nella Dan. There has been a great deal of debate over the years on the use of animals for the purposes of research experiments and the morality of using animals for such purposes. In this respect there has been a considerable increase in the controls exercised by State governments on experimenters in Victoria. Experimenters are required to be licensed and must make half yearly reports if the experiments are performed under the authority of the Protection of Animals Act 1966. The reports must deal with completed projects and projects which are uncompleted at the end of the half yearly period. Details must be provided of the number of animals used and the fate of the animals following completion of experimentation. As a person who has understood the role of research which is necessary and the part that animals have played in developing our understanding of the nature of human disease and ascertaining means of combating such diseases, I remain concerned at the need for experimentation in such a wide range and number of animals. I received a copy of the Victorian State Government's third report entitled `Statistics of Animal Experimentation, Victoria', for the period July 1984 to July 1985. I wish to comment on that report tonight. In the first place I believe it is a rather unfortunate omission that the report baldly presents these statistics without a written commentary. The statistics fail to reveal the need for the experiments and, in consequence, the reader is left with a range of unanswered questions. With regard to the number of animals used for uncompleted experimental testing programs, the total was 123,633. For the same period the total number of animals used for completed experiments was 207,167. Presumably, unless some animals were used for more than one experiment, the total number of animals used for experimental purposes in Victoria during 1984-85 was 330,800. The mouse was the animal most frequently used, with a total of 199,968, followed by 57,715 rats, 32,932 domestic fowl and 20,245 sheep. Cats, dogs, pigs, bovines, guinea pigs, rabbits and marsupials also feature in a large number of experiments. It is at least gratifying and with relief that I noted that experiments involving cosmetics and toiletries are no longer performed. However, I was disturbed to find that more than 8,368 animals were used in experiments on exposure to ionising radiation. Had a commentary on experiments been included with the statistics, it would have been possible for me to try to understand why it was necessary to study the effect of ionising radiation on animals. If it is to study the effect in order to relate the research to the effects on human beings, I would have thought that the studies on the unfortunate victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombs would have yielded sufficient information. In addition, the tragic accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would provide much information on the effect of nuclear radiation on human beings. Why, therefore, do we need to experiment on animals? I also noticed from the report that there are two other categories of experiments which use large numbers of animals. Firstly, there are experiments involving interference with the central nervous system and, secondly, surgical or mechanical interference with other parts of the animal. Interference with the central nervous system involves 14,193 animals and surgical and mechanical interferences involves 15,432 animals. Again, if a commentary had been included with the report, readers could judge what was the purpose of the experiment and therefore judge the need for the experiment. It is not surprising that the greater majority of the animals used in such experimentation either die as a result of the experiment or are killed. Others are sent to an abattoir for slaughter. Another group of statistics which caused me concern was the description of the techniques used by the experimenters. Application by mouth, injection, inhalation into the eye and on to the skin-all of these applications appear abhorrent but perhaps the worst is application to the eye, which is one of the most sensitive organs in both animals and humans. It may be asked why the Federal Parliament should be concerned with the result of a State government report. I believe that animal experimentation should be a concern of all governments and all parliamentarians. The Victorian State Labor Government has taken a positive step in publishing the statistics on animal experimentation and requiring that all experimenters be licensed. However, I believe that the statistics reveal that there could be a large number of animal experiments taking place which may not be acceptable if we were more aware of the reasons for undertaking the experiments. I hope that people who are listening or who read this speech will take steps to find out more about the experimentation and whether they are necessary or morally acceptable. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.25) —I rise on a sombre note to draw to the attention of the House the sad death last Wednesday evening, 11 March, of Harry Sawkins, the Mayor of Shoalhaven City Council-- Mr Martin —Hear, hear! Mr SHARP —I note that the honourable member for Macarthur knows as well as I do that Harry Sawkins was a great Australian and he will be sadly missed. Harry Sawkins died at home last Wednesday morning in the early hours at the age of 73. For many people it is not appropriate to say that at the age of 73 death comes as a surprise but in the case of Harry Sawkins, his death certainly came to all of us as a great shock. Harry Sawkins was a man who looked and acted half his age. He was a man of great youth, vitality and energy. He was a man who worked terribly hard for the citizens of Shoalhaven and, indeed, for anybody whom he felt deserved help. Harry Sawkins was born in Tumut and lived there until after the war. After that he moved to Kangaroo Valley, where he was a dairy farmer, and then he moved into a small business. During that time he served in local government for a period of some 12 years. He was elected to the former Shoalhaven Shire Council in 1965. He served on the Council until 1974. He included during his service one year as Shire President. He was re-elected to the Shoalhaven City Council after a nine-year gap. He served as an alderman and as the Mayor. He was a popularly elected mayor. It is a great tribute to Harry Sawkins that he knocked on the door of virtually every household of the 60,000 residents of Shoalhaven in order to be popularly elected mayor of that city. He brought stability to the Shoalhaven City Council. He brought a boost to the morale of the aldermen and the people who worked for the City Council. He also proved to be a great ambassador for the City Council. Harry Sawkins was a great diplomat. He was the most friendly and charming man that one could ever possibly hope to meet. He made friends with everybody and had more friends than all of us could ever dream of having. He knew everybody on the Council staff by first name. He gained their loyalty and he gave loyalty to them. He gained the loyalty of the council aldermen and he gave loyalty back to them. Harry Sawkins was a very warm and friendly human being. Apart from his work in local government he spent many years contributing to a range of organisations-too many to list tonight. John Hatton, the member for South Coast, listed some of those organisations and committees that he worked for when he paid tribute to him at his funeral last Friday. Harry Sawkins lived and breathed the Shoalhaven. Nothing was too good for the city of Shoalhaven and the people who lived in it, as far as Harry was concerned. Harry was a great individual. He was a giant of a personality. He became a great friend to me. The advice that he offered me was received and acted upon, and I greatly appreciated that advice. He was highly respected in the community. He served the community extremely well. The news of his sudden death was a great shock to all citizens of the Shoalhaven. Both my wife, Victoria, and I extend to Harry's family-his wife, Christine, his son of only 18 months, young Harry, and to the other children of Harry's family-our sincere sympathy. Australia has lost a vital citizen, a great citizen. He will be long remembered and greatly missed. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.30) —There are two matters to which I should like to draw the attention of the House tonight. The first concerns an organisation called Comp-u-Rent which is operating in Perth. Honourable members will be aware that the current rental market in Perth has a vacancy factor of less than one per cent, as a consequence of which many people are seeking appropriate rental accommodation. Comp-u-Rent set itself up recently. It is a more recent version of what was tried in the past, and I am sure that honourable members will be interested in the technique that is being used. Comp-u-Rent phones a number of estate agents and gets from them a list of their current rental vacancies. The organisation then proceeds to place in newspapers an advertisement indicating that it has on its books some 300 vacancies. However, the problem is that the organisation is not the particular vendor of the vacancy but is, as it were, a middle agent. Comp-u-Rent asks the person who is seeking rental property for a contribution of $100 to $150 to cover its work. However, its work does not proceed beyond simply indicating that a particular vacancy exists with another estate agent. All that the organisation is doing is taking some of the business from legitimate estate agents whose business must be not only to search out vacancies but to carry those on behalf of the vendor. What one has in relation to the organisation called Comp-u-Rent is an ability to get around the particular requirements of the legislation. The legislation requires that people in order to operate as rental agents must have an ability to provide keys. So what many of these people are doing-this is so the case of Comp-u-Rent-is setting up an arrangement which says: `We provide keys'. That enables them to get round the provisions of the legislation. Comp-u-Rent in a technical sense is not acting illegally, but in a specific sense in terms of dealing with the community the organisation is doing two things. Firstly, it is adding an extra cost burden on the individual who is seeking to get a rental property and, secondly, it is taking away business from estate agents who are bound by other requirements and other demands upon their services. In effect, it is not providing any particular service to the market because when it comes to the substantive position it cannot take anyone to a property that is available for rent because it does not have the authority to operate on that rental property. Clearly Comp-u-Rent is creaming off the market without providing any deliberate service to that market. That is the first matter I wish to draw to the attention of the House, and I believe that it should be addressed in the Western Australian community. The second matter relates to workers compensation and to a particular concern involving a constituent. Many people are aware that there are many mesothelioma cases that relate to the mining of asbestos in Wittenoom in Western Australia. What has emerged is a tactic that I find deplorable. At the behest of insurance companies cases involving asbestos victims are being adjourned repeatedly. The fact is that many of the asbestos victims are dead before their case is heard. This applied to one family in my electorate and caused considerable distress. In effect, the rights under common law are voided by the fact that the person who is the injured party is no longer alive to contest the action. I know that it is a concern of the Asbestos Disease Society and the Trades and Labor Council and some cases are now pending. I wish to express my concern as a member of parliament that these tactics are being used not to try to find a proper solution to these cases but rather to prevent a solution. This is clearly against the best interests of injured workers and of justice in our society. I am pleased to commend both these matters to the attention of the House. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.34) —I wish to make some comments in regard to nursing home beds in Victoria. I refer in particular to the need for the provision of nursing home beds in the Westernport area of my electorate, and in particular of Koo-wee-rup. I wish to address some remarks concerning an application by the Westernport Memorial Hospital for an additional 10 nursing home beds. I am sure the House is aware that the Government has adopted a policy which the Opposition has generally supported to redirect the emphasis in regard to aged care accommodation away from nursing home beds to hostel beds. The situation in regard to the Westernport Memorial Hospital is one which is difficult inasmuch as it finds itself caught between the previous policy carried out by the Government and the recently adopted policy. The particular currency of the situation is that the Government, I understand, is reviewing all existing approvals in principle for nursing home beds and hostel beds throughout Australia and is looking at drawing up a national priority list. Hopefully, the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) will be in a position to make some decisions by April of this year. The Westernport nursing home currently has 10 existing beds. It originally made application for 16 extra beds and received an approval in principle for 10 extra beds in March 1986. I believe that in these situations where organisations such as this have existing approvals in principle the position needs to be looked at sympathetically and needs to be looked at on the basis of the representations made to these organisations when their original approvals in principle were granted. Firstly, there has been a delay in this matter, a delay anticipated by the Government when the approval in principle was first granted. In fact, it was said to be essentially on a provisional basis because there are appeal procedures available to other persons in the region. Those appeal processes were in fact taken advantage of and the hospital has not been in a position to proceed because of that appeals process. Secondly, when the approval in principle was granted, it was granted on the understanding of the local community that before the Westernport nursing home could look to the Commonwealth for a capital contribution it would need to put its own house in order and raise its funds. The local community at Koo-wee-rup, with assistance of the Shire of Cranbourne, has done just that. It has been out and about. It has raised something in the order of $180,000 which is a large amount of money for this particular area. As I say, the community has met its side of the bargain. In fact, representations were made to people. I have a copy of a letter addressed to residents of the shire. It states: We have proved to the appropriate Federal and State Governments the vital and pressing need to establish additional nursing home facilities for persons in the Shire of Cranbourne. It is now our responsibility to ensure that the project comes to fruition which necessarily involves the raising of $200,000 towards the project. That was the bargain and they have essentially adhered to their side of the bargain. The third factor which I think is important is that in dealing with these applications it is my view that there should be no element of retrospectivity. In other words, these organisations should not be caught up with the change in government policy. The other important factor is that these additional beds will add to the financial viability of the existing beds. Without these additional nursing home beds I believe that the future of the existing 10 beds is in jeopardy. I simply ask the Government for a sympathetic hearing to this application by the Westernport nursing home. I ask it for some capital funding. Lastly, if those things are difficult, I ask that we have an opportunity to sit down and negotiate a way out and a means by which these important nursing home bed facilities can, in fact, be supplied. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.39) —I had the privilege today to attend the Shepparton area with our Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). It was my privilege because the Minister opened the Victorian Grain Council annual meeting in Shepparton. I was fortunate to be there when the President of the Victorian Grain Council actually applauded the Government, the Minister, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins)-as well they should, I might add correctly-by recognising the efforts of this Government in tackling the source of Australia's current economic problem which is the external terms of trade. I was pleased to see in the farming community recognition of this Government's efforts and I was also pleased to hear the President say that the principal problem facing grain growers was the external price. This was more worrying to them than any other aspect. That was one of the few times that I have actually heard a farming organisation being honest enough-unlike the Opposition-to face up to the real problem rather than running around trying to blame internal factors as the sole or principal cause of their difficulties. In the course of the day we spent in Shepparton we had a meeting with the Victorian Canning Association. I was pleased to be introduced to a new fruit which is about to go on the market in this country. That fruit is called nashi fruit and it is particularly interesting. In Australia it dates from 1800 when it was introduced by the early Chinese settlers. It is, in fact, a pear but from my own taste experience I can say that it is unlike anything that I have eaten before. It has a very pleasant and attractive taste. It is fibred like an apple but juicy like a pear and it seems to attract the qualities of both those fruits. The Goulburn Valley area, which is probably Australia's premium fruit growing area, is now recognised throughout the world. Farmers in that area are going into the production of nashi fruit, which they will sell locally in Australia. Potentially there is a huge export market for it. It may well be that Australian horticulturists will emulate the New Zealanders, who took an obscure fruit called a Chinese gooseberry, called it Kiwi fruit and managed to crack multimillion dollar sales throughout the world. Nashi fruit has this potential. It is an oriental fruit, well loved by the Japanese. This country can now grow it and export it to Japan. I am more than pleased to be able to tell the House that I still have the greatest confidence in Australian farmers. They still show that great incentive and ability to adapt and a great desire to succeed. It is extremely pleasing to go into a place such as the Goulburn Valley and see the work that our Australian farmers are doing. In addition to discovering nashi fruit that day and having my own taste experience with it, I also had a look at the canning industry in Shepparton. Again, innovations are being made by the Ardmona Fruit Products Co-operative Co. Pty Ltd, which is a fully grower-owned organisation. It has introduced a new product-a small plastic pack of fruit, sugar free and packed in natural juices-which is getting a very large market in Canada. These people recognise what this Government has done in floating the Australian dollar-that it has created export potential by having a more profitable base in Australia with a better wage base. They are taking full advantage of this. I am very pleased that Australian farmers are out there and doing something. It is not all gloom and doom, as one would believe if one listened to the prophets on the other side. In fact great things are happening to our exports. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.44) —Tonight I wish to address a problem that concerns a great many honourable members on both sides of this House. In carrying out my duties I often have cause to forward my constituents' inquiries directly to the relevant Minister for a reply. Unfortunately, some Ministers totally disregard requests for information and fail to reply within a reasonable time. While I often do not agree with the content of their replies, some Ministers are extremely courteous and relatively prompt in their dealings with constituents' matters. On the other hand, principal culprits such as the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-and I have notified his office of my intention to raise the matter here-appear to be content to allow correspondence to be ignored. I fully realise that the Treasurer is a busy man. However, it is obvious that a reasonable period for a reply would be about four or perhaps even up to 10 weeks. It is, however, impossible to convince Fisher residents, or for that matter other thinking Australians, that the Treasurer is doing anything other than dodging the issues raised when a reply is not received for months on end. Surely a question directly related to the Treasurer's portfolio can be answered in under a year. In November last year, as a last resort, I had to send a telegram to the Treasurer asking for urgent response in relation to a matter concerning taxation on staff concessional travel. As yet I have not received a reply on this issue. The constituent raising this matter originally contacted me in April 1986. Since that time I have written to the Treasurer on no fewer than four occasions. Following my original letter I have sent two follow-up inquiries, one in July and a further one in September, leading to my telegram in November asking for an urgent reply. Perhaps the Treasurer has not yet examined any of my correspondence. The sad fact is that I have not yet even received the courtesy of a reply indicating that the inquiry has been received and that the Department or Minister is looking into the matter. This is not an isolated case. The sad fact is that I have many outstanding inquiries with the Treasurer, most of which extend over periods greater than six months. On each instance I have not even received notification of receipt of correspondence. In the debate last year on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill I voiced my concern about this problem in a general manner. I believe that the continuation of difficulties experienced, particularly in regard to the Treasurer's office, makes it necessary for me to emphasise again the inexcusable time delays being experienced, no doubt, by all honourable members. Quite clearly the public deserves greater consideration from Ministers and their respective departments. The Treasurer is not alone in his dilatory approach. Members of parliament must be able to obtain replies from Ministers within a reasonable period. If those replies are not forthcoming, surely the efficiency of certain Ministers and their departments must be in question. The citizens of Australia deserve better treatment. Genuine inquiries asking for information or for clarification of certain matters should not be quietly ignored in the hope that they will disappear. I might add that constituents treated in this manner have expressed disgust at the contemptuous behaviour of some Ministers in the Government. I hasten to emphasise that not all Ministers are guilty, however some are guilty in the extreme. In simple terms the Government should ensure that ministerial inquiries are handled promptly. I repeat the comment I made to the House last year: In reality the situation is merely a matter of whether or not a Minister is competent to run an efficient office. On behalf of all members of this place-both Government and Opposition-I hope that the Government will look at this problem seriously and urgently. Mr GRACE(Fowler)(10.48) —I rise tonight to bring attention to the deteriorating situation which exists in Sri Lanka. The gunboat diplomacy of the Sri Lankan Government deserves the condemnation of the whole civilised world. Before anybody rises to voice his opinion and say that that is an unreasonable, unfounded statement and that I am a blind supporter of the so-called `Tamil terrorists'-because that is the cry that will emanate from the Sri Lankan Embassy in Canberra tomorrow morning-allow me to inform honourable members as to why I make such a strong statement. Whether we discuss here the rights or wrongs of the Tamil minority claims-and I happen to believe that they have some very valid claims-I am sure that honourable members will agree that there has to be something drastically wrong with a so-called democratic government that will not allow valid and properly credentialled observers from world-accredited organisations or from world respected governments to observe the conditions in that country. Such a situation exists in Sri Lanka. Honourable members may also be interested to know that at present the International Red Cross, whose reputation is beyond question in my opinion, has been denied permission to study conditions in this unhappy country. The argument of the Sri Lankan Government in refusing entry to any organisation such as the Red Cross is that it would be interfering in the affairs of the nation-an argument that I reject completely. It should be remembered that even the ultra-conservative Thatcher Government in the United Kingdom allows observers to study at first hand conditions in Northern Ireland. So, on purely humanitarian grounds, the Government of Sri Lanka must stand condemned in the eyes of the free world for its intransigent and callous attitude. Furthermore, by refusing the entry of independent observers such as the International Red Cross, the Sri Lankan Government has left itself open to the inevitable charge of untruth where conflicting versions of incidents are involved. I cite as an example an article in the Australian newspaper of today, 17 March, by correspondent Michael Hamlyn, concerning a reported mortar fire some weeks ago in the streets of Jaffna. The correspondent reported that as many as 20 innocent people died in the attack, whereas a Government communique denied that any such incident took place and said that such reports are figments of the minds of terrorist propagandists. Surely, if such accounts are false, it is in the interests of Sri Lankan officials to allow independent observers into the country to stop the flow of disinformation. Unfortunately, one is forced to view with some cynicism a government that makes claims yet does not allow observers to verify those claims, on the ground that observance is interference. The gunboat diplomacy of the Sri Lankan Government goes much further than the banning of foreign observers. It also extends to provocative posturing, as demonstrated by a statement by the President, Mr Jayewardene, in a newsletter to the Times on 27 January 1986: I am winning this war . . . I have come to realise that only success matters. I do not care what New Delhi, London or any other country says. How quickly and effectively I can exterminate the militants is the crux of the problem and I am on the point of achieving this . . . now I have more weapons. Countries like Pakistan are training my men. In 1985, Pakistan trained 60 officers and 1500 junior commissioned officers. My air force is also being trained by people from abroad. There is also, of course, the famous statement by the national security Minister, who visited our country recently, in a statement made on 10 August 1985: `We are going to smash heads'. The problems of Sri Lanka require urgent world recognition so that the Sri Lankan Government might be persuaded to the negotiating table. The present attitude of the Government is only serving to throw that beautiful country into further unrest and bloodshed. Under no circumstances can the bombing and shelling of hospitals and innocent people be condoned under the excuse of dealing with what can be described only as the struggle of an oppressed ethnic minority for basic democratic rights in its own country. The killing and internment of innocent people on both sides has to cease immediately, and meaningful negotiations must be conducted to solve the problems of this once happy nation. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.53) —I am prompted to rise this evening-- Mr Tim Fischer —Tell us about the Icebird. Mr ANDREW —I will take a later opportunity to talk about the Icebird. I am prompted to rise this evening by the comments made by the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) who quite rightly applauded the initiative, I would have suggested, being shown by Australian primary producers in developing a new product, particularly in Shepparton. I noted that the honourable member for McEwen referred to it as the incentive. I would have thought the incentive had largely been eroded, but there is no doubt that initiative is being shown by Australia's primary producers. As one whose income once depended largely on the canning industry, I was very interested to hear what the honourable member had to say and to follow the announcement of two new products-the nashi fruit and the possibility of packing canned fruit, as it was once known, in plastic sachets. The new product that I want to introduce to the House this evening is related not to the fruit industry but rather to the vineyard industry. While we in this Parliament have been in air-conditioned comfort this afternoon debating the affairs of the nation, we would do well to remember that not only in Victoria and New South Wales, including the electorate of my colleague at the table, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), but also in the South Australian Riverland and Sunraysia grape growers have been harvesting crops in 40 degree heat, crops which will find their way into various segments of the Australian market. It is too easy to imagine that the vintage finds its way principally into wine products. Grape growers are also very much a part of the dried fruits scene, the fresh fruits scene and the grape juice scene. My announcement this evening is that grape products are now finding their way into the honey scene. This evening it was my privilege to present to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) a 500-gram jar of what is now known as grape honey. Grape honey has nothing to do with bees at all. There are romantic souls in the House who would suggest that we ought not to be cutting the bees or birds out of what is their essential role in society. An entrepreneur in my electorate, Mr Herman Thum, is the principal proprietor of Chateau Yaldara, a large operation which has been visited by the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) and the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous). I was pleased to accompany them there and show them something of Mr Thum's porcelain collection. Mr Thum has produced grape honey by taking the water out of grape juice until all that is left is the glucose and fructose, which are basically the honey products, so he has liquid sugar marketable in a form which looks, tastes and smells like bees' honey. It is so popular that my children have already polished off a jar at a little more than three sittings. This honey provides the grape industry with an entirely new market. We have the capacity to use 5,000 tonnes of grapes in order to produce 1,000 tonnes of honey. Nor is it Mr Thum's intention to erode the existing Australian market for our apiarists. Mr Thum has pointed out, for example, that while the honey production in Australia sits at 28,000 tonnes, we export 19,000 of that 28,000 tonnes. He adds that the consumption of honey in Japan currently sits at 26,000 tonnes, of which Japan produces only 6,000 tonnes. So Mr Thum quite rightly rationalises that if he can export only 5,000 tonnes to Japan he will have done nothing to destroy the existing industry of apiarists and will have provided a home for 25,000 tonnes of grapes. Mr Thum, as a large taxpayer in my electorate, was anxious that I should convey to the Minister the need to look again at our vine pull scheme-not that it has necessarily been in error, but lest we should run the risk of pulling out at a future date the vines he may need to produce that 25,000 tonnes to use for grape honey for the Japanese market. This honey is smooth, palatable and moreish. If honourable members on the other side of the House care to hurry down to the Minister's office they may be able to sample some of it before the Minister or his staff beat them to it. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.58) —In the couple of minutes available to me, I join with the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) in paying tribute to the late Harry Sawkins, the former Mayor of Shoalhaven, who unfortunately passed away in the early hours of last Wednesday. Like the honourable member for Gilmore, I attended the funeral service for Harry Sawkins in Nowra last Friday. I extend my sympathy to his wife Christine and his family. Harry Sawkins was Shoalhaven. He lived and breathed Shoalhaven, and he will be sadly missed by the people of that area. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.59 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Kerin to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to make provision with respect to research and development in relation to the Australian fishing industry. Mr Kerin to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969. Mr Kerin to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968, the Fisheries Act 1952 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984, and for related purposes. Mr Beazley to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend certain legislation relating to the Defence Force, and for other purposes. Mr Beazley to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to establish a Defence Housing Authority. Dr Blewett to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to provide for a national identification system involving the issue of a card to be known as the Australia Card. Mr Holding to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act relating to veterans' entitlements and other matters. Mr Cohen to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978. Mr Cohen to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, and for related purposes. Mr Cohen to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Mr Cohen to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend the Land Acquisition Act 1955. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 17 March 1987: Audit Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 30. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders-1987- M31/87-AUS-MEAT Accreditation Required for Slaughtering and Packaging of Meat for Export. MS11/87-Conduct Requirements-Shipping of Meat to North America. Australian National University Act-Statute- No. 191-Enrolment, Courses and Degrees Amendment No. 22. No. 192-Board of the Faculties Amendment No. 2. No. 193-Admission to Status (The Facilities) (Repeal). No. 194-Academic and Ceremonial Dress Amendment No. 12. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 26. Bounty (Computers) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 27. Copyright Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 34, 35. Customs Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 37. Defence Act-Determinations-1987- No. 7-Temporary Rental Allowance. Nos. 8, 9 and 10-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 11-Trainee Leader's Allowance. No. 12-District Allowance. No. 13-Temporary Rental Allowance. No. 14-Vehicle Allowance. No. 15-Special Royal Navy Allowance Paid to RAN Members Posted to and Servicing in Britain. No. 16-High Electricity Charges Allowance. No. 17-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 18-Travelling Allowances and other allowances. Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 36. Excise Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 28. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1987- No. 1-Prescribed Goods (General) as Amended (Amendment). No. 2-Export Control (Fees) (Amendment). No. 3-Export Meat as amended (Amendment). Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rule 1987, No. 29. Fisheries Act- Notices-Nos. 175, 176. Plan of Management-No. 11-Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery (Amendment). Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 32, 33. International Finance Corporation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rule 1987, No. 39. Lands Acquisition Act- Land acquired for aviation purposes-Boulder, WA. Statements (3) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations-Order-1987-No. 1-Meat Inspection (Fees) as amendment (Amendment). Norfolk Island Act-Regulations-1987-No. 1 (Medical Practitioners Registration Act). Public Service Act- Determinations-1987-Nos. 4, 8, 9. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 38. Radiocommunications Act-Standard-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 40. Remunerations Tribunal Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determinations- 1987/2-Human Rights Commissioner and holders of public offices on other bodies. 1987/3-Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- National Memorials Ordinance-Determination naming Divisions of the Australian Capital Territory, dated 10 March 1987. Ordinance-1987-No. 6-Cemeteries (Amendment). States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated- 23 February 1987. 4 March 1987. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Direction-1987-No. 18. Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 75. Telecommunications (Community Calls)-Amendment No. 46. Torres Strait Fisheries Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 31. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4870) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) When and for what reasons did the Government decide to conduct a review of Commonwealth employees' compensation. (2) When did the review begin and when will it report. (3) What are the guidelines or terms of reference of the review. (4) Who is conducting the inquiry. (5) What are the itemised costs of the review. (6) How many compensation payments have been made in each year since 1982 and, for each year, what was the (a) cost and (b) reasons for payment. (7) In each year since 1982 (a) how many appeals were made over decisions of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and (b) how many appeals were successful in respect of (i) each State and Territory, (ii) each department and authority and (iii) each reason for a claim. (8) Has abuse of the compensation system been detected; if so, what has been the extent of this abuse in each year since 1982. (9) If no abuse has been detected, why is a review necessary. (10) Have any recommendations been received from the review; if so, what action has been taken. (11) Is any further action planned, and when will it occur. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (4) On 10 June this year the Government decided to conduct a review of the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Scheme. The Government decided the review should place greater emphasis on occupational health and safety than does the present system. A review team was set up comprising officers from my department as well as the Department of Finance, the Public Service Board and the Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. Its guidelines are to produce a system which reduces the human and financial costs of work-related injury and disease through safety and accident prevention, effective rehabilitation and prompt delivery of adequate compensation. The review is expected to report early in 1987 and the Government will then decide on future action. (5) An actuarial consultant has been employed at a cost of $100,000. Salaries and other administrative costs for officers engaged on the Review fall within normal departmental appropriations and cannot be readily identified. (6) See the schedule at Attachment A. (7) (a) 1982-83-298 1983-84-386 1984-85-185 1985-86-229 (b) See the schedule at Attachment B. (8) and (9) Statistics which might indicate if there are exaggerated claims are not kept. See also answer to parts (1)-(4). (10) No. (11) See (1)-(4) above. COMPENSATION PAYMENTS ACCORDING TO SECTIONS OF THE ACT 1982-83 Cases $'000 1983-84 Cases $'000 1984-85 Cases $'000 1985-86 Cases $'000 Artificial aids (s. 28)... 253 26 231 27 216 69 200 42 Medical expenses (s. 37)... 42,598 16,731 43,165 18,358 48,858 21,921 55,088 29,197 For specified losses (s. 39)... 1,619 5,741 1,708 5,900 1,355 5,780 1,587 7,347 For loss of capacity to engage in sexual intercourse (s. 40)... 6 84 7 100 2 43 1 22 For facial disfigurement (s. 41)... 2 18 4 37 2 14 1 11 For loss of taste or smell (s. 41)... 3 7 - - - - 4 14 Death, lump sum and weekly payments for dependants of deceased employees (s. 43)... 464 4,263 464 5,080 460 3,877 437 3,186 Funeral expenses (s. 44)... 91 75 99 95 87 81 56 52 For total incapacity (s. 45)... 36,380 70,296 38,748 88,387 43,596 121,117 47,318 158,926 Redemptions of section 46... 460 1,782 546 2,319 881 2,540 1,707 4,753 Attendants allowance (s. 48)... 93 83 126 117 528 414 2,000 2,010 Payments by payment of lump sum (s. 49)... 21 1,070 12 329 15 396 28 1,426 Recurrent payments after payment of lump sum (s. 50)... 63 489 73 682 72 594 78 848 100,665 121,431 156,846 207,845 Note: An additional $2863 was spent in 1984-85 for vocational training - Nil AGENCY Australian Telecommunications Commission Year Condition claim ACT NSW WVic Qld SA WA Tas NT 1982-83 Back injury... 6 1 Death... 1 3 Vision defect... 1 Tenosynovitis... 1 Fracture (R) leg... 1 Bruised head, shoulder and wrist... 1 Leg pains... 1 Injury... 1 Sub-total... 12 3 1 1 1983-84 Injuries... 1 Knee injury... 2 Nervous condition... 1 Back shoulder injury... 1 1 1 1 Death... 1 1 1 Neck injury... 1 Left side hernia... 1 Disc, back, hernia depression and hypertension... 1 Coronary occlusion... 1 Sub-total... 8 4 1 1 1 1984-85 Back injury/pains... 4 1 Chest infect pleurisy and anxiety... 1 Knee ligament injury... 1 1 Heart attack ... 1 Injuries... 1 Tinnitus and hearing loss... 1 Left side hernia... 1 Sub-total... 7 4 1 1985-86 Personal injuries... 1 Bronchitis and asthma... 1 Spinal injury... 1 Sub-total... 2 1 Total... 29 11 2 1 2 2 Department of Defence 1982-83 Back and leg, psychological reaction... 1 Neck pain... 1 Myocardial infarction... 1 Hearing loss... 1 Heart attack ... 1 Stroke... 1 Cuts to hands, bruised knee and nose... 1 Neck injury... 1 Back injury... 1 Mental disorder... 1 Motor accident injuries... 1 Bruised leg, elbow, hip... 1 Injured right knee... 1 Dislocated knees... 1 Neck and shoulder muscles... 1 Deafness... 1 1 Tumour (R) hand aches both wrist... 1 Hearing loss... 1 Fractured lumbar vertebra... 1 Skin cancer... 1 Rheumatic cardites... 1 Toe, foot, spine injuries... 1 Disc lesion... 1 Spine injuries... 1 Sub-total... 2 9 8 1 2 2 1 1983-84 Industrial deafness... 1 Industrial deafness... 1 Vertebra and disc injury... 1 Loss of leg, vascular... 1 Diabetes... 1 Injuries sustained 28.7.83... 1 Chronic peritonitis ... 1 Strained left knee... 1 Stomach ulcers... 1 Myocardial infarction... 1 Injury sustained 24.6.83... 1 Tenosynovitis... 1 Hearing and tinnitus... 1 Multiple injuries... 1 Hearing loss... 1 Arthritis (R) ankle... 1 Tendons (R) arm... 1 Injury (L) elbow... 1 Hearing impairment... 1 Neck, shoulder muscles... 1 Deafness... 1 Fractured spine... 1 Back injury... 1 Death... 1 Back injury... 1 Back injury... 1 Back injury... 1 Osteoarthritis... 1 Pain in (R) leg, buttock, side... 1 Hearing loss... 1 Strained back... 1 Sub-total... 1 10 10 5 3 1 1 1984-85 ...Myocardial infarction... 1 Lung disorder... 1 Low back pains... 1 Scheuermans disease... 1 Frac. nose, contusions, wounds to lips... 1 Sprain of thumb and finger... 1 Hearing loss... 1 Continuous pain in lower back... 1 Back injury... 1 Neck degeneration... 1 Deafness... 1 Sub-total... 1 3 5 1 1 1985-86 Deafness... 1 Left lower abdomen... 1 Back injury... 1 Hearing loss... 1 Back pains... 1 Spinal injury... 1 Burnt eyes... 1 Sub-total... 2 3 2 TOTAL... 4 24 26 8 6 4 1 1 Australian Postal Commission 1982-83 Hypertension, anxiety state... 1 Knee, leg, head, neck injury... 1 Nervous reaction... 1 Ankles, leg, knee and hip injury... 1 Collapsed lung... l1 Sub-total... 2 3 1983-84 Torn leg muscle... 1 Back injury... 1 Sub-total... 1 1 1984-85 Shock and frac., tibia, jarred left shoulder (1) upper chest... 1 Sprained leg in right ankle... 1 Myocardial infarction... 1 Slipped disc... 1 Sub-total... 3 1 1985-86 Severe back injury... 1 Severe back injury... 1 Sub-total... 2 TOTAL... 6 5 2 Australian National Railways 1982-83 Fracture vertebral (R) wrist and (R) shoulder ... 1 Leg and back injury and (R) sciatica ... 1 Hearing loss ... 1 Hearing loss ... 1 Sub-total ... 4 1983-84 Heart attack ... 1 Back injury ... 1 Sub-total ... 2 1984-85 Pain in (R) shoulder ... 1 Coronary arteriosclerosis, Myocardical infarction ... 1 Hearing loss ... 1 Sub-total ... 3 1985-86 Strained back ... 1 Sub-total ... 1 Total ... 10 Commonwealth Banking Corporation 1982-83 Back injury ... 1 Arthritis ... 1 Hypertension ... 1 Fractured spine ... 1 Neck, and pinched nerve ... 1 1983-84 Anxiety depression state ... 1 Nervous anxiety ... 1 1984-85 Nervous anxiety, gall stones, stomach complaints and chest pains ... 1 Nervous anxiety, insomnia and nervous dyspepsia ... 1 Total ... 7 2 Australian Taxation Office 1982-83 Existing back injury ... 1 Strained back and shoulder 1 Pains arms and wrists ... 1 1983-84 Damage to thumbs and wrists of both hands ... 1 1984-85 Back injury ... 1 1985-86 Tenosynovitis ... 1 Total 5 1 Department of Administrative Services 1982-83 Tinnitus ... 1 1983-84 Back, wrist ... 1 Heart attack ... 1 1984-85 Stress due to working conditions ... 1 Total ... 2 2 Department of Housing and Construction Transport 1982-83 Back injury ... 1 Lumbar spondylitis ... 1 Shoulder injury ... 1 Tenosynovitis both wrists ... 1 Osteoarthritis left knee ... 1 1983-84 Back injury ... 1 Back strain ... 1 Total ... 3 4 Department of Social Security 1982-83 Bilateral carpal tunnel ... 1 1983-84 Back and neck ... 1 Bruised back ... 1 Total ... 1 1 1 CSIRO 1982-83 Back injury ... 1 1983-84 Lumbar strain ... 1 Right knee cap ... 1 Total ... 1 1 1 Department of Veterans' Affairs 1983-84 Hypertension and atherosclerosis ... 1 Staph aureus infection ... 1 Total ... 1 1 Australian National Line 1982-83 Cerebral haemorrhage... 1 1983-84 Head injury and injured neck... 1 TOTAL... 1 1 Australian Bureau of Statistics 1982-83 Lower back injury... 1 1983-84 Cervical disc degeneration... 1 1984-85 Injuries sustained from MVA... 1 TOTAL... 3 Aviation 1984-85 Cold urticaria... 1 Tenosynovitis... 1 TOTAL... 2 Commonwealth Serum Laboratories 1984-85 Hyper/parathyroid calcemia and duodenal ulcer... 1 Bruised left ribs and loin... 1 TOTAL... 2 CCAE 1983-84 Collapse and loss of consciousness... 1 TOTAL... 1 Special Minister of State 1983-84 Sprained back... 1 1984-85 Injury to lower back, left knee... 1 TOTAL... 2 Department of Health 1983-84 Sore neck, back... 1 1985-86 Allergic conjunctivitis... 1 TOTAL... 1 1 Australian Atomic Energy Commission 1983-84 Aggravation of underlying asthma... 1 TOTAL... 1 Department of Finance 1983-84 Aggravation of head, back and neck injury... 1 TOTAL... 1 Attorney-General's Department 1983-84 Unknown infection of digestive tract resulting in ulcers... 1 1984-85 Carpal tunnel syndrome... 1 TOTAL... 2 Aboriginal Affairs 1985-86 Injury to neck... 1 TOTAL... 1 Department of Science 1983-84 Broken scaphoid bone... 1 TOTAL... 1 Department of Primary Industry 1985-86 Bruised chest... 1 TOTAL... 1 Snowy Mountains Electricity Commission 1984-85 Injury to left knee... 1 TOTAL... 1 Department of Territories 1984-85 Right knee injury... 1 1985-86 Back and spine injury... 1 TOTAL... 2 (Question No. 4026) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: (1) What was the ACT price of LPG per litre in each year since 1980. (2) How is the ACT price of LPG determined. (3) Have there been additional imposts on LPG users since 1980, such as rental of cylinders; if so, (a) what was the rate and (b) how has the price been determined. (4) How do LPG price movements and additional imposts compare with CPI movements since 1980. (5) Has the Prices Surveillance Authority investigated LPG pricing; if not, can it. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Commonwealth determines a wholesale price for LPG which applies to sales by producers of naturally occurring LPG for automotive and traditional domestic, industrial and commercial uses. This price is also applied by the Prices Surveillance Authority as the maximum ex-refinery price for sales of refinery-produced LPG for the same uses. Prices for on-sales of LPG beyond the producer's terminal or refinery gate are not subject to these arrangements so that there is no officially determined price of LPG directly applicable to the ACT. Prices of LPG to ACT consumers would reflect the officially determined wholesale price, together with transport costs and distributors' margins. The Government does not collect details of prices charged for LPG in the ACT. (3) The Government does not have details of charges such as cylinder rentals set by distributors. There are no Commonwealth imposts on LPG other than an excise on naturally occurring LPG from certain fields. This excise is included in the officially determined wholesale price. (4) There has been considerable fluctuation in wholesale prices of LPG over recent years. Overall, however, between 9 April 1980 (when the arrangements for determining the price first came into effect) and 1 November 1986 (when the latest adjustment was made), the officially determined wholesale price of LPG increased by 4.5 per cent. This may be compared with the increase of 70.0 per cent recorded in the CPI between the June quarter 1980 and the December quarter 1986. The following table shows movements in the officially determined wholesale price of LPG since 9 April 1980: Officially-determined wholesale price for LPG (ex Long Island or ex-Refinery Gate) for specified use $ per tonne Per- centage change 9 April 1980... 205.00 1 July 1980... 227.63 +11.0 1 January 1981... 250.23 + 9.9 1 July 1981... 228.88 - 8.5 1 January 1982... 200.15 -12.6 1 July 1982... 220.09 +10.0 1 January 1983... 251.85 +14.4 1 July 1983... 304.44 +20.9 1 April 1984... 244.75 -19.6 1 October 1984... 240.59 - 1.7 1 April 1985... 253.34 + 5.3 1 October 1985... 262.21 + 3.5 1 April 1986... 269.55 + 2.8 1 October 1986... 267.41 - 0.8 1 November 1986... 214.18 +19.9 (5) Sales of refinery-produced LPG oil companies are subject to surveillance by the Prices Surveillance Authority under the price notification procedures and were included in the inquiry conducted by the Authority in 1984 into petroleum products pricing. The Authority's consideration of prices for refinery-produced LPG is subject to a direction by the Treasurer which requires it to give special consideration to the Government's pricing policy for LPG. The Authority has, accordingly, adhered to the officially determined price in its decisions. (Question No. 4099) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: What progress has been made in 1986 in improving the (a) community and (b) shopping facilities of the Holsworthy army establishment, NSW. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member is referred to the answer the Minister for Defence provided to Question 4098 (Hansard, 22 August 1986, page 605). (Question No. 4116) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: Has he received complaints of under award payments by the Queensland Government to its Aboriginal and Islander employees on Queensland reserves in each of the years 1983 to 1986. If so, what is (a) the nature of and (b) the response to each complaint. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I have arranged for my Department to carry out a file search on this matter which has not revealed any such written complaints made to me or to my predecessor, Senator Gareth Evans, during the relevant period. Representations relating to the issue were, however, received from the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission and the Chairman of the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation. Records formerly kept by the Human Rights Commission on complaints handled by the Commissioner for Community Relations under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 show that eleven complaints were made to that body up to 9 December 1986, the last day of operation of the Commission, concerning the alleged failure to pay award rates to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees on Queensland reserves, as follows: 1983-Nil 1984-4 1985-4 1986-3 The following information relating to these complaints has been provided by the former Commissioner for Community Relations and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission: The 1984 complaints alleged: the continued payment of below award rates to workers at Yarrabah reserve near Cairns; the payment of under award wages to members of the Aboriginal Police on the Cherbourg reserve; the non-payment for the Easter period of two Aboriginal teachers' aides in the kindergarten at Woorabinda reserve; and the under award payment of nurses employed at Bamaga Hospital in far north Queensland. Since 29 October 1986 Aborigines employed under State awards on Aboriginal reserves in Queensland have been paid award wages. Back payments have not been made in respect of work performed before 29 October 1986. Although there is no award currently covering Aboriginal Police on the Cherbourg reserve, a claim for an award is currently before the Queensland State Industrial Commission. Aboriginal teachers' aides, then employed at Woorabinda reserve, received back payments for the 1984 Easter period. In May 1985 all hospital boards in Queensland, including the Board that governs Bamaga Hospital, were instructed by the Queensland Minister for Health to pay Aboriginal and Islander staff in accordance with the relevant awards. Nurses did not, however, receive back payments in respect of past work. The 1985 and 1986 complaints all concerned alleged under award payment of former employees on the Palm Island reserve. None of the complaints related to current employment. After discussions with conciliators at Palm Island in April 1986, the complainants decided to pursue the matters in the Industrial Court with the help of the local Legal Service. The new Race Discrimination Commissioner did not receive any complaints on this issue in the period 10 December 1986-31 December 1986. (Question No. 4202) Mr Andrew asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: (1) Further to the answer by the Minister for Transport to a question without notice (Hansard, 29 May 1986, page 4243), since the tabling of the Report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union has any action been taken to prosecute the Port Adelaide Branch of the Painters and Dockers Union for criminal activity; if not, why not. (2) Has he evidence to show that similar activities by the Painters and Dockers are, or are not, still occurring. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No action has been taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute any member of the Port Adelaide Branch of the Painters and Dockers Union for offences against Commonwealth law. The reason for this is that although Mr Costigan Q.C. identified unlawful activities on the part of that Branch of that Union, he did not produce admissible evidence which would justify the institution of a prosecution for any offence against Commonwealth law. (2) No evidence to establish that similar activities by members of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union are or are not still occurring has been made available to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and my Department. (Question No. 4558) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: Does the 10% sales tax on fruit juice products (a) constitute a tax on food and (b) decrease effective protection against imported citrus products; if so, does this conform with the Government's desire to encourage the purchase of Australian products. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The Government announced in the 1986-87 Budget that the sales tax exemption previously applying to a number of non-alcoholic beverages, including flavoured milk, non-alcoholic wine and cider, and fruit juice and fruit juice products containing not less than 25 per cent Australian fruit juice was to be removed and those products taxed at 10 per cent of wholesale value. The measure broadened the indirect tax base and reduced the tax discrimination against carbonated soft drinks, mineral waters and similar beverages which have been subject to sales tax for a number of years (since 1982, at a rate of 20 per cent of wholesale value). Nevertheless, fruit juice and fruit juice products continue to receive comparatively favourable tax treatment by being taxed at a rate of 10 per cent. Whether fruit juice products may or may not be described as food is not considered germane since most beverages are already subject to indirect tax in one form or another. (b) The previous sales tax exemption for fruit juices and fruit juice products containing not less than 25 per cent Australian fruit juices was structured as an indirect form of assistance to Australian fruit growers, particularly citrus fruit growers. However, its protective impact was significantly undermined in practice through arrangements whereby fruit juice was imported for making up the volume of pure fruit juices (which therefore contained 25 per cent Australian fruit juice and 75 per cent imported fruit juice). The imported fruit juice was considered to be a `raw material' for sales tax purposes and accordingly escaped sales tax entirely. As a result, the Government believed that the sales tax arrangements were, in practice, a particularly ineffective form of protection to citrus fruit growers. The citrus fruit industry remains one of the most highly assisted rural industries. In 1983-84 (the most recent year for which reliable data is available), the effective rate of assistance provided to the citrus industry was estimated at 53 per cent, compared with the agricultural-sector average of 11 per cent. The Government is nevertheless aware of the difficulties presently faced by citrus growers. As a result of this concern, and following a short term review of temporary assistance to the citrus industry undertaken by the Industries Assistance Commission, the Minister for Primary Industry announced on 16 December 1986 a number of measures designed to further assist the citrus industry. The measures include the reversal of an automatic reduction in the tariff on orange juice which occurred on 10 December 1986, and a scheme whereby the Federal Government would match funds raised by the States for carry-on loans to citrus producers under Part B of the Rural Adjustment Scheme. (Question No. 4586) Mr Cross asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) What percentage of taxable income would be payable under a system of flat-rate income tax in order to raise the same amount of revenue proposed to be raised by income tax on individuals in the 1986-87 year (a) if the tax threshold remained the same as at present, and (b) if the tax threshold were removed. (2) At what level of taxable income in each case would a taxpayer pay less under the flat-rate system than at present. (3) What number of taxpayers in each case (a) would pay less than at present and (b) would pay more. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It is estimated that the same revenue yield from the 1986-87 income year rates of personal income tax could be raised by the application of a flat rate of (a) 32 per cent assuming retention of the zero rate on taxable income up to $4890 together with the rebates for dependents, etc. at their existing levels, and (b) 24 per cent to the whole of the taxable income of all individuals who are at present taxable assuming retention of the various rebates. Inclusion of income of people at present non taxable, would of course, change the position, to an extent not presently readily quantifiable. (2) The level of taxable income where a taxpayer would pay less under such a flat rate system compared to the 1986-87 income year rates of personal income tax is (a) $26106 and (b) $23279. (3) The number of taxpayers who would pay less under such a flat rate system is estimated to be about (a) 1.4 million and (b) 2.0 million. Similarly, the estimated number of taxpayers disadvantaged is estimated to be about (a) 5.6 million and (b) 5.0 million. A further substantial number of people at present non taxable would be disadvantaged under (b). (Question No. 4671) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 September 1986: Further to the answer to parts (5) and (6) of question No. 4131 (Hansard, 16 September 1986, page 654) and in view of the Victorian Premier's recent statement that his Government will take no responsibility for port safety in the event of a nuclear accident, will he act immediately to ensure that nuclear powered and armed ships are diverted from Victorian ports: if not, what steps has he taken or will he take to ensure the health and safety of Victorians in the event of a nuclear accident in a Victorian port. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government remains prepared to accept visits to all Australian states by allied nuclear powered warships, provided that the proposed visits would comply with the Government's general conditions of entry. Visits by nuclear weapon-capable warships are supported subject only to compliance with standard navigational safety requirements and berth availability. Apart from ports that are located in Commonwealth Government territory, arrangements for port safety in Australia are essentially the responsibility of the State Government concerned. (Question No. 4693) Ms McHugh asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) What was the (a) number of person hours involved in and (b) cost of outside contract surveying and drafting services used by his Department and instrumentalities responsible to him in (i) 1984-85, (ii) 1985-86 and (iii) 1986 to date, including work contracted out to the Australian Survey Office and the Department of Housing and Construction. (2) Are there any instances where surveying or drafting requirements have not been satisfied due to limitations on the resources of (a) his Department or instrumentalities responsible to him, (b) the Australian Survey Office or (c) the Department of Housing and Construction; if so, what are they. Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question is based upon information provided by my Department and by the statutory authorities within my portfolio: 1 (a) The number of person hours involved in outside contract surveying and drafting services is not available for some authorities as contract work is done on a fixed price basis. The following information is available. Financial Year Department of Communications ABC (i) 1984-85 Not Known 4,614 hours (ii) 1985-86 20 hours 6,435 hours (iii) 1986-date Nil 3,121 hours (b) The cost of outside contract surveying and drafting services other than that given to the Australian Survey Office or to the Department of Housing and Construction is as follows: Financial Year OTC DOC ABC POST Telecom $ $ $ (i) 1984-85 4,500 16,940 73,100 Nil Nil (ii) 1985-86 7,400 1,200 103,500 Nil Nil (iii) 1986-date 43,500 Nil 51,218 Nil Nil Details of the work undertaken by the Australian Survey Office and the Department of Housing and Construction is not a matter that falls within my portfolio. 2 (a) No. (b) In 1985-86, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission was referred by the Darwin office of the Australian Survey Office to an outside contractor due to lack of resources. The value of the contract work was $3,000. (c) No. (Question No. 4782) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) Did he approve a transfer of $22m from the Victorian operations of Medibank Private to be distributed between the other States in 1984; if so, (a) why was this transfer sought and (b) what were the reasons advanced to seek ministerial approval. (2) Have there been any subsequent transfers; if so, (a) when, (b) to which States were transfers made and (c) what sum was transferred. (3) Is the Health Insurance Commission contemplating any further transfers of funds from one State to another. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I did approve a transfer of $22.3 million from Medibank Private, Victoria, to Medibank Private operations in other States. This transfer took effect on 1 February 1986 and was reported at page 52 of the Health Insurance Commission's Eleventh Annual Report. (a) This transfer was sought at the time of the introduction of Medicare to meet the requirement that private health insurance funds maintain minimum resources equivalent to two months of contribution income. Without the transfer it would have been necessary to approve an exemption (from the minimum reserve condition) under section 73 BAC of the National Health Act. I was concerned that there should be equitable contribution rates in all States and, as the only national fund and a major fund in all States, Medibank Private was in a position to provide leadership in this regard. No existing members of Medibank Private were disadvantaged. (b) Under the provisions of section 68 (2) (c) (vi) of the National Health Act the Minister's approval is required for transfers between funds. This provision applies equally to all funds. (2) There have been no subsequent transfers. (3) No. (Question No. 4786) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: What initiatives are being undertaken by his Department to encourage the use of day surgery rather than overnight admission to a hospital. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Studies in the United States have shown that up to 40 per cent of surgical procedures can be carried out on a day-admission basis giving greater convenience for the patient, lower costs for hospitals and cheaper rates for insurers. The first incentive offered by any Commonwealth Government to encourage day surgery was included in the September 1985 health insurance arrangements which introduced an $80 per day private fund basic table benefit for day surgery. This benefit was increased to $90 per day (minimum) as from 1 November 1986. Also, from that date, basic table cover for prostheses implanted during surgical procedures carried out in approved free-standing day surgeries was introduced. Previously, such benefits applied only to day surgery procedures carried out in hospitals. In addition, private health funds are being encouraged to make greater use of supplementary benefits tables to promote more services on a day only basis in private hospitals and free-standing facilities. Where appropriate State/Territory legislation is not in place, free-standing day surgeries require Commonwealth approval in order for basic table benefits to be paid. I have utilised my discretionary powers under the National Health Act to approve two facilities in New South Wales following advice from the NSW Minister for Health. I would be prepared to likewise approve facilities in other States/Territories following appropriate advice from the relevant Minister for Health. There are now six free-standing day surgeries approved for day surgery benefits. All private hospitals are able to provide day surgery. (Question No. 4787) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) What negotiations have taken place between the States and the Commonwealth for the sharing of expenses of the National Centre for Liver Transplantation. (2) What form will the cost sharing arrangements take. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Negotiations on funding the national centre for the period 1985-86 to 1987-88 inclusive were conducted between the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments. (2) The Commonwealth has contributed $0.7m being half the Unit's establishment and 1985-86 recurrent costs. The Commonwealth has also given a commitment to contribute to the cost of the Unit for a further two years. Actual amounts will depend upon the Unit's total operating costs and contributions from other States. (Question No. 4789) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) What action has been taken to renegotiate, pursuant to section 23G of the Health Insurance Act, the agreements under which payments are made to the States. (2) Will the Government seek to vary the present agreements in the negotiations. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Medicare Agreements with the States and the Northern Territory expire on 30 June 1988. A review of the current arrangements will be conducted during 1987 which will no doubt involve meetings of Commonwealth and State Health Ministers and officials. (2) The Government has not made any decision about whether it will seek to vary the present agreements in the negotiations. (Question No. 4791) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: What is the expected average increase in wholesale drug prices in the schedule of pharmaceutical benefits in 1986-87. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The average wholesale price of drugs dispensed as pharmaceutical benefits during 1986-87 will increase for a number of reasons including: price increases granted to the manufacturers of drugs; the listing of new drugs which usually have prices higher than the average of those already on the list; changing prescribing habits of doctors especially towards newer, more expensive drugs; and the deletion of a number of low priced drugs from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. While it is not possible to quantify the individual effect of the various factors, it is anticipated that the average wholesale price of drugs dispensed as pharmaceutical benefits during 1986-87 could increase between 10 and 20 per cent. (Question No. 4792) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: How many (a) general beneficiaries and (b) concessional health care card holders are estimated to benefit from the safety net arrangements under the revised Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is estimated that 1,280,000 general beneficiaries and 220,000 concessional beneficiaries will qualify for free pharmaceutical benefits under the safety net arrangements in the first qualifying period which runs for fourteen months from 1 November 1986 to 31 December 1987. (Question No. 4796) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: Will he provide a list of the community health projects to be funded under the community health grants in each State, identifying (a) each grant, (b) the funding allocation and (c) the staffing provided. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Commonwealth provides funds for community health projects through: (1) Direct grants under the National Community Health Program (NCHP) for voluntary organisations involved in community health activities which are national in character or are pilot/demonstration projects with national significance; and (2) Grants under the Commonwealth/State Medicare Agreements amounting to a total of $20.282 million in 1986/87 to the States and Territories specifically for new or expanded community health services. A list showing details of the 1986/87 grants under the NCHP is attached. It should be noted that most projects are national secretariats which are engaged in the co-ordination of affiliated bodies in the States/Territories. Accordingly, the NCHP funding does not usually cover the direct provision of State-based services. The distribution of the Medicare community health funds to individual projects or services within each State/Territory is a matter for the relevant State/Territory authorities to determine. Details of these distributions for 1986/87 are not yet available from the States: however, allocations to each State and Territory are as follows- $m New South Wales ... 7.097 Victoria ... 5.340 Queensland ... 3.274 South Australia ... 1.780 Western Australia ... 1.795 Tasmania ... .573 Northern Territory ... .113 Australian Capital Territory ... .310 20.282 NATIONAL COMMUNITY HEALTH PROGRAM GRANTS (AS AT 12 NOVEMBER 1986) Project number, name and description Location 1986-87 Allocation Fulltime equivalent staff funded $ VICTORIA 73 AV 1 Family Medicine Program- Vocational training for family medical practitioners Jolimont Melbourne Vic. 3002 8 234 424 95 74 AV 7 Australian National Association for Mental Health (ANAMH)- Continued funding of national secretariat Commercial Road Melbourne Vic. 3004 91 414 2.5 Supplementary grant to employ Senior Administrator from January 1987 22 750 1 75 AV 17 Nursing Mothers' Association of Australia Training program to qualify members as breast-feeding counsellors Nunawading Melbourne Vic. 3131 56 000 2.3 83 AV 35 Australian Catholic Health Care Association Assistance for national secretariat East Melbourne Vic. 3002 44 000 2 83 AV 36 Mercy Hospice Care Demonstration hospice care program St Albans Melbourne Vic. 3021 144 248 11 84 AV 42 National Epilepsy Association of Australia National Secretariat Lilydale Melbourne Vic. 3140 111 200 4.6 84 AV 44 Australian Brain Foundation Stroke Program plus costs for project officers Little Bourke Street Melbourne Vic. 3000 60 000 2 84 AV 46 Pharmaceutical Supplies Scheme Three-year Demonstration Pharmaceutical Supplies Scheme Collingwood Melbourne Vic. 3066 68 300 No staff comp- onent 85 AV 52 National Multiple Sclerosis Society of Australia Public Education and Evaluation Program Camberwell Melbourne Vic. 3124 55 600 1.3 85 AV 53 Australian Resuscitation Council National Secretariat Spring Street Melbourne Vic. 3000 29 850 0.75 86 AV 58 National Venereology Council of Australia National Secretariat Little Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic. 3000 20 660 1 ACT 73 AV 2 National Heart Foundation Continued funding of 3 mobile units for educational programs Deakin Canberra ACT 2606 98 675 3.5 74 AV 11 Alcohol and Drug Foundation of Australia (ADFA) Continued funding of national secretariat Canberra City ACT 2600 474 430 10 74 AV 22 Continued funding of ADFA's National Alcohol and Drug Dependence Industry Program Canberra City ACT 2600 732 982 19.5 78 AV 25 ANZSERCH/APHA Inc. Promotion of community health research (secretariat assistance for administration and co-ordinating role) Acton Peninsula Canberra ACT 2600 47 405 1.35 83 AV 38 ADFA-Community Approach to Drug Abuse Prevention (CADAP) Belconnen Canberra ACT 2617 180 948 4 84 AV 45 Australian Diabetes Foundation National Secretariat Marcus Clarke Street Canberra ACT 2600 117 192 3 84 AV 48 Australian Deafness Council National Secretariat Deakin Canberra ACT 2600 41 035 1.62 85 AV 54 Natural Family Planning: Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission National Secretariat Curtin Canberra ACT 2605 114 750 2.75 Queensland 73 AV 3 Australian National Lifeline Inc. Continued funding part-time secretariat West End Brisbane Qld 4101 84 567 1.5 78 AV 26 Australian Council of Community Nursing (ACCN) Development of professional standards, co-ordination and liaison in community nursing Auchenflower Brisbane Qld 4066 39 600 1.5 NSW 74 AV 4 Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital (AWCH) Continued funding of a National Information and Resources Centre incl. national secretariat Parramatta Sydney NSW 2150 200 000 7 74 AV 8 Student Initiatives in Community Health (SICH) Continued funding of national secretariat and vacation placement scheme for tertiary students in health-related disciplines Redfern Sydney NSW 2016 149 947 2.1 74 AV 12 GROW (Australia's voluntary self-help mental health organisation) Continued funding of national secretariat Marrickville Sydney NSW 2204 474 800 12.5 79 AV 29 Koompartoo Youth Farm Alcohol and/or drug rehabilitation Kellyville NSW 2153 53 775 2 83 AV 34 Family Planning Federation of Australia Funding of national secretariat Campbell Street Sydney NSW 2000 127 490 3 83 AV 40 Life Education Centres Wayside Chapel's national secretariat for Life Education Centre program Potts Point Sydney NSW 2011 185 040 6 83 AV 41 Australian Community Health Association National Secretariat Redfern Sydney NSW 2016 124 408 3 85 AV 50 Australian Medical Society on Alcohol and Drug Related Problems (AMSAD) National Secretariat Rawson Place Sydney NSW 2000 5 000 General Support Grant- No Staff Identified 85 AV 55 Arthritis Foundation of Australia National Secretariat Angel Place Sydney NSW 2000 24 000 2.5 86 AV 56 Yarrowlumla Shire Council Rural occupational health and safety program Queanbeyan NSW 2620 32 200 1 86 AV 57 Australian Association for Adolescent Health National Secretariat Clarence Street Sydney NSW 2000 43 110 0.75 TASMANIA 75 AV 24 `Hear-a-Book' Service National Co-ordination of Handicapped Children's Section of Hear-a-Book North Hobart Tas. 7000 3 404 0.45 81 AV 31 Australian Medical Students' Association Travel costs for AMSA executive and for a national council meeting Project does not operate from fixed premises 5 130 No Staff Component 12 298 334 Note: Several outstanding applications for NCHP funding in 1986/87 have yet to be analysed and submitted for Ministerial approval. (Question No. 4801) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) How will the $1m announced in the 1986-87 Budget for the Health Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund be used in relation to the community rating principle. (2) What is the financial status of the Fund as at 30 June 1986. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The purpose of the reinsurance account arrangements is to support the policy of community rating by spreading the burden of heavy-drawing contributors between all registered health benefits organisations. The arrangements operate by enabling organisations to debit their reinsurance account with basic table benefits paid to contributors in excess of 35 days in any 12 month period. At the end of every quarter the total amount debited to reinsurance accounts in each State is ascertained and after deducting each State's share of the Commonwealth contribution, the remaining amount is shared between organisations on a membership basis. The $1m appropriated to the Trust Fund for 1986-87 will therefore reduce the amount of benefits liability to be shared by organisations by a similar amount. (2) The Trust Fund had a nil balance at 30 June 1986. The Fund operates purely as a mechanism through which money is received from organisations with less than average benefits liability for their reinsurance account members and paid to the organisations with above average benefits liability. The Commonwealth contribution for the quarter is paid into the Fund at the time of the settlement. Apart from the brief period over which the settlements are made there are no moneys held in the Trust Fund. (Question No. 4824) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 21 October 1986: (1) Has the Secretary of his Department received a report on the general aviation needs of the Sydney region. (2) What were the terms of reference of the committee that prepared the report. (3) When will the report be made public. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Terms of Reference of the Steering Committee were: ``1. The Committee is to examine and prepare a report on the general aviation requirements within the Sydney Region, including the preparation of input to the planning of the Second Sydney Airport and Sydney (KS) Airport. The Committee comprises a representative from: Department of Aviation Department of Defence NSW Department of Environment and Planning General Aviation Association Local Government and Shires Association 2. In respect of this study the Committee should report and make recommendations as appropriate on (i) the effectiveness of current government policies to achieve the objectives of: (a) satisfying the aviation needs for general aviation facilities (b) ensuring an integration of general aviation activities with other operations at existing aerodromes (c) ensuring compatibility between general aviation operations and surrounding land uses (ii) current traffic levels and projected increases on an individual aerodrome basis by class of operation (iii) the appropriate general aviation role for existing aerodromes and possible need and location for new general aviation aero- dromes (including heliports) (iv) the appropriate traffic control management measures to achieve optimum use of existing aerodromes consistent with the need to ensure satisfactory integration of general aviation operations with existing airport activities and to preserve compatibility with surrounding land use. 3. The Committee shall have regard to (i) the public interest (ii) matters associated with the selection of the Second Sydney Airport Site and the master planning of Sydney (KS) Airport (iii) all relevant factors including operational, technical, economic, financial, environmental, airport capacity and access (iv) working papers provided by the Department of Aviation from its consultant commissioned to undertake various relevant tasks. 4. The Committee is authorised to consult interested Commonwealth and State Departments and organisations and to call for the views of other interested bodies such as General Aviation bodies, the airlines, local authorities and community organisations to assist in its deliberations. 5. The Sydney Region is defined as the 1981 Census Sydney Statistical Division.'' (3) The report is still under consideration in the Department. (Question No. 4884) Mr Duncan asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Further to my Question No. 3288 (Hansard, 20 October 1986, page 2395) is he able to say what explanation was given by the Queensland delegate of the National Companies and Securities Commission for failing to make available statistics regarding the number of investigations and criminal charges arising from them since the inception of the co-operative companies and securities scheme. (2) Does he consider the creditors and prospective creditors of companies registered in Queensland, in the absence of these statistics, are being accorded adequate protection under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. (3) What are the advantages to investors in, and creditors of, companies under the existing co-operative scheme compared to a national scheme. (4) What impediments exist to the replacement of a scheme, which is co-operative in name only, with one which will guarantee all Australians the equal protection of the law. (5) What steps will he take to achieve uniform, comparable statistics on the operation of the existing companies and securities scheme. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that the Queensland delegate did not respond to the National Companies and Securities Commission's request for data. (2) to (5) The Companies Act and Codes enacted under the co-operative companies and securities scheme provide a number of protections to creditors and prospective creditors. Statistics of the type obtained in answer to Question No. 3288 provide an indication of trends across Australia which may also assist in assessing the appropriateness of those measures. I will be seeking the views of the Chairman of the National Companies and Securities Commission on the merits of more comprehensive insolvency statistics being published in the Commission's Annual Report. The co-operative companies and securities scheme has resulted in the enactment of uniform laws, and has brought an increased measure of uniformity of administration. The question whether the co-operative scheme should continue to be the appropriate model for corporate and securities regulation in Australia is the subject of on-going debate. I note, in this context, that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is presently reviewing the role of the Parliament in the co-operative scheme. The Government will remain sensitive to views concerning the future development of the regulation of company law and the securities and futures industries in Australia. (Question No. 4896) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: Is his Department involved in overseeing State projects where funding is being provided by the Commonwealth; if so, (a) why, (b) which State projects are affected, (c) how many departmental officers are involved and (d) what is the cost of this activity, including details of man-days and salaries. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a), (b), (c) and (d) While the Federal Government provides financial assistance to the States and Northern Territory for arterial and local roads, funding responsibility for these road categories rests primarily with State and local government authorities. Accordingly, the construction and maintenance standards for these roads are entirely a matter for the relevant State or local authorities. The Department is not involved in inspections of these works and it only monitors the implementation of approved projects in these categories to ensure compliance with legislated financial requirements. It is not possible to disaggregate the proportion of Departmental officers' time devoted to, or the costs involved in these duties, however such costs would represent only a very small proportion of total funds allocated to States for road construction purposes. (Question No. 4990) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: (1) Why did the Government support an Argentine sponsored resolution in the UN urging Britain and Argentina to negotiate the issues of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. (2) Was the resolution consistent with Article 73 of the Charter of the UN and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (3) Have the people of the Falklands expressed an act of self-determination at any time. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australia supported resolution 41/40 (sponsored by Algeria, Brazil, Ghana, India, Mexico, Uruguay and Yugoslavia). The resolution was adopted on 25 November 1986 by 116 votes in favour to 4 against with 34 abstentions. Those voting in favour included many of the United Kingdom's EC partners, NATO allies and fellow Commonwealth countries. The four countries voting against the resolution were Belize, Oman, Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom. Resolution 41/40 was virtually identical to resolution 40/21 of 1985 which Australia also supported. The resolution calls for negotiations to recommence ``with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations''. (2) Yes. (3) No United Nations supervised act of self-determination has taken place in the Falkland Islands. Australia supported the United Kingdom's unsuccessful attempt in 1985 to insert a reference in resolution 40/21 to the right of the people of the Falkland Islands to self-determination. No similar amendment to resolution 40/41 was proposed in 1986. (Question No. 5001) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What will be the costs to the pork industry of establishing and operating the (a) Australian Pork Corporation (b) Australian Pig Industry Policy Council and (c) the Australian Pork Corporation Selection Committee. (2) What consultations have been held between the Government and the Darling Downs Co-operative Bacon Association Limited over the development and operation of these bodies. (3) Is the Association the largest processor of pig meats in Queensland. (4) Is it a fact that a majority of Australian pig meat processing organisations are not represented on the National Meat Processors' Association. (5) What steps will he take to ensure that companies such as the Darling Downs Association have a voice in the new industry bodies. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It is not anticipated that there will be any significant costs to the pork industry in establishing the three industry bodies to which the honourable member refers. The main costs will be associated with the establishment of the Australian Pork Corporation (APC). This will include some travelling on the part of members of the APC Selection Committee, some advertising of vacancies and travel costs for applicants to be interviewed. In respect of operating costs of the Selection Committee I would point out that after the initial appointments to the APC are made the Selection Committee will meet only on an ad hoc basis as vacancies occur on the Corporation and that costs, therefore, should be minimal. The costs of operating the APC will depend upon the scope of the activities in which it chooses to become involved. The APC will take over the establishment and functions of the existing Pork Promotion Committee. It will have wider powers in respect of participation in domestic and export marketing schemes but will not trade itself. The APC will be required to prepare a corporate plan covering three to five years and operational plans and to consult with major industry organisations in the preparation of those plans. In addition the legislation provides that before the APC recommends any increase in the pig slaughter levy to the Minister it must consult with both the Australian Pork Producers' Federation (APPF) and the National Meat Processors' Association (NMPA). If, after consulting with these bodies the APC decides to ask the Minister for a levy increase, the APC is required to indicate in its request, the bodies it has consulted and to set out in detail the views of those bodies on the proposed increase. The operating costs of the Australian Pig Industry Policy Council (APIPC) will be met by the APC from slaughter levy funds. The annual costs of the Policy Council are difficult to estimate at this time but will relate to the investigations and reports sought of it by the industry or by the Government. (2) Early on in this exercise an officer of my Department held discussions with leading figures in the pig industry on the matters raised by the APPF. Included in these discussions was the General Manager of the Darling Downs Co-operative Bacon Association Limited. (3) I understand that the Darling Downs Co-operative Bacon Association Limited would be one of the largest processors of pigmeat in Queensland. (4) I am aware that not all pigmeat processors are members of the National Meat Processors' Association. I am not aware, however, of any other body that would better represent the interests of pig meat processors in Australia. The selection of bodies to serve on the APIPC and the APC Selection Committee was made only after consultation with industry. (5) The legislation does not provide for direct representation of individual companies such as the Darling Downs Bacon Co-operative Association Limited on the new industry bodies. The Australian Pork Corporation is to be made up of seven members, an independent Chairperson, a Government member and five members selected for their knowledge and expertise in (a) the production of pigs (b) the production or processing of pork (c) product promotion or (d) marketing, business management or finance. These five members are to be selected by the APC Selection Committee. The APC Selection Committee consists of a Presiding member, Dr Kevin Foley, two members nominated by the Australian Pork Producers' Federation, Messrs Bryce Bell and Noel Maughan, and one member nominated by the National Meat Processors' Association Mr Mogens Jensen. Members of the Darling Downs Co-operative Bacon Association Limited are free to be nominated or to put themselves forward for selection. Alternatively they may nominate any persons they consider suitable for appointment. The final nominations of the Selection Committee, must be made on the basis of the criteria and not on membership or otherwise of particular bodies or companies. The Australian Pig Industry Policy Council is to be made up of an independent Chairperson the Chairperson of the APC the President and Senior Vice-President of the APPF the Chairman of the National Smallgoods Council the Chairperson of the Pig Research Council the President of the Stockfeed Manufacturers' Association of Australia; and the President of the NMPA. In the event it becomes apparent that other industry bodies should be represented on the APIPC the legislation provides a procedure whereby representatives can be made members of the Council. (Question No. 4356) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Were promotional brochures and posters on the Young Homeless Allowance circulated to schools as part of the Priority One Program; if so, why. (2) Were research studies conducted by her Department before the school campaign was initiated; if so, by whom and will he supply the results. (3) Did any advertising agency advise or co-ordinate this campaign; if so, which agency and how was it appointed. (4) What did the campaign cost. (5) What costs were incurred on (a) agency fees and (b) actual campaign expenses. (6) Who (a) designed the brochures and (b) did the art work. (7) How were the brochures distributed. (8) How were the theme and concept of the brochures determined. (9) What message did they seek to convey. (10) What has been the psychological impact. (11) Will they create a demand for social services that would not otherwise exist. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) A package of information and publicity material on the Young Homeless Allowance was circulated to schools in July 1986. The package contained: a leaflet entitled ``Young Homeless Allowance for Students'' prepared by the Department of Education a leaflet entitled ``Young Homeless Allowance for Unemployed'' prepared by the Department of Social Security an information sheet prepared jointly by both Departments a poster prepared jointly by both Departments. The Young Homeless Allowance (YHA) is part of the Government's Priority One commitment to young people. In the interests of the client group the allowance was implemented from 1 July 1986, six months in advance of the other major changes in student allowance arrangements introduced for 1987 under AUSTUDY. Because implementation occurred half-way through the academic year, a separate publicity campaign to inform student counsellors and other welfare workers of the income support available to young people in certain exceptional circumstances was considered necessary. (2) No. (3) No. (4) $40,122.67. (5) (a) Nil. (b) $40,122.67. (6) (a) Quantum Ideas Bureau, Lonsdale Street, Canberra, ACT (b) Quantum Ideas Bureau, Lonsdale Street, Canberra, ACT (7) The Department of Education mailed publicity material to: Secondary and central schools Colleges, universities and CAEs School teacher organisations Student associations Youth organisations Youth refuges and all bodies interested in or working with crisis housing for young people Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (DIEA) regional offices DIEA settlement co-ordinators and bilingual information officers Migrant resource centres Migrant organisations receiving DIEA grants-in-aid for work with Indo-Chinese people Selected ethnic community organisations Education writers on major newspapers Student press Popular youth magazines Aboriginal press Department of Community Services offices (8) The theme and concept of the brochures were developed through consultation between public relations staff of the Department of Education and staff from the Quantum Ideas Bureau. (9) The message which the Department sought to convey through the publicity material was that the Commonwealth Government wanted to help young people stay in education even if they were homeless or could not live at home because of exceptionally difficult circumstances. The theme ``When things are really tough'' was intended to emphasise that the allowance was only available to students whose family circumstances were extremely difficult. (10) I am not aware of what the psychological impact of the YHA brochures on the general community has been. (11) The YHA fills a gap that previously existed in income support arrangements for young people. As far as students eligible for YHA are concerned, the provision, by way of the allowance, of income support to enable them to continue in full-time education should lessen their demands on other welfare services. By the same token, the stringent conditions under which YHA is administered are designed to ensure that it goes only to genuinely homeless young people. The Minister for Social Security has provided the following information with regard to the brochures prepared by his Department: (1) The Department of Social Security produced a leaflet entitled ``Young Homeless Allowance for Unemployed''. A poster and a joint background paper were also produced in conjunction with the Department of Education. (2) No. (3) No. (4) $7,334.21. (5) (a) Nil (b) $7,334.21 (6) The design was developed following discussions between Department of Social Security staff and staff from the Quantum Ideas Bureau, who also produced the artwork. (7) The distribution of brochures to schools was undertaken by the Department of Education. (8) and (9) The purpose of the brochure was to present information about the allowance, such as eligibility and payment details, in a manner which could be easily understood by young people. This determined the subsequent theme and concept. (10) Not known. (11) No. (Question No. 4975) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: Further to the Minister's answer to question No. 4574 (Hansard, 13 November 1986, page 2944), (a) what is the level of Escherichia coli count which is accepted by Australian health authorities as being safe for swimming water, (b) does information available to the River Murray Commission indicate that that level is being regularly exceeded at some testing locations along the River Murray, (c) what locations along the River Murray are regarded by the Commission as requiring early attention to reduce E. coli counts and (d) what authorities are responsible for bacteriological monitoring along the Murrumbidgee River. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Although guidelines are in the course of preparation by the National Health and Medical Research Council, no agreed national standard or guideline has yet been determined by Australian health authorities as to the recommended safe levels of Escherichia coli for swimming in bodies of open fresh water. However, the Western Australian Department of Conservation and Environment has adopted a criterion of a maximum of 150 Faecal coliforms/100 ml for recreation where there is direct contact with water, while the ACT Health Authority and the Environment Protection Authority of Victoria have adopted a maximum of 200 faecal coliforms/100 ml as a criterion. (b) The River Murray Commission's water quality monitoring includes monthly samples for counts of E. coli and total coliform bacteria from water supply offtake points along the River and several additional sites in South Australia. Bacterial counts from some of these sites do sometimes exceed the criterion of 200 organisms/100 ml mentioned above, and the River could be regarded as unfit for swimming under conditions when this criterion is exceeded. It appears that bacterial numbers are most likely to be high following heavy rain after a prolonged dry spell. (c) The information on bacterial contamination of the Murray currently available to the River Murray Commission is insufficient to determine priority reaches of the River requiring early attention to reduce E. coli counts. The Commission is currently developing a proposal to supplement the monitoring of bacteria in the River with an intensive survey to identify any point sources of bacterial contamination amenable to improved control. (d) The authorities with responsibilities for bacteriological monitoring along the Murrumbidgee River are: in the ACT-the Department of Territories and the ACT Health Authority (undertaken as part of a regular program of water sampling); in NSW-the Department of Health, the State Pollution Control Commission and the Department of Water Resources. (Question No. 3707) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: (1) Is it a fact that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has estimated that (a) 63% to 75% of reportable farm income and (b) 70% to 75% of reportable non-farm income is disclosed in income tax returns. (2) Is it also a fact that (a) in particular industries, unincorporated businesses are estimated to disclose in returns as little as 60% of reportable income, (b) tax evaded by understatement of income and overstatement of expenses by unincorporated businesses is estimated to amount to $1000 million per annum and (c) tax evaded by understatement of income and overstatement of expenses by companies is estimated to amount to $500 million per annum. (3) Is business and professional income disclosed in tax returns subject to adequate checking in the ATO either before or after returns are assessed. (4) Is it a fact that (a) the ATO has been refused access to information held by some Government departments and authorities, (b) the ATO is reluctant to exercise its formal powers pursuant to section 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act to obtain the information and (c) some departments are subject to secrecy provisions in legislation enacted more recently than section 264 which may override section 264. (5) Is it a fact that (a) in 1983 the ATO identified medical services as one of several areas where it believed there was tax evasion in respect of undisclosed income, (b) ATO officers consider it would be very useful to have access to the payments records of the Department of Health and the Health Insurance Commission and information about international drug companies and (c) the ATO has been refused access to information because of the secrecy provisions of Commonwealth health legislation. (6) Will he take urgent steps to clarify the investigatory powers of the ATO. (7) Which departments or authorities have refused the ATO access to information. (8) Is it a fact that (a) there is no formal statement of policy by the ATO's Head Office to require systematic collection and use of external information to check returns, (b) branch offices of the ATO do not have a planned approach for collection of information to assist in identifying suitable projects for the detection of undisclosed income and (c) the re-organisation of the ATO in 1984 has had little practical effect on compliance procedures within and between regional offices; if so, will he take steps to remedy the situation. (9) Did the Perth Office of the ATO carry out a successful project concerning an oil company's shares sold within 12 months of their issue in 1980 which resulted in the ATO recovering from 225 shareholders almost $1 million in tax and penalties. (10) Has the ATO carried out similar projects in respect of (a) profits which appear to have been made at the same time on the sale of shares in another oil company or (b) any other company in other years; if not, why not and what action will be taken to remedy the situation. (11) Is he able to say whether payments by the Australian Wheat Board to wheat farmers comprise a significant proportion of wheat farmer's income. (12) Does the ATO check farmers' returns with Wheat Board records. (13) Is it a fact that during 1981, following a project initiated by the Perth ATO to detect non-disclosure of income from grain sales other than the Wheat Board (a) the ATO sought explanations from the taxpayers or their tax agents in approximately 130 cases where income appeared not to have been disclosed, (b) the project when complete will result in almost $400,000 in tax and penalty being recovered and (c) in some cases where the taxpayers or tax agent had admitted as long ago as 1981 that the income had not been disclosed, the ATO still had not taken action to amend the assessment and recover the evaded tax; if so, what is the reason for the delay in pursuing the cases. (14) Has the ATO in other States pursued similar projects relating to grain sales; if not, why not. (15) Is it a fact that (a) State Government motor vehicle registration and police authorities have records of owners of motor vehicles which would provide information about the owners of luxury cars whose tax returns could be checked to ensure that they had disclosed income broadly commensurate with the cars they owned and (b) the ATO in Perth has been refused general access to police records but has been permitted information in response to occasional requests about a particular taxpayer. (16) Is it a fact that (a) in 1979 the Melbourne ATO, and in 1983 the Perth ATO, obtained from boat registration authorities, details of owners of a sample of private boats with a view to checking that the owners' tax returns disclosed income commensurate with such boats but work on these projects lapsed before any conclusions could be drawn about the value of the checks and (b) no project has been conducted on the ownership of private aircraft. (17) Have other branch offices of the ATO conducted projects relating to (a) luxury cars, (b) luxury boats and (c) private aircraft; if not, why not. (18) Will he ensure that the ATO examines these areas. (19) What level of co-operation does the ATO receive from State government motor registration and police authorities. (20) What steps have been taken to develop closer relations and improve the exchange of information between the ATO and the Australian Customs Service so that checks can be made on income disclosure from businesses involving imports, exports and licence holders. (21) Is it a fact that (a) the traditional approach to the problem of low disclosure of income by unincorporated businesses involves a combination of an assessing method which, in practice, means accepting business returns without any check of disclosed income, a small number of investigations and audits based on information derived from an analysis of business returns and an occasional ad hoc project using external information, (b) the traditional approach appears to have been largely ineffectual, (c) only limited use has been made of the vast amount of available information about income held by Government departments and authorities and private businesses and (d) systematic use of external information by the ATO has been limited to (i) checking of dividends and interest paid to individuals and (ii) unemployment and sickness benefits paid to salary or wage taxpayers. (22) Will he ask the ATO to (a) adopt a program of obtaining relevant external information on business income, perhaps from a particular source only once in 3 years, for checking a sample of taxpayers' returns and (b) ensure that the return format of information supplied will facilitate checking of that kind. (23) Would such checking of income improve income disclosure. (24) Is the internal checking of income tax returns made more difficult because the ATO permits many items of income and expenditure to be shown in returns as aggregates without disclosure of separate components. (25) Will improvement of the selection of audit cases when taxpayer self-assessment is introduced require more itemisation in the tax return form; if so, when will changes in this area be made. (26) Does legislation amended with effect from 14 December 1984 provide that a person who fails to lodge a tax return when required is liable to pay additional tax equal to double the tax assessable subject to remission by the ATO or a fine imposed by a court of up to $2000 for a first offence; if so, does the additional tax payable on late returns represent an increase from 100% to 200% of the tax payable compared with previous legislation. (27) Has the ATO continued to apply its policy of imposing additional tax at a maximum of 20% per annum. (28) On average is the additional tax being imposed for late lodgment less than 6% of the tax payable. (29) Has the ATO decided not to increase the penalty rate above 20% in part because to do so would give taxpayers the opportunity to seek review of the additional tax by the Taxation Boards of Review which are already burdened by backlogs of work. (30) Is it a fact that (a) the ATO generally requires returns of income for the year ended 30 June to be lodged by 31 August of that year where they are prepared by the taxpayer or by 31 October where they are prepared by a tax agent, (b) using its remission powers, the ATO does not impose additional tax on returns lodged within 2 months after those dates, (c) a further period of grace of 7 days is allowed, (d) additional tax at 20% per annum is calculated from that extended date until the date of lodgment and (e) a return lodged 3 months late would be subject to additional tax of 1.3% of the tax payable on the return. (31) If so, does the penalty (a) represent an appropriate fine for 3 months late lodgment of returns, and (b) provide sufficient incentive for the timely lodgment of returns. (32) Does the ATO have a similar policy on the late payment of tax and penalties once these are assessed; if so, what are the details. (33) In some cases is the fine imposed by the court under the taxation legislation less than the additional tax that would otherwise have been imposed by the ATO; if so, will he give urgent consideration to (a) the proposition that all criminal prosecutions relating to taxation be dealt with by the Federal Court of Australia and (b) any other measures which would tackle this anomaly. (34) Has his attention been drawn to comments and criticisms by the Auditor-General in his report, dated March 1986, about the manner in which the additional tax charged to taxpayers for failure to duly furnish returns or information is reported in the Commissioner of Taxation's annual reports to the Parliament. (35) Are the Taxation Commissioner's annual reports required to inform Parliament of (a) the large extent to which penalties for late lodgment have been modified by general administrative discretion by the ATO, (b) the reasons for so doing and (c) the amount of remission by the ATO since legislation amended in December 1984 required the ATO to make an assessment of the additional tax payable by a person before it is remitted; if not, what action will be taken to ensure the Parliament is fully informed on these matters. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Yes. A range of legislative and administrative actions is being taken in response. (3) The extent to which the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) systematically gathers information on business and professional income and matches it against disclosures made in returns is governed by the limitations of ATO's staff and computer and systems resources. Improvements are being made continuously. (4) (a) Initial access has been denied where the Government department or authority had secrecy provisions which, it was argued, could override the information gathering powers of the ATO. (b) Where consultation fails to produce the information sought, the formal powers of section 264 would be used in those instances where legislation does not prevent the disclosure of the information. (c) Yes. (5) (a) This is one of many areas where tax evasion can occur. (b) Yes. (c) The ATO has not formally sought access to information in terms of section 263 and section 264 in view of its understanding of the Commonwealth health legislation. (6) The powers are currently being reviewed. (7) Generally speaking, other departments or authorities have not been approached in such a way as to lead to a refusal. (8) (a) and (b) Branch offices have traditionally undertaken projects involving the use of particular sources of external information to check the accuracy of related returns. A project is formally defined as activity entailing systematic follow up action in respect of groups of taxpayers to identify pockets of non-compliance. Such action is generally based on information from third parties which may point to unreported income, taxable profits arising from the sale of assets or overclaimed expenses. As indicated in national documentation covering the ATO's audit program, specialist audit staff responsible for audit case selection are required to . . . ``identify projects and promote research in areas where audit action may be necessary, due to widespread tax evasion; evaluate the potential of large scale projects by sample testing the particular area chosen for examination; ensure that adequate records are maintained on the results of projects undertaken; Head Office should be notified on the results of projects undertaken to facilitate an interchange of enforcement information between branches''. Commensurate with the audit resources available and other sources of audit case selection (e.g. the Prescribed Payments System), external sources of information are consistently used for audit purposes. Details of projects undertaken in each branch office are reflected in an Enforcement Bulletin which is circulated nationally. (c) The re-organisation of the ATO in 1984 has had a substantial impact on compliance activities in branch offices and has contributed to the very successful results obtained in 1985 and 1986 in terms of recovering tax that would otherwise have been evaded. In 1983-84 the total debit raised by compliance activities was $293 million. This increased to $461 million in 1984-85 and then to $609 million in the 1985-86 financial year. Over the same period the number of audits increased from 11,584 in the 1984 year to 22,175 in the 1985-86 year. If income checking activities are included, in the 1985-86 year, 88,174 taxpayers were found to have omitted income or overclaimed deductions or rebates. (9) Yes. (10) (a) No. (b) The ATO is, in general, obliged to allocate its resources in the most efficient and effective possible manner. Preliminary indications of share dealings in other companies indicated that further work in that area, while cost-effective, would not be as cost effective as other work that is undertaken. Share transactions are one of the matters which will be covered by systematic reporting under the Australia Card proposal. (11) It is believed that this is the case. (12) The ATO is currently undertaking a project in this area. (13) Yes. The delay occurred because of the need to use staff resources on work having a higher priority. (14) The ATO has conducted projects on grain sales in other States. Reporting and systematic checking of payments by marketing authorities and produce agents is also a proposed taxation use for the Australia Card. (15) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (16) Yes. (17) Other branches of the ATO have not conducted projects in relation to luxury cars, luxury boats or private aircraft. Other work has had a higher priority. (18) The ATO is examining these matters. (19) The ATO generally receives excellent co-operation from the authorities mentioned. (20) Meetings have been held between the ATO and the Australian Customs Service and formal arrangements are now in place for the exchange of information. (21) (a) Yes. But the traditional approach mentioned has now been abandoned with the introduction of a system of self-assessment. Technical resources freed up from the introduction of self-assessment have been re-deployed to a significantly expanded audit program. (b) It is a matter of judgment as to whether the traditional assessing approach was ineffectual. Suffice it to say that it has been largely abandoned following a review which found that a system of self-assessment (coupled with an expanded audit program) would make better use of ATO resources and would ensure a more effective and efficient process of assessing and collecting taxes properly payable. (c) The use made of external information for audit case selection purposes has been commensurate with available resources and the requirement to achieve specific taxpayer coverage objectives. The results achieved, in terms of additional tax revenues, justify the approaches taken. (d) No. This matter has been dealt with in the response to Question 8. (22) It is expected that the proposed taxation uses for the Australia Card will deal with the matters that appear to prompt this particular question. (23) Yes, any checking of income is likely to improve disclosure of that income. (24) The matter is one of degree. Obviously, the more detail shown in returns the greater the scope for scrutiny. However, a balance has to be struck between obtaining information which would be useful for enforcement programs and ensuring that preparation of returns is not too onerous. (25) No, the introduction of self-assessment is not expected to require more itemisation in the tax return form. (26) Yes. It might be noted that it is Tax Office policy not to charge additional tax where the assessment is a credit. (27) Yes. However, the Commissioner of Taxation is examining the question of applying higher penalty tax in cases of more serious breaches. (28) The fact that the level of additional tax imposed in the past for late lodgment has averaged about 6% of the tax payable was partly the result of lodgment concessions granted to taxpayers and tax agents, which were designed to spread more evenly the work load in the ATO and the tax agent's offices. (29) No. For the general run of cases in which late lodgment contributes to delay in payment of tax a rate of 20% per annum appropriately matches the statutory rate of additional tax for late payment of 20% per annum. (30) and (31) In general, yes. Although income tax returns are required to be lodged by 31 August, the ATO has a general policy of not imposing additional tax for late lodgment in cases where returns prepared by taxpayers are lodged by 31 October, and by 31 December for returns prepared by tax agents. In addition, concessions are granted to tax agents to lodge some returns without penalty after 31 December provided they have a satisfactory lodgment performance. These arrangements are intended to help to spread the work load more evenly in the ATO and in tax agents' offices. (32) The policy of the ATO with regard to late payment of tax is that the statutory penalty of 20% per annum arises automatically upon late payment of tax and that any extension of time granted for payment is upon the basis that additional tax is calculated from the original due date. Taxation Ruling No. IT 2091 contains details. (33) A better balance between fines imposed by courts and additional tax applied administratively has resulted from legislative changes effective from December 1984. (34) Yes. (35) Although the taxation legislation requires the Commissioner to report on the working of the legislation, it is not practicable to provide in the annual report a detailed analysis of every aspect of tax administration. Nevertheless, the Commissioner is reviewing the presentation of this part of the annual report. (Question No. 4119) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) What fringe benefits provided by farmers to their employees (a) will be, and (b) will not be, subject to the fringe benefits tax. (2) What revenue is expected in 1986-87 and 1987-88 from the fringe benefits tax paid by farmers on behalf of their employees and what percentage of the estimated revenue can be attributed to the various categories of fringe benefits. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) In general terms, most fringe benefits granted to employees will be subject to the fringe benefits tax. No special exemptions have been extended to farmers although, as indicated below, many fringe benefits provided by farmers will give rise to no, or minimal, fringe benefits tax liability. The main types of employee fringe benefits provided by farmers appear to be residential accommodation and associated fuel and power, free or discounted goods and services and the use of motor vehicles. In general, the taxable value of residential accommodation provided to an employee is the market rental value of that accommodation, less any contribution paid by the employee. Two factors may be relevant in lowering the tax liability of farmers. First, under guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Taxation, farm housing has been granted very generous valuations and, in remote areas, this value is discounted by 50 per cent. As an alternative to the market value, in remote areas, the employer may adopt a statutory value of $60 per week (or $15 per week for single persons' quarters) before deducting any employee contribution. However, in many cases the market rent for farm housing, after the 50 per cent discount, will be less than these amounts. Similarly, the taxable value of the provision of fuel and power for an employee's accommodation is the cost to the employer (which is discounted by 50 per cent in remote areas), less any contribution by the employee. If, in remote areas, the employer chooses to adopt the cited statutory value applying to the accommodation benefit, no separate liability arises for fuel and power supplied by the employer for that accommodation. In addition, where accommodation and meals are provided to temporary workers, employers will incur a fringe benefits tax liability for the provision of meals but not for the provision of the accommodation in cases where it is not the employee's usual place of residence. Meals will be valued for fringe benefits tax purposes at $2 per meal for an adult and $1 per meal for a person under 12 years of age, less any contribution paid by the employee. Accommodation and meals provided to employees, such as shearers, while travelling in the course of their employment or while so engaged are exempt from fringe benefits tax. Although a taxable fringe benefit will arise if farm produce, such as milk or meat, is given to employees, there will be little or no tax liability because the first $500 per annum of farm produce (valued at wholesale prices) is exempt from fringe benefits tax. Finally, all minor benefits and benefits provided in emergencies are exempt from fringe benefits tax and the tax will not apply in circumstances where a farmer allows an employee to use an unregistered vehicle (on the property) for private purposes. In circumstances where the farm has been set up as a family company or trust, and benefits (such as accommodation or food) are provided to family members, these benefits would normally be regarded as given as a result of family relationships rather than in respect of employment and so no tax liability would arise. However, if a family member who is an employee is provided with a residence for which tax deductions are being claimed by the employer (or owner of the residence), that will indicate that the benefit is being provided in respect of employment and tax would be payable. (2) The available data do not yet allow estimates for all industries or categories of employer to be derived when calculating the aggregate revenue estimates. Consequently, no estimate of the amount to be paid by farmers is currently available. On the basis of the valuation rules described above, however, the amount is expected to be relatively small. (Question No. 4664) Mr Ruddock asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 September 1986: Will he respond to the matters raised by me in the adjournment debate in the House of Representatives on 29 May 1986 (Hansard, 29 May 1986, page 4304) relating to the circumstances of the discontinuance of certain proceedings involving the Parramatta Police Citizens Boys' Club; if so, when. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The matters raised by the honourable member were responded to in the answers to questions Nos. 3853, 3854 and 3855 (Hansard, 24 February 1987, at pages 659 and 660). (Question No. 4653) Mr Ruddock asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: Further to questions Nos. 3853, 3854 and 3855 placed on notice on 1 May 1986 (a) have more than 4 months passed since the questions were first placed on notice, (b) when can I expect answers to the questions and (c) what does this delay say about the efficiency of the internal reporting system in his Department. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The answers to questions Nos. 3853, 3854 and 3855 appeared in Hansard dated 24 February 1987, at pages 659 and 660. (Question No. 4701) Mr Tickner asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: What is the estimate of unrecouped revenue lost through tax fraud or evasion in each year since 1980-81. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The most recent official estimate of revenue forgone through tax evasion was $3,250 million published in the 1985 Draft White Paper on Reform of the Australian Taxation System (p. 37). The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has done some analysis in this area and plans to do much more. Comparisons have been made between National Accounts data and taxation returns, and these have been supplemented by information derived from specific projects using the results of completed audits and statistical sampling techniques. However, the ATO is not in a position to give a more accurate estimate of the overall cash economy, nor therefore the extent of tax revenue lost through evasion on a year by year basis. The Government has, of course, taken several measures to tackle the problem of tax evasion. These include a series of major increases in the compliance staff of the ATO and a major overhaul of tax penalties as well as the Government's comprehensive reforms to the Australian tax system. Action has been taken in each of the six specific areas of evasion detailed in the White Paper including the new substantiation requirements, the fringe benefits tax and the decision to proceed with the introduction of the Australia Card. (Question No. 4833) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 21 October 1986: (1) Does the CSIRO operate a national herbarium known as the Australian National Herbarium. (2) Has the herbarium been gazetted as part of the National Heritage; if so, when. (3) Does the Australian National Botanic Gardens (ANBG) also operate a national herbarium which comes within the responsibility of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. (4) Did the Minister for Science announce on 7 July 1986 that a national herbarium collection data-base project was being established to create a file of the CSIRO herbarium's botanical collection and to transfer that data to a computer data-base. (5) Will the computer data-base project include data from both the CSIRO and ANBG herbariums; if not, why not. (6) What would be the advantages and benefits of having the CSIRO and ANBG herbariums (a) merged into one national herbarium, (b) maintain separate status but be brought under the responsibility of one Minister and (c) maintain separate status and divided ministerial responsibility, but be encouraged towards a high degree of co-operative and co-ordinated objectives. (7) What other herbariums are administered by the Government or its instrumentalities. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. An herbarium was established in CSIRO in 1930, originally with the name Herbarium Australiense. In 1984 the Herbarium was renamed the Australian National Herbarium (ANH). The collection thus has similar status to the Australian National Wildlife Collection and the Australian National Insect Collection, both also maintained by CSIRO. The Minister for Science has Ministerial oversight of CSIRO, and therefore of the Australian National Herbarium. (2) Yes. The collection was gazetted as part of the National Heritage, under the name Herbarium Australiense, by the then Minister for Science, the Hon. W. L. Morrison, on 25 March 1975. This was confirmed by gazettal under the name Australian National Herbarium by me as Minister for Science on 26 June 1984. (3) The Australian National Botanic Gardens (ANBG) as a national collecting institution with a display function maintains an Herbarium as an integral part of its collections to support its public, educational and scientific roles. The Herbarium contains a major collection of vouchers for plants growing in the Gardens. The Herbarium and living collections together form a unified scientific resource. The Herbarium also contains a collection of mosses, lichens and liverworts and other lower plants and vouchers for cultivars registered by the Australian Cultivar Registration Authority. The ANBG, including its Herbarium, is the responsibility of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. (4) Yes. The announcement was made jointly by myself and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, because the project received funding support under the Community Employment Program. (5) The computer data-base project referred to in (4) is specific to the Australian National Herbarium. The living and herbarium collections of the ANBG are being computerised. The living collections have been completed and work should commence shortly on the Herbarium records. Funding was not sought under CEP for the project at the Gardens. Most other herbaria in Australia have or are creating their own data-bases, with the encouragement of the Council of Heads of Australian Herbaria. All the data-bases, State and Commonwealth, are readily accessible to staff of all herbaria. (6) In earlier Governmental discussions on the roles and functions of the CSIRO and ANBG Herbaria, it was agreed that the two institutions had different functions, with the CSIRO Herbarium being mainly concerned with basic systematic and taxonomic research, whilst the ANBG Herbarium would be concerned mainly with its unique function of preserving a record of Australian plants brought into cultivation. They considered that these two distinct functions are best served in different environments; the basic research function of the Australian National Herbarium has developed strongly through the intellectual and physical resources of CSIRO, whilst the designated role of the ANBG Herbarium is clearly linked with the public education, horticultural and recreational functions of a botanic garden. Thus their preferred option was (c), maintaining separate status. The ANBG has developed some research interests associated with its Herbarium, and the two institutions have already achieved a high degree of co-operation. The research resources of CSIRO are available to ANBG professional staff, ANBG living collections are used for research by CSIRO scientists, and the two staffs frequently meet for seminars and professional discussions. However, the question of rationalisation of resources and examination of areas of possible duplication in Commonwealth museums, collecting and exhibiting organisations, including Commonwealth herbaria, is presently the subject of a Review being conducted by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and the Minister for Finance, to which CSIRO has provided a detailed input. The Review, which is to be presented to Government early in 1987, will take account of similar developments in both State and local government institutions. (7) None. (Question No. 4993) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) Will Australia be making a contribution to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in 1986-87. (2) Will Australia be making a pledge to IFAD's special program for Sub-Saharan Africa. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Payments totalling $1.7 million are expected to be made in 1986-87. (2) The Government is presently conducting a comparative assessment of the value of Australia's participation in international financial institutions and IFAD, as a basis for determining future contributions. Any contribution to this special program will be considered in the context of the review. (Question No. 5069) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether the United States Government made proposals in 1986 to co-ordinate the international supply of advanced medical treatment to seriously injured Afghans; if so, when were these proposals made and what was the response from the Government. (2) Has his attention been drawn to a report made in The Australian on 26 January 1987 that these United States proposals failed when the Government declined to co-operate. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The United States Government made an informal approach to a number of countries, including Australia, during 1986 seeking participation in a scheme for treatment of Afghan war wounded in those countries. In August 1986 a formal request was received from the Director General of the Intergovernmental Committee for Migration (ICM) which had accepted the task of co-ordinating the scheme. ICM sought the acceptance of patients for treatment on a gratis basis by medical institutions in countries around the world; all transport and related processing costs were to be met by ICM through an agreement with the United States Government. We believe that most patients were expected to be treated in Europe and the United States. It is worth mentioning that after taking a small number of patients for treatment one country had not sought a second round because of high costs. The Government declined to support the scheme. Adequate treatment was already available elsewhere and there were significant practical problems in Australian participation, such as distance, language and costs, together with health and immigration regulations when compared with the benefits to be conferred on the small number of individual Afghan patients. Members will already be aware that we have been supporting an Australian Red Cross surgical team at the ICRC hospital for Afghan war wounded at Peshawar in Pakistan. (2) I have not seen the article referred to by the honourable member but it is quite misleading to claim that the success or failure of the scheme depended on Australian participation. (Question No. 2595) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: Has Telecom refused to grant permits for certain telephones manufactured by Tyree Electrical Company Pty Ltd; if so, (a) did Telecom regard the use of these telephones as posing a significant risk to the safety or integrity of the Telecom network and (b) was the reason for the refusal related to Telecom's desire to protect its monopoly on the provision of certain categories of telephone apparatus. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: On 8 April 1986 my Senior Private Secretary wrote to the Member for Goldstein to advise that the matters raised in his question were the subject of court proceedings and it would be inappropriate for me to comment upon them until the court action was finalised. As the matters are still before the court and there is no indication of when they might be settled, I am obliged to advise the honourable member formally that I remain unable to comment. (Question No. 4046) Mr Ruddock asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 May 1986: Was he consulted by the NSW Attorney-General or Government before discontinuing charges against Mr C. R. Jones of defrauding the Commonwealth in relation to the purchase and resale of 5 motor vehicles through the Parramatta Police Citizens Boys' Club. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Director of Public Prosecutions has informed me that Mr C. R. Jones has not been charged with any offence against Commonwealth law relating to an alleged defrauding of the Commonwealth in respect of the matters outlined in the question. (Question No. 4694) Ms McHugh asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) What was the (a) number of person hours involved in and (b) cost of outside contract surveying and drafting services used by his Department and instrumentalities responsible to him in (i) 1984-85, (ii) 1985-86 and (iii) 1986 to date, including work contracted out to the Australian Survey Office and the Department of Housing and Construction. (2) Are there any instances where surveying of drafting requirements have not been satisfied due to limitations on the resources of (a) his Department or instrumentalities responsible to him, (b) the Australian Survey Office or (c) the Department of Housing and Construction; if so what are they. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows. My response relates only to work contracted out privately by my Department and its instrumentalities and does not include work done by the Australian Survey Office or the Department of Housing and Construction which are responsible for the staffing and funding of their own services. (1) (a) The number of person hours is unknown. (1) (b) (i) 1984-85-$3,000; (ii) 1985-86-$3,094; (iii) 1986-87 (to date) $680. (2) (a) No. (2) (b) No. The Australian Survey Office is responsible for the staffing and funding of its surveying services. (2) (c) No. The Department of Housing and Construction is responsible for the staffing and funding of its drafting services. (Question No. 4924) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 November 1986: (1) Further to his answer to question No. 1600 (Hansard, 29 November 1985, page 4215) what is the estimated catchment level of unemployed and disadvantaged youth aged between 15 and 25 years for each Community Youth Support Scheme project since 20 August 1985. (2) How many persons are employed under the projects and what remuneration was paid to each employee. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The table below provides the latest available information on the number of unemployment beneficiaries in the areas serviced by South Australian Community Youth Support Scheme projects, and estimated remuneration of project staff. Project and Address Number of Unemploy- ment Benefit Recipients (1) Number of Project Officers (2) Annual Salary of Project Officers (2) Number of Clerical Assistants (2) Annual Salary of Clerical Assistants (2) Number of Sessional Staff (2) (4) Sessional Staff rates of hourly pay (2) (4) $ $ $ Adelaide CYSS(3), `Skills Maintenance Program Inc.', 5th Floor, 23 Peel Street, Adelaide, S.A. 5000 ... - 3 24,187 17,765 11,424 1 7,705 7 10.30 Aldinga CYSS, Aldinga Institute, Aldinga, S.A. 5173 ... 197 1 21,135 1 5,000 4 10-13 Angle Park CYSS, `Parks', Parks Community Centre, Cowan Street, Angle Park, S.A. 5010 ... 1,057 3 20,643 19,095 15,754 2 8,764 6,651 7 10-15 Berri CYSS, `Riverland CYSS Inc', Old Drive-in, Sturt Highway, Berri, S.A. 5343 ... 623 2 25,373 19,969 - - 7 12 Birkenhead CYSS, `The Garage', 34 Victoria Road, Birkenhead, S.A. 5015 ... 1,255 3 26,148 24,187 19,959 - - - - Campbelltown CYSS, `510 House', 510 Lower North East Road, Campbelltown, S.A. 5074 ... 1,501 2 19,341 24,187 1 14,000 1 12 Ceduna CYSS, Cnr Poyntan and Kuhlman Streets, Ceduna, S.A. 5690 ... 163 1 24,187 - - - - Christies Beach CYSS, `Noarlunga Volunteer Youth Bureau', 34 Beach Road, Christies Beach, S.A. 5165 ... 1,320 2 15,246 18,304 1 12,041 4 11-12 Eastwood CYSS(3), `Action Youth Service Inc', 95 Glen Osmond Road, Eastwood, S.A. 5063 ... - 4 20,852 18,071 11,295 11,295 - - 3 7.50-15 Elizabeth Vale CYSS, `Elizabeth CYSS', 4 Trimmer Road, Elizabeth Vale, S.A. 5112 ... 1,500 2 19,032 11,173 1 6,687 10 12 Gawler CYSS, `Gawler and Districts CYSS', Old Fire Station, 8 Jacob Street, Gawler, S.A. 5118 ... 509 2 26,148 21,135 1 6,918 4 7-12 Gilles Plains CYSS, `Enfield CYSS or Corner Project', 14 Blacks Road, Gilles Plains, S.A. 5086 ... 1,131 3 19,350 14,512 14,512 - - 5 12 Goodwood CYSS, `Unley CYSS or Oasis', 62 Weller Street, Goodwood, S.A. 5034 ... 1,170 3 25,373 15,967 24,187 1 3,981 4 12 Grange CYSS, 4 Charles Sturt Avenue, Grange, S.A. 5022... 1,155 2 24,187 14,950 1 1,500 6 12 Hindmarsh CYSS, `Bowden CYSS or The Warehouse Inc.', 290 Port Road, Hindmarsh, S.A. 5007... 1,232 3 17,821 17,821 15,573 - - 1 15 Kadina CYSS, `The Triangle or the Bakehouse', 7 Waring Street, Kadina, S.A. 5554... 293 2 25,373 12,000 - - 3 7 Kingston Park CYSS, `Warradale CYSS or Marion CYSS', Kingston House, Cameron Avenue, Kingston Park, S.A. 5049... 1,118 4 26,148 19,959 12,308 10,184 - - 6 6-20 Mile End CYSS, `Thebarton CYSS', 163 South End Road, Mile End, S.A. 5031... 1,588 3 21,777 18,000 17,796 1 3,023 6 10 Munno Para CYSS, `The Station', 90B Main North Road, Munno Para, S.A. 5115... 1,000 3 25,373 19,959 11,927 1 2,480 7 10 Murray Bridge CYSS, `MurrayLands CYSS', 66 Swanport Road, Murray Bridge, S.A. 5253... 892 3 25,241 12,335 8,376 1 4,284 8 12 North Adelaide CYSS(3), `The Village CYSS', 61-83 O'Connell Street, North Adelaide, S.A. 5006... - 2 26,148 19,959 1 2,304 2 9-11.50 Norwood CYSS, `Montrose Avenue Youth Service', 72 Fullarton Road, Norwood, S.A. 5067... 1,023 3 19,740 16,908 16,804 1 1,300 18 15-16 Nuriootpa CYSS, `Staehr Street Youth Workshop', 16 Staehr Street, Nuriootpa, S.A. 5355... 319 2 25,373 24,187 - - 4 12-17 Plympton CYSS, 9 Clayton Avenue, Plympton, S.A. 5038... 1,711 3 26,148 24,187 21,135 1 14,913 6 12 Pooraka CYSS, `Paddocks CYSS Inc. or Ingle Farm CYSS', 2/96 Research Road, Pooraka, S.A. 5095... 1,342 2 25,560 16,255 1 3,120 7 9-11 Port Adelaide CYSS, `Pup', 70 Dale Street, Port Adelaide, S.A. 5015... 1,567 3 26,148 21,135 19,959 - - 6 8.50-15 Port Lincoln CYSS, 8 King Street, Port Lincoln, S.A. 5606... 508 2 26,064 19,895 1 3,172 3 11.70 Port Pirie CYSS, 51 Florence Street, Port Pirie, S.A. 5540... 497 2 26,148 24,187 - - 4 10 Salisbury CYSS, `Self Help at Salisbury' Room G1, Salisbury TAFE, Mary Street, Salisbury, S.A. 5108... 1,438 4 22,341 17,406 18,028 9,979 1 8,580 8 10-15 Sefton Park CYSS, `Prospect CYSS', 545 Regency Road, Sefton Park, S.A. 5083... 1,207 2 24,187 22,661 - - 8 10 Tea Tree Gully CYSS, `Avago', 2 Haines Road, Tea Tree Gully, S.A. 5091... 1,130 3 26,064 24,109 18,875 - - 2 11-14 Victor Harbor CYSS, `South Coast CYSS`, Wonderview, Hundere Parade, Victor Harbor, S.A. 5211... 172 2 15,226 11,918 - - 1 9.50 Whyalla CYSS, `Bulldaskill', 24-30 Patterson Street, Whyalla City Plaza, Whyalla, S.A. 5600... 981 2 24,187 15,996 - - 9 7.50-12 Woodville CYSS, `Comskill', 3 Norman Street, Woodville, S.A. 5011... 1,409 4 25,373 9,313 9,313 8,580 1 4,971 - - (1) Department of Social Security figures giving details of unemployment beneficiaries only, as at mid-August 1986. Sole supporting parents within the CYSS target group are not included. Catchment areas overlap in some cases. (2) Levels of employment and remuneration as at December 1986. (3) As these projects service the whole metropolitan area no exact unemployment benefit recipient figures can be supplied. (4) As sessional staff are employed on an ad hoc basis, only the hourly rates paid by each project are readily available. (Question No. 4947) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: (1) What sums were paid by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for legal work in each year since 1981-82. (2) To which firms of solicitors in each State and Territory were these moneys paid. Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question is based upon information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: (1)- 1981-82-$489,290 1982-83-$667,850 1983-84-$1,011,266 1984-85-$455,438.20 1985-86-$431,263.73 (2)- NSW-Allen Allen & Hemsley; Minter Simpson; Hunt & Hunt Victoria-Blake & Riggall Queensland-Biggs & Biggs South Australia-Finlaysons Western Australia-Stephen Jaques Stone James Northern Territory-Cridland & Bauer Tasmania-Murdoch Clarke Cosgrove ACT-Colquhoun Murphy (Question No. 4948) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: (1) What planning for the National Maritime Museum has been completed. (2) What role will the Sydney Maritime Museum at Birkenhead Point, Drummoyne, have in assisting the National Maritime Museum to develop and function. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Under a memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments a detailed functional brief and sketch plans for the Museum have been finalised between the Museum and the Darling Harbour Authority. A number of tenders have been called and let and initial construction associated with the Museum's wharves began in July 1986. An exhibitions masterplan has been approved by the Museum's Interim Council. Policies for acquisitions and registration of collections are in place and an ADP strategic plan is in its final stages of development. Management and administrative staff have been appointed. Curatorial and other Museum technical staff are now being recruited. The Museum is committed to an opening in 1988. (2) Negotiations were conducted with the Sydney Maritime Museum, a private, community-based organisation, about the future relationships between the two bodies. It was agreed that the two institutions would retain their separate identities and develop independently but would co-operate to ensure that the public had access to the best possible exhibitions of maritime heritage artefacts. (Question No. 4968) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 27 November 1986: (1) What action is he taking to ensure that the dumping of heavy metals waste off the Tasmanian south-east coast by the Hobart Electrolytic Zinc Company is not poisoning fish and seabirds. (2) Will he withdraw the annual licence arrangement with the company to dump heavy metals in order to allow an intensive evaluation of its effects on all other marine life; if not, why not. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The dumping of process wastes containing heavy metals off the south-east coast of Tasmania by the Electrolytic Zinc Company is carried out in accordance with terms and conditions, including monitoring conditions, specified in a permit made under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. The monitoring conditions include both research into the chemical and physical processes affecting the dumped material and biological monitoring of relevant fauna. (2) No. Monitoring work has been in progress for some 15 years but so far has revealed no evidence of the poisoning of fish or seabirds which can be attributed to the dumping operation. The Government will take appropriate action if these circumstances change.