Thursday, 30 April 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(10.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Wool Marketing Bill 1987 is to introduce legislation to replace the Wool Industry Act 1972. The Bill will govern the operations of the Australian Wool Corporation and the wool auction system. It introduces a number of changes consistent with the Government's policy statement `Reform of Commonwealth Primary Industry Statutory Marketing Authorities'. The Bill also introduces additional administrative arrangements including measures for quality assurance of the Australian wool clip. Associated with the Bill are five Wool Tax Amendment Bills 1987, which I will address separately. The package of wool Bills that I am introducing today has been developed with a high degree of consultation with the Wool Council of Australia, the Australian Wool Corporation and other elements of the wool industry. It is intended that they provide the framework for the marketing of Australian wool over the next decade. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) believes it is most appropriate that the Wool Marketing Bill be introduced to this House at a time when the Australian Wool Industry has re-emerged as Australia's leading rural export industry and in a year when wool exports are likely to contribute almost $4 billion to our balance of payments. The present legislation for the wool industry, the Wool Industry Act 1972, commenced on 1 January 1973 in starkly different circumstances to those currently enjoyed by the industry. In the early 1970s the industry was on its knees. It was through bold leadership of the wool industry at that time by such men as Bill Vines, Bill Gunn and others, including David Asimus, the present Chairman of the Corporation, and the initiative of Ken Wriedt-a great Tasmanian-- Mr Hodgman —The one I beat in 1980. Mr BARRY JONES —Is that the one?-that the reserve price scheme was established, the decline in the wool industry arrested, and the basis for a sound reconstruction laid. The recovery of the industry since that time can in no small way be attributed to the arrangements set in place in the Wool Industry Act. The Australian Wool Corporation has operated effectively in its support of the market through the reserve price scheme and wool growers have strengthened the position of wool in the world textile market by their continued investment in wool promotion and research and development. Notwithstanding the present buoyancy in the wool market, the industry faces enormous challenges in the future. We should not let our record wool exports hide from us the fact that wool is a special fibre occupying a small and declining share of total textile consumption. It presently accounts for only around 5 per cent of overall world textile use against a 47 per cent share for cotton and a 48 per cent for synthetics. Furthermore, in those areas where wool is relatively strong, its share is declining. Wool had 33 per cent of the menswear market in 1970; it has about 18 per cent today. Similarly, its share of womenswear has fallen from 27 per cent to 14 per cent and knitwear from 40 per cent to 27 per cent. It is extraordinary to reflect that there does not appear to be a single member of the National Party of Australia in the chamber today for this Bill, which is very important to the wool industry. One begins to wonder what is happening. These markets are extremely volatile and subject to the vagaries of shifts in world fashion and alternative expenditure choices available to consumers. We must remain vigilant to the need to maintain high levels of investment in wool marketing, promotion and research and development, so that wool continues to be profitably sold overseas. On the supply side, members are aware of the present disruption in world agricultural markets and the potential for a continued shift in resources away from other farm enterprises, in particular cropping, to wool. Sheep numbers have grown rapidly from 133 million in 1983 to an estimated current flock of 160 million. A continuation of this rate of growth poses a longer term challenge for the wool industry and this must be monitored. We must have flexible marketing arrangements in place to meet any crisis in the supply of wool arising from an expansion in sheep numbers. In addition to demand and supply considerations, the wool industry must also remain aware of the future options which may emerge in the whole chain of events from the production to the consumption of wool. At the moment the Australian wool industry can stand proud. It clearly surpasses all other wool producing nations not only in the quality of wool it produces but in the way that it is harvested, handled, sold, stored and distributed. It has an outstanding record of innovation. However, the industry cannot rest on its laurels. We compete not only against other wool producers, but also against other fibres and other options for the consumer to spend his or her dollar. The industry must therefore remain cognisant of the need continually to innovate, adapt and modify, to ensure that wool is moved from the sheep to the consumer in the way that presents the best product to the consumer in the most cost effective way. That means that the wool industry must think creatively in working out better ways of doing things and how new technologies can be embraced in the industry. In many cases this will involve an extension and improvement in present techniques. For example, it is likely the industry will continue with manual shearing for many years. But there is considerable scope for researching the ergonomic basis of shearing and to research shed management to improve the process to the benefit of both wool growers and shearing teams. But, in addition to incremental changes of this kind, there is still scope to make dramatic changes in the wool logistics system through a re-examination of the location of present facilities and the way wool is stored, handled and sold. In this respect it is anticipated that the industry will make significant breakthroughs in the coming years in the computerisation of the selling system linked with sale by description. Also there is potential for significant gains in the on-shore transportation of wool. Further to the above, the Government is of the view that there is considerable scope for further processing of wool in Australia. Vision will need to be applied in working out how this can best be done and in marshalling the necessary investment funds. Nevertheless, the potential benefits for the community and the industry in employment, infrastructure development and in ensuring long term contracts for sale of Australian wool are significant. The Government will continue to examine these opportunities, in particular, as part of the textile initiatives being introduced by my colleague Senator Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. This brief outline of pressures on the industry and possibilities open to it illustrates the extent of change the industry inevitably faces. Continued success in the industry, as in any other business operation, will require that change process to be properly understood and effectively managed. It is timely, therefore, that the process commenced in the late 1960s and early 1970s be extended to cover modern demands and to position the industry to prepare for the circumstances it will encounter in the 1990s and into the next century. It is for this purpose that the Minister has developed new arrangements in consultation with the wool industry. The result of this process is the Bill now proposed to the House. The Bill focuses on four principal objectives. First, the Bill seeks to place the Australian Wool Corporation on a sound commercial footing so that it is equipped to respond now and into the future to the pressures of the market-place. Secondly, the Bill is designed to introduce appropriate arrangements to ensure that the Corporation is fully accountable to industry and government without disturbing its commercial performance. Thirdly, the Bill introduces new arrangements for the quality assurance of Australian wool. Finally, the Bill has the objective of providing modern businesslike legislation for the industry which will guide the industry towards the next century. I would now like to comment in more detail on the Bill in relation to these objectives. This Government has distinguished itself in comparison with the previous coalition governments in that it has introduced significant market deregulation and opened the way for better commercial operation by Australian enterprises. It has abandoned conservative rhetoric and given the market the chance to work. The initiative of this Government is particularly evident in the approach it has taken to the changed administration of its government statutory business enterprises and to the reform of its statutory marketing authorities. The Australian Wool Corporation has been successful in its commercial operation. But the Corporation, like other statutory marketing authorities, has been constrained by the need to comply with numerous government controls which have presented difficulties for it in its market operations. The Government has already, in its general reforms of statutory marketing authorities, made a number of changes to the operations of the Australian Wool Corporation. These are outlined in the Government's policy statement `Reform of Commonwealth Primary Industry Marketing Authorities', released as a White Paper on 29 January 1986. Many of the reforms outlined in that document have been discussed in this House in respect of the meat, wheat, dairy and wine and brandy statutory marketing arrangements. I do not propose to discuss these reforms in detail-unless, of course, honourable members insist- except where the wool statutory arrangements are significantly different and where this Bill removes further controls on the Corporation to place it, where possible, on an equivalent footing to commercial business corporations. If the Corporation is to operate on an effective commercial basis, it is essential that its Board comprise the best available talent. To this end, a number of changes will be introduced. The Minister will continue to select and appoint the chairperson of the Corporation as well as the Government director. However, in keeping with best commercial practice it is believed to be appropriate that there be flexibility to make sure that the person appointed to chair the Corporation is the best available and that that appointment is made on the most appropriate basis for the Corporation at that time. The Bill will therefore provide for the chairperson to be appointed on a part time or full time basis. Where a full time chairperson is appointed, that person will also be the chief executive officer of the Corporation. Where, however, the chairperson is appointed on a part time basis, a managing director will be appointed by the Board as an additional director of the Corporation and that person will be the chief executive officer. Honourable members will agree that it is imperative that the Corporation be headed by the best available person and the increased flexibility provided by the Bill will enable this to be the case. The wool industry has been fortunate to have David Asimus as its Chairman for the past eight years. Mr Asimus has been an outstanding Chairman and has piloted the Corporation to its present successful position. He has publicly announced his intention to retire as Chairman of the Corporation when his current term expires at the end of June 1988. He will be sorely missed and he will be a most difficult person to replace. The new arrangements in the Bill will give the Minister more options to work with in trying to fill the gap that David Asimus will leave. The Minister has said that he will ask David Asimus, if it is at all possible for him to do so, to stay on to serve the industry in some capacity. There are numerous positions a person of his talent could ably fill. One which occurs to the Minister is Chairman of the International Wool Secretariat. In the past the Australian Wool Corporation and International Wool Secretariat Chairman roles have been filled by two people, although in recent practice the full time Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation has also been the Chairman of the International Wool Secretariat. So the new arrangements could open up the option for Mr Asimus to continue as Chairman of the International Wool Secretariat. In respect of other appointments to the Australian Wool Corporation, the Bill provides for nine other directors, in the case of a part time chairperson with a full time managing director, and eight other directors in the case of a full time chairperson. At present there is a Chairman-in this case sex is not in doubt-a Government member and eight other members, four grower members appointed on the nomination of the Wool Council of Australia, and four special qualifications members selected and appointed by the Minister. The Australian Wool Corporation has been served well by its members and these have been of the highest calibre. Nevertheless, this procedure will not always result in the best available persons being appointed. The Bill proposes a selection arrangement for the purpose of seeking out the best persons for appointment as directors of the Australian Wool Corporation. The procedure to be used has been worked out with the Wool Council of Australia and is unique to this Bill. The arrangement acknowledges that the Wool Council of Australia as the body representing the growers who contribute to Australian Wool Corporation funds should be represented on the Committee given the task of selecting the best persons for appointment to the Corporation. When a vacancy on the Australian Wool Corporation occurs the Wool Council of Australia will nominate between three and six persons to represent them on the Selection Committee. Those persons will join the presiding member of the Committee, who will be a statutory office holder appointed by the Minister for a term not exceeding three years. I note for the benefit of the Opposition shadow Minister, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who is in the House, how much more complex and detailed this is than appointing High Court judges. The wool industry Selection Committee, so comprised, will select grower and other special expertise persons for nomination as the eight selected directors to the Australian Wool Corporation according to selection criteria specified in the Bill. In undertaking its task the Selection Committee may employ staff and engage the services of a personnel search consultant. The Committee will be required to advertise for nominations in a newspaper circulated throughout Australia-I think that includes Queensland-and the presiding member will be required to consult with the Chairperson of the Australian Wool Corporation on the skills and qualities that should be reflected in the membership of the Corporation. Members of parliament, members of the Wool Council of Australia and members of the Selection Committee established to select persons for nomination to a particular vacancy will not be eligible for nomination to the Corporation. When the Selection Committee has completed its task it will be abolished by the presiding member. When another vacancy arises the presiding member will write to the Wool Council of Australia so advising it and requesting nominations of persons to represent it on the Selection Committee. He will then establish to select persons against that vacancy or vacancies. The wool industry Selection Committee will therefore be an ad hoc committee established for the purpose of nominating persons to a position or group of positions and will dissolve once appointments are made. The one permanent appointment and obviously the pivotal position will be that of presiding member. It has always been the Minister's intention that a leading business figure would be appointed as presiding member to provide guidance to Selection Committee members on the requirements of a balanced corporate board and on selection techniques. I have pleasure in announcing on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industry that Sir Roderick Carnegie has agreed to serve as presiding member for an initial three-year period. As members of this House will be aware, Sir Roderick is an outstanding Australian. He will serve the wool industry with great distinction. If I may interpolate a few words of my own, he is also serving with distinction on the new Board of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. In the interim all current members of the Board of the Corporation will continue in office as directors under the new arrangements until their terms expire. Members will be aware of the sophistication of modern financial markets and of the complexities involved in present day financial management. Any corporation which is not structured so that it can control its cash flows, place its money and borrow at the best rates and adapt to changing circumstances is vulnerable. In this context it is worth noting the financial demands on the Australian Wool Corporation. It presently has in excess of $1 billion to the credit of the market support fund, sells wool internationally in various currencies and could, in the event of a severe downturn in the market, be required to spend heavily in purchasing wool to support the market. The Australian Wool Corporation can on a financial transaction basis be equated with larger Australian private corporations. It is not appropriate in this regard for the Australian Wool Corporation to be hampered in its ability to operate commercially. It cannot be expected to seek frequently ministerial or government approvals for corporate financial decisions. It is also fundamentally wrong for major decisions on the finances and market operations of the Australian Wool Corporation, such as decisions on the minimum reserve price, to be taken in a political environment. If the Australian Wool Corporation is to act as an autonomous commercial body it must have its financial arrangements established, as far as possible, on a commercial basis like any other business organisation. The Bill introduces a number of changes to ensure this. It also establishes a proper relationship on financial matters between the Australian Wool Corporation, the Government and the Wool Council of Australia. At present the Minister for Primary Industry determines the market indicator floor price each year for the reserve price scheme. This is inconsistent with the Government's objectives of maxi- mum commercial flexibility and autonomy. Accordingly, the Bill provides for the Corporation, as the commercial operator, to set and announce the minimum market indicator reserve price and the reserve prices for the various wool types, after agreement with the Wool Council on the minimum market indicator price. This arrangement recognises not only the commercial role of the Australian Wool Corporation but also the role of the Wool Council of Australia in representing the wool growers who provide the funds through a tax paid on the shorn value of wool sold. If the Corporation and the Council are unable to agree, the Minister will determine and announce the minimum reserve price for that year. The Corporation will be required to furnish information relative to the setting of the minimum market indicator reserve price and the proposed levels for minimum reserve prices in the annual operational plan for the Minister's agreement. Moreover, the Minister will continue to require the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to advise him on the factors underlying the supply and demand for wool and the appropriate floor price level and to publish this information to provide another viewpoint to assist the Wool Council in the consultation process. Recently the need has been demonstrated for more flexibility in the rate and apportionment of wool tax. In particular, the present experience of a healthy market support fund has been accompanied by a shortfall in funds for promotion arising from the depreciation of the Australian dollar. As a move in this direction the Bill provides for the Wool Council, after consultation with the Corporation, to decide how its wool tax should be allocated each year. Minimum allocations of 2.5 per cent to market support, 2.5 per cent to promotion and general purposes of the Corporation and 0.25 per cent to wool research and development have been specified. In other words, 5.25 per cent of the wool tax on the shorn value of wool will be committed each year, leaving the Wool Council free to allocate the remainder of the tax among these areas of activity. The Minister will shortly be introducing complementary legislation to increase the ceiling rate of wool tax from 8 per cent of the shorn value of wool to 10 per cent. This will give greater flexibility to the Corporation to respond to pressures on the reserve price scheme and promotion funding needs. I should add, hastily, that the increase in the ceiling rate does not mean that the operational rate will automatically change from the current 8 per cent. Any request from the Wool Council for an increase in the present ceiling rate will be studied very carefully by the Treasurer and the Minister before making a decision. The responsibility for determining refunds will rest with the Wool Council. Current arrangements, whereby the Corporation can borrow up to $200m without ministerial approval, and at least a further $200m with approvals, are inflexible and inconsistent with statutory marketing authority reform policy. In the event of a sudden and significant downturn in the market necessitating heavy buying by the Corporation, it is vital that the Corporation be able to fund purchases and maintain market confidence in the floor price through immediate access to substantial funds available under previously arranged lines of credit. This Bill provides for the Australian Wool Corporation to borrow, without ministerial approval, up to 50 per cent of its net assets, valued at the end of the previous financial year. Borrowings beyond 50 per cent of Corporation net assets at the end of the preceding year will continue to require ministerial approval. In effect, this means that the greater the net value of assets the higher the permissible level of borrowings with approval. To place this approach in perspective, it would have implied borrowings of about $500m if applied in 1986- 87. This arrangement allows the Corporation to borrow to the extent of a 50 per cent debt to equity ratio which is a conservative level when compared with leverage levels of modern business enterprises, particularly in light of the Corporation's conservative valuation of some of its assets. The Australian Wool Corporation has an outstanding record of financial stewardship to support this arrangement and will have a high calibre expertise-based Board to oversight its implementation. The Bill also provides for the Corporation, after consultation with the Wool Council, to appoint a commercial auditor should it so wish. It if does seek to use a commercial auditor, the Minister for Primary Industry will be responsible for the appointment of the auditor subject to the Auditor-General's agreement that the auditor is suitable and to the agreement of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts. This provision is an important step in increasing the commercialisation of the Australian Wool Corporation. Under the existing legislation the precise ownership of some wool stores which were vested in a predecessor of the Corporation in 1953 has been uncertain, particularly in view of the defence provision dating back to World War II which allows the wool stores to be reacquired in the event of threat of war. This Bill removes the defence provision which has been rendered obsolete and clarifies the ownership issue by fully vesting all wool stores in the Corporation. Simultaneously the Bill upgrades the status and visibility of the wool stores operation by establishing a separate Wool Stores Board of Management as a sub-committee of the Corporation to administer the stores to the benefit of wool growers. The Wool Stores Board of Management will be required to prepare corporate and annual operational plans and an audited annual report, with full visibility of financial accounts, to the Corporation for inclusion in the latter's annual report. The wool stores managed by the Corporation are an important aspect of the wool marketing and logistics system in Australia and it is of paramount importance that they be established on an appropriate management basis. In addition the stores are a significant asset of Australian wool growers. They should be managed so as to ensure the best commercial returns to wool growers and growers should be appraised of the location and other relevant information on the stores and on the results of their management. Provisions in the Bill will achieve these goals. The third objective I stated for this Bill was that of ensuring accountability by the Corporation in a way which does not disturb the Corporation's commercial performance. Under the arrangements proposed in the Bill there will be a significant devolution of responsibility to the Corporation to allow greater operation flexibility by freeing it from the need for constant reference to the Minister for approval of each major activity. This redirection is essential to the proper commercial functioning of the Corporation. Whilst they give additional freedom to the Corporation over commercial matters, these changes can in no way be taken as reducing the level of its accountability by the Australian Wool Corporation to government and wool growers. The changes I have mentioned are accompanied by provisions to ensure proper accountability. These provisions are interlocked in the Bill so that the Corporation will be required to operate on a corporate strategic basis both in its management and in its dual accountability to government and industry. The Bill, as discussed previously, clearly defines the role of the Australian Wool Corporation and ensures that it has the wherewithal, including the necessary skills at Board level, to perform its role in a commercial manner. In this respect the Selection Committee comprised essentially of Wool Council of Australia nominees will have an important accountability role. The Minister will select and appoint the Chairperson of the Corporation and that person will be his principal point of contact with the Corporation. The Minister will relate with the Chairperson throughout the year and in particular he will request that he or she report to him on any substantial policy matters, pertinent to the Corporation's relationship to government policy, following each Board meeting. The Minister will also select and appoint the Government Director who will be a special appointee knowledgeable in matters of Government policy and public administration. The Government Director will not, however, have a reporting relationship to the Minister on Corporation business which is any different from that of any of the other directors. In this respect the Minister will expect that person, like any other director, to perform a two hatted role-maybe this could happen if he had two heads but in the absence of that, the two hats will have to do-in respect of the separation between the corporate role as a director of the Corporation and any other role normally filled. In keeping with modern corporate practice, the Corporation will be required to prepare each year, after consultation with the Wool Council of Australia, a corporate plan for the ensuing five-year period and an operational plan for the next financial year and submit these for the Minister's agreement at least one month before the commencement of the period. These plans will address the strategies the Corporation intends to follow and the Corporation will be required to state its strategies in respect of wool stores, research and development and its equal employment opportunity program. The Wool Research and Development Council will also prepare a five-year research and development plan for presentation to the Corporation for later submission for the Minister's agreement. The Corporation will also be required to present an annual report for the latest financial year to Parliament and to the Wool Council of Australia within a specified time frame. This report is to include full particulars of the Corporation's activities with full visibility of the financial accounts pertaining to each activity. I am inclined to think, Madam Speaker, that something historic is happening in cockies corner at the moment. Mr Spender —Be careful or you will run out of time and I will not move for an extension of time for you. Mr BARRY JONES —The honourable member would not be like that. In particular the report will contain an assessment of the Corporation's performance during the financial year against the corporate goals agreed with the Minister for that year. The Chairman of the Corporation will be required personally to present the report to the first meeting of the Wool Council after it is tabled in Parliament and to be available to answer any questions arising from the report. Apart from the accountability procedures mentioned above, there is also a provision for the Minister to give directions to the Corporation in exceptional circumstances. I do not envisage that the Minister would use such power with any frequency. It is in the nature of a reserve provision and there are strong caveats against its capricious use including the requirement that any directions issued to the Corporation be in writing, gazetted and tabled in Parliament. (Extension of time granted) I thank the honourable member for North Sydney and the House. Honourable members will be relieved to know that there are only six pages to go. The corporate strategic arrangements I have outlined here provide the Australian Wool Corporation with both a modern management system for its operations and an effective strategic basis for its meeting its accountability obligations. In respect of the wool quality assurance objectives of the Government it is important to recognise the value of wool to Australian agricultural producers and the wider community. Wool is our number one rural export, as I said earlier, and Australia is the dominant world supplier of apparel wool. We must do everything possible to preserve that market dominance of Australian wool and its competitive position relative to other fibres. This includes taking whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of Australian wool. The wool industry has, essentially through self-regulatory approaches, sought to institute sound quality controls in the selling system and has participated on Corporation advisory committees in the establishment of wool selling regulations and clip preparation standards. The Australian Wool Corporation also operates a voluntary scheme for registration of wool classers. Notwithstanding these measures there are reports from overseas mills of wool being delivered which is not to standard, contains contamination or in some other way does not conform to desirable levels of quality. When one examines present procedures and the prospect for unscrupulous operation, the need for change is real. This will become an increasingly important issue as wool is sold by description with further introduction of automated processes in modern textile mills. There is also a growing community concern about the quality of commodities generally and with the pesticide issue. I believe that more has to be done to build industry co-operation and the Bill introduces a number of new quality assurance provisions with the Australian Wool Corporation playing a pivotal role. The Bill provides for compulsory registration of wool classers classing wool to be sold at auction, prohibition of sale at auction unless classed by a registered wool classer and deregistration of wool classers for up to two years where such classers have been found consistently to flout industry agreed standards for presentation of wool for auction. The scheme, to be administered by the Corporation in consultation with appropriate industry advisory committees, will cover owner classers, professional classers and classing houses. Although aimed at auctions for practical administration reasons it is expected that the benefits will flow over to wool sold outside auction. It is expected that deregistration action would be an infrequently used deterrent but would have a significant impact on the industry. Any deregistration action would be subject to appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Minister will request the Corporation to form a committee comprising all relevant industry organisations, including the Woolclassers Association, to develop this scheme. Pesticide residues in wool and wool by-products such as lanolin also pose a threat to our exports. Pesticides such as Dieldrin are illegal under State legislation for use on livestock-and I am sorry Madam Speaker is not in the chair to hear this-but at present there are no adequate control mechanisms to ensure that sheep are not improperly treated. I will explain that later. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I think you have just libelled the Speaker somehow. Mr BARRY JONES —No; she would acknowledge it, gladly. Pesticide residues can be detected only through chemical analysis and this Bill enables the Corporation to acquire samples from wool testing houses, to ascertain the ownership of wool found to have excessive levels of pesticide residue. The Corporation will then be able to provide a warning to the grower and, if necessary, to inform the relevant State authorities for action under State legislation. Reserve powers are also provided in the Bill to allow the withdrawal from auction of any wool which the Corporation, advised where appropriate by its industry advisory committees, considers does not meet industry standards of preparation. This also includes action to stop the use of second-hand wool packs. These reserve powers will require the offending bales and documentation to be noted accordingly, with such notation to be withdrawn once the wool has been re-prepared in accordance with acceptable standards. The intention is to invoke such powers only if industry agreement and action on a self-regulatory approach is not forthcoming. A further matter which affects wool quality is shearing. The Minister is concerned at industry reports that the present high level of wool production will lead to shortages in the availability of quality shearers with adverse effects on the industry. The Minister has specified a function in the Bill for the Australian wool corporation to encourage and facilitate the training of shearers with a view to ensuring the availability of shearers for the industry and a standard of shearing suited to its needs. The Minister has also asked his Department to investigate what more can be done by the Commonwealth Government in this respect and will introduce further policy changes if necessary. I make the comment, in regard to the quality assurance provisions of the Bill, that these issues have been around the industry for many years. Recently a report was released by an industry committee set up to prepare a code of practice for preparation of Australian wool clips. Apart from that report the questions of poor clip preparation and contamination, classer registration, use of second-hand packs and pesticide residues are all issues which everyone has been aware of and nobody has acted on. This Government is not prepared to shirk the issue. The risks from exposure under present legislation are too high and this Government has acted decisively to introduce real change. The final objective I mention is that of providing modern, business-like legislation to govern the operations of the Australian Wool Corporation and the auction system. We have through the Bill sought to establish a new modern commercial approach to the administration of wool marketing in this country. I seem to have said that about six times. If we are to be successful in this endeavour, the new arrangements must provide a sound good management practice and be expressed in such a way that its provisions are clearly communicated to and understood by participants in the wool marketing system. This Bill is expressed, as far as possible, in what is commonly called plain English terms-offensive as this may be to the legal profession. Much of the detail of the Wool Industry Act has been removed and the Bill is organised on the basis of a clear logical structure. There is a clear specification in the Bill of the objects and functions of the Corporation. The Bill comprises nine integral parts, including a new part introduced to cover the finance of the Corporation. Each part is self-contained with a statement of the object, functions and powers of the Australian Wool Corporation in respect of that part. I have outlined as far as possible, the most significant reforms to the administration arrangements for the wool industry since 1972. I have considered a number of changes in detail and have alluded to the Government's reforms for statutory marketing authorities which include adoption of equal employment opportunity procedures and the power to establish subsidiaries, subject to ministerial approval. Because the reforms are so extensive it has been considered logical, as proposed, to repeal the existing Wool Industry Act 1972 as frequently amended and replace it with this Wool Marketing Bill, a title more representative of the content and orientation of the legislation. Many sections of the Wool Industry Act have been retained, notably the 1986 amendments to wool research and development. The old section relating to refunds from the market support fund was essentially a set of administrative procedures and guidelines and these have been removed to be redrafted as regulations to be made under the proposed legislation. I am confident that the new Wool Marketing Bill will enable the wool industry to better respond to future marketing challenges. The proposed reforms are not expected to impose any additional costs on the Commonwealth. Indeed, it is expected that there will be indirect savings, albeit modest, in administration through devolution of responsibility to the Corporation. I commend this Bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent five Wool Tax Amendment Bills- (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being moved without delay and one question being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee's report stage and the third reading, of all the Bills together; and (b) the consideration of the Bills in one committee of the Whole. Bills presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(10.43) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. The purpose of the Wool Tax (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1987 is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 1) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on the sale value of shorn wool sold by a wool broker. This Bill is one of five Wool Tax Amendment Bills, each dealing with a different method of selling shorn wool. It provides for an increase in the maximum rate of wool tax to 10 per cent and for a minimum rate of wool tax of 5.25 per cent being equal to the sum of the minimum rates of apportionment of the wool tax specified in the Wool Marketing Bill 1987. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speech on the Wool Marketing Bill 1987. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. The purpose of the Wool Tax (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1987 is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 2) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on the sale value of shorn wool purchased by a registered wool dealer from a person other than a wool broker. This Bill is one of five Wool Tax Amendment Bills, each dealing with a different method of selling shorn wool. It provides for an increase in the maximum rate of wool tax to 10 per cent and for a minimum rate of wool tax of 5.25 per cent being equal to the sum of the minimum rates of apportionment of the wool tax specified in the Wool Marketing Bill 1987. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speech on the Wool Marketing Bill 1987. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. The purpose of the Wool Tax (No. 3) Amendment Bill 1987 is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 3) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on the sale value of shorn wool purchased by a manufacturer from a person other than a wool broker or a registered wool dealer. This Bill is one of five wool tax amendment Bills, each dealing with a different method of selling shorn wool. It provides for an increase in the maximum rate of wool tax to 10 per cent and for a minimum rate of wool tax of 5.25 per cent being equal to the sum of the minimum rates of apportionment of the wool tax specified in the Wool Marketing Bill of 1987. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speech on the Wool Marketing Bill 1987. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. The purpose of the Wool Tax (No. 4) Amendment Bill 1987 is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 4) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on the sale value of shorn wool subjected by a manufacturer to a process of manufacture. This Bill is one of five wool tax amendment Bills, each dealing with a different method of selling shorn wool. It provides for an increase in the maximum rate of wool tax to 10 per cent and for a minimum rate of wool tax of 5.25 per cent being equal to the sum of the minimum rates of apportionment of the wool tax specified in the Wool Marketing Bill of 1987. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speech on the Wool Marketing Bill 1987. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. The purpose of the Wool Tax (No. 5) Amendment Bill 1987 is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 5) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on the sale value of shorn wool exported from Australia. This Bill is one of five wool tax amendment Bills, each dealing with a different method of selling shorn wool. It provides for an increase in the maximum rate of wool tax to 10 per cent and for a minimum rate of wool tax of 5.25 per cent being equal to the sum of the minimum rates of apportionment of the wool tax specified in the Wool Marketing Bill of 1987. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speech on the Wool Marketing Bill 1987. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. I commend these Bills to honourable members, and I table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(10.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 is to make a number of amendments to legislation affecting Australia's meat and livestock industry, namely, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act 1977, the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation Act 1985, the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council Act 1984 and the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Selection Committee Act 1984. This Bill is associated with the Livestock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1987 and the Livestock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987. In regard to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act 1977 the Bill formalises the ability of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, AMLC to work with the Australian Pork Corporation in the development of marketing schemes for meat and livestock. Provision is made for the Minister to prescribe by regulation individual marketing schemes such as computer aided livestock marketing, known as CALM and the authority for the uniform specification of meat and livestock, known as AUS-MEAT. The Bill also provides that the AMLC will be required to consult with the peak industry bodies in the preparation of its five-year corporate plan and its annual operational plan. In addition, the five-year plan is to be a rolling plan, that is, it will need to be updated each year so that it always covers the next five years. A number of specific additions are made to the information to be contained in the AMLC's annual report: These are intended to improve the level of reporting by the Corporation to Parliament on its activities. The powers of the AMLC to meet the costs and expenses incurred by industry organisations attending consultations with the Corporation are clarified. The AMLC will be able to make payments in addition to travelling expenses, in accordance with guidelines issued by the Minister for Primary Industry. These guidelines make it quite clear that only reasonable costs associated with consultations can be met, and it will be up to the AMLC to ensure that activities for which it meets the costs are consistent with its powers and functions. The legislation proposes to limit the making of such payments to the Cattle Council of Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council. There is also, however, a provision for other organisations to be added to the list by regulation, should it become apparent that this is appropriate. Under the current AMLC Act, members are appointed for a fixed three-year term with appointments being staggered so that not all members change at once. It is proposed to make this arrangement more flexible by providing that members may be appointed for periods of up to three years. A number of changes are intended to streamline the administration and operation of the AMLC's annual general meeting. These include greater flexibility in the timing of AGMs, the closing date of voting registers, lodgment of notices of motion and the deadline by which proxies must be lodged. In addition, the provision requiring a vote of 75 per cent of those people on the register to pass a special motion or to overturn a Corporation motion for an increase in the levy, is to be changed so that a vote of 75 per cent of those people present, either in person or by proxy is all that will be required. In line with the Government's policy on the reform of statutory marketing authorities, the legislation requires the AMLC to adopt an equal employment opportunities program. This program is to be incorporated in the Corporation's corporate plans and a progress report is to be included in the Corporation's annual report to Parliament. The changes to the Australian Meat and Live-Stock Research and Development Corporation Act 1985 are designed to streamline the administration and operation of the Corporation's annual general meeting and mirror the changes being made in this regard to the AMLC Act. The Australian Meat and Live-Stock Industry Policy Council Act 1984 is to be amended to remove the requirement that the Policy Council holds an industry wide conference at least every two years to canvass industry views on matters currently affecting the industry. The Policy Council will, however, retain its power to call such conferences whenever it feels they are needed. This Bill also seeks to amend the Australian Meat and Live-Stock Industry Selection Committee Act 1984. This Act provides for the Selection Committee to nominate members for appointment to the AMLC and the AMLRDC. The proposed changes are to allow for the appointment of members of the Selection Committee for periods of up to three years instead of the present fixed three-year term. Also, it is proposed to remove the requirement for the Selection Committee to prepare an annual report to Parliament. The preparation of an annual report is considered unnecessary as the Committee has only a single purpose and meets on an ad hoc basis. The amendment will bring the Selection Committee into line with other statutory marketing authority selection committees. The changes proposed by this Bill will have no impact on Commonwealth income or expenditure. I commend the Bill to honourable members and I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(10.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill is to increase the maximum rates of levy that may be imposed under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964. This Act imposes a levy on the slaughter at an abattoir of cattle, sheep, lambs, buffaloes, goats, calves and bobby calves for human consumption. This Bill is associated with the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987. The levy consists of three components which raise funds to finance the activities of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation, AMLC, including its promotion functions, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation, AMLRDC and, in the case of cattle, calves, bobby calves and buffaloes, bovine disease eradication. Maximum rates are set in the legislation for the AMLRDC component, the disease eradication component and the total of the three components. The maximum available for the AMLC is the difference between the current total maximum rate and the maximum rates provided for disease eradication and the AMLRDC. The individual operative rates of the levy for each species are set by regulation. The slaughter levy rates for the AMLC and the AMLRDC are varied only after the Minister has received recommendations from the relevant body, that is either the AMLC or the AMLRDC. Neither the AMLC nor the AMLRDC is permitted to recommend a change to the operative rates of levy without first having had a motion endorsing the changes passed at their respective annual general meetings. The amendments proposed in the Bill will increase the maximum level of the slaughter levy and therefore the AMLC's potential share of the levy, while not changing the amount set aside for the AMLRDC or disease eradication. The proposed increases in the maximum levy rates are as follows: Cattle, from $6 to $10; sheep, from 60c to $1; lambs, from 67c to $1; buffalo, from $6 to $10; goats, from 60c to $1; calves, from $2.10 to $3.50; and bobby calves, from 60c to $1. Mr Cohen —What are bobby calves? Mr BARRY JONES —I think that should be left to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to explain when he returns. The proposal to increase the maximum rates arose out of a discussion on the adequacy of promotion of red meat that took place at the AMLC's annual general meeting held in Perth on 4 December 1986. It was apparent at that meeting that there was a general willingness to support significant increases in promotion expenditure if the AMLC thought it would be cost effective. Subsequently, the major producer and processor organisations and the AMLC have supported the proposal to increase the maximum levy and export charge rates. These changes will mean that, should the AMLC recommend to a future AGM that the livestock slaughter levies and export charges should be increased, and the meeting supports the proposed increase, new operative rates can be implemented without delay. The proposed increases will have no effect on the current operative rates of livestock slaughter levy, nor will they have any impact on Commonwealth income or expenditure. I commend the Bill to honourable members and I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(10.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to increase the maximum rates of export charge that may be imposed under the Livestock Export Charge Act 1964. This Act imposes a charge on the export of cattle, sheep, lambs, buffaloes and goats from Australia. As in the Live-Stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964, the charge consists of three components which raise funds to finance the activities of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation-AMLC-the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation-AMLRDC-and, in the case of cattle and buffaloes, bovine disease eradication. Maximum rates are set in the legislation for the AMLRDC component, the disease eradication component, and the total of the three components. The maximum available for the AMLC is the difference between the current total maximum rate and the maximum rates provided for the disease eradication and AMLRDC components. The individual operative rates of charge for each species are set by regulation. The export charge rates for the AMLC and the AMLRDC are varied only after the Minister has received recommendations from the relevant body, that is, either the AMLC or the AMLRDC. Neither the AMLC nor the AMLRDC is permitted to recommend a change to the operative rates of export charge without having first had a motion endorsing the changes passed at their respective annual general meetings. The amendments proposed in this Bill will increase the maximum level of the export charge, and therefore the AMLC's potential share of the charge, while not increasing the amount set aside for the AMLRDC or disease eradication. The proposed increases in the maximum charge rates are as follows: Cattle, from $6 to $10; sheep, from 60c to $1; lambs, from 60c to $1; buffalo, from $6 to $10; goats, from 60c to $1. The proposed increases will have no effect on the current operative rates of the livestock export charge, nor will they have any impact on Commonwealth income or expenditure. I commend the Bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(11.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Act 1985 to remove impediments to the full implementation of an initiative designed to reduce the red-tape burden on exporters of foodstuffs. The Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Act 1985 is one of three Acts-the others being the Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act 1985 and the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act 1985-introduced by this Government to give as much flexibility as possible in determining appropriate export inspection charging systems for different sectors of the food export industry. At the time the Act was introduced, export establishments were registered on an annual basis subject to renewal, and the establishment registration charge was modelled accordingly, to be a charge on that registration, payable annually. Earlier this year, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service initiated a system of continuing, or perpetual, registrations, not requiring any renewal. This is attractive as it reduced the paper work for the Service and for industry, while also reducing administrative costs in the long run. Because of the inflexible nature of the establishment registration charge, establishments subject to that charge have not been able to participate in that system. These are all establishments involved in the preparation of fish and poultry products for export. The Bill amends provisions in the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Act 1985 which prevent the extension of this initiative to establishments which are subject to the establishment registration charge. Under the Bill, the charge may be imposed on a periodic basis and not linked to the commencement or renewal of registration. The Bill also makes several consequential drafting changes. The Bill will have no direct financial impact, as the amounts of charge imposed will not be affected by the amendments. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Also, I table the explanatory memorandums for both this Bill and the subsequent Bill, the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Downer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(11.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The principal purpose of this Bill is to amend the Export Inspection Charges Collection Act 1985 to complement the amendments to the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Act 1985 which are included in the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 1987. The Bill amends the provisions in the Export Inspection Charges Collection Act 1985 which prevent the extension of the `continuous registration' initiative to establishments which are subject to establishment registration charge. An explanation of this initiative is given in the second reading speech on the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 1987. The Bill also makes general consequential drafting changes. Other effects of the Bill are to replace a provision describing the time within which various charges are to be payable, so as to leave that kind of detail to be specified in regulations, and to remove a provision which will serve no purpose following the entry into force of amendments to the Export Control Act 1982 which are included in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1987. The Bill will have no direct financial impact, as the amount of charge collected will not be affected by the amendments. I commend the Bill to honourable members. I point out that I tabled the explanatory memorandum for this Bill with that of the previous Bill, the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 1987. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Scholes) agreed to: That in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposals contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the new Parliament House presented to the House on 2 April 1987, namely: (1) installation of standard high intensity lighting at the 7 marked pedestrian crossings within the Parliamentary Zone; (2) construction of an additional carpark and the provision of carpark lighting at the National Library of Australia on the basis that this carpark is designated as short stay parking; (3) construction of the east-west roads between Parkes Place and the proposed mall to give access to the parking areas associated with the National Science and Technology Centre; (4) construction of a road north of King Edward Terrace adjacent to the land axis to provide additional access to the National Science and Technology Centre, and (5) installation of the proposed lighting on the land bridge between the provisional Parliament House and the new Parliament House and on the roads associated with the National Science and Technology Centre. Debate resumed from 29 April, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(11.09) —I continue with the matter I was talking about last night-specifically, the problems of the elderly in Australia. I thought that I would read into Hansard a few statistics that I think are very important. Whilst one could get into the political argument on who is best looking after the elderly people of Australia-whether it be the Australian Labor Party or the Liberal Party of Australia, et cetera-I think it is completely unnecessary to do so. Quite frankly, I believe that the elderly, for many years, have been subject to political torture. If there is to be a decrease in the pension, of course it is highlighted by somebody or other. Things that are going to occur are highlighted and we are left with a political dog fight. I do not think many of us really understand that as people get older-to the 65 to 70 years age group-everything worries them. It does not matter what it is; people become more worried about some of the simpler things of life, and that is understandable. I would like to read some statistics that, incidentally, have been very difficult to obtain. They show that 1.6 million Australians are 65 years of age or over. Over the next 15 years, whilst the total population will increase by approximately 19 per cent, the proportion of people over the age of 65 will increase by 30 per cent. By the turn of the century, one-third will be over 50 years of age. By the year 2001, the number of people who have reached retiring age will be 2.5 times higher than it is now. The number of people aged 85 years and over by the year 2021 will be four times greater than it is today. The outlay on social security and welfare payments is approximately 28 per cent of total government outlays. This really means that 25c in the dollar goes to social security or welfare payments. Forty per cent of this outlay is directed to the elderly. I would like to make an interesting point about life expectancy. We hear the experts talk about the elderly. We hear from some people who seem to know everything. However, I am afraid that they are insulated from the real problems. But some very interesting statistics come up when one starts to talk to the elderly and listen to groups which are vitally concerned with those people. For example, I think that all males should be aware of the fact that the average life expectancy of women in 1986 was approximately 80 years of age. For men it was 73 years of age. By the end of 1987 the figures for women will be 83 years of age and for men 74 years of age. So, of course, the problems are going to be more severe in the years to come. I would like to give a very simple example. Many elderly people leave their children in the heavily and densely populated areas of Melbourne and Sydney and go to settle in holiday resorts such as the Gold Coast. They go with the intention of staying in these places and living a normal and happy life. When one partner regrettably dies-and, of course, invariably it is the husband-the other partner is left alone. That person is then faced with all the problems of loneliness brought about by such things as the fact that the children live elsewhere. One of the interesting problems that I never thought of and which one never hears talked about is the problem of mobility. For example, many women never learn to drive. As a result they are left in the house by themselves and their worries become even more exacerbated. That is a simple example of one of the problems that can arise. We are told that 14 per cent of old people-and these statistics were also very hard to obtain-living alone do not have enough money to care adequately for themselves after paying rent. Eleven per cent of their accommodation in Australia is highly unsatisfactory. These statistics, which I repeat were very hard to obtain, have not been the subject of media coverage; they have not been made known. The fact that some people are suffering absolute loneliness and finding it very difficult to keep and maintain their homes is and remains behind the scenes. One can get into a political argument about whose fault it is. One can argue that rising costs are affecting these people. But we have to resist such arguments if we genuinely want to come up with recommendations that will help the aged in Australia today. The intensely political nature of the lobbies and pressure groups concerned about the welfare of old people is one of the first things to strike an investigator. I call myself an investigator because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) set up a task force which included the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), from the National Party of Australia, Senator Susan Knowles from the Senate and me to look into the problems of the aged in Australia and to bring down sound recommendations that will help formulate policies in the future. I suppose that this is a political task force. However, we have tried to be apolitical. We have gone all around Australia and talked to the groups that are heavily involved with the problems of the aged. We have uncovered some hidden things that would make one absolutely cry. The problem of loneliness and the problems associated with it are so devastating to elderly people that one realises that more needs to be done. We need to stop the political arguments that are always being put forward. We need to stop alarming the elderly people of Australia about the problems associated with those arguments. We need to do more. It is argued that we spend X amount of dollars on creating sporting facilities. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is at the table, takes great pride-and I can understand this-in assisting in the building of sporting facilities all over Australia. As politicians we all like to get our name up on plaques. We like to see the words `Opened by Bruce Goodluck, the honourable member for Franklin', `Opened by Michael Hodgman, the honourable member for Denison' et cetera. We love it, because that is part and parcel of politics. But sometimes I think this is overdone. Of course, I support the young of Australia who need the sporting and other facilities which are so important to them. But I believe quite firmly that not enough money is directed to places where the elderly could go and live in a decent way. Mr John Brown —We have very good programs of sport for the elderly. Mr GOODLUCK —I understand that, but we are talking about only a few programs up front. Many of the elderly are too frightened to go out of their homes. Many of them do not want to join senior citizen clubs. They want to live in their own homes. They want to be independent and do not want to live any other sort of life. Therefore, they need to be taken care of. The honourable member for Cowper and I have been to some magnificent nursing homes around Australia. I do not want to criticise them but some of them are really only places in which to die. They are an elephant's graveyard. That is not being disrespectful to them; they are the end of the line. That is the reason why we have talked about integration, of trying to bring young people into nursing homes to talk to the elderly. Nursing homes should not be regarded as a place to die; they should be places in which elderly people can spend the last years of their lives in complete happiness. Of course, I am looking for the utopian situation. Mrs Sullivan —Many do. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, I am sure they do. I do not mean to criticise all of the nursing homes. I repeat that some of them are magnificent. We are all different. Regrettably some people have to go into nursing homes because they need care and attention. It is useless talking about people staying in their own homes when they cannot be looked after there. We have domiciliary sisters who do a very good job but they are guided by certain rules and regulations. Some of them are not allowed to sweep under tables or to lift. So how the dickens can they look after elderly people in their own homes? It is easy for a person to get up front and say these sorts of things but in practice it is not as simple as that. I know it would be difficult to do, but would it not be marvellous if some of the money that is spent on magnificent sporting facilities and on the duplication of community centres were directed to places not termed nursing homes but places where sporting and recreation facilities were available so that elderly people could live the final years of their lives in more happiness than they are at the moment? We always hear about the person who is able to speak for himself, who is able to walk and talk. The lonely people who live by themselves in the cities of Melbourne or Sydney, where high rents make it difficult for them to survive, need special care and attention. The honourable member for Cowper would agree that many of these people are being forced into a life of squalor because they cannot afford the high rents. Some of the older parts of Melbourne and Sydney are becoming trendy and it is becoming expensive to rent there. Therefore, we need to watch this problem very carefully and we need to do more about it. Mr Hodgman —You have always fought for the pensioners-always. Mr GOODLUCK —We are all going to become old one day-both the honourable member and I, regrettably. Some people do not even reach old age because of the pressures they live under and so on. Some become very old very young. We need to be aware of the problems. Sometimes I get so mad about the political situations that occur-the dog fights and the fact that the elderly become political footballs. If there is to be a decrease in the pension we need to be very careful that the problems are not highlighted. I repeat that when one gets old, one starts to worry about every conceivable thing. If we all participate in this sort of political footballing, we should be ashamed of ourselves. Let me talk just briefly about the assets test which is a part of this Bill. Mr Nehl —It will go. Mr GOODLUCK —When we get back into government it will go; there is no doubt about that. It is not so much the money but the fact that elderly people do not like anybody asking them things about their business and they do not like to think that some bureaucrat will find out about the few dollars they may have put aside to bury themselves with, et cetera. The point I make is that as one gets older one worries about every conceivable thing. The assets test is one thing that worried the majority of pensioners. It was introduced just to catch a few. Mr Hodgman —It still petrifies them. Mr GOODLUCK —It still petrifies them. My mother-in-law, who is 90 years old, lives at St Helens. She is a marvellous woman; she rides a push bike; she looks after herself; she lives in a lovely house by herself and keeps it clean and neat. But she is lucky because she has had good health and she has good family support. Mr Hodgman —And she has a good son-in-law. Mr GOODLUCK —I thank the honourable member. She has good family support. She is a good example of a pensioner. But on the other side of the coin, some people we meet who are 65 years old are sick, old and need help and assistance. I know that it is very difficult for government to direct that help and assistance but we should do more about it. I apologise for talking about myself but in 1979 I suggested that we should create a portfolio for the elderly. I would be a very good shadow Minister for that, too. I thought that we should create- Mr Hodgman —What about Social Security? Mr GOODLUCK —I would be a better shadow Minister at that. I suggested that we should take pensioners away from social security and create that portfolio. Let us face it; in the next 15 years the number of pensioners who will require assistance and help will increase. There will be 1.6 million pensioners in our population. Some of the trendy groups and very sophisticated lobby groups-for example, the Wilderness Society of Tasmania-seem to have all the say and the media seem to give them all the coverage. They seem to be able to dictate their terms. But a person talking about 1.6 million pensioners is regarded as a bit of a ratbag at times and the media is not interested in him because that is not sensational. It will not have an effect on people. All governments need to be very careful in the future about what they do in caring for the elderly of Australia. I know that the honourable member for Cowper, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and all other honourable members whose electorates I do not know-- Mr Peter Fisher —Mallee. Mr GOODLUCK —Thank you, Mallee. Mr Webster —Macquarie. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, Macquarie. And, of course, the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) who will be speaking in a moment are all very concerned about the subject. They will speak about different aspects of the Bill but I think they all agree with me that we should forget about the politics and get on with looking after the elderly of Australia. In our formulations of policy we might have different ideas and different intepretations-- Mrs Sullivan —Not on this one. Mr GOODLUCK —No, we are all together on this one. There is no factionism. There are no wets and dries-whatever that means-and there are no lefts and rights, et cetera. We all need to head in the one direction and one way in which parties could become unified is by having one aim in mind-the goodwill necessary to benefit the Australian people. Mr LEE(Dobell)(11.24) —First of all, I would like to make a few comments in response to the speech of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). I believe that his speech was directed more to his colleagues in the Liberal and National parties than to the Australian people at large or members of the Australian Labor Party. As many honourable members would know, he is a member of the group which has been classified as the wets of the Liberal Party of Australia. Mr Goodluck —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I have never been classified as anything. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! Mr Goodluck —I am only the honourable member for Franklin fighting for the goodwill of the people I represent. I do not like to be referred to as a wet or a dry-just as Bruce Goodluck, the honourable member for Franklin. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I had not called the honourable member for Franklin. I ask the honourable member for Dobell to resume his speech. Mr LEE —I was about to suggest that the wet group within the Liberal Party is fighting a battle for the control of the hearts and minds of members of the Liberal Party. The dries appear to have a monopoly on the front bench positions these days and, of course, the dries are advocating that there should be massive cuts in government spending across the board. I refer to people such as the national President of the Liberal Party, Mr Valder, a great supporter of the dries, Mr Andrew Hay and members of the various New Right organisations. They are arguing that the people at the front line of government expenditure cuts should be the age pensioners, the veterans, lone parents and other people who depend on social security benefits. I wish the honourable member for Franklin all the best in his battle to seek to ensure that the dries within the Liberal Party are not successful in implementing their plans to cut government expenditure on social security. We should not forget that, during the Fraser years, the base rate of the pension fell from 24 per cent of average weekly earnings to only 22 per cent of average weekly earnings. That was the success of the Liberal and National Party coalition during its years in government. The base rate of the pension was 24 per cent when Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was dismissed in 1975. When the Australian Labor Party was re-elected in March 1983 the base rate of pension had fallen, under the Liberals and the Nationals, to only 22 per cent of average weekly earnings. Mr Tuckey —And you promised to raise it to 25 per cent. Mr LEE —I am very proud of the fact that this Government has raised it from 22 per cent-which is the level it was when the previous Government left office-to 24 per cent and I am confident that it will hit 25 per cent as soon as economic circumstances permit. One other area where I think this Government deserves commendation is for its initiatives in the last Budget. The Government decided that people who received the unemployment benefit should be required to be registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service from 1 December because the unemployment benefit is to be paid only to people who are actively seeking full time work. The unemployment benefit is not there to help people who live in areas with a pleasant environment to build communal huts and to have a great life in that nice environment. The unemployment benefit is there to be paid to people who are actively seeking work. I am proud to say that this Government requires these people to lodge personally their unemployment benefit continuation forms at the nearest office of the Department of Social Security. This Government also introduced five selective review teams to carry out intensive investigations in particular areas. In my State of New South Wales these selective review teams have examined people who receive the unemployment benefit through the Social Security offices at Dee Why, Lismore and Murwillumbah. If we look at the results that these five teams have obtained we find that, since last December, they have interviewed more than 7,300 people throughout Australia who were receiving the unemployment benefit. Of those, 1,821 people receiving the unemployment benefit had their benefit cancelled. Almost one in four people were found to have not been eligible for the unemployment benefit for various reasons. We should not forget that a number of these people were found to have been entitled to an increase in the level of their unemployment benefit. I would be unhappy if people concluded from these figures that 25 per cent of all people receiving the unemployment benefit in Australia were to be considered as being ineligible for the unemployment benefit. I think the Department of Social Security has rightly targeted the areas where it has carried out these investigations. I think examining areas such as Dee Why, Lismore and Murwillumbah is certainly a good policy. I commend the Government on carrying out these selective reviews and I am pleased that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has recently announced that, from this month, the number of review teams that will carry out these intensive investigations will be increased from five to 15. The debate in this chamber today cannot be carried out in isolation of the recent great divisions within the Opposition ranks. It is fair to ask: Who is the shadow Minister for Social Security? I am not aware who that person is. It used to be the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). I understand that because he is a member of the National Party he is no longer the shadow Minister. If the honourable member is to be considered the spokesman on social security, I wonder whether, now that he is locked into the Queensland Premier's policy proposals for Australia's future, he also will be advocating the various hard line, right wing policies which the Queensland Premier is seeking to implement. The Opposition has been complaining that this Government has not done enough in the area of social security. It says that we have not done enough in seeking to track down those who are receiving unemployment benefits and various other social security payments under false pretences. The Opposition says that the Government does not check hard enough to ensure that people do not use false identification. This is an important issue which deserves close examination. It is this Government, and not the Opposition, which has brought forward the proposal for an Australia Card. This Government has been defeated by a sordid coalition of the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Democrats in the Senate. They have acted to frustrate the Government in its attempts to ensure that the welfare cheats are not able to continue to get away with abusing the social security system. Mr Tuckey —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In referring to defeated identity card legislation, the honourable member is transgressing the rules of relevance a little too far. I have been quite happy to let things go on a couple of other points. He is also wrong. The ID card legislation had nothing to do with welfare fraud. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member is debating the matter. There is no point of order. Mr LEE —In this debate many colleagues of the honourable member for O'Connor have addressed the question whether this Government is carrying out enough checks on the question of identification, so that matter is quite relevant. If this Government had been successful in getting the Australia Card legislation through the Senate, it would have been able to ensure that people applying for benefits and pensions were using their correct identity. We would have been able to ensure that people who use false drivers licences and other techniques were not able to register for unemployment benefits under many different names. It is Opposition members who are responsible for stopping this Government cracking down on the welfare cheats. We should not forget that it was the honourable member for Richmond, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) who publicly stated that they supported the introduction of an Australian identity card when the National Taxation Summit was held in 1985. Mr Tuckey —On a further point of order, I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to reconsider your ruling that the honourable member's remarks are relevant to this legislation. The rules are quite clear when one refers to other legislation. The honourable member keeps referring erroneously to legislation, since he says that the ID card had something to do with welfare cheats when it did not. It was a tax measure to fine business people $10,000, $20,000 and hundreds of thousands of dollars for not telling on other people. It is not appropriate for the honourable member to continue to mention defeated legislation in the light of this legislation. We do not want to see too many limitations on the areas of welfare and social security that can be addressed, but I submit that the ID card legislation was separate and that the Chair should rule the honourable member's remarks irrelevant. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have listened to the honourable member for O'Connor. This has been a wide-ranging debate, and there is no point of order. I ask the honourable member for Dobell to continue his speech. Mr LEE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased that I have some time left after the honourable member's points of order. Clause 7 of the legislation provides for the indexation of the assets test threshold limits. Currently, an age pensioner couple who own their own home can own assets to the value of $108,000, excluding their home, and still receive the full pension. They continue to receive a part pension if their assets, excluding their home, are up to the value of $197,000. I wish to raise publicly in this chamber a matter that is of great concern to me. I wish to outline to the House a rort of the social security system which has come to my attention. I believe that it is spreading like wildfire, so I believe it quite appropriate that I, as a member of this House, bring it to the Minister's attention. I hope to have this scam investigated and the loophole closed as soon as possible. I do not raise the matter here today to give it publicity and to encourage the spread of this rort, and I am confident that the Minister, being the cap- able person he is, will take urgent action to have the matter rectified. It has come to my attention that some people retiring before the age of 65 and receiving very large lump sums, perhaps amounting to several hundred thousand dollars, can arrange their investments so that they receive interest once each year. These people who, to all intents and purposes, have retired from the work force to live off their very generous superannuation lump sum payments, then apply to receive unemployment benefits. Under the current income test on unemployment benefits they receive the full pension for 25 fortnights each year, and in the one fortnight each year when they receive the interest on their investments their pension falls to zero, but in the following fortnight the pension again increases to the appropriate base rate of the unemployment benefit. This loophole exists because there is no assets test on unemployment benefits and the income test is based on income per fortnight. This matter has been brought to my attention by constituents who have retired or who are about to retire and are speaking to financial counsellors. They have rightly been outraged that some people are seeking to abuse the social security system in this way. I believe that some retirement counsellors are recommending that this social security scam be used by people. When large numbers of veterans, age pensioners and lone parents supporting children and often paying rent are in real financial need, I believe that it is totally outrageous that some immoral lurk merchants cash massive superannuation lump sum cheques one day and the day after seek to double dip by also receiving unemployment benefits. I call on the Minister for Social Security to take urgent action to have these snouts removed from the trough. Every dollar paid in unemployment benefits to a retired executive or retired government bureaucrat who has just received a massive superannuation payment is one less dollar to be paid to ordinary pensioners. I am proud to say that this Government is committed to ensuring that social security is paid to those who rightly deserve it and not to those who seek to misuse the system. We have introduced the assets test on pensions. We have ensured that the millionaires with massive assets who have the capacity to support themselves are not seeking also to require ordinary Australians to fund the payment of a pension to people who do not need it. We have introduced selective review teams to target people receiving unemployment benefits who are not seeking full time work. The Government will continue to plug away and seek to ensure that the Australia Card legislation receives the endorsement of the Australian Parliament. In respect of this scam which I have outlined to the House, the Minister for Social Security has advised me that he intends to have the matter investigated as soon as possible. I wish to use this debate to highlight an anomaly in the Social Security Act which was brought to my attention by another constituent who was studying at a tertiary level and had been hoping to obtain an exemption from the tertiary administration fee of $250 introduced at the beginning of this year. The Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, has exempted unemployment beneficiaries from the tertiary administration fee on the ground that study by these people will assist them in gaining skills and therefore gaining employment at some time in the future. Unfortunately, the Department of Education has failed to exempt the spouses of those who receive unemployment benefits. My constituent was undertaking a small amount of part time work. She advised the Department of Social Security that her husband was registered for unemployment benefits and that she was doing a small amount of part time work, and her husband's unemployment benefits were adjusted accordingly. The tertiary institution said that, because her husband's name was on the unemployment registration form, she was not entitled to the exemption, but that if she registered for unemployment benefits she would be entitled to the exemption. My constituent tried to register for unemployment benefits with the intention of having her husband nominated as the spouse, because she was the one who was studying at a college of advanced education. However, I understand that under the Social Security Act, if a husband and wife are unemployed, only the male can be nominated as the beneficiary. The female always has to be considered the spouse in those circumstances. That reminds me of the old situation where bank managers always told a woman who sought a home loan that she should go home and come back next week with her husband so that he could discuss the home loan application with the husband as well as with his wife. I have asked the committee of review set up by the Minister for Education, which is looking at the whole question of the tertiary administration fee, to examine this anomaly and to include the spouses of people receiving the unemployment benefit in its list of categories which are exempt from the fee. I also believe that the current definition of spouses and unemployment beneficiaries in the Social Security Act should be examined. Clause 34 of this legislation also enables the Department of Social Security to make arrangements with financial institutions for the recovery of overpayments made to pensioners or beneficiaries in direct deposit accounts. If a pensioner receives an overpayment due to an inadvertent oversight or to an error on the Department's part, the Department should make sure that it advises him before any funds are removed from his account. This will ensure that funds are not recovered from a pensioner due to a computer malfunction or to some human error on the part of an employee of the Department. It will also ensure that the pensioners concerned are not left financially destitute if funds are suddenly withdrawn without notice. In addition, a pensioner should always be advised of his appeal rights if he believes that an overpayment has not been made. Several constituents, who believe that departments have withdrawn funds from an account into which money has been deposited in a direct manner, have come to me. As it turned out a building society's accounts computer made a programming error. I am glad to say that that building society has taken action to make sure that that situation does not occur again. The legislation also seeks to rationalise the current reciprocal social security agreement between Britain and Australia. Recently, I had some difficulties in seeking to assist two British citizens who have moved to my electorate. It appears that there is still a great deal of misinformation and confusion amongst some of the social security staff about the agreement. I ask the Department, if it has not already done so, to arrange for a pamphlet to be produced explaining to British citizens how the reciprocal agreement works and what their rights and entitlements are. In addition, some action should be taken to ensure that adequate staff training in this area is carried out. I support the legislation which is before the House and I commend the Minister for Social Security for his administration. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(11.44) —In my opening comments in this debate on the Social Security Amendment Bill 1987 I want to refer to two matters which the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) has just mentioned. At one stage he told a story about people who receive superannuation. He referred to something that some people do and he called them `immoral lurk merchants'. The other part of his speech to which I want to refer was his very fleeting reference to the definition of a spouse in the Social Security Act. On the first point he said that he would urge the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) to make these immoral lurk merchants get their snouts out of the trough. I wonder whether the honourable member for Dobell will also urge the Minister to look at the position of seasonal workers who can earn, over a period in a year, a very high income and then go on unemployment benefit. Those benefits may be paid for by people whose total annual incomes are much lower than those of the seasonal workers but because they receive that income on a regular fortnightly basis throughout the year they do not qualify for unemployment benefit. Quite a few people come into that category. I see the honourable member for Dobell is indicating his agreement with what I am saying and I am pleased about that. He also made the statement that he would like the Minister to look at the definition of spouse in the Act but he did not indicate at all what he meant. Today I will spend some time talking about the definition of `spouse' in the Social Security Act as it is affected by this amending Bill. I looked at the term `de facto' because something was in the amending Bill that affects the de facto situation. I had not looked at the definition of `spouse', so in response to the comments of the honourable member for Dobell I looked at it. This is what the Social Security Act 1947 gives as the definition of `spouse': ``Spouse'' includes a de facto spouse . . . Apparently it assumes that we know what a spouse is. However, `de facto spouse' is defined, which brings me to the point on which I want to spend a little time. The Social Security Amendment Bill does a number of technical things as well as effecting some Budget decisions. On other occasions I have made speeches on certain aspects of those decisions which I shall not recanvass today. On reading this amending Bill we find that, in the changes to Schedule arrangements, at the very beginning of Schedule 1 it is stated: ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1947 PART 1-AMENDMENTS TO COME INTO OPERATION UPON ROYAL ASSENT SUBSECTION 6 (1) (DEFINITION OF ``DE FACTO SPOUSE''): Insert ``and includes a person who, but for a law of a State or Territory prohibiting sexual intercourse between the person and another person by reason only of the age of either person, would be such a person . . . Those words are to be inserted in the Bill after the definition of de facto spouse. The definition of de facto spouse, on the carriage of this amending Bill, will be: . . . a person who is living with another person of the opposite sex as the spouse of that other person on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to that other person; and includes a person who, but for a law of a State or Territory prohibiting sexual intercourse between the person and another person by reason only of the age of either person, would be such a person. To put it in other words, this Bill allows a benefit to be paid to someone who is committing a criminal offence under a State or Territory law. State laws in this country define the age of consent and make it a criminal, not a civil, offence to have sexual intercourse with someone who is under the age of consent. This amendment to the definition of de facto spouse sweeps aside the criminal nature of the act and will actually pay a benefit to the person who is committing the offence. Enough is enough as far as I am concerned. Sometimes there are good reasons why people decide not to get married and to live in de facto relationships. One of them may be because of difficulties with getting a divorce. I have been inclined, in debates on extending `spouse' to the de facto situation, to be tolerant. But it is absolutely scandalous that in a Schedule to the Social Security Amendment Bill, without a word about it in the Minister's second reading speech, we have this particular shift in morality. For the sake of clarifying a position that has arisen between the Department of Social Security and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, a decision has been taken to sweep aside any consideration that might arise because of State laws, and in the process to make a total mockery of the Commonwealth Marriage Act. Enough is enough. As I understand it, this situation has arisen due to a difficulty in a particular case in South Australia. My reference is the Social Security Reporter of February 1986. The difficulty arose in South Australia where the age of consent is 17; generally in Australia it is 16. The Department of Social Security previously refused to pay a spouse benefit to someone receiving a social security benefit-let us say the unemployment benefit-where that de facto spouse was under the age of consent. Somebody in South Australia took a case to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and that practice of the Department of Social Security was overturned. I refer to the article in the February 1986 Social Security Reporter. It states: The DSS relied on two written opinions given by the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department. Between them, these opinions argued that the DSS could not accept that a woman was living with a man as his wife where the woman was below the legal age of consent in the relevant state. This was, the opinions said, because the DSS could not administer the social security system so as to allow any person to benefit from the commission of a criminal offence and because the word `woman' in s. 106 (1) should be read as referring to `an adult female human being'. A partial reference is given in the article to the reasons of the AAT for overturning this practice. The article states: The Tribunal noted that, under the Marriage Act 1976, a female person (subject to some restrictions) had the capacity to marry and become a wife from the age of 14 years. It followed, the AAT said- and it quotes the AAT- that `a female person has the capacity and may become a `dependent female' and may live together with a male person as his wife (i.e., as if she was his wife), although not legally married to him, from the age of 14 years. The legal impediments do not prevent the existence of a de facto relationship, or of a `bona fide domestic relationship' of unmarried husband and wife, because those impediments are related simply to consent to marry and to the ceremony of marriage. Therefore, because the female person has the capacity (marriage ability) to become a legally married wife or spouse of a male person from the age of 14 years, she also has the capacity to become a dependent female ``as his wife''.' What all of that means is that a lot of gloss is being put on a situation. The article encloses in brackets the words `subject to some restrictions' when referring to the Marriage Act. I want to tell the House what those restrictions are. In essence, without going into all the technicalities of the Act, they are as follows: Under the Marriage Act the marriageable age of a male in Australia is 18 years and of a female it is 16 years. For a minor-that is, anyone under 18, male or female-to marry, he or she must have the written consent of his or her parents. In the case of a male aged 16 or 17, he must have the consent of his parents plus the authorisation of a judge or magistrate. In the case of a female aged 14 or 15, she must have the consent of her parents plus the authorisation of a judge or magistrate. A female aged 16 or 17-who is of marriageable age by then-nevertheless, under the Marriage Act, must have the written consent of her parents. The AAT's words `subject to some restrictions' tell one nothing. The restrictions are very real. They are spelt out in some detail under the Marriage Act, which one would think is the measure of this country's attitude towards marriage. One would think that those restrictions are there for a reason. The Marriage Act does allow the setting aside of the age of consent, but only under very strict circumstances and in the context of marriage. It is another thing altogether to set it aside in a Schedule for the sake of enabling a 14-year-old to set up house with someone of the opposite sex. I make no apology for my attitude to that situation. One would not find a woman from the Leichhardt Women's Collective, the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Women's Action Alliance or Women Who Want to be Women who advocates the lowering of the age of consent for girls in this country. There has been some recent discussion about it and it brought an outcry from all areas. There is no push for it. There is certainly no consensus that it is okay at the age of 14, excepting when parents and a judge or magistrate have said: `Yes, under the conditions of marriage'. Why do we even bother with the Marriage Act? We bother with it because it enshrines standards that are accepted in this country, and it enshrines protection, most importantly, for minors. Those provisions are there to protect young people, sometimes from themselves but just as often from someone who is considerably older than them, who can take advantage of them because of the little they know of life, and who can walk away any time they like from the consequences of what they have done to that young person's life under a de facto situation. Enough is enough. The Government could have gone the other way. It could have included an amendment to the definition of `de facto spouse' to exclude from receipt of spouse benefits someone who was in contravention of State criminal law. It could have helped Social Security fix its position in that way. It could have enshrined the practice that Social Security had followed, until someone went to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal because of a quirk of a difference between the South Australian legislation and the generally accepted Australian standard of 16 years. It decided to go the other way. It cannot hide behind statements like, `We had to do something because we had this difficulty'. It could have gone down the path of what the practice had been and shored up the previous practice of the Department. This subject is not mentioned in the Minister's second reading speech-not surprisingly, I suppose. When I opened the Bill at that point and read the first words of the Schedule-they leap off the page-I thought I had better look at the explanatory memorandum to see whether I was reading it correctly before I researched it further. I did so. This is what the explanatory memorandum states about Schedule 1 of the amendments: SCHEDULE 1 See notes to clause 46. That is all the explanation there is of Schedule 1. I turned to the notes on clause 46, which state: Clause 46: Additional amendments This clause would provide that the Principal Act would be amended as indicated in Schedule 1 to the amending Act. Schedule 1 is divided into Parts 1 and 2. By clause 2 (13), the amendments contained in Part 1 would come into operation on the day on which the amending Act receives the Royal Assent while, by clause 2 (8), the amendments contained in Part 2 would come into operation on 1 July 1987. That is as much light as is shed anywhere on Schedule 1 to the amending Bill. I think it is outrageous. It appears to have passed by the notice of most people. I do not think it will pass by much longer. Maybe the Government should think, between now and when this Bill becomes eligible for royal assent, about what it will do with regard to that Schedule to the Bill. Whilst I may have been the first person to raise the subject, I am sure I will not be the last. In the little time that is left to me I want to raise two other matters. They are matters that are referred to in the Minister's second reading speech and have been referred to during the debate. Two paragraphs of the Minister's second reading speech relate to the privacy provisions. I will be brief because my time is running out. The Minister stated: The Department necessarily collects considerable personal information about the financial and domestic circumstances of claimants in order to assess continuing eligibility. The privacy of these individuals should not be abused. I point this out to those people who are still saying that the Australia Card would be okay because one should not worry about these things if one has nothing to hide. Opposition to the Australia Card is not a question of having something to hide; it is a question of what could be revealed that is nobody's business except one's own, and maybe that of the Department of Social Security by virtue of one's needing to be a social security recipient. In these privacy clauses the Government acknowledges that it is quite dangerous to an individual's well-being if those sorts of details are known by many people. I, along with my colleagues, remain utterly unconvinced that there is the necessary protection in the ID card for that sort of aspect. I wish that people who keep saying, `You would not be opposed to the ID card unless you had something to hide' could understand the difference between hiding something and wanting to preserve one's privacy in areas in which, quite rightly, one is entitled to privacy. The other matter I want to raise in relation to fraud is that of follow-up letters going out to social security recipients. I have said in a previous debate in the presence of the Minister that I have no objection to follow-up. It is reasonable from time to time to make sure that social security recipients are still eligible. However, the application of that follow-up to the elderly with respect to the assets test is really a very painful process. It would not exist if the assets test did not exist. We are all very well aware of how much upset was caused to age pensioners, including part pensioners, when they received a notice saying that if they had assets in excess of the allowable amount for either single or married rate according to their circumstances, they needed to give details, but that if this did not apply to them they need not send the form back. Many elderly people who were not affected were very distressed by that notice. They knew that they were not affected but they were still distressed at being asked. They said: `Why, at this stage of our lives, are we getting these please explain letters from the Department of Social Security?'. That distress passed in due course because so many age pensioners were not affected by the assets test. They thought it was over for good. Now they will be subject to regular follow-up. Most of these people, probably nearly all of them, will still not be affected in any way by the assets test; but they are on the `please explain' treadmill simply because they are elderly and do not have enough income to keep body and soul together. At that age they feel very vulnerable and uncertain and hate being made to feel that they have done something wrong and that, that is why they are being asked the questions. That might be a quite incorrect interpretation by them but the facts are, and we all know it, that it causes that sort of distress. Whilst, as I said, I have no difficulty in principle with follow-up from time to time to check that people are eligible for certain benefits, this distress would not be caused to elderly people if it were not for the wretched assets test. The sooner this Government is out of office and we have the chance to repeal it, the better. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(12.02) —I support the Social Security Amendment Bill and the measures that are contained in it. They are intended to further streamline the Social Security Act and its administration. The Bill contains a number of amendments to remove anomalies, close gaps and correct some minor drafting errors to bring the legislation into line with sound administrative practice. That is a key feature. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is at the moment engaged in the most expensive overhaul of Australia's social security system to take place since the 1940s. While I agree with some of the comments made by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) in her contribution-there are some points to be picked up from it-I am a little confused by her final comments in expressing sympathy and concern about the position of pensioners receiving correspondence from the Department of Social Security. That is a matter I want to talk about a little later in my contribution. But why I am confused is that the party which in government presided for so many years over the establishment of so many of these administrative entanglements, the party that was responsible for the creation of massive unemployment and the problems that have stemmed from that, is now talking about fixing up the Budget, cutting social welfare expenditure and overhauling all sorts of things, but at the same time is talking, as the honourable member for Moncrieff did, about repealing the assets test and such things as the fringe benefits tax and giving back pensions to millionaires and so on. In a debate such as this the honourable member should not make a contribution which is so riddled with hypocrisy. The review of the social security system which the Minister is overseeing must take place on a track parallel to continuing efforts by this Government to both overhaul the system and make the operation of the existing system more effective. I cannot avoid mention of the Australia Card in this debate-the matter was raised just a few moments ago by the honourable member for Moncrieff-because, again, it is the Liberal Party which is pledged to making massive cutbacks in welfare expenditure. We only have to go to the famous Westpac tape on which the President of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Valder, first spilled the beans that this is where the cuts were to be made. That leaked document pre-empts a general strike caused by, among other things, massive cuts to pensioners and others. The party that talks most about these cuts that would be made comprises the people responsible for blocking in the Senate the key measure to be adopted by this Government to combat a number of areas of tax cheating and social security fraud-the Australia Card. I honestly find it hard to understand their position. We are facing major economic problems and starting to work our way out of them. We are starting to stand on our own two feet internationally and within this country. Part of that process has involved coming to grips with this massive mess of regulation and with the need to overhaul legislation that was put in place over the many years that preceded our Government. We recognise that there are problems for the community at the moment with the cash economy. Some people receiving unemployment benefits are receiving cash wages on the side and people are using false identities and working in more than one job. We on this side of the House-members of the Labor Government-are facing up to these facts. One of the key measures that we wanted to put in place to help overcome these problems in our economy was the Australia Card but it was blocked by those who preach about these things. It was blocked by the Liberals and the Nationals in the Senate together with those who are pledged `to keep the bastards honest'-the Australian Democrats. That alliance blocked the measure. I find it impossible to understand that. It is all right for the honourable member for Moncrieff and others to talk about privacy protection and those sorts of things and say: `We blocked it because we were concerned about those issues' That is not the real position. The real position is that the people who said, very early in this Government's life, that they would give credit where credit was due and that they would not block for the sake of blocking or oppose for the sake of opposing have adopted that path consistently on every constructive measure that this Government has taken. Nowhere has it been done more than in this area of combating social security fraud. That message does not go unheard by the people of Australia. I want to pick up another point that arises from this legislation and was also touched on by the honourable member for Moncrieff and others in the debate; that is the matter of information provided to pensioners. Again, we on this side of the House recognise that there are complexities and that many pensioners are not aware of their full entitlements and are confused in many ways. I cannot help but refer to the disgraceful campaign on the assets test that was conducted during the lead up to the last Federal election, when pensioners were told to put their money tins under their beds. As the honourable member for Moncrieff conceded in this debate this morning, very few pensioners were affected. Yet the Opposition ran such a disgraceful scare campaign, aimed directly at elderly people and pensioners who are confused, and we recognise that. I wish to make a suggestion to the Minister for Social Security. I certainly recognise the need for us to prepare for pensioners a comprehensive information kit in clear, precise language which they can study at home. Such a kit should be provided for them so that they do not have to go down to a Department of Social Security office in order to obtain it. In this context I refer to the efforts made by some of my colleagues-the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) and others-who have gone to the trouble of getting this information together and preparing pensioner information kits. They have done this on a trial basis to see whether it helps to overcome some of the problems. I have done the same in my own electorate and I have to report that the response has been astounding. Clearly there is a need for the Government to provide comprehensive information for pensioners in a clear, simple, easy to understand way. Mr Snow —Hear, hear! Mr O'KEEFE —My colleague the honourable member for Eden-Monaro says: `Hear, hear!' It is true and we recognise these problems. As I said before, this Government was faced with a whole legacy of problems-not just in the economy, not just in the cleaning up of a tax system which was left in a mess, not just in cleaning up social security fraud, but in a whole range of areas. You name it, we were stuck with having to fix it up. The problems went right through the economy. The most positive aspect of this is that we are now seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. We are starting to work our way out of these problems. I emphasise the words `work our way out of these problems'. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said and our Cabinet has endorsed, one of the key areas we are now addressing is the question of choice to work or not to work. The Fraser Government put one million people on unemployment benefits in Australia. Let no one in this House forget that. There was more than 11 per cent unemployed in Australia. It was necessary to have a system whereby people were supported and helped fairly by the country and by everyone who contributes to our economy. There is no doubt that our unemployment benefits system has done that, but the single most important factor for a family which is looking for security and assistance is a job. There is nothing that we as a Government can point to more proudly than our record of creating more than 800,000 new jobs. That has been the key factor in easing the burden on many families in Australia. That takes us to the point-and this is recognised by the Government-that our social security system is not there to provide the choice between working and not working. We are aware of job vacancies existing but not being taken up. We are aware of people going to job interviews when they are not fair dinkum about them. Some people even sit down and do their sums in front of their prospective employers to show them that they are better off staying on the dole. That choice no longer exists. The Government is taking action and that is something that will be recognised and applauded by people throughout the country. We are prepared to face the hard issues but those opposite who come in here and preach about these matters are the people who voted to block the biggest single factor that we intended to put to work in this area-the Australia Card. Now we must find alternative measures. It might mean employing more people within the Department of Social Security or the Commonwealth Employment Service to attend job interviews with people and to do more face to face work between employers and those who are looking for work. One way or another we will get on top of the problem, but we have not been helped one bit by those opposite who preach so loudly about this issue. In winding up my remarks, I commend the legislation. I recognise that it is part of a process being carried out by the Minister to upgrade and improve the administration of the social security legislation while he undertakes the bigger and broader review of the whole system. Everyone in Australia will understand that as the Minister makes his study and his recommendations arising from the review, it is at the same time encumbent on the Government to make these sorts of improvements to existing legislation so that we can continue to work our way towards the light at the end of the tunnel. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(12.17) —In my initial comments I must rebut one of the statements made by the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe). He talked about the member of the Liberal Party's organisation, Mr John Valder, and his comments at a meeting which were apparently taped. Mr Valder said that welfare cuts would be made if he had his way. Let me assure the honourable member for Burke and other Government members that Mr Valder, like anyone else of Liberal, Labor or any other persuasion in any of the communities throughout Australia, has a right to make comments. But the honourable member cannot give validity to comments such as those made by Mr Valder, prominent as he may be in the organisation of the Liberal Party of Australia, because he plays no part in the policies that the Liberal Party is developing or had developed previously with its coalition partner, the National Party of Australia. Mr Barry Jones —That doesn't apply to Sir Robert Sparkes. Mr HODGES —The Minister comments that that does not apply to Sir Robert Sparkes. He, like me, is not responsible for what happens within the National Party. Certainly, we are not responsible for what has happened to the National Party in the State of Queensland. Let us put to rest for once and for all comments that have come from Mr Valder or anyone else of whatever political persuasion within our community. It is the political representatives who develop the policies which come forward, and this applies whether those representatives are in government or in opposition. The debate on the Social Security Amendment Bill 1987 provides all honourable members within this Parliament with an opportunity to examine our social security system. It gives us an opportunity to look at the adequacy of the system, its shortfalls and excesses, whether there is waste and whether there is a means by which we can reduce this waste. The bulk of social welfare expenditure occurs in what is commonly known as transfer payments. If we set aside the family allowances-and I would not for one moment want it to be construed that I do not support the concept and payment of family allowances, because I do-then the transfer payments to the aged, the disabled, the handicapped and veterans in the form of sickness and special benefit pensions account for about 90 per cent of total social security outlays which, in this current Budget, are estimated at $20.7 billion or 27.8 per cent of total government outlay. These transfer payments are the life-blood of about three million Australians. Parents and their dependants rely on those regular fortnightly payments for their existence. This debate gives honourable members the opportunity to examine fraud within the system and ways of combating that fraud. Importantly, it provides us with the opportunity to examine the Hawke socialist Government's record in this respect and the treatment that is meted out to the aged, the veterans and the disadvantaged. I will examine briefly the issue of fraud. All governments are conscious of the need to police pay-out systems. Although the vast majority of people in our community are honest, some are not. The Bill provides for some increased penalties and these measures are supported by the Opposition. I will look at the recent crackdown on social security cheats. I believe it has been reasonably successful, but more can be done-indeed much more can be done-and there is no need for the Hitler or Moscow-type identity card about which the honourable member for Burke and the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) talked earlier. Reductions in fraud are achievable without a Hitler-type or Moscow-type ID card. Many Australians are convinced that the ID card is the answer for the complete elimination of fraud. I assure them that it is not. We on this side of the House recognise that some elimination will occur, but it is not the complete answer. By tightening up the social security system, as the present Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has done, to his credit, we will see a vastly reduced amount of fraud within that system. I want to raise the question of whether average people in our community should be involved in reporting persons whom they believe are defrauding the social security system. I would answer a firm yes to the question; they ought to be involved in reporting suspected fraud. I am aware that there are mischief makers in our community and that some decent, honest people would be reported incorrectly. But that happens now; it has always happened; and it will happen, no doubt, in the future. The Department of Social Security has a very thorough system of checking and it does it in a very discreet way. That at least has been my experience. I say to the average citizen that he really should feel duty bound to report cases of suspected fraud. He should not feel that he is doing the Government's dirty work. He should not feel that he is acting as a pimp. He should not feel that this is unAustralian, which is often mentioned when one discusses this matter with members of one's constituency. Indeed, to allow knowingly the system to be ripped off and do nothing is much worse in my opinion. Mr Hodgman —It makes you an accessory after the fact. Mr HODGES —As the honourable member for Denison says, it makes one an accessory after the fact. Social Security fraud is stealing. People are stealing the public's money and that is the taxpayer's money, the money that other Australians contribute. Therefore, I believe that all Australians should be involved in a quiet way in endeavouring to ensure that the Government reduces social security fraud to the greatest extent. Of recent times there has been quite a deal of speculation as to whether pensions will be cut as a result of the May statement or the August Budget. Reports have been made that there may be some discounting of the consumer price index increases. I want to say one or two things about that speculation. Needy pensioners, in my view, should not be the subject of discounts just to make the Government's mismanagement look a little better. If the Government wants to reduce its deficit-I believe it ought to-it ought not to look to those who are most in need in our community. Pension increases occur twice a year. That has been traditional now for many years. The pension increases have already been delayed by the Hawke socialist Government-the Government which, according to previous speakers, has expressed so much concern for pensioners and the disadvantaged, a government which they say has tried to achieve pensions equal to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. If that is its objective, how does it explain the fact that it put back the pension increases from May and November until June and December-with a saving of $129m in this financial year, depriving Australia's pensioners of those increases for six weeks? Most times CPI increases are less than the real increases that pensioners experience, or at least that is my understanding. The CPI, as we know, is an average across a broad spectrum of goods and services that are purchased by the Australian community. It is my understanding that the goods and services most affecting the lives of pensioners are in the higher bracket of increases. The CPI, the average, is not representative of the bulk of prices of goods and services used by pensioners. Therefore, the CPI increase should be the minimum extra payment to pensioners and the disadvantaged. To discount the CPI increases would amount to a gross injustice to pensioners. I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Social Security should give an unequivocal assurance to Australia's pensioners that those pensioners will not be affected by way of any discounting as a result of the May statement or the August Budget. That is the least that the Prime Minister can do to relieve the anxiety of Australia's three million pensioners because they are worried and concerned for their future. They hear various reports that this is likely to happen. Most of them have little or no money left at the end of each fortnight and are waiting for the next pension cheque. In the last two or three years I have made it a practice to visit supermarkets regularly. I wonder whether the Prime Minister, the Minister for Social Security or the Treasurer has ever pushed a trolley around a supermarket. I try to go once or twice a month. Mr Beale —The Minister for Science has. Mr HODGES —The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) indicates that he does. I appreciate that point, and I applaud him for it. It is an interesting exercise to go to supermarkets regularly, watch prices and see how much $40 or $50 buys. It is not a great deal. Pensioners do not purchase luxuries-at least very few of them do. We do not see them buying smoked salmon, exotic cheeses or caviare. They buy a lot of basic products such as milk, cheese, eggs, butter, bread, potatoes, onions and the essential vegetables. They tend to buy the cheapest of foodstuffs because they have to stretch their available money as far as they can. Those Ministers should go into a Coles supermarket or a Woolworths Big W and look at the prices of basic clothing items and household goods. I invite the Prime Minister to inform us how often he does this-and the Treasurer, for that matter, and the Minister for Social Security who are supposed to be so concerned about the level of incomes of pensioners and the quantity of goods that those incomes will purchase for them. It is a sobering experience to go into supermarkets, to stand at the checkouts for a while and see the items that the pensioners are purchasing or watch them as they select the items from the shelves. It is an interesting and a sobering experience because they do not have the extra money to put into any form of luxury. In recent times, certainly in some areas, rumours have been circulating that a Howard-led Liberal Government would reduce the health services available to pensioners or that we would make pensioners pay for those services. What we have said-and we have said this for some time and we stick to it-is that we would abolish bulk billing for ordinary Australians, but not for pensioners and the disadvantaged. Let me make that point quite clear, as some scaremongering is going on in certain sections of our community, promoted by Labor politicians and Labor Party people, that that will not be the case if a Liberal government comes to power. Pensioners and the disadvantaged will be bulk billed in future-indeed as they are at the moment. The question of the Prices Surveillance Authority has come to the fore in recent times, with prices surveillance people running around with notepads checking prices in supermarkets. I know that in Queensland the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) has been involved. I call them the notepad pimps, running around with notepads checking prices in supermarkets. Mr Deputy Speaker, have you ever heard anything so absurd in your life? There is a lot of competition in this country, at both the manufacturing level and the food preparation level, as well as between the supermarkets, whether Coles, Franklins or, in Queensland, Jack the Slasher, Woolworths, or whatever. From my observations over several years in relation to members of the Government, although I know that they have a problem with inflation, I believe that instead of trying to mask their problems by blaming manufacturers and retailers for price increases, they ought to attack the basic cause of our rising prices-inflation. They should forget about the notepads, the notepad pimps, and get back to basics, and do something about the state of the economy. The Government ought to concentrate on reducing our inflation level to where it ought to be, in line with most other Western world countries. Instead of inflation being at 9 per cent, it ought to be no more than about 3 per cent or 4 per cent. The problem of price increases derives from wage rises which are passed on to prices of manufactured goods and foodstuffs. Mr Reith —Tax increases. Mr HODGES —Yes, tax increases also, as the honourable member for Flinders has said. I now want to refer to one or two matters that relate to the elderly. The provision of an adequate number of nursing home beds, in particular, is causing me great concern in my electorate, and I believe that this applies throughout Australia. The Opposition supports the home and community care program, which provides services for the elderly within their home environment. There is nothing new about this program; it was in operation well before the Hawke Government came to power. It was a collection of the various services that were provided, and they were put under a new name. The increase in activity in that area is welcomed, but I am concerned that we have seen a substantial slow-down in the number of nursing home beds that are being provided in this country. There comes a time when those frail aged people who are now being cared for in hostels are going to need a nursing home bed. However, the emphasis has been on the construction of more hostel beds, so what happens to those people when they require nursing home beds? We will finish up with a significant shortage of nursing home beds, and that will cause an overcrowding of the more costly occupancy of beds in hospitals. The Government ought to have a further look at this problem of the provision of nursing home beds. I know that it is not so much the capital cost of the beds that worries the Government but the recurrent costs involved. However, we must face up to the fact that people will require nursing home beds and we cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand. Recently I had occasion to attend the opening of a day therapy centre at Redcliffe, a city in my electorate of Petrie. That day care centre was constructed by the Blue Nursing Service, which is an offshoot of the Uniting Church in Queensland. The day therapy centre was given approval in principle for Commonwealth funding. The Blue Nursing Service collected the funds together and built the centre but has now been refused the subsidy. I think that this is a very serious matter because, although it is attached to a nursing home and hostel complex, that day therapy centre is extremely important to the community of Redcliffe, of some 46,000 people, a high percentage of which are aged people. Until its construction there was no day therapy centre at Redcliffe, although there were many hostel beds and nursing home beds in other institutions which are privately owned. Yet, having constructed this day therapy centre, the Blue Nursing Service has been denied any subsidy at all towards its construction cost. I ask the Government, particularly the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford), to examine this matter once again. I shall conclude by referring to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The Government has been merciless when it comes to pensioners and the availability of commonly prescribed drugs for them. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), who I think will be the following speaker in this debate, as a pharmacist, like myself, would know the importance of those 46 commonly prescribed drugs that were deleted from the list by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) late last year, to effect savings of about $60m. Pensioners, arthritis sufferers, now have to go and purchase their analgesics. It is all right for the Prime Minister, for me, for the Minister for Social Security, and the Minister for Health, to pay the $3 or $4 for 100 aspirin for our complaints, but it is not right for the pensioner. Winter is coming upon us, and pensioners will now be looking to antihistamines, cough linctuses and cough mixtures, and they will now have to go and buy them. This is the compassionate Government which talks about a percentage of average weekly earnings for pensioners, and yet it has refused to provide for the pensioners of this country basic pharmaceuticals under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. On this occasion the Chair was reluctant to interrupt the honourable member's remarks, but for his future guidance he might like to know that his remarks were scarcely relevant to the Bill. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(12.38) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I compliment you on the way in which you have allowed the debate to range on a fairly broad basis, and I hope that you will permit me to respond to my friend the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) in relation to some of the remarks that he made. I refer particularly to the matter of pharmaceutical benefits. I do concede that a number of items that were useful for people have been taken off the scheme. It is certainly questionable whether we should take people off a mild pain relieving medication when perhaps the only alternative drug available under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme is a stronger preparation. We should encourage people to take milder preparations. However, I remind the honourable member for Petrie that the cost involved is fairly low. One particular pain reliever, for instance, can be bought over the counter in a small quantity for about $2. On the other hand, if it is obtained on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, by the time the doctor and the pharmacists have been paid by the Government, it ends up costing the taxpayer some $16-and that is exorbitant. In relation to the Government's consideration of items available under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, when it is labouring under the fact that some $6 billion less is coming into the country from our exports-and this means less revenue collected from taxes-we need to consider how our limited financial resources ought to be spent. For instance, if we have, say, $30 billion, we must consider the matter of taking some items off the list and putting some more important items on. I remind the honourable member for Petrie that, when those items were taken off the national health list, over the two or three months other items were put on which were often worth in the range of $30 to $40. These were items used for the treatment of cancer, heart complaints and other major circulatory problems, and items used internally for gastrointestinal, including ulceration problems. These were items which could truly be said to be more life-saving and more important. I appreciate the point that the honourable member for Petrie made about the need for people to take mild medication but, under the circumstances, I certainly appreciate the stand that the Government took. The honourable member for Petrie also mentioned the possible lack of availability of nursing home beds when the Government encourages institutions and others to tend towards providing for the frail aged through the hostel system. I had a lot to do with the frail aged hostel system some 10 or 12 years ago when in Queanbeyan I encouraged a local group, the Smith Family, to apply for beds for a frail aged hostel. I do not think the Smith Family in Queanbeyan has ever regretted doing that. It now has a complex of units, hostel accommodation and nursing home accommodation in Queanbeyan which gives people a wide range of alternatives. I felt that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) made some very important points about people needing to have alternatives. I say to the honourable member for Petrie that we ought to encourage people to stay out of nursing homes as long as possible. Where possible, we ought to encourage people to take advantage of the home and community care services in their own homes. We ought to increase those services, and the Government is doing that. Where staying at home is not possible we should encourage people to stay in units where they are together and perhaps in close proximity to a hostel or a nursing home. Where that is not possible we should encourage people to stay in a hostel where, because these people are frail, minimum medical treatment and other services are available but where people are encouraged to do their own thing as far as possible. Where that is not possible, certainly people ought to be able to go into nursing homes. But let us not move them in too quickly because that has been done. People are turned into human vegetables by being placed in nursing homes far too early-long before they need to be. I believe that the present system of staying in one's own home as long as possible, then moving perhaps to units, to hostel accommodation and then to a nursing home-but being able to move out again-is a far better system. I compliment the previous Minister for Community Services, former Senator Don Grimes, and the present Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) on the way in which they have established such a system. The honourable member for Petrie, along with other Opposition speakers, also criticised the Government on the delay of, I think, six weeks in allowing cost of living adjustments to pensions. I remind him that his own side would go much further than that. Even the wets in his team would freeze pensions, but of course they are low in numbers. A secret Liberal document has come out which indicates that a Liberal government would cut pensions, not merely freeze them. Mr Langmore —Shame. Mr SNOW —As my colleague the honourable member for Fraser knows and has just indicated, this is a shameful document which honourable members opposite are afraid to release to the Australian people until we are much closer to an election. We also, of course, have the southern National Party of Australia members, who are wisely staying silent. Their motto is `Don't talk about it; just do it when you get into office'. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, we also have the Queensland Nationals, one of whom has said: `Make them squeal like stuck pigs'. So honourable members opposite would freeze, cut and `make them squeal'. So I say to my colleague from Petrie: Our six-week delay is nothing in comparison to what honourable members opposite would do, and what they did do under Howard Budgets in 1978 and 1979, when they froze pensions, not for six weeks, but for a full year-a six-month delay. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(12.45) —I move: That this House believes that the extent of inequality in the distribution of income and wealth in Australia is unacceptably high and accordingly calls on the Government to- (1) continue to pursue anti-poverty measures as a major priority of government programs; (2) eliminate the special advantages available to the rich through strengthening anti-tax avoidance and other measures; and (3) support the efforts of the community, trade unions and State governments to end poverty and eliminate inequality. As honourable members will observe, I first gave notice of this motion on 22 February 1985, over two years ago. Since that date the Government, to its credit, has introduced a number of measures which have addressed some of the issues raised. I will refer to these later in my speech. However, no one can deny that the inequalities to which I referred in my motion of February 1985 still remain today. Worse still, the extent of poverty in Australia today, as measured by the Henderson scale, has not fallen but risen in the interim. The Government cannot ignore its responsibilities to those in need, and I congratulate the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) for setting up the social security review. Mr Porter —It is your policies that have put them under the poverty line. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member for Barker offends. He is not free to perambulate around the chamber interjecting, and interjections themselves are out of order. Mr BLANCHARD —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This country has a great tradition of having a compassionate and caring society. I am sure that I speak for all members of the House when I say: Long may that tradition continue. In the area of social welfare, this country has pioneered many reforms. No one party can claim the credit for all the reforms, but the Australian Labor Party has a long history in promoting many of the social reforms we have today. Yet, despite the advances made in the social welfare area, there remain gross social and economic inequalities in our society. These gross inequalities need to be closely examined and remedies sought. We find that wealth and power have become concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. This concentration of wealth and power has spawned the political philosophy of the New Right. This is not a new political philosophy, as it has its roots in the theories of Adam Smith and other conservative economic theorists. The self-interest of these powerful people is demonstrated most blatantly when we hear them talk of the need for drastic cut-backs in public spending and welfare benefits, as well as reductions in personal and company tax. Whilst the New Right and the conservative forces within the Liberal Party are threatening to slash government spending and cut taxes to an extent beyond that of the Government's proposals, we find that between 1968 and 1986 the proportion of total tax coming from the business sector has declined by 47 per cent. In 1970 company tax made up nearly 25 per cent of total tax receipts. Now we find that it is less than 10 per cent. If we look at it another way, company tax as a proportion of gross domestic product has fallen by 42 per cent over the same period. The John Elliotts of our society are only interested in making a fast buck. They are not really interested in a fair and equitable society-or, if they are, their actions belie their words. They are the bully boys of the business sector. If they do not get what they want from the Government, they threaten to take their business overseas to lower their tax burden. They are not interested in the fact that one in every five children in Australia today are living in poverty and are in receipt of income-tested payments from the Department of Social Security. Can those members, from both sides of the House, who went out to partake of the 81c meal provided by the Campaign for Economic Justice and the Low Income People's Network forget the vivid portrayal of the human problems of poverty in our society. Yes, the John Elliotts of the business community are not interested in those facts, nor are they interested in the fact that 650,000 persons are currently unemployed, some as a result of the take-over battles of the rich and powerful. For many of those people the period of unemployment has lengthened, and this gives rise to adverse psychological effects on the individual. That has been well documented in the last few years. The relationship of unemployment to poverty has been well documented, going back to the 1975 report of the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. I quote from the report of that inquiry: The most important single determinant of low income is whether or not the head of the income unit is working. The social security review issues paper No. 1-`Income support for families with children'-associated poverty with long term unemployment and other barriers to work force participation, such as sole parenthood. If we look at who become the victims of unemployment and thus poverty we find that the number of victims is disproportionately high among certain groups in the community. These groups are Aboriginals, the young, women and migrants. When this Government came into office in 1983 it inherited a run down economy. The recession of 1982-83, caused by the policies of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), led to the numbers of unemployment benefit recipients doubling in less than two years, from 314,000 in June 1981 to 635,000 in June 1983. At the same time, by 1983 social security payments for families and the unemployed fell in real terms by up to one-third. Before I mention the positive steps that the Government has taken to overcome these difficulties, it must be recognised that this country is facing a difficult economic situation caused by a fall in world prices for our primary products. The world is paying less for our main exports, agriculture products and minerals. The Government is now in the process, in co-operation with the business sector, of reconstructing Australia's economic and social infrastructure. This will make our industries more competitive in overseas markets, a task which should have been carried out by the Fraser Government but which it failed to tackle because it did not have the guts to do so. Without financial and tax reforms and the development of industry plans aimed at reducing the level of tariff protection for industries cocooned against change, the Australian economy would be in a much worse state than it is. In other words, as a result of government initiatives we are in a better position to compete on world markets than we were when the Government took office. Let us examine the positive record of the Government in the area of job creation. Despite the still too high level of unemployment in this country, the Government has created over 720,000 jobs since it came to office. This happens to be the fastest rate of employment growth of any country in the Western industrialised world over the past three years. Jobs mean economic security and there is still a long way to go before the unemployment statistics reveal full employment. As I have already equated unemployment with poverty, I plead with the Government not to relax its efforts in tackling this serious social problem. As an anti-poverty measure job creation must remain a major priority of government programs. The Minister for Social Security pointed out in a Press release this month that the Curtin Government system of unemployment benefits has now lasted 43 years with its basic structure still largely unchanged. He went on to say that there are strong arguments that income support for the unemployed should be given a greater labour market orientation. By this he meant that the benefit should be converted from a minimised security net into `a springboard to real participation for the unemployed in the cultural, social and economic affairs of the community'. He has asked Professor Cass to review the unemployment benefit as part of the social security review. I trust that this report will lead to a new chapter for the unemployed by maximising opportunities for them. It is in the area of tax reform that this Government has gone a long way towards redressing the iniquities of the tax system it inherited. A fair tax system is what the average Australian wants. This Government has arrested the massive erosion of the taxation system that occurred over the past decade, which led to the rich paying less tax and those on average and low incomes paying more in percentage terms. As I indicated earlier, between 1968 and 1986 the proportion of total tax coming from the business sector declined by 47 per cent. The Government's measures have been designed to counteract that trend and revenue derived from the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax will assist in broadening the tax base. I urge the Government to continue its efforts to eliminate the special advantages available to the rich through strengthening anti-tax avoidance and other measures. I wish now, Mr Deputy Speaker, to look at the issue of families who find themselves in poverty. Social security review issues paper No. 1 points out that between 1972-73 and 1981-82 poverty rates for female-headed single parent families increased from 38 per cent to 50 per cent; for male-headed sole parent families the increase was from 16 to 19 per cent; and, for married couples families with three or more children, the increase was from 7 to 19 per cent. Significantly the proportion of children in families below the Henderson poverty line increased from 8 to 19 per cent. The National Institute of Economic and Industry Research shows that there was a significant increase in poverty between 1981-82 and 1985-86. Poverty among married couple families with two or more children rose in excess of 10 per cent. Single people aged 15 to 24 and 25 to 64 recorded rises in poverty of 13.8 and 17 per cent respectively. Married couples with no dependants whose head was aged under 65 years recorded an 11.6 per cent increase. This is a situation that the country and this Government must address. I now turn to the important issue of universal assistance to families as opposed to income tested assistance. It is clear that there are strong arguments in favour of universal assistance. Firstly, it recognises the increased costs incurred by all families with children; secondly, it has no adverse effects on the work incentives of either parent, as assistance is not withdrawn as income increases; thirdly, it does not create higher marginal tax rates, or contribute to poverty traps; fourthly, it may create less stigma; and, fifthly, it prevents a disproportionate share of the effective tax burden from falling on people with children. Against this is the concern that universal assistance for families increases budgetary costs. This, of course, becomes important in the present climate of economic restraint. There is also the concern that assistance is provided to higher income families who do not need it. Today there is increasing reliance on income testing payments because the country's economic circumstances require careful assessment of priorities in the distribution of government expenditure. But, more importantly, higher levels of assistance can then be given to low income families. There are problems, however, associated with income tested assistance as it can create high effective marginal tax rates and poverty traps. To illustrate this, recipients of the family income supplement commonly face effective marginal tax rates of 75 to 80 per cent. This occurs when they receive an extra dollar of earned income but lose 50c of the FIS payment and pay 25c or 30c in income tax. It is worse for families receiving a range of Commonwealth, State and local government transfers or services. Where these have overlapping income tests, an increase in earned income can actually leave families worse off. This is a disincentive for low income families to work their way out of poverty. Is there not irony in the fact that the Government is reducing the top marginal rate of tax from 60 per cent to 49 per cent by 1 July 1987, yet those on low incomes face much higher marginal rates of tax? In some cases the marginal rate of tax is 100 per cent. Nevertheless, I welcome the proposals of the Government which are aimed at tackling some of the problems of the poverty traps. The new measures include removal of the separate income tax for rent assistance for pensioners and beneficiaries; the doubling of the amount of extra income per child which can be received before pension begins to be reduced, from $6 to $12; and an increase in the pension-free area to $70 a week for married couples and $40 for single pensioners. Unfortunately, these measures do not address the problem of poverty traps for working people receiving an income tested payment like the family income supplement. This is a matter which the Government should address. While on the subject of the family income supplement, I urge honourable members to advertise this assistance because, whilst the take up of family allowance is 100 per cent, as few as 50 per cent of all families eligible to receive the FIS are receiving it. Some estimates indicate that the take up rate for the family income supplement is only 30 per cent. I would like to support the call of the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) for a wealth inquiry. Whilst hundreds and thousands are living below the poverty line, the evidence is that the rich are getting richer. It is estimated that net wealth in 1984-85 in Australia totalled $501.6 billion. This averages out at $30,000 in wealth per person. An article in Australian Society dated March 1986 indicated that the top 3 per cent of wealth holders own about 30 per cent of the wealth of Australia, and that the top 200,000 adult wealth holders own about $150 billion dollars in wealth. These figures only give a rough idea of the extent of inequality in this country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr Langmore —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr PORTER(Barker)(1.05) —The motion of the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) calls on the Government to `pursue anti-poverty measures as a major priority of government programs' and `support the efforts of the community, trade unions and State governments to end poverty'. Let me say at the outset that I am delighted that the honourable member has brought this matter forward for debate, although I must admit that I am a little surprised that he has done so. The motion is a very clear and frank admission by the Government that it has failed to address the issue of poverty. It has always been considered that the Australian Labor Party, especially its left wing, was concerned about issues that impacted upon low and middle income earners. In effect the motion says: `We have failed and should now do something about it.' I say to the honourable member: `It is a bit late to recant; the damage has been done'. The motion is an unequivocal indictment of the Government's tax and welfare policies. Labor has been in power for four years. The result has been an increase in the number of those whose income is below the poverty line. The Social Policy Research Unit recently released figures which indicated that the number of married couples, with dependent children, whose income was below the poverty line had increased by 55,000. The incomes of 55,000 more married couples with children has fallen below the poverty line as a result of four years of Labor government! That figure alone indicates the extent to which the Government has abandoned those for whom it pretends to be concerned-the underprivileged of society. Of course, the honourable member for Moore, being a good left winger, whilst admitting that his Government's policies have been a failure, in true socialist style seeks to redress the problem by pulling down the achievers in the community instead of giving assistance, encouragement and incentive to low income earners to enable them to lift their status. In light of the increased number of people whose income has fallen below the poverty line as a result of Labor's policy, it is not surprising that some left wing members are now claiming that the Government has lost touch with ordinary Australians. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has lost touch with middle Australia. He no longer has at heart the interests of middle and low income Australians. He is much more interested in strutting the international stage. The forgotten people see in the Prime Minister a man who is committed to promoting big government and big unions while trying to get on side with big business. Going down the line, is there anyone in the Parliament who would suggest that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is a man who has any interest in the middle and low income earners of Australia? The Treasurer's own electorate has a large proportion of middle and low income earners but he rarely goes there. Even after the recent by-election in New South Wales he had the gall to hold a Press conference commenting on the results. Did he hold it in his electorate? Oh no, he held it in Canberra. In other words, he reacted to the criticism that he had lost touch with ordinary Australians, and would not go to his electorate, by staying away from the electorate. He has thumbed his nose at middle Australia, just as he has thumbed his nose at the Taxation Commissioner. Labor no longer represents middle Australia; it no longer represents the Australian family. It has lost touch with reality. The Government tries to blame all of our problems on some international trading crisis but the truth is that the real cause of the difficulties facing Australian families, the real reason there are more people now whose income falls below the poverty line than there were four years ago when the Government came to office, is the Government's economic mismanagement and crippling tax policy. The Hawke Labor Government has clearly indicated that it is a big spending government. Under Labor there has been a massive increase in the level of expenditure, a massive increase in the deficit and a resulting massive increase in taxes and charges. The result of this policy was obvious and predictable. We have been hit by increased inflation, increased interest rates, higher unemployment and economic recession. The increases which have occurred in taxes and charges, and in the cost of living, have had a disastrous impact on Australian families. The average family, especially that with children, is being squeezed as it has never been squeezed before. It is finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. How often does one hear such comments as: `I am paid fortnightly and it is getting harder to make it stretch for two weeks'. Single income, PAYE, families are finding it especially difficult to make ends meet. They are finding it impossible to save and damned hard to ensure that they can afford essentials, let alone any luxuries. The squeeze which this Government is applying to the family budget is not only having an economic impact on the family. It is also tearing at the heart of the social fabric of our society. Too many families with young children are faced with the economic consequences of being unable to maintain their standard of living on a single income. More and more mothers bringing up young children are being forced to return to the work force. Such a decision is no longer a matter of choice. Parents are having to face unparalleled financial stress, worry and uncertainty. Too often children are suffering because of the tension at home and because mum has been forced to return to the work force where she or her spouse would prefer to remain at home caring for the children. Family life is the very backbone of our Australian community but it is quite clear that families do not receive the special assistance that they deserve. They have not been treated with fairness and equity by this Government. Lest it be suggested that I am overstating the case, or in some way exaggerating the impact on the family of this Government's economic policies, let me just point out some of the cost increases which the average Australian family has been forced to suffer over the last two or three years. Under the Hawke Labor Government the cost of health care has risen by around 50 per cent for those maintaining the same health cover as they had before Medicare. Ms McHugh —They do not need it. Mr PORTER —My God! Is the honourable member aware of the 100,000 Australians who are waiting to get into a public hospital when she says they do not need to take out health insurance cover? Having such coverage is the only way to guarantee access to a hospital bed in this country when one needs it. Labor's health policy has crucified low income earners and the underprivileged, who have never been worse off. The average monthly mortgage repayment of a family has increased by $152 a month, from $508 to $660. In three years the cost of food has increased by 29 per cent, the cost of clothing by 28 per cent, the cost of transport by 30 per cent and the cost of recreation and education by 25 per cent. Heaven forbid if one needs to replace the family car. Mr Donald Cameron —It has gone up by 50 per cent. Mr PORTER —That is so. For example, the cost of a Ford Laser-not an extravagant car I would have thought for an Australian family-has, under this Government, risen from $8,000 to $12,000. The irony of it all is that before Labor was elected to office in 1983 the present Prime Minister said in his policy speech to the nation that he was going to improve the lot of the Australian family. He promised, as one of the major points of Labor's tax reform, to increase `the spouse rebate and sole parent rebate, resulting in additional tax cuts of $2 a week to families'. Did the Prime Minister meet that commitment? The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) may well laugh. Of course the Prime Minister did not. In four years the dependent spouse rebate has not changed in nominal terms. Rather, after inflation, it has declined by 25 per cent. In order to make it absolutely clear that the concerns that the Liberal Party is expressing about the family are fairly widely held, I need only refer to a union pamphlet that I was sent recently by the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association in which the following appears under the heading `Erosion of Benefits': The spouse rebate is a taxation concession to a worker with a dependent spouse. It is worth $16 per week if there are no dependent children, and $20 per week if there are dependent children. Over the years, inflation has eroded the value of the rebate. In his election speech in 1983- this is the union talking- Bob Hawke promised a substantial increase in the spouse rebate. This promise has never been fulfilled. The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association sets out a table explaining the extent of the loss of income suffered by families under the Hawke Government, and states: The figures show the larger the family the greater has been its financial loss. Low income families have suffered the most from the decline in the value of family allowances. It is little wonder that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has seen the need to create a shadow Ministry and appoint me as spokesman for the family in order to focus attention on the serious impact that this Government's policies have had on the family. In addition, I will be ensuring that the Australian public is informed of the Opposition's policies for reversing Labor's attack on the family. Unlike Labor, we will promote policies which discriminate positively in favour of families. I have indicated the extent of the cost increases that face Australian families as a result of this Government's inflationary policies. Let me turn now to the impact on Australian families of the Government's taxes and charges. Between 1983 and February 1987 international oil prices dropped by 38 per cent. Over the same period the average retail price of petrol in the United States of America dropped by 36 per cent, from around US30c a litre to US22c a litre. In the same period the Hawke Labor Government increased its fuel excise rate by 204 per cent, from over 6c a litre to nearly 19c a litre. In other words, Australian families are having to pay over 11c a litre more for petrol as a direct consequence of this Government's high taxing policy. The Government's taxing policy has also had a devastating impact on the cost of housing. No doubt the left wing honourable member for Moore was delighted when the Government introduced a capital gains tax and moved to discontinue negative gearing. He would have been delighted because the Left hates those who have worked hard and put some money aside, especially those who have invested in real estate. But the impact of Labor's short-sighted capital gains tax and the ending of negative gearing has resulted in a flight of capital from investment in the building of residential homes and home units. As investors have stopped investing in residential accommodation there has been a decline in the availability of such accommodation for tenants. The obvious consequence has been that the real cost of providing rental premises has risen and demand is now in excess of the supply. These two factors have resulted in a substantial rise in rental costs. In other words, families who cannot afford to buy their own home are now faced with increased rental payments. Those who cannot afford these are forced to join longer and longer public housing waiting lists. There are now 160,000 Australian families waiting to be provided with public housing, more than ever before. More than 60,000 people have been added to public housing waiting lists during the period of office of this Labor Government. The Prime Minister-- Ms McHugh —How much money would you-- Mr PORTER —I beg the honourable member's pardon? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Phillip will have an opportunity to speak later. In the meantime, the honourable member for Barker might address his remarks to the Chair. Mr PORTER —The Government's income tax policies also have impacted upon families. For example, a single income family receiving average weekly earnings, one that would have paid $65 a week in PAYE tax in March 1983, now contributes $102 a week and will continue to do so after the so-called tax cuts of 1 July have occurred. The Opposition will not stand by and allow this attack on the living standards of families to continue. Our policies will discriminate positively in favour of families. Our tax and welfare policies will involve a co-ordinated approach which will address the needs of the family and overcome the burdens which this Government has placed upon them. Unlike Labor we will not cut down the achievers and bring them back to the field. Rather, we will assist the middle and low income earners to obtain a high standard of living. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(1.20) —I would like to comment on many of the points that have been made by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) but most are off the subject of this debate. The honourable member comes from the party that would like to reduce the welfare payments to the poor and cut the taxes of the rich, the party that wants to lift the incentive to work by reducing the incomes of the poor and increasing the incomes of the rich. In seconding the motion, I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) for his sense of priorities and foresight in giving notice of this centrally important subject. The motion draws attention to the unacceptably high inequality in the distribution of income and wealth in Australia-the subject that the previous speaker should have been discussing-and to policies which could be used for reducing those inequalities. After making a few preliminary comments on poverty I am going to concentrate on the inequalities in the distribution of wealth because less is known about this than about poverty or the distribution of income. Inequality in the distribution of wealth in Australia seems to be increasing. Though the proportion of Australians who are impoverished has probably fallen during the last four years the wealth of the wealthiest seems to be rising rapidly. The extent of poverty has fallen because of the Government's success in stimulating the growth of employment and so reducing unemployment. Unemployment, as the honourable member for Moore has said, is the principal cause of poverty. With the decline in unemployment, the unemployment rate has fallen from just over 10 per cent, which it was four years ago, to 8.4 per cent, due to a growth in the employed labour force of three-quarters of a million during that period. The remaining chronically high degree of unemployment is still the principal cause of poverty, and policies aimed at reducing poverty must concentrate on increasing employment opportunities. Of course, there are many other causes of poverty, of which one of the most serious is family breakdown, which leaves on low incomes many single parents with dependent children. A large number of single parent families have extremely low incomes and the social security review is giving priority to finding ways of supporting them more effectively. In relation to that group, it is pleasing to see that the decline in the real disposable incomes of pensioners and beneficiaries with children which occurred between 1976 and 1983 has been reversed. Between 1982-83 and 1985-86 pensioner beneficiary and other low income families with children enjoyed increases in real disposable incomes of up to 3.3 per cent a year-primarily because of additional payments for children and the introduction of the family income supplement. The improvements in both payments for children and in the unemployment benefit which have occurred during the last four years have made a significant contribution to easing the burden of poverty, and that is something of which the Government can be proud. The problem of poverty remains immense, but these improvements show that social security programs can make an important contribution to easing the burden of poverty. Mr Deputy Speaker, the issue on which I want to concentrate this afternoon is that of the distribution of wealth for in recent years there appears to have been a sharp increase in inequality in the distribution of wealth. There are no comprehensive and authoritative figures on the distribution of wealth in Australia. The last comprehensive survey was conducted in 1915, more than 70 years ago, so it is clearly impossible to be certain what has been happening in recent years. However, some careful estimates were made in the 1970s and early 1980s using estate statistics, surveys and estimates of investment income. In combination, these estimates give us a fairly reliable basis for discussing the distribution of wealth. All of these figures show that there is severe inequality in the distribution of wealth in Australia. In the 1970s, the top one per cent of adults held around 25 per cent of all wealth. That is, the top one per cent of wealth-holders held a quarter of all of the private wealth in Australia. Those figures are absolutely reliable. At the same time, the top 5 per cent held about 50 per cent of all of the private wealth of Australians. The top 10 per cent held more than 60 per cent. This means, of course, that the bottom 90 per cent of wealth-holders held less than 40 per cent of all of the wealth of Australia. This shows quite clearly that there is a very severe inequity in the distribution of wealth in this country. The figures confirm what must be apparent to everyone-that large numbers of people have next to no assets at all. The researchers also estimate that the distribution of wealth is slightly more concentrated in Australia that it is in the United States of America. The United States is, if anything, less unequal as a society than is Australia. However, we compare favourably with Britain, which has an even more concentrated wealth distribution than we do. It will surprise few to learn that Australia has a more egalitarian society than has Britain, but it will surprise many to learn that we have a less fair society than has the United States, in respect of which we hear so much about the massive accumulations of wealth of the very rich. Since World War I there has been some improvement in the equity with which wealth is distributed in Australia. Since 1915 the proportion of wealth that is held by the top one per cent of adults has fallen sharply. However, in the 1970s the top 10 per cent-which includes that one per cent-have almost the same proportion of the wealth as they did in 1915-about 60 per cent. Those figures are the agreed baseline from which we can talk about wealth in Australia. It is impossible to be certain what has been happening overall since the 1970s but there is clearly visible evidence of a tendency for a sharp increase to occur in the value of the assets of the already wealthy. For the last three years, the Business Review Weekly has published a survey of the richest 200 people in Australia. In 1984 the survey covered 206 fortunes, including those of 38 families, all with net assets of more than $10m. The average value of those personal fortunes was $35m. Their combined value was $7,300m. By 1985 the total wealth of the top 200 had risen to $10.5 billion. By 1986 the total wealth of the 200 wealthiest individuals and their families had risen to $14.8 billion. So, between 1984 and 1986, the total wealth of the richest 200 Australians more than doubled, from $7.3 billion to $14.8 billion. One obvious reason for that massive increase is that the prices of equities on the stock exchange rose by 63 per cent over the same period. The value of property also rose, so that a substantial part of the increase in the net worth of the wealthiest 200 has simply been due to market trends. The relatively low rate of inflation has had next to no impact. However, another substantial part of that massive increase in the net value of the assets of the wealthy has resulted from the well-publicised financial dealings of some of the wealth-holders. In 1983, the Business Review Weekly estimated Alan Bond's wealth conservatively at $25m. Today, even after a heavy discount is made for borrowings, his wealth totals $200m. In the same period, Larry Adler has built a $25m fortune into a $280m fortune. Again, Robert Holmes a Court has added $500m to his net worth in the space of three years. The response of some people to this massive multiplication of wealth would be to say `Good on you'-most people like to see success rewarded-but let us think a bit more carefully about the implications of these massive accumulations of wealth. One of the problems is that the type of activity which is being rewarded by this growth in wealth is financial manipulation, rather than productive activity. Intellectual energy and financial resources are going into speculation, rather than investment which would lead to a more general growth of incomes and employment. Another cause for concern is that most of the wealthiest people in Australia have a substantial part of their assets in the media industry. In fact, in 1983 the seven wealthiest people had all concentrated their assets in the media. There has been some diversification since then, but the media remain one of the principal bases for huge concentrations of wealth. The principal cause for concern, though, is that wealth is fundamentally anti-democratic. Wealth leads to increased economic, social and political power. Wealth is power and most people believe that power corrupts. Power need not inevitably corrupt, but the wealthy certainly have a clear tendency to act in their own self-interest and to find ideologies which justify the way they act. It would be extremely difficult for a Minister to treat an age pensioner with as much care and attention he or she would give Robert Holmes a Court. The powerful can find many subtle ways of influencing public opinion and the political process. At the very least, inequality in the distribution of wealth gnaws away at the foundation of democracy, which is about equality of opportunity in life. The foundations of most fortunes lie in inherited wealth, not the activities of entrepreneurs. It is clearly unfair for some people in the community to inherit millions while others-the vast majority-inherit little and often nothing. Inherited wealth ensures access to a much greater range of opportunities than is available to someone whose family is not wealthy, and this is obviously unfair. Since these vast fortunes are fundamentally undemocratic, it is important that the extent of inequality in the distribution of wealth in Australia be reduced. Without the presence of policies designed to reduce the severity of these inequalities, the social divisions in Australian society will intensify, leading to greater conflict and the undermining of the low key, easy-going egalitarianism which characterises so much of Australian life. It is essential that the inherent destructiveness of severe inequities in the distribution of wealth be recognised so that, as Professor Don Aitkin says, we may develop an attitude that makes excessive wealth about as attractive as excessive weight and erects appropriate barriers against the conversion of wealth into political power. One step which reduces the potential political power of the wealthy has been taken by this Government. I refer to the public funding of election campaigns. With public funding of elections there is a reduction in the potential influence which donors can earn by contributing substantial amounts to election funds. The Government's capital gains tax will make a contribution to restraining the Australian growth of wealth through capital gains. Most other Western countries, though, have other measures as well to control wealth, generally through inheritance or estate taxes, or direct taxes on wealth. Estate duties in Australia were abolished by both the Commonwealth and the States in the late 1970s and early 1980s and Australia has never had a direct tax on wealth. There would seem to be a good case for considering one or other of these taxes. Wealth taxation is the most popular form of taxation because most people know that they are not wealthy. However, wealth taxes are complex to administer, not least because of the difficulty of valuing assets. Estate and gift duties involve far fewer administrative problems because they are collected only when estates or gifts change hands and interfere not at all with investment by entrepreneurs. Estate and gift duties are consistent with the democratic principle of attempting to move closer to equality of opportunity. The doyen of public finance economists advocated, during a briefing session for honourable members that was held last Tuesday evening, the introduction of one or other of these capital taxes as part of a tax reform package. The introduction of a wealth tax or estate and gift duties would allow other taxes to be reduced. It would make a significant contribution to reducing inequality. The time has come to look again at the appropriateness of imposing estate and gift duties. That would be one way of reducing the dangers that exist to the strong egalitarian traditions that represent one of the central foundations of Australian life. Those traditions are being threatened by the amassing of huge fortunes. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(1.35) —Mr Deputy Speaker, in following the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) and the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore), and preceding the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh), one has to acknowledge that the two speakers who have spoken and the one who is about to speak, following me, truly believe what they are saying. One must also acknowledge the fact that their speeches were very carefully prepared-and, in fact, actually read. Therefore a lot of thought went into what they said, and what they have said they have to stand by. It is also worthy of note that two of the three speakers are definitely in the Left camp of the Australian Labor Party, and the honourable member for Fraser, who has just spoken, is in the Centre Left. Having listened to him speak, one wonders why he is not in the Left, and I guess the honourable member for Phillip and the honourable member for Moore must also wonder that and wish that he was there with them to boost their numbers and their strength, and their influence upon the Australian Labor Party. I would say that we have just been fed a hymn of hate-a hymn of concern, granted, but regrettably also a hymn of hate. When the honourable member for Fraser started citing those people who have done well in this country, he was saying that those people should not have succeeded. He also referred to the introduction of death duties, wealth duties and a whole lot of other duties to bring them back to the field. Here we are, four and a bit years after the Labor Party came to power, and we have the left wing elements of the Labor Party moving this General Business motion which condemns the inequality in the distribution of income and wealth in Australia, and-I can agree with this-calls on the Government to continue to pursue anti-poverty measures as a major priority of government programs. But the honourable member loses me when he homes in on eliminating the special advantage to the rich through strengthening anti-tax avoidance and other measures. It is not that I do not believe in fairness, but his emphasis is surely astray. Then he has the audacity to call on the Government to support the efforts of the community and State governments to end poverty-I can agree with that-and also to support the effort of the trade union movement to end poverty. A great percentage of the problems that this country faces today result from the irresponsible efforts of some of our union leaders. Strikes continue to be a part of our way of life. I believe that now it is Australian grain, the product of the farmers, which is locked up in the silos. Support the unions? Little wonder that Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland, looks so good to many Australians. He is perceived as a person who is prepared to take the unions on. I am not saying that I agree with everything he does, but I believe that the Australian population is screaming for a stand against the excessive power displayed by the trade unions. Money is not the only tool of power. Position has power, and when a union leader can say `All out' and bring a multi-million dollar industry to a stop with the flick of a finger, that is an abuse and misuse of power, and an abuse and misuse which surely increases the extent of poverty which exists in this country today. This Government has been in office for four years, and the question we must ask the people of Australia-not just the poor, because the honourable member for Fraser has already conceded that the Government has improved the position of the really poor, the single families and everyone, by a measly 3.3 per cent-the vast majority of Australians who provide the sweat and the national income as a result of their taxes, is whether or not they believe they are better off than they were four years ago. I hope people listening might just contemplate that question, because I believe that at least 80 per cent of Australians are worse off, as a result of the last four years, than they were prior to this Government's arrival. The honourable member referred to new taxes being introduced. The Government has done that already. It has introduced its capital gains tax. It has introduced measures to prevent what is commonly called negative gearing. What is the end result of that? We have seen that in Sydney-and the honourable member for Phillip is the next speaker-the average figure for rental accommodation is something like $260 a week for a three-bedroom home. What has the Government done? The people with the money, the people who are investing, can see there is little point in putting their money in that area because if they do make a profit it will be taken back, and, if there are losses, the losses are theirs and they will not be able to wipe it off against other income. So they are simply not buying properties for rental. What has this led to? A drying up of availability. Who do honourable members think is being hurt? The little people who could never afford to own their own home in the first place, who are reliant on the rental market. They are the ones who are being further and further squeezed. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) came to power on the promise of consensus. In many ways it is regrettable that that has not worked. There is another regrettable fact: In this Parliament, or in our democratic system, not all the wisdom in terms of philosophical approach, or even brains, is necessarily nestled in one side. A lot of the concerns that those opposite feel are also held on this side of the House. I care, and I know my colleagues care, about the standard of living of fellow Australians. It is a pity that, if we win or they win, we go down a certain road. Liberals are more likely to understand how the Government's steps in relation to negative gearing have shot the cost of rental accommodation up, as has happened in Sydney. Liberals better understand the way the market-place works and the way people will place their money for return. Nobody out there places their money in the name of charity unless they are making a definite donation to charity. Regrettably, those opposite have looked at a ladder and have sighted those wealthy families. The honourable member for Fraser talked about what the top 10 per cent of this nation holds. They have then set about climbing up that ladder and knocking out the top rungs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It now being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 109, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. Motion (by Mr Duffy) agreed to: That the time for discussion of notice No. 1, General Business, be extended until 2 p.m. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Members of the Government have set about knocking out those rungs and saying: `Hey, you people up the top, come back down here into the fold and join the rest of us'. What they inadvertently have done is to accidentally create a lower average level of wealth and an increased pool of those who are wallowing in poverty. The previous speaker made reference to supporting parents on their own and everything like that. I can remember years ago being about the first in this Parliament to start ringing the warning bells as to what was happening with the growth in the supporting parents benefit, the number of beneficiaries, and the number of children who were coming out of either broken families or out of situations where single people had approached parenthood with reckless abandon. A former Minister, who has just gone off to Amsterdam, was then shadow Minister and I was portrayed by him to this nation as some kind of a troglodyte. It was suggested that I was a person without concern and that I was anti-women and anti-kids because I was picking on them, while all I was saying at that time was: `Whoa, there are mistakes being made; just look at the graph'. I remember in the first year of the supporting parents benefit we had a $40m bill, and now it is up to about $1 1/2 billion because a lot of people opted out. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has always boasted that he was responsible for its introduction. It was one of the greatest mistakes that have ever been made because it encouraged people to walk away from their responsibilities. It was made easier for them. In the years I have been in this place I have seen this nation enter a stage of great conscience and become very welfare minded-we have to go and do this for that group and that for this, and pick up everybody and help them. But we have pulled the nation down. The average income earner is paying more tax than he or she has ever paid in the history of this nation, because if we are going to give away we are going to have to pay. It is the people in the work force who have carried the can. It is not just the rich people who have to pay, it is all people. That philosophy of this Government's of handing out more and more has seen Budget allocations since it came in go from $56 billion in 1983-84 to $63 billion the following year; and from almost $70 billion in 1985-86 to almost $75 billion in the current year. Even all the tax increases that the Government has imposed have not been enough to provide all the money that it has been spending. The Hawke Government has notched up a cumulative deficit of $20m in four Budgets. It has not indexed personal income tax rates, it has not adjusted family allowances for inflation and it has not adjusted the spouse rebate. Indeed, there is even talk now that the Government will eliminate the spouse rebate. The Medicare levy has jumped by 25 per cent; we have seen introduced capital gains taxes and fringe benefit taxes; the disallowance of so-called entertainment expenses; the introduction of prescribed payment systems; and a tax on lump sum superannuation. People are out there providing for themselves; this Government moved in and upped the taxes as much as 700 per cent in that particular area. There are so many things that those opposite have done to try to bring about the removal of the inequality that they talk about today, but so many of those measures have had a counter-effect. I go back, as I conclude, to the question I asked about 10 minutes ago: Hands up all those Australians who think that they are better off now than they were when the Hawke Government first came to power? Twenty per cent of the hands will go up and 80 per cent will stay down because the people are not better off. The sooner the Government abandons some of the socialistic tendencies it displays in this Parliament, and in this motion today, the better off we all will be. I cannot wait for the next election, because we have tried the Labor experiment in the 1980s and it has been found wanting. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(1.50) —I must congratulate the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) for moving this motion on the inequality and distribution of income and wealth in Australia. For a start, it has exposed the fact that members of the Opposition do not even know what we are talking about. Both Opposition speakers have referred to the myth that we on this side hate those in Australia-they have each used the word `hate'-who have acquired great wealth. All we ask is that Australian wealth be shared by all Australians. I must say I have to agree with the comments of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) about the inequality of distribution of numbers within the Federal parliamentary Labor Party. This motion exposes the myth that we are an egalitarian society. It draws attention to those at the bottom of the heap in Australian society and to those at the very top, and to the large gap that divides them. Let us talk first about those on the bottom. Since the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) established the social security review in December 1985, we have started to see some of the community myths destroyed-myths which have been around for years and which have been perpetuated by members of the Opposition. The first of the social security review issues papers has shown that it is the families with children, families on low and middle incomes and sole parent families that are now suffering the most severe financial hardship. The statistics are very disturbing. Twenty per cent of children now live in families below the poverty line, while 50 per cent of sole mothers-that is, mothers struggling to bring up their children-live below the poverty line. The figures are lower, but hardly less comforting, for single fathers. Nineteen per cent of sole fathers are in the same position, trying to keep their children while living below the poverty line. One of the myths that has been debunked is that relating to sole parents. For the first time, because of this review, we have a thorough analysis of sole parent families which shows that much of what the community thinks about sole parents is just fiction. There is a firmly entrenched community myth that the supporting parent's benefit has encouraged teenagers to choose motherhood instead of the boredom and low status associated with being unemployed. In fact, the proportion of teenage single mothers has actually decreased in the last 10 years. Only 4 per cent of all supporting parents are teenagers. Most sole parents-85 per cent-are separated or divorced; that is, the single parents come from very established relationships, most of them marriages, and the major increase has been in the number of women sole parents aged between 25 and 44 years. So much for the myth of the teenage single parent. As poverty has grown, so too has inequality in wealth and income. In Australia today, in relative terms, the rich are richer and the poor poorer than at any time since 1942. Today the wealthiest one per cent of the population owns one quarter of all personal wealth. The wealthiest 5 per cent owns one-half of all personal wealth. At the top end, 80,000 Australians own $125 billion, or $1.5m each, and at the bottom more than 2.6 million Australians depend on social welfare benefits. I was glad to hear the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) refer to the difficulty that some people have buying an ordinary old Ford Laser car. To demonstrate what this disproportion means in concrete terms, just imagine if the wealth of the top one per cent were redistributed. It would provide a modest suburban home and a Ford Laser for every member of the bottom 20 per cent in Australia. If Mr Holmes a Court's personal wealth alone were redistributed, it would be roughly equivalent to a portable television for every one of the bottom 20 per cent of Australian households. We do not hate those who have great wealth. As I say, that word `hate' was used by both speakers from the other side. We want Australian wealth to be shared by all Australians. Large corporations change hands for thousands of millions of dollars; business magazines join in conspicuous praise for Australia's multi-millionaires. The rich, it seems, keep getting richer. The poor have been frequently studied, but it is about time that the wealthy were studied. We have had many studies of the poor, including the myriad volumes of the poverty inquiry in the 1970s, but the rich have not attracted the same attention, leaving us with a very distorted picture of the inequalities in Australian society. What we need is an inquiry into wealth. Such an inquiry would be crucial for the evidence it would provide on the accumulation and ownership of wealth. But, in the interim, the quality of work available in Australia and the agreement in findings enables realistic estimates to be made of the total value, composition and distribution of the wealth there is to be made in Australia. The figures show sharp extremes between the rich and the poor, between the 25,000 millionaires and the two million Australians living below the poverty line. It is sickeningly hypocritical for the New Right and the conservatives to be threatening to slash government spending when so many of their number refuse to pay their fair share of tax. That is all we ask: For a redistribution of wealth and for a fair share of tax to be paid. For example, in the year June 1985 to June 1986 Elders-IXL Ltd, run by the treasurer of the Liberal Party, increased its pre-tax profit by over 100 per cent, to around $233m, and yet paid only 10 per cent company tax. How does it pay only 10 per cent company tax when the company tax rate is 46 per cent? Easy-it borrows billions of tax deductible dollars from overseas. Treasurer Keating has suggested that it is a crass political remark from a millionaire businessman, John Elliott, to talk about taking his headquarters off-shore. The Treasurer says Mr Elliott is whingeing about further tax concessions for business while his dry mates in the Liberal Party would take pleasure out of kicking wage earners and pensioners all around the country. Elliott has also talked about reducing nominal taxes for companies and the rich to 30 per cent. I suppose this would be something of a breakthrough if, by some miracle, they actually paid that rate of tax. Let us talk about another great owner of Australian wealth, Rupert Murdoch. An article by Allan Sloan in the Business Review Weekly says that Rupert Murdoch's bookkeeper treats financial reporting as a game to be won. In Australia, Rupert Murdoch treats preferred stock as equity for balance sheet purposes; in the United States he says it is debt, so he can deduct dividends from his income tax. It appears even that a range of tax planning instruments are already on sale which effectively anticipate the operations of the imputation system, and these schemes provide avenues for companies, investors and creditors to exploit any loophole they can find in that proposed system. Madam Speaker, we in this Government propose a social justice strategy to bring to an end the inequalities in wealth in Australia. Social justice strategy for the Australian Government means a fair go for all Australians, not just for those at the top of the heap. It means equity and fairness in the distribution of economic resources and political power; it means equality in all areas, including housing, education and security; and it means access to and participation by all Australians in all opportunities offered in Australia. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence of General Business has expired. The honourable member for Phillip will have leave to continue her speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next day of sitting. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a matter of courtesy, I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is absent from Question Time today. Any questions normally directed to him should be addressed to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). Mr REITH —I refer the Minister for Housing and Construction to the remarks made this week at the national conference of the Housing Industry Association by the Chief Economist of the National Mutual Royal Bank who said that home mortgages were now harder to afford than for at least the last 17 years and possibly since World War II. Has the Minister's Department carried out any calculations which reach a similar conclusion? If so, will he table them? If not, why not? Does he agree with Mr Marsden's conclusions, and do the remarks provide undeniable evidence that the Prime Minister's 1984 promise to bring home ownership within the reach of ordinary Australian families has been resoundingly broken? Mr WEST —As the Prime Minister has said, this Government does not want to see high interest rates remain for one single day longer than is necessary. We know that the economic policies are in place for interest rates to fall. Indeed, we have seen bank bills fall over the last few weeks to their lowest rate for nine months. Furthermore, the other factors, such as the stability of the dollar, the current account deficit which, of course, is trending down, the tight fiscal policy, which will be encapsulated and further developed by the Treasurer in the May statement, and the acceptance in general of the Government's tight wages policy will all lead in due course, as general interest rates trend down, to a reduction in housing interest rates. As the Government continues with these economic policies that will get the desired result we will treat housing as a priority area. Let us take as an example our statement on 30 March which, in very stringent economic times, has put forward a policy, in contrast to the Opposition, of continuing Federal funding for public housing. Let us look quickly at the policies of the Opposition parties, such as they are, on housing. The only specific thing that we can find out about their policy on housing is that they intend to abolish Federal funding. The Opposition will take out 20,000 commencements from the housing industry equation straight away and as a result it will destroy 40,000 jobs in the housing industry. At a time of tight fiscal policy, in the implementation of the first home owners scheme, we have been able to provide a rise in the income limits for eligibility for the first home owners scheme that will benefit another 26,000 families across Australia and create another 5,000 to 7,000 housing starts. We are getting general interest rates down. In due course, that will mean a reduction in housing interest rates. In the meantime, unlike the intentions of the Opposition, we will continue to treat housing as a priority area. Mr FITZGIBBON —Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to proposals for a broad-based consumption tax? Is the Government contemplating the introduction of such a tax? Mr HAWKE —I notice that the proposals for a broadly based consumption tax were confirmed as recently as this morning by-I am not quite sure how to describe him-the Deputy Leader of half the National Party of Australia, Mr Hunt, who said that the proposal for a broad-based consumption tax has considerable potential. But we are faced with a situation where the de facto Leader of the National Party, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, has repudiated this. Of course, we must take notice of him because he told us last night that he, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, will be announcing the policies of the National Party in the next election. So he has repudiated that statement-that is, the position of Mr Hunt. The de facto Leader of the National Party has said `No' and, of course, the lame duck Leader of the National Party does not know whether he agrees with one or the other. For our part, we can say that we have given this proposal considerable consideration since 1975 but, in the face of overwhelming community opinion, we rejected it. The question that has been asked is an important one because the community is entitled to ask: `Where is the long promised, fully funded tax policy of the Leader of the Opposition, and does it contain a consumption tax?' Mr Hollis —Does it, John? Mr HAWKE —We are not quite sure. Of course, we are also entitled to ask and to know what status Mr Howard's policy has. The Leader of the Opposition is now going around the corridors pretending that he is unshackled and that he is free to put his own separate policies to the electorate. But we all know that, in regard to this place, he represents, at most, half the Liberal Party which, as we know, would have to win some 30 seats to rule in its own right. For that to come about and for him to be able to be in the position of Prime Minister he would have to go into a coalition with a man whom he has called a thug and a man who, in turn, has called him a silly little boy. It should be understood-it is increasingly being understood by the electorate-that the Leader of the Opposition's policies on tax or on any other matter have no status at all. Perhaps the position was best put quite clearly and unequivocally last night on the PM program by the Leader of the National Party and we are indebted to him for it. I ask every member of this House and indeed every member of the Australian community to note every word of what he said. The Leader of the National Party said: . . . the coalition gave us an opportunity to go into government and to make sure the right policies were in place to take effect as of day one. Now what does he say? He says: Now it will be necessary to go into the election campaign with our separate policies and then, after the election, to enter negotiations with Liberal Party, form a coalition and then work out which of the policies that have been presented to the people are going, in fact, to be put in place. Have honourable members ever heard anything more pathetic? We have now revealed the ludicrous nature of what has emerged on the Opposition side. The Leader of the National Party, in one of his rare moments of lucidity and absolute straightforwardness with the Australian electorate, said: `This is what will happen. John Howard will go and give you one set of policies and I will go and give you another set of policies. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen will give you yet another set of policies. It does not matter what we have said in the election campaign. If, after that, you were silly enough to vote for us, we would then sit down and work out which of the policies we would put into place'. The fact is that the leaders of these two parties-Mr Howard and Mr Sinclair-have no status and nor do their policies. They present the people of Australia with an alternative of chaos. The Leader of the Opposition will not be elected to govern. The people of Australia will give him as much support as he gets now within the Liberal Party, and that is considerably less than half. Mr HUNT —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy accept the findings of the Industries Assistance Commission last November that the abolition of the Commonwealth excise on petroleum products would reduce the consumer price index in the order of 5 per cent to 6 per cent and revenue by $5.6 billion requiring budgetary cuts of that magnitude? Does the Minister agree with the appraisal by some banks that this should reduce interest rates by 5 to 6 per cent? In view of the fact that high inflation and interest rates are the two major problems besetting the Australian economy, will the Government give urgent consideration to this IAC proposition? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the Deputy Leader of the National Party for his question. The considerations he raises are ones of very important public policy. I have no doubt that when the matter comes, in the usual course of business, to the Cabinet for its consideration appropriate weight will be given to that view. Obviously the decision will be made at Cabinet level. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, I will give a little more weight to it now. Mr Spender —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Government must decide who it is it wants to have jump up. There is one question, one answer; and the Treasurer cannot get up and supplement or add to it. He should be told to sit down. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer is quite in order. Mr KEATING —This question is a classic indication of what the Prime Minister has just said. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer is quite in order. Mr Porter —Does that mean that the Opposition will get supplementary questions? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member might like to read House of Representatives Practice where he will find that this is not uncommon. Mr Spender —Further to the point of order: The practice has been that if a question is directed to a particular Minister, it may be taken by another Minister. It has not been the practice for one Minister to get up and say `I have not the slightest idea what the answer to this question should be', then sit down after having been on his feet for a few minutes, and then for another Minister to get up and say: `I can answer the question and do a better job'. The Treasurer should not be allowed to answer the question. He should be told to sit down. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer is quite in order. Mr KEATING —The question is a classic indication of what the Prime Minister said, that we will see two parties going to an election with two different policies, trying to buy votes from two different groups. Mr Tuckey —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question is now one of relevance. The Treasurer is abusing this Parliament as an excuse to tip another bucket on the Opposition. That is all he wishes to stand for. He does not intend to expand on the answer of nothing that was given by the previous Minister. That is not an opportunity the Chair should afford him. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will add to the answer given by the Minister for Science and will answer the question. Mr KEATING —The question is predicated on commitments which the Deputy Leader of half of the National Party made earlier in trying to buy votes with a fiscal buy-down of the consumer price index to add to the Budget deficit. His branch of the National Party will be out trying to cadge votes with that promise, while the Liberal Party will be out trying to cadge votes with other tax promises; knowing that, if the tax promises were implemented, it would destroy the fiscal policy of the Commonwealth, interest rates, exchange rates and economic recovery. I should not have thought that, after the Prime Minister gave his answer, the Deputy Leader of the National Party would have obliged him by making it quite clear that that is what the Opposition's tactic will be-to go with one stack of grab-buying promises to one part of the electorate and another stack of grab-buying promises to another, all of which would blow fiscal policy out of the water. Fiscal buy-downs of the CPI could have been thought about with the oil revenues in 1977 and 1978, but the previous Government did not want to do that then. As a result we ended up with 11 per cent inflation, that Government pocketed the tax money and left the 60 per cent marginal rates. Now, to try to dust off their concern about the rural community after overvaluing the dollar for 20 years and ripping the guts out of rural incomes, Opposition members wish to say: `Yes, we would spend $2 billion buying down the CPI'. Then of course after an election they try to put it all together to come up with a reasonable policy, while they falsified their claims to the electorate about fiscal grabs they know that the nation could never afford. Madam SPEAKER —Order! May I read to the House this passage on page 500 of House of Representatives Practice: More than one Minister has answered a particular question without notice in the case of shared responsibility. Mr Spender —It has not happened in the last six years. Madam SPEAKER —Do not interrupt. It continues: In 1970 a question was directed to and answered by the Minister for the Army. Upon completion of the answer the Minister for Defence indicated that the subject of the question lay more within his ministerial responsibilities and proceeded to add to the information already supplied. So, as the Chair ruled, the Treasurer was totally in order. Mr STAPLES —I, too, would like an answer from the Treasurer if those opposite, as distinct from the Opposition, will be quiet. Considering the fact that some of Australia's biggest and most profitable companies are paying tax of much less than 20c in the dollar on their profits, and considering the recent cries of overtaxing and the threat to take operations off-shore by people such as John Elliott of Elders IXL Ltd, can the Treasurer inform the House whether the Government's business tax reforms can be expected to give cause for, or have the effect of, sending Australian companies and production off-shore? Mr KEATING —The answer is in the negative. The point of the change to the foreign tax credits system is that, when decisions are taken to place Australian capital into productive enterprise, they are taken not for tax-driven reasons to send Australia's scarce capital off-shore to tax havens, but to reap a rate of return which would be advantageous against that which would be returned and employed in Australia. The very point of the foreign tax credits system is to be certain that, when a corporation makes a decision to place capital abroad, it does so in the face of its true earning potential here and not for tax-driven reasons. Australia is one of the last countries in the developed world to introduce a foreign tax credits system. Most of the countries we trade with have such a system. The effective company tax rates are about where the Australian company rate is. The foreign tax credits system only applies to dividends when distributed back to Australia; it does not apply to retentions, it does not apply to retained earnings. But in countries such as the United States of America, Europe and Britain, where the effective company tax rate is about the same as that in Australia, there is no difference in bringing the money back here and having the rate taxed at the equivalent of 49 per cent; otherwise there would be a disincentive. In this part of the world where there are particular development opportunities, such as in Indonesia and other places, we have recognised tax sparing in the context of the foreign tax credits system. Let me make this point about the remarks by Mr Elliott. He said that when the legislation is introduced he will make a judgment about it. Well, it was introduced in June 1986, it was proclaimed, and so the provisions were there. It was obviously a political remark made by him, but the point is that were he to take his corporation off-shore all the shareholders of Elders would be denied the benefits of imputation. He would deny to all the shareholders of Elders the removal of the double tax on Australian dividends. He would be saying, as a sort of a political statement `I will take Elders off-shore' but unless he went to Germany there is no other country that provides relief of the double tax on dividends. He would be pushing up the tax rate on Elders by taking it outside Australia. He then made the puny point that there is not an imputation credit paid for income earned abroad. Of course, we will not provide Australian taxpayers with an imputation credit for credit paid to a foreign treasury. If Mr Elliott wants to develop his corporation off-shore and maintain his base here, and he does so looking at the foreign tax credits system and placing his capital in places that he thinks advantageous to his company, that is fine. However, if that is done on the basis of moving his company because the tax rates are penal-the rates under the foreign tax credits system almost everywhere else in the world are comparable to those in Australia-all he would do would be to disadvantage Elders shareholders by denying them the purest imputation system in the world. Before Mr Elliott makes such a stupid, crass and politically inspired remark in the future he ought to think about his shareholders. Honourable members have to remember that imputation is put on for shareholders; it is not put on for company managers. Mr Elliott is making the company manager point but he is not even making it well. The best advice I can give Mr Elliott is that he should decide whether he wants to be a politician or a businessman. If it is the latter, he ought to stick to business and keep his nose out of politics. Mr ALDRED —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Is it correct that at this very early stage in Australia's new submarine project the total project cost has already blown out from $2.6 billion to at least $4.5 billion? What is the present estimate of the cost of the submarine project? In view of the huge cost blow-out which has taken place and the disastrous economic consequences facing the Government, what guarantee can the Minister give that Australia will be able to afford this project? Mr BEAZLEY —The figures the honourable gentleman gives are not correct. The correct figures will be given, of course, after Cabinet has given due consideration to the proposals that will come before it. The costs, after adjustments taking place for changes in the value of the Australian dollar over the period, will indicate that some quite good estimates were made. If one feeds off the misinformation that comes out in the Press in the latter stages of competition from all those who are allegedly in the know and makes that the basis of one's understanding of any policy, one will almost invariably be incorrect. The actual figures will be explained in due course after the Cabinet has had an opportunity to look at the matter. The more general point is how we will be able to afford a new submarine which is a substantial and expensive project. Everybody, including me, must determine whether we will be able to afford the project over the next 12 years. I go back to remarks I made when I tabled the Defence White Paper. Some people have picked them up and others have not. As we produced the Defence White Paper we learned not to go down the course that we went down in 1976 when unrealistic gross figures were built into the program in a way that ensured that it could not be achieved. Any program based on a 5 to 7 per cent real growth figure over a five to 10-year period, or whatever, simply is not achievable and the program was not achievable then in far more favourable economic circumstances. It would not be achievable now. As far as possible we have calculated our forward projections in the defence area on a situation in which we can expect little or no real growth and sometimes cuts. The changes that have taken place in the percentage of the budget for new capital equipment and facilities in the White Paper are considerably under those which could be anticipated. The honourable member has raised an important question. Let me detail it a little further. When the White Paper was brought down in 1976 approximately 12 to 13 per cent of the then defence Budget was going to new capital equipment and facilities. That figure is now at 33 per cent. If that figure were projected out over the first 15-year period of the life of this White Paper, it would come to somewhere around $40 billion in today's dollars. The costings of all the projects included in that Defence White Paper are between $20 billion and $25 billion for that period, the biggest items of which are the submarine program and the frigate program. We have tried to plan the defence program so that, no matter which party is in-although it will be the Australian Labor Party for the entire period-no sensible defence Minister will operate on the assumption that he will be the repository of vast increases in the defence vote. Any Opposition member who suggests otherwise has a raft of comments from his side of the House against which he will have to test his views. There will be no more funds for defence other than those that are being budgeted at the moment. The Government plans on that basis and the submarine program is planned to fit in with it. The Government, in its source selection, now operates a very disciplined process; it has no choice. Over the 12-year period in which the submarine will have to be paid for, that amount of money-which is considerably less than the $4.5 billion that the honourable member outlined-will be affordable. Further demonstration of its affordabililty is that even if the figure were $4.5 billion, which it is not, if one averaged it out over that period one would be looking at something like $300m a year. I draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that last year we managed, in these tight circumstances, to make some $800m available for the biggest defence project operating at the moment and that is the F18. We can have complete confidence that we will be able to pay for not only the submarines but also the frigates and the other matters with which we are dealing. Everything this Government does is sensibly planned for a projected anticipation of a very long life of Labor government. Mr WRIGHT —Has the attention of the Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Consumer Affairs been drawn to the recent spread of bogus, chain letter type get rich quick schemes being used throughout Australia, two of which are known as the Edward L. Green and Dave Rhodes letters? Is the Minister aware that these schemes are cheating hundreds of unsuspecting Australians, especially the unemployed, people in ethnic communities and Australians living in country areas? Will the Minister advise the House as to what can be done about those who use these schemes to prey on the gullible and the disadvantaged? Mr BARRY JONES —There are many audacious impostures upon gullible people living in country areas, not the least of which comes from the Queensland Government. We have also seen this in the House in the last few days from the National Party of Australia. But that is not specifically what the honourable member for Capricornia referred to. There has been a fresh outbreak of these schemes and the ones he mentioned-the Edward L. Green and Dave Rhodes letters-are currently among the most widely circulated. Many work on the chain letter principle enabling promoters to draw in money from hundreds of people at minimal expense to themselves. The worst examples of this are used in advertisements in situations vacant columns ostensibly offering paid work at home. The unemployed and others who are conned into replying to the advertisements find that no job is offering. In fact they are supposed to advance money to the promoters so that they can participate in what is then regarded as work performed at home. Victims of the scams frequently spend hundreds of dollars on such items as postage, printing or advertising. They lose this money because like all chain letters the scheme soon collapses and when that happens the original promoter moves on having made his profit. Apparently, people living in country areas are especially popular targets for operators of these schemes and there is recent evidence that the schemes are beginning to circulate in ethnic communities. Following complaints of investigation work, the Commonwealth Trade Practices Commission and complementary State and Territory agencies co-operated in a national campaign to alert consumers. The Commission has written to hundreds of individuals known to be involved to some extent in the schemes warning them that they risk not only financial loss but also breaking the law if they continue their involvement. The Commission has taken action against a number of scheme operators, successfully closing them down. It will continue to pursue the operators vigorously, prosecuting those who do not cease their activities. The Trade Practices Act provides for fines of $20,000 for individuals and $100,000 for companies if they make breaches of this sort. Many of the schemes operate from the anonymity of post office boxes and this compounds the difficulties of tracking down operators in time to recover funds for consumers who have been duped by them. Ultimately, the best defence against them is for authorities such as the Trade Practices Commission and State consumer protection authorities to remain vigilant and to continue their campaigns to alert consumers. I commend the Trade Practices Commission for its effective action in these matters. Mr HALVERSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. He will note that we do not feed off misinformation contained in the Press. Will the Minister confirm that Sweden is a neutral country and plays no part in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation alliance? Will the Minister also confirm that during the Vietnam conflict the Swedish Government placed an embargo on the provision of ammunition-made only in Sweden-and spares for the Carl Gustav anti-tank weapon with which Australian forces were equipped, thereby rendering the weapon inoperable? If the submarine contract goes to the Swedish company, is it not a fact that, first, logistic support must be provided from Swedish sources over the lifetime of the submarines and, secondly, our Vietnam experience showed that it is quite impossible to rely on assurances that this support will be forthcoming? Mr BEAZLEY —I suppose the honourable member could have also asked me a question on what I thought about World War II and we could have run through that. The first point I want to make is that obviously there is a time to consider in detail in the House, if it is the desire of honourable members, the question of the Government's final source selection of a submarine. A week or two short of Cabinet consideration is not the time to do that. With regard to the more general points that the honourable member raised about the Swedish position, it is true that Sweden is a neutral country. I will return to that point in a moment. There were troubles with weapons supplied by Sweden during the course of the Vietnam war. For that reason we have negotiated an extensive set of agreements and sought assurances in a variety of forms from the Swedes, if they get the submarine contract, to ensure that such an event would not occur again as far as they are concerned. But more important than that-- Mr N.A. Brown —Have they got the job then? Mr BEAZLEY —No, we have also got that assurance from the Germans. We get those these days from every country which supplies us with weapons. We act differently these days from what occurred in the 1950s and 1960s when other people were running defence policies. We do not necessarily operate on the basis of complete trust. We like agreements. We like to sign those agreements and we like to make people stick to them. It does not matter whether we are dealing with the Swedes, Germans, British, Dutch, Americans or whatever. We do it across the board. That is the first point that I want to make. The second point is the question of logistic support. The submarines will be built in this country. I will not announce the actual percentage now, but it is substantially in excess of that which the Government sought. A very substantial proportion of the submarines will be built in this country, for one very important reason-that is, we wish them to be capable. Mr Spender —The weapons? Mr BEAZLEY —I will refer to the weapons system in a moment, because it is not Swedish, nor is it German-in either case. The point that I make about that is that our intention is that we will be able to support these submarines here, away from any other centre of supply. We consider that to be fundamental to defence self-reliance. In the final analysis, when the submarines are constructed, it does not really matter what anybody else thinks; we will use them in an unfettered way. Of course, the combat systems for the submarines will be drawn from either Signaal, the Dutch-based consortium, or Rockwell, which is essentially an American-based consortium. We have sought those guarantees of resupply from both the Americans and the Dutch. This Government operates in this area, as in all others, in a prudent manner. I would like to say one other thing in regard to the Swedes, because I was in a position to visit both Sweden and Germany during the course of last year and had a chance to talk to both the Swedes and the Germans about their plans. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Swedes take very seriously their relationship with NATO and with the Americans and protect the positions that they develop in the markets that they are seeking in NATO countries, including the United States. Indeed, Kockums, the company involved as far as Sweden is concerned, has had an involvement with the United States naval shipbuilding program at Newport News. The United States has a considerable respect for Swedish technology, as it has for German technology, in this area. All the necessary protection will be taken. This Government values independence and self-reliance highly. We will not make the mistakes of conservative governments in the 1950s and 1960s. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Is the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism aware of possible consequences for Australian sport and sports people from the $2m damages awarded to a New South Wales school football player? Has the Minister taken any action, or is any proposed, to protect sports and players? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for his question not only because he is one of Australia's great elite sportsmen, but also because of his continuing interest in sport for children, and particularly the safety factors involved. I am sure that all members of this House will share my sorrow at the fact that a young lad from the south coast of New South Wales became a paraplegic through playing football at school, with all the consequent horror that that involved for his family, and the possible damage it may cause to the future of children playing sport in schools. There are two issues to be addressed. The first is the obvious need for safety in sports. I am pleased to inform the House that, as some honourable members will already know, the Australian Sports Commission, with the support of this Government, has instituted a program of modified sport with simplified rules in schools across Australia. I am pleased to note that every State government has co-operated in this regard so that now the Aussie Sports program is played by 50,000 school children in 1,200 primary schools. It involves simplified rules with an emphasis on safety, and the production of skills that will help children in their later sporting lives to achieve safety in sport. More importantly, it is a program aimed at having children get enjoyment from sport, whether or not they are skilled. I think that is something that all honourable members will be pleased about. That program will shortly go into secondary schools. Of course, there is an even greater need when children are bigger to make sure that safety factors are well and truly looked after. I add that the Sports Commission is also involving itself through its allied sports research program in specific examples of safety in sport. Research has just been completed into scrummaging techniques and injuries that are likely to be sustained in rugby league or rugby union. The results are now available to both sports and have been widely distributed. I suppose that the more important issue, the one that was taken up by the media in rather lurid terms, was the size of the award and the possible consequences for the future of sport in schools. It is quite obvious that the cost of this huge award is basically borne by the taxpayer through social security and the Government's medical insurance. I happen to believe that it is time that there was involvement by the private sector, particularly by parents, in the insurance of children at school, particularly in sport. The Sports Commission has been in touch with insurers and we have already put together a scheme that will enable a very easy co-operation between governments, private insurance companies and parents in providing insurance for children at school. So, all in all, while it has been a gloomy day, as a fit young person became a paraplegic as a result of playing football at school, in the long run maybe some good will come from it. Parents, school teachers and coaches, particularly, will become aware of the inherent dangers in body contact sports, particularly for young persons. I hope that this leads to a greater emphasis by a great number of people in the community on the great value of Aussie Sports and the fact that it involves great safety measures. Mr NEHL —Will the Minister for Health inform the House what steps will be taken to ensure that drugs such as aspirin, solprin, zadine, palaprin forte, paracodin and other proprietary medicines, which were deleted from the pharmaceutical free list last year, will be restored to the list to help alleviate the prohibitive cost to financially hard-pressed people such as pensioners and nursing home patients? Dr BLEWETT —On the advice last year of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee a number of the medicines mentioned by the honourable member were removed from the pharmaceutical benefits list. All of those medicines, of course, were across the counter drugs, usually purchasable much more cheaply across the counter than on the basis of prescriptions. The other point is that a number of those drugs have aroused particular concerns. Those concerns can be taken back to the PBAC which is looking at a number of drugs in that area. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The Treasurer would have noted today the release by the Australian Bureau of Statistics of the March quarter figures for the consumer price index. I ask the Treasurer to advise the House of the implications of those figures for Australia's inflation performance. Mr KEATING —It is true, as my colleague suggests, that the bulletin released by the Australian Statistician today shows that the CPI increase for the March quarter was down to 1.9 per cent from an increase of 2.9 per cent for the December quarter-a fall of one full percentage point between quarters. Not only is this a very good number for Australia generally but it vindicates what the Government has been saying-that the effect of the size of the depreciation, its impact on prices and the speed of the impact is now being washed out of the system as quickly as it came into the system. The result is that the CPI is now falling markedly and quickly. This is pretty consistent with what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said in its survey of about a month ago-that by the end of 1987-88 we could expect an inflation rate, on these numbers, of about 6 per cent. As we move through the year and the large figure for the September quarter 1986 falls out of the year 2 numbers and then the December quarter figure of 2.9 per cent falls out of the year 2 numbers, the year 2 inflation figure will start falling, reflecting the kind of fall which we have seen today. Again I make the point that this is totally on track with the Government's forecast. It means the Government's strategy is working; that its wage policy is delivering the goods; and that Australia will be left with a much more competitive economy as a result of the short term costs of a burst of inflation which government policy has now addressed and is washing from the system. It is interesting that, despite the release of the CPI figures today, there have been no questions from the Opposition about the matter. Opposition members ask questions only when they think there is a bad number. If it is a good number it is public disinformation from the Statistician, but if it is a bad number the Opposition is not silent about it. This time it is a good number for Australia. Those opposite are always looking for higher inflation and higher interest rates and anything which they think will help their miserable political chances. The fact is that the Government is looking for value, piloting Australia through a period of renewed competitiveness and prosperity and bringing the inflation rate down. This fall is very much on track and in the groove with government policy and must be a further disquieting fact to the lonely people on the other side of the House. Mr WHITE —This is a special question for the Treasurer. It is not addressed to the Minister for Science. I refer to the case of Mrs Rita Derek, who has been fined $861 for the late lodgment of her taxation return in 1984-85, despite being owed money and subsequently being refunded $2,521. Can the Minister explain how Mrs Derek was fined and yet the Treasurer, who was in the same situation, was not fined and could say on the Channel 9 Sunday program of 5 April: `They owed me money and of course I was not fined'? Mr KEATING —I am glad that those opposite are back on to the big issues. I say to them: `Yap on, because you are staying right where you are'. I said often in the House, as the honourable gentleman knows, that this matter depends upon a taxpayer's record-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Moreton. Mr KEATING —As well as whether a taxpayer is in credit. In my case, I was in credit. I had not received-I am trying to remember the term for it-the first demand of the Australian Taxation Office, which I might mention is sent to 900,000 taxpayers a year. I was not in that category, and because I was not and I was in credit I had no fine to meet. Mr JOHN BROWN —I wish to add to an answer I gave yesterday to the honourable member for McPherson. I am quite happy to answer the question but I was not quite sure of the answer yesterday and did not want to give the honourable member inaccurate information. But I am pleased to tell the House that, as usual, he was wrong. Honourable members will not be surprised about that-he was wrong again. He asked me about the earnings of professional sportsmen resident in Australia playing sport overseas. The answer simply is that the tournament winnings of Australian resident sportsmen playing overseas are taxed as personal services income. This means that while tax is payable in Australia credit is received for any tax, for example, withholding tax, payable in the foreign country in the case of all countries with whom we have a double tax treaty-and that involves almost all the developed countries. Mr White —They have to pay again. Mr JOHN BROWN —They do not pay again. They get a credit for the tax that they pay overseas. Mr White —But they still have to pay again on the money they bring in. Mr JOHN BROWN —They do not have to pay again at all. I will give the honourable member the full answer in writing. He is wrong again. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 52 of the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979, I present the annual report and financial statements of the National Companies and Securities Commission, together with the Auditor-General's report, for 1985-86. I move: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —On behalf of the Minister for Education, and for the information of the House, I present the report of the Higher Education Administration Charge Monitoring Committee. Limited copies of the report are available from the Bills and Papers Office and the Parliamentary Library. Printed stocks are expected to be delivered tomorrow. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 40 of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1986, I present the annual report-the last annual report as it happens-of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board for 1985-86. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 Government to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest,Mr Fife,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Nehl and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Ms Jakobsen,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 a 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 in duty bound will ever pray the Government grant this request now. by Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Cross and Mr Snow. 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 consider the 2 per cent discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on the 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 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 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 Cowan,Mr Nehl and Mr Sharp. 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 family spouse. 4. Amend the Family Income Supplement Scheme so that its value is increased, its eligibility provisions widened and its withdrawal provisions eased. by Mr Bilney and Mr Peter Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposal to establish memorials to peace, the so-called Aboriginal War and anti-war activists and other left wing causes at the Australian War Memorial at Canberra would desecrate the Memorial as a fitting and solemn monument to those who served in Australia's Armed Forces and to those who died in defence of their country. Your Petitioners humbly pray the House of Representatives acts to prevent anything which would desecrate the nation's memorial to Australia's former servicemen and women and war dead. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Conquest and Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, wish to register our opposition to the recent introduction of the administrative charge for higher education students because: 1. the annual administration charge will inevitably 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 charge is ill-conceived and unfairly penalises part-time students, age pensioners and Austudy/Abstudy beneficiaries-who, in many cases have to wait for months for reimbursement of the charge-amongst others. 4. the imposition of the 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 annual administrative charge for higher education students be immediately withdrawn and that subsequent funding shortfalls be met from general Government revenue. 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. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change in any way the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That, as a consequence of the Hawke Government's decision to introduce a two dollar coin in 1988, Whereas the introduction of a one dollar coin was only a twofold increase in the maximum value of coinage, the elimination of the two dollar note represents a five-fold increase before a note can be used. It will have taken eighteen years from decimalisation to go from the fifty cent piece as the highest value coin to a one dollar coin, but only a further four years to replace the two dollar note with a coin. The lowest value paper note will be five dollars, forcing a dramatic increase in the weight of coinage carried and dislocation of the retail industry. Many people, particularly the elderly, will mistake the value of the coin for that of another lower value coin just as many now confuse a one dollar coin with the ten cent piece. That the addition of two new coins in four years will lead to the removal of the one cent and two cent coins and this will accelerate the cost of living, particularly the cost of food where numerous items are involved and future price rises would need to be five cent increases on every item on every occasion. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the proposed two dollar coin not be proceeded with by the Hawke Government, and no future Government proceed with this proposal for several years. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respect- fully showeth: That the time taken of at least six to eight weeks to process applications for the Austudy tertiary allowance in Brisbane is intolerable and causes severe hardship and distress to many students. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government takes every action to minimise the delay in processing applications for the Austudy Tertiary Allowance and your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Cross. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned do respectfully showeth that pornographic material relating to children is deleterious to the health and welfare of children and society as a whole. We respectfully urge the Government to ban all child pornography from entering or from being produced in Australia. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ronald Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is a vicious, punitive tax that unjustly affects employers, will have a major impact on small business and farm profitability, and will result in increased unemployment. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Repeal the legislation establishing the Fringe Benefits Tax And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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 workforce. 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National flag. 2. They are aware in 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 geographic location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your Petitions 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 every pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows that Raoul Wallenberg was arrested by the Russians in Budapest on January 17th, 1945. He has been sighted on numerous occasions since, the last in 1986. Your petitioners pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should approach the Soviet Foreign Minister to seek the release of Raoul Wallenberg and his return to Sweden. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. And, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilizing nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government-(a) take new initiatives to encourage all member states of the United Nations-especially the Governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All federal members of Parliament and senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. by Mr Simmons. 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 the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the 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. The Honourable Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We, the undersigned, being aware of the parlous state of the building and housing industry in Australia arising from interest rates which are much higher than those current in comparable nations of the western world, do hereby urge the speedy implementation of tax free deposit investment funds to be allocated for housing known colloquially as ``Granny Bonds'' to assist the housing industry by the immediate allocation of cheaper interest housing loans. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speakers and Members of the House of Representative in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Benefits of War Widows have been altered, and they no longer receive Pharmaceutical Benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is causing great concern and hardship, as quite a lot of their medications are no longer available, and nothing to replace them on National Health. They are now required to pay large amounts to obtain their medications, just to stay alive. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Honour its commitment to these War Widows by returning their Veterans Affairs Pharmeceutical Benefits to them immediately, and to refrain from worrying these ageing widows any further by tampering with our Veteran Affairs Act and breaking all promises made to our husbands. 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: 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. 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 students in Appropriation Bill 1986-87 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We, the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-1987, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. by Mr Staples. Petitions received. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The continuing fall in living standards of farming families, small business people and those living in regional Australia. 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 HUNT(Gwydir)(2.55) —Although the most recent Bureau of Agricultural Economics surveys suggest that there has been a slight upturn in the prospects for the rural industries, mainly due to the increased prices for wool and meat and a better situation in the livestock industries, a serious financial and social crisis exists throughout large areas of agricultural Australia. The average income per farmer for this financial year will be about $9,300, which is up from $7,100 last year, but is down from $9,700 in 1984-85. That is still less than half average weekly earnings in this country. Our farmers have suffered throughout the 1980s with four years of drought followed by four years of low income. This year half our farms will have incomes of less than $12,000 and 25 per cent of Australian farm families will lose at least $4,700-a minus income of $4,700. This will occur in significant parts of regional Australia. The real rate of return on capital will be minus 6.9 per cent on average across all farm industries. Problems are especially serious for the wheat and cereal growers. Last year land values fell 30 per cent on average across the entire wheat-sheep zone. I accept that there have been falls in world commodity prices, especially for grains. I welcome the decision of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to send an all-party delegation to Washington, but I just hope that it is not too late. I am concerned that the delegation will not be led by a Minister. That is no reflection upon the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) as a member of this House, but at least there should be a ministerial head of this delegation. It is time for this Parliament to accept the real cause of the crisis that is plaguing the Australian economy-and that is the domestic economic policy being conducted by this Government. We have seen farm debt explode from $5.5 billion in 1983, when this Government assumed office, to $12 billion today. Interest rates are now treble those of our competitors. The prime rate is now 10 per cent above that of the United States of America and in 1981 it was 5 per cent below. I think that that speaks volumes for what is going wrong in this country and how this Government is leading us to a crisis. I refer not only to the farm sector, but also to small business and those people who have to rely on borrowings in this market. Government-induced inflation and record high interest rates are discriminating not only against farmers but also against people generally in rural areas. In our country towns we have young people who are struggling to buy homes at record interest rates. We have had a prolonged farm downturn and high interest rates are strangling small businesses in these regional areas. In my own electorate and in those of most honourable members who represent rural constituencies in this Parliament, we are seeing a record number of bankruptcies, of service industries going broke and closing down and farm machinery firms having to close their doors. Mr Braithwaite —Absolutely scandalous. Mr HUNT —It is a scandalous state of affairs. We have immense job insecurity and high unemployment in our towns. In fact in rural areas we have some of the highest unemployment levels and for many thousands of workers existing jobs are insecure. The independent survey which was conducted by the Land newspaper earlier this year underlines severe economic problems that many farmers are experiencing, especially in the wheat and cereal growing regions. The survey revealed grave facts about the ability of farmers to cope with record debt, record interest rates and inflation. There is no doubt that thousands will not survive. So 1987 will be one of the most critical years since the Great Depression in the sheep-wheat belts of this country. Earlier this year I laid down a farm survival strategy. I had hoped in all sincerity that the Government would have picked up at least some of the points of that strategy, but it chose to ignore it. It chose to ignore the call I made for a joint debt crisis meeting between the banks, those Ministers responsible for rural adjustment agencies and representatives of the farmer organisations. There have been some ad hoc meetings, but there is no strategy. The mini-Budget is awaited with some interest. Those people who are suffering from these crippling interest rates are hoping for large cuts in government expenditure to enable substantial falls in interest rates. Indeed, the National Farmers Federation's call for spending cuts of $10 billion this year should not be dismissed. I heard today that the National Farmers Federation sought an interview with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and other Ministers responsible for economic policy in this country and has been refused the opportunity to speak to them. If that is true, it is an outrageous state of affairs. It is a slap in the face, not just for the Farmers Federation but also for the hundreds of thousands of people whom it represents as a peak council body. The Government today virtually rubbished the Industries Assistance Commission's findings and the National Farmers Federation's proposal for the abolition of, or at least a substantial reduction in, fuel excise. Even if two-thirds of the present excise were slashed it would not bring excise back to what it was when the Hawke Labor Government came to office in 1983. Mr McGauran —That is how bad it is. Mr HUNT —That is how bad it is. I remind honourable members and the people of Australia that when this Government came to office in 1983 the level of fuel excise was 6.1c a litre but today it is nearly 19c a litre. This Government has increased its revenue receipts from excise on fuel from $1.3 billion to $5.6 billion and has intercepted the fall in world fuel prices. Heavy cuts in fuel excise would address the central problem of farming in country areas generally, with the twin devils of inflation and interest rates. In November last year the IAC concluded that excises are too high and should be reduced. A further quotation from its report states: This implies forgoing a significant amount of government revenue . . . This, of course, would reduce interest rates and inflation. The NFF has advanced this proposal, and I am amazed that no serious consideration has been given to it. The principal objective of this approach is to cut overall government spending and sources of revenue from the Australian people. The Government must be prepared to forgo revenue in the agricultural area, such as the imposition of the tariff that still remains on a wide range of farm machinery, spare parts and agricultural and veterinary chemicals. This Government has imposed a sales tax on oils and lubricants used on-farm. It has increased export inspection charges to producers by nearly 200 per cent. Surely, in our hour of crisis it should at least abandon export inspection charges and put our producers in a competitive position on the world markets with our competitors who do not have to pay these sorts of charges. The rural statement of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) of 15 April last year has been a miserable failure. It skirted around the edges of the problem. Now we have the Minister, who I regret is not here today, blaming other nations, previous governments, Cabinet colleagues and farmer groups-everybody but himself and his Government. Mr Rocher —Scapegoatism. Mr HUNT —`Scapegoatism' is a good comment. According to a recent article in the Bulletin he said that farmers do not understand the Australian Labor Party's message. He said that farmers prefer simple answers because they are under stress. This is an outrageous state of affairs-treating farmers as fools, showing total contempt for his ministerial constituency. Labor has badly failed the people living in regional Australia. Economic policy strategies have bled the rural areas dry to protect the trade union constituency from the full effect of Australia's devastating loss of competitiveness. The external debt is now probably closer to $110 billion, which has trebled in the four years of the Hawke Labor Government. The debt rests on the shoulders of the Australian people, not the Government. In the past two years, with the help of Major-General John Whitelaw, we have developed policies designed to relieve farmers of the government-imposed cost burdens. We recognise that farming accounts for 60 per cent of Australia's net foreign exchange. One Australian worker in four depends directly or indirectly on agriculture. The multiplier factor of agricultural production is 4 to 5. Let people not forget that this country still depends very heavily upon the farm sector of the economy. Ninety-three per cent of our farms are family owned. They are efficient, low production cost units-probably the lowest in the world. There is enormous untapped potential, especially for the export markets. We so badly need export income. There is a necessity to encourage investment in the semi-processing and processing of products. It is essential to foster research into alternative cropping systems, the use of new technology, enhanced marketing, packaging, presentation and quality preservation techniques and improvements in transport and handling efficiencies. If there is to be any chance of a rural recovery there must be a more effective balance between monetary, fiscal and wages policies, with an exchange rate that reflects more accurately the financial, trading and market realities. The nation requires an incentive-oriented taxation policy which eases taxes on essential inputs such as fuel used in primary production, which makes major reductions in marginal income tax and corporate tax rates, and which abolishes Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax and assets test. There must be an attack on tariff protection, recognising that Australian manufacturing enjoys treble the average protection rate of the Australian agricultural sector. There is a need for an efficient, effective, fast acting, anti-dumping mechanism. There must be an urgent review of the operations of both coastal and overseas shipping to reduce fertiliser costs, for example. There must be a greater flexibility and competition in international air freight services. There is a need to maintain underwriting arrangements where they are appropriate. This Government must commit itself to maintaining the existing arrangements for wool promotion and encourage other industries to promote on the world markets. There is a need for consultation with the banks, the rural adjustment agencies and the farmer organisations to develop more flexible arrangements with States on rural adjustment and to provide additional funds if this is required to meet the crisis. Country Australia is in crisis. Many farms are unable to cope with record interest repayments on record debt. Farmers are losing equity but are unable to sell because no buyers want to come into the market. There is a tremendous pressure on the small businesses in all our country towns. Employees in country towns are facing increasing uncertainty and are all battling against the huge interest repayments, with the inflation rate four times the world average. Nowhere is the economic crisis being felt more than in rural Australia. Unless urgent actions are taken quickly-I hope they are taken in the May mini-Budget-there will be a major collapse in the farming areas and, therefore, enormous social stress amongst thousands of families that are already wondering whether they have any future. This Government has a lot to answer for. This Government is destroying the confidence, the will and the incentive of the producing sector of the Australian economy. It is about time it woke up, and it is about time the Treasurer stopped treating the Australian people as fools. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(3.10) —The allegation in the matter of public importance before the House today about a continuing fall in the living standards of farming families is basically just not true. Many of the assertions that have just been put forward by the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt)-I suppose it is the National Party, or what is left of it-are based on false premises. I noted the reference to the request for a meeting with the National Farmers Federation and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The honourable member for Gwydir is out of touch not only with the actions of this Government and what it has done to restore the situation for rural Australia but also with the organisations that members opposite purport to represent. I understand that Mr McLachlan is here in Parliament House at the moment to discuss with the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) the very matter that the honourable member has raised-namely, the delegation to the United States Congress and to Ottawa. I start by dealing with a number of the suggestions that have been made. I refer first to the question of what is the problem that faces not only rural Australia but all of Australia. That problem results from, above all, a decline in terms of trade, and it comes about through Australia's having over many years put too many eggs in too few baskets. When honourable members opposite were in government they allowed Australia to move to a situation in which too many of our eggs were in too few baskets. We have relied on too few commodities to sell to the world. We now find that commodities are in oversupply and that world markets will no longer pay the same prices. Members opposite will not talk about price in any of their discussions. They will talk about costs and all sorts of other factors, such as cutting government expenditure, but they will not talk about prices. They continue to avoid the fact that the world will no longer pay prices that were paid previously. Mr Ian Cameron —We know that. Mr O'KEEFE —The honourable member for Maranoa, part of the Queensland rump, interjects just as I was about to mention this very point: I cannot help referring right now to the actions of the Queensland Premier in trying to drum up another industrial dispute in Queensland in the coal industry. Here we are as a nation, faced with the potential of a trade war between Japan and the United States of America, and the Premier of Queensland is out there trying to drum up industrial disputation when Australia has done so much to convince the world that we are now a reliable supplier of key commodities. It is treacherous. It is bordering on treason for the honourable member's leader to be doing what he is doing. He is not only splitting up the Liberals and the Nationals, destroying the coalition and rendering the Opposition a useless rabble, but he is now also moving into the field of trying to destroy our credibility as a supplier of a key commodity. So, my friend the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) should not come in here and interject in a debate as important as this. Let us talk about the real position in relation to rural and provincial Australia. I am a member of the Prime Minister's country task force. It is led by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), who will lead the delegation to the United States Congress and to Ottawa in three weeks' time. This is an important delegation, and it is directing itself at the very problem faced by this nation-that is, the potential of a trade war developing between the United States, the European Economic Community and Japan, and the implications that that holds for our country as a small and independent supplier of goods in that broader sphere. We are facing an incredibly important issue at an incredibly important time in our evolution as a trading nation. We now must face these problems. Many of us in this place would be aware of the resolution that was carried last night in the United States House of Representatives. I refer to the Gephardt amendment, which ups the ante. These matters have to be faced seriously, and not by way of nonsense debate such as that which honourable members opposite have raised today. It is a nonsense debate. The simple fact of the matter is that this Government has addressed seriously the issues of rural Australia, through the county task force and a number of policy measures. For example, the introduction of the economic and rural policy announced by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) last year has taken us down the road. Members opposite are always coming into this House and quoting statistics from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, but the latest figures from the Bureau, published on 9 April-and obviously honourable members opposite have not bothered to look at these, otherwise they would not have raised this matter today-clearly predict that the farm cash operating surplus this year will increase by 30 per cent. That is a simple fact put forward not by the Government but by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. This result is because we are enjoying, in relation to a number of our commodities, very buoyant circumstances-and the honourable member for Maranoa knows that very well. In the grain area, in particular, we have problems, and we all know that, but in a number of commodity areas we are doing much better. In a number of these areas we have managed to reduce farm costs in many ways, and through the efforts of the Government and its trade actions we have been able to secure at least a holding position in some of the relevant world markets. It is just nonsense to come in here and put forward a proposition that rural Australia is suffering a decline in living standards. It is true that in some of our commodity areas farm values are down-of course they are. We on the country task force have been out talking to people. We have been in the back blocks of Western Australia and we have been in Queensland and Victoria. We have come face to face with it. It just happens to be a fact that the members of this Government who represent rural constituencies represent more country people than does, say, the honourable member for Maranoa, and we happen to be in a lot closer touch with them than are members opposite. It is all right to come in here and preach agroeconomics and talk about the combines, but I suggest to members opposite that they go off and talk to the Elliotts and McLachlans, who do things like threatening to take their business off-shore. They do not give a bugger about Australia; they are more concerned about their after-tax profits in their own pockets. We are the people who are having to come to grips with the real issues. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I call on the honourable member for Burke to ensure that he sticks to parliamentary language. Mr O'KEEFE —Yes, I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will take that on board. This Government is a government for all Australians, and before coming to office we had developed a comprehensive set of policies covering Australia's primary industries and rural and provincial affairs. Since we have been in government, we have been developing these policies further, and we are making substantial progress in their implementation-and that cannot be denied. Here in the House today, the Treasurer spoke of today's inflation figures. We have all seen the turn-around in our trade figures that is occurring, and in relation to rural and provincial Australia, nowhere is it more important to manage to get interest rates down and we will be getting interest rates down, we will manage to turn around our trade figures, and we will manage to maintain some equity and fairness in the distribution of the effects of the problems that now face Australia. What I say to members opposite is this: They were the people responsible for the decimation of Australia's manufacturing industry; they were the people responsible for putting a million Australians on the unemployment scrap-heap; and they were the people responsible for the trade policies and the agricultural policies that have left us as a nation so badly exposed, with the eggs in so few baskets. We have addressed those issues and we are now encouraging not only our manufacturing sector but also our agricultural sector to move to new products that do have prospects in world markets. As has been outlined in the economic and rural policy statement, we are improving our prospects in many areas. Some of the points raised by the honourable member for Gwydir in opening the discussion are true. We do have to do more to deregulate the airline industry, to give more access for fast freight of many of our products, such as fresh fruits, to other markets and we are taking action along these lines. But to suggest that there has been a decline in the average living standards of farming families is just not true. What has happened is that Australia has lost, in current day terms, $9 billion from its annual average income from the decline in the terms of trade. No country can have $9 billion cut off its income without the loss having to be spread. The real challenge that faces this Government is that of making sure that that decline in national income is spread fairly and equitably. Had honourable members opposite been in government people who lost their jobs would have been left to stay in that area and we would still have been badly exposed through reliance on so few commodities. It is not true to suggest that the actions of this Government have not been very significant in spreading that burden fairly. In the little time I have left to me I want to say that in the area of rural and provincial affairs we have also acted to equalise, as far as possible, the services available to both country and city residents, and this is respected by people in the country. For the first time they understand that this is a government for all Australians. It is not a government of special sectional interests and not a government that is split apart, being ruled by some madman from Queensland on the one hand and with some business leader in Melbourne dictating policies on the other, but a government for all Australians. That is recognised. It is recognised that the special welfare needs of farmers are being addressed. We have recognised, and responded humanely to, some dreadful situations. We have seen people, particularly in the cereal industry, who have experienced declines in farm incomes which have left them with family incomes of less than the unemployment benefit-people living in poverty in some rural areas. What we have done is change the conditions for qualification for benefits from the Department of Social Security. We have taken steps to ensure that those families get income support and all the supplementary benefits that are available. The next thing honourable members opposite will be doing is running around calling those people dole bludgers. They will call their own farmers who are receiving unemployment benefits dole bludgers. I have heard honourable members opposite do it. We will not cop that sort of stuff. We will maintain a humane, consistent and fair approach for every Australian. We have recognised these special welfare needs and, through the rural adjustment scheme and other schemes, we have been working to bring about a fair and equitable spread of the burden. Finally, in the past Australian governments have responded to successive rural recessions in a largely ad hoc manner. Some of these responses have been of assistance to the rural community and have become part of the fabric of farm policy. Others have been ineffective for any purpose other than increasing opinion poll ratings in rural areas. That is not what we are about. What we are about is a fair and equitable and a strong and tough approach to world trade, and I commend the honourable member for McMillan, leader of the Prime Minister's country task force, for the work that he has done in this area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(3.25) —It is a great privilege for me to speak to this matter of public importance today. Unfortunately, I believe that the wording should be `all Australians' because, since this socialist Labor Government came to office, all Australians' living standards have fallen substantially. There is not one Australian who has not suffered a loss in living standards. But the Treasurer (Mr Keating) says that there is nothing wrong with the value of the Australian dollar. He should try to leave Australia and spend our dollars and see how much he can buy for the dollar that is put in our pockets today. It is worth US70c. Three years ago it was worth US$1.40. The Treasurer should try going anywhere overseas and see what he can buy with our Australian dollar today. It is an absolute disgrace. That is the sort of situation the farmers of Australia are in. It is all very well to talk about trade and the rural crisis task force wandering around in the deserts of Australian unemployment and bankrupt farmers. The Government has done absolutely nothing. The honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) was praising the consultation services that his Government set up. If it were a decent government it would not have to set up any consultation services. That is the sort of position that the Government has put the farming community of Australia in. It is a disgrace. Government members should resign. It is a pleasure for me to speak in this chamber today on behalf of the National Party of Australia. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) is its spokesman for primary industry and I have been appointed as his assistant in this area of importance to Australia. It is important for the people of Australia to understand the emphasis that the National Party places on the farming community and the primary industry of this country. We still ride on the sheep's back. I do not care what anybody says; the standard of living of every Australian depends on the cost inputs and the profits that the Australian farmers can make for the rest of Australia. That has always been the case and it will continue to be the case. We must make every effort to see that the farming communities of this country have the best government-not the sort of socialist ratbag government typified by the Treasurer here today when he completely contradicted himself when he had to get up and support another Minister. It was an absolute disgrace. The Government has to have two Ministers at the microphone answering any one question we put up to it-and it tries to tell us it is a government. It is not worth voting for. There is no way in the world honourable members opposite will stay in government after the next election. Let us get it clear: The sooner we have an election the better because that means the sooner we will defeat the Government. We will get this country back on the tracks. We will get the farmers, the businessmen and the people of this country who generate the wealth-- Mr McGauran —National Party members. Mr IAN CAMERON —The National Party is the best party on the conservative side of politics in Australia. We are here specialising in the needs of the farmers and trying to do something about improving their living standards. Mr Deputy Speaker, it should not need me to tell you and the House that the price of grain has fallen by half since this Labor Government came to office. The price of wheat is down now. The current guaranteed minimum price, which the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) announced recently, is down to $130 a tonne. The taxpayers of this country for the first time will have to contribute $200m to the wheat industry to keep it in some sort of operating mode-just to keep it in operation. The f.o.b. price of sorghum today is $96 a tonne. When one takes off freight costs this amount is down to $75 a tonne. Two years ago we were receiving $135 a tonne. We cannot continue to produce the products that we are trying to sell if these are the sorts of prices we get. That is why we plead with the Government to reduce some of the costs that this Government is imposing through increases in taxation, through capital gains taxes and fuel taxes and so on. It never stops. The farm debt has gone from $5.5 billion up to $12 billion since the Labor Government came to office. It is a shocking setup. Of course, this Government has done away with all the tax deductions that we had to try to continue to keep our capital base in some sort of shape. There is no tax deduction for water improvements, fencing or soil conservation-for a whole range of things. Tax deductibility has been decreased, and we are seeing the capital base rapidly diminish. Of course, the main thing that has affected farmers has been the cost of fuel. This is something which I have taken a great interest in and I will continue to do so. The Government is now collecting $5.6 billion from fuel excise. The excise rate is now 18.7c per litre which is an increase of 40 per cent in four years. Overall, the fuel excise has gone from 6.1c to 18.7c a litre which is an increase of 300 per cent. We heard the hypocrisy of the Treasurer this afternoon when he was asked a question concerning fuel. He accused the Fraser Government of introducing parity pricing. The Fraser Government certainly did that, but I never supported it and never will. I certainly do not support the policies of this current Government because it has done absolutely nothing to reduce the cost of fuel to farmers and industry in this country. Mr O'Keefe —What about the consumption tax? Mr IAN CAMERON —There will not be any consumption tax. Of course, fuel costs are affecting people. It has to be understood that not only is diesel used extensively but also petrol. Forty per cent of all fuel used is petrol and this is costing farmers a considerable amount. It is not only farmers who are paying dearly for fuel. Other rural families throughout Australia are also paying dearly. It is the intention of the National Party of Australia, when it is in government after the next election, to abolish the indexation of the fuel excise. We have a ridiculous situation where this Labor Government has imposed an automatic increase in fuel excise every six months. It is a disastrous situation. Mr O'Keefe —Where are you going to get the money from? Mr IAN CAMERON —We will slash government expenditure, do away with some of the bureaucracy, and get this country up and running again. It is also our intention to abolish the sales tax on greases and oils which the Labor Government introduced at great cost to us. We also expect to reintroduce the fuel freight subsidy scheme which previous governments introduced. It has helped to flatten out the cost of fuel across Australia. We want to see some equality in the prices to help us produce the products that we are expected to export and to maintain the standard of living in this country. Before I finish I would like to support the Queensland Government's industrial legislation. Honourable members opposite talk about strikes and they talk about the workers. Unionists at the Glebe Island grain terminals have been on strike, on and off, for the last 20 years at enormous cost to the grain industry of this country. It is an absolute disgrace. The National Party fully supports Premier Bjelke-Petersen's new industrial legislation in Queensland. If we do not have it we will not be exporting essential products. We will not be exporting any coal to maintain our living standards and we will not be exporting any grain, sorghum, cotton or wool if we allow the unionist and the labour forces in this country to dictate policies. We will get nowhere. The National Party gives 100 per cent support to the new industrial relations policy of Bjelke-Petersen's National Party Government. We will be using that legislative policy when we are elected to government at the next election. We will make sure that output in essential industries and the living standards of this country are increased by ensuring that everybody does a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. Farmers are sick of working long hours every day for the bludgers in this country. It is time that every Australian did a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. Ms FATIN(Brand)(3.35) —I inform the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) that three years ago the Australian dollar was actually worth 82c against the United States dollar, not $1.40 as he suggested. I also mention that this matter of public importance today actually addresses itself to the living standards of farming families, small business people and those living in regional areas. In the few minutes that I have today I will address myself to those issues. Firstly, the Government acknowledges that there has been an economic downturn in the rural sector in Australia. But as commodity prices turn around, as they are doing now, for wool, sugar and beef, the economic fortunes of rural and regional Australia will return. The Government has not been idle in this matter. We have had, and we will continue to have, high level discussions with our trading partners. I would like to remind the House that earlier this year the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) addressed an international business meeting in Davos, Switzerland; the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) visited Europe to talk with a number of European Economic Community countries; the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) intends shortly to visit Washington for the second time this year to talk to the Administration and the Congress on trade matters, particularly trade of our primary industry products; and, as has already been mentioned today by my colleague the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), an all-party delegation will be going from this Parliament to Washington to lobby our counterparts there. I have the honour of being one of three Labor Government members to be on that delegation and I will be using the experience that I have gained as a member of the Prime Minister's rural task force and as a member representing my rural electorate in Western Australia when I am in Washington. Only yesterday the Minister for Trade stressed the importance of establishing parliament to parliament contact in swaying congressional opinion on agricultural provisions of the trade omnibus Bill currently under debate in Washington. I think all Australians, particularly those in rural Australia, would agree with the Minister. We anticipate that our delegation will have a degree of success in its contacts with the congressional men and women. The matter of public importance today also refers specifically to living standards in rural and regional Australia, yet the National Party of Australia has absolutely no policies for regional Australia. The fact is that regional Australia has greatly benefited from the policies of the Hawke Labor Government. Most importantly, the very great economic recovery that we have seen under this Government has been equally shared between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. Both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas have experienced job growth of about 12 per cent since we came to office and this is despite the downturn that has occurred in farm conditions as a result of the international agricultural trade war. My State of Western Australia has the lowest rate of non-metropolitan unemployment of any State in Australia-that is, 6.7 per cent as at February 1987. This is well below the unemployment rate in Perth. While non-metropolitan unemployment is higher than city rates of other States, this is due to a more rapid labour force growth in country areas and employment growth has been the same. Of course, we should not forget that the National Party's performance in Queensland, which has a non-metropolitan unemployment rate of 11.8 per cent as at February this year, is well above the national average. Under this Government country residents are taking their place in Australian national life like never before. The matter of public importance today also refers to small business people in rural Australia. The Government's small business policies have helped, and will continue to help, small business in rural Australia and we have taken a wide range of initiatives to help these men and women. Today I would like to refer to some of these initiatives because they are quite significant. I refer first to initiatives in the area of finance. In 1984 we introduced the management and investment companies program to provide a taxation incentive for investment in young, small, technologically innovative enterprises with high growth potential. We have strengthened the capacity of the Australian Industry Development Corporation to promote the restructuring, revitalisation and Australian ownership of industry and to continue as a major source of risk capital for start-up and expansion of small businesses. There has been deregulation of the Australian banking sector, including the removal of interest rate controls on loans under $100,000, which encourages banks to offer more innovative financial packages at reasonable cost and helps to enhance the availability of finance for small business. There has been a review of the Commonwealth Development Bank, which specialises in small business finance, to enable the bank to undertake equity investments. In other areas of initiative, let us look at taxation. There has been reform of the Australian taxation system, announced in September 1985, to improve the fairness of the system and encourage investment in productive activities. There has been the introduction from 1987-88 of a system of full imputation of company dividends to ensure that income generated by small private companies is taxed once and at a reduced rate. I would like to give a little more detail of this initiative because it is very important and very significant to the small business people in rural Australia. Mr Ian Cameron —We pay income tax, indirect tax and fuel tax. It is driving us broke. Ms FATIN —I hope that the honourable member for Maranoa will listen to what I am about to say. This new system, known as full imputation, means that profits will be taxed once at the company level but not a second time at the personal level when those profits are distributed as dividends. It is a revolutionary change for business as well as for ordinary shareholders and gives Australia one of the most advanced and efficient business tax regimes in the world. The combination of the personal income tax rate cuts, imputation and other complementary changes will result in reductions in the tax burden for shareholders and small business people by up to 40 per cent. This is an enormous benefit to the entire community, but particularly for business people who own their own companies and those who invest their savings in the share market. There has been a reduction in personal income tax rates in two stages from 1 December 1986 and again on 1 July this year. In the short time I have available I shall not be able to talk of the initiatives for small business in the area of regulation, advisory services, technology and innovation, research and development, export development, education and training, consultation and recognition of excellence by giving annual national small business awards. We also have a significant number of policy options, but in the last few moments of this debate I would like to mention another initiative. Mr Ian Cameron —Hawke as Prime Minister would not even present them. What are you on about? Ms FATIN —Despite what the National Party says, rural families are the Government's concern. Farming families and families in regional centres and towns are our concern and are represented well in this place by Labor members. An example of how they are our concern is the survey on rural women. This was a survey that Miss Dorothy Ross of the Country Women's Association raised with the Office of the Status of Women and which the Prime Minister agreed to conduct. The survey has been conducted and the results will be made available within a month. This shows the problems and concerns of the women, the men and the families in rural Australia, on the farms and in the rural centres. We are concerned about their problems. We have gone out there to find out what those problems are. We will bring those problems to this Parliament and address them, as we have done in the past. We will be concerned about families' health, education, welfare and all other matters that they may raise in that program. The Government will continue to acknowledge and recognise the importance of rural Australia, the men, women and children who live on the farms and in the towns and cities-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 270th report of the Committee, Implementation of the Offsets Program. Ordered that the report be printed. Dr THEOPHANOUS —by leave-I wish to make a short statement in connection with the report. This report presents the findings of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts inquiry into the implementation of the offsets program, which I had the privilege to chair. In 1984 the Auditor-General and an independent committee, chaired by Sir Brian Inglis, carried out reviews of the offsets program. It was the acceptance by the Government of the majority of recommendations in the latter report that was the basis for the decision in January 1986 to make significant and fundamental changes to the offsets program. It is in this light that the Committee has conducted its own inquiry into the program. The basic objectives were to examine progress on recent amendments to the program and to recommend whether further action or attention is necessary. The main thrust of the Committee's findings centres on four main points. First, as the offsets program impacts on only a small section of Australian industry, the Committee considers it essential that Australian participation in the program be increased, both by increasing the number of Australian firms, particularly smaller firms, participating in the program, and by ensuring that overseas firms fulfil the offset obligation fully and in the agreed period. Secondly, the issue of how technology transfer is valued when claimed as an offset is of concern to the Committee. Thirdly, a number of administrative matters were examined and the Committee has made recommendations concerning the dual administration of the program, lack of consultative mechanisms and administrative discretion. Finally, the Committee is very concerned at the inadequate record-keeping of the offsets authorities and at the distinct possibility that some outstanding obligations have not been fulfilled because of those poor records. In an effort to increase Australian participation in the offsets program, the Committee urges the Departments of Defence and Industry, Technology and Commerce, which are the two administering departments, to increase the visibility of the program's administration, formally liaise with industry, publicise actual offset arrangements and disseminate information to assist participants, including data on local and overseas industry. Technology transfer as an offset receives considerable emphasis under the new guidelines. The valuation of technology is an area that the Committee considers has major potential for abuse. The Committee's recommendation is that as many valuations as possible should be based on a real work outcome for Australia from that technology transfer, rather than a resort to merely notional valuations. The Departments of Defence and Industry, Technology and Commerce have been jointly responsible for the administration of the offsets program since late 1984. The uniform administration of the program is very important. However, the Committee is concerned that the overall program is seemingly being implemented as two separate programs despite joint efforts such as the publication of common guidelines for participants. The Committee believes it needs to be resolved, preferably by the two departments, whether the administrative role can reside solely within the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce whilst maintaining suitable links with defence industry policy. A common concern expressed to the Committee was that the guidelines issued leave too much room for interpretation and judgment by the offsets authorities. The Committee is of the view that the current level of administrative discretion needs to be clarified and recommends a more rigorous set of guidelines, detailed and public registers of precedents, thorough and independent assessment prior to negotiations and comprehensive procedure manuals for staff. In conclusion, as Chairman of the sub-committee, I thank, in particular, the other members of the sub-committee who worked very hard to produce this report in almost record time. I also thank Ian Penrose and Karin Malmburg for their very hard work on this report. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-I wish to speak briefly to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts report `Implementation of the Offsets Program'. I was a party to the report which is a very important document reviewing the implementation of this program. It is incumbent upon honourable members to understand that it has enormous potential for Australia and it is a program which, at this time, is grossly under-utilised. The report produces evidence about the nature of that shortcoming on which I intend to elaborate. At a time when Australia is seeking to overcome severe problems with its balance of payments, it is incumbent upon us to utilise every opportunity to ensure that manufacturing activity is able to take place in Australia. Many hundreds of millions of dollars of offsets obligations bring with them opportunities for Australian industry and every mechanism needs to be availed of to ensure that those opportunities are not lost to Australia. An indication of the size of the offsets program can be seen from the figures produced on page 2 of the Committee's report. The offsets commitment in the two areas for which there is ministerial responsibility is $1,215m for the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, known as DITAC, and $1,285m for the Department of Defence. Those obligations were incurred by DITAC between 1970 and 1986 and by the Department of Defence between 1980 and 1986. But, more importantly, in relation to each of those figures the outstanding obligations are $574m for DITAC and $910m for the Department of Defence. Those are not the only comments of the report on the extent of outstanding obligations. On page 57 of the report it is made clear that as at October 1986 DITAC still had $338m of offsets obligations for which no orders or work had commenced. I mentioned that the Department of Defence figures commenced collation in 1980 but there is no real or adequate information available about the extent to which there are outstanding obligations from before 1980. At paragraph 6.32 of the report, the Committee states: The Committee is extremely concerned that Defence has no record of offsets obligations entered into prior to 1980. The lack of records indicates that there is no requirement for any outstanding obligations from the period 1970-1980 to be fulfilled. By extrapolating from the figures provided by Defence for the period 1980-1986, it has been estimated that offsets obligations in the order of $2100 million could have been incurred in the period 1970-1980. It is of great concern to the Committee that neither an accurate figure for offset obligations, nor those that have been discharged, is available. If any method can be developed to allow scrutiny of those figures, Defence should report in the Finance Minute on both the method and the situation regarding outstanding amounts over the whole period 1970-to-date. I emphasise the extent of the problem. The two other aspects I want to address relate to ways and means in which these matters might be more satisfactorily dealt with over time because the Committee has made a large number of positive commitments and it has made recommendations to ensure that this program is utilised. One of the methods it suggests is by increased publication of the offset obligations. Paragraph 2.28 of the report states: The Committee concludes, first, that the withdrawal of the former publication on offsets obligations was an overreaction to the problem in presenting the data. It continues: . . . notwithstanding the fact that some information is confidential, there is scope for the authorities to publish more information concerning relevant overseas firms, including the scale of their outstanding obligations with suitable explanations, and the scope and nature of their offsets acquittal plans. This information should be consolidated into a directory and also be made available as an on-line computer system. It will provide local firms with a guide to the specific nature of available offsets opportunities thus enabling them to prepare and target their proposals more directly to supplier needs and enhancing their prospects of participating in the program. Perhaps it is not well known to many in Australian industry that these opportunities are available. The Committee suggested ways and means by which the Department might assist in making people aware of them and also assist those who are in the business of targeting those people with obligations and who are prepared to intervene to try to assist in bringing parties with commercial expertise in Australia in touch with those overseas which have obligations to establish appropriate industries in Australia. Paragraph 2.34 states: A somewhat different view is that the offsets program can be a useful tool for Australia's industrial development. It was suggested that a more deliberate approach should be taken in the matching of firms and in designating desired areas of offsets work. One example cited concerns a worthwhile collaborative venture amongst several overseas suppliers which is dependent on the initiative of the offsets authority. Paragraph 2.36 states: Because of the degree of market intervention, particularly overseas countries with equivalent programs, the Committee does not believe that market forces are sufficient on their own to ensure that all offsets work goes into potentially internationally competitive industries in Australia. Paragraph 2.37 states: The subject of intervention also prompted comments on offsets consultants and brokers. It was widely accepted that private firms operating in this relative complex field play a worthwhile role in arranging introductions as well as providing customary advisory and information services. DITAC said, `They are, in a sense, more power to our arm'. Both offsets authorities indicated that they encourage and assist specialist consultants, but provide them with no more information than what is readily available to others. The Committee endorsed the administrations' approach to offsets consultants and brokers. I would certainly hope that those involved in government will give every support and assistance to those who are prepared to give their time and effort with a view to ensuring that appropriate introductions are made. The final matter with which I want to deal is technology transfer. My colleague the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) who spoke before me on this matter on behalf of the Committee made it clear that it recognised that there were particular problems in the area of technology transfer and it came up with some recommendations to deal with them. In paragraph 5.62 the report states: The Committee considers that technology transfer should result in real work being generated within Australia. To that end it is of the strong view that if a notional valuation of technology is given at the time of technology transfer and it is transferred to a subsidiary or otherwise associated company of the overseas company, (ie not at arms length), then that valuation should be discounted. The Committee acknowledges that this is a very difficult and complex process, but it is not the preferred method of valuation. As a result, the Committee states: . . . that the program should be designed to ensure a real product outcome. The Committee recommends: When valuing technology transferred, the offset authorities should use: (i) paragraph 6.3 (9a) (iii) of the Guidelines for Participants ie `the selling price of all incremental sales of locally produced items derived from the technology over an agreed period.'; or, if this is not possible, (ii) a discounted valuation if a notional valuation of technology is given at the time of technology transfer and it is transferred to a subsidiary or otherwise associated company of the overseas company. The reason that we saw this as being particularly important was to ensure that in this difficult area involving people in a unique position to recommend what a valuation might be, that valuation should not be accepted simply at face value. We should recognise that people are not always in arm's length situations. The valuation should be very carefully arrived at. The valuation-which might be simply for transferring information, royalty agreements, or whatever-is one that, as against a real product outcome, ought to be a discounted value. We see that as being a particularly important recommendation in addressing the problem of technology transfer when Australia might not be over the long haul obtaining what it believes is appropriate for its national interest. It may be forgoing in effect a very significant and valuable offset commitment for something that will bring no real value to Australia over the longer haul. I offer these comments in a positive way in the hope that the offsets programs will be able to work more effectively in Australia's interest, so that it will create increased employment opportunities for Australians and so that it will assist significantly in overcoming our national balance of payments difficulties. I, like the Chairman, thank Ian Penrose and Karin Malmburg for their help and assistance in working up this report for the Committee. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987 National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill 1987 Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Land Acquisition Amendment Bill 1987 Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: That the following orders of the day, Government Business, be discharged: Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1986; second reading-Resumption of debate. Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986: second reading-Resumption of debate. Australian Stock Exchange and National Guarantee Fund Bill 1986: second reading-Resumption of debate. Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1986: second reading-Resumption of debate. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, for Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill continues the practice of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sitting of the Parliament as an expeditious way of making a large number of non-contentious amendments to legislation not otherwise being amended. Some of the amendments made by this Bill tidy up, correct and update existing legislation. Other amendments are of minor policy significance or are matters of routine administration. None of the amendments made by the Bill has any significant financial impact. Many of the proposed amendments will be self-evident or sufficiently explained by the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill. I propose to confine my comments to addressing the more noteworthy changes included in this Bill. Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement 1970 The Act currently restricts the functions of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board to those specified in the agreement annexed to the Act. The United Kingdom and Australian governments have now agreed that it is desirable for the Board to assume from the United Kingdom authorities responsibility for the future management of some additional facilities already in place at Siding Spring. The amendments will enable the Board to undertake other functions as prescribed by regulations. Audit Act 1901 The amendments proposed in this Bill are aimed at improving the efficiency of the Commonwealth's financial administration and allowing the Auditor-General discretion in reporting minor breaches of legislation. From the point of view of financial administration, one amendment will simplify the processes by which funds that have already been appropriated by law are subsequently distributed to departments and will save administrative effort. Financial administration will also be improved by another amendment to enable the Minister for Finance to approve methods of performing accounting functions which do not involve written signatures. The amendments will ensure that departments report to Parliament on their special operations-a requirement which has not existed previously. The Auditor-General will also be given some discretion on which matters are included in his reports. The Auditor-General, when so requested by the Minister, will be able to audit the financial statements of bodies such as incorporated companies controlled by the Commonwealth. Currently there is doubt whether the Act permits such an audit, as the existing provision refers to the audit of accounts and records only. Other amendments will enable regulations to be made to re-establish a policy, adopted by previous governments and arising directly from the policy of self-insurance, that the liability of Commonwealth drivers for the cost of replacing or repairing damaged vehicles should be the same as for a driver in the private sector who is covered by motor vehicle insurance. Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962 The Act establishes the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority consisting of three members, including one elected by the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly which has been abolished. In order to provide the Authority with a full membership, the amendments empower the Governor-General to appoint a member to the Authority for a maximum term of three years in lieu of the former House of Assembly nominee. Australian Citizenship Act 1948; Migration Act 1958 The amendments remove from the Migration Act all references to what are called `return endorsements'. A return endorsement gives authority to a non-Australian citizen who is a resident of Australia to return to Australia after a trip overseas. However, since 1 January 1987, return endorsements have been replaced by `resident return visas', and the provisions in the Migration Act relating to return endorsements are no longer required. The amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act are consequential upon this change. Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984 The amendments will enable automotive companies not incorporated in Australia to be eligible to participate in the motor vehicle and components development grants scheme. The amendments would ensure that the original intent of the scheme was maintained by providing continued access to grant funding to all five local motor vehicle manufacturers including Holden's Motor Co. which, as a result of the restructuring last year of General Motors-Holden's Limited, is a United States subsidiary. Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Act 1984 The amendments will modify two aspects of the Bass Strait freight adjustment scheme. They will specify that funds are to be disbursed on the basis of crude oil ownership at the refinery gate. This will promote maximum flexibility for refiners by allowing them to arrange between themselves exchanges of crude oil in order to minimise costs. The amendments also provide for a refund of the refiners' contributions to the trust fund in respect of Bass Strait crude oil purchased at import parity prices and subsequently exported by them. Refiners will thus be treated in the same way as Bass Strait producers under the Act. Commonwealth Prisoners Act 1967 Since 1983, courts in New South Wales are required to set non-probation periods, not non-parole periods, when imposing sentences of three years or less. The amendments will ensure that courts in that State may fix non-probation periods for Federal offenders and that these offenders may continue to be released on parole under the Act. Where a parolee is sentenced to a further term of imprisonment in a State or Territory other than the one in which he was released on parole, the parole order is automatically revoked. The amendments will enable the Attorney-General to request the issue of a warrant to enable such a person also to serve the balance of his first sentence in the place of his second sentence, instead of his having to go back to the State or Territory in which he received that first sentence. Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 The amendments will provide for a new conciliation and caution procedure for resolution of minor complaints against Australian Federal Police members. They will also introduce greater flexibility in the Commonwealth Ombudsman's options after he receives a report on the investigation of a complaint. The amendments have been developed, in the light of operational experience, jointly by the Australian Federal Police and the Ombudsman, in consultation with the Australian Federal Police Association. Crimes Act 1914; Removal of Prisoners (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1968; Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act 1923 One amendment of the Crimes Act will ensure that the offences of disclosure of information, falsification of books or records, false returns or certificates by Commonwealth officers and impersonation of a Commonwealth officer extend to cover persons who perform services for or on behalf of the Commonwealth, a Territory or public authority. At common law, it has been held that where a prisoner escapes while serving a term of imprisonment he cannot be detained under the sentence once the term has expired. Amendments to the Crimes Act and the Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act will make it clear that sentences of Federal offenders and Territory offenders respectively will cease to run for the period they are at large. Where a prisoner is accidentally released, for example, by the prison authorities before he is due to be released, he cannot be required to return to prison and serve the balance of his term because, at common law, the warrant under which he was committed to prison is spent. The amendments to the three Acts will enable a constable to arrest a prisoner unlawfully at large and bring him before a magistrate, who will be able to issue a new warrant for his detention. A prisoner will be unlawfully at large for the purposes of the amendments if he is required by law to be in custody. Customs Act 1901 The Act currently makes provision for the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy to take control of the property of persons penalised for complicity in certain narcotics dealings, in order to recover pecuniary penalties imposed on them. The amendments are designed to provide for indemnification by the Commonwealth of the Official Trustee and officers of that statutory corporation in discharging this responsibility. Dairy Produce Act 1986 The amendments will prevent persons who are members of the Executive Council of the Australian Dairy Conference, which is the peak policy council of the dairy industry, from being appointed as members of the Australian Dairy Corporation. This change is in accordance with the Government's policy that, where a statutory marketing authority is required to account to the peak industry body, the members of the executive council of that body are not to be eligible for appointment as members of the authority because of the possibility of a conflict of interests. Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 The amendments will enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to file a Commonwealth indictment against a person who has been committed for trial otherwise than in respect of a Commonwealth offence in certain circumstances. These are that the Director is satisfied that the facts or evidence on which the person was committed disclose the commission of an indictable Commonwealth offence, and that if the person's committal for trial for that Commonwealth offence had been sought on the basis of those facts or that evidence it could have succeeded. The amendments will also enable the Director to give an undertaking to persons who give evidence in Australia in proceedings brought under the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 and Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 and in relation to coronial inquests and inquiries conducted under the laws of the Commonwealth. The undertaking which can be given to such persons is that the evidence to be given by them will not be used against them in civil or criminal proceedings-except for perjury in respect of the evidence. Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 The Act was introduced to ensure that government assistance to exporters was provided in a more cost effective manner. The amendments are needed to correct an anomaly in the provisions of the Act covering the export of educational services. Currently it specifically excludes Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory governments from claiming grants under the export market development grants scheme. Some colleges promoting educational services are not established as separate legal entities but are part of Commonwealth, State or Territory education departments. As it was clearly intended that such colleges should be encouraged to promote the export of their educational services, it is proposed to amend the Act to allow education departments to claim in respect of those colleges' export activities. First Home Owners Act 1953 The Act confers on the Secretary of the administering department the discretion to determine for the purposes of an application under the first home owners scheme that the date of the applicant's contract was later than that stated in the contract. The amendments are intended to clarify the extent of that discretion and the circumstances under which a later date can be so determined. Another amendment will enable an intending spouse of an applicant to join in the application. This will overcome a difficulty with the existing legislative provisions which put intending spouses at a cost disadvantage compared with joint applicants who are married couples or are living together in a de facto relationship. Honey Industry Act 1962 The proposed amendments will enable the Minister to extend the terms of current members of the Australian Honey Board to the end of 1988, by which time it is planned that legislation for reform of the Board will have been passed. The amendments are necessary because that legislation will not be introduced or passed before the expiration of some current members' terms in June 1987. An extension of the terms of existing members will overcome problems caused by the lack of time available to hold a poll of producers to elect new producers' members to serve for the brief period until the projected reforms are fully implemented. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986; Intelligence and Security (Consequential Amendments) Act 1986 The amendments will replace references in the Inspector-General Act to the former Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 with references to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. The amendments will also make it clear that the Inspector-General may inquire into an act or practice of an intelligence agency that is or may be contrary to any human right, may constitute discrimination or may be unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 where it has been referred to the Inspector-General by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The term discrimination is given the same meaning as in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act. National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979 The amendments will enable the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities to make determinations about superannuation benefits for full time members of the Commission. They will also empower the Commission to make disbursements pursuant to any superannuation arrangements so determined by the Council for full time Commission members. National Crime Authority Act 1984 The amendments will extend the scope of the secrecy provision of the Act to include certain persons who at any given time might be engaged in the operational work of the National Crime Authority without being employed by the Authority. A new provision is inserted to enable the issue of warrants for the arrest of absconding witnesses, and to enable execution of such warrants even if not in the possession of the relevant officer when making the arrest. National Measurement Act 1960 As part of the ongoing process of metrication, imperial units used in the real estate industry will be withdrawn as legal units of measurement on 1 July 1987. Since it is unclear whether the Act currently applies to real estate contracts, a new provision will be inserted specifically relating to real estate contracts. The new provision will provide that real estate contracts will be void unless entered into by reference to Australian legal units of measurement or additional legal units of measurement. The voiding provision will not apply, however, where the units of measurement which are referred to in the contract are the units of measurement which are referred to in the documents of title for that land, or in a plan referred to in the documents of title. The amendments will specifically except futures contracts from the requirement that only Australian legal units of measurement of any physical quantity be used. It is recognised that futures contracts can cover matters in countries which have non-metric units of physical measurement. The amendments will also create the office of the Executive Director of the National Standards Commission, who will also be an ex officio member of the Commission. He or she will be appointed by the Commission, not by the Governor-General. The appointment of the Executive Director will add to the Commission's expertise and enhance its effectiveness. It will also be consistent with the findings of the Committee of Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories-the Ross Committee-and with the `Policy Discussion Paper concerning the Efficiency and Accountability of Commonwealth Statutory Authorities and Government Business Enterprises'. Another amendment, which will also implement that policy discussion paper, will raise from $50,000 to $100,000 the limit on contracts which the Commission may enter into without ministerial approval. National Museum of Australia Act 1980 The amendment is being made to rectify an anomaly. The Act at present does not give the Council of the museum the power to dispose of historical material owned by, or in the possession of, the museum which does not, however, form part of the national historical collection as defined in the Act. The amendment will confer on the museum largely the same power to dispose of such material as it now has over material that is in the national historical collection. Navigation Act 1912; Shipping Registration Act 1981 The most noteworthy amendments of the Navigation Act will benefit the maritime industry by eliminating unnecessary duplication of certificating of ships. The amendments of the Shipping Registration Act are intended to promote the prompt provision to the Registrar of Shipping of accurate information on ships entitled to be registered in Australia. Pig Industry Act 1986 This amendment removes the restriction on the Australian Pork Corporation Selection Committee which prevents it from nominating for appointment to the Corporation anyone who is a member of the executive of an eligible industry body, that is, the Australian Pork Producers Federation or the National Meat Processors Association. A person will still be ineligible for actual appointment to the Corporation if he or she is such a member. Removal of this restriction will mean that such a person will not need to resign his or her position in the Federation or Association when nominated for appointment; he or she will have to do so only if and when offered appointment to the Corporation by the Minister. This amendment will bring the selection procedures for the Corporation into line with those for other statutory marketing authorities. Quarantine Act 1908 The Act does not at present authorise the search of luggage and cargo entering mainland Australia from the Torres Strait area on Australian ships and aircraft. The amendment will close this loophole in the law. Trade Practices Act 1974 The object of this amendment is to eliminate overlap and possible conflict between the provisions of the Act that import certain terms into contracts for the sale of goods and those of the 1980 Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Legislation implementing the provisions of the Convention is being enacted in each State and Territory. Once that legislation is in place and the amendment now proposed has been made, Australia will be in position to accede to the Convention. I commend the Bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, for Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1987 constitutes, in effect, the Government's major response to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception. At the conclusion of this speech, I shall table a schedule setting out each of the Committee's principal recommendations and the Government's response. The Bill is designed to extend existing telecommunications interception powers of the Australian Federal Police in respect of certain Commonwealth narcotic offences to cover a wider category of serious offences; to allow the National Crime Authority to seek the issue of an interception warrant in respect of an offence in relation to which the Authority is conducting a special investigation within the meaning of its Act and other serious offences; and to enable the police force-and in the case of New South Wales, the State Drug Crime Commission-of any State or the Northern Territory to seek the issue of interception warrants in respect of serious offences. It may assist the House if I recount the history behind the development of the Bill. At the Special Premiers' Conference on Drugs held in April 1985, the Commonwealth agreed to extend to the police forces of the States and Northern Territory interceptions powers in relation to drug trafficking offences. On June 1986, I introduced into the House the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1986, which was designed to give effect to the Commonwealth's commitment and which also took into account certain recommendations made in the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions-known as the Stewart Royal Commission-which I tabled in this House on 1 May 1986. When introducing the 1986 Bill, I said that the Government believed that the questions arising from an extension of telecommunications interception powers for law enforcement purposes, including whether such powers should be extended beyond drug offences, called for thorough parliamentary consideration. For that reason I moved a resolution to establish a Joint Select Committee to examine and report on the 1986 Bill, with particular emphasis on the question of extending the interception powers to cover serious offences, on the appropriateness of the proposed legislative safeguards and controls and on the feasibility of having a central Commonwealth agency to carry out interceptions for other authorities. The Joint Select Committee examined the Bill and matters relating to the Bill and reported to the Parliament on 20 November 1986. The Committee's report acknowledged that the whole question of telecommunications interception requires a balancing of conflicting interests. Broadly, those interests are the need to provide Australian law enforcement authorities with the important additional tool of interception powers for use in the investigation and prosecution of serious offences, and the need to ensure that the privacy of individuals is protected from unwarranted intrusions. In balancing these interests, the Committee concluded that, whilst there is a requirement for intercepted information to be made available to the National Crime Authority, the New South Wales Drug Crime Commission and the State and Northern Territory Police Forces, the case to extend to those agencies the power to intercept telecommunications in their own right had not been made. Rather, the Committee recommended that a telecommunications interception agency be established within the Australian Federal Police to carry out all interceptions for the Australian Federal Police, the National Crime Authority, the New South Wales Drug Crime Commission and the State and the Northern Territory Police Forces. The Government accepts this recommendation, which is reflected in the Bill. Since the tabling of the Committee's report, I have been informed by the Premier of New South Wales that that State, after considering the Committee's recommendations, re-affirms its support for the recommendation made by Mr Justice Stewart in his 1986 report that each State be empowered to conduct telecommunications interceptions in its own right. Although I have sought their views, I have not been informed by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory nor by the Premier of any State other than New South Wales of their views of the Committee's recommendations. However, I note that the Australian Police Ministers Council and the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy have called for Commonwealth legislation allowing State and Northern Territory law enforcement agencies to conduct telecommunications interceptions in their own right, as recommended by the Stewart Royal Commission. I would also like to point out that the Committee gave the States ample opportunity to make submissions to it on the form and scope of telecommunications interception powers to be granted to them but, apart from South Australia, no submissions were made. Under the 1986 Bill, it was proposed to extend telecommunications interception powers to cover `serious trafficking offences'-that is, offences involving narcotic drugs and punishable by imprisonment for life or for a maximum period of seven years or longer. The Committee concluded that there was a case for extending telecommunications interception powers to other serious offences. The Government has developed the proposals made by the Committee and, accordingly, the Bill that I have presented today makes provision for applications for telecommunications interception warrants in relation to two classes of offences. Class 1 offences are defined to mean murder, kidnapping, a narcotics offence punishable as provided by section 235 of the Customs Act 1901 or an offence constituted by conspiring, aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, or being a party to the commission of an offence of these kinds. In addition, an offence in relation to which the National Crime Authority is conducting a special investigation within the meaning of its Act is to be within the first class of offences. Where an agency seeks the issue of a warrant in relation to a class 1 offence, it will be necessary for a judge to be satisfied, not only that information would be obtained that would be likely to assist an investigation, but also that a warrant authorising interception should be issued having regard to the extent to which methods of investigating the offence that do not involve interception have already been used by the agency making the application, and how much such methods would be likely to prejudice the investigation by the agency of the offence, whether because of a delay in obtaining information relevant to the investigation or for any other reason. Class 2 offences are defined in the Bill to include an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or for a maximum period of seven years or longer which involves loss of life or serious personal injury, or the serious risk of such loss of life or injury; serious damage to property in circumstances endangering a person's safety; trafficking in narcotic drugs; serious fraud; or serious loss to the revenue of the Commonwealth or a State. In addition, aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, or conspiring in relation to any of the above will also constitute a class 2 offence. In considering whether to issue a warrant in relation to a class 2 offence, a judge will be required to have regard to, in addition to the matters to be considered for class 1 offences, how much the privacy of any person would be likely to be interfered with if an interception warrant were issued; and the gravity of the particular conduct being investigated. In the Government's view, allowing interception warrants to be obtained for these classes of offences will provide an effective tool for law enforcement agencies, and assist in the fight against organised crime. At the same time, the community is assured that telecommunications interception powers will only be used for the more serious criminal offences; and that this particular power will not be used as part of any ordinary criminal investigation. This is a further indication of the Government's recognition of the very important privacy interests involved in the exercise of the telecommunications interception power. As well as extending the range of offences in relation to which law enforcement agencies may seek telecommunications interception warrants, the Bill also amends the provisions currently applying to the grant of warrants by including new provisions enabling interception warrants to be obtained on applications made by telephone, instead of in writing, in urgent circumstances. Generally, warrants will not authorise entry on premises or any interception other than through Telecom Australia. However in special circumstances, where a judge is satisfied that facilitation of an interception by Telecom might unreasonably prejudice an investigation, or that there are technical reasons connected with the operation of the service or the telecommunications system that make it impractical to use Telecom's assistance, a warrant may be granted authorising entry on premises for the purpose of undertaking an interception. Any such entry on premises will be performed by the AFP. The Bill also reduces the maximum period of effect of a warrant from the present period of six months to 90 days. The Bill inserts a number of provisions designed to ensure adequate oversight by the Minister of the operations of the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority under the legislation. The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the Chairman of the National Crime Authority will be required to furnish to the Minister copies of all warrants and instruments revoking warrants. In addition, they will be required to report in writing describing in general terms the use and communication of information obtained under telecommunications interception warrants. These reports, together with reports furnished by the responsible State and Territory Ministers on the operations of relevant State and Territory agencies under the legislation, and a report by the Managing Director of Telecom on actions undertaken by Telecom for the purpose of enabling telecommunications interception warrants to be executed, will form the basis of an annual report to the Parliament by the Minister. This report will provide details of the extent to which telecommunications interception warrants are used and the usefulness of the information obtained under them. In particular, the report will detail the number of applications for warrants; the number of applications granted or refused; the number of renewals of warrants; the offences in relation to which warrants are granted; the number of arrests flowing, in whole or in part, from interceptions; and the number of proceedings commenced, and offences found proven, in which intercepted information is adduced in evidence. The Bill also provides for inspection by the Ombudsman of the records of the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority to ascertain their compliance with the legislation. The Ombudsman may report to the Minister in writing at any time about the results of such an inspection and the Minister may include relevant matters raised in the Ombudsman's report in his or her own annual report to the Parliament. The important matter of regulating the use and communication of intercepted information is at present dealt with in section 7 of the Act. Extensive amendments of the present provisions are necessary as a result of the decision of the High Court of Australia in Hilton v. Wells, at page 245 of Volume 58 of the Australian Law Reports, to the effect that the present provisions relating to the use and communication of intercepted information do not cover illegally obtained information and do not make such information inadmissible in any court proceedings. Further, the existing provisions would be inadequate for the purpose of controlling the flow of intercepted information, given that the National Crime Authority, the State Drug Crime Commission and the State and Territory police forces are to be able to apply for interception warrants. For this reason, the Bill provides for a new Part VII to be inserted in the legislation, which provides stringent controls on the communication of information lawfully obtained by telecommunications interception, whether obtained on a warrant issued to the Australian Federal Police, National Crime Authority or a State or Territory law enforcement agency. The Bill provides that lawfully intercepted information may be used in evidence in proceedings for the prosecution of an offence, punishable by three years imprisonment or longer; in proceedings for the confiscation or forfeiture of property in connection with the commission of an offence punishable by three years imprisonment or longer; in certain extradition proceedings; in proceedings of a disciplinary nature against a police officer, whether Federal, State or Territory; or in proceedings for alleged misbehaviour against an officer of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory. In addition, the Bill regulates the circumstances in which intercepted information may be communicated by the law enforcement agency which originally obtained it. If the information relates to the commission of an offence, the agency under whose warrant the information was obtained may communicate the intercepted information to the law enforcement agency responsible for the enforcement of the relevant offence. The Stewart Royal Commission has recommended that the Act should be amended to make it an offence to possess, communicate, divulge or record unlawfully intercepted information. The Government has accepted this recommendation. However, the Government does not accept that such information should be able to be used except for the purpose of establishing a contravention of the Act. Nor does the Government accept that the admissibility of unlawfully intercepted information should be determined by the common law. The Bill provides that unlawfully intercepted information may be admissible only for the purposes of establishing a contravention of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. The Bill amends the present section 7 and includes new provisions dealing separately with the prohibition of unauthorised interceptions, the regulation of the use and communication of intercepted information and the admissibility of such information in evidence in proceedings. The most important effects of the new provisions are as follows: Firstly, it will continue to be an offence to intercept communications passing over a telecommunications system except under a warrant or as otherwise authorised by the Act; secondly, it will be an offence to use, record or communicate to a person or a court or tribunal material obtained in contravention of the Act, except for the purpose of establishing that contravention; thirdly, it will be an offence to use, record or communicate to a person or a court or tribunal material that has been lawfully obtained, except in accordance with the Act; fourthly, communications of lawfully obtained material will be permitted between the Australian Federal Police, State and Territory police forces, the National Crime Authority, the State Drug Crime Commission and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, where the material is relevant to their functions; and, fifthly, it will be possible to give lawfully obtained information in evidence only in the proceedings specified in proposed section 5b. Information obtained in contravention of the Act will be inadmissible in all proceedings except to establish the contravention. This exclusionary rule is, however, subject to a discretion in the court to admit information where the contravention is due to an insubstantial defect or irregularity in cases where a warrant or purported warrant has been obtained. It is not intended to prejudice proceedings that have been commenced before the legislation comes into operation. Accordingly, the Bill does not prevent intercepted material from being admitted in evidence in proceedings commenced before that date. The State and Territory law enforcement agencies are covered in the new Part VI which the Bill inserts into the Act. Interception powers in relation to serious crimes against State and Territory laws will be made available only to those law enforcement agencies declared by the Attorney-General to be declared authorities. Any declaration will be notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, and laid before each House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House, after the making of the declaration. Either House of the Parliament may pass a resolution disallowing any such declaration. A declaration will be made only at the request of the relevant Premier or Chief Minister and if the Attorney-General is satisfied that the State or Territory in question has legislation that provides satisfactory safeguards. These safeguards are substantially similar to those contained in the 1986 Bill and may be found in proposed section 35 of new Part VI. The safeguards will include provisions for reporting on the issue and revocation of warrants to the relevant State or Territory Minister; for the proper maintenance of records by the State or Territory police force; for the regular inspection of those records by an independent authority and for the reporting by that authority on the extent of compliance with statutory requirements; for the destruction of irrelevant records; and for regular reports by the relevant State or Territory Minister to the Commonwealth Minister. The legislative safeguards will be at least as stringent as those that apply in relation to interceptions initiated by members of the Australian Federal Police. In addition, the State or Territory concerned will be required to enter into an agreement to pay the appropriate proportion of the expenses incurred in relation to the establishment of the unit in the Australian Federal Police which will execute interception warrants, the issue of warrants and the carrying out of interceptions on behalf of its police force. The Attorney-General will be empowered to revoke a declaration if requested to do so by the Premier of the relevant State or Territory, if the necessary legislative safeguards are not maintained or if compliance with those safeguards or with the requirements of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act is unsatisfactory. The revocation will be by notice in writing published in the Gazette. By means of these provisions, the Commonwealth will be able to ensure, as far as possible, that there is a continuous monitoring and control at the State or Territory level of day to day activities by State or Territory officers. The issue and revocation of warrants, the scope of the authority conferred by warrants, the execution of warrants and the communication of information obtained under warrants will be controlled directly by the provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. Under the proposed Part VI, warrants may be issued to the Australian Federal Police, the National Crime Authority and, where declared, the police force of a State or Territory and the State Drug Crime Commission by any person who is a judge of a court created by the Parliament and who, on being invited to perform the functions of judge under the legislation, consents to so doing and is declared in the Gazette for that purpose by the Attorney-General. Telephone applications may be made by specially approved members of a State or Territory police force, as well as by approved members of the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority, in circumstances of urgency; otherwise a written application supported by an affidavit will be necessary. A warrant will be available to State law enforcement agencies only in respect of a telecommunications service that is situated within the State or Territory concerned and, like warrants issued to the Australian Federal Police and National Crime Authority, will remain in force for a maximum period of 90 days. All interceptions under warrants issued pursuant to the new Part VI will be performed by members of the Australian Federal Police. The Minister will be required to report annually to the Parliament on the numbers of warrants issued, and the use made of the information obtained by virtue of those warrants. The annual reports will be based on information received from State and Territory Ministers, from the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority, and from Telecom. The provisions relating to interception powers for State and Territory authorities include a requirement that the States and Territories concerned agree to pay all expenses incurred by Telecom and the Australian Federal Police in carrying out interceptions pursuant to warrants issued to those authorities. As far as the extension of interception powers for the Australian Federal Police and to the National Crime Authority is concerned, there will be financial implications for the Commonwealth. It is impossible to predict with accuracy the amounts likely to be involved. The amount payable in any year will depend upon the number of interceptions carried out. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill, and present a schedule setting out the principal recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception and the Government's response to them, and I seek leave to have the schedule incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The schedule read as follows- Recommendations of Joint Select Committee Government Response 1. With respect to the Telecommunications Interception (Amendment) Bill 1986, the Committee recommends that: (a) the Bill be withdrawn, and Accepted. (b) there be substituted for the subject Bill a Bill for an Act to consolidate and re-structure the principal Act, incorporating applicable provisions of the subject Bill and the recommendations contained in this report. Not Accepted. A re-structuring of the Act would delay introduction of necessary legislation. A review of the new provisions will be conducted in 2 years' time. 2. With respect to the proposed extension of interception powers to other agencies, the Committee recommends that: (a) a Telecommunications Interception Agency be established to carry out all interceptions for the AFP, the NCA, the State and Northern Territory Police forces and the NSW Drug Crime Commission; Accepted. (b) all intercepts should continue to be made through Telecom; Accepted, save that special provision should be made for those cases where Telecom cannot participate for technical reasons or its participation would jeopardise the security of the operation. Those intercepts would be performed by the AFP, where necessary acting on behalf of another agency, and would have to be specifically approved by the judge issuing the warrant. Authority to enter premises may be involved. (c) the Telecommunications Interception Agency should be established within the AFP as it is best placed to conduct the interceptions for all authorised agencies, and can guarantee a career structure for officers and maximum staff turnover; Accepted. (d) the NCA, the State and Northern Territory Police forces and the NSW Drug Crime Commission should each be offered lines for telecommunications interception on a full cost-recovery basis and each law enforcement body should have the power to determine the priorities for use of the lines rented; and Accepted. (e) this extension of access to intercepted information to the NCA, the State and Northern Territory Police forces and the NSW Drug Crime Commission must be accompanied by stringent centrally co-ordinated safeguards, recognising at the same time a requirement for administrative efficiency and the need for a fast-track mechanism for urgent interceptions to exist with subsequent justification. Accepted. 3. With respect to the extension of interception powers to cover serious offences, the Committee recommends that: (a) if the incident and nature of offences gives rise to community concern that interception powers ought to be extended to cover further offences, this should be reflected by a further amendment to the proposed Act by Parliament, and Accepted. (b) until Parliament otherwise provides, serious offences defined in the proposed Act should be restricted to only the following offences, hereinafter referred to as `relevant offences': (i) murder; (ii) kidnapping; and (iii) organised crime associated with offences: (a) that involve 2 or more offenders and substantial planning and organisation; and (b) that involve, or are of a kind that ordinarily involve, the use of sophisticated methods and techniques; and (c) that are committed, or are of a kind that are ordinarily committed in conjunction with other offences of a like kind; and (d) that involves kidnapping, murder or serious drug trafficking offences and associated financial dealings in each case; or which relate to conspiracy to commit any of the above offences. Not accepted. The Government has decided that the offences to be covered by the interception scheme be: (a) narcotics offences punishable under Customs Act (for the Australian Federal Police and National Crime Authority); (b) murder, kidnapping; (c) offences punishable by at least seven years' imprisonment involving: (i) trafficking in narcotic drugs; (ii) loss of life or serious injury or the threat of serious injury to a person (e.g. manslaughter, assault occasioning grievous bodily harm, aircraft hijacking); (iii) serious damage to property by means which cause danger to the public (e.g. arson, sabotage); (iv) serious fraud; and (v) serious loss to revenue (e.g. entering into an arrangement to avoid a major tax liability-see Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980; (d) the offences referred to in paragraph (c) above be limited to those in which a Judge is satisfied that a warrant should be granted having regard to: (i) the gravity of the particular circumstances being investigated. (ii) the extent to which the privacy of any person is likely to be interfered with; (iii) the extent to which the prevention or detection of the offence in question is likely to be assisted; and (iv) the extent to which other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, other investigative procedures are unlikely to succeed in themselves, or the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative procedures; (e) any conspiracy, aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring in relation to any of the above offences. 4. With respect to the problem of illegal interception, the Committee recommends that: (a) devices designed solely for effecting interceptions be declared prohibited imports, subject to control by Government licence for specific law enforcement purposes only; (b) the manufacture, importation, advertising, sale and possession, installation and use of such devices be made illegal, and subject to penalties in accordance with those prescribed for physically effecting interceptions, and The Government will give further consideration to these recommendations. The Australian Customs Service, while recognising the desirability of restricting the supply of interception devices, has reservations about the proposed import prohibition on devices designed solely for effecting telecommunications interceptions. The problems inherent in detecting such devices amongst the mass of electronic products at Customs control points, the lack of technical expertise to identify the specific task for which an electronic device is intended and the limited capacity of the Australian Customs Service to examine goods would make any import prohibition a cosmetic one only. It is for this reason that the Australian Customs Service has long argued that the only effective means of stopping trade in restricted devices is by measures applied at the point of sale in Australia. The proposal to limit the restriction to single purpose devices would lead to enforcement difficulties and create an obvious avenue for circumventing these measures. To implement a cohesive control it would be necessary to encompass any multi-purpose, or even potential, interception device and parts thereof. The Committee's recommendations seem to acknowledge the impracticability of that approach. (c) Telecom actively pursue the maintenance of the integrity of the network and the detection of illegal devices as a matter of urgency. Accepted. Telecom is committed to the prevention and detection of illegal use of the telecommunications network and will continue vigorously to pursue its activities aimed at these goals. As part of its programme the following two strategies are being implemented: (a) A publicity programme is being developed, and will be implemented shortly, aimed at reaching all staff in the customer network area. This will take two parts: (i) Articles in house journals outlining the obligations of its staff should they find evidence of an illegal interception, and the procedures to be followed. (ii) Personal instruction to staff in the customer network area, by supervisors, of the requirements. (b) a study is being commenced to examine the broad issues of public network security with a view to correcting any perceived weaknesses. 5. Concerning safeguards necessary in legislation to replace the subject Bill, the Committee recommends that: (a) the present safeguards applying to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation are satisfactory; Accepted. (b) authority to issue warrants to intercept should be restricted to Judges of the Federal Court of Australia, for a maximum life span of 90 days; The Government proposes that any person who is a Judge of a court created by the Parliament who consents, and who is declared by the Attorney-General, be able to issue warrants. 90 days maximum period accepted. (c) before granting warrants, Judges should be satisfied that: (1) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the nominated telephone service being, or is likely to be, used by a person who is suspected, on reasonable grounds, of (a) committing; (b) having committed; (c) being about to commit; or (d) conspiring to commit a relevant offence; (2) other investigative techniques have either been exhausted or would, in the circumstances, be inappropriate, and (3) information likely to be obtained from the warrant would materially assist in the investigation of a relevant offence that the person is suspected, on reasonable grounds, of (a) committing; (b) having committed; (c) being about to commit; or (d) conspiring to commit. Accepted with slight modifications (see proposed sec- tions 45 and 46 of Bill). (d) warrant applications should specify: (1) the identity of the law enforcement officer applying for a warrant, and the identity of the authorising officer; (2) a statement of the time for which an interception is sought, and a justification for any application extending to the maximum warrant period of 90 days, with a statement establishing why the interception of successive communications is considered necessary; and (3) a statement of previous interceptions sought or effected which involved the same person, telephone service or place, with the results of such interceptions; Accepted with slight modifications (see proposed section 41 and 42 of Bill). (e) a `fast-track' mechanism should exist, to enable a Judge to issue a warrant by telephone, but only in the most urgent circumstances, followed by full sworn information provided within one working day; Accepted. (f) legal professional privilege must be protected; Not accepted. The Government does not believe a special exception should be made in this case. Legal professional privilege is already sufficiently protected under the laws of evidence. (g) the Commonwealth Attorney-General must be satisfied as to the adequacy of complementary State/Northern Territory legislation before prescribing, by way of regulation, an agency of a State/Territory to be authorised to initiate warrants for interception; Accepted, but prescription should be by notice published in the Gazette which would be subject to disallowance. (h) warrant provisions for the initiation of telecommunications interceptions by the AFP and the NCA should be identical, should be no less stringent than those applicable to other agencies, should not authorise any entry on premises and should be effected through Telecom alone. See response to Committee recommendation 2 (b) above. 6. In respect of revised legislation covering telecommunications interception and related issues, the Committee recommends that: (a) the Commonwealth, through enacting model legislation for the A.C.T. to regulate the use of listening devices, should encourage uniformity of approach and standards between the States in the use of such devices; The Commonwealth has consistently taken the view that the general regulation of listening devices is a matter for the States. There is already a considerable degree of uniformity in State legislation on the subject. The Commonwealth intends to enact legislation for the A.C.T. in due course. (b) the communication of any legally intercepted information other than that requested by warrant should be prohibited, unless it relates to an offence punishable by imprisonment for 3 years or longer (there should be no exceptions to this provision); Not accepted. All information obtained from an intercept will be provided to the agency which obtained the warrant, which will then be subject to stringent controls on use and communication of the information. However, the Government believes that, provided information is obtained under warrant, it ought to be available for a wider category of law enforcement purposes defined by legislation. (c) penalties for misuse of legally obtained information from interceptions should be at least as stringent as those applicable to offences related to illegal interceptions, except for technical breaches; Accepted. (d) reporting provisions on the nature and extent of intercepts effected should be strengthened and extended; and Accepted, but with some modifications of the reporting arrangements proposed by the Committee. (e) a judicial auditor should be appointed to provide independent audit and scrutiny of the implementation of interception procedures in their totality, excluding those conducted by the Australian Security Intelligence Organization. Relevant State legislation will be required to provide for appointment of an independent auditor. Auditing of interception operations of Commonwealth agencies should be undertaken by Commonwealth Ombudsman. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, for Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Proceeds of Crime Bill provides some of the most effective weaponry against major crime ever introduced into this Parliament. Its purpose is to strike at the heart of major organised crime by depriving persons involved of the profits and instruments of their crimes. By so doing, it will suppress criminal activity by attacking the primary motive-profit-and prevent the re-investment of that profit in further criminal activity. All the evidence available to government from royal commissions and other inquiries in recent years suggests that major crime, particularly drug trafficking and serious fraud on the revenue, is growing and is becoming increasingly international in scope. Traditional methods of punishment by imprisonment and fine are not enough. Stronger measures are called for. Further, measures are required to target not only the pushers and others physically involved in criminal activity but also those who direct, finance and reap the most reward from crime. The Bill provides a mechanism for the tracing, freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of indictable offences committed against the laws of the Commonwealth and of the Territories. The Bill confers on police new powers to assist in following the money trail, requires financial institutions to retain documents necessary to preserve the money trail and creates new offences such as money laundering and organised fraud. In addition, the Bill also provides the mechanism to enforce orders made under corresponding State laws which affect the freezing and confiscation of property located in a Territory. The Bill, when taken together with the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill, enables Australian freezing and confiscation orders to be enforced overseas and orders made in foreign countries in relation to foreign offences to be enforced against assets located in Australia. These international measures of co-operation are vital in the fight against the growing internationalism of major crime. The Bill is the end product of a resolution passed by the Special Premiers Conference on Drugs, as a result of which the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General agreed upon the terms of the draft model Bill after extensive consultation. South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales have enacted legislation broadly along the lines of the model scheme agreed to by the Standing Committee. The general regime of this Bill, insofar as it relates to the freezing and confiscation of assets, is also consistent with that model. However, this Bill goes far beyond the regime approved by the Standing Committee in providing new effective powers to permit law enforcement agencies to follow the money trail, creating new offences of money laundering and organised fraud, providing for the statutory forfeiture of property following conviction of certain serious offences and requiring financial institutions to preserve the money trail for subsequent taxation and law enforcement purposes. This Bill forms part of a package of Bills, each of which contains measures which significantly advance the fight against organised crime, but when taken together constitute a comprehensive package which is designed to effectively suppress organised crime in Australia. The package will include the Proceeds of Crime Bill now before the House, the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill, a revision and codification of the laws relating to extradition, and new legislation requiring certain cash transactions to be reported to a central government agency. The Proceeds of Crime Bill represents a careful balancing of effective new powers for law enforcement agencies in the freezing and confiscation of assets against the need for adequate mechanisms for the protection of interests of third parties, who have an interest in property which is the subject of forfeiture but who have no involvement in the commission of the offence and no knowledge of the origin of the property. The scheme has been carefully designed to provide the greatest possible flexibility to law enforcement agencies to ensure that the legislation effectively meets as many different factual situations as possible. For example, search warrants and restraining orders may be sought immediately before charges are laid, or at any subsequent time. Confiscation orders likewise may be sought at the time of conviction and, in fact, form part of the sentencing process where sufficient evidence is available to bring confiscation proceedings at the time, and the matter can be expeditiously dealt with by the court as part of the sentencing process. In other cases, the application for confiscation can be made at any time up to six months after the date of the relevant conviction. Innocent third parties may seek to have their property excluded from freezing and confiscation proceedings as early as the hearing of the application of the restraining order, at any time during the currency of the restraining order, at the determination of the application for confiscation proceedings, and at any time within six months after confiscation. The regime of this Bill will be in addition to other Commonwealth and Territory legislative provisions which provide for the forfeiture of property or the imposition of pecuniary penalties such as the provisions in Division 3 of Part XIII of the Customs Act 1901. The detailed explanation of the contents of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum. I wish only to refer at this stage to the more important features of the Bill. It applies both within and outside Australia to enable courts to make restraining and confiscation orders in relation to property located outside Australia and profits derived and realised outside Australia. Confiscation orders under the proposed legislation may take the form of either forfeiture orders, or orders for pecuniary penalties, or a combination of both where this is appropriate. Once a forfeiture order is made, the property vests in equity in the Commonwealth. Registrable property does not vest in law until registration procedures have been complied with. Third parties who can establish that they were not in any way involved in the commission of the offence are able to seek exemption of their property from the operation of the forfeiture order, or to have the forfeiture order discharged in respect of that property. As a general rule, third parties must challenge the forfeiture order within six months unless granted special leave by the court. Pecuniary penalty orders, on the other hand, may only be made against the defendant. These orders require the court to assess the benefit which the offender derived directly or indirectly from the commission of the offence, assigning a monetary value to that benefit and making a pecuniary penalty order equal to that amount. Once such an order has been made it can be enforced as a civil debt and is provable in bankruptcy. The legislation contains provisions to enable courts to look behind the legal ownership of property to determine whether that property is subject to the effective control of the defendant, having regard to such things as shareholdings or directorships of companies, any trust that has a relationship to the property, family and business relationships, and the like. The Bill also provides for statutory forfeiture in limited circumstances. Where a person is convicted of a serious offence, defined to be a narcotics offence involving a traffickable quantity of drugs which constitutes a breach of Commonwealth or Territory law, an organised fraud of- fence, or an offence of money-laundering the proceeds of such drug trafficking or organised fraud, that person is liable to have all property which is the subject of a restraining order six months after the date of his or her conviction forfeited by force of statute, unless the person can establish that the property was lawfully acquired. The Bill also deals with the problem of persons, or their associates, moving property beyond the jurisdiction once they become aware that charges are about to be laid. Part III of the Bill confers new and far-reaching powers on police officers to seize property which is tainted and to hold such property for 14 days pending the making of a restraining order over the property. Such seizures can arise in three circumstances, namely, by consent, under judicial warrant, or without judicial warrant in emergencies. Restraining orders may be made immediately before charges are laid. Under a restraining order, the court may direct that property specified in the order not be disposed of, or otherwise dealt with, by any person other than in accordance with the terms of the order or may require the Official Trustee to take custody and control of the property specified in the order. A court may make a restraining order where it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant committed the offence alleged and that the property the subject of the application is either tainted property or may be required to satisfy a pecuniary penalty order. Restraining orders may be varied by a court on the application of any person holding an interest in property the subject of the order. Restraining orders may be registered on registers of title and, when combined with pecuniary penalty orders, give rise to a statutory charge over the property. Contravention of a restraining order constitutes an offence punishable by a fine of $10,000 or five years imprisonment or both in the case of a natural person and a fine of $50,000 in the case of a body corporate. Part IV of the Bill confers wide-ranging and effective powers on law enforcement officers to gain access to documents relevant to following the money trail and transferring tainted property. The first of these new measures is a production order, made by a person who is a judge of a Supreme Court, directing a person who has property tracking documents in his or her possession or control to produce such documents to a law enforcement officer or, alternatively, to make them available for inspection by such an officer. A breach of a production order constitutes an offence. Where it is inappropriate to seek a production order, either because property cannot be identified with sufficient particularity or because there are grounds to believe that a production order is unlikely to be complied with or may prejudice effective law enforcement, a search warrant may be granted to search for and seize property tracking documents. A major new initiative is the introduction of monitoring orders, made by a person who is a judge of a Supreme Court, directing a financial institution to give information over specified periods of time to law enforcement authorities about transactions conducted through accounts held by a particular person. Monitoring orders are available only in relation to serious offences-those involving narcotic drugs, organised fraud or money laundering, the proceeds of drug trafficking or organised fraud. As part of the process of enabling law enforcement agencies to follow the money trail and to assist in the investigation of tax evasion offences, the legislation places a statutory obligation on financial institutions to retain certain records. Records which relate to the opening of accounts must be retained in original form for seven years after closure of the relevant account and all other documents necessary to reconstruct transactions in excess of $200 must be retained for a period of seven years after the transaction in original or some other form, including micro- fiche. Consultation has taken place with financial institutions in relation to these measures. Part V of the Bill creates two new offences relating to money laundering. The first of these is a serious offence of engaging in money laundering where the person knows or ought reasonably to have known that property is, in fact, the proceeds of crime. Such a crime must be either an indictable offence against a law of the Commonwealth, or of a Territory, or a drug trafficking offence which was committed overseas which would have constituted an offence against Australian law had the offence been committed in Australia. The legislation also creates a less serious indictable offence of laundering property which is reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime. This offence is very similar to the offence of possession of goods reasonably suspected of having been stolen, which exists in most jurisdictions and has proved to be an effective law enforcement tool against theft. The legislation also creates a new offence of organised fraud which is constituted by acts and omissions which constitute three or more public fraud offences from which the person has derived substantial benefit. Public fraud offences are breaches of sections 29d and 86a of the Crimes Act 1914 and sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980. This offence is specifically designed for persons who have been engaged in a pattern of conduct, over a period of time, from which they have benefited to the detriment of society. The Government has not followed the American precedents which centre around concepts of sophisticated methods, organisation or planning and specific monetary limits. Some of the most effective fraudulent activity has resulted from schemes of utmost simplicity. The Bill also provides for the problem of dealing with absconders. In certain circumstances, a person who has absconded can be taken to have been convicted of an offence and can be liable to confiscation proceedings. Before a confiscation order can be made against an absconder the court must be satisfied that the person has, in fact, absconded and either that the person has been committed for trial in respect of the offence or that a reasonable jury properly instructed could find the person guilty of the offence on the basis of the evidence put before it. These are the major features of the Proceeds of Crime Bill. The Bill will give to law enforcement authorities effective and comprehensive means to carry on the fight against major crime. The Bill will also require our law enforcement authorities to develop more sophisticated skills in tracking, analysing and building up data on financial transactions of criminals. The development of these skills is essential to the success of the measures in this Bill. Financial Impact Statement I believe that this Bill will result in significant financial benefit to the Commonwealth, the States and foreign countries with which Australia has mutual assistance arrangements. I also believe that this Bill will return benefits which will greatly outweigh its administrative costs. The Bill provides mechanisms which not only deny to the perpetrators the proceeds of crime but also return those proceeds to society. The Bill will also provide mechanisms to return significant revenue to the Commonwealth. It is proposed that a special trust fund be established to receive the funds generated under this legislation and apply those funds specifically to finance further measures by law enforcement authorities in their fight against crime. This would mean not only that criminals would be denied their profits but also that those very profits would be reinvested in the fight against major crime. As honourable members will be aware, I have recently returned from a visit to the United States and Europe which involved discussions on measures to attack the proceeds of crime, international mutual assistance and extradition. I was impressed with the way in which the United States is using legislation on proceeds of crime to deprive criminals of many millions of dollars and reapply that money in its fight against crime. I was also impressed, in my discussions with those countries, by the increasing recognition of the need to adopt measures of the kind contemplated in this Bill and to greatly increase international co-operation in this area. I commend the Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, for Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill contains a number of amendments to three Acts to ensure the effectiveness of the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987. In the development of the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987 the Government has been concerned to ensure that artificial devices cannot be used to defeat the operation of the legislation. One such artificial device which has the potential for defeating the operation of pecuniary penalty orders made against offenders is the mechanism of bankruptcy. During the currency of the bankruptcy all property of the bankrupt vests in the trustee of the bankruptcy and can therefore, in the absence of special provisions, be put beyond the reach of the Commonwealth and effectively laundered when the surplus property is returned to the bankrupt after the risk of confiscation proceedings has passed. Bankruptcy Act 1966 One consequence of an offender becoming bankrupt prior to confiscation would be that any restraining order restraining all of an offender's property pending the making of a pecuniary penalty order would be likely to be revoked on application by the Official Trustee and no further restraining order in relation to that property could be put in place. The existence of a restraining order is a prerequisite to a court making orders for the examination of persons in relation to the affairs of a person under the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987. To overcome this difficulty, which arises as a consequence of not being able to restrain a bankrupt offender's property, section 12 of the Bankruptcy Act is amended by clause 9 to specifically empower the Director of Public Prosecutions or persons entitled to bring applications for interstate pecuniary penalty orders to apply to the Inspector-General requesting that he exercise his powers to make inquiries and conduct investigations under the Bankruptcy Act. Section 58 of the Bankruptcy Act is amended to enable pecuniary penalty orders and interstate pecuniary orders to be enforced against property of the bankrupt which does not vest in the trustee of the bankrupt. Section 60 of the Bankruptcy Act is amended to ensure that proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Bill cannot be discontinued or stayed until all bankruptcy proceedings have been concluded. The amendment to section 82 of the Bankruptcy Act effected by clause 8 enables pecuniary penalties and interstate pecuniary penalty orders to be proved as civil debts payable to the Commonwealth in bankruptcy whether such orders are made before or during the bankruptcy. Section 148 has been amended to enable the Director of Public Prosecutions, or persons entitled under State law to apply for an interstate pecuniary penalty order, to apply to a court for an order preventing the distribution of the surplus of a bankruptcy back to the bankrupt. Where an order has been made by the court preventing the distribution of the surplus and a pecuniary penalty order is subsequently made against the bankrupt defendant, the Commonwealth would be in the position to enforce the pecuniary penalty order by way of warrant execution against the surplus held by the Official Trustee. Clause 10 amends section 153 of the Bankruptcy Act to ensure that a pecuniary penalty order debt is not extinguished upon the bankrupt's discharge from the bankruptcy. Cheques and Payment Orders Act 1986 The Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 amends the Cheques and Payment Orders Act 1986 to require the retention of cheques by financial institutions. The provisions of clauses 12 and 13 require financial institutions to retain cheques and payment orders in amounts in excess of $200 for a period of seven years. The provisions mirror clauses 77 and 78 of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which require financial institutions to retain other documents necessary to reconstruct transactions conducted through the institution for the amount in excess of $200. Crimes Act 1914 Part III of the Bill contains a number of amendments to the Crimes Act 1914. The majority of these amendments increase penalties prescribed for offences which are relevant to preserving of the money trail for the purposes of confiscation of assets. Clause 14 amends section 18a of the Crimes Act to ensure that pecuniary penalty orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Bill are enforced under the regime set up in that Act and are not treated as other pecuniary penalties and enforced in accordance with State laws as if they were fines imposed by the court. The maximum penalty for offences against sections 36, 39 and 43 of the Crimes Act has been increased to five years. These offences deal with fabricating or destroying evidence and attempting to pervert the course of justice. It is likely that criminals will resort more frequently to activities constituting a breach of these provisions in light of the severe penalties which will flow from detection of criminal offences following the introduction of the proceeds of crime legislation. I commend the Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, for Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill was first introduced on 22 October 1986. The Bill is now being reintroduced in a significantly amended form. The most important of these amendments enables Australia to provide, and request, assistance concerning freezing and forfeiture of the proceeds of crime. I will refer later in more detail to this aspect of the Bill. This Bill will provide a legislative basis for Australia to enter into arrangements with other countries whereby it can request and grant assistance in criminal matters. The assistance will relate both to the investigation and prosecution of crime. This Bill represents a significant initiative of this Government in its fight against organised and international crime. At the conclusion of the Special Premiers Conference in April 1985 the Prime Minister committed the Government to pursuing actively opportunities for increased co-operation with other countries in combating crime. The final report of the Royal Commission into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group which was presented on 12 July 1985 recommended, inter alia, that the Commonwealth Government give consideration to upgrading the priority accorded to the establishment of modern mutual assistance agreements. At the seventh United Nations Crime Congress in Milan in 1985 Australia was instrumental in proposing, and having unanimously carried, a resolution calling for greater international co-operation in combating organised crime and urging all governments to give urgent attention to the development of mutual assistance arrangements. This Bill in particular will enable Australia, in co-operation with other countries, to deprive criminals of off-shore havens in which to hide their profits. My discussions overseas, particularly in the United States of America and Switzerland, have completely confirmed the need for legislation in this area if Australia is to carry out effectively its international responsibilities in combating crime. I was impressed in the course of those discussions with the number of countries which expressed interest in the early completion of mutual assistance arrangements with Australia. In early 1985 I established a task force to extend and modernise Australia's extradition arrangements with other countries. In that short period I have signed 14 extradition treaties. Negotiations have also been opened up with another 27 countries. The task force has also commenced the process of developing mutual assistance arrangements with other countries based on this Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the tremendous work done by the task force, including officers of my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs, in the development of legislation as well as treaties and other arrangements. The work of the task force has resulted in a treaty-making process without precedent in this country's history. I am confident that the good work of the task force will continue. This Bill has been the subject of extensive consultation with the States and the Northern Territory. The success of this proposed legislation, and the international arrangements for mutual assistance, will depend heavily on close co-operation and understanding between the Commonwealth and the States. The Bill also ensures that rights of persons are properly protected in accordance with Australian standards of justice. The Bill reflects the principles of the Commonwealth Scheme of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters agreed at the Commonwealth Law Ministers meeting in Harare in July 1986. I shall now turn to the principal features of the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill makes it clear that its object is to facilitate the provision and obtaining by Australia of international assistance in criminal matters in areas which include: (a) The obtaining of evidence, documents and other articles; (b) the provision of documents and other records; (c) the location and identification of witnesses or suspects; (d) the execution of requests for search and seizure; (e) the making of arrangements for persons to give evidence or assist in investigations; (f) the forfeiture or confiscation of property in respect of offences; (g) the recovery of pecuniary penalties in respect of offences; (h) the restraining of dealings in property, or the freezing of assets, that may be forfeited or confiscated or that may be needed to satisfy pecuniary penalties imposed, in respect of offences; (i) the location of property that may be forfeited, or that may be needed to satisfy pecuniary penalties imposed, in respect of offences; and (j) the service of documents. The Bill's real function is to provide a legislative basis for Australia to honour the obligations it will be assuming in treaties and arrangements thereby ensuring that other countries will honour their obligations to Australia. Clause 7 of the Bill provides that the Act may be applied to a foreign country specified in the regulations. Clause 8 is a particularly important clause in that it sets out circumstances in which the Attorney-General can refuse assistance. These exceptions to the provision of assistance are designed to ensure that national and State interests are safeguarded and that no injustice or oppression is caused to individuals. The substantive parts of the Bill also reflect the concern that Australia should not, in responding to a foreign request for assistance, unfairly disadvantage any individual. Part II of the Bill empowers the Attorney-General to authorise a magistrate in Australia to take evidence and have documents and articles produced for transmission to a foreign country for use in proceedings in that country. The person to whom the foreign proceedings relate is entitled to be represented at the hearing in Australia as is any other person giving evidence or producing documents or other articles at the hearing. The relevant authority of the foreign country is also entitled to be represented. Part III of the Bill deals with search and seizure at the request of foreign countries. The foreign country must specify the reasonable grounds which it has for believing that a thing which is relevant to a proceeding or investigation involving a serious offence against the law of that country is located in Australia. A search warrant may not issue unless the foreign offence carries a maximum penalty of at least 12 months imprisonment. Part IV of the Bill deals with arrangements for persons and prisoners to travel to a foreign country at the country's request or to Australia at Australia's request to give evidence in a criminal proceeding or to assist a criminal investigation. Most serious organised crime has international dimensions. It is accordingly vital that Australia have arrangements whereby persons overseas, whether prisoners or not, can be transferred to Australia to give evidence or assist investigations. Safeguards are built into the procedures established. For example, the person is entitled to immunity from prosecution both in respect of offences allegedly committed prior to departure from the foreign country to travel to Australia to give evidence or assist an investigation and also in respect of the evidence he or she gives except for perjury. The Bill will enable Australia to ease significantly the task of foreign investigation and prosecution agencies in cases where crucial evidence or witnesses are in Australia. Australia will also benefit by being able to make requests for similar assistance pursuant to the arrangements it will be entering into. For example Australia will be able to seek by compulsory process access to banking and other financial records in foreign countries. It is vital that Australia be able to give effect to foreign forfeiture and confiscation orders in relation to the proceeds of overseas criminal activity where those proceeds are located in Australia. In turn it is also vital that Australia be able to seek the forfeiture and confiscation of the proceeds of crime committed in Australia where the proceeds are found overseas. The proceeds of criminal activity, regardless of where found, should be denied to those persons who have obtained them and hopefully returned to the society which was a victim of the criminal conduct to which those proceedings relate. The major amendment to the form of the Bill in which it was originally introduced into the House on 22 October 1986 is the addition of a new Part VI concerning the proceeds of crime. This Part will link in to the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987 and permit, at the international level, forfeiture and confiscation by Australia at the request of foreign countries and vice versa. Part VII of the Bill provides for service of foreign criminal process in Australia. The Part also contemplates Australian criminal process will in turn be able to served in a foreign country. The Government attaches great importance to development of a comprehensive international framework of mutual assistance treaties and arrangements. Major crime is becoming increasingly international in scope. It is imperative that greater international co-operation and assistance be introduced into the investigation and prosecution processes to enable major criminal suspects to be brought to justice. This Bill provides the legislative backing for Australia to enter into these international arrangements. While it is not possible to estimate the resource and cost implications of this Bill it is clear that Australia will derive considerable benefit from assistance from other countries. I should mention in this regard that Australia has already received significant assistance from a number of foreign countries. I mention in particular Switzerland where significant funds associated with Australian narcotics trafficking have been frozen. However, to extend and improve this kind of assistance Australia must be in a position to extend assistance to other countries. The cost of providing that assistance will be at least offset, and probably outweighed, by the value of the assistance Australia receives. I commend the Bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, for Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill was first introduced on 22 October 1986. The Bill is now being re-introduced in a significantly amended form. The Bill now amends various Commonwealth Acts as a consequence of provisions in the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987. The Bill amends the Director of Public Prosecutions Act to enable the Director to appear and grant indemnities in proceedings under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987. The Bill repeals provisions in the Australian extradition legislation in relation to the taking of evidence for the purposes of criminal proceedings overseas since the substance of those provisions is now included in the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987. In addition, the Bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to make provision for the entry into Australia and departure of persons who are non-citizens whose presence is required for purposes connected with the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987. The amendments to the Migration Act also enable deportation of such persons who remain in Australia longer than permitted for purposes connected with the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987 and who have not acquired an entry permit or become an Australian citizen. The Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is amended so that persons permitted to enter Australia for purposes connected with the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987 shall not be able to take advantage of their presence in Australia for the purposes of applying for Australian citizenship. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.13) —The Social Security Amendment Bill is extensive legislation and enables honourable members to express a view about the fairly broad range of social security matters which are covered in the Bill. I shall be speaking on some specific matters, one of which has already been covered in some detail by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), but I have to say, and I say it with no great pleasure, that tragically today Australia, under the policies of the Hawke socialist Government, has become in my opinion a bludgers' paradise. It is a very sad reflection on the present state of affairs, at a time when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) says that in economic terms we are in a worse position than we have ever been since World War II, that the most recent surveys conducted by this delinquent Government seem to indicate that as many as one out of four social security beneficiaries is obtaining either in whole or in part his or her benefit under false pretences. I ask you to contemplate that, Mr Deputy Speaker, because we in this chamber are well aware of your very sincere and genuine interest in this matter and in particular the matters which you raised in General Business earlier today. The thought that the situation has become so bad under this profligate and extravagant Government that as many as one in four social security beneficiaries is receiving his other benefit fraudulently appals me. I want to adopt the remarks of the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), a former Minister in the Fraser Government and a very good one, if I may say so. He appealed to Australians to understand that what is being committed in this country before our very eyes and under our very noses is a massive rip-off of the taxpayers of Australia. On behalf of those taxpayers, I have to say that we are sick and tired of this Government handing out taxpayers' money as if there is no day of reckoning and as if there is no end to it. It is almost reminiscent of the printing presses working through the night during the dark days of the Whitlam Government when this country was plunged to the brink of bankruptcy that we have a government which has been weak and delinquent and which has turned Australia into a bludgers' paradise. It is a crying shame that many young people going through our schools, and receiving what I can only describe as dubious instructions from some of those in whose charge they find themselves, now genuinely believe that they have a choice as to whether they intend to work when they leave school or to opt for the alternative lifestyle at the expense of the taxpayers of this country. We have so many new options available to us in this avant garde system of teaching which is ripping at the heart of our nation-the option of whether one works; the option of whether one engages in relations not with a member of the opposite sex but with a member of the same sex; the option as to whether one becomes one of those who regard the consumption of drugs as normal; the option of whether one prefers to collect one's unemployment benefit and spend time at the hotel while one's colleagues go into apprenticeships and obtain jobs and finish up with less personal disposable income at the end of the week than one receives in a commune where one lives with five, 10, 15 or 20 colleagues. It is a matter of record that as recently as five years ago a first year apprentice motor mechanic was receiving less personal disposable income in his or her pocket at the end of the week than the counterpart who chose deliberately not to work but to go on the dole. I know that later in this debate some honourable members will say once again that a member of the Opposition is attacking those who are unfortunate enough not to be able to gain employment. That is not so. I repeat, and I shall do so ad nauseam between now and the next Federal election, that we on this side of the House do care, and care very greatly, for those young people and for the older ones, particularly those in the forgotten bracket of 40 through to 55 years who find themselves in a situation where, no matter how hard they try, they cannot get employment. The Liberal Party of Australia, of which I am proud to be a member, is firmly of the view that those who try to get employment and, through no fault of their own, are unable to do so should be assisted by the Government through the social security system. Our complaint relates to those who choose not to work, and the taxpayers have had a gutful. If one had a continuing graph, one would see that we are fast approaching a situation where within 20 years there will be more people being supported on social security benefits than there will be people in the work force. Every person in the work force today have on their backs the ghost of one other person who is being supported in one way or another by the state. We think that we are an advanced country. We think that Australia is one of the leading countries. Some people would be inclined to suggest that our near neighbour-Papua New Guinea-is in some way primitive or backward. Did honourable members see, as I saw, on television the other night a most impressive television interview with the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Hon. Paias Wingti? I was tremendously impressed. I have not yet met Mr Wingti, but I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr Somare and I knew the late Sir Iambakey Okuk and Angmai Bilas and a number of very fine Papua New Guineans who have served their country with great distinction in parliament and government. Mr Wingti was asked about unemployment benefits in Papua New Guinea. He said: `We do not have them. It might be all right in Australia to have them, but it would be no good in our country. We believe in working. We have no unemployment benefits'. Our nearest neighbour-Papua New Guinea-does not have the unemployment benefit and I thought: `What does that do to the number of unemployed in that country compared with that in Australia?'. Papua New Guinea has one of the lowest levels of unemployment of any of our South Pacific neighbours. Mr Deputy Speaker, does that tell you something? The new Prime Minister, the honourable Paias Wingti, said quite clearly, quite categorically: `We have no unemployment benefits at all in our country because we want our young people to work, and they are'. If any politician stood in this Parliament today and said `Why don't we decide that next April-April 1988-just to clear the books, all unemployment benefit payments will be suspended for that month?' there would be an outcry but I am certain that it would clear the books and I am certain that many people would very quickly find employment. What does that say about where this country is going? I notice the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), is at the table and he will confirm these figures. On any given day anywhere between 50,000 and 90,000 illegal immigrants are working in Australia. What does that say? It says this: Even though they are illegally in this country, even though they have none of the accreditation and documentation of support that we have-they cannot produce documents to prove their legitimate arrival in Australia or the legitimacy of their stay-they can still find work. What does that say about the Australian who is not dodging the immigration authorities, who is not dodging the Australian Federal Police and yet says: `I cannot find work'? I think we are letting down our young people. Day in and day out young people come into my office and ask: `Mr Hodgman, can you help me to get a job? Mr Hodgman, will you provide a reference? Mr Hodgman, are you prepared to pick up your telephone and ring Mr so and so at such and such a company to see whether I can get an interview?' I have found-I am not boasting-that in the majority of cases I have been able to help those young people in that I have been able to see them get a job and to know that they have started off on the right track. They ask me: `How many young people come in and see you?' I say: `On an average day, out of up to 45 appointments I would have between 10 and 15 with young people seeking employment'. A young person asks me: `Can you give me a reference?'. I say: `Bring me your school reports and any other references you have and we will sit down and talk'. I satisfy myself as to that person's bona fides. Then I will not only give a reference but also I am prepared to ring an employer and to take the person who has come to see me to the place of employment. There are little side issues. I say to them `Have a haircut. I have nothing against the length of your hair but a potential employer might' or `I have nothing against the earring you are wearing but I suggest that you take it off'. In some areas such as factories and the like it is positively dangerous to wear them. I say little things like that. The young people who were promised jobs by this Government have been betrayed and today youth unemployment in Australia is higher than it was under Malcolm Fraser. I invite my friend the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins), who will follow me, to dispute the fact that whilst his Prime Minister can boast about 660,000 new positions being filled-again this is not true; many of those positions are being refilled-when he cited those figures they were torn to pieces by the Australian Financial Review when he was around the 150,000 mark. It is not correct to say that the Hawke socialist Government has created 660,000 new jobs because a large proportion of those are vacancies which have been filled as a result of death, retirement, retrenchment, leaving the country, marrying or whatever. Where are the young people getting work? They are not and they have had a gutful of the Hawke socialist Government. Priority One: Young Australia is a disaster: Worse, it was a confidence trick. Let me turn to just one specific matter. I acknowledge the presence in the chamber of one of our most dedicated and, I believe, effective members, the honourable member for Moncrieff, who raised a matter in the debate earlier today which, incidentally, I have been pursuing. This is at a time when the country is nearly bankrupt and the Prime Minister says that we are in a worse situation than we have been in since World War II. One part of the legislation that this Parliament has been asked to pass will now be put to a vote, thanks to an amendment which will be moved at the Committee stage by the honourable member for Moncrieff, which I would happily second. People driving home might nearly run off the road when they hear this; they will not believe it could happen. This Parliament on this day is being asked to approve a provision in Schedule 1 which will require the Department of Social Security to pay married rate benefits to underaged de factos who are committing a crime. The amendment follows a case in South Australia where a young girl of 16 was living in a de facto relationship with an older man. The law of South Australia provides that the age of consent is 17 years and therefore they were effectively committing crimes. He was committing the crime of defilement, otherwise known as unlawful carnal knowledge, and she was committing the crime of aiding and abetting him in the commission of the crime of defilement. This young girl applied for a benefit and the case went to the administrative Appeals Tribunal, a tribunal which I frequently appear before in a completely honorary capacity on behalf of my pensioner constituents in Denison. The Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, very properly-one would expect this to be so in view of the stature of our Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen)-said quite clearly and categorically that it could not administer the social security system to allow `anyone to benefit from the commission of a criminal offence'. The upshot was that the Tribunal ruled that the underaged de facto was entitled to the benefit at the married rate. To put the matter beyond doubt, the Hawke socialist Government says that it will now make it compulsory for the Department to pay married rate benefits to under-aged de factos who are breaking the law in every State and Territory of Australia where sexual intercourse occurs involving a female person under the age of consent. Mrs Sullivan —Or a male person under the age of consent. Mr HODGMAN —Or, as my colleague the honourable member says, a male person. The logical extension of this is that the next cab off the rank from this crazy, profligate and totally amoral Hawke socialist Government will make it compulsory to pay married rate benefits to underaged brothers and sisters who jointly commit the crime of incest. Before Government members laugh about that, they should remember that during the days of the Whitlam Government one of its law reform agencies in the national capital publicly advocated, and it had under very careful consideration, the abolition of the crime of incest between brothers and sisters. Mr Hollis —You're sick. Mr HODGMAN —If the honourable member says that, he has not even looked at the legislation. The Government will compulsorily require the Department to pay married rate benefits to under-age de factos committing the crime of defilement. The Government would provide-the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Moncrieff will put this one out of the way-that the Department pay the married rate benefit to brother and sister who are under age and committing the crime of incest. The Government now deems that cohabiting juveniles aged 15 years are married to their partner. It then says, `We will pay to the two of them $202.30 a week for their activities'. Why on earth would they want to go to work? Where does the Prime Minister intend to go next? Will he decide to present each of them with a gold medal? That is what Government members are asking the Parliament to approve today; yet the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) says I am sick. I say that he is sick if he is prepared to make it compulsory-I repeat, compulsory-for under-age de factos committing the crime of defilement to be deemed to be married and paid for it. Many in the community would take the view that the Government is wrong to deem adult de factos as married. But now the same person who can be dragged before the court for unlawful carnal knowledge will be able to say: `Why am I being prosecuted when Mr Hawke says I am entitled to a married rate benefit?'. I repeat: Were it not for the amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Moncrieff-and the honourable member for Throsby says I am sick; I do not think he has even looked at the legislation-brother and sister jointly committing incest would qualify for a married rate benefit under the ruling of that Tribunal and the amendment proposed in schedule 1. Where are we in this country heading? We have a Prime Minister who lied, who misled the people of Australia by promising employment for all. He has betrayed the youth of this country. He encourages a system whereby the young people of Australia today are given the option of working or not working, and it becomes more and more attractive by the minute not to work. Prime Minister Hawke has turned this country into a bludgers' paradise. Mr Hollis —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I heard the honourable member claim that the Prime Minister had lied. I think that that was unparliamentary and I would ask him to withdraw that comment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —The point of order is upheld. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, only because you are in the chair, I will do so. I remind the House that the Prime Minister accused the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, of lying, and that, on that occasion, was not ruled out of order. But because you are in the chair, I will withdraw. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(5.33) —The Social Security Amendment Bill 1987 helps to streamline the Social Security Act and its administration. It has also allowed the opportunity for quite a wide-ranging discussion of welfare and social security matters. Indeed, I was interested to hear some of the comments that have been made by honourable members on both sides of the House. I wish to dwell on a couple of matters that were raised by the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) and the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan). They mentioned two areas in which apparently measures could be taken which allowed people to abuse the unemployment benefit. I think it is of interest because these two items appeared in a cover story of the Business Review Weekly of 10 April, which I found quite an incredible article, entitled `60 Tax Shelters'. The honourable member for Moncrieff talked about-and I agree with her that it is something that should be looked into-the way in which those in seasonal work can receive the unemployment benefit during the periods in which they are unemployed and therefore getting no income. It is interesting that this article in the Business Review Weekly referred to this as the second of the 60 items. It called it, `Taking a holiday'. The article states: If you can take a holiday on social security you are indeed, making the system work for you. Social security rules, however are concerned only with an immediate work test and current weekly income. Benefits will then be paid irrespective of the income in the earlier part of the year. I can only agree that that is something that needs to be looked into. The honourable member for Dobell brought to the House's attention cases in which lump sum benefits from superannuation payments are made to those leaving employment who are under the age of 65. In the schemes that he raised, the sums were invested, the investment falls due in a certain week, and it is only in that week that the person, because of that income, is no longer eligible for the unemployment benefit. Item 7 of the 60 schemes outlined in the article in the Business Review Weekly is entitled, `hoarding your payment'. The article states: Provisions to keep lump sum benefits intact are rec- ognised by the tax office. If you leave employment and are under 65, lump sum benefits can be preserved in approved deposit funds and deferred annuities until you are 65. The funds help maximise the advantages of a tax shelter. That is why these funds are the fastest growing avenues of investment in Australia today. * * * * An added bonus is that earnings in some approved deposit funds are not caught by the unemployment benefits income test or by the service pension income test. Preserved superannuation benefits, equivalent to approved deposit fund deposits, also are not caught by the tests. That is a slight variation on the scheme which the honourable member for Dobell raised. I was also interested to hear the contributions by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) and the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper). Whilst this legislation has tripartisan support-tripartisan is perhaps a new word that we will have to use in our parliamentary lexicon-I was a bit shocked by the differences between the contributions by the two honour- able members I have mentioned and others. Until yesterday the honourable member for Richmond was the coalition spokesman on welfare matters. I now understand that he is the National Party's spokesman. In some way I think that the honourable member for Fisher was the `shadow of the shadow' under the previous arrangements. They displayed their continuing dramatic attitude to welfare matters. The honourable member for Fisher again resurrected his call for an `Operation Noah' style campaign to dob in welfare cheats. I think that is an unfortunate and perhaps insensitive approach to a problem. It only heightens the anguish and hysteria that surrounds those issues to do with the proper targeting of welfare benefits. The honourable member for Richmond is probably most famous for one of his suggestions earlier this year. He suggested that those in receipt of the unemployment benefit who had failed to attend job interviews-he specified six jobs interviews-should be accompanied to future interviews by a Department of Social Security officer. So DSS minders would attend interviews with unemployed people. I think the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) was quite correct in describing this as an absurd approach. He raised the question of how many employers would be likely to engage someone who had to be accompanied to an interview by an officer of the Department. It is sufficient to say that there are enough traumas facing unemployed people and those traumas are even greater for those who have been unemployed for a prolonged period. I think that this sort of measure would only heighten their anguish and concern about ever getting employment. That is not to say that the Government need not be concerned that there are people who are having great difficulty in finding employment, and who have been unemployed for long terms, and that they should not be helped in regard to ways of approaching job interviews. A number of measures are undertaken by both the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Social Security to try to help people in gaining adequate job interviewing skills and in other preparations for job applications. There are places such as CES youth access centres where people can gain information and get counselling on job interviewing skills and CES work information centres where counsellors and vocational psychologists can help people prepare for jobs. So there is a need to approach these problems with a great deal of sensitivity. While I outline the measures that the Government has already taken, I acknowledge that there is a need perhaps to have more counselling services than we have at the moment. The honourable member for Richmond was not too charitable in the way he continued to fail to recognise any of the efforts and measures by this Government to ensure that those people who are most eligible for and entitled to benefits are those receiving them. For instance, he scoffed at the efforts of the amnesty which was held earlier last year. He failed to mention that the eligibility for the amnesty was strictly limited to clients that had a genuine entitlement to the benefit and that amnesty was to be given only for overpayments that had resulted from failure to inform the Department of information on changes in circumstances. The amnesty was not available to people who, as a result of deliberate misrepresentation, were receiving payments that they had no entitlement whatsoever to receive. The amnesty and its results should be recognised. A total of over 14,000 clients applied for amnesty. Of these, 13,591 were accepted. In 10,527 cases there was either cancellation or a reduction of payment. These cancellations or reductions resulted in a savings equivalent to $19.7m in a full year. As the Department of Social Security 1985-86 annual report indicated, not only was the amnesty carried out but one other measure worthy of some praise is that the Department embarked upon a campaign of personalising its advices and making them more understandable, using plain English. As the Department indicated in its annual report, clients are now volunteering more information about changes in their circumstances, which of course substantially decreases the number of overpayments. There was also an effort by the Department to reduce the cut-off dates for pensions from 13 days to 6 days before the payment. I have had some experience in the pension payments area of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and to me this is a crucial measure to enable the payments to more adequately reflect the circumstances of beneficiaries. It is to the Department's credit that it has gained greater efficiency in being able to decrease the time between the cut-off and the payment. Emphasis has been placed on policy training for officers of the Department-which is important. The other thing that I will get back to concerning the review teams is that the Department embarked upon risk analysis in trying to identify those beneficiaries who matched criteria indicating that there was a risk that the people might be overpaid. Measures announced in the Budget that are not recognised by honourable members opposite include compulsory continuous registration at the CES, personal lodgment of unemployment benefit forms, entitlement checks, the unemployment benefit selective review teams, interviewing of supporting parents and interviews for the long term jobless. Mr Reith —That's a joke, isn't it? Mr JENKINS —The honourable member might think it is a joke but let us wait for the results and look at the type of information that will be asked of the beneficiaries and the type of information to be offered to them. Let us remember that these questions are to be asked of the long term unemployed, a group that perhaps requires a degree of special compassion and a bit of sensitivity about their circumstances. Perhaps it would be better for those who sit opposite, instead of ranting and raving, to have considered viewpoints on those matters being raised in the social security review and to identify more appropriate ways of handling those people who make up the long term unemployed, instead of worrying about the actions of a union. It seems to me that any time a union takes any sort of action there are knee jerk reactions and a jumping up and down in an intemperate way by members of the Liberal Party and the National Party. Mr Reith —Why shouldn't they do what they are told to do? Mr JENKINS —I was going to be less than charitable and suggest that the material between the ears of the honourable member for Flinders is the same as that from which the dispatch box he has now reached is made. But I know that that would probably be out of line and if any offence was taken I will withdraw. Mr Reith —Then withdraw. Mr JENKINS —I will and it will be lovely to hear from the honourable member if he follows me in the debate. I come back to the selective review teams. The parties opposite have been less than charitable in the way they have used the information coming from the review teams. It is to be remembered that these review teams have been tackling, in targeted areas, very selected clients of the Department. In the unemployment benefits area 7,354 people have been interviewed. Of these, 1,821 have had their benefit cancelled, 179 have had their entitlement reduced and 363 have had their entitlement increased. But what we need to recognise when we look at those figures-and we notice that some 25 per cent of those interviewed have had their unemployment benefit cancelled-is that this is a selected, targeted group. It is of great shock and nuisance value when certain commentators, for their own benefit-and honourable members opposite for their political benefit-use this information, as did Brent Davis, the Chief Economist for the Australian Chamber of Commerce, to make suggestions. According to an article in the Sun on Wednesday, 4 March, he said: `Around one-in-four recipients of unemployment payments are little better than dole cheats'. This is selective use of the information coming out of these review teams, and it is of no credit to the people who claim to be proper commentators on these types of affairs if they selectively use such information-because this is just arrant nonsense. Up to the end of March, some 25,700 sole parent beneficiaries had been interviewed. Of these, 1,968 have had their benefit cancelled-that is about 7.6 per cent-2,525 had their entitlement reduced and 2,270 had it increased. It is important that these matters have been handled with as much sensitivity as can be mustered. There is another aspect that perhaps people such as the honourable member for Richmond should be reminded of-that in all cases where there are overpayments attempts will be made to recover them. This is something that he has tended to ignore and not acknowledge. Another aspect of this Bill is the inclusion in the Schedules to the principal Act of the current reciprocal agreements with the United Kingdom and New Zealand governments. We have a similar agreement with the Italian Government. While I understand that this matter is now out of the Government's hands, the ratification of the agreement by the Italian Government will now be further delayed because of the difficulties of forming a government in Italy and the impending election. It is to be hoped that in the not too distant future the Italian Government will take action so that the many Italian-Australian beneficiaries can start to see the fruits of that agreement. As a result of the Italian agreement there has been much discussion and questioning in the various ethnic communities in my electorate, especially among the Maltese, Greek and Yugoslav communities. They wonder whether action will be taken to come to similar agreements with their respective governments. I acknowledge that various discussions have taken place with those three communities and I also understand that to the best of the ability of the Department and those holding discussions, these ethnic communities and their representative bodies in Australia are being consulted. We are trying to keep them informed of what is going on. These agreements are potentially of great benefit to the many migrants who have made significant contributions to Australia's development. The Department of Social Security's charter is `to deliver social security entitlements and related services in accordance with the policies of the Government in a timely, fair and sensitive manner with efficient and effective use of resources.' Through the Department the Government has attempted to do this. It is to the Department's credit that at a time when we are tightening the administrative measures surrounding the payment of beneficiaries there have been very few complaints about its actions. In fact, in the last 12 months I have had only one complaint which I received recently and which I referred to the Minister late last week. It was a complaint about the action of an investigating officer who visited a beneficiary's home. I have asked for further information about that. I raise the matter as an illustration of the fact that everyone concerned must understand the need to be sensitive in this area. I know that anyone who has worked on the counter of a regional Department of Social Security office knows the tension in these circumstances and the need to be very careful in the way one operates. Briefly, this is a very exciting time for social security with the review being undertaken- The DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(5.53) —Clause 24 of the Social Security Amendment Bill 1987 amends the Social Security Act 1947 to relax the requirements relating to the qualification of certain beneficiaries who receive rent assistance if they are renting in the private rental market. Under the current law if one receives the unemployment benefit and then obtains a job one loses the rent assistance. If one then loses the job a few weeks later one has to serve a waiting period before requalifying for rent assistance. This amendment proposes that if a person loses the job within four weeks there will be no need to serve out the waiting period before requalifying. Essentially it removes a non-financial poverty trap. This is a reasonable proposition, as long as it is not abused. It removes a disincentive to unemployed people to take jobs which might at first sight appear to be short term. The need for rent assistance at all of course raises the issue of the state of the rental market. In my capacity as the recently appointed shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, I take the opportunity provided by this Bill to look at some of the issues, particularly in relation to the private rental market. First, I want to say that it was a great honour to be asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to join his front bench. There is no doubt in my mind that the Liberal Party of Australia will win government at the next election. I have a contribution to make. I have been asked to make a contribution and I intend to work hard in the job that I have been asked to do. Unlike the Ministry of the current Labour Government, the membership of the next Liberal government will be determined by performance and that is a challenge that I am prepared to accept. If I had been asked to nominate any portfolio I do not think I could have gone past Housing and Construction. The housing industry is a major industry. It is centrally important to our economic health. It is an industry where free enterprise, although admittedly under attack by this Government, is alive and well and it is an industry that has the capacity and the skill, if governments leave it alone, to provide high quality and affordable housing for all Australians. I say to everyone in the industry, and those listening to this broadcast today, that whether he is a sub-contractor, a builder, a labourer, a developer, an investor or whatever he has my support as shadow Minister for Housing and Construction and I look forward to working with everyone to ensure that we have a healthy, vibrant and free enterprise housing and construction industry. In return, I will be working to gain the support of those people for the free enterprise Liberal Party. One of the reasons I am in politics is that I believe in free enterprise and the right of Australian families to have their own affordable home. Under Labor both those basic principles have been under attack. It is no wonder we need rent assistance. A couple of weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition put out a list of Labor's top 10 broken promises. It is an indication of the importance we attach to housing that at the top of that list was a promise that the Prime Minister had made to the people in his policy speech in 1984. He said: We pledge ourselves to bring home ownership once again within the reach of ordinary Australian families. That was a very clear commitment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) — Order! I think that the honourable member for Flinders is getting away from the Bill before the House. I ask him to return to the provisions of the Social Security Amendment Bill. Mr REITH —Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer you to the clause in the Bill dealing with qualifications for rent assistance. It is an integral part of this package to relate this provision-as has been done by previous speakers-to the broader circumstances of the housing industry and people's ability to obtain rentals. If one is in Sydney one's chances of getting a house are remote. Of every 1,000 houses needed in the rental market, only seven are available. This affects those very people who are subject to the provisions of this Bill. People should ask themselves whether they are better off in housing after four years of Labor. The answer can be found in the public housing lists. When Labor came to power about 100,000 people were on the housing waiting lists. Today 160,000 Australians are looking for affordable housing. If this were not so serious it would be a J-curve led recovery where `J' stood for joke. Very interesting figures have come out this week in an address to the Housing Industry Conference in Hobart which I put to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) today. The figures were-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Could the honourable member point out the clause of the Bill before the House which actually refers to the matters he is raising? Mr REITH —Yes, I would be very pleased to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is clause 24 of the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr REITH —Thank you very much. A very interesting contribution was made at the HIA conference this week by a chief economist of the National Mutual Royal Bank Ltd. Basically, he said that home affordability in Australia is the worst it has been for 17 years, if not since the war. How more clear a statement of fact can we have of Labor's broken promise in terms of home affordability? It is not just economists and others who say that. Let us look at the comment reported in the Press last year of Government back bencher, Mr Hand, the honourable member for Melbourne. An article in the Canberra Times of 18 February 1986 stated: Government backbencher Mr Hand . . . told a gathering at the ANU yesterday that poverty and homelessness had continued to increase since the Labor Party won power. If that is not good enough, the Minister's factional ally from New South Wales on 9 October 1986 said: I am sure the Federal Government did not intend to exacerbate the housing crisis but that is what has happened. That is a clear statement. Before the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) rises too quickly, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me refer to the remarks of the Minister for Housing and Construction at the HIA conference this week. He said: While homelessness may seem to be a Third World problem to many Australians, the fact is we do have our own housing problems. That is an admission that in relation to the housing problem we are in a Third World state, bringing to fruition the promise of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of a banana republic for Australia. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I would like to congratulate the honourable member on his appointment to his position, but we are debating a social security Bill and I think the honourable member is drawing a very wide canvas. What is more, I thought we had some agreement about time. Mr REITH —I assure the Minister that I am about to wind up my introductory comments as shadow Minister for Housing and Construction. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair will listen with interest. Mr REITH —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is nice to have your support. I say to all Australians that if they want these problems fixed they will need to vote Liberal at the next election. We have already issued our policy. Copies are available for people who wish to write to or ring me-Peter Reith at Parliament House, Canberra. I will be very happy to provide them with copies of our housing and construction policy, an excellent policy put for- ward by my predecessor. I am pleased to have this job. It is an honour to be able to contribute to ensuring that the Liberal Party gets into government at the next election. This industry is vital to Australia's future. It is a vital component, as I am sure the Minister will accept, in the standards of living of all Australians. Homelessness is an indication of poverty for many Australians. I will be working to make sure that the next Liberal Government will introduce policies directed to ensuring that the need of all Australians for affordable housing is met. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(6.04) —The primary purpose of the Social Security Amendment Bill 1987, as has been pointed out, is to introduce a number of procedures designed to combat social security fraud. That, at least, is a recognition on the part of the Hawke Government that social security fraud is not a matter primarily of identification-an argument of which we heard much as a phoney claim in the debate on the Australia Card Bill-but of wrong financial and other information. Belatedly, the Government wants to do something effective in combating unnecessary and wasteful expenditure in the social security area. This is tied into the May economic statement which is also a recognition that the Government's record as the biggest spending, biggest taxing and biggest borrowing government in the country's history has to be gotten under control. Thus the imperatives of Australia's very serious and, indeed, quite critical and dangerous economic position are thus getting through to the Government. Let us make no mistake: The parlous state of the country has got through loud and clear to the average Australian. The living standards of ordinary Australians, particularly the one income family, have fallen disastrously under the Hawke Labor Government with higher taxes taking a greater proportion of the family income even after the co-called Keating reforms are in place than was taken when the Government took office; with crippling interest rates so that a typical home mortgage is up by the order of $50 a week; and with prices in the supermarkets increasing virtually every week. In several debates this week the Opposition has underlined the situation and the Government has had no adequate reply. This decline in living standards, in particular the devastation of the ordinary family, reflects the wrong-headed economic policies of the Hawke Government, exacerbated to some extent by the adverse movement in the terms of trade. The cumulative massive Budget deficit, reflecting the reckless overspending of the Government in its four years in office, has been a major factor in that. Without elaborating in detail, the effect is to pile up debt-in the final analysis, overseas debt-vast interest obligations, contributing significantly to the yawning balance of payments gaps; and the depreciation of the Australian dollar which has the effect of further reducing the real income available to this nation; and so on. This country is in one heck of a bind. For the benefit of those who are driving home and listening to this debate, I tried to focus the predicament of the country the other day, alluding to Economic Planning Advisory Council study No. 22, in this way: It will require the toughest of budgetary policy-that is, really axing government spending, curbing the Government's excessive spending and borrowing-a really tough line on money income increases, preferably a wage freeze; and a good deal of luck, and particularly an expansive international environment which is currently under threat. Those things will be required just to stabilise-not to decrease, just to stabilise-Australia's overseas debt at the order of 40 per cent of gross domestic product with a similar drain on our export income, and that in five years. I hope the Australian people can see the imperative of getting the Government's spending, and hence its borrowing, under control. That, in its way, is what this Bill is about as is, similarly, the forthcoming May economic statement. Earlier in this debate, last night, I listened to the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) holding forth about the enormous difficulties of reducing government spending, let alone really axing it, and challenging the Opposition to respond as to whether it would cut this or that in this social security area-debate on which was before the House. Various other areas were raised-education, defence and so on. I reject totally any obligation on the part of the Opposition to respond directly to such a challenge. Honourable members opposite are the Government and it is their responsibility. We have only to look back and take a close look in particular at the 1984 Budget. Apart from the science area which was disastrously cut-so much for the Government's priorities-it was the greatest spend-up of all time. Spending on the community employment program, sport and recreation and many other areas went up by 60 to 80 per cent. The grant to the Australian Bicentennial Authority increased by the order of 350 per cent. I draw attention to that because this point was summed up in a recent ANZ Bank study which showed that, had there been reasonable restraint, the Federal Government's outlays would have been some $8 billion lower in the 1986-87 financial year than they actually are. The urgency of axing would have been so much less. Just the same, I have no hesitation in specifying some spending cuts. For example, the then shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter)-who is now the shadow Minister for the Family which, as I said earlier, is sorely in need of the greatest protection and support from the onslaught of the Hawke Government-recently set out how government spending in the Medicare area could be reduced by some $3 billion. In respect of unemployment benefits, to come back to the general content of this Bill, last night the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) elaborated on some of the things that need to be done to cut down on fraud and unnecessary spending. The point I want to make in this content is that the Government has reported that investigatory teams have found in areas spread over four States that a quarter of the unemployment benefit recipients who were questioned had been cheating the Department and have had their dole payments terminated. In New South Wales, the applicable ratio was about one-third. Notwithstanding the remarks that the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Harry Jenkins) made a while ago, on the basis of the Government's reported findings, some 25 per cent or more of unemployment benefits should be withdrawn. The total payment made for unemployment benefits at the moment is some $3.5 billion. Thus, one is talking of a reduction in spending of the order of $1 billion. So, in just two areas, some $4 billion is involved. One can look to the gravy train of the grants under the Commonwealth employment program and to other areas, but-and I stress this-that does not include the pensions area. It was false, if not all but libellous, for the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), who spoke earlier in this debate, to accuse the Opposition of proposing to freeze, or even to cut, pensions. The Opposition supports the Bill, which is designed to further control social security fraud. That is an important thrust in the overall urgent imperative of axing Government spending in this country. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(6.12) —in reply-Very briefly, I want to take up a couple of matters that were raised in the course of the debate. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) devoted almost his entire speech to the issue of interviews undertaken of the long-term unemployed. The honourable member seemed to fail to understand a couple of things. Those reviews had more than one purpose. They were not simply concerned with overpayments and with ensuring that a beneficiary receive only that to which that person is entitled. The interviews were also designed to enable the Government to learn more of the circumstances of the long-term unemployed and to provide some more information on that matter. I regret that I used the word `counselling', which was then made the straw man basis of much of what was said by the honourable member for Richmond. I certainly did not intend to use that term in a technical sense. Obviously, social workers in the Department are not involved in the reviewing of 100,000 people in this more than two years unemployed group. Any interviews undertaken certainly are not comparable to interviews and the counselling undertaken by social workers in the Department. The scale of what the Government has undertaken in the current financial year in relation to restricting fraud and seeking to reduce overpayment is probably greater than anything else previously attempted. In looking at just what is involved in terms of interviewing that number of people, I think that the concern of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association is a legitimate one, bearing in mind particularly that this year we also introduced a two week reporting requirement, which has put enormous pressure on regional offices, along with the new requirements in respect of the reporting of supporting parents. This, particularly in New South Wales, has caused a lot of concern to the staff and I must say it has concerned some members of parliament. The changes that were made in the pattern of interviews were designed to reduce some of that pressure. We believe that the interviews will not diminish the effectiveness of what we are about in trying to improve the integrity of the social security system in terms of verifying people's entitlement. We did not require all that information; nor does it mean that in particular cases quite extensive investigations will not be carried out. I think that the whole approach to the restriction of overpayments and fraud is based on the concept of risk entitlement. In interviewing a whole population in a particular category, one does not really expect to find massive variations in terms of the number of people not receiving their entitlements, because people have not been selected on any particular basis. This is quite different from the regional task forces that have been working in selected regional areas, with selected clients, who have been very carefully chosen. So, there has been a great deal of misinformation in the media about one in four people defrauding the system, and so on. That is not true. Those people in the group selected for review in terms of that task force activity have been very carefully selected-and that is why there is a quite high rate of people there found to be receiving payments to which they were not entitled. I understand that the Opposition intends to move one amendment to this Bill, which pertains to sub-section 6 (1) of the schedule on page 15, relating to the definition of `de facto spouse'. Of course, one would not be accusing anyone of anything too much if one were to say that in dealing with matters such as that covered by the amendment it is not very difficult to generate a great deal of emotion-and of course, that is what has occurred. The kind of emotion and the kind of statements that have been made this afternoon by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) reflect an emotional response to the issue, which really relates to what is, essentially, designed to be a technical amendment. I assure the House that that is all that is involved. The Government has no intention of doing more than simply correcting a problem that has arisen in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and to ensure that we have a law that can operate, so that not every case with which we will deal will finish up in the AAT. In the event that there is concern about the way that the amendment has been framed, I do not think we want to compound whatever problems people might see with the current amendment with another set of problems. I do not intend to accept the amendment as proposed, because I think that it may well create another set of problems. However, let me say that I do not want to be at all dogmatic; I simply want to explain quite clearly to the House what the Government's intention is in respect of the amendment to the Act as proposed in Schedule 1 of the Bill. Essentially, the problem that has arisen concerns the provision in the Bill which would treat under aged de facto spouses as married persons. There are no moral judgments involved in the issue that is before us; we simply have to accept the reality that, on occasions, a partner of a couple living together in a de facto relationship may be under aged. In terms of the applicable definitions, the problem is that, in terms of the relevant definitions, there is some variation, and they are not entirely consistent from State to State. The law concerned, in terms of those definitions, is essentially State law. With this amendment we are not in any sense seeking to change the approach of Commonwealth law in the relevant area of family law. We are simply trying to find a legislative way to ensure that the practice of our officers in the Department is within the law. Indeed, what is involved in this particular amendment is no different from the practice that has been followed by successive governments, certainly since 1970. Honourable members opposite, when in government, followed this very practice. Readily accessible departmental records indicate, as I suggest, that the practice was in place prior to 1970. It was changed in 1983 when its legal basis was questioned. The beneficiary in question was seen as benefiting from an illegal act because he was being paid additional benefit for a de facto spouse under the age of consent. The practice was changed so that the single rate of unemployment benefit was paid to both parties if they qualified. If the spouse did not qualify-for example, if there were children-supporting parent benefit was paid for the spouse. Under current rates, this means that a de facto couple with a dependent child would be paid more than a married couple. The amendment is meant to remedy this anomaly. It in no way judges the circumstances involved in the situation, but it accepts that there is a need for income support at the rate held to be appropriate for a married couple. There is also concern that Commonwealth payments be made equitably throughout Australia. In South Australia the age of consent is 17 whereas it is commonly 16 elsewhere. Different treatment of a 16-year-old in South Australia compared with that of a 16-year-old in the same circumstances in Victoria is seen as undesirable. We are talking about simply treatment from the point of view of the Social Security Act. The Opposition has argued that there is a clash with the Commonwealth Marriage Act. However, the Marriage Act deals only with legal marriages; it does not purport to lay down rules or principles applicable to all relationships, which an income support system may wish to recognise as equivalent. Mrs Sullivan —Think about what you are saying. Mr HOWE —We are talking about how we determine the appropriate rate. That is all we are talking about. In a situation which we may well regret, we are simply trying to create the circumstance whereby we can make the appropriate payment-in this case we are talking about effectively a lesser payment because a married rate would apply-- Mr Porter —You are certainly not, in all circumstances. Mr HOWE —Just hold your fire. As I was saying, we are trying to create the circumstances whereby we are able to make a payment-which we believe is the appropriate payment-in such a way that that payment is consistent with legislation and not simply based on administrative practice which may well be questioned within the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in line with the Kennison case. I believe that this amendment is simply a technical amendment designed to deal very specially with the situation which exists in SA, where there is some variation in the age of consent compared with other States. It seeks to treat people equitably as between States and it is in line with the practice of successive governments. I am interested in the Opposition's amendment and we will certainly listen to the argument in relation to it. But at this point I am not prepared to accept it. I am prepared to listen to the debate and give the amendment further consideration following that. What we have put forward is designed simply to deal with that situation-which does exist-where people live together and where welfare staff believe that the relationship is a marriage type relationship which they certainly would not want to destroy and for which they would want to see income support paid in a way which is appropriate to those circumstances. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(6.26) —In my speech at the second reading stage, I raised a matter to which the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) referred in his response to the second reading debate. Subsequent to my speech it was indicated that the Opposition would move an amendment and I will now move that amendment on behalf of the Opposition. I move: Schedule 1, page 15, additional amendments of the Social Security Act 1947, Part 1, omit- `Subsection 6 (1) (definition of ``de facto spouse''): Insert ``and includes a person who, but for a law of a State or Territory prohibiting sexual intercourse between the person and another person by reason only of the age of either person, would be such a person'' after ``to that other person''.', substitute- `Subsection 6 (1) (definition of ``de facto spouse''): Insert ``but does not include a person who is living with another person in a relationship prohibited by a law of a State or Territory'' after ``to that other person''.'. I do not intend to canvass at this moment all the arguments I put forward in the course of my speech at the second reading stage, unless I need subsequently to clarify some of them. I noted that the Minister said towards the end of his response to the second reading debate that he was not prepared to accept my amendment at this stage but that he would give it further consideration following tonight's debate. I welcome the fact that the Minister is prepared to consider this amendment in due course. I would like to take this opportunity to say that, nevertheless, the Opposition will be pressing the amendment in debate here today and, if the Minister feels that the Government cannot accept this amendment today, I most earnestly hope that it will give close consideration to amending the legislation in the way that I am now suggesting. I indicated some distress at one stage during the Minister's response to the second reading debate, although I did not interject, so Hansard will not show it. At that point the Minister was commencing to make some comment about the Marriage Act. I noticed that after several of us-more members than just me-indicated that we found what he was saying quite unpalatable he made no further comment on the Marriage Act. His reference to it was so fleeting that I am afraid I was not able to note it. I will be interested to read in Hansard tomorrow what those comments were, because I was extremely distressed when it appeared to me that the Minister was about to utter words that demeaned the intent of the Marriage Act. The Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, shakes his head. I accept that-he said no more in any event. The Marriage Act is central to the debate on the amendment because the Act sets down the standards that we set for marriage; that is, the union of a man and a woman in marriage in Australia. I said in the course of the second reading stage that I do understand that there are occasions for tolerance of a de facto situation, and I am not completely intolerant of such situations. However, I express to the Minister, in the strongest possible and possibly very emotional terms, that I am utterly opposed to the change that his Bill would make for payment of social security benefits where underaged couples are involved. One of the things the Marriage Act does is put very stringent conditions on marriage involving people who are under the age of consent. I outlined these very stringent conditions in my speech and I will not reiterate them now. But I will point to some few words of the Marriage Act in relation to permission from a judge or magistrate for people who are underage to marry. One of the two conditions that the judge or magistrate must ensure are met relates to age and the other is that the circumstances of the case must be so exceptional and unusual as to justify the making of an order. This is not an easy matter. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mrs SULLIVAN —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was in the process of explaining why I had moved an amendment to the Social Security Amendment Bill which we are considering. The amendment that I have moved is to the effect that spouse benefits should not be payable in the case where cohabitation involves somebody under the age of consent. As I recall, I was in the middle of saying something about the application of the Marriage Act. The point that I want to make to the Minister for Social Security and to the Government is that the Marriage Act is our codification of the standards that we consider desirable in relation to marriage. I had pointed out that, where an under age person is involved, it is necessary to get permission for marriage from a judge or a magistrate and that the circumstances of the case, according to the legislation, must be exceptional and unusual. I want to refer to another matter that the Minister mentioned in reply to the second reading debate-that is, the inconsistency between States. South Australia sets the age of consent in its criminal law at 17 whereas the Australian norm is 16. The Minister said that there was concern that payments be equitable throughout Australia and that different treatment is undesirable. I would just like to say to the Minister that that is a problem of federalism and of the States having the right to certain powers. Essentially, under the Australian Federal system, the States are responsible for the criminal law. I agree that there are anomalies in all sorts of areas of law. However, if the Commonwealth Government is concerned that the age of consent is one year higher in South Australia, there are things that it can do other than just pull the plug on this subject. It could politely suggest to the South Australian Government that it consider lowering the age of consent to 16. Alternatively, it could accept that different States do have different standards in a variety of areas. I want to point out to the Minister in this particular context that the change that is being proposed in the Government's amendment to the social security legislation will not bring the payment of benefits for de facto spouses into any sort of conformity with the Marriage Act. Fairly recently it was suggested that the age of consent in Australia ought to be 14 because the Marriage Act makes marriage at the age of 14 possible under very stringent circumstances. I remind the Minister that there was a howl of protest at that suggestion. I am certainly one who would join that protest if that age were seriously suggested. Nevertheless, the subject of the age of consent is the province of the States and this amendment does not put the Marriage Act floor, even of the age of 14 for girls, into it. This amendment has no minimum age limit. We are all aware-it is a fact-that the age of puberty in Australia is lowering. It is now virtually the norm for girls to enter puberty at about the age of 11 whereas not so long ago it was the norm at about the age of 13. In fact, it is not at all unusual for a girl of nine to enter the age of puberty. I believe that the intention of the Marriage Act is to make an assessment of the age at which a young man or a young woman, in individual exceptional circumstances, may be not only physically capable of marriage but also intellectually and emotionally capable of marriage. That assessment should be applied to de facto relationships as well. The amendment being proposed by the Government does not even put that floor into it. The next point is that the Marriage Act puts very stringent restrictions on marriage under the age of consent, even with the consent of parents. The provisions of the Government's amendment of course, have no restrictions and it is obvious that a young person who has been denied permission by a parent to marry when under the age of consent can very easily say: `I will not go through all the falderal and the hassle of going off to a court and proving to a judge or a magistrate why I should be allowed to live in the state of marriage. I can go and do it now'. Of course, young people can already do that except that it is illegal under State laws. In addition, if the person with whom they intend to cohabit cannot afford to support them there is a very real, additional deterrent. I cannot be vehement enough-the Minister can call me emotional if he likes; I am emotional about it in the sense that my emotions are aroused by it, but there is intellectual support for it also-about the fact that there should be no financial benefit to anybody breaking the criminal law. In this case I believe that there are enormous social dangers. The Government is proposing something which may not mean extra government expenditure; that is debatable. However if a measure incurs any government financial support at all, the government is putting on it the seal of approval of this Parliament and, indeed, this nation in terms of standards. That is the reason the Opposition proposes the amendment that I have moved and will pursue it throughout the evening. Mr PORTER(Barker)(8.04) —The Opposition supports the amendment moved by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) to prevent the Government from paying married rate welfare benefits to under age de factos involved in an illegal relationship. We do not support the Government's actions. I can tell the Government and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) now that we will be pursuing our opposition to the Government's legislation in support of our amendment and we certainly intend to divide on the amendment. In plain terms, the Social Security Amendment Bill allows a benefit to be paid to someone who is committing a criminal offence under a State or Territory law. That, of course, is the case where a de facto relationship is established with someone under the legal age of consent. The Opposition will not condone, or indeed encourage as this new payment of benefit policy does, the recognition of under age de facto relationships. As the honourable member for Moncrieff has set out in very clear terms, the Minister has said that this does not in any way change the rules that apply in relation to the Marriage Act. That is right, but certainly by implication the new rules of payment change the Commonwealth's view in relation to acceptance of de facto relationships. The Marriage Act is quite clear. It states that legal marriages will only be able to be undertaken between a male person once he has attained the age of 18 or a female person once she has attained the age of 16. There are some exemptions in exceptional circumstances but, in order to have those exceptional circumstances accepted in law, certain procedures have to be undertaken. For example, males aged 16 or 17 who wish to marry must obtain the consent of their parents plus the authorisation of a judge or magistrate. Females aged 14 or 15 must obtain the consent of their parents plus the authorisation of a judge or magistrate. Females aged 16 or 17 require the consent of their parents. The Minister is saying to us and to the Australian nation that, for the purposes of the payment of social security benefit and for an acceptance of de facto relationships, we must sweep all that out the window. All those quite strict requirements for a legal marriage are set down in law. But with a de facto relationship the Government does not care about ages; it will accept whatever age the person happens to be. The Minister for Social Security says that this amendment to the social security legislation is merely administrative. I say to the Minister that it is not. It is a very serious change to the payment of benefit under the social security administration. It permits the payment of benefit in situations where I do not believe any benefit should be payable, and I mean that very seriously. Let me put to the Minister a couple of examples. Mr Howe —What about supporting parent benefit? Mr PORTER —The Minister says: `What about supporting parent benefit?'. I put to him a case involving a 30-year-old male who seduces a 13-year-old girl. Despite the parents' lack of consent and the illegality of the action under the State criminal law, the Minister and his Department are asking this Parliament to support the payment of married benefit to that couple. I do not believe that that female is entitled to any benefit; she should be back with her parents. The Minister is suggesting that not only is she entitled to leave her parents for the couple to enter into an illegal arrangement, but benefit will be paid to them at the married rate. The male might be entitled to unemployment benefit or some other benefit, but the Minister is saying to the Parliament that they should be paid doubled that, namely, the married rate. I put it to the Minister that the Opposition will not support such action. We strenuously oppose this legislation. We strongly support the amendment proposed by my colleague the honourable member for Moncrieff. She has set out, both in her second reading stage speech and in addressing this amendment, clear and concise reasons why we will be supporting this amendment and opposing this legislation. We will do so with all the vigour we can command. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.13) —Shortly I have to attend an important meeting of the House of Representatives Privileges Committee, and I hope that my remarks in support of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) will be taken in good spirit and will not promote or provoke a situation where I am attacked in absentia. One of the concerns about this legislation is that either the Government is utterly incompetent or alternatively it is deliberately endeavouring to deceive the Parliament by slipping it through in a manner which made it very difficult to detect. If it had not been for the honourable member for Moncrieff, who spoke to Mr Robert Garren of the Melbourne Age, it is quite possible that this matter would not have been picked up. I invite honourable members to note that the amendment is set out in the Schedule to the Bill, not in the Bill itself. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill in relation to clause 46 refers to `additional amendments' and reads: This clause would provide that the Principal Act would be amended as indicated in Schedule 1 to the amending Act. Schedule 1 is divided into Parts 1 and 2. Nowhere does it say that this is the first time that the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia has been invited to pass legislation whereby the taxpayers will pay money to persons who are committing a crime. As I indicated a moment ago, it is one of the longest standing maxims of the law that a person shall not benefit by the commission of a crime. Here is a government directing a department that, where the Department is fully aware that a crime is being committed, taxpayers' money must be paid and that a married benefit rate is applicable to those committing the crime of defilement or, as I said in my second reading stage speech, the crime of incest. The amendment put forward by the honourable member for Moncrieff will make it quite clear that a 20-year-old brother and a 15-year-old sister who commit the crime of incest will not qualify for the married rate benefit. At the risk of upsetting some honourable members, I have to remind the chamber that barely 10 years ago an agency of the Whitlam Government publicly proposed abolition of the crime of incest in relation to brothers and sisters. The anomaly has been clearly pointed out. I say with the utmost respect to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who I am sure will take the point, that an Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision effectively said: `We reject the advice of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department'. What did the Attorney-General's Department say and what did the Department of Social Security argue? It was a very simple proposition. The Attorney-General's Department said that it could not support supervision of a department under which a person would be permitted to profit by the commission of a crime. This is absolutely correct and I am quite sure that the Attorney-General personally would support that proposition. The AAT said: `Hang on a minute, a person can marry at 14'. The plain fact is that one can marry at 14 under very special circumstances, only with parental consent and only with judicial approval. The AAT said: `Ergo, a person can be a de facto at 14'. The example I give-I am not concerned whether it is two cases or 2,000 cases-is that one can have an 18-year-old man and a 14-year-old girl receiving the married rate benefit. This Government is officially legislating to permit the appropriation of taxpayers' funds for under-age juvenile and illegal de factos. I think the Minister should have a long talk to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), because it was the Attorney-General's Department's argument which the Department of Social Security properly argued before the AAT in the case in South Australia. Mr Porter —They ought to be enforcing it. Mr HODGMAN —They ought to be enforcing it. If the Government were to force this legislation through, one might as well say to every State Parliament: `Abolish the law of defilement'. Can one imagine an accused in the dock pleading guilty to defilement of a 14-year-old girl and his counsel saying: `With great respect, Your Honour, we do not think it is all that serious because the Commonwealth Department of Social Security has known about this for 12 months and has been paying this couple $202.30 a week to do it.'? Mr Porter —Not only does the Department condone it; it pays benefit. Mr HODGMAN —As the honourable member says, the Department not only condones it but also pays the benefit. The next step obviously must be the presentation of a prime ministerial gold medal. I ask the Minister what he intends to do with an accused person in the dock when that matter is raised? The Government has changed the wrong law. As the honourable member for Moncrieff and my colleague the shadow Minister have pointed out, who will go through all the difficulties and problems under the Marriage Act? I have been involved in this matter in a professional and parliamentary capacity and it involves exceptional circumstances. The mere fact that someone is 14 and in love and pregnant, the mere fact that somebody wants to marry the girl and the parents consent is not sufficient; the judge must find exceptional circumstances. Is one to go through that? If they shack up together, is the Commonwealth Social Security Department saying that the couple will be paid at the married rate even though they are committing a crime-at the least, defilement or unlawful carnal knowledge or, at the worst, incest? Are they to be paid by the taxpayers of Australia? I am sure that this is an accident and that the Minister did not intend it. It is an insult to the people of Australia that this matter should even be brought into the Parliament. There are many out there who take a very firm view that one should not equate de facto marriages with legal marriages. The Government is going further and offending them by saying that not only will the Government put it on exactly the same footing, but it will apply to the 14-year-old schoolgirls of Australia who are subject to defilement or incest. Shame on the Government! I do not think it means it, I hope it does not mean it. It should withdraw and agree to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Moncrieff. When it finds the person or persons who put this legislation together in this form he or they should be sacked. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(8.20) —I want to make a few brief comments and to plead with the Minister to accept the amendment that has been proposed by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan). I was quite dumbfounded when my colleague told me about this legislative move by the Government. I can assure the Minister that there will be great disbelief in the community if this proposal goes through tonight. I am sure that that belief will quickly turn to revulsion and anger as people begin to understand at least what the legislation appears to be about. Does the Government really think that the community wants or will accept that under this legislation financial support will be given to 15-year-old boys and girls who naively move out of their parents' homes into some kind of de facto relationship? Is the Government so dismissive of community norms, which are most strongly held by blue collar workers I might add, that it will seek to hammer another nail in the coffin of the institution of marriage? Is it so out of touch with the problems of vulnerability and exploitation of young girls in their mid-teens, who are in their earliest stages of sexual development, that it can so blithely-if that's what it is doing-draw up a law which will mean open season on young girls? Has the Minister been so hardened-I hope he has not-by the time he has been the Minister for Social Security that he has lost his capacity to discern the disastrous potential of this proposal, that the prospect of additional cases of unmarried and deserted mothers and more disadvantaged toddlers does not move him? This proposal should go no further. I say to the Minister, with great respect: If after all the discussion today this proposal, which legitimises government financial, and therefore moral, support for under-age de facto relationships is pushed through, I will begin campaigning tomorrow on this issue. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(8.23) —Once again I seek to allay the not too legitimate fears of the Opposition, notwithstanding that I am more than happy to look again at the clause at a later time. Firstly, let me make it clear that the amendment, in the form in which it is currently worded, does not make sense. It states: Insert `but does not include a person who is living with another person in a relationship prohibited by . . . a State or Territory? . . . As I understand it, no State or Territory law prohibits two people living together as if they were married. The point to which, the law refers is clearly the question of sexual relationships. In its present form, the amendment would achieve nothing or, if it did achieve something, it would be a situation in which people who are being paid a benefit for other reasons may well cease to be paid that benefit. The reality is that under-age people clearly are, and were for many years under the previous Government, paid benefits. For example, if a person is not eligible for the married rate of unemployment benefit that person may well be eligible for the special benefit or, if he is not living with someone else, he may be eligible for the supporting parent benefit. In some ways the Opposition suffers from being a little out of touch with the realities. I am not advocating, nor is anyone on this side of the chamber advocating, relationships between under-aged people or between adults and under-aged people. Nor are we encouraging, in any sense, people to break the law. The net result of this amendment would be that an under-age person about whom we are speaking would be paid a benefit at a lesser rate than that for which she is eligible under the law not only as it currently stands but also as it has been administered by successive governments. As I have said to honourable members, the Government is seeking to cope with an anomaly in South Australia where the age of consent varies from that in other States. We would seek not to reduce the age of consent in South Australia because carnal knowledge is a criminal offence and that is a matter of criminal law. Nor are we seeking to change matrimonial law: We are simply seeking to determine, by way of legislation, a guide for the payment of a certain rate to an under-age unemployment beneficiary who is living with someone else who, presumably, is unemployed. That is all we are seeking to do. Such a person could quite well have other rights to receive payment; it is not a matter of including someone who currently has no rights at all under the social security system. The responsibility of the Department of Social Security is not to make, in the final analysis, moral judgments. The responsibility of the Department of Social Security is to pay benefits according to need and, hopefully, to pay them on the basis of the law and not to allow a situation in which payments are made in a way that is not governed by the law but simply based on arbitrary discretion. The Government believes that if it is to determine fairly the circumstances in which the rate of payment should occur without being open to further challenge in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, this amendment of the Social Security Act is required. As I said before the suspension of the sitting for dinner-I do not in any sense want to prolong the debate-I will have another look at the wording and if there is a better way to express the intention of the Government, it may be that that can be sorted out. However, the amendment as it currently stands runs against the intention certainly of the Government and it is not a sensible amendment. I am not prepared to accept it. I understand that the Opposition will divide on the matter. Perhaps it can be considered later. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(8.29) —Notwithstanding what the Minister said about his, or the Government's, intention in this matter, the effect of what is being proposed is, undoubtedly, to encourage the recognition of, and to that extent to make acceptable under-age de facto situations. It is certainly true that no change to the Marriage Act is suggested but the legislation has the effect of changing the view of the Commonwealth-and, in effect, this Parliament on behalf of the people of Australia-as to the acceptability of under-age de facto relationships. What is being said in effect is that for the purpose of making this payment the letter and the thrust of the Marriage Act are ignored, set aside. The Minister replied that it is just an administrative matter. That is not so. It is in our view a very serious change in the conditions of payment of benefit. Indeed, it will involve the payment of benefits in cases in which we would take the view that no benefit at all ought to be paid. Far from that, what is being proposed is that payment should be made in these circumstances at the married rate. I believe this is a matter of serious import. It cannot be dismissed as being purely administrative, as not involving any sort of moral import. I would, therefore, strongly advocate support for the amendment moved by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan). Mr PORTER(Barker)(8.31) —I make a couple of points in response to the reply of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) to the points made by the Opposition. If the Minister is concerned about the actual wording of the amendment, there are two courses which he could follow. Firstly, he could propose an amendment of his own to omit the particular proposed sub-section from the Bill. We would be quite happy to support that. Secondly, I would be happy to move, or support him in moving, that we report progress and that this Bill does not proceed any further until he seeks further advice. It appears that he wants to seek further advice to ensure that the legislation does not do exactly what we say it does. We will certainly assist him in that regard if he is prepared not to put the Bill through tonight. But we will not support the legislation as it is currently drafted. Indeed, we will vote against the legislation as it is currently drafted and in favour of the amendment. I make the point to the Minister that he seems not to understand that in legislating as he is in regard to this amendment he is providing a new entitlement. Mrs Sullivan —For some people. Mr PORTER —For some people, yes-by accepting a de facto relationship in a situation such as I described previously. I refer to a situation in which a man aged, say, 30 seduces a 13-year-old, and the Department accepts that as a de facto relationship. In my view the 13-year-old would not be entitled to any benefit, but the Minister will now pay a benefit to the man at the married rate. The Minister is not saving money; he is costing money. In fact, he is initiating a new benefit. That is in addition to all the other points we have put. Mr Howe —This is unemployment benefit. Mr PORTER —It does not really matter what benefit it is. The Minister is initiating a new benefit. He keeps saying that it is not the Government's intention. The law is the law is the law. It does not matter what the Minister's intention is; the law is clear and this legislation is quite clear. It will encourage and certainly provide succour to what are currently illegal arrangements. We are not prepared to support that. Unless the Minister is prepared to move an amendment to omit the proposed sub-section, or to report progress so that he can get further advice, we will vote in favour of the amendment and against this legislation. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(8.34) —I see that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is indicating that he has some anxiety about the length of the debate. I will not, I hope, unduly prolong it. There are some matters to which I would like to refer. I support the comments that have just been made on behalf of the Opposition by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). I want to refer to some of the comments that the Minister made, both in his response to the amendment and earlier during his reply to the second reading debate. It seems to me that when the Minister said that this change to the entitlement is `simply to correct a problem which has arisen in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal', the answer to that is to fix the determination of the AAT. If a car has a flat tyre, one does not adjust the car's steering. The problem has arisen because the Administrative Appeals Tribunal gave a ruling which was contrary to previous practice of the Department of Social Security. Instead of bolstering the previous practice legislatively, to put it beyond doubt, the legislation before us totally legitimises an option of the AAT and goes far past it, because the AAT's opinion was based on provisions of the Marriage Act. One might as well tear up those sections of the Marriage Act which relate to minimum ages for marriage and special provisions for those under the minimum age. One can forget them. Mr Webster —Now you can. Mrs SULLIVAN —Now one can, if this government change is passed. Why would a 15-year-old who wanted to marry someone and who was denied permission by her parents, unless it was for an extraordinarily determined reason, go down the path of approaching the courts over it? All that such people have to do is live with the person that they want to marry until they mature to the age whereby they do not need their parents' consent. One can forget the provisions of the Marriage Act if this goes ahead. I say to the Minister: It is real; there are many parents who would have a real fear about this. Since I spoke in the debate this morning, several of my colleagues have said `My God! I have a 14-year-old daughter', or `I have a 13-year-old daughter. This could apply to her'. If the Minister wants to be facetious, I will admit that on paper the words open themselves to that facetiousness. But I hope that the Minister accepts the genuineness of it. The Minister also said that this change is to ensure that the practice of paying benefits to someone who is under the age of consent is within the law. The practice has only arisen since the Administrative Appeals Tribunal chose to rule that way on an appeal to it. There was no great objection or hardship in the previous practice. We know that some of those who would become de facto spouses under this definition may currently be eligible for a special benefit or a supporting parent's benefit. What we are talking about here is not eligibility for a supporting parent's benefit; we are talking about the definition of `defacto spouse'. That is the point of the Opposition's amendment-it does not concern anyone presently eligible for supporting parents' benefit or special benefit. Our amendment will not make any difference to that. The Minister says that the Government is trying to cope with an anomaly. I ask him seriously to consider the implication for the Marriage Act of the anomalies of the Government's amendment. The Minister made a statement, which I am prepared to take seriously, that the amendment I have moved does not make sense. It makes sense to me, but he says there are some problems with it. I reiterate: If the Minister supports the thrust of the amendment and says that the reason for not supporting it lies in some drafting detail, the procedure is very simple. He could suggest that we report progress, that we adjourn the debate, in effect, at this stage. When his draftspeople have had a chance to look at it, they can come back with a change to the Bill that would meet the objectives that the Opposition has, as well as the unnamed objections of the Government to the amendment I have moved. That can be done. It is not a frivolous point. It is a very fundamental point. In regard to social arrangements, the concerns of parents, and our concern for young people, particularly in cases in which they may be entering into a family situation, are real. It is not just a matter of adjusting a piece of legislation to meet the realities; it is a matter of the Government saying to young people: `This is the standard that the national Parliament sets; this form of behaviour is okay, there should be no minimum age limit for entering into a marriage-type relationship'. However, it is not okay and I am not prepared to say that it is. I think that the Minister knows that it would be the view of many good, decent Australian people that his change should not be introduced. So I appeal to the Minister to take the course suggested, to report progress and come back with his own amendment to the Bill to achieve the desired effect-however long that takes. Question put: That the amendment (Mrs Sullivan's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr D. B. Cowan) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J. Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C. Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D. Everingham, P. A. E. Sharp, J. Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A. Bilney, G. N. Jenkins, H. A. Blanchard, C. A. Jones, BarryBlewett, N. Kelly, R. J. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, L. J. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. West, S. J. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Brown, N. A. Kerin, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Uren, T. Jull, D. F. Hurford, C. G. Fife, W. C. Kent, L. In division- Mr Hodgman-I take a point of order. Is there a procedure whereby you, Mr Deputy Chairman, can cast your vote about this very bad legislation? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Cowan)-There is no such procedure. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Howe)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.50) —The Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill 1987 which has been introduced into this House is, in many respects, a milestone in legislative depravity by this Government. We are being asked to debate three Bills which were introduced into the Victorian State Parliament, where they belong, which were never debated in the upper House of the Victorian Parliament, where they should have been-- Mr Holding —They were debated in the Parliament. I was there and I heard it. Mr CONNOLLY —I regret that, Minister; you are correct. The legislation was not carried through. That legislation is the responsibility of the Victorian Government and the legislative responsibility of the Victorian Parliament. For the first time of which I am aware this Parliament has been asked to carry through legislation which a State parliament was unable to pass. The significant point is that the Opposition parties in the Victorian Parliament did not object-and nor should they have objected-to the proposal to give a title to Aboriginal communities at Lake Condah and the Framlingham Forest. In both these areas the spiritual, social, historic, cultural and economic importance of the Kirrae Whurrong community and local communities in that area were well established. No one has ever disputed that. The issue arose principally over the question of what form of title should be granted to the communities. The Victorian Parliament was told by the Government, as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has said in this House, that in consultation with the Aboriginal community it was determined that the legislation should be based upon a freehold title in perpetuity-namely, the same title as is applied in the Northern Territory and a different title from that which is applied in all the States. One can argue about the issue, about what form of title is best. The Government bases its case on the presumption that since the Aboriginal community accepted that title, all was well. Nothing else mattered and no other points of view would be taken into account. The legislation was to be forced upon the Victorian people, and now upon this Parliament, irrespective of the merits of any alternative case. The position of the Liberal Party of Australia is well established and is stated in its policy, announced only a few weeks ago: It is the view of the Liberal Party that land administration is a matter for the States, both in terms of formulation of policies and their administration. We continue to believe that the role of the Commonwealth is to encourage and support the States in their endeavours to provide adequate land title for Aboriginals. We went on to say, however: It is not the role of the Commonwealth to impose a land rights regime upon the States in defiance of State governments and without regard to the different circumstances within the various States. Nor should it be the role of the Commonwealth to assert the responsibilities of the States in matters of land administration through the enactment of some form of Commonwealth land rights legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, you must forgive me for suggesting that tonight we are seeing yet another example of the Minister clutching at legislative straws in a desperate attempt to shore up his grossly declining position with Aboriginal communities across Australia-communities who were told by him, when he was in opposition and in his early days as Minister, that they would be given national land rights legislation. We know the history of that disaster. It is a history which has brought no credit to the Government and it has resulted in the Aboriginal communities seriously questioning the credibility of its policies and, in particular, the bona fides of its Minister. This is also significant in the context of Victoria, his own State. That State Government, which has been in power longer than any other State Labor government in recent years, has what can only be described as a pathetic record in trying to solve the land rights issues of its indigenous population. Here we are debating in both the Parliament of Victoria and now in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia a proposal to hand over title to a miserable 11 1/2 hectares of land. It is not unreasonable to ask the Minister: Why in God's name should this Parliament's time be wasted on such issues? This is a 100 per cent State responsibility. If State parliaments and governments are to be encouraged to run away from the representative views of elected members of their two houses, reflecting the views of their State and of its population, this Parliament will be in a shambles. While there is no dispute, in accordance with the national referendum of 1967 which will have its twentieth anniversary in only a few days, that this Parliament has the right to legislate in Aboriginal affairs, the issue must be raised whether in this particular case it was right that this action should be taken. It is the profound and definite view of the Opposition that this was a responsibility of the Victorian Parliament-- Mr Hawker —It still is. Mr CONNOLLY —It still is and that is where the matter should have been left. The other point that needs to be raised is this: As I understand it, in all States arrangements can be made in relation to the establishment of Crown land issues without having recourse to legislation. I put forward the proposition-perhaps the Minister may have an alternative view-that it was the Victorian Government which tried desperately to make a major issue of this particular performance because of its failure to do anything to help the issue of Aboriginal land rights up until now. Also, the Victorian Government declined to take the administrative decision which is simply to transfer the title administratively to the Aboriginal communities on whatever terms were agreed or considered to be fit. Instead of that, it had to make a big name for itself by introducing this legislation into the Victorian Parliament. It could not get things all its own way so it rushed off to big mumma asking for support at Federal level. It got on to the Minister-its erstwhile son, its erstwhile Leader of the Opposition in Victoria for so long-to try to make a little more political capital out of its miserable performance. That is what it is-a miserable performance. There are three Bills in this context and the same principle applies to legislation on Framlingham Forest as to legislation on Lake Condah. The third piece of legislation relates to amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill. When this legislation was put on the table and debated in this chamber by the Minister, the point was made it was there to compensate for any weaknesses which might appear in similar State legislation. We have always been sceptical about that argument. Having seen the legislation in its present form, and the amendments which have been introduced, I remain equally sceptical. Perhaps the most important fact of all is that the Labor Government at the Federal level and, by implication, at the State level does not have the support of the Aboriginal people involved in this transfer. The point has been made that negotiations were conducted for some eight years and, ultimately, the form of the legislation which has been introduced in this House is apparently fundamentally different from the commitments made by the Minister on an earlier occasion. I refer to the Warrnambool Standard of 26 March this year when the Aboriginal community leader, Mr Geoff Clark, accused the Minister of sweeping aside matters which had taken eight years of negotiations between the community and the State Government. He protested that the amendments gave the community no choice as to which Act it would be incorporated under, namely the Victorian legislation or the Commonwealth legislation. It is obvious that the Aboriginal people have not been fully consulted on the implications of Federal legislation, or they would have known that the Federal legislation can relate only to an organisation incorporated in the eyes of the Commonwealth under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act. It is wondered, and I wonder, what else the Minister and his advisers may well have not told the Aboriginal owners. At the end of the day we are seeing that they are simply being manipulated, as is always the case in issues of this type. The communities are concerned that the power of elders to set regulations governing behaviour has been undermined. Mr Holding —Which communities? Mr CONNOLLY —Framlingham. Mr Clark claims that amendments have taken away the communities' self-determination, with the Minister being able to stipulate who sits on the board of directors. The community wants elders to have the power to set regulations within existing law on a number of matters to improve the area, but again that was deleted from the Act. The State Government and the Opposition accepted those requirements but the legislation that the Minister has introduced into this Parliament is fundamentally different. I finalise my observations on this point, again by quoting the words of Mr Geoff Clark. He said that with one sweep of a pen Mr Holding has destroyed the essence of what they have been fighting for. The Minister, no doubt, will have his views on that subject, but the simple fact is that there is a significant division of opinion among the Aboriginal communities. The Minister will come into this House and no doubt claim that they have given him carte blanche effectively to involve them at a very basic level in the administration of the organisations which will have control over the land which this Parliament is being asked to transfer at this time. I want to make only one point about this. As I said in the Liberal Party policy, we believe it is up to State governments to determine the form of title which is available to local communities and I am not entering into that argument-but it is equally the responsibility of a government, if it is to introduce legislation, to stand up and argue its case and be rational enough to make adequate amendments. Let us take the question of title. In the Minister's lengthy, 58-page tome, defending his record period of administration, he made a number of observations in relation to the question of title. I found it an interesting document because in one place, for example, he apparently takes credit for what is happening in Queensland, the State which is usually the butt of most of his criticisms in relation to Aboriginal affairs. He said that in Queensland the State Government has almost completed the issuing of deeds of grant in trust over island and mainland reserves and recently indicated that it is prepared to consider a freehold title. Any reasonable reading of those words-in particular, that the State Government is prepared to consider a freehold title-leads one to presume that the Minister sees some credit in that concept. If he did not-he is now nodding his head-surely in 58 pages of turgid prose he would have had the opportunity to say so. That was not the purpose of this document. It was produced for two reasons: Firstly, to try to debunk the Opposition's policy which, at that stage, had not even been released and, secondly, to try to shore up his rapidly declining public image as the saviour and the protector of Aboriginal Australians. The Minister knows as well as I that the quotations in relation to this area are massive about what people regard as the failures of the policy for which he has been responsible. I think it is extraordinary that he should include in this document, by implication, credit for actions with which he had nothing to do. The means by which Aborigines got land in Queensland, to a very large degree, was due to the substantial efforts of my friend and colleague Senator Peter Baume who worked very hard with the Queensland Government to achieve a settlement, in relation to which the Minister and his so-called national land rights policy were going in exactly the opposite direction. Mr Hand —On a point of order: With all due respect I appreciate that the honourable member probably does not know where Framlingham is, but I think it is a long way from Queensland and I suggest that he get back to the legislation. He is discussing a matter that is totally irrelevant to the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The honourable member for Melbourne might be cutting off some of his options. The debate is fairly wide ranging. Mr Hand —On the point of order, I will stick to the issue because I know where Framlingham and Lake Condah are. The problem with the shadow Minister is that he does not know where they are, so he has to talk about Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the comments of the shadow Minister are reasonably relevant. I call the honourable member. Mr CONNOLLY —I appreciate your support, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is important; we are discussing the issue of land rights. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I would not like the shadow Minister to suggest that I was supporting him. Mr CONNOLLY —There is a correlation between land rights anywhere in Australia and land rights at Lake Condah and Framlingham. For the benefit of the honourable member for Melbourne who always shoots off before he checks his facts, I have been to both those places and I have spoken to Aboriginal communities in that area. Mr Hand —They ran you out. It is in the Press. Mr CONNOLLY —Is is also in the Press what Mr Clark, the leader of the Framlingham community, thinks of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and, what is more pertinent, what he thinks of this legislation. Having had the legislation denied-- Mr Hand —They ran you out. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There are far too many interjections. The honourable member for Melbourne will cease interjecting. Mr Gayler —What about what he thinks of you? Mr Holding —Tell us what he thinks of you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Leichhardt and the Minister are not helping either. I call the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr CONNOLLY —I am not the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Bradfield, I should say. Mr CONNOLLY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I apologise to the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr CONNOLLY —Much as I honour my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), I am sure that my constituents in the equally excellent electorate of Bradfield would rather that I be named accordingly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have apologised to the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr CONNOLLY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The whole issue of land rights, whether we are talking about Lake Condah, Framlingham, or Queensland, the Northern Territory or anywhere else, is of fundamental importance to many Australians and particularly to the Aboriginal communities of Australia, wherever that may be. On that point there is some general agreement. I had hoped that when the Minister and the Government determined a year or 18 months ago to ditch their ridiculous policy of national land rights they would accept the fact that States were best able to make determinations of local issues relating to land. As the Minister, I know, would appreciate the circumstances involving individual Aboriginal communities, wherever that may be, vary. The question as to whether the land should be freehold or leasehold, is wider than Framlingham or Lake Condah or anywhere else, for one important reason. I would hope that the Minister shares with me- it certainly is clearly described in the Liberal Party policy on Aboriginal affairs-the fact that we want to encourage Aboriginal communities to be as economically independent as possible. Owning land is one thing; being able to develop it is entirely another. In my discussions with Mr Clark, for example, at Framlingham he put enormous support behind the belief of the Minister-obviously, that from whom he got it-that for time immemorial the Aboriginal Development Commission would always have sufficient resources to provide to Aboriginal communities for the legitimate economic development of their land. The Minister is well aware of the fact that 12 per cent of Australia is now Aboriginal land. We ought to be equally as aware as I that there is no way known to humanity that the ADC, under any government in the foreseeable future, will ever have enough money in its own right to fund every development opportunity to the extent that may be necessary over 12 per cent of this vast continent. That opens up the whole issue-it is a difficult issue, and I accept that-as to what other mechanisms we can develop to try to give Aboriginal communities alternative structures by which they may seek funding through normal commercial means for economic development. I have not heard one word about this from the Government. Members of the Government rave on morning, noon and night about land rights, but we hear nothing about the desperate need of these communities to have the capacity to get out and do something for themselves and to break away from the constant tendency of this Government to try to be overtly paternal-the very notion that the Minister so continually decries. But the fact of the matter is that when I put forward the proposal that the States had to be more involved in Aboriginal affairs, I was attacked. The Minister said in that 58-page document before a ridiculously hopeless Press conference which no one wanted to report, that my proposal was nonsense, and that I and the Liberal Party were setting back the progress of Aboriginal Australians for 20 years. They were the exact words that he used. Mr Holding —That's right. Mr CONNOLLY —I find it extraordinary that, having decried the need to involve the States, having denied the need to rationalise the programs between the Commonwealth and the States, which was the very basis of my policy, I then discovered that on 2 December 1986 the Prime Minister had written a letter to all the State Premiers. He made the following point: I am sure you would agree that there are potential mutual benefits to the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory from achieving rationalisation in the administration of certain shared functions. If some joint programs could be administered at less cost under revised arrangements, without any reduction in the quality of services, then the Commonwealth believes we should carefully consider such alternative arrangements. In putting this view I should make it clear that the Commonwealth is not motivated by a desire to reduce its commitments to particular programs, but rather to improve the efficiency with which such programs are delivered to the public. As a product of the exercise, some small savings in administrative costs may well accrue to the Commonwealth and the States and the Northern Territory-but the wider and longer term advantages of rationalisation of program administration would be more important. The Prime Minister went on to refer specifically to the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. He further stated: The initial program we propose would cover a broad spectrum of Commonwealth-State activities. The Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council has established a review of Commonwealth-State financial arrangements for Aboriginal Programs. This review started with broad terms of reference to clarify respective funding responsibilities, but for a range of reasons has not been able to proceed as originally intended. The Commonwealth proposes that this review should also consider the scope for reducing the administrative overlap between programs operated by our respective Governments, with no diminution of services provided to the Aboriginal community. I am asking Mr Holding to be in touch with his counterpart State Ministers to arrange preparation of a progress report by the end of March. I think it is fair to ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: Where is his progress report? What a damned hide he had to attack me, when the Prime Minister is purporting to support exactly the same policy that I support. The simple fact is that the legislation in this nation and the basis of the 1967 referendum, about which the Minister speaks so much, is based on the very essence of the need for the Commonwealth and the States to support and share responsibility for the development and improvement of our Australian Aboriginal situation. That is the basis of what it is all about. I am sick and tired, as are the Aboriginal Australians, of hearing the Minister coming out time after time attacking anyone who dares suggest that he has not been the paragon of virtue and success. The record of the Minister's administration of the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio, over four years, is a damned disgrace. The Minister knows it, I know it, and the Aboriginal people know it. How does the Minister justify, for example, the situation that exists at Kintore? When I visited Kintore two weeks ago, I saw people-- Mr Gayler —Tell us about your policy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister and other honourable members, on both sides, including the honourable member for Leichhardt, will cease interjecting. We will conduct this debate in an orderly fashion. Mr CONNOLLY —This is an important issue. The Minister tries to make a farce out of the whole situation. He spends his life trying to cover his own tracks at a time when his own community, the very people who are supposed to support him, are less than impressed with what he is doing. There are 1,200 Aboriginal organisations in this country, costing us $98m, and the Minister has had the audacity to say in this document that these organisations are all under review. Yet, last week, when the Minister's own officers were asked before a Senate Estimates Committee the most fundamental questions about how many organisations were under review, they indicated that they did not know. One suggested that it might be half a dozen or perhaps 12. The document that I have here, which the Minister purports to be the basis of his record of achievement, puts forward on virtually every page nothing more than a basic untruth. It ignores the truth-namely, that thousands of Aboriginal people are getting virtually nothing out of the funds that have been put forward by the Government. The Minister has made a virtue of the fact that he has increased the budget by 46 per cent. We are now spending something like $530m-odd a year, but the fact is that I can go to a place like Papunya, Yuendumu or Kintore and see situations that one can only describe as being the worst of the Fourth World. I think that Australians, irrespective of what their politics might be, must realise the fact that this nation, which spends so much of its efforts trying to tell other people how to run their affairs, ought to spend a bit more effort concentrating on our own. For example, I went into a shop at Kintore and I saw frozen meat there that I would not feed to my dog. It is quite likely that the meat I saw there was rotten; it had been refrozen because it had come so far. Most of us, when we go to a Coles or some supermarket, expect to see pink chickens in nice foil, and frozen, but in Kintore they are yellow or brown. Mr John Brown —Pink for girls; blue for boys! Mr CONNOLLY —In the time that I was there, three people died. The honourable member thinks it is funny. I do not think it is funny at all, and anyone with any guts would not think so either. The honourable member is a disgrace. He is a disgrace as a Minister and a disgrace as a member of this Parliament. All I ask of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is that he accept his responsibilities and that he stop trying to big note himself over little matters such as the question with which we are dealing tonight. This relates to matters which could have been solved in the Parliament of Victoria. This Parliament's time should be spent on matters relating to Aboriginal affairs which are of signifi- cance. There may be 53 medical services looking after Aboriginal Australians in various parts of this nation, but the performance of some of those services is absolutely disgraceful. For example, the service looking after the Pitjantjatjara people, has a budget of $2m to $3m; it has a per capita investment of $15,000. The Pitjantjatjara people have homelands in north and south Australia-they were the first to get land rights-yet that community is riddled with a whole range of health problems the likes of which most Australians living in metropolitan areas simply do not comprehend. They do not even believe it when they are told. These are the real problems that fellow Australians have to live with, and they are not getting the help that they need. Two weeks ago I spoke to a nurse out at Kintore, a young Australian girl. She was damn near dead on her feet. She was working under conditions worse than I have seen in Bangladesh or West Africa-and believe me, I have seen a few pretty bad things. I said to this girl: `Why can't you have a holiday?' She replied that she could not have a holiday because, although the service had advertised right across Australia for help, it did not get one application from a trained nurse in this land. Yet, we have nurses prepared to work in Bangladesh, West Africa, North Africa, and God knows where. What has failed with this culture? What has failed with this Government? It is not able to go to the Australian people and say: `Our fellow Australians need your help. Will you come and help us?' We do not hear any of that from this Government. We just hear this damn tripe which does nothing to help the Australians who need help and does no credit to this nation internationally. When I was in Papunya a group of French journalists had been there the day before. They are down in Tasmania at this very time with the dear friend of honourable members opposite, Mr Mansell. A French television team is ripping the reputation of this nation overseas to shreds. Yet we spend the time of this Parliament arguing about, 11 and a half hectares in Victoria. We should not be discussing those things; we should be discussing the fundamental issues. If this nation wants to have credibility internationally it is time that this Government took the matter on. I have faced these problems-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(9.21) —We have just heard a person who I doubt, from his contribution tonight, has even read the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill. During the half hour speech of the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), he found time to discuss the legislation for, I think, a total of seven minutes. However, I must say that I supported many of his concluding comments. I have made such comments in this place before. The conditions of Aboriginal people in this country are a disgrace, but that is not the fault of this Government and it is probably not the fault of the last Government. It is the fault of many things. I support what the honourable member for Bradfield said about Australia waking up to the plight of Aboriginal people. I have said that before in this chamber in other debates in which we have both taken part. I have visited all of those places that the honourable member talked about; so has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and so have a number of other people. There is nothing worse than trying to understand that sort of problem when one sees it and then having to relate it to people when one comes back from those places. The honourable member for Bradfield should not engage in point scoring exercises such as he did in part of his comments tonight. The sooner we all enter into a spirit of co-operation, adopt a bipartisan approach to this question and cease to kick Aboriginals around as political footballs, the sooner attitudes across the nation will change, and maybe we will be able to address the very serious problems-which are Fourth World problems-that exist in this country. Nobody in this nation can hold his head up when we see the plight that these people face around the nation, particularly in the outlaying areas. The Standing Orders require us to discuss the legislation. The shadow Minister talked for a brief period about legislation. Let me say, firstly, that the Bill has in fact been discussed by the Upper House in Victoria. The reason the legislation is here is that the Victorian Opposition-both parties-decided it would not support it. That is why the Victorian Government, quite correctly, asked us to deal with it. So it is very slippery indeed to suggest in this place that the matter ought to go back to the Victorian Parliament when honourable members opposite know that the Victorian Parliament, through the Upper House, will in fact reject the legislation. Honourable members opposite should at least have the decency to say: `We want the matter to go back to Victoria because we, like our counterparts in the Victorian Parliament do not support it'. Then perhaps the people of Lake Condah and Framlingham will understand. Honourable members opposite should not parade themselves as being a friend of the Aborigines when in fact they are doing everything to stop these people advancing their position. That is what honourable members opposite are about. The shadow Minister did say that he visited the area in question. I remind the House that this area is my old bailiwick, as the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) will no doubt know. Many is the time that, as a small child, I travelled there with my relatives, whose property virtually adjoins what is known as the `Fram' bush. I spent many enjoyable times in that area of western Victoria. The point is that we ought to understand that the shadow Minister travelled to the area to acquaint himself with the problems of the Framlingham people and Lake Condah people. Since the shadow Minister referred to the Warrnambool Standard, it is interesting to read the Press reports of his visit. He spent one hour at Lake Condah and 30 minutes at Framlingham. That is reported in the paper. He spent 30 minutes with the Framlingham people discussing their problems. I guarantee he spent more time at the local art gallery, because that is what he does when he goes away with us on other trips. The shadow Minister should not come in and tell us about our performance. I have seen his performance, and if he wants me to cite the performance of some of his colleagues on these trips, I will do that too. But tonight is not the occasion for that. I have some strong feelings about this legislation. As a former resident of western Victoria it has some meaning for me. It is legislation of which we can all be proud. It has been attacked by people in the Victorian Parliament. We also heard in the context of the debate that people in Victoria are upset about it. I will tell the House how upset they are. The Victorian Opposition Leader, one Jeff Kennett-a man who is prone to use the telephone a lot and engage in language he does not want printed in the newspaper because his kids might read it; he is that sort of individual-travelled the length and breadth of Victoria trying to beat the drum with the Australian League of Rights to get opposition to this legislation. He was so concerned about it that he never went to talk to the Lake Condah people or the Framlingham people. The reason he never went to talk to the Framlingham people was that he could not get out of the pub in Warrnambool. He got landed in that pub in Warrnambool. He was a dismal failure. He could not travel the 15 miles out the Framlingham to talk to the people. Yet he paraded around Ballarat and all through western Victoria trying to drum up opposition to the proposition. That is a disgrace. Mr Connolly —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think it is very improper for the honourable member to make allegations about people who are not here and who cannot defend themselves, to use the language he just has and to make the implications that he has just made. I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —There is no point of order. Mr HAND —There is no point of order. I will not withdraw because, as a matter of fact, I have a relative who was in the hotel with him. If the shadow Minister wants me to elaborate on it I will. It is a fact that he was in the Warrnambool hotel for some considerable time and could not travel out to talk to the people at Framlingham. The point I am trying to make is that all these people-the shadow Minister, the Kennetts, the Hunts and all of them-bleed all over the floor about their concerns for Aboriginal people. The shadow Minister spent an hour with them; he spent 30 minutes with another group. The other character who leads the Opposition in Victoria could not even talk to the people. Yet these people pretend they are concerned about them. Let us be serious about what the intentions of honourable members opposite are. I think it is also important for the House to understand what the people in Lake Condah think about the shadow Minister, because in the brief time he was there they learned a little bit about him. On 17 March 1987 a Press release was put out by the Chairman of the Lake Condah and District Aboriginal Co-operative Ltd in Heywood, Mr C. M. Lovett. He had a few words to say about the shadow Minister. I will quote some of the better parts of the comments. In fact, if not for the fact that time is against me I would read it all into Hansard so that we could all read it tomorrow. He said: The Lake Condah and District Aboriginal Co-operative Limited today condemned the visit by David Connolly, the Federal Liberal Party spokesman for Aboriginal Affairs, as being a waste of taxpayers money and publicly challenged the Liberal party to divulge what the one hour visit to Condah cost. Australian taxpayers are entitled to know what it costs for these visits. The Chairman of the Lake Condah and District Aboriginal Co-operative Limited, Mr Claude Lovett, in response to Connolly's visit said the Western District community was fed up with politicians who were using the Condah Land acquisition as a political football. People like Connolly fail to remember the 1968 Commonwealth Referendum which Australians voted overwhelmingly to support the Commonwealth Government having constitutional and legislative responsibility for Aboriginal Affairs. The Press release continued: Mr Lovett went on to say that again we are visited by a `fly by night' politician who is that interested in Aboriginal Affairs, the Condah and Framlingham Bills that he was unaware of before his visit, that there were 28 elders (not 27 as reported) on the Kerrup-Jmara Elders Corporation. Maybe he should have attended the Mara Seminar at Portland and `consulted' with over fifty Aboriginal members and Government agencies who attended Mr Lovett added. Mr Lovett went on to say that politicians like David Connolly (who is supposed to be the Federal Liberal Party's spokesman for Aboriginal Affairs) have proven time and again that they have no understanding whatsoever with the Condah, Framlingham or any other Aboriginal land issues Mr Lovett said. . . . . Mr Lovett said that the Condah Bill is morally, legally, and more importantly, culturally correct for the Aboriginal Elders, generations today and in the future: Aboriginal people are fully aware of the benefits it will bring to us now and for future generations. The document went on to state on the third page: Liberal Parties and their junior conservative associates had continually gone against the Fraser and Bolte philosophies on Land Rights and were intent on placing obstacles in front of the Condah and Framlingham Bills. The conservative stance was clearly aimed at political oppression of the concept of Australian multiculturalism and anything that represented the rights of minority groups. The document further stated: Mrs Phemie Day co-ordinator Kerrup-Jmara Elders Corporation today stated Aboriginal people are sick of being turned into political footballs . . . These people are not silly. They see through this sort of stunt; they see through this sort of exercise when Opposition representatives whistlestop through a place for an hour, and that is the sort of response they get. The honourable member for Wannon has also been doing a little grandstanding around his electorate. His visit has been reported in the Warrnambool Standard. Just to prove I have not misled the House, I shall quote from the Warrnambool Standard of Thursday, 12 March 1987. The seventh paragraph stated: Mr Connolly, with the Member for Wannon . . . spent more than 30 minutes talking with Framlingham Aborigines. They also visited Lake Condah, for one hour . . . which is the subject of another land Bill. The honourable member ought to quote all the things Mr Clark said about them, as well. So what we are really talking about here is two pieces of land. There would not be a person within 100 miles of Framlingham who does not recognise the Aboriginal people's ownership of the Fram bush land. I have relatives there whose property backs on to O'Sullivan's Lane, which runs into Wangoon Road and then to Fram bush. They have always referred to it as the Aboriginals' forest. Everybody down there accepts that. Why cannot those opposite accept it here? The local communities accept the fact, and the same applies to Lake Condah. Honourable members would do well to get from the Parliamentary Library, if it could get it for them-I am sure it would-the history of Aboriginal people in the Lake Condah area and the history of the mission, right back to the first and second world wars. The Aboriginal men went off to the wars and fought for this country. They are well-known identities throughout the area. So it is cheap and cruel and rotten of Opposition members to parade around in here saying that we are doing the wrong thing. If they were in any way decent, when it was first announced that this was going to occur they would have been on the telephone to their colleagues in Victoria, saying: `For God's sake, what are you doing down there; pass the legislation'. We had the spectacle of the Liberal Party spokesman, Mr Kennett, the Leader of the Opposition, saying that the Labour Government should have forced it through the Upper House because of the retirement of one of the Liberal Party members. That is not the way to perform. It may be the way Mr Kennett performs; it is not the way the Cain Labor Government performs. The Liberal Party had its chance to pass the legislation and it let it go. I wanted to say a lot of things about this legislation, but we are talking about two very small parcels of land. The Condah area involves only 55 hectares of Crown land, as described in the Bill, and in the information I have been supplied with the Framlingham area is described as being 1,130 hectares of Crown land administered under the forests Act. In 1961 the Framlingham forest formed part of an area of land temporarily reserved for sale and set aside for the use of Aborigines. Despite the wishes of the Aborigines, and without regard to any form of the recompense for the existing state of disposition from existing tribal lands, most of the land has been sold or leased, the last excision having occurred as recently as 1952. If we read the history of these places we find that the reserve, as they were known in the old days, were much bigger. We ought to ask ourselves, in light of what the Opposition spokesperson said about the plight of Aboriginal people in this country, why it is that the original grants of land shrunk so dramatically. Is that not a recognition of 200 years of the Aboriginal people being wronged? To come in here and suggest, as they have done, that it can be fixed up is hypocrisy in the extreme. So we have seen a dwindling of a race and a dwindling of an asset-the land-and we are now in a small way trying to rectify that and hand back to the Aborigines some of what is rightfully theirs. As I have said, it is easy to talk about one's travels, as the shadow Minister did. I look forward to the shadow Minister, on the next visit by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, coming up with some enlightened ideas. Mr Connolly —You will not be there because you have dropped off the Committee, which shows your continuing interest. Mr HAND —I have not dropped off the Committee; I am back on the Committee. The honourable member should not worry about me; he has not got rid of me that easily. When I saw that he had retained the shadow portfolio, I got back on. He should not go into one's performance on the Standing Committee, or I will start to describe chapter and verse the performance and attitudes of some of those opposite. While on the Committee I have served alongside three Opposition shadow Ministers, and they have a long way to go before they will even begin to impress me. Let us not talk about what they think is wrong; let them come up with some suggestions on how they can cure these ills, which are real and which they have talked about. Mr Connolly —We have a whole policy on this. Mr HAND —I have read the Opposition's policy, and it does not offer any concrete solution to the serious problems that it rightfully addresses. The Opposition has not put up a solution. All members of the Opposition can suggest is that this ought to go back to the Victorian Government. This is a far-reaching piece of legislation. It recognises a whole range of needs as stated in terms of the wording of the preamble, to the legislation. It is well worth reading because in the future when land rights legislation is discussed, in this Parliament and in others, people will refer to this legislation because of its nature and because of the way in which it has found its way here. I wish to place on record that the Australian Labor Party's policy is quite clear: It is the prerogative of the States to act in terms of land rights, but if they fail to achieve their proposals it is then, under our policy, referred to the Federal Government to deal with it. That is what has happened with this legislation. There are people from the Condah community here tonight to witness this historic piece of legislation, including Georgina Williams, Beryl Hull, Sandra Onus and Eunice Lovett. So when honourable members speak they should remember that these people are here to observe this Parliament in action. They will probably go away a little bewildered by the whole experience but I hope that after tonight they will understand that in a short space of time they will be the owners of and have title to that piece of land. So one can talk for 20 minutes, half an hour, or for whatever time is allotted, but the main thing that we have to consider tonight is the needs, desires and wishes of these Aboriginal communities, in particular the Lake Condah and Framlingham people. I believe that, at the end of this debate, those desires and wishes will be met. I hope that, given the arguments that have been presented by honourable members on this side of the House, Opposition members in the other place will support this legislation and not attempt to hinder it as they did in the Victorian Parliament. It is just not good enough for them to say that this is a State matter when they have the comfort of knowing that the upper House in Victoria is controlled by their own parties and when their intention was to defeat the legislation. It is a very cheap stunt for honourable members opposite to come into this House and suggest that it is a State matter when they know what the result will be. I commend the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Cain Labor Government in Victoria, other Ministers who have contributed to this legislation and the people of Framlingham and Lake Condah. I wish them success. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I crave your indulgence to clarify two points that were raised in the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY —Yes, I was maligned, which is a better way of putting it, by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —Just for the record, I arrived in Hamilton at 9.30 in the morning. I visited the Hamilton resting place which is an excellent institution. I trust that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has been there, but I doubt that he has. I then went on to Lake Condah, Portland, Warrnambool and Framlingham. I had to leave from Warrnambool later in the afternoon and I travelled some 300 kilometres. I would like to have spent more time with the communities-anybody would under the circumstances-but we are all busy and we have to fit in as much as we possibly can in the time available. I wish also to make just one observation. The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) made the point -- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member cannot debate the issue. He has made his personal explanation and I ask him to resume his seat. Mr CONNOLLY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be very brief. This is a serious question. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. Mr CONNOLLY —Could I just clarify one point raised by the honourable member for Leichhardt because he was definitely maligning me and I have the right to clarify it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Leichhardt was not on his feet. The honourable member for Bradfield cannot respond to interjections in that way. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order -- Mr Connolly —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr Holding —No. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, there is no disputing what I said and I take objection to the fact that the honourable member for Bradfield accused me -- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, if you will bear with me, the honourable member for Bradfield has had a minute and a half in which to accuse me of maligning him. He was there for one hour. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(9.43) —I have just listened to the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) grossly mislead this House. He claimed that legislation similar to the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) was rejected in the Victorian upper House. That is not true. The Opposition parties proposed an amendment to the legislation and the Victorian Government refused to put that amendment to a vote. That is not rejecting the legislation and the amendment certainly would not have prevented land from being transferred to the respective corporations. The honourable member for Melbourne also mislead the House by quoting from a statement made by the spokesman of the Lake Condah Aboriginal Co-operative. The Co-operative is not at the mission; the Lake Condah mission people are a separate group. Mr Hand —I know. Mr HAWKER —The honourable member was quoting the co-operative's spokesman, not the spokesmen from the mission and that is quite different. He also said that the Warrnambool Standard had a slight misprint in an article about a visit to Lake Condah one day and Framlingham the next day. Unfortunately, the Warrnambool Standard got it wrong. I invited the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) to visit both places. Unfortunately, he did not have time to do more than he did, but I assure honourable members opposite that it was a very rushed day and we moved as fast as we could to spend as much time as we could in looking at those places. I think the shadow Minister did his best. He actually got there, which is more than I can say for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) who has not even been to Framlingham since he became Minister, so he is not all that interested in what is going on. The Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill relates to two pieces of land in my electorate, as has been pointed out already; 53 hectares at Lake Condah and 1,130 hectares at Framlingham Forest. Today the Minister is trying to cover up for the failure of the Victorian Labor Government. That Government had the opportunity to pass legislation. The State Labor Government was requested to pass it in an amended form by the upper House, but it refused to do this because it wanted to get maximum publicity and to try to squeeze out everything it could for a bit of a stunt. For the benefit of the honourable member for Melbourne I remind him of what one of his colleagues said back in 1984. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) wrote an open letter to every member in the Federal Australian Labor Party. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie knows a fair bit about the Aboriginal problem; he claims that he has more Aboriginals in his electorate than anyone else, with the possible exception of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham). On the question of policy, about which the honourable member for Melbourne kept speaking, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie said: We need a policy that addresses this need not a policy that seeks to salve the conscience of the guilt-ridden middle class. I think that sums up the attitude of some honourable members opposite when they come into this House and try to make out that they have a mortgage on concern for the Aboriginal communities. Everyone in this chamber is concerned about them. This legislation is wrong in principle and in practice. It is dangerous in precedent. Furthermore, in the preamble to this we find some rather offensive words which could be of great concern to many people. I will quote just one section. Paragraph (iii) states: the traditional Aboriginal rights of ownership, occupation, use and enjoyment concerning that part of Condah land are deemed never to have been extinguished; That is a very interesting statement; a statement that the State legislation also continued. Paragraph (iv) states: that part of Condah land has been taken by force from the Kerrup-Jmara Clan without consideration as to compensation under common law or without regard to Kerrup-Jmara Law; The Minister was quite happy to bring in that. These statements are also in the preamble for the Framlingham Forest section of the Bill. On the next page of the Bill we find that the Commonwealth Government wanted to have two bob each way. It was quite happy to put those paragraphs into the legislation because the State Government had it in its legislation, but the Commonwealth Government then added this rider: And whereas the Commonwealth does not acknowledge the matters acknowledged by the Government of Victoria, but has agreed to the enactment of such an Act: This is a very interesting piece of legislation which I think creates an extraordinary precedent. I often wonder how people can unravel what it really means. In other words, the State Government said this but the Commonwealth Government does not really acknowledge it. Why have it in the legislation in the first place? That the Minister even brought this Bill into the House highlights what one Aboriginal spokesman in my electorate said to me when we were talking about this legislation giving more power to the Minister whom, I believe, sees paternalism as his right. This Aboriginal leader said to me: Holding is trying to set himself up as some sort of white Messiah. That is quite an indictment on the Minister. Let us look at the Warrnambool Standard and see what an Aboriginal spokesman had to say about the Minister. On 26 March an article headed `Aborigines to fight land Bill' stated: Community leader Mr Geoff Clark said yesterday that the federal Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Mr Holding, was sweeping aside matters which had taken eight years of negotiations between the community and the State Government. The Minister could not even carry out what he said he would do for the State Government. He had to hop in and get that extra little bit for himself because he got a bit greedy and he wanted an extra bit of power. I will elaborate on that in a minute. The Minister is also acting as an apologist for the Cain Government because it failed to get the confidence of its own parliament. I want to make it very clear at the outset that I am not questioning the right of the Kerrup-Jmara to have the land at Lake Condah, or the Kirrae Whurrong Aboriginals to have title to the Framlingham Forest. I am questioning very strongly the need for this Bill to be in front of this Parliament. Quite frankly, as the shadow Minister from the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Bradfield, has already pointed out, it is rightly a matter that belongs to the State Parliament and it should have been left there. It creates a precedent for the Commonwealth to pick up legislation from a State when that State fails to gain the confidence of its own parliament. We can see what will happen over the next few months as each State Government has more trouble getting its legislation through. It will hand it over to the Commonwealth and this Parliament will become increasingly clogged up with bits of legislation as the Federal Government tries to get its State counterparts off the hook because they cannot get the confidence of their own parliaments. As I have said, this legislation is wrong in practice because it is a State matter and the State should handle land title. For these reasons, as has been pointed out by the honourable member for Bradfield, the Opposition will oppose this Bill because the principle and precedent are wrong. The matter should be sent back to the State Parliament where it rightly belongs, and no doubt the land will be transferred to the respective corporations so that the State can best look after its own problems. The Minister used his second reading speech-one of the grubbiest little speeches I have seen in a long time-to make a remarkable attack on a State Opposition leader, Mr Kennett. The Minister spent a considerable part of his speech criticising Mr Kennett's lack of consultation. I have already pointed out that the Minister is not exactly a rose in this matter as he has not bothered to visit Framlingham since he became Minister. It is utter hypocrisy and the Minister should lift himself above the grubby practice of using a second reading speech to make an attack on somebody who is not even a member of this Parliament. The Bill's preamble contains some misleading statements. I have already mentioned that fact, but I would like to compare the Bill with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. We find no such preamble in that Bill and obviously a preamble was not considered to be necessary. This Bill is being used by the Minister as an excuse to set a precedent for the benefit of the State Parliament-who knows what it will lead to. Part I of the Bill makes clear that the Lake Condah-Framlingham Forest area is one of historic and archaeological interest. There is certainly a lot of archaeological interest in the area and in the case of Lake Condah some of the archaeological ruins are of the Anglican mission which was set up in 1868. Although the mission obviously was introduced by Europeans, one finds in speaking with local Aboriginal a clear feeling of attachment to this area. It must be reinforced from past associations with the mission. Also of historical and archaeological interest are the water races that have been built at Darlot Creek. Those water races were built there for fishing for eels. This was recognised a long time ago because in 1869 land along Darlot Creek was reserved to protect the fishing rights of Aboriginals in the area. While everyone in the chamber would acknowledge the shortcomings of early European settlers in this area, we also recognise that in many cases there were good intentions, however ill-conceived they might have been. But I cannot say the same about the Cain Labor Government. It we look at more recent history and at the efforts of the Cain Labor Government, we find a shabby, grubby little effort. In 1983 the Cabinet Secretary, Dr Coghill, forced the then owners of the freehold title referred to in the Bill at Lake Condah to sell that land to the State Government. They were forced to do so as a result of various misapprehensions and threats. The concern is not about the fact that the State may acquire the land because obviously it could, but again the State did not even have the gumption to admit the real motives for doing this. It was a sly little scheme, and the reason I am bringing this matter up for attention is that the State Government did nothing to help feelings between the local community and the Aboriginal community. Regrettably, it gave extremists a perfect opportunity to exploit the situation, and exploit it they did. Everyone in this chamber will remember what happened in that area around that time. It is an unfortunate incident of which no one could be proud. The State Government must accept the majority of the blame because it set up the situation. To prove it, Dr Coghill is on record as saying after the purchase of this bit of land: We are not buying this land to hand it to the Aboriginals. What could be clearer? No wonder these extremists had their opportunity. I suppose, as things turned out, Dr Coghill may be technically correct because it is this Parliament that has been asked to do the job. So much for the integrity of the Cain Government which could not even admit what it was trying to do. Not only did the State Government intend to hand over the land but, because it could not transfer the land in the exact form of title it wanted, it handed the matter over to the Commonwealth and even asked the Commonwealth to pay $1.3m to the State Government for the pleasure of handing over responsibility. That is a remarkable thing. I wonder when the next bit of State legislation comes to this Parliament, how much we will have to pay for the pleasure of debating it. Maybe the State Labor Government should thank the Victorian Legislative Council for this gift. This does not alter the fact that, following the poor record of the State Government on this matter, the Commonwealth is now creating a dangerous precedent. This is a shortsighted move by the State Parliament. To look at the matter another way, the Labor Party has never been very strong on State rights and maybe it sees this as another way of further reducing the influence and opportunities of States to make up their own minds. As I said earlier, one of the worst aspects of the transfer of this land is the way in which both State and Federal governments have exploited it for the maximum publicity. It is a matter of which neither government should feel proud. I understand that the State Government could probably have handed over the land at Lake Condah by regulation. It would not even have had to refer the matter to the State Parliament. Instead it wanted to get maximum publicity to salve the conscience of the guilt-ridden middle classes, as Mr Campbell has put it. Frankly, it has done very little to help the community, and it could have done a great deal more if it had chosen the path of proceeding sensibly without trying to gain maximum publicity. What is being achieved is a backlash - a backlash which, as Mr Campbell pointed out in his letter, is well summed up by the phrase: A continuation of the tokenism will simply engender a backlash that will be devastating for Aboriginal people. . . Mr Campbell said earlier in the letter: Overwhelmingly, Aboriginal people do not want to relish the opprobrium of the general public. Most realise that the advancements long overdue to them must be obtained with the consent of the vast majority. I have mentioned the fact that the land at Lake Condah, could have been transferred by regulation, but I would also like to point to some of the more impressive parts of Lake Condah. There has recently been built there cabin accommodation for some 40 people. I would like to compliment the Kerrup-Jmara Aboriginal Corporation for the job it is doing there; it is a most impressive effort. Mr Holding —Seventy-two people, I am told. Mr HAWKER —It is now 72, I am told by the Minister. I would recommend to anyone who is passing through the area that he call in and see that accommodation. It is quite impressive and is a real tribute to the local community. Mr Gayler —Under our policies. Mr HAWKER —That does not alter the fact that the consultation by the Minister has been poor; he has not spoken to the local government authorities. In the case of Lake Condah, the Portland Shire has pointed to some of the problems. For example, if a road along the northern boundary of the piece of land were to be closed, it would stop access to that section of Darlot Creek. In respect of the Framlingham Forest, the Warrnambool Shire, which is the responsible local government authority, has also pointed out that the road that runs through the middle of the forest is presently being used by a milk tanker, has been used by a school bus, and if closed could again reduce access-access that could be significant if there were a fire in the area. The honourable member for Bradfield has already pointed out the problems of consultation at Framlingham Forest and this matter has been well reported in the Warrnambool Standard. I quote again Mr Geoff Clark's statement: Mr Holding was sweeping aside matters which had taken eight years of negotiation between the community and the State Government. In particular, Mr Clark said that the State proposal incorporated the community under the State Co-operatives Act or the Councils and Associations Act, but under this scheme the community could only be incorporated under the Councils and Associations Act. This means that the community's self-determination is being taken away with the Minister being able to stipulate who comprises the board of directors. So much for the utter hypocrisy of Minister Holding's criticism of the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria for failing to consult. It is also interesting that the Minister, in his second reading speech, referred to the fact that minerals will remain vested in the State. However, this is rather misleading because in practice the corporations have virtual right of veto. While it is acknowledged that minerals are unlikely to be in the area this legislation is being used, quite deliberately, to create a precedent for both the State and Federal Parliaments. It is also interesting to look at the enormous powers of delegation that are being given under the Bill. I draw the attention of honourable members to the Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 5 of this year. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills highlighted some of the enormous power than can be delegated under sub-clause 5 (2). For the benefit of honourable members, I will read what the Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest stated. It stated: Sub-clause 5 (1) empowers the Minister to delegate to a Minister of the Crown of the State of Victoria all or any of the powers conferred on the Minister by the Act. Sub-clause 5 (2) enables a Victorian Minister to whom a power has been so delegated to authorise another person to exercise the power. It therefore enables the power to be delegated, in effect, to any person or the holder of any office whom the State Minister may nominate. The Committee has been critical of such powers of delegation which impose no limitation, and give no guidance, as to the attributes of the person to whom a delegation may be made. The Committee therefore draws sub-clause 5 (2) to the attention of Senators in that it may be considered to make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers. That is something at which the Minister ought to look very closely in this Bill, because if he cannot amend it the Senate might do it for him. As has been pointed out by the honourable member for Bradfield, the Opposition will oppose this Bill as it is right and proper for the State Government to legislate on this matter. I repeat: The argument is not about the transfer of the land to the respective Aboriginal corporations; it is about the fact that this Parliament should not be dealing with land matters as they properly belong to the State. I repeat that the other problem is the backlash which this legislation could create by the bad publicity which this Minister and the State Government have created by their bungling and poor handling of it. It has led to newspaper articles in which the Minister is accused of lack of consultation. Quite obviously, the matter had been very badly handled by the State Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(10.03) —It is a sad, sorry day when we hear the mutterings and mumblings of those opposite on an issue which should be supported by both sides of the House. It should be a bipartisan issue. The underprivileged sector of our country has to listen to the mumblings and mutterings of those opposite, the squattocracy, who do not come into this place to try to mislead the people of Australia; they come in here to lie to them. I say that without any equivocation. Let me make one thing very clear. The reason the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill are before this House-and those opposite, especially those from Victoria, should hide their head in shame-in that they would never have been passed through the Victorian Parliament. Let us make no mistake when we talk about the legislation being referred to this place and are told that it is legally or systematically wrong. I ask those opposite, if they have the gumption to stand up and be counted: What happened to the legislation in the Legislative Assembly at the second reading stage? The Victorian Opposition and those who want to repress the Aboriginal people did not vote in favour of it but opposed it. That is why it is here, and it is a shame that those opposite do not have the guts or the gumption to stand up and be counted. It is a national disgrace, and I say that without any equivocation. This legislation gives back something that was taken away-decent rights for the people in these areas. What do we have? We do not have an Opposition that is prepared to stand up and be counted on doing something that is decent for one of the most underprivileged sectors of our community. I do not stand here to patronise those people. Whilst I have not been to Lake Condah or Framlingham Forest, I have had sufficient experience in my part of this nation to indicate that what is happening on the other side of this Parliament-it is evident; it is clear; it is in black and white-is a national disgrace. We have heard a so-called policy. I am a little disappointed that the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who wanted to have a go at me in his speech, has disappeared. Maybe he has gone back to slumber in his Sydney law office or to the quietness of his Sydney suburb. Where is he? He brought forward a pathetic- Mr Cadman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Bradfield is temporarily absent from the chamber. He will be back shortly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —I do not think that is a point of order. Mr GAYLER —It would be great to see him back in the chamber because if he is prepared to face the music as far as his hollow policy on Aboriginal affairs is concerned, let him face it. I challenge him to come into this House and talk about the future prospects, the future ideals, of Aboriginal people. I take no pride in saying that they are underprivileged. Maybe we could have done more than we have done. But what we have done has been positive. The squattocracy in Victoria said that Aboriginals will not have this little piece of Victoria; they will not have their land rights. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has said, with his gumption: `We will fix that up'. If it were not for this Minister, the legislation would still be being kicked around in the Legislative Council, which consists of a nice old bunch of members who are born to the manor. They are a great mob! It is a national disgrace and I take no pride in acknowledging that. It is a sad, sorry state of affairs that those opposite cannot work in a bipartisan way to right the wrongs that exist in this nation, to right the wrongs of the underprivileged about whom we talk. All we have had from honourable members on the other side is the technicalities of the legislation, that it should not be here. That is great stuff, is it not? That helps the people who are trying to get some justice, some rectification of the wrongs that have occurred over centuries! To say that the legislation should not be before this Parliament helps such people! That is touching stuff. What did the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield, say? He said the same thing-that technically the legislation should not be here. That is arrant nonsense. Of course it should be here, because the upper House in Victoria was not prepared to give a little, to compromise, to talk to people. That is where the problem lies. If honourable members do not believe me when I say that those in the Upper House in Victoria think that they were born to rule, they should ask them. They are the ones who have forced this issue. I commend our Federal Minister for having the ability, the foresight, the gumption and the resolution to bring the matter before this place. If it were not considered by this Parliament, it would not be considered anywhere. We are talking about 55 hectares in the case of Lake Condah. My goodness! One would expect that the Aboriginals of Victoria were going to take over next week! We are talking about 55 hectares. I come from an area which is administered by the Queensland Government. If we want to talk about bastardry, I am prepared to put it right on the line. I come from an area of Australia in which at least some recognition is now being given to Aboriginal rights and land rights. But those who are born to rule in Victoria, who rejected this piece of legislation, which is so fair, and so just, acted unconscionably. Let them be judged. Let those spokesmen on the other side of the House be judged on what they say about this legislation. Let them be judged in the upper House when it is considered there, because those who are born to rule will talk about it there as well. I am certain that those in the upper House will take the same line. They will not recognise those reasonable rights that belong to these people who will be the beneficiaries under this legislation. I ask all people of Australia-not just those who are here-to look very closely at what is said by Opposition members both here and in the Senate, because they will be condemned by their words, actions and deeds. If they had any decency at all-it is totally lacking-they would support the Minister and this piece of legislation. They would not talk about whether it is technically right for it to be considered here or in the Victorian Parliament. After all, it was knocked back there. Let us make no mistake about it. It was knocked back because the Opposition in the Victorian Legislative Assembly voted against it. They will be condemned, as will those who speak against it here. If we cannot do some small things-and I will not patronise the cause-and if we cannot rectify some of the vicious wrongs that have existed in our community for centuries and, more recently, decades, we should be condemned, too. If the shadow spokesperson for Aboriginal Affairs wants to attack this Government's record in relation to matters Aboriginal, let him stand up and be counted. Prior to the Hawke Administration, the record of the previous Government was absolutely appalling. Under the previous Government Aboriginal people were forgotten people. Mr Humphreys —Disgraceful. Mr GAYLER —Absolutely disgraceful. I must say that the honourable member for Griffith has been one of my most profound supporters in this regard. Let those on the other side of the House not cast the stone. Let them do something positive about it. It is very unfortunate that we have not had a bipartisan approach to this issue this evening. It is even more unfortunate that those opposite do not have one positive comment to make in this continuing debate. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(10.15) —I want to refer to the contribution to the adjournment debate last night by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton). I regret that he is not in the chamber. I tried to reach him, but failed to do so. He referred to the Vanunu trial in Israel. He made many comments about associated matters-Israel's nuclear policy, its policy towards South Africa and its policy towards the Palestinians. I will not comment on them or on his assessment of Mr Vanunu's character, other than to say I make a completely different reading of this unhappy man. I want to deal with his criticism of the Israeli system of justice, which I regard as one of the finest systems of justice in the world. I stress that the honourable member made it clear that he is not anti-Israel or anti-Jewish, but he is very scornful or critical of the Israeli system of justice. He made two criticisms based on the Vanunu matter. First, he stated that the trial in conditions of complete secrecy is in direct contradiction of normal judicial process. At the end of his remarks he called on the Australian Government to prevail on the Israeli authorities to restore the rights of which Mr Vanunu has been deprived as a person on remand awaiting trial. The last bit was rather peculiar, since it is public knowledge that the trial began last December. As for the secrecy of the hearings, we are dealing here with a country which is surrounded by enemies in a state of declared war against it-countries which have made it plain that they want to obliterate the state of Israel. If Australia were dealing with an Australian citizen in similar circumstances, of course, in accordance with all precedents, the trial would be held in secrecy. Indeed, when we were at war with Japan-I am referring to the Australia First case-a group of Australians who were believed by the authorities to be Japanese agents or Japanese sympathisers were put in a camp for the duration, not just without an open trial, but without any trial whatsoever. Of course, similar cases abound in the common law world when national security is involved and when there is a state of war. That seems to be common from the record, and a common-sense approach. It is strange for the honourable member to make so much of it. As for restoring the rights of which he has been deprived, I would like to refer to a letter in the current issue of the Australia-Israel Review by Mr Gabay, the Israeli Consul-General in Sydney. I am glad that the honourable member for La Trobe is now present. Of course, Mr Gabay is a Government man. Nevertheless, I challenge the honourable member to produce evidence to deny any of the statements I am about to read. The letter states: Israel's legal system guarantees the individual legal rights of the accused and assures him the right to a fair trial and due process of law. Mordechai Vanunu, as any other defendant, enjoys these rights. This trial is being conducted in a civil court before three district judges. He is represented by a lawyer of his own choosing and both Vanunu and the lawyer have to be present at all stages of the trial. According to the common law legal tradition, to which Israel belongs, the prosecution must prove that facts incriminating Vanunu beyond all reasonable doubt. At the conclusion of the trial, both the defence and prosecution may appeal to both the decision of the judges and the punishment imposed in case of conviction. Other rights of the defendant include, inter alia; the right to remain silent during the police investigation and in court or to present his version if he wishes to do so; the rule that in case the prosecution does not present a prima facie case the defendant does not have to answer the charges; the right to be represented at all legal proceedings, to cross examine prosecution witnesses and to call upon any witnesses to testify in his favour, and in general, the rights accorded to defendants in common law systems. I suggest that that is plainly the case. This is a country with a fine legal system which, after the tragic massacres in Lebanon in the recent war there, held a judicial inquiry into one of its own war heroes and, when the inquiry was concluded, sacked him. All of these rights belong to the accused in this case. It is a pity that the honourable member for La Trobe contributed to the absurd propaganda that we get daily in the media about the Israeli system of justice and the conduct of this case. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(10.20) —This society and this economy is undergoing the most drastic restructuring and renewal in living memory. We are not alone. The same is happening in many other countries, East and West. In some cases these are major trading partners. In other cases, many comparable Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries underwent such restructuring years ago. It is a mark of our own ignorance and living in bliss approach to life, manifested through a combination of poor government, poor corporate management and an unwillingness and unpreparedness to look to the future and take the tough decisions, that today, as we suffer the resultant fall in our living standards and national income, we are looking for where we have gone wrong. But it is not too late and over the past few years we have realised our needs and new direction and taken steps to reconcile our differences, recover from the recession of 1981-82 and start to reconstruct a new economy. On Easter Saturday, 18 April, at the Australian Humanists National Convention, I called for an inquiry into wealth and income distribution in Australia. I wish briefly to put before the Parliament tonight an outline of reasons why such an inquiry should proceed and how it should be conducted. First, the issue of distribution, accumulation and use of wealth and income in Australia has never before been comprehensively and independently put together in our 200 year history. There have been many surveys and studies on different aspects of wealth, income and property but these have always been only pieces of the jigsaw. To further complicate matters, the picture on the jigsaw is also changing and, let us face it, there are many missing pieces. We do not even know who owns them. We all know to some extent the maldistribution of wealth and income in Australia. One has only to drive for 30 minutes across any Australian city to see graphic evidence of that. I suspect, for example, that the wealthiest 150,000-or one per cent of Australians-own enough wealth to supply a modest home and small car for the families of three million Australians. We also know that some people can afford to bet $20 million at the races in a weekend's fun while 40,000 Australians tonight will not have a home to sleep in. We know that the big corporate bosses fly around in their private jets while they call loudly for cuts in welfare spending and wages so that the ordinary Australian has to spend more of his pension or wage on the train fare or ride to work. There is an obscene maldistribution of wealth, income and property in this country and the people and the Government of this country need to know the details. Without the details of wealth, income and property distribution, we cannot conduct informed public debate or develop effective and equitable government policy. It is as simple as that. Without the details of wealth, income and property distribution, we are forced back to our own prejudices and are unarmed against vested interests and powerful forces. As I said at the outset, our economy and society are undergoing rapid change. The pace is fast and needs to be and the effects will have a profound influence on our society. The old wealth generators-property, agriculture and mining-will still be there but their influence is likely to be diminished by growth in manufactures, services and technology. Wealth and income will come from new sources and our economy and government policy will need to reflect these changing dimensions, patterns and distributions. The sweat of the worker as the means of production will be replaced by the microchip. Without changes to redistributive economic policies, we will continue down the path of division and mal-distribution of income, government development and community support. As a society, government and business, we need to know more about these changes and then let the political parties and the community determine the needs and uses of the nation's wealth. We know so little about our current distribution of wealth, income and property. Today in this changing society and economy we need, more than ever before, to know how many own how much? What is being done with it? What should be done with it? This must apply to personal as well as corporate wealth. I propose a wealth inquiry as an urgent need. It should be as independent and credible as possible. We need an independent commission of inquiry with its term of reference based largely but not exclusively on the following things. Firstly, we need to find out what the current situation is. There are various government and non-government sources available of mixed value. The commission would need to determine new sources of information. We need to get more information on trends in the changes in ownership of wealth and income. Secondly, we need to find out how wealth and income is being developed and accumulated and what the relationship is between wealth, income and consumption in Australia. Also, how does the current public policy reflect the equitable distribution of public resources and collection of public revenue? Thirdly, we need to study nationally the effects of the distribution of the nation's wealth and income on our society and economy-who are the winners and losers and who is paying for what. Fourthly, the commission of inquiry would also need to be able to provide a basis of ongoing evaluative information, so that government policy and the community's needs, concerns and perspectives can be better balanced and tuned as our economy and society changes further and faster. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(10.25) —I turn my attention again in this adjournment debate to Australia's new submarine project. I remind the House that it was stated in Question Time today that this project is now faced with a cost blow-out of around $4.5 billion-and we still do not have a boat in the water, despite the protestations of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to the contrary. The purported front runner Kockums has now admitted that some of the sections of the first new boat will have to be built in Sweden rather than Australia, contrary to the requirements of the project. It is additionally worth noting that the Kockums shipyard has been cut back enormously over recent years. Civilian ship production has ceased completely. Only 700 employees of the original 6,000 at Kockums some years ago are still at work. Kockums has no further orders of any consequence for submarines. Its order book shows that it is taking on orders for rebuilding railway coach wagons and house elevators-hardly comparable with submarines. This must surely place a big question mark over the ability of Kockums to provide through-life support should we be blind enough to buy its type 471 submarine. There is also the possibility that Kockums may close down altogether and move to and merge with the Swede yards in Karlskrona in an effort to keep the Swedish shipbuilding industry from going under completely. Leif Jungestad, Kockums Executive Vice-President, whilst not confirming the move has admitted that a recommendation has been made that military or naval production should be concentrated at Karlskrona. With the huge loss of jobs and the possible move to Karlskrona, the union movement in the shipyard has become angered and major disputation over a long period is now very possible. It is also widely accepted that the Swedish Communist Party, VPK, is active in the Kockums shipyard and this could have security implications for the project. According to regional television in southern Sweden, John-Erik Olssen, a local union official, has been flown to Australia by Kockums to try to quash ill-willed rumours in Australia about communists at Kockums. I turn now to the issue of security. It has to be said that there has been a well documented history of security lapses and scandals in Sweden over many years. These include the Mirko Kloverberg spy case, of which I have previously spoken in this House, the apparent ease with which Soviet submarines penetrate Swedish waters, and many other issues. This does not augur well for the future security of our submarines should Kockums get the green light on the contract. The general point also has to be made that our defence forces are compatible with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries. Sweden, I remind the House, is not a NATO nation. To make such a major purchase which is not compatible with our allies is gross stupidity. Previously, Sweden has cut off defence supplies to Australia-namely ammunition for the Carl Gustav anti-armour weapon during the Vietnam conflict. However many verbal or written guarantees the Swedes give Australia, how can we trust them not to do the same thing again should we become involved in a conflict which the Swedes find disagreeable? It is most disturbing that Kockums could now pick up the submarine contract by default when all along it was involved supposedly just to keep the German company HDW-IKL honest. Finally, whilst the Germans are thought to have given the Department of Defence a fixed price, it is believed that the Swedes have still failed to do so. It seems that the Kockums proposal is slowly falling to pieces. It has given no fixed price and now is unable to do a complete Australian build on all six submarines. Again I say to the House that this whole project has to go back to the drawing board, be deferred and looked at again. It is a shambles. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.29) —I have been dealing with some of the abuses that have taken place in Queensland. Case No. 10 involves the Bond Corporation. The Today Tonight program on QTQ 9 on 2 February 1983 broadcast a current affairs program which dealt with the substance of the material I referred to earlier in case No. 9. Arising from that program, defamation charges were brought by Bjelke-Petersen. An out of court settlement saw $400,000 transferred from the Bond Corporation to Sir Joh. Most observers believe that had the case proceeded to a conclusion there is no way that Joh could have won a $400,000 decision. In April 1987 Max Walsh wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald: . . . his decision to give Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen $400,000 in settlement for an alleged defamation against the Queensland Premier- may prove to be- one of the shrewdest investments that Alan Bond has made. Case No. 11 concerns National Free Enterprise Ltd. In 1984 the Hawke Government amended the electoral laws to require all political parties to identify and declare the source of all campaign gifts of $1,000 or more. On 27 September 1984, just two months before the election, a company, National Free Enterprise Ltd, was incorporated in Queensland. It donated $300,000 of the $564,000 which the Queensland National Party raised for the election. The company secretary was a foundation member, Mrs Helen Maybury, who is also the private secretary of Queensland's National Party President, Sir Robert Sparkes. The address of National Free Enterprise Ltd was that of a Brisbane legal firm and, of course, Mrs Helen Maybury's husband has received some more recent notoriety in a public controversy. Case No. 12 involves the white-shoe brigade. Mr Mike Gore and Mr Brian Ray were the two developers who originated the `Joh for PM' campaign in 1986 with a series of dinners where business leaders asked the Queensland Premier to run for Federal office. Mr Mike Gore claimed that he had commitments of up to $30m for the campaign which would provide $70,000 for each of 148 candidates for the House of Representatives and still leave more than $10m for the national campaign. In mid-March 1987 a weekend party was held at the Gold Coast home of Brian Ray. It was attended by Sir Joh and it drafted a strategy based on the publics fear of unemployment, interest rates, inflation and taxation. Mr Ray was also celebrating his acquittal on charges of defrauding the Commonwealth of $16m with two other people between 1978 and 1983 through bottom of the harbour tax schemes. Case No. 13 involves the white-shoe brigade again. The Queensland Government Development Authority granted a loan of $10.6m to Gold Coast developer Mr Mike Gore. Mr Gore is the leader of the white shoe brigade which is alleged by him to have committed up to $30m for the `Joh for PM' campaign. The Queensland Opposition Leader, Mr Neville Warburton, said that advice indicated that the loan was illegal under the Statutory Bodies (Financial Arrangements) Act because the role of the Development Authority is to arrange and raise loans for statutory authorities. When the loan became public knowledge in early March 1987 Mr Gore repaid it. The Deputy Liberal Leader, Mr Angus Innes, told the Queensland Parliament that Mr Gore received a `secret million dollar electricity deal from the State Government' for his Sanctuary Cove development. Case No. 14 involves a policeman. In November 1976 Terry Lewis made police history when he jumped from being a junior inspector in outback Charleville to Police Commissioner in just a few weeks. The Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, personally recommended his appointment and overruled objections from the former Commissioner, Ray Whitrod. In 1985 Terry Lewis became Sir Terence Lewis, Knight Bachelor in Joh's New Year Honours List. The Commissioner was knighted before the Queensland Chief Justice. Sir Terence's daughter, Mrs Laureen Ireland, retired from the Queensland Police Force in February 1987 on the ground of ill health at the ripe old age of 25. She was reportedly paid $140,000 superannuation. In 1982 Lewis was described in State Parliament by the late Kev Hooper as `a corrupt crook'. There were rumours that he had been a bagman for the former Police Commissioner. Case No. 15 is the first case involving a builder. In March 1987 the Queensland Minister for housing, Mr Ivan Gibbs, admitted that he had directed the State Builders Registration Board to register a bankrupt Gold Coast builder, Mr Douglas Smith, whom he had known since `he was a baby'. The next case also involves a builder. The Queensland Minister for Housing overturned a decision of the State Builders Registration Board and ordered it to register another -- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(10.35) —Sometimes something occurs in this House which produces an environment of sadness and that environment exists at present. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) with his obvious talents-a member for whom I have something almost approaching affection-indulged in what was a fairly futile operation of muckraking. It is pointless because all this has been said before. Most of it was said prior to the Queensland State election and what was the result? What was the effect on and the reaction of the people of Queensland? They put the National Party Government back with a greater majority then ever. Tonight I want to talk about another party. On Saturday there will be an historic event in the town of Barcaldine-- Mr Cadman —Hear, hear! Mr KATTER —I am terribly pleased to see my good friend the honourable member for Mitchell here because he had a very interesting experience as a much respected jackaroo in the town of Aramac, which is near Barcaldine. On Saturday I will have the pleasure of flying to Barcaldine with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) and will have the privilege of proposing a vote of thanks to him for the task he will perform-the opening ceremony of what is called the Tree of Knowledge. On that very spot the Australian Labor Party was founded. I wish to refer to two elements of history. One is the ordeal that many shearers and others associated with them went through during those bad old days. If I seem to know a little more about this matter than usual, it is for a very obvious reason. An uncle of mine, Richard Dominic Arida, was closely associated with a particular group which, while it was not a formal union in those days, was organised to try to get some sort of social justice for its members. That strike became historic. My uncle was four square with the shearers and was part of the general movement. The other element concerns the general living conditions of people in those days. They were hardy people who had to cope with all sorts of disadvantages. One has to live in those areas now to understand the penalties of life in such places-the tyranny of distance, for example, and the penalty of sales tax on freight. Let me put in a quick word here. A fellow bought a bolt the other day. It was a large bolt which cost $1.50. The freight was $6-- Mr Andrew —Oh! Was it air freight? Mr KATTER —That fellow paid sales tax on $7.50 and I am not sure whether it was air freight or not. However, successive governments seem to sidestep this issue. There is another point I wish to mention. In doing so I am not referring to all people on the government side of the House because many members of the Australian Labor Party have been the custodians of wonderful families. There is no better example of that than you yourself, Madam Speaker. In a general sense this Government has ignored the fundamental bonds which keep a family together. Let me give an example, as I do not have much time left. Recently a specialised trained nurse went on television pointing out that she and her associates had been asked to leave the country. They had been informed that they had to leave because their visas had expired. She pointed out that those nurses were specialised and were needed in Australia. What really got to her was that when that particular information became available it was also promulgated that if a person was in a homosexual relationship with a bloke or a woman, that person was okay, his or her visa would be extended and he or she would get permanent residence. I would suggest that genuine members of the Labor Party should read the history of the Barcaldine era, take note of the family life, solidarity, principles and traditions that were evident there and insist in Caucus that these be restored. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.39) — I wish to continue and support some of the comments made by the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) in calling for an inquiry into the distribution of wealth. I wish to say something about the matter at this stage because although there is not sufficient information, there are some things we can say about the increase in wealth in Australia for the wealthiest section of the population-the rich upper class. We can say something about that if we look at what has happened on the stock exchanges of Australia and the way in which wealth is owned and distributed in relation to the stock exchanges, we will see some fascinating results in terms of who is benefiting at present. Mr Cadman —Yes, Norm Gallagher. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member opposite calls out the name of a union leader. I will tell him who is benefiting at pre-sent-people such as Mr Elliott, who has the gall to suggest that he will take his enterprises away from Australia because he may have to pay a little more tax. He does not look at all the capital gains and huge increase in wealth which has accrued for him and his friends in the last few years. Let me point out the facts. In 1983 the stock exchange wealth was $53,142m. By 1986 it had risen to $130,945m. In other words, there was an increase during the period of the Hawke Government in the value of stocks and shares of 150 per cent. Those members opposite who suggest that businesses have not been doing well under the Hawke Government ought to look at these facts and see who has been benefiting. When people such as Mr Elliott say that they will have to pay a little more tax so they might as well think about leaving Australia, they ought to be ashamed of themselves; they are traitors to this country; and they certainly are not making a fair judgment on the basis of the wealth which they have accumulated over this period. It is incumbent on us to take on board certain facts. If we look at who owns the stocks and shares, we see certain important facts that have been uncovered by sociologists and economists. Less than 9 per cent of Australians own stocks and shares on the stock exchange. The staggering situation is that less than 4 per cent own 50 per cent of the wealth. Less than 4 per cent own 50 per cent of that $130 billion. They are the staggering facts. One has to ask: What ought to be done about this in this context? When we have the likes of the New Right putting out its pro-paganda and saying that the poor, the pensioners and people in the lowest echelons ought to be making sacrifices, how about some sacrifices from these wealthy people? How about some sacrifices from that 4 per cent who own 50 per cent of this $130 billion? Honourable members opposite, especially those on the dry front bench who have done away with any social conscience and who merely want to support not only the rich but also the richest section of the population, ought to think again. The Australian people would never encourage policies which are intended to support that rich upper grouping. I will be speaking about this again and again this year. I say that it is time that that group of people made some sacrifice for the general welfare and we ought to be thinking about ways and means of redistributing this wealth to the general population. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.44) —The speech of the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) would bring everybody to the House to see how much they are worth these days with a call like that. Tonight I want to speak about the incredible mess that has developed in the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. The great factional deal has fallen apart. Only 10 days ago the Federal Executive of the ALP decided that it had to be called in to sort out the problems of the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh). He had been contested against by Con Sciacca, one of those famous Queensland would-be politicians who always fails. He managed to get up for preselection against the honourable member for Bowman because he used certain influences on unions voting in the preselection. Not that the influences he used included money; nevertheless, the honourable member for Bowman lost his endorsement. What happened? They had to stitch together this great factional operation. They brought them all down here and went to Curtin House and cooked up a deal: Sciacca would withdraw his nomination and dear old Tom Burns, who has been sitting in the Queensland Parliament for years-the guy who went with Whitlam to China; that is really what made his name-was off to Greece. Poor old Tom did not know where Greece was. He got the atlas out and saw that it was in the sun. It could have been north Queensland. He rang Andrew Theophanous and asked: `What's Greece like?' After what Andrew told him about Greece, he decided not to go. So the deal is off. Suddenly Sciacca now wants his endorsement back. Dr Theophanous —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This speech is fantastic. Anyone who knows anything about Greece would love to go there. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Ryan. Mr MOORE —The deal is off. Poor old Sciacca withdrew his nomination. One thing that is quite sure in politics is that one never takes a politician's guarantee; one should ask for it in writing. Sciacca withdrew his nomination; the honourable member for Bowman is in the clear; Burns is safe because he has not resigned his seat. He has turned down the trip to Greece; he is staying; and he has his seat. Sciacca has missed out everywhere. Quite a deal! That is what is called management in the ALP in Queensland. It is no wonder it is going backwards. In the last State election the ALP in Queensland went back another 2 per cent, down to 30-odd per cent. There is little wonder. Poor old Sciacca! He put up his money, got the nomination but was rolled by the Federal Executive. Andrew talked Tom Burns out of going to Greece, so he will stay in the State House and Sciacca does not have any- thing. What a performance! The story does not end there. In the factional deal there are so many edges that no one quite knew which one to rub next. The next corner that had to be rubbed concerned Peter Beattie, the State Secretary. He had another invitation as part of the deal. He was off to the seat of Brisbane, and Manfred Cross was on the boat. He was out; he was going off on a trip somewhere around the country. Suddenly, because of Andrew telling Tom Burns to stay at home, Manfred is safe. Now they cannot get rid of Beattie. What a great organisation in Queensland! It is looking around for something to do. There is a job left. There is one last hope for all these people. It is an ALP nomination for the lord mayoralty of Brisbane. It has had it advertised for three months, but it still does not have anyone to put in. Here is Sciacca's great chance. He can nominate for the lord mayoralty of Brisbane-- Mr Sullivan —And lose again. Mr MOORE —And lose again. He has not won yet, and here is a great opportunity. Andrew had done us all a service and given the ALP in Queensland the public perception that it so thoroughly deserves. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.49) —I had reached abuse No. 16 in relation to Queensland. The Queensland Minister for Housing overturned a decision of the State Builders Registration Board and ordered it to register another builder, Mr Ivan Srnec. The Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Mr Neville Warburton, claimed that Mr Srnec had `a very limited knowledge of the building industry'. Case No. 17 concerns a low interest loan of $145,000 which was granted to Mr Michael Behan, the northern organiser of the National Party in Queensland, early in 1986 for his property, Bilbah Downs, in central Queensland. The Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Turner, had directed the bank to grant the loan after the bank had rejected Mr Behan's application. The Rural Reconstruction Board had also rejected a separate application. Behan was $702,000 in debt at the time. Behan put the property up for auction on 14 May 1987. When he defended the loan, Mr Turner said that Behan's land had been affected by a `pretty terrible drought'. Behan said in March 1987 that `the property was having one of its best seasons for years' and the loan `certainly was no detriment to us'. Joh described the $145,000 as a lousy amount of money which was not worth worrying about. Case No. 18 also involved a builder. The Queensland Minister for Welfare, Mrs Yvonne Chapman, urged the Minister for Works and Housing, Mr Claude Wharton, that a personal friend of hers, Mr Allan Cartwright, a builder, should not have to pay about $15,000 in insurance money which the Builders Registration Board had directed him to pay. The liability was reduced to $5,000. As a result, no assistance could be given to 11 people with defects in homes which had been built by a company that engaged Mr Cartwright. Case No. 19 involves the Queensland Builders Registration Board. The Board paid out $23,000 in insurance for defects in a Clermont home owned by the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Vince Lester, even though the home was built without a contract having been signed with the builder. Case No. 20 also involves the Builders Registration Board. The responsibility of the State Builders Registration Board in Queensland is to protect the public from shoddy builders by requiring all builders to contribute to an insurance fund. In early March 1987 the Bjelke-Petersen Government disbanded the Board and sacked its Registrar and Deputy Registrar. The Board was reinstated only after a public outcry. Case No. 21 concerns the developers. The most immediate beneficiary of the Petersen Government's decision in March 1987 to sell off the islands of the Great Barrier Reef would be the colourful developer Keith Williams, who is an acknowledged $100,000 donor to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. He has been trying to refinance his Hamilton Island resort development. Under the terms of the island sell-off, resort owners would be able to buy their islands at their unimproved capital value over 20 years interest free. The Deputy Leader of the Queensland Liberals, Angus Innes, said that the proposed legislation would give windfall profits to resort owners many of whom are foreign corporations. When the Hawke Government opposed his proposal, Joh said that Hawke was `trying to make something out of nothing'. Case No. 22 involves a group called The Enemies. The late Mr Eric Robinson, a former Fraser Government Minister for Finance, was opposed in the Federal election of 1980 by an Independent National candidate who had the open backing of Bjelke-Petersen. The National Party also pressured Prime Minister Fraser to demote Robinson after the election. Robinson instead chose the back bench, and died of a heart attack in January 1981 at the age of 51. Of Bjelke-Petersen, Eric Robinson said: He was a man who would go to almost any lengths to get his own way and to maintain his own personal power and position. Case No. 23 also involves The Enemies. During his condolence speech in February 1981 following the death of Eric Robinson the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), said of Joh Bjelke-Petersen that he was `one of the most dictatorial, ruthless, uncompromising, uncharitable and unfair men in Australian politics over the last four to five decades'. He did not go on to say that they were his most charitable comments. Case No. 24 also involves The Enemies. In October 1986 Sir Roderick Proctor, one of the trustees of the Queensland National Party, attacked the cronyism of the State Government. He said that there was genuine concern among businessmen and that people were `frightened to speak out'. He said that tenders were called for major development projects when it was already `obvious who would win'. He was sacked as a trustee. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.54) —In December 1986 it was announced that a pilot project with HRC Time Computers would be undertaken by 31 members and senators in their offices to determine the most appropriate equipment for electorate office computer systems. The pilot study was completed in February and instructions were given to the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services to arrange contracts with the successful company, HRC Technologies Ltd. On 5 February the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) wrote to the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) setting out the problems that had been experienced by Opposition members with this equipment. Sometime during February I gather that members of the Australian Labor Party back bench saw the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Minister Tate. Later, on 27 February, a report was published in the Hobart Mercury, with comments from a departmental official stating that members of parliament did not need to be surveyed on these matters because generally they were computer illiterate. The article indicated that there was a list of complaints, and details of those complaints were published. Then on 20 March a memo was forwarded to all MPs and senators indicating that the equipment had been thoroughly evaluated in a pilot study involving 31 electorate offices. On 2 April I wrote to the Special Minister of State saying that I did not want that sort of equipment and that I was prepared to meet the difference between the Digital equipment and the equipment being offered by the Department. I further indicated that some of the problems instanced by Ministers were that the computers had broken down and, in at least one case, a computer had not worked at all. Lists and data had been lost in machines, and programs had malfunctioned. Machine failures included keyboards which had overheated, screen malfunctions, and programs locking without further access. It was also maintained that the printer could not do envelopes, that it fed only 50 sheets of paper, and that no satisfactory system had been found for printing labels. It was further asserted that the software choice was completely unsatisfactory, that one was compatible but of low quality and that one was incompatible and of high quality. My colleagues who are now having the follow-on contract machines delivered to their offices say that they are coming in bits and pieces, with keyboards missing and a whole lot of other problems. HRC Technologies Ltd was registered as a company in Tasmania on 19 June 1985. Its major shareholder was HRC Holdings Pty Ltd, formerly known as Hotel Restaurant Club Holdings Pty Ltd, registered in New South Wales. The name of this firm in New South Wales is HRC Time. Nine months after registration in Tasmania, the company tendered as part of the program for the Department of the Special Minister of State, and 18 months later that was the company whose equipment was evaluated by the Department. The pilot project undertaken was as I have outlined, but on 9 March, after the complaints had been made, an application for winding up HRC Technologies was made by an unsecured creditor. On 26 March a further application for winding up HRC Technologies was made on behalf of the major unsecured creditor. On 13 April, following the complaints and after the winding-up notices, the Government signed the contract. The Government signed the contract after this process had been gone through. On 27 April there were hearings in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, and a scheme of arrangement was entered into. I am very concerned about what has gone on here. The Government owes an inquiry to all members of the Parliament. I have no complaints or evidence against shareholders or directors, but I think that a number of serious questions ought to be asked. Were the companies properly investigated before contracts were let? Why was no proper evaluation made of the system? Why was the contract entered into when so many complaints had been made by members about the quality of the equipment? Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith)(10.58) —I will not take up too much time of the House tonight. I was interested to hear the remarks of the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) about the so-called problems in the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. The honourable member for Ryan, who has been a very good friend of mine for many years, said that we were having problems in the Labour Party in Queensland, and federally, and were stitching up deals. I received an interesting phone call the other day from a school teacher in Queensland. An economics and history teacher, she explained how she had told the students to phone the various political parties in order to obtain information about them so that they could write an essay on what the parties represented and outline their policies. She advised them to say that they were interested in joining the party concerned; thus the parties would be very co-operative and send out the necessary literature. One cannot imagine what sort of literature they got from the Liberal Party. I just remind honourable members opposite that the honourable member for Ryan, who has just been elevated to the inner sanctum of the so-called Opposition-- Mr Lee —The bunker. Mr HUMPHREYS —Yes, the bunker; that is correct. The Liberal Party sent out literature to people in Queensland who asked for it-and one cannot believe who is shown on the beautiful glossy brochure as the Leader of the Opposition. It is none other than the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). He is shown as the Leader of the Opposition. All the old policies are there-there are no new policies. Reference has been made to problems in the Australian Labor Party, but I point out that honourable members opposite do not even have the money to replace all that old literature. They maintain that we are in trouble, but there they are sending out all that old literature. The President of the Liberal Party in Queensland, and the Director, Mr Gary Neat, would be interested in this. How can the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) allow this to take place in Queensland? Who is the arch enemy of the Liberal Party in Queensland? It is none other than that famous knight, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, who is really after the Liberal Party; he is not interested in the Labor Party. The President of the Liberal Party in Queensland has had the gall to come in here and attack the Australian Labor party and to refer to its so-called problems when honourable members opposite cannot even afford to let the people in Queensland know who is the Leader of the Opposition. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Nehl to move- That this House- (1) abhors the wanton disregard displayed by the Hawke Labor Government towards the unacceptably high levels of unemployment on the New South Wales north coast, and especially in the Electoral Division of Cowper where unemployment is at levels higher than during the Great Depression; (2) calls upon the Government to immediately and effectively extend its job creation programs to each electoral division on the north coast as a temporary means of alleviating high unemployment, and (3) introduces policies for economic and fiscal management which will promote small business and farming sector growth, so that permanent jobs can be created in industries such as tourism, farming, retail, building and service industries which will alleviate the horrendous levels of unemployment on the north coast of New South Wales. The following answers to questions were circulated: Mr Barry Jones —On 31 March 1987 (Hansard page 1757), the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) asked me as Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices a question without notice concerning the changed arrangements for the marketing of the Royal Australian Mint's coin collector sets and the reasons for the significant price increase for those sets this year. The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Following a review in 1986 of marketing arrangements for the Mint's numismatic coinage products (which includes collector sets manufactured to both proof and uncirculated quality standards), it was decided that there would be cost savings in the Mint resuming responsibility for marketing arrangements following the conclusion of a contract with Jaggard Coins Australia Pty Ltd. The change in the marketing arrangements have no bearing on the increase in the price of the 1987 coin collector sets. The major reason for the increase in the price of uncirculated coin sets in 1987 is that the costs of producing these sets have increased significantly in recent years, partly reflecting improvements made in the quality of their packaging/presentation. There was also a substantial increase in demand for the 1985 and 1986 uncirculated sets, reflecting the fact that they were (along with proof sets) the only source of some coin denominations produced in those years. This is expected to be the case again in 1987. The increase in demand for the 1985 and 1986 coin sets has resulted in a sharp increase in their price in secondary market trading to levels beyond the Mint's issue price. At the new price of $9.70 the sets could still be said to be substantially undervalued, given that their value in the market place is much higher than their sale price. It is reasonable for the Commonwealth to seek to capture at least part of the scarcity premium attached to these sets for the benefit of taxpayers generally who ultimately provide the resources for their production. (Question No. 3423) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 18 March 1986: (1) What sum is being spent on the national advertising campaign publicising the National Drug Counselling Hotline. (2) Where are the advertisements being placed and with what frequency. (3) What are the (a) numbers, (b) locations, (c) hours of work and (d) pay rates of counsellors manning telephones. (4) Over what period is the campaign being conducted. (5) What other initiatives are being undertaken as part of this campaign to combat the drug problem. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An important element of the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse (NCADA) was the National Drug Information Line on 008-038 111. This toll-free number was provided not as a counselling service but to assist people seeking information about drug abuse. Research prior to the launch of the Campaign indicates a majority of the community felt they did not have enough information about drugs and substantially more felt that governments were not doing enough to provide such information. The National Drug Information Line was publicised in ``The Drug Offensive'' booklet delivered to every household in Australia and through paid advertising in all media. Expenditure on advertising the National Drug Information Line was approximately $600 000. (2) Details of the paid advertising of the National Drug Information Line are as follows: Television $134 000 Advertisements appeared on metropolitan and provincial television between the hours of 9.00 a.m. and midnight from 17 April to 3 May and from 18 May to 24 May inclusive. The advertisements were also screened as community service announcements until October 1986. Radio $111 880 In metropolitan areas, 40 spots were booked between 7.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. for each of the weeks com- mencing 13 April, 20 April, 4 May and and 11 May. 20 spots were booked on selected provincial stations for each of the four weeks, also between 7.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. Press $251 988 Space was booked in metropolitan dailies and suburban papers during the week commencing 27 April and in provincial newspapers (including those in the Northern Territory) during the week commencing 20 April. Arrangements were also made with selected free newspapers and religious publications. Subsequent press advertisements were run 22-24 August 1986. Bus/Tram Panels $76 398 Space was booked in metropolitan areas for the period 13 April to 24 May 1986. Milk Cartons $25 000 Message was displayed on milk cartons in New South Wales from 21 April until 2 June 1986. (3) The National Drug Information Line was not a counselling service. However, a small number of calls did require the attention of a trained counsellor and arrangements were made to re-direct such calls to counselling services in the States and Territories. I do not have details for each State and Territory of the numbers, locations, hours of work and pay rates of counsellors involved. (4) Paid and community service advertising for the National Drug Information Line operated from April to October 1986. (5) The NCADA encompasses a range of new and expanded initiatives in education, treatment, rehabilitation, drug control and law enforcement. In 1985 the Commonwealth committed itself to a long term program of assistance initially for three years and beyond to mount a National Campaign Against Drug Abuse. The NCADA commitment provides $8 million indexed each year for three years for national initiatives and $12 million indexed each year for three years for cost-shared programs with the States. The range of cost-shared programs to be conducted jointly with the States and Territories was announced on 14 August 1985. At the recent meeting of the World Health Organisation Conference on Drug Misuse the range of NCADA initiatives in health law enforcement and in international relations was fully outlined. In brief the health initiatives included: an upgraded National Drug Education Program; the National Strategy for the Campaign agreed by all governments and outlined in the document ``The National Campaign Against Drug Abuse''; the production of new drug education materials most of which were available as part of Phase 1 of the Media Campaign; the National Media Campaign which is designed to raise awareness, involve the community and address drug specific problems in accordance with priorities set by the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy; upgraded training and professional education programs; 24 hour information and counselling services; new and expanded methadone programs; hospital based treatment programs; treatment and rehabilitation programs for prisoners; better drug data collection; research into drug abuse; and two Centres of Excellence in drug studies. As part of the second arm of the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse, law enforcement initiatives include: investigation of drug related matters by the National Crime Authority (NCA); $7.2 million for new computer capacity and $10 million for additional staff for the Australian Federal Police; $1.5 million for better drug intelligence capacity for the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence; $5.56 million for upgrading of customs controls; new powers for the Director of Public Prosecutions; tamper proof drug exhibit bags and security computer programs to be developed by the National Police Research Unit; joint Federal/NSW Taskforce on Drug Trafficking funded to continue operations in 1985/86; upgrading of police drug law enforcement training at the Australian Police College; agreement to the extension of telephone interception powers for drug trafficking investigations; the creation of new offences of sending drugs through the mail; preparation of draft model legislation on manufacture, distribution and medical use of drugs of dependence; examination of cargo security arrangements at ports and airports; decision to amend body search provisions of the Customs Act; agreement and examination of draft legislation on forfeiture of assets of drug traffickers; the power to seek access to taxation information granted to the NCA in regard to drugs references; upgrading of coastal surveillance-$33 million in 1985/86 and $33 million in 1986/87; and Operation Noah-code-named operation to elicit information from the community on drug trafficking. A further important aim of NCADA involves initiatives in the international arena. Australia continues to support the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs; the International Narcotics Control Board; the Thai Office of the Narcotics Control Board; the SE Asian Heads of Narcotics Law Enforcement Agencies Conferences; drug abuse prevention measures through ASEAN, and United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control, mutual assistance arrangements in international customs matters, the Milan Conference on Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, extradition initiatives and WHO initiatives especially through our recent re-election to the WHO Executive Board. (Question No. 4110) Mr Sharp asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: How much money has been (a) budgeted for and (b) spent on advertising the ``Drug Offensive'' through (i) radio, (ii) television and in (iii) newspapers and (iv) magazines. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) The full budgeted costs for advertising the Drug Offensive for 1985/86 were: (i) Radio-$117 850 (ii) Television-$910 160 (iii) Newspapers-$339 290 and (iv) Magazines-nil Details of the advertising program for 1986/87 are still being finalised. (Question No. 4391) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Is Australia taking steps to become a party to the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. (2) How many nations have already become parties to the Convention. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Australia shares totally the abhorrence of apar- theid which underlies the 1973 Apartheid Convention and has been in the forefront of international efforts to achieve the broad purpose of the Convention, namely the eradication of apartheid. In line with the strategy embodied in the Commonwealth Accord on South Africa agreed at Nassau in 1985 and extended at the London meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in August last year, we have undertaken concrete measures to bring home to the South African Government that its policies must change. The reluctance of the Government to become a party to the Apartheid Convention should not be seen as diminishing our commitment to the removal of apar- theid. It is related rather to problems with certain legal concepts, especially the notion of criminality, on which the Convention is based. The Convention's definition of apartheid as a crime is imprecise and difficult to accommodate in a system of criminal law like our own which regards a clear definition of a criminal offence as an essential safeguard of civil liberties. Some of the activities which are embraced in the definition would not be regarded as criminal under Australian legislation. There are in addition problems with the concept of universal jurisdiction embodied in the Convention, under which any State party to the Convention is technically obliged to prosecute any person within its jurisdiction respons- ible for the broadly defined crime of apartheid wherever the act is committed and whatever the person's nationality may be. 2. 85 nations have become party to the Convention. No country with a political and legal system similar to Australia's has become a party. (Question No. 4452) Mr Mildren asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) How many students were approved to receive TEAS in each of the years 1980-81 to 1985-86. (2) What percentage of approved recipients in each of those years were attending post-secondary institutions outside capital cities. (3) What percentage of the total student population were attending post-secondary institutions outside capital cities. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Assistance under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) is provided on an academic (calendar) year basis. The numbers assisted in the calendar years 1980 to 1986 are as follows: Year Number 1980 ... 91571 1981 ... 91096 1982 ... 86541 1983 ... 96527 1984 ... 97654 1985 ... 104606 1986 ... 110744 (2) Data is available only for the years 1984 and 1985. The percentage of TEAS recipients attending institutions outside capital cities in 1984 was 24.2% and in 1985 was 24.9%. (3) Data on the proportion of students attending TAFE institutions outside capital cities is only available for 1984 when 30.4% of TAFE students were attending such institutions. Data in the following table is for Higher Education (Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education) students attending institutions outside capital cities. Year 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Number ... 54 929 56 376 60 705 64 112 69 101 73 025 80 406 Total higher education students ... 324 048 331 931 343 524 350 810 360 569 373 280 389 734 % of higher education students attending universities and CAEs outside capital cities ... 16.9 17.0 17.7 18.3 19.2 19.6 20.6 (Question No. 4556) Mr McArthur asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) What consultation has there been between his Department and the Victorian Rifle Association on the issues of (a) compensation and (b) relocation in relation to the sale of the Merrett Rifle Range, Williamstown, Victoria. (2) If there have been no discussions, when does he envisage they will occur. (3) Will rifle shooters in Victoria be materially disadvantaged by the Government's proposals, in view of the compensation and rehabilitation proposed. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Victorian Rifle Association of Australia has recently placed with my Department a proposal for Commonwealth assistance to relocate its headquarters and range facilities from the Merrett Rifle Range. (2) The proposal is presently under consideration. (3) The Victorian Rifle Association has for many years enjoyed a unique benefit in being permitted to have its headquarters on Commonwealth land. The decision to sell the Merrett Rifle Range was not taken lightly or with lack of appreciation of the utilisation of the facility, but it was one of the difficult decisions that the Government had to make in the economic climate in the light of its overall responsibilities. (Question No. 4783) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: Have any changes been made to the Health Insurance Commission security arrangements following the publication of doctors' Medicare Incomes in the Sydney Morning Herald in 1985; if so, what. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As the information published in the Sydney Morning Herald did not originate from the Health Insurance Commission the question of security arrangements within the Commission cannot be linked with the article. The information published in the article was significantly inconsistent with the data held by the Commission, and a public statement to that effect was made by the general manager of the Commission at the time the article appeared. On the general matter of security over data the Commission employs a comprehensive range of measures to secure data to restrict staff access to data and to prevent the unauthorised use of terminal equipment. These measures have been enhanced over the last two years with improvements in technology and the design of new systems. (Question No. 4803) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: What was the (a) itemised budget for each community health centre in the Australian Capital Territory and (b) number of patients seen by each doctor in these centres in (i) January, (ii) March and (iii) June 1986, including details of any specialty practised by each doctor. Mr Scholes —The following answer is provided in response to the honourable member's question: (a) the budgets in 1985-86 for each community health centre in the Australian Capital Territory are shown in Attachment A. These budgets cover the operating costs of each health centre of which the Community Medical Practitioners program is only a part. (b) the number of patients seen by the Community Medical Practitioners employed at each centre in (i) January (ii) March and (iii) June 1986, is shown in Attachment B. The number of patients seen by individual Community Medical Practitioners are shown. However, hours of duty and availability vary between practitioners. Several of the figures relate to locums employed while other practitioners were on leave or to doctors on placement through the Family Medicine Program. The Australian Capital Territory Health Authority did not employ Community Medical Practitioners at Kaleen, Phillip, Scullin or Weston Creek Health Centres in 1985-86. Private general practitioners and specialists operate from some health centres. Their patient numbers are not included in Attachment B. Community Medical Practitioners employed by the Authority operate general practices and do not have specialist qualifications although some of them do have particular interests within the health field. HEALTH CENTRES-BUDGET-1985-86 Attachment A 000's City Dickson Kaleen Kambah Kippax Melba/ Evatt Narra- bundah Phillip Scullin Weston Creek Labour Costs ... 433.5 162.7 66.4 188.7 231.8 512.5 357.6 125.4 76.7 59.8 Other Operating Costs ... 19.2 35.9 25.0 89.4 96.8 58.5 51.8 91.9 31.6 40.7 Total Operating Costs ... 452.7 198.6 91.4 278.1 328.6 571.0 409.4 217.3 108.3 100.5 Revenue ... 210.0 82.0 28.5 125.7 150.0 295.0 149.6 48.2 27.0 35.0 HEALTH CENTRES-BUDGET-PATIENT ATTENDANCES-COMMUNITY MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS-1985-86 Attachment B City Dickson Kambah Kippax Melba/Evatt Narrabundah No. of CMPS 4 1 1 1 4F/T 2 P/T 3 January ... A 249 A 420 A 356 A 647 A 192 A 173 A 253 A 403 A 325 A 471 A 376 A 381 A 222 B 108 D 189 C 101 D 183 March ... A 284 A 387 A 331 A 265 A 306 A 341 A 178 A 150 A 355 A 313 A 415 A 279 A 265 B 211 D 71 C 118 B 260 D 201 D 63 June ... A 181 A 476 A 391 A 341 A 417 A 367 A 388 A 384 A 258 C 124 A 463 A 379 D 229 A 356 D 157 D 345 B 154 B 318 A-Full time CMP; B-Part time CMP; C-Family Medicine Program Trainee; D-Locum. (Question No. 4900) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: (1) Has the Melbourne Airport Scheduling Committee adopted a revised set of scheduling rules for passenger traffic through the international terminal at Melbourne Airport; if so, (a) do the revised rules limit inward seats to 800 per hour, (b) when were they adopted and (c) how is the rescheduled flow rate achieved. (2) Do scheduling rules exist for all Australian airports with international terminals; if so, what are the prescribed hourly rates for passenger traffic at each terminal. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows, with 1 (a) and (c) being combined because they are closely inter-related: 1 (a) and (c) Revised scheduling rules at Melbourne Airport limit the inwards capacity through the international terminal to 800 passengers per hour. The 13 primary Immigration/Customs desks in the international terminal can each process approximately 60 passengers per hour (780 rounded to 800 in total). On average the number of passengers discharged from aircraft on scheduled international flights into Melbourne is equivalent to approximately 40% of the seating capacity of these aircraft, the remaining 60% comprising transit passengers and unfilled seats. On this basis 2000 seats may be landed per hour. (b) Revised scheduling rules were adopted on 20 March 1986 by the Melbourne Airport Scheduling Committee and became effective from 26 October 1986. (2) Scheduling rules or guidelines exist for the major international terminal buildings in Australia. The following flow rates apply: Sydney ... 1030 passengers per hour Brisbane ... 600 passengers per hour Perth ... 720 passengers per hour Adelaide ... 235 passengers per hour Cairns ... 180 passengers per hour Townsville ... 160 passengers per hour Darwin ... 160 passengers per hour (Question No. 4992) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) Does the Australian Taxation Office use automatic envelope sealing facilities for dispatching income tax assessments and other confidential material, if so, does the equipment have faults which cause many items of mail to leave the Taxation Office unsealed. (2) How many complaints are received by the Commissioner about mail being dispatched unsealed. (3) Has the Commissioner reviewed the procedures to overcome the defects; if so, what did the review reveal. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) does utilise automatic envelope sealing equipment for the dispatch of income tax notices of assessment and other documentation. Items of a sensitive nature are manually sealed and returned to the taxpayer by registered mail. In a number of the ATO branch offices the sealing equipment has been in service for 9 or 10 years and in that time only a very small number of machine malfunctions which resulted in mail being dispatched unsealed have occurred. (2) Although exact figures have not been maintained, complaints have been received in only three offices over the past two years. One of these offices had only one complaint in each year, another had approximately fifteen complaints in a six month period and the third approximately ten complaints over the two year period. (3) As part of the offices quality control procedures scanning of envelopes after processing through the sealing equipment has been adopted in all offices. In addition, each machine is subject to a maintenance agreement providing for quarterly service calls and the attendance of a mechanic as the need arises. These procedures assisted in identifying that in two of the offices at which complaints had been received, the unsealed envelopes had resulted from poor quality glue or a lack of glue on the envelopes. The third office's complaints resulted from machine malfunctions and this machine is to be replaced during the current financial year. (Question No. 5005) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) What wordprocessing or computer equipment has been introduced into the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister since 1982. (2) Why was the equipment purchased and were any specific targets set in terms of time or cost savings and improved efficiencies. (3) What has been the cost of purchasing the equipment. (4) Has the introduction of the equipment necessitated the purchase of new office equipment; if so, what have been the costs of the additional purchases. (5) Has the introduction of the equipment led to changes in work practices; if so, what has been the nature of the changes. (6) What has been the incidence of repetition strain injury (RSI) in the Minister's Department since 1982. (7) How many lost working days have been caused by RSI related illnesses since 1982. (8) How many persons have been forced to retire from the Minister's Department or statutory authorities responsible to the minister as a result of RSI and what have been the compensation costs of this early retirement. (9) Has introduction of the equipment (a) saved money and (b) improved efficiency in the Minister's Department or the statutory authorities responsible to the Minister. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Community Services was created in December 1984 out of functional units of the Departments of Social Security and Health to give effect to the Government's decision to place the development and delivery of community services in a single Department. The Department currently maintains two major and several minor systems operating on equipment managed by those Departments. This service is provided on a bureau basis. The current systems do not satisfy the Department's information needs and approval has been given for the release of a Request for Tender (RFT) for the acquisition by the Department of its own computing facilities. It is proposed that phased installation of the new equipment and systems will commence towards the end of this calendar year. In the interim, the Department considered it necessary to install some Wang mini-computers and terminals, to provide basic word processing facilities and to support the development and implementation of a Human Resource Management system. Action was also taken to replace all Raytheon brand terminals, used to access systems which are continuing to run on the mainframes at the Departments of Social Security and Health. These terminals were the subject of an industrial dispute at the Department of Health in 1984 and a commitment was given by that Department to staff associations for the replacement of these terminals with more ergonomically acceptable equipment. The Department of Community Services considered it was also obliged to abide by that commitment. In addition, the Department has purchased a limited number of personal computers to provide some basic computer processing facilities. (2) The equipment was purchased to provide basic word and data processing facilities to support the new organisation and enable it to become operational as quickly as possible. The purchases were made as an interim measure pending a full study of the Department's needs and implementation of its ADP Strategic Plan. Wang mini-computers were already in use in the Department of Social Security when the Department of Community Services was created. Given the reliance on Wang word processing at that time and the existence of trained and experienced operators, Wang products were purchased to meet the urgent and immediate word processing needs of the new Department. As a result, relatively little disruption was experienced by staff and minimal training was required in the use of the new equipment. (3) The total cost of purchasing the equipment was $3,231,000, spent over three financial years as follows: 1984-85: $ 60,000 1985-86: $2,477,000 1986-87: $ 694,000 (estimate) (4) Following the creation of the Department, it was necessary to make extensive purchases of the general office equipment needed to establish it; however no separate purchases were required specifically as a result of the introduction of the new computer equipment. (5) The equipment and systems used were mainly in place when the Department was created. Amendments to existing systems and current development of new systems have not had a significant impact on work practices. (6) As the Department of Community Services was created in December 1984, figures are only available from that time. These figures show that 74 people have been treated for RSI since then; 43 people in 1985 and 31 people in 1986. These cases are not necessarily associated with the introduction of new equipment. (7) In 1985 and 1986, the Department lost 3866 working days through RSI related illnesses. This figure has two elements as follows: (i) 2972 Lost Working Days (Whole Days) (ii) 894 Short Working Days (Part Days) (8) Three people have retired from the Department through Invalidity Retirement as a result of RSI. These retirements occurred in three separate States. Compensation costs total $47,257.22 since the claims were first approved by the Commissioner for Commonwealth Employees' Compensation. (9) The equipment was introduced essentially to provide facilities to continue services which already existed in the Departments of Social Security and Health. With this equipment the Department has been able to provide an efficient service to clients. Without the expenditure the Department would not have been able to support the Commonwealth programs for which it is responsible. (Question No. 5010) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: 1. What word processing or computer equipment has been introduced into the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister since 1982. 2. Why was the equipment purchased and were any specific targets set in terms of time or cost savings and improved efficiencies. 3. What has been the cost of purchasing the equipment. 4. Has the introduction of the equipment necessitated the purchase of new office equipment, if so, what have been the costs of the additional purchases. 5. Has the introduction of the equipment led to changes in work practices; if so, what has been the nature of the changes. 6. What has been the incidence of repetition strain injury (RSI) in the Minister's Department since 1982. 7. How many lost working days have been caused by RSI related illness since 1982. 8. How many persons have been forced to retire from the Minister's Department or statutory authorities responsible to the Minister as a result of RSI and what have been the compensation costs of this early retirement. 9. Has the introduction of the equipment (a) saved money and (b) improved efficiency in the Minister's Department or the statutory authorities responsible to the Minister. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Several types of computer equipment have been introduced. These are categorised as follows: Mainframe Systems Canberra IBM 4381 (No. 1) 1984 IBM 4381 (No. 2) 1984 IBM 4381 (No. 1) 1985 IBM 4381 (No. 2) 1983 London IBM 370/148 1982 IBM 4341 1986 Washington IBM 370/148 1982 IBM 4341 1986 Non-secure Office Automation Equipment Under the terms of the Office Systems Project, the Department of Foreign Affairs has introduced 38 computers from the Honeywell DPS 6 range of multi-user mini-computers at overseas posts. The Department has also purchased 69 micro-computer since 1982. Secure Office Automation Equipment Wang Word processing equipment has been introduced into the Department and a secure Wang word processing/communications system has been installed in Paris and Washington. The Department in Australia-five VS65 computer systems for secure word processing, training and backup support and one VS65 for Personnel Operations. Overseas-Two Wang VS65 Computer Systems. Australian Development Assistance Bureau Since 1982 the Bureau has purchased IBM PC or compatible microcomputers. More recently a Wang VX65 minicomputer has been purchased to improve word and data processing facilities in the Bureau. 2. MAINFRAME SYSTEMS Canberra IBM 4381 (No. 1): (a) The system supports the production applications which process classified information. These include the Diplomatic cables system, the cable printing system and a text retrieval system. The system was leased as an upgraded replacement of an IBM 370/148. (b) The system was acquired in order to overcome delays in the analysis and transmission of cable traffic, caused by traffic increases. Canberra IBM 4381 (No. 2): (a) The system supports production applications processing non-classified information. The major applications support personnel and establishment, travel and claims and freedom of information functions. Applications currently under development will support protocol and local accounting activities. (b) All applications were implemented on the bases of achieving improved efficiency in respective areas and of providing a single corporate database from which management can extract accurate information regarding the Department's activities. Canberra IBM 4341 (No. 1): (a) The system provides back-up to the IBM 4381 (No. 1). When not required in the back-up role, it is used for program development and testing and for the training of Communications Officers. (b) As no production applications processing was required for this machine, no specific targets were set. A back up is required to ensure that equipment failures does not halt the processing of cables. Canberra IBM 4341 (No. 2): (a) The system supports production applications processing non-classified information. The major application is the Passport Issue and Control System (PICS II). (b) The target set for the implementation of this system was 31 December 1985. The system was actually implemented in October 1985. Inefficiencies in PICS I (the system being replaced by PICS II) which were identified by the Australian Audit Office, and further facilities required to meet the recommendation of the Justice Stewart Royal Commission have been incorporated in PICS II. London IBM 370/148: (a) The system supports the London node of the Diplomatic Communications Network. The system was purchased as an upgraded replacement for an IBM 370/135. (b) The system was acquired in order to overcome delays in the analysis and transmission of cable traffic, caused by traffic increases. London IBM 4341: (a) The system provides back-up capability to the Diplomatic Communications Network. When not in use as a back-up, it supports applications processing unclassified information for users in the High Commission and some European posts. These applications include the Immigration Registry Information System (IRIS), procurement control and Social Security payments. The system was purchased as an upgraded replacement for an IBM 370/148. (b) The system was acquired in order to fulfil the role of back-up for the communications network and to enable the development of new applications for the High Commission. Washington IBM 370/148: (a) The system supports the Washington mode of the Diplomatic Communications Network. The system was purchased as an upgraded replacement for an IBM 370/125. (b) The system was acquired in order to overcome delays in the analysis and transmission of cable traffic, caused by traffic increases. Washington IBM 4341: (a) The system provides back-up capability to the Diplomatic Communications Network. When not in use as a back-up, it supports applications processing unclassified information for users in the Embassy. These applications include procurement control for office equipment (WASHUP) and financial monitoring. The system was purchased as an upgraded replacement for an IBM 370/125. (b) The system was acquired in order to fulfil the role of back-up for the communications network and enable the development of new applications for the Embassy. Non-secure office automation equipment was purchased to increase the operating efficiency of the Department by the provision of automated systems for visa issue and control, accounting operations, commercial information and word processing. Secure office automation equipment in Canberra was purchased initially on the basis of improved efficiency, particularly in the preparation of briefs, and of staff savings with the concentration of word processing into pools. A saving of ten positions was predicted and achieved. Since then, terminals have been placed on stenographers' desks so that the same efficiency improvements could be spread further throughout the Department or to obviate the need for the double keying of cables. Australian Development Assistance Bureau Equipment was purchased to improve management information systems through the introduction of computer technology. Specific targets were set following recommendations of the Jackson Review and a subsequent consultant-led review of ADAB information systems. 3. MAINFRAME SYSTEMS COSTS Canberra IBM 4381 No. 1 ... $1,040,841 Canberra IBM 4381 No. 2 ... $1,359,151 Canberra IBM 4341 No. 1 ... $81,963 Canberra IBM 4341 No. 2 ... $2,121,390 London IBM 370/148 ... $53,000 London IBM 4341 ... $333,379 Washington IBM 370/148 ... $73,000 Washington IBM 4341 ... $180,350 (Inclusive of the necessary peripheral and network equipment purchased from 1982 onwards) Non Secure Office Automation Equipment Mini Computer Systems 1983-84 ... $311,000 1984-85 ... $1,194,000 1985-86 ... $828,000 1986-87 ... $1,035,000 Total ... $3,368,000 Micro Computer System 1984-85 ... $23,847 1984-85 ... $233,406 1986-87 ... $828,000 Total ... $443,708 Secure Office Automation Systems Australia ... 1984-85 $228,128 1985-86 $2,670,531 1986-87 $700,484 Total ... $3,771,015 Overseas ... 1984-85 $228,128 1985-86 Nil 1986-87 $215,176 Total ... $443,034 Australian Development Assistance Bureau $811,725 4. MAINFRAME SYSTEMS-Nil. Non-Secure Office Automation Systems Posts have purchased additional office equipment in the form of ergonomic furniture but the funding for the acquisitions was provided by the Department of Administrative Services. Secure Office Automation Systems Introduction of these facilities has necessitated the purchase of ergonomic furniture for use by stenographers, word processing typists or stenographers using the equipment. Total cost of the furniture has been $86,919. Australian Development Assistance Bureau Yes, ergonomically designed desks, chairs and ancillary equipment $66,950. 5. There have been changes in work practices especially among the locally engaged staff of our overseas missions. The changes relate to the move from manual equipment such as typewriters to word processing equipment. The major work practice change to follow the installation of secure equipment is the elimination of re-typing of cables by communicators. Australian Development Assistance Bureau Yes, increased frequency of reporting to managers at all levels within the Bureau. Improved management control mechanisms. 6. Foreign Affairs (including ADAB up to 31.12.86)-58 cases 7. Foreign Affairs (includes ADAB up to 31.12.86)-5,901 days 8. Foreign Affairs (includes ADAB up to 31.12.86)-Three people retired as a result of Repetition Strain Injury. Compensation payments to date total $12,748. 9. There has been improvement in efficiency and staff procedures of the Department following the introduction of the equipment and further improvements are expected. Australian Development Assistance Bureau (a) Yes. (b) Yes. The introduction of computer based systems will improve efficiency and staff productivity. Savings in money and staff will be achieved on completion of the Bureau's ADP program. (Question No. 5018) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What wordprocessing or computer equipment has been introduced into the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister since 1982. (2) Why was the equipment purchased and were any specific targets set in terms of time or cost savings and improved efficiencies. (3) What has been the cost of purchasing the equipment. (4) Has the introduction of the equipment necessitated the purchase of new office equipment; if so, what have been the costs of the additional purchases. (5) Has the introduction of the equipment led to changes in work practices; if so, what has been the nature of the changes. (6) What has been the incidence of repetition strain injury (RSI) in the Minister's Department since 1982. (7) How many lost working days have been caused by RSI related illnesses since 1982. (8) How many persons have been forced to retire from the Minister's Department or statutory authorities responsible to the Minister as a result of RSI and what have been the compensation costs of this early retirement. (9) Has introduction of the equipment (a) saved money and (b) improved efficiency in the Minister's Department or the statutory authorities responsible to the Minister. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Commencing in 1983 a range of computer equipment was purchased by the Department of Social Security to meet the needs identified in the Department's 1981 Strategic Plan (Stratplan). It was intended that the new equipment would replace obsolete computer equipment to enable the Department's income security processing to continue. In the area of word processing, higher quality correspondence to clients was set as a major efficiency improvement. (3) The expenditure on hardware and software to satisfy the Department's computing needs to 31 December 1986 was $150.963m. In addition to expenditure on Stratplan this includes expenditure on computer equipment related to new policy initiatives, for example, new offices opened since 1983. The expenditure attributable to word processing is a minor proportion of the above total. (4) The typical office equipment and furniture package provided at the time of Stratplan installation includes: VDU monitor keyboard adjustable arm for monitor adjustable arm for keyboard desk with side return on which workstation is positioned gas lift chair anti glare/reflection filter It is not possible to identify the cost of furniture separately from the overall cost. (5) The major work practice changes have been associated with introduction of word processing, data entry, on-line manuals and on-line; inquiry for income security systems progressing to on-line update. Consequently many departmental staff now operate computer equipment. (6) and (7) In December 1984, the Department had recorded 65 cases of RSI, with one of these being reported prior to 1 January 1983. Detailed statistical information is available only from March 1985 quarter onwards. The following figures include staff in the Office of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. *Current Cases Days Lost March Qtr 1985 403 8,677 June Qtr 1985 444 8,182 Sept. Qtr 1985 536 9,853 Dec. Qtr 1985 554 10,845 March Qtr 1986 548 10,608 June Qtr 1986 513 9,281 Sept. Qtr 1986 544 8,085 Dec. Qtr 1986 427 6,443 *Includes new and old cases where a person is absent during the quarter as a result of RSI. (8) Invalidity retirements due to RSI: 1985, 17; 1986, 19. Detailed statistical information was not recorded prior to 1985. To calculate the compensation costs would require a substantial commitment of time and resources which I am not prepared to authorise. (9) A report on the Costs and Benefits of Stratplan (June 1986) compiled by the consultants, Coopers and Lybrand, concluded that Stratplan is a cost-beneficial project. (Question No. 5023) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What word processing or computer equipment has been introduced into the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister since 1982. (2) Why was the equipment purchased and were any specific targets set in terms of time or cost savings and improved efficiencies. (3) What has been the cost of purchasing the equipment. (4) Has the introduction of the equipment necessitated the purchase of new office equipment; if so, what have been the costs of the additional purchases. (5) Has the introduction of the equipment led to changes in work practices; if so, what has been the nature of the changes. (6) What has been the incidence of repetition strain injury (RSI) in the Minister's Department since 1982. (7) How many lost working days have been caused by RSI related illnesses since 1982. (8) How many persons have been forced to retire from the Minister's Department or statutory authorities responsible to the Minister as a result of RSI and what have been the compensation costs of this early retirement. (9) Has introduction of the equipment (a) saved money and (b) improved efficiency in the Minister's Department or the statutory authorities responsible to the Minister. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since 1982 the following word processing and computing equipment has been introduced into the Department and statutory authorities within the Science portfolio: mainframe computers mini computers micro computers communications controllers shared word processors stand alone word processors peripherals for the above equipment. (2) The equipment was purchased to improve efficiency by applying office automation to various tasks undertaken within the Department and the statutory authorities. Prior to purchase of equipment no specific targets were set in terms of cost savings or improved efficiencies. (3) Cost of purchasing equipment from 1982-83 to date is $14,246,459. (4) Yes, ergonomic furniture at a cost of $272,922. (5) The introduction of equipment has led to an improvement in office efficiency resulting in timely presentation of work and easier access to improved analytical tools. (6) Since 1982 there have been 131 cases of RSI reported within the Department. (7) 10,310 full days and 2,321 part days. (8) Six persons have been retired on invalidity grounds due to RSI. The compensation costs total $59,892.16, plus $163 per week to one former staff member. (9) (a) Yes; (b) Yes. (Question No. 5029) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What word processing or computer equipment has been introduced into the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister since 1982. (2) Why was the equipment purchased and were any specific targets set in terms of cost savings and improved efficiencies. (3) What has been the cost of purchasing the equipment. (4) Has the introduction of the equipment necessitated the purchase of new office equipment; if so, what have been the costs of the additional purchases. (5) Has the introduction of the equipment led to changes in work practices; if so, what has been the nature of the changes. (6) What has been the incidence of repetition strain injury (RSI) in the Minister's Department since 1982. (7) How many lost working days have been caused by RSI related illnesses since 1982. (8) How many persons have been forced to retire from the Minister's Department or statutory authorities responsible to the Minister as a result of RSI and what have been the compensation costs of this early retirement. (9) Has introduction of the equipment- (a) saved money and (b) improved efficiency in the Minister's Department or the statutory authorities responsible to the Minister. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Equipment introduced into the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services (formerly the Department of Administrative Services) since 1982 comprises: (a) word processing equipment to refurbish aging word processing pool machinery and provision of stand-alone word processing equipment for steno-secretaries; (b) expansion of data-processing connections to the bureau mainframe network and expansion of the Australian Survey Office mini-computer network; (c) introduction of office automation equipment throughout the department. (2) All equipment has been purchased in accordance with the Departmental strategy on word processing and ADP development. This strategy was the subject of a Joint Management Review and an internal review during 1983, both of which were primarily concerned with improved efficiency, productivity and effectiveness. (3) Cost of purchasing the equipment to date is: $('000s) 1982-83...926 1983-84...1996 1984-85...1041 1985-86...1755 1986-87...2118 (estimated) (4) Generally the introduction of automated equipment has required the Department and its agencies to upgrade the standard of associated office furniture in the interests of staff health and safety. To some extent, however upgrading occurred as part of the normal replacement program. Some additional costs would have been involved but these, as could be expected, would be partly offset by increased staff productivity, and better quality and longer-lasting equipment. Unwarranted use of staff resources would be required to produce a meaningful assessment of the incremental cost. (5) Some changes in work practices have occurred. There have been changes in physical work practices in selected clerical areas, in that duties concerned with some tasks are now performed via a workstation instead of desk-top paperwork. In parallel with the introduction of equipment there have been ongoing training programs on the occupational health aspects. The courses are intended to encourage adjustment of attitudinal work practices in the use of keyboard services and computer equipment generally. Other specific changes in work practices, such as use of specialist furniture, designated work breaks in keyboard areas, recommended keying rates, have been implemented as per Public Service Board instructions with the intention of minimising the risk of RSI related ailments. (6) To the end of December 1986 there were 177 recorded historical RSI cases within my Department. (7) Total working days lost due to RSI for the period 1982-86 is estimated at 17,800. (8) Since 1982 six staff have been retired from the service as a result of RSI. Compensation payments, including invalidity retirement pensions paid by the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office, made to these former staff has been $194,375.45. (9) (a) Equipment purchased has been generally cost effective. (9) (b) Improved efficiencies have been evident in areas where automation has been introduced, particularly those tasks involving large volumes of textual material and manipulation of financial information. (Question No. 5037) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 February 1986: For each company which advertised and was scheduled to operate direct flights between Australia and the west coast of the U.S.A. during 1985 and 1986, what was the (a) number and (b) percentage of flights which failed to complete the journey non-stop due to unscheduled technical or refuelling stops en route. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) Qantas recorded no such incidents in 1985 and 1986. My Department does not collect statistics on aircraft operations outside Australian airspace by carriers other than Qantas. (Question No. 5052) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) Does Australian National (AN) have an affirmative action plan or program. (2) What proportion of AN employees are women and at what level and in what areas are women employed. (3) What progress has AN made towards providing a non-discriminatory employment policy and working environment. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian National Railways Commission (AN) has advised that it is committed to the principles of equal employment opportunity (EEO). It applies the principles of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the part of the Public Service Reform Act 1984 relating to EEO and the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment for Women) Act 1986. AN proposes to prepare formal affirmative action and EEO plans following enactment of the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987. (2) AN is required to act commercially and has adopted a policy of staff attrition. Limited recruitment is undertaken. As this policy has been followed since AN's establishment in 1978, opportunities for women and minority groups to increase their representation in AN's workforce is limited at present. Details of the proportion of women in AN's workforce at 30 June 1986 are set out in the table. Men % of Total Workforce Women % of Total Workforce Total Senior Officers ... 134 98.5 2 1.5 136 Keyboard ... 2 1.3 149 98.7 151 Professional/Technical ... 99 95.2 5 4.8 104 Clerical/Clerical Assistant ... 725 90.5 76 9.5 801 Wages Grades ... 6,843 97.6 169 2.4 7,012 Other ... 695 100.0 0 0.0 695 Total ... 8,498 95.5 401 4.5 8,899 (3) AN has made amendments to its service rules, policies, practices and procedures to remove discrimination. Whenever staff needs to be recruited, AN encourages applications for employment from females. (Question No. 5056) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: Does the Committee on the Determination of Refugee Status monitor the safety of persons who have been refused refugee status by the Committee after they leave Australia; if not, would it be feasible for the Committee to do so in the future. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. The Determination of Refugee Status (DORS) Committee does not monitor the safety of persons who have been refused refugee status in Australia. Central to the DORS Committee's consideration of cases is an assessment as to whether applicants can return safely to their countries of origin. Where applicants have been recommended for rejection by the Committee, the assessment has been made that these persons can return in safety and hence, monitoring is not necessary. It would not be feasible for the Committee to monitor the safety of all persons who have had their claim for refugee status rejected. If it was decided that monitoring of a particular case was required, this could be arranged through Australia's overseas posts, provided there was cooperation from relevant organisations and from the authorities of the country concerned. (Question No. 5067) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: Has Australian bilateral aid to Afghan refugees in Pakistan declined from $6.2m in 1984-85 to $4.9m in 1985-86. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to my reply to question on notice No. 1977 in the weekly Hansard No. 18 of 29 November 1985. Australian aid to Afghan refugees in Pakistan is provided on a multilateral basis in support of assistance programs by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee on the Red Cross. This had been: 1983-84-$6.2 million 1984-85-$4.5 million 1985-86-$4.9 million Most of this aid has been food aid, mainly wheat, the tonnage of which has been maintained at 20,000 tonnes a year in recent years. In 1985-86 an additional 5,000 tonnes of wheat was provided. Because of the fall in commodity prices the total value of our aid to the refugees in dollar terms has tended to stabilize over the last two years. (Question No. 5070) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: Is he able to say whether the UK agreed in late 1985 to work with the US on advanced strategic defence systems associated with the Strategic Defense Initiative research program. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: On 6 December 1985, the UK and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding covering participation by British industry and research institutions in the SDI research program. UK participation in the SDI program remains based on the principles agreed between Mrs Thatcher and President Reagan in December 1984, namely: - the United States and Western aim was not to gain superiority but to maintain a military balance taking account of Soviet developments - SDI-related deployment would, in view of Treaty obligations, have to be a matter for further negotiation - the overall aim is to enhance rather than undercut deterrence - East-West negotiations should aim to achieve security with reduced levels of offensive systems on both sides. (Question No. 5071) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: Is he able to say whether the Federal Republic of Germany agreed to join the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) research program on 19 March 1986 by allowing private firms to conduct SDI research. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Federal Republic of Germany and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding on 27 March 1986 concerning the participation of German firms, research institutions and other organisations in the SDI research program. In a statement made on 18 December 1985, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany reaffirmed that it was approving participation in the SDI research program on the basis of the following understandings: - the United States aim is not to achieve superiority through SDI - decisions going beyond the SDI research phase will not be taken until the research-phase results are known - the United States will be prepared to hold continuous, intensive consultations with its allies on this subject. (Question No. 5072) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: Is he able to say whether Israel agreed to join the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) research program on 6 May 1986 and that on 5 November Israel signed its first contract for US$5.1m to work on defensive systems capable of intercepting and destroying short-range ballistic missiles. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Israel signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States on 6 May 1986. (2) The Israeli Defense Ministry and the U.S. Department of Defense signed an agreement on 5 November 1986 under which the Israeli Defense Ministry will carry out a study to define a defence system against tactical ballistic missiles. I do not have exact details on the nature and value of the contract. (Question No. 5073) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: Is he able to say whether Japan agreed to participate in the Strategic Defense Initiative research program on 9 September 1986. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. On 9 September 1986 Japan announced that it would enter into consultations with the United States Government on measures to facilitate the participation of Japanese entities in the SDI research program. The Japanese Government also made clear that with or without these specific arrangements, Japanese companies were free to participate in the program. On the same day, the Japanese Government re- affirmed the five principles agreed between Prime Mini- ster Nakasone and President Reagan at the Bonn Summit in 1985, namely: the United States would not use SDI to seek unilateral superiority over the Soviet Union SDI would constitute part of the Western deterrent; the SDI program would not violate the ABM Treaty; there should be drastic reductions in the number of nuclear weapons; any development and deployment of SDI-generated weapons systems would be preceded by consultations with allies and negotiations with the Soviet Union. (Question No. 5074) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: Is he able to say whether on 19 September 1986 the Italian Foreign and Defence Ministries signed an agreement with the US Department of Defense to participate in the Strategic Defense Initiative research program. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The United States and Italy signed a memorandum of understanding concerning Italian participation in SDI research on 19 September 1986. I am not aware of the details of who signed the memorandum on behalf of the two countries. (Question No. 5077) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether the Lebanon-based Islamic Jihad organisation is an umbrella name used by Iranian, Syrian and Libyan supported terrorists that operate under the names ``Islamic Amal'', ``Jundallah'', ``Hezbollah'', ``Muslim Students Union'' and ``Hussein Suicide Commando'' and that these groups are largely controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. (2) Is he able to say whether the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps employs approximately 250,000 persons and combines the functions of secret police, overseas secret service and counter-intelligence for the Iranian government. (3) Is he able to say whether the headquarters of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps contingent in Leb- anon are in the towns of Zabadanih in Syria and Baalbek in the Bekaa Valley of Syrian-occupied Lebanon. (4) Is he able to say whether the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is controlled by an Iranian ``War Against Satan Committee'' whose goal is to eliminate all Western influence from the Middle East. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps influences, but does not control Islamic Jihad. It supplies training and logistical support to subsidiary agents of Islamic Jihad. Islamic Jihad is an umbrella arrangement for various pro-Iranian Shi'a groups through the Middle East such as Hizballah and the pro-Iranian, Iraqi Islamic Call Party (Al Dawa). Islamic Amal, a breakaway group from Amal and now thought to be a faction of Hizballah, is a member of Islamic Jihad. Jundallah, the Muslim Students Union and the Hussein Guerilla Commando group might also be members, though my Department has no confirmation of this. 2. Reports in various international publications, such as the Statesman's Yearbook and the Europe Yearbook, indicate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has a membership of approximately 250,000 persons. They are responsible for internal security as well as being the main body involved in the external security of the Iranian state. 3. The headquarters of the Revolutionary Guards contingent in Lebanon is thought to be in the Baalbek region in the Bekaa Valley. 4. My Department has no information on a ``War Against Satan Committee''. The Revolutionary Guards are the responsibility of their Minister, Moshen Rafiqdust, who is ultimately responsible to the Minister for Defence and the President. (Question No. 5091) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether Denmark now has a program that allows women to volunteer for naval duty as gunners and navigators on torpedo boats and minesweepers. (2) Is he also able to say whether the Royal Netherlands Air Force is assigning its first female fighter pilot to an F16 Squadron. (3) Have the operational readiness of NATO forces been jeopardised by these innovations. (4) Are Australian women regarded as inferior to Danish and Dutch women. (5) Is it a fact that in the Australian Defence Forces service in combat units enhance promotional opportunity. (6) What steps will he take to extend equal employment opportunity to women in the Australian Defence Forces. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Such a program was introduced by the Danish Navy about 3 months ago. (2) The first Dutch female fighter pilot is currently operating NF5 aircraft and the Dutch Air Force intends that she convert to F16s in about 12 months time. (3) I am unaware of any announcement that these initiatives have jeopardised NATO operational readiness. (4) Not by this Government. (5) Conditions of promotion differ widely between Services and career streams, and promotional opportunities are subject to many variables, such as attrition rates. A comparison between different groups would therefore be inconclusive. However, excellent promotional opportunities exist for all members up to and including the rank of Brigadier. Because of the wide spectrum of responsibilities associated with the most senior ADF positions, incumbents of positions at major general rank and above, require previous experience in combat or combat-related areas. (6) Since 1983, the proportion of Australian Defence Force positions available to women has increased from 12 per cent to 35 per cent, and approximately 66 per cent of employment categories are now open to women. At present, the proportion of women in the Australian Defence Force is 8.5 per cent and according to most recent overseas advice, this is some 3 1/2 times greater than the percentage of women in the Danish Forces, and 6 times greater than the female representation in the Dutch Forces. The Australian Defence Force, assisted by the Office of the Status of Women, continually reviews progress in implementing Government policy in this area, to ensure that women are given every opportunity for equal employment, subject to exemptions in combat and combat related positions and consistent with the maintenance of combat effectiveness. (Question No. 5093) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: (1) Has the Government yet considered whether Australia should become a party to UNESCO's 1950 (Florence) Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials and the 1976 (Nairobi) Protocol to the Agreement? (2) Further to his answer to my question No. 1225 (Hansard, 31 May 1985, page 3365), (a) with which Departments has his Department consulted on this subject, (b) on what dates did the consultations occur and (c) what responses did his Department receive. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government has not yet considered whether Australia should become a party to the 1950 (Florence) Agreement and the 1976 (Nairobi) Protocol. (2) While there has been no formal consultation between my Department and other Departments, I understand that interested Departments are now re-examining the question of possible adherence by Australia to the Agreement and Protocol. (Question No. 5098) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: (1) How is he assessing the impact of the new charging system on the aviation industry, including the impact on general aviation, which currently has dual-running of the new and old systems of air navigation charges. (2) Are the claims of many operators that the new charging system is unfairly penalising them and is responsible for increases in air navigation charges of over 1000 per cent in some cases correct; if not, why are they incorrect. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Following the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery chaired by Mr Henry Bosch the Government introduced a new system of landing charges for all airlines, in order that air navigation charges would better reflect the actual usage made of facilities provided by the Commonwealth. In relation to the General Aviation sector the Government accepted a proposal put forward by the general aviation associations that GA aircraft should remain on fixed annual charges during 1986/87 but that landing data should be collected and trial invoices under the new system would be issued to enable operators to assess the impact the landing charges would have on their operations. The general aviation associations have provided assistance to the Department of Aviation in assessing the impact of the new system by advising of instances where operators might be adversely affected by the new arrangements. The Department has also been comparing invoices for selected operators with the annual charges currently payable by those operators. (2) No. In the case of commuter airlines, landing charges introduced on 1 July 1986 meant large percentage increases in ANCs for a number of operators, however these increases were from a very low base and were directly related to the use made of Commonwealth facilities by those operators. Nonetheless, the Government recognised the difficulties faced by some operators in the transition to the new arrangements and provided $2m to assist commuter airlines during 1986-87, in the form of a 50 per cent subsidy for all landings. The new charging system has not been applied to the general aviation sector in 1986-87 and they have remained on the system of fixed annual charges. These charges were increased by 17 per cent on 1 July 1986 which is less than the increase in the CPI since the last increase in charges in 1982. (Question No. 5114) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: Further to his answer to question No. 4768 (Hansard, 17 February 1987, page 72), what are the conditions relating to pricing in the lease and authority agreement for duty free contracts. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Under the lease and authority agreement, the Commonwealth has the power to determine the price for goods sold or supplied in the duty free concessions providing that the price is not less than the price indicated in the original tender bid as adjusted by the Consumer Price Index from time to time. (Question No. 5141) Mr Wright asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 February 1987: What funding and assistance has been offered by his Government to the Queensland Government, but which has been rejected because the Queensland Government was not prepared to match the funding offered, accept specific conditions for expenditure or for any other reason. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There have been three instances since March 1983 where offers by the Commonwealth Government of funding assistance to the Queensland Government have been rejected or remain unresolved because of Queensland's refusal to accept the terms of the assistance: (1) Sugar Industry Assistance In late 1983, following termination of an International Monetary Fund sugar stock financing facility, the Commonwealth offered Queensland a short-term loan of up to $700,000 to provide an alternative stock financing arrangement until 30 June 1984. The Commonwealth also advised Queensland that, on the basis of the outcome of further discussions with the sugar industry about the financing of additional stocks, it would consider additional assistance to the sugar industry. The Queensland Government did not accept this offer and it lapsed on 30 June 1984. In September 1985, the Commonwealth agreed to an assistance package of up to $150 million for the sugar industry in Queensland and New South Wales for the three seasons 1985-86 to 1987-88. The offer was conditional on the two States making matching contributions and industry agreement to a schedule of deregulation. New South Wales agreed to the package but negotiations with Queensland became deadlocked because it opposed contributing to price support and favoured only limited deregulation. The Commonwealth agreed in May 1986 to a revised proposal of $100 million in assistance to New South Wales and Queensland over three years from 1986-87. Final agreement to this package, including price support, was reached towards the end of 1986. (2) Transfer of Nurse Education from Hospitals to Colleges of Advanced Education This program involves a Commonwealth subsidy to the States and Territories to assist them meet the cost of transferring nurse education from hospitals to Colleges of Advanced Education. Apart from a subsidy, those States and Territories undertaking the transfer are eligible for funds for the retraining of qualified nurses. The transfer is either well underway or planned for commencement by 1988 in all States and Territories except Queensland. The State has not forfeited entitlement to funding in 1986-87 but should it decide not to proceed with the transfer in 1987, it is expected that the Commonwealth assistance will be released to other States. The Queensland Government refuses to accept the terms of the Commonwealth offer, claiming that the Commonwealth should meet the full cost of the transfer. (3) Conservation of Wet Tropic Forests (North East Queensland notably Greater Daintree area)- The Commonwealth offered in 1984, in the context of a proposed moratorium on further development in the tropic forests of north east Queensland, to collaborate with Queensland in a land resources survey of the region, to make available selective assistance for conservation and provide immediate assistance to develop a plan of management for the Greater Daintree area. The offer was ignored. In June 1986, the Commonwealth agreed, in principle, to the provision of $22.3 million for national rainforest conservation in 1986-87 and 1987-88. The assistance is subject to a number of conditions, including matching arrangements by the relevant States. Agreement has been reached with New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Negotiations are continuing with Queensland and have been held with Tasmania. (Question No. 5156) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 26 February 1987: (1) Has the Australian Institute of Marine Science discovered a chemical compound in corals which has potential as a commercial ultraviolet light blocking agent. (2) Has the Institute patented this discovery; if so, when were patent applications made. (3) Has the Institute entered into a licensing arrangement for the commercial exploitation of this discovery; if so, with whom and from what date. (4) Under the licensing arrangement, will the licensee or licensees pay royalties on all active constituents sold (a) in Australia and (b) overseas. (5) What are the conditions of the royalty arrangements which relate to (a) income payable on sales of active constituents and (b) sub-licensing. (6) What income was received by the Institute from any licensee in (1) 1985 and (b) 1986. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, I announced the Institute's discovery by media release on 18 October 1984. (2) Yes, the Institute has registered four provisional Patent Specifications: PG 7572 on 10 October 1984 PG 7681 on 17 October 1984 PH 5148 on 21 March 1986 PH 9230 on 28 November 1986 The first two were consolidated to lodge Australian Patent Application PCT/AU85/00242 on 3 October 1985. Work continues to support the other two provisional patents. (3) Yes, the Institute entered a license agreement with ICI-Australia Operations Pty Ltd on 6 June 1985. (4) (a) Yes; (b) Yes. (5) (a) 5 per cent royalties, ex-factory cost manufactured in Australia; (b) The Institute and ICI-Australia Operations Pty Ltd will receive an equal and undivided share of the income derived from any sub-license overseas or in Australia. (6) The research has not yet yielded any products to the stage where one would have sales of active consti-tuents. However, (a) in 1985, the institute received from ICI-Australia Operations Pty Ltd the sum of $35 000 as an ex-gratia payment to support research at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) to complete patent specifications; and (b) in 1986 the Institute received from ICI-Australia Operations Pty Ltd the sum of $49 805 as a research grant to expand the study of AIMS. Additionally, the Institute has received indirect income from ICI-Australia Operations Pty Ltd in their registration and maintenance of international patent applications of the Institute Patent Application PCT/AU85/00242, under provisions agreed in the license agreement. (Question No. 5185) Mr Coleman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 18 March 1987: (1) Did the NSW Branch of the Minister's Department provide an exhibition at the 1986 Royal Easter Show in Sydney. (2) Was the trade union membership a prerequisite for public servants who wished to participate in staffing the Department's exhibition; if so, why. (3) Is the Minister's Department providing an exhibit for the 1987 Royal Easter Show. If so, will trade union membership be a prerequisite for staff participation. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It was a condition of the contract between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Royal Agricultural Society of NSW that employees engaged in the exhibit be financial members of the appropriate trade union. (3) No. (Question No. 5188) Mr Nehl asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 18 March 1987: (1) Why did the Minister's Department forward to war widows in 1986 adhesive stickers bearing the words ``Dependent Treatment Entitlement Card WAR WIDOWS'' which were to be attached to the lilac cards held by those widows. (2) How many war widows received the stickers. (3) What was the cost of (a) producing the stickers and (b) posting the stickers. (4) How does the issue of the stickers affect the entitlement of war widows to benefits from the Minister's Department. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Adhesive stickers were issued following a request from the War Widows' Guild for an identification to be included on the Dependent Treatment Entitlement Card to indicate the holder as a war widow. In discussion with the Guild it was agreed that labels be provided for war widows, if they chose, to adhere to the cards which already had been issued. The cards are now automatically embossed with the title `War Widow'. The identification assists war widows in their receipt of fringe benefit concessions from State and local government authorities. (2) 70,437 war widows received the stickers. (3) (a) $8,721.62; (b) $25,020.36 (4) The issue of the stickers does not affect Departmental war widow entitlement. (Question No. 5196) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 19 March 1987: (1) How many nursing homes are located within the Electoral Division of Moore. (2) Where are they located. (3) How many beds are provided. (4) What level of subsidy is granted. (5) How is any subsidy determined. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are four participating (private for profit) nursing homes funded under the National Health Act located in the Electoral Division of Moore. (2) and (3) Nursing Homes by Location and Number of Approved Beds. Marshall Park Nursing Home 2 Bayley Street West Midland 6056; 34. Undercliffe Nursing Home 20 Coongan Avenue Greemount 6056; 42. Tuohy Nursing Home 22 Morrison Road Midland 6056; 50. Midland Nursing Home 44 John Street Midland 6056; 107. (4) and (5) The Commonwealth provides assistance to the above homes through the payment of Commonwealth nursing home benefits under the National Health Act for all qualified nursing home residents. The maximum level of ordinary care benefit varies from State to State and for Western Australia is currently payable at the rate of $37 a day. In addition an extensive care benefit of $6 a day is payable in respect of residents in need of and receiving extensive nursing home care. The Commonwealth reviews nursing home benefits annually and generally increases levels each November to a level whereby the maximum ordinary care benefit plus the minimum resident contribution, equivalent to 87.5 percent of the standard rate pension plus rent assistance, will cover the fees charged for 70 percent of beds in non-Government nursing homes approved under the National Health Act in each State. Where the fees charged by a nursing home are less than the sum of the minimum resident contribution and the maximum benefit, the benefit payable is reduced to the difference between the fee and the minimum resident contribution. (Question No. 5197) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 March 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the fact that residents of Wanneroo, WA, have access only to a limited public transport system and that they consequently have great difficulty in travelling considerable distances to other areas to reach a Social Security office. (2) Are there any proposals to establish a Social Security office in Wanneroo in the near future. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of the difficulties experienced by Wanneroo residents in travelling to Department of Social Security offices at Innaloo or Mirrabooka. (2) Given the current tight resource constraints, no substantial extension of services is planned in the foreseeable future. Client numbers in the area remain relatively small. Unemployment benefit recipients are under 400 and the area has just over 1,000 pensioners. (Question No. 5198) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 March 1987: (1) How many persons in WA are receiving supporting parents benefits from his Department. (2) How many of these persons reside in the Electoral Division of Moore. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 6 March 1987, there were 19,449 persons receiving supporting parents benefit in Western Australia. (2) It is estimated that about 1,240 residents of Moore were receiving supporting parents benefit on 9 January 1987. Later information by electoral division is not available. The number of supporting parent beneficiaries in Western Australia on 9 January 1987 was 19,374. (Question No. 5216) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 March 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether an investigation into the illegal importation of aloe vera plants by Friendship Aloe Vera Pty Ltd in May 1984 is being or has been conducted by the Australian Customs Service because of an alleged breach of quarantine regulations; if so, what stage has the investigation reached and, if it has been completed, what was the outcome. (2) How will confirmation that the importation was illegal affect growers of aloe vera in the Bundaberg area and areas north who purchased plants from the Company. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Investigations by the Australian Customs Service are all but completed. On completion a brief of evidence will be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecution's for advice. (2) The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service has completed a pest and disease evaluation of the plants at five properties in the Bundaberg region which are suggested to have received illegally imported plants. The results of the evaluation were that no exotic pests and diseases were detected. In view of the number of plants, the locations of the planting, the results of the survey and the difficulties in identifying illegally imported plants from those grown legally it is not feasible to take any action to recover the allegedly illegally imported plants. (Question No. 3101) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) What funds were allocated to the (a) Australia Council, (i) Community Arts, (ii) Crafts, (iii) Design Arts, (iv) Literature, (v) Music, (vi) Theatre, (vii) Visual Arts, (viii) Education and the Arts, (ix) Multicultural Arts, (x) Art and Working Life, (xi) Film and (xii) Local Government sections, (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations, (c) National Estate Grants and (d) National Tree schemes in (A) 1982-83, (B) 1983-84, (C) 1984-85 and (D) 1985-86. (2) What (a) amount and (b) proportion of funds was specifically allocated in each year for projects to be undertaken in NSW. (3) How and by which body were the funds administered in each year for each scheme. (4) How and by which body were decisions made in each year on the detailed allocation of funds for projects under each scheme. (5) What specific projects were funded under each scheme in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond. (6) For each project in the Electoral Division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant, (b) which individual or group received the grant, (c) what was the amount of the grant and (d) what evaluation has been made to determine if the grant achieved the original objectives for which it was made. (7) What specific projects were denied funding under each scheme in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond. (8) For each project denied funding in the Electoral Division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant sought, (b) which individual or group applied for the grant, (c) what was the amount of grant sought and (d) what was the reason for refusing funding for the application. (9) How does funding for projects under these schemes in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond compare on a per capita basis with funding for projects under the schemes in the Electoral Divisions of (a) Wills, (b) Reid, (c) Parramatta, (d) Robertson, (e) Shortland, (f) Cunningham, (g) Werriwa and (h) Blaxland. (10) How and when were applications sought for grants under each scheme in each year. (11) Was any specific advertising undertaken to alert residents of the Electoral Division of Richmond to the existence of these schemes. (12) Will he ensure that in future comprehensive information concerning grant availability and eligibility under these schemes is drawn to the attention of local government bodies, community groups and residents in the Electoral Division of Richmond; if not, why not. (13) If so, (a) how and (b) when, will the information be provided. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In replying to this question I am conscious of the considerable resource cost which would have been involved in obtaining all the detailed information sought together with the Government's commitment to containing public expenditure and to sensible use of resources. I have therefore provided information only where the cost of obtaining the information is considered a reasonable use of resources. I have indicated in my reply those parts of the question I consider would have involved undue and inappropriate use of resources. (A) 1982-83 (B) 1983-84 (C) 1984-85 (D) 1985-86 $ $ $ $ (1) (a) Australia Council (i) Community Arts ... 2 535 969 2 881 323 3 247 814 3 219 010 (ii) Crafts ... 1 452 825 1 674 738 1 956 386 2 058 792 (iii) Design Arts (Committee) ... 145 052 257 769 517 542 589 763 (iv) Literature ... 2 051 761 2 370 625 2 645 370 2 885 783 (v) Music ... 8 547 247 9 832 093 10 422 442 11 392 829 (vi) Theatre ... 9 694 868 10 926 469 11 769 746 12 442 764 (vii) Visual Arts ... 1 639 664 1 961 425 2 126 171 2 309 273 (viii) Education and the Arts [1] ... . . . . . . . . (ix) Multicultural Arts [2] ... 250 000 325 000 1 030 000 1 144 000 (x) Art and Working Life [2] ... 140 000 245 000 830 000 899 000 (xi) Film [3] ... . . . . . . . . (xii) Local Government [3]... . . . . . . . . (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations ... (c) National Estate Grants ... (d) National Tree schemes ... 360 000 2 200 000 500 000 640 000 2 770 000 500 000 850 000 2 910 000 520 000 945 000 3 050 000 600 000 [1] There is no specific program for education and the arts. The programs of all eight artform boards have an educational component and a proportion of the expenditure under the Board programs is specifically designated for Youth Arts which includes education activities. The expenditure on Youth Arts was as follows: 1982/83, $99 618; 1983/84, $220 000; 1984/85, $1 230 000; 1985/86, $1,345 000. [2] These items have been included in Board expenditure figures. [3] There is no specific allocation under the headings, `Film' and `Local Government'. Expenditure on these would be included under the general heading of Council Programs (including Arts, Information, International Policy and Research etc). Expenditure on Council Programs was as follows: 1982/83, $1 056 051; 1983/84, $969 720; 1984/85, $2 906 348; 1985/86, $2 537 000. 1982-83 (a) (b) 1983-84 (a) (b) 1984-85 (a) (b) 1985-86 (a) (b) $ % $ % $ % $ % (2) (a) Australia Council (excluding national organisations) ... 4 933 599 17.0 6 714 721 20.3 7 667 378 20.2 8 268 881 19.6 (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations ... 50 190 14.3 87 000 13.4 118 100 13.9 120 800 12.8 (c) National Estate Grants ... 330 000 16.7 416 666 16.7 437 500 16.7 458 333 16.7 (d) National Tree Schemes ... 42 500 8.5 41 000 8.2 49 000 9.4 50 000 8.3 (3) (a) Australia Council: One-line Budget appropriation to the Australia Council disbursed annually by Council to each of the eight artform boards; funds are administered by the Australia Council. (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations: Annual Budget appropriation disbursed at the Minister's discretion; funds are administered by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. (c) National Estate Grants: Annual Budget appropriation disbursed according to a program approved by the Minister in consultation with the relevant Minister in each State/Territory; funds for projects in NSW are administered by the NSW Department of Environment and Planning. (d) National Tree schemes: Annual Budget appropriation; in NSW funds are administered by the NSW National Tree Program Coordinating Committee. (4) (a) Australia Council: Assessed by relevant Boards with reference to objectives and program criteria established by Council on advice from the Boards within their specific artforms. (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations: Assessed by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment with reference to objectives and guidelines of the Grants Program. (c) National Estate Grants: Approved by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment in consultation with the NSW Minister for Planning and Environment for projects in NSW with reference to criteria published in a brochure entitled `National Estate Grants Program'. (d) National Tree schemes: Assessed by the NSW National Tree Program Coordinating Committee with reference to criteria established by the National Tree Program Coordinating Committee. (5) and (6) (a) Australia Council: 1982-83-The detailed information sought is not readily available and I am not prepared to authorise the resource costs required to obtain it. 1983-84 (a) (b) (c) (d) $ Community Arts Towards costs of documenting Festival of Villages Summerland Community Arts 275 Before payment of grants applicants must sign a document specifying the particular artform Board's Conditions of Grant. This includes: * that a grant will be used only for the approved purpose; * that within a specified time after completion of the project (dependent on the Board area and nature of project) the grantee must provide a detailed artistic report on the project. Towards costs of community mural Summerland Community Arts 500 Towards fees for artist-in-residence Lismore City Council 9,470 Towards costs of annual program Summerland Community Arts 14,100 Towards costs of video workshops for upgrading skills of professional artists Central Coast Community Arts 1,330 Towards salary of Community Arts Officer for fourth year Summerland Community Arts 9,500 Crafts Towards Northern Rivers Art 1984 Exhibition to tour Qld and NSW Regional Areas Northern Rivers Centre for Adult Education 1,112 Towards purchase of craft works for permanent collection Lismore Regional Art Gallery 466 Literature Writer's fellowship Mr N. Krauth 20,000 Towards costs of book design and layout workshops at Lismore North Coast Community Press 778 Music Towards cost of musicians-in-residence, University of NSW ensemble Northern Rivers Music Centre 2,500 Towards costs of music component of Northern Rivers Winter School of the Arts 16-29 September 1984 Northern Rivers Music Centre 2,930 Towards cost of a community music school in Mullumbimby NSW Alhambra Academy of the Arts 10,000 Performance and educative residency in September 1984 Northern Rivers Music Centre 5, 000 1984-85 Community Arts Towards arts and cultural activities during National Aborigines Week 1984 Lismore-National Aboriginal Day Organising Committee 500 (as above) Towards salary of Community Arts Officer for fourth year Summerland Community Arts 9,500 Towards artists' fees and costs for artists-in-community project Summerland Community Arts 9,000 Towards artists' fees and costs for artists team-in-community Summerland Community Arts 16,000 Towards artists' fees for youth arts project Youth Organisation of Byron Shire 5,000 Towards salary of Community Arts Officer for costs of annual program Uki Culture Klub 2,000 Crafts Mount and tour craft from Northern Rivers exhibition for NSW Regional Galleries Lismore Regional Art Gallery 1,450 Purchase of crafts for public display and permanent collection Lismore Regional Art Gallery 390 Writer's Fellowship Mr N. Krauth 21,250 Music Towards costs of a community music school in Mullumbimby, NSW Alhambra Academy of the Arts 8,718 Youth Music orchestral activities in Lismore during 1985 Lismore Youth Orchestra 1,000 Visiting teachers to conduct tutorials with the Concert Bands, March-October 1985 Northern Rivers Concert Band 500 Visiting teachers for a Music Camp and Country Youth Orchestra Jamboree, 1985 Lismore Youth Orchestra 1,200 Ensemble development Northern Rivers Music Ensemble 1,000 Eight performances of Australian and contemporary works in northern NSW towns, May-September 1985 Northern Rivers Music Centre 2,500 Towards introduction of mini computer for centre's administration Northern Rivers Music Centre 3,200 Visual Arts Mural by Amazenart team for Bangalow Heritage Park Byron Shire Arts Council 5,000 1985-86 Community Arts Towards artists' fees and costs for theatre and photography residency Tweed Shire Council 13,850 (as above) Towards production of a mural in the High School Murwillumbah High School 1,000 Towards fees and costs for community arts traineeship Tweed Shire Council 18,400 Crafts To purchase equipment for wood workshop Mr G. Vaughan 4,500 Towards a banner project for the Tweed Shire Region Tweed Shire Council 2,765 Literature Towards cost of employing Dorothy Hewett as Limited playwright-in-residence Nomads Theatre Company 2,120 Music Innovative project-Women's Music Festival, October 1985 Lismore Women's Music Collective 2,000 Theatre Grant towards costs of the villages projects Nomads Theatre Company 9,840 To employ Dorothy Hewett as playwright-in-residence for 9 weeks during 1986 Nomads Theatre Company 2,880 Visual Arts Establishment costs for artist's studios and workshop space+ Northern Rivers Centre for Visual Art 2,560 (b)- GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION ORGANISATIONS (a) (b) (c) (d) $ 1982-83 Grants are disbursed in accordance with guidelines which include the requirement for acquittal according to conditions which require the provision of audited accounts; and demonstration that the grant has been used for the purpose for which it was given. To assist with administrative costs North Coast Conservation Council 1,500 1983-84 To assist with administrative costs North Coast Conservation Council 3,000 1984-85 To assist with administrative costs North Coast Conservation Council 4,000 1985-86 To assist with administrative costs North Coast Conservation Council 4,400 (c) National Estate Grants: (a) (b) (c) No specific grants were funded during the period 1982-83 to 1985-86 although there were a range of general projects in New South Wales, some of which may have fallen within this area. (d) The detailed evaluation and auditing of approved projects are carried out by the relevant State/Territory authorities which are therefore responsible for ensuring that objectives are met. Reports are issued to the Commonwealth each year in accordance with the Commonwealth-State agreements relating to the Program. (d) National Tree Schemes: (a) (b) (c) Projects are run by relevant State/Territory Committees and the detailed information sought is not available in the Department. (d) The Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment requires notification of acceptance of grant and prescribed conditions prior to the payment of grants to the State/Territory authority and to Greening Australia Ltd. The conditions of grants require full acquittal and the provision of audited statements of expenditure each year. (7) (a) Australia Council: As a matter of policy in order to protect the privacy and/or business affairs of the individual or organisation concerned, the Council does not disclose names or details of unsuccessful applicants. Non-specific details of grants requested and not approved are not readily available. (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations; 1982-83-Nil; 1983-84-Nil; 1984-85-Tweed Valley Conservation Trust; 1985-86-Tweed Valley Conservation Trust. (c) National Estate Grants: Arrangements under the National Estate Grants Program give the responsibility for developing a program to be recommended to the Minister to the State/Territory Governments. Details of individual unsuccessful applications in NSW are not held by the Commonwealth. (d) National Tree Schemes: Under the National Tree Program, State/Territory Committees have responsibility for administration of projects. Details of individual applications in NSW are the responsibility of the NSW National Tree Program Coordinating Committee and are not held by the Commonwealth. (8) (a) Australia Council: As a matter of policy to protect the privacy and/or business affairs of the individual or organisation concerned, the Council does not disclose means or details of unsuccessful applicants. Non-specific details of grants requested and not approved are not readily available. (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations: (a) Administrative grant; (b) Tweed Valley Conservation Trust; (c) 1984-85-$1,611; 1985-86-$22,000; (d) Area covered by the North Coast Conservation Council of which the Tweed Valley Conservation Trust is a member. (c) National Estate Grants: NSW grants are administered by the NSW Department of Environment and Planning and the detailed information sought is not held by the Commonwealth. (d) National Tree schemes: Projects are run by relevant State/Territory Committees and the detailed information sought is not held by the Commonwealth. (9) (a) The detailed information sought is not readily available and I am not prepared to authorise the resource cost involved. (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations: The detailed information sought is not readily available and I am not prepared to authorise the resource cost involved. (c) National Estates Grants: Administration of individual projects is the responsibility of the relevant State/Territory authority and the detailed information sought is not held by the Commonwealth. (d) National Tree schemes: Administration of individual projects is the responsibility of relevant State/Territory Committees and the detailed information sought is not held by the Commonwealth. (10) (a) Australia Council: All Boards of Council advertise their programs of assistance and call for applications at least once a year. These Advertisements appear in the national and ethnic press. Programs of assistance are also advertised through quarterly advertisements in regional newspapers. In addition, Directors and project staff, within time and budget limitations, hold interviews in each State to discuss grant applications and provide information and advice to applicants on specific programs of assistance offered in their artform. The Council's toll free line has also provided accessibility to grant information and its Boards. (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations: Applications are called in July/August each year. Guidelines and application forms are posted to known conservation groups. (c) National Estate Grants: Circular letters and application forms are distributed in about May each year to all bodies which are eligible for funding under the National Estate Grants Program, including- State/Territory government departments and authorities local government bodies National Trusts academic institutions professional and community organisations, including voluntary conservation bodies. Applications for grants close by the end of July for that financial year. (d) National Tree schemes: Advertisements for grants appear in rural, State and national newspapers each year. The timing of advertisements and selection of media coverage varies from State to State and are arranged by relevant State/Territory National Tree Program Coordinating Committees. (11) Advertising was not undertaken specifically in relation to the Electoral Division of Richmond, nor in respect of any electorate; nevertheless the national and regional press coverage (see (10)) is designed to alert as wide a population as possible to the existence of these programs of grants. (12 and (13) Comprehensive information has been and will continue to be provided in terms of (10) above. (Question No. 4643) Mr Slipper asked the Minister for Arts, Heri- tage and Environment, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: (1) What funds were allocated to (a) the Australia Council for (i) community arts, (ii) crafts, (iii) design arts, (iv) literature, (v) music, (vi) theatre, (vii) visual arts, (viii) education and the arts, (ix) multicultural arts, (x) art and working life, (xi) film and (xii) local government sections, (b) grants to voluntary conservation organisations, (c) National Estate grants and (d) National Tree schemes in (i) 1982-83, (ii) 1983-84, (iii) 1984-85 and (iv) 1985-86, respectively. (2) What (a) amount and (b) proportion of funds are allocated to projects to be undertaken in Queensland in each of these years. (3) How were the funds allocated to each scheme each year and by which bodies administered. (4) How were decisions on the allocation of funds for projects under each scheme each year made and which bodies made these decisions. (5) What projects were funded under each scheme each year in the Electoral Division of Fisher and (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant, (b) which individual or group received the grant, and (c) what was the amount of the grant. (6) What projects were denied funding under each scheme in each year in the Electoral Division of Fisher and (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant sought, (b) which individual or group applied for the grant, (c) what was the amount of grant sought and (d) what was the reason for refusing funding for the application. (7) How does funding for projects in the Electoral Division of Fisher under these schemes in each year compare on a per capita basis with funding for projects under the schemes in the Electoral Divisions of (a) Bowman, (b) Rankin, (c) Leichhardt, (d) Herbert, (e) Oxley, (f) Capricornia, (g) Griffith, (h) Brisbane and (i) Lilley. (8) How were applications sought for grants under each scheme in each year and when were such applications sought. (9) Was any advertising undertaken to alert residents of the Electoral Division of Fisher to the existence of these schemes. (10) Will he ensure that, in future, comprehensive information concerning grant availability and eligibility under these schemes is drawn to the attention of local government bodies, community groups and residents in the Electoral Division of Fisher; if not, why not. (11) If so, (a) how and (b) when will the information be provided. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In replying to this question I am conscious of the considerable resource cost which would have been involved in obtaining all the detailed information sought together with the Government's commitment to containing public expenditure and to sensible use of resources. I have therefore provided information only where the cost of obtaining the information is considered a reasonable use of resources. I have indicated in my reply those parts of the question I consider would have involved undue and inappropriate use of resources. (A) 1982-83 (B) 1983-84 (C) 1984-85 (D) 1985-86 $ $ $ $ (1) (a) Australia Council (i) Community Arts... 2 535 969 2 881 323 3 247 814 3 219 01 (ii) Crafts... 1 452 825 1 674 738 1 956 386 2 058 792 (iii) Design Arts (Committee)... 145 052 257 769 517 542 589 763 (iv) Literature... 2 051 761 2 370 625 2 645 370 2 885 783 (v) Music... 8 547 247 9 832 093 10 422 442 11 392 829 (vi) Theatre... 9 694 686 10 926 469 11 769 746 12 442 764 (vii) Visual Arts... 1 639 664 1 961 425 2 126 171 2 309 273 (viii) Education and the Arts [1]... . . . . . . . . (ix) Multicultural Arts [2]... 250 000 325 000 1 030 000 1 144 000 (x) Art and Working Life [2]... 140 000 245 000 830 000 899 000 (xi) Film [3]... . . . . . . . . (xii) Local Government [3]... . . . . . . . . (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations... 360 000 640 000 850 000 945 000 (c) National Estate Grants... 2 200 000 2 770 000 2 910 000 3 050 000 (d) National Tree schemes... 500 000 500 000 520 000 600 000 [1] There is no specific program for education and the arts. The programs of all eight artform Boards have an educational component and a proportion of the expenditure under the Board programs is specifically designated for Youth Arts which includes education activities. The expenditure on Youth Arts was as follows: 1982-83, $99 618; 1983-84, $220 000; 1984-85, $1 230 000; 1985-86, $1 345 000. [2] These items have been included in Board expenditure figures. [3] There is no specific allocation under the headings, `Film' and `Local Government'. Expenditure on these would be included under the general heading of Council Programs (including Arts, Information, International Policy and Research etc.). Expenditure on Council Programs was as follows: 1982-83, $1 056 051; 1983-84, $969 720; 1984-85, $2 906 348; 1985-86, $2 537 000. 1982-83 (a) (b) 1983-84 (a) (b) 1984-85 (a) (b) 1985-86 (a) (b) $ % $ % $ % $ % (2) (a) Australia Council (excluding national organisations)... 1 369 913 4.7 1 738 483 5.3 2 260 396 6.0 2 587 869 6.1 (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations... 40 500 11.57 93 000 14.31 126 215 14.85 137 500 14.55 (c) National Estate Grants... 330 000 16.7 416 666 16.7 437 500 16.7 458 333 16.7 (d) National Tree schemes... 42 000 8.5 41 000 8.2 49 000 9.4 50 000 8.3 (3) (a) Australia Council: One-line Budget appropriation to the Australian Council disbursed annually by Council to each of the eight artform boards; funds are administered by the Australia Council. (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations: Annual Budget appropriation disbursed at the Minister's discretion; funds are administered by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. (c) National Estate Grants: Annual Budget appropriation disbursed according to a program approved by the Minister in consultation with the relevant Minister in each State/Territory; funds for projects in Queensland are administered by the Queensland Department of Arts, National Parks and Sport. (d) National Tree schemes: Annual Budget appropriation; in Queensland funds are administered by the Queensland National Tree Program Coordinating Committee. (4) (a) Australia Council: Assessed by relevant Boards with reference to objectives and program criteria established by Council on advice from the Boards within their specific artforms. (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations: Assessed by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment with reference to objectives and guidelines of the Grants Program. (c) National Estate Grants: Approved by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment in consultation with the Queensland Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and the Arts, for projects in Queensland with reference to criteria published in a brochure `National Estate Grants Program'. (d) National Tree schemes: Assessed by the Queensland National Tree Program Coordinating Committee against criteria established by the National Tree Program Coordinating Committee. (5) (a) Australia Council: 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85-The detailed information sought is not readily available and I am not prepared to authorise the resource costs required to obtain it. 1985-86 Crafts Board (a) (b) (c) To purchase pottery wheel and kiln Maleny Arts and Crafts Group $1,086 (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations: No specific grants were funded during the period 1982-83 to 1985-86 although there were a range of general projects in Queensland, some of which may have fallen within this area. (c) National Estate Grants: No specific grants were funded during the period 1982-83 to 1985-86 although there were a range of general projects in Queensland, some of which may have fallen within this area. (d) National Tree schemes: Projects are run by relevant State/Territory Committees and the detailed information sought is not held by the Commonwealth. (6) (a) Australia Council: As a matter of policy in order to protect the privacy and/or business affairs of the individual or organisation concerned, the Council does not disclose names or details of unsuccessful applicants. Non-specific details of grants requested and not approved are not readily available. (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations: For these years, no specific projects were denied funding under this scheme in the Electoral Division of Fisher. (c) National Estate Grants: Arrangements under the National Estates Grants Program give the responsibility for developing a program to be recommended to the Minister to the State/Territory governments. Details of individual unsuccessful applications in Queensland are not held by the Commonwealth. (d) National Tree schemes: Under the National Tree Program, State/Territory Committees have responsibility for administration of projects. Details of individual applications in Queensland are the responsibility of the Queensland National Tree Program Coordinating Committee and are not held by the Commonwealth. (7) (a) Australia Council: The detailed information sought is not readily available and I am not prepared to authorise the resource cost involved. (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations: The detailed information sought is not readily available and I am not prepared to authorise the resource cost involved. (c) National Estates Grants: Administration of individual projects is the responsibility of the relevant State/Territory authority and the detailed information sought is not held by the Commonwealth. (d) National Tree schemes: Administration of individual projects is the responsibility of relevant State/Territory Committees and the detailed information sought is not held by the Commonwealth. (8) (a) Australia Council: All Boards of Council advertise their programs of assistance and call for applications at least once a year. These advertisements appear in the national and ethnic press. Programs of assistance are also advertised through quarterly advertisements in regional newspapers. In addition, Directors and project staff, within time and budget limitations, hold interviews in each State to discuss grant applications and provide information and advice to applicants on specific programs of assistance offered in their artform. The Council's toll free line has also provided accessibility to grant information and its Boards. (b) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations: Applications are called in July/August each year. Guidelines and application forms are posted to known conservation groups. (c) National Estate Grants: Circular letters and application forms are distributed in about May each year to all bodies which are eligible for funding under the National Estate Grants Program, including- State/Territory government departments and authorities; local government bodies; National Trusts; academic institutions; professional and community organisations, including voluntary conservation bodies. In addition, the Queensland Department of Arts, National Parks and Sport invites applications by placing advertisements in all national and Brisbane press as well as all ``provincial'' newspapers. These advertisements are placed in early April and again in late April/early May. Applications for grants close on 30 June each year. (d) National Tree schemes: Advertisements for grants appear in rural, State and national newspapers each year. The timing of advertisements and selection of media coverage varies from State to State and are arranged by relevant State/Territory National Tree Program Coordinating Committees. (9) Advertising was not undertaken specifically in relation to the Electoral Division of Fisher, nor in respect of any electorate; nevertheless the national and regional press coverage (see (8)) is designed to alert as wide a population as possible to the existence of these programs of grants. (10) and (11) Comprehensive information has been and will continue to be provided in terms of (8) above. (Question No. 4882) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) What agreement has been reached between the National Maritime Museum and the Sydney Maritime Museum. (2) What efforts have been made to rationalise the resources of these Sydney-based institutions. (3) Are the scarce funds available for museums being spent on the National Maritime Museum project that is overlapping existing facilities. (4) What expenditure on the National Maritime Museum has been spent on (a) travel, including details of (i) who undertook travel, (ii) places visited and (iii) reasons for travel, (b) consultants, (c) publicity, (d) office accommodation, (e) design, (f) construction and (g) the collection. (5) Has the decision to develop the National Maritime Museum resulted in a reduction in funding to other museum projects. (6) What proposals are being considered for the establishment of a National Aviation Museum. (7) What consideration has been given to siting such a museum at (a) Laverton, (b) Ballarat or (c) elsewhere. (8) What offers have been made for the construction of such a museum. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian National Maritime Museum and the Sydney Maritime Museum are discussing possible arrangements for the Sydney Maritime Museum to lease some of its historic ships to the Australian National Maritime Museum for display at its wharves in Darling Harbour. Discussions are also taking place about other artefacts which the Sydney Maritime Museum has generously offered to make available to the National Museum for its opening and future displays. (2) Current discussions with the Sydney Maritime Museum aim to ensure that the two organisations work together to provide the best possible displays and activities, for the benefit of all Australians and overseas visitors. Both museums also recognise the need for the two organisations to continue as separate institutions. The Australian National Maritime Museum's role and function is much wider than that of the Sydney Maritime Museum. The Sydney Maritime Museum is a private organisation operated partly by volunteers, which is concentrating on the preservation, restoration and operation of a fleet of historic ships. (3) No-the Australian National Maritime Museum is being established for all Australians as a national institution to assemble and exhibit the national maritime collection to display all aspects of Australia's maritime history. (4) (a) Travel-$60,600 comprising travel to the date of the question (13 November 1986) as follows: (i) Officer (ii) Places visited (iii) Reasons for travel Council$14,900 Chairman Canberra Attend meetings with Minister, Department and attend Council Meeting Perth Member 7 trips Sydney and Canberra Attend Council Meetings Hobart Member 2 trips Sydney 1 trip Canberra Attend Council Meetings 4 Sydney Members Canberra Attend Council Meetings. Recruitment-$17,600 Interviewees Sydney Attend Interviews 34 from Canberra 4 from Melbourne 4 from Adelaide 4 from Perth 2 from Brisbane 1 from Darwin 1 from Newcastle 1 from Griffith (NSW) 1 from Rockhampton Interviewees Canberra Attend Interviews 2 from Sydney 1 from Melbourne 1 from Perth Members of Panel 3 from Canberra Sydney Conduct Interviews Member of panel from Canberra Sydney/Melbourne Conduct Interviews Members of Panel 4 from Sydney Canberra Conduct Interviews Successful applicants 3 from Canberra Sydney Take up duty Staff Travel-$28,100 Director (Interim) 19 x Canberra 2 x Melbourne 1 x Brisbane Discussions with Minister, Department, other Commonwealth organisations, Senate Estimates hearings, visit other Museums. Resources Management: Class 11 Class 8 Class 7 Class 6 Class 4 C.A. Gr. 5 3 x Canberra 1 x Melbourne 1 x Canberra 1 x Melbourne 1 x Canberra 1 x Canberra 1 x Canberra 1 x Canberra Meetings with Minister, Department, Senate Estimates hearings, visit other Commonwealth bodies Secretariat: Class 7 7 x Canberra Discussions with Department Buildings: Class 9 Class 7 5 x Canberra 1 x Melbourne 1 x Canberra Meetings with Minister, Department, other organisations, Commonwealth Fire Board Education: Class 9 1 x Canberra 1 x Adelaide/Perth Attend conference, meetings with other institutions. Marketing: Class 9 2 x Canberra 1 x Perth 1 x Echuca/Melbourne 1 x Canberra/ Melbourne Attend conferences, discussions with potential sponsors Collections Management: SES Level 1 Science 4* Class 9 Curator Grade 2 Museum Assistant Grade 2 2 x Canberra 1 x Canberra/Echuca 1 x Brisbane 1 x Canberra/Sydney/Mackay 3 x Canberra 1 x Brisbane 1 x Melbourne/Launceston/Hobart 1 x Adelaide/Perth 1 x Canberra Attend conferences, discussions with Depts and other bodies re. the mari- time collection * Officer on loan from the Australian War Memorial. (b) Consultants-$73,000 (c) Publicity-$72,000 (d) Office accommodation-$138,000 (e) design-$39,200 (f) Construction-$3,153,000 (g) Collection-$334,000. (5) No, not directly. Following the decision to undertake a review of the Commonwealth's involvement in the development of museums, it was decided to put the National Museum of Australia on hold. Funds previously identified for the National Museum which were then in excess of requirements were made available to the Australian National Maritime Museum. (6), (7) and (8) The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and the Minister for Finance are reviewing the Commonwealth's involvement in the development of museums including the National Aviation Museum. The terms of reference are: The role of the Commonwealth in relation to that of State and local governments and of non-government interests. Assessment of concepts and practical options for development of museums and related facilities in relation to any Commonwealth role identified above, having regard to the Commonwealth's heritage and budgetary policies. The potential for economies including minimising duplication between current development proposals for museums and other institutions, maximising revenue raising opportunities and the involvement of State and local governments and non-government interests in museum development. The position of Canberra as a museum location compared to other population centres bearing in mind considerations of community access and impact on the Canberra economy. Recommendations of alternative strategies for Commonwealth involvement in museums development. The Commonwealth has received a proposal from the Victorian Government for the construction of a National Air and Space museum at Laverton. The proposal provides for the Victorian Government to share the design and construction costs of the Museum and to make the State aviation collections available for display in the Museum. The Victorian Government is understood to have examined numerous sites in Victoria, including Ballarat and Mangalore, before reaching its conclusion that Laverton provides the optimum site for the proposed museum. (Question No. 5051) Mr Staples asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) Have there been reductions in the staffing levels of the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region. (2) What were the staffing levels for (a) research staff and (b) the supervising section in (i) 1984-85, (ii) 1985-86 and (iii) 1986-87. (3) What reductions will be achieved through (a) wastage and (b) redundancy. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In accordance with decisions taken in the context of the 1986 Budget, average staff level of the Office of the Supervising Scientist will be reduced from 77 to about 65 over the two year period 1986/87 to 1987/88. (2) The Average Staff Levels for the two financial years past, and as expected for 1986-87, are as follows: 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 % Reduction Research scientific executive, research and technical and administrative support staff ... 53 54 49.5 8 Supervision and assessment supervisory, technical assessment and liaison staff ... 7 7 6 14 Co-ordination and corporate executive, co-ordination and central office management services staff (includes Supervising Scientist) ... 16 16 14 12.5 Total ... 76 77 69.5 9.7 (3) Redundancy action has been initiated under the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979 in relation to 3 officers, one of whom has since resigned. The balance of the required reductions (to about 65 for 1987-88) is being achieved through wastage. (Question No. 5054) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) Is the Commonwealth land at Portsea, Victoria, or any part of it, on the Register of the National Estate; if not, has the land, or any part of it, been nominated for listing on the Register of the National Estate. (2) Has any proposal for sub-division of the Commonwealth land at Portsea been submitted to the Australian Heritage Commission. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) has advised me that all of the existing Commonwealth land on Point Nepean, including Portsea, has been nominated for, or is presently listed on, the Register of the National Estate. Certain buildings which form part of the Quarantine Station, on the north side of Point Nepean have already been listed on the Register. The proposed listing of the whole of Point Nepean, excluding the public golf course area, has been considered by the AHC and will be proposed for the Register at its meeting in May. (2) Staff of the AHC have met with officers of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services to discuss the possibility of a sub-division of land on Point Nepean. However, no such proposal has as yet been formally referred to the AHC under Section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. (Question No. 5130) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 23 February 1987: (1) What sum has the Government provided to the Queensland Government for road funding since 1983-84. (2) Is he able to say what percentage of funds spent in Queensland on roads have been provided by the Commonwealth. (3) What sum has been spent by the Commonwealth on national highways in (a) Queensland and (b) Central Queensland since 1983. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since 1983-84, the Federal Government has provided $1,028.6 million to the Queensland Government for expenditure on roads. This figure includes $257.6 million allocated for 1986-87. (2) In 1986-87, it is estimated from figures contained in the 1986-87 Queensland Capital Works Program that the Federal Government will be providing 60 per cent of funds for capital works on roads under the control of the State Government. This includes the National Highway which is fully funded by the Federal Government. Figures for expenditure by Local Government are not available. (3) (a) Since 1983-84, the Federal Government has allocated $455.5 million for the National Highway system in Queensland which comprises the Bruce Highway between Brisbane and Cairns; the Cunningham and New England Highways between Brisbane and the NSW border; and the Warrego, Landsborough, Flinders and Barkly Highways between Brisbane and the NT border. (b) Since 1983 approval has been given for the expenditure of $76.044 million on the National Highway in Central Queensland, which is defined as the Landsborough Highway from Tambo to Longreach and the Bruce Highway from Bundaberg to Mackay. (Question No. 5160) Mr Scott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 26 February 1987: (1) Does the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) annual report for 1985-86 state on page 45 that the Public Health Advisory Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council had approved a model Food Standards Regulation for the Irradiation of Food and that the model regulation had been recommended to federal and State health authorities. (2) Does the report state that the model regulation allows the processing of cereals, fruit, vegetables, herbs, spices and poultry and specifies that packages of these foodstuffs must carry the words ``Treated with Ionising Radiation'' or ``Irradiated . . .'' (with the name of the food), or words having the same or similar effect. (3) Are these sections of the AAEC reports correct; if not, will the Minister have a correction prepared and published. (4) If these sections of the reports are incorrect and the Minister will not have a correction published, why not. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes, the summary of the Model Regulation in the AAEC's Annual Report is substantially correct. (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 5179) Mr Conquest asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 18 March 1987: (1) Are recipients of a veteran's pension unable to obtain repeat prescriptions; if so, why. (2) Are these pensioners required to visit their medical practitioner each time they require more of a prescribed medication. (3) Is it cost effective to have these pensioners visit their medical practitioners to obtain a single issue prescription. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No. Repeat prescriptions are available to Veteran beneficiaries for individual drug items where specified on either the National Health Scheme Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits or the supplementary Repatriation Schedule of Benefits. For Repatriation beneficiaries in receipt of treatment as a result of war-caused disabilities, the initial quantity of drugs provided and the number of repeats may be extended beyond that specified in the drug schedules with the prior approval of the Department. (2) Yes. Treatment of entitled beneficiaries is provided through Local Medical Officer (LMO) Scheme arrangements. The provision of drugs to Veterans is provided in accordance with a patient's clinical needs as judged by an LMO. Under State Law the majority of drugs provided to Veteran beneficiaries must be supplied on the prescription of a medical practitioner. (3) Yes. For medical treatment to be cost-effective, patients undergoing drug treatment should be carefully monitored to ensure satisfactory therapeutic benefit. Drug quantities should be related to clinical need, with supplies limited to treatment of acute episodes of illness. (Question No. 5199) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 19 March 1987: (1) How many (a) World War I veterans and (b) dependant spouses of World War I veterans currently are receiving pensions. (2) How many (a) World War II and (b) Korea/Malaya/Far Eastern Strategic Reserve and Vietnam (i) veterans, (ii) dependant spouses of those veterans and (iii) dependant children of those veterans currently are receiving pensions. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) The table hereunder provides details of Veterans and dependants from various wars and conflicts receiving disability and service pensions from the Department of Veterans' Affairs at 31 December 1986. For statistical purposes these are recorded under one war or conflict only. It should be noted that numbers of pensioners for any particular conflict may be understated because many Veterans have service in more than one conflict. World War I World War II Korea/ Malaya/ Far East Strategic Res. Vietnam Disability Pensions Veterans ... 1,893 146,159 4,305 8,775 Wives/Widows ... 4,900 103,914 2,573 5,020 Children ... 1 2,976 708 7,749 War Widows ... 9,985 58,301 642 315 Orphans ... 1 502 85 220 Service Pensions Veterans ... 2,721 196,368 2,444 1,095 Wives/Widows ... 1,292 142,482 1,572 770 (Question No. 5214) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 March 1987: Is the Minister able to say what is the average of constituents per member of the lower House in each State Parliament. Mr Young —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The average number of constituents per member in all six State Lower Houses of Parliament is 23,542. (2) The average number of constituents per member in each State Lower House based on the latest available enrolment figures are as follows: New South Wales... 35,089 (11,547 above the mean) Victoria ... 29,893 ( 6,351 above the mean) South Australia... 19,387 ( 4,155 below the mean) Queensland... 17,930 ( 5,612 below the mean) Western Australia... 15,184 ( 8,358 below the mean) Tasmania... 8,368 (15,174 below the mean) (Question No. 5246) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 25 March 1987: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the strong public support which exists for the introduction of an Australian Fire Service Medal which would be awarded to firemen, including bushfire fighters. (2) When will the medal be awarded. Mr Young —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) On Australia Day 1986, the Prime Minister announced the Queen had given approval in principle to the establishment of several new awards in the Australian honours system, including an Australian Fire Service Medal. Discussions on the design and criteria of the award are being held with representatives of the various fire services, including the rural bushfire brigades. (2) It is anticipated the first awards will be made in 1988. (Question No. 4997) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) Did the 1985-86 annual report of the Defence Force Ombudsman express concern about unsatisfactory and frustrating delays by his Department in responding to complaints. (2) Is it a fact that, as a result of the length of time taken by his Department to respond to applications for redress, individual complaints can remain unresolved for more than one year; if so, what action is being taken to resolve the problem. Mr Beazley —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) A small number of individual complaints can remain unresolved for more than a year. These comprise complaints which, in the main, have come to the De- fence Force Ombudsman because they are, by their nature, more complex. They usually involve policy issues that go beyond the parameters of the individual complaint and may involve other Department's in their resolution. A review of Defence Force redress of grievance legislation and procedures, initiated last year, is proceeding in order to identify problem areas and recommend solutions. Further, following discussions with the Ombudsman and his staff, procedures have been introduced to improve the handling of Ombudsman inquiries in the Defence organisation. (Question No. 5002) Mr Hodges asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What word processing or computer equipment has been introduced into the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister since 1982. (2) Why was the equipment purchased and were any specific targets set in terms of time or cost savings and improved efficiencies. (3) What has been the cost of purchasing the equipment. (4) Has the introduction of the equipment necessitated the purchase of new office equipment; if so, what have been the costs of the additional purchases. (5) Has the introduction of the equipment led to changes in work practices; if so, what has been the nature of the changes. (6) What has been the incidence of repetition strain injury (RSI) in the Minister's Department since 1982. (7) How many lost working days have been caused by RSI related illnesses since 1982. (8) How many persons have been forced to retire from the Minister's Department or statutory authorities responsible to the Minister as a result of RSI and what have been the compensation costs of this early retirement. (9) Has introduction of the equipment (a) saved money and (b) improved efficiency in the Minister's Department or the statutory authorities responsible to the Minister. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (1) Equipment installed since 1982 includes: Datapoint network (163 workstations); Personal Computers-several brands (13); Apple Macintosh (1); Raytheon Terminals (2); Digital Equipment Corporation (7 word processors); Olivetti (2 word processors). (2) The Department's ADP Strategic Plan for 1983 documented a five year forward plan which had as its goals, the increase of office productivity and the enhancement of management decision making through the integration of text and data processing and improved office communications. Areas within the Department which have or are expected to benefit from automation include the Cabinet Office, Central Registry, Ministerial Correspondence, Personnel and word processing. Savings equivalent to the loss of 45 staff positions are to be achieved. (3) Total cost of purchasing the equipment since 1982 is $2,603,967. (4) Total cost of required office equipment since 1982 is $155,657, comprising: ergonomic chairs $36,522 ergonomic desks $102,615 printer stands and hoods $16,520 (5) The introduction of automation has led to changes in work practices, particularly in word processing. All non-classified text production is now screen based. File and correspondence retrieval is now computer assisted and electronic mail has improved communication and reduced paper based information. (6) There have been 74 cases of RSI reported in the Department since 1982. (7) 7,430 working days have been lost due to RSI related illness between 1 January 1982 and 31 January 1987. (8) Three persons have been retired from this Department as a result of RSI with a total compensation cost to 31 January 1987 of $91,626.16 comprising: incapacity payments $86,565.99 medical expenses $5,060.17 (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes. B. ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR INTER-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS (1) The Government, after consultation with the States, the Northern Territory and the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, decided to abolish the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations (ACIR). The ACIR wound down its operations, disposed of its assets and ceased to operate as at 30 October 1986. At that time the ACIR operated the following word processing equipment: Wang OIS 115-2 word processing system 4 workstations 2 printers with hoods 1 Personal Computer with printer (2 to 9) Because ACIR has been wound up former staff and records which would have been the source for the information sought are not readily available. To obtain the information sought would require a substantial diversion of existing resources. C. AUSTRALIAN AUDIT OFFICE (1) Equipment introduced since 1982 includes: 1 terminal for a WANG WPS-1 system 22 Olivetti ETV-300 Text Editor systems 10 Canon A-200 word processing systems 81 Personal Computers and peripheral devices. (2) (a) Word Processors: A review of keyboard requirements in Central Office identified a need to supplement the existing centralised word processing system with de-centralised facilities. This resulted in a progressive introduction of 22 Olivetti `test editing' systems for use by Steno-Secretarial staff. The Olivetti systems provided the Office with an improved flexibility to undertake preparation of report paragraphs for the Auditor-General's Report to Parliament. In 1986, Canon word processing systems compatible with the AAO's Information Technology Strategic Plan were introduced in Regional Offices in each State. (b) Personal Computers: The Audit Office has purchased a number of personal computers primarily intended for audit-related tasks such as: (i) computer-aided technical support, (ii) support to field audit staff, by providing basic spreadsheet, word processing and data-base facilities, (iii) analysis of financial statement data, (iv) assistance with the general management of resources and resource planning within the AAO, (v) updating data processing knowledge and techniques for audit field staff. (3) The acquisition cost of word processing and personal computing equipment has been $512,227. (4) Expenditure on ergonomic furniture is estimated to be: (a) desks $45,400 (b) chairs $5,950 (c) aids $11,000 (5) Introduction of the equipment has improved operational efficiency but has had minimal impact on work practices. (6) 24 cases of RSI have come to the notice of management since 1982. 5 of these cases were caused by factors not related to the use of keyboard equipment. (7) Working days lost since 1982 due to RSI related causes totalled 1,264. (8) 2 officers have retired due to RSI related factors, at a cost of $18,600 in compensation payments. (9) (a) Yes, (b) Yes. D. AUSTRALIAN BICENTENNIAL AUTHORITY (1) The following computer systems have been introduced to the Authority: 1 x Honeywell DPS6/94 1 x ,, DPS6/95 1 x ,, DPS6/85 1 x ,, DPS6/54 1 x ,, DPS6/45 1 x ,, DPS6/22 1 x ,, DPS6/40 (2) The equipment was purchased to fulfil the Authority's requirements in developing and administering/monitoring a national year-long program of activities involving Commonwealth funding in the order of $140m. No specific targets were set in terms of time or cost savings and improved efficiencies. (3) The acquisition cost of the equipment to date is $1,652,852. (4) There has been some purchase of ergonomic desks for use exclusively with the computer equipment at a total cost of $16,381. (5) The introduction of the ergonomic equipment has facilitated day to day use of the computer equipment. (6) The Authority has had 4 cases of repetition strain injury since 1982. (7) 29 working days were lost through RSI-related illnesses. (8) No one has been forced to retire from the Authority as a result of RSI. (9) (a) Yes, (b) Yes. E. AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL (1) Equipment installed since 1982 includes: Exxon Word Processing Standalones (6 units) Wang VS 15 System (20 terminals) Wang Personal Computer (2 units) Printers (2 units) (2) The equipment was purchased to increase efficiency in producing ASTEC reports with less time required in updating drafts. No specific targets were set. (3) The acquisition cost of equipment to date is $171,291. (4) Additional office equipment acquired includes ergonomic desks and chairs costing $7,704. (5) Yes. All officers have terminals, enabling authors to do some of their own keyboard work and freeing keyboard personnel to take on some administrative duties. (6) Five claims for RSI have been made. (7) 119 days. (8) Nil. (9) (a) Yes, (b) Yes. F. ECONOMIC PLANNING ADVISORY COUNCIL (1) Equipment installed since 1982 includes: Data General MV4000 installed July 1984 Data General MV4000dc installed July 1985 IBM PC/XT (2 units) installed early 1984 (2) The equipment was purchased because the Office of EPAC was a new organisation with no existing information base and the opportunity was seen to take full advantage of information technology. It was intended that through the use of such technologies, the number of support staff could be kept low by traditional standards while the speed and accuracy with which information could be sourced, analysed, co-ordinated and compiled into professional reports could be greatly increased. (3) Expenditure on equipment to date has been $496,979. (4) Purchases of computer related equipment include ergonomic furniture at a cost of $7,047. (5) It is difficult to state any direct changes in work practices as the Office has developed around the installed information technology. Suggested changes in work practices relate to the replacement of many manual work tasks by automated tasks (for example word processing, electronic filing and electronic mail), the decreased time to perform a task, the ability to interact with co-workers via electronic mail thus reducing the need for formal meetings, the ability to keep managers better informed of current issues and the improvements in the quality of the working life for most office staff. (6) One case of RSI has been reported. (7) 32 working days have been lost. (8) Nil. (9) (a) Yes, (b) Yes. G. MERIT PROTECTION AND REVIEW AGENCY (1) Equipment installed since 1982 is: 2 x Olivetti M24 PCs 1 x Olivetti M28 PC (2) The equipment was purchased to (i) assist the Promotion Appeal Committees secretariat in the processing of appeals, (ii) provide word processing capability and produce grievance statistics, and (iii) support administrative applications such as the Assets Register. No specific targets were set. (3) The cost of the equipment to date has been $16,865. (4) New office equipment purchased to date is: Ergonomic chairs $ 555 Ergonomic desks $3,762 (5) Yes. All routine correspondence relating to appeals is now computer produced. Statistics for promotions and appeals are calculated and produced by computer. (6) There have been no cases of RSI. (7) Nil. (8) Nil. (9) (a) Yes, (b) Yes. H. OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN (1) Equipment introduced since 1 July 1982 includes: Make: Convergent Technologies Model: Megaframe, NGEN Number of Units: Megaframe with 400 MB disk NGEN x 2 with 40 MB disk Work Stations x 17 Printers x 3 (2) The equipment was purchased to meet requirements for recording and processing of complaints received, monitoring of progress of investigations of complaints, word processing, accounting, registry and general office administration systems. No quantitative targets were set for time or cost savings. (3) The acquisition cost of equipment to date has been $234,760. (4) The acquisition of new office equipment includes: (a) Desks $6,220 (b) Chairs $4,992 (5) There have been substantial changes to work methods and practices, particularly in word processing and case registration and management. Virtually all text production is now screen based. Manual registers and record cards have given way to electronic storage of much of the case file indexes and records. File retrieval is computer assisted using keyworded indexes. However the case files are and will continue to be conventional paper files. (6) Eight cases of RSI. (7) 420 working days lost. (8) Nil. (9) (a) Yes, (b) Yes. I. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY (1 to 9) The Office was proclaimed on 17 October 1986 and has only recently been established. A secure stand-alone word processing system is on order and the estimated cost is expected to be about $22,000. J. OFFICE OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENTS (1) Word Processing equipment installed since 1982 is: 1 x Wang 7515T CPU 1 x Wang 7510T Disk Drive 1 x Wang 7510TA Disk Drive 4 x Wang 7582T Printers 1 x Wang 75DW/OS/55T Printer 4 x Wang 7536-4T Workstations 3 x Wang 7510T Archiving Workstations 2 x Wang 7510-OA-T Archiving Workstations 1 x Wang 75PC-02T PC (2) The equipment was purchased to enable ONA to meet its statutory obligations under the Office of National Assessments Act 1977. (3) The acquisition cost of equipment to date is $197,660. (4) The introduction of the word processing equipment was not the sole reason for purchasing new office equipment. Equipment was purchased as part of a replacement program. The opportunity to involve occupational health and ergonomic guidelines in the selection was taken. The total cost of the new furniture has been $10,000. (Desks - $9,000; chairs - $1,000) (5) There have been changes in work practices for keyboard staff. These include regular breaks, eyesight testing and other occupational health initiatives. (6) There have been no reported cases of RSI in ONA. (7) Nil. (8) Nil. (9) (a) Yes, (b) Yes. K. OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL (1) Equipment installed since 1982 is: 4 x Burroughs master workstations (micro-computers) 7 x Burroughs cluster workstations (terminals) 1 x Apple Macintosh micro-computer (2) The office was purchased to improve the Office's word processing and administrative systems. No specific targets were set in terms of time or cost savings and improved efficiency, but the equipment was introduced at a time when, to do otherwise, would have necessitated either increased staff or reduced efficiency. (3) The equipment described in (1) above cost $63,000. (4) Yes. Ergonomic desks $4,200 Ergonomic chairs $1,700 Document holders $230 Ergonomic terminal arm $350 (5) Yes. The more efficient production of a great volume of typed material, and the introduction of screen based information storage and retrieval techniques involved in its production. (6) Two cases of RSI have come to notice since 1 July 1982. (7) 106 working days have been lost since 1 July 1982. (8) None. (9) (a) Yet to be fully evaluated but the current indications are ``yes''; (b) Yes. L. PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD (1) Equipment installed since 1982 includes: Make UNISYS Model B25 Series Workstations 198 (2) The equipment was purchased as a result of a consultancy review of the ``ADP requirements of the Office of the Public Service Board'' undertaken in 1983. Cost savings and improved efficiencies were identified in the review. (3) Total acquisition cost of equipment since 1982/83 has been approximately $1,350,000. (4) Ergonomic desks (Watts) $85,000 Ergonomic chairs (Co-design) $39,000 (5) The introduction of the equipment has provided access to modern ADP facilities for keyboard and cleri- cal staff. (6) The incidence of RSI in the Board's Office since 1982 has been 86 reported cases. (7) The number of lost working days caused by RSI related illness since 1982 is 4,536 days. (8) There have been no cases of retirement on medi- cal grounds due to RSI. (9) (a) Yes, (b) Yes. (Question No. 5011) Mr Hodges asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, 17 February 1987: (1) What word processing or computer equipment has been introduced into the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister since 1982. (2) Why was the equipment purchased and were any specific targets set in terms of time or cost savings and improved efficiencies. (3) What has been the cost of purchasing the equipment. (4) Has the introduction of the equipment necessitated the purchase of new office equipment; if so, what have been the costs of the additional purchases. (5) Has the introduction of the equipment led to changes in work practices; if so, what has been the nature of the changes. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1), (2) and (3) A major upgrade to the capability of the computing resource in the Department of Education has been undertaken. The Government decided in 1983 to acquire the necessary resources to permit the more effective operation of the various programmes administered by the Department. This upgrade included the purchase of a mainframe capability and replacement of ageing Wang equipments which had previously provided word processing and data entry facilities. The approximate costings are: Mainframe and associated peripherals, communications and software-$7m; and Facilities for the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, the Commonwealth Schools Commission, the ACT Technical and Further Education and personal computing facilities to support Departmental word processing and administrative support activities-$3m. (4) and (5) The details sought would require considerable research and staff effort to provide answers suited to the questions raised by the honourable member. Given its commitment to containing public expenditure and sensible use of public resources, the Government is unwilling to authorise the expenditure of the resources that would be required to provide detailed answers necessary to correctly respond to these questions. In general terms, there has been the need to acquire new office equipment to improve ergonomic aspects related to systems use. Once the new systems are fully operational, a review of work practices will be conducted-probably later this calendar year. (Question No. 5021) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What word processing or computer equipment has been introduced into the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister since 1982. (2) Why was the equipment purchased and were any specific targets set in terms of time or cost savings and improved efficiencies. (3) What has been the cost of purchasing the equipment. (4) Has the introduction of the equipment necessitated the purchase of new office equipment; if so, what have been the costs of the additional purchases. (5) Has the introduction of the equipment led to changes in work practices; if so, what has been the nature of the changes. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: DEPARTMENT-CENTRAL OFFICE (1) Word processing and personal computer networks (2) To meet the requirements of a new Commonwealth Department. No. (3) 1983-84-$53,321; 1984-85-$90,125; 1985-86-$89,861; 1986-87-$41,379. Total $274,686. (4) Yes. Included in costs of establishing new Department and not definable. (5) Not able to define. DEPARTMENT-PROMOTION AUSTRALIA (1) Honeywell Micro 6/20, 6/10, HDS-2 (2) To improve communication with overseas posts and state offices. Yes. (3) 1983-84-$36,950; 1984-85-$59,000; 1985-86-Nil; 1986-87-$13,941. Total $109,891. (4) Yes. $10,660. (5) Yes. Transfer of some keying functions from typing pool to journalists with resultant reduced workloads and overtime in typing pool. DEPARTMENT-AGPS (1) Phototypesetting system, point of sale terminals, computer upgrade, word processors, microcomputers. (2) To improve services to clients; meet their changing technological requirements; improve internal administrative efficiency. Yes. (3) 1981-82-$4,999; 1982-83-$4,999; 1983-84-$628,205; 1984-85-$1,361,718; 1985-86-$207,319; 1986-87-$286,908. Total $2,494,148. (4) Yes. $18,040. (5) Yes. Keyboard skills being used to produce graph artwork and inhouse typesetting of publications. AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION (1) Replace computer. (2) Computer capacity exceeded. Replacement more cost efficient. Yes. (3) 1984-85-$250,000. Total $250,000. (4) Yes. $17,500. (5) Yes. Utilisation of staff's keyboard skills, automation of publications section, reduction of proof reading, flexibility in reporting systems. AUSTRALIAN SPORTS COMMISSION (1) Word processing and personal computer networks. (2) To meet the requirements of a new Commission. No. (3) 1984-85-$27,395; 1985-86-$7,165. Total $34,560. (4) No. (5) Not able to define. AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF SPORT (1) Vax 11/750 computer and update, rainbow microcomputers, decmate word processors, printers and software packages. (2) To provide the Institute with a fully integrated computing facility in accordance with the ADP Strategic Plan. Yes. (3) 1985-86-$526,470; 1986-87-$188,734. Total $715,204. (4) Yes. $2,000. (5) Not able to define. (Question No. 5101) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: (1) What monies are owing or outstanding to his Department in rent on leases or other forms of agreements for the use of premises at Essendon Airport in the (a) 30 days, (b) 60 days, (c) 90 days, (d) 6 months, (e) 12 months and (f) period greater than 12 months prior to 19 February 1987. (2) If there are or have been monies outstanding for over 6 months, what are the details of amounts owing, including the name of the debtor and the period of the debt. (3) What is his Department doing to recoup the monies owing to it. (4) If his Department is not taking action to recoup outstanding monies, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) $3,975; (b) $1,153; (c) $1,467; (d) $374; (e) Nil; (f) $8,877. (2) Traidaplane Pty Limited 1 January to 22 August 1984 Rent...$5649 Interest...609 $6258 Navitron Pty Limited 1 January to 30 April 1985 Rent...$1960 Interest...659 $2619 (3) There is constant follow-up on outstanding rents, amounts are off-set where the lessee is also a creditor and the resources of the Australian Government Solicitor's Office are utilised in debt recovery. (4) My Department does and will continue to seek to recover outstanding monies. (Question No. 5138) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 24 February, 1987: (1) What sums were provided by the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) as finance for tourist ventures in each year since its establishment. (2) What percentage of the finance funds provided by the AIDC in each of those years was provided for tourist ventures. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) Financing of service industries such as tourism was not within the role of the Australian Industry Development Corporation prior to December 1983. On 21 December 1983, legislation introduced by the present Government expanded the role of AIDC to include all Australian industries. Between then and last balance date, 30 June 1986, the Corporation provided finance for 14 tourism developments. The sums provided each year and their relationship to total financings by the corporation are set out in the following table. The table shows when funds were committed rather than when they were outlaid. Year Ended June 1984 1985 1986 Finance for tourism ventures ($M) ... 61.5 20.9 53.1 Total funding commitments (a) ($M) ... 223.3 484.0 618.0 Per cent of tourism to total ... 27.5 %...4.3 %...8.6 % (a) Excludes financial commitments in the form of guarantees and underwritings. (Question No. 5205) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 March 1987: (1) Has he received any complaints from Australian dairy farmers or other sectors of the dairy industry over access for Australian cheeses to the NZ retail market. (2) Does the Australian cheese industry enjoy access to the NZ retail market equal to the access obtained by the NZ industry to the Australian market. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Trade in dairy products between Australia and New Zealand is governed, under the CER Agreement, by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on dairy products. Amongst other things the MOU provides that the level of NZ cheese imports into Australia will be related to growth in the total Australian market, and requires that parties consult as to their intentions in each other's domestic markets. The New Zealand industry has no restrictions (eg import licensing, tariffs etc) on access for Australian cheeses to the NZ market. Exports of Australian cheeses to NZ remain small however (about 191 t in 1985-86). Inasmuch as there is no restriction placed on access for Australian cheeses to the NZ market, I have received no complaints on this matter and I am unaware of any concern in this area. (Question No. 5223) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 23 March 1987: (1) How many positions will be transferred from his Department when the Federal Airports Corporation is established. (2) Why is length of service the main criterion for appointment in selecting staff to the Corporation. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In May 1986 when a complete review was undertaken, about 1600 staffed positions in the Department of Aviation related to functions which will transfer to the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC). Staff occupying these positions will be offered employment by the Corporation and those who accept the offer will transfer from the Department to the Corporation. (2) The process of identifying staff to be transferred to the Corporation involved an examination of resources allocated by the Department of Aviation to functions to be transferred. This examination revealed that some staff are employed in the Department on functions common to both organisations. Apportionment of this common group would result in some 390 staffed positions transferring to the Corporation. After consultation with the ACTU, staff associations and the FAC, it was decided that length of service should be the criterion for selecting these 390 staff. This criterion applies only to the selection of staff in the common function group. The majority of other transferring staff are being selected on the basis that their function transfers. (Question No. 5228) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 23 March 1987: (1) What are the proposed rates of pay for airport managers in the Federal Airports Corporation. (2) What will be the duties of airport managers. (3) When will their employment commence. (4) When will the airports be transferred to the control of the Corporation. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The rates of pay for Airport General Managers and Managers have not yet been set. They have been advertised on a negotiative basis with a package negotiable to a limit of $65,000 p.a. plus a car. (2) The General Managers will be responsible to the Chief Executive for the efficient management of all Federal airports functions on the airports including operations, development, maintenance and commercial activities. The Airport Managers on the general aviation airports will have a similar responsibility for their airports but will be responsible to the General Manager, General Aviation in the Head Office. (3) Appointments will be made progressively over the next two to three months. (4) Airports will transfer to the Corporation on 1 July 1987. (Question No. 4564) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: Further to Question No. 3336 placed on the Notice Paper on 13 March 1986, (a) have more than 6 months passed since the question was first placed on the Notice Paper; (b) have 19 Ministers already replied to a similar question; (c) when can I expect an answer to the question; and (d) what does this delay say about the efficiency of the internal reporting system in his department. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) yes; (b) yes; (c) a reply to Question No. 3336 appeared in Hansard on 17 February 1987 at page 106; (d) the Attorney-General's portfolio is very diverse and, to ensure the provision of accurate and comprehensive information, details had to be obtained from all authorities under my control. This course of action, although time consuming, was considered to be appropriate on this occasion. (Question No. 4702) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 October: (1) What (a) bilateral and (b) components of multilateral aid from Australia have gone to (i) Bangladesh, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) Ethiopia, (iv) Sudan and (v) Egypt in (A) 1981-82 and (B) 1985-86. (2) What were the proportions (a) allocated and (b) confirmed as expended on (i) relief of need and local community controlled projects and (ii) military and industrial projects in each case. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1 (a) The bilateral aid provided (including food aid provided bilaterally) was: Country 1981-82 1985-86 $'000 $'000 Bangladesh ... 26,055 14,012 Hong Kong ... 72* 11,920 Ethiopia ... 6,033 15,967 Sudan ... 4,938 161 Egypt ... 6,545 9,332 *NB: Whereas only students sponsored under the aid program were included in 1981-82, part of the cost of educating all students from developing countries in Australia was included in Australia's Official Development Assistance (ODA) in 1985-86. 1 (b) Funds contributed through an international agency, but earmarked for a particular recipient country, are not multilateral but rather bilateral and are included in the figures at 1 (a) above. The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), by whose aid reporting guidelines Australia abides, defines multilateral aid as those funds which are contributed to an international organisation for ODA purposes and which become an integral part of the organisation's financial assets, thus losing their identity. The great bulk of Australia's assistance to multilateral agencies is not earmarked and accordingly its recipients are not specifically identifiable. It is, however, possible to calculate an imputed level of Australian assistance to a particular country through such agencies. To do so, Australia's contribution to the total unearmarked budget of each agency is determined as a percentage figure. That percentage of the agency's total assistance to each country gives the imputed level of Australian assistance through the agency. The following figures set out such imputed levels of assistance through the main multilateral agencies. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Asian Development Fund (ADF) have financial years coincident with the calendar year, so it has not been possible to provide figures in terms of the Australian financial year, although a rough estimate could be made by taking the average of the two relevant calendar years. Accurate 1986 figures are not yet available, however, for UNDP or UNHCR. The figures for ADF and the International Development Association (IDA) represent the imputed Australian component of loans approved in US dollars, converted to Australian dollars at the average exchange rate for the calendar or financial year in question. The figures for the World Food Programme (WFP) represent the value of various food aid commodities converted to Australian dollars. As WFP operates and reports on a biennial basis, the financial year figure is only notional, representing half the biennial figure. Figures have not been provided for imputed contributions through other smaller multilateral organisations because of the time involved and the dubious accuracy and relevance of such figures when small amounts are involved. IMPUTED LEVELS OF AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE MAJOR MULTILATERAL AGENCIES ('000) 1981 1981-82 1982 1985 1985-86 1986 Bangladesh- UNDP... 234 396 623 n.a. UNHCR... - 21 1 n.a. IDA... 6,970 14,190 ADF... 8,540 11,300 18,630 7,880 WFP... 1,870 1,180 Hong Kong- UNDP... 3 1 1 n.a. UNHCR... 516 186 72 n.a. IDA... 0 0 ADF... 0 0 0 0 WFP... 0 0 Ethiopia- UNDP... 90 275 300 n.a. UNHCR... 465 180 397 n.a. IDA... 540 2,070 ADF... 0 0 0 0 WFP... 910 1,190 Sudan- UNDP... 115 185 61 n.a. UNHCR... 1,243 897 1,916 n.a. IDA... 1,000 1,920 ADF... 0 0 0 0 WFP... 760 580 Egypt- UNDP... 94 156 95 n.a. UNHCR... 135 108 36 n.a. IDA... 0 0 ADF... 0 0 0 0 WFP... 2,700 2,210 2 (i) Amounts provided bilaterally for specific purposes are: Relief of Need Emergency Relief (including food aid) 1981-82 1985-86 Local Community Controlled Projects (NGOs) 1981-82 1985-86 Industrially Related Projects 1981-82 1985-86 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 Bangladesh... 17,208 9,112 254 339 97 - Hong Kong... - - - 2 - - Ethiopia... 5,352 14,737 71 650 - 27 Sudan... 4,891 3,324 5 121 - - Egypt... 6,257 8,349 46 13 - - As regards multilateral aid, it is not possible, without extensive project-by-project research, to provide breakdowns of components of annual program expenditure. 2 (ii) Military aid is not included within Australia's official development assistance. It falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Defence. Figures for industrial projects are provided under 2 (i) above. (Question No. 4995) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What are the names of the signatory nations who have signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (2) For each of these nations, (a) how frequently are national elections held, (b) when were the last 3 elections held, (c) how many political parties contested those elections and (d) is any House of Parliament comprised of members representing single-member constituencies; if so, (i) what is the disparity between the number of electors who voted in the last election in the numerically smallest and numerically largest constituency in each House of Parliament and (ii) what is the method of voting used in elections for each House of Parliament, including whether the method is (A) compulsory preferential, (B) optional preferential or (C) first past the post. Mr Hayden —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The nations which have signed (S), ratified (R) or acceded to (A) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are: S Algeria, A Cameroon, A Central African Republic, A Congo, R Egypt, A Gabon, A Gambia, R Guinea, A Kenya, S Liberia, A Libya, R Madagascar, A Mali, A Mauritius, R Morocco, A Niger, R Japan, S Democratic Kampuchea, A Korea (DPR), R Mongolia, R New Zealand, R Philippines, A Sri Lanka, A Viet Nam, R Austria, R Belgium, R Bulgaria, R Byelorussia, R Cyprus, R Czechoslovakia, R Denmark, R Finland, A Rwanda, R Senegal, A Sudan, A Tanzania, A Togo, R Tunisia, A Zaire, A Zambia, R Argentina, A Barbados, A Bolivia, A Canada, R Chile, R Colombia, R Costa Rica, A Dominican Republic, R Ecuador, R El Salvador, R Guyana, S Honduras, R Jamaica, A Mexico, A Nicaragua, R Panama, R Peru, A St Vincent and the Grenadines, A Suriname, A Trinidad and Tobago, S United States of America, R Uruguay, R Venezuela, A Afghanistan, R Australia, A India, A France, R German Democratic Republic, R German Federal Republic, R Hungary, R Iceland, S Ireland, R Italy, R Luxembourg, R Netherlands, R Norway, R Poland, R Portugal, R Romania, A San Marino, R Spain, R Sweden, R Ukrainian SSR, R United Kingdom, R USSR, R Yugoslavia, S Algeria, R Egypt, R Iran, R Iraq, S Israel, R Jordan, A Lebanon, A Libya, R Morocco, A Syria, R Tunisia. (2) I am advised that this information is not held by my Department at present. (Question No. 5066) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether the ill-fated Chernobyl nuclear reactor was a model RBMK-1000. (2) Is he able to say whether the USSR currently has in operation 19 RBMK-1000 nuclear reactors similar to the Chernobyl reactor. (3) Is he able to say whether the 11th Soviet Five Year Plan envisaged the production of an additional 20 RBMK-1000 nuclear reactors; if so, has this Plan been modified in the wake of the accident at the Chernobyl reactor site. (4) Is he able to say whether the USSR allows inspections of their nuclear power plants by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (5) Is he able to say whether the RBMK-1000 nuclear reactor meets the safety standards of the IAEA. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The USSR currently has twelve RBMK-1000 nuclear reactors in operation, including Chernobyl units 1 and 2. The USSR has scheduled Chernobyl unit 3 to resume operation later in 1987. There are also in operation two RBMK-1500 reactors which are a development of the RBMK-1000 reactor type. (3) Yes. On the information currently available, it is understood that the eight units under construction at the time of the Chernobyl accident and Chernobyl units 5 and 6 will be completed. Construction of the other planned RBMK reactors will not commence during the current Five Year Plan. The USSR has indicated that construction of these reactors will be considered in 1988-89 for the next Five Year Plan. (4) Yes. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) may undertake inspections for safeguards purposes of certain nuclear power plants in the Soviet Union in accordance with the voluntary offer safeguards agreement which the Soviet Union, like most other nuclear-weapon States, has concluded with the IAEA. The term `voluntary offer agreement' is used to describe the safeguards agreements between nuclear-weapon States (NWS) and the IAEA and reflects the fact that under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) such States are under no obligation to accept safeguards on nuclear materials in any of their nuclear activities. Inspections carried out by the Agency in nuclear-weapon States permit independent verification as to those States' civil nuclear activities in facilities designated as eligible for the application of safeguards. Consistent with other voluntary offer agreements, safeguards are applied in any period only to some of the facilities appearing on the list of designated eligible facilities. It has been reported that the Soviet RBMK reactors were included by the USSR in their initial voluntary offer of facilities eligible for application of safeguards but that these reactors were not selected for inspection by the IAEA because the reactor type is not used outside the USSR. The IAEA preferred to choose types on which the safeguarding experience gained could be used also on the same types in non-nuclear-weapon States. (5) No. Current information indicates that the USSR has not requested the IAEA to assess the safety of the RBMK-1000 nuclear reactors. (Question No. 5078) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether reports in the London newspaper, The Times, that Libya has sent at least 100 counter-insurgency experts to Suriname to assist the army in fighting an anti-government rebellion in the eastern provinces of Suriname are correct. (2) Is he able to say whether reports from French Guyana that more than 5000 Surinamese refugees have fled across the Maroni River in order to escape the conflict are correct. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Rumours that up to 100 Libyan counter-insurgency experts are assisting the Surinamese army have been circulating for some time. However, countries which follow developments in Suriname closely have no evidence for a Libyan presence beyond the 14 or so Libyans at the Libyan People's Bureau-or Embassy in our terms-in Paramaribo, the capital. (2) Up to 9000 `bush negroes' are believed to have fled from Suriname into French Guyana as a result of the fighting in Suriname. (Question No. 5092) Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: On what dates did Australia pay its 1987 contributions to the (a) United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, (b) United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, (c) World Heritage Fund, and (d) International Atomic Energy Agency. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Australia's assessed contribution to the FAO for 1987 was paid on 2 March 1987. (b) Australia's assessed contribution to UNESCO for 1987 was paid on 16 January 1987. (c) Australia's assessed contribution to the World Heritage Fund for 1987 was paid on 20 February 1987. (d) Australia's assessed contribution to the IAEA for 1987 was paid on 2 February 1987. (Question No. 5102) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: What are the details of the present arrangements concerning superannuation between the Commonwealth and employees of Australian Airlines. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As at 30 June 1986 there were 989 Australian Airlines employees contributing to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. Under the terms of the Superannuation Act 1976, benefits will become payable to these employees from the Consolidated Revenue Fund provided they satisfy the eligibility requirements set out in that Act. The Australian National Airlines Commission pays employer contributions to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme at the same rate as it contributes to its private schemes. The Commonwealth has no other arrangements concerning superannuation with employees of Australian Airlines. (Question No. 5131) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 February 1987: (1) What are the terms of agreement with the Queensland Government relating to the transfer of the Isolated Patients Assistance Scheme to that State. (2) Has his attention be drawn to growing public concern that the Queensland Government has greatly reduced the benefits to isolated patients. (3) Is it a fact that the Government provided a significant increase in funding when the transfer of the scheme took place. (4) Does the Government have any powers to require the Queensland Government to ensure that the service provided previously by his Department to isolated patients is retained in terms of quality and financial benefit to Queensland isolated patients. (5) Is it a fact that the Queensland Government has (a) increased the patient's contributions, (b) placed a special condition on the payment for accommodation and (c) virtually removed all repayments of taxi fare costs to the health institution. (6) Will he investigate the problems in Queensland with the view to holding discussions with the Queensland Health Minister in an endeavour to improve the benefits now being given to isolated patients by the Queensland Government. (7) What sum has the Government given the Queensland Government to run the Isolated Patients Assistance Scheme. (8) Is he able to say what the cost of the scheme will save the Queensland Government in its first full year of operation. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme (IPTAAS) was abolished as from 1 January 1987. The Commonwealth Government has provided funding to the States and Territories for the provision of patient transport assistance arrangements. As I stated in my Second Reading Speech on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) of 1986, the new arrangements are a matter for each State and Territory to determine, having regard to its own distribution of specialist services and the specific needs of its own rural population. (2) I have received some representations on behalf of Queensland residents who are concerned at the reduced level of benefits available for patient transport from the Queensland Government. (3) Funds to the States and Territories for the period 1 January to 30 June 1987 totalled $10.868 million with Queensland receiving $3.193 million. Funds were apportioned on the basis of IPTAAS benefits paid in 1985/86 and the full year equivalent represents a 26% increase. Future funding will be indexed on the same basis as the indexation for identified health grants. (4) Notwithstanding the previous Commonwealth involvement in the field of patient transport through IPTAAS, the fact remains that patient transport assistance is a State responsibility-being part of their overall responsibility for health services generally. Accordingly, the Commonwealth Government's funding for the provision of patient transport assistance by the Queensland Government has been included in the Special Revenue Assistance Grants on an unconditional basis. It is not intended to impose conditions on these funds either now or in the future. However, in view of the generous level of funding provided by the Government, there are no valid reasons why the Queensland Government should reduce the level of services to isolated patients either in terms of quality of financial benefits. (5) In establishing the Patient Transit Scheme (PTS), the Queensland Government has, in some instances, reduced the level of benefit from that which applied under IPTAAS: (a) The IPTAAS patient contribution towards travel was $30 irrespective of the number of people accompanying the patient. Queensland's PTS requires patients to contribute $40 towards their travel costs and, where an escort for a patient over 16 years is certified, another $40 per person. (b) Whereas IPTAAS provided $10 per night in benefits where accommodation was obtained privately, this assistance is not available under PTS. An accommodation allowance under PTS of $30 per night is restricted to: Health Care, Health Benefits and Pensioner Health Benefits Card Holders, their dependents and escorts; patients under 16 years and their escorts; and other patients and escorts who have to be accommodated for more than eight nights in any one year. (c) I understand PTS does not cover miscellaneous travel expenses (such as taxi fares) at the treatment centre. On the other hand, PTS is more flexible than IPTAAS in that: there is no 200 kilometre minimum restriction on distance travelled before assistance is payable; assistance is available prior to travel; and claims can be made more easily through local public hospitals. (6) The matter of the provision of patient transport assistance is one to be determined by individual States and Territories. I advised the Queensland Minister for Health prior to the cessation of IPTAAS there would be no formal monitoring of the patient transport assistance arrangements. (7) See answer to (3). (8) I have no details on the likely costing of the Queensland Government's PTS. (Question No. 5137) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 24 February 1987: Has the Australia Council awarded grants to the author and poet, Mr P. Kocan; if so, what were the dates on which grants were awarded and what sum was involved in each case? Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am advised that the following grants have been awarded to Mr Peter Kocan by the Literature Board of the Australia Council: Date Grant awarded Amount $ Senior Fellowship... 1977 10,000 Senior Fellowship... 1980 15,000 Half-year Fellowship... 1982 9,375 Senior Fellowship... 1984 25,000 (Question No. 5222) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 March 1987: Will an Australia-Indonesia Council be established to further relations between Indonesia and Australia. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Many of the activities that might be pursued under an Australia-Indonesia Council, or similar body, are already being carried out under other programs. In 1986-87, the Government is providing about $260,000 for cultural and youth exchanges with Indonesia under the Australia Abroad program and $123,000 for the Indonesia Project at the Australian National University. The Government also provides funds for several important Indonesian visitors each year to Australia under the Special Visitors Program, as well as for Australia-Indonesia Seminars, which bring together members of Parliament, business people, officials, academics and trade unionists from both countries. (2) The Government recognises that there could be advantage in the Indonesian and Australian Governments considering, at an appropriate time, the establishment of an Indonesia-Australia Foundation to broaden co-operation and exchanges between the two countries. Such a proposal is not under active consideration at the present time. (Question No. 5225) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 23 March 1987: What accountability provisions are there for the operation and payment of the Government's ship repair bounty. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The accountability provisions of the Bounty (Ship Repair) Act 1986 are contained in section 32 of the Act. That section requires the Comptroller-General of Customs, as soon as possible after the end of each financial year, to give to the Minister a return setting forth- (a) the name and address of each person to whom bounty was paid in that financial year; (b) the amount of bounty paid to each person in that financial year; and (c) such other particulars (if any) as are prescribed. The Minister must cause a copy of the return to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days after the return is received by the Minister. At present there are no further particulars prescribed vide paragraph (c) above. (Question No. 3299) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) What arts and heritage projects defined as (a) community arts and community theatre, (b) film including special women's projects and (c) miscellaneous referred to in a statement by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment on 17 October 1985 have been funded under the Community Employment Program. (2) What was the funding for each project. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Since my statement of 17 October 1985 the Government has provided further support to the Arts through the CEP Scheme. The figures I used in my statement have therefore been updated. Broadly the amounts approved under the CEP Scheme to May 1986 in the various categories requested are: $ Community Arts and Theatre ... 12,184,135 Film, including special women's projects ... 2,320,200 Miscellaneous ... 2,777,922 The following schedules contain the details sought. (1) and (2) (a) Community Arts and Community Theatre $ (i) New South Wales Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation; Development of Local Craft Sales Centre ... 31,260 Arts and Crafts Adult Education Community Activity; Servicing of Community Centre ... 17,415 Artspace Visual Art Centre Ltd; Assistant to the Co-ordinator ... 12,498 Artswest Foundation Ltd; Arts Publication Development ... 32,013 Artswest Foundation Ltd; Parramatta Australia Day Pilot ... 39,860 Artworkers Union; Artworkers Resources & Information Development ... 25,612 Ashfield Municipal Council; Community Arts/Craft Program ... 19,356 Australia Council; Artists in the Community ... 112,486 Ballina Players; Ballina Players Theatre ... 54,013 Ballina Shire Council; Community Theatre ... 63,753 Bellinger Community Communications Co-operative Ltd; Radio 2BBB-FM Staffing Project ... 74,127 Blacktown Arts and Crafts Group; Expansion Program ... 23,854 Bread and Circus Community Theatre Ltd; Community Management Trainees Theatre Program ... 50,431 Bush Festival Committee; Festival Co-ordinator Glen Innes ... 6,337 Central Coast Community Arts Group; Community Arts Workshop Co-ordinator 15,415 Central Coast Music Centre; Administrative Support-Co-ordination ... 13,909 Central Western Region Community Arts Committee; Regional Resources for Disabled Touring Exhibition and Development ... 21,906 Cessnock City Band Hunter Music Academy; Clerical Assistant-Hunter Music Academy ... 15,516 Coffs Harbour Arts and Crafts Centre; Mural ... 20,495 Community Arts and Adult Education Centre of Newcastle; Improve appearance and administration of Arts centre ... 58,991 Condobolin Society Arts and Crafts; Office and Shop Assistant ... 16,509 Crafts Council of NSW; Crafts Centre Shop/Bookshop ... 19,842 Crossroads Community Care Centre; Sunrize N'Froot Troop conduct performances for people with disabilities ... 55,000 Department of Technical and Further Education; Outreach Community Action Project-Illawarra ... 39,369 Fairfield City Council; Community Murals 43,902 Fairfield City Council; Neighbourhood Community Arts Project ... 67,593 Forest Community Arts Centre; The Forest Tapestry Workshop ... 75,397 Friends of Lake Macquarie Community Gallery; Gallery Assistant Trainee ... 18,186 Friends of the Campbelltown Art Gallery; Campbelltown Women's Mural Project ... 42,296 Garage Graphix Community Arts Group; Women's Community Screenprinting ... 53,430 Greek Community Council of Sydney; Locate Music/Art Resource in Greek Community ... 14,121 Goulburn Lieder Southern Regional Theatre; Regional Theatre Personnel Employment Scheme ... 49,999 Grimwoods Store-Sub Committee of Woolpack Inn Comp. Grimwoods Store Craft Shop ... 14,325 Hunter Region Music Co-ordination Committee; Music Workshop and Art Administration ... 11,363 Inner City Music Project; Administration and Production Workers ... 67,033 Jetty Memorial Theatre Management Committee; Jetty Theatre Extensions ... 25,826 Kinetic Energy Dance Company; Administrative Assistant ... 9,135 Lachlan Music Centre; Secretary Lachlan Music Centre ... 14,206 Lake Macquarie Music Society; Administrator ... 22,186 Lane Cove Municipal Council, Lane Cove Philharmonic Orchestra... 19,800 Legs on the Wall Community Theatre; Legs and Cafe Administration... 19,554 Lismore Arts Council; Secretary Arts Organisations... 11,025 Lismore City Council; Cultural Outreach and Arts Resources Projects... 28,259 Management Committee Craft Centre; Craft Centre Extension... 27,972 Margaret Walker Dance Centre; Blacktown Dancers Development Program... 29,382 Mattara Festival of Newcastle; Mattara Festival Clerical Assistance... 20,023 Minto Community Arts; Community Arts Workers... 42,810 National Institute of Dramatic Art; Library Assistant... 9,845 National Institute of Dramatic Art; Wardrobe Trainee... 7,371 Newcastle Mattara Festival Committee; Organising Mattara 1985-86... 34,942 North Coast Area Association of Arts Councils; Clerical Assistant to Executive Officer... 8,248 North Coast Area Association of Arts Councils; Computerised Venue Directory (Coffs Harbour)... 17,671 NSW Community Arts Association: Arts Employment Support Scheme... 8,398 NSW Community Arts Association: Arts Employment Support Scheme... 14,098 Open Studio; Community Screen Printing Project... 26,410 Open Studio; Community Art Gallery Project... 15,149 Open Studio; Community Media Project... 34,597 Open Studio; Trainee Media Worker... 15,905 Orange Festival of Arts; Orange Festival of Arts Co-ordinator Clerk... 14,875 Q Theatre Group Pty Ltd: Assist Regional Theatre Development... 30,142 Q Theatre Group Pty Ltd: Community Access Theatre Project... 58,559 Rainbow Youth Theatre; Community Theatre for Rural Areas... 48,599 Regional Centre for Music and Drama; Regional Music and Drama... 7,511 Riverina Theatre Company: New Theatre Promotions... 13,326 Riverina Theatre Company; Theatre Costume Service... 10,001 Roxy Community Theatre Management Committee: Roxy Community Employment Program... 12,125 Shellharbour Multi Arts Society Ltd; Smarts Community Crafts Centre... 88,924 Shop Front Theatre for Young People Co-op Ltd; Shopfront Expansion Project... 123,918 Skills and Craft Centre; Management of Shop Skills and Craft Centre... 33,376 South Western Metro Arts; Trainee Clerical Assistant... 16,635 South Western Metropolitan Arts Development Committee; Community Arts Training Scheme... 23,866 South Western Metropolitan Arts Development Committee; Community Sound and Play Project... 43,200 South Western Metropolitan Arts Development Committee; Liverpool Women's Creative Action Project... 61,085 South Western Metropolitan Arts Development Committee; Multicultural Music Access Project... 46,992 South Western Metropolitan Arts Development Committee; Regional Arts Information Service... 43,388 South Western Metropolitan Arts Development Committee; Women and Multi-Cultural Arts... 64,525 St Mary's Community Arts and Craft Centre; Employment of Co-ordinator... 16,587 St Saviour's Neighbourhood Centre; Theatre Production Training Project... 45,430 Sydney City Council; Sister City Arts Officer... 13,829 Tamworth Regional Music Centre: TRMC Research and Development Project... 13,710 The Cottage; Community Centre Trainee Administrator... 14,986 Theatre North; Theatre Skills Training Program... 49,101 Theatre South Co. Ltd The Bridge Theatre; A Bridge to the community... 95,689 Turkis Cultural Association; Folk Dancing... 11,016 Warringah Shire Council; Narrabeen Community Drama Theatre/North Narrabeen... 64,477 Westacott Cottage; Community Murals... 51,832 Wollongong Arts Council; Clerical Assistant Project... 16,531 Wollongong Arts Council; Community Arts Development Project... 9,950 Women's Art Research Project: Women's Power and Glorybox Travelling Exhibition... 18,546 Young Community Arts Centre Trustees; Community Arts Centre Advancement Project... 24,745 2 Till 5 Community Theatre Co-op. Ltd: Trainee Community Theatre Administrator... 14,366 (ii) Victoria Australia Council; Artists in the Community... 55,182 Australian College of Entertainers; Entertainment for Disadvantaged Groups... 38,828 Australian Contemporary Theatre Company Ltd; Theatre Training Project... 64,376 Australian Contemporary Theatre Company Ltd; Women's Theatre Development... 29,058 Australian Guild of Music and Speech Ltd; Provision of Typist Project... 14,538 Australian Guild of Music and Speech Ltd; Reception and Office Duties... 9,563 Backpack Community Centre: Theatre Project... 19,245 Ballarat Light Opera Company Inc: Performance Arts Development Centre ... 97,126 Carringbush Regional Library/Community Arts; Five Artists in the Stables ... 135,791 City of Essendon; Community Activities/Festivals Project ... 49,474 City of Frankston; Community Arts ... 27,961 City of Melbourne: Community hand/craft Training ... 44,727 City of Northcote; Open Air Theatre Fairfield Park ... 295,371 Community Artists Stage Page & Wall; Austerity Production Management ... 74,688 Community Radio Federation Ltd; Ethnic and Broadcasting Development Program 38,211 Community Radio Federation Ltd: Radio Services Development Project ... 29,862 Creative School Holiday Club Ltd: Polyglot Puppet Back-up Project ... 10,799 Ensemble Dance Theatre; 1985 Performing Season ... 65,588 Fitzroy Ethnic Chinese Parent Association; Oriental Music and Dance Group ... 64,643 Footscray Community Arts Centre; Western Region Community Publications Centre ... 37,646 Frankston and Mornington Peninsula Arts Council; Community Arts Co-ordinating Unit ... 26,440 Fringe Network Ltd: Fringe Network Magazine Project ... 48,524 Handspan Theatre Ltd; Arts Administration Training Scheme ... 26,443 Handspan Theatre Ltd; Trainee Administrative Assistants ... 22,890 Italian Arts Festival Society; Community Arts and Youth Development ... 205,791 Jika Jika Players Executive; Jika Jika Players ... 92,119 Kew/Deepdene Community Education Advisory Committee; Artists Co-operative ... 66,609 Mill Theatre Company; Actor and Administrator Training Project ... 20,239 Mill Theatre Company; Performing the History of Geelong ... 57,667 Mill Theatre Company; Theatre Administration Trainee Project ... 14,410 Ministry for the Arts; Artists in the Community Job Scheme ... 461,287 Ministry for the Arts: Training Unit in the Arts ... 522,370 Playbox Theatre Co Ltd; New Theatre Facilities ... 24,875 Portland CEMA and Portland Community Access Printshop; Portland 150th Community Arts Project ... 191,818 Richmond Employment Group; 1 2 1 Community Theatre Troupe ... 168,193 Shire of Corio; Further Development of Community Creative Arts Centre ... 209,754 Theatre Works-Eastern Suburbs Community Theatre Co Ltd; Theatre Profile ... 11,221 Theatre Works-Eastern Suburbs Community Theatre Co Ltd; Camberwell Unemployed Youth Theatre ... 107,032 Time and Tide; Port Research Theatre ... 59,741 West Theatre Co Ltd; Community Performance Training Project ... 49,002 West Theatre Company; Music/Visual Arts Employment Unit ... 83,674 Women in Theatre Inc; Women's Community Theatre ... 198,035 (iii) Queensland Brisbane Community Arts Centre Ltd: Centre Cinema Project ... 26,834 Crafts Council of Qld; Crafts as a Living Archiving ... 21,315 Maryborough Players Inc; Aubinville Playhouse Renovations ... 21,250 Music Broadcasting Society of Queensland Ltd; Administrative Assistant Music Broadcasting Society ... 12,985 Queensland Arts Council; Travelling Community Players ... 160,859 Queensland Film and Drama Centre (Griffith University); Arts Workshop Trainee Technician ... 19,319 Rockhampton City Council (Pilbeam Theatre); Technical Theatre Training ... 10,524 Sunshine Coast Arts Group; Extension to Arts Group Workshop ... 24,479 Sunshine Coast Square Dance Committee; Sunshine Coast Square Dance Centre ... 259,658 (iv) Western Australia Deck Chair Theatre Inc; Community Education Theatre Program ... 96,096 Fremantle Education Centre Inc; Upgrading and Servicing the Princess May Theatre ... 57,020 Musicians Union of Australia; Research Entertainment Industry Future Trends ... 23,589 Old Cannery Arts Centre Inc; Old Cannery Workshops ... 89,721 Perth City Ballet (Ballet Workshop Inc) Project Trust; Old Quarry Amphitheatre 487,740 Pingelly Arts & Crafts Group; Co-ordination of Individuals and Groups for Community Benefit ... 20,853 Public Television of WA Inc; Employment Creation Public Television Fremantle ... 19,426 Spare Parts Puppet Theatre; Puppet Theatre Traineeship ... 48,124 SWY Theatre Company; SWY Youth Theatre Company ... 68,596 The Praxis Group; Community Poster Workshop ... 68,491 The Praxis Group; Mural Squad ... 12,086 Theatre of Difference; Community Theatre Outreach Co-ordinator ... 31,435 (v) South Australia Association of Cultures and Arts of SA Inc; Establish and Organise Multicultural Arts Centre... 29,235 Association for Community Theatre Inc; Carouselle Theatre... 41,873 Australia Council; Artists in the Community... 19,293 Black Women in Focus; Establish Organisation and Employ Administrative Staff for Aboriginal Women's Art Festival... 147,220 CAS Print Workshop Inc; Fine Art Printmaking Technician... 14,368 City of Burnside; Redevelopment of Chelsea Theatre... 302,959 City of Hindmarsh: Local Government Sub-Program Hindmarsh Community Services... 9,328 Contemporary Art Society of Australia (SA) Inc; Publicity Officer... 8,715 Contemporary Art Society of Australia (SA) Inc; Documentation and Promotion of Local Community Arts Activities... 10,851 Contemporary Arts Society of Australia (SA) Inc: Earth Art Work at the CAS... 19,452 Contemporary Arts Society of Australia (SA) Inc; Gallery Assistant... 14,890 Contemporary Art Society Print Workshop; Photographer/Printmaker... 8,077 Crafts Council of SA Inc; Community Crafts Education and Development... 18,585 Crafts Council of SA Inc; Crafts Promulgation... 19,890 Crafts Council of SA Inc; Resource Centre Establishment... 69,434 Embroiderers' Guild of SA Inc; Festival of Embroidery Co-ordination... 6,777 Encounter Craft and Social Centre Inc; Assistant Co-ordinator and Clerical Support... 10,169 Encounter Craft and Social Centre Inc; Woodwork Instruction Provision... 18,591 Experimental Arts Foundation: Arts Data Centre Establishment... 121,840 Focus-Adelaide Festival Fringe Inc; Festival Fringe Venue Establishment... 159,525 Flinders University of SA; Sesquicentenary Plaza Mural Project... 3,569 Focus-Adelaide Festival Fringe Inc; Festival Living Arts Centre Project... 474,992 Ministry of Technology: New Technology for Artists Promotion Network... 31,951 New Patch Theatre Co. Inc; Theatre Production Development... 74,260 Para Broadcasters Association Inc (5PBA-FM); Sponsorship and Fundraising Co-ordinator... 12,038 Riverland Regional Cultural Trust; Chaffey Theatre Employment Opportunities... 21,134 SA Visual Arts Committee; Artists Week 1984... 3,809 State Theatre Company of SA; Theatre Hire Service Provision... 14,948 Thebarton High School Council Inc; Community Arts Project Officer... 17,048 Troupe Inc; ``Troupe'' Promotion of Community Theatre... 24,938 Whyalla College of TAFE; Performing Arts Technician... 15,004 Women's Art Movement: Community cost price Printing Workshop... 32,825 Women's Art Movement: Women's Art Marketing and Research... 33,659 (vi) Tasmania Australia Council; Artists in the Community... 14,002 Bellerive Community Arts and Crafts Centre; Clerical/Administrative/Community Arts... 7,530 Bellerive Community Arts and Crafts Centre; Creative Work of Women... 21,540 Bellerive Community Arts and Crafts Centre; Trainee/Apprentice Community Artist... 16,250 Breadline Theatre Company: Wardrobe Co-ordinator... 9,050 Circular Head Arts Festival; Assist with Festival preparations... 18,200 Community Arts Network Tasmania; Statewide Resource for Community Based Arts Programs... 13,960 City of Hobart; City of Hobart Murals... 24,804 Gambit Theatre Inc; Establishing a Theatre Team in Northern Tasmania... 21,570 Gambit Theatre Inc; Theatre Administration Training Program... 10,510 Hobart FM Inc; The Alternative News Service... 29,450 Kaleidoscope Community Arts Company; Community Mural Trainees... 29,320 Launceston Foundation Festival; Foundation Festival Administrator... 8,769 Salamanca Script Resource Centre: Retail and Clerical Assistant... 12,530 Salamanca Theatre Company Ltd: Theatre Sound Studio... 13,840 Salamanca Theatre Company Ltd: Trainee Theatre Technician... 8,698 Terrapin Puppet Theatre Ltd; Administrator and Liaison Officer... 17,985 Terrapin Puppet Theatre Ltd; Touring Puppet Professional Staff... 54,400 Women's Collective Press: Women's Printing and Publishing Workshop... 44,320 (vii) Australian Capital Territory ACT Council of Cultural Societies Inc; ACT Register of Community Events... 5,813 Ainslie Village Management Pty Ltd; The Skye Workshop... 51,069 Arts Centre Australian National University; Arts Centre Development Project... 55,379 Arts Council of ACT; Arts Council Development Projects... 77,577 Arts Council of ACT; Community Music Workshop... 8,785 Blue Folk Community Arts Association; Community Arts Outreach Program... 18,005 Blue Folk Community Arts Association; Environmental Development Project... 30,569 Brindabella Community Arts Association Inc; Trainee Environmental Artists... 16,220 Brindabella Community Arts Association Inc; Trainee Community Artist for Disadvantaged Children... 9,219 Canberra Dance Ensemble; Trainee Dancer/Administrator... 8,694 Cafe Boom Boom Project Organisers; Community Cafe Cabaret... 34,625 Canberra Community Arts Front Inc; Training Program... 38,452 Canberra Community Arts Front Inc; Oops Multiarts Group... 73,586 Canberra Philharmonic Society; Classify, Catalogue, Repair and Restructure Society's Wardrobe... 9,000 Canberra Repertory Society Theatre 3; Theatre Workshop Trainee/Storeman... 9,497 Canberra Repertory Society; In Theatre Training Project... 14,076 Canberra Symphony Orchestra Inc; Marketing and Orchestra Management... 27,966 Capital Arts Patrons Organisation Inc... 15,948 Ensemble Theatre Project Inc; Ensemble Theatre Project 1986... 146,248 Greek Orthodox Community and Church of Canberra, ACT Hellenic Community Development Program... 24,953 Human Veins Dance Theatre; Community Outreach Project... 90,378 Muse Arts and Entertainment in Canberra; Muse Magazine... 18,336 TAU Community Association; Cultural Development... 94,825 The Arts Centre ANU; Childers Street Hall Renovations... 89,881 Theatre ACT-Fortune Theatre Inc; Theatre ACT Production Assistants Training Project... 22,624 Theatre Projects; Set Construction Trainee Project... 56,942 Women on a Shoestring: Original Theatre and Music... 152,215 2XX Community Radio Inc; Independent Video for Community Access... 71,289 The Womens Centre Inc: Licensed Coffee Shop Providing for Womens Performance and Art... 145,640 (viii) Northern Territory AUST Council; Artists in the Community... 20,537 Browns Mart Community Arts Project Inc; Community Murals Project... 65,341 Browns Mart Community Arts Project Inc; Assistant Administrator... 13,767 Browns Mart Community Arts Project Inc; Development Officer Arts-Related Projects... 9,905 Browns Mart Community Arts Project Inc; Music Therapist... 17,110 Browns Mart Community Arts: Community Arts Worker... 19,613 Darwin Theatre Group; Theatre Technical Assistant... 18,599 (b) Film including Special Women's Projects (1) New South Wales Australian Film Commission; Production of Four Films on Women's Issues... 412,470 Australian Film Institute; Australian Film Institute Awards... 12,819 State Library of NSW: State Film Library Public Catalogue... 67,500 (ii) Victoria Australian Film Commission; Victoria Women's Film Unit... 477,983 Open Channel Co-operative Ltd; Australian Film Theatre... 1,171,677 (iii) Queensland Nil (iv) Western Australia Cine-Matrix Inc: Cine-Matrix Inc Administrative Grants... 22,256 Film and Television Institute of WA Inc; Film and Video Production Trainee Project... 99,058 Library Board of WA; Historic Film... 3,647 (v) South Australia Focus-Adelaide Festival Fringe Inc; Festival Fringe Film Project ... 18,200 Focus-Adelaide Festival Fringe Inc; Festival Fringe Video Project ... 19,360 State Theatre Company of SA: Theatre Video Production ... 15,230 (vi) Tasmania Nil (vii) Australian Capital Territory Nil (viii) Northern Territory Nil (c) Miscellaneous (i) New South Wales Actors Equity of Australia; Radio Announcer Presentation... 16,079 Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation; Landscaping and Improvements in Development Areas... 167,270 Barraba Community Employment Programme Committee: Enhancement of Barraba Community Facilities... 31,553 Department of Education; Ground Improvements... 20,966 Ethnic Child Care Family and Community Services Co: Mobile Ethnic Resource Worker... 24,519 Friends of the Wentworth Falls School of Arts: School of Arts Restoration Stage 1... 56,062 Glenreagh School of Arts Hall Committee: Extension to Glenreagh School of Arts Hall... 37,409 Hunter Heritage Centre Inc; Restoration and Refurbishment of Former Police Building... 28,587 Inverell Pioneer Village: Inverell Pioneer Village Employment Program... 21,433 Macau; Resistance Script Workshop... 91,894 Macquarie Valley Railway Society Ltd; Track Laying Project... 16,800 Milemark Foundation; Milemark Feasibility and Promotion... 67,989 Minto Neighbourhood Centre; Spanish Speaking Welfare Project... 15,448 Newcastle Repertory Club; Building Improvements-Theatre... 17,455 Premier's Department; Research Programs-Division of Cultural Activities... 80,974 Orana Cultural Foundation: Dulhunty Park-Landscaping Stage 1... 44,768 Richmond Vale Preservation Co-op Society Ltd; Richmond Vale Railway... 103,937 Polish Cultural Association of NSW; Co-ordinator of Polish Cultural Events and Secretary... 18,541 Sydney City Council; Multi-Cultural Liaison Officer... 12,426 Rollands Plains School of Arts; Renovations to Community Hall... 15,497 Spanish American Arts & Cultural School of Wollongong Renovations-Spanish American School Premises... 36,948 St Johns Parish Centre Auburn: Co-ordinator... 16,193 Tuggerah Lakes District Band: Additions and Renovations to Band Hall... 31,033 Westlake Miners Retirement Village Limited Incorp: Westlakes Community Cultural Centre... 91,743 Young Mens Christian Association Bankstown Recreational Gymnastics Instructors Course... 96,022 Zig Zag Railway Co-operative LTD: Zig Zag Carriage Shed... 91,947 (ii) Victoria Centre for Contemporary Art: Trainee cook/Manager ... 15,570 City of Wangaratta: Cultural Services Development... 33,231 Deakin University; Australian House... 74,703 Footscray Community Arts Centre: Arts Centre Landscape Development... 106,294 Nadrasca (Nunawading & District Retarded and Spastic Children); Club ``4''... 28,380 Shire of Healesville: 150th Anniversary Pageant... 27,225 Shire of Korumburra; South Gippsland Promotions Centre ... 70,645 Shire of Lowan: Restoration of Nhill Theatre ... 33,262 Shire of Numurkah: Information Classification and Preservation ... 16,541 Shire of Strathfieldsaye; Painting and Minor Works ... 32,638 Volunteer Action Centre; Volunteer Unemployment Placement Program ... 44,319 Victorian Bands League: Additional Administrative Staff ... 7,697 (iii) Queensland Boonah Shire Council: Cultural Centre Landscaping ... 10,959 Brisbane City Council: Sorting/Classifying/ Reproducing Pre-Greater Brisbane Plans 55,280 Cardwell Shire Council: Community Hall Mission Beach First Stage ... 23,300 Gold Coast Tropicarnival LTD: Tropicarnival Promotions and Secretariat ... 21,246 Mount Morgan Shire Council: Renovate School of Arts ... 50,000 Redcliffe City Council: Cemetery Development ... 21,000 Rotary Club-Gayndah: Rotary Club Maintenance ... 4,580 TN Theatre Company: Upgrading Princess Theatre Facilities ... 86,622 Waterloo Bay Fifty and Over Leisure Centre: Wynnum Shire Clerk's Cottage ... 56,730 (iv) Western Australia Albany Arts Council Inc: Vancouver Arts Centre Car Park Development ... 90,102 Busselton Shire Council: Restoration of War Memorial and Upgrading Stewart Bovell Park: ... 18,363 Geraldton Cultural Trust Inc: The Residency Improvement Project ... 18,236 Perth Theatre Trust: Concert Hall Forecourt Development ... 269,060 Swan Shire Council: Guildford Civic Environs Enhancement ... 33,336 Western Australian Week Council: WA Week Community Development Project ... 13,543 (v) South Australia Chinese Association of SA Inc: Dragon Boat Regatta Festival ... 92,888 Indo-China Chinese Association: Clerical Assistance ... 28,556 SA College of Advanced Education: Renovation of College Gallery ... 16,333 Wattle Park Teachers' Association: Rainbow Serpent Project ... 6,789 Woodville High School Council Inc: Multicultural Festival Promotion ... 15,802 (vi) Tasmania Tasmanian Theatre Trust Ltd: Development of Backspace into the Performing Arts Club ... 52,000 (vii) Australian Capital TErritory Canberra School of Art Union: Canberra School of Art Union Creche ... 14,639 Dept. of Aviation: Role of Women in Australian Aviation History ... 7,130 (viii) Northern Territory Katherine Town Council: Jubilee Celebrations Project Officer ... 27,430 (Question No. 4775) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 16 October 1986: (1) Will he provide an itemised breakdown of proposed expenditure on the National Export Drive. (2) Was AUSTRADE consulted about the proposed New Small Exporters Scheme before the Prime Minister announced it in his address to the nation; if so, when was AUSTRADE consulted. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The expenditure headings projected for 1986/87 are as follows: $ Launch... 100,000 Export Week (including the Australian Export Awards)... 300,000 Consultants... 250,000 Videos and films on the National Export Drive... 650,000 Seminars... 200,000 Research... 100,000 Publications... 400,000 Total... 2,000,000 (2) Yes; in the period prior to 11 June, 1986. (Question No. 4955) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: (1) How many Trade Commissioners resigned in 1985 and 1986. (2) What were the ages of Trade Commissioners who resigned during these years. (3) How do these resignations compare with resignations in previous years. (4) Has his Department or the Australian Trade Commission estimated how many resignations were attributable to dissatisfaction with the new formula which redetermined tax free allowances payable to Trade Commissioners. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) 1985-4, with one subsequently re-employed; 1986-9. (2) 1985-38, 37, 38 and 35; 1986-33, 33, 44, 35, 39, 37, 40, 39 and 30. (3) Resignations in 1984 were 4 and one in 1983. (4) No officer of the Department (prior to 6.1.86) or of the Australian Trade Commission (after 6.1.86) gave as the reason for resignation dissatisfaction with the new allowance system which came into effect on 21 August 1986. (Question No. 4998) Mr Duncan asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) How many officers of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) were involved in taking telephone calls during ``Operation Noah'' in 1985. (2) How many telephone calls were received. (3) How many of the calls led to subsequent criminal charges. (4) What was the nature of the substance and the quantity involved in each of the charges. (5) Against how many person were the charges laid. (6) How many charges have resulted in conviction as at 20 November 1986. (7) Is ``Operation Noah'' a cost-effective allocation of AFP resources. Mr Young —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Seven. (2) 290 during the 12 hour operation. Another total of 40 calls were received on dedicated ``Noah'' lines prior to and after ``Operation Noah''. (3) These statistics are not available. Charges were laid against 31 persons as a result of information received during ``Operation Noah''. (4) Person Substance Quantity (grams) 1 Cannabis tops 18.39 2 Cannabis tops Cannabis seeds Cannabis resin 2250 31 48.5 3 Cannabis tops Cannabis seeds Cannabis resin 534 90 32.1 4 Cannabis tops Cocaine 23 12.902 5 Heroin .32 6 Cannabis tops Cannabis seeds Cannabis resin Dried Cannabis Cocaine 959.5 26 5.8 899 .6 7 Cannabis resin 249 8 Cannabis tops Cannabis seeds 4.1 43.6 9 Cannabis tops 151 10 Dried Cannabis 2 11 Cannabis tops Cannabis seeds Cannabis resin 60 2.1 34.4 12 Cannabis tops Dried cannabis 44.4 23 13 Cannabis tops Dried cannabis 10.7 4.2 14 Cannabis tops 22 15 L.S.D Amphetamine Not weighed 6.33 16 Cannabis tops 18.1 17 Dried cannabis 118 18 Cannabis tops Cannabis seeds Dried cannabis 17 12 170 19 Cannabis tops Dried cannabis 179.6 10.4 20 Cannabis tops Dried cannabis 179.6 10.4 21 Cannabis tops Cannabis seeds Cannabis resin 60 2.1 34.4 22 Cannabis tops 8 23 Dried cannabis 22.7 24 Cannabis tops 69.9 25 Heroin Not weighed In syringe 26 Heroin Cannabis tops .8 1.2 27 Dried cannabis 3.6 28 Heroin .532 29 Heroin .532 30 Heroin Not weighed In syringe 31 Heroin Not weighed In syringe (5) 31. (6) As at 20 November 1986, 20 persons had been convicted, two were acquitted and in a further two cases, no evidence was offered in each of those matters. As at April 1987 there are still seven more people before the courts. (7) Yes. (Question No. 5013) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What word processing or computer equipment has been introduced into the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister since 1982. (2) Why was the equipment purchased and were any specific targets set in terms of time or cost savings and improved efficiencies. (3) What has been the cost of purchasing the equipment. (4) Has the introduction of the equipment necessitated the purchase of new office equipment; if so, what have been the costs of the new additional purchases. (5) Has the introduction of the equipment led to changes in work practices; if so, what has been the nature of the changes. (6) What has been the incidence of repetition strain injury (RSI) in the Minister's Department since 1982. (7) How many lost working days have been caused by RSI related illnesses since 1982. (8) How many persons have been forced to retire from the Minister's Department or statutory authorities responsible to the Minister as a result of RSI and what have been the compensation costs of this early retirement. (9) Has introduction of the equipment (a) saved money and (b) improved efficiency in the Minister's Department or the statutory authorities responsible to the Minister. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: DEPARTMENT OF TRADE (includes Minister's Office, Trade Development Council, International Trade Development Centres and Overseas Trade Representative Posts) (1) 57 Convergent Technologies' NGEN integrated workstations. 35 IBM compatible microcomputers, 60 printers and plotters. (2) The NGEN workstations were installed to perform both the professional wordprocessing tasks of the Department and the majority of its minor data processing. The majority of wordprocessing equipment was brought to replace electric typewriters which has resulted in greater productivity, higher quality reports, together with significant savings in staff time. IBM compatible microcomputers were acquired for data processing, particularly where software packages were available to meet specialised needs, and to act as communications terminals. Specific targets set in terms of time savings, cost savings and improved efficiencies are detailed in the Department's ADP strategic plan. (3) Total cost of wordprocessing, computing and associated equipment introduced into the Department of Trade since 1982 is approximately $1.7 million. (4) Office equipment purchased as a direct result of the introduction of information processing equipment consists mainly of ergonomic furniture (adjustable steno-secretarial and wordprocessing desks), adjustable monitor arms and anchor pads. Costs of the equipment installed to date has been $61,000. (5) Changes in work practices have generally been fairly limited. Wordprocessing equipment has eliminated the need to redraft whole documents; typing pools have generally been devolved to Group (Division) level and this arrangement will facilitate the integration of keyboard staff into the broader office structure. There will be an improvement to keyboard staff job mobility prospects and in more variation to their work routines. Staff have been trained by external consultants in the use of the new equipment. Clerical/Administrative staff are undertaking minor typing and editing tasks themselves. (6) The first case of RSI reported in the Department was in July 1982. A total of 58 cases have been reported. 24 RSI cases are current. The balance (34) have transferred to other departments; retired; resigned; or have become Austrade employees. One new RSI case was reported in the twelve months to December 1986. (7) Working days lost through RSI are as follows: period ending 31.12.84...1447 days lost quarter ending 31.3.85...222 days lost quarter ending 30.6.85...310 days lost quarter ending 30.9.85...550 days lost quarter ending 31.12.85...618 days lost quarter ending 31.3.86...291 days lost quarter ending 30.6.86...241 days lost quarter ending 30.9.86...196 days lost quarter ending 31.12.86...120 days lost Figures up to 31/12/85 include all State regional offices and Austrade officers employed by Department of Trade prior to the separation of the Australian Trade Commission and the Department on 6/1/86. (8) Four officers have retired as a result of RSI. One of these officers has no entitlement to compensation payments. Compensation payments to the three retired officers are as follows: 1982/83: Nil, 1983/84: $4,952.37 to one officer, 1984/85: $13,185.40 to two officers, 1985/86: $16835.56 to two officers, 1986/87: $23,142.22 to three officers. Approximately $27,000 will be spent in the 1987/88 financial year on compensation payments to officers retired as result of RSI. (9) (a) Yes. It has been possible to achieve increases in workload without commensurate increases in staff numbers. (b) The ADP strategic planning exercise 1986/87 surveyed benefits expected from proposed systems or achieved by operational systems. In summary, three categories of benefit were reported: Improved efficiency-reduction in time spent searching and analysing manual records, once-only typing of information, ease of information retrieval, elimination of duplicate record keeping, prompter financial report generation, reduction in the time spent maintaining certain manual records, prompter distribution of cables. Increased productivity-ability to tackle additional tasks, ability to spend more time on higher level tasks, reduction of backlogs, improved quality of reporting and briefing, improved integration of Group data holdings, co-ordination of briefings, need for extra staff deferred. Additional capabilities-computational accuracy, automatic report generation, access to information not available to manual analysis, improved presentation of reports, performance of tasks which would otherwise be impracticable. AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION (1) The word processing and computer equipment introduced into the Commission, Statutory authorities and those areas of the Department included in the Commission at the time of its formation is as follows Major computer: FACOM M360 Remote peripherals: FACOM VDU's (147) FACOM printers (41) Small computer: Prime 2655 Mini systems: Honeywell DPS/6 units in Australia and overseas posts (21 systems) Micro Systems/word processing: Sigma Data NGEN (63 units). Wang Office Assistants (5 units). Other microcomputers (approximately 30 units from various vendors). (2) The FACOM was acquired as a general purpose computing facility the main application being: Trade Statistics (Australian and International), Australian Products and Services Information System (APSIS), Marketing Systems, General administrative systems. The specific target set was for same day turnaround on the trade statistics system, and interactive APSIS system and a reduction of operating cost compared with the previous bureau service. The Prime equipment was initially introduced in 1980 and upgraded in 1987. The computer provides a general purpose computing facility for the Export Credits Division of the Commission including: General Ledger, Debtors Accounts, Policies and Statistics, Claims Recovery and Payment Delays, Buyers credit rating, Payroll, Assets and investments. The equipment was purchased as a result of a review of existing computer facilities. Targets for time and cost saving were part of this review. The Honeywell equipment was purchased to provide office automation facilities for the overseas posts and for the recording of information on firms in the post's territory. The objective was to increase efficiency by reducing clerical labour in record keeping. The NGEN and Wang Office Assistant equipment was purchased to provide office automation facilities within Australia. Improved efficiency with the greater use of decentralisation of word processing and the use of spreadsheets to analyse data was the target. A number of microcomputers have been purchased to perform specific tasks. Each purchase was justified individually as cost beneficial or allowing better attainment of business objectives. (3) The cost of the equipment is estimated as follows: FACOM central computer together with upgrades $1,557,000, FACOM remote terminals $623,000, Prime upgrades and peripherals $280,631, Honeywell mini computers $1,541,000, Sigma Data NGEN micros $491,000, Wang Office Assistants $35,000, Other micros $230,000. (4) The only additional office equipment provided has been ergonomic furniture. As this furniture has been provided as part of the Commission's continuous refurbishment program the cost is not available as a separate item. (5) The most significant of the changes in work practice have been: Decentralisation of word processing functions to the personal secretaries of senior officers of the Commission with a consequent reduction in processing delays. The combining of certain clerical and keyboard tasks in the one job. The greater use of computer based information systems by clerical staff. (6) The Commission is currently handling 18 cases of RSI, of which 4 have occurred since the formation of the Commission on 6 January 1986 and the other fourteen transferred from the Department of Trade on that date. (7) The 18 cases have resulted in a total of 679.5 lost working days of which 472 have been lost since 6 January 1986. (8) No person has been retired from the Commission because of RSI. The compensation costs are therefore nil. (9) (a) Yes. (b) Yes (Question No. 5270) Mr Hodges asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 2 April 1987: (1) How many officers of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) were involved in the investigatory work on the raids on premises throughout Queensland and the court case involving Optical Prescriptions Spectacle Makers Industries Ltd (OPSM) in early March 1987. (2) Over what period did the investigation extend. (3) What was the actual or estimated cost to the AFP. Mr Young —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The number of AFP members involved were as follows-Examination and case preparation 2, Interviews and execution of search warrants 21, Court attendance and brief preparation 2. (2) The AFP investigation extended from 1 January 1987 to 13 March 1987. (3) The estimated cost to the AFP was $31,719.