Wednesday, 18 March 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 17 March, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Connolly had moved by way of amendment: 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'. Mr BURR(Lyons)(10.00) —During part of my speech last evening I was saying that it was clear-- Mr Goodluck —A good speech, too. Mr BURR —I thank my colleague from Franklin. I was saying that it was clear from the contributions being made by members from the Government side of this chamber that they know absolutely nothing about forestry operations, they know absolutely nothing about forest management, and they know absolutely nothing about forest conservation. The industry program that the Tasmanian Government has been engaged in for the past 15 years is designed very purposely to improve the quality of the forests in Tasmania and to provide a sustainable resource for future generations. I am surprised that any of my colleagues on the other side of this chamber should have questioned the way in which that forest management program is operating. The plain fact is that there is a very serious shortage of sawlog quality timber in Tasmania. That fact is totally ignored by this legislation, it is totally ignored by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), and it is totally ignored by Government members. Not only is there a very serious shortage of saw log quality timber in Tasmania; there is an acute shortage of veneer quality timber. The shortage of those two quality timbers in Tasmania is placing at very serious risk a great number of jobs in that State. The Minister for Forests in Tasmania has suggested that, in the immediate sense, 900 jobs are being placed at risk because of the serious doubt being put on those forestry companies regarding the supply of their material. The shortage of those timbers in Tasmania must be recognised by this Government. I can understand that Government members on the back bench, in their emotive fits of fancy, may well not understand the seriousness of the shortage of logs in Tasmania. But I cannot excuse the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, nor can I excuse the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), because they understand the seriousness of the problem in Tasmania. I can understand the emotions coming from Government back bench members because they visit Tasmania, they see a vast array of trees and they think that, as they see trees, they are seeing good quality forest. Nothing is further from the truth. As I pointed out last night, those trees are really nothing more than a habitat for wildlife. They have no commercial value at all apart from being turned into woodchips. As I pointed out last night, the reason why those trees have no commercial value is that for 150 years people have been going into the forests taking the best quality trees for their saw-mill operations, and leaving behind the uncommercial trees that have no value. The end result is that vast tracts of Tasmania have only low quality timber and not good quality logs. We are now clearing away the uneconomic trees and replacing them with magnificent regenerated forests. In years to come we will have by far the best quality forests of any State in Australia. Part of that program is called the woodchip industry. This program is not denuding Tasmania of its forestry resource. It is replacing the forestry resource with magnificent regenerated forests. In 50 years time our children and their children will be very proud of the actions that have been taken by this generation. I point out that the lobby that is being pursued at the moment by the conservation movement and which is clearly being taken up by this Government does not just relate to the Lemonthyme or the southern forests areas. They are the two areas that are being highlighted at the moment. An article in yesterday's Hobart Mercury newspaper stated: The Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, has assured the conservation movement that new regulations to ban logging in the Douglas-Apsley National Estate would be gazetted if the region came under threat from logging. The Wilderness Society director, Mr Jonathan West-- Mr Goodluck —He's the man who gets all the publicity down there. He gets all the publicity. Mr BURR —The article continued: said in Canberra last night that Mr Hawke told him several weeks ago that the Federal logging legislation would be broadened to include the area if necessary. Mr Goodluck —I'll bet the media didn't take any notice of our speeches last night. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin-- Mr Goodluck —Well, he makes me sick, that Jonathan West. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Franklin is interrupting the honourable member for Lyons. Mr BURR —Madam Speaker, that article from yesterday's Mercury points out very clearly that the conservation movement has a shopping list of areas which it wishes to have banned from logging operations. The Lemonthyme and Southern Forests are the first broadside in achieving much greater bans on logging in National Estate areas. It must also be understood that at the moment about one-third of the Tasmanian land mass is locked up in national parks, not National Estate. Those areas will never be used for logging operations. What is in question at the moment is National Estate areas-those areas that are on the perimeter of the national parks. If the conservation movement, with the support of this Government, is able to have logging operations banned in the National Estate areas, very clearly Tasmania would not have any commercial timber resources left. All of the timber operations in Tasmania and their associated activities would close. The most immediate areas to be closed, which are on the Wilderness Society's shopping list, are the areas from which Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd is obtaining its timber, in particular from the Florentine Valley. Honourable members may not have heard of the Florentine Valley. It has not been mentioned in this debate. Mr Chynoweth —I've been there. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Dunkley has already spoken in this debate. Mr BURR —The Florentine Valley borders on the South West National Park. It has without doubt the best quality timber in Tasmania. But it is also the area from which Australian Newsprint Mills draws its timber resources for all of its operations. Clearly this legislation threatens that area because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has assured the Wilderness Society that that area can be on its shopping list. If that area is locked up, the assessment of Tasmanian Minister for Forests, Mr Groom, of 900 jobs at risk would clearly be way out of kilter. Australian Newsprint Mills alone would employ around 5,000 people. It also has another operation at Albury. If their resource is threatened in Tasmania by the closure of the Florentine Valley, Australian Newsprint Mills would have no option but to close its operation in Tasmania and move to Albury. That would put at least 5,000 Tasmanians out of jobs. The same thing could happen in the northern areas of the State, where Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd is in exactly the same position. So we are not talking about 900 jobs in Tasmania, but, I suggest, in excess of 10,000, because those opposite are threatening the whole of Tasmania's forestry operations. I strongly urge this Government and its members to rethink quickly what they are doing. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(10.11) —I have really been quite disappointed by the general level of debate from those opposite. I respect the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) as a person and respect the way in which he has put his case. It had some very constructive and interesting points but as far as I am concerned it belies a lot of the facts about what is occurring in Tasmania. The case being put forward by those opposite falls down in comparison with some of the contributions that have been made on this side, notably by the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) last night, and the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton). Mr Goodluck —Ha, ha! Mr STAPLES —There are a few giggles from the other side, but this House should recognise the worth of those contributions. The report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on fiscal measures and the achievement of environmental objectives, released in this House just a few months ago, is a very important document. Rather than being involved in some of the petty politicking that is going on in Tasmania at the moment those opposite, particularly Tasmanian members, should have a good look at that report to see what constructive methods they can use and approaches they can take to the whole issue. The case argued by those opposite-I refer, too, to the way it has been presented particularly in this House and in Tasmania by the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Gray, and some examples put forward last night demonstrated quite disgraceful behaviour-is reactionary, blatant, political exploitation of a very important issue. Not only is it a case of Mr Gray's unconstitutional and disgraceful behaviour regarding the blocking of Mr Devereux's entrance to the Senate, but his behaviour in this issue as well is blatantly confrontational. The reason the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill is before this House is that Mr Gray has not been willing to have dialogue with the Government on matters not only of Tasmanian importance, but of national importance. It is about time that the Tasmanian Government and representatives of Tasmania in this House and in the Senate looked to their responsibilities not only to the people they represent but also to the people of Australia. Tasmania is part of the Commonwealth of Australia. Mr Goodluck —You could have fooled me. Mr STAPLES —It may not be very hard to fool the honourable member for Franklin. He says that he could be fooled and I would agree. He often is. Tasmanian is a very beautiful place. Mr Goodluck —I live there. Mr STAPLES —That is right, but that does not detract very much from the fact that Tasmania is a very beautiful place. Tasmania is unique but Tasmanians have to realise-and they do realise it because this is a very important part of how they promote their State-that their economy is based on tourism. All they are intent on doing is finding as many ways as possible to clear as much land as they can to turn Tasmania into a temperate desert-and to no good effect. There could be some excuse for last night's behaviour. There was a full moon. But let us look at the matter now in the cold light of day. Let us look at the Bill and try to start over. The honourable member for Lyons performed creditably. Let us see whether we can get back on the track. The Bill's name should give us a good indication of what we are talking about-it is the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987. What is the Bill going to do? It will enable a review into the world heritage values of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas and into environmentally and economically prudent and feasible alternatives to forestry operations in those areas and whether the areas have world heritage value. We are looking at alternatives for the people of Tasmania, for the people of Australia and for the people of the world. If these areas have world heritage value they will be protected for the generation sitting in the gallery above us. They will be able to see the beauty of Tasmania, not see just a lot of stumps all over the place, and that is important. This Bill will enable the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas to be protected during that review. Is that such a big thing, such a big problem with which the Opposition has to contend? The review under this legislation will be required to be finished within 12 months. If any commercial activities are prevented from being carried on because of the review the people affected will be compensated for their losses. What is the problem with that? This is a last ditch effort by this Government; all attempts of reason and dialogue have failed. What is wrong with people in Tasmania? What is wrong with honourable members on the other side of the House? Can they not understand reason? Are they afraid of a commission of inquiry? Mr Goodluck —Do you think I am going to give one inch to the likes of Jonathan West, Bob Brown and Norm Sanders? Mr STAPLES —Are they afraid of an independent, apolitical commission of inquiry that will allow-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin has spoken in this debate. Already the Chair has twice asked him to stop interjecting. I suggest that he heed the Chair. Mr STAPLES —This Government has been forced into using its constitutional powers and it wants to carry out its constitutional responsibilities and do the job properly. The very fact that the Bill is before the House is because the Government of Tasmania and people such as the honourable member for Franklin refuse to allow a commission of inquiry and refuse to let an apolitical operation, which can call evidence from whatever sector-the Tasmanian Government, the people of Tasmania and honourable members opposite-to put its point of view and arguments and be judged not in a party political sense but according to reason. What is the problem? Is there a problem? What are the people in Tasmania afraid of? What are their representatives afraid of? What is the Tasmanian Government afraid of? Let us look at the industry in Tasmania and we might see some of the problems that it is facing. Every week in Tasmania an area of forest more than 200 times the size of the Melbourne Cricket Ground is clear felled, ripped through and pulled out. That is 20,000 hectares a year. About 38 per cent of this wood supplies Tasmania's sawmills and the local paper making industries but over 60 per cent of all wood cut down or clear felled is exported straight to Japan as woodchips. That provides less than 18 per cent of forest based employment and includes all the indirect jobs as well. Tasmania exports more woodchips than all of the other States combined-2.7 million cubic metres a year out of a national total of 4.5 million. Tasmania's forestry industries are not run on a sustainable yield basis according to the woodchip companies' own environmental impact statement. Sawlogs are being cut down 40 per cent faster than they can grow back while pulp wood is being overcut by 17 per cent. The honourable member for Lyons cannot respond now but I ask honourable members who follow him: How does that allow for future generations of forest? How does that allow for future generations of employment in the forestry industry in Tasmania? Mismanagement is forcing forestry operations into remote virgin areas. Down the track we could see woodchip companies finishing with the forests and then moving into the electorates of Franklin and Denison and woodchipping the furniture and the houses of the people there. They will not stop at anything. They are cutting down all the forests and not allowing time for regeneration. Since 1973 over one third of all forestry jobs in Tasmania-about 4,000-have gone even though twice as many trees have been cut down every year. Over 90 saw-mills have been closed. Honourable members opposite know that. Why has this happened? New machinery is putting people out of work and so is woodchipping. No value is added to the product. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, has spoken for years about getting value-added products into Australian industry. What are the woodchippers doing? They are ripping timber out of the forest, chomping it up and sending it across to Japan. What does it come back as? It comes back as all these high value-added products which affect our balance of trade. That is not very smart at all. Woodchipping entrenches clear felling. It destroys a lot of the beauty of Tasmania. It is destroying Tasmania's tourist industry, and the sooner honourable members opposite wake up to that the better. It will create tremendous erosion problems within that State; it will affect its fishing industry. These are the things honourable members opposite have to realise. I congratulate the Minister on this legislation and I sympathise with him because of the problems he has had to put up with in respect of some of the entrenched attitudes of the Tasmanian Government and some honourable members opposite. I congratulate also the Wilderness Society Incorporated and environmentalists generally. I also congratulate the people in the Wilderness Society in my area, the Diamond Valley branch of the Wilderness Society. Environmentalists have sophisticated their campaign. No longer do they try to win the arguments in politics or in the streets simply by beautiful pictures. There is nothing wrong with beautiful pictures; Tasmania's tourist industry is built on beautiful pictures. But no longer do environmentalists simply rely on beautiful pictures to get their point across. They have developed the economic arguments, and they are beating those opposite hands down. That is what the Opposition is afraid of in respect of this Bill. Honourable members opposite are afraid of the economic arguments that will come out in this Commission of Inquiry. They are afraid of the environmental arguments that will come out in the Commission of Inquiry. That is what has them worried and that is what has the Premier of Tasmania worried. The environmentalists, the Wilderness Society and people on this side of the House such as the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) have exposed honourable members opposite for what they are. The irresponsibility of their position will become more and more apparent as this Commission of Inquiry goes on. They will not be able to hold back these forces. That is what really concerns them. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. The Opposition will fool no one here. I commend to the House this Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill of 1987. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.23) —Of course, I was very pleased to second the amendment moved last night by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). I congratulate him on his speech in which he objected to this piece of legislation, as did all my Tasmanian colleagues with the exception of the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), who will follow me shortly and will conclude the debate. Also, of course, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) would have been speaking in this debate, but because things became rather emotional last night he has been ejected from the House for 24 hours. Be that as it may, someone has already said this morning that in the cold light of the morning we might get some rational thoughts into this debate. I would think that the speech this morning by the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) certainly put down some facts that ought to have been considered by the Government before it brought in this legislation. Because time is at a premium and it is not possible to answer all the inaccurate information that we have heard from the Government, I will pick up only one point made by the honourable member who just spoke, the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples); that is, the point about tourism. I would like to read from a report which has the facts on tourism-I will speak more about that report later-because it has been claimed by the conservation movement that in looking for alternatives we ought to be putting more emphasis on tourism. It points out: Only a small proportion of those tourists who list bushwalking and climbing as desired pursuits make significant wilderness visits. In fact, the Tasmanian recreation land use study plan of 1979 indicated that only seven per cent of people questioned were interested in hiking for distances of more than five kilometres. Quantitative studies done in Victoria suggest that the number of tourist visits to a forest will not change significantly when considerable increases are made in the area set aside for recreation. It is therefore highly unlikely that wilderness promoted tourism would in fact offset these job losses. It would certainly not offset the anticipated decline in the State's foreign export earnings. The figures I have been given indicate that we would need a 66 per cent increase in tourism to take up the lost jobs, which we have all heard about, and in fact all we are getting at present is about 3.5 per cent increase. One can see the vast gap that is there. What the Government is proposing is not a rational or sensible alternative. Perhaps if it had a closer look at that line of argument that it is putting, it will understand that incredulous response that we are making when it suggests these types of things. The logging issue, of course, has had a very long history. Mention has been made of the environmental impact statement which was done in 1983 at a cost of $1.3m. It was finished on 16 December 1985. There was constant input from industry, the community and the Tasmanian Wilderness Society. Everyone had an opportunity to put forward their views. That led in time to the memorandum of understanding that was finally signed in December 1985. In December 1985 the Federal Cabinet decided not to accept the recommendation of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) to place an arbitrary ban on logging in National Estate areas, rather, to institute a process of consultation with the Tasmanian Government by which the particular values of National Estate areas would be taken into account in the formulation of management plans. This decision led to the conclusion of the memorandum of understanding-what is known now as the MOU-which was signed by the Tasmanian and Commonwealth governments on 12 June 1986. The MOU was seen by the forest industries and Tasmanians as an absolute watershed in the ongoing debate on the future of Tasmania's forests. It was thought that the veil of uncertainty that had hung over the industry for the last three years had finally been lifted, and that the industry and the Tasmanian Forestry Commission could plan and invest on the basis of an agreed position of the Commonwealth. Of course, we have heard previously from the honourable member for Bradfield and others about the nine inquiries we have had into the forest industry in Tasmania. Finally, we thought we had something that would put a little certainty back into the industry. Then, of course, out of the blue came that famous letter of 5 November 1986 from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the Tasmanian Premier, ordering a halt to logging operations in the Quamby Bluff and Jackeys Marsh area in northern Tasmania. That was an absolute bolt out of the blue. It is interesting and, of course, frightening that the Prime Minister's decision in respect of Jackeys Marsh was made without reference to his colleague the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and without any consultation with the Department of Primary Industry or even the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. All involved, including the Prime Minister, have since acknowledged privately that Federal intervention on that issue was ill-advised and in breach of the terms of the MOU. I do not know why that happened. But allegations have been made, of course, that a certain New South Wales senator read the results of some polls and got the message across. Of course, he must have drafted the letter. Mr Goodluck —What is his name? Mr SMITH —Senator Richardson, a member of the other place. Of course, the letter was floated around for a while and then further discussions took place. It all happened without consultation between the Prime Minister and his departments. This is the man who preached the gospel of consensus. No consultation took place. We saw the complete repudiation of the MOU. Finally, this Bill came forward. It is important to note that the decision was not about woodchipping. We have heard a lot about woodchipping in the last two days. But it is important to note that it is not solely about woodchipping. The Commonwealth clearly has the power to control exports and woodchip export licences. It is provided that no wood may be exported from National Estate areas without the express permission of the Minister for Primary Industry. Therefore, the Cabinet's decision of 15 December was aimed at domestic operations for local sawmilling, veneer and paper production. It was in flagrant breach of the MOU, which provided that it was for the Tasmanian Government to consider the extent to which it would take into account the Commonwealth's view in respect of forestry operations for domestic purposes. Therein lies the genesis of the problem. We are talking about State governments having control of land use in their own areas involved with domestic logging operations. The Government seems to be blinkered in its approach, in saying that it is solely a matter of woodchipping; it is not. We are talking about an integrated forest industry in our State and we are talking about that industry being managed properly. Reference has been made to the forest practices code, which I know that the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) knows all about. I am sure that he would acknowledge that that code is, in itself, a step in the right direction. It is a model code. It leads this nation in terms of how we will carry out forestry practices. We are certainly a long way ahead of New South Wales. By way of an aside I make the point that the people of New South Wales and, indeed, Victoria, ought to watch this debate very carefully because what is happening in Tasmania is but a foretaste of what might happen in their States. The New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment, Mr Carr-who, I am told, will be Prime Minister of this country one day, heaven forbid-ought to watch himself very carefully because he might find that he will trip up on this issue. He will find out that unionists are concerned about jobs and not about trendy issues. Several points could be made on the Bill-and I am watching the time carefully-but clause 13 (1) is a pivotal part. It will be interesting to see what the High Court does with that provision, and I would ask the Minister to examine it carefully. Information has to be sought from the Tasmanian Government and if that Government refuses to give it and the High Court supports its position, what happens then to this inquiry? It would be a total sham. There are also other unconstitutional aspects in the Bill which have been pointed out by the honourable member for Denison. Certainly clause 13 radically and unjustly changes the law in relation to the granting of injunctions in a manner never before seen in Australia. Furthermore, clause 14 (c) will allow forcible entry to property in any part of Tasmania, including private property. This is to be authorised where any member or other person considers that forestry resources may be contained in an area. Provisions of that type will be challenged and it will be interesting to see what happens. If one looks closely at clause 19, dealing with compensation requirements, one sees that that is also cause for great concern. It will deny any compensation whatsoever to those who suffer loss or damage, including loss of employment in a secondary or tertiary capacity. We have yet to see how this Bill will work in practice. I merely signal to the Government that I believe certain provisions in the Bill will be successfully challenged and will make this whole proposal for a 13-month delay of logging operations in Tasmania a sham. One interesting question that needs to be asked is: Following all these inquiries, what new information has become available to prompt the Prime Minister to write that letter to say that there will be no more logging? The Tasmanian Forestry Commission-going back to the genesis of the legislation, it is said that we should be pursuing other alternatives-estimates that the areas described in the schedules to the Bill will provide in excess of 20 per cent of the annual sustainable yield of sawlog for the next 20 years, although they will also provide some 20 per cent of the annual pulpwood cut in that period, there is no question that the pulpwood for export woodchip or domestic paper or pulp production can be obtained by plantation establishment outside National Estate areas. Clearly, there is little opportunity for other alternative sources. Despite the conservation movement's preoccupation with the export woodchip industry, it is the domestic veneer sawn timber and paper industries that stand to lose most if the primary aim of the conservation movement-that is, the creation of a greater Western Tasmanian National Park encompassing at least 30 per cent of the State's land use-is achieved. The point is clearly made that the question of alternative sawlog supplies is not new, but has been addressed extensively by both the Forestry Commission and the industry over the last 10 years. All these inquiries came to the same conclusion, and the industry has been forced to accept the fact that there is no magical supply of sawlogs. The Australian Heritage Commission has always had a role and has always been standing in the background, which is a topic for another speech bearing in mind its involvement in private forestry arrangements and the difficulties it has put in the way of private operators, but in the last months of 1985 in an attempt to bolster its argument for an arbitrary ban on logging in National Estate areas, it commissioned an independent firm of forestry consultants to review the Tasmanian Forestry Commission's resource estimates particularly in relation to National Estate areas and to report on whether there were alternative management regimes which would enable these areas to be withdrawn from production without affecting industry. In its report Fortech concluded that the Tasmanian Forestry Commission was competently managing the State's forest estate and that the reservation of National Estate areas would inevitably lead to a reduction of wood production of major proportions. So there one has it. It might well be said that the acceptance of the conservationists' assurances over that of an independently commissioned report available to the Government is more a matter of politics than logic. That brings me to reason why we have this legislation: It is merely a matter of politics. There is just one other matter that I wish to mention-the Lemonthyme State Forest. We have heard all about the Lemonthyme State Forest. If we look carefully at what has happened in the Lemonthyme we will see that in 1983 a management plan was prepared by the Tasmanian Government-I see the honourable member for Dunkley looking at it; he would be well aware of this management plan and I am sure that he has read it, but I note that in his speech he did not care to quote from it. Let me read to the House the objectives of this plan: Management objectives shall be: 1. To ensure that the area continues to provide water, natural, recreational and other cultural values. 2. To organise forest operations to provide continuity of supply to the milling and pulpwood industries and stable decentralised forest employment. 3. To organise integrated use of the forest managed for wood production. Because the Lemonthyme State Forest adjoins the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park, careful consideration was to be given to the impact of forest development on the users of the national park and values other than wood production would have been given a high priority. All the things that honourable members opposite have been talking about are in this plan which was formulated in 1983 and accepted by the Forestry Commission. The Commission instituted all the necessary management arrangements to ensure that those objectives were met. I have been down to the area, the spokesman in the Senate from the coalition, Senator Collard, has been down there, as has been the honourable member for Bradfield and many others. The honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) who spoke exceptionally well and in a very balanced way yesterday has also been there. Those on the other side who say that they have not heard balanced speeches should go back and read the honourable member's contribution. Let me return to the comments made by Senator Walsh-someone from the Australian Labor Party-who said in the Senate on 18 February 1986: . . . the Tasmanian Forestry Commission in 1983 published a management plan which took into account the then established values of the Lemonthyme. . . 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. What has caused the change? Senator Richardson has caused the change. Way back then Senator Walsh accepted the management plan, as would any rational person, but now we have seen a complete and total change, prompted by a letter from the Prime Minister to our Premier. Therefore, there is no doubt that the Federal Government has already approved logging in the Lemonthyme based on the 1983 management plan. That was so when Senator Walsh made those statements. But something changed, dramatically and completely. Of course, those polls that Senator Richardson has been reading have changed his mind. I went along, as I often do, to the rallies and meetings that we have had in Tasmania about the logging issue and last time I took the trouble to record quotes of the speakers. I found these very interesting. Two of those speakers were Mr Gary Weaven-I do not know anything about him, but I understand that he is a bit of a big wheel in the Australian Council of Trade Unions-and Paul Lennon who is the Leader of the Trades and Labor Council in Tasmania. I do know Mr Lennon and I believe him to be a person who has a balanced judgment. Whilst I have disagreed with him on many occasions about union matters, I feel that he approaches things in an unemotional fashion and he is certainly trying to do the best for his members. To get it in the record, I wish to quote these speeches so that honourable members opposite can see that the people who represent the workers, both in Tasmania and nationally, disagree with what this Government is trying to do. Some of the figures involved illustrate the argument well. Paul Lennon said: Eleven per cent of our State is already world heritage. A further 16 per cent is in national park . . . The Wilderness Society want to make 30,000 Tasmanians jobless. The Wilderness Society is manipulating the genuine conservationists. We must look after our forests and manage them in a balanced way- that is what I say- That is the view that the industry is taking and hopefully it will be the view that the Federal Government will take. Fifteen per cent of Tasmanians rely on the forest industry for their jobs . . . That's what the industry is worth, it's worth 30,000 jobs and $260m a year. And in addition to that, in the areas that the greenies want to lock up is all our mineral resource, and another 7,300 jobs. Bob Hawke- and this is the important part- has said he has got to get the youth vote. Well I would have thought that the best way to get the youth vote is to get them a job, not to give them another national park. I certainly applaud those sentiments. It is a pity that the Party that is introducing this legislation does not listen to the people whom it claims to represent. Let us listen to Mr Gary Weaven from the ACTU. He said: One hundred thousand plus jobs are involved in the forest products industry throughout Australia . . . . . . `This industry in its totality is more important to Australia and Australian workers than the motor vehicle industry or the textile industry or indeed our wheat and wool industries . . . . We understand . . . . . very well the way in which the national estates listing issue is being manipulated . . . . the policy of the Australian Conservation Foundation states, amongst other things, `total opposition to export of forest products'. Now that is a very good example of faceless lunacy at a time when clearly this nation is hamstrung by its inability to sell enough overseas to pay for the goods that we import . . . . . the Federal Government reached a Memorandum of Understanding with the industry as to the appropriate management and utilisation of the forests and that must be honoured. Both those speakers were met with rapturous applause for those sentiments. It is a pity that people from the Federal Government were not there to listen and take note of it. The final thing to which I wanted to draw the attention of honourable members is an independent report which has been prepared in Tasmania by a consultant and which was commissioned by a group of very responsible people in Tasmania. Honourable members cannot say that they were faceless men because I will tell them who they are. They are from the Tasmanian Chamber of Industries, the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania Ltd, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, the Master Builders Association of Tasmania, the Hobart Chamber of Commerce, the Tasmanian Logging Association and the Tasmanian Chamber of Mines. The report is fairly short and detailed. It sets out who works where and what value things have. It mentions mining, forestry, hydro-electricity and tourism. The very important thing about it is that, on the front of it, it points out that `one in four Tasmanian jobs depends on a balance between environment and employment'. That is all we want-a balance between environment and employment. We do not ask for anything more. We do not want any further delays. We have had nine inquiries. The interesting thing about this report is that at the ALP conference in Hobart on 4 July 1986 this pamphlet was given to every member of the ALP when they were discussing their national parks policy. I wonder whether they read it. Because they have already seen it, I seek leave to have this document tabled in the Parliament so that the members who have-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is leave granted? Mr Barry Jones —I have not seen it. Mr SMITH —All members opposite have seen it. It was delivered to them at the ALP conference. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave of the Minister for Science to table it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It can be shown to the Minister who may then decide whether leave is granted. Leave granted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(10.43) —I am moved to respond initially to some comments that I heard earlier in the day from the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) to the effect that Government members would know nothing about forestry operations. For the record, my father was a timber worker for some years and subsequently concluded his working life with one of the very large paper companies in this country. I was brought up in the Gippsland area and on many occasions went out on timber cutting expeditions with my father. So I can speak with some layman's knowledge of the industry. What I think I can bring to the debate is a degree of perspective that appears to be missing from some of our colleagues opposite-colleagues who are predominantly from Tasmania, who have recognised an issue in which they can once again pursue scare tactics and who are beating the issue for all it is worth. Perhaps that is inevitable in a democratic system such as ours, but it is also sad in some respects and potentially damaging not only to the broader interests of the Australian community but also, in my view, in the long term to the interests of people in Tasmania. It is important to acknowledge the suggestion of the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) that there has to be balance in the debate. No one in this House disputes that. Personal positions are disputed as to what constitutes balance. On this occasion I think it is important to note that the Government is not making a unilateral decision. In the context of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill it is setting up a balanced inquiry, one that will weigh, in a less controversial and less heated environment, the very complex issues involved here and make certain recommendations. There are many aspects that I would like to refer to in this very interesting and important debate but I just want to make a couple of further introductory points. It seems to me that, when we have Australians who travel overseas and stand in amazement, as they rightly should, when they view, for example, the pyramids of Egypt, the Taj Mahal in India, the Grand Canyon, and the Sagarmatha National Park, including Mount Everest, they are doing so because that experience is something that they have not had before and it leaves a very great impression on them. To the extent that I have travelled in years past around the world I have experienced that, and I know that many members of this House have also. In Australia perhaps we are less taken by our own natural heritage and our own natural beauty. Many of us have seen the Great Barrier Reef, but I think it is important to note that perhaps those who live in Queensland are less enamoured of and less excited by the Great Barrier Reef than, for example, Tasmanians would be. They go on that long trip to Queensland, often only one time in their lives, and have that very great experience. Mr Barry Jones —They see the reef as being potentially something that can be exploited economically too. Mr GRIFFITHS —Yes, I agree with my colleague the Minister for Science, who has implied that it is inappropriate always to view these great national treasures as something that must be economically exploited. To the extent that they can be, consistent with the maintenance of their very important and unique characteristics, that is quite appropriate but that is another issue. Kakadu National Park stage 1, again, is part of our World Heritage List. I do not know how many people in this chamber have been to Kakadu National Park. Over the last 15 years I have travelled very widely throughout the world and I have seen places throughout the Middle East, Europe, Asia and all over. In my view, Kakadu National Park is the single most interesting and important place that I have visited. Perhaps it does not strike some of my colleagues that way-I know it does not-but to me that is the case. We have very great treasures in Kakadu National Park, Willandra Lakes, the New South Wales rainforests and so on. But I suspect that the point that I wish to stress is that Tasmanians are surrounded by some of the best, the most beautiful country and the most important treasures that we have not only in this country but also in the world. I suspect that, to a very large extent, they are almost oblivious to it because it is there with them. They do not see it as anything necessarily unique or anything necessarily out of the ordinary. But people coming from all round the world and indeed from other parts of Australia have a quite different feeling when they experience the very great national treasures that Tasmania very fortunately has. I could go on ad infinitum, I suppose, and talk about how Tasmania's natural heritage has made an impact on me. But my background is very much in the trade union movement. I have spent a good part of my time sitting around negotiating tables trying to save jobs, particularly during the Fraser-induced recession of the early 1980s. That left a very great impression on me and it is always to the forefront of my mind, frankly, in any area of government policy. When we are talking about people's jobs I do not embrace that debate in terms of analysing statistics. Because of my past experience I have always been in a position to judge the issue in terms of how it affects individuals. So I do not believe that I come in to this debate necessarily as a wide-eyed conservationist who believes that a tree is perhaps a higher life form and ought not to be touched. That is an absurd proposition. It is inconsistent with the way that members of my family, for example, earned their bread for most of my childhood. There must be a balance in the debate. To that extent it seems ironic that whilst members on both sides of the House are suggesting that there ought to be a balance the level of emotion in the debate keeps increasing. The reality of that, of course, is that people perceive the politics quite differently. I think Tasmanians are probably right to judge that, on this issue, they can whip up an emotive response that in the final and crude analysis will advantage their short term political interests. Time will tell on that, but in the final analysis it is an inappropriate way to go. It is not a statesmanlike way to go about a very important issue. To that extent I believe that whatever the outcome of this debate, history will judge those members representing Tasmania in this chamber to be short term in their view and to be basing their approach to this issue on the crudest but perhaps the most consistent themes of politics-that is, the approach summed up by the old saying: `If you are going to put your money on a horse in the political race, always put your money on self-interest because you know it is in there trying'. It is an old and hackneyed comment but I think that in this case it is a glaring example of why some in this House are approaching the issue in such an emotive way. I might also add that last night I was very disappointed with the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), a man whom, ironically, I have quite a good personal relationship with. But I knew before the debate started that one of the Tasmanians would be evicted from this chamber because they always try to do that whenever there is some issue that they want to jockey over their Tasmanian colleagues on to the front pages of the Mercury. Of course, the honourable member for Dension was almost a certainty. How did he go about it? He referred to another one of my colleagues in this House as a communist. Some would not see that as an insult. I would and I suspect that everyone in this chamber would see that as an insult. So, of course, we had the inevitable. The honourable member for Denison was asked to withdraw the comment and he refused to do so, thereby guaranteeing that he would be expelled from this House for 24 hours, thereby guaranteeing that he would be seen by many in Tasmania to be leading the fight for Tasmanian State rights. It is all so immature and all so emotive and, in the final analysis, all so goddamned stupid because at the end of the day this debate will not be resolved by emotive antics by anyone on this side of the House or on the Opposition side of the House. This debate ought to be resolved by a rational and sensible weighing up of the competing issues. In the final analysis those competing issues are jobs versus trees. That is in the view of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and that is how he put it effectively in this House in his contribution. But of course it is not that easy. There are many ways that one can go about ensuring the long term interests of people in the industry without necessarily endangering those very great treasures that Tasmania is fortunate to have. I remind honourable members of Winston Churchill's famous dictum `Jaw jaw is better than war war'. For goodness sake, on this issue this Government has elevated jaw jaw to an art form. We have been trooping down to Tasmania and we have been speaking to all and sundry in Tasmania on the issue. But of course, Mr Gray, the Premier, has approached it with the same degree of intransigence and short-sighted self-interest that he has on all other issues. Earlier in the day I heard someone reminding this House that Mr Gray is the Premier who is thumbing his nose at the Australian people by refusing at this point to facilitate the nomination of Mr Devereux as an Australian Labor Party replacement for Senator Don Grimes. I think everyone in this chamber ought to condemn him for that and I raise this example simply because it is one more of many examples that show that Mr Gray and the Tasmanian Government will do anything. They will brook no outrage high enough to achieve their short term interests. When the Australian people passed a referendum subsequent to their outrage at Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the New South Wales Liberal Premier, Mr Lewis, appointing non-Labor appointees after the death of Labor Party senators, they did so because they considered that behaviour to be outrageous and anti-democratic which, of course, it was on any objective assessment of it. So what do we have Mr Gray now doing? He is thumbing his nose not only at the old convention but also at a specific constitutional change endorsed under the appropriate constitutional processes of this country. That is, by any definition, outrageous behaviour, and it is simply reflected in the type of behaviour that Mr Gray and his Government have brought to this issue. This Government has jaw-jawed, and not war-warred, probably for far too long with Mr Gray. My own subjective view is that in the future I would tell Mr Gray to go and jump. I think we waste a lot of resources and a lot of good time by simply trying to accommodate someone whose motives are almost always based on self-interest and certainly backed up by consistent impropriety. I would like to address a range of further issues but time is running out. I think it is working making a point that was raised by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). He has said: `States do not have rights; they have obligations and responsibilities. It is people who have rights.' I think that is a very important contribution to this debate because it underlines many of the comments that I made earlier. I do not believe that many people in Tasmania take the view that they are Tasmanians first and foremost. That is almost as absurd as me saying that I am a Victorian first and foremost. I am an Australian and proud of it. This is the Australian Parliament, the national Parliament, which is charged with legislating and governing in the interests of all Australians, not parochial sections of the Australian mainland or Tasmania. From time to time, it is by definition the case that even where there is strong opposition from particular regional areas or States, in the national interest that opposition must sometimes be overridden. That is just a harsh fact of life. That is the duty which has been entrusted to us as members of the national Parliament of this country. But of course, in the final analysis, this Bill does not do that. The Bill sets up an appropriate mechanism to ensure that the very many genuinely held views that are ingredients in this whole debate are weighed, taken into account and finally adjudicated upon in what I described earlier as a less hostile or more temperate environment which is more conducive to sensible decision-making. Claims have been made about the number of jobs that are going to be lost. As I indicated, I would be particularly sensitive to such claims which come, to a great extent, from the timber industry, but I believe that the claims made in terms of job losses are quite outrageous. I can tell the House that I am a master at putting in an ambit claim for job losses. I did this for a living as a trade union representative. I could go into a negotiating environment and, on occasions, scare the living daylights out of all and sundry with an ambit claim. But that is all that is happening here and that is all it ought to be seen to be. They are negotiating positions embraced by one side of the argument to scare the living daylights out of people who might be affected by the industry. Mr Goodluck —You have not dealt with the Wilderness Society in Tasmania, obviously. Mr GRIFFITHS —I am not here as an advocate for the cause of the Wilderness Society, nor am I here as an advocate for the cause of the Tasmanian Government. I am here as an advocate for the cause of a sensible and reasonable compromise that will enhance Australia's great national treasures that happen to be placed in Tasmania. I will support a mechanism-that is, the inquiry which this Bill seeks to establish-that will allow the debate to be approached in a less hostile and emotive environment. At the end of the day I think we can all be judged on the outcome of that inquiry. Of course, this will not be the end of it for the honourable member for Franklin, who got into this place on the forest issue in Tasmania. He has wrung every last drop out of scaring people by saying that their jobs are going to be in jeopardy. That is what has kept him in this place for all these years. The same thing applies-- Mr Goodluck —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I must ask the honourable member to withdraw that. I find it offensive. I know that he is a chip off the old block, but I find what he said offensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! There is nothing unparliamentary in what the honourable member said. Mr GRIFFITHS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I must say that if I repeated some of the things that I have said to the honourable member outside of this chamber I can assure you that they would be unparliamentary and that I might have to withdraw them. In any event, he is a classic example of someone making a career out of effectively pursuing the narrow and very selfish issues that I referred to earlier on. Notwithstand- ing that, he is not a bad bloke. I think it is important to make the following points in terms of the jobs issue. The debate has been about job losses. In fact, earlier on the honourable member for Bass talked about one in four people losing their jobs. He implied, of course, that one in four people will be out of a job if this inquiry goes ahead. This is an absurdity that probably has not been exceeded at least this year in this Chamber, and that is saying something. The point is that the inquiry does not lock up all of the National Estate areas in Tasmania. That point has been implicit in speeches made by members of the Opposition but it is simply incorrect. The legislation locks up the Lemonthyme and the Southern Forests for a quite short time frame in which all of these issues will be addressed. I think that is quite appropriate and quite sensible. I find it very difficult to see how anyone approaching the issue on the basis of an objective analysis rather than self-interest could argue with that approach. The claims that have been made are, of course, very much a function of the politics of this matter. An election is coming up, I hope very much later this year. That is an underlying theme in all of the debate on this matter and that is why these arguments are being whipped up. Of course, the Bill does not only charge the inquiry with identifying certain areas as deserving of being protected; it also directs that inquiry to identify areas which definitely will not be categorised as worthy of long term protection. So to that extent we can see there is also on the other side of the coin some very positive possibilities for the Tasmanian timber industry. It is obvious that if we are talking about the relatively small areas involved, for the short term of the inquiry it is simply absurd to argue that timber companies cannot move into other areas. As I understand it, they all have access to those areas. It simply, whilst inconvenient-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILES(Braddon)(11.03) —It was interesting to hear the previous speaker, the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), say that the Federal Government is charged to govern for all Australians. I could not agree more with that. But the simple fact is that this nation has a Constitution which limits the powers of the Commonwealth. What is going on here today is another illustration of a centralist government wanting to muscle in on the responsibilities of the States. That is what this legislation is all about. That is why the Tasmanian people are fully supportive of their five Federal members of this place and Liberal senators in the other place for their stand on this issue. It is not that we say that we are Tasmanians first and that we negate our right to be Australians. Mr Goodluck —I am. Mr MILES —We are not saying that. Mr Chynoweth —Bruce is. Mr MILES —No, he is not saying that at all. He did not say that he is not an Australian. He recognises the importance of also being an Australian, of being part of this great nation of ours. But what we are saying today in this debate is that the legislation is a political stunt and that the Government is using the constitutional position created by the dams case to muscle in again on a States issue. Land use in any State in Australia should remain the province of that State. That is the essence of this debate. Since the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is in the chamber, I would like to say that he did not actually get into this Parliament because of the environmental debate in Tasmania; he got here because of the incompetence of the Whitlam Government. That is how it came about-because of the incompetence of the Whitlam Government and the honourable member's ability to campaign at that time. So he has not got here just on environmental issues. Of course, in the last year or two that has helped in Tasmania. But it has helped only because the Australian Labor Party has misread the Tasmanian people and has been prepared to follow all the extremist groups and to pander to them and not to look after the core people of this nation. It has deserted the Tasmanian family man, his wife and children. It has deserted them federally. That is the simple fact. If that were not so, I am sure that it would have more representatives here. The Tasmanian people know that the Labor Party has deserted them. In this case they know that it is a centralist government and they know that Tasmania is getting a raw deal. The Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987 should really be called the `Constitution Demolition Bill' because it is all about re-arranging the powers between the Commonwealth and the States and overriding the States. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Ministers have again decided to cut to threads, firstly, our founding fathers' precepts embodied in the Constitution that land use was a State responsibility and, secondly, the Tasmanian forestry agreement signed on 13 June 1986. This Government, which is noted, particularly in Tasmania and, I am sure, throughout the rest of Australia, for doing a lot of talking but taking little action, wants to get chummy with the rabid greenie preservationists. That is what is going on. It wants to disembowel the livelihood of hundreds of Tasmanian families. This must be the first time in Australia's history that the Constitution has been used to throw Australians out of jobs. That is what this Federal Government is doing. It is using the Constitution to try to override the State Government on land use to throw Australians out of jobs. It is a shocking state of affairs that the Australian Constitution can be abused so much, to the point where it will throw hundreds of families in Tasmania out of jobs. This Government has never shown that it really cares for small people. It has never shown compassion for the remote States of Australia and their people and it has rarely displayed any principles with regard to environmental matters. Let me illustrate. Why is it possible to have a uranium mine in South Australia but nowhere else in Australia? Why does the Labor Government have that position on that environmental matter? Why will it support South West Tasmania being part of the world heritage area but not support, and force, the world heritage listing of Daintree? Why not? Simply on political expediency, because Tasmania has five House of Representatives seats and Queensland has 24. If the Government got into a fight with a fairly large State it would lose House of Representatives seats hands down and that would mean it would be out of government. So there is no principle. This Government cannot say that it defends world heritage areas. It does not. It uses this as a political football in this Parliament. It is interesting, because the tropical rainforests of the world are regarded as having greater genetic diversity than the temperate rainforests-the Tasmanian areas. Yet this Government does not do anything about Daintree. It will not take it to the point where it took Tasmania-of using the Constitution to bash the States. The only principle this Government has is that it always looks after the big unions and big power blocs in our society. It is vindictive against the small States and is interested in political expediency. They are the principles. In hindsight, the overwhelming majority of Australians now realise that giving this Government the reins of power is like giving Dracula charge of the Red Cross blood bank. The very deceitful approach of this Hawke Government in honouring its agreement of less than a year ago with the Tasmanian people is seen in the fact that, in the second reading speech of the Minister for Environment and Conservation (Mr Cohen), he mentioned the National Estate four times, three times on page 6 and once on page 12. Many people here would lead us to believe that the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests really are world heritage areas, and the previous speaker spoke about Kakadu National Park, other great places around the world and several others of the 247 world heritage areas. They are not included in the World Heritage List, yet world heritage is mentioned 33 times in that speech he gave to the House. The Minister did not point out to this House or the Australian people that the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests are National Estate areas and he mentioned the National Estate only four times. That indicates the type of deception that is running amok throughout mainland States in regard to this issue. Many mainland Australians believe that the Tasmanian Government and Tasmanian saw-millers are cutting down world heritage trees. It is simply dishonest to imply that sort of thing. The Minister should have concentrated in his speech on talking about what National Estate areas really are and what is allowed to happen in those areas. If this Bill referred to world heritage areas, the Australian people may very well be concerned, but that simply is not the case. A listing on the National Estate simply means that, in the opinion of some people, an area has heritage qualities. As the Australian Heritage Commission says, it does not mean that the resources of these areas are locked away. In other words, logging is permitted in forest areas, as is mining for minerals. Of course, it is purely theoretical to say that an area can be listed as a heritage area and then say that it is possible for mining or harvesting of natural timber to continue. In reality, it is very different. Let me put it this way. Why would a company survey for minerals or plan to use timber resources when there is no guarantee that the resources can be used, once found? The economic uncertainty that the Franklin Dam case caused in Tasmania is monumental. It is monumental because companies cannot plan as they do not know whether the Federal Government is going to muscle in and use an abusive side of the Constitution-as it now has-to force Tasmania into a corner. Whereas before 1983 States knew that they had a definite constitutional responsibility, now States are faced with uncertainty. Political uncertainty leads to business reticence to invest. In turn, it means that people lose jobs. No jobs means hardships for wives, children and families as they are forced to live on government benefits. The broken promises of this Hawke Government on issues central to one in seven workers in Tasmania are monumental. The effect of this legislation will be to lock up 240,000 hectares of Tasmania, throw hundreds of people out of work and cost millions of dollars in lost investment. That is the practical reality of this situation because of the uncertainty. Just outside my area, in the electorate of the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), there is the possibility of a new pulp mill, but that has been put on ice simply because investors do not know whether the resources are going to be available. Let me make just one or two comments about resources and try to put some balance into this debate. The honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) said that we are cutting down 20,000 hectares of trees a year. I am not sure whether that figure is correct but I assume that it is. In 1983-84 Tasmania reseeded 6,500 hectares of eucalypts on government land. Approximately another 2,000 hectares per year are reseeded and planted on private land. Those figures have not been quite that high for the last 15 years but they have been around 4,000 hectares a year for at least 15 years. The interesting fact is this and it comes from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: A poor natural forest produces one cubic metre of hardwood per hectare per year, a good natural forest up to about five or six cubic metres. The CSIRO then states that in a good well managed plantation one could produce between 30 to 50 cubic metres, at least six times as much. Let us say that we are cutting 20,000 hectares a year, if the honourable member is correct, and that we are replanting about 8,000 which can produce at least six times the quantity of wood that has been cut from natural forests. It is equivalent to 48,000 hectares of wood. That is the difference and that is where this argument always flounders because neither side uses all the facts. It wants to use just one set of facts to sustain its argument. Honourable members have said in this House before that they want a balanced debate on this issue. I am putting some of the balance into this debate by saying that one can cut 20,000 hectares, if that is what we are cutting, and one can reseed and replant at 8,000 hectares a year and have the equivalent result of planting 48,000 hectares of natural forest. That is the situation; that is the factual scientific position of growing trees. Tasmania is very concerned, and has been for a number of years, about its environment and again the facts support Tasmania's position. Tasmania has three times the area of national parks of any other State. If the other States, and particularly this Government which is dominated by people from the mainland-it does not even have a member from Tasmania in the House of Representatives-would do what Tasmania has done, Australia would be better off. They should take the lead from what has happened in Tasmania. We have reserved vast areas of our State. The area which is now in reserve is equivalent to the reserved areas in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria which are on the mainland. That area is now out of bounds. The national parks in Tasmania are excellent areas and we have reserved them. Not only have we looked after our natural environment but we have looked after our natural environment in those areas in which we are woodchipping and in which we are getting out sawlogs. The way in which the Forestry Commission is supervising that work means that those forests are being looked after sensitively and carefully. We are watching our water resources and making sure that tracts of land are left for particular species of plants to grow. We are ensuring that there are places in Tasmania where one can go and see the old forest species that have been there for hundreds of years. There is no doubt about that. We are ensuring that trees are not logged close to the small streams which ultimately make up the rivers. We are being sensitive about the way in which we are logging. Not only that but the types of machines which are allowed to be used in logging have to be of a particular type so that the soil is not compacted in those areas. The Tasmanian Government has set the trend in Australia in how to handle and to manage sawmilling and chip operations. We have set a trend and it is a very important trend for the rest of Australia. In summing up this debate, firstly, we are facing a constitutional problem because this legislation affects land use which is a State responsibility. Sawlogs have nothing at all to do with exporting but this Federal Government wants to force the Tasmanian Government into a tenth inquiry into this industry. It is absolute nonsense and the Tasmanian people vehemently reject that position. Secondly, as I have said, Tasmania is being sensitive to the logging areas. No State in Australia is as well forested as Tasmania and I can see no State being as well forested as Tasmania will be in 50 years time. That is the simple fact of the situation. Tasmania is being very sensitive to this issue and the Minister there, Mr Ray Groom, is doing an excellent job in keeping a cool, level-headed approach to this whole issue. If some honourable members say that the Premier or imply that the Minister for Forests are intransigent, it is simply not the truth. Those people are willing to talk; they are willing to listen; but they are not prepared to negotiate the constitutional position of Tasmania with this Federal Government or any Federal government. Finally, I make the position quite clear: This issue is about National Estate areas; it is not about World Heritage and that is a vital difference. We have to make sure that in this debate there is clarity of thought and understanding as to what the issue is really about. The only reason this Government has brought this Bill into this Parliament is a political one. Why does it not make the decision right now? Why have a tenth inquiry in 15 years? There is absolutely no need. It is a stalling tactic to drum up a political issue on the mainland of Australia for votes. It is as simple as that. Why was this Bill presented this year, an election year? Why was the matter not sorted out two or three years ago? They were not election years but this year is an election year so the Government wants to get the numbers. This Government is to be condemned for this approach. Why does it not make the decision that it could make and get on with the job so that people in Tasmania know whether they will have jobs next week? At this rate the Government is prepared to let people dangle at the end of a string not knowing whether jobs will be there for a year or in two or three years time. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(11.23) —I seek to address a number of matters in this debate but before doing that, for the benefit of my electorate of Hughes and my constituents, I place on record the purpose of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill. The Bill makes provision for the establishment of a commission of inquiry to examine and report on matters relating to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas in Tasmania. The Lemonthyme area defined by the Bill includes part of the upper catchment area of the Mersey River and the findings of the Commission will assist the Government in giving effect to Australia's international obligations under the World Heritage Convention to take appropriate measures for the identification, protection, conservation and preservation of areas of World Heritage. The inquiry will examine whether the two areas are, or include, areas which are of World Heritage value or which contribute to the value of the World Heritage area. The inquiry will also report on whether there are other areas in Tasmania which have forestry resources capable of exploitation in a way which would fulfil certain criteria. Firstly the matter of exploitation would need to cause no detriment to the Tasmanian forest industry-I repeat that it would cause no detriment to the Tasmanian forest industry-and secondly, the exploitation of such areas would need to be environmentally and economically prudent and a feasible alternative to the exploitation of forestry resources in any areas of World Heritage value identified within the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas. Importantly, the Bill provides for interim protection for the two areas I have described. This protection takes the form of a prohibition, except with the consent of the Minister, of certain activities such as cutting down trees, the construction of roads and excavation works. I am very pleased to be able to talk on this particular Bill. I am pleased because, long before I entered the Parliament, I was active in a whole range of environmental organisations promoting the protection and preservation of Australia's natural heritage. So when I express these views it is not the result of any deathbed conversion or switch of attitudes on my part; it is the product of my adult life's convictions and an active personal and parliamentary stand on these issues. But let me not run away from the point that was made by the Opposition in the course of this debate. That point was, in part, that the Government has been acting in response to public opinion. If that is the charge, the Government, at least in part, pleads guilty and is extremely proud to make that admission. Surely in Western parliamentary democracies one of the responsibilities of an elected government when formulating policy ought to be to take into consideration a groundswell of popular public opinion-and clearly public opinion supports the preservation of World Heritage areas and those areas adjacent to world heritage areas which could impinge upon them. Reference has been made, of course, to a number of prominent Federal Labor members, including my colleague Senator Richardson. It was suggested that Senator Richardson has changed his mind on the issue of the protection of Australia's natural heritage. I think he would willingly agree that that is the case. But, to give him credit, as a lifelong practitioner and campaigner for environmental protection, I welcome and embrace his change of mind on the issue. I commend him and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and all those people in the Government who have turned the direction of this Government to a pro-environment, pro-conservation stand, and I have no doubt that when this Government goes to the polls that stand and the very deep differences that exist between us and the Opposition will make up one of the key areas that form the subject of a judgment by the electors at the ballot box. It has also been clear to me that the views of this Government in support of environmental protection are reflected by the New South Wales Labor Government, and I also give credit to the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment and Minister for Heritage, Mr Carr, because I think he has provided for other State Ministers a model to show just what can be done to preserve the natural environment while at the same time promoting employment generation and alternative employment where that is necessary. Before I rose to speak today I thought to myself: `What would be the view today of the people in the parliamentary gallery if they were asked to vote on this issue?' I note that a great many of the people in the gallery are young Australians, and I have no doubt that if they were asked to put forward their views on this issue those views would reflect the views of the young people in the schools of the Hughes electorate that I represent. When I go to schools in my electorate, when I go to technical and further education colleges and when I speak at universities, seeking the opinion of young Australians about what they think should happen in regard to issues of environmental protection, the response I always get is that the Federal Government has an obligation to stand up and defend Australia's natural heritage. I welcome that refreshing idealism on the part of young Australians and I am confident that this Government can meet their expectations. The Government's powers in this area are based, of course, on the World Heritage Convention, which itself is a reflection of the desires of humankind throughout the world to protect the natural environment. The Convention's full title is the International Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, but it is commonly simply referred to as the World Heritage Convention. It was adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation General Conference at its seventeenth session in Paris on 19 November 1972 and came into force on 7 December 1975. It promotes co-operation among nations to protect areas and buildings which are of such universal value that their conservation is of concern to humanity generally-not just to political parties, not just to State governments, not even just to national governments, but to the world. That world ranking and world recognition is reflected in the types of items that are listed, pursuant to the Convention, on the World Heritage List. Other speakers in this debate have referred to the fact that they include the Pyramids of Egypt, the Grand Canyon of the United States of America and the Taj Mahal of India. That is the sort of issue that ranks as world heritage. In the course of this debate I heard the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) draw what I think was a baseless distinction in substance between world heritage areas and national estate areas, taking the view that simply because an area is not already a world heritage area it is therefore open season or a free go for developers, loggers or any other commercial or government interest that wants to move in and take a slice of the action. I reject those views. For example, to take another world heritage listed item, the Pyramids, is the honourable member seriously suggesting that it is possible, because the area immediately adjacent to the Pyramids is not classed as a world heritage area, to have a McDonald's hamburger joint, a motel or some other commercial operation in such an area without circumventing the World Heritage Convention and its intent? What a ludicrous and offensive proposition to put to all those millions of Australians concerned about our world heritage areas. The fact is that world heritage areas of themselves are important, but so too are the areas adjacent to world heritage areas which can, of course, cause visual pollution in the world heritage areas themselves. The emphasis of this Government in all its works and in all its programs is on co-operation. I support and welcome that approach to dealing with the problems of this nation. It is not our view that we should seek confrontation in industrial relations; it is not our view that we should seek divisions between the private and public school sectors; it is not our view that we should have barricades erected between forestry workers and conservationists; in totality, it is not our view that we should have a sick and divided society as we move into our bicentennial year. That does not mean, of course, that there are not serious, difficult problems that need to be resolved. But the approach of this Government has always been to seek compromise, to seek to mediate where there are conflicting views about the future direction of our country. Of course, the record shows that on the issue of the Tasmanian forests over a prolonged period this Government has bent over backwards; it has pleaded with the Tasmanian Premier and the Tasmanian Government to do the right thing to protect the heritage areas of Tasmania. But, of course, their approach has been one of provocation, of refusal to hold proper talks with the Commonwealth, and of seeking whenever they possibly can to cause division and to make political gain from sensitive issues confronting our nation. It is a consistent pattern. If we examine other environmental issues such as Kakadu National Park, we see that the Opposition parties-and, in the Northern Territory, the Country-Liberal Party-have sought to promote divisions on every issue. They have sought to try to bring about a situation of confrontation. The Premier of Queensland, of course, rather than embrace this Government's moves to preserve the tropical rainforests of North Queensland, time and time again has sought confrontation-so much so that he actively encouraged a bulldozer driver to chart a course through one of the most sensitive areas of North Queensland rainforests. The honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) and I have witnessed at first hand the ramifications of that destructive act of vandalism. It is not just a political responsibility that this Government has to promote an attitude of compromise and co-operation; in fact, it is a legal responsibility. The decision of Mr Justice Beaumont in the case concerning the listing of Kakadu National Park clearly bears that out. This Government has sought to meet those legal and political obligations. I turn in particular to the role of the Opposition in this Parliament in order to explain to people very clearly just what the issue is in this debate. In essence, it is simply this: We in the Australian Labor Party say that the Federal Government has responsibilities in the area of environmental protection. We say that there are some areas that are so important that they transcend any State boundary, that they are a national responsibility and the heritage of our country. Those issues are relatively few and far between, but when there is a need for us to step in, we have shown, and will continue to show, that we are prepared to meet that responsibility. The Opposition, on the other hand, has a hands-off approach. It turns back the clock and even rejects Malcolm Fraser's approach to environmental protection. It is a sad and shameful day for the Liberal Party when it does not have an adequate spokesman on the issue of environmental protection and the preservation of Australia's national heritage. What has happened to the Party that once represented, or purported to represent, all Australians? Who is the person who speaks on behalf of the Opposition on issues concerning the environment? Would you believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the spokesman for the Opposition is not just a member of the National Party of Australia, but a Queensland National Party senator? In fact, he is one of Joh's right hand men. Senator Collard, in his public pronouncements on the environment, has given a very clear statement of where the Opposition stands on environmental protection. I know Senator Collard quite well. I find him a very pleasant and courteous person, and I do not seek to attack him personally. But I do seek to destroy for all time his credibility as the Opposition spokesman on the environment. Do not forget that Senator Collard speaks not just for the dries, but for the wets, for all members of the Liberal Party right across Australia. A Queensland National Party senator puts the line for the conservative parties. Boy oh boy, the Australian people will have something to say about that at the ballot box! Senator Collard has spoken at great length on the environment. On 20 September 1986 he spoke at a seminar entitled `Nationals in the North'-in north Queensland, that is. Can honourable members imagine the environmental line that was put at that conference? My goodness, they are a rough old mob up there! In the course of his speech he said: Even in opposition I received constant demands for the Federal Government to use its export or foreign affairs powers to stop one thing or another. I can hardly wait for government! Indeed, I can understand what he is on about. He continued: My answer to such demands will be as it has always been-that basic land use decisions are, and should remain, the responsibility of the individual State governments. The Constitution of 1901 did not cede, nor has any subsequent referendum ceded, land use decisions to the Commonwealth. That is a hands-off approach: Leave it to the States, leave it to Joh, leave it to Premier Gray. What a shocking abdication of national responsibility by a major political party. That view has, of course, been endorsed by the honourable member for Braddon in the course of the debate today. If honourable members think that the proposition that the Federal Government ought to intervene to protect important areas of the National Estate is some dreadful socialist plot or some connived stance and somehow distorts the Constitution, let me remind them that that well known socialist left activist, that well known stirrer and radical, Malcolm Fraser, was the one who intervened by using Commonwealth power to stop the export of mineral sands from Fraser Island. Goodness gracious me-to use the phrase of the moment-look at what we have now. We have the Opposition, led by Mr Howard, turning its back on the policies of Malcolm Fraser regarding environmental protection. What a discredited lot! I turn to a couple of other examples of Senator Collard's pronouncements that impact on the stand of the Opposition parties. With regard to Kakadu, of course, in conjunction with the Opposition spokesman on mining, Senator Durack-in a joint statement, which says a lot-he condemned the Government's decision to legislate to prevent mining or mineral exploration taking place in stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park. That is the Opposition's stance on Kakadu. I turn to the issue of logging of rainforests which, of course, has been stopped by the progressive New South Wales Government, although it is still open season in Queensland. On the issue of rainforest preservation, Senator Collard-speaking for the Liberal Party, I might add-said that, in an idealistic world, it would be desirable to lock up all rainforests for their genetic potential, but reality did not allow it. Of course reality in New South Wales is a bit different from the reality of the north Queensland Nationals. Bob Carr has done it. Jobs have not been lost. The people are happy and future generations of people in New South Wales have something to look forward to regarding the protection of those important National Estate and world heritage areas. On the issue of the Tasmanian forests, of course, the same thing applies. There is a hands-off attitude: Leave it to the States; leave it to Premier Gray; she'll be right, mate; open slather. That is the approach of Senator Collard on behalf of the once proud Liberal Party. I cannot really say much more about Senator Collard; he has said it all. I turn to the issue of employment. I do so because I believe that forestry workers in Tasmania are being hoodwinked and conned by the Tasmanian Premier on this issue. Forestry workers are notoriously underpaid. They deserve a far better deal in terms of their remuneration, as do their families. Because of that low pay their position has been exploited by the Liberal and National Party Opposition. It is the view of this Government that they must be protected. I give them the assurance that under this Government they will be protected. The thrust of this legislation is to provide for compensation in the case of any forestry workers who lose their jobs. The honourable member for Dunkley has informed me that some $20m has been made available for that compensation. They will be protected by this Government. I noticed in the Canberra Times of 27 February that two retired Tasmanian loggers came to Canberra to state their case in support of the Federal Government's stand and in opposition to that of the Tasmanian Government. I urge other forestry workers to examine the issues because, when they do, they will find that they are being conned and hoodwinked by the Tasmanian Premier. I conclude by saying that the divisions between the Opposition and the Government on the environment are absolutely cavernous. We protect the environment and they will ravage it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(11.43) —We are debating the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill and I am pleased to have an opportunity to comment on it. It is hard to follow the tour de force of the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), who covered the legislation with great sensitivity and, being a very experienced lawyer, with very persuasive legal argument. I feel it is important to make a comment in the national Parliament because we are debating today what I believe is the preservation of an area which may well be included on the World Heritage List. Whether or not it will be included will depend on the outcome of the Commission of Inquiry. I preface my remarks by recounting to the House a conversation I had with a very esteemed journalist who was formerly a member of the Press Gallery, Peter Bowers. Mr Bowers, who is a most sensitive man, as we all know, told me that he had visited a number of places while travelling with various Prime Ministers. The greatest sight he had ever seen was the Victoria Falls in southern Africa and the second greatest sight was Machu Picchu in Peru, the Inca capital in the clouds. Australia's Machu Picchu is Cradle Mountain in Tasmania. Anyone who has been to northern Tasmania can see Cradle Mountain in the distance. One can see the mountain from near Launceston, at the back of Devonport and from the sea level at Ulverstone. It used to be difficult to reach Cradle Mountain but there is probably a tarred road up to it now. It is the most wonderful sight. It is not as high as Kosciusko but it is much more spectacular. The Western Tiers is another sight it is worth going to Tasmania to see. One can sit in Deloraine and some of those small towns and picturesque villages just to look at the Western Tiers and, in the distance, Cradle Mountain. Our friend the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) said that the Government had misread the Tasmanian people. I do not believe that. I have been to Tasmania on numerous occasions and I have seen no high rise development in Ross or any of those historic towns. I think that it would be sacrilege to redevelop the old parts of Hobart or of Launceston which are picturesque and tourist-oriented. It is nonsense for our opponents to come into this House and say that the Australian people want this area logged. I wonder what people are saying in north Sydney. I wonder what the young people in Killara, Lane Cove and Gladesville and people in the Liberal Party branches are saying. They are not saying that these areas should be logged. In Tasmania we have an area which I believe is our equivalent of Machu Picchu. It is a great sight and an area to which this legislation will relate. The legislation will do much to assess the forests which abut an area which is world heritage classified and which has been so classified, along with the other areas mentioned by other speakers in this debate, such as the pyramids and other extraordinary works of man and of nature. In dealing with this Bill, I want to refer to the growth in tourism in this nation in recent times. Ministers referred to this matter in answers to questions in the House only yesterday. I am told that at present it is not possible for people travelling to or from Australia to obtain first-class seats on airlines. People are on standby to get a first-class air ticket to Australia. Anyone who has ever travelled overseas -and members tend to travel on occasion-will know that first-class seats were the cinderella of the airlines. Qantas Airways Ltd would have one or two first-class passengers. Now one cannot get a seat in first-class and potential tourists are complaining because they are wait listed first-class. I am told that the hospitality industry in Sydney is looking to 10,000 new jobs in the central business district in the next two years. Those concerned are worried that they will not be able to find trained people to serve on tables, cook and manage the hospitality industry. Surely some of this work must spin off to Tasmanians. Surely Tasmanians must be able to obtain jobs from tourism. This beautiful island State to the south of the mainland contains people of great friendliness, and it must be pointed out that not every tourist wants to lie on beaches-surely people have heard of skin cancer! I believe that in time the attractions of Tasmania will develop. It is an island State that is oriented towards tourism. The Bill will give one year's protection from logging. There will be compensation for those who are inconvenienced and this is not being put under legal compulsion. The Government is giving compensation to those who are displaced. There have been precedents for compensation. We know that in December 1982 or January 1983 the previous Administration, the Fraser Government, offered the Tasmanian Government $500m compensation not to dam the Franklin-Lower Gordon wild Rivers. To log is a short term solution to the employment problems. I acknowledge, as do other speakers, that 30 per cent of Tasmania is on the National Estate, but that does not protect it from logging. Only about 12 per cent is on the World Heritage List. I wanted to make a point concerning something I read some time ago and photocopied and put up in my office. It related to a book I was reading about the war, particularly the dark days in the United Kingdom. One of the points made was that Pius XII, who was the Pope during the war and who unfairly received a very bad Press over the years, brought out five points for peace during the war. The church leaders in the United Kingdom wrote a letter to the Times which caused a lot of interest. The letter was signed by all ecclesiastical leaders and was probably inspired by Archbishop Temple. It supported the Pope's plan and added an extra five points which were aimed at reconstruction after the war. In 1941 people were thinking of what would happen after the war. The final point that was made by the British ecclesiastics was: The natural treasures of the earth are to be safeguarded, with due regard to future generations, as God's gifts to all mankind. I thought that was a most sensitive point made at that time of great distress and gloom in the United Kingdom. If unique areas of Tasmania are logged, there is no regard to future generations. One has to skip three or four generations before there is another crop of trees, if anything ever grows there again. Foresters will probably plant pinus radiata as their normal practice. I have seen those areas. I have seen parts of Tasmania that look like a moonscape-miles and miles of pinus radiata in areas where leatherwood trees had grown, with all the potential for tourism. Those areas have now been planted with pinus radiata. I have been to these areas and electorates in Tasmania and seen areas devastated by the timber getters. I put it to Opposition members that there are other sources of employment in tourism, and I feel that the State of Tasmania will benefit greatly from tourism. I believe that much more can be done in my own State of New South Wales for tourism in the timber area. I said this to State Ministers with responsibility for forests when I was a State member in New South Wales. Timbertown at Wauchope is a great tourist centre devoted entirely to the story of the timber industry. It is a reproduction of an old town built in the colonial fashion. It is filled with families and tourists though it was set up in a quite isolated area. It is all devoted to timber. I said to one Minister in the New South Wales Government: `Where can tourists go to see a cedar?' Cedar-getting was how the timber industry opened on the mainland. Our pioneer cedar-getters went through the forests and took the cedars out and blazed trails for the squatters and settlers to come in, particularly in the great wet around Lismore and the Northern Rivers area. But one cannot find a cedar now. There are still cedars in there, but tourists cannot go and see what a cedar tree looks like. At one time there were cedars everywhere. There were cedars in Sydney, as one sees from the old journals. The French Canadians who took part in a rebellion in Quebec, led by the Speaker of the Parliament, were brought out in 1840 to Concord, New South Wales, in my electorate. One of them kept a journal and said that the stumps of a cedar found in the grounds of the camp was 30 feet in diameter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! Could I ask the honourable member for Lowe to come back to Tasmania? Mr MAHER —Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought that timber might have been germane to the debate. Nevertheless, I will come back to the legislation. I put very strongly to the House that development of tourism and tourist potential in relation to wood and forestry is an alternative form of development and employment. It provides employment for young people. They are the people we are worried about-the unskilled young people who are leaving school. I refer not just to the hospitality area but to serving meals and employment of that type. I strongly support this legislation which I feel has support in Tasmania. Our friends from the Liberal Party who represent the five Tasmanian seats talk opposition support in Tasmania, but I have not found that when I have gone through Tasmania and visited Devonport, Ulverstone, Penguine and many such places. I have talked to people, representatives of local government and members of the Labor Party down there and I have found support for the preservation of Tasmania. The people do not want development; they do not want their countryside defaced. They want Tasmania to advance as a beautiful island. I hope that will happen as a result of the Commission of Inquiry which we are debating today, which I trust we will establish by this Bill, and which will give a year's breathing space. The inquiry will report on the wisdom of adding these areas to the world heritage area which they adjoin. If one looks at a map, one finds that the situation is quite extraordinary. I do not know whether honourable members can see the map that I am holding up, but it shows that the actual Lemonthyme area abuts the world heritage area. I went to the Minister's office to get a copy of the map and I simply could not believe what I saw. The Cradle Mountain area is right up against the area that is being logged at present. I think that it is almost sacreligious to log this part of Australia. I feel that these areas must be studied and examined. There is a very strong case for assessing the potential of these areas. The Southern Forest area joins the Franklin-Lower Gordon Wild Rivers National Park, which is also part of the World Heritage List. Parts of the Southern Forest areas are not adjacent to a world heritage area. There has been much debate as to what is on the National Estate and what is on the World Heritage List. There have been a number of speakers in this debate and I will not canvass the matters that were raised by the honourable member for Hughes and other speakers. I know that other honourable members wish to contribute. I urge the House to support the legislation, mainly because I think it is something that we owe Australia. I know there have been other inquiries and examinations of this issue. The potential for tourism in our nation is enormous and the potential for tourism in Tasmania, as part of our nation, is very great. I trust that the House will support this legislation. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(11.57) —I rise to support the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill-a Bill which will be recognised as perhaps a watershed in terms of the Federal Government's attitude to protection of the environment and protection of areas which are clearly in the world heritage category. These are the sorts of areas for which one should not have to introduce major legislation to protect the areas. One would have hoped-on this side of the House we always live in hope that the Opposition will see the light-that a State government would always look for ways in which to supplement its industries and jobs. I would have hoped that the Tasmanian Government would have recognised the value of the world heritage environment to tourism. But that is something it obviously has not done and it has forced us into the position of having to legislate to protect the environment. This Bill is based on a number of factors. The Commission of Inquiry will examine whether the two areas are, or include areas which are, of world heritage value or which contribute to the value of a world heritage area. The inquiry will also report on whether other areas in Tasmania have forestry resources capable of exploitation in a way which would fulfil certain criteria. One of the points which will concern the inquiry is the manner of exploitation. This would need to cause no detriment to the Tasmanian forestry industry. A major part of the criticism that is being thrown up by the Gray Government and by Opposition members who have spoken here-most of whom come from Tasmania-about how this Bill will damage jobs and the timber industry in Tasmania ignores the first and prime task of the inquiry and that is to ensure that, whatever is done, there is no detriment to the Tasmanian forestry industry. Secondly, the exploitation of such areas would need to be an environmentally and economically prudent and feasible alternative to the exploitation of forestry resources in any areas of world heritage value identified with the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas. The Bill also provides for the interim protection of the two areas during the period of the inquiry. Opposition members seem to be outraged about that, but given that there is a need for this investigation to be undertaken by us because it has not been undertaken by the State Government-the State Government has refused to co-operate in this area and we have had to resort to this legislation-I think it is only sensible and reasonable that we should have interim protection of the areas under consideration. There seems little purpose in having an inquiry if we still allow the forestry workers to work in and damage an area which may well need absolute protection. One of the most important expressions of the desire of mankind to protect the environment in which we live has found its form in the international convention concerning the protection of the world's cultural and natural heritage-the World Heritage Convention. This has arisen from a growing desire within the world community to protect what is left of our natural resources and wonders. Certainly, in more recent times, this has become a growing concern throughout the world; except, it appears, in places such as Tasmania and Queensland, where the governments have shown an absolute lack of concern and a total disregard for the responsibility that we, as citizens of the world today, have to protect the natural wonders for the people of tomorrow. The World Heritage Convention was adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation at its general conference in Paris in November 1972. The Convention, which came into force in December 1975, promotes co-operation among nations to protect areas and buildings which have such universal value that their conservation is of concern to humanity generally. Australia was one of the first countries to ratify the Convention in August 1974. Since then the number of parties to the Convention has increased steadily and 92 countries from all parts of the world are now parties. Importantly, parties to the Convention commit themselves to help in the identification, protection, conservation and presentation of world heritage properties. They recognise that the identification and safeguarding of those parts of the world heritage which are located in their own countries is primarily their own responsibility. That is where we come back to the task of the Federal Government in this case. Protection of our areas is our responsibility. We cannot blame anyone except ourselves for the damage that we are doing. We, as a federal government, must and will continue to intervene when State governments, such as the Tasmanian and Queensland governments, show themselves as incapable or unwilling to take action to protect those areas that should be protected. It is our responsibility and we have agreed that we will do all that we can. This Bill is a part of that activity. In this particular instance the Bill is necessary because the Gray Government in Tasmania has adopted a confrontationist and opportunist attitude and has done nothing to support the proposition to have the areas in Tasmania properly investigated or to ensure that those areas that are of real value, including the ones currently in conflict, are properly examined, that a reasonable view is taken and that those areas that need to be protected are protected in a very careful and managed way. The history of the timber industry in Tasmania has been a sorry one. While there have been improvements in more recent times there is no question that the work that has gone on in the past, particularly the clear felling operations, has caused environmental damage to many areas in Tasmania. Some of these areas may never recover. Others certainly will take many, many years to do so. We must ensure that the areas which have not yet been damaged are not damaged by inconsiderate and unnecessary activities of a government which has shown a total lack of concern for the environment. I want to speak about some of the debate that has taken place in the House from the Opposition. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), for instance, was put out of the House last night because of his behaviour. It was quite apparent to me, in watching the debate, that he was out for a bit of grandstanding. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! I am not too sure what this has to do with the Bill, quite frankly. Mr SAUNDERSON —It is related to the debate and the sorts of information and points of view that were put by the members of the Opposition. I want to cover that because I think it is important when it comes down to the problems that exist in Tasmania. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will listen to the honourable member with interest. Mr SAUNDERSON —When these sorts of issues occur it is important that proper and reasoned information be given to the community at large. I do not believe that has been done by members of the Opposition. When any issue in relation to Tasmania comes up, firstly, they weigh up whether there is an opportunity for them to increase their proportion of the vote. They become involved in an exercise to be thrown out of the House so that they can appear on their local television stations or in their local newspapers and talk about how they have taken a firm stand for Tasmania. It does not matter that the point of view that they have taken totally ignores the proper position that should be taken and totally ignores the proper dissemination of information which would allow people to make a good judgment. We are faced with a problem in that people in Tasmania are not sure about which way to go. They are concerned about their jobs, and that is a natural concern that anybody has, but they are not provided with reasonable information by people who know better, such as the people in the Tasmanian Government-the Gray Government-and the members of the Opposition from Tasmania. They say: `Yes, you have a right to be worried about your jobs because you will lose them all. Thousands of jobs will be gone. You will all be out of work. Everybody in Tasmania will be out of work. If you stop a few small coupes, a few small hectares, from being worked in the timber industry thousands and thousands of people will be out of work'. It is the sort of scaremongering which is calculated by members of the Opposition to frighten people into voting for them at the next election. It is not calculated to provide reasonable information which will allow those people to make a proper judgment about heritage areas, about the need for preservation and about the need for proper work considerations in these areas. They simply think `What is in it for us in terms of the opportunity for us to be elected?'-a simple opportunist political position. So we saw the honourable member for Denison thrown out yesterday. He was simply in here to provoke a situation, which is what he did. He will be out there getting a bit of publicity. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) was interjecting before, saying: `Wait for the vote. Wait for the vote'. It is obvious that that is the consideration of members of the Opposition. They are not concerned about the fact that if their view were to get up precious areas of our world heritage may well be gone forever. They are not worried about that. They are just saying: `The Government has picked up an issue from which we can exploit a few extra votes in Tasmania, so wait for the vote'. That may well be, but it seems to me that a much better position for us to be taking up is the principled position-the preservation of those areas for the world heritage is what we should be about. We should be preserving those areas that need to be preserved. One of my comrades has talked about the Opposition's policies. It becomes a bit more difficult day by day to know what the Opposition's policy is because the Liberal Party of Australia does not have a spokesperson. As was pointed out, the spokesperson for the coalition is a member of the National Party of Australia, Senator Collard. Within the National Party now we have a party within a party. Senator Collard is from Queensland, and we are not quite sure whether the 10 or 12 Queensland members are in or out of the coalition. We are not sure whether he is speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party any more or whether he is espousing Joh's policies. We might have one policy; we might have two policies; we could have three policies from the Opposition in relation to conservation areas. Because the Liberal Party does not have a spokesperson, we are not quite sure what its view is, except that we know that it is opposing this Bill, so we can assume only that it is opposed to the preservation of important areas within our country. The National Party has expressed a laissez-faire approach-let the States decide. States such as Tasmania and Queensland have shown what they think of world heritage, the National Estate and important unique areas within their confines. They will destroy them as quickly as they look at them. Joh, whom the Queensland National Party people now seem to support, is not in the national Parliament, but he says he is coming; he is on the road. He must be walking as it is taking him a long time to get here. What is Joh's attitude? He would dam the Franklin, an area which is now in the World Heritage List and which it is now no longer disputed is a unique area in the world. Joh's view is that he would turn back the clock; he would dam the Franklin; he would flood the area because he does not believe we should protect anything. He can mine the sands; he can destroy all those areas in Queensland-protect nothing, destroy the lot. It is obvious that we should be concerned as a community at large that that sort of attitude exists in people who are in such an important position as a State Premier. The critics talk about the fact that significant areas are being locked away and that many Tasmanians will lose their jobs because of that. Let us look at the facts. The area to be excluded from logging by this legislation for the duration of the inquiry is 284,000 hectares. This is not a huge area, as some people would make one believe. The way some people are talking one would think it is not only the whole of Tasmania but also Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. Also, because it will be temporary, the reality is that we are talking about only a few small areas. It is not as if those 284,000 hectares would be worked by the Forestry Commission or the timber industry. It is not as if all the trees in those 284,000 hectares were to be cut down. We are talking about a few coupes here and there throughout the whole area. If people in the Opposition are trying to tell us that the few coupes that will be set aside and not be worked for 12 months means that the industry in Tasmania will be closed down, they had better brush up on their argument because nobody will believe that. The industry knows that that is a joke and so does the community at large. It will be a temporary injunction which will prevent a few small coupes being worked in those 284,000 hectares until the inquiry finishes. The logical thing is to prevent those areas being worked simply because it is no use going back and looking at the bare earth with just the stumps left and saying: `Yes, we have decided it was a very important area, but it is a bit of a pity that we chopped the trees down'. Obviously, if we have an inquiry we should not destroy what we are looking at. The economic impact will be absolutely minute because the timber industry has other reserves to go to. There is no question that we really will damage the area. I have spoken in this House before about the attitude that exists in Tasmania. I have been there and I have spoken to people from all walks of life. I have spoken to members of the community, to conservationists, to unionists, to people who are working on the sites and to the companies. I have also spoken about the attitude that exists within the companies that they run Tasmania, that the Government is just there to do what the companies want and they can do what they like. I have spoken about the thuggery that exists within the companies. We have seen people, who have been quite rightly protesting about the destruction of important environmental areas, being assaulted and assailed by others brought in by the companies. The companies are being forced to alter their attitudes to conservation; it has not been something which they have generally come to respect. Here is an industry that they are involved in and there is a need for them to be careful about the conservation of important areas and to preserve the industry in the long term. Shortsighted policies, a lack of concern about the future and a general disregard for environmental issues have led to the great concern that exists today. There is no question that in more recent times the companies have improved their attitude. The reality is that there is a need for us to step in because of their attitude of wanting the whole lot, unreserved, and the State Government's attitude of not being prepared to co-operate because it is politically opportune for it to be seen to be in confrontation with the Federal Government. For those reasons we have been forced to introduce this Bill. As I said at the very beginning, I think the passing of this Bill, the subsequent inquiry and the decisions that are likely to flow from that, may well be a watershed in terms of the approach that is taken to other important areas in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(12.17) —I support the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill and I do so with a great deal of conviction. In my view, the debate today should never have been necessary. It has been brought on solely by the intransigence and the bloody-mindedness of the Liberal Government in Tasmania. This is the same Government that caused divisions in the Australian community over the Franklin Dam. Let me remind honourable members in this House that the economics of the Franklin Dam in the context of hydro-electric generation in Tasmania are now very well known to have been completely fraudulent. There was never any need for the Franklin Dam. More than anything, it was a power play by the Hydro-Electric Commission and a political power play by the Liberal Government in Tasmania. We all know that that is the situation. We all know now, with the benefit of hindsight and history, that the Franklin Dam would have been a gross waste of the nation's resources. Of course, the Gray Liberal Government in Tasmania has now decided to repeat that dismal and disgraceful performance in an effort to attack the Hawke Labor Government. The whole debate about forestry management in Tasmania has been based on completely different sets of premises. While the conservation movement has based its campaign on the proper management of forests and the technical details of how to preserve and sustain not only protected forests but also forestry industries and jobs, the Gray Liberal Government has decided to embark upon the politics of divisiveness and of scaremongering-nothing more and nothing less. Here we have a Liberal Premier-and I might say that the use of the word `liberal' in this context is a travesty of the language-and a Liberal Government who have decided to jeopardise for short term political gain not only one of the world's greatest wilderness areas but also the jobs of workers in the forestry industry which they cynically purport to be protecting. Some people might argue that the Federal Labor Government has been overly cautious in its dealings with the Tasmanian Government. It has been put to me, and I am inclined to agree with the view, that we should have moved much earlier, given our experience with the Gray Government. Nevertheless, we have moved cautiously and, for the moment, I believe that our approach is much more likely to pay dividends than the Gray formula of provocative confrontation. Instead of banning logging outright in the contested or disputed areas this Bill introduces a moratorium on activity for 12 months while a properly conducted inquiry into the matters in dispute can be carried out. It now seems to me that the approach of the Federal Labor Government is appropriate and entirely reasonable. It means that the conservation movement will have to present its case once again. It also means that the forestry industry will have to justify its position before a properly constituted, independent and, most importantly, impartial inquiry. This means that the debate will move back to the issues of protection of the National Estate and the technical details of managing a sustainable forestry industry. To me that is as much the nub of this debate as anything else. The ripping and gouging that has gone on in the past ought to stop, and it ought to stop right now. The sooner this Bill goes through and achieves that the better for this nation and the better for Tasmania. It is quite obvious, when we look at the record so far in Tasmania, that very little thought has been given either by the State Government or by the forestry industry to the question of managing a sustainable forestry industry. There has been a forestry industry in Tasmania for many years. Prior to 1970 it was essentially a saw-milling industry operated by small family concerns, subcontractors and small companies. In the early 1970s the woodchipping industry got under way and the whole nature of the forestry industry in Tasmania changed very rapidly. For the first five years or so there was open slather, with anyone who could wield a chainsaw and load a truck delivering timber to the woodchippers. At the same time, the industry became dominated by large companies which, of course, are there now. Most of the small concerns disappeared as it became unprofitable for small scale operations to compete with the big companies. This was compounded because the woodchipping companies were paying prices equal to, or more than, those paid by saw-mills with less restrictions on the type of timber delivered which meant that indiscriminate felling took place and sawlogs, in my view, were most disgracefully sold for woodchipping. By 1982 some 80 or 90 saw-mills had closed down as their local source of supply was logged out and they were too small to compete with the large mills to transport sawlogs from further afield. Those facts and figures ought to be of great interest to the Tasmanian Liberal members of this House. We have seen an enormous decline in the number of jobs available in the saw-milling and logging industry in Tasmania over the past few years under the Gray Government. Mr Goodluck —That is not true. Mr DUNCAN —It is true and the facts prove it. The honourable member for Franklin ought to know better than to come into this House and make that sort of trivial and trite interjection. Since the introduction of woodchipping over 4,000 jobs have been lost. Anybody who cares to look at the census figures will see that that is clearly the case. Four thousand jobs have been lost in Tasmania as a result of the introduction of woodchipping. It seems that no one was very upset about small mills and subcontractors going to the wall but the profits of big companies appear to be far more sacrosanct. I think the sort of bleating that we have heard from Tasmanian Liberal members in this Parliament underscores that entirely. The development of sensible logging plans which would see far less wastage, far fewer incentives to chip sawlogs or young growth and the development of new and faster growing plantations, has not taken place. Instead, the Tasmanian Forestry Commission has served up to the Gray Government plans which are based on outdated management systems, obsolete export pricing structures and assumptions on annual forest yield which are not soundly based. These assumptions have been criticised not only by the conservation movement but also by the Department of Botany at the University of Tasmania. In August 1985 Professor W. D. Jackson prepared a damning critique of the environmental impact statement which is now being used as the basis for the Gray Government's plans for the forestry industry. He argued that there needed to be a move towards intensification of the pulpwood industry, major changes in forestry management of sawlog forests, and a review of the uneconomic production levels in the industry. Professor Jackson argues that the production of pulpwoods for export and domestic use is 19 per cent above a sustainable yield. And the Gray Government wants to go ahead with plans which are designed to ensure that the percentage of sustainable yield will increase above 19 per cent! Goodness gracious, one would think that the Gray Government wanted to see the whole island turned the way in which the area around Queenstown has been turned. I find it extraordinary that Tasmanian members, who purport to like the sort of environment that exists in Tasmania, come in here and promote policies which are going to denude vast areas of Tasmania. If one talks to ordinary decent Tasmanians about their concerns for what is happening to the environment of their island, one hears lots of them saying: `We do not like what has happened on the east coast'. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) would know this as well as anybody. It is a generally well held belief in Tasmania that woodchipping has not been a good thing for the island and for the State's economy. People at large, in all walks of life, have made those sorts of comments to me. People at Orford have said to me how dreadful it is to have woodchipping going on and to see vast tracts of beautiful native virgin bush just demolished by the slash and burn and by the clear felling. I believe that that sort of sentiment is probably the real sentiment of the Tasmanian people in this matter. I believe that Professor Jackson, in talking about the need for sustainable levels of wood production, is right on the mark. He points out that the methods of forest management which entail clear felling, log extraction, slash burning, aerial seeding and fuel reduction are grossly inefficient and uneconomic and are no longer practised by any of Australia's major pulpwood competitors. We start to feel more and more like a Third World country when we see big Japanese companies coming down here and simply wanting to rip out the raw materials of this country, the natural resources, and ship them off somewhere else with a few Australians collecting jobs out of them along the way. It is pretty disgusting and it sticks in the guts of any decent Australian who has an element of nationalism in terms of the way in which he looks at how this country is being run. Professor Jackson also shows that plantation control and production is far more cost efficient and takes into account different species requirements. Jackson says: The argument for intensive forestry by plantation methods is so overwhelmingly convincing compared with the shockingly low yields . . . at present being attained by natural thinning stands that one can only be concerned that the companies are making such large relative profits compared with outlay that they are not interested in changing to more efficient methods which would greatly lessen the environmental impact. On the other hand, intensification by plantation would improve the prospects for sawlogging, replace low quality chip exports with high quality pulpwood, double export potential by increasing yields, prevent the erosion of Australia's export markets and export base, provide more jobs in Tasmania and greatly reduce the visual impact and environmental damage to the Tasmanian forests. These are the proposals which have the support of the conservation movement, which the Gray Government says has no interest in the future of the forest industry or Tasmanian workers' jobs. In fact, it is obvious that the Gray Government's obsession with scoring political points has blinded it to the facts of modern management and technical practices in the forest industry. But even worse, it has blinded it to some of the even more obvious facts. For instance, the areas in dispute contain only 14 per cent of Tasmania's long term woodchip timber and 12 per cent of its saw logs. Those areas could, with no further management, stay untouched well into the next century without making a difference to the industry. If modern management of plantations and forests were adopted so that improved recovery and yield could occur, they would never need to be cut. That is a very compelling argument when we consider that this Bill is talking only about a 12-month moratorium. There is no need to log these areas in the next 12 months. Adequate areas are available elsewhere which could sustain the industry during the next 12 months while the Commission of Inquiry looks into all of the issues and brings down a fair and balanced report. There is no need for the rush. There is no need for the Government of Tasmania simply to bolt into this issue and continue to carve up these valuable areas of National Estate. The Parliament ought to reject the political point scoring approach of the Liberal Government in Tasmania. What is happening and what will keep on happening while the Gray Government persists in its irrational behaviour is that logging teams will drive past most of the forest-in undisputed areas-to log National Estate areas. That is what is happening today and what will continue to happen unless this Bill is passed. This cannot and should not be allowed to continue. We have a conservative Tasmanian State Government which is more interested in division, scaremongering and the pocketing of high profits by wealthy companies than in the protection of our environment or the preservation of a profitable, sustainable, job generating forestry industry. Why else would it be happy to sell off Tasmania's most beautiful natural resource for only $7 per tonne, while down the line the processing companies receive up to $800 per tonne for the finished products? That is a question that all the economic rationalists on the other side of the chamber ought to be asking themselves during this debate and into the future. Why is it that we are flogging off on the cheap Tasmania's valuable and beautiful natural resources for the pitiful sum of $7 per tonne when we could be getting $800 per tonne for the finished product? Why else would the Tasmanian Government be happy to jeopardise the long term employment prospects of timber industry workers while outdated management practices destroy the resources on which the forestry industry is based? I remind the honourable member for Franklin that some years ago there used to be timber cutters around Queenstown. All that area was ripped and gouged. There are no jobs for timber cutters in that area these days, as he would know full well. If people like him, with the irresponsible, short term approach they have, are allowed to get their way, the result inevitably will be that much of Tasmania will look like the tragic area around Queenstown. That would be an absolute disgrace and an absolute disaster. People ought to think very carefully about that situation. A lot of people in this nation, and most people in Tasmania, have been to Queenstown. The people of Queenstown try to make the best of the situation by saying: `Come to Queenstown and see this devastated area. This is the only area in Australia where so much damage has been done to the environment. In our strange way, we have made a cultural plus out of it. We play football on ovals where there is no grass; we like to make a big thing out of it'. I do not blame these people for trying to turn Queenstown into a tourist area. There is no harm in trying to make the best of the disaster-that is an understandable human trait. But let us get it clear: This Government and this Parliament have national responsibilities to all of the Australian people, not only those whose case is put here. We have a responsibility to future generations to make sure there are jobs in the long term in the Tasmanian forestry industry. That is what this Government is intending to do and that is what we will continue to do. Some Opposition members from Tasmania-and most of the others, I am sure-have not had the opportunity that I have had to hike through the beautiful forests and wilderness areas of Tasmania and to go down the Franklin River to see the sort of natural beauty that exists in that part of Australia. I can tell members of this Parliament-- Mr Uren —They haven't got your romance of the soul. Mr DUNCAN —I appreciate the Minister's interjection, but if conservative members of this Parliament with any sensitivity at all had had the opportunities that I have had to see the beautiful wilderness areas of Tasmania, this Parliament would vote this Bill into law unanimously. As I said, why else would the Tasmanian Government be happy to jeopardise long term employment prospects in the timber industry unless it was simply involved in cheap, nasty political point scoring? That is all it is. Why else would it quite happily contribute to the unnecessary destruction of Australia's natural heritage and indulge in the sort of political chicanery it does to justify its mismanagement and its support for vested interests? I would like to make one other comment about the behaviour of the forestry industry. According to Press reports this week-and I noted one in the Adelaide Advertiser of Monday-the pro-logging lobby has set aside $2m a year for the next two years to campaign in marginal seats. Allegedly, I am a marginal seat holder and I welcome the chance to debate this matter with the forestry industry anywhere in this nation. Most Australians know quite well that conservation and a well-managed forestry industry need not be incompatible. Let representatives of the Tasmania forestry industry come into my electorate and have a proper debate about the maintenance of our National Estate. I would welcome it. I suspect that the people of Makin would welcome it as well because all the people in my electorate to whom I have spoken about this issue have urged me on and have congratulated the Government on the fact that we are protecting the National Estate and a sustainable logging industry in Tasmania. I have had a chance to speak to ordinary Tasmanians a number of times in recent years about logging of the State forests. They know and the people of Tasmania know that one cannot keep logging Tasmania in the style and manner and at the rate that those forests have been logged in recent years. The honourable member for Franklin knows that perfectly well but he is not prepared to admit it. It is in the interests of all Australians to bring about the moratorium that this legislation introduces so that the level-headed, unemotional, technically competent and modern approach can take into account the needs of the forestry industry in Tasmania. I support the Bill. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(12.37) —I am pleased to speak on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill. Of course I reject the amendment moved by the Opposition and I support the Bill. It is interesting to look at the number of honourable members who wish to speak on this Bill. It shows the interest there is in this House in conservation matters. I venture to suggest that if a few years ago such a Bill had come before the House there would not have been a lot of members from both sides wishing to speak on it. There has been a wide range of speakers on the Bill and a wide-ranging debate. I feel that we members of the House and the Australian people owe a debt to the conservation movement because it is through the activities of those involved in conservation issues that many of us have become aware of how important the conservation movement is and how important it is for us in Australia to conserve that part of our country that we have left. From the comments the Opposition has made on this Bill one would think the whole of Tasmania was going to be locked up. Mr Goodluck —Thirty per cent is. Mr HOLLIS —It is not 30 per cent that will be locked up-certainly not under this Bill that we are now debating-because we are debating a moratorium for 12 months so that the facts can be established and some of the nonsense that has been put up in the debate will not be put up. A lot of hysterical ideas have been put forward about what the Commonwealth is trying to do. People are saying that the Commonwealth is seeking to abuse the Constitution and put timber workers out of work. These hysterical comments are not based on one ounce of fact. It is suggested that there be a 12-month moratorium while an inquiry is carried out. As my colleague the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan) said, there is no need to log this area within the next 12 months. 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 viable alternatives to forestry operations in these contentious National Estate areas. The Bill will ensure that a careful and exhaustive review will take place. Its brief is very clear. Are there environmentally and economically prudent and feasible logging alternatives within Tasmania to the existing logging plans for National Estate areas? In my opinion the Bill could not be more fair for it calls upon all those involved in the debate to submit their views for adjudication. 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. More importantly, the Bill provides for the future by giving everyone the time to ponder the almost unbelievable 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 other inquiries it is imperative that not one tree in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests be felled for the duration of the inquiry's commission. I will not be critical of the Tasmanian members in this chamber-I know that some of my colleagues have been critical of them-because they feel that they have a case to put and as well as representing the National Estate, as it were, we come here with a mandate from our electoral areas. The Tasmanians feels that they have to put the case that has been put to them by some, but not all, Tasmanians. We in this Parliament have to take the national view. We must escape the parochial view. We have a national responsibility in regard to this. I am very sympathetic to the needs of the timber industry. Members of my family on the north coast of New South Wales are involved in the timber industry. I also appreciate the need to protect jobs. All that having been said, I suggest that a 12-month moratorium while the facts are established is reasonable. That is all that this Bill is seeking to do-to say that we will have a 12-month moratorium on all logging so the facts can be established before the decision to fell trees can be made. Once the trees are felled it is too late to come back and say: `We made a mistake'. How often do we say that today? We say: `If it happened today this would not happen or that would not happen'. It is too late once the trees are down to say that we made a terrible and wrong decision and we will put the trees back. What we are saying in this Bill is that we will have an inquiry which will go for 12 months. All sides-the timber industry, governments and the conservation movement-can and will put their arguments. Based on fact the decision can then be made. It is a great pity that the Gray Liberal Government in Tasmania is playing party politics on this issue. As the honourable member for Makin said, to get to the area that the Tasmanians are talking about logging they have to go past other areas-so they are just playing party politics on this matter. I know that the Tasmanian members have spoken with much emotion on this Bill, but we have a national responsibility. Twelve months is not a terribly long time to wait. The facts will be established. I support the Bill. I reject the amendment and I commend the Bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Yesterday I informed the House that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) was unwell. He is still unwell and will be unable to attend Question Time today. The Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) will respond to any questions relating to Mr Brown's portfolio. Mr HUNT —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry, relates to the rural adjustment scheme. I refer to the Minister's meeting on Friday with the State Ministers responsible for rural adjustment. Did the State Ministers seek an immediate and substantial injection of funds into the rural adjustment scheme? When can the Ministers and farmers expect an answer in view of the record debt, which is now estimated in some areas to be of the order of $15 billion, and devastating interest rates imposed on farmers by this Government, many of whom are having their tools of trade, their farm machinery, repossessed and are facing bankruptcy? To what extent will the eligibility guidelines be made more flexible? Mr KERIN —The answer to the first part of the honourable gentleman's question-I do not know which National Party he is in-- Mr Miles —Get on with it. Mr KERIN —Come on, it is like another day in Beirut; factional fighting all the time. The answer to the first part of the honourable gentleman's question is that there was no call for immediate additional funding for the rural adjustment scheme. The discussion certainly focused on various elements of flexibility. When the new scheme came into place, it centred on a 50 per cent interest subsidy for the first part of the scheme, the second part already being 50-50 between the Commonwealth and the States, again focusing on interest subsidy. When that new scheme came into place the Commonwealth Government advised the States that it would share the risk up to only seven years. If States wanted to take the funding beyond seven years that was up to them but the Commonwealth would not share the risk. The States have a fair amount of flexibility in interpreting the guidelines. For example, New South Wales is putting forward various propositions on being able to take out funding, I understand, up to $210,000 for debt restructuring for some farms. However, that is all on the basis of viability. The rural adjustment scheme is not an interest subsidy scheme. When the drought was on the rural adjustment scheme was not a drought relief scheme. It really centres on viability. For the information of honourable members, this year the rural adjustment scheme is funding about 10 times as much of the rural adjustment as it ever has. If one adds to that the adjustment funds available for the sugar industry and the dairy industry, the rural adjustment scheme has never operated better. The honourable gentleman made several other comments in passing but I will not go into a detailed debate on them. However, I point out that most of the problem is in the wheat industry, which is particularly affected in New South Wales and Western Australia. The very big problem is that 2 per cent of wheat farmers owe more than $1m and that represents 20 per cent of the total wheat industry debt at this time. Although there is enormous vested interest in helping those people there is simply no way that the rural adjustment scheme can deal with that problem and the farmers have to find ways and means of coming to an accommodation with the banks or the people who are financing them. By and large that is what is happening. If we can get this whole debate into some proportion-I am not for one moment saying that there is not a big problem-there were only 100 foreclosures last year out of 174,000 rural holdings. At present the dimensions of the problem are a little blown up by the media, which has centred on individuals who have been in an impossible situation for quite a long time. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that present in the gallery this afternoon is a parliamentary delegation from Indonesia led by Dr Amir Murtono, Deputy Speaker of the Indonesian Parliament. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr FREE —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to an industrial campaign by the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia to achieve wage increases and other benefits. Will the Minister advise the House whether these claims are within the wage fixing principles, what effect the campaign is having and whether the dispute is likely to be resolved in the near future? Mr WILLIS —I am very much aware of this campaign which has indeed been a long-running one involving bans being placed on the industry by plumbers since August of last year. These bans are in relation to a 15-point log of claims which have involved such things as a $70 per week increase, a 36 hour week, a 27 1/2 per cent annual leave loading and various other goodies. The action in pursuit of those claims has caused considerable difficulty in the building industry. It has involved bans which, in some cases, have been put on and taken off and in other cases they have been applied since August of last year. Many buildings are now unable to be completed because of the application of those bans. The claims of the Plumbers Union are patently in breach of the national wage fixing principles and it should be noted that they are not supported by any other building industry union. As a result of these claims individual plumbers in this country are being deprived of various benefits which would otherwise be available to them. For instance, the union has not had its awards varied to reflect the 2.3 per cent national wage increase which applied from July last year. The union has not participated in the 3 per cent superannuation payment which since January of this year went to members of all other building industry unions. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's decision to abolish the paid rates award for plumbers in various areas has meant that thousands of plumbers have had a reduction of $46 a week in their pay. The recent $10 national wage increase will not apply to the plumbers while they continue with their campaign, nor will any second tier increase apply. Therefore it can be seen that the plumbers are paying a very high price for a campaign which has not only been damaging but also has featured unprecedented-it is particularly unprecedented for this industry-employer resistance. It must be said that that resistance is largely attributable-and I do not pay any great disrespect to the industry-to the fact that this Government has instituted a code of conduct which is now supported by all State governments. This means that employers who give wage increase outside the national wage fixing principles risk the loss of government contracts. As a result we have had very substantial employer resistance to these claims. Recently the dispute took a new turn with a number of major contractors taking action under the Trade Practices Act. That resulted in injunctions being issued last Friday against the Plumbers Union. To this stage the union has ignored those injunctions. Action has also been taken in the Federal Court of Australia to obtain penalties under section 119 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Government remains resolutely opposed to these claims which would be incredibly damaging if employers were to concede them. There is no way in which they could be supported by the Government. I believe that the union is doing its members an enormous disservice by applying a policy which is costing it dearly in the way I have mentioned. It is putting itself in the position in which it could be subject to very heavy penalties under both the Trade Practices Act and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is also doing a massive disservice to the building industry and the Australian economy. I therefore call on the union, whilst it has an opportunity, to cease this campaign, to take the appropriate action to end the bans and to pursue its claims under the national wage fixing principles. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Defence Minister from Sweden, Mr Carlsson. On behalf of the House, I extend to Mr Carlsson a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr LLOYD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Aviation. Will the Government sell Australian Airlines to the Australian public and use private investment to maintain our airport terminals? If not, will the Minister assure Australian taxpayers that they will not be asked to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars over the next five years, which will be essential to maintain Australian Airlines as a viable entity and to bring our international airport terminals up to the standard necessary to maintain our tourist growth? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. It is the height of hypocrisy to have that kind of question coming from the Opposition, an Opposition whose members, when in government, deliberately ran down Australian Airlines, deliberately starved it of capital and deliberately extracted all of its profit almost in one year by way of dividend. The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia said in this chamber in 1983 that that airline was forced to operate with one wing tied behind its back. It was not the Government that said that; it was the Deputy Leader of the National Party who had been the Minister responsible. So the honourable member should not come to me or to this Government bewailing the damage that honourable members opposite inflicted upon Australian Airlines and the difficulties that they created throughout the aviation industry generally. The honourable member should talk to his own colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Party. He will explain to the honourable member why Australian Airlines did not perform as well as it should have under the Government of honourable members opposite. Under this Government Australian Airlines' legislation has been relaxed; it has been given greater freedom, greater independence and greater responsibility to perform; and it is performing far better than it ever has done in the past. In respect of the sale of the airline, that is not government policy. I quote the words of the Prime Minister from his statement of 8 March in Bathurst. He was asked: Does the Government intend to sell Australian Airlines? The Prime Minister said: The Government has no intention in that regard. I do not propose to add anything to the answer given by the Prime Minister on that occasion and, if the honourable member is so concerned, I will provide him with the transcript of the Prime Minister's answer. Mr SAUNDERSON —Will the Minister for Housing and Construction inform the House of the benefits arising from the Government's public housing policies? Mr WEST —Of course, the Government has an extremely fine record with regard to the funding of public housing. Mr Hawke —It's a good story. Mr WEST —As the Prime Minister says, it is a very good story to tell, indeed. As far as grants are concerned, this financial year the Federal Government has extended $694m to the States. It will also extend another $585m by way of concessional loans at 4 1/2 per cent interest, repayable over 53 years. If we add to those two figures the States' grants under the Commonwealth-State housing agreement matching arrangements we find that all up a total of $1.95 billion will be spent on public housing this financial year. That will allow the extension of 41,000 loans through the home purchase assistance arrangements, and it has allowed the addition of 44,000 units to the rental stock over the last three years. This year we will be getting 22,000 commencements as a result of the rental assistance program and the home purchase assistance program. Some 90 per cent of the current placements in public housing by the various State governments are pensioners, social security beneficiaries or low income earners. So it is a well targeted policy that we are implementing; it assists people on low incomes, and it assists the underprivileged of our society. I want the House and the people of Australia to compare this program and policy with the Opposition's policy as outlined in its policy document released several days ago. First of all, the Opposition says that it will terminate the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and the Federal loan funds for housing to the States. I ask honourable members and the people of Australia to think about just what this means. It means the end of State matching funds for a start. It means that construction of public housing in Australia would grind to a dead stop if ever Australians, particularly the low income earners of Australia, were unfortunate enough to have this crowd opposite in government and implementing this nefarious policy. It would also mean the loss of 22,000 starts in a year if the agreements were terminated and we lost the States' matching funds. It would also mean that tens of thousands of pensioners and low income earners in Australia-families and single people-would be condemned to frustration, condemned to housing related poverty. So the Opposition's proposals with regard to the termination of public housing funding in Australia are both heartless and contradictory. They would frustrate those people on the waiting lists in Australia. The Opposition talks about all those people who are now on the waiting lists; yet in the same breath it wants to condemn them to housing related poverty by terminating the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. So honourable members opposite are in a very contradictory position. They complain about the numbers of commencements that this Government is achieving; yet they also propose to wipe out 22,000 of those commencements in one hit. They ought to be thoroughly exposed and condemned for their heartless and contradictory policy, and they will be as far as this Government is concerned. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices; in other words, the alchemy part of his portfolio. Is the Minister aware that the price of a Holden Commodore SL sedan-- Government members interjecting- Mr CARLTON —Honourable members opposite should listen to this; it is important to their constituents. Is the Minister aware that the price of a Holden Commodore SL sedan was listed in Modern Motor magazine in 1983 at $10,942; yet this week's edition of the same magazine lists the price of the current model at $15,869, an increase of $4,927 or 45 per cent? Is he also aware that the list price of a Ford Laser 1.3 L sedan has risen from $7,506 in 1983 to $12,212 today, an increase of $4,706 or 63 per cent? What exactly is the Minister's excuse for these outrageous increases in the prices of family motor cars during the period of office of the Hawke Government? Mr BARRY JONES —I am very grateful for the question coming from the temporary shadow Treasurer. The honourable gentleman knows perfectly well that the impact of devaluation has had a very significant effect on the motor industry in Australia because not all components of cars are made locally. It has had a very significant impact and there is no doubt that, as far as the motor industry is concerned, there have been very significant increases in prices. A serious problem which has to be faced-one of the areas of the greatest seriousness for the Government in the last 18 months since the dollar devalued-is that Australia will be increasingly dependent, certainly in the short term, on capital equipment which we need in order to restructure industry to make it more competitive. This means that until we get that equipment in there will be a tremendous imbalance in the trade figures caused by the imports. Mr Reith —How long is that going to be? Mr BARRY JONES —One would think that the very encouraging trade figures that we had last month indicate that the situation is turning around. But I give honourable members this illustration: In the financial year 1985-86, the area that I always refer to as the information sector of the economy-large computers, sophisticated office equipment, scientific instrumentation, and the like-accounted for $8.5 billion. We are talking here about equipment that we do not make ourselves. We are a long way from having a manufacturing economy that is capable of being internationally competitive. No contribution was made towards the restructuring of industry to make it internationally competitive in the period when the Opposition parties were in government. One of the great achievements of this Government is the turning around and the restructuring of industry. It is a painful process. It is very difficult, and it will not happen overnight, but by the end of the 1980s we will have an economy that is far more competitive in technologically significant areas than was the economy that we inherited from the previous Government at the beginning of 1983. Of course, there are significant anomalies and price variations. We are aware of that. We are going through a difficult time. We are going through a time of profound transition. The Opposition, instead of trying to play to the gallery all the time-it never does anything else-ought to recognise the importance of looking for the long term factor, seeking to analyse the reason that the economy is changing, and working with the Government to ensure that we succeed in areas in which we never succeeded under the previous Administration. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Hernandez, the State Secretary of Trade and Industrial Development in the Government of Mexico. On behalf of the House, I bid him welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HOLLIS —Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to recent Sri Lankan security force activities on the Jaffna Peninsula? Can the Minister advise the House of Australia's position in regard to this activity? Mr HAYDEN —I compliment the honourable member on the manner in which he has maintained consistently a deep concern on this very serious matter. He has made many representations to me on it. The Australian Government remains concerned about the continuing communal violence in Sri Lanka, including claims that the Government is launching a major military offensive against insurgent strongholds on the Jaffna Peninsula of the northern province. Indications are that clashes between Tamil militants and Government security forces are occurring, but there is not a major offensive under way. There are reports of some civilians being killed or wounded in the crossfire and of limited property damage. We are continuing to monitor developments as closely as possible, given the difficulty of securing reliable first-hand evidence. We strongly urge both the Sri Lankan Government and representatives of Tamil militants to disavow violence and exercise restraint in their approach to resolving the communal problem. Australia firmly supports efforts involving India to renew negotiation between the Sri Lankan Government and Tamil representatives. Discussions between President Jayawardene and Prime Minister Gandhi at Bangalore in November 1986 seem to have generated a package of proposals which could form the basis of serious negotiation. We urge the Sri Lankan Government to stand behind these proposals, despite the apparent unwillingness to date of the Tamil militants to enter into negotiations. The Australian Government has made clear to the Sri Lankan Government at the highest levels and on many occasions the need to find an early political solution to the communal conflict. Mr PORTER —My question is directed to the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices-high prices. I refer the Minister to the most recent consumer price index figure which indicated that, largely as a result of government actions, prices for health services rose by 26 per cent over the last 12 months. In view of the fact that the Government also increased the Medicare levy by 25 per cent, what action will the Minister now take to reduce this rapid government-initiated increase in health care costs? Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —Questions should not be directed to the Minister Assisting when the Minister is in the House. Do honourable members opposite not know that? There are all sorts of influences on the consumer price index. Naturally, of course, the major influence, as my colleague the Minister Assisting said in answer to an earlier question, is the depreciation of the exchange rate and the fact that the lift in the profitability of the traded goods sector, which the whole depreciation strategy entails, is an important part of seeing a lift in investment in Australia to replace imports and to lift exports. That is, of course, the principal influence on the inflation rate. There are, of course, other influences. The honourable gentleman has referred to one-government taxes and charges, both at State and Commonwealth levels. Of course, as part of government taxes and charges in the health area, a number of increases in health costs have flowed from changes in the structure of salaries and awards for nurses in the hospital system and also for doctors and non-medical staff. As far as the Commonwealth is concerned, in making that judgment between the reduction in outlays and any discretionary increases in tax which are part and parcel of any Budget in pursuit of certain fiscal objectives, a judgment must always be made about the impact of those taxes and charges on the consumer price index. We have said, and will say again, to the States at the Premiers Conference and the Loan Council that the States will need to be vigilant about charges which maintain activity, because the point of reductions in Commonwealth payments to the States is not about the maintenance of activity by the State sector paid for by an increase in discretionary taxes and charges, but about a diminution of activity by the State sector in satisfaction of broader national economic objectives. We will say to the States again that we require of them a diminution of the public sector share of resources in this country. That does not mean increasing charges to maintain the same activity. In regard to the Commonwealth, as I said earlier, whenever one faces the objective of reducing the Budget deficit, albeit by $2 of outlays cuts for $1 of changes to receipts-as was the case in the last Budget-the price effect on the consumer price index, of course, weighs on the Government's mind. Of course, as we have always done in making decisions of that variety, we will make sure that the impact on the consumer price index is minimal. I repeat the point I made at the beginning of my answer: The major influence on the Australian inflation rate, which, I remind the House was down to 5 per cent in the year to March 1985, has been the depreciation of the dollar, which was, of course, a necessary part of restoring Australia's competitiveness, and the additional depreciations which have flowed from the massive terms of trade collapse I referred to yesterday. I remind honourable members of what I said yesterday. If we had the same terms of trade now that we had at Christmas 1984, we would have a current account deficit of $4 billion; hence a different exchange rate-interest rate equation would operate in the economy. But that is not to be and we must deal with it as it is. One of the unavoidable consequences of a large depreciation is an impact on the consumer price index, which is largely the cause of the increase in prices as expressed by the CPI in the last couple of years. Mr MILTON —Is the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment aware of comments attributed to the honourable member for Parkes regarding the operation of the Office of the Supervising Scientist? Could the Minister please advise the House of the functions and responsibilities of this leading environment protection agency? Mr COHEN —The infamous Waste Watch Committee has launched into an attack on the Office of the Supervising Scientist whose responsibility is to provide environmental protection to the Alligator River region or Kakadu National Park. Who set up the Office of the Supervising Scientist? It was John Howard and Malcolm Fraser in 1978. When we came to office they had built up the staff to 76 and the figure was going up over the 100 mark. Those opposite have very short memories and go in for selective indignation about the items targeted. We have trimmed the numbers from 76 to 68, and we have been criticised by the Opposition which argues that part of the staff is located in Sydney at Bondi and part at Jabiru. Who did that? I give the House three guesses-it was Malcolm Fraser and John Howard. Why did they do that? Because it was less costly, quite sensibly, to have part of the staff down here and the laboratories up at Jabiru. If Opposition members think it a top idea to have all the staff up at Jabiru, I would point out that we did a review that shows it would cost another $7m. Why is that the case? Because the cost of housing at Jabiru is about three times the cost in Sydney. The Office of the Supervising Scientist has a serious function and that is to protect one of Australia's great national parks and world heritage areas. It was established quite rightly by the Fraser Government because uranium mining was planned at Jabiru, Nabarlek and later, if it went ahead, at Jabiluka and Koongarra. It was done because the then Government believed, quite rightly, that the Australian people would not buy uranium mining in that sensitive area unless there was proper protection for it. What we have done is to continue that protection and we will do so at a lower cost than would have been the case under the former Government. Mr DOWNER —Is the Treasurer aware that the South Australian Government has leased South Australia's power stations to Japanese and Austrian interests and many South Australians now effectively purchase electricity produced by these companies rather than the Electricity Trust of South Australia? Does this sort of creative accounting circumvent Loan Council guidelines, bearing in mind that the State Government has raised as de facto loans at least $150m through this method? Does this scheme circumvent legislation outlawing leverage leasing by using overseas companies as the lessees rather than domestic companies? Further, has the Government given approval to the tax avoidance practices which these schemes suggest the South Australian Government is entering into? Mr KEATING —I think that it is the honourable member who suggests that they are tax avoidance practices. I am not aware of the financing details of these acquisitions, but I will have a look at them, as he asks, to ascertain whether or not the States are moving around the legislation which was introduced in 1982 in respect of leverage leasing by the honourable member for Bennelong as Treasurer. I am not aware of the fact that any financing by South Australia of its power stations circumvents the Loan Council arrangements either, but again I will investigate and resolve the question. Mrs KELLY —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Is the Minister aware that a unique Australian glider has been developed and is arriving in Canberra today as part of a promotion to try to receive some Federal Government funding for its production? What action does the Minister intend to take to ensure that this valuable Australian asset, which has significant potential to generate export income, receives appropriate government support to realise its full potential? Mr BARRY JONES —I am aware that the ES-65 sail plane called the Platypus, which is a curious name for an aerial creature, is currently visiting Canberra on a promotional tour. However, to the best of my knowledge no formal request for funding for its production has yet been received by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. The sail plane's developer, Edmund Schneider Pty Ltd, has already received support under the former Australian industrial research and development incentive scheme for design, test and development of the plane. A sum of $109,150 was allocated to the project, of which $93,000 has been paid to date. The Government wants to see the development of commercially viable aerospace activities. It expects to receive a special report on aerospace export potential from the tripartite working group and will then announce some decisions based on the group's advice. There is some reason to believe that, given the depreciation of the dollar in the past two years, especially its depreciation against the Deutsche mark, Australia is well placed to compete in the domestic and overseas market for gliders and other light planes. We will look at this matter with considerable interest and I know that it will be shared by the Minister for Aviation. Mr BEALE —I refer the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices to the dramatic leap in housing rents over the past year as revealed in the latest CPI figures and in recent surveys by the Master Builders Federation of Australia. Has the Government undertaken any work to quantify the contribution of both the capital gains tax and the abolition of negative gearing to the surge in housing rents over this period? If no such work has been done, will the Minister undertake to have it done and report the findings to the Parliament? Mr KEATING —This is about the only way I can get a question from the Opposition these days. They think that economic policy is running so nicely they do not ask about it. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —I wonder what the Opposition's mirth is all about. One would not expect to direct a question to Mr Brown as Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence while the Minister for Defence is here. Therefore, do not direct them to the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices while I am here. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Barker. If he continues, I will deal with him. Mr KEATING —Influences on the housing market go way beyond any simple notion of price or responsibilities for price, which is implied in the question directed to my colleague by the honourable member for Deakin. Again I make the point that it is very interesting to see the Opposition weeping these crocodile tears about home mortgage repayments and rents. The Leader of the Opposition argues that people's pay packets have been diminished by the cost of their housing repayments and rents; yet when the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission agrees to top up those pay packets, he says: `No, freeze their wages'. That is the contradiction, the hypocrisy of the Opposition's stand on incomes. We see this over and over again. We are constantly being told by the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party that there should be a wage freeze; yet at the same time they cry about the fall in living standards. At another venue the Leader of the part Opposition will stand up before the financial markets in Sydney and Melbourne or some audience which understands the economic debate and will say: `Yes, we understand that living standards must fall because our national income has fallen by at least $6 billion to $8 billion'. Never have we seen such a hypocritical stand-and I use that word advisedly-by a major party which says to one audience `Yes, there must be a decline in living standards concurrent with the notion that the world has cut our national income', but which, on the other hand, runs around to particular interest groups saying that it is a terrible thing that rents and mortgage repayments are rising. At the same time these people know that the cause of those rises, particularly that part which relates to interest rates, is part of the adjustment imposed by the rest of the world and the fact that our national income has been lost. Either we have an honest and genuine economic debate in this country or we do not. The fact that we are not getting such honest and genuine debate from the Opposition is probably part of the reason why the honourable member for Bennelong is polling so poorly in terms of his public rating-- Mr Hawke —He's gone. Mr KEATING —As the Prime Minister says, he is gone in his rating with the public. When the Opposition was in government it had a chance to deregulate housing interest rates and provide a stable flow of funds to housing. We got to the stage in housing, however, where the savings banks and permanent building societies were no longer competitive in the provision of funds and housing starts just dried up. They simply dried up; they dried up in 1982 when we were down to 100,000 starts. Now, for the first time, because of the courage and good sense of the Government, the housing rate for loans after April 1986 has been deregulated to the point where one quarter of all savings banks loans are now deregulated and there is now an assured supply of housing funds for ever. Thus people can get a roof over their heads. There was no roof over their heads at any price, at any interest rates or rents when the Opposition was in power. This Government has produced as many as 150,000 housing starts in a year and we are looking at a projection for next year of about 125,000-- Mr Beale —One hundred and twenty-four thousand. Mr KEATING —All right, 124,000-what a telling point! While that figure is not the optimum, given the adjustments taking place in the economy, devoting those levels of resources to housing is, in my view and in my terms, adequate. On the question of rents, we have never had a proper housing rental market. We had one that was subsidised in part through the tax system so that the 60 per cent taxpayers under Mr Howard could get out of their tax obligations. The result was that there were no substantial additions to the housing stock over the years and as a consequence we saw the return on rents as a proportion of the capital cost of properties go down to 4 and 5 per cent. Naturally that was not enough to sustain the building of new rental units. That is now changing. It is part of the transition and the Government has met that with a 4 per cent depreciation rate-a proper depreciation rate-which helps to bridge the gap in the investment picture. Mr Beale —Frank Walker says that you have destroyed the rental market. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —That gap has been accentuated by the interest rates which attend our national economic condition; but over time, as interest rates subside, in the face of changes in the current account and government policy, then that equation between interest rates, the 4 per cent depreciation and rents, will allow for the first time a sensible, rational development of the rental industry which Australia has never had. Before the honourable member for Deakin puts questions about these matters he should think about his own policy framework and test his own conscience to see whether he has any validity in saying that people should have higher living standards, when he knows that these cannot be sustained in terms of our national economic condition, and at the same time crying about rent and mortgage repayments when his Party is threatening to freeze people's wages. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation from Greece led by Mr Petros Valvis, Minister for the Aegean. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr CUNNINGHAM —Can the Minister for Primary Industry inform the House of the latest market outlooks for wool, beef, dairy products, sugar, cotton and horticultural products? How do these outlooks compare with the market outlook for wheat? Mr KERIN —By and large I would have to refer to the statements of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, as expressed in its end of January Outlook Conference, and further information which is available to me. Basically the projections are that the wool industry is undergoing reasonably good times, as is the beef industry. The main problem for the beef industry is access to markets and my colleague the Minister for Trade is doing a lot of work in that regard, particularly as we head into the next round of discussions with the Japanese on the quota requirements. The Bureau and the Government take the view that increases in the sheep flock would not be regarded unfavourably, but further down the track, if there is too big a swing out of wheat into wool and other pastoral industries, there are some projections that there could be a turndown in the 1990s. But that is a long way ahead and it all depends on the market situation. By and large, if one looks at the Bureau's measures of farmers at risk, one sees that there are no beef or wool properties at risk. That is on the same comparative basis which shows that 12 to 14 per cent of wheat farmers throughout Australia are at risk. The measure of risk relates to calculations of negative farm income and less than 70 per equity. The dairy industry, to which the honourable member referred, is basically being held up reasonably well by the devaluation of the dollar, as are dried fruits and quite a range of other industries. The long run prospects for the dairy industry, given the corruption on international markets-and at present we are negotiating on butter oil under the terms of the international dairy arrangement because of the activities of the European Economic Community and other countries which are selling, on our estimates well below the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade minimum-are reasonably clear. If production is reduced that industry will experience higher returns per litre of milk and for individual farmers. In the horticultural industries, we believe that the devaluation has helped, but certainly there are prospects for fresh horticultural exports. I am in the process of trying to set up an Australian horticultural corporation to facilitate those exports. The honourable member referred to the fact that the situation for wheat and other grains is vastly different. The cotton industry has recovered to some degree, but if we look at the total decline in the real net value of rural production, we find that about 80 per cent of that decline is explained entirely by wheat and that there are some sectors of the farming industry that are not going through difficult times at present. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services) —Pursuant to sub-section 29a (7) of the Superannuation Act 1976, I present a copy of a letter to the principal member of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust concerning certain aspects of the Government's policy in relation to South Africa and requesting that the Trust consider this policy in the performance of its functions. I also present a copy of the Trust's response for the information of honourable members. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr WEBSTER —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr WEBSTER —The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) has circulated all members of parliament with a letter claiming that my recent correspondence with them, urging action on pornographic videos, was done `in preparation for an attempt to obtain cheap publicity'. I wrote a bipartisan letter to my colleagues, which indicated that, with them, I had been dilatory on this issue. I had been moved to write because of recent publicity on the impact of pornography on children. I have publicised the issue because the media is a significant lever in setting parliamentary priorities. This was no premeditated media stunt. It was a sign of my regret for past inaction and a call for reform. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To The Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Dr Harry Edwards and 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: Any proposal to establish memorials to peace, the so-called Aboriginal War and anti-war activists and other left wing causes at the Australian War Memorial at Canberra would desecrate the Memorial as a fitting and solemn monument to those who served in Australia's Armed Forces and to those who died in defence of their country. Your petitioners humbly pray the House of Representatives acts to prevent anything which would desecrate the nation's memorial to Australia's former servicemen and women and war dead. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Conquest,Mr Peter Fisher and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Conquest,Mr Nehl and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Smith. 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 and Mr Kent. 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 assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the Superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth that: The conflict in Sri Lanka arising out of the attempt by small groups of people in that country to partition it on racial lines through the exercise of terrorist violence, has several aspects which are vital to the interests of Australia, to wit (a) international terrorism has been introduced into a region of concern to Australia leading to its destabilisation; (b) the smuggling of narcotics has been one of the principal ways of financing the terrorist operation, and Western countries have been the major victims of this traffic in narcotics; (c) several terrorist groups are self-proclaimed pro-Soviet Marxists, and in the eventuality of their success they could introduce a Soviet military presence into the parts of Sri Lanka which they hope to control, which includes Trincomalee, a prime site for a naval base that could control much of the Indian Ocean; (d) terrorist agents and economic adventurers are smuggled into Western countries in the guise of ``refugees'' in an attempt to circumvent immigration rules in force in these countries; (e) the international press has reported that Sri Lankan terrorists are supplied with funds and arms from their supporters in Western countries including Australia; and (f) Indian support for Sri Lankan terrorism through the provision of bases, weapons, training and even diplomatic support, has made that country, which is close to Australia, a sanctuary for international terrorism. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Australian Government to take into consideration the above facts in the formulation of its policy on the Sri Lankan question. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the proposed plan of Australia Post to transfer the Postmen from Goodwood Post Office to either Unley Post Office or Cowandilla Post Office is a retrograde proposal. Already, we, in the main have to endure a shortage of delivery staff at the Goodwood Post Office; this in itself causes at most times late delivery of mail. We honestly believe that the proposal to re-allocate the staff to either Unley or Cowandilla will further delay the delivery of mail. That the proposed scheme will in fact create inefficiencies, if allowed, and would ultimately remove an individual's right in having their mail delivered expeditiously. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will take measures not to change the basic principles of the existing mail deliveries which function so effectively to our letter box. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Steele Hall. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian Community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr 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 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 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. This petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. The agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap can be terminated from 19 October 1986. 2. In the advent of war between the United States and the Soviet Union access by the United States to Pine Gap facilities makes it a prime nuclear target. 3. That all the most important U.S.A. Bases in Australia have nuclear first strike functions is clear, with Pine Gap for example having the ability to pick out land targets for the U.S.A. sea-launched Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. 4. Action against U.S.A. Bases in Australia is overdue and urgent. They endanger world peace and are an outrageous violation of Australia's National Sovereignty. We most strongly oppose any renewal of the Pine Gap lease to the U.S.A. and call for its closure and all U.S. bases in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Holding. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the United States Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Federal Government immediately divert national highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) Australians are offended by taxation evasion and welfare fraud which has the effect of increasing the taxation burden of honest Australians. (2) The community has shown its overwhelming support for the Government's decision to proceed with a national identification system known as the Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House of Representatives will continue to fight against taxation evasion and welfare fraud and restore fairness and equity to the tax and welfare systems by supporting the Australia Card Bill. by Mr Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that woodchipping and clearfelling will destroy the Otway Forests, water catchments and jobs in tourism. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will protect the Otway Forests for the future and refuse any licence to export woodchips from the Otways. by Mr Scholes. 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: 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 showeth that whereas: (a) The Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Helsinki Accords, whose membership also includes Lithuanian, Jewish and Estonian representation is the largest such human rights group in the USSR. (b) Since its inception in November 1976, 4 members have died prematurely and at present 9 members are still imprisoned, 6 are in internal exile, while 14 have been released from prison and 7 have been forced to emigrate to the West. Therefore, we urge the House to pass a resolution in support of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group calling on the Government of the Soviet Union to: (a) release all Helsinki Monitors from prison and allow them to emigrate to countries of their choice. (b) allow Ukrainian Helsinki Monitors Yuriy Shukhevych and Oksana Meshko, together with their families, to emigrate to Australia, where they have family members willing to sponsor them, as an immediate demonstration of Soviet goodwill. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. that serving members of the Australian Defence Forces are frustrated and disillusioned at the continuing erosion of their conditions of employment, benefits and entitlements traditionally provided in recognition of the burdens placed on themselves and their families by service in the Defence Forces; 2. that the Government's decision to discount by 2 per cent the retirement benefits of members of the Australian Defence Forces has broken a trust that should exist between servicemen and the Government concerning the financial security of themselves and their families in retirement; 3. that the Government's decision to discount the retirement benefits of members of the Australian Defence Forces has seriously lowered the morale and commitment of servicemen and will further increase the number of experienced servicemen leaving the Defence Forces. Your petitioners humbly pray that you establish or expedite reviews of conditions, salary, allowances, entitlements and benefits for servicemen and reverse the decision to discount by 2 per cent retirement benefits for servicemen. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of concerned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: The proposed cessation of the Department of Social Security visiting service to Scone has caused your petitioners deep concern. The service is very well utilised and if this service ceases loss of face to face contact will result in confusion and great difficulty for local pensioners and beneficiaries. With the only remaining contact being through letters and over the telephone they are more likely to make mistakes resulting in overpayments and dissemination of wrong information. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will re-appraise the situation and continue the visiting service to Scone. by Mr Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we, the people of Victoria would like to remind you of your moral duty in regard to your decision to sell uranium to France, against ALP policy. The French are still nuclear testing in the South Pacific, despite world wide protests. We therefore call on you to reverse the decision to sell uranium to France. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned citizens of Australia, residents of the City of Whyalla, in the State of South Australia, hereby petition the Prime Minister as Leader of the Australian Labor Party in Government and humbly showeth that: The voting public of the Grey Electorate did in March 1983 and again in December 1984, vote as a majority for the election of a Labor Government who claimed to stand for a Multicultural Australia. Your petitioners call on the Australian Labor Government to implement multicultural television in the City of Whyalla and other country areas, without any further delays. We declare that the implementation could become possible by; 1. Broadcasting Multicultural Television in the ABC, at morning times or; 2. SBS Transmitter to be connected to the Australian Satellite-thus providing a Multicultural Television service all over our nation. Both of these options have been proposed to the ABC Advisory Council (SA) at a recently held Whyalla Public Meeting. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to deal with the true causes of price rises and the effect of this on Australian families, farmers and small businesses. 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 BEALE(Deakin)(2.57) —There can be no more appropriate way to commence this discussion of the matter of public importance today, there can be no more appropriate fashion in which to expose the latest public relations stunt by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and there can be no more appropriate means of demonstrating the inability of the Government to deal with the true causes of price rises than to show to the House the photograph on the front page of today's Sydney Morning Herald. There it is: `Meet the Minister for Puffed Wheat'. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) who has been appointed by the Prime Minister to supervise the so-called arrangements to deal with price increases is to become the Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Consumer Affairs and the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. What is the media reaction to that? It is the `Minister for Puffed Wheat'. This latest attempt to mislead the Australian public is just another public relations stunt by the Prime Minister. It is another drugs offensive; it is another Priority One; it is another Hercules to Ethiopia; it is another trick that the Government thinks will enable it to avoid coming to terms and dealing with the true economic issues facing Australia. Let us see what the Minister for puffed wheat has to do in his new capacity. The first thing is that he has to oversee the Prices Surveillance Authority which will arrange for retailers operating on a national basis to report regularly on their gross profit margins. What a joke! We all know that the retail industry is one of the most competitive industries, and last year retail prices rose by 8.8 per cent compared with inflation of 10 per cent. The Prices Surveillance Authority will also have some inquiries into clothing and toiletries, which are also very competitive industries, and an inquiry into biscuits. The Minister is to have an inquiry into biscuits! He is to have an inquiry into biscuits so that he can pick up the crumbs! The biscuit situation is interesting. The Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that for the December quarter a 250 gram packet of dry biscuits cost 87c in Canberra, $1.05 in Hobart and $1.14 in Darwin. The price of biscuits is lower in Canberra than in other capital cities and 31 per cent lower than in Darwin. Perhaps the Minister is having an inquiry into biscuits so that he can attempt to prevent the price of biscuits in Canberra rising to the level that they are in Darwin. The second thing that the Minister will do in his new capacity is to oversee a new government authority. We all know that, in these difficult times, we need a new government authority like we need a 10 per cent inflation rate. Anyhow, we will have a new government authority called the Bureau of Consumer Affairs. What will it do? It will be concerned with food and beverage standards and it will have a policy in relation to packaging and labelling. The new Bureau will considerably streamline the various government services directed at the consumer. We all know that famous one-liner: `I am from the Government; I am here to help you'. Now we have another one: `I am from the Bureau of Consumer Affairs and I am here to protect you'. There we have the expose of this fraud being perpetrated on the Australian people. The Minister for Science will oversee three of the most competitive industries in Australia. He will have an inquiry into biscuits and he will look after food and beverage standards and packaging and labelling. The Government is not serious in attempting to deal with the true causes of price rises and it is not serious about the effect on Australian families, farmers and small businesses of its failed economic policies. What does the Minister think about this? On the Sunday program he was interviewed by Laurie Oakes. When questioned about what the Prime Minister thought that the Minister had to do, the Minister for Science said: `Well, I didn't write his speech'. Later in that program, when he was talking about food prices, he disclosed that food prices as a proportion of total income had been remarkably stable over the last 15 years and he used the phrase `extraordinary consistency'. If that is the situation what is the Minister doing in that job? Laurie Oakes then asked him: `Why are you here?' The Minister said: `Because I think the community doesn't quite understand where the pressure for initial prices come'. I challenge anyone in this House to understand what that response means. Yesterday, in response to a question in the House about fuel pricing, the Minister disclosed that that would be outside his jurisdiction. Today he blamed devaluation and twice in this House today he got dumped by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). If the Treasurer takes responsibility for questions directed to this Minister, where is the Treasurer now? Why is the Treasurer not responding to this matter of public importance? How can the Government be serious about prices if the Minister has no jurisdiction on fuel pricing policy? How can the Government be serious about pricing if the Minister has no jurisdiction over interest rates, housing repayments, postal services and telecommunications services? This whole exercise is a farce and if it were not so serious for Australian families, small businesses and farmers it would be seen as a joke. The real culprit on price rises is the Hawke-Keating Government. Australia's inflation rate, at 9.8 per cent, is four times the average of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and compares with zero per cent for Japan, our major trading competitor. How can we ever hope to hold the value of our currency? How can we ever hope to be competitive internationally? How can we ever hope to restore real growth based on private investment in this country with an inflation rate four times that of our trading competitors? If the Prime Minister was serious about dealing with price rises he would do something about the level of interest rates; he would do something about the high increase in tax and charges; he would do something about deregulating our labour market to improve productivity; he would do something about freeing up our communications and transport industries, and he would do something about the massive cost of regulation on business. The Government's deliberate high interest rates policy has hit home mortgages and increased the cost of consumer credit. The Real Estate Institute of Australia recently released figures showing that, over the past two years, the cost of mortgage repayments for a family on average weekly earnings has risen from 18.3 per cent of those earnings to 26.7 per cent. High interest rates are strangling the housing industry and making decent, hard working Australians spend more and more on housing repayments. The housing crisis is reflected everywhere. New dwelling commencements are running 15 per cent below underlying demand and, as we have heard today, the rental market is in crisis. The Sydney newspapers have been trumpeting for several days the fact that the rent for an unfurnished three-bedroom house in that city is now $267 a week-nearly two-thirds of average weekly earnings. This drastic situation in the rental market has been caused by the Government's taxation policies, notably the abolition of negative gearing and the capital gains tax. Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to you, as I have said again and again, that the coalition, in government, will repeal the capital gains tax. As a result of low dwelling commencements and the crisis in the rental market, public housing waiting lists around Australia have grown from 100,000 to 160,000 in the last four years. We have 40,000 young Australians sleeping outdoors every night and another 60,000 sleeping outdoors intermittently, and we have 400,000 Australians living in caravan parks, many of whom are doing so because they cannot afford to rent or buy. How can this Government be serious about prices unless it does something about the high level of interest rates? Those interest rates have hurt not only the housing industry, Australian families, the rural community and small businesses, but also consumers generally as a result of the high cost of consumer credit. Government policies have also foisted on the community sharply increased costs on imported items largely as a result of the collapse of the Australian dollar over the last two years. Since March 1983 inflation in Australia has risen by 30 per cent, yet government taxation has risen by 59 per cent and government spending has risen by 53 per cent. This failure by the Government to control its own taxes is further proof of how empty is the gesture of giving the Minister for puffed wheat his prices responsibilities. Government taxation has risen by 59 per cent under the Hawke-Keating inflationary Government. Mr N.A. Brown —How much? Mr BEALE —It has risen by 59 per cent in the four years of the Hawke-Keating inflationary Government. Why will the Government not abolish automatic indexation of traditional excises every six months? Why did the Government increase wholesale taxes on flavoured milk, fruit juices, wine, and film processing in the last Budget? Why did it increase sales tax on cars? Why did it introduce a fringe benefits tax when it knew that the cost of that tax would be passed on to consumers, thus causing higher prices, and when it knew that an unintended consequence would be to institutionalise tax-free perks? I say again, as honourable members on this side of Parliament have said again and again, that in government we will repeal the fringe benefits tax lock, stock and barrel. Why did the Government introduce its negative gearing provisions which have meant increases in rentals across Australia at rates significantly greater than inflation? Why did the Government increase the bank account debits tax? Why has the Government announced that it will increase the company tax rate and why did the Government pull the two-card trick on petrol excise? As the price of crude oil went down about a year ago the Government failed to pass on all the benefits to the consumers. Now that the crude oil price has risen again the Government has passed on all the additional charges to consumers. This further price rise to Australian car drivers, families and small businesses has been yet another cruel blow to their budgets. But nowhere has it been more cruel than in its effect on our beleaguered farming community. The rural producers of Australia, despite their high productivity, have been suffering a sharp downturn in commodity prices and now have to suffer the indignity of this insensitive, grasping Government forcing higher fuel prices on their operations. How can the Government be serious about prices if it did not support the call by employers to reopen the national wage case in the light of the changed circumstances that have arisen in the past few weeks? Why is the government sanctioning the unions in their 3 per cent superannuation push? Why is it continuing to allow the operation of the restrictive work practices and demarcation disputes that are strangling business and small business around this country? If the Government is serious about prices, why has it allowed increased costs for pharmaceutical prescriptions and increases in postal and telephone charges? No Government can be serious about prices if it continues to allow the operation of our highly regulated transport and communication industries. If the Government is serious about prices, it must do something about our airlines, about our roads, about our Telecom monopoly and about Australia Post. The Government has failed to deal with the true causes of price rises. The creation of the post of the Minister for puffed wheat is a public relations stunt which will have no effect on dealing with the root causes-- Mr Robert Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that the honourable member for Deakin, who is perfectly aware of the Standing Orders, has repeatedly referred to the Minister at the table as the Minister for puffed wheat. He knows that the Standing Orders require absolutely that members refer to other members of this chamber and to Ministers by their correct title. I would request, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the honour- able member for Deakin be asked to refer to the Minister at the table in the correct way and that, because of the persistence with which he has referred to the Minister in the incorrect way, he should now be required to apologise as well. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Charlton has a valid point of order. I thought that the honourable member for Deakin, having used that phrase once, might not have used it a second time. I draw his attention to the fact that he should refer to the Minister by his title. Mr BEALE —The Minister for Science. This whole exercise is an insult to the Australian people who will dismiss it as a complete waste of time and an utter farce. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices)(3.12) —This is another pathetic attempt by this apology of an Opposition to divert attention from its total incapacity to address any of the major social and economic problems of our time. The Opposition is politically bereft and comes naked into the Parliament, lacking even a fig leaf to cover its embarrassment. What are the alternative economic policies for the nation which we could be debating rationally? The Opposition has been weighed and found wanting. After four years in office, the Hawke Government can claim to have tackled more tough issues than any government for decades. We have effected the first major taxation reform for 40 years-the first attempt to overcome fiscal creep, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) always puts it-to reduce marginal rates for medium taxpayers. The Opposition tax policy is yet to be disclosed. So far it has confined itself to whingeing and nitpicking, telling various interest groups what they want to hear in a completely dishonest and opportunistic way. The Hawke Government has turned round the direction of our industry-a remarkable achievement in four years. The steel industry, the car industry, shipbuilding, textiles, clothing and foot- wear, plastics and chemicals have all been converted from inward looking defensive areas seeking only to service a local market and sheltering nervously behind high tariff barriers, unwilling to compete against the rest of the world. This is an historic turnaround with the Government tackling really tough issues. But where is the Opposition response? Where is the Opposition industry policy? The prices and incomes accord, first negotiated in 1983, has been a remarkable success and, against all the scoffing of the sceptics, it has held up very well. But with the restraints imposed on low and medium income earners, the need to enforce comparable restraint on price levels has never been more obvious as a matter of equity. But while the Government's policy is clear- restraint on wages and restraint on prices-this apology for an Opposition wants to freeze wages and let prices rip. Of course, it proposes the abolition of the Prices Surveillance Authority. I take up one or two of the points that were mentioned by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). I want to qualify what I said when I was interviewed by Laurie Oakes on Sunday. There appeared to be an inconsistency between what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in his Press Club speech on the preceding Friday and my remarks on Sunday morning. But I think the difference is more apparent than real. I confirm what he quoted me as saying that the total percentage of household income devoted to food purchases has remained remarkably stable. It has gone from about 14.7 per cent to 14.5 per cent over about an 8-year period. However, the amount actually purchased, that is to say the volume of goods purchased, has fallen sharply. I failed to make that distinction clear when talking to Laurie Oakes on the Sunday program. That is, that people who are on fixed or low incomes feel the pinch very greatly and a $5 variation in buying the same items as were bought six or 12 months earlier is significant for them. Instead of buying five loaves of bread they now buy three loaves. The amount they spend on bread as a proportion of income is constant but, of course, the amount of bread received is not constant. I do not propose to respond to the personal criticisms such as `the Minister for puffed wheat', `Inspector Clouseau' and all that business because it is childish. It indicates that the Opposition is not capable of addressing the issues seriously. Mr Gear —They are taking you seriously. Mr BARRY JONES —It is only the second matter of public importance that I have had in my own right in four years as a Minister. I thank my friend, the honourable member for Deakin, for at least persuading his colleagues to allow him to get up as the shadow Minister and put a matter of public importance before the House today. I thought the matter of public importance was very facetious. It states: The failure of the Government to deal with the true causes of price rises . . . This Government's entire economic strategy is aimed at dealing with the true causes of inflation. It has done this so much more effectively than the Opposition did when it was in office. As I said earlier at Question Time, we are in a time of major transition. The direction of the economy has changed fundamentally over four years. This is a difficult period to be in office. How is the Government dealing with the underlying causes? Before depreciation, inflation had fallen to 5 per cent at the end of 1984, the lowest annual rate since 1970-71, and down from the 11 per cent rate we inherited from the Opposition. The contributor to that big fall in inflation was the accord with the trade union movement which provided a basis for agreed and effective wages restraint. However, from early 1985 the Australian dollar depreciated, bringing with it inexorably a temporary increase in inflation. The devaluation was inevitable and inescapable. The consequential effects could not be ducked. Why did the dollar depreciate? The immediate reason was that it was responding to Australia's worsening balance of payments brought about by the big decline in commodity export prices. But the real question to ask-and not one real economic question has been asked by Opposition members-is how did it happen that Australia was so dependent on a narrow range of exports in the first place? Who put us in this precarious situation? Mr Robert Brown —The captains of industry. Mr BARRY JONES —They are not really captains; more like lance corporals. Poor public policy decisions over decades have left the Australian economy with an inward looking manufacturing sector and all our export eggs were in the one basket. The coalition parties are especially culpable for this state of affairs because they administered Australia for so much of the period between 1949 and 1983-all but three years. Mr Robert Brown —And botched it. Mr BARRY JONES —Exactly. They compounded their error of the previous decade in the late 1970s when they talked up the pseudo resources boom. Do honourable members remember the Fraser-Howard resources boom and how mineral exports were going to be the foundation of all our future wealth? Of course, it did not happen. The tragedy of McEwenism was, of course, that the strategy, which I must say had bipartisan support for a lot of the time, looked politically successful when commodity prices were high and rising, but when they were low and falling it was a recipe for disaster. That was something that the honourable member for Deakin did not refer to. The so-called resources boom turned out to be a cruel hoax perpetuated by the then Prime Minister and the then Treasurer to win the election in 1980. The Opposition does not talk about it now. It left us extraordinarily vulnerable to that fall in commodity prices over the last few years. Our balance of payments went into the red and the value of the Australian dollar fell very dramatically. The fall in the Australian dollar is the key element in fixing the balance of payments deficit-and the strategy appears to be working. I was certain that there would be a matter of public importance discussion either yesterday or today on prices. If yesterday's trade figures had been bad, there is no question that there would have been a matter of public importance on trade yesterday. Mr Beale —They were bad. Mr BARRY JONES —In the circumstances, taking the trend line, I think they were remarkably good. The lower value dollar brings with it many potential benefits. First, returns to our exporters are increased, encouraging them to seek out new markets and/or export products which were not exported previously. Second, Australia becomes a cheaper tourist attraction. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures show that in 1986 we had the fastest growing tourist industry of all members states. Third, the price of imports rises, leaving Australians to buy fewer goods from overseas and providing our local manufacturers with new opportunities to compete against foreign products. All these things help to fix the balance of payments, provide new job opportunities for Australians and help restore the Australian economy to a more balanced structure. As part of this process there must be some price rises in Australia. Imported goods cost more so that local manufacturers are able to compete against them. The Australian dollar price of some things we export will also increase because Australian producers are getting a better return from sending goods overseas. But these price rises are temporary. The new value of the Australian dollar is now doing its work in fixing the balance of payments. How appalling it is that this rabble of an Opposition should so consistently talk down the Australian economy. How extraordinary it is that its putative leader, the Premier of Queensland, should go to Japan to talk down the Australian economy. That is an extraordinary activity and nobody on the Opposition side, not even in the National Party-none of its Queenslanders are gracing the chamber at the moment-would defend in this Parliament the actions of that Premier. Honourable members all know that it has been absolutely despicable. The Government is confident that Australia's inflation rate has peaked at 9.8 per cent in the December quarter. Future consumer price index results will show a marked slowing in Australia's inflation rate. The Opposition and its shadow Minister for ensuring Australian workers are not compensated for price rises show no understanding of this. They are not interested in restoring Australia's manufacturing sector. They are not interested in fixing our balance of payments and they still refuse to acknowledge that if previous Australian coalition governments had not failed Australia so miserably in the past we would not be facing this situation now. The honourable member for Deakin referred to the fact that inflation levels were very low in Japan. That is correct but there has to be a qualification. There is zero inflation in Japan as a trend. It is also true of Germany-where the rate is slightly negative-but it has to be recognised that our absolute price levels, for example for fuel, food or building materials, are far lower than they are in Japan or Germany. One would think, from the way that those opposite talk about it, that our prices are very much higher than in other countries. That is just nonsense. I agree that the rates of inflation growth are matters for concern. They certainly cannot be disregarded but we have to look at the whole context in balance. I was staggered to hear from the honourable member for Deakin about the vast new empire that I was presiding over-the Bureau of Consumer Affairs. Obviously he is not aware that there has been an Office of Consumer Affairs for some years and that what is actually happening now is a consolidation. Instead of having people spread over a number of different departments, including the departments of Health, Science and the Attorney-General, very sensibly they are being brought under the one umbrella. It will make the operation much more effective but will not mean the creation of some monstrous bureaucracy. Nor do I imagine that those sections of the Government will be performing new tasks that they were not performing before. They will be performing them with a greater degree of concentration and a higher profile. The Prices Surveillance Authority was referred to as carrying out an inquiry into biscuits. I have decided that the biscuit inquiry can rest for the time being. I do not see it as a very high priority. I have already decided that the priority areas ought to be children's clothing and shoes-about which I think there is a great deal of concern-and pharmaceuticals. Mr Beale —Why children's? Mr BARRY JONES —Because it seems to be an area where there is an unusually high price rise and where low income families appear to be particularly disadvantaged. In talking to groups over the weekend I have been struck by the number of people who have raised the issue of children's clothing and children's shoes again and again. It needs to be looked at. The second area is non-prescription pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. But what does the Opposition say? Its attitude is to get rid of the Prices Surveillance Authority and let prices all rip. The PSA which was set up as part of the prices and incomes accord has three formal powers. First, it can declare a supplier. This forces suppliers to advise the PSA of price increases 21 days before they are scheduled to take effect and goods worth more than $30,000m a year are declared. Secondly, the PSA can freeze prices pending a public inquiry and most inquiries take about three months. Businesses know that it is in their interests to avoid prices that attract a public inquiry. Thirdly, the PSA has power to demand information of businesses. No business wants to open its books for scrutiny by government agencies. The result is that they are very sensitive to the power. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr COBB(Parkes)(3.27) —I guess that nothing more amply demonstrates this Government's dearth of economic understanding or its abysmal ignorance of what the real world market-place is all about than its latest charade called `price watch'. What most people find extraordinary is that the man leading this move, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones)-I will not refer to him as the Minister for puffed wheat as has been done previously-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member knows that one does not offend only by explicit points but also by allusion. You know that you must refer to the Minister by his title and you know that you should not use a disclaimer to get away with doing something else. You may proceed with your speech but bear that in mind. Mr COBB —Most people find it extraordinary that this supposedly intelligent man could be conned into an exercise which is nothing more than populist economic jiggery-pokery of the most childlike kind. He is to attempt to keep price rises down by running around supermarkets with a notebook and terrorising those who are providing a service to the consumer. Nothing is to be done to alleviate the causes of why price rises may be necessary and the part that government policy contributes to these rises. Oh, no; only the symptoms are to be treated, not the cause. It is a bit like a nurse frantically putting a band-aid over every little bump that emerges on a patient with measles rather than looking to the cause of the disease and how the patient should be nursed to get him over the disease. Many of the price rises that we see today are due largely to government policy. Governments that have caused massive price rises since the time of ancient Rome have tried to contain consumer prices to cover up their mistakes. The tactic has never worked because it is economic nonsense-and it will not work this time. If the Minister has half a brain and knows something of history he must surely understand that. But the Government is trying to give the impression that prices are rising because evil businessmen are making obscene profits by overcharging their customers. How pathetically and economically naive this argument is. Anyone who has the slightest skerrick of knowledge of how the business world operates would know how ridiculous the proposition is. Business today is probably more highly competitive and cut throat than it ever was. Profits have been cut to the bone in order to survive. Even the large and supposedly successful supermarkets, such as Woolworths and Coles, are often making only a miserable 2 per cent profit on their sales. That is only 2c profit in every dollar of sales-hardly the rapacious ripoff this Government is trying to paint. If supermarkets sold the food and made no profit on it at all the prices of many items would come down on average by only the barest of margins. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which shows how much prices have dropped, in real terms, in the last 20 years. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COSTS THEN AND NOW Product 1966 1986 Rump Steak (500g)... 32 mins 24 mins Eggs (1 doz)... 26 mins 6 mins Laundry detergent (750g)... 22 mins 15 mins Bacon rashers (250g)... 22 mins 10 mins Butter (500g)... 22 mins 9 mins Sugar (2kg)... 16 mins 8 mins Peaches (825g can)... 13 mins 7 mins Tea (250g)... 13 mins 5 mins Cheese (250g)... 11 mins 6 mins Jam (500g)... 11 mins 5 mins Milk (1 lt bottles)... 8 mins 4 mins Bread (white sliced)... 7 mins 6 mins Flour (SR, 1kg)... 7 mins 4 mins Mr COBB —I thank the House. The profit component of the price that the consumer pays is often only one of the smallest of many components of the overall price. However, this Government latches on to that component because it has an ideological hang up about anyone making a profit. To the Government, all profits are exploitive and obscene. It hates profits. Let me state quite clearly that-- Mr Braithwaite —It's a dirty word to them. Mr COBB —It is to the Government. Let me state quite clearly that coalition members like to see business making profits because when it is there are funds for investment, funds for jobs, funds for growth and funds for development. We become distressed only when business is not making a profit. We become distressed when government charges and policies force up costs which eventually must be passed on to the consumers of this country. This is what has been happening to an unprecedented extent in Australia over the last four years. This Government has increased government charges and taxes along with a massive increase in rules and regulations and often to an extent far greater than anything we saw in the days of the destructive Whitlam Government. Honourable members should look at the table entitled `Who Needs Watching? Supermarkets or Governments?' which states that over the last few years food prices have gone up 47.7 per cent, the consumer price index has gone up 53.9 per cent but electricity has gone up 91 per cent, Telecom Australia charges have gone up 100 per cent, workers compensation has gone up 113 per cent, water rates have gone up 120 per cent, sales tax has gone up 116 per cent and the cost of finance, interest rates, has gone up 93 per cent. Hardly a day goes by in Australia when the cost of running a business is not attacked in some way by this Government. It has increased existing taxes, introduced new taxes and expanded the paper work that goes with them. Surely it goes without saying that all of these extra costs have to be passed on if business is not to close down. Every government cost one can think of has gone through the roof and to a much greater extent than the CPI. Let us look at the last Budget. If ever we needed restraint it was in the last Budget but what did we get? We got an extra $1,400m of taxes in one form or another. There was the Medicare levy increase and petroleum products price increases. Remember the promises about alcoholic wine and cider? Fruit juices, flavoured milk, motor vehicles and even computer software all attracted additional taxes. The bank account debits tax was introduced. The list of extra taxes goes on for pages. Let us look at the new taxes the Government has brought in. The capital gains tax, costing hundreds of millions of dollars-- Mr Nehl —Shame! Mr COBB —It is a shameful thing, as the honourable member for Cowper says. The fringe benefits tax ran into hundreds of millions of dollars and the abolition of negative gearing means that the poor cannot now rent a house. In an ideological fervour to soak the rich, all the Government has managed to do is drown the poor. Fuel excise has increased hundreds of per cent in the four years the Government has been in office. Interest rates are the highest in the world. Mr Braithwaite —An absolute scandal. Mr COBB —It is scandalous. Inflation, compared with that of our overseas trading partners, is at its highest level ever and the length of time people are unemployed has doubled. No government in the history of this country has so failed in what it set out to do, has so deceived the people with its statements or broken as many promises as this one. Let us look at the last $10 a week wage increase, and that is only the first and smallest of the many steps that have yet to come. That $10 alone will mean an extra $1,200m cost to business in Australia. The Government blames everyone except itself; the fault is everyone else's. For example, the Government says that the depression in the farming industry is all due to the overseas drop in farm commodity prices. What a load of hogwash! Of course depressed prices for some products such as wheat, sugar and rice are a factor but that is only part of the story. The prices for wool and beef, for example, are quite good. It is the costs and the effects of government policies that we are getting rammed down our necks that are killing farmers in Australia today. If honourable members doubt that they have to look only at the latest Bureau of Agricultural Economics figures of the latest quarterly increase in fuel prices. How much did they go up? They went up 11.9 per cent for the quarter and machinery, equipment and car prices went up 5 per cent in the quarter, and that is just one quarter. Interest paid went up a massive 13.3 per cent and for the year it went up 23.7 per cent. Mr McGauran —You would not credit it. Mr COBB —One would not; it is unbelievable what is happening in this country today. Mr Peter Fisher —And the Minister talks of biscuits. Mr COBB —He does. Mr Carlton —He's crackers. Mr COBB —He is crackers, as the honourable member for Mackellar says. It is of no use blaming other countries for our problems. Our inflation and interest rates were only marginally above those of our trading partners when this Government took over in 1983. Today our inflation rate is four to five times the level of that of our trading partners and interest rates are two to three times the level of those of our trading partners. However, since 1983 countries which had rates at roughly the same level as ours have got their act together. They have got their house in order. As the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) said, their inflation rates are between nought and 2 per cent and their interest rates are between 5 and 10 per cent. We have gone the other way; we are setting all these abysmal records and all that is doing is putting continued downward pressure on the dollar and putting up import prices, as the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices (Mr Barry Jones) admitted. Economic mismanagement in this country today is causing higher inflation, higher wages and higher costs and this is ultimately leading to what we are talking about today-higher prices. If the Minister for Science really wants to do something about rising prices and why Australia is going down the economic gurgle hole, I suggest that he examine the cause of the problem, not the result. If he does not the Australian people will surely pull the plug on this Government's credibility at the next election. Mr GEAR(Canning)(3.37) —Today the Opposition has raised a matter of public importance but it has not said a thing about it. All we have heard from it is name calling and derision. One would not expect to hear anything constructive from it and we did not. During the debate the credentials of the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices (Mr Barry Jones) on this issue were questioned. I remind the House that in 1971 the Minister was instrumental in bringing Ralph Nader to Australia, so the Minister's association with the consumer movement goes back a long way. He is not like the Opposition spokesman who jumped on the bandwagon yesterday. The Minister spoke a lot of sense about what the Government is trying to do about prices. It is amazing that the Opposition started to talk about inflation. Let us look at its record back in 1976-77 when the inflation rate was 14 per cent. Mr Brumby —How much? Mr GEAR —It was 14 per cent, a world record. When the Opposition left office it was 11.5 per cent. Given the same terms of trade and the same economic conditions, this Government got the inflation rate down to 5.1 per cent before the devaluation pushed it back up again. As the Minister has pointed out, inflation is back on the way down because we have accommodated the price rises flowing from that devaluation. We should also look at the impact of Government charges and taxes on prices and that was never alluded to once by the Opposition. I will not go into a document entitled `Government Taxes and Charges' at length-it is a report by the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes-but I will quote a couple of passages which I think will illustrate the point. It states: It will be demonstrated in this paper that the rate of increase in public sector charges, and the contribution of indirect tax increases to the overall rate of price increase, has moderated sharply since 1982. We all know what happened after 1982-this Government got into power. Before 1982 the incompetents opposite were in power. Page 6 of this document stated: Trends in the impact on the CPI of the various public sector measures have differed over the period. That is the period under discussion in this document. The document continued: The estimated contribution of changes in the Statisti- cian's index of selected State and local government charges was highest in 1981 . . . Guess who was in power? The article further stated: . . . whereas the contributions of changes in post and telephone charges and Commonwealth indirect taxes and excise duties (other than on oil) were highest in 1982. Who was in Government? To continue: However, all measures show a significant decline in growth for both in 1983 and 1984. What can be said about those periods? This Government was in power. So, looking at the impact of government charges on prices, the report says it all. Let us refer statistically to some of those prices, in particular, to the impact on the consumer price index of increases in postal and telephone services charges. In 1981 it was 0.07 per cent for an inflation rate of 11.23 per cent. It rose to its highest in 1982, a level of 0.15 per cent for an inflation rate of 11.01 per cent. In 1985-the latest figures available-it was 0.09 per cent for an inflation rate of 8.2 per cent. So it can be seen statistically that charges from this Government have had a lesser impact on prices than ever was the case under the Opposition parties, and we all know what will happen if they ever get back in again. We know what will happen to government charges as they try to fund that huge deficit that they are all talking about. It will go up. We never hear anything from Opposition members about that because they simply cannot defend their record. They run from their record and never allude to it. I would like now to raise the question of why prices are an issue. It is simple. This Government has a prices and incomes accord. The workers have helped out because real unit labour costs in this country are lower now than they have been in 20 years. Of course, that has had benefits. We have three-quarters of a million more jobs. That is a real contribution that the workers of this country have made. By having a lower real wage they have helped their mates back into jobs. That is about the best thing that Australians can do in these troubled times. We have had fewer strikes. Mr Humphreys —Those opposite would help their mates to dodge tax. Mr GEAR —I will get to that later. Our Whip rightly points out that those opposite have been protecting the tax bludgers for years. The prices and incomes accord is all about Australians helping Australians. We have seen how we have become more competitive. The number of strikes is down. We have focused on prices because wage earners are saying that they are making their contribution and that people who set prices should certainly do likewise. I would like to do something constructive and talk about what we are doing to keep prices down. I am speaking from experience, which is something those opposite never could. Mr Robert Brown —You have done something about it. Mr GEAR —I thank the honourable member for Charlton. I have done something about it. I have done something constructive, and I did not just start yesterday, as the shadow Minister did. He was appointed yesterday; I have been doing this for four years. So when I talk about the matter, I know what I am talking about. Because the Government has recognised that the consumer movement can work only at the local level and that consumer action cannot be imposed from Canberra, the Government's whole focus is at the local level. In Canning, for instance, volunteers go out to supermarkets to look at prices. We publish those prices. We tell the consuming public where the cheapest supermarkets are. I can tell the House from experience that supermarkets will put their prices up where there is no competition or where they think they can get away with it. What we are doing is helping free enterprise. We are helping competition. We are making information available to consumers so that they can make a rational choice between the cheapest and dearest supermarkets. I can tell the House, once again from experience, that supermarkets put their prices down when they are fingered. That has been my experience. Now, right across Australia, the Government is setting up price watch committees to emulate what I have done. What makes Bob Hawke a great Prime Minister is the fact that he recognises that and has given endorsement to it. We will duplicate what I have done in Canning right across Australia. That is something honourable members opposite have never done. Opposition members have never ever worried about consumers. They have never worried about prices. They never took prices seriously until this Government did something about them. Does that not say something about them? They are always the followers. We had to appoint the Minister for Science as the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices before a shadow Minister was appointed. There was no shadow Minister before this Minister was appointed. So we can see that, once again, the Opposition is trailing all the way down the line. I can tell the House, from my experience, that the one thing the rip-off merchants hate is publicity. That is what we are giving them. But we are expanding that and taking it somewhat further. We will look at this matter at a State level and we will look for trends in prices. Our work will complement that of the Prices Surveillance Authority. Where we see prices of particular items varying more than those of other items we will tell the Prices Surveillance Authority. Here at the national level we will be looking at the same things. I might say that the information we publish here in Canberra will be very much more abstract than that we collect at the local level. The cynics around Parliament House really misunderstand what we are doing, because they focus on what is happening at the national level instead of at the community level where it is all happening. Just because we cannot quantify here the sorts of things we are doing at the local level, they seem to pass our efforts off. That is the same as the Opposition's approach. Once again, I point out that such people do not speak from experience; it is all copybook stuff. None of these blokes know anything about what goes on at the local level. They never go out. I wonder how many of them have ever been to a supermarket. The wife of the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), will not trust him in one, and one can see why. A disturbing trend is arising from the Government's move; that is, the aggressive move by some supermarkets to threaten litigation and to produce rubbish such as the advertisement previously referred to by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). The honourable member did not cite the years over which the survey he mentioned was undertaken. It was taken over 1981 to 1986. Honourable members will know that half-way through that period there was a change of government. Most of those increases-we have had this verified by the Parliamentary Library-occurred under Mr Fraser. That Government pushed prices up. That omission is bad enough, but the advertisement also got the figures wrong. Mrs Darling —What are they? Mr GEAR —I do not have time to go right through the figures, but I can tell honourable members now that this is an example of deceptive advertising at its worst. That advertisement was put out by the Bi-Lo supermarkets in Adelaide. I believe they deserve all the publicity they get for putting out rubbish like this. That a member of the Opposition has taken it as gospel without checking it just shows how thorough honourable members opposite are! The real issue before us today is what the Government is going to do about prices. This Government is doing everything in its power. We do not have constitutional power over prices, but we are doing something meaningful. We are building on something that works, which is exactly the opposite of what Opposition members are doing. All they can do is threaten, as the shadow Minister did, to bring back all the boozey lunches, all the free rorts and the tax-free Mercedes Benzes-all of those things that are supposed to add incentive for their mates-and to put down our people by freezing their wages. What will that do for consumer power? What will that do to the spending power of people such as pensioners? Is the Opposition going to freeze their pensions? Is it going to give pensions back to millionaires so that people on lower incomes get less? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The debate is concluded. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 255th report of the Committee relating to the Committee's activities from January 1985 to June 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr TICKNER —I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr TICKNER —I thank the House. This report, the Committee's 255th, informs the Parliament of the Committee's activities for the period 1 January 1985 to 30 June 1986. The report also provides a convenient medium for the Committee to review its own activities and to suggest areas of public and financial administration which may need further review and reform. The period under review has seen the Committee conducting a number of important and wide-ranging inquiries which have highlighted the need for change in many areas of public administration. Examples of these include: Firstly, the inquiry into medical fraud and overservicing in pathology services; secondly, an inquiry into project management by the Department of Defence and the armed services; and, thirdly, several reviews of proposed major acquisitions of computing equipment by departments in the Australian Public Service. These inquiries are, however, but a few of those conducted by the Committee. The Committee's duties have continued to grow, and this report notes that the Committee is now charged with extensive reviewing responsibilities in relation to the public accounts and public expenditure. In particular, the Committee examines the accounts of the receipts and expenditures of the Commonwealth; the Committee examines all reports of the Auditor-General, including reports of efficiency audits; the Committee reviews, at the discretion of Cabinet, major computing acquisition proposals put forward by the Australian Public Service; and, finally, the Committee reviews all Government responses, known as Finance minutes, to its reports. In addition, the Committee is charged with the responsibility of examining the financial affairs of authorities of the Commonwealth and intergovernmental bodies. During the period under review the Committee has also been given two additional tasks. One is to assess the suitability of auditors to be appointed to statutory marketing authorities, and the other is to approve the guidelines for the form and content of departmental annual reports. While this range of duties often gives the Committee a burdensome work load, it continues to be well served by a dedicated and hardworking secretariat. The Committee acknowledges with great appreciation the contribution made to its work by the members of its secretariat, its panel of advisers, and, indeed, the support staff, some of whom are in the gallery this afternoon. On behalf of the Committee I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work and leadership of Senator George Georges, who resigned from the Committee earlier this year. Senator Georges served on the Committee for over seven years. He was Vice-Chairman from 1980 while in opposition, and Chairman from 1983. Senator Georges presented 61 reports to the Parliament on behalf of the Committee. The more notable of these included medical fraud and overservicing, HMAS Tobruk, defence project management, Job Seeker-computer acquisition by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, and Project Desine-proposed computer acquisition by the Department of Defence. I say as an aside that even though not all members of the Parliament would agree with Senator Georges on every single occasion, I think all of us hold him in high regard and with some personal affection. Certainly, his work on the Public Accounts Committee is respected by all of those who have had the privilege of working with him. I add that this is the first report I have tabled as Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. It is my intention as Chairman to use my best endeavours to devote considerable time and energy to the Committee as it pursues its work on behalf of the Parliament. I am privileged to serve as Chairman of this bipartisan Committee of the Parliament. I hope that the Committee will continue its independent and forthright action in the public interest. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the second report of 1987, relating to the development of new utility helicopter facilities at the Royal Australian Air Force Base, Townsville, and ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr MILLAR —I thank the House. In summary, the Committee's report recommends the construction of on-base helicopter facilities at RAAF Base, Townsville, for No. 9 Squadron, at an estimated cost of $19.3m. The construction of 15 new houses, estimated to cost $1.4m, should be deferred until Defence and Department of Housing and Construction have briefed the Committee on the general question of defence housing. The proposal examined by the Committee involves the construction of facilities at RAAF Base, Townsville, for No. 9 Squadron. This Squadron is presently located in sub-standard facilities at RAAF Base, Amberley, and its Iroquois UH-1H helicopters will be replaced by Sikorsky Blackhawk helicopters commencing in October 1987. One of the main functions of No. 9 Squadron is to support the Army's operational deployment force which is based at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville. In view of its close association with the operational deployment force it is considered prudent to locate the two units in closer proximity to enhance the capabilities of both units and to eliminate non-effective transit flying time between Amberley and Townsville. The Committee examined the need for the proposed facilities, having particular regard to the implications of the recently announced transfer of battlefield helicopters from the RAAF to the Army. It is envisaged by Defence that the transfer will take place over a period of five years. The Committee was assured by Defence that the facilities proposed will be required and utilised regardless of which arm of the Australian Defence Force will eventually have control of battlefield helicopters. On the basis of assurances that the proposed facilities will be fully utilised, and that there would be no changes to the design of the scope of the proposed on-base work, the Committee concluded that the design and location of the proposed facilities are satisfactory. The relocation of No. 9 Squadron from Amberley to Townsville will require the provision of an additional 113 defence houses. Defence propose partly to meet this requirement by transferring 42 surplus Army houses at Townsville to the RAAF, constructing 15 new houses for more senior ranks, and to provide the balance of 56 houses later. The proposed 15 new houses were a component of this reference. The Committee questioned Defence and the Department of Housing and Construction about a number of aspects of the proposed arrangements, including the standard of the houses to be transferred from the Army to the RAAF, the cost of the new houses, the method of their delivery, their location and the extent to which representatives of prospective occupants would be consulted about design features. On the question of the standard of houses to be transferred from the Army to the RAAF, the Committee was advised that there is an ongoing program partially to upgrade existing defence houses in Townsville. About $1m will be spent on this during the present and next financial years. The Committee believes a return on the cost of partially upgraded existing houses is warranted. The estimated cost of providing the 15 new houses is $1.4m; this does not include the cost of land. The Committee believes this cost to be too high and is unconvinced that the houses could not be provided at a lower cost using other methods of delivery. Accordingly, the Committee proposes to take further evidence on this aspect when Defence and the Department of Housing and Construction provide a general briefing on defence housing later this year in conjunction with a proposed reference on def- ence housing at Watsonia, Victoria. The question of delivery methods, relative costs, standards of finish and the role of the new Defence Housing Authority will be addressed in more detail at that briefing. The Committee will then present a supplementary report on the Townsville houses at the earliest opportunity following the briefing. Bill presented by Mr Beazley, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(3.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes a variety of amendments to Acts dealing with defence matters. Some of the amendments made by the Bill are of a minor nature. Details of these amendments will be found in the explanatory memorandum being distributed to honourable members. There are, however, more important amendments which fall into six groups. These are: Provision for peacetime call out of the reserve forces; Introduction of long term enlistments for sailors, soldiers and airmen; Extension of the circumstances in which an accused member undergoing trial may have the option of being punished by a court martial or a Defence Force magistrate; Amendments designed to clarify the operation of the defence force retirement and death benefits legislation; Provision to enable transfer of employees from the Government Aircraft Factories to Aerospace Technologies of Australia; Termination of the Services Canteens Trust Fund. Provision for Peacetime Call Out of the Reserve Forces A significant feature of the Bill is its changed provisions governing the call out for continuous full time service of the reserve forces. Existing legislation provides for reserve forces to be called out, but only in circumstances of time of war or proclaimed defence emergency. This provision was introduced in 1964 and had regard to the then strategic circumstances, in the view of the government of the day. Within the Bill before the House there is provision for reserve forces to be called upon to render continuous full time service in situations short of a time of defence emergency. Honourable members will be aware of the significant, far-reaching initiatives that this Government has identified as being essential to the formulation of a realistic defence policy for Australia. It has been under the Hawke Government that there has been a fundamental change in our conception of the role of the reserves, reflected in such measures in recent years as integration and affiliation in the Army of regular and reserve units, creation of regional surveillance units in remote areas, and proposals for greater involvement of reserves in a range of tasks including northern defence, mine countermeasures, and tank warfare and artillery. The utility of reserve forces in a wider role has been made clear. This development is of course bound up with the notion of defence self-reliance for Australia. There is, I believe, general agreement on the role of the reserves in an era of self-reliance. It comes, I think, from an appreciation of the need to draw on all the resources available in the community if we are to provide effectively for our own defence. This means, for example, co-ordination of defence and civilian resources in transport, telecommunications and engineering, and encouragement of civilian industries relevant to the defence effort. It also means a greater role for the Defence Force reserves, not just as a base for expansion, but in the more immediate defence tasks this nation faces. The legislation makes this possible. While the reserves will continue to be an expansion base for a force designed to meet major threats, they will also be a major part of our capability to counter the more credible yet demanding lower level threats. This is essentially the approach adopted by the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. My major defence policy statement tomorrow will endorse that approach, and it will make clear the future role of the reserves, and in particular the Army Reserve. The reserves will play a challenging and exciting role in meeting Australia's defence needs. The future holds very challenging prospects for the Army Reserve. A role or real responsibility in defence of the north, a major part in maintaining expansion capabilities in tank warfare and artillery, and continued emphasis on integration and affiliation of reserve regular units to enable the development of skills and knowledge-the future shape of the Army Reserve will, I believe, give its members an abiding sense of purpose. For the Army Reserve, this Government has identified a much more relevant and responsible role in preparing for the most credible threats this country could face. These are most likely to be located in the remote north or north-west of Australia. The Army Reserve will have a critical role in the early assumption of the protection of key areas, releasing regular units to conduct more offensive operations. Such key areas would include protection of the Darwin/Tindal region, and the Learmonth, Derby and Cape York airfields. Specific regional wartime tasks will be identified and allocated to particular reserve units for their peacetime training. This will greatly facilitate their effective use in time of war and, as an important bonus, give them an increased sense of purpose which will foster morale. It is proposed that individual reserve units in southern States will be allocated specific towns and installations in the north which they would be deployed to defend in an emergency. In recent years increasing emphasis has been given to regional surveillance units in the north and north-west with a substantial reserve element. Access to local knowledge and skills in remote areas of Australia could well prove vital for the early detection and countering of a military threat. The establishment of regional surveillance forces such as Norforce, the Pilbara Regiment and the Far North Queensland Regiment are important initiatives. The Government will encourage their further development, including the acquisition of specialised equipment for mobility and surveillance. The identification of exciting and challenging new roles for the Army Reserve will help overcome in a most material way what has been a repeated and well publicised difficulty in recruitment. For the Navy Reserve, the Government has endorsed a significant role in mine countermeasures. Australia is especially vulnerable with our heavy dependence on shipping for internal movements of Australian goods and our large number of ports through which high value cargoes are exported. A role for Naval reserves in this activity establishes them at the centre of a critical area of our security. Turning to the Air Force Reserve, this Government will encourage commercial pilots to augment the Air Transport Forces. There will also be recruitment into the Air Force Reserve of additional maintenance personnel to provide sufficient back up should higher rates of flying be required from the Royal Australian Air Force. If the value of the reserve forces is to be exploited fully in providing an effective defence capability for Australia, there is a clear case for legislative provision permitting limited call-out of reserves short of the declaration of a defence emergency. If the concept of a `total force' is to have any meaning, and if integration is to be effective, the Defence Force must be able to plan on the employment of any component of the force, including the reserves, in situations which fall short of a declared emergency. I think it is clear that in low level contingencies governments would be understandably reluctant to take the seemingly escalatory if not reactive step of declaring a defence emergency. Yet it is precisely during a period of tension potentially leading to low level conflict that some elements of the reserve forces would most likely be required. There are some other points I wish to make. Firstly, the Bill provides only the legislation within which the reserves may be required to render continuous full time service at some future and indeterminable date, and in presently unidentifiable circumstances. It should not be seen as an intent to call out the reserves. The Bill contains safeguards and provision for parliamentary scrutiny comparable to those currently provided for call out in time of war or time of defence emergency. Importantly, the reserves will be employed only in tasks of direct national defence in responding to an external threat to Australia's security. It is not relevant to call-out in aid of the civil power. Such assistance would be effected under section 51 of the Defence Act which contains a prohibition against call-out or use of the reserve forces in connection with an industrial dispute. I should also say that existing provisions contained in the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965 regarding protection in civil employment would be applicable to service under the new provisions. This call out provision being introduced today will be seen by reservists to be directly related to their national role in our defence. Along with the assumption of more relevant and immediate tasks, it will provide the reserves with a real sense of purpose, a lack of which has led to problems of organisation, recruitment and training. The introduction of this legislation will do much to increase the value and flexibility of the reserves as an integral part of the Australian Defence Force. I turn now to the other provisions of the Bill. Long term enlistments for sailors, soldiers and airmen It has been the practice, for many years, for a sailor, soldier or airman, on enlistment, to be engaged to serve for a period prescribed in regulations and, on or before the expiration of an engagement, to re-engage for a further prescribed period. There are advantages for service administrators in this arrangement. It is at the discretion of the service administrator whether or not to offer a member a further period of service. A steady turnover of personnel in the lower ranks is desirable, particularly in infantry units and ships. However, there are disadvantages for both service administrators and members. The services cannot offer a guarantee of permanency to the more highly skilled members. Indeed, the re-engagement system requires the member to formally consider and decide, every few years, whether he wishes to bind himself for another period. There is also considerable administrative effort devoted to re-engaging members. The Bill proposes to amend the Defence Act 1903 and the Naval Defence Act 1910 to allow the service administrators to offer members enlistment for a period to retiring age, or extension of service to retiring age, as an alternative to a fixed term. Corresponding amendments in respect of the Air Force have been effected by amendments of the Air Force regu- lations. The degree to which each service avails itself of the new scheme of long term enlistments in either the permanent forces or the Reserve forces will be for the administration of that service to decide, according to the perceived needs of that service. It will be open to a member to elect early discharge by giving appropriate notice. Defence Force Discipline Under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, the more severe of the punishments that may be imposed on a convicted accused by a superior summary authority or a commanding officer are called elective punishments. The Act sets out the circumstances in which these punishments are imposed. Generally, this is where the summary authority has given the accused an opportunity to elect to be tried or punished by court martial or Defence Force magistrate. The original policy on which the Act was based made provision for an accused who pleaded guilty before a summary authority to be given the option of trial by court martial or Defence Force magistrate. This was omitted from the Act on the ground that a person who pleaded guilty before one tribunal could not properly be referred to another tribunal for trial. This omission has been found to leave a hiatus. The Bill proposes to include this procedure in the Act but to vary it by providing that the accused is to be given the option of being punished, but not tried, by court martial et cetera. Operation of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits legislation The proposed amendments to the Defence Force retirement and death benefits legislation either flow on from other legislation or are designed to ensure that particular provisions give effect to the original policy intention. Non-effective service Under the existing legislation, certain periods of service, such as absence without leave, when exceeding 21 days, are treated as non-effective service. When the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 commenced on 3 July 1985, new regulations under section 119 of the Defence Act 1903 regarding forfeiture of salary were also brought into force. The Bill proposes to amend the DFRDB legislation so that periods of non-effective service are largely determined by reference to periods exceeding 21 days in which salary is forfeited. Such periods typically comprise absence without leave or time in custody. Purchase of prior service On the introduction of the present DFRDB scheme, contributory service under the old scheme that was continuous with service under the new scheme was automatically counted as service under the new scheme, subject to some conditions. Provision was also made for members to purchase certain other periods of prior service for the purposes of the new scheme. The Bill proposes to amend the provisions relating to the counting or purchase of prior service in order to ensure that they correctly reflect the original policy intention. Counting of service for deferred benefits A member who leaves the Defence Force before qualifying for a pension may elect to receive a deferred benefit payable as a pension on the date on which he would have qualified for pension had he remained in the Defence Force. Certain periods of eligible service which occurred before or after the person's defence service may be added to the defence service for this purpose. The Bill proposes to amend the provision relating to the counting of this service in order to clarify its operation. Amendments of the Supply and Development Act On 3 December 1986, a government-owned company-Aerospace Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd-was incorporated with the intention of transferring to it on 1 July 1987 the operations of the Government Aircraft Factories. It is intended that the company have the authority to choose, on commercial grounds, which employees of the aircraft factories the company will hire. Public Service Act employees selected by the company will be transferred under section 81c of the Public Service Act. The Bill proposes to include in the Supply and Development Act a provision based on part of section 81c. This will enable employees under the Supply and Development Act to be transferred and avoid the need to retrench them, with associated retrenchment payments, and then have the company re-employ them. The opportunity has been taken to propose changes to the employment provisions of the Supply and Development Act. The terms of the Act require the making of regulations that are unsuitable in some respects. The Bill proposes to substitute more suitable provisions in the Act. The regulations will subsequently be amended. Termination of the Services Canteens Trust Fund The Services Canteens Trust Fund was set up in 1947 and was mainly derived from profits and assets of the Navy, Army and Air Force canteens services accumulated during the Second World War and funds of disbanded wartime units. As previously announced in their annual reports tabled in the Parliament, the trustees have been disbursing capital as well as income with a view to the Fund eventually terminating. This point has now been reached and the Bill proposes to repeal Part III of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947 thus terminating the legal existence of the fund. I shall have something to say about the valuable and dedicated work of the trustees of the fund when I table their final report at an early date. Financial impact statement The introduction of the scheme of enlistments and extensions of service of servicemen to retiring age is expected to result in some savings from the reduction of administrative effort but no figure can reasonably be estimated. In the case of the amendments proposed to the DFRDB legislation with regard to purchase of prior service, there are no additional costs. If the amendments were not made there could be a requirement to refund to members a once-only payment totalling $1.73m and a further $0.36m could be forgone to revenue. The other amendments are not expected to have any significant financial impact. I commend the Bill to honourable members, and circulate the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Beazley, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(4.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to establish the Defence Housing Authority. Creation of the Authority is a crucial part of the Government's strategies to overcome the long-standing deficiencies in the quality and standards of Defence housing. This Government has been the first to adopt a set of principles to govern housing assistance to its own employees including particularly members of the Defence Force. These principles acknowledge the obligation of the Government to provide adequate accommodation for its employees who, by reason of duty requirements, are located where there is inadequate housing, or who are required to live at the work location. The principles also acknowledge the duty on the Government as the employer to minimise the detriment to morale of both its employees and their families who suffer housing upheavals by reason of being required to relocate frequently. As the major strategy for giving practical effect to these principles, the Defence Housing Authority is to be responsible for provision of housing for families of the Defence Force and, where essential, Defence civilian personnel. The problems of Defence housing have been the subject of several inquiries, the most recent being the Task Force on Australian Public Service and Defence Force Housing Programs. The Task Force reported that there are divided responsibilities and complexity in inter-agency arrangements governing the overall management of the Government's staff housing. The arrangements militate against effective decision-making and prompt action. The Task Force was also critical of inadequate repairs and maintenance of housing and the generally run-down state of much of the stock. In essence the Task Force confirmed many of the complaints on housing expressed by Service personnel and their families. The Government believes there are three essential elements necessary to remedy the problems. There must be a guaranteed level of funds committed to Defence housing. There must be business enterprise and expertise brought to the management task. There must be a single organisation established which is dedicated to management of Defence housing and free from bureaucratic controls. The Authority will charge the Defence Department the full commercial rent for each house it controls. This will provide a guaranteed level of income, not subject to Budget vagaries. The Authority is to have experts from the private housing field appointed to its board of management. The Authority will be master of its own destiny in making arrangements for the construction, upgrading and maintenance of Defence housing. It will be able to dispose of stock no longer needed, and retain the proceeds of sale. In developing the legislation, the Government has balanced the requirement that housing management is sensitive to the needs of the Defence Force while allowing for flexibility and commercial freedom in the operation of the Authority. The Authority is to be independent of the Department of Defence. It must, however, ensure that its activities are fully supportive of Defence Force operational needs. Its planning must be consistent with Defence planning. For example, the Authority must ensure that its housing stock is expanded to permit the timely accommodation of the large number of families who will be relocated as a result of the Government's recent announcement of a two-ocean Navy, and its decision to relocate the Second Cavalry Regiment in Darwin. The membership of the board of management has been structured to ensure the application of the necessary skills for housing management and proper co-ordination with defence policy and planning. It will comprise four part time members, including the chairperson, selected on the basis of business expertise and wide knowledge of housing operations and social planning, and four members to represent each of the Services and the Defence Department. A full time managing director of senior status who will undertake day-to-day direction of the Authority's operations will also be a member of the board. The Government is committed to an expanded Defence housing program that over the next decade will lead to a housing stock of greatly improved quality and meeting current community standards. Within overall Budget priorities, the Government will aim to provide the Defence Housing Authority with funding, additional to its guaranteed income, needed to meet this objective. Of the 22,000 houses, the worst 6,000 will be progressively replaced and other houses of inadequate standard will be refurbished. An investment program totalling $750m over the next decade is proposed. In view of the urgency in addressing the housing problems, I established an interim Defence Housing Board late last year, on an administrative basis pending passage of legislation. I am delighted that Mr John Graham, a former national president of the Housing Industry Association and director of the Sydney building firm of Civic Constructions Pty Ltd, has accepted the position of chairman of the interim board. Other external appointments include Dr Roy Gilbert, a former head of the Victorian Ministry of Housing; Ms Valerie Pratt, a former personnel manager with CSR Ltd and now head of the Government's affirmative action agency; and Mr Sam Salpietro, a Western Australian property developer and real estate agent. I propose to invite these members to be considered for appointment to the Authority when it is established. Besides taking over ongoing housing programs in the Defence Department, the interim board is doing much of the preliminary work towards setting in place operating procedures and financial arrangements appropriate for the Authority. It recently completed a tour around Australia to gain a first-hand knowledge of the housing stock. At each location it met service tenants to discuss present dissatisfactions. I now turn to the more significant details of the legislation. The stated objective of the Authority is to provide housing to meet the operational needs of the Defence Force and requirements of the Department as determined by the Minister for Defence. It will have all the powers necessary to perform its functions. As I have already indicated, arrangements for the appointment of the chairperson and members to the Authority will ensure that business acumen will be brought to the management task. The usual provision for such matters as remuneration, leave of absence, termination of appointment and disclosure of interests will apply. Planning and oversight arrangements will ensure a proper degree of responsibility and accountability to the Minister. They will also ensure that the Authority will remain responsible through the Minister to the Government. The Authority's activities will be guided by a corporate plan which will include forecasts of receipts and expenditure and financial targets for profit, rate of return and dividend approved by the Minister for Defence. It will be required to earn a reasonable rate of return on its assets and maintain the Commonwealth's level of equity. The Minister will monitor the performance of the Authority at the planning level, and this will be a major factor in enabling the Authority to be freed from ministerial involvement in day- to-day management issues. Provision is made for a specific power of direction which in some circumstances would incur reimbursement to the Authority where such a direction resulted in financial detriment. The Authority will require the approval of the Minister for Defence before entering into joint ventures, forming subsidiary companies or establishing partnerships. Such arrangements will be subject to Commonwealth, State or Territory taxes. The Government has decided that the Authority should not be subject to Commonwealth and State government taxes, but shall continue the existing Commonwealth policy of making grants to local government in lieu of rates. There is provision for the Minister to transfer to the Authority Defence housing stock and land. The value of these assets along with money appropriated by the Parliament and any accumulated reserves will represent the capital of the Authority. The managing director will be appointed by the Authority and will hold office at the Authority's pleasure. The normal conditions associated with a statutory office will apply. The Authority will be staffed under the Public Service Act, and will be empowered to engage consultants. I turn now to the financial impact of the Bill. At the outset I want to emphasise that provision of housing will continue to be regarded as a condition of service. Rent levels to be charged individual service tenants will be a matter for separate decision by the Government. I wish to assure the House that the announcements that I am making today are not intended to have any significant effect on rents paid by ADF personnel. Rentals will continue to be developed according to a rental scheme designed to meet the specific needs of the Defence Force. The commercial rent to be charged to the Commonwealth by the Housing Authority for each house available to Defence tenants will represent a new charge to Budget outlays. In 1987-88 this is estimated at $120m. The saving by removal from Budget outlays of payments now to be the responsibility of the Authority is estimated to total $84m. These include payments to the States and Territories for housing provided under the Commonwealth-State housing agreements and related agreements, repairs and maintenance to Defence owned houses, and payments in lieu of rates to local government. The estimated net effect on recurrent Budget outlays is an additional $36m. In addition, revenue from the disposal of surplus housing will be retained by the Housing Authority and will no longer be a credit to Consolidated Revenue. In 1986-87 this is estimated at $5m. The Housing Authority will be required to use profits from operations towards capital acquisitions and improvements. Consequently the demands for capital from the Budget for investment-$65.8m in 1986-87-will be reduced. It is expected that some supplementation from annual Budgets will be required in order to meet the government commitment of $750m over the next decade to upgrade the Defence housing stock. The requirement for supplementation will be determined in the context of the Authority's corporate and financial plans. The Authority will be required to meet its operating expenses from revenue. Some immediate offsetting reductions in staffing levels will occur in the Department of Defence. I expect the Authority to have a fairly small permanent staff as it will probably engage the private sector to undertake aspects of its operations. A high degree of expectation exists in the Defence community that the Authority will come to grips with housing problems which have been endured by service families over a long period. The Government's initiatives have been well received by senior management of the Defence Force, service personnel and their families. I am hopeful that there will be support by honourable members on both sides of the House for such an important initiative. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(4.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 10 December last year, the Federal Opposition and the Australian Democrats forged a brief unholy alliance based on quite contradictory principles and rejected the Australia Card Bill 1986. One part of this unholy alliance wanted simply a different identification system from the Australia Card, the other part no identification system whatever. The Bill was defeated in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Australia Card program is the single most effective weapon available to government to combat tax evasion and welfare fraud. But more than being a deliberate move by both the Opposition and the Democrats to thwart the Government's democratically-earned right to govern fairly and effectively, the rejection of the Australia Card Bill was a defeat for all honest Australians. Over the past two years, in which a very lively and open public debate has ensued, and with much of the contribution from the Australia Card's critics being irrational and misleading, support for the program within the Australian community has remained strong. This is because honest Australians have become increasingly aware that the Australia Card program will protect their rights against those who are currently involved in tax cheating and welfare fraud. Honest Australians realise that the Australia Card will ensure that they no longer have to subsidise the cheats within our society. By again rejecting what in the Australia Card would be a highly secure but very basic identification system, the Opposition will be demonstrating once again that it has no commitment to ensuring fairness in our taxation system, and that it has no answers to the problems of fraud in our welfare system. This Government believes that the people of this country have a fundamental right to expect that their elected representatives protect them from those who are operating dishonestly within the tax and welfare systems. They have a right to expect that the Government ensures as best it can that all contribute their fair share of tax. They have a right to expect that welfare benefits are paid only to those who are truly entitled to those benefits. They have a right to expect that immigrants to this country who are operating within our system are here legally. Finally, and very importantly, they have a right to expect that, in going about achieving these fundamental goals, governments do everything within their power to safeguard the rights to privacy and civil liberties of the individual. It is because the Government is convinced, as is the majority of the population, that the Australia Card program will significantly achieve and enhance all of these rights that I am today reintroducing the Australia Card Bill 1986. I do not intend to dwell on the details of the Bill today, as this was done on its first introduction in my second reading speech of 22 October 1986. The Opposition's response throughout the debate which followed could most kindly be described as trivial and shallow, perhaps best typified by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), who offered a $100 reward to the first person to forge an Australia Card. This Opposition's overriding aim throughout that debate was to generate a fear and loathing campaign against the Australia Card through a mixture of misrepresentation, exaggeration, distortion, and scaremongering in an attempt to undermine public support for the program. That this contemptible campaign failed, and that the Opposition underestimated the intelligence and common sense of the Australian people, has been demonstrated by the minimal impact that its campaign has had. For even a cursory examination of Opposition arguments against the Australia Card exposes their shallowness, and it is now the Opposition which must explain to the public why its political opportunism has come before the rights and needs of the honest people of Australia, and why in its quest for power it is prepared to allow tax evasion and welfare fraud to go unabated. The truth is that this Opposition has no policies on how to combat effectively these two major problems confronting Australian society today. Yet by blocking the Australia Card, which-until political opportunism became the catchcry-even front bench Opposition members had agreed would be effective against tax and welfare cheating, the Opposition is writing off a conservative $880m a year in lost revenue. Indeed, for every day which the Australia Card is delayed, an additional $2.5m will be lost to tax evaders and welfare defrauders-money which could have been spent on honest taxpayers and needy welfare recipients. That the Australia Card would produce savings of this magnitude cannot be seriously challenged. The most conservative estimate put forward by the Australian Taxation Office of revenue gains in the tax area alone under the Australia Card program is $724m a year once the program is fully operational. Even the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, the membership of which included those masters of the backward somersault-the performing seals of the coalition circus-the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), considered that the estimates of savings were extremely low and could be more than double that amount. In the area of social security fraud, the Government has not stated that there will be no savings, but rather that it is difficult to quantify the extent of welfare fraud and, therefore, the level of savings. However a number of specific large false identity cases provide a pointer to the extent of the problem. The Joint Select Committee stated: While the Committee accepts the (Social Security) Department's difficulty in establishing the amount of social security fraud due to false identities, it believes that there is still significant fraud within this area. I realise that honourable members opposite are likely to jump up and down and emit shrill cries about how the Department of Social Security stated that less than one per cent of identified welfare overpayments were due to false identity while 61 per cent were caused by understatement of income. Members of the Opposition will then attempt to draw the conclusion that the Australia Card would have no impact in this area. But they are wrong, as I shall demonstrate. They have either not read the Australia Card Bill, have not understood it, or choose to ignore the facts about how the program will work. For the benefit of honourable members opposite, I will attempt to explain it as simply as possible. The Australia Card program will provide the Australian Taxation Office with a highly secure means of linking all sources of income-whether from employment, investment, or welfare payments-to the one identity. Such linkage has been the aim of past governments but is extremely difficult because of the lack of a unique identifier. The Australia Card number provides this unique identifier. Such a system of linkage through the use of a unique identification numbering system was recommended by all members of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, although the Committee split on whether the existing tax file number identification system should be extended and upgraded, or whether a new identification system using Australia Card numbers should be introduced. Thus all agreed on the need for an identification system for tax and welfare purposes, although there was dis- agreement on how best this could be achieved. The Government's reasons for opting for the Australia Card program were outlined in my speech in reply to the Joint Select Committee in this place on 6 June 1986 and in my second reading speech of 22 October 1986. Likewise, the Opposition has been fond of quoting the all-party report, `A Taxing Problem', by the Standing Committee on Expenditure, as some sort of criticism of this Government. In fact that Committee, chaired by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), recommended: With or without the adoption of the Australia Card the Australian Taxation Office take the necessary steps to establish a high integrity identification system which would ensure maximum taxpayer compliance. The reason for these conclusions, and for the Government's decision to move in this direction through implementation of the Australia Card program, is simple. Because the use of a single, highly secure number for each person for identification purposes will facilitate Tax Office attempts to draw together all sources of an individual's income, it will, therefore, help ensure that the fair and correct amount of taxation is paid. As this linkage will uncover those situations where understatement of income has resulted in inappropriate payment or overpayment of social security benefits, then the Australia Card will be extremely effective in enabling the Department of Social Security to rectify this problem. Additionally, because the Australia Card will be highly secure and virtually forgery-proof, false identities currently within the system and used for tax evasion and welfare fraud purposes will be weeded out, while it will be far more difficult in future to create new false identities. Perhaps the most common fallacy perpetuated by the Opposition is that the Australia Card is a major infringement of individual privacy and civil rights because it is in some way something more extensive and sinister than a basic identification system. The Opposition has even gone so far as to claim that introduction of the Australia Card program is tantamount to the introduction of a dossier surveillance system. Leaving aside this Opposition's sudden and questionable conversion to civil libertarianism, this totally ignores the limited and specific compass of the Australia Card program. In fact, the Australia Card will do nothing more than provide a highly reliable and secure means of identification in situations where people are already required to provide proof of identity. The Australia Card will be used in relation to employment; investment, for example interest payments from financial institutions, and income from share and property transactions; and payment of welfare benefits. For convenience, it will also replace the Medicare card. In all of these cases a person is already required to provide personal identification information-more information than will appear on the Australia Card, and in general roughly equivalent to what will appear on the Australia Card Register. In most of those cases, proof of that identity is already required; this requirement for proof of identity is increasing; and it will increase further even without the Australia Card. In fact, the Australia Card would streamline the present process. The only additional information which this legislation in itself makes it necessary to record and report to the Australian Taxation Office is the Australia Card number. Thus when an employer or a financial institution provides details to the Tax Office on an employee or client, as well as the personal information currently required, such as name, address, and levels of income, it will be the Australia Card number. This could hardly be termed much of an imposition. As well, in nearly all instances a person's Australia Card will need to be produced and the number recorded only once: When first opening an account with a financial institution, stock broker, or produce agent, or initially on obtaining employment. The major exception to this is Medicare, where just as now the Medicare card is used whenever a claim is made, the Australia Card will take its place. Indeed, as most people do not change jobs frequently, and do not regularly open new financial accounts, the overwhelming majority of Australians will find that the most common use of the Australia Card will be for the claiming of Medicare benefits. As can be seen from this brief outline of how the Australia Card will work, it is clear that the Government proposal is for a very basic, albeit highly secure, identification system, and Opposition propaganda to the contrary is shallow and unconvincing. The Australia Card and the associated Register will contain only basic identification material-information which is already held on records throughout both the public and private sectors. The Australia Card itself will have on it only the given names and surname of the person; an Australia Card number; the expiry date of the card; a photograph of the person; and a signature. No other identifying information will be contained on the Card. Where the Opposition has been unable to paint the Australia Card itself as being in any way iniquitous, a great deal of nonsense has been uttered about the associated Australia Card Register. Despite Opposition claims to the contrary, all that will be on the Australia Card Register is simple identification information. The Australia Card Register will contain nothing other than basic identifying data such as surname and given names, date of birth, sex, residential and postal adresses, changes of address, any other name by which the person is entitled to be known and wishes to use, and other limited basic identifying information as listed in Schedule 1 of the Bill. The Register will also contain administrative details necessary to assist the authority in its management of the program, such as where and when cards were issued, details of any replacement cards, details of amendments made to information held on the Register, where and when the changes were made, and by whom. There will most certainly be no central register of personal, non-identifying information such as medical history, credit history, marital status, religious beliefs, education, employment history, income, or voting intentions. For example, although Medicare would use the Australia Card number, the Tax Office and Social Security Department would not have access to Medicare records, just as they are denied access now. There will be no, I repeat, no dossier gathering. Let me remind the House that no private agency has access to the Register. For example, while an employer or financial institution may ask to see and record the number of a person's Australia Card, they will have no access to the Register. As is set out in Part V of the Bill, access to the Register will be limited to the user agencies-the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security, and the Health Insurance Commission-with even that access limited to the verification of identity for the purposes of carrying out their specified functions. To give further personal re-assurance, every access and every attempted access by each department, agency and individual will be logged and recorded on the Register. All individuals will have access to the information about them which is held on the Register, including information as to who looked at their file and why. Persons have that right of access to their own file at all times. A person can ask for information on the Register to be amended, and if the request is refused can ask for a review by the Data Protection Agency-a special body created under the legislation to ensure that individual privacy is not abused. As I explained to the House last October, the Data Protection Agency will be an independent watchdog body which will review, establish, and maintain guidelines for the operation of the Australia Card program and provide individuals with a fast and efficient appeals mechanism in the event of complaints of a breach of those guidelines. The DPA will also be the complaint-handling authority for the privacy legislation. Those safeguards will be the most broad-ranging and effective ever seen in this country. With this range of protections, I believe the Australia Card achieves the necessary balance between the protection of individual privacy and the protection of the community from exploitation by the dishonest. Another claim made by the Opposition during the debate last year was that the Australia Card will be used as an `internal passport'. Since that time, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has gone so far as to suggest that police will be able to confiscate motor vehicles if a driver cannot produce an Australia Card. Such flights of imagination have become the hallmark of the Opposition's contribution to this debate. The fact is that any person, be it a police officer or a Commonwealth public servant, who asks for a card for a reason not specified in the Bill would be committing an offence and could be subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000 and/or a prison term of two years. It would be quite an amazing internal passport which could put those asking for it in gaol for two years. A variation of the `internal passport' argument is the claim that people will be required to carry Australia Cards at all times. This totally ignores the fact that the Bill specifically provides that an Australia Card does not have to be carried at all times. Some members opposite will of course continue to parrot the claim that the purposes for which the card is required are such that a person could be called upon at any time to produce it. Perhaps some supporters of the Liberal Party of Australia buy property every morning and open a new bank account or engage a new stockbroker every afternoon! The Opposition may be surprised to know that the vast majority of Australians undertake these types of financial transactions little more than a few times in a lifetime. Additionally, Opposition speakers have claimed that people will no longer be able to conduct business by telephone, that every time they want to sell a pig or buy some shares they will have to front up to a stockbroker, marketing authority, or produce agent with their Australia Card. If honourable members read the Bill they will realise that the Government has made special provisions for people living in isolated areas, or those who suffer from impaired mobility. Just as occurs now when people apply for a passport, the Government will allow certain groups of people who are prominent within the community to sign `certificates of identity', which can then be supplied for identification purposes through the post. After the certificate has been produced once to an agent, marketing authority, financial institution or the like and the number recorded, there will be no further need to produce the card for normal business with those bodies and customers may continue to transact all business in their preferred way, including by mail or telephone. Some speakers also tried to exaggerate the effect of the penalties in the Australia Card Bill. The penalties were set by the Attorney-General's Department, and are directly comparable to penalties in other Commonwealth legislation, particularly the Trade Practices Act and Crimes Act. I wish to emphasise again that unintentional clerical errors attract no penalty. Another misinterpretation of the Australia Card program by honourable members opposite is that it will have the greatest impact upon average pay as you earn income earners, leaving those persons operating in the `cash' or `black' economy untouched. This is not the case. In practice, the card will be of great assistance in detecting large amounts of income earned in the cash economy which cannot be absorbed into daily living expenses. Such funds find their way into the mainstream financial system through investments, real estate, shares, and so on. Once money is directed back into the financial system from the cash economy, account-holders can be identified by their Australia Card number, while undeclared income will be far more easily detected through tax audit trails established by the Australia Card program. In fact, PAYE taxpayers will be among the main beneficiaries of the Australia Card program, as generally they are the least likely and least able to avoid tax. The Australia Card would help restore their confidence in the tax and welfare systems by helping to ensure that others are shouldering their fair share of tax and that hard-earned tax dollars are not being wasted on welfare cheats. The only remaining Opposition debating point which is worth mentioning and which needs to be laid to rest is the suggestion that it has a realistic alternative to the Australia Card program. This is blatant nonsense. In the previous debate, I spent some time explaining why the Government had opted for the Australia Card ahead of the tax file identification system which was supported by all Opposition members on the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. While the Government's reasons were numerous and rational, they were perhaps best summed up late last year by Commissioner of Taxation Trevor Boucher when he stated: I expect that by the time you take all the steps that need to be taken to get high integrity into, say, a tax file number, then there's the same effects, the same costs, the same privacy questions that you'd get with the Australia Card. But amid its many somersaults, the Opposition has now abandoned the tax file option going so far as to vote against an Australian Democrats amendment in the Senate to introduce such a system. Instead, on 6 December last year the honourable member for Barker issued a Press release which claimed that an alternative proposal by the coalition would be `$2,735m more cost effective' over the first 10 years. I am not surprised to note that, as far as I have been able to ascertain, neither the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) nor the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has come out publicly in support of this economic stupidity, because these figures are so obviously a fantasy plucked from the air. But let us look more closely at just some of the claims made by the honourable member. Firstly, he claimed that private sector compliance costs in that 10-year period will be $2 billion. This he based on two false assumptions: First, that costs to the public sector will be $1,000m; and, secondly, that costs to the private sector will be twice that cost. To begin with, as I advised the House last year, the estimated cost to the public sector over those first 10 years is $759m, not $1 billion. And in a letter quoted during the debate last year, the Business Regulation Review Unit stated quite clearly there was no evidence to suggest that the 2:1 ratio generally applied to government programs to determine private sector costs was applicable in the case of the Australia Card program. One of the largest compliance costs in the private sector will be to the banks, and the Australian Bankers Association has already stated that the establishment cost of complying with the card will be around $60m, with ongoing costs of $4.6m a year. This on its own makes a mockery of the Opposition claims. The honourable member then claimed that the Opposition intended to spend $200m on `radical improvement of the administrative efficiency and upgrading the computer capacity of the Australian Taxation Office', which would result in savings of $4,471m over 10 years. Even allowing for a dramatic upgrading of computer capacity in the Australian Taxation Office, it is extremely unlikely that such benefits could be obtained. To begin with, using the figures obtained during the Government's analysis of the tax file option-figures not disputed by the Joint Select Committee-it was estimated that expenditure of $377m, almost twice the amount proposed by the Opposition, would yield benefits of less than $2,000m over 10 years. This is nowhere near the figure of $4,471m estimated by the Opposition. As well, this ignores what is already being done by the Government in the areas of undeclared interest, and improved audit and imputation of dividends. In short, the Australia Card program is additional to the improvements already undertaken or planned in the tax and welfare systems. The Opposition proposals do nothing about preventing the opening of financial accounts in false names nor about providing a means of linking all sources of an individual's income to that individual. In other words, they fail on the very test so often applied by this Opposition-the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Expenditure for the establishment of `a high integrity identification system which would ensure maximum taxpayer compliance'. So let us have no more of this nonsense that the Opposition has some sort of economically rational alternative. It has none. It has plucked a gaggle of figures from the air in some Peter Pan-like flight of fancy. Let me turn finally to the question of possible improvements to the program during the long establishment lead times which it will require. The Government is committed to consultation on the program to ensure that it is implemented with minimal administrative burden and maximum civil liberty protection. On 5 February 1987 the Government indicated its willingness to consider machinery suggestions for streamlining the operation of the Australia Card program in keeping with the fundamental principles of the Bill. These suggestions related mainly to the operational side of the Bill and were designed to respond constructively to some of the criticisms voiced in earlier debates. The response of the Opposition and of the Australian Democrats was totally and completely negative. The Democrats confirmed their intention to oppose the Bill, notwithstanding whatever improvements were made, while the honourable member for Barker stated only last week: `Regardless of its form, it will be rejected by the Senate'. So much for constructive debate. There will be many crocodile tears shed in this debate for such `lost' amendments. In the light of these comments they can be dismissed for the political cant they will be. I would point out that the Australia Card program has long lead times-some six months from passage of the legislation to the beginning of implementation and at least 18 months before the scheme would be fully operational. Throughout that period the Government will continue to work co-operatively and constructively with all those organisations involved in the Australia Card program and will take into account their views in any final decisions on improvements to operational aspects of the program. However, this is not a time for further delay. It is a time for decision. Early consideration of the Bill by the Parliament in its existing form is essential so that the fundamental principles in the Australia Card program can be addressed as soon as possible to resolve uncertainties about budgetary impact. I repeat that the Australia Card Bill in its present form fully embodies the principles and fundamental parameters of the Australia Card program. The Government has to ascertain without delay whether further funds need to be allocated for the program within the immediate financial estimates of the Government. And more importantly, if the program fails to proceed, the impact needs to be addressed in the context of the Government's long term economic strategy, as rejection of the legislation will have a marked effect on Government revenues. As an example of the enormity of that effect, so far the Senate's rejection of the Bill has delayed implementation of the program by at least six months, which means that already more than $400m in revenue is destined to be lost due to that delay. I hope that the more reflective members of the Opposition and the Democrats will take a more responsible attitude this time around to this important reform. We are offering the Opposition and the Democrats the opportunity to debate the principles of this measure. Having demonstrated that the Australia Card will work, that protections to individual privacy are comprehensive and pioneering, and that the alternatives proposed by the members of the Opposition are as lacking in substance as are their arguments against the Australia Card, I now urge them to accept that the Government has overwhelmingly established the case for this program. Once again I ask the House to give the Australia Card Bill 1986 favourable consideration. I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(4.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The background to this legislation is the landmark decision made by the Government in the latter part of last year concerning Kakadu National Park and the adjoining Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. Essentially, the decision involved prohibiting mining in the park, incorporating about 65 per cent of the lease areas into the park as soon as possible, and establishing a conservation zone over the remainder of the lease areas so that a carefully controlled program of mineral exploration and resource assessment can be undertaken. The package of legislative amendments before the House will provide the basis for implementing the Government's decisions. More particularly, it will enable the conservation and heritage values of this beautiful and rich area to be fully protected. The amendments relate to four different Acts: The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975; the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978; the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976; and the Lands Acquisition Act 1955. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987 will enable some 4,000 square kilometres of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases to be included in Kakadu National Park, and a conservation zone to be declared over the remainder of the lease areas. The Bill will ensure that mineral activities in the conservation zone will be managed in accordance with sound conservation principles. Also to be considered with this Bill is the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1986, which was introduced last year on 27 November but has not yet been debated. The purpose of the 1986 amendment Bill was to prevent exploration and mining in Kakadu National Park. Since introducing that Bill I have received representations pointing out that the Bill may prevent some essential activities by park authorities and access to mining operations outside the park boundaries. It was not the Government's intention, of course, to interfere with the existing transport arrangements of mining companies operating in the region, or with any other mineral exploration or mining activities currently being conducted outside the park. I intend to introduce an amendment in the Committee stage to make this clear. Regulations giving effect to this intention will be made by the time the relevant legislation comes into effect. The Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill 1987 will enable the role of the Supervising Scientist to be extended to include the provision of advice to the Government on environmental aspects of exploration and mining in respect of all minerals in the conservation zone. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1987 will ensure that the Gimbat and Goodparla areas are available for Aboriginal land claim. Any part of Gimbat and Goodparla which is successfully claimed and required for park purposes will be the subject of a lease back arrangement with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. The Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill 1987 will enable exploration and mining rights to be granted in the conservation zone after lodgment of a land claim, and allow such interests to be granted if that land should become Aboriginal land. As all honourable members will be well aware, this package of legislative amendments is concerned with an important region, an area of outstanding beauty and grandeur, of great significance to Australians and to the world because of its aesthetic, social, cultural, biological and archaeological values. Let me summarise the Government's position. There will be no exploration or mining in any part of Kakadu National Park. It will be only in the highly prospective conservation zone that exploration and resource assessment will be allowed, and then only under strict conditions. My second reading speech of 27 November last year recounted the many reasons why national parks in this country deserve the best protection and management that we can provide. Kakadu is undoubtedly a major park and this Government is determined to see its values permanently protected. The Aboriginal cultural heritage is a most important value of Kakadu. This heritage permeates the area and must be conserved. At the same time the Government will ensure that land claims for all parts of Gimbat and Goodparla have every opportunity to be considered. At the moment, except where specifically provided for in legislation, Aboriginal land claims may not be made over land in a national park in the Northern Territory. The legislative amendments will allow the new part of Kakadu National Park to be claimed. Land in the park successfully claimed will be leased to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife by the relevant Aboriginal land trust, so that the land may continue to be managed as a national park. Honourable members will be aware that experience with stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park, and with Uluru National Park, demonstrates that Aboriginal ownership of the land can enhance the value of a national park. The Government also recognises the importance of fully assessing the mineral resources of the proposed conservation zone, which is part of one of the most highly prospective, unexplored, mineral provinces in the world, particularly for gold and platinum. Accordingly, a five-year exploration and resource assessment program is planned for the zone. Following the assessment, the Government will be in a better position to take further decisions on its long term future. In recognition of the legal rights of existing lease holders, mineral related activities at Coronation Hill and on other existing mineral titles will continue, but be subject to the same environmental assessment procedures as new applicants for exploration rights, and will be brought under the same management regime when environmental assessment has been completed. The new management regime will take effect at the time that exploration licences are granted in respect of new interests in the conservation zone. The regulation-making power in the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to prohibit operations on existing interests will be used only as a last resort if a company does not accept additional terms and conditions which may be required as a result of an environmental assessment. Environmental and cultural values will be protected during the exploration program by conditions attached to each granted title and in regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. The National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Bill will enable adequate regulations to be made for this purpose. The Government recognises that the proposed treatment of existing interests in the conservation zone may alter the rights of companies with such interests. However I have given an assurance, on behalf of the Government, that this is not to be taken as a precedent for the treatment of existing mining rights on Commonwealth land generally. Coronation Hill is the most advanced mining project in the conservation zone and promises to be a major development. The Government places particular importance on the fact that Coronation Hill is rich not only in gold but in strategically important platinum group elements, the supply of which is currently dominated by South Africa and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Any mining at Coronation Hill will proceed only under strict arrangements for the protection of environmental and Aboriginal heritage values. Should the Coronation Hill project area or any other land in the conservation zone become Aboriginal land, a terms and conditions agreement would be required between the Land Council and the miners, as is the situation elsewhere on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. During the exploration program the Director of National Parks and Wildlife will be responsible for the environmental management of the conservation zone, under the guidance of an advisory committee comprising representatives of the Minister for Resources and Energy and me. This committee will co-opt representatives of other relevant departments and authorities to assist in providing advice as required. The representatives will include the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers region, who has been responsible for monitoring and assessing the effects on the environment of uranium mining operations in the Alligator Rivers region for the past eight years. The legislative amendments will enable the Supervising Scientist to advise on the adequacy of environmental controls in the conservation zone, including those for the Coronation Hill project. I would stress that, although the Supervising Scientist has hitherto been concerned with uranium mining, there will be no uranium mining in the conservation zone. The Government's policy is unchanged-no uranium mines other than Nabarlek, Ranger and Roxby Downs will be allowed to proceed. Although not related to the Government's uranium policy, it may be of interest to note that the conservation zone has only a moderate prospectivity for uranium. The Northern Territory Government will be invited to assist in the conduct of the exploration program. To this end it is intended that the terms and conditions for exploration will correspond as closely as possible to those attached to exploration licences granted elsewhere under Northern Territory mining law. The Government will be responsible for capital and recurrent costs associated with the expanded role of the Supervising Scientist, management of the area by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, and mineral research and resource assessment by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. Economic benefits are expected to accrue through the maintenance of environmental and tourism values. The Hawke Government has both a proper concern for resource development and sound economic management, and an unsurpassed record of conserving our natural and cultural heritage. We are not `locking up' Australia's resources in this area as some have misleadingly claimed. The Government intends to make a careful assessment of the mineral resources of the most prospective parts of Gimbat and Goodparla, which will be contained in the conservation zone. The Government will also take full account of the other valuable resources upon which it is so difficult to put a dollar value-the Aboriginal rock art which has existed for thousands of years; the great diversity of birds, plants and animals; and the spectacular views of the Arnhem Land and escarpment, its outliers and adjoining lowlands. The rapidly growing tourism industry in the region shows that the cultural and natural values translate, in many cases, into tangible economic benefits that are both substantial and long lasting. The package of Bills before this House provides a practical way to achieve a proper balance between the conservation and development of all the varied resources of the unique Kakadu region for the benefit of Australians, now and in the future. I commend this Bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I take it that the Minister is tabling the explanatory memorandum. Mr COHEN —I table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(5.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is the second in the package of Bills to provide for the implementation of the Government's decisions relating to the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. This Bill will enable the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers region to provide the Government with advice on the environmental aspects of exploration and mining in the Kakadu conservation zone. I commend this Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(5.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will allow the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral lease areas to be available for Aboriginal land claim. It will also provide for certain land successfully claimed, which is required by the Director of National Parks and Wildlife for park purposes, to be the subject of a lease back arrangement with the relevant Aboriginal land trust. As a national park the land will be available for the enjoyment of all Australians and for visitors from overseas. If the land in the conservation zone becomes Aboriginal land, the Bill also provides for arrangements in relation to the operation of exploration and mining rights issued under the Lands Acquisition Act 1955. I am delighted to see the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) in the chamber. He has done much to protect the rights of Aborigines, their culture and heritage in this area. I commend this Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (5.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will enable exploration and mining rights to be granted in the conservation zone after lodgment of a land claim, and allow such interests to be granted if that land should become Aboriginal land. I commend this Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(5.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 contains a number of amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act which are important to the Australian veteran community. The main purpose of the Bill is to introduce into the veterans' affairs sphere the poverty traps reforms announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his statement on 19 September 1985. These poverty traps reforms have been incorporated into the Social Security Act 1947 and will come into effect on 1 July 1987. At the same time, the opportunity is being taken to make minor changes and correct minor drafting errors which have come to light since the veterans' entitlements legislation came into operation on 22 May 1986. The Bill also contains measures to combat health fraud which reflect those provisions contained in the Health Insurance Act 1973. In his second reading speech on the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill on 16 October 1985, my colleague the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) expressed the Government's concern that Commonwealth programs can interact to disadvantage the people they should help by trapping them in poverty. He recognised that the most savage of these poverty traps occurs when taxation and social security interact. This is no less true for Veterans' Affairs pensioners. Poverty traps work in pernicious ways. High marginal tax rates are faced by people endeavouring to supplement pension payments with small amounts of extra income. This is a disincentive for these people to provide for themselves through, for example, part time work. Two measures in this Bill will directly attack this problem. First, the amount a service pensioner can earn privately before the rate of service pension is affected by the income test will be increased from $30 to $40 a week for single pensioners and from $50 to $70 a week for service pensioner couples from 1 July 1987. Second, the additional amount of income that can be earned by a service pensioner with dependent children will be doubled from $6 to $12 a week for each child from 1 July 1987. This will mean that a single pensioner with one dependent child would be able to earn up to $52 a week without any effect on the rate of service pension payable. This is an increase of $16 a week or over 40 per cent over the existing amount allowable. The third measure will attack the problems of service pensioners who pay rent for private accommodation. The Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 provides for a special payment, called rent assistance, of up to $15 per week. However, the payment of rent assistance is subject to a separate income test which contains no `income free areas' but reduces from the first dollar of income. This separate income test will be abolished. Only disability pensions will be taken into account in assessing the basic rate of rent assistance payable, as is the case at present. Rent assistance will become another addition to service pension in a similar way to guardians' allowance and additional pension payable where there are dependent children. Rent assistance will be subject to the normal income test applicable to the payment of service pensions. Pensioners whose service pension entitlements are assessed under the assets test will be eligible for the additional pension for rent on the same basis as pensioners assessed under the income test. As I have said, these measures will parallel those changes made to the Social Security Act 1947 by the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Act 1985. They represent real assistance to pensioners treated inequitably by the present system. The other major purpose of the Bill is to reflect in the Veterans' Entitlements Act those provisions in the Health Insurance Act which may be used to combat fraud in the provision of health services to Department of Veterans' Affairs beneficiaries. To ensure consistency in the Commonwealth's approach to the provision of services by health care providers, the amendments would reflect the provisions of the Health Insurance Act 1973 dealing with: The making of false statements; bribery; prohibited practices in relation to the rendering of pathology services; offences and their prosecution; recovery of amounts paid because of false statements; and protection for health care providers in relation to prosecution for statements made during counselling. The equivalent provisions in the Health Insurance Act 1973 were inserted after an extensive process of consultation with the professional associations whose members were most affected. The health provisions were endorsed by the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Dental Association and the Australian Optometrical Association which have also agreed to their inclusion in the veterans' entitlements legislation. The Bill accordingly does no more than apply those provisions to the veterans' affairs sphere. The Bill will also make minor amendments to correct drafting errors and omissions in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1986, the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940 and other Veterans Affairs legislation. The main amendment to be made to the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940 is to provide a formal mechanism for review of decisions relating to the grant of allowances and benefits payable under the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Regulations. The proposed amendments are similar to those incorporated into the Veterans' Entitlements Bill during the passage of that Bill through Parliament. Those amendments were made in response to comments made by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Following passage of that Bill, the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances drew to the Minister's attention the lack of similar review rights in the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act. The amendments to that Act will remedy this situation. The measures to be provided for in this Bill will involve additional expenditure of $29m in 1987-88 and $28.6m in 1988-89. The Veterans' Affairs legislation has provided a sound basis upon which the Government can continue to improve the benefits and services provided to veterans and their dependants. One matter I would mention is the establishment of a monitoring committee to report to the Government on the first 12 months operation of the veterans entitlements legislation. We are now approaching the end of that 12-month period. The Minister informs me that he hopes to be able to announce the establishment of that monitoring committee in the near future. Some of the improvements that the veteran community would have noticed in recent times include the quite dramatic reduction in the backlog of claims and applications awaiting determination. In the period from June 1985 to December 1986 the backlog of outstanding entitlement matters has been reduced by some 63 per cent and for assessment matters the backlog has been reduced by around 70 per cent. The average time taken to process entitlement claims in the same period has been reduced from 391 days to 112 days. For assessment matters the reduction was from 328 to 93 days over the same period. As the veteran population ages the Government's responsibility turns more towards health care. The Department is moving ahead with the implementation of the recommendations of the Brand Review of the Repatriation Hospital System. By the end of 1986, 141 of the 230 accepted recommendations of the Committee had been fully implemented. It is the objective to have all recommendations, with the exception of those dealing with rationalisation of hospital services and integration of the hospitals into the State health system, implemented by 30 June this year. Spending on capital works and equipment at repatriation hospitals continues to be high. Since 1983-84 capital works to the value of $85.8m have been scheduled for commencement compared with $23.5m allocated to new works during the four previous years. Spending on specialised equipment has increased from $9.9m to $28.4m in the same period. In 1986, $21m was approved in the Federal Budget for new construction at repatriation hospitals and $10.49m for specialised equipment. From this the Government can be seen to be conscientiously shouldering its responsibilities to care for sick and injured veterans and their families. The joint ventures program has been an outstanding success, with 65 projects approved in 1985-86 during the first year of the program and a record number of submissions received for projects to be funded in 1987. Services are provided under Federal Government funding for frail aged Australians in need. In 1985-86 services provided under the program included day clubs, social support programs, home maintenance, a telephone link-up for blinded veterans, a wood chopping service and the emergency accommodation centre to be run by the Vietnam veterans in Brisbane. The Australian community can rest assured that the Government will continue to ensure adequate care of our veteran population in such tangible ways. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(5.23) —In concluding this debate I would like to deal with the main criticisms which honourable members opposite have made about the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill. Most of the criticisms are misleading, if not positively erroneous. Many have been answered already by my colleagues. However, this is an opportunity to set the record straight. In summary, it was claimed that the Government is interfering with the rights of the State to manage its forests. That, in my view, is totally erroneous. We are simply using our responsibility as a national government to protect the National Estate areas. We believe that this action of setting up an inquiry does not in any way inhibit States' rights. To argue that this legislation is an unwarranted intrusion into Tasmania's affairs is to deny the right of the Australian people to have the national Parliament legislate in the national interest. One of the things that I found quite disturbing-one seems to hear this in debates about Tasmania-is that some of the Tasmanian members pretend that they belong to another country and that we, as Australians, do not have any interest in, or any right to comment on, what happens in Tasmania. Mr Connolly —They feel that you treat them differently, and there is some evidence to bear that out. Mr COHEN —I am a New South Welshman, as is the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr Connolly —And proud of it. Mr COHEN —Yes, but first of all I think we are both proud to be Australians. I am an Australian first, second and third. I regard State boundaries as being incidental to being an Australian. I have never thought-- Mr Connolly —But they are a constitutional reality. Mr COHEN —Yes, absolutely, but I resent the implication by some Tasmanians-that was referred to by one member-that we live on the other island and that sort of nonsense. I believe that the people who live in Tasmania have a right to comment about what happens in my State, because what happens in New South Wales happens to us all as Australians. If the Tasmanian Government is not prepared to act responsibly in this matter, it is encumbent on this Government to honour Australia's international obligation under the World Heritage Convention to identify and, if necessary, protect areas of outstanding universal value. That is the purpose of this Bill. Most Opposition speakers have completely overstated the possible effects of this Bill on industry and employment. The purpose of the Bill is to establish a fact finding inquiry. The Bill does not make decisions about the future of the timber industry in Tasmania. Compensation will be made available for temporary adjustments in the industry while the inquiry is in progress, if it is needed. Hundreds of jobs will not be lost. Quite frankly, I thought it was very irresponsible of some honourable members to create these sorts of fears in people's minds. Even if some of the logging were stopped in the areas that are involved, it would not have remotely added up to the sort of wildly exaggerated claims that were made yesterday. Hundreds of jobs will not be lost. Honourable members on the other side were fanciful to make those sorts of allegations. The area which will be affected has also been completely misrepresented. The area to be excluded from logging for the duration of the inquiry is about 284,000 hectares, which will allow the commission to examine claims for world heritage status. The Government understands that the total area planned for logging in the excluded area during the inquiry is only one or two coupes south of Farmhouse Creek in the Southern Forests, one or two coupes in the Lemonthyme, and a small number of coupes in the Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd area and the water catchment area of the Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd concession. With coupe sizes of about 50 hectares or so, I would be surprised if the total area intended for logging during the inquiry would exceed 600 hectares. It is nothing like the huge areas erroneously stated by Opposition members. Even so, the legislation provides for compensation in the event that industry is deprived of a resource which cannot be obtained elsewhere. But it is clear that for most industry requirements there are sufficient resources outside the protected areas to ensure that no resource problems arise while the inquiry is in progress. Previous studies have been mentioned by several speakers. This inquiry is different from earlier inquiries which had very different purposes and which were not directed at the world heritage aspects of the contentious areas. I must say that I am delighted to see my colleague the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), who makes such extraordinarily good contributions on all matters regarding the environment, in the House today. He helps to make up a very large gallery. In any case, previous studies clearly have not led to an outcome which achieves a satisfactory balance between heritage protection and forestry in Tasmania. Differences within the Tasmanian community and elsewhere in Australia on this issue remain, and are clearly evident. This inquiry will provide for the first time a comprehensive and objective basis for reconciling these differences for the lasting benefit of all Tasmanians. It has been argued that the Commonwealth had approved the State management plan for the Lemonthyme. The plan was prepared in 1983 without Commonwealth involvement. Mention of the plan in the memorandum of understanding does not mean unqualified approval by the Commonwealth. More particularly, the environmental impact statement and the memorandum of understanding did not address the possible world heritage status of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests area. This Government wants to settle that question now before the values are altered forever by commercial forestry. The most telling aspects of the MOU arrangements are that, despite every effort by the Commonwealth, the Tasmanian Government has refused to respond to those parts of the MOU which provide for consultation when there are differences between the two governments. Some speakers have referred to the important natural and cultural values of western Tasmania. I remind members that one objective of the inquiry was to report on the world heritage values of defined areas in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas. There are strong concerns in the community that the Tasmanian planning process is not adequate for protection of existing world heritage areas or areas with that potential. This Government has a responsibility to establish the facts about world heritage. From these facts decisions can flow about economically and environmentally prudent and feasible planning in the forests and National Estate areas of the Lemonthyme elsewhere. It seems to me that there are two simple propositions which are basically opposed. On the one hand, the environment movement claims that there are prudent and feasible alternatives to logging in those areas where National Estate values would be diminished. The timber industry and the government say that there are not. It is not a very complex argument. The answers may be complex, but the argument is simple. We are setting up this inquiry to establish fundamentally which of those propositions is true, and we will accept the inquiry's findings. If the timber industry and the Government are proved to be right, there will be a simple answer. I return to allegations that large numbers will lose their jobs and incomes as a result of the legislation. Many of these claims appear to assume, quite falsely, that all National Estate areas in Tasmania will be locked up, as Opposition members put it, for all time. These claims completely ignore the fact that only two areas, the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests, are affected and that the protection afforded to these areas is interim protection only for the period of the inquiry. They also ignore the fact that in drawing the boundaries of the protected areas the Government quite specifically excluded current logging areas so far as these are known. In addition, the Bill directs the Commission of Inquiry to give priority to identifying areas which are definitely not qualifying areas. The interim protection will be quickly removed from any areas which are so identified by the Commission. Our more extreme critics allege that 30 per cent of Tasmania will be locked up. While that may be the percentage of Tasmania on the register of the National Estate, it includes the world heritage national parks and Tasmania's other national parks which no one proposes logging. It also includes other areas in which the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments have agreed that logging can proceed without damaging the heritage values. The areas protected by the Bill are much more like 5 per cent of Tasmania and the protection is only for the duration of the inquiry. Several members have stressed the need for compromise. The surprising thing about these statements is that Opposition members do not seem to understand that the legislation is designed to achieve compromise. The essential purpose is to examine economically and environmentally prudent and feasible alternatives to logging in areas of possible world heritage quality. Where there is any doubt about the conservation value of particular areas, the inquiry will assess these values. Curiously, Opposition members seem to interpret compromise as meaning a continuation of all current logging plans without systematically and objectively looking for alternatives which might achieve a balance between conservation and development. They seem to have missed the whole point of the legislation, that it will establish an inquiry. The legislation does not make decisions about the long term future of the Tasmanian timber industry. Our critics seem not to have bothered to read the Bill or to listen to the second reading speech. I trust that these explanations will have made clear to the House that the Bill is a sensible way of moving towards ending the longstanding and divisive conflict between conservation and timber industry interests in Tasmania. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Connolly's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C. Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E. Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. 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. Dubois, S. G. Mildren, J. B. Duffy, M. J. Milton, P. Duncan, P. Morris, AllanEdwards, Ronald Morris, PeterFatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N. Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Brown, John Shack, P. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(5.42) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 19, page 10, after sub clause (1) insert the following sub clause: `(1a) Where the owner of any part of the protected area suffers loss or damage because another person refrains, as mentioned in paragraph (1) (a), from doing, in that part of the protected area, an act of a kind referred to in that paragraph, the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation to the owner in respect of that loss or damage.'. (2) Clause 19, page 10, lines 7 and 8, omit `sub-section (1) or (2)', insert `this section'. (3) Clause 21, page 10, line 26, at the end of subclause (1) add `and that jurisdiction is exclusive of the jurisdiction of all other courts other than the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 75 of the Constitution and under subsection (2) of this section.'. (4) Page 13, Schedule 2, lines 34 to 40 below Schedule heading, omit `448100E 5287200N thence on a line bearing 54*38' for about 3.8 kilometres to the Southwest Conservation Area boundary thence generally north westerly by part of that boundary until it bears 203*57' about 0.98 kilometres from a point 451300E 5293900N thence northeasterly to that point northerly to 450700E 529600N (8113-Nive-Edition 1) thence by a straight line east to the middle thread of an unnamed tributary of Coles Creek at about 451600E 5296000N thence northwesterly by its middle thread to ', insert the following: `449250E 5282100N northwesterly to 448750E 5282900N northeasterly to 449200E 5284700N northwesterly to 448100E 5287200N northeasterly to 449400E 5288000N north to an unnamed tributary of Coles Creek at about 449400E 5288400N thence generally northeasterly by the middle thread of that creek downstream to its junction with Coles Creek thence downstream by the middle thread of Coles Creek to its junction with'. (5) Page 13, Schedule 2, line 42 below Schedule heading, insert `(8113-Nive-Edition 1)'' after ``453000E'. Amendment No. 1 adds new sub-clause (1a) to clause 19 to provide that the Commonwealth is liable to pay reasonable compensation to an owner of any part of the Lemonthyme or Southern Forests protected areas for loss or damage resulting from another person being prevented from carrying out an action that has been made unlawful by clause 16, which relates to unlawful acts. This will provide for the payment of royalties lost due to the operation of the Bill to the Tasmanian Government or any other owner. It is the owner's duty to seek to mitigate losses as far as possible-for example, by providing alternative sources of logs outside the protected area if these are available. For the Southern Forest current logging areas have been excluded from the protected area-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! I know there is a lot of bonhomie in the National Party at present, but honourable members might pay attention to the proceedings of the Committee. Mr COHEN —For the Southern Forest current logging areas have been excluded from the protected area as far as these are known to the Commonwealth. This will reduce the payment of compensation which might otherwise be payable. Amendment No. 2 is a technical amendment which is consequential upon the insertion of new sub-clause (1a) into clause 19. Amendment No. 3 adds words to clause 21 (1) to make clear that this clause does not detract from the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia under the Constitution. The sub-clause confers jurisdiction on the Federal Court for matters arising under clause 17, which deals with enforcement in relation to unlawful acts, and clause 19 which relates to compensation. The amendment makes clear that in giving the Federal Court of Australia jurisdiction in this way, the jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to these matters under the Constitution is not affected. Amendment No. 4 amends Schedule 2 to exclude from the protected area in the Southern Forests three areas that are currently being logged. These areas were notified to the Government after the Bill was introduced into the Parliament. Amendment No. 5 is a consequential amendment to Schedule 2, made necessary by amendment No. 4. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(5.46) —These amendments which have been moved by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) are, as usual, a case of too little, too late. The way in which he handled the non-speech which he has just made to the Committee suggests very clearly that he does not quite know what he is talking about. For the benefit of the Committee, I wish to draw attention to some of the points that the Minister made when he summed up in his address on the second reading debate. He alleged that States should not expect to be treated differently, but this is precisely the issue that my Tasmanian colleagues find so onerous in this legislation. This Government is treating the States differently. I made this point in the second reading debate and I take this opportunity to reiterate it: Some two years ago when the nation was convulsed about the question of the Daintree Forest and the protection which many people claimed it should have, this Minister specifically stated in this House at Question Time and before the Press in his media interviews that he did not think it appropriate that a Federal government should involve itself in interfering with State land control and administration matters. That was his argument then. What is his argument now? His argument now is that parts of Tasmania should be seen as contiguous to world heritage areas and therefore treated in the same way as those world heritage listings. The absurdity of that should stand for all to see. If one wanted to work on that basis one would simply argue that valley upon valley upon valley should be treated in a certain way because it is contiguous to a piece of land which is on the National Estate or, as in this case, on the World Heritage List. The Minister went on to make another observation. He said that all he was excluding from logging and other timber activity was 284,000 hectares-a mere bagatelle, so we are told, of no great significance. After all, he pointed out, in terms of the Lemonthyme it would mean that perhaps one or two coupes would not be developed, a mere 50 hectares. I think the point needs to be made: If, as the Minister claims, the total area which could be affected is some 600 hectares, why on earth is it necessary for him to then claim that 284,000 hectares must be frozen from all further activity for at least the period of this inquiry, which is 12 months? He knows as well as members of the Opposition know, even if members of the Government obviously do not, that when one conducts an inquiry of this nature it is very difficult to put a specific date on its completion. It is equally difficult to say conclusively when the recommendations of that inquiry will be carried through. All those points were enunciated during the second reading debate by members of the Opposition who represent Federal seats in Tasmania. This is the contradiction because there is nobody, nobody in this chamber on the Government side, who can offer a voice for the State of Tasmania. That demonstrates more than clearly what the people of Tasmania think of the Hawke Labor Government. If the Minister goes down to Tasmania he should not be surprised if he catches a few rotten eggs because I have not the slightest doubt that he would not be welcome in that part of the land. I refer now to the amendments to clause 19 of the Bill. The Minister has finally realised that the area the Government seeks to lock up includes significant areas of private property. Belatedly some compensation provisions are being included in the Bill to cover the loss of revenue that private forest owners in particular will obviously suffer if these resources are locked up and these provisions are allowed to proceed. This does not go nearly far enough. No thought has been given to the secondary and the tertiary industries which depend on the logging activities in these forest areas-a mere bagatelle, a mere 50 hectares in the Lemonthyme or a mere 600 hectares overall, as the Minister in his generosity told us earlier. Let us refer now to the clause 21 amendment. We have seen that it seeks to exclude from the proposed boundaries some of the areas that were originally proposed for the harvesting of high quality veneer logs in Tasmania. What the Minister finds very difficult to understand, again until the last moment, is that we are not talking about one tree being the same as another. Various trees and areas of Tasmania-areas which the Government has decided to lock up in the context of this legislation-have specific characteristics which are relevant to the long term economic viability of the jobs and the industries which depend upon the ability to harvest that particular timber. I refer specifically to the veneer logs. That is a very specific and specialised area of technology. It involves people who are trained; it involves substantial equipment and large capital costs, all of which can obviously be affected if decisions are taken by this Parliament which restrict access on a reasonable basis, an access which gives adequate protection to environmental qualities and values while at the same time ensuring that industries have a throughput of raw material to keep them viable. Quite clearly, Commonwealth officials, presumably depending on the kindness of the Minister in this case, are rushing around trying to soften the impact which can be seen only as hastily conceived and drafted intrusive legislation into the domestic affairs of Tasmania. The Government is now starting to realise under pressure that it has gone too far and that it has gone there too fast, that it cannot draw lines on maps and lockup forests in Tasmania and not have a significant effect on the employment in the forest industries. What is the rational logic of now excluding some further areas of the Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd concession, which will insist on preventing logging in the Farmhouse Creek and the Lemonthyme areas where currently domestic logging must proceed to supply local saw-mills and where logging has been in place for at least the last hundred years? Has the Hawke Government already decided that some areas of its 284,000 hectare lockup are now not quite as important as it thought they were initially, or is it because this Government has finally discovered that the intelligence upon which it based its decisions in relation to this legislation came from the very small group of environmentalists in Tasmania who have given it a log of claims which are not economically or environmentally viable? Those of us who have been to Lemonthyme and to these other areas which are now subject to this legislation are absolutely certain that the decisions taken by the Government in relation to this legislation are fundamentally wrong. They are wrong in terms of constitutional realities; they are wrong in terms of the basic environmental requisites which it claims are the basis of this legislation; and they are certainly wrong for the people of Tasmania. Mr BURR(Lyons)(5.53) —As my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has pointed out, these amendments have been rushed in by the Government in a last minute effort because it has suddenly realised that there was great merit in the arguments being put by my colleagues from Tasmania during the second reading debate. I would like to think that that were the case. If it is not, the cynicism with which the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) brings forward these amendments is even greater than that with which he has brought forward the original legislation. Let me point out to you, Mr Chairman, and to the House the impact of these amendments which have been moved by the Government. The Government has suddenly realised that the areas that it intends to lock up will exclude all of those logs of high quality that can be used for veneer purposes. At the moment in Tasmania there is the imminent closure of all the veneer plants. Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd has said that it will immediately close its Somerset plant and dismiss at least 200 workers. That is the impact of the original legislation. The Government now proposes to excise a small portion of its original lockup area so that veneer quality logs can be gained to supply the mills at Somerset for their purposes, so as to stave off the closure of that plant and therefore save 200 jobs. In the moving of these amendments the Government is acknowledging that its legislation will cost jobs in Tasmania. It is prepared now to excise a small area of its lockup area so that the veneer plants can be saved and 200 jobs can be saved. If that is the theory, why on earth does it proceed with this legislation, knowing that by locking up the Lemonthyme Valley it will cost jobs at J. and T. Gunn Timber? It knows that it will cost jobs at that plant. It knows that by locking up the Southern Forests and the Farmhouse Creek area Risby Forest Industries Pty Ltd will have to lay off workers. Why then does the Government single out Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd and say `We will allow you to take your veneer logs so that you do not have to sack your 200 workers' when it will put the other plants-Gunn's and Risby's-in the position where they must sack workers from their plants? Why does it single out APPM for special treatment? I draw to the attention of the Minister the cynicism with which the Government is moving these amendments. The ultimate cynicism is that the Government is on the verge of announcing a May election. It does not want to go into a May election with the publicity being given to it that its actions through this legislation have forced more people into the dole queues. That would be untenable for a government that parades itself as creating employment and as being the hero of the working class people of this country. Yet its legislation will force people out of work. It is suddenly realising now the import of it. I would like to give the Minister and the Government the benefit of the doubt that maybe they are catching a glimmer of common sense. Maybe they are just starting to realise the import of this legislation. Maybe they have some compassion for the workers in Tasmania, and maybe they are demonstrating that by moving these amendments. I would like to think that but, in light of all this Government has done with all of this legislation, I cannot give it the benefit of that doubt. I believe that this amendment demonstrates even greater cynicism than was originally demonstrated by the original legislation. I believe that what this Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) are doing will ultimately demonstrate their cynicism to the Australian people because these amendments are not designed for the purposes which were covered by the Minister in his speech; they are designed only because the Prime Minister now wants an early election. Mr MILES(Braddon)(5.58) —It is important at this stage to note the nonsense in this sort of amendment coming before the chamber. As the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) has said, it is obvious that the Government is running scared on the issue, and it has now changed the grid lines to take out those areas to make sure that the 200 people in the north-west of Tasmania retain their jobs. As we were saying, jobs will be lost. They would have been lost, and they will still be lost under this legislation. The Government has tried to minimise the impact by excising small areas. This amendment mentions compensation. Quite frankly, Tasmanians are sick and tired of being treated paternalistically and having parts of our State ripped out of our hands and then being told that we will be compensated. We are sick and tired of that. This is a domestic issue. It is an issue which should be controlled by the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian people but the Federal people want to take it out of the hands of the State. We are sick and tired of being treated in that fashion. We do not want to be compensated. What we want is to be able to control our own affairs as the Constitution intended. The Minister has come into this chamber and he has said that there will only be 60 hectares in one coupe and so many in another coupe which will add up to a small area. The experience of the Tasmanian people is that these inquiries are never objective. They are just a blind so that governments and bureaucracies can take a certain course and con the rest of the people; that is what they are all about. We have learnt about that over the years. We do not want to have a bar of this style of inquiry set up by a government that is already dead against us. That is what the Tasmanian people are arguing about. This really has nothing to do with logging; it is about the interference by a Federal government in a domestic issue. We do not want that sort of compensation and we do not want that sort of paternalism by a Federal government which seems to think that Tasmanian people are unable to make up their minds on an issue. We want to have control, as we ought to have, of our own affairs. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(6.02) —I must say that I was disappointed to notice that those who have been making the most noise about this issue, with the exception of the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) who has remained in the chamber, have disappeared from the chamber. We had a speech by the honour- able member for Lyons (Mr Burr) who asked a lot of questions and then walked out of the chamber without wanting to find out the answers. This applies similarly to the shadow spokesman, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). Let me answer the last question asked by the honourable member for Braddon about the inquiry and who will be on it. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and I have had numerous discussions with industry and with the unions. We have assured them that they will be consulted and that we will not set up a committee that will come up with the findings that we would want as that would be pointless. We know that if we came up with a committee of inquiry that was obviously biased it would not be accepted and it would not have any validity. So, I assure the honourable member that there will be no attempt on our part to doctor the inquiry. I just want to answer some of the questions asked by the honourable member for Bradfield. He made a comment in his speech in the second reading debate and he made it again today when he was supposed to be talking about the amendments. He accused me of going around and saying in late 1983, when the question of the Daintree debate came up, that this was not a matter for the Commonwealth but it was a matter of States' rights. I said nothing of the sort. I know that this matter has nothing to do with the amendments, but the honourable member for Bradfield raised it in this debate. I said at the time that the building of the road from Cape Tribulation to Bloomfield was an action by the Douglas Shire Council and endorsed by the Queensland Government and not an action taken by the Australian Government. I said at the time-we should remember that we are talking about 2 1/2 to three years ago-that it was not nominated on the World Heritage List, nor was there any documented evidence at that stage as to its world heritage value. That was a long time ago. The situation is quite different today. I make the point that I said at the time those facts were not in existence then and that the way to go was through co-operation and not confrontation. By the way, it is still my philosophy with regard to the Lemonthyme and Southern forests. We have tried all the way and the Minister for Primary Industry has shown the patience of Job. Good Lord! I do not know any man who has done more to get co-operation. He is probably one of the most reasonable men ever to grace the treasury bench and he has tried desperately to get co-operation with Mr Gray and Mr Groom. Look at me-the mild mannered Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. We could not get two more reasonable people if we tried. To take up some of the points about why these amendments were made and why-- Mr Cadman —The Premier would go close to reasonableness. Mr Kerin —If you can stop him frothing. Mr COHEN —I would hate to interrupt anyone-- Mr Porter —Oh come on, for God's sake! Mr COHEN —Does the honourable member want to interrupt too? Mr Porter —No, I want you to get back to the Bill. Mr COHEN —I am trying to talk but people like the honourable member opposite are rabbiting on in their usual style. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Minister will be heard in silence. Mr COHEN —If honourable members opposite would just let me speak instead of rabbiting on all the time we could get on with the debate. The honourable member for Lyons came into the chamber-- Mr Porter —We can't believe a thing you say. That's the problem. Mild mannered, and then you go off your head. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting. Mr COHEN —Mr Chairman, I think he has been on the apple juice. The honourable member for Lyons came into the chamber and accused the Government of cynicism and the honourable member for Braddon said the same thing. He said that these boundaries were sudden changes of heart because we realised the damage that could be done. Let me point out that these amendments to change some of the boundaries are simply a result of the Government finally getting information from the companies sufficient to identify accurately some of the current operations. As I understand it, the State put pressure on the companies not to assist the Commonwealth. The companies are now seeing the wisdom of assisting the Commonwealth in getting a compromise. Areas north of Farmhouse Creek, which are currently being logged, were excluded from Schedule 2 of the Bill when it was introduced. Australian Newsprint Mills would not advise the Government, until last week, exactly where it is logging. Having now got this information we are making sure that current logging, including veneer logs, can continue. That is the point of the amendments. It is not that we were not given the information accurately before. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mr Cohen)-by leave-put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— 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 Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham,. B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllenDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, 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.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. 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.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodges, J. C. Brown, John Shack, P. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(6.15) —The purpose of the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1987 is to pay this gang of incompetents who clutter up the front bench of the Government an extra $20,000 a year. This would increase what they are paid from an annual sum of $660,000 to $680,000-that is, an extra $20,000. As the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), the previous Special Minister of State, would know, this Bill is before the House to meet the requirement of section 66 of the Constitution which says that, subject to Parliament otherwise prescribing, there is a maximum limit to be paid for salaries of Ministers. This proposal is before the House to accommodate a rise of 2.3 per cent, that being the national wage case rise which is to apply to ministerial salaries as from 1 July 1986. We have to ask ourselves: Are they worth it, are they worth an extra $20,000? After all, they have very nearly wrecked the economy of this country. Should we grant them an extra $20,000 so that they can squander $680,000 between the lot of them? I should have thought not as a matter of principle and as a matter of record. Look what they have done. Just take a couple of areas. They have said from time to time in some of their public utterances that they are not really socialists. At least some of them are not socialists. Of course, over there in socialists' corner we rejoice in a lot of tried and true left wingers who at any time will trot out their socialist views of the world. Let us have a look at a couple of things they have done. Firstly, they introduced the capital gains tax. Why was this straight socialist tax introduced? It certainly was not introduced to get revenue because, if we believe the figures that the Government has put forward, it is going to collect only a miserly few million dollars over the first few years. So we can put aside any revenue gaining purposes for that tax. What was the purpose? The purpose was to give expression to a good socialist view of the world. A second tax which they have introduced is the negative gearing tax. That tax was to be applied against wealthy developers, people who in the view of this Government are the bane of decent Australians. That is another ideological tax, devoid of any economic sense. What is the net result of these two taxes in an area which should be of concern to these people? Firstly, they dry up the increase in availability of new residences, such as home units, built by developers. That has directly resulted in queues outside the real estate offices by people who want to rent and find it extraordinarily difficult to get rental accommodation. The second result of these two brilliant pieces of legislation in that same area, which should be of concern to Ministers because people are affected, has been to drive up the price of rental accommodation to record levels. What quite brilliant achievements these are! One could throw in as well the criticisms that Senator Button has made of the fringe benefits tax. What has that done? It has helped to give the motor car industry of this country one of the worst periods it has ever suffered since it came into existence. So these are the kinds of results that we have from a little bit of socialist tinkering with the system, results which when we get into government we will have to deal with so that we can get the economy back on the rails. Where is the economy now? The Treasurer (Mr Keating) was telling us about a year ago that everything was in order, that the economy was on target and that things were okay. It was on target all right; it was on target for the biggest iceberg this economy has hit since it became a national economy. I return again to the $20,000 that this Bill proposes should be paid to this gang of economic gangsters. Our view is that despite the damage those opposite have wreaked on the economy of this country the Bill should not be opposed. With regret I say that that is the Opposition's position. In saying that, I wish to discuss just one point that was made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, as I think he now is, in his second reading speech when he was representing the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate). He referred to the great wage restraint shown by this Government. Well, wage or salary restraint has been shown by previous governments, notably the Fraser Government. Let me say that politicians who have shown salary restraint get no benefit from it, no recognition whatsoever and this forms no kind of example to anyone else. That is my view upon the matter. I recall that some time ago the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, then the Special Minister of State, said publicly that politicians should be paid considerably more than they are presently paid. I think he nominated a figure of around $8,000 but I have not checked that and my memory may be wrong. Certainly, he is right in saying that members of the Parliament should be paid considerably more than they are paid. That is something which members of parliament should recognise, accept and support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill gives effect to the Government's rural industries research policy insofar as the research and development requirements of the fishing industry are concerned. The Bill replaces, but does not repeal, the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969 which has since its commencement provided a total of $28,540,000 to support research for the benefit of the Australian fishing industry. The Fishing Industry Research Trust Account established by that Act has supported scientific and biological research in many Australian fisheries. It has supported exploratory fishing projects, fishing gear technology studies, education for fishermen and research into the handling and marketing of fish products. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, universities, government agencies, fishing companies and individual fishermen have received funding from the Account to undertake research. The Account has funded a wide range of industry-related projects, for example, experimental longlining for tuna as the basis of Australia's entry into the lucrative Japanese sashimi market, squid jigging off Tasmania and development of a marketing database on the Viatel system which is attracting interest from exporters, Japanese importers and fishermen's co-operatives. Full details of the operations of the Fishing Industry Research Act are set out in the annual reports of the Fishing Industry Research Committee. The Australian fishing industry has, in my view, received important benefits from the operation of the Fishing Industry Research Act that have contributed over time to the welfare of the industry and its place in the national economy. The Bill provides a basis for this to continue under more modern and representative administrative arrangements consistent with the modern legislative framework for rural industries research generally. The Bill makes two fundamental changes to the basis of determining the amount that the Commonwealth will match by way of appropriation to the Fisheries Research and Development Trust Fund that the Bill establishes. The Commonwealth will match expenditure from approved State funds rather than revenue collected from industry and credited to those funds. There will be a ceiling to the Commonwealth appropriation to the Trust Fund, equal in any financial year to 1 per cent of the average annual gross value of production by the catching and culturing sectors of the Australian fishing industry during the three preceding financial years, as determined by the Minister. The mechanism for determining the amount of the appropriation will remain much the same as under the existing legislation. That is, the Minister will determine one fund under each State's fisheries law to be an approved fund and specified money in that fund to be approved money. The Bill requires all those determinations to be tabled in Parliament and provides for their disallowance as if they were regulations. Before making any determination under Part III of the Bill in relation to the Trust Fund, the Minister will have regard to the legislative and administrative basis of State funds and the moneys credited to those funds. The Bill establishes administrative machinery closely resembling that provided by the Rural Industries Research Act. There is to be a Fishing Industry Research and Development Council, which will prepare five-year plans of fisheries research and development and annual programs for giving effect to that plan, for approval by the Minister. The Council will undertake the decision-making and administrative functions associated with the Trust Fund, employing staff in classifications approved by the Minister and the Public Service Board for that purpose. The members of the Council appointed by the Minister will comprise an independent chairperson, a Government member experienced in formulation of government policy and public administration, and not fewer than three or more than seven members with experience and knowledge of the fishing industry and fisheries research and a high order of general administrative and managerial ability. The Bill provides for the Minister to appoint members of a Fishing Industry Research and Development Council Selection Committee, comprising an independent chairperson, a member with experience in fisheries administration or management, a member experienced in fisheries research and development, a member nominated by the Australian Fisheries Council and three members nominated by the National Fishing Industry Council. The Selection Committee will, whenever the Minister requests, put forward so many nominations as there are vacancies on the Council, having regard to the mix of skills and abilities that the Bill requires the Council to possess. The Minister may reject any nomination and request the Selection Committee to submit another one. Previous rejection or non-selection is not a barrier to subsequent nomination. I have outlined the fundamental principles of the Bill. The details of its provisions for giving effect to those principles are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.29) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides transitional arrangements between the effective termination of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969 and the proposed operation of the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill 1987 already before the House. The Bill amends the Fishing Industry Research Act in a major sense, by repealing the appropriation and the provisions establishing the Fishing Industry Research Committee, the functions of which will be replaced by the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill. The shell of the principal Act after passage of the present Bill will preserve the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account until the money in that account has been spent or otherwise disposed of. The Government has decided that the money left in the Research Account, after settlement of all outstanding accounts and recovery of all moneys due to the account, is to be applied to the acquisition of a fisheries research vessel for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Fisheries Research. Should that outcome not occur, the Ministers for Finance and Primary Industry are to confer about the disposal of the residue. Honourable members may agree that this Bill and the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill are appropriate for cognate debate. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill makes amendments of an essentially administrative and procedural nature to the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1984, the Fisheries Act 1952 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984. I can inform the House that there will be further amendments to the Fisheries Act later this year to give effect in Australian law to the multilateral treaty between the United States and the Pacific Island countries that are members of the Forum Fisheries Agency with respect to the operation of United States tuna boats in the exclusive fishing zones of those countries. It is expected that the treaty will be signed on 31 March next and come into force later in the year. The Australian fishing industry is undergoing a period of profound change and it pleases me to say that this Government has in considerable measure been keeping in step with those changes. The Government approaches management of our fisheries on a co-operative basis with the fishing industry. We have established the Fishing Industry Policy Council of Australia to provide a forum for government and industry to discuss issues of mutual interest. In the long established framework of the Australian Fisheries Council, we have strengthened the institutional framework for consulting with the relevant industry sectors about the management of our major fisheries such as northern prawns, tuna, south east trawl, southern shark and North West Shelf crustaceans. Statutory management plans are already in place with the full co-operation of industry in the two first mentioned of those fisheries. We are working towards having management plans in place for the others in the near future. The Government has taken steps to give effect to the fisheries element of the offshore constitutional settlement set up by our predecessors. I give full credit to the previous Government for creating the statutory basis on which the Commonwealth and the States can enter into formal legal arrangements whereby a fishery is managed under a single law, be it Commonwealth or State, from the coast to the outer limit of our fisheries jurisdiction. The preparations for giving effect to the settlement in the fisheries context have been lengthy but I can inform the House that arrangements with Queensland in the Torres Strait protected zone have been in place now for more than two years and a further four arrangements have been in place elsewhere in Australia since June 1986. As well, I have recently executed another 17 arrangements for the Commonwealth and sent them to the States for approval prior to seeking the approval of the Governor-General for them. In the near future, I will be bringing in a Bill to re-structure the Commonwealth's involvement in fisheries research and development. This will follow lines essentially similar to those in the Rural Industries Research Act, taking account of the unique institutional factors that make a separate Fisheries Research and Development Act necessary. In 1985-86, the gross value of fisheries production, at $592m, ranked sixth among all Australia's rural industries, one place better than in 1984-85. In 1984-85, production was estimated at 148,900 tonnes, valued at $523.5m. Exports of fishery products have increased from $230m in 1980-81 to an estimated $481m in 1985-86 and have significantly exceeded the value of imports each year during that period. There are more than 9,000 boats in the Australian commercial fishing fleet with an annual consumption of about 240 million litres of diesel fuel. Estimated annual domestic per capita consumption has risen from 15 kilograms in 1979-80 to 17.3 kilograms in 1983-84, measured on the basis of live weight equivalent. These figures give a general picture of a vigorous fishing industry which is making a very important contribution to the domestic economy and food supplies as well as to foreign exchange earnings. Against this fairly active domestic background, the provisions of the Bill reflect a wide range of recent administrative experience accumulated by the Australian Fisheries Service and the State fisheries authorities that undertake the day-to-day administration of the Acts that the Bill amends. The Bill brings the three principal Acts that it amends into line insofar as their administrative provisions are concerned. The Bill shifts the emphasis of the provisions authorising the Minister to make notices for the regulation of the fisheries, away from the notices to the prohibitions in them. This will facilitate the preparation of notices containing several prohibitions each requiring separate endorsements of licences. The Bill strengthens the powers of officers so that they may be better equipped to enforce the three Acts. It does so in accordance with those principles of Commonwealth legal policy that have regard to civil liberties and individuals' rights, taking account of the special circumstances in which the principal Acts are enforced. The difficulties of detecting fisheries offences at sea, far from the nearest land and a magistrate who can issue warrants with reasonable facility, make it necessary to provide fisheries enforcement officers with powers that in other circumstances might seem excessive. The Bill provides powers in this regard that the Government considers to be an acceptable balance between the need for effective enforcement and the protection of civil liberties. The Attorney-General's Department has advised that the Bill conforms with Commonwealth criminal law legal policy. The Bill provides a basis for ascertaining the state of mind of a director or other agent of a body corporate where it is necessary to do so in legal proceedings for offences for which the Acts provide a penalty for a body corporate. The explanatory memorandum that I have circulated summarises the clauses of the Bill, thus making it unnecessary for me to take the time of the House in a detailed explanation of them. The Bill is of an essentially machinery nature for the better administration of the laws affecting Australia's fisheries and has no financial implications. I commend it to the House and in so doing present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.36) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is the first of two Bills which are being introduced to establish new research levy arrangements for the egg industry. The new arrangements will supersede the present levy mechanism whereby egg producers contribute towards research through a small component of the levy they pay under the Poultry Industry Levy Act 1965. This levy, commonly known as the Commonwealth hen levy, has been collected primarily for use by State Egg Boards in equalising the impact on individual producers of losses incurred in disposing of egg surpluses. In recent years, the States have been able to reduce surplus egg production significantly by a progressive tightening of hen quotas which limit the number of hens an egg producer is licensed to keep. Accordingly, a decision was made in 1984 to phase out the Commonwealth hen levy, and legislation was amended to end the levy on 30 June 1987. It is thus necessary to provide an alternative mechanism for securing producer contributions towards research sponsored by the egg industry with the assistance of matching Commonwealth grants. Consultation with industry, States and Territories resulted in agreement being reached last year on the introduction of a research levy to be imposed annually on a producer's licensed hen quota. This method was seen to be the most cost effective way of raising the funds required. Unlike the present hen levy, which is applied at fortnightly intervals to hens actually kept, the proposed levy does not require physical hen counts to verify fluctuating bird numbers, and involves only two payments a year as instalments of the total levy payable. It was considered that abolition of hen quotas by a State would render the proposed levy inoperable and thus jeopardise ongoing research programs. Accordingly, the agreed proposals called for a standby levy mechanism which could be activated in such an eventuality. The proposed fallback mechanism is a levy on chickens hatched for egg production. My original intention was to seek enactment of this alternative arrangement concurrently with the preferred hen quota mechanism. However, the large volume of legislation to be dealt with in the current sittings has necessitated a postponement of contingency measures at this stage. Nevertheless, the standby levy legislation will be submitted to the Parliament as early as practicable. Against this background, I now turn to the provisions of the Bill before the House. Under the Bill, a levy is to be imposed on the quota of hens which a producer holds under a licence issued by State or Territory authorities. This means that the amount of levy paid will reflect the number of hens specified in the licence and not necessarily the number of birds actually kept. I have already mentioned the advantage of imposing a levy on this basis, which is applicable to all States and currently also to the Australian Capital Territory. The Northern Territory does not have a quota licensing system for hens, but local egg producers have indicated they are prepared to contribute to research funding. To enable the Territory to participate, there is provision in the Bill for declaring producers, in a notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, to be holders of a quota licence. Individual levels of quota will be based on advice from the Northern Territory Government. A maximum levy rate of 10c per hen is provided for in the Bill, with the operative level to be set by regulation after taking into account recommendations from the Australian Council of Egg Producers. An operative rate of 3c to 4c per hen would provide funds comparable with those currently received under the hen levy and sufficient to fund research programs at existing levels. Under clause 12, the levy will be discontinued if any State abandons the hen quota system. As I have already mentioned, it is considered that abolition of hen quotas by a State would render the levy inoperable. The general view is that such deregulation in one State would have repercussions on egg marketing which would force other States to follow suit. This would not necessarily be the case if hen quotas were abolished in the Australian Capital Territory. Accordingly, clause 6 provides that in such an event, notional quotas may be established for the Australian Capital Territory, as in the case of the Northern Territory. For constitutional reasons, arrangements for the collection of the proposed levy have been provided for in a separate Bill which I will presently place before the House. The sole purpose of the new levy arrangements is to replace the existing mechanism for collecting egg industry contributions towards research. Accordingly, they do not involve any new financial commitments for the Commonwealth or the industry. Since the egg industry first began to sponsor research some 20 years ago, almost $3m has been contributed for this purpose by the industry and matched by the Commonwealth. The results of this research have been of benefit to egg producers and the community alike. This legislation will enable potentially valuable research work to continue. I commend the Bill to honourable members and, in doing so, I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.42) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide the machinery for the collection of the levy which is to be imposed under the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill. A central element of the proposed machinery is a provision enabling the Commonwealth Government to make arrangements with the State governments and the Northern Territory for collection of the levy by State egg boards and Territory authorities on the Commonwealth's behalf. Similar arrangements with the States have operated for the collection of the existing Commonwealth hen levy. As State Boards make charges on producers for administration or marketing costs, it is provided that levy can be deducted from amounts which a board owes the producer whose eggs pass through the board. In the case of producers who are authorised to sell eggs direct to wholesalers or retailers on the board's behalf, payment of levy to the board will be required. To ease the financial impact on producers, provision has been made for the annual levy to be paid in two equal instalments in July and January of each financial year. Payments in the initial year have been deferred to September and March so that adequate time will be available for agreements with the States and Northern Territory to be drawn up and signed, and also for regulations prescribing payment arrangements to be promulgated. Among other things, it is intended to prescribe that Australian Capital Territory egg producers be required to pay the levy to the Department of Primary Industry. Whilst replacing the mechanism now used to collect industry funds for egg research, it is desired to retain the existing Trust Fund and Research Council which holds and administers the money collected. To this end clause 9 of the Bill provides that the relevant provisions in the Rural Industries Research Act 1985, which are built around the existing levy imposed by the Poultry Industry Act 1965, will continue to apply as though the new levy were the existing one. Since the new levy will be paid only twice a year instead of fortnightly as is the case with the existing egg research levy-collected as a component of the hen levy-there will be minor savings in clerical costs to the Commonwealth. Costs of collection incurred by State egg boards will be significantly lower than for the existing hen levy because, in addition to reduced frequency of collection, the new system will be simpler to operate. The levy collection arrangements provided for in this Bill have been agreed on with the State Ministers responsible for agriculture and endorsed by industry as the most convenient and least expensive way of collecting the proposed levy. I commend the Bill to honourable members and I also present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Debate resumed from 25 February, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PORTER(Barker)(6.44) —The coalition opposes the establishment of yet another statutory authority, this time through the transfer of the Australian Institute of Health out of the Department of Health to have it become a new statutory authority. We oppose it because the Government has provided no valid reasons for its transfer, it is unnecessary and it will be costly. This legislation is not establishing a new body for the collection of health data and co-ordination of research in public health and health services. Rather the Government's objective is to transfer the existing Institute from the Department of Health and to provide it with the status of a statutory authority. There is no doubt that it is extremely important to have this data. For too long we have been denied the information about our health system which we, as policy makers and legislators, need to have to make informed decisions regarding the critical issues such as priority setting and resource allocation. The Opposition recognises that a comprehensive information base is an essential resource in health planning and policy formulation and, more critically for the States, in program management and evaluation. Timely and reliable data are needed at Federal, State and local levels on the health status of the population, the availability of health resources, the accessibility and use of services, the cost of services, and the quality and outcome of care rendered. The Better Health Commission examined the state of available information about Australian health care and found that in comparison with like nations we ranked middle of the range in health surveys, second last in gathering usable vital statistics and last in information about our hospitals. The Better Health Commission bypassed the Department of Health and the Australian Institute of Health and recommended establishing a national centre for health statistics. It did, however, recognise the need for a national capability dedicated to research into health statistics, the gathering of pertinent health data and the generation of meaningful and useful reporting systems. The case for a central health data gathering capability has been well established and we believe the establishment of the Australian Institute of Health was for that purpose. Nevertheless, we strongly object to enshrining the Australian Institute of Health in yet another statutory authority. We view this move as a costly and unnecessary growth in the size and the complexity of government. The Commonwealth Government already has over 500 statutory authorities, and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) himself has provided no valid reasons why we should agree to the establishment of yet another. In his second reading speech the only reason given for the transfer was in the following two sentences: The Institute will be dealing with highly sensitive information relating to private health related organisations, the health of individuals and the financial position of States and Territories. It is therefore vital that the Institute be independent and be seen as independent. So said the Minister in his second reading speech. There are a multitude of ways in which the independence and protection of privacy can be ensured without going through the expensive process of establishing a statutory authority which, like all statutory authorities, over time would feel compelled to expand and require more funds. The National Health and Medical Research Council is an example within the Minister's portfolio of an organisation which, though not a statutory authority, has, with assistance provided from the Department of Health-for example in the allocation of research funds-been an independent adviser to Government. Another alternative would be to assist in the establishment of a real centre of excellence in this field of research into public health and health services. Examples such as exist in the research area come to mind as the sort of independent institutions one might use as a model. I cite, for instance, the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, the Howard Florey Institute and the Baker Institute. If we want quality public health research let us aim for the best rather than the worst. A Government statutory authority is not the way to go. The Minister may want such an authority to give his cronies a job, but we will not support him. Only three months ago the Minister published the Department of Health annual report for 1985-86 which outlined the Australian Institute of Health's activities. No indication was given then that the Institute was failing to meet its goals, but suddenly, three months later, this proposal for a new statutory authority is dumped on us. I say to the Minister that he will have to do a lot better than that to convince us that we need yet another Commonwealth statutory authority. I do not believe that any problems of confidentiality or independence cannot be solved by providing certain legislative protection. Certainly, the establishment of a statutory authority will not provide protection for the safekeeping of highly sensitive information, as we have seen with the leaking of highly confidential Health Insurance Commission Medicare data during the Government's dispute with the New South Wales doctors. On that occasion the data appeared on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald. The Minister in his second reading speech admits that the establishment of an independent statutory authority will mean that additional requirements of a statutory authority will have to be met, and this will inevitably mean extra costs. If this can be met within existing staff arrangements, it simply means that the existing arrangements involve an element of overstaffing which should be immediately corrected. Another issue of concern to me is the ability of existing statutory authorities within the Health portfolio to act as a law unto themselves. I refer, for example, to the Health Insurance Commission. The Health Insurance Commission's annual report, tabled last month, notes no less than 17 breaches of the various laws, including the Health Insurance Act, the Health Insurance Commission Act and the National Health Act. These breaches occurred in a number of different areas. The Health Insurance Commission is involved in both private sector activities performed on behalf of the premium paying members of Medibank Private, and the public sector activities which the Commission performs on behalf of the Government, namely, Medicare and the Australia Card. It is therefore necessary to allocate operating and capital costs between these private and public functions. The Health Insurance Act requires the Minister to establish in advance the principles and procedures for the allocation of expenditures between the Commission's two functions. The Minister for the 1985-86 year gave himself, in violation of his own Act, the benefit of seeing the final figures before deciding how they should be apportioned. The reason that the law sets forth this provision is a matter of good accounting principles. Apportionment of costs between lines of business requires prospective determination of a statistical base so that the integrity of that statistical basis can be assured, and so that the final apportionment is not influenced by the outcome of the total expenditures. Last financial year the Minister waited for more than three months following the close of the fiscal year before deciding on the method of cost apportionment. The apportionment of costs we are talking about here is not simply apportionment between various governmental instrumentalities, but between public sector and private activities, between tax revenues and premiums paid by privately insured citizens. This a serious breach of the law, but one which goes virtually unnoticed because it occurs within the confines of a statutory authority. Honourable members will be interested to know that some of these breaches involved the Government's accounting for the costs of the expenditure of the Department of Health on the ID card. This is an inauspicious beginning for a project which, whilst doomed to failure, is touted by the Government to be the touchstone of economic moral behaviour, striking fear into the heart of the tax cheats and bringing the dole frauds to account. The Government's efforts to clean up the rest of the country would be much more believable if the very department responsible for the Australia Card were capable of following the rules set down by law for its own economic and accounting behaviour. For the last two years the Health Insurance Commission has also violated the Act by spending moneys in excess of the appropriations authorised by Parliament to pay for the cost of medical services under the Medicare program. In 1986 it was over $90m; in 1985 it was $187m-that is, $187m was spent in excess of the appropriations. These over-expenditures were predictable, but once again the Minister has violated his own Act and avoided public scrutiny within the shadows of his statutory authority by subsequently appropriating funds. The Department of Health has also abused the statutory authority status of the Health Insurance Commission by concealing certain information of definite public interest from the scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act behind the skirts of the Commission's statutory authority status. I conclude, therefore, by saying that the role of statutory authorities in the health area under this Government has been abysmal. Costs have risen when we were told they would decline, and there have been flagrant and consistent breaches of the law. Whilst we support the need to establish a national health data base, the Government has not justified its desire to transfer the Australian Institute of Health from the Department of Health to a statutory authority. Finally, I am disappointed that the Government has adopted this cavalier attitude to research into public health and health services. This is the sort of area where a Commonwealth initiative, in assisting in the establishment of a centre of excellence in research, would have been worthy of bipartisan support. The Government has made no such approach to the Opposition. Instead, we have a shoddy excuse for the transfer trotted out in a brief second reading speech. It is not good enough and is clearly yet another area in which we will have to act after the next election to clean up the mess the Government is making. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(6.57) —The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), in his second reading speech on the Australian Institute of Health Bill, pointed out that the Australian Institute of Heath to be established by the Bill will, among other responsibilities, undertake studies into the provision and effectiveness of health services and health technology. That is the aspect that I would like to deal with tonight. The Institute will bring under one umbrella the assessment of both new and present technology in the health area. That is a very great need. It is important that those assessments are made by a skilled body which is, and which is seen to be, independent; hence the importance of establishing the Institute as a statutory authority. I will refer to the importance of that a little later. The introduction of new high technology in medicine has many implications for the practice of health care. It has the possibility of providing for better diagnosis of and better treatment for the patient. It has the possibility of balancing high capital costs against lower actual and social costs of treatment, and also the possibility of providing highly profitable procedures to the benefit of medical entrepreneurs. We must be extremely careful that the profit motive in medical practice does not overtake the health care motive. Technology assessment addresses the issues of effectiveness, safety, need and a whole range of considerations and issues which arise from the possible implementation of these expensive technologies. How expensive these technologies can be, how useful, and just what implications there can be for individuals can be illustrated by looking carefully at a very interesting piece of medical technology, the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripter-which is a pretty fascinating name, I think. It is a machine which can, for the appropriate patients, destroy kidney stones without the need for invasive treatment-or surgery, as it is probably known amongst us non-medical persons. The machine was assessed by the National Health Technology Advisory Panel, which will be supported by the Australian Institute of Health, and found to be effective, safe and, given a reasonable number of patients treated by the machine, cost effective. The machine, however, costs around $3m so that its introduction needs careful consideration. Two have so far been placed in public hospitals, one each in Sydney and Melbourne, and one has been acquired by a private hospital in New South Wales. That leads us to be able to examine directly the difference in costs for patients between public hospital services and private hospital services of the nature of this high and expensive technology. The machine offers a capacity, under the right circumstances, for a patient to be treated, probably once only, although about 10 per cent of patients come back for further treatment, with an overnight stay in hospital. Even though the cost of each treatment is up to about $2,000 a time, not including any other costs such as the professional costs and the bed day costs, the alternative surgery means a stay in hospital from 11 to 14 days. Because of that and the high cost of surgical beds, it is more costly in total. This piece of high technology therefore offers, for suitable patients, a non-invasive treatment, it frees hospital beds for other patients and provides for a much lower social cost, and personal cost in terms of the cost of lost wages, for patients. However, there are factors in this otherwise rosy picture of which people should be aware and I hope that I shall be forgiven if I go into some rather complex details. The cost of the machine is such that a special arrangement was made with the States by the Commonwealth to cover its acquisition. In the public hospitals in which it was placed, 60 per cent of the use was likely to be for private patients and 40 per cent for public patients. Therefore, the size of the subsidy and the size of the State contribution was decided by that sort of percentage. If one goes to a public hospital which has one of these machines and is treated as a public patient, the four elements of the cost-the capital cost recovery, the operating cost, bed day cost and professional costs-are totally covered. If one carries basic table private health insurance and exercises one's right of choice of doctor and to be treated as a private patient in a public hospital, one's basic table covers bed day costs and other costs are covered by the hospital system. However, should one choose a private hospital, one's basic cover will cover bed day and professional costs, leaving one with between $2,000 to $2,500 to pay out of one's own pocket to cover the capital cost recovery and operating costs of the machine. That sum is paid by the patient. That illustrates the extreme care that people need to take in deciding whether or not to go to a private hospital for treatment. They can find themselves, as several of my constituents have found, with a bill they did not expect, which was beyond their capacity to pay and which left them in a very poor situation. I believe that it is necessary that doctors, and patients also, take the responsibility of inquiring about the cost of any treatment suggested and ascertaining the full cost of the treatment before agreeing to it. This shows no clearer illustration of the care needed in determining the use of high technology in health care. While it can offer a more cost effective way of dealing with a condition, the capital costs of such technology demand some real knowledge base upon which to determine usage. There are about 3,000 cases a year of people suffering from a condition which can be treated by lithotripsy. Should the machines be allowed to proliferate, the need to recover capital expenditure and the high operating figure would see treatment costs soar to very dizzy heights and would see a demand that Medicare health insurance should cover those costs. It could distort the costs of the health system, and I think that in some cases already has. Equally, the real necessity for an independent body to carry out any health technology assessment, among other functions described in the Bill, can clearly be seen. That technology at $3m a machine is a serious investment. We need to be quite certain that it is a proper investment to be made either by the public system or by any private health care system. It is essential for patients to know that new technology has been independently assessed by a body which has the capacity to employ highly qualified personnel, has a database adequate for its research and is independent from the sectional considerations of political or professional bodies. In the light of the speech made by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), I would say that it is very essential that it should be independent of political bodies. Not only is the high-tech end of medical treatment dealt with in this part of the Bill, but clause 5 (1) (e) reads: to develop methods and undertake studies designed to assess the provision, use, cost and effectiveness of health services and health technologies. This clause also covers those technological developments such as those in pathology which are basically high-volume, low-cost procedures. It will be possible for the institute to investigate the issues of safety, quality control and cost associated with the use of automated blood testing outside specialist pathology laboratories, given proper accreditation procedures. It would seem that since the action taken by this Government to correct some of the faults found with the system of pathology by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, with proper accreditation procedures and proper study by an independent body, such as the Australian Institute of Health, which is set up by this Bill, one could be looking at the possibility of a medical clinic doing blood testing of a particular sort and being able to inform patients very quickly and to speed up diagnosis and treatment. The Institute will provide an independent body with the responsibility of providing a far clearer picture of health services in Australia. It is very greatly needed as we have a very complex health system with its mixture of Commonwealth and State funding, public and private hospitals, salaried and private practitioners of all kinds and health services in both the public and private sectors-not to mention two systems of health insurance for varying sorts of possibilities that may occur. If the Government is to develop policies to increase the overall health of Australians and to decrease the incidence of preventable diseases, those policies need to be based on the best possible data and research. That data collection and research not only needs to be very good, but also the direction of the research and the use of the data should be both independent and carefully protected. It is a common and in some ways reasonable saying that our health system deals almost exclusively with illness, although the Minister for Health has made strenuous efforts to be just that, with many preventive programs which have been either established or supported under his ministry. If there are aspects of our health care system which are not providing good health care for Australians, but rather providing good or unnecessary illness care, if our system allows medical over-servicing, as I believe a number of inquiries, particularly the Public Accounts inquiry, has found, we need to know-not via sectional interests, by those who have a barrow to push, but from somebody who is totally independent of both Government and outside associations-exactly what the nature of our health care system should be. There can be nothing that is worth better advice than the health of Australians. There is nothing sillier than to suggest that setting up a statutory authority so that we have an independent assessor and researcher into the health of Australians is something to be frightened about. I rather think that the honourable member for Barker likes setting up aunt sallies so that he can throw a few coconuts, but I firmly believe that the health of Australians, the adequate, effective and least costly choices in the treatment of their illnesses, are very important matters. Australia is spending $16 billion a year on health care. We should be asking ourselves whether that money is spent cost effectively. We know that in some cases it is spent very much to the profit of individuals rather than to the good health of patients. Even if the patients acquire good health in the long run, it is usually as a side issue rather than as a major motivator. I think we should look at exactly what this Bill asks the Australian Institute of Health to do. In Part II, which deals with the establishment, function and powers of the Institute, there are some very interesting considerations. I have already dealt with one clause and I wish to bring up a couple of others in the time that is left to me. Clause 5 (1) (f), which deals with the power to conduct and promote research into the health of people in Australia and their health services, gives the Institute a function which is extremely valuable. We want to know whether Australians are healthy. We want to know how they are healthy and what makes them unhealthy. We want to know the most effective treatment for ill health and how to prevent them from becoming unhealthy again. The Institute of Health, with that function, will prove very important to us all in the future. Sub-clause (k), which talks about making recommendations to the Minister on the prevention and treatment of diseases and the improvement and promotion of health and health awareness of the people of Australia, is something that we must take extremely seriously. In the past we have had campaigns, and we will probably have them in the future, dealing with various issues of health care, such as diet, the prevention of transmissible diseases, the importance of exercise and the importance of diet in maintaining health. What we need is some very clear picture of what makes a person healthy, what encourages ill health in a person and how we can best get a person back to a healthy state after he or she has had some unavoidable illness. I believe that this Bill sets up a very important addition to Australia's capacity to deal with its population, to deal with making policies which are beneficial to Australians and I would commend the Bill very highly to the House. I believe that it is a step forward that we should have taken long ago. I am very glad that we are taking it now and I find the Opposition's difficulties about statutory authorities much more political than real in their basis. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Scholes) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(7.14) —I wish to draw the House's attention to an extraordinary case of the denial of Australian citizenship to a woman who grew up in Australia, who was educated here, who carried an Australian passport for years, whose parents were or are both Australian citizens, whose mother was born in Australia, whose father served in the Australian Imperial Force and who knows in her bones that she is an Australian, whatever the law says. This is the case of Dr Geraldine Room, of Sydney, now residing in London. This anomalous situation arises from the wording of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 which first created Australian citizenship and defined the necessary qualifications. Geraldine Room's mother was an Australian by birth. Her father, the late Professor Thomas Room, was born in the United Kingdom and migrated to Australia in 1935 to take the Chair of Mathematics at the University of Sydney. He served with a cryptography unit in the AIF throughout the Second World War and until 1961 continued to spend part of his annual vacation working with the Defence Signals Branch at Victoria Barracks. As well as being head of either mathematics or pure mathematics at the University of Sydney, he also served two periods as the Dean of the Faculty of Science. He was a foundation member of the Australian Academy of Sciences. He automatically acquired Australian citizenship in 1949 because he was a British subject and met the residency test of the new Act. Geraldine Room was born in Seattle in the United States on 14 November 1948 when Professor Room was on sabbatical leave. The newly born Geraldine was registered at the Australian Consulate in San Francisco on 24 January 1949, two days before the major changes of the new Citizenship Act were to take effect-with the extraordinary consequences for Geraldine Room. The Rooms state that the Australian Consulate staff in San Francisco gave them no warning that their daughter would not automatically be an Australian citizen or that any further steps would be required for her to become an Australian citizen. The Rooms understood that they had fulfilled all the formalities necessary for their daughter to be an Australian citizen. Geraldine Room and her family returned to Australia early in 1949 and she lived in Sydney until 1978 when work commitments took her to England on her Australian passport, convinced that she was, as she always had been, an Australian citizen. However, when she applied for a new passport she was shocked to learn otherwise. The Australian Citizenship Act 1948 and its transitional provisions ruled her out. This is because the Act says in essence that children born overseas only become citizens if immediately prior to the commencement of the Act-that is, on 26 January 1949-the father had been a British subject born or naturalised in Australia. Professor Room was a British subject but he had not been born or naturalised in Australia. He himself became a citizen by easily meeting the residency test. As for the Seattle-born Geraldine, she could have, at any time up to 30 November 1973, acquired Australian citizenship by simple registration if she or her parents had known of her problematic status in law. Or after that she could have easily acquired it under the residency test. But now she lives abroad and is not in a position to meet the current two years residency test. Dr Room left Australia in 1978 on a scholarship from the Coppelson Institute of the University of Sydney to become a Research Fellow at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology in London. She now works as a general physician and rheumatologist and has responsibilities as a district clinical tutor. She is registered to practise medicine in New South Wales and is a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. She maintains continuing close links with Australia, both professionally and with her family. She hopes to be able to work here in the future and she naturally wants legal citizenship of the country of which she and here family are part. But she cannot crack the Australian Citizenship Act and its transitional provisions. I should add that the officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs have been helpful and co-operative but they see themselves as bound by the plain enough wording of the Act and the transitional provisions. I cannot believe that the draftsmen of the Act or the Parliament which passed it into law in 1948 intended to deprive people such as Geraldine Room of their citizenship. I implore the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) to look into this extraordinary case and, if necessary, introduce amendments to the Act to correct the situation. Mr REITH(Flinders)(7.18) —The Government has been running a campaign entitled the `Buy Australian' campaign and I wish to say a few words about that without going into a detailed analysis. When one looks at these sorts of campaigns it is not a bad starting point to realise that most people are economically rational when it comes to spending their own money. People, as a rule, look for value for their dollar. I think that is understandable and I believe it needs to be taken into account. I think that there is a place for governments, and for leaders and people generally in the community to encourage others, when all other things are equal, to buy the Australian product first. I am not in favour of spending large amounts of taxpayers' money on these programs because there is very little evidence to show that such money is well worth spending. When I say that people should lead by example, I refer particularly to those people who make much of this issue and who parade themselves as great advocates of `Buy Australian' campaigns. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are aware that there are some people of that sort around. There was an article in the Canberra Times recently which gave an interesting sidelight to this issue and I want to recount it to the House. It refers to a person who sent somebody else down the street to buy for him some shoes. The instruction was that what the person needed was some waterproof shoes because he was going to Switzerland. But, because it is difficult to have somebody else buy shoes for a person, the instruction was to get three pairs for the person to look at. The other person went down the street. He went to a shop in Canberra and came back with three pairs. The person for whom the shoes had been picked up had a close look at those three pairs. Two pairs were Australian, and one pair was made in Taiwan. Believe it or not, the person chose the pair made in Taiwan and, I understand, had the other two taken back and suggested that the company, which is American, I understand-a multinational company-might like to donate the shoes. Apparently a similar episode happened with this person and his father. His father selected one out of three pairs of shoes, but he paid for it forthwith. I now understand that the first person paid for the shoes after the matter received some publicity in the Canberra Times. Mr Ronald Edwards —It is the blokes wearing the white shoes you have to worry about. Mr REITH —White shoes are not really a problem in Flinders. There might be some grey shoes and shoes of a few other different colours, but white shoes have not evidenced themselves in my electorate, and I understand the latest opinion poll confirms that, to which some of the Queensland National Party people might like to give some thought. Mr Hand —A division! Mr REITH —Not an admission, just an invitation and probably one in relation to which the honourable member would like to join me. If the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wishes to continue to be a grand exponent of the `Buy Australian' campaign, the next time he sends the butler down the street to get him some shoes he ought to pick an Australian pair, not a pair made in Taiwan. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(7.22) —I was not going to speak tonight but I thought I would after that pitiful performance of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), who is one of those members of the Liberal Party of Australia who are lunging at the backs of the people on the front bench to try to remove them and put himself there. He is part of the plot, as we know, to get rid of the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). He is part of the Peacock machine which grinds around the corridors of Parliament to remove poor little Johnny Howard, the honourable member for Bennelong. I really wanted to talk about the problems of the coalition and point out that there is not a fundamental difference between the parties. We heard a reference to the National Party of Australia by the previous speaker, a sort of a barbed attack, one could say, and a bit of a dig at it. There seems to me to be very little difference because under the skin the parties are the same. The philosophies are exactly the same. They are governed by the same people, no matter who they are, whether they are wearing grey shoes or white shoes. I suppose in the electorate of the honourable member people might wear grey shoes. The fact is that it is the same people who control them; it is the same people whom they are defending time and again in the Press and around the traps as they talk to the different interest groups. In the brief time that is available to me I want to address the question of taxation. Taxation, we are told by the Premier of Queensland, is one of the big differences between the majority, at this time we are told, of members of the Liberal Party and his 12 or 14 supporters in the National Party, depending on whether it is a secret ballot or a public ballot. We are told that the difference is taxation, but the effect of either policy on the people of Australia is the same because it will hurt the little person, the person who is earning under $25,000 or $27,000. Mr Reith —You keep telling us we have not got any policies. Mr HAND —Each variation of the Opposition's policy-it changes from day to day because it is not sure how it will end up-will affect the bottom end. That is what it is all about. The Opposition is trying to come up with a method of taxation which will benefit those wealthy people. Today we heard the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) talking about taxation in the matter of public importance. What would he do? He would repeal the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. What are they? Why have they been implemented? It was to redistribute the wealth of this country to the poor, to the people who need assistance, and to take away the privileged right that the Opposition has given to some small section of our society. The National Party talks about a flat tax. Even the Liberal Party's spokespersons support what I will say. That is a very cruel tax which would affect all the low income earners of this country, and it would affect them in a very severe way. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, would introduce a consumption tax which would be around 8 per cent. We are told that it would implement that. I would be pleased to hear a leader of the Opposition say in this place once and for all that the Opposition would not introduce a consumption tax. It does not matter which leader the Party wants to trot in. I am not fussy-one of them will do, whoever gets in the chair first. As members of the Liberal Party know, that consumption tax would be equally severe on the bottom end of income earners as Joh Bjelke-Petersen's proposed taxation. It is an unfair form of taxation and one which would affect the bottom end again. I say to the House that there is no difference at all between the Opposition parties-no difference whatsoever. Joh, Andrew, little Johnny, the honourable member for Flinders, Ian Cameron or anybody-there is no difference between any of them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Melbourne should refer-- Mr HAND —And the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) who has his hand up-there is no difference between any of their policies. They are all designed to attack the bottom end of income earners. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne might refer to members by their seats rather than by their names. Mr HAND —Sorry. Does the Deputy Speaker want me to refer to them by their names? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No. The honourable member should remember that in the future. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(7.27) —I draw to the attention of the House two letters received by a dear friend of mine who is a pensioner and a delightful person. There was an appeal from the Australian Labor Party National Secretary, Bob McMullan, and a letter signed by Bob Hawke, Prime Minister of Australia. It is a fascinating appeal. Firstly, the letter from the Prime Minister is addressed ``Dear Friend''. This dear lady was not really impressed by being addressed in that manner by the Prime Minister, the man who delayed her pension at Christmas time. She said that he has an impertinence to address her as `Dear Friend', but he goes on. He uses five points to prove why this pensioner lady should make a donation to the Labor Party. The first point is the creation of more than 590,000 jobs. As she pointed out to me, over a third of those were paid for by the taxes that she has to pay. She is a part pensioner and pays some tax. The interesting thing, as she pointed out to me, is that Bob Hawke, Prime Minister, is talking about all the jobs that he has created but Bob McMullan indicates that there are even more jobs than Bob Hawke thought; over 600,000 jobs being created-just a slight inconsistency. The second point of this appeal letter concerned the prices and incomes accord and the fact there there is less industrial unrest, because the union movement has captured the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Labor Party does whatever is requested of it by the union movement. She pointed out the third point about Medicare and the introduction of a fair, equitable and universal health care system. She says it is impossible in the local area for pensioners to have elective surgery for hip or knee replacements. She said that she does not think Medicare is fair, equitable or universal because it means that if one is half dead, can get to a hospital in time and can wait long enough one will eventually get some treatment. The fourth point with which the Prime Minister sought to attract her money was the increased level of social security assistance. This pensioner lady from whom the Prime Minister was trying to get a donation rightly pointed out that her pension had been delayed at Christmas time. She was not impressed by that either. The final point mentioned in the letter was increased opportunities for young people. The training program is a failure, Austudy has real problems and Priority One was a dead loss. But the Prime Minister says that this is only a beginning. If it is only a beginning I do not know what sort of a shambles the Prime Minister will have this country in by the time he finishes. This letter deals with five points which are supposed to be the selling points of the Australian Labor Party-none of them believed by the Australian community-and then promises more of the same thing. It is not exactly the best wording for a letter to draw money from a lady pensioner. The attachment to the letter states: Yes, Bob-- referring to Bob McMullan-- I want to support the ALP III Term Fund. It goes on to state: `I realise how much the Australian Labor Party has done and I want to change this'. The wording is a bit ambiguous because it could lead one to think that if one made a donation one could actually change the Government, which is what most of Australia wants to do. I suggest that before the Government designs another letter of this type it should check the wording because it is ambiguous and ambitious. McMullan's letter is interesting in that it deals with left wing issues rather than right wing issues, which is quite different from the approach adopted by the Prime Minister. McMullan's letter deals with the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone; a more equitable taxation system which is imposing a fabulously difficult burden on the Australian community; the deal with the union movement on superannuation-of course, the lump sum tax on superannuation must be part of that; the campaign against privatisation; Medicare; affirmative action; and all this left wing rubbish that is thought by McMullan to appeal to a lady pensioner. I would like to advise the minders of the ALP that they have been completely unsuccessful in this instance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 7.32 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr N.A. Brown to present a Bill for an Act to cancel the registration of The Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees' Union of Australia under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. Mr N.A. Brown to present a Bill for an Act to enact certain provisions consequential upon the cancellation of the registration under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 of The Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees' Union, and for related purposes. Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to require certain Commonwealth authorities to promote equal opportunity in employment for women and persons in designated groups and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 18 March 1987: Acts Interpretation Act-Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report-Fishing Industry Research Committee-Report for 1985-86. Customs Act-Notice-1987-No. 4. Excise Act-Notice-1987-No. 4. Treaties-Text of- Which have been signed by Australia and which require further treaty action by Australia before the treaty can enter into force- (1) Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand providing for Reciprocity in Matters relating to Social Security done at Melbourne on 5 October 1986. (2) Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident done at Vienna on 26 September 1986. Signed for Australia on 26 September 1986. (3) Convention on Assistance in the case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency done at Vienna on 26 September 1986. Signed for Australia on 26 September 1986. (4) Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China for the Protection of Migratory Birds and their Environment done at Canberra on 20 October 1986. Which have been signed for and ratified by Australia- (5) Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction done at The Hague on 25 October 1980. Signed for Australia and instrument of ratification deposited by Australia on 29 October 1986. The Convention entered into force for Australia on 1 January 1987. To which Australia has become a party by signature- (6) Headquarters Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources signed at Hobart on 8 September 1986. The Agreement entered into force on 8 September 1986. (7) Exchange of Notes at Jakarta on 3 June and 16 August 1986 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Indonesia amending the Agreement for Air Services between and beyond their respective Territories, done at Sydney on 7 March 1969. The Agreement entered into force on 16 August 1986. (8) Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of India on co-operation in the Field of Science and Technology done at Canberra on 15 October 1986. The Agreement entered into force on 15 October 1986. (9) Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 2 December 1986 and Beijing on 22 December 1986 constituting an Agreement to amend the Trade Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China. The Agreement entered into force on 22 December 1986. (10) Subsidiary Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese Tuna Long-line Fishing done at Canberra on 30 October 1986. The Agreement entered into force on 1 November 1986. (11) Subsidiary Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea concerning Squid Jigging by Fishing Vessels of the Republic of Korea done at Canberra on 16 December 1986. The Agreement entered into force retroactively on 1 October 1986. (12) Exchange of Notes at London on 29 and 31 December 1986 constituting an Agreement to amend the Agreement on Social Security between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and and Northern Ireland, 1958 as amended. The Agreement entered into force on 9 February 1987. Which Australia has accepted or to which Australia has acceded- (13) Convention on the Conflicts of Laws relating to Forms of Testamentary Dispositions done at The Hague on 5 October 1961. Instrument of acceptance, with declaration deposited by Australia on 22 September 1986. The Convention entered into force for Australia on 21 November 1986. (14) Memorandum of Understanding to confer upon the Committee for Co-ordination of Joint Prospecting for Mineral Resources in South Pacific Offshore Areas status as an Intergovernmental Organisation, done at Rarotonga on 25 May 1984. Instrument of accession, with declaration deposited by Australia on 9 September 1986. The Understanding entered into force for Australia on 8 October 1986. (15) Convention concerning Mutual Administrative Assistance for the Prevention, Investigation and Repression of Customs offences, and annexes I and III done at Nairobi on 9 June 1977. Instrument of accession deposited by Australia 3 November 1986. The Convention will enter into force for Australia on 3 April 1987. Which have been ratified by Australia- (16) Protocol relating to an Amendment to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Article 3 bis) signed at Montreal on 10 May 1984. Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia on 10 September 1986. The Protocol is not yet in force. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4434) Mr Cadman asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) How many cases have been brought before the High Court of Australia, Federal Court of Australia and Administrative Appeals Tribunal relating to immigration matters since 5 March 1983. (2) What have been the total court and administrative costs of the cases. (3) In how many of these cases has legal aid been payable. (4) What has been the total cost of legal aid for the cases. (5) What are the specific criteria for an award of legal aid in such cases. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Information as to cases coming before the High Court of Australia, Federal Court of Australia and Administrative Appeals Tribunal provided by their respective registries is as follows. Between 5 March 1983 and 15 September 1986, 8 cases were brought before the High Court. Of these, 6 were by way of special leave from the Federal Court, and 2 by way of proceedings in the Court's original jurisdiction. Between 5 March 1983 and 30 September 1986, a total of 246 cases were brought before the Federal Court of Australia. From 5 March 1983 to 31 August 1986, 125 applications were lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (2) Separate figures are not kept of the costs incurred by courts and tribunals relating to specific areas of jurisdiction. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following figures on the legal costs incurred by it in litigation before courts and tribunals: Year ended Amount 30 June 1983... 83,644 30 June 1984... 77,106 30 June 1985... 112,236 30 June 1986... 124,275 These figures do not include staff and administrative costs of the Department or the costs of staff and administration of the Australian Government Solicitor. It is not possible to quantify the total staff and administrative costs. (3) No statistics are kept of matters before the High Court, the Federal Court or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which are the subject of grants of legal assistance. However, a survey by my Department of the granting of aid for prohibited non-citizens has shown an annual average of 80 legally-aided cases in the Federal Court of Australia and 60 legally-aided cases before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. There were not High Court matters aided during the period surveyed. (4) No figure is available since separate costs figures in immigration matters are not kept by the legal aid agencies and cannot be readily ascertained. The survey mentioned above will provide figures as to costs incurred in payments to private lawyers when all cases included in it have been completed. (5) Guidelines have been adopted by the various State and Commonwealth bodies responsible for delivery of legal aid services and are published by my Department, for the information of the public, in a publication entitled ``Who Gets Legal Aid?-Summary of the Eligibility Criteria of Major Legal Aid Bodies Throughout Australia''. The guidelines in general indicate areas in which legal aid may be excluded rather than those particular cases in which aid may be granted. They do not deal with immigration matters which therefore fall to be considered under normal criteria of `means' and `merit'. (Question No. 4890) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: Has the Government considered installing X-ray machines or other such devices at the entrances to each terminal wing, similar to those installed in many overseas airports, to achieve automatic 100% security screening for all international and domestic passengers at major Australian airports, if so, why have they not been introduced. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Centralised security screening for departing international passengers has been in operation since 1976. For domestic operations centralised security screening is not appropriate as it is not current practice to require the security checking of all departing flights. (Question No. 5111) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: What sum has been provided to Laos for all aid projects in each year since 1980. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is provided in the attached table: AID TO LAOS 1980-1987 Year Ended 30 June ($'000) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 (Est) BILATERAL AID Projects ... 1367 790 966 1836 2696 3755 3790 5982 Training ... . . . . 12 2 . . 12 6 18 Food Aid ... . . . . . . . . 407 . . . . . . Other (a) ... 6 5 6 7 6 49 115 29 SUB-TOTAL ... 1373 795 984 1845 3109 3816 3911 6029 MULTILATERAL AID (where Australia's contributions to multilateral programs in Laos are identifiable) . . . . . . . . . . 315 300 369 TOTAL ... 1373 795 984 1845 3109 4131 4211 6398 (a) includes Direct Assistance Program (formerly Head of Mission Discretionary Aid) and Emergency and Humanitarian Assistance (other than Food Aid).