Tuesday, 28 April 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —Since the House last met, the honourable member for North Sydney distributed a private paper for the purpose of discussion by the strategy committee of the coalition partners. The paper was subsequently leaked to the Press. In my opinion, every member of this House must be able to communicate freely with his or her colleagues through either private papers or private discussions. That the paper was leaked does not alter the fact that it was originally written as a private document. The paper having been written, it would be totally ludicrous now to ask an honourable member to reject his or her own writings. I raise the matter in the House only because of the wide media speculation the paper evoked-and, of course, I reject the criticism. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is currently overseas on official duty. He will return to Australia on 30 April. In his absence the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, is Acting Attorney-General, with the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) representing him in this House. The Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) is also overseas on government business. He returns on 2 May. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is Acting Minister for Community Services. Finally, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) is also overseas. Senator Gietzelt, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, is Acting Minister with the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) representing the Acting Minister in this House. Mr N.A. Brown —Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of the concern among members of this House and in the wider community about increasing Libyan involvement in the Pacific region? Is it not clear now that Libya, first, has a long history of terrorism and, secondly, is clearly prepared to finance and support revolutionary movements in our region? That being so, will the Government now take immediate steps, first, to close the so-called Libyan People's Bureau in Canberra and, secondly, to prevent any funds or personnel passing through Australia if they are reasonably suspected of being directed to the support of revolutionary or terrorist movements? If not, what action is the Government going to take in the face of obvious Libyan support of terrorist and revolutionary activities in the Pacific region? Mr HAYDEN —The Government, of course, is concerned, as we have stressed on a number of occasions quite publicly, at the increasing presence and activity of certain Libyan representatives in the South Pacific. I think the first thing that should be stressed, however, is that very largely the independent nations of the South Pacific retain a very firm commitment to the Western association of nations, the values of those countries and the benefits that that system is able to provide individually and collectively to members that cleave to those interests. In relation to the proposal that we should close down the Libyan People's Bureau in Canberra, I should point out first of all that the Libyan Embassy was opened in Canberra in 1979 by the previous conservative Government. In 1979 there was clear evidence of Libyan international terrorist activity. In 1981, with the approval of the then Fraser Government, it was allowed to convert to the Libyan People's Bureau. By then international Libyan terrorist activity was manifestly apparent. In neither instance was the conservative government, of which the honourable member was a Minister at that time, the least bit disturbed. As I have said, the Government is maintaining careful observation of what is developing in the South Pacific region but we should bear in mind that, in expressing our concerns on this matter, we do so from a self-interested point of view designed to look after our national interest. We in no way seek, explicitly or implicitly, to suggest to the South Pacific island states that, while we believe we are capable of looking after our affairs, we do not have confidence in their ability similarly to do so. I could not imagine anything more offensive, unacceptable or provocative to such countries. The closure of the Libyan People's Bureau is something that has been looked at from time to time in the past when circumstances have suggested that this was a matter that, among others, deserved attention. When this was looked at last, I think early in 1986 following certain incidents in Europe, it was decided that while a number of other actions would be taken against Libya the closure of the Libyan People's Bureau would not be undertaken. Up to this point I think the grounds upon which that decision was based were sound and at present continue to be sound. Mr DUNCAN —Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted the successful way in which President Alfonsin of Argentina has prevailed over a military challenge to the democratic authority of his Government? Will the Government convey its warm congratulations and continuing support for the way in which democracy is being upheld in Argentina after the awful experience of that country at the hands of the generals and the military? Mr HAYDEN —President Alfonsin's facing down of military rebelliousness in the Argentine recently was a major achievement on his part. In fact, it was described in one dispatch I have seen by a professional observer as `brilliant'. I think the description is well justified. The military in the Argentine had enjoyed a rather privileged position which was scarcely justified, either on its performance in conflict at a time when the Argentine was involved in the war over the Falklands or, particularly, in the way in which it has behaved on the issue of human rights. Nonetheless, it appeared as though the military in the Argentine presumed that its reputation, status and the privileges to which it has made claim remained unchallenged. What was displayed beyond any doubt during the recent incident of rebelliousness in the Argentine was, first of all, the capable way in which President Alfonsin responded to that challenge; the way in which he preserved democratic values; and, more than anything else, the way in which an extraordinary wave of public support mobilised itself behind the Government. It indicated in the most unambiguous way imaginable that, should the military proceed with its rebelliousness, should it seek seriously to challenge and undermine those developing pillars upon which democracy has been established in the Argentine, the public would react and react firmly-I believe, even fiercely-against the military. What has been proved is that the public of the Argentine have little but contempt for the military, that the role it has presumed to itself can no longer be upheld and that the practice of democracy is in a stronger condition than ever before. We warmly commend President Alfonsin for the way in which he has conducted himself in this matter and I will take the opportunity of having these comments, both the question and the response, conveyed to the Government of the Argentine. Mr HOWARD —Madam Speaker, with your indulgence I indicate that the Opposition would be very happy if it were associated with that expression to the Government of the Argentine. Mr CARLTON —Is the Treasurer aware that a single income family on average weekly earnings that paid $65 a week in pay as you earn income tax in March 1983 now pays $102 a week and will still pay at least $102 a week after 1 July this year? How does the Treasurer justify his claims of fairness and equity in tax reform when the Government will be taking an extra $37 a week in tax from the average family after the Treasurer's great reform is completed? Mr KEATING —I cannot carry a tabulation in my mind about each particular circumstance but, unambiguously, we are in the course of providing a $4.5 billion tax cut for this country which has not added to the Budget deficit but which has reduced it and at the same time we have broadened the tax base, on an equitable basis, and provided declines in marginal income tax rates. It may be a matter the honourable gentleman is happy to gloss over because if I had the record that he lives with, as a member of a former government, I would be glossing over it too. It is very interesting that those earning $35,000 had a 60 per cent marginal tax rate in all of the years when Mr Howard, the Leader of the Opposition, and the honourable member for Mackellar were Ministers. However, at a time of economic stress and fiscal dislocation from the recession of 1982-83, which was imposed by the former Treasurer, the Government has reduced the marginal rates of tax without adding to the Budget deficit. In fact we have reduced the Budget deficit. On 1 July this year we will bring the tax rate of 60 per cent to 49 per cent and the 48 and 46 per cent rates to 40 per cent or less. That will be done to lift the incentive for people to do extra work and to help employment but that is not good enough now. The people who left the tax rate jammed at 60 per cent, the people who pocketed all of the bracket creep over the years, the people who spent the Bass Strait bonanza gained from the massive lift in oil prices without retiring debt or reducing marginal rates of tax now say: `That 49 per cent tax rate is no good; that is passe. Let us have 35 or 30 per cent tax. We will give tax cuts to high income earners but nothing to the people on lower incomes and we will pay for them by taking away concessions for those on lower incomes'. Honourable members will remember the leaked document stating $6 billion of concessions which would be taken from those down below for that kind of a tax policy. Apparently honourable members opposite are now imbued with the need for more incentives and lower tax rates but one could not get them imbued between 1976 and 1983. No, the tax rate was 60 per cent. The Government has now tied the tax rate to 49 per cent, the company tax rate, so all of the phoney company structures, the phoney trusts, will vanish. We are now giving shareholders a 49 per cent tax rate but removing the double tax on dividends. No questions are asked about that matter because the people whom the Opposition claims to represent-shareholders amongst others-have never been represented. The people who wanted some access to stock markets and companies, who wanted to share in the wealth of this country were denied that because their dividends were taxed twice; their equity was taxed twice. So with this background I can understand the honourable member for Mackellar not putting a question about marginal rates of tax, trying to confect some sum about average tax rates and not mentioning imputation because he is embarrassed by the Government's reforms and well he might be. Mr SNOW —Can the Minister for Territories give the Government's reaction to the latest so-called compromise proposal put forward by the Australian Medical Association to solve the current dispute with visiting medical officers in Australian Capital Territory hospitals which serve people in south-east New South Wales as well as those in the Territory? Mr SCHOLES —I am well aware of the concern of the honourable member, and of the honourable members for the Australian Capital Territory, about the current dispute or strike by doctors in the Australian Capital Territory. It is a matter of real concern that, at a time when the whole nation is being asked to act with restraint in the incomes area, the members of the medical profession in the Australian Capital Territory have sought increases which exceed 85 per cent of their present remuneration, which, even on a moderate scale, would seem to be excessive. I am also concerned that this morning the Opposition has indicated its support for the position of the Australian Medical Association in the Australian Capital Territory and the size of the increase which it is demanding. That rings rather hollow when one remembers the position taken by the Opposition in respect of a $10 wage increase for other members of the community. The interim proposals which have been put forward by the AMA as a means for a temporary solution while we negotiate possible higher rates of pay involve the payment to a group of specialists, namely anaesthetists, of an amount equivalent to the Macken determination in New South Wales, which the Commonwealth considers to be totally excessive and which would, for that group, result in an increase in their remuneration of 115 per cent above their present remuneration for Medicare patients. I might say that that amount has been publicly supported by the Opposition. It is proposed that in regard to fee for service, doctors receive a payment of 65 per cent of the AMA schedule. There should not be any confusion about the difference between the AMA schedule and the fixed schedule under the Commonwealth health Acts. The AMA schedule is substantially higher, and 65 per cent represents an amount which is higher than the 85 per cent offered by the Government. It is also seeking a 50 per cent after hours loading, plus $60 a day on call, for availability for call out for emergencies. The present dispute is one in which I consider that the demands of the doctors cannot be responsibly met. I am shocked that the Opposition has publicly supported the demands for a 115 per cent increase in salary. The Opposition spokesman for Territories is reported on the front page of newspapers today as supporting a 115 per cent increase-an increase which is equivalent to an amount in excess of $1,000 a week-yet the Opposition has attacked people who have asked for a $10 a week increase. I think there are some double standards in the Opposition. The medical profession in the Australian Capital Territory is seeking from the Government a commitment which no responsible government could meet, nor can it be met without seriously jeopardising the whole incomes and wages system in Australia. I think that in the present situation the medical profession must look at itself, examine the benefits which it has derived from the Australian community and continues to derive from the Australian community, and accept some responsibility as part of the Australian community. The Government has made an offer which is equivalent to a 21 per cent increase in payments to doctors for the care of Medicare patients. The doctors have chosen not to allow this group of people to be treated. A strike by doctors is in place. It is a strike which relates purely to money and shows no concern whatsoever for the welfare of the community. I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I hope that the AMA will accept that it has responsibilities for the well being of this nation as well as for the well being of the community which it claims to treat. Mr PORTER —I refer the Prime Minister to the disastrous impact his policies are having on Australian families, as evidenced by the social policy research unit's finding that there are now 55,000 more families living below the poverty line than when he came to power. Will the Prime Minister now implement his 1983 promise to increase the spouse rebate and the sole parent rebate to give relief to families? Will he assure the House that none of the actions proposed to be taken by the Government in the mini-Budget will further disadvantage low income families? Mr HAWKE —I have had occasion earlier this year in Question Time to do two things. Firstly, I have indicated the very significant improvements which have been brought into effect by the policies of this Government which are based upon the understanding that in difficult economic circumstances we cannot adopt a broad-brush approach to social security and welfare. The responsible approach is to target what available resources we have to those most in need. I have pointed out in considerable detail in this House and outside it what this Government has done very successfully in that regard. The second thing I have done-and I refer to it very briefly here-is to point out two things. The first is the impact of the previous Government's policies upon the family. It is no good in this day and age mouthing rhetoric about concern for families. We have to recognise that the condition of members of Australian families is determined by the impact of a whole range of policies which concern education, housing, employment, taxation and so on. I have pointed out the very damaging effect of the previous Government's policies in these areas. Secondly, I have pointed out that the Opposition simply cannot have it both ways. It cannot paint itself as an alternative government which will undertake massive expenditure cuts and delude itself that in the process of giving effect to those massive expenditure cuts members of Australian families will not be adversely affected. I do not want to take up the time of the House by going into detail again about the credibility gap that still exists as far as Opposition policies are concerned. But in the area of tax, which is just as relevant as the expenditure side, I just share with members of the House, in conclusion, the quite remarkable observation of the Leader of the Opposition just a few days ago. He was appearing on the Schildberger program. He was asked by Mr Schildberger `But don't you have a problem without a tax policy?' to which the Leader of the Opposition gave this immortal and memorable reply: `We have a policy on tax, the only thing that's missing is the numbers'. Mr CROSS —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: Is the Government concerned about the recent Queensland Government amendments to its Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act? If so, does the Government propose to take any action to counter those amendments? Mr WILLIS —The Government is concerned about the highly undemocratic nature of the amendments to the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act in Queensland which, if effectively implemented, would virtually eliminate the right to strike in Queensland. We are also concerned about the possibly highly adverse industrial relations consequences of taking such a heavy-handed approach. If one looks at the legislation which has been introduced and now proclaimed by the Queensland Government, one can see that it is very authoritarian. It extends the Act from its previous application, to secondary boycotts and demarcation and preference disputes, to any industrial dispute which prevents or hinders trade and commerce between Queensland and any other part of Australia or any overseas country and makes participants in such industrial disputes liable to penalties of $50,000 for individuals or up to $250,000 for a trade union. The legislation also involves extensive requirements on unions regarding giving seven days notice of a strike, including notice to any employer who thinks he might be affected by any strike that a union might undertake, and also provides for amazing evidentiary provisions which require the Queensland Supreme Court to take publication in a newspaper of any speech or statement attributed to any person on behalf of a union or broadcast of any such statement by radio or television as evidence that such a statement was made, unless evidence can be produced to prove the contrary. That means that in Queensland, in an industrial dispute context, members of the Fourth Estate are raised to the highest echelons. What they say is gospel unless proved otherwise. With all due respect to the Press, I think that that is an absurd elevation of the accuracy of what it might sometimes report. Those developments in Queensland are very serious, provocative, excessive. They are quite undemocratic measures to implement and this Government strongly opposes them. We note that that Opposition is supported by many people in Queensland, including the leaders of virtually all the major churches in that State and even the Press. We note that trade unions have been expressing great anger about the legislation and in some cases have threatened to take industrial action. Let me make it quite clear that the Government does not in any way support-in fact, it strongly opposes-any industrial action by trade unions in Queensland in respect of that legislation. However, it is our intention to frustrate that legislation. In a couple of weeks I will introduce a new industrial relations Bill into this House which will contain provisions which will effectively render the Queensland legislation without effect. We believe that the Queensland legislation can be quite properly dealt with by the proper parliamentary processes of this country and without the need for any resort to industrial action. That action on our part will not be taken in isolation, but will be part of a comprehensive approach to ensuring that there is compliance with the decisions of the Commission and that we have a system of industrial relations in this country which is orderly and proper and maintains the position that this Government has brought about of very low levels of industrial disputation-a 60 per cent reduction from the levels recorded under the previous Government. Mr WHITE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and it relates, somewhat surprisingly, to the audio-visual contract for the Australian pavilion at Expo 88. The Minister will recall his remarks in this House on 25 February when he said: It is my fervent hope that one of them- that is, one of the Australian companies- will win the contract. He went on to say on radio 3LO in Melbourne on 1 April: A committee of experts will make the decision. Whatever decision they come up with, I'll gladly accept. I am a great pusher for Australia and I will be delighted if an Australian company wins. Since the Minister received the recommendation of his committee for the second time on 3 April-a recommendation that he has promised to accept-has he discussed this matter with anyone other than in Cabinet? Can he assure the House that at no time since 3 April has he tried to avoid or circumvent the committee's recommendation or to promote the cause of an overseas company? Mr JOHN BROWN —What an essay in deviousness! When I received the report of that committee I took it to the Cabinet and the Cabinet accepted it on my recommendation. As I understand the honourable member for McPherson, he is quoting from an alleged transcript of an alleged tape-recording of an alleged conversation I am supposed to have had on the phone. It is very well known that the honourable member spends most of his life looking under rocks, searching in garbage tins, down in the gutter trying to find some scandal to pin on me and almost every night he is in the House talking in the adjournment debate about another scandal. He has now reached the nadir of his existence when he tries to vilify me on some alleged transcript of some alleged tape-recording which, according to his Press releases, he has. It is fairly well known that after the next election the honourable member for McPherson will not be here because if the Australian Labor Party does not win his seat, the National Party certainly will. He will leave this House unlamented and unsung as he left the Queensland Parliament, having chased scandals for three years and having found nothing except one that involved himself. The recommendation was taken to the Cabinet once I got it from the committee and it has been accepted; Australian Audio Visuals now has the contract. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Are significant economic indicators demonstrating the wisdom of the Government's policies for Australia's current account and, in the long term, for interest rates? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. A number of indicators would lead the Government and, indeed, the community generally to have an increasing amount of confidence in the outlook for the Australian economy. I do not, however, wish to leave either the House or the community with the impression that the basic economic difficulties that have been imposed upon this country have been overcome. It is quite clear that the policies that this country must follow have to be for the long haul. Let me refer to some of the signs that are now pointing to why we in this House and in the community should have a cautious optimism about the economic events of 1987 and beyond. First of all, the December quarter national accounts showed a contribution of 1.9 percentage points to gross domestic product growth from net exports. The Westpac-Institute of Applied Economic Social Research leading index of economic activity for January indicates that that was up 9 per cent from its trough in March 1986. Very importantly-I know that the area of employment is of particular concern to the honourable member-even within the circumstances of the continuing adverse impact of the decline in the terms of trade and the constraints that that imposes upon economic policy we still have a situation where in this financial year already just under 150,000-147,500-additional jobs have been created. I think the whole community, not just the Government, in those circumstances, is entitled to take a considerable amount of credit for what is occurring. Within the balance of payments figures also I think it is a matter of very considerable credit to the community that we see in this period of the financial year an increase of some 30 per cent in manufactured exports, excluding gold. We also see a situation where, for the fifth consecutive month, there has been a further fall in the imports of consumer goods. If we look at the composition of what is happening within the balance of payments, if we look at what is happening to economic growth and if we look at what is happening to employment we see that there are very considerable reasons for optimism. I noticed in the last session that honourable members on the other side of the House were hopping up and down about interest rates. I have not heard anything from them about interest rates today. That may be because honourable members on the Opposition side of this House were disappointed about what is happening to them. On that side of the House they are disappointed that we are now seeing significant signs of falls in interest rates. I remind the House of what is happening. Ninety-day bills are now down more than 2 1/2 points; the 10-year Treasury bond rates are now down 1 1/4 points, and honourable members will be aware of the fact that most major banks have now reduced their prime rates by one-half of a per cent. I say to my friend the honourable member for Lowe that if we look at all these elements in aggregate, if we look at what is happening to growth, if we look at what is happening to the composition of our balance of payments movements-not just at the fact that they are coming down but, importantly and compositionally, at the increase in manufactured exports and the decline in the imports of consumer goods-and if we look at what is happening to interest rates we see that the combined impact of the Government's macroeconomic policies in regard to monetary, wages and fiscal policy is having the desired effect. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Prime Minister to speak into the microphone in making future answers. It is hard for us to hear him. Mr Hawke —Yes, Madam Speaker. Mr WHITE —I again direct a question to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism; I want to give him a chance to answer a question that I asked previously. Will the Minister confirm or deny that the matter of the audio-visual contract for the Australian Pavilion at Expo has been discussed outside Cabinet since 3 April? Will the Minister assure the House that at no time since that date has he tried to avoid or circumvent the committee's recommendations or to promote the cause of an overseas company? Mr JOHN BROWN —It is fairly well known that my own predilection was for the American company. I have made no secret of that. When there was a dispute about the decision that the first committee had reached, I then appointed an independent committee and I even invited the honourable member for McPherson to suggest a person to go on that committee, which suggestion, of course, he ignored. I received a report back from that committee, took it to Cabinet, and, at my recommendation, that was accepted. I am not denying in any shape or form that I might have discussed the matters that were considered by that committee-and I cannot see any reason why I should not. Mr CHYNOWETH —My question is directed to the Minister for Science. What are the implications of recent breakthroughs in superconducting? What economic and social impact will superconducting have, and can it be of any benefit to Australia? Mr BARRY JONES —Superconductivity is a physical phenomenon in which electrical resistance falls in wires or components as temperature falls towards absolute zero-that is, minus 273 degrees celsius, or zero degrees Kelvin. The lower the temperature, the smaller the resistance; so that, theoretically, at minus 273 degrees celsius electricity can flow forever in a circuit without any energy loss. But because of the cost of producing ultra low temperatures by enclosing circuitry under high pressure and liquid helium, it has not been possible or economically feasible to demonstrate or use superconductivity outside laboratories. The other phenomenon is that all magnetic flux is expelled and the substances become perfect diamagnets. However, work in China, Japan, the United States, and here in Australia as well-announced almost simultaneously in March-indicates a new approach to superconductivity, that the phenomenon can operate at far higher temperatures. The upper limits are uncertain, but unconfirmed reports indicate that temperatures of plus 17 degrees celsius-that is, 290 degrees Kelvin- have been achieved. If this is confirmed, it will have enormous implications at several levels. The first involves power transmission, in that power losses can be reduced dramatically over long distances, something that will change the pattern of energy demands in the Western world. If, of course, that led to a decline in the demand for coal from Australia, it could have serious implications for us. In relation to artificial intelligence, it will enable dramatic increases in the speed of computers and will eliminate unacceptable heat generation, making artificial intelligence-the National Party has normally associated the letters AI with artificial insemination, but it must now get up with the 1980s-a technical and economic reality, with all the attendant threats and opportunities there. In regard to medical technologies, machines such as the nuclear magnetic resonator can be made much smaller and much cheaper. Supermagnets, which would be essential in fusion research and in some forms of transport-like magnetic levitation trains-could all be transformed by the use of superconductivity. Most important for Australia is the development of the new industrial material for superconducting transmission-not a metal, as one might think, but a ceramic compound which is an yttrium-barium copper oxide. Australia and China are very rich in rare earths, but the tragedy has been that until now we have really had no commercial development of them. We have exported them for processing and then we have bought them back. I am not suggesting that industrial application of superconductivity will be immediate; it will be some years down the track. But we should be looking towards the industries of the twenty-first century, and I hope that our industrial sector will have the brains, imagination and guts to devote attention to this vital area. Mr WHITE —We wish to give the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism another chance to answer this question. When the Minister received the recommendation of his committee on 3 April-and he has now said that he did discuss it-with whom did he discuss it? Can he assure the House that during those discussions he at no time tried to avoid or circumvent the recommendation of that committee or to promote the cause of an American company? Mr JOHN BROWN —I think I answered that question a few minutes ago. I cannot see any reason at all why I should not have discussed the recommendations of that committee with anybody before I went to the Cabinet. Mr Beale —Who was it? Mr JOHN BROWN —If the honourable member asks the honourable member for McPherson for a copy of the transcript of that alleged phone conversation he might find out. The decision of the first committee was simply that the American company was far superior. Mr White —Are you quite happy for it to be released? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for McPherson will cease interjecting. He has already asked his question. Mr JOHN BROWN —Madam Speaker, if he wants to get really into the cave by-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will just answer the question. Mr JOHN BROWN —This is part of the answer. If the honourable member wants to get really into the cave by tabling an alleged transcript of an alleged-illegally obtained if it was-phone conversation, that is up to him. Nothing would be below him, so I would not be surprised if he did. He has already put out Press releases saying that this transcript alleged serious ministerial impropriety. The honourable member is quite prepared to vilify me on an unverified transcript of an unspecified alleged phone conversation. Mr Howard —Answer the question; don't bluster. Mr JOHN BROWN —I will answer the question in my way, without any assistance from you, Mickey Mouse. If the Leader of the Opposition had half a brain he would not have the honourable member for McPherson sitting on the front bench; he would have him up the back where he belongs and he would have the honourable member for Fadden, who knows something about the subject that the honourable member for McPherson is supposed to cover, down on the front bench. The first committee said quite clearly-seven to nothing-that the American proposal was much superior. The second committee-I do not mind revealing a little bit of this information-said that there could be no comparison of the theatrical merits of the two propositions; the only difference was the price-the $1m. But there were some people on that committee who expressed the opinion that, if the award was made to the Australian company on the strength of the disparity in price, probably the bulk of that million dollars needed to be spent propping up the Australian company to make it anywhere near the standard of the American company. That was a very serious quandary for me to ponder. Eventually I accepted the decision of the committee, after reference to previous members of my committee-and I think they were entitled to comment. I took the recommendations to the Cabinet-it is all there in the Cabinet papers if the honourable member can wait long enough for them to be released-and I unequivocally recommended to the Cabinet that we accept the decision of the committee. If I have done anything wrong in that context, the honourable member should let me know. Mr HUMPHREYS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Has the Government received any requests to recognise the Queensland members of the National Party of Australia as a separate party for the purpose of parliamentary benefits? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for Griffith for his question, which I know is based on a lot of other questions that have been raised in the three weeks since the House last met. We have had two major splits. The wets and the dries in the Liberal Party have now formally split. So that the hill tribes to the north can understand what has happened, I will use a country term and refer to the two groups in the National Party that have split as the oranges and lemons-the lemons from Queensland and the oranges from down south. We have had no formal request for any further recognition of new leadership although, my God, when they threatened us with our old friend Ian Robinson I thought: `We are gone'. Perhaps the Leader of the National Party can inform the House formally after Question Time whether this is correct but as I understand it now, there can be formal meetings of the wets and formal meetings of the dries and then formal meetings of the wets and the dries. There can be meetings of the lemons and meetings of the oranges and then formal meetings of the oranges and lemons. But the oranges and lemons cannot meet with the wets and the dries. I understand that the oranges can meet with the wets and the lemons can meet with the dries but there is no cross-fertilisation. After the oranges and lemons have met to develop National Party policy, the oranges and their leadership leave the room to meet with the wets and the dries to formulate a different policy. We have not had the opportunity since the oranges and lemons met this morning to see what the king lemon up north thinks about all this because he is likely to have a view. Of course, in the major split we have had in the once great Liberal Party since we last met, we are now told we have the driest front bench-the best and the brightest-that we have ever had. I do not know whether the honourable members for Goldstein, Warringah and Boothby and others on the back bench accept that they do not have as much ability as some members on the Opposition front bench. I think they probably think they have. When we hear talk about this being the driest front bench, I am reminded of something that happened when I was shearing at one of the properties of Ian McLachlan-that poor cocky from South Australia who is always battling. I said to an old station hand near Tibooburra, as I had never been there before: `Gee mate, it's pretty dry out here'. `Dry?' he said. `When the rest of the world got 40 inches, we got 17 points'. That remark reminds me of this front bench. The dries are going to formulate policy to put up to the Australian people, irrespective of the views of the rest of the Liberal Party and irrespective of the views of the National Party. We await with great anxiety what will come from this mixture of factions that are going to meet separately to develop their policy-- Mr Tim Fischer —What about Len Keogh? Mr YOUNG —Len Keogh is all right. Have a look at him. Have you ever seen him look so happy? The other thing I am greatly disturbed about, and which I think the Leader of the Opposition should have a look at, is this: A couple of young kids from a school in Brisbane wrote to the Liberal Party headquarters and said that they wanted some material to learn about the Liberal Party policy because they thought they might look at not only writing an essay but also joining the Liberal Party. They were sent some pamphlets about the Liberal Party. Who do honourable members think was on the front page with a great big smile? It was Andrew. So, I say to the honourable member for Koo- yong: The war is not over yet. Mr BLUNT —I refer the Minister for Social Security to his statements on Sunday concerning the extent of unemployment benefit fraud. In view of these statements, why did the Government accept the demands of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association to drop from the two-year unemployment beneficiaries review forms 12 questions, including questions relating to proof of identity, attempts by dole recipients to find jobs and whether or not they had worked while receiving benefits? Given his own admission of the extent of the problem, will he immediately reinstitute the omitted questions, proceed to stand down officers of the Department of Social Security who refuse to ask those questions, and immediately introduce a compulsory work for benefits scheme as advocated by the Opposition for the past two years? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for Richmond for his question because it gives me the opportunity to remind the House how successful the Government's efforts have been to combat welfare fraud and to contrast the record of the Government, in terms of pursuing the issue of fraud, in a way that certainly was not pursued when the current Opposition was in government. Let me just briefly refer to the purpose of the long term interviews. Those interviews were designed only partially to deal with questions of overpayments and fraud. The primary purpose of interviewing people who have been unemployed for more than two years-and there are a very large number of such people; more than 100,000-was to ascertain the current circumstances of such people, to develop some understanding of that present situation in terms of determining what appropriate additional assistance might be provided to them and to give them information on their rights and obligations, on local community services, and on employment and training opportunities, including referral to the Commonwealth Employment Service where appropriate. Another purpose of the interviews was to check on people's entitlements and to ensure that where people were not entitled to the level of benefit that they were receiving, and where they were not entitled to a benefit at all, appropriate action would be taken. On present indications those interviews are proceeding very effectively and we would expect to achieve the objectives that the Government set out to achieve, both in terms of providing information to people and, where necessary, reducing people's level of benefit where they are receiving more than they are entitled to or removing the benefit altogether if they happen to be in current employment. I repeat that the Government has done more in the last two years than any previous government with respect to dealing with the problems of overpayment and fraud. But, unlike the honourable member for Richmond, we are not obsessed with the question of fraud, we are not obsessed with the question of overpayment and we are not obsessed with questions of efficiency. We are also interested in the development of policy which is why a major area of the social security review has been devoted to looking at policies with respect to people of work force age, including the unemployed, and a series of papers is being released. I understand that not one of the papers that have so far been released by the social security review has received a single intelligent comment, let alone a policy suggestion, from the honour-able member for Richmond, who is entirely bereft of ideas and has no interest whatever in the development of rational policies for social security. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the resolutions of the 125th meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Queenstown, New Zealand, on 6 February 1987. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the resolutions of the second meeting of the Australian Soil Conservation Council held in Queenstown, New Zealand, on 6 February 1987. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969, I present the annual report of the Fishing Industry Research Committee for 1985-86. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947, I present the final annual report of the Services Canteens Trust Fund for 1986, together with the Auditor-General's report, audited financial statements and balance sheets on this fund. The final report marks the conclusion of 40 years of extraordinary dedication and compassion by the trustees, the regional committees and the staff in administering over $23m for the benefit of their wartime comrades and their dependants. The fund's task is now over and was finished as quietly as its four decades of service. It has truly earned the gratitude of the Parliament and the nation. I shall be writing to all the trustees to express my thanks for not only the success of their endeavours but also the example they leave behind. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —For the information of honourable members, I present a statement of expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for March 1987. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on pulp, paper, paper products and printing industries. The report was circulated to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Terri- tories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements dated February 1987. Mr PORTER(Barker) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PORTER —I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr PORTER —During the recess, on Sunday 12 April, I addressed a health seminar in Sydney and some of the media reports, including both radio news reports of that day and newspaper reports the next morning, suggested that my speech was the launch of the Opposition's health policy. I wish to make it clear that my speech merely puts some figures to our existing commitments in the health field and our detailed health policy will be released at a later date. Mr DOWNER(Mayo) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DOWNER —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr DOWNER —On 22 April the Adelaide Advertiser reported on its front page that two of my pet hates were `community arts groups and trade unionists'. It is not true that two of my pet hates are community arts groups or trade unionists. I have a great deal of respect for people involved in community arts and many members of the trade union movement are strong supporters of the Liberal Party of Australia. The second misrepresentation in the same article was `that Stobie pole painters and story tellers would remain at the top of the funding cut hit list'. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Perhaps this is not true. This article was checked with the honourable member before it was printed and he okayed the printing of it. He is misleading the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr DOWNER —It is not true that I told Deborah Cornwall of the Adelaide Advertiser that storytellers and Stobie pole painters would be at the top of my funding cut hit list. I simply referred to the fact that the Trades and Labour Council had received a grant to use a storyteller and that I had objected to that grant. I expressed no objection to the practice of Stobie pole painting. The third misrepresentation has just come from the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). Deborah Cornwall, the journalist on the Advertiser, cleared the quotations she printed in her article: She did not clear the whole of the article with me on the telephone. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 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. by Mr N.A. Brown,Mr Fife,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Jull,Mr Nehl,Mr Ian Robinson 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 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 N.A. Brown,Mr Fife,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Jull and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most stongly oppose the process of food irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to show restraint with equity. In particular, the decision to defer the November pension adjustments has resulted in a loss of $25.62 for a single pensioner and $21.36 for each married pensioner. The prospect of a further deferral of the May adjustment will result in the loss of another $35.10 for a single pensioner and $29.10 for each married pensioner. When you are scrimping to make ends meet, as is the case with many pensioners, you can't afford such a cut in living standards. Pensioners are looking for a new deal from politicians-more of the same is not good enough! Your petitioners request an immediate return to payment of May and November C.P.I. increases, and as is duty bound will ever pray the Government grant this request now. by Mr Leo McLeay,Mr Millar,Mr Sharp,Mr West and Mr Wright. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the decision to curtail the landscaping at the New Parliament House is a false economy. The landscaping is an integral part of the building and environs which together will be one of the world's most exciting examples of architectural design this century. Incomplete it will be a monument to our lack of resolve as a nation. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Government: (a) Reconsider the reinstatement of the landscaping according to the present plans (b) Consider savings which may be made in other areas to ensure this may be achieved. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly,Mr Langmore and Mr Scholes. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Charles. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australian 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 Ewen Cameron 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 we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office agencies are to be closed. they provide network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that The House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 Oct. 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 Oct. 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 Oct. 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 is having a detrimental effect on the car industry generally in South Australia, and more particularly, on employment in that industry. 2. The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 contains many anomalies, inconsistencies and mistakes in drafting and its administrative implementation is an unwarranted burden on Australian businesses and the Australian taxpayer. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House repeal as a matter of utmost urgency this regressive legislation which imposes a disincentive to economic and employment growth, thereby jeopardising the well-being and living standards of all Australians. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. It is unjust for any person to be liable for tax on benefits received by another person. 2. Compliance with FBT will increase administrative costs for all employers including Local, State and Federal Government Departments. 3. FBT is an inefficient tax, which will require the Tax Office to employ an army of bureaucrats. 4. FBT is inequitable because liability arises regardless of capacity to pay. 5. The FBT laws are extremely complex. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. This Petition of the Undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The introduction of an administrative charge for annual enrolment will restrict access to higher education for a range of disadvantaged groups, particularly women, rural dwellers and some low income earners. 2. Students will be deterred from study because of the probable escalation in the charge in future Budgets, prohibiting students' ability to plan the long term costs of their education. 3. The introduction of an administrative charge is contrary to the education provisions of the ALP/ACTU Accord and ALP policy which states that the party `will maintain the provision of free tertiary education.' Your petitioners therefore pray that the legislation providing for the annual administrative charge for higher education students be repealed. Your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: The costs of raising children are rising and the value of government provided economic assistance to families is declining. Families raising children are providing a vital function to society and are deserving of government provided economic assistance. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: 1. Restore family allowance payments to their 1976 real money value. 2. Provide for the regular and automatic indexation of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the Dependant Spouse Rebate to $1851 per annum, and convert it to a cash payment given directly to the non-income earning spouse. 4. Amend the Family Income Supplement Scheme so that its value is increased, its eligibility provisions widened and its withdrawal provisions eased. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 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 pro- cess; 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australian Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not 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 Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Federal Government immediately divert national highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will humbly pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The Education funding cuts released in the 1986 Federal Budget will severely affect the standard of education in South Australia. 2. Computer Education will suffer at a time when computers and technology have a high priority in our schools and the work force. 3. There will be reduced advisory services and resources in areas in which a large number of beginning teachers and staff in their first promotion position are employed. 4. There will be no improvement in class sizes. 5. Existing subject choices for students will not be guaranteed. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will restore all Federal Education funding to the levels of funding existing prior to the 1986 Budget. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a nuclear test moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers; that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the following residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That we Australian young people wish to grow up without the threat of nuclear war hanging over us, now and in the future. President Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative (Star Wars) which will have weapons systems in outer space, represents a new and most serious danger to the whole world. It will step up the arms race and greatly increase the risk of nuclear conflict at a time when the reduction of armaments is the most important thing for all of us. We believe that the `Star Wars' project will waste billions of dollars on the unnecessary militarisation of outer space which could be better used for the peaceful exploration of outer space and for the solution of humanity's pressing problems on earth. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House publicly condemn the `Star Wars' plans and take every action to ensure Australia is not associated in any way. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the wake of the Chernobyl Reactor disaster, no nuclear reactor can be considered entirely safe. Your petitioners therefore pray that the government close down the Lucas Heights reactors immediately and permanently, and that no new nuclear reactors be built within Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. 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: Condemn the Hawke Labor Government's high tax policies and state our total opposition to the introduction of any new taxes including a wealth tax on the net wealth of individual Australians and Australian business. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Not introduce an investment destroying wealth tax into the House of Representatives. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia in the Division of Hinkler respectfully showeth: 1. That contributors and pensioners of both the Defence Force and Public Service Superannuation schemes are outraged at the consequences of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation and Amendments Act 1986. 2. That the Government's decision to discount by 2% the benefits of members of the Australian Defence Forces and Australian Public Service has broken a trust which should exist between contributors and the Government. 3. That this decision to discount the retirement benefits and pensions has seriously lowered the morale and commitment of servicemen and public servants as well as affecting their financial security and that of their families. 4. That these beneficiaries and pensioners are being called on to suffer a permanent reduction in their pensions from 10th October 1986 until death or the death of their spouses and that this reduction will be compounded over the continuing years. Your petitioners humbly pray that legislation be enacted to ensure that 1987 pension increases be based on the rate of pension applicable between June 1986 and the 9th October 1986. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners at La Trobe University, Bundoora, in the Federal Electorate of Jagajaga, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education student in Appropriation Bill 1986-1987 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We, the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-87, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Staples. Petitions received. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Assent to the following Bills reported: Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Amendment Bill 1986 Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The urgent necessity to take measures in addition to a tough mini-Budget to prevent a further decline in the living standards of the Australian family. 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 CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.05) —This afternoon at Question Time a most interesting thing occurred. I asked the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about the tax that a family on average weekly earnings paid in 1983 and compared that with the tax that a family on similar income, average weekly earnings, would pay now. I asked him specifically whether it was true that in March 1983 a single income family on average weekly earnings paid $65 a week in tax. I asked whether that family now paid $102 a week in tax-an increase of $37-and whether it was also true that after the greatest tax reform in Australia's history, introduced by the present Treasurer, that family would still pay $102 a week in tax. The Treasurer did not answer the question at all. What he did was point out the benefits to higher income earners from a reduction in the top marginal rate of 60c in the dollar. Even that was not correct because the top marginal rate under this Treasurer was 61 1/4c in the dollar and it has been dropped not to 49c after 1 July this year but to 50 1/4c in the dollar-still over half. He talked only about the benefits of the 1 July changes in tax to upper income earners. That is very significant. The Treasurer then went on to say that all those people who receive dividend income would be cheering the Government because they would benefit from his scheme for imputation. That is certainly true. I do not deny the Treasurer any credit at all for his reduction in the top marginal rate from over 60c in the dollar to over 50c or for the imputation scheme which will be debated in this House probably next week. We welcome those changes. But what was demonstrated in the House this afternoon was the Treasurer's complete lack of understanding of what is happening to the average family in Australia. This Treasurer has moved so far from Bankstown via Elizabeth Bay to Red Hill in Canberra that he has absolutely forgotten his roots and he has forgotten the supposed base of support for the party of which he is a member. The Treasurer looked imperiously across at us and said: `The people you represent, the people who receive dividends and the people on the 60c in the dollar rate, should be very pleased with my actions'. Let me tell the Treasurer that the people we in the Liberal and National parties represent are the ordinary families of Australia. They are the people whose living standards have been squeezed mercilessly by this Government. Pay as you earn taxation has gone up from $65 to $102 a week. Interest payments have gone up by $26 a week from $545 a month to $660 a month. The cost of basic private health insurance has gone up from $9.60 a week to $14.30-an increase of $4.70. During this period average weekly earnings have gone up by $119 a week-an increase of 32 per cent-but the consumer price index has gone up over the same period by 29 1/2 per cent. So the real wage increase in real dollars over this period has been $9 a week. In fact, on tax alone, the average weekly earnings family would have to have had an additional tax cut of $15 a week to bring it back to nearly the same position it enjoyed under the Fraser Government. That is the story of devastation on the family. The Treasurer is not in the House to answer it. The hapless Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has been sent in to reply on behalf of the Government but the responsibility for the squeeze on the average Australian family rests fairly and squarely with the Government, with the Treasurer. If any more evidence of the massive failure of economic policy is needed, it is in what has happened to the ordinary Australian family. Economics is of no value, all the policies, all the meetings with international financiers, all the hard work of officials in the Department of the Treasury, all the meetings that the Treasurer might have in boardrooms around Australia and all the money market dealers who might think he is marvellous are of no account if at the end of the equation the lot of the average family is not improved. If one thing has been proven beyond doubt it is that under the Hawke-Keating Government the average family has been squeezed mercilessly. If the Government wants any excuse or reason for its continuing poor performances in the opinion polls, it is that people in average families all around Australia know exactly where the blame lies. There is further evidence of economic failure-there is the evidence of interest rates in Australia being twice what they are overseas; there is the evidence of our inflation rate of about 10 per cent being four times that of overseas inflation rates; there is the evidence that wages have increased consistently at a higher rate than those of our competitors. Ever since the Fraser wage pause was completed, Australian wage rates have risen uncompetitively under this Government. Look at our debt position. We owe abroad more than $100 billion and we spend 40c in every dollar we earn in export income in servicing that debt. What sort of a household is that which spends 40c of every dollar earned servicing its debt? Government debt has been the fastest growing proportion of our total debt. We have had a plethora of new taxes. We have had 800 or 900 extra pages added to the Income Tax Assessment Act. Company tax has gone up from 46c to 49c in the dollar. A fringe benefits tax has been added to our taxes. Entertainment expenses are no longer deductible and negative gearing provisions have been removed. A capital gains tax has been introduced, as has a resource rental tax on explorers for oil and minerals. A foreign tax credit scheme has been introduced. Indeed, the only thing that the Treasurer can point to which is of benefit to taxpayers is the imputation scheme which benefits 15 per cent of the shareholders of Australia's companies. That is the only positive benefit that the Treasurer can come up with. Meanwhile, the average family's rate of tax has gone up from 17 1/2 per cent to 20 1/2 per cent. The marginal rate of tax for the average family has gone up from 30c in the dollar to 40c. While the Treasurer tells the House at Question Time what a wonderful deal he is giving higher income earners as from 1 July, everyone in the House should remember that for the average family on average weekly earnings the average rate of tax has gone up from 17 1/2 per cent to 20 1/2 per cent and the top marginal rate of tax at the level of income has gone up from 30c in the dollar to 40c. Nothing that the Minister for Social Security might say about social security programs will alter the basic family-dollar equation. If this Government is to be judged by the Australian people at the next election, it will be judged on what it has done to the family. I will not overlook the plight of small business. In the first three-quarters of the present financial year the rate of bankruptcies in small business has gone up by 40 per cent. Is there any sign at all of the investment in new productive enterprises that is needed to turn this situation around? There is not. High interest rates, high inflation and high taxes are preventing people from investing in the enterprises and jobs on which Australia's economic life depends and on which the average family must depend for increasing wealth in the future. That investment is not occurring because this Government does not understand what makes people invest. What needs to be done to get us out of this terrible mess? To simplify the matter, I point out that there are just three big tasks which must be faced by this Government. If it cannot face up to them, it should stand aside and let us get on with the job. The three big tasks are these: First, to cut spending; second, to reduce and reform taxation; and third, to sort out the impossible tangle of Australia's archaic industrial relations system. Those are the three big tasks. We will achieve these objectives by cutting our inflation rate to somewhere near that of our overseas competitors. The citizens of those countries are enjoying interest rates of 7 or 8 per cent compared with ours which are closer to 20 per cent. We will also achieve them by reducing the inflation rate from 10 per cent to 2, 3 or 4 per cent-levels enjoyed by other countries-by reversing the disastrous balance of payments deficit, by reducing government and overseas debt and, above all, by boosting investments in productive enterprises without which we will never recover from our economic malaise. The Government has said that it will tackle the first of these tasks in its May economic statement. We welcome the fact that it finally decided to have a May economic statement for which we had been calling since the beginning of this year, but it is quite clear that in that statement it simply must reduce government spending by an initial $4 billion and that the cuts must be genuine. There is no point in the Government's trying to dress up those expenditure cuts. There is no point in substituting for real expenditure cuts on government programs the sale of assets, for example-by selling off our embassy building in Japan or any other assets that it may want to sell off-any deferrals of expenditure, with which it came across last August when it fudged the thing, such as by deferring pension payments or other payments, accounting differences, Reserve Bank of Australia profits and all this sort of fudging of the books to make it look as if it is cutting expenditure when it is not really cutting it. There is also no point in saying that there will be no increases in taxes. We will be watching for that because in last August's Budget the Government fudged that, too, and increased taxes by $1,500m. We want a good May statement, and we will be watching it very closely indeed. A good May statement of itself is not enough. Taxes in Australia are far too high for individual incentive and to encourage investment. Our tax system quite simply is internationally uncom-petitive. When tax rates abroad for companies have gone down to below 40 per cent, why should people come here where they have gone up from 46 per cent to 49 per cent and where, in addition, we have fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax, non-deductibility of various expenses, resource rental tax, foreign tax credit schemes and all the regulation and all the nonsense that goes with that? Why would someone want to establish a new business in Australia when the after-tax profit would be higher, with equal security somewhere else? Taxes must be reformed. I believe the Treasurer has had his day in relation to tax reform. On 1 July the changes will all be there, and he is locked into a situation which simply is not good enough. The Treasurer has done his dash on tax. He will have to face the people at the end of this year on what he has been able to do in relation to tax, which is simply not good enough. Finally, I refer to the industrial relations system. Australians are crying out for an industrial relations system wherein they can sit down and talk to each other without a whole lot of clowns getting into the act. That is basically what they want. They want to be productive; they want to be sensible; they want to sit down one with another; and they do not want some outside person with different objectives interrupting their sensible communications about being more productive. It is therefore essential that the 80-year-old system of industrial relations, which served us well in the past, now be changed quite fundamentally to put the responsibility for decision making back with the managers and the people in the work place, without their being interfered with by all these other people coming in from outside. That must be the objective of industrial relations reform, and that, essentially, means a reduction in trade union power. We have to face up to that. We on this side faced up to it in relation to our policy, and the Government must face up to it. What is it doing? It is bringing in the recommendations of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems which will further strengthen trade union power and prevent increased productivity. Overall, this Government, through its economic policies, through its failure also to reform industrial relations and through the failure of its taxation policies, has put the most almighty squeeze on the average Australian family. Without fundamental change in those three areas-government spending, tax and industrial relations-the outlook for the Australian family is dismal and the outlook for this Government is terminal. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(3.20) —The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) is, I think, one of the nicer people around the Parliament, and he speaks with the nicest of tones, but once again the honourable member for Mackellar has said absolutely nothing. He concluded his speech by saying, in stentorian tones, that what we need to do in this country is to cut spending, reduce and restructure tax, and reform industrial relations. Yet, we heard not a single word from the honourable member for Mackellar about how the Opposition plans to achieve any of those three objectives. He said not a single specific word in relation to this aspect of the Opposition's policy. I think that that is quite extraordinary. The Opposition planned to give the Government some advice. The Government has decided to go ahead with the May statement and has made it very clear that that statement will be a tough statement involving a rigorous cutting of government expenditure. The honourable member for Mac-kellar said not a single word about the priorities, in terms of the Opposition, of where those cuts ought to be made. There was no suggestion of a specific program that might need to be especially examined. Of course, this is essentially the problem not only of divided parties but of divisions within parties, with wets and dries, as different as oranges and lemons, and a kind of factionalism that has absolutely run riot. So, it becomes absolutely impossible for the honourable member for Mackellar to say in this House a single specific word in relation to policy that has any meaning at all. What we have just heard was a kind of mumbo-jumbo, a kind of strawberry fudge, sort of sweet and nice and helpful but with no substance there whatever. Of course, that is very frustrating to the kinds of forces that are moving to influence the conservative parties and to determine the shape of Opposition or coalition policies. For example, this morning Andrew Hay was asked this question: `Do you think Mr Howard and the Liberal Party will suffer by not releasing policies, such as a tax policy, now?' He replied: `Yes, I do believe that the Party will suffer, because if you are going to come up with radical proposals which in themselves entail very significant future change, then you need to be able to persuade the community of their validity'. Further, in response to the question: `Do you think John Howard won't come up with the policies that will satisfy business?', he replied: `Look, he may well do that, but my point is that it has been too long in coming and, secondly, that the Liberal Party is totally bogged down'. Of course, the Liberal Party is totally bogged down, as indeed is the National Party, because we have internecine warfare going on; there are clashes, which are not merely clashes over personalities but fundamental clashes in terms of policy and the interests under which various policies would benefit. We cannot have the Opposition's tax policy announced because members opposite, and particularly the dry element, want to run the concept of a consumption tax. That is fundamental to the development of the alternative economic policy. We cannot have the consumption tax because, essentially, the National Party-and I think this is something that it might be united on-will not have a bar of the notion of a consumption tax. So, that is the reason why members opposite cannot outline a taxation policy. Let me say that it is very easy indeed-and I think that I am well qualified to speak on this subject-to speak about cutting expenditure. It is very easy to talk about that in general terms, but it is extraordinarily difficult when one gets down to the particular problem. The Government inherited a massive problem. Certainly members of the House will recall the massive deficit that was in prospect when we came into government, and over four years we have had to face the task of taking many tough measures indeed in each Budget. We have seen the deficit come down from 4.2 per cent of gross domestic product to, in the 1986-87 Budget, 1.4 per cent of GDP. Again, it seems very easy to say that. But to cut the range of programs-an unspecified range-that produces a May statement that is respected and is seen to be rigorous is not easy. On the theme of divisions and the reasons for them, it is interesting that we are talking about families, because there is not much family spirit on the other side of the House. I refer to a speech made recently by Senator Peter Baume, who I understand is no longer a member of the Opposition front bench. I thought it was a very interesting speech and one well worth reading. I am sure the wets would be interested, but the dries might like to read it as well. In part, Senator Baume said: It is a sad commentary on the motive power of greed and self-interest that many of those who most criticise cash provision for others through the social welfare system in Australia are the same people who are to the forefront in advocating the extension of benefits for themselves, payable through the taxation system. Too often there is a call to restrict the eligibility for benefits under the social welfare system for someone else and a simultaneous and associated demand that benefits available through tax rebates be extended for whoever is making the claim. Benefits given through the taxation system are, by definition, limited to those with income sufficient to require the payment of tax. I think that what Senator Baume is saying to members of his own Party is that one cannot look just at the one side of the ledger. One cannot just do what we just heard the honourable member for Mackellar, in his very nice way, do; that is, to go through a series of nasties that he did not want-but not nasties that would affect the average family. Let us consider the things that he wanted to throw out. The fringe benefits tax is not affecting the average family; the entertainment tax is not affecting the average family; the capital gains tax is not affecting the average family; the resource rent tax is not affecting the average family. They are taxes which redistribute within the system and make it possible to sustain some fairness in relation to the overall tax and welfare systems. That is what those taxes are about, and they are the taxes that the honourable member for Mackellar nominated as ones that he wants to get rid of. Of course, if one gets rid of those taxes one has to pay for them. One has to find the revenue somewhere else or one has to cut very deeply indeed. Of course, we will never hear this from the Opposition. We hear about all the things that honourable members opposite will protect-$14 billion worth of things to be protected or enhanced, mostly for people who are very well off indeed, if I might say so. No commitments of any specificity are made in the social welfare area; but they protect those interests. I want to come back to the framework that it is important not only to look at taxes but also to look at social expenditure or what the Government is doing with its money. I remind the House that in every Budget we have made massive cutbacks in relation to social expenditure. We have made very significant cuts and no doubt there will be further cuts in the May statement. But let us have a look at the family on average weekly earnings. In terms of the current rounds of tax cuts in December and June, such families are receiving something like $10 a week. That is an important part of their real income. They are also wage earners, and the honourable member for Mackellar referred to wage earners. In terms of wages as against price movements, over the period that we have been in government there has been something like a 29 per cent increase in wages, or a 6 per cent decrease in real terms. So, considerable restraint has been delivered by the wage earners. We think that is fair enough because they are getting some of the benefits of tax cuts and some other benefits in terms of the social wage. But let us look across at the other side of the ledger and ask: `What would the Opposition do in relation to wages?'. The Opposition's policy has been to urge a wage freeze in 18 out of the last 20 national wage cases. What does that actually mean in dollar terms? Families would be $106 a week worse off if the Opposition's policy had been adopted every time it had been advocated at the national wage case. In terms of real living standards, average Australian families are not very well off. I am talking about families who are receiving an income of around $20,000 to $25,000. What else have families been eligible for during the period of our Government and what areas have changed? Clearly, Medicare has been extremely important in providing people with access to health care in a cheaper way than happened under any previous health system. The honourable member for Mackellar ought to know about that because he invented about three of the previous Government's health systems. So Medicare is part of the social wage. It is part of the real income of the average family. Many families on the average wage are young families. One of the great problems within this community has been the failure to develop a system of child care. One of the priorities of the Government, one which has been very heavily targeted to low income families, has been the delivery of 20,000 child care places. During our time in Government more child care places have been built than were built in the whole previous history of this Commonwealth. Many families with average incomes between $25,000 and $35,000 are young home buyers. The honourable member for Mackellar mentioned the subject of interest rates. Of course the Government is concerned about interest rates. That is the reason why established home buyers have had their interest rates protected despite the movement towards deregulation of home loan interest rates. This was a move, incidentally, which the Opposition welcomed and supported. This Government-not the previous Government-put in place the first home buyers scheme. Two hundred and thirty thousand households in Australia-and again, this has been very heavily targeted to a little above average weekly earnings-have received the benefit of those policies. It is very easy to talk about the family. We had the chocolate fudge in December from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) about the family, about what lovely values there were associated with family life in Australia. But we have not had from the Opposition a single substantive policy in relation to families. We have not even had a definition of `families'. It is quite clear that when we talk about families we are simply talking about people. We are talking about young people and older people. We are talking about people with children and people without children. There is an enormous diversity of families around Australia. Of course, when the Opposition talks about cutting, do not for a moment think that it is not going to cut into families. After all, we heard the National Party member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) talking about how people were going to squeal like stuck pigs. He said that of course the pension would have to be frozen. Pensioners are part of families. We have tried to sustain over time the real income of pensioners. We have also tried to do something more than that. We have tried to make it possible through the home and community care program for elderly family members to live longer in their own homes and be supported within their local community. Younger people with young children will be less worried if they know that kind of program is being developed. That is part of the social wage. It is part of the real living standards and real income of people within the Australian community. Through Priority One: Young Australia there has been a doubling of the support that is provided to families on around average weekly earnings with young teenagers of 16 and 17 years of age. When we came to office in 1983 kids were leaving schools in droves. Australia had the lowest retention rate in secondary education of any country in the Western world. What has this Government done? It has doubled the family income support for those young people so that they will be encouraged to stay at school longer and so that they will not finish up on the unemployment benefit, which the Opposition wants to remove and abolish. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) said that we ought to give young people a hessian bag and tell them to pick up rubbish. That is the Opposition's policy in relation to young kids on the unemployment benefit. What we have said is: `Let us encourage them to stay at school. Let us pay them $40 a week this year. Let us pay families $50 a week to help those young people stay on at school'. How often have we heard kids say: `Look, I could not stay at school; the family could not afford it.'? We have tackled that. It is all very well for the honourable member for Mackellar to talk a little bit tough. But he wants to talk tough without any compassion, without any understanding and without trying to support people during what admittedly has been a very difficult economic period when we have seen our national income reduced by the problems associated with the balance of trade. That has created an enormous tension. I am sure that the Australian people have no confidence that the four groups opposite have even begun to grapple with the fundamental underlying problems not only of managing an economy but also of being a bit fair about it and giving our kids a fair go and a leg up occasionally. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(3.35) —We on this side of the House have listened with great interest to a number of the points made by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). At no stage did he address any of the specifics that relate to this matter of public importance. He did not address in any detail the situation of Australian families today or how that relates, in fact, to the coming May expenditure statement. Of course, the Minister brought out the old furphy about the terrible mess that this Government inherited, how it picked up a huge deficit and how it has been trying to put it right ever since. We know perfectly well that the figures that the Government talked about in relation to that deficit were forward estimate figures and not the deficit that was finally brought down. I would like to turn more particularly to the actual record of those years and the record of the Labor Government as it relates to its own spending pattern since it was elected in March 1983. If one looks at the entire period of the last Liberal Government from 1975 to 1983 and at the average rate of growth in real terms in Federal spending per annum, one finds that during those eight years the rate of growth was only 2.1 per cent. Compare that figure with the rate of growth under this Government. It has now been in office for four years. It can make no more excuses about anything. The average rate of growth in Federal spending in real terms per annum under this Government during the four years it has been in office has been 4 per cent. That is twice the rate of growth in real terms in Federal spending that existed under the last Liberal Government. This Government is running out of excuses, particularly when one looks at its record. I would go further and say that it is running out of time because the sorts of decisions it is trying to arrive at in relation to the May expenditure statement are the sorts of decisions it should have been trying to arrive at in the Budget of 1984 or 1985. That was the time to try to reel back the very heavy and excessive expenditure of its first year or two in office. I think the Government has now left it too late. The May expenditure statement and the Budget of this year are not going to change anything. The heavy spending in those early years and the overall higher rate of spending of this Government have had to be paid for by a number of taxation measures which we have seen since this Government came to office, including the superannuation lump sum tax, the quite stupid fringe benefits tax, the unjust capital gains tax, plus of course, the inflationary creep that we have seen in relation to the tax scales. Australian families have ended up paying for this. This can be seen quite clearly when we look at the figures that are available in relation to the annual income and the various taxation and other expenses of the average taxpayer in Australia today. When this Hawke Government was first elected in March 1983 the gross annual income of a full time adult male worker was $19,307. By December 1986 that figure had become $25,476. When we set against that the various taxation imposts that have been imposed on that single income earner and his family and also the effect of inflation we find that his real disposable income in that period-March 1983 to December 1986-went from $21,655 to $20,036 per annum. So there has been a marked fall in real disposable income for a full time adult male worker-that is, a single income earner with a family. There are a number of reasons for that. We have seen a very substantial rise in the amount of pay as you earn tax during that period. In March 1983 for an average single income earner with a family it was $4,414 and by December 1986 it became $6,371. We then add the Medicare levy of $318, as it existed in December last year, and we see that gross tax in that period has gone from $4,414 to $6,689. When we set against that some of the other things that have or have not been done we can see why the Australian family is so badly off today. During the whole of the time that this Go-vernment has been in office the dependent spouse rebate has not been changed; it has remained at $1,030. The concessional expenditure rebate has been dispensed with and, of course, because of Medicare we have seen the end of the health insurance rebate. If we then look at what has happened to the family allowance during that period we find that for a full time adult male worker, it has stayed at an average of $664 per annum from March 1983 to December 1986. In that same period we have seen hospital insurance premiums for that same person go from $386 per annum in March 1983 to $445 per annum. When we add to that the effect of inflation it is no wonder that there has been a marked deterioration in the position of the single income earner and the average family in Australia today. That is directly a result of the increased taxes that this Government has brought down to pay for its heavy expenditure programs, particularly in those years. It is also the result of a number of its taxation measures, particularly its failure to adjust the dependent spouse rebate. The family is so badly off today because the Government has not adjusted the family allowance and has allowed pay as you earn taxation to creep up. Another reason the family is so badly off today is that the very prosperity of our economy has been weakened by the imposts that have been placed upon business. We have to look only at the bankruptcy statistics that have been put down by the-- Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Let me just read to you the terms of the matter of public importance to remind you what we are debating. It states: The urgent necessity to take measures in addition to a tough mini-Budget to prevent a further decline in the living standards of the Australian family. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you quite seriously that neither the honourable member for Mackellar nor the honourable member who is currently speaking has addressed the matter. I have not heard a single measure advocated and that would seem to me to indicate that we are really getting irrelevant speeches. I ask you to ask honourable members to make their remarks relevant. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! A debate on a matter of public importance is usually wide ranging. Members often digress a little from the matter that is before the Chair. The Minister does have a point, though. During the progress of the debate honourable members should attack at least a little of the matter that is before the Chair. Mr Carlton —The point of order was a nonsense. The Minister was just wasting time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am sure that the honourable member for Bruce will bear that in mind and the honourable member for Mackellar need not bother to tell me what my job is. I call the honourable member for Bruce. Mr ALDRED —It is interesting to note that the Minister is so sensitive to some statistics that have been produced today in this debate. I turn also to the effect that this Government's tax measures have had on business. If we take the latest statistics on bankruptcies, administration orders, arrangements, assignments and compositions, we see that in 1983-84 the total number of bankruptcies was 5,501. By 1985-86 that figure had moved to 6,408 and, for the first three-quarters of 1986-87, it had moved to 6,187. If we annualise that we get a figure of 8,249 bankruptcies. That is a further reason why the position of Australian families has deteriorated so much. It also reflects the very weakened state of the economy and the fact that small and medium businesses are suffering very severely under the actions of this Government. That is why this May expenditure statement, no matter what it does, will be too late to save this Government and it will be too late for Australian families. This Government can do nothing now to get itself out of the hot water that it has put itself into. I suggest that if this Government had done some of the things that it is proposing to do now a couple of years ago, this country, Australian families, Australian businesses, and the prosperity of this nation would not be in the shambles they are in now. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(3.45) —I would like to remind the House that what we are debating in this matter of public importance brought down by the Opposition is the living standards of Australian families. I think it is worth while to remind the House and the Opposition that the greatest determinant of the living standard of any Australian family is whether a member or members of a family have jobs. In accordance with the promises we made before 1983, and which we have since honoured, we have created over half a million extra jobs in the time that we have been in government. This financial year alone about 127,000 extra jobs have been created. Every one of those jobs represents a family whose welfare has been greatly improved over the situation that applied beforehand. Let us compare that with the record of those who presume to lecture us about living standards in Australia. In the last year of the Fraser Government over a quarter of a million jobs were lost. Over a quarter of a million people had to go on social welfare as a result of the policies followed by that Government. Under the Liberal Howard-Fraser Government, that brought unemployment to around three-quarters of a million people. The unemployment rate was in double digits-around 11 per cent. As a result, I have one statistic that I am sure no honourable member opposite wants to hear. The percentage of children who were reliant on social security payments under the Fraser Government tripled from 7 per cent to around 20 per cent; yet honourable members opposite presume to tell us what we should do about the living standards of the Australian family. I really think they have an enormous hide to bring forward a matter of public importance of this kind, particularly when, as the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has pointed out, they have not advocated one single measure-I have not heard one in the entire debate-that they would take to improve those living standards. In fact, listening to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) one would think that family welfare was solely a matter of taxation, industrial relations and bankruptcy statistics. The fact that they focus on these things rather than on the important aspects of family welfare, which I will now mention, just shows the tunnel vision of the Opposition and the way in which it is totally out of touch with what is happening to families in Australia. I would like to focus on four key aspects of family welfare which the Opposition members simply did not mention. The first relates to assistance with child care. In the view of the Opposition, it is almost as though families do not contain children and that children are not legitimate members of families. In the view of this Government they are and the policies that we have followed have given effect to that belief. The second aspect I would like to mention is assistance with facilities for aged care; the third aspect is assistance for those family members with disabilities; and the final aspect is assistance to families to obtain housing. As far as the first aspect is concerned, it is an important part of our belief that an indispensable facility available to people who need to work, to single parents who need to work, and to families who need to work, is affordable and decent child care. This Government has done more in the past four years to provide affordable child care than all previous governments have achieved since Federation. That is a very substantial claim that I do not make lightly. Because we have recognised the importance of child care to enable children to be developed and to enable women to participate fully in the community, we have given it a high priority. We have more than doubled the number of child care places. There was one government-funded child care centre in my electorate when the Hawke Government came to office and there are now seven. As a consequence, the growth in places available has increased dramatically. Nationwide we have increased the number of long day care places from 42,000, which existed when we came to government, to 85,000 in June 1986, and many more have been approved since. Since that time about 50,000 additional child care places have been approved. We have not concentrated on just long day care; we have also concentrated on occasional care, family day care and outside school hours care. By June next year we will have created a total of 106,000 places which is one and a half times more than were available when we came to office. That means that another 85,000 children will have access to government funded child care services. I remind the House that those services are very substantially subsidised by the Government. It costs something like $100 a week for a child in care but under the subsidy scheme, which we have greatly expanded, the amount which parents pay is often considerably less and in some cases, for those most disadvantaged, the cost is something like $10 a week. That is an extremely significant achievement for the welfare of Australian families particularly as it has taken place in a period of very considerable economic restraint. The second matter I would like to mention is the assistance we have provided to families through aged care services. Again it is as though the Opposition does not believe that elderly citizens are part of families. This Government happens to believe they are and it has given them very high priority. When we came to government the Opposition almost solely devoted expenditure to the 7 per cent of people who are in nursing homes. Those people are, of course, a very important segment of the community and we have maintained, and indeed increased, that funding to such an extent that we now spend over $1 billion-$1,100m-on supporting people in nursing homes. However, we have looked wider, at the great majority of elderly people who prefer to remain in their own homes. It is those people on whom we have attempted to focus attention through initiatives such as our home and community care program. Under the home and community care program we have sought to provide a better and wider range of domiciliary care services so that elderly people can continue to live in their own homes which most of them want to do. As a result of that program today we subsidise about twice as many home care services as were available in the year when we came to government. We have increased expenditure from just on $50m to over $130m this year and we are committed to continuing that program at an increasing rate. We have also increased the range of services through hostel subsidies which are a less expensive form of aged care but one which many people prefer. Emphasis has continued on capital funding and on a number of other aspects, particularly assessment programs, to make sure that people who take up places in nursing homes really need to be there. That is the second area in which the record of this Government is much better than that of those who presume to tell it what it should be doing about family living standards. The third area-this is one of the most crying needs that we inherited-is a better deal for people who are looking after people with disabilities. No group's living standards in Australia are so seriously depressed as the group of people who take up the obligation to look after in their own homes family members who have a disability. In my view this can have more of an impact on their living standards than any other single event that can befall them. That is why the Government established the handicapped program review which discovered what the needs are and what should best be done about them; that is why it has made an absolute priority of improving the services to those with disabilities. We are just at the beginning of that program but we have spent something like $20m on demonstration programs which tell us how in future we can do better regarding people with disabilities. Lastly, I will mention very briefly the assistance we have provided to people requiring housing. We have introduced the first home owners scheme which, for example, has had a great impact in the area I come from-the electorate of Kingston. Over 2,000 people in my electorate have received subsidies to enable them to get a roof over their heads and, hence, to achieve a decent standard of living. I do not agree for one minute that the Opposition ought to lecture this Government considering the enviable record it has had in increasing families' living standards compared with the appalling record that it had. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The time for the debate has concluded. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present volume 2 of the 263rd report of the Committee on aspects of defence equipment support. This volume is about technical documentation. Ordered that the report be printed. Ms MAYER —by leave-This report-volume 2 of the Committee's 263rd report-completes the Committee's inquiry into two aspects of defence equipment support. Volume 1 of report 263 tabled late last year examined the supply of spares and ammunition. This volume presents the Committee's findings on the provision of technical documentation for equipment operators and maintenance personnel. It contains se-veral recommendations additional to the 29 recommendations of volume 1 related to the timeliness of supply of technical documentation, the adequacy of documentation and the revision and updating of technical documentation. It also contains reports on a toxic gas accident on HMAS Stalwart and the Royal Australian Navy shipboard fire and gas control systems. These documents, together with responses from the Department of Defence, have been included in the Committee's report because of public concern about accidents on HMAS Tobruk and HMAS Stalwart. The recommendations of the four recent reports of the Committee and the findings of this report have been directed towards improving the operation and efficiency of the Department of Defence. The Committee hopes that one of the outcomes of this process will be the avoidance of any recurrence of accidents similar to those experienced on HMAS Tobruk and HMAS Stalwart. I commend the report to honourable members. Debate resumed from 18 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I take it that it is the wish of the House to debate the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill, the Fishing Industry Research Amendment Bill and the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill together. There being no objection, I will allow that course of action. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(3.58) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the three Bills to which you have just referred are the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill, the Fishing Industry Research Amendment Bill and the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill. The purpose of these Bills is to strengthen powers of fishery inspectors under three existing Acts and to formalise fishing industry research under the general rural industry research fund guidelines. The Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill makes administrative and procedural changes to the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968, the Fisheries Act 1952 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984. The Bill streamlines administrative actions in preparing notices containing prohibitions against certain activities within the fisheries covered by the Acts. It widens the powers of fisheries officers to search vessels or motor vehicles, in some circumstances without a warrant, or to enter land or premises and it tightens rules governing undersized fish catches. At the same time provision is made for fish caught undersized or otherwise contrary to the Acts to be returned to the seas promptly and without penalty. The Opposition accepts, although there are civil liberties problems in this area, that the fishing industry is conducted at quite a considerable distance off shore at different times and it accepts that it is a resource that cannot be abused in this fashion. So we do not oppose that proposal. The legislation also organises access to protected Torres Strait fisheries which will require extra paper work from the non-native inhabitants. Provision is made for licences to be issued over periods other than 12 months and the Bill has no financial implications. The research Bills maintain the industry's research effort but establish an administrative framework which closely resembles the rural industries research fund guidelines. A research and development council is to be established repla-cing the current Fishing Industry Research Committee and will comprise an independent chairperson, a government member and three to seven representatives with industry expertise. Those with industry experience will be appointed by a 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. Again, I am sure that the Opposition will be satisfied with this arrangement. It brings us back to the days when the Australian Wheat Board membership was changed. We discovered-I in particular-that at that stage many of the experts to be appointed, quite necessarily, to that Board were to be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry, with the obvious opportunity for some Minister, present or future, to have an excessive interest in or influence over members of the Wheat Board. This was eventually resolved by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats combining to obtain alterations from the Minister. The alterations have achieved a committee which is very similar to the one that is proposed here. This puts control in the hands of the industry, and the Opposition naturally supports that situation. The Fishing Industry Research and Development Council will produce a five-year plan for research and development and annual operational programs. Outlays by the industry will be matched dollar for dollar by the Commonwealth up to one per cent of the gross value of industry production-although in this case the matching principle will apply to spending from approved State funds rather than revenue collected from the industry and credited to those funds. We have some doubts about the manner in which the existing Research Trust Account will be wound up and the funds distributed. But the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his second reading speech, has stated that the funds will be used to buy a research vessel for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, otherwise he and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) will confer about the disposal of the residue. We raise this point because we hope that the Minister, in his reply, will give us, and the industry in particular, some solid assurances, on the record in Hansard, as to how these funds will eventually be wound up. We are well aware of the Government's present desperation in balancing its Budget. We heard the other day that it will overrun by $500m. There does not seem to be any attempt presently to do anything about it. Last year the predictions were overrun by $800m. There is no doubt a great temptation for the Government at the moment to snare funds of this nature for its own purposes. The Opposition, of course, cannot accept that. That is primarily a brief summary of the Bills that are before us today. The Opposition does not intend to oppose these Bills, but there are matters relating to the fishing industry that I would like to raise during this debate. I wish particularly to mention some of the problems associated with the fishing industry. In presenting this legislation, the Government is obviously trying to improve the opportunities for the Australian fishing industry. It is a very large industry to Australia. In fact, the lobster industry alone-an industry that is significant in my electorate-produced $168m in 1984-85, most of which, of course, related to exports. Other types of fish produced $64.3m in that year. The export value of lobster in more recent times is about $157.2m, and the figure for other fish is about $11.8m. So there is every reason to argue that the type of research projects and other activities that the Government proposes are to be encouraged but there are some problems for the industry. I think this is an appropriate time to raise them. It is interesting in terms of research to note the expertise that has been established within Western Australia by our scientists in this area. My constituents who are involved in the lobster industry are not enjoying a good season this year. They knew two years ago that that would be the case. Predictability, due to scientific research in the industry, is now so good that within quite reasonable percentages the lobster fishermen know what their catches will be like. There are not too many people involved in primary industries who can start the season by saying, `I am going to have a good year', or `I shall have a bad year'. By the way, in two years' time it is predicted that the Western Australian lobster industry will have an excellent year. Those sorts of calculations can be made. They are done principally by catching and counting the very small crayfish as they float into the shore areas. The scientists are able to tell what the catch will be like two or three years hence. The funds that are referred to in this legislation will contribute to this area. There have been other developments in the lobster industry in particular. Until recently most of the product leaving Australia was frozen. We all know that such seafood is an expensive item. The current wholesale price for lobster-that is, more or less on the jetty-is $16 to $18 a kilogram. Certainly, by the time it reaches markets in Japan and other countries, it will obviously be very expensive. People buying the product in that market are anxious that it should be fresh. I think that people the world over have always had the idea that the fresher the fish, the better it is in so many ways. The market has demanded this. Again, Australian research has come up with some solutions. Lobster is now chilled while it is still alive. It has been established that the live lobster, if it is brought to an exact temperature, becomes dormant; it hibernates; it just stops. I can be kept in that state long enough to get it to the markets in Asia that we service, provided that adequate air freight is available. With adequate air freight, a brand new and very lucrative market has been established-I guess I should say, when that air freight is adequate. Of course, if there are any hitches, one can imagine the problems. In regard to the frozen product, at least if there was a delay in aircraft departure or something of that nature, it could be rushed back to the freezerworks and held there. There is a distinct and definite time limit on the period that the lobster can be held in this dormant state. By the time it arrives in the other countries it must be put into a tank, where it starts to move around again. That is very attractive to many buyers in many restaurants. The problem for Western Australia, of course, has been the availability of export air freight. The Australian international airlines system is built traditionally around passengers. On outward bound journeys, in particular, freight has been seen as just a top-up. It has not been catered for properly, and there is generally a shortage of freight space. As the Australian dollar has fallen and many people in the perishable goods industries have sought to gain additional exports to other countries because they have become economically competitive, they have run into this brick wall of inadequate export air freight availability. In recent times I have had complaints from the wild flower industry. On one occasion a gentleman who was dealing with Qantas Airways Ltd complained to me that he had actually booked space, taken the goods-cut flowers, mind you, which cannot be put into a dormant state-to the airline, and been told that his space was not available. There are all sorts of arguments as to why this happens. For instance, priority is given to mail. But the reality is that he was looking at a huge and very expensive stack of what might as well have been dead flowers, because he could not get them to their proposed destination. Qantas is not the only airline involved. Recently I heard from another exporter who lives adjacent to my electorate. He uses sheepskins to make ug boots. He has established an excellent market in America. He has used other airlines and a freight consolidator. He rang me in desperation just before Christmas. His goods had reached Auckland, where they had been offloaded. The airline told him that the goods could not leave Auckland until January in the following year. This small businessman had $100,000 tied up in that way. In recent times the lobster industry, in particular, and, to a degree, the wet fishing industry to the north, have opened up fresh fish markets. No doubt that is the case to some degree on the east coast, where fresh tuna is being caught for the sashimi market. People involved in these industries are experiencing two forms of problem in getting their product out of the country. There is not a very large air freight market in and out of Australia. Presently, it is dictated by the amount of goods coming in. That is the profitable side of the market and the Australian export industry is suffering. Certainly until recently it had quite a competitive price structure. Compared with the cost of inwards goods, outwards goods were generally considered by the airlines as backloading but, as I said, they were taken on after the mail and passengers' baggage. We also have considerable restrictions on the number of international airlines servicing Australia. I am sure that this is part of the problem because if there were more aircraft operating into and out of Australia-admittedly some would be operating with fewer passengers-there would be more aircraft space for the export of our most profitable perishable lines, whether they be meat, fish or wild flowers. There must be many other lines, I am sure, such as vegetables and other produce of that nature. If we do not get some positive steps in this direction we will have problems. Just recently airlines servicing Australia have put their rates up by about 30 per cent. I commend our shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), who has put out Press releases complaining about that move. That is certainly not the way for Australia to remain competitive on international markets with its very popular produce of this nature. I am hoping again that the Minister will take the time to tell us what plans the Government has. Admittedly, this matter is in the transport area but we cannot divorce agriculture from transport and say that it is another Minister's responsibility. It simply is not. It is a problem for all sectors of the Government to consider, particularly as they have been advised today-and I know it to be true-that approximately 40 per cent of the value of Australia's exports is being consumed to service the huge international indebtedness that Australia has created under this Government. When the Fraser Government was defeated we owed the world $35,000m. Today, just four years later under the management of this Go-vernment, we find that that world indebtedness has risen to over $100,000m. That is a huge increase and one that this Government and all Australians must be deeply concerned about. We know that the only solution is to sell more goods overseas. The fishing industry in particular represents a magnificent way of doing this, particularly if we can get value added. I add that it is not so long ago that we in this place were astounded by what we discovered in the field of perishable air freight and the very necessary approach of getting value added in our sheep marketing. Live sheep exports, although a desirable and necessary part of our export trade, would certainly be at the bottom of the pile in value added terms. But certain exporters established in Japan, the Middle East and America sales of fresh lamb products to go straight on to supermarket shelves. This is the ultimate in value added. Australian workers were slaughtering the animals, breaking them down and packaging them in vacuum packs, in cryovac, to put them straight on the market. We then discovered that the unions which loaded the planes were putting a black ban on those products because of the activities at Mudginberri. Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face! One wonders, when we can achieve that level of value added, why people would want to disrupt those exports. That was an issue for just a short period of time. The matter to which I am referring today is continuous and of great concern to the fishing industry. It has not been resolved as yet. I know very well that the town of Geraldton, which I represent and which is the biggest single point of export for lobster in particular, is still deeply concerned that it should have reliable exports of live lobsters and the air freight capacity to ensure this. Consequently, I hope that the Minister will come up with some suggestions as to how the new committees that he is organising under this legislation can contribute. Another area that these committees should look at is management of our fisheries. I am sure that that will be part of their intention. There is a great degree of urgency in that regard. Unlike land based farming where one can go out every day and count the cattle and make judgments, for instance, about how many calves or yearlings one may slaughter and still maintain one's stock, management of fish stock is not so simple. It is particularly difficult in Western Australia. I am not a prime regulationist but I applaud the degree to which limited entry fisheries have been established in Western Australia to ensure that the breeding stock is maintained and that each year there can be continued exploitation at sensible levels. But in my mind this goes further than purely saying that X number of boats may enter a fishery and the catches of other boats must be limited, because it is a peculiar industry. Man is forever becoming more efficient in the means by which he does things. Unfortunately in many areas we have become too efficient in the way we catch fish. Until recently I represented a huge area of the south coast of Western Australia which had an excellent tuna fishing industry based simply on hand lining. The fishermen caught the smaller tuna. I see that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) is in the chamber. He now has the responsibility for what is left of the fishery in that area. Larger fish were caught further east on the southern Australian coast but I thought that the people on the south coast were doing no harm. After the industry had been established approval was given for three or four purse seine trawlers to operate. They were not to operate on the southern bluefin tuna but, I think, on the skipjack tuna. But they found that uneconomic and by one means or another they have got themselves into the tuna industry. Purse seining is conducted by very large boats. This is also an issue in the Pacific. The Pacific islands are very concerned as to the future of their fisheries because of the activities of Ame-rican boats of this nature. When we see film footage of tuna fishing the fishing is usually by handlining. It is very spectacular when the fish start biting and the fishermen start throwing them into the boats. But that method of fishing is not as efficient as purse seining; it always lets some fish get away. The problem with purse seining, conducted from the east coast only, is that the fishermen use spotter aircraft. They find the fish schooling, as they do traditionally, and the fishermen are able to run a net around the lot. As the name of this method implies, the fishermen literally zip up the net at the bottom. They then pull the ship alongside, use scoops and get the lot. Nothing gets away. That is too efficient. When I lived in the north-west of Western Australia there was a very viable snapper industry based on hand lining. But certain people came into the industry with a fish trap. It was very efficient and caught a lot of fish. But half of them could not be eaten because the fish had bashed themselves to pieces in the trap and became suitable only for cray bait. Of course, crayfishermen frequently are prepared to pay more for fish for bait to catch their product than are people for fish to eat. Those fishermen were catching too many fish. It was having quite a deleterious effect on the breeding stock. I was one of the people in the local council at the time who protested. The State Department of Fisheries quite wisely prohibited this form of fishing but I do not know whether it has been prohibited to this date in Federal waters. Although this legislation makes it easier for fisheries inspectors to go on board ships and discover certain things, the reality is that when someone has a trap on board which is permitted in one part of the water but not a couple of miles away the inspectors, unless they stay on the boat, do not know when the traps will be used. The only answer is to ban the traps altogether. I would also like to raise the issue of trawling. This is a necessary mechanism for fishing because certain species can be caught no other way. The huge Australian shrimp or prawn industry is based on trawling. This method again is very efficient in places such as Carnarvon where I have lived. But it is also very damaging to many areas of the seabed and should be allowed only where there is no alternative and only to catch species such as prawns. Recently off Kalbarri some eastern State trawlers got into what is basically reef country. I do not know what happened to their nets but rumour has it that they planed flat a lot of otherwise extremely good fishing areas. I deplore that. I was involved in correspondence with the Minister's office and I must say that I received the maximum co-operation from that office. I am told that the trawlers involved have left the area. I hope that they have not done too much damage because at the time of their arrival there was an excellent and viable hand-lining industry there exporting fresh fish overseas to ready markets for good financial returns. It is much better that we should maintain these sorts of fisheries in this way. The Australian coast is not like the North Sea. I do not think that there are many parts of the Australian fishing industry that are other than fragile. Although we sometimes kid ourselves, we do not have the levels of fish production that we would like. We do not seem to have those currents which produce fish in very large quantities and which can sustain the sort of treatment that fish receive in the North Sea and other such places. Only by limited entry and careful management and research will we maintain the industry. I am aware of the areas where trawlers work effectively and where they are doing the right thing, but even in the area of Exmouth when I was there a miscalculation was made of the capabilities of that fishery and we saw a dramatic drop in production over just two or three years. Steps were taken to overcome that and steps have also been taken in the Geraldton area because of the anticipated low returns for the current lobster season. Every fisherman's pot quota has been reduced this year by 10 per cent. That is the way the industry is controlled-by the number of pots with which a fisherman is allowed to operate and, of course, each fisherman is also licensed. That 10 per cent reduction was quite substantial, particularly for those near the bottom of the scale. It is one thing for someone with, say, 200 pots to lose 20. That person still has 180 pots to service off one boat and that is a lot of pots. But it is quite another thing for someone at the other end who has 50 or 60 pots to lose 10 per cent. That can push that person into a position in which he is not viable. Nevertheless, the fishing industry has accepted that reduction although there is concern. Although this is a State government matter, I have promised to watch very carefully to ensure that as the industry recovers these pot allocations are reinstated. The industry has supported that number of pots over a period and the drop in production has been caused only by some cyclical situation. It will recover. I sincerely hope that at that stage the State authorities will allow those people, particularly those who are at the bottom of the scale with fewer pots, to recover a sufficient number of pots to enable them to be viable with their capital commitments. The fishing industry is a great exporter for Australia. The fishing industry of Western Australia brings in $126m in export earnings and for Australia as a whole the figure is $157m. Therefore, it is an industry which needs concern and considerably more investigation. But the industry will not prosper if it cannot get to its markets. That is why I want to take a little time today to raise the problems of the airlines. I sat in with a lobbyist one day while he was arguing to allow Sri Lankan Airlines to come back into the Australian market with a combi-747 aircraft which devotes three-quarters of its space to freight and one-quarter to passengers. Sri Lankan Airlines was prepared to put in quite adequate facilities, to provide land and so on in Sri Lanka for facilities such as freezers to allow for trans-shipment to the Middle East and other places. If our local airline, Qantas Airways Ltd, and other airlines which have access to the Australian trade are not prepared to expand their facilities to a point where we can get our exports out of Australia, we will have to turn to others that will. It is as simple as that. It is easy for Qantas and those other airlines to say that they must make big profits, but most airlines today run with a reduced degree of utilisation. We must balance the profits for Australia of exporting these primary products-the perishable ones which need to arrive fresh at the markets-with the profits of our airlines. Somewhere there must be some middle ground. I am not suggesting that we force Qantas to become some sort of subsidiser of every other industry, but we must not allow its need for profits to limit the opportunity for other people in our industries, particularly our primary industries, to get their products to markets where there is a demand for the goods that they produce. In conclusion, the Opposition will not oppose these Bills. In fact, we support them because we believe that generally they are advantageous and we are aware that the industry has already given its approval. These provisions have been negotiated with the industry and they will involve limited costs to the taxpayers. We believe that they will add to the prosperity of the fishing industry in due course. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(4.26) —In addressing the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill 1987 and cognate Bills, I find it difficult to say very much after the second reading speech made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). I think that he covered the subject very adequately. It was a commonsense approach to the industry by a very commonsense Minister. I wish to dwell on that point for one moment because I think that the present Minister for Primary Industry has proved himself to be one of the most far-sighted and level-headed Ministers that this Government-or this country-has ever seen. Strangely, I found myself in some sympathy with some of the remarks made by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey)-a situation which I would not like to occur too often. However, there was one remark with which I take issue-a bit of his hyperbole which must be addressed and which has nothing whatsoever to do with this legislation. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, as he was given a certain amount of licence I assume I will be, too. I refer to his remarks about the current account debt. He talked about the enormous blowout in the current account debt for which he blamed this Government. The truth, as the honourable member well knows, is that that debt is very largely in the private sector. About 66 per cent of Australia's current account deficit is in the private sector and I, as an Australian citizen, feel no responsibility for that, nor do I feel that it impedes me in any way. If those doyens of the free enterprise system who have borrowed so heavily overseas go broke, it is their problem. It will not affect me and it certainly does not mortgage my children. It is true that as a citizen of this country I have a responsibility for the Australian national debt. I accept that responsibility as I accept somewhat more reluctantly some responsibility for the West Australian debt which was largely contracted by the unhedged borrowings of the previous Government. But I do not accept responsibility for the Queensland debt which, for the information of honourable members, is bigger than that of the Commonwealth. I return to the legislation, which consists of three Bills. I wish to address those briefly. I refer first to the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. Among the things that this Bill seeks to do is to legislate to bring into force in Australia the multinational treaty which was worked out between the United States of America and the Pacific Islands in respect of fishing in the Pacific Islands area. The honourable member for O'Connor touched very briefly on this. In a situation in which we find ourselves disconcerted by the appearance of the Libyans in the South Pacific, it may be constructive to reflect that had the Americans shown a little more foresight of and sympathy to the aspirations of the very small island states and not allowed their tuna fleet to rampage uncontrolled through the area, we may not be facing the present situation. I do not think that the Libyan threat is particularly dangerous in this area; I have great faith in the common sense of those islands and I do not believe that we will see great inroads by the Libyans, or by the Russians for that matter. However, it is well to reflect that had the Americans been a little more considerate in those early stages we may not have seen these developments take place. This Bill also enhances the power of fisheries inspectors who have considerably greater power than policemen. In reading the Bill, I do not find that the power has been enhanced enormously because the inspectors have always had what I consider to be extraordinary powers. I think that there is a potential for these powers to be a threat to civil liberties, but I understand, as does the member for O'Connor, the difficulties associated in policing an industry such as this. All I would say to the fishing industry is this: It is beholden upon those fisheries inspectors to use those powers, which are quite enormous, with discretion and common sense. I am sure that in general that is the case and I hope that is maintained. The Bills also allow for greater consultation with the industry. This is important because one is dealing generally with a group of individualists-some of them are fairly rugged individualists-and any government and any Ministry has to take into account the foibles of people such as this. Misunderstandings can and do occur. Governments have to recognise that these people often are not the sort who read the fine print. We have to have a continuing education program. It is simply not good enough to say `It is in writing there. It is in the Act. You should have read it' because we are dealing with the sort of people who very often do not read the legislation. I would like to praise the efforts of the previous Government which set up the off-shore constitutional settlement arrangement by which we overcame the nonsense of multicontrol of fisheries. Until then a State could say that it would control an area up to the three-mile limit and the Commonwealth could come in and allow a totally different set of rules to apply beyond the three-mile limit, or the reverse could occur. That was a nonsense situation, and I think it is to the credit of the previous Government that a mechanism was worked out to allow for a single control of the fisheries to the 200-mile limit. As an Australian I deplore the parochialism of Australian States. I do not think it is in our national interest and I am worried by what I see as a tendency for it to increase rather than diminish over time. Sometimes I feel that there was a greater sense of unity in this country in 1903 than there is today. I believe that, unless Australia behaves as a united nation, in the long run it will not survive. I make it clear that I think the previous Government, in very difficult circumstances, came to that understanding which will be worth while. The Government is committed to putting in matching funds for fisheries research to a maximum value of one per cent of the average annual gross value for the last three years. Money that is spent on fisheries research is well spent, and I am pleased to see that in winding up the old fisheries research resources it has been suggested by the Minister that a fisheries research vessel be acquired by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I do not know enough about the situation to comment on it, but I suggest that we look at the possibility of simply investing that money and using it to hire vessels as they are required. Most fisheries research could be undertaken by using vessels that are employed in the fisheries industry. Some specialised equipment may be required, but perhaps this could be containerised and shipped around the country to be put on various boats that are hired on a charter basis. This would be of twofold value: Firstly, I suspect that it would make the money go further and, secondly, it would help to keep the research factors in touch with the production factors. It would help to keep the liaison going between the industry and research. In the many areas of research the industry often finds itself wondering what it is all about. I know this occurs in the rural sector and I am sure it also occurs in other industries. I address that remark to the Minister. There may be very good reasons for its not being a viable option. The honourable member for O'Connor mentioned the limited entry fisheries and praised the Western Australian Government for their establishment. I tend to support him. I believe the time will come when all Australian fisheries will have limited entry. Indeed, I believe this is the only way that we can ultimately control the biomass to make sure that our industry is not overfished. With limited entry fisheries there are some problems, however. One to which the honourable member for O'Connor alluded is the problem of increased efficiency. I am not one to suggest that we stop progress in the industry. It may be the case that, with a new method of catching, a fish that is not currently commercially viable will become viable. I support that entirely. Simultaneously, my experience with fish traps has not been as bad as that of previous speakers. I have seen fish traps, properly managed, catch an excellent standard of fish. I am sure that today we have soft-sided nets that do not damage the fish in the way that was described by the previous speaker, the honourable member for O'Connor. But the fishing effort is affected. The problem with snapper fishing generally is that the season is so short that a mass of fish is caught in a short time and the price, as a consequence, crashes. The snapper industry needs, in my opinion, a sophisticated marketing effort. After all, snapper is a very palatable fish, and I believe it has a big commercial future. We need resources to store this fish so that it can be properly marketed and so that the fishermen can get a sustained return for the duration of the season and not be in the position, as many of them are in my electorate, where the price is down to $1.50 a kilogram and where it becomes totally uneconomic. I hope that some of the research moneys which will be made available on a joint basis are put into finding out where the markets are, how we can get fish to the markets and how we can establish new markets. After all, the fishing industry efforts in Australia last year had a gross value of $522.5m, of which over $4m was exported. That represented 148,900 tonnes of wet fish. It also represented in Australia an annual consumption of 17 kilograms per person. In three years that is up by some 2 1/2 kilograms. That development is to be welcomed, but there is room for a considerable increase in fish consumption which I believe can occur to a certain extent, without impinging on the amount of meat-red meat, particularly-that is consumed. I also believe that the areas of research have to be widened. There is no doubt that we have added considerably to the value added. The tuna fishing industry in Esperance was given an enormous shock when tuna quotas came in. Quick action was taken by the Minister for Agriculture in Western Australia and the Western Australian Government bought quota. It was eventually driven from the market by the South Australian fishermen who were prepared to pay far more than the Western Australian Government, but by its quick action the Western Australian Government was able to secure quota which has enabled the industry to survive in the Esperance area. The industry could not survive with the old method of catching tuna for canning. It had to look to new methods. I give enormous credit to the Minister for Agriculture in Western Australia, Julian Grill, for the work he put into sashimi research. Now a lot of the effort in Esperance is put into sashimi. One advantage that the pole fisherman has over the purse seiner is that he is much better equipped to enter the sashimi market. I would say that, because of the nature of fishing in purse seining, one simply cannot successfully sashimi fish from a purse seiner and one has either to line fish or, in the case of tuna, pole them. The fish has to be treated with enormous respect and got to the market in perfect condition. The fish are packed in individual cardboard coffins and sent to Japan where the fish are auctioned individually, and the fisherman knows how much he gets for each fish. Fishermen very soon realise that it pays to treat the fish well because it is reflected very quickly in the value that the Japanese are prepared to pay for those fish. Another innovation that is supported very strongly by the Minister for Agriculture in Western Australia is smoked tuna. To my mind it is a great delicacy. I find it preferable to smoked salmon and I look forward to the day when the parliamentary dining room has smoked tuna as an option. I might also point out to the Joint House Department that it is considerably cheaper than smoked salmon. The crayfish industry in Australia is well organised and extremely well merchandised. The fishing research effort that can be undertaken here is in relation to finding new grounds. I have been told by fishermen that new grounds do exist, to the west of us, and that there is a lot of potential in those grounds. Some of the high land rising within the Australian 200-mile limit could be a very economic location for a new crayfishing industry. It will probably need some restructuring; it will probably need a different type of boat, perhaps a bigger boat with longer sea legs. I also believe that it is possible-in fact I have done some work in this regard-to enter into a joint venture with the French for the commercialisation of the potential around the Kerguelen Islands. I might also add that if we could get a viable fishing industry established in the Kerguelen Islands, we might be able to kill the nonsense that we hear from time to time about the French changing their nuclear testing site from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean, a move that I am sure they have no intention of making. Another industry on which we ought to undertake some research is turtle fishing. I think that we have allowed the environmental people to have too much sway. The great depleter of turtles was not the commercial fishing of them but probably the advent in Australia of the fox, as thousands and thousands of young turtles were slaughtered by foxes, often at the egg stage. Young turtles run an enormous risk in going from the nest to the sea; I think there is something like only a two per cent survival rate. If Australia could put some money into research to ensure that a bigger percentage of those young turtles survive, I think that we would find that turtle numbers would increase very rapidly. There is a market for turtles. I believe that the turtle population-and I have seen them in great numbers in my electorate-is sufficient to allow commercialisation, particularly as a controlled entry fishery, which could, in fact, pay for some of the research and development necessary to prove up this undertaking. I think it is very foolish of us in Australia to often be blinded by some perhaps well intentioned but often ill-informed and emotional environmental ideas. There are many examples of that. Another area that could be looked at involves Atlantic salmon. I read recently that a fisherman who was fishing, I think, in the Derwent River, caught an Atlantic salmon, a fish quite foreign to the area but one that is prized throughout the world for its eating qualities. I have been told that 2,000 years ago the Romans used to catch these fish on the Channel coast and cart them over the Alps in carts of ice, to have them delivered fresh to the tables of Rome, where they were considered to be a great delicacy. I have also been told that in times gone by noblemen would invite the catcher, the fisherman, and the chef to sit down to eat the Atlantic salmon with them, as it was such a prized fish. I suspect that that may be overstating the nature of the flesh, but it does indicate that it is a good eating quality fish. It may be possible to establish this fish in commercial quantities in some parts of Australia. I believe that some parts of Tasmania are ideally suited to the Atlantic salmon. I see nothing wrong with introducing a new species in such areas. I am sure that this proposal, too, would meet a lot of opposition from some of the environmental people who will talk about damage to the ecosystem and how such species will compete with native species. However, I believe that these things should be looked at and evaluated. If such a proposal is deemed to be worthwhile, we should not hesitate to establish an Atlantic salmon industry in Australia. After all, many species of animal presently in Australia got here more or less by accident; the dingo is just one example. In conclusion, I would like to say that this Bill generally is uncontentious. It has the support of the Opposition. I guess that gives the lie to those people who say that we in this Parliament can never agree. I point out that it represents the effort and consideration put in by the Minister for Primary Industry, who I believe has given his heart-and by the size of his frame it is a very considerable one-to enhancing the viability of rural industries throughout Australia. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(4.46) —It is always interesting to follow in debate the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) and after listening to his speech I must say that there was a lot of common sense there and that he referred to quite a few things that I wish some of his own colleagues would listen to, and this is particularly pertinent to his making a few commonsense observations about the bleeding hearts that seem to plague his side of politics. The Opposition has agreed to debate the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill, the Fishing Industry Research Amendment Bill and the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill in cognate, with one Bill making administrative and procedural changes to existing Acts and the other two Bills establishing machinery for fishing research. The Opposition will not oppose the passage of this legislation, although a number of questions have emerged in Opposition discussion, initiated by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). I hope that when he responds, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will address the points that I intend to raise. There are many producer organisations representing the special interest among fisheries both inland and spread along the coastline of the world's largest island continent. The contribution of fishermen to national living standards was alluded to by the Minister in his second reading address on the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill. He pointed out that production in 1985-86 grossed a touch less than $600m. Exports are now drawing more than $40m a month, again a significant figure in the light of the recent blow-out in the current account deficit. I commend the industry on its development, in particular over the period since the mid-1970s. I want to draw to the attention of honourable members some very interesting and fascinating developments in the fishing industry in my electorate. Some boats going out of the port of Portland in my electorate have discovered very large shoals of a fish called orange roughy. Those fishermen have found that there are very large numbers of orange roughy and they are developing this new fishing field off the coast of Tasmania, through the port of Portland, and that is certainly proving to be a very profitable enterprise. The Government has decided to conservatively place a limit on the amount of orange roughy that can be taken at this stage to 20,000 tonnes per year, although I believe that that figure will in fact prove to be conservative. It is likely that this new development will indeed contribute greatly to the growth of our fishing industry. The fishing industry has overcome the challenge of the relatively brief shelf life of fresh fish. Consumers across Australia have vastly improved access to fresh supplies while an increasing array of of manufactured fish product-high in nutritional value-has also contributed greatly to expansion of sales. It is a little known fact that Australian fisheries now rank sixth on the ladder of our primary industries, in terms of the value of production. With its quite brilliant marketing effort, the industry has every cause to be optimistic over its future. At the same time, I sense a growing awareness of the need to ensure that ocean and estuary stocks remain adequate, and that the various fisheries are given adequate `breathing spaces' allowing stocks to build up, to ensure both commercial-sized catches and ongoing repetition of breeding patterns. In this regard, we are witnessing the progressive introduction of self-help management programs, notably in such large-scale operations as the northern prawn and southern bluefish tuna fisheries. I will say more about the northern prawn fishery in a moment. These management programs, in most cases, have been initiated by those engaged in the fisheries. The mutual co-operation between operators of widely varying size deserves the recognition and the support of this Parliament and Australians generally. The Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill amends two Acts of 1984, the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act, along with the Fisheries Act dating from 1952. Changes are in general relatively minor, although there has been extended discussion among honourable members on this side of the House over the widening of inspectors' powers. I draw to the Minister's attention the statement in the explanatory memorandum regarding powers of officers to search a vessel or motor vehicle. The Bill permits such action without warrant, but I quote from the explanatory memorandum: These powers are exercisable without warrant if it should not be possible to obtain one due to the exigencies of the immediate situation at sea or on a road. On my reading of this 25-page Bill, the memorandum is here referring to clauses 6, 19 and 34. These clauses do not appear to carry the proviso written into the memorandum; that is, a warrant may be avoided only if it is impractical to obtain one. There is no apparent reference in the Bill to the qualification-whether it is practical to get that warrant. This is crucial. The Bill, not the explanatory memorandum, becomes the legal device in the event of any dispute. The memorandum refers to power to enter land and premises, exercisable only by warrant or consent, and the Bill accurately reflects this; for example, in clause 6 (c) (ab) on page 4. The qualification regarding warrants to search a vessel or vehicle is not as clear. The Opposition does not propose an amendment to correct this apparent anomaly, but it does require the Minister's immediate attention. As the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Gwydir, has said before, the position of the National Fishing Industry Council Secretary-Treasurer, Mr David Townsend, should be placed on record. He has said that powers given by this Bill should not exceed normal police authority. Should the Minister fail to treat this matter properly now, and after enactment there are abuses of the spirit of the Act, he and his Government will be guilty of misleading the Parliament. We do not believe he intends this and so we ask for clarification. Having said that, we in the Opposition support the strengthening of powers to identify undersized or illegal catches and agree that inspections on sea-going vessels or remote areas of land should be backed with powers sufficiently tough to make the law enforceable. Further, these amendments clarify and increase the protection afforded fishermen who assess their catches and promptly return illegal fish to the waters. In addressing this Bill, I, along with my colleagues, thank the Minister for his courtesy in acknowledging the tremendous efforts of the Hon. Peter Nixon, the Minister for Primary Industry until 1983, to rationalise legal provisions applied to fisheries. We pay the present Minister a compliment for continuing these efforts in the manner that he has. The previous Minister won an important battle against the odds to bring under single law fisheries from the coast to the outer limit of our fishery jurisdiction. The off-shore constitutional settlement established by the Fraser-Anthony Government is now serving an important purpose for these fisheries. Turning to the two research Bills, which have broad endorsement from the Opposition in establishing a research structure for the industry, I note that, although Australia's fishing operations are spread over a vast area, they will gain significant mutual benefit from a co-ordinated and intensive research effort. In view of the diverse nature of fishing, it is commendable that the maximum outlays matched on an industry dollar to government dollar basis have been doubled to one per cent of the gross value of industry production. This means almost $6m could be spent annually on research without requiring fresh legislation. Honourable members on this side of the House hold some concern over clause 6 of the Fishing Industry Research Amendment Bill which winds up the existing trust account and provides for redistribution of funds. The sum involved is a hefty $9m, virtually all Commonwealth contributions. The clause provides that the funds be channelled into purchase of a research vessel for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, according to the explanatory memorandum. In fact, I understand that two-thirds of the funds will be channelled into the 1987-88 research program. Two questions arise. Firstly, will the funds be redistributed in this way? If so, the Minister could have been a little more precise in the choice of words for his second reading address. Secondly, will the Minister give more detail to the House on the proposed criteria for buying a research vessel? He has indicated that `if that outcome does not occur'-that is, the vessel is not bought-`the remaining $3m will be reallocated as the Ministers for Finance and Primary Industry see fit'. It is a remarkably loose arrangement for appropriating $3m. Already the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) has indicated that the proportion of total CSIRO funds allocated to primary industry is in decline. It would be unacceptable for the Government to make a half-hearted effort to fund a vessel, then snatch the money away to Consolidated Revenue or somewhere else. The Opposition seeks clarification of the Minister's intentions in this regard. Further, it would be helpful if the Minister would agree to advise Parliament formally after the final distribution of this $9m fund is determined. These matters apart, the industry has actively sought this legislation and the Opposition commends its passage through both chambers of Parliament. Although the Opposition will not oppose these Bills, the benefits to operators in the northern prawn fishery stand to be undermined by proposed changes to plans for industry rationalisation. Self-help efforts to ease pressure on stocks by reducing licences and fishing capacity have been quite outstanding. Despite this, the Government now has regulations before this Parliament implementing stiff rationalisation procedures which clearly do not have the support of a majority of northern prawn operators. My parliamentary colleagues in another place are acting to defer the special provisions plan until the Government explains its actions and moves to allay the present widespread resentment and suspicion. I understand the Minister has agreed to meet fishing representatives in Cairns this coming Friday on this very matter. It is difficult to justify part 3 of the Government's plan for compulsory surrender of units under the conditions of surrender without compensation or right of appeal. Such conditions would appear to run contrary to normal justice and equity which are expected and enjoyed by other Australians. Part 3 also introduces reduction units, a concept which has neither been discussed in detail nor endorsed by entitlement holders. Significantly, these reduction units would nullify the central element of the industry's own self-help rationalisation plan, the voluntary adjustment buy-back scheme, to which trawler owners contributed $900,000 in 1986 and have pledged up to $3m this year. As a result we may be on the verge of heavy new financial and social problems for operators, especially the independent fishermen. It has now been claimed that the Minister and his advisers are acting contrary to the unanimous recommendation of the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Committee at a meeting in Cairns on 3 and 4 March. Significantly, this is not an isolated claim. On several occasions operators have been concerned to bring to the attention of the honourable member for Gwydir what they claim to be inaccurate minutes of government-industry meetings. It is important that we do not allow the general perception to arise that the Government is in some way trying to justifiably crash through predictable complaints and opposition to change. I stress that an effective self-help industry rationalisation plan is already under way, but is being jeopardised by this heavy-handed government intervention. Let us look at the facts. Vessel numbers have already declined to about 230. The buy-back scheme removed about 12,000 units, or 10 per cent of total unit numbers, in 1985-86. This was equivalent to a reduction of 25 licences. There is a clear majority view that buy-back is more equitable than compulsory surrender. Further, the industry has openly accepted the Government's view that unit numbers should decline further from the present level of more than 100,000 to 70,000 by 1993. At the instigation of the industry, sales of surplus trawlers to overseas buyers are being negotiated. But although several prospective sales have come close to finalisation, they are being frustrated by uncertainty over this special provisions plan. Further, many prospective sales of units have been forestalled by the threat of sharp fluctuations to unit values. The Minister agreed some time ago to appoint an independent consultant to offer suggestions for improving the buy-back scheme. This appointment seems redundant in the face of the Department's sledgehammer intervention. Other critical measures initiated by the industry include: The closure of the fishery for almost half of this year; gear restrictions; a three-month ban on daylight trawling during the tiger prawn spawning season; new restrictions on the building of replacement trawlers; and automatic forfeit-ure of one licence plus many units when a vessel is replaced. Clearly operators have gone to enormous lengths and made significant voluntary sacrifices to reduce the northern prawn fishery effort by 30 per cent, ensuring the long term viability of the industry. They should be encouraged in their efforts, not belted with government overreaction. The special provisions plan becomes all the more sinister in the light of an approach to the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir, by one independent operator claiming that the Government's action could cost him up to $700,000. This is just not acceptable. The Minister must now go public and explain his Department's actions to this Parliament. He must listen clearly to his counterpart Ministers in the Northern Territory and Queensland and to fishermen at his meeting in Cairns on Friday and act on their concerns. The Minister will have no excuse for bulldozing an inappropriate, costly and unjustifiable set of rules under an industry facing a difficult economic future. He must accept that by forcing unwarranted regulations through Parliament he will only worsen tensions between industry and the Labor Government. Having said that, the Opposition will allow passage of the Bills but awaits the Minister's second reading response with considerable interest. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(5.01) —I understand that the Opposition is supporting the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill 1987, the Fishing Industry Research Amendment Bill 1987 and the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) has just indicated that this is the case and I commend the Opposition for doing so. Members of the National Party of Australia were absent during the early part of the debate and I noted that the honourable member for Wannon was, to quite an extent, speaking on behalf of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). But I am sure that the National Party, which is very busy working out its arrangements between Queensland and the south-eastern groups and its arrangements with the Liberals, still strongly supports the legislation. The absence of National Party members in the early part of the debate in no way diminishes their support. Indeed, I must compliment the National Party and the Liberal Party of Australia on their efforts when they were in effective coalition in government. As previous speakers have said, the previous Government put in place 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. Originally, different laws operated. I was involved in a series of disputes which arose from problems with laws that were strict in one State and rather lax in another. Fishermen in various States accused one another of pirating their species. That sort of situation has certainly declined somewhat under present policy which has been set up on a firm basis. The present Government has continued this policy by encouraging much better forums for the industry. Credit should be given to the Government, the Department of Primary Industry and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for the way in which they have been prepared to listen and to encourage more effective forums for the industry itself. So plans have resulted from consultation with the industry. They are not perfect plans, I agree, but we have plans such as the tuna management plan and the south-east trawl management plan. I was pleased to be involved with the Minister and the Department in meetings convened under the chairmanship of Jock Petrie of Eden preliminary to the south-eastern trawl management plan. For the first time ever we were able to consolidate the individual views in the industry. Even within my own area there were very sharp divisions in the industry about what policy ought to be and about what ought to be done in managing the fisheries, which everyone recognised had suffered through lack of conservation. Today we have a somewhat different industry from that of two or three years ago. Last Sunday I was pleased to attend the annual blessing of the fleet at Ulladulla. I was able to meet the fishing industry people and discuss with them the recent developments. There is a shortage of stock in the fishing industry, but the industry has compensated for that by innovation. We have people who are keen to look at some of the fish species that have been mentioned-for example, orange roughy and mackerel. This innovation is absolutely necessary because while stocks are declining to some extent there is increasing domestic consumption. As the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) said, fish is an attractive food. It is low in cholesterol, containing about 40 milligrams per 100 grams, which is relatively low compared with other meats. When one considers that the maximum recommended daily intake of cholesterol is about 100 milligrams, one sees that we do not have to eat a lot of meat to reach that level. Some of the deep sea fish which are being looked at now contain oils which have an effect on cholesterol and are even more beneficial. The industry is catering for a changing domestic demand. It is also catering for a changing overseas demand. It is taking full account of the Japanese desire for good, excellent quality sashimi. People in such bodies as the Ulladulla co-operative and Montague Ocean Products are packing tuna individually in ice so that they are not frozen and transporting them by air to Japan. This delicacy, which is so much appreciated by the Japanese and for which appreciation is actually growing within Australia, is being made available in fresh form. People are getting high prices-up to $100 per kilogram, I understand-for very good quality sashimi. There has also been diversification in other areas of the fisheries. It is to the credit of private people fishing in the Ulladulla, Eden and Eurobodalla areas that they have been able to innovate and cater for the demand. Similarly, this has happened at the abalone co-operative at Ulladulla. People who are very concerned about maintaining stocks have not only taken initiatives in their own marketing but also taken initiatives in association with government and other fisheries to ensure maintenance of stock in the longer term as well as the immediate and medium terms. There have been diversifications by Ocean Fresh Products at Eden and initiatives by the Eden fishing co-operative to ensure that the fish in those areas are made available, that they are what people want and that full account is taken of the fact that many of the traditional species are depleted. The last time I took the task force of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to meet the fishermen at Eden we talked with the Heinz co-operative, which at that stage was having to import fish for its processing works. This situation is not desirable and it is a problem. It is a worry when a fishing company has to buy in fish especially to keep an industry going in an area like Eden which is quite distant from capital cities. This labour intensive industry creates a high level of employment. It is important as well that we diversify, research and take into full account the needs of the fisheries. I have also been associated with the development of the Viatel marketing scheme through computers with the co-operation of Telecom Australia. I was at the launch of that scheme. I had full discussions in the lead-up to the adoption of this marketing system. I have also been associated with strengthening the system. But I question whether the system is getting full value, particularly in New South Wales, from the Fish Marketing Authority. I have received a number of representations from people in the fishing industry which I propose to pursue with the Authority because I believe it is important that people who fish in the industry should have direct access to buyers. They should not have to send their fish to the market in the traditional way because of the time and deterioration involved. The Bills strengthen the power of officers so that they may be better equipped to enforce the three fishing industry Acts. Because offences can be committed at sea, the legislation has to be somewhat more strict than if it were concerned with offences committed on shore. Certainly, the legislation also needs to take into account the desirability of protecting the civil liberties of all the people involved. The Bills also cater for research and development requirements in the fishing industry and they terminate the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969. Let me respond to the query raised by the honourable member for Wannon. He asked whether the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation fishing research vessel will have the advantage of funds left in the research account as a result of the termination of the Fishing Industry Research Act. I believe that the CSIRO's fishing research vessel will receive funding subject to the CSIRO putting a proposal to the Government. It is most likely that the vessel will receive funding, provided that the CSIRO puts a proposal to the Government. There has been co-operation from the various parties in the House over many years for the benefit of the fishing industry and successive governments. There has been co-operation from the industry itself. The Minister for Primary Industry is a person who consults and listens. The unprecedented co-operation with the industry is reflected in the attitude of officers in the Department of Primary Industry. The people within the industry working at sea know their industry. The people within government are also expert, experienced people. But if we have division within the industry, whether it is due to demagoguery or sheer differences among the sectors of the industry, nothing can be achieved. It is to the credit of the industry that we have had increasing unity and, therefore, we are achieving much. It is with pride that I have been part of that unity and I am delighted to support the legislation before the House. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(5.11) —I take great pleasure in rising to speak to the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill, the Fishing Industry Research Amendment Bill, and the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill, which affect the Australian fishing industry. Before commencing, I would like to commend the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) for his contribution to the debate. As always, it was a balanced, reasonable, moderate and appropriate contribution. As has been stated, the Opposition is not opposing these Bills but there are certainly one or two points that I would like to comment on briefly. Firstly, the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill makes administrative amendments to the Fisheries Act and it strengthens the powers of officials to enforce the various Commonwealth Acts dealing with fisheries. Provided officers have reasonable grounds to act, they will be allowed to exercise powers to stop, enter and search vessels without a warrant. Frankly, I have always had some reservations about any Act of government, whether it be State, Federal, or even local-which is most unlikely-which gives people in authority in departments the right to enter and search without a warrant. But, to be reasonable, it is obvious that, where we have a vessel at sea under some suspicion, it would be impossible for the patrol vessel to return to secure a warrant. Therefore, while I have those reservations, I have to accept that this is the only practical way of dealing with the problem. Of course, one significant point in this Bill is that it forbids the cutting up of undersized fish in an attempt to disguise the fact that such fish had actually been taken. That will be very difficult to police but I certainly hope that, in the interests of the fish stocks in the waters around the whole of the Australian continent, it is able to be enforced. I believe that the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill is a most important Bill because it concerns the research and development of the industry and it establishes the Fishing Industry Research and Development Council. This, of course, allows for research and development planning and, for the very first time-from 1 July-following the introduction of the Bill, five-year plans will be prepared by the Council. It is quite obvious that one of the things that the Australian fishing industry needs is a unified and overall approach so that planning can be conducted for the proper management of our fisheries resources. It is interesting to note that the Council will be funded by State research funds and also a contribution from the Commonwealth equalling one per cent of the gross value of production of the industry. As I have said, the five-year plans of the Fishing Industry Research and Development Council are a worthwhile step in the right direction and they will be developed in conjunction with the Australian Fisheries Council and the National Fishing Industry Council. Regrettably, up until this time, there has never been overall planning between State and Federal departments and authorities. So I must say that I hope for great gains for the Australian industry as a result of the introduction of sensible, reasonable planning to promote the proper management of the industry. Mr Cowan —Particularly around Coffs Harbour also. Mr NEHL —As the honourable member for Lyne has said, particularly around Coffs Harbour and further down in his electorate as well. As the honourable member for Lyne has mentioned that, it is appropriate that I should dwell briefly on the fishing industry in Cowper. We have three fishermen's co-operatives-at Coffs Harbour, at the lower Macleay and on the Hastings at Port Macquarie; 140 fishermen are actively involved. The value of fish collected in my electorate in the 1985-86 financial year totalled $3,947,316-a small amount of money on the national stage but, within one Federal electorate, a very worthwhile contribution to the local economy. The fish caught within this mid-north coast area are used to supply the local market, the Sydney market and, of course, some export markets. As well, the Coffs Harbour Fishermen's Co-operative is authorised and licensed to export fish, particularly tuna. As the honourable member for Eden-Monaro mentioned in relation to his electorate, the growing sashimi tuna market in Japan is one of great potential. In 1985-86 it was worth only $51,604 to the Coffs Harbour Co-operative-a drop in the ocean is perhaps an appropriate way of referring to it. Nonetheless, it is a start which is reflecting the initiative of individual fishermen in that area. The fish are sent fresh chilled and not frozen because most of the vessels operating under the Coffs Harbour Co-operative are 20 metres or less in length. Of course, fresh chilled sashimi is the most highly prized form of fish on the Japanese market and, again, as the honourable member for Eden-Monaro mentioned, it is attracting prices of up to $100 per kilogram. So it it certainly a very worthwhile export and there is a great potential for growth. It is interesting also that the sashimi market provides the maximum return for fishermen. The potential for the industry to maximise its exports in this market needs careful planning and high quality control. I hope that the new organisation will be able to play a very significant part in assisting the industry to maintain those high quality controls and standards. The market could well be lost if products were sent irresponsibly or with neglect of the quality and standards required. I think it is fair to say that many people involved in the Australian fishing industry are concerned that there has not been enough effective control of fisheries management. In many cases, some areas and some species of fish have been fished out to the detriment not only of the professional fishing industry but also the local inhabitants and tourists. Foreign deep sea trawlers are also seen as a threat in waters close to the edge of the 200-mile limit. What we will get as a result of the introduction of these Acts-and I applaud it-is greater Commonwealth-State co-operation and this will result in a greater uniformity of approach. I really hope that the Fishing Industry Research and Development Council will achieve this. In speaking about the Australian fishing industry it is probably relevant to refer to Bureau of Agricultural Economics statistics for 1985-86. They reveal, interestingly, that the total value of fish products in Australia in that year was $592.3m-a very significant amount of money indeed. Again, this is of great interest as there is a very widely held public perception, because of fish imports, that Australia's fishing industry is not standing on its own feet and that we are importing more than we should. That could well be the case. However, it is worth noting that as well as producing $592m worth of fish, we are exporting $480.9m worth of fish per year and that is a very significant amount. Of that amount $270.4m worth of our fish products goes to Japan, $121.6m to the United States of America and Hong Kong takes $36.1m. The remainder is exported in smaller quantities to a number of other countries. Most Australian exports comprise crustaceans, abalone, prawns, crabs and scallops and very little fresh or wet fish are exported. There is great potential for species such as tuna, trevally and orange roughy to be exported to Japan. There are very exciting export opportunities. Again, it comes back to the creation of the new Fishing Industry Research and Development Council to provide the planning, management and stimulus to enable our fishing industry to take advantage of export opportunities. Mr Cowan —The Sydney rock oyster. Mr NEHL —As the honourable member for Lyne points out, the Sydney rock oyster has superb qualities. I notice that the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) agrees with me. Those who are fortunate enough to live on the coast of New South Wales are able to relish the great delight of our wonderful seafoods. Australians are now consuming roughly $27 worth of fish per head. I mentioned the export figure of $480.9m. In the same year we imported $331.5m worth of fish, mainly in the form of tinned fish. As to the commonly held perception that we import far too much fish, it should be known and appreciated that our exports exceed our imports by $149.4m. The reality is that the Australian fishing industry has taken the opportunity to gird its loins, to bait its hooks and to get stuck into reaping the benefits of a thriving export industry. There is great potential for more to be done. Finally, I make the point that while we consume only $111.4m of our local production and import $331.5m worth of fish, total local consumption is $442.9m and that, divided by 16 million gives us the figure of roughly $27 worth of fish which is consumed per head of the population. Part of the action that should be taken is not just to look at the export market. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) in his contribution to this debate very properly and rightly referred to the healthy attributes of fish, the fact that its cholesterol level is so very low and that it contains so much of what we need. For instance, 120 grams of fish provides only 100 calories whereas the same weight or quantity of duck contains 400 calories. So to the weight conscious members I suggest that they eat more fish and to all Australians I recommend that they too eat more fish because it is very healthy and the Australian fishing industry deserves their support. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(5.24) —I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate, which is important to my area. I speak parochially but I also realise the importance of the fishing industry to our country. In my own way I echo some of the remarks that have been made by previous speakers by saying that for too long the fishing industry has been seen as the poor cousin of the primary industries in our country. I take up the point that the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) made. There is a lack of understanding and little awareness of the value of the Australian fishing industry. I also took out some figures and found that in the financial year 1985-86 the gross value of fisheries production in Australia was worth almost $600m-$592m to be exact. It is the sixth most important rural industry-if I can classify it as that and I will comment on that aspect in a moment-in money value terms and it certainly has been growing as an income earner for us, especially as an export product earning foreign exchange. In 1980-81 exports of fishery products were worth some $230m but in 1985-86 they grew to $481m. Honourable members can see that the fishing industry has more than doubled its ability to earn export dollars for this country. It is certainly a vigorous industry and the Hawke Government has been putting its money where its mouth is. Some of the figures given by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) when he introduced this legislation revealed that to date we have spent $28.5m in research and development. That gives some indication of the industry's importance as the Government sees it. I mentioned the parochial aspects because in Queensland there are around 2,300 registered fishermen. In my own area of central Queensland-the electorate of Capricornia-is a very important scallop fishery. Many fishermen on the coast from Mackay down to the Gladstone area have major investments. Some have invested a quarter of a million dollars and they have expressed some concerns in recent times because so often their industry and their livelihood is jeopardised because we have not had a single approach; we have had two lots of laws. I realise that the off-shore constitutional settlement is almost complete. Today I spoke to some fishermen who have been told that before long there will be a single law approach, at least out to the Great Barrier Reef, and this will have very important ramifications for Queensland fishermen in particular. There will be a single licensing system within the reef and we hope that there will be uniform mesh and net regulations. We also hope that as the State will have special responsibilities it might be able to do something about those fishermen who come down from the Gulf when the prawns are finished and ravage the fisheries in my region. Last year I made an appeal to the Minister and Bill Hughes, who is the head of the Australian Fisheries Service, to try to do something about the large boats that were coming down-they were virtually the mother ships-and ripping off the scallop beds. However, I was told that little could be done because these people had obtained two licences; they have a Gulf licence and an east coast licence. I hope-I know I echo the feelings of the fishermen not only in my region but also throughout Queensland-that we can get some sort of sanity into this situation because there is little use a fisherman investing $250,000 and then finding that he is being raided by his own kind, that people from the Gulf are ripping up his livelihood. As I have said, this legislation will have a different approach. The single approach will mean that we will have a Queensland fishery and this is important. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will also know, as you too are a Queenslander, that we will have to wait and see. Your own area is affected by these proposals. We will have to adopt this wait and see approach to see what takes place in our regions. For my part I hope that there will be some type of scallop management. If there is we may address some of the problems in the scallop industry. I will have to wait to see personally how the conflict that I just mentioned between the Gulf boats and those on the east coast can be resolved and how we can do something about deterrent because to date there have been no prosecutions. I have been accused of always criticising the State Government. I am pleased that it is doing something about the lack of understanding and the lack of information that surrounds the fishing industry. I have been informed that a questionnaire has been sent to all boat owners throughout Queensland and information has been gathered as to the size of their investments, the value of those investments, the type of boats and the equipment used. So at least Queensland will have detailed information, detailed knowledge, of exactly what its fishing industry is worth and what its fishermen are doing. I welcome any positive change and I certainly welcome the changes that have been brought forward today by the Hawke Labor Government. As I said earlier, the fishing industry has been treated too often as a poor cousin. It is certainly said to be a primary industry but it is not legally treated as such. I know of no right of access of any fisherman to the agricultural banks of this nation. I know of no fishermen who have been able to get money out of rural reconstruction. Farmers have special advantages on the excise of fuel. Whilst fishermen get excise exemption on diesel fuel they get no benefit when it comes to the petrol used for all of their four-wheel drives and other equipment. While there is this attitude of, `The fishing industry is a rural industry', in actual practice this is not the case. Certainly, in regard to borrowing money, I have spoken to a number of fishermen in recent times to find out where they borrow money from. I think it is with great regret that they have to admit that they go to the commercial banks and to the finance companies. They do not have access to the 4 per cent loans that farmers in Queensland can get. They cannot take advantage of the cheap special loans that are available that often come from the Commonwealth Government. There is a need for a relook at this situation. I use the term again that we are adopting a wait and see approach, and that the fishing industry is in somewhat of a melting pot. But changes are taking place. John Kerin, in particular needs to be commended for the role that he is playing as the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry and the special interest that he has taken in the fishing industry. I refer specifically to the lead that he is giving in the research and development area of the fishing industry. I welcome the legislation that is before the House as it will provide a new framework for the management of the Commonwealth research and development activities within the Australian fishing industry. I think it is only proper that the framework that is being proposed is similar to that of other rural industries. In this way the fishing industry will finally be truly accepted as a rural industry. I note that other speakers have mentioned the fact that there will be a fishing industry research and development council and a special trust fund. As I said before, $28.5m has already been spent. I took note of some of the comments that the Minister made regarding the sorts of things we have been doing-how we have supported exploratory fishing projects, how we have been involved in fishing gear technology studies, in the sponsoring of education for fishermen, and research into the handling and marketing of fish products. I note also that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, our universities, various government agencies, and fishing companies, as well as individual fishermen, have received funding from the account to undertake research. I stress this point because one of the fishermen to whom I spoke today said to me that people have a lack of understanding not only of the worth of the fishing industry, but also of the difficulties of the fishermen. He pointed out that in comparison with the waters of the Northern Hemisphere, the fisheries of Australia are really like a desert. We have to embark upon a major exploration activity. We need to fund the fishermen, the large companies that are involved and others, to explore new fisheries, because we are unable to compete. I realise that we are exporting fish products, but the statistics show that we import 85 per cent of our marine product needs. If we want to turn around the sorts of problems that we have internationally in terms of our balance of trade, we ought to have replacement industries and we ought to have replacement products. As we are importing such a huge quantity of our fish needs and there is potential out there-we certainly have the fishermen, and the fishing industry has the skills and drive-we need to support the industry to the ultimate degree. I have welcomed the activities of this Government. I also note that many of the activities that this Government is pursuing were begun by the previous Government. I think that that bipartisan approach is worth while, and it has been applauded by all within the industry. I suggest, however, that there is a need to encourage fishermen, particularly, to be able to explore, research, and set out and find new fisheries. There is certainly a need, too, in the area of borrowing. I hope that this matter can be redressed in the future. I conclude my contribution by making some comments regarding one aspect about which I have great concern. I note that research moneys have been used to develop new processing ideas and new marketing approaches. But I express concern that in Queensland there is an almost gung-ho approach to set up some type of system to irradiate fish products. This has been denied. It was denied before the last State election that this was happening. But it has now been admitted. I refer honourable members to the Daily Sun newspaper which has this headline: `Ahern Rules Out Food Irradiation'. This, however, is a typical example of the fact that people should not read just headlines. Whilst the article specifically states that Ahern, who is the Minister for Health in Queensland-I might say he is a very capable and very responsible Minister-rules out food irradiation, it goes on to state that he rules it out in regard to domestic products. He stated that the food irradiation process in Queensland will only be used for export products. The significance and relevance of this point is that last year the Queensland Fish Board sought to vary the recommendations put forward by the National Health and Medical Research Council on food standards. Even though there had been some conflict and debate over a couple of years, the National Health and Medical Research Council brought down a policy last year to set out the foods that in its opinion could be irradiated. Fish products were not included. I think one of the reasons was that for many years studies in the United States and Europe have shown that one ought not to irradiate food products because there were major dangers. The Fish Board applied for permission to make changes. In actual fact, as honourable members will know, the National Health and Medical Research Council cannot give permission; all it does is make recommendations. It sets these standards, and it is up to the States to abide by them or otherwise. For some reason, the Queensland Fish Board was sent an application form to allow it to irradiate, even though the National Health and Medical Research Council did not have the power to give that permission. I thought that the whole matter was on the back burner. I now note, because of the headline in yesterday's Daily Sun, that it seems that it is on again. I think that we as a parliament need to consider this issue. There is a joint approach on this issue at the moment. An all-party committee is inquiring into the matter. There is a Health Department funded inquiry into food irradiation through the Australian Consumers Association. The British Medical Association has called for further in-depth studies into food irradiation and has asked for a halt to any moves to use food irradiation as a process. It has made that call for the good reason that its studies have found that it can cause leukemia. Its studies have found that there have been genetic mutations in children. In the same newspaper article to which I have referred, Dr Dawson, the Association's President, pointed out that there have been major changes in blood cells. I point out that in this newspaper article Mr Ahern states that the United States has been undertaking food irradiation for some time. When I was in America last year I met senior government officers who informed me that they had been using food irradiation for defence force foods for a long time, but they had stopped it. They had said, `No more'. They did not go into the reasons in great detail, but they had stopped the use of food irradiation for defence force foods. The Soviet Union is often praised as being the great example of a place where food irradiation is used, in regard to imported wheat. When members of this Parliament-members from all parties-raised the issue of food irradiation, the Russian Government did not really want to talk about it. Finally, when we did receive, as they call it, a piece of paper on the issue, it stated that the whole process was under review. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to members of this House that the British Medical Association has stated, `Let us not proceed because there are some problems; there are some studies and some results that frighten us'. The United States has stated, `We have now stopped the use of the process for our own defence forces'. The other great power of this world, the Soviet Union, does not really want to talk about it. It says that it is under review. Is it wise for the Queensland Fish Board, supported by the Queensland Health Minister and the Queensland Government, to embark upon a process to irradiate fish products? At a time when we are trying to find new ways of gaining foreign exchange, at a time when we are trying to expand our export earnings, I put it to honourable members that it is rather ridiculous, immature and certainly premature, to rush out and do this. I think that there will be a reaction. Federal members of parliament of all political persuasions ought to be applying pressure at the Queensland level to ensure that food irradiation does not proceed. I note that we need to undertake more research. I say that we should do that. Let us fund further research into this issue. But let us not give permission, either by way of recommendation or in some official legal way, to support the Queensland Fish Board on the irradiation of marine products, even if it is only for export. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.40) —I am pleased to follow the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). I commend him for his speech which, as always, was well informed, relevant and certainly took up the concerns of the people in his electorate of Capricornia and the wider concerns of the people in the Australian community. Australian people in a general way have a great association with the fishing industry. On the recreational side, fishing is one of the great participatory activities in Australia. In fact, people in the fishing industry argue that the recreational side of fishing is the highest participatory sport in Australia. This is a cognate debate embracing three Bills-the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill, the Fishing Industry Research Amendment Bill and the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill. At the outset I would like to deal with aspects of the fishing industry. For many people listening to this debate who are aware of the fishing industry there are a number of aspects we ought to look at. The first is the matter of commercial exploitation. We are devoting most of our attention in this context to the commercial exploitation aspects of the fishing industry. As has been mentioned by previous speakers, the export potential of the fishing industry is a matter of considerable interest in this Parliament and in this country. Further, it is also a matter that we ought to pay attention to in terms of relative imports. The honourable member for Capricornia referred to the fact that some 85 per cent of the consumed fish products in Australia come from overseas. That is a matter of concern for people in this place because very clearly Australia is productive and prolific in terms of its fish resources but the amount that actually finds its way into domestic consumption is unnecessarily low. I will comment on that further. The second aspect is that which I have touched upon-recreation. Clearly, amateur fishing needs are increasing. It is important to note that amateur fishing needs frequently can be in conflict with those of commercial and professional fishing operations but it is also important to observe in the context of this debate that given the increase in boat ownership and access of people to fishing spots, particularly with four-wheel drive vehicles, amateur fishing will continue to grow. That is a very important matter for us to observe. I now turn to the third aspect-tourism. Fishing represents one of the end points of tourism. It is remarkable if one thinks-and I ask people listening to this debate to conjure this up in their minds-about the number of tourism brochures that somewhere feature fishing as an aspect of tourism. Very clearly one issue that the tourism industry has to address is that if one promotes areas as desirable tourism places but when people go there they catch few or no fish the tourism potential of those places can be quite seriously eroded. That is something to which we in this place ought to be paying attention. The fourth point is the matter of conservation. Very clearly, we in the national Parliament and, I believe, those in the State parliaments, must pay attention to the long term conservation of our fishing resources. It is important, as I said at the outset, that we have fishing stocks. But it is also important to know the extent to which we have a conservation responsibility for our fishing stocks. That takes me to the fifth aspect I wanted to deal with-research. Very clearly, for us to debate effectively the matter of fishing and to have a policy on it we need to know a great deal about the activities of fishing stocks. I commend the role of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Fisheries Research because I am acquainted with the work it does. Very clearly its work is very important in informing us as a national parliament and informing the fishing industry what stocks we have, what diversity there is in those stocks and also what the capacity to develop new fishing industries is. Here I refer to the development of the scampi fishing industry in the north-west of Western Australia. I also commend Kailis Fisheries in Western Australia, which has been quite enterprising in its willingness to move into that area. As is pointed out in the Fishing Industry Research Amendment Bill, there is to be a new arrangement for funds for research. I note with pleasure the second reading speech, which says in part: 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. Quite clearly, there is a great deal of interest in the fishing industry and among people I deal with in increasing the capacity of the CSIRO to undertake research activity. I commend the Government in this respect. There are many areas where the Government has planned well and the determination to use research funds to acquire another CSIRO fisheries research vessel is very important and will be seen down the track as being very important. The honourable member for Capricornia mentioned that this is a bipartisan debate-and that is important. People very often listen to debates in this House of Parliament and wonder at the degree of rancour that arises. But it is pleasing to note that in effect the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Hawke Government are carrying out initiatives set in place under the previous Government. I would like to note that and inform people who are listening to the debate that this sort of co-operation is not an uncommon experience. Mr Tim Fischer —The majority of legislation is. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As the honourable member for Farrer says, the majority of legislation is of that nature. It is unfortunate that the media very often extracts the more dramatic aspects of our conflict but people listening to this debate would be impressed by the intelligent comments in the debate and also by the fact that there is this degree of bipartisan recognition of how important the fishing industry is. On the question of the importance of the fishing industry, let me turn to the economic aspects of the industry because I believe they are very important. To many people, this is an industry that to some extent has been neglected in terms of our realisation of its importance. Let me talk in terms of production. In 1985-86, the gross value of fisheries production at $592m ranked sixth among all Australia's rural industries. That had gone up one place from 1984-85. In 1984-85 production was estimated at 148,000 tonnes valued at $523.5m. So that is the picture in terms of tonnage in 1984-85. We have spoken before in this debate about exports. The value of exports of fishery products increased from $230m in 1980-81 to an estimated $481m in 1985-86 and significantly exceeded the value of imports each year during that period. It is important to see that our export capacity is growing. I add only that the more we can add value in production of those exports the better. There is some comment in the legislation about the development of a sashimi fishery in relation to Japan. But I make the observation that the more we in this country can add value to the production of fishing and can export that value of production the better it will be for our balance of payments. Clearly this will be to the benefit of the industries associated with it. That is significant. I will now look at the numbers of boats involved. There are now more than 9,000 boats in the Australian commercial fishing fleet. It is a very vast fleet when one looks at it in those terms. However, as has been mentioned by previous speakers, this is a high risk activity because, unlike other cropping activities where one can be more certain of amounts, in terms of penning stock or sowing seed, fishing can be very uncertain. I note that in my home State of Western Australia, the crayfish yield last season has been less than in the previous season because of variations in current, temperature and, of course, weather. The amount that fishing people can earn from their activity can be quite variable. To that extent it is a high risk activity. That is where the role of research comes in. The more we can effectively research this industry the more we can be certain of the outcomes. Another important issue to mention in this debate is that it is pleasing to note that consumption of fish products is increasing. It is estimated that annual domestic consumption per capita has risen from 15 kilograms in 1979-80 to 17.3 kilograms in 1983-84, measured on the basis of live weight equivalent. Clearly, it is possible to observe why that trend is occurring. In our diet conscious community great value is given to fish products. I am pleased to note that in the parliamentary dining room increasing emphasis is being given to fish products. However, in the wider community there is still a great need for retailers to provide greater diversity of fish. There is another issue here. In both the restaurant and over the counter trades the public must not be deceived by retailers. I am sure that many honourable members are aware that very often they can go into a restaurant and buy what is supposedly barramundi, knowing very well that the amount of barramundi served in restaurants in Australia far exceeds the amount of barramundi that is ever caught. We can only come to the conclusion that the public is being deceived. I say to many people in both the restaurant trade and in the retail fishing activity that it is in their interest to cease deceiving the public. Let us be clear about this matter. People in the meat trade have no objection to buying a lower grade cut of meat, knowing that they are paying a lower price. The general public does not object to buying sausages, sausage mince or a lower grade of steak, just as they do not object to buying an A-grade cut of meat such as fillet steak. The meat industry has successfully got on top of the problem in recent years and such is its success that when people go into shops they are confident about what they are buying. Unfortunately they do not have that same confidence in the retail fish industry, both on the restaurant side and in over-the-counter trade. If there is one complaint that I get repeatedly from people buying fish products it is that they do not always know what they are buying. It is very much up to the fishing industry itself to be certain about this and say: `Yes, we are serving shark.' There is nothing wrong with serving shark in a fish and chip shop, provided people know what they are buying. If there is buyer resistance it is based on the fact that people have been deceived from time to time. Clearly this does not occur across the board. There are some very good fish retailers whom I am sure honourable members and people in the wider community would know and would patronise. But I say to all the other retailers: If you want to be certain of increased consumption of fish, be certain that what you put on display to the public is what you say it is. The public does not like to be deceived. If the public is getting fresh, high quality fish, it will pay the price for it. Unfortunately, at the moment all too often the public is paying a high price for a product that is not what it is claimed to be. If we are marketing shark, let us call it shark and let us see that it is marketed as such. If we are marketing snapper, let us make sure that it is snapper. If we are marketing barramundi, let us be sure that it is barramundi. If we say it is jew fish let us be sure it is jew fish. Let us not pretend because only by marketing a product accurately and at a reasonable price will the fishing industry be able to take advantage of this enormous market advantage that it has at present. I say `enormous' because whenever one reads about good diet and good food-and we should remember that this is Better Health Week and people will be talking about improvements in their diet this week-fish is mentioned. Let the fishing industry take note that it can take advantage of that. However, it will not succeed if it deceives the public in what it puts on the market and if that product is also excessively expensive. That is another of the problems in market penetration of many fish products. Relative to meat products and particularly to chicken products, which are also recommended by dietitians, fish products are often far too expensive. I am not talking about crayfish and prawns. I am talking about ordinary cuts of fish in the market-place. I stress to retailers and, more importantly, the restaurant trade that if they want to get a reputation for good fish products they will only get it by charging the right price for the right product. Many commercial enterprises have done that and their success can be attributed to that fact. The only way in with the retail fishing industry will be able to compete effectively down the track is by being sure that the product that it puts on the market is competitive in price and that a realistic assessment of that product is provided in terms of the name claimed for it. I turn to another question of concern and that is the question of over-fishing. The Western Australian Minister for Agriculture, Mr Julian Grill, in his responsibility for fishing is doing an excellent job in recognising the problems of over-fishing. There is a need in certain industries from time to time to have a reduction in the number of production bases. At the moment in Western Australia we have too many licensed commercial fishermen. The Western Australian Government is to be commended for the work that it is doing in this area in buying back licences and reducing the number of fishing operations in that State because over-fishing in the long term will simply mean that we will wipe out an industry. We only need reflect on what has happened to the prawning industry to see how over-fishing has destroyed its base. Therefore, I commend the Western Australian Government and Julian Grill in particular for being very imaginative about that. Another problem that is raised with me-and, I am sure with everyone who ever goes to a fishing spot-is the abuse of local fishing spots, particularly by ill-informed amateurs who come in and catch big fish which they do not need and leave them on the beach. Professionals also come to these spots and destroy local fishing. I am particularly familiar with the local area of Trig and Scarborough on the coast of metropolitan Perth where there was a need for some action to be taken. The Western Australian Government acted very promptly and stopped the exploitation that was occurring on the reefs in that area because people were moving in and taking out all the stocks of shellfish. I also commend the Western Australian Government for stopping abalone fishing because this means that the abalone can now recover to a marketable level. Another area of concern is in the electorate of the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) at Georgraphe Bay and Cape Naturaliste, a spectacular part of Western Australia, where there is currently commercial over-fishing which is destroying stocks-so much so that last Christmas was probably one of the worst activity times for recreational fishing people because the fishing stocks had been wiped out. It has been put to me by people whose judgment I respect that there is a significant role for honorary wardens to play. These wardens would simply advise local fisheries officers where fishing abuses were occurring. Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear! They are doing it in Tasmania. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I thank the honourable member for Denison for his comments. He says that this is being done in Tasmania. I think it is very much needed in Western Australia and other States as well. Honorary wardens should be able to move in and take the details of people who are abusing local fishing activities. Those names and other details should then be referred to fisheries officers for subsequent action and possible prosecution. If there is one issue that really raises the ire of people in tourist places, particularly those who are on holidays, it is this. People who go on holidays do not expect to come back with enormous quantities of fish but they do expect, however, if it is part of the local scene, to be able to get some fish. If we allow unscrupulous amateurs and professionals to destroy fishing stocks then we are doing ourselves a disservice. Mr Hodgman —They are raping a resource. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —That is absolutely right. They are destroying a resource completely. I believe that it is important that we recognise that fact in this Parliament and take sufficient action against them. I am pleased to note that in the context of this legislation the powers of fisheries officers are dealt with. However, I also note that there is a need for honorary wardens who are on the spot, who are responsible people in local communities and who know everything that is going on. For example, in the area of Yallingup, near Margaret River in Western Australia, the salmon are running at the moment. It has been put to me many times that there are two local people who go to the river with nets, net all the salmon and leave a lot of them on the beach. People who go there to try to catch a few salmon and do not catch one are being denied that opportunity. As a result, the local tourist industry suffers. People say: `I am not coming back here because I can never catch any fish'. I conclude my remarks by saying that this is a really serious issue. We need more research, we need a better policing system and we need to ensure that the competing interests of tourism, recreation, recreational fishing and professional fishing do not destroy one another. We all have an interest in ensuring that we have an effective fishing industry. I was disturbed to go to Green Head in Western Australia and find that fishermen had been throwing their bait bags over the side of boats and completely littering the coastline. The whole coastline was covered with bait bags from unscrupulous fishermen. Those bait bags tend to destroy natural life as well as litter the coastline. It is in the interests of the fishing industry to put those sort of things in order. I am pleased to commend this legislation to the House. I believe that it is far reaching and that it does a number of important things. Ultimately I believe it will lead to a more effective fishing industry if we are intelligent about it. 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. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.00) —In exercising my right to speak on the third reading of the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill, I commend the legislation, the initiative and the co-operation. I want to raise a matter of considerable importance, and that is the interaction between the Commonwealth and the States, in particular concerning the south-eastern trawl fishery. I will take the time of the House only to comment that, whilst I recognise the need to contain the number of licences in the south-eastern trawl fishery which extends from New South Wales down the coast of Victoria, around the base of Tasmania and up to South Australia and which covers an enormous area, there is some grave concern in Tasmania-I speak as one who has been involved in the fishing industry as honorary legal adviser to the Professional Fishermen's Association of Tasmania for many years-that the interests of Tasmanian fishermen are now being jeopardised. There are two in particular of whom I am aware. One matter which is before the committee at the moment and which I hope will be resolved is that of Mr Jack Chesterman. The other matter involves Mr Ian Dillon who is desperately seeking two licences in relation to a very substantial investment of millions of dollars. I know the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, is interested in Tasmania. I would like him to note simply that I will raise the matter with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). The Minister at the table may be kind enough to mention to the Minister for Primary Industry that there is a concern. Ray Groom, the Tasmanian Minister, and John Kerin, the Federal Minister, are discussing it at the moment. Mr Kerin has handed back the crayfish section to the State Minister, Mr Groom. In conclusion, I take the opportunity to say that there has been good Commonwealth-State co-operation, but there is a genuine feeling in Tasmania that Tasmanian fishermen are being seriously inhibited and that a little flexibility and discretion in the arrangements would be to the benefit of the overall management of the fishery and, I think, to the benefit of the economy of Tasmania. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Debate resumed from 18 March, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr FIFE(Hume)(6.05) —The House is presently considering the Defence Housing Authority Bill 1987. Whilst the Opposition will not oppose the legislation, on behalf of it I move the following amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not opposing the passage of the Bill, this House- (1) expresses concern that the establishment of this statutory authority may not best address the housing needs of servicemen and women; (2) regrets the failure of the Government to allow adequately for private home ownership requirements of the Australian Defence Force, and (3) urges greater delegation of financial responsibility to base and area commanders for the acquisition, repair and maintenance of defence housing, with appropriate audit controls'. Accommodation at many military bases around Australia is far from satisfactory and a concerted effort is required to ensure that defence housing standards are upgraded to match Australian Government Public Service housing standards. By the admission of the Department of Defence, of the 22,000 houses in the Department's stock close to 15,000 are substandard. In the face of this enormous problem the Government is establishing another statutory authority which, according to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), will set about providing `adequate and suitable housing to meet the operation needs of the Defence Force and the requirements of the Department of Defence as determined by the Minister for Defence'. There is no mention of the servicemen and women, nor of their families. The Minister talks about the Hamilton report of the Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses and of listening to the service families, but he does not take the initiative where it really counts in the deplorable housing situation. In the area where something tangible could be done quickly and without too much interference from government-in the area of helping service people-Defence personnel expected a great deal more. The proposed Defence Housing Authority follows an inquiry by the task force on Australian Public Service and Defence Force housing programs. The Authority will be independent of the Defence Department but must conform to Australian Defence Force needs. The Government's measure starts the long process of improving the fabric of Defence housing, but does not go far enough in involving the private sector and does nothing to enhance efficiency by giving wider powers to base commanders in the construction and maintenance of Defence Force housing. The Authority will charge the Defence Department the full commercial rent for each house it controls. This represents a new charge to Budget outlays of $120m in 1987-88. Savings from the disposal of surplus housing will be retained by the Authority instead of being credited to Consolidated Revenue, at an estimated cost of $5m in 1986-87. The Authority will be required to use profits to supplement capital purchases and improvements, reducing the demand for capital from the Budget, which is $65.8m in the current financial year, by an unstated amount. 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. Operating costs of the Authority will be met from revenue and there will be offsetting reductions in Defence Department staffing. The Minister expects the Authority to rely on private sector consultancies to undertake aspects of its operations. The Authority's capital will come from Defence housing stock and land transferred by the Minister, money appropriated by Parliament and any accumulated reserves. Late last year, the Government established an interim defence housing board on an administrative basis. The Chairman is Mr John Graham, a former National President of the Housing Industry Association. The board of management, as proposed by the Government, will comprise four full-time members, including the Chairman, and four members representing each service and the Defence Department. A full-time Managing Director will also be a board member. The Authority will be required to prepare a corporate plan subject to ministerial approval for contracts over $6m and before entering into partnerships and joint ventures. This measure empowering a specific agency with the task of upgrading Australia's defence housing represents a step closer to improving defence housing by freeing up financial arrangements and working more closely with the private sector. The coalition has significant areas of concern, however, principally in relation to the financial support for the Authority and the proposed composition of the board of management. The Minister identifies the provision of a guaranteed level of funds as one of three essential elements to remedy existing problems, yet he fails to provide that commitment. He says that the Government will `aim' to give the authority the funding that it requires over its guaranteed income. He has stated that a $750m investment is `proposed' and that `some supplementation from annual budgets' will be needed to meet that investment commitment. The Government allocated $64m in the 1986-87 Budget for defence housing, less than recommended by the task force on housing. However, with the real growth of one per cent allocated to defence in the 1986-87 Budget now reduced to zero-I take that from Department of Defence Additional Estimates 1986-87: Savings Document and Revenue Estimates-there is every likelihood that the Government will renege on its undertaking to guarantee consistent levels of funding to the Housing Authority. In all the planned upgrading of service housing, barracks housing has hardly been touched and, with a few exceptions, is completely inadequate. Single persons without dependants constitute upwards of 45 per cent of the Defence Force and represent the bulk of the younger and more junior members. They are accommodated in living-in barracks, generally within unit areas. Some 35 to 40 per cent of single members choose not to occupy service-provided accommodation and live off-base without eligibility for accommodation allowance. The pattern varies around the nation and depends on rents, housing availability and the standard of on-base accommodation. The Minister notes that the relocation associated with the proposed two ocean Navy and the Army buildup in the Northern Territory will place added demands on the work of the Authority, particularly in the provisioning of new housing. No indication is given, however, as to how the urgent need to upgrade existing housing-approximately 15,000 houses-will be balanced against the enormous construction task involved in naval and army relocation. Existing Australian Defence Force members should not feel that their rents are being used to subsidise future housing requirements, while scant attention is paid to their own housing predicament. On the second issue of board composition, the proposed management arrangements do not go far enough to embrace private sector involvement. Clearly, the Government hopes to minimise its own financial involvement by encouraging the Authority to enter into joint ventures with private enterprise and by commissioning subsidiary partnerships with private companies. This aim would be better realised by greater private sector representation on the board of management and by lessened ministerial prerogative in the financial control of the organisation. In Committee, on behalf of the Opposition, I will move an amendment to the effect that the board should comprise at least three members from the private sector, one of whom shall have experience in housing finance and another of whom shall have experience in housing project development. A third issue concerns overall efficiency and the need to minimise bureaucratic intrusion, in both the construction and maintenance of defence housing. No provision was made to give military personnel delegated responsibility for local base housing. The broad aims of improved housing, improved efficiency, and greater private sector involvement would be better facilitated by delegating routine responsibilities covering housing to base commanders. Particularly in the area of housing maintenance, local private contractors could more speedily and efficiently attend to such problems at the behest of the base command. Housing is a significant factor in the decline of service morale, as reflected in the current high wastage rate, which has brought the strength of the armed forces to its lowest figure since the Vietnam war. In January 1986, plans were announced to upgrade married quarter housing, which has been an immense problem for years. More than $750m is to be allocated within the next 10 years for this purpose. However, there are still causes for concern. First, the sum of $64m allocated in 1986-87 inadequately addresses the urgency of the problem. Only $17.3m was allocated to new housing projects. Second, the success of the scheme largely rests on the creation of the Defence Housing Authority. Third, on 18 February 1987, it was announced that rents paid by Defence Force personnel for married quarters will rise by 7.5 per cent. This normal annual review is based mainly on the movement of rents in the private sector, in apparent disregard of the fact that nearly 60 per cent of defence accommodation is sub-standard. Fourth, total expenditure on housing assistance under the Defence Service Homes Corporation has dropped from $160.2m in 1981-82 to $126m in 1985-86. The upper limit of the loan is $25,000 and is increasingly inadequate. There is a waiting period of 10 months and new recruits from 1985 have not been eligible for such assistance. Fifth, the Senate Estimates Committee ascertained that of the proposed 1986-87 expenditure-$17.2m-going to new housing, only 54.9 per cent was directed specifically to the construction of new houses. These facts are totally incompatible with the revised living in policy for the Defence Force endorsed in October 1984 by the Chiefs of Staff Committee. The Committee said: The Defence Force must maintain the right to direct its members to live in service accommodation in order to meet its operational, training and other service commitments. However, should a service consider that its operational or other commitments will not be adversely affected, certain members may be permitted or, where necessary, directed to live out on such occasions or for such periods as determined by the service. Noticeably absent from the 1987 Defence Housing Authority Bill is any provision encouraging and assisting with home ownership among members of the Defence Force. Attempts to privatise the defence service home loan scheme have not been successful, according to industry sources, because the administrative costs of the scheme under the existing or proposed arrangements are not viable. As a result, the scheme is becoming increasingly inadequate and waiting lists are growing. Since 1985 new recruits to the Services have been ineligible for defence service homes loan assistance. The Returned Services League of Australia is concerned that, even though rents for defence housing will be commercially assessed, rents for members of the Australian Defence Force should not be arbitrarily increased beyond existing levels as currently related to salaries. There is need also for greater assurance that income received from rentals will be put to the refurbishment of existing houses or the purchase of new houses, not diverted to other uses. In government the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia will monitor the operations of the Defence Housing Authority and, if it fails to deal satisfactorily with the housing needs of service men and women, it will be modified to enable greater private sector involvement and greater responsibility for local commanders in an arrangement that will emphasise flexibility, accountability and initiative at the local level. In short, we will minimise bureaucracy and decentralise administration. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hodgman —I have the honour to second the excellent amendment moved by the shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), to try to do the right thing by our defence personnel, and I reserve my right to speak later in the debate. But at this stage I congratulate him on an excellent amendment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member leaves some doubt as to whether he wants to speak now or reserve his right. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(6.23) —The Defence Housing Authority Bill creates a Defence Housing Authority to undertake the management of defence housing. Housing facilities and housing related allowances have been available to members of the Defence Force for many years. It is in the interests of the armed forces to ensure that their members are properly housed, fed and clothed. Members can be required to serve anywhere, sometimes in hazardous environments. Males are liable for combat service anywhere at any time. Females, although excluded from primary combat duty, may still be required to defend themselves from attack. A code of service discipline impinges on lifestyle and work; working hours are often long, conditions arduous and tasks variable, with considerable periods spent away from home and family. Disrupted family life is common as members are frequently posted from place to place to meet service needs, with little choice in the matter. Postings also inhibit the easy integration of members and their families within their local communities. It is an essential component of conditions of service that members of the Australian Defence Force are properly housed. Members of the Defence Force with families look to the Government to assist with the housing of their families. This assistance is provided through the provision of a married quarter, through the payment of a rental assistance allowance or by assisting with the purchase of a house through the defence service homes scheme and the home purchase or sale expenses allowance. Family accommodation is a continuing major source of complaint, as the service family is required to move frequently, often finding married quarters unavailable, the wrong size, sub-standard or unsuitably located at excessive distances from the workplace. Single members are required to `live in' in barracks-type single accommodation at or near their units unless they receive approval to `live out'. The standard of accommodation ranges from excellence to decrepitude. Members who `live in' pay a standard charge for rations and quarters. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) stated in his second reading speech: 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. The Authority is designed to streamline arrange-ments for the construction, upgrading and maintenance of service housing and to enable quicker disposal of housing stock no longer needed for defence purposes or unsuitable for occupancy by defence families. The establishment of a Defence Housing Authority is long overdue. The Hawke Government-an authentic Australian Government-is to be congratulated on its decision to establish the Defence Housing Authority. It is the first Federal government to acknowledge its obligation through legislation to provide adequate accommodation for its employees who, as the Minister has already stated: . . . by reason of duty requirements, are located where there is inadequate housing, or who are required to live at the work location. The principles- that is, those governing housing assistance- 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 establishment of the Defence Housing Authority and the expenditure of $750m over the next decade on the provision of housing for married members of the Australian Defence Force would not be necessary if the Fraser Go-vernment had not callously broken a number of pledges which it made to members of the Australian Defence Force on this issue. In 1975-76, the last year of the Whitlam Labor Government, 938 houses were accepted by the Department of Defence, the following year 582 houses and, in the worst year, 1979-80, only 75 houses. Some honourable members will recall that in September 1976 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, the Garland Committee, commenced a formal inquiry into accommodation for married defence service personnel. In selecting this subject the Committee indicated that it was influenced by the fact the programs had not been examined closely outside departments in the 20 years previously and that expenditure on the programs had increased significantly in the period 1973-74 to 1976-77. The major thrust of the Committee's inquiry was related to economy and efficiency in the use of resources and effectiveness in achieving specified objectives. The Committee proposed a scheme of assistance which was fundamentally different from the existing housing arrangements. Instead of a stock of houses being built, bought or leased for exclusive use by married service personnel, the Garland Committee recommended that personnel be assisted financially and physically to find their own accommodation and that to that end the Commonwealth establish an estate agency co-ordination service. The Garland Committee report was studied by the Department of Defence for some two years after its presentation in 1977. The report was finally rejected by the government of the day as impracticable. The Department of Defence maintained that there would always exist an operational need for a defence housing stock to ensure the availability of accommodation for married service personnel and that the operational effectiveness of the Defence Force was governed principally by the ability to deploy manpower to widely dispersed locations whenever required. However, this consideration by the Department of Defence caused a hiatus of some three years in the provision and refurbishment of service housing, which has contributed to the several problems now experienced by service personnel in securing adequate accommodation. In August 1984, the then Minister for Defence established a committee headed by Mr J. V. Monaghan to review the policy on the provision of housing for married members of the Defence Force. An interim report by the committee was presented to the Government and was made available for public discussion. The recommendations of the Monaghan interim report were in many ways similar to those presented in the Garland Committee report. I share the view that the Monaghan interim report was purely an exercise in cost cutting and paid little regard to requirements of industrial relations or the operational efficiency of the Australian Defence Force. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr LINDSAY —The philosophy of the Monaghan interim report was interpreted as an attempt to move the responsibility for finding family accommodation from the employer to the serviceman compulsorily transferred. The Armed Forces Federation of Australia, which had been formed to express the concerns of members of the Australian Defence Force about the deterio- ration of service conditions of employment, opposed the recommendations of the interim report on the grounds of equity, history and practicability. The Federation stated that the staffing policy and manning procedures of the Australian Defence Force required that personnel be available for frequent transfer to meet the demands of the service. These moves are frequently at short notice and often involve long distances. Furthermore, the Australian Defence Force has always recognised that the expectation of transitory residences causes stress to service personnel and their families and has therefore always attempted to assist its members in finding suitable accommodation. Amongst the specific recommendations of the Monaghan interim report to which the Federation objected were the sale of defence housing, the payment of an explicit subsidy calculated at an Australian average rate and the resultant abandoning of the long term practice of housing personnel reasonably approximate to base. Not only did the Armed Forces Federation of Australia have several objections to the proposed changes to the provision of married accommodation. It also felt it should have been consulted as part of the review process; that the proposed changes recommended in the Monaghan interim report would result in a further weakening of the conditions of service of Australian Defence Force personnel; that the changes would prove impractical in today's housing market; and that they would place further strains upon families and the careers of service personnel. Quite clearly, the deficiencies in the provision of suitable accommodation for married service personnel and the frustration and exasperation experienced by service families confronted with these difficulties required an urgent solution. In December 1985 the Minister for Defence commissioned Mrs Sue Hamilton to prepare a report identifying the problems faced by families of people in the Australian Defence Force. Sue Hamilton visited a large number of defence bases around Australia and spoke to more than 4,300 spouses of personnel in the three Services. On 30 April 1986 Mrs Hamilton's report supporting service families was released. One of the main problems identified in the report was widespread dissatisfaction with the standard of service housing. Mrs Hamilton heard many complaints about housing from service families and visited a number of defence married quarters which persuaded her that many of the complaints were entirely reasonable. She concluded that the low standard of service housing is a significant contributor to poor family morale in the Services. The most frequent area of complaint was the poor standard of maintenance in service housing. Service tenants complained of delays in carrying out maintenance and of poor quality of work and materials when maintenance was done, resulting in rapid deterioration. The new Defence Housing Authority must urgently ensure the provision of satisfactory maintenance standards. The establishment of the Defence Housing Authority is welcomed by defence personnel serving in Townsville. The Department of Defence controls some 1,761 houses in Townsville. Ninety of the Defence owned permanent married quarters are currently being upgraded with carpets, security screens, deadlocks and ceiling fans. The houses are being repainted, kitchens and bathrooms are being refurbished and the high-set homes are being concrete paved underneath. I believe that family homes in north Queensland should contain at least one air- conditioned room and sun awnings to protect windows from the heat of the sun. Sue Hamilton identified another important issue to defence personnel home owners. In paragraph 170 of her report, she had this to say: a number of home owners spoke to me about the penalty they incur in being asked by their lending institutions to pay investment rates on their home mortgage when they are forced by posting to move away from their homes. While it is obviously difficult for individuals to negotiate any more favourable arrangements in isolation, I was struck by the numbers of home owning service personnel who said they would prefer to rent their houses to other service people and who already did so through informal arrangements. If these arrangements could be formalised, perhaps through the Housing Authority with a scale of fair rents determined by it, or through the families information and liaison service, then this might provide a negotiating base of sufficient size to persuade some lending institutions to offer more favourable arrangements. I am sure that the new Defence Housing Authority will find a solution to that problem which will satisfy defence personnel homeowners. The Hawke Government believes that three essential elements are required to remedy the problems relating to the housing of married personnel. First, there must be a guaranteed level of funds committed to defence housing; second, there must be business enterprise and expertise brought to the management task; and third, the Defence Housing Authority, operating as a statutory authority under the Minister for Defence, must be dedicated to the management of the total Defence Force housing stock and be free from bureaucratic controls. This Bill provides that the Authority will be given maximum flexibility and commercial freedom to meet its objectives. To this end, the Housing Authority will receive the rents paid by service tenants, plus an amount from the defence budget to equal market rents for the properties under its control. In other words, the Authority will receive the same trading income as if it were operating commercially. The Authority will be able to keep the profits of disposing of unwanted housing stock to use towards construction and upgrading of other houses. In January 1986 the Hawke Government pledged that an expanded funding program of more than $750m during the next decade is to be used to bring the current stock of houses up to standard and service people are to be given a greater degree of choice of housing. Of the 22,000 houses, the worst 6,000 will be progressively replaced and other houses of inadequate standard will be refurbished. The Hawke Government has also pledged that provision of housing to married members of the Australian Defence Force will continue to be regarded as a condition of service and that the fundamental rent setting arrangements are to be preserved. The Minister for Defence has previously stated that rents will not skyrocket and that service members will not be expected to pay full commercial rents. However, rents will continue to be subject to annual review. Indeed, rentals for Defence Force housing have been reviewed annually since 1981. The review pro- cess takes into consideration a range of factors but mainly focuses on the movement of rents in the community. Many service members expressed concern over the increase in rental for Defence Force housing announced by the Minister for Defence on 18 February 1987. Many service members complain that although service rents went up by 7.5 per cent from 2 April 1987 wages for members of the Australian Defence Force rose by only 3.8 per cent last year. I believe that rentals for Defence Force housing can be increased in line with the movement of rents in the community only where they apply to Defence housing of reasonable standard and, most certainly, not to houses which are below the basic standard under the 1972 scales and standards of accommodation. The Defence Housing Authority would find it difficult to justify an increase in rent for substandard housing. As I have already indicated, the Hawke Go-vernment 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 Go-vernment will aim to provide the Defence Housing Authority with funding, additional to its guaranteed income, needed to meet this objective. New capital funds provided for service housing have grown from $16.65m in 1981-82 to $64m this financial year under the Hawke Government. This amount is intended to increase to around $70m to $80m per annum until all houses are brought up to standard. There is a massive task ahead to redress the neglect of many years to provide sufficient funds to maintain an adequate standard of housing for service families. As the Minister for Defence has stated, the Defence Housing Authority will be designed to bring business acumen to its task of providing housing to meet the operational needs of the Defence Force and the requirements of the Department as determined by the Minister for Defence. The Authority will have many advantages not available to private industry. The Authority will not be subject to Commonwealth and State taxes. It will have a guaranteed level of funds committed to defence housing. It will be master of its own destiny in making arrangements for the construction, upgrading and maintenance of defence housing and it will be independent of the Department of Defence. However, the Housing Authority will be held accountable on its performance to meet the stated objectives of the Hawke Government that the provision of adequate housing at a just rent level is an essential condition of service for married families of the Australian Defence Force. The performance of the Authority will be monitored by the Minister for Defence. It will be required by the Hawke Government to discharge efficiently its responsibilities as set out in this Bill. To sum up, this Bill is further written evidence of the commitment of the Hawke Government to national recovery, national reconciliation and national reconstruction. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(8.11) —The Defence Housing Authority Bill represents the Government's recognition that the housing crisis facing service personnel and their families can be ignored by it only at the risk of totally alienating service members from the Government. In part, it is a political act by a government losing electoral support amongst key groups in the electorate-in this case, the defence sector. It represents an initial concession by Cabinet to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) after four years of deferring action which I believe the Minister, to his credit, has been demanding. No doubt the resignation rate in the Services and the decline in morale to an almost dangerous level have finally persuaded those in the Cabinet with some concern for the future security of this country. The Opposition believes that the Bill is a necessary but insufficient move by the Government to tackle the crisis in defence housing. The Opposition's disappointment and the general direction necessary to supplement this legislation are expressed in the amendment moved earlier by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife). I want, first, to provide the background to the Bill. I want to describe, especially for honourable members who do not have significant service representation in their electorate and also for the fellow citizens of service personnel and their spouses, the nature of the housing problems that service members and their families face. To give credibility to the complaints of servicemen and to show how clear the problem was to the Government many months ago, I will quote sections of a report entitled `Problems Facing Service Spouses' by Sue Hamilton. It was written in April 1986. In the report, which is known as the Hamilton report, Mrs Hamilton states: I heard many complaints about housing from service families and visited a number of defence married quarters which persuaded me- I know that the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) has mentioned a number of these already- that many of these complaints were entirely reasonable, and that the low standard of service housing is a significant contributor to the poor family morale in the services. She continues: The most frequent area of complaint and a source of great frustration for the people I consulted was the poor standard of maintenance in service housing, particularly in that leased from the various State housing authorities. Tenants complained of delays in carrying out maintenance and of poor quality of work and materials when maintenance was done, resulting in rapid deterioration. In some cases I was also told of problems encountered by spouses in reporting maintenance needs themselves when the service member was away from home for service reasons. The report goes on to state: There was general dissatisfaction with housing leased from State housing authorities. This applied not only to the standards of maintenance of this housing, but to the general condition of the houses and to the social environment in the areas where they were. In many cases this concern seemed to me to be fully justified. Mrs Hamilton also states: Many families complained of the poor security of their married quarters, particularly during the absence of serving spouses. The lack of deadlocks, security screens or properly fastening windows in many married quarters can be a source of considerable concern. A number of people also reported that the combination of poor security arrangements and the socially disadvantaged areas in which large numbers of service houses are located resulted in great difficulties for them in attempting to insure their personal belongings. Finally a number of home owners spoke to me about the penalty they incur in being asked by their lending institutions to pay investment rates on their home mortgage when they are forced by postings to move away from their homes. Mrs Hamilton continues: The overwhelming impression I gained from the service spouses I talked to in the course of the study was their feeling that they and the contribution they make in support of the Australian Defence Force are not valued either within the service community or in the community generally. They perceive the service hierarchy as generally unsympathetic to the special problems that service life creates for a family with its inflexibility in responding to those problems. They see the civilian community generally as placing little value on defence activities and having little or no esteem for those who choose defence as a career or for their families. In spite of these perceptions, most of the people I spoke to were very proud of their spouse's service career; but they saw that career being pursued at a cost to family life that many Australians would not be prepared to tolerate; and they sought some recognition of the fact. Everything that Mrs Hamilton has reported in these sections has been repeated to my staff and to me on many occasions by service personnel or family members from the Richmond Royal Australian Air Force base, which is in the electorate of Macquarie. Mrs Hamilton made some further comments that I also consider important. She referred to a 1983 United States of America Army White Paper entitled `The Army Family', which states: . . . the unique nature of military service lends an urgency to the need to develop a coherent philosophy for the Army family. Service members and their families should be able to enjoy the benefits of the society they are pledged to defend. Furthermore the nature of the commitment of the service member dictates to the army a moral obligation to support their families. Mrs Hamilton concludes: Currently there is a widespread acceptance that a defence career makes special demands on and requires a special commitment from those who choose it. However there is no clear acceptance of the consequence that flows clearly from this proposition-the responsibility to assist serving people to cope with the problems that this special commitment can create for their families. In January 1985-over two years ago-the Go-vernment had before it an interim report of the program effectiveness review of the task force on the Australian Public Service and Defence Force housing programs. In April 1986, one year ago, it had a report from the Assistant Secretary of the Office of the Status of Women, Sue Hamilton, on the main problems facing spouses of Australian Defence Force personnel. The question I wish to ask is: Why has the Government taken so long to act on the housing problems of service personnel and their families? The answer, of course, is that political support has been lacking at Cabinet level. A thumbnail sketch of the Government's approach to defence housing and conditions runs as follows: Firstly, it puts off decisions, funding decisions in particular, by creating committees of inquiry and liaison groups. Secondly, it acts only when problems reach crisis proportions. Thirdly, when service disaffection and public interest in the service members' plight threaten political embarrassment, it sets up a back bench committee to tour the country declaring the continued sympathy and good intentions of the Government. Fourthly, it under-funds housing for as long as possible, announces that a large sum of money-$750m-is to be spent over 10 years and then under-allocates year one of that program by $10m to $15m. Fifthly, it boosts revenue by increasing rents for service housing, justifies the increase-7 1/2 per cent in February last-by referring to normal community rates, and then ignores the fact that the increase is double the rate of the last pay rise. Sixthly, it creates an industrial tribunal for the services but then opposes all wage and allowance claims. The sections that I have quoted from the Hamilton report give some idea of the problems that this Bill is intended to address. However, let me add a number of other facts to fill out the picture. Firstly, of the 22,000 houses in the total defence housing stock, close to 15,000 are considered to be below Commonwealth housing standards. Secondly, in the planned upgrading of service housing, barracks housing has hardly been touched and is completely inadequate. Housing funding has been inadequate for a number of years. Home purchase assistance is inadequate and not available to all service members. Representatives of service families and the private sector have not had sufficient input into housing management and planning. Private industry is reluctant to take over defence service housing provisions because the administrative costs under existing and proposed arrangements are prohibitive. Those in the best position to have oversight of the housing needs of their personnel, base and area commanders do not have sufficient power in the area of acquisition, repair and maintenance of defence housing. All of this compounds the difficulties confronted by service children facing constant family, social and educational disruption and by service spouses seeking employment and child care. The housing crisis must also be seen in the context of inadequate wages, inadequate allowances, rent increases, pension cuts and inefficient bureaucracy. No other section of the community would tolerate such conditions and no union would accept such conditions and positions of powerlessness for its members. Servicemen do not have union or political power. Their recourse is simply resignation and they are taking this course of action in increasing numbers. Most of the problems to which I have referred in this speech have not been dealt with as yet. For example, there is no indication that the Government has given any thought to negotiating with mortgage providers to keep interest rates at home rate level for a service family posted away from home. The message to the Minister and the Government is that this Bill is overdue, inadequate and in need of supplementation. Service personnel and their families will still expect further action to recognise their unique service, their grievances and their understandable desire for a fair go. If the rumours are correct, the mini-Budget will take the axe to defence. I fear, therefore, that the hopes of servicemen and their families, raised in some cases by the public relations visits of the Government's back bench committee on defence matters, will remain unfulfilled. In conclusion, it has been said that a defence force is a body of men used to correct the mistakes of politicians. In this case, our Defence Force is a decreasing body of men who are powerless to correct the mistakes now being made by this Government. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(8.23) —It is with great pride and pleasure that I rise to support the Defence Housing Authority Bill 1987. There are a number of reasons to be proud of this Bill and I am also proud of my association with the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). Not only has he shown a commendable and unique understanding, in Australian Government terms, of the strategic and equipment needs of the armed forces but also-this is very important in this Bill-he understands and is involved with the personnel in the defence forces who are under his charge. The work of the Minister for Defence is also ably backed up by other Ministers, particularly the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) who are providing an all-round effective Defence Force and defence capability for Australia. I also remind people at this stage, as the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is at the table, that he is also Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence in personnel matters. We all know, especially those with the Defence Force establishments in our areas, the amazing lengths to which the Minister goes to ensure that personnel queries are satisfied. This very powerful and capably co- ordinated and integrated approach to defence is again shown tonight in this Bill-the Defence Housing Authority Bill 1987. Defence is not just hardware; it is not just policy, industry or the care of past service personnel and their families. Defence is very much about the ordinary soldier, sailor, Royal Australian Air Force person and his family in most cases. We are dealing here with people. It is quite amazing to hear those opposite, particularly the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) who just spoke, talk about their concern for Defence Force personnel, about raising their pay, fixing up their houses and about all of the service conditions. Defence Force personnel know full well and other people in the community should also be well aware of what the Opposition, when in government, did to Defence Force pay, the way its Ministers held back pay by veto and how it let Defence Force housing fall into total disrepair and quite disgraceful conditions. This Government has certainly taken the bit between its teeth to address those areas. In terms of housing, this is a very important day for the Opposition. Both parties-I presume there are still only two parties-talk about housing. My goodness gracious, my golly gosh-honourable members can believe me when I say that-they are talking about housing and yet they cannot even keep their own house in order. Tonight we will see the end of the coalition of the Liberal Party and the National Party-its Queensland members and its southern members. What real policy will we hear tonight? Will we hear the Liberal policy, the Queensland National Party policy, the southern National Party policy the wet policy or the dry policy on Defence Force housing? That is what the people of Australia have to contend with and that is what the people of Australia and Defence Force personnel will have to make up their minds about. There is no comparison; there is no credible Opposition that will provide for the ordinary service people and their families a comprehensive, complete housing policy. It has failed to provide their policies in any other area. A large majority of honourable members on this side of the House have Defence Force establishments in their electorates. There are many Defence Force establishments in Australian Labor Party electorates with their attendant housing problems. As a result of many individual approaches, indeed joint approaches in the past, the Defence Force Action Committee-one of its founders, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), is in the chamber, as is the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins)-has brought forward to the Minister issues of concern which are related to not only housing but also education, postings, work opportunities for spouses of Defence Force personnel and other personnel matters. The Government's Defence Force Action Committee-there is only one-welcomes this Bill and the improved housing that will result from it. We need an improved standard of housing because in many cases while there is good housing in our areas there is also extremely poor housing as we all know. That housing has been there for a long time under many years of Liberal-National Party governments and we are trying desperately to address that situation. This Bill will certainly help in that regard. I also bring to the House's attention in relation to housing and service conditions for Defence Force personnel and their families the recent announcement on 13 April by the Minister of the establishment of the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Staff which will, as is usually the case in military terms, be signified by the acronym of ADFILS. It will provide community development, education advice and family liaison services to support service families. As it comes into operation over the next year or so I am sure that it will ease problems and assist people in dealing with some of their housing difficulties as well as problems involved with just living and working in the armed forces. I very much appreciate the initiative of the Minister in my electorate. On several occasions he talked to Defence Force personnel and their spouses. From that we have seen some very important initiatives as he has picked up the same messages in other electorates in which the Defence Force is located such as Holsworthy in the electorate of the honourable member for Hughes. We have seen the Hamilton review and the Mills report on the effect of postings on the children of service personnel. Honourable members opposite have been in this House long enough, and their predecessors were in government long enough, to know that these issues have been around. The same issues-postings and education-have been talked about for many years. But they criticise this Government for what it has not done in terms of Defence Force personnel and their families. They had years and years, decades, of opportunity to address these problems. They failed to do so because they really did not care. It is as simple as that. This Government cares and the members of the Defence Force Action Committee care, because we are dealing with people in our own electorates. We will use the Hamilton report and the Mills report to ensure that our constituents get a much better deal and a much better standard of living and conditions of service during the time they spend in the Services. I pay tribute tonight to the Watsonia South Primary School and the Macleod High School. I refer particularly to the Watsonia South Primary School, which has a very high percentage of children from service families. It has done, and continues to do, a great job, particularly in the area of language. I am very proud of its efforts. The whole system is a credit to the staff and to the openness of the education system in Victoria, particularly because of school councils. The work that is done to ensure that children of service personnel have a good continuum of education is a credit to the parents, the school and, indeed, the young people themselves. This is an important matter associated with housing. The son or daughter of a service person is very much affected by housing and the way in which the families must move around the country. It is very important, in terms of the education system and the building up of friendships, as well as the introduction into new schools, that they feel happy at home and at school. Good, comfortable, reasonably priced accommodation is critical. I believe that this Bill will assist in this regard. This Bill, which will establish the Defence Housing Authority, will create a new autonomy for Defence Force housing management. That is very important. There are expectations in the Defence Force area, and I believe that those expectations will be gradually, over time, matched and met by the Defence Housing Authority. I believe that the removal of the administration of Defence Force housing from the Department of Defence will lead to better housing, better maintenance and attention to other housing problems. That is not a reflection on the officers who have handled Defence Force housing in my area. They have done a wonderful job as they struggled against a very awkward system. I believe this Housing Authority will overcome that problem. It should be noted that the Defence Housing Authority will need to be fully supportive of the defence forces' operational needs. Reference has already been made in this debate to the needs that will be generated by our new defence poli-cy, particularly those created by the two-ocean Navy. The honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin), who is also a member of the Defence Force Action Committee, will be very much involved in this area in the future, as she is now. She is held in high regard in this Parliament. She cares very deeply and does a lot of work for her constituents in Western Australia. The honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) raised concerns that he has about the board of management. I believe that the board, as proposed by the Minister, in the form in which it will be put together, will provide very adequate skills to ensure an efficient and progressive Housing Authority. It is not so much a matter of what those people are, but who those people are. I have great confidence in the Minister to provide very thoughtful and very aware people in this role. The corporate plan, the Housing Authority, I believe, will give a very firm basis in effective financial management and provide what we need. (Quorum formed) Here we go again! This is the only thing that honourable members opposite can do now. There is a range of parties which are totally splintered and there is total disruption. All they can do now, in terms of being involved in the Parliament of Australia, is to call quorums. What a miserable situation we have! When they call a quorum, only about seven or eight Opposition members come into the House. I presume they are all shadow Ministers, and the other 50 to 60 shadow Ministers are running around, looking for something else to do. It is a sad situation. They have wasted more of my time, as they wasted the time and opportunities of the Australian people when they were in government. It is a sad indictment of this Parliament and the political situation in Australia that they have fallen so low in so short a time, because they do not have the leadership, the policies or the guts to create a credible opposition to this very effective Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, my time has nearly expired. I point out finally, as I have had time taken from me, that we are very concerned about housing for Defence Force personnel. This Bill certainly shows that that is the case. The Defence Force Action Committee will ensure, in consultation with the Minister and the people in our electorates, that very good housing is provided as a result of this legislation. The situation for these people is very important. They must travel around quite often to different States of Australia, which have different education systems, and they must leave their friends, and so on. I mention at this point that the Minister is very concerned about the effect this has on service personnel and their families. He has just received a report from the Chief of the Defence Force that will allow the defence forces to lengthen the duration of postings and to ensure that fewer short term postings occur. It is very important to allow people to become better established in the better homes that we will provide. Their children will receive a better education, they can keep their friends, and spouses can work in the broader community and be better involved. There are no quick fixes and no band-aid solutions to service wastage and improved service life. It is all about structural development. This Government is about structural development. This Bill shows that we will improve Defence Force housing. The commitment to provide $750m over the next 10 years is a clear example of that. I commend this Bill to the House. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(8.40) —I want to make it very clear tonight that I have pleasure in rising to support the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) to the Defence Housing Authority Bill. I do so in the knowledge that members on the left hand side of the Speaker will vote as one on the Bill and the normal co-ordinated liaison will be accorded on this side of the House. Mr Milton —On a point of order, I should point out that the honourable member is speaking at the dispatch box. He is no longer a member of the front bench. He should be sitting in his normal place on the back bench. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! No announcement has been made to the House. The Chair is not aware that there have been any changes in the Opposition. No official announcement has been made to the House. All the Chair is able to do is take note of what is said in the House. The honourable member for Farrer is within his rights. Mr TIM FISCHER —Thank you very much for a very wise ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let us all be clear that it will be the other dispatch box from which all the members on the left hand side of the Speaker at the moment will be speaking after the next election when this Government is thrown out of office, when the Hawke Labor Government is defeated by the largest majority ever in voting for members of the House of Representatives. It ill becomes the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), who is trying to interject, because he told his electorate that he was not good enough to front at a veterans and pensioners seminar last Monday. He had to call in the big gun from the neighbouring electorate of Charlton. He trumped up an apology. He was not game enough to appear before the grey power of his electorate so the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) had to come in. Mr Fitzgibbon —I take a point of order. The unfortunate circumstances of the day have caused the honourable member for Farrer to take leave of his senses. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Hunter wishes to make a personal explanation he may do so at the end of the speech by the honourable member for Farrer. If he has a point of order he might quickly get to it. Mr Fitzgibbon —I hope it is through being misinformed, but the honourable member for Farrer is lying. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hunter will withdraw that statement. Mr Fitzgibbon —I should have said that his handling-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw his statement. Mr Fitzgibbon —I withdraw that statement and substitute `dealing lightly with the truth'. Mr TIM FISCHER —Clearly we won that round and the honourable member for Hunter will soon be out of this place. Mr Robert Brown —I take a point of order. I am aware of the fact that in a human and understandable response to the accusation that has just been made by the honourable member for Farrer the honourable member for Hunter called the honourable member for Farrer a liar. I am not going to call him a liar. I only say that what he said was incorrect. Mr Porter —If they want to make-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker is not helping. If the honourable member for Charlton has a point of order he may proceed. Mr Robert Brown —There is a standing order, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that says that members of the House cannot deliberately mislead the House as the honourable member for Farrer quite clearly is doing now. The honourable member for Hunter is correct when he calls him a liar. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I ask the honourable member for Charlton to withdraw that remark. Mr Robert Brown —I withdraw. Mr TIM FISCHER —I find the comments of the honourable member for Charlton offensive. I stand by what I said-that he represented the honourable member for Hunter at a function involving pensioners and grey power in Cessnock earlier this week. Deny it if he will but the meeting was told that and that the honourable member for Hunter had apologised for not attending the meeting. Mr Robert Brown —I take a point of order. The honourable member for Farrer apparently indicates that he is quoting from a media report. When he does such a thing he has a responsibility to vouch for the authenticity of the media report. I ask that he indicate the name of the newspaper from which he is quoting, the date of the edition and the page from which he is quoting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr TIM FISCHER —Now that the honourable member for Charlton has lost that round and the honourable member for Hunter lost the previous round, may I return to the Defence Housing Authority Bill. Mr Fitzgibbon —I take a point of order. I believe that this is a House where truth should be told. My point of order is that what the honourable member for Farrer has said is total nonsense and he should withdraw it because I find it offensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I also remind members of the House that they might recall that vexatious points of order are not in order. Mr TIM FISCHER —For those listening in from across the nation perhaps I should remind them that we are considering the Defence Housing Authority Bill and that members of the Liberal Party and the National Party will vote as one on this legislation. In the normal course of events whatever else has happened in Parliament House this day ought to be seen in perspective. There will be the normal exchange of preferences between the Liberal and National parties and the normal maximisation of liaison and co-operation between the Liberal and National parties. The action which will be taken by the Opposition on the Defence Housing Authority Bill will demonstrate clearly the purposeful way that those on the left hand side of the Speaker will convince the nation that this Hawke Labor Government deserves to be thrown out of office at the next Federal election. There is no greater problem facing so many married soldiers, sailors and airmen than the state and condition of defence housing around Australia. Undoubtedly, any review of the reasons for the record rate of resignations from our armed forces would highlight the condition of housing as a key factor in the resignations of members of the Army, the Royal Australian Navy, and the Royal Australian Air Force. This Government is responsible for a record rate of resignations. For the first time in many years the numbers in the armed forces have dipped below 70,000 personnel. The reasons relate to morale and to a large extent to the condition and standard of defence housing. They also relate to the decision of the Government to cut by 2 per cent certain Defence Force retirement and death benefits payments. They also relate to general pay and work conditions in a competitive economic situation where, for example, refuellers who are technically qualified can go out into private enterprise and be paid a great deal more by working for Ansett Airlines of Australia, the Department of Aviation or whomever than they can by working as refuellers in the Air Force. That is a problem that is not easily addressed, and I acknowledge that. But housing is very germane-it is a key-to the state of morale of our armed forces. The standard of housing for defence personnel varies greatly across Australia. Albury-Wodonga has the fourth largest military complex in Australia. That necessitates a large amount of housing for defence personnel of varying types. The majority of it is in Wodonga in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron), who has made many representations about this matter. I want to say that there are houses there which are utilised by all ranks, including officers, which, for example, do not have adequate hot water systems. In the cold winter months of June and July in Albury-Wodonga to have a young family of a married lieutenant, captain, sergeant, corporal, lance-bombardier or a private living in such conditions in this year 1987 is totally unsatisfactory. That is the reality of the situation. That is an horrific situation which is contributing to the rate of resignations of members of the Army, Navy and Air Force. We have this Bill before the House tonight to create yet another government instrumentality-the Defence Housing Authority-to take a series of initiatives in this area. I was pleased that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) recently visited Albury-Wodonga and met the wives of many of the armed forces personnel. He visited Latchford Barracks and held a number of discussions. I am very appreciative of the fact that in his busy schedule he made that visit to inspect some of the housing conditions and to give some assurances about the local situation. But of course the stock answer that he trotted out in a lot of those discussions was that the solution rested with this Defence Housing Authority Bill. I do not think that we can be quite as confident as the Minister. I think that the remarks made by my colleague the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) and the amendment moved by him on behalf of both the Liberal and National parties point the clear direction on this issue and it is one that I commend to the House. Indeed, the Minister said in his second reading speech that he did not believe the Defence Housing Authority would necessarily run up a large bureaucracy. He said: 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. Those are grand words but it remains to be seen whether the Authority adheres to that aspect of the Minister's second reading speech or whether, like a lot of quangos, it becomes an indulgent authority which finds reasons, good and not so good, to expand its staffing establishment, to grow like Topsy and suddenly become a much larger body than the one intended in the Minister's speech to this Parliament. I think it is necessary and important to highlight to the House the Minister's words and, in doing so, to highlight to the nine new members of the Authority that the Minister said: I expect the Authority to have a fairly small permanent staff. Let us hope that the Authority will stick to that, that it will be a lean, efficient and effective operator which boosts the housing conditions of our armed forces personnel across Australia, particularly at Albury-Wodonga, but also at all other military areas around the country. I believe that the chances of this happening are slim. Members of the Opposition will closely monitor the performance of the Defence Housing Authority. I also wish to highlight three other aspects arising from the Minister's speech. He said: 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 . . . I want to focus on that first point about a guaranteed level of funds being committed to defence housing. At the moment I am reading the memoirs of one James Killen, who was Minister for Defence for several years during the second half of the 1970s and into the early 1980s. He worked very hard as Minister for Defence. In those memoirs he reflects on the fact that certain undertakings given in respect of defence expenditure and allocations by the Government to various aspects of defence were ultimately compromised and that that created enormous problems for the Government, for the viability of the defence forces and for morale within the Army, Navy and Air Force. The Minister has said that there will be an investment program totalling $750m over the next decade to solve this defence housing problem. Those are admirable words but I point out to the House that he and his predecessors have often given commitments, produced figures and more recently produced white papers, but in reality the processes of government, in preparing budgets, mini-budgets and economic statements such as the one that will be given on 13 May in this House, are quite different from the objectives referred to by the Minister when he talked of solving the housing problem. Thus this figure of $750m over 10 years to deal in particular with the 6,000 worst houses remains to be seen. It is a figure that the Minister has presented to the House, but it remains to be seen whether it eventuates in reality should this Government continue beyond the next election. The reality is that this Government will not continue beyond the next election and it will be a Liberal-National Party government which will offer a clear-cut alternative to this nation. It will also offer a clear-cut alternative for overcoming the defence housing problem, the morale problem of members of the Army, Navy and Air Force and the related problem that that brings to veterans who have found their Defence Force retirement benefit payments reduced by this Government as part of a wide range of cutbacks and changes which it has perpetrated on defence and ex-service personnel, veterans, war widows and other categories of pensioner, contrary to the statements made by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) and others about the Government looking after these groups in the community. I sound a note of warning in respect of the Defence Housing Authority Bill. I support the amendment moved by my colleague, the honourable member for Hume, and I believe that this Parliament needs to be very vigilant in relation to the performance of the new Defence Housing Authority which will be created by this legislation. It will need to see that the Authority's performance matches the rhetoric and that there is a genuine improvement to the homes of airmen, sailors and army personnel across the nation. Because many of these people have young families I can do no better than remind the House of a very honest comment made by Senator Button on 24 February this year when he said: Families with young children and wage earners generally were worse off as a result of Hawke Government policies. That is a quote from Senator Button. He said that families with young children and wage earners generally were worse off as a result of Hawke Government policies. That was the Government's leader in the Senate putting the position honestly in relation to families with young children. So many families with young children contain Army, Navy and Air Force personnel who have married either just before or shortly after joining the armed forces. They are in difficult housing conditions and they face a deterioration in their living standards as declared by Senator Button, who went on to say that it was true that most people in the community were relatively worse off under the Hawke Labor Government because, in part, of the dramatic decline in Australia's national income. He concluded: But I concede that those families are probably worse off as other sections of the community are also probably worse off. I am sure that while some families are relatively worse off, families with young children . . Those were the people whom the Minister singled out as being particularly subjected to the brunt of the Hawke Government's policies. I point out to the House that this Bill relates particularly to families with young children who are often living in atrocious conditions around Australia and who now hopefully look forward to an improvement in their defence housing conditions as a result of this Bill. That will not be automatic and it will be the responsibility of this Parliament to ensure that the Defence Housing Authority measures up to the task ahead. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(8.59) —I speak in the debate on the Defence Housing Authority Bill tonight not only as the member for Hughes, representing the important defence constituency of Holsworthy, East Hills and a whole range of other defence housing areas throughout my electorate, but also as one of the co-conveners of the Government Members Defence Force Action Committee which has been so often referred to in the course of this debate. In my remarks I will have something to say about that Committee. Before turning to that, I place on record the fact that this reform by the Government in establishing the Defence Housing Authority is but one of a number of significant reforms that will, in totality, transform the life of service personnel and their families in years to come. I refer to the establishment also of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal which, for the first time in the history of this country, takes conditions of pay outside the hands of politicians and gives service personnel the same recourse to an independent tribunal as other wage and salary earners. That of itself is, I believe, one of the most important reforms that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has undertaken. Another reform has been to institute the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Staff. That service will, I believe, bring great benefits in future years. It came about because of the pressure applied by service personnel and their families throughout Australia, which also led to the formation of the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses which the families from Holsworthy in my electorate were so instrumental in supporting. They were indeed driving forces towards the establishment of that Committee. Another reform has been the establishment of the Armed Forces Federation of Australia which was given active support in its formation by Minister Beazley. Very few countries have such a federation to advance the interests of serving service personnel. Scandinavia, Germany and the United States of America are other examples. That Federation has already made its mark and will, I believe, also be effective in future years in drawing the attention of members of parliament and the wider community to the need to improve conditions for ser-vice personnel and their families. It is in that context that the Government's initiative to establish the Defence Housing Authority comes before the Parliament tonight. My experience of service life is limited to my experience as a Federal member representing the seat of Hughes, but I am very pleased to say that as soon as I became aware of what service life was all about and the difficulties encountered by service personnel and their families I sought to involve myself in the very just cause that those families and servicemen and women have in advancing their conditions. I literally could not believe what I saw when I first went to service housing in and around my electorate, at Holsworthy. I went there with the former Minister for Defence, Minister Scholes. In my tour of defence establishments I found servicemen living literally in slum accommodation that was built as temporary accommodation about the end of the Second World War. It was absolutely pitiful to see what servicemen had to endure, crammed into inadequate accommodation with poor heating and forced to suffer what I think were Third World conditions. I do not seek to make political capital out of those many years of neglect because I do not think that that neglect is the responsibility of any one party, although it is true that the Australian Labor Party historically has not had as many years in office as have the coalition-or former coalition, I should say-parties. Nevertheless, it seems to be that all of us have a responsibility to do something to redress those very many years of neglect. When I went to the East Hills naval estate for the first time I found an isolated community inadequately serviced and suffering in many respects similar conditions to those which have been described by others earlier in this debate. It is those kinds of problems that I have seen in my electorate which have caused me to become, I hope, an outspoken and public advocate of improved conditions for service personnel and their families. The Bill before the House is part of an overall strategy of this Government to address the conditions of its employees, not only in the Defence Force but also in other areas. It often happens in government employment that people are placed in circumstances where they are not easily able to rent accommodation on the open market or where, because of their employment, they are forced to live immediately adjacent to that employment. In that light we believe three essential steps are necessary to remedy the housing problems faced by government employees, and, in this case particularly, service personnel. Firstly, a guaranteed level of funds must be committed to defence housing. Throughout this debate and in earlier statements we have heard that this Government is committed to a 10-year, $750m expenditure program to redress those very many years of neglect. Secondly, business enterprise and expertise must be brought to the management task. We see in this Bill before the House that that is precisely what is being done. Thirdly, a single organisation must be established which is dedicated to management of defence housing, free from bureaucratic controls. It is those three principles, I believe, that are given effect in the Bill. The Bill creates the Defence Housing Authority, as I have indicated, to undertake the management of defence housing. The Authority is designed to streamline existing arrangements. The primary function of the Authority is to include the management, construction, upgrading and maintenance of defence housing and the disposal of surplus stock. The objectives of the Authority are to provide adequate and suitable housing to meet the operational needs of the Defence Force and the requirements of the Department of Defence as determined by the Minister. The Authority will be given maximum flexibility and commercial freedom to meet its objectives. Arrangements for the appointment of the chairperson and members to the Authority will ensure that the business acumen to which I referred is brought to the management task. Furthermore, the planning and oversight arrangements will ensure a proper degree of ministerial responsibility and accountability and that the Authority will remain responsible 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. Furthermore, the Authority will have the option of employing staff under the Public Service Act or engaging consultants. Those are the main points that are relevant to the operation of the Bill. Very importantly, I believe that the personnel of the board of management must reflect the objects that I have outlined. I am very pleased to note that the membership of that board of management has been structured to ensure the application of necessary skills for housing management and proper co-ordination with defence policy and planning. It will include not only four part time members selected on the basis of business expertise and a wide knowledge of housing and social planning but also four members to represent each of the Services and the Department of Defence and there will be a full time managing director. The Minister for Defence is to be further commended because he did not wait for this Bill to come before the Parliament before he acted to give effect to the Government's policies. The establishment of the interim Defence Housing Board last year, in November I believe, was a very important step towards giving effect to those policies. The Minister has referred to the personnel who will be considered for appointment to the Authority when it is established. They include people who are highly respected in business and in the commercial world, including Mr John Graham, a former National President of the Housing Industry Association and director of the Sydney building firm of Civic Constructions Pty Ltd, who accepted the position of Chairman of the interim Board. It is in that light that the Bill comes before the House tonight. A number of comments have been made in the debate which seek to disparage the political will of this Government to do something about those years of neglect of Defence Force housing. The honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster), I think, spoke with some disdain about the Government Members Defence Force Action Committee. My colleague the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) clearly refuted the arguments put by the honourable member for Macquarie, but for the record let me reiterate what the Government Members Defence Force Action Committee is about. For the first time in the history of the Commonwealth Parliament we now have an organised group of Government members committed to taking a public stand to advance the interests of Defence personnel and their families. We stand solidly behind the Federal Minister for Defence and his policies to do something in a very tangible way to meet that need. We make no apology for the fact that we are prepared to stand up to some of the elements of the bureaucracy. We make no apology for the fact that we stand shoulder to shoulder with Defence Force personnel and their families. We are here to represent their interests in the Parliament, and we are going to ensure that our voices are heard at the highest level of government. It is a tragedy that such an important initiative, which has been welcomed, I might add, by the highest echelons of the Defence Force, should be so disappointingly disparaged by the Opposition. I refer to the view of a former senior member of the Defence Force about the Government's Defence Housing Authority, which is the subject of the debate in the House tonight. We in the Government do not suggest for a moment that, with the establishment of this Authority, we will immediately transform defence housing and redress and remedy those decades of neglect, to which I have referred in the course of my speech. But what we do say is that we are establishing the best possible administrative mechanism to do something about the problem that exists and we are making a financial commitment that will give the resources to that Authority to enable it to do its job. I refer members of the House to the soldiers' newspaper the Army Fortnightly of 16 April, in which the retiring Chief of the Defence Force, General Sir Phillip Bennett, spoke of his views about important matters concerning the Government's initiatives in relation to defence personnel and their families. I could speak at some length about what I think are the laudatory remarks offered there about the Government's initiatives. However, I want to concentrate on one element only. General Sir Phillip Bennett, of course, was the Army's longest serving soldier. The article to which I have referred states: Establishment of a Defence Housing Authority will benefit many of you [he said to the soldiers] as the standard of housing and the way the housing stock is administered improve. Although the total impact of the Housing Authority may take some time to become apparent, in the shorter term the improvement in the timeliness and standard of maintenance will quickly become evident. They are not my words; they come from Australia's longest serving, and very distinguished, soldier. I wish Sir Phillip and Lady Bennett the very happy retirement that they have so deservedly earned for themselves. The amendment before the House tonight is rather puzzling, as it seems to bear no relationship whatsoever to the Opposition policy about defence housing. It is, in the words of the Opposition Leader-and this word, of course, is often associated with him-a wimpish amendment, because it does not, I believe, do anything to significantly alter the substance of the Bill. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. Its amendment does not seek to make any significant alteration to it. The Opposition has not outlined to the Government or the people of Australia its hidden agenda for Defence Force housing, because in this area, as in every other area of Liberal and National Party responsibility, it has adopted an extremist view in respect of the policies that it is putting forward-and the view on this issue involves privatisation. That is not only my view on this issue. I refer to the Australian Financial Review of 16 October, in which the shadow Minister for Administrative Services at that time, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey)-and I think he still is, at least until tomorrow-went on public record and said that the Federal coalition would sell off most of the 22,000 properties owned by the Commonwealth to the private sector. He, in fact, was very charitable and he gave a list of the properties to the Real Estate Industry Association. I might say that he did not have such a close and cordial relationship with service personnel and their families. An article in the Melbourne Herald of 21 October stated: Mr Tuckey said not all of the properties would be suitable for privatisation, but properties such as defence owned houses could be sold to the private sector and then leased back by the Government. Make no mistake: No serviceman or service woman in Australia or their families should be under any illusion about the consequence of that policy. It is all about market rents; it is all about `killer' rents for service personnel and their families-because we know that service personnel and their families simply could not pay those market rents. So, let everyone be aware of the hidden agenda of the Opposition in relation to Defence Force housing. I hope that the change in personnel on the Opposition front bench will lead to a more constructive debate about a range of social and political issues in Australia. Regrettably, in all the circumstances, I do not think that my hopes will be borne out, as the people who have taken the positions on the front bench are out of touch with middle Australia. There was no better example of that than when the shadow Minister for Housing, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), visited my electorate, in fact only two weeks ago. Let me tell the House that, following his visit to my electorate, I was telephoned and I received a barrage of complaints-not from people who are members of the Australian Labor Party-about the total lack of comprehension and rapport that the shadow Minister had with service personnel and their families. The local newspaper, the Liverpool Champion, poured scorn and contempt on the shadow Minister's visit. The servicemen and servicewomen and their families in my electorate were so irate about that visit that they literally came to me with their complaints. That indicates how members opposite are so completely out of touch. Mr Cohen —Who was the shadow Minister? Mr TICKNER —The honourable member for Deakin. I have only a limited amount of time remaining to me, but I want to draw to the attention of the House a couple of other points. I believe that the Government Members Defence Force Action Committee has a crucial role to play in coming years in securing real advances for service personnel and their families. One of the things that I have sought to do as the local Federal member is to have a completely open door policy for those servicemen and servicewomen and their families. I received telephone calls at home about a whole range of issues that affect those people in my electorate. For years, when the Government Members Defence Force Action Committee was not in operation and they were not able to voice their views as they now have the opportunity to do, they experienced great frustration. I now get telephone calls at home not only about broad matters of defence policy but about the little things-about blocked drains and about things that affect mothers and their children, the everyday matters that are the heart and soul of the morale of the defence forces. Those people have a voice in this Government and a voice in this Parliament. The Defence Housing Authority is yet one more significant reform to advance the interests of ser-vicemen and servicewomen and their families. The Minister and the Government should be commended for that initiative. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(9.19) —Listening to the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), one could almost believe that fairy tales have come true. It is all very well for him to talk about his new task force-I am not sure which one he means this time-but really he seems to overlook the one simple fact that at the moment resignations from the armed forces are the highest they have been for a long time. That tells us more than anything that people are dissatisfied; they are voting with their feet. The honourable member talked a bit about the problems of rents and made some fanciful accusation against the Opposition. I should think that the honourable member for Hughes ought to be aware, living in Sydney-forget about any hidden agenda-of what is happening to rents in Australia right now. We can see very clearly that, through the Government's abolition of negative gearing and, more particularly, through the high interest rates policy that this Government continues to pursue, rents in Australia are rising at the most alarming rate. If the honourable member were really concerned about the housing issue in general and in particular housing for people in the armed services, I think he ought to have addressed the major problems rather than talk about little band-aid solutions such as having a committee which makes everyone feel nice and warm inside but which really achieves very little. As the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) stated when outlining the case for the Opposition in this debate, there is a very major concern in the defence forces about the whole housing issue, and that is the alarming rate of resignations. As the honourable member for Hume pointed out so clearly, one of the major reasons for this alarming rate of resignations is the very poor standard of housing. While members of the Government might like to give us some history lessons, I think they also ought to recognise that the Australian Labor Party has now been in government for over four years and it has taken a mighty long time to get around to addressing this problem-a darn sight longer than it has taken it to look at some fancy new hardware such as some new submarines. In talking about defence forces housing one cannot help being reminded of the shabby way this Government has treated former members of the armed forces, in particular, soldier settlers-many of whom live in my electorate-when it brought in that dreadful thing called the assets test. Still we have the situation where a farmer, who happens to have a farm that might be worth $250,000, can find that his house is valued at $50,000 and he completely misses out on the pension. Yet people in the city can have a house worth $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000 and still be eligible for the pension. If that is equity, I would like to know what the Government will try to tell us next. In fact, I would not be the slightest bit surprised-despite the great claims of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe)-that there are people in Australia receiving the pension right now who have houses of the value of a million dollars or more. So much for the so-called assets test cutting out the millionaires getting pensions. By exempting the family home the Government has in fact created two classes of pensioners-those who live in the city and those who live in the country. The Defence Housing Authority Bill represents a belated recognition by the Government of the serious problem that is confronting service personnel. As I said, it has taken the Government over four years to bring this Bill into the chamber. I guess we have to welcome it but, as the honourable member for Hume has pointed out, we have moved an amendment in three parts which expresses our reservations about the Bill. So in fact we support the Bill in principle but, just for the benefit of honourable members, I will outline our concerns as they are expressed in the amendment. Firstly, we are concerned that the establishment of a statutory authority is in fact the best way to address the housing needs of service men and women. Our second concern is the failure of the Government to allow adequately for the private home ownership requirements of the Australian Defence Force. Our third concern, as outlined in our amendment, is that we urge greater delegation of the financial responsibility to base and area commanders for acquisition, repair and maintenance of defence housing with appropriate audit controls. We heard quite a bit tonight about the problems of the rundown in funding of housing for Defence Force personnel. This, in fact, can be highlighted by looking at a few statistics. Under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement-which is the main source of defence housing-housing as a proportion of defence expenditure has dropped drastically over the last 10 years. In fact it has dropped from 1.8 per cent to a miserable 0.25 per cent. More recent figures highlight further the Government's failure to provide reasonable funding for defence housing. If we look at funding through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement we find that in 1985-86 $4.3m was allocated, but by 1986-87 the amount has fallen to $1.9m. That is a drop from $4.3m to $1.9m. So much for the claims by members of the Government that this Government has moved to address the problem quickly; it has in fact presided over the major part of the problem in the first place. When the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) comes into this chamber-he is always trumpeting his so-called achievements in housing-it is amazing and very curious how silent he is about Defence Force housing. We cannot really blame the State governments because the funds are advanced to the States by the Commonwealth. Also, the Commonwealth pays rents on houses provided under this Agreement with the States; so again we cannot blame the States. If we want to look at the seriousness of the problem we have to go back and look at some of the statistics. The first thing we find is that the Department of Defence has admitted that nearly 60 per cent of its houses are below standards-standards that were set in 1972 under the scales of accommodation. When one considers that the Defence Department has 29,000 houses the scale of the problem becomes apparent. In other words, there is an urgent need to upgrade at least 15,000 of these houses. As honourable members would be aware, a housing problem just does not appear overnight. The warning about the need for increased housing has been around for years. In fact, the Australian Defence White Paper highlighted the problem in 1976-over 10 years ago-when it noted that there was a shortage of married quarters in most areas of Australia. As the White Paper also pointed out, there was a need to obtain a further 3,200 houses by the early 1980s. More recently, a report from the task force on Public Service and Defence Force housing programs written in 1985 noted that there were insufficient married quarters available and that a large number of existing married quarters were substandard. That was in 1985, so the warnings have been repeated. It was also noted that there was a common complaint that repairs and maintenance work took too long to get done and on occasions it was not even done properly when it was done. On this latter point, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) cited a worthy aim when he spoke in his second reading speech of one of the three essential elements to remedying this problem of poor repairs and maintenance. The Minister said: There must be a single organisation established which is dedicated to management of Defence housing and free from bureaucratic controls. Great words! As the honourable member for Hume has already pointed out, the Opposition is highly critical of the Minister on this point, and we strongly doubt that this aim will be achieved by the type of legislation that has been introduced here, because, despite the Minister's high sounding rhetoric, there is in fact a real lack of delegation. No doubt many people have heard the story about how many weeks it takes Defence Force personnel to get a light bulb changed because of the paper that has to be shuffled backwards and forwards before they can get the authority to allow someone to do it rather than going to buy the thing themselves. The seriousness of the housing problem is also highlighted in a report written by Sue Hamilton in April 1986 entitled `Supporting Service Families'. In that report she said: The low standard of service housing is a significant contributor to poor family morale in the services. At times when families are suffering all the other stresses associated with a change of location, it would at least lessen the trauma a little if they could be confident of being offered a reasonable standard of accommodation on arrival at their new location. I think those words spell out very clearly one of the major problems-one which I highlighted at the beginning of my speech-that of the rising number of resignations. One notable aspect of Defence Service personnel housing is the failure of the Government to give any extra assistance with home ownership to members of the Defence Force. At present assistance is provided through the Defence Ser-vice Homes Corporation, but both former and serving members of the Defence Force can in fact become eligible for loans of up to $25,000 at favourable rates of interest to buy their own home. The money that has been available for loans through this scheme has been slashed by 35 per cent, from $126m in 1985-86 to $82 1/2m in 1986-87-again giving the lie to the argument put by members of the Government that they are in fact concerned about the Defence Force personnel and the standard of their housing. It is interesting to note that over the same period defence spending increased by 11 per cent. In other words, the Government is quite happy to increase spending on defence-and, of course, we welcome that-but at the same time it forgets, by failing to keep up adequate funding for housing, the very people who are expected to work in our defence forces. As was pointed out on page 161 of the 1986-87 Budget statement, the Government has invited financial institutions to join in arrangements to provide home loans for those eligible under the defence services homes scheme. It was also stated in the Budget Papers that these arrangements would be introduced from 1 January this year. Despite the fact that this invitation to private financial institutions was first announced back in the mini-Budget of May 1985, there still seems to have been very little action. The waiting list of service personnel who have applied for a loan under this scheme continues to grow. In fact, as of six months ago, the waiting list was at least 10 months-again, an indication of the priority that the Government puts on Defence Force housing. In fact, it is nearly two years since the Government first announced that it would do something about this waiting list. If the answer given to a question asked by Senator Newman in the other place on 25 March is any guide, the delays will continue. In fact, if honourable members want to check, they will find that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) refused to give any undertaking as to when this waiting list would be reduced. I have had personal representations from constituents on this matter. Quite frankly, whatever way we look at it, the situation is quite unsatisfactory. Again, I think this indicates the failure of the Government to come to grips with the enormous problem facing Defence Force personnel housing. Another matter which I might mention is rent. When talking about defence housing, it is important to look at the shabby way in which this Government has treated service personnel who are currently renting houses. From 2 April rents have been raised 7.9 per cent while, in compa-rison, wages and salaries in the defence forces have risen by only 3.8 per cent. In other words, rents are rising at twice the rate of the wages of Defence Force personnel. When we remember that over half of the housing is below standard, such a rent increase can hardly be justified. The problems with rent arrangements go further than just the inflated increases. As the Returned Services League of Australia has pointed out, the present rental arrangements are excessively complex. One of the first challenges facing the Defence Housing Authority will be to look at the problems relating to rent on service homes. As has been pointed out in every speech made by members on this side of the chamber, the big effect of all this is on the morale of the Services. The seriousness of the morale problem in the defence forces under this Government is well illustrated by reference to one simple statistic. In January this year over 1,000 personnel resigned from our defence forces-1,000 in one month out of a total of 70,000. These resignations are more than double the number in the previous month of December last year. This is probably only the tip of the iceberg. In the 12 months to January 1987 total losses from the Services were 8 per cent greater than total gains. In other words, the numbers are in fact falling. In 1986 male officer resignations were up 34 per cent on 1985. In fact, skilled and highly trained personnel are resigning faster than they can be replaced. Obviously it is time that a full inquiry into service wages and conditions was instituted because such a drain just cannot be allowed to continue. I do not think anyone on either side of this chamber would deny that below standard housing is a major reason for this low morale and for the alarming rise in resignations in the defence forces. It is quite clear that the lack of funding for Defence Force housing, the lack of funding for defence service home loans and the rapidly rising rents being charged to defence personnel are all contributing to the low morale amongst our ser-vice personnel. It is not just a problem of housing a few people. It is the very fabric, the very people who could be called upon to defend our nation who are being neglected by this Government. We hear so much about the wonderful submarines and all the money that we are going to spend on them. But what about the people who are going to drive these machines? Mr Cohen —Drive them? Mr HAWKER —Well, all the other bits and pieces too. It is all very well for the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to come into this chamber and talk about his Government being the first to adopt a set of principles to govern housing assistance to its own employees, including particularly members of the Defence Force. I suggest to the Minister that it takes more than principles to build houses and to keep people with such a vital role to play willingly in our defence forces. The Government's legislation represents a belated effort to correct a long-standing problem. The success of this move will have far reaching effects on the morale of the Australian Defence Force. Therefore, the success of solving the Defence Force housing problem will have a direct effect on the defence of this country. Without adequate housing, there will be great difficulty in attracting good personnel to the Services, let alone keeping those who are already serving. I have already highlighted the alarming rate of resignations over the last year. The Minister for Defence may wish to bask in the limelight of his new defence hardware such as the submarines. But if the personnel are not available because of inadequate housing, this equipment is unlikely ever to be fully utilised. The Opposition has warned the Government about the weaknesses of this Bill and about the urgency of improving housing. The honourable member for Hume has moved an amendment which expresses very clearly our views. However, the fundamental question is whether the Government will fund the defence housing adequately, because without proper funding the rest of the Government's aims in defence will be largely irrelevant. The Minister must give this commitment. I ask the Minister to take the opportunity in his summing up to give the commitment that, despite whatever the Treasurer (Mr Keating) might do in his mini-Budget, he will ensure that an adequate commitment is given to the upgrading of Defence Force houses which is so desperately needed. In concluding his second reading speech, the Minister for Defence said: A high degree of expectation exists in the defence community that the Authority will come to grips with the housing problems which have been endured by service families over a long period. All honourable members would join with me in hoping that those expectations are fulfilled by this Government. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(9.36) —The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) has now left the chamber but when he spoke earlier he made some remarks which were not factual. I do not intend to pursue the matter further at this stage because I am sure that the honourable member is indeed honourable and I am sure that he will apologise to me when he learns that the remarks he made were completely false. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Defence Housing Authority Bill 1987. This Bill is unique because this is the first time any government has come to grips with the vexed issue of satisfactory housing for our defence families. In the electorate of Hunter there are about 1,000 Department of Defence houses. These houses provide accommodation for families attached to the Singleton Army base or to the Williamtown Royal Australian Air Force base. I am appalled that there has never been any previous attempt to formulate a cohesive plan to undertake the management of defence housing. Now, at long last, a Bill has been introduced to correct that deplorable situation. The creation of the Defence Housing Authority is a crucial part of the Government's strategies to overcome the long-standing deficiencies in the quality and standards of defence housing. No one can deny that defence housing has deficiencies. Nor should one believe that the quality of housing is the sum total of those deficiencies. The report of the task force established to examine housing assistance provided to Defence Force personnel is indeed very revealing. The task force confirmed many of the complaints about housing expressed by service personnel and their families. It confirmed that many defence people are not getting the standard of housing that the good book says they are entitled to. Some people might say that some servicemen and some wives have expectations which are too high. Some might accuse them of whingeing. However, I would say that in the overwhelming majority of cases such criticism is far too harsh. I have seen defence housing that is very bad. Were I obliged to live in some defence houses, I would be whingeing too. As I said earlier, the quality of defence housing is not the only problem. Equally disheartening for occupants are the complex procedures for carrying out repairs and maintenance and the resulting delays which are interminable. In Singleton in my electorate of Hunter, servicemen and their families are living in Housing Commission homes which are tiny and dilapidated. Parents and children are crammed into butter box sized rooms, some with broken doors and windows, sewerage pipe problems, sagging gutters and leaking roofs. Such conditions are not good enough and should not be tolerated. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) talked about belated reforms by this Government. Let me add that the houses in Singleton did not get into this condition overnight. They were like that in the good times when our economy was doing very well and those same problems were ignored by the then Government. There are 150 substandard houses at the Williamtown Royal Australian Air Force base with more than 20 of those houses unfit for human habitation. This Government inherited so much that is shameful from the Fraser-Howard years. I am afraid that defence housing is just one more example of coalition incompetence and neglect. But how could we expect the Liberals and the Nationals to be successful builders? Everyone knows that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Look at the sorry lot opposite, full of vindictiveness and jealousies, with more divisions than a picket fence, plunging to self-destruction. Sir Earle Page and Sir Robert Gordon Menzies would have wept for such a sorry bunch. What prayer can we offer to save those opposite? Mr McVeigh —Oh, you would make us all cry. Mr FITZGIBBON —For Tom's sake I offer this prayer: Dear Lord, bless this bunch while they ravage and crunch each other. But it is too late to save the Opposition; the degenerative process is too far advanced. The condition is terminal. I have just finished reading a Press release from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). The coalition has formally split. It will make interesting listening in this chamber tomorrow when the split is formally announced, irrevocably and irretrievably. Mr McVeigh —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member might pay some regard to the requirement to be relevant to the question before the House. Mr FITZGIBBON —I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is that I was just going to draw your attention to the fact that we could give the honourable member leave to make that sort of statement, if he would like leave, and he can then come back to the Bill if that is in order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr FITZGIBBON —The honourable member is very gracious but I will not take up his kind offer. However, it is not too late to save defence housing and its salvation is what this Bill before the House is all about. The Government is convinced that three essential elements are necessary to remedy the problems of defence housing. First of all, a guaranteed level of funds must be committed to defence housing and the Government will provide that. In bad economic times, when the economy is haemorrhaging, we will provide the income necessary for decent housing for our Defence Force personnel and their families. Equally important, for the first time business enterprise and expertise will be brought to the defence housing management task. The third element this Bill introduced to remedy the problems of defence housing is the establishment of a single organisation dedicated to the management of defence housing-an organisation which is free from bureaucratic control. The Authority will have experts from the private housing field appointed to its board of management. The calibre of the Interim Defence Housing Board is indicative of the talent which will be employed. We will not need to depend much longer on the Department of Housing and Construction to do refurbishing. It does refurbishing but at charges much higher than could be obtained on a commercial basis. The Defence Housing Authority will be structured on a commercial basis and the end result will be very significant savings by sub-contracting work to commercial enterprises. This Bill brings business acumen and corporate planning to the aid of defence housing and the result will be greatly improved quality in Defence Force accommodation. This Government will progressively replace unsatisfactory defence houses and provide improved housing for defence personnel and their families. I believe that every member of the Opposition would recognise that the legislation before the House is not show pony legislation; it introduces real benefits. The Authority will be no toothless tiger. The Authority will be master of its own destiny in making arrangements for the construction, upgrading and maintenance of defence housing. After years of neglect by coalition governments when the economy was going well this nation at last has a government that is conscious of the fundamental importance of good housing to the morale and well being of Defence Force members. This nation now has a Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) who not only cares about servicemen and their families but also has the will and the ability to address their long term grievances. This Government offers stability and security in defence housing. The Liberal alternative would increase defence housing rents by up to $70 a week. Privatisation proposals advocated by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) would add $70 per week to defence personnel rents. Mr Tuckey —Rubbish! Mr FITZGIBBON —Let me just tell the honourable member for O'Connor who so rudely interjected that the average rent now paid by 80 per cent of Defence Force personnel is less than $50 per week. Mr Tuckey —And so it would stay under my arrangement. Mr FITZGIBBON —I am sorry, but I must again remind the honourable member that very few people on that side of the House can get their figures right. Some time, somewhere, some place their Leader will explain to us his $16 billion credibility gap. We await that explanation anxiously. The average rent paid by 80 per cent of Defence Force personnel is less than $50 per week. This rent compares very favourably with civilian rents. Let us take as a comparison a three-bedroom home in Townsville. The rent for a civilian out in the market would be more than $120 per week. Mr Tuckey —Yes, but that wasn't what I proposed. Mr FITZGIBBON —Sometimes the honour- able member speaks in such a way that he is not always certain of what he says. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will ignore interjections. I remind the honourable member for O'Connor that, no doubt to his surprise, his interjections are out of order. Mr FITZGIBBON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your forbearance. Mr McVeigh —He is a former colleague of mine. Mr FITZGIBBON —The honourable member said that he is a former colleague of his. How appropriate! I am glad that people opposite, in the midst of their woe and in their darkest valley of despair, retain some sense of humour. The Bill which we are now debating has been well received by senior management of the Defence Force, service personnel and their families. Almost universal praise has been lavished upon this Bill by those who understand it. It is hard to understand the opposition that is coming from members on the other side of the House. I can only suggest that it is because their powers of comprehension have undergone the same degenerative process as their unity and their good fellowship among each other. I know that this Bill will be well received by Defence Force personnel in my electorate of Hunter. I might add that it is a sad commentary and a reflection of the warped nature of the Opposition that it should seek to amend this splendid legislation. I have great pleasure in commending the Bill to the House. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(9.49) —I welcome the introduction of the Defence Housing Authority Bill and, in general, lend my support to the initiatives of the Government in providing more adequate housing to the Defence Force personnel in service to their country. It is appropriate in this International Year of Shelter for the Homeless that the Government recognise the needs of the men and women who guard our nation from outside hostile forces. For too long these honourable people have been taken for granted and relegated, more or less, to second class living standards while the rest of our nation enjoyed considerably higher standards of accommodation. In my electorate of Groom are a number of defence personnel from whom I regularly hear of a variety of matters concerning them. Mostly they express their unhappiness with the conditions of service addressed in large part by Sue Hamilton in her Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses which she made available to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). The Minister, in establishing this Authority, is taking the first step, I believe, in rectifying a situation which has existed for too long and which has resulted in an increasing flow of our defence personnel away from their chosen profession. Whilst I appreciate the need to co-ordinate the various departments dealing with defence housing, I feel somewhat uncomfortable about another quango being created. The Minister, for his part, has assured the Parliament that the Authority will be run along a corporate plan and will be required to meet its operating expenses from the revenue earned. We in the National Party of Australia can only wait to see whether it is successful. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said that the Authority would also be required to earn a reasonable rate of return. The question must be posed: What is reasonable and will our defence families be paying more than the commercial rate of rents in order to make the Authority financially viable? It is essential that rent levels remain within the current levels and are related to current salaries received by our service personnel. To charge commercial rates of rent at a time when our defence personnel are recei-ving less than the average wage is unfair and defeats the main thrust of this Bill. Also, dividends received by the Authority should be reinvested in refurbishing the existing substandard houses and used to build new homes. In that great State of Queensland are 3,800 service homes. Of these some are owned by the Queensland Housing Commission and leased to the Department of Defence. Concern has been expressed to me that if some of the Queensland houses are to be handed back to the Commission discussions should be held with the State authorities over the timing and progress of the handover and, equally importantly, should be agreed to by all parties. The Commission is worried about a sudden supply of empty houses located in unfavourable parts of the State with unreasonable rents having to be charged. There is also the question of just who is to pay for any refurbishing of the Commission homes which have been built and rented out exclusively to the defence forces. Now that we are to have a two-ocean Royal Australian Navy and Army and Royal Australian Air Force bases in the north and north-west, there will be a greater demand for housing which is environmentally adequate for the climatic conditions existing in these areas. The Authority will need to enlist architects, builders, suppliers and planners who will develop these housing estates. I believe it is appropriate that the Authority, through the Minister, use locally based professionals and trades people to carry out the building and designing of these homes. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you well know from the area you represent, locals have the knowledge and experience of these areas which will be invaluable over the decade of building expected. They can also produce the most cost efficient homes because of their close proximity and their work is guaranteed by the local building and licensing board. If repairs or corrections need to be made the builder is there to carry out the work immediately and there are no delays because of distance from building sites. The quality of the homes should be of a standard one would find in any provincial city and the amenities provided should also reflect what would be expected by city folk. I am talking about such amenities as parks, gardens, community centres and the like. Continuing further on this theme, the ADF should be made part of an existing community when housing sites are developed. It would be better to integrate ADF personnel and their families with other members of the established townships in order to enable them to feel more a part of the community in which they are living. In conclusion, I welcome the decision the Government has taken in recognising the needs of our defence personnel who have lived in substandard accommodation for far too long. Morale in any organisation is important in the effective functioning of that organisation. This is particularly true for our defence forces which, with their families, are stationed far from their home towns, friends and families. Not only will this Bill help to improve the morale, family life and efficiency of our defence forces but it should also help to stem the flow of our officers and non-commissioned officers away from a military career. Recognising the basic needs of our defence men and women and their families is an important step in making Australia stronger and more secure. Our defence forces take on a heavy responsibility when they pursue a career defending their nation. We, for our part, must assume a certain responsibility in providing for them good, functional housing, particularly in the remote areas we are sending them to defend. I repeat that, whilst I have some reservations about the Bill, in general I welcome it. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(9.56) —I am very pleased to speak on the Defence Housing Authority Bill tonight. I would also like to mention, as did some of my colleagues earlier in the debate, the establishment of the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Staff unit which is a very big step indeed along with the recommendations of the Sue Hamilton Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses which other members, including members of the Opposition, mentioned tonight. Defence housing has been the subject of several inquiries in Australia, the most recent of which was the task force on Australian Public Service and Defence Force housing programs. The task force pointed to the problems caused by the division of responsibility between a number of agencies and claimed that such arrangements render effective decision making and prompt action difficult, if not impossible. The task force was also critical of the standard of repairs and maintenance and the rundown state of much of the housing stock. Most of the current defence housing stock was acquired in the 1950s through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. This arrangement quickly provided much needed housing in areas that are now seen as housing estates and, generally speaking, are rather depressed areas. Although this system still exists it is no longer the major source of new housing in Australia for defence service families. The dwellings that were built under this scheme are owned and maintained by the State housing authorities which are paid an economic rent by the Federal Government for the dwellings occupied by service personnel according to a formula which takes into account the cost of components for repayment of loans, interest, maintenance, rates, taxes, insurance and administration. Rent payable by the Federal Government on CSHA dwellings is an economic rent determined by each State after taking into account a number of these cost components. One of the components in the economic rent formula covers maintenance expenditure. Accordingly, funds to cover repairs and maintenance are limited to those provided through economic rents. This has really been the heart of the problem which has been faced by defence personnel in that the money was not available through the system that previously existed to repair their homes. In 1977 the Garland Committee, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, recommended the virtual cessation of the physical provision of housing for the Defence Force. Although this recommendation was not taken up by the Government of the day the report caused a virtual cessation of new housing construction and acquisition for about five years. Obviously this meant a rundown in the Defence Force housing stock. The age and type of construction of much of the stock makes housing very unpopular with Defence Force tenants and this matter has been raised with me by a number of my constituents. The honourable member for Hughes, (Mr Tickner) and the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) raised this matter earlier in the debate. We have been very involved with the Defence Force tenancy people in trying to isolate their problems and find ways that the Government might be able to deal with them. As I mentioned earlier, in the past the level of funding was not always sufficient for adequate maintenance of the regular stock turnover or for the expansion of the housing stock where there were shortages. Funding priorities have been governed by overall defence priorities expenditure. In effect, the findings of the task force have confirmed many of the complaints that service personnel and their families have raised with members of parliament. Wives of service personnel living in my electorate have complained to me about the standard of accommodation offered to them around Australia, particularly in Western Australia. For instance, although this is not one of the major complaints, small things such as the fact that a hot water tap is not available in the kitchen of a house and that water for the dishes must be carried from a hot water system in the bathroom is perhaps a way of measuring how inconvenient some of these homes can be. If they are not actually falling down around one's ears, there are these small inconveniences which make living very difficult. Other homes which people have lived in still have wood-burning coppers in the laundry. I know that some of these facilities are still being used in country areas of Australia. I do not put them down as a means of achieving an end, but certainly in metropolitan Australia these are not common facilities. We ought to be providing our defence service personnel with better accommodation. While this limitation in itself may not condemn the accommodation as substandard, it is an indication of just how far behind the times some of the housing stock is. How much would it cost to have a water heater or an urn of some sort installed near the kitchen sink? Is it any wonder that so many defence service families have opted for private rental in non-service housing in non-service areas rather than have to put up with this sort of shortcoming? These families are not demanding up-to-the-minute homes with every modern convenience, but they do expect to have a standard of accommodation which equates with that occupied by most other families in the community. This is not an unreal expectation, and I am pleased that the legislation before the House endeavours to address their needs in a constructive manner. I point out at this stage that some honourable members opposite who have spoken have pointed to the Sue Hamilton report as if it had sprung out of the blue. That report came about because the Government and the Minister were so keen to assess the needs of service personnel and ensure that there was a discussion going on around the nation for quite some months to determine their needs. Some of the complaints outlined by service tenants are very familiar to me, not only as a result of having discussed them with my constituents. My father was in the Services in New Zealand. I still vividly recall the early days of my childhood in a `navy street' in a suburb of Auckland. From my recollection of that time I can corroborate claims that there are a great many social problems associated with service housing developments where they resemble ghettoisation, and the planners of the new Defence Housing Authority must be aware of this potential for social problems when they are considering the relative value of competing plans and proposals. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to assume that all service personnel should live together because they work together. Financial considerations also tend to take precedence, and it may be cheaper for the Authority to buy one large tract of land for development than to build or buy houses in a variety of areas. I remind it of the experience of State housing commission developments which have opted for this approach, and suggest that many service families would prefer to have their homes away from the people with whom they work every day, to enable the development of more normal home lives and social relationships. The number of latchkey children in some housing developments is very worrying for a number of reasons, many of which could be minimised by more sensitive planning policies. For instance, the Authority cannot afford to overlook the fact that many of the families of service personnel experience problems more commonly associated with single parent families. Given the extended absences of one parent, the other is left to manage alone, often on a low, inadequate or spasmodic income. As a consequence of these circumstances and the need to earn more money to sustain the household, as well as a requirement for some autonomy in their own lives, many partners of service personnel seek paid employment outside the home. Unless child care services are constructed in conjunction with the service housing development, the planners will be running the risk of institutionalising social problems such as untended children, especially in the circumstances pertaining to service families, whose very mobility dictates that they have moved far away from any extended family support which may exist elsewhere in Australia. There is also, needless to say, a high rate of marriage breakdown amongst such families for associated reasons. Another aspect of service lifestyle which has exacerbated the difficulties associated with the provision of housing appears to me to be the rank system which prevails within the Services and which endows attendant privilege in housing terms. I recognise that there probably is not much we can do about that. This Bill is part of the Government's strategy to overcome longstanding deficiencies in the quality and standard of defence housing. It is an acknowledgment of the Government's obligation to provide adequate, affordable accommodation for its employees who, because of the demands of duty, are located where housing is inadequate for a number of reasons. The Government recognises its duty as an employer to minimise the disruption experienced by defence personnel and their families who suffer housing upheavals as a result of frequent and necessary relocation. As the Minister pointed out, the Defence Housing Authority is to be responsible for the provision of housing for families in the Defence Force and, in certain circumstances, defence civilian personnel. The Authority is to have experts from the private housing field on its board of management. It will have autonomy in making arrangements for the construction, upgrading and maintenance of defence housing. It will also be able to sell stock and retain the proceeds of these sales. Although the Authority's planning must be consistent with defence planning, it is to be independent from the Department of Defence. My colleague the honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin) will no doubt be taking a special interest in this Authority's operations, given the proposed Rockingham development with the two-ocean Navy proposal. Our Government is committed to an expanded defence housing program that over the next 10 years will lead to a greatly improved housing stock which meets current community standards. Within overall Budget priorities, the Government will aim to provide the Defence Housing Authority with the funding, additional to its guaranteed income, which is needed to meet this objective. The Minister and back bench members of the Labor Caucus have taken a great interest in the state and welfare of defence families in Australia. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(10.07) —I rise to support the Defence Housing Authority Bill 1987. The main purpose of this Bill is to create a Defence Housing Authority which will be responsible for the management of defence housing. This is a forward looking step which will help to streamline existing arrangements. Since this Government was elected in 1983 it has been subjected to criticism from the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who is the Leader of the National Party of Australia-at least, I think he is at the moment-for its alleged neglect of defence housing. Yet it was the coalition when in government which neglected and let run down the housing stock of the defence forces. What gall the right honourable member has to come into this House, as he has done in the past, and criticise the Government on its defence housing policy when the Government of which he was a member did nothing. In fact, for a short period when he was the Minister for Defence and responsible for defence housing, nothing was initiated under his portfolio responsibilities. As the very excellent Minister for Defence, Kim Beazley, stated in his defence policy statement delivered on 19 March, the Government plans to spend $750m over the next 10 years on new housing for the Australian defence forces. In contrast with the abysmal record of the Opposition parties when in government, this Government is prepared to tackle the task of providing the necessary resources to improve living conditions. At the same time, the Government commissioned Sue Hamilton to look at the problems of service families, many of them living in defence homes. Her report-the Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses-has been submitted to the Government and has been the subject of a debate in this House. Her recommendations, the implementation of which will assist in alleviating the problems that service families face, are being dealt with. I add that I have had the opportunity of seeing both the good and the bad in defence housing. The good is very good, but the bad would be more appropriate for a funeral pyre. Recently, when in the Northern Territory on a parliamentary committee, I took the opportunity to visit Katherine and saw some of the new houses built for service personnel and their families stationed at Royal Australian Air Force Base Tindal. They were well designed homes bearing in mind the extreme heat conditions in Katherine. Once trees and shrubs grow, the suburb in which they are located will look very attractive. On the other hand, in my own electorate of Moore in Western Australia, in which RAAF Base Pearce is located, the overall standard of housing is poor. This has led understandably to service personnel seeking their own accommodation away from the base and some travel up to 50 kilometres a day between home and the base. I do not blame them. From my discussions with other members of the Defence Force action committee, which consists of government members who represent electorates with a large population of service personnel and their families, I find that the condition of houses for personnel at Pearce can be replicated in many parts of Australia and in some cases the conditions are much worse than at the Pearce base. Obviously there is a lot to be done and a long way to go before we can supersede the old and inadequate housing with new. But at least the Government is showing the way and this Bill is a result of its activity in this field. It was in August 1984 that this Government established a task force to examine the various Commonwealth programs for housing assistance for members of the Australian Public Service and the Australian Defence Force. Its mandate was to advise the Government on the most equitable and efficient means for meeting the Commonwealth's obligation for overcoming the specific housing disabilities arising directly from service in the Australian Public Service and the Australian Defence Force. In January 1985 the task force published an interim report. That report made a number of very relevant recommendations and also contained a draft statement of government policy goals for the provision of employee housing assistance. The Government subsequently endorsed that statement. That statement made it clear that the basic goal is to provide the employee housing assistance that is required for the efficient and effective operation of both the Australian Public Service and the Defence Force and that is equitable, efficiently administered and cost effective. There are a number of housing assistance schemes available to Defence Force personnel. They include provision of housing under the group rent scheme, temporary rental allowance assistance for private rentals, temporary accommodation allowance assistance for transit accommodation, home purchase or sale expense allowance, and home ownership assistance arrangements under the defence service homes scheme. The group rent scheme was introduced in 1976. It is not a good scheme. It has received negative criticism from all ranks within the Defence Force. Most understandably, the major criticisms have come from those in the lower ranks of the Services. As a result of the working of the scheme they have had to accept older and poorer housing. Many of the houses built in the 1950s were allocated from the State public housing programs and often lack amenities available in privately owned homes. It is no wonder that this situation has not encouraged some service personnel to remain in the Defence Force, with a consequential loss of skilled personnel which it takes time and money to replace. It is because of the poor quality of the housing stock available that many service personnel are renting or buying their own homes. Of course, if they purchase their home in Perth they are disadvantaged compared with their service colleagues in other capital cities. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(10.16) —On this occasion I wish to address the matter of the submarine replacement project. I will take up a number of matters of concern in this House as I have on a number of previous occasions. As the House is aware, the original estimated cost of this project was $2.6 billion. According to naval sources, this has now blown out to $4.5 billion. Furthermore, Press reports of 15 April this year indicate that the final bill could be as high as $5.6 billion. As I said in this House on 2 April, there is now a very real possibility that if this project continues on its current course the costs will blow out to such a degree that they may seriously jeopardise future defence budgets and overall Federal Budgets. I wish now to turn to the specific matter of collusion in this project. It is quite evident that in the very early days of the new submarine construction project the project team had become very interested in the German HDW-IKL type 2000. Direct discussions are believed to have taken place between the project team and HDW-IKL in Germany and Australia well before the request for tender document was issued. It is interesting to note that Rear-Admiral Rourke, the Chief of Naval Materiel and the direct superior of the project team leader, Captain Graham White, had visited Germany. It is also interesting to note that following the technical and design evaluation of the six original contenders for the project definition study the following order of preference was decided on: VSEL 2400a first, HDW-IKL 2000 second, RDM Walrus third and the Thyssen TR 1700 fourth. The document relating to this order of preference was signed by Mr Harry Dalrymple, Director-General of Naval Design. However, in the Defence Force development committee recommendation announced by the Minister for Defence on 21 May 1985 HDW-IKL and Kockums were awarded the project definition study. It is also interesting to note that HDW-IKL was placed second on the original order of preference and Kockums did not appear at all. Prior to the Minister's announcement on 21 May 1985, the Australian Labor Party Caucus committee met to hear information from all potential contractors. The committee asked a number of previously drafted questions of each potential contractor. It is now certain that the questions were leaked to HDW-IKL by the project team prior to the committee hearings. The subsequent investigation of these events is also very interesting. In October 1985 the Commonwealth Ombudsman began inquiries into the selection of contractors for the project definition study, including the probably collusion aspect. The Ombudsman concluded in his report: It is an almost inescapable conclusion that there was prior knowledge- and- There clearly was a leak. As a result of the inquiries, the Office of the Commonwealth Solicitor-General interviewed members of the project team. Two officers were moved off the project team-the project leader, Captain Graham White, and his Deputy, Commander Rod Fayle. A more senior officer, Rear-Admiral Oscar Hughes, was placed in control of the project. Captain White subsequently resigned from the Royal Australian Navy and is now a member of the section in the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce whose interest is the submarine project. Commander Fayle was last heard of in some naval backwater. The irregularities that occurred in the whole selection process are of great concern. The fact that HDW-IKL in all probability has been involved in collusion with the project team should, in the light of recent international events, not be too surprising. Recent Press reports indicate that HDW-IKL is involved in other irregularities in regard to selling its submarines, this time in India. Mr V. P. Singh, recently resigned Indian Defence Minister, had ordered an investigation into reports that HDW-IKL, or its agents, had paid huge bribes to the tune of $A33m to Indian officials to secure a contract for four HDW-IKL submarines. We are now in a situation where, because of these collusive aspects of the project, HDW could be knocked out of the tendering process leaving the straw man, Kockums, to get up by default. That really highlights the fact that this whole project, being in the mess that it is in, needs to go back to the drawing board immediately. We are looking at one of the major defence projects of this country and for such a major project to be turned into a debacle would be a very sorry mistake indeed. I hope that the Government will look seriously at deferring this entire project in view of the mess that it is in. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(10.21) —I wish to draw the attention of the House tonight to a letter which I received from Mr Wayne Reed, the chief executive of Solahart, a very enterprising Western Australian firm which makes solar heaters amongst many other similar items. The letter includes an article written for a staff magazine of one of Japan's largest trading companies, C. Itoh and Co. of Tokyo. I think it is worth mentioning this to the House because we tend to get a lot of criticism of the work force in Australia but this article gives an indication of the way in which some businessmen in Japan see our work force. The comments that are made are really worth recording. The article in the Japanese magazine is entitled `One volunteer is worth two pressed men'. It says: The Domestic Steel Division markets `Solahart'- this refers to the firm, Solahart- a solar-energy electric water heater, in the Japanese market as well as the newly industrialised countries. `Solahart' has a manufacturing plant in Perth, Australia and the majority of the staff of the company are so-called `Aussies'. I made business trips with several Aussies in Japan and overseas to exploit marketing channels and they impressed me in many ways. I would like to point out three aspects of the way in which they do business. First of all- this is a very important point- I learned that they are workaholic in a true sense. `Solahart' is not a big company and most of the time I work with the same four to five people. They work so hard that I hesitate to call Japanese businessmen bees. They work on the plane and upon arriving at a hotel, they start a meeting, send telex and make business phone calls. They work hard and they love their product. They are proud of the technology and they find a pleasure in selling and marketing the product. It is often said that the ultimate pleasure of life lies in creativity. When I work with them, I can feel that they are enjoying a creative work. The way they work manifests that `one volunteer is worth two pressed men'. Secondly, I was impressed with their good teamwork. The plant manager, sales representatives, chief executive officers and investors have a clear notion of their respective interests they represent. They are proud of their work and assume a strong responsibility for their job, with which the practices in Japanese companies can hardly stand comparison. While they resist intervention in their own work, they help each other and demonstrate a good teamwork. I strongly feel that each member of the Domestic Steel Division should go back to the starting point and re-examine the importance of team-play and teamwork. In other words, the writer is suggesting that his own company should go back to first principles. The article goes on to say: Thirdly, Aussies do not criticise weakness of the competition such as Japanese manufacturers of solar energy water heaters, they merely stress the advantages of their technology. I do not think it is bad that individuals and companies rival each other. I rather consider that individuals and companies can improve themselves through competition. However, we must note that there are two kinds of rivalry, namely, `good rivalry' and `bad rivalry'. `Good rivalry' aims at mutual enlightenment and `bad rivalry' only creates jealousy. When we recognise and respect the strength of competitors, we can improve and enlighten ourselves. The article finishes: I have had an image that `Aussies' were easy-going people and were working to enjoy life in the sunshine. However, they gave strong impressions on my mind. Let these lessons we learned from them sink into our minds. Obviously this is a very encouraging message for workers in the Australian work force and I congratulate Solahart for having such a good team which spreads the message that Australians can work hard and know the directions and goals which they wish to achieve. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.26) —On 5 March 1983 I, along with millions of Australians, watched the television results of the Federal election which brought the Hawke socialist Government to power. Mr Downer —A black day for Australia. Mr HODGMAN —It was a black day for Australia as my colleague, the newly appointed shadow Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment-and I warmly congratulate him-points out. I remember the emotion of that night as I guess most Australians would. For the first time we saw Australia's second longest serving Prime Minister and a man of very firm and forthright character-- Mr Milton —In tears. Mr HODGMAN —In tears. We saw, who was about to become Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) appear on television and we saw the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) pronounce that he would be a Prime Minister for all Australians. He sent a special message to the people of the State of Tasmania which, he noted, had once again returned five Liberal members for the five House of Representatives State seats. I remember what he said very clearly. He used words to this effect: I want you to understand down in Tasmania that I will be just as much a Prime Minister for you as I will be for those other parts of Australia where my Party won more seats. Mr Barry Jones —Hear, hear! Mr HODGMAN —The Minister at the table nods his head. That is exactly what the Prime Minister said and, do you know, Madam Speaker, we actually believed him. Mr Downer —You didn't! Mr HODGMAN —Yes, we actually believed him. But what a sad state of affairs we see today. I wish to talk about fiscal matters and about deliberate discrimination against Australia's smallest State by the Hawke socialist Government for reasons which I am now convinced can only be described as political. The plain fact is that almost from day one this Prime Minister and this Government decided to declare war on the State of Tasmania. It was only a matter of a few weeks before planes from the Royal Australian Air Force, on the instruction of this Government, conducted spy flights over our State. It was only a matter of a few more weeks before this Hawke socialist Government took offensive action against Tasmania in the High Court of Australia and it was only a matter of a few months before it started to dismantle the financial structure of assistance to Tasmania which had been put in place by the Fraser Government. We suffered injustice for decade after decade. The first Australian political leader to recognise what was being done to Tasmania was the Rt Hon. Billy Mackie Snedden and, to his great credit, the Rt Hon. John Malcolm Fraser when he became Prime Minister. He determined to adopt the Tasmanian package which Snedden, Peter Rae and others had prepared. For the first time in 75 years Tasmania started to get a fair go from Canberra. Honourable members should remember-and the Minister at the table knows this better than anyone else-that Tasmania, criticise it though he may, has the highest per capita export earning record in Australia. We leave every other State for dead. The figures are there. If New South Wales and Victoria had the same per capita export earnings this country would be going ahead by leaps and bounds. This Government not only does not reward endeavour, not only does not reward a State which works its guts out to earn export income, but it also proceeds to set about hacking away at the assistance which is the lifeblood of Tasmania. The plain fact, Madam Speaker, is that you would be horrified to know that between May 1985 and August 1986 the Hawke socialist Go-vernment slashed $202.5m from Tasmania's funding. We know that even before we get to the doors of the Premiers Conference funding will be cut by an additional $30m. We know that the Prime Minister has met with the socialist Premiers and has ignored Tasmania, Queensland and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. My prediction is that before August we will see Tasmania robbed of in excess of $250m by the Hawke socialist Government. This is sheer political victimisation of the State which has the courage to stand for the Liberal cause, the State which, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), is described as the jewel in the Liberal crown. The Government has not won a seat in Tasmania since 1975 and the way it is going it will not win a seat in Tasmania before the end of the century. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will sit down. His time has expired. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(10.31) —Last Wednesday, 22 April, was a very historic occasion in a very small centre within my electorate of Calare. Last Wednesday the people of Dunedoo which is a very small centre in the northern part of my electorate were connected to the automatic telephone exchange network. It was a most significant occasion for them because the old manual exchange was the second largest telephone exchange in New South Wales prior to the switchover. One of the interesting statistics about that changeover was that for the area concerned-Dunedoo and Cobbora, a very small village up the road-the total cost of that connection was $2.1m for approximately 500 subscribers to Telecom Australia. If one does some simple mathematics one can work out that the approximate cost per subscriber of the automatic service for that area was about $4,000. When one relates that to the total area of the 063 telephone district which includes most of my electorate, that is a cost of some $4,000 compared with an overall cost of $389 that is represented by the cross-subsidy in the 063 telephone area. I make those points simply to stress the importance of the telephone service and the cross-subsidy principles that apply in Telecom's operation. Mr Hollis —Which they would sell off. Mr SIMMONS —One is never quite sure exactly what the Opposition would do, given the current state of its parties. The year before last I was the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. We were looking into the zoning and charging principles of telephone services throughout rural Australia. One of the interesting points that came across in that inquiry was that Rolleston, a little centre west of Rockhampton in Queensland, was the first service to be connected to the new digital radio concentrator service. Some 72 people were connected to that service and the approximate cost per subscriber was $25,000. I think people will appreciate the enormous cross-subsidy that is provided by Telecom. It is able to provide that only because of the very efficient operation and the very significant revenue that is generated in some of the more profitable areas. For example, honourable members may not be aware that 20 per cent of the total revenue of Telecom Australia comes from one square mile of the Sydney central business district. In other words, one could assume that 60 to 70 per cent of Telecom's revenue comes from the central business districts of the major capitals in Australia. It is important for people in country areas to know that they will not be left out in the cold and be expected to pay some exorbitant amounts. If-I was going to say `the coalition'-the conservatives, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, are ever able to get their act together again some time in the distant future, we can listen to what a lot of people, amongst them some of the economic rationalists, have been saying they will do to the operation of Telecom. The other important aspect to which I would like to refer in my comments about the automation of the Dunedoo telephone exchange is that today marked the retirement in Dunedoo of the senior technical officer, a gentleman by the name of Mr Ted Mate, who has been in Dunedoo since 1963. The locals tell me that he intended to stay there only for some 12 to 18 months, but he managed to last there until his retirement today. Mr Milton —He loves it. Mr SIMMONS —Exactly, and the people loved him. That was very clear at a significant community function to honour Mr Ted Mate last Wednesday in Dunedoo and to mark the changeover to the automatic service. In conclusion, I would like to wish Mr Mate and his wife and family well in their retirement. They have served Dunedoo extraordinarily well in their 24 years in that community. I take this opportunity of congratulating Telecom, with the co-operation of the Dunedoo and Cobbora communities, for the very efficient changeover to the automatic system. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(10.36) —This House has been told on many occasions of the conditions within rural Australia and that a major and widespread financial crisis is becoming more likely unless immediate action is taken at the Federal Government level which is of major significance not only to rural people but to people throughout Australia. It is important for this House to note that the current rural crisis affects not only the primary producer but also the entire rural economy, including small business in country towns. As many people already know, country town businesses, as well as our farming community, are feeling the pressure of the current economic downturn. Assistance objectives by any government should, therefore, be to enhance the viability of country centres by maintaining the viability of the agricultural industries on which the centres' economic and social welfare is dependent. Any government that allows large numbers of primary producers to become bankrupt must recognise that it will have devastating national social and economic effects. As well as the loss in crucial export income by such farmers there would be a vast increase in social welfare costs to support producers forced to leave their properties. The nation simply cannot afford a further drift from the rural sector. Financial support for the rural community promotes productivity and lessens the pressure on an already stretched social welfare system. We have heard many times how rural indebtedness today is estimated at over $10 billion. In many cases, predictions for the next 12 months are much higher. This figure represents institutional debt only. Non-institutional debt such as hire purchase, private loan arrangements, trust funds, leasing, et cetera, is estimated to comprise at least 20 per cent of institutional debt. An increasing number of farmers are experiencing difficulties in servicing their debts. The problem is that the combination of negative income and low equity is putting farmers at risk of bankruptcy. In 1985-86, some 7 per cent of Australian farmers were reported by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics as being at risk in the sense of having negative income and equity rates of less than 70 per cent. Average indebtedness in the wheat industry is currently estimated at around $250,000 per property. Interest rates are the critical cost factor. As I have said, it is not only farms that are now at risk; it is small business and home borrowers who cannot afford to pay interest rates and principal repayments. That is impacting very much on the rural work force. Tonight I want to raise three real issues-interest rates, inflation and petrol prices. I say to honourable members on the Government benches that this Government has done absolutely nothing to try to impact on those three critical factors that are affecting rural Australia. In 1985, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in an address to a business lunch in Adelaide: At present, the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from successful policies of the past 20 months. We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the near future we will harvest the crop. I believe that that quotation is very appropriate today in view of the way that the rural community, particularly the farming community, recognises the dismal attempts of this Government to do anything about its predicament. We know that interest rates have risen to record or near record levels. Mr Milton —They are coming down. Mr PETER FISHER —While there has been some movement down, I severely doubt that trend will continue. Interest rates are still so high that many people have no hope of getting out of the present predicament in which they find themselves. The same situation applies to inflation. In 1984, the Prime Minister also said: `We expect inflation to be less than 5 per cent in the year ahead, and we are determined to keep it below 5 per cent'. We know what the present inflation rate is. Inflation rates in this country are 400 per cent higher than those applying to our competitors overseas. Of course, the same thing can be said about petrol prices. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) said on 5 March 1982: `Any fall in Saudi prices will be passed on to Australian motorists in lower petrol prices'. What has happened? World oil prices have fallen by over 50 per cent. The full flow on of this fall should have reduced petrol prices by 18c per litre, but what has happened is that the Government has introduced a new excise of 10c per litre, so that consumers and business owners meet half- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.41) —During the past three weeks members on both sides of the House have attended Anzac services. Members who have been here for a little while or people who have been members of parliament are used to the regular routine of services in the various communities, suburbs or towns that they represent. Much to my surprise, this year a service that I have attended for 13 or 14 years run by the Five Dock Returned Services League Club was not held at the war memorial rotunda in Five Dock Park. It was held in the RSL club itself. When I inquired why this was so, I was told that the memorial had been vandalised by some anonymous persons with spray paint and marking pencils. I thought that I would have a look at this rotunda, and I was absolutely surprised and quite horrified by what I saw. There were signs and writing even some 20 feet up on the rotunda. The whole building was totally defaced. No service could have been held there unless the building had been draped with some sort of hessian or something like that. I immediately discussed this problem with the Mayor of Drummoyne, Alderman Peter Fitzgerald, who works with the Minister for Planning and Environment in New South Wales. He said that he did not know what to do and that the RSL authorities were very concerned about the matter. They had removed the memorial tablets from the rotunda, but apparently the problem is that the paint and the marking pencils are spirit based. If they were water based they would wash off and the damage could be rectified. This is an enormous problem, and there has always been the painting of signs, such as `Lang is right', and all the slogans pertaining to political parties. I am sure that people who have been involved in these issues over a long period will remember people painting on the road, using stencils, things such as `Keep prices down' or `Put value back in the pound'. But that was done with paint and it was a cumbersome process. These new spray cans find their way into the hands of juveniles, and perhaps adults who have juvenile minds, who go around defacing memorials and public facilities all over our nation. I raise this matter tonight in the hope that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), or even the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), will do something about it, as I feel it is a Federal problem. It is a national problem in that our historic sites, our very heritage, are being defaced and perhaps destroyed for future generations. Whether these spray cans are imported or whether they are made locally, I do not know. I have tried to find out, but I just have not had the time. However, the Mayor of Drummoyne has put to me that surely people who purchase these items can be made to record their name and address in a register. There is a register for a lot of dangerous substances. When fireworks were a problem in New South Wales, the whole matter of the sale and distribution of fireworks was investigated and steps were taken to change the date on which fireworks were exploded, in an endeavour to cut down on injuries and damage to children, who were in danger of losing their eyes or receiving serious burns. In New South Wales alone, five young boys have been killed while writing on railway carriages. This has occurred only in the last couple of years, when boys leaning out of trains or writing on railway embankments have been hit by trains. This has resulted in five deaths in New South Wales and possibly others in other States. I have raised this matter tonight because I think that we must at least recognise the problem. Perhaps there could be a conference of manufacturers or importers and such people to deal with the question of how a war memorial in a park or, say, an historic cemetery can be protected. Mr Barry Jones —It is not a phenomenon confined to Australia. It is in America, too. Mr MAHER —It is a worldwide phenomenon, but how do we protect our great heritage of Aboriginal rock art, the oldest art in the world, and an enormous tourist potential for this nation? What if some madman or mad woman got loose in an historic site and let go with a spray can? I am sure it will be the next thing. It worries me greatly and it certainly has the local government authorities in New South Wales worried. We will have no heritage, natural or man-made, to pass on to future generations unless we do something to protect it now. I thought I would rise in the adjournment debate on the first occasion after the recess to state what I actually saw and experienced-the defacing of this rotunda built in the 1920s after the First World War, which is quite a gem-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(10.46) —One does not necessarily have to be living in isolation in the geographical sense to be living alone. In reality, one can be very alone living in a big city or busy street, particularly if a personal crisis occurs. One of the inexcusable tragedies of our modern society is that we have failed to find appropriate and acceptable solutions to this problem of individual isolation, and the hazards and dangers which daily confront those who live by themselves in circumstances which place them at special risk. The possibility of needing assistance in an emergency and not being able to obtain it easily and quickly is a daunting prospect indeed-for anyone. It is all the more frightening and intolerable for the aged, frail, ill or disabled. The problem of living alone poses very real and potentially serious threats to the personal safety and well-being of this very vulnerable group of people in the event of sickness, accident or even physical attack. Not only does the possibility of what may happen destroy the security and peace of mind of these people; it is also a cause of considerable and continual worry and concern for their friends and relatives. As a result, many people who live alone-and are quite willing and able to care for themselves under most usual circumstances-have no option but to give up their independence and leave the comfort of their own homes. They must instead rely on finding accommodation in nursing homes, special accommodation houses, or hostels. They are forced to sacrifice the things and surroundings they know and love simply because, by remaining in a situation where they spend significant time by themselves, they are or may be jeopardising their own safety. I would like to take this opportunity to commend to the House the work being undertaken by the Australian Contact Emergency Service-ACES. This Victorian-based, non-profit, non-sectarian, non-party political organisation is pioneering a scheme designed to assist elderly, isolated, frail or disabled people who want to remain in their own homes, but who are living in at risk situations. This scheme will enable such people to retain their independence, dignity and security by providing them with a means by which they can readily summon help should the need arise. ACES has already conducted a very successful personal emergency alarm system pilot project within the City of South Barwon. Details of this project were circulated to all members and senators last year. It is hoped that those who are genuinely concerned about the welfare and well-being of elderly or disabled people spent the few minutes required to read the letter and booklet which gave details of the ACES project and explained the aims and objectives of this very reasonable and worthwhile group of concerned citizens. Anyone who bothered to do so would no doubt remember this project. For those who did not have the time or who opted to deal with this matter by asking their staff to `send out acknowledgment letter option 3', allow me to give a few brief details. The ACES concept is obviously one that is based on good old-fashioned common sense and sound economic and moral principles. It provides better and more acceptable alternatives than those which are currently available and offers the all too rare opportunity to obtain maximum benefits from minimum outlays. More importantly, it offers a simple and practical solution to an ongoing problem-that of creating opportunities for those who want to maintain an independent lifestyle to do so without unnecessary stress or worry because they are living alone. If this Government is really interested in cutting costs, here is one area where it could achieve enormous savings whilst at the same time actually enhancing the standard of living for some of the genuinely disadvantaged groups within our community. Money now used to subsidise institutional care and accommodation for elderly, frail or disabled people could be easily and quickly channelled instead towards providing funding for the very minor expenses involved in implementing the ACES plan. Something in the vicinity of $10 per week would ensure that many of these presently vulnerable but `would be if they could be' independent people had the choice and opportunity of remaining in their own homes instead of being forced to seek government subsidised accommodation. Compare the costs involved-$10 per week as against, in some cases, $100-plus per day. The advantages are obvious. The ACES scheme and the ACES Committee deserve the wholehearted support of both sides of this House, and I hope they will receive it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.51) —Recent events in Sri Lanka must fill every member of this chamber not only with horror but with profound sadness as the Government of that country carries out its murderous raids on the Jaffna Peninsula in retaliation, it is claimed, for a recent bomb outrage at a bus station in Colombo. The Tamil people have denied any connection with this outrage-and why should they carry out this unnecessary act of violence when they would be the ones to suffer most? Let me make my position perfectly clear. I deplore all violence. I especially condemn and deplore the cruel and inhuman massacre of these innocent Sri Lankan citizens, of whatever race, and offer my sincere sympathy to all the relatives. Violence, whoever commits it, is always to be deplored and condemned-and I will always do so. But there are many complex questions to be answered about this latest bombing outrage. Who did indeed place the bomb, and for what sinister reason? Interestingly, I have been receiving reports during the past month of troop buildups towards the Jaffna Peninsula. It has been put to me many times that the Sri Lankan Government was working towards a major military push. Sadly, this is now happening. Of course, that shadowy group, whose members are too embarrassed to identify themselves by name-the Queensland Association for Sri Lankan Unity-has been busy telexing members of parliament putting the Sri Lankan Government's line. So much for the High Commissioner's recent statement that the Sri Lankan problem should not be brought to Australia. How can it be otherwise when groups such as the Queensland Association for Sri Lankan Unity continue to propagate in this country their hatred of the Tamil people? It is a pity that they do not work for a peaceful and just settlement of the complex problems facing Sri Lanka. I believe that today Senator Jessop put out a Press release which claimed that the Australian Council of Churches was funding Tamil refugees in Madras and that this money was being used by Tamils to perpetrate violence in Sri Lanka. He called for an investigation into the ACC. The ACC would welcome such an investigation. It has written to Senator Jessop asking him to substantiate his claims. It has also written to the Sri Lankan High Commissioner asking him to substantiate some of his recent statements about the Tamils. The ACC does give support to two groups of refugees in camps in Madras. They are the Offer group and the Appeal group. I have visited the Tamil refugee camps in Madras. I have seen the conditions under which the people live and I have talked to the people there. The assistance that the ACC gives is for humanitarian purposes. India, unfortunately, does not have the capacity to assist the refugees fully. So it is up to groups, not only from Australia but throughout the world, to assist these people. The churches in India support the assistance to the refugees. In fact, ACC works through the local church groups. These two groups are most creditable. They have records of how any aid money is spent and these records are kept and can be verified. If peace prevailed in Sri Lanka, if the Sri Lankan Government sought a political instead of a military solution, there would be no Tamil refugees in India or anywhere else. These people have been forced not only from their homes but from their country by the atrocities and actions of the Sri Lankan Government. It is a sad day for this country when a member of parliament makes such an unfounded attack-as Senator Jessop did-on a body such as the ACC. The ACC has nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of. It would welcome an inquiry. It is time that those making outrageous statements about the Tamil people produced their evidence instead of mouthing the statements of the Sri Lankan Government whose actions have brought on the tragic situation that now unfortunately exists in Sri Lanka. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.56) —Tonight I wish to say something about the problem for residents in the town of Victor Harbor in my electorate in receiving television pictures. For many years the town of Victor Harbor has suffered from very poor television reception. It is particularly unfortunate in that town because it has a very high proportion of retired people. The simple fact is that those retired people spend a good deal of time at home and have much need for their television sets to provide them with appropriate entertainment. The Victor Harbor area, including places such as Port Elliot, Goolwa and Middleton, and going up the coast on the other side to Yankalilla, contains something like 15,000 people. All of these people are in what is described as the Adelaide television area; and all of them are at least entitled to receive the Australian Broadcasting Corporation through Channel 2, the Special Broadcasting Service and the three commercial television stations. However, the simple fact is that many of those people are having a great deal of difficulty in receiving a suitable picture. This problem was not raised by the local community until recently when a group of community spirited local residents got together and told the local newspaper, the Victor Harbor Times, that they were launching a campaign for better television reception. Subsequent to this I met a delegation of these people in Victor Harbor at the electorate office of the State member of Parliament for the area, Mr Ted Chapman, and discussed what I could do to help improve the television reception in the district. My response to those people was that I would get in touch immediately with both the Department of Communications and the relevant television channels in order to persuade them to put in the appropriate translators so that the picture on their television sets would improve. The response by the Department of Communications was very favourable and very hasty. I congratulate the Department for responding so well to my re-presentations on behalf of the people of Victor Harbor. The Department immediately conducted a study into the quality of television reception in the district, and the results of the initial study showed that the quality of reception was not particularly good. As a result of that initial study the Department is going to conduct a further and more detailed study but, bearing in mind that it has done a study already, I am absolutely certain that the subsequent study will produce the same result and that the Department will come to the obvious conclusion that it should come to-that it has a responsibility to put in a translator so that the people of this district can receive proper television reception from the ABC and from SBS. I have also written to the commercial television stations-Channels 7, 10 and 9-asking them to take appropriate action as well. So far I have received an acknowledgment to my representations from two of those stations, which are investigating the problem. I think that they, too, have a responsibility to provide the 15,000 people in the Adelaide television district with proper television reception. After all, from a commercial point of view, those television stations have a great deal to gain. They have a market of 15,000 people just waiting to receive good pictures-good pictures which would include the persuasive advertising of those television stations. I want those television stations to take up their responsibilities, to put in the appropriate translators so that the people of the south coast can get a decent reception. I hope very much that the Department of Communications will follow up its many surveys by introducing the appropriate translators itself. The alternative proposal-that the local community should fund these translators-is not one that I find attractive because these towns are in the Adelaide television area. The Government in this case-in the case of the ABC and SBS-has a responsibility, bearing in mind that it has defined the Adelaide television area to include the south coast, to give the people in that area the same reception obtained by people in the closer metropolitan area. I hope that the commercial stations respond favourably to my representations and do the honourable thing by the people of the south coast-give them good and clear television reception. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984, and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984, and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983, and for related purposes. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act 1942, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 28 April 1987: Acts Interpretation Act-Statements relating to failure to furnish periodic report within specified period- Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board-Report for 1985-86. Christmas Island Services Corporation-Report for 1985-86. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 49. Banking Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 52. Bankruptcy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 51, 54. Bounty (Ship Repair) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 53. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 45. Defence Act- Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determinations-1987-Nos. 3, 4. Determinations-1987- No. 23-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 24-Temporary Rental Allowance. No. 25-Recreation Leave. No. 26-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 27-Temporary Rental Allowance and Temporary Accommodation Allowance. No. 28-Allowances for Applicants for Entry Into the Defence Force. No. 29-Gratuities. No. 30-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 31-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 32-Post Allowance. No. 33-District Allowance. No. 34-Temporary Accommodation Allowance. Fisheries Act-Notices-Nos. 177, 178, 179, 180. Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of Ministerial determination made pursuant to section 106aa, dated 26 March 1987. Judiciary Act-Rule of Court-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 46. Lands Acquisition Act- Land acquired for Defence purposes, S.A. Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under subsection 7 (1). National Health Act- Declaration pursuant to subsection 85 (2), dated 18 March 1987. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 47, 50. Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act-Declaration pursuant to subsection 4 (1), dated 31 March 1987. Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-1987-Postal-Amendment No. 1. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor- General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984-Section 3, subsection 4 (2), sections 7, 22, 33, 34 and 37-1 May 1987. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987-27 April 1987. Copyright Amendment Act 1986-Provisions, other than sections 14 to 19 (inclusive)-30 April 1987. Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Act 1986-Sections 16, 17, 21, 34, 35 and 37-1 May 1987. Superannuation Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1986-Sections 20, 22 and 32, subsection 33 (3), section 35 and subsections 67 (2) and 75 (3)-1 May 1987. Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Act 1986-30 April 1987. Public Service Act- Determinations-1987-Nos. 10, 13, 14, 16, 17. Parliamentary Presiding Officers' Determination-1987-No. 1 Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1987/5-Stevedoring Industry Review Committee and holders of public offices on other bodies. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances-1987- No. 7-Co-operative Societies (Amendment). No. 8-Co-operative Societies (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 9-Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) (Amendment). No. 10-Workmen's Compensation (Amendment). No. 11-Sale of Goods (Vienna Convention). No. 12-Dangerous Goods (Amendment). Variation of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 28 April 1987. Securities Industry Act-Regulation-Statutory rules 1987, No. 48. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 2 April 1987. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Directions-1987-Nos. 19, 20, 21. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 44. Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 76. Telecommunications (Community Calls)-Amendment No. 47.