Wednesday, 27 May 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Upon which Mr Blunt had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Government has failed- (1) to undertake necessary and major reform of the unemployment benefit and welfare system in Australia to limit fraud and overpayment and to implement a work for unemployment benefit scheme, and (2) integrate effectively the social security and taxation systems to overcome poverty traps, restore incentive and break the cycle of dependency'. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.01) —Before the debate on the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 1987 was interrupted last evening, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) in his contribution stated that he dis- agreed with the Government's decision in the May economic statement to impose a means test, an incomes test, on family allowances. He explained his view, which was that people earning high incomes should continue to receive family allowances. That is questionable, to say the least. Members of the Opposition-members from the Liberal Party and from the breakaway National Party-are running around Australia telling people that they wish to cut taxes and that they believe government expenditure should be wound back. Day after day members of the Opposition say in this Parliament that more money should be spent on family allowances for the millionaires, that the assets test should be removed to enable the payment of pensions to asset rich millionaires, and that there should be greater expenditure on their own electorates in Telecom Australia subsidies, in road funding-you name it, they want to spend more money on it. Yet at the same time they swan around addressing the business community and all the New Right lobby groups claiming that theirs is the Party which can deliver cuts in government expenditure. I am sure that anyone who has listened to debates in this chamber in recent weeks would form the conclusion that the Opposition simply is not serious as far as reducing government expenditure is concerned. The Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 1987 implements a large number of the decisions which were announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the statement of 13 May. The most important decision, I believe, that was announced in the May statement was the Government's decision to grant full indexation of pensions. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is in the chamber, deserves much of the credit for the fact that pensioners and veterans throughout Australia will receive the full consumer price index increase on 25 June. That amounts to $6 a week for a single pensioner on the base rate of pension, which raises that base rate to $112.15. The married rate will go up by $5 a week, which will certainly assist those people. In addition, the Minister has ensured that the income test will be relaxed for pensioners and veterans on 1 July this year so that single pensioners will now be able to earn $40 a week and still receive the maximum pension. In addition, the tax free threshold for the coming financial year will be $5,100, which again will assist pensioners and veterans. We should not forget the record of the Liberal and National parties when they were in coalition and in government. We saw the base pension as a percentage of average weekly earnings fall from the very high 25 per cent during the Whitlam years to only 22 per cent in March 1983 when the Fraser-Howard Government left office. I was very interested in a comment across the table from the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) when the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) asked the honourable member for Richmond to explain his record when the Liberal and National parties were last in government. The honourable member's answer to the Minister was that the Minister should look up the Parliamentary Handbook because it shows that the honourable member was not a member of this chamber during the Fraser-Howard years. The honour- able member for Richmond was a senior office holder in the New South Wales National Party. He was an active member of the National Party, yet he claims that he has no responsibility for the many decisions which were made by the Liberal and National parties when they were in office. It was very interesting to read earlier this year a draft policy document released by the Liberal Party Secretariat. I believe that that document allowed the Australian people to see for a short time the hidden agenda of the Liberal and National parties and to see their proposals in the areas of social security and veterans affairs. That document advocated that pensions should be frozen for an indefinite period, that pensioners should not receive consumer price index increases to compensate them for price increases and that women under the age of 65 years should no longer qualify for the age pension. In addition, it stated that bulk billing should be abolished. If bulk billing is abolished, where does that leave pensioners in poor health who are on very low incomes? If they cannot have their visits to the doctor paid for through bulk billing, in many cases those pensioners will simply be unable to meet the daily costs of living. They will be placed in an untenable position. In addition, this draft policy proposal advocated that the Department of Health should have its budget cut back and the pharmaceutical benefits scheme abolished. Madam Speaker, I am sure that you would have pensioners in your electorate who at the moment receive free of charge medication and drugs covered by the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Some of those drugs are very expensive. In fact, some drugs cost up to $200 or $300 for a simple prescription because they are very expensive to manufacture and purchase. Is the Opposition seriously advocating that pensioners, some of whom receive only $100 a week, should have to pay hundreds of dollars for pharmaceuticals and medication? I consider that a large number of pensioners in my electorate would simply be unable to meet their ordinary costs of living in those circumstances. That is what the Liberal Party advocates, but it is also interesting to look at what the National Party is offering in this area. We had a prominent member of the Queensland branch of the National Party, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), advocating the National Party's agenda for pensioners. In February this year, in an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the honourable member for Maranoa, when asked about his policies for pensioners and social security, said: I guess the pensioners might have to stand still-there's no reason why we should be giving pensioners or anybody else in the community any more funds. He then went on to say: We've got to have cuts in expenditure. And when I say cuts I mean that every Australia is going to squeal like a stuck pig. (Quorum formed) I am pleased to see that so many Labor members are prepared to come into the chamber. I am staggered that there are so few members of the Opposition parties who even bother to enter the chamber. It is a disgrace. I was explaining to the House that the Opposition's proposals on social security are to abolish CPI indexation of pensions, to abolish pensions for women under 65 years, to abolish bulk billing and to abolish the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. How would pensioners and veterans exist if the Opposition ever came to government? Mr Robert Brown —Heaven forbid! Mr LEE —As the honourable member for Charlton says, heaven forbid such a circumstance ever coming about. I am quite confident that, in the current environment, whenever the next election is held, the Australian people will re-elect this Government with an increased majority. The Opposition has indicated that it will oppose our plans to impose a means test on the payment of family allowance. I was interested in a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), on 8 April this year. Mr Gear —It is redundant by now. Mr LEE —As the honourable member for Canning suggests, it is perhaps redundant or inoperative today. The Leader of the Opposition, appearing on the Vincent Smith program on 5DN, was asked what his view was on introducing an income test on family allowance. He said: If you say to me should someone on $150,000 a year have a family allowance, obviously they don't need it, no. But if you say to me somebody on $35,000 a year gets the family allowance, I would say yes. Mr Howard said that he believed an income test should be applied on incomes of between $35,000 and $150,000 a year. Mr Robert Brown —He was quite specific for a change. Mr LEE —As the honourable member for Charlton says, he was being quite specific that day. He was doing his best. It is very hard for the honourable member for Bennelong. It is very hard to get agreement on his side of the House between the wets and the dries and the oranges and the lemons. However, on that day the Leader of the Opposition said that he believed that some income test should be applied to the family allowance. This Government has had the courage to bring in an income test which will start to take effect when a family has an income of $50,000 a year. There will be an allowance of $2,500 for every child after the second child so that families with a large number of children will be adequately compensated for. Those limits will be indexed by the CPI each year to ensure that inflation does not push average and middle income earners above the new limit for the family allowance. I believe that that is a fair figure which recognises that both partners in some middle income families do need to work to provide a proper standard of living for their families. I endorse the imposition of that income test which is currently set at $50,000 a year. In the mini-Budget the Treasurer also announced that the Government would take action to ensure that overpayments and fraud in the social security area were eliminated wherever possible. We intend to amend the Social Security Act under this legislation to allow for greater access to information to ensure that people are not double dipping. We will ensure that, under the current Minister for Social Security, there will be more co-operation with the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Education so that people are not ripping off the system. If there is to be an election in the near future and it turns out to be a double dissolution, all honourable members on this side of the House hope that one of the Bills used to justify that double dissolution will be the Australia Card legislation. The Australian people will have an opportunity to make a judgment regarding the Opposition's stand in frustrating this Government and stopping it from having the weapons which would allow it to cut down on social security fraud and to eliminate the rip-offs in the taxation system. Of course, if this Government were returned and there were no change in the balance of power in the Senate, there would be an opportunity to have an historic joint sitting at which the Australia Card legislation could become law even if the Opposition continued its policy of seeking, at every turn, to stop that legislation. This legislation ensures also that the Department of Social Security is given every possible legislative support to recover overpayments which have been made to clients or to ex-clients. The statistics show that people who are no longer on social security benefits and who have received an overpayment are often less likely to make good the debt which they owe the Australian Government and the Department than people who continue to be clients. I think that is quite unfair. The Department is quite efficient and thorough in seeking to recover overpayments from people who continue to receive pensions, but often, under the current law of the land, it is very hard for it to recover overpayments from people who return to the work force, or who do not continue to receive social security. This legislation will rectify that problem. Also, I commend the Minister for Social Security for increasing the number of review teams in the unemployment benefit area. They have shown already that they have had a reasonable amount of success in seeking to locate people who receive unemployment benefit when they are no longer entitled to receive it. As honourable members on this side of the House are aware, people are entitled to unemployment benefit only if they actively seek work. Along with every other honourable member on this side of the House, I have great pleasure in supporting this legislation. Under this Minister we have seen the Social Security Act extended and tightened to ensure that people who seek to rip off the social security system do it at their own peril. I support the legislation. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.17) —I am delighted to join the debate on the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill. I will refer in particular to the veterans aspect of the legislation. Before doing that, I highlight to the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), who just resumed his seat, that whilst he was keen enough to refer to the Government's resumption of full indexation payments to pensioners he made no reference to the dirty trick played on the ex-service personnel of this country in the 2 per cent reduction in Defence Force retirement benefits. That residual 2 per cent reduction will continue without restriction, because of the flaw in the Government's legislation flowing from the Budget of last year. The honourable member decided to ignore that, because he is very embarrassed. I know that he is a reasonable young person who tries to do the right thing by his electorate while he holds it, unlike perhaps the-- Mr Robert Brown —He does do the right thing by his electorate. Mr TIM FISCHER —I accept that interjection, but I question the import of the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) in trying to do the right thing by his electorate because the other day I noticed that the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) had to rescue the honourable member for Hunter again. He used incredible words. He said: `I appeal to the electors of Cessnock to do the right thing, because the honourable member is in trouble'. Mr Robert Brown —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I find that reference not only incorrect, but also offensive. I ask that it be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw. Mr TIM FISCHER —I withdraw. I would not like to offend my former colleague from Macquarie Street. The matter rests. Being the active person that he is, he is often over the border in neighbouring electorates. He sees the need to do that in order to retrieve the political situation in those areas. The honourable member for Dobell should have been honest enough to refer to that 2 per cent reduction in DFRB pensions. Notwithstanding further consumer price index increases which will be made from now on, those increases will be from that lower based figure for all DFRB recipients. In a sense he chose to ignore that anomaly. The Government has chosen to ignore that anomaly; it has not moved to rectify that lingering anomaly which has arisen from the legislation put through this Parliament as part of Labor's Budget of 1986. I take this opportunity to highlight to the House the significance of that anomaly and the significance of the hardship created by it. I put on notice those Government members holding marginal seats they will hear about this issue all the way to polling day because the various related veteran organisations and ex-service personnel are determined to see that the Government does not get off the hook until they get proper justice in relation to the matter. They have not received justice from this Government because the Government has chosen to ignore what it did last year. I accept that in the economic situation it could well have been correct for the Government to have taken certain budgetary steps that it took last year. What I do not accept is that they will remain in place for evermore, as a breach of contract with the superannuitants concerned-those who have paid into the DFRB scheme and who will now suffer as a direct consequence of the handiwork of this Government. I know that there are many hundreds of ex-service personnel and many thousands of DFRB recipients who will vote against this Government. They will do it in the Hunter electorate and in other electorates right across Australia. I noticed that the honourable member for Dobell, who has a great interest in the retention of a separate department, also commented on this aspect. I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that on Thursday, 30 April, the National Party of Australia adopted as its first decision in policy-making the retention of a separate Department of Veterans' Affairs to administer repatriation efficiently and effectively in this country. I was very pleased to announce that decision two days later on the Saturday at a Vietnam Veterans Association national conference held in Melbourne. I have also conveyed it to Returned Services League and veteran organisations around Australia. It is an absolute commitment, supported by all members of the Federal parliamentary National Party, and for that matter supported by all State leaders of the National Party. In Victoria it is supported by Mr Peter Ross Edwards, and in New South Wales by Wal Murray. It is supported by all the other State leaders, and of course by the organisations at the State level. It is therefore a total commitment of the National Party to retain a separate Department of Veterans' Affairs. That policy plank is as it should be in terms of the responsibility of this Parliament to look after those who served their country in time of war. It is a responsibility that was codified over the years by Prime Ministers Ben Chifley and Arthur Fadden. I add to all of that only that by and large, to the extent that it is possible, repatriation should be a bipartisan issue. But it has not been so because this Government, over the last two years since the mini-Budget in May 1985, has embarked on a series of cutbacks and changes in veterans affairs which have cut right across the commitment to look after those who served their country in time of war. I must say that that has built up a great deal of resentment in the veteran constituency across Australia, as indeed it should have. Again, Government members in marginal seats will face the music for such Government decisions as the halving of travel allowance for veterans, the imposition in the May mini-Budget of 1985 of a $300 freeze on several categories of dental treatment, the imposition of a range of cutbacks and changes, the elimination of war widows from the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme in the Budget of 1986-and the list goes on and on. Most veterans accept the need to pull their weight. What they do not accept is that veterans should bear the brunt of a range of cutbacks and changes. Of course, the Government will respond that this time around, in the mini-Budget of 1987, it has done the right thing. But it is too little too late for many of the veterans, many of the war widows and many of the ex-service personnel who have suffered acute hardship, particularly from the assets test and particularly in rural Australia, where the formula associated with the assets test has had a dreadful impact on so many soldier settlers in the critical retirement phase of their lives. It behoves members of the Government to come in here and defend their record on veterans' affairs when, in fact, over the past two years they have introduced a range of cutbacks and changes. To be fair, they have also introduced some improvements, and I acknowledge that. For example, they introduced repatriation cover for those who served on HMAS Sydney and other support ships between Australia and Vietnam, and that is welcome. I want to be even-handed in my approach. Mr Gear —You held it up for six months. Mr TIM FISCHER —Other improvements were brought in. I am sorry that the honourable member referred to the debate on the Veterans' Entitlements Act. I will tell honourable members what we held up; we held up the Government's imposition of a 40-year rule that would have cut many war widows out of their entitlement. That measure was drafted into the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. It was only a comprehensive campaign by the RSL, the War Widows Guild, Legacy and the Liberal and National parties that persuaded the Government to see the error of its ways and delete that 40-year rule from the revised Bill. We also presented a large number of amendments and ultimately, of 42 amendments from one source or another, 40 were adopted. As a consequence of direct requests by the RSL, most of those amendments rectified the draconian measures being advanced by the Government at the time. I am very proud of the role played by the Opposition in consideration of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Consideration continued for about 11 months, but it was a vastly improved piece of legislation as a consequence of the House of Representatives and the Senate doing the right thing by the veterans, thanks to the strong stand taken by the Liberal and National parties during that period. Now, of course, the Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee has been set up, again a product of the negotiations on the Veterans' Entitlements Act. That Committee held its first meeting last Friday under the chairmanship of Judge Paul Toose, and it is reviewing the operation and impact of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. There are representatives from the RSL, the Australian Veterans and Defence Service Council and many other key veterans' organisations on that independent Monitoring Committee. I believe that it will eventually produce a report and recommendations taking into account all submissions to determine what other steps might be taken in respect of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Let me just say again that, on an overall basis, the National Party is committed to retaining a separate Department of Veterans' Affairs. We are also committed to providing the greatest understanding, recognition and support for those who serve their country in times of war that responsible government can afford, administered through a separate, modern Department of Veterans' Affairs. Before referring to more specific aspects of this legislation relating to veterans, I add that the legislation before Parliament has been referred to in Vetaffairs, the Department's monthly journal, of April 1987. That journal refers to the poverty traps legislation which has been passed and under which service pensioners can earn more per week. For a married couple, there will be an increase from $50 to $70 a week before the service pension is affected. Other legislative measures are referred to. That is the proper role of a departmental publication. There is also an article entitled `Burma-Thailand Railway POWs Remembered: Memorial Dedicated'. Sir Edward `Weary' Dunlop and, I am delighted to say, the Hon. Tom Uren and Senator Sir John Carrick, the last two remaining former prisoners of war serving in this Parliament, attended on Anzac Day at Konyu Cutting for that very important dedication on the Burma death railway. I am disgusted that the Sunday television program saw fit to take a very narrow analysis of that horrific chapter of World War II as a cover story in relation to the Burma death railway. I believe that the program insulted every former prisoner of war and the contributions they made in the most excruciating circumstances. They made no balanced reference to the whole rationale behind the Hellfire Pass project, which is an excellent project of the Thai-Australian Chamber of Commerce, assisted by the Federal Government, to provide an easy walking path and steps down into Konyu Cutting where a plaque has been erected on the rock wall. To walk through Konyu Cutting up the River Kwai Valley and see the work that prisoners of war had to complete under extreme duress, lacking rations for a decent meal each day, often bare footed and in unbelievable conditions, was a very moving experience when I went there in February. I believe the Sunday program, which endeavours to maintain high standards, by and large did a great injustice and disservice to the prisoners of war of this nation and other nations and indirectly to the 16,000 prisoners of war who were killed or died in the construction of the Burma death railway in 1942 and 1943 and, related to that, to the 90,000 enforced Asian labourers who also lost their lives on the construction of that railway. I regret that Sunday program. I notice that many veterans' organisations have now expressed their criticisms of the program. I am pleased to see that a more sensible reference has been made to the Burma death railway in the departmental publication which deals with the legislation before the House and other legislation on poverty traps, but I take exception to the increasing political tones of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) in the column headed `What the Minister says'. He does not even hesitate to be a little subtle in his writings in this departmental publication, paid for by taxpayers' money, which essentially, should be an information sheet to veterans and veterans' organisations around Australia. He launches straight into politics and I quote: Since then we have learnt . . . that the Liberals plan to announce cuts totalling $2 billion dollars within a week of achieving office . . . He goes on to mount an attack of a partisan nature-- Mr Nehl —Propaganda. Mr TIM FISCHER —It is out and out propaganda and does not take account of the fact that the National Party has announced as a commitment the retention of a separate Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Minister concludes: The future of the Veterans' Affairs portfolio is now in the balance. Frankly, he has no right to make reference to the Liberal and National parties in a departmental publication. I know the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is more reasonable about these things and would be acutely embarrassed to see that his colleague has used a departmental publication to launch a partisan propaganda attack. In any event, I think I can say that when the dust settles under the new non-Labor government after the next election there will be a separate Department of Veterans' Affairs in accord with the thinking of many of my Liberal colleagues and with the absolute commitment of the National Party. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs should hang his head in shame, for having been so partisan in a departmental publication. I hope that there will be a cessation of this type of activity or, alternatively, that he will offer equal space to the Opposition to put a counter viewpoint and get some common sense into the publication involved. Turning to the specifics of this legislation, I wish to highlight to the House the fact that under the provisions definitions concerning allied veterans are altered slightly in respect of service pensions entitlements. This will, in effect, pick up those who lived in Papua New Guinea prior to the independence of that country. Naturally the Liberal and National parties have no objection to those provisions, which will cover a small anomaly. In relation to other aspects dealing with veterans' affairs, the legislation represents some sensible tightening up, particularly in the recovery of overpayment of pensions. I know the RSL has no objection to these provisions, which have been carefully constructed and on which I have sought consultations. I am satisfied that they are a step in the right direction without cutting across the commitment to do the right thing by those who serve their country in time of war. There are a number of other minor aspects that, again, do not attract specific criticism from the National Party. However, with regard to the whole area of veterans' affairs, I sound the warning that it will be the subject of further budgetary consideration in August, especially if the Labor Government is still in power because it has not had the courage to go to the polls. It would be wrong to proceed with any further direct cuts for veterans, widows and ex-service personnel. In particular, the 2 per cent Defence Force retirement benefits anomaly should be addressed in the next Budget. I strongly support the amendment moved so effectively by my colleague the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). It has been circulated to honourable members and adequately sets out our approach to social security components, especially with regard to the unemployment benefit aspects of the policy. I believe that it has a great deal to commend to the House. Mr GEAR(Canning)(10.37) —Before coming to the specifics of the Bill, I wish to pick up a couple of points made by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). I was encouraged to hear that the National Party of Australia does have a policy on something, and the honourable member officially announced it. The question that springs to mind is: For which National Party is he speaking? Did he go to Queensland and get Joh's blessing before he let that one out of the bag? We all know that there are two National parties and two Liberal parties -- Mr Howe —At least. Mr GEAR —Yes, as the Minister says, at least. We know that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) will not wear that policy because he has a $16,000m credibility gap. If anybody in his right mind thinks that he can hang on to a separate Department of Veterans' Affairs, he had better go across the hall and ask the Leader of the Opposition, because he will not be able to afford to hang on to a separate department. This Government has made a commitment. All its taxation and social security policies are in place and are paid for and there are fair dinkum tax cuts. Everything that we have done adds up, which is more than can be said for the Opposition. I heard the honourable member for Farrer threaten marginal members with some retribution from the veterans' communities during the next election campaign. All that I can tell him is that this Government is proud of its record in looking after its war veterans. We recognise that they have shared the burden, and have done so willingly. They know the score; they know the mess in which this country was left when the previous coalition government was kicked out of power. They know that for 30 of the last 35 years it had charge of this economy and left it in a state of collapse, with high inflation and 700 jobs disappearing every day. They know what this Government has had to do. I am confident that the Australian electorate, when we put to it that we have resurrected the economy--(Quorum formed) Once again the once great Liberal Party is reduced to calling quorums because it hates what it is hearing. What it is hearing is the truth-that is, it left the country in a mess. We have resurrected it and put it back on the path of growth. People in the community, including the veterans community, recognise what this Government has done. When we go to the polls honourable members opposite will get the thrashing that they deserved last time. The honourable member for Farrer also referred to the assets test. What a great old duplicitous position we have from honourable members opposite on the assets test. They say that they oppose the assets test for pensioners, but they support the assets test for the unemployed which was introduced in the May statement. Where is the consistency? We can see duplicity throughout their policies and their statements. The one thing that is common to all of them is that if there is a vote in it, they will make any old promise. It is not good enough. The assets test, as we on this side of the House know, stops millionaires from getting the pension. Honourable members opposite are quite happy to give back the pension to millionaires. In actual fact, in their leaked policy document, they talked about stopping pension rises. At the same time they talked about giving back fringe benefits, capital gains and entertainment expenses. They will give back all the boozy lunches to their mates. This will be paid for by the non-indexation of pensions. What a great old fraud of a party it is. How do honourable members opposite think they will get on when we get out on the hustings and start telling the people of Australia what they are up to? They will not be able to tell the people anything different because they do not know how to make the sums add up. The Leader of the Opposition said so. He said he has a tax policy, he is just having trouble with the numbers. We know he is. The reason that we know he is having trouble is that he has made so many promises to so many different groups that when one tries to pin him down on a specific matter he goes to water. One cannot pin him down on anything. I would like to comment on one aspect of the amendment to the motion for the second reading moved by the Opposition. It states: . . . to undertake necessary and major reform of the unemployment benefit and welfare system in Australia . . . That shows how much the Opposition knows, because the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table, has for the first time in over 40 years instituted a most comprehensive study of the whole social security area. That is something that the Liberal Party never did. Members of the Liberal Party in opposition are great `gunnas'. They are `gunna' do this and `gunna' do that. I tell the House that this Government has beaten them to it. We have already done that. The amendment-and this is a lulu-states: . . . to limit fraud and overpayment and to implement a work for unemployment benefit scheme . . . Let us take the first part which refers to limiting fraud and overpayment. This Government introduced the Australia Card twice in this Parliament and it was rejected twice by the Senate. It did exactly that. That was the whole focus of the legislation. It would have limited not only fraud in the social security area, but also fraud in the taxation system. It also limited the illegal immigration system in Australia. It would have cleaned all of that up, but the Opposition opposed it. Yet it has moved this amendment. Where is the consistency? It has none. It has no credibility and no consistency. What about the work for the unemployment benefit scheme? That has been costed at $700m. What would honourable members opposite do with the people? We cannot find work for the unemployed now, but they want to make them work for the unemployment benefit. It is really a most outrageous system which does nothing more than pander to a minority of the electorate's perception of the way to go. The fact is that they could not implement it because it is too costly. We all know that to propose this by way of an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill shows how out of touch they are with the Australian electorate. The need for this legislation, of course, comes from the measures announced in the May statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). As we all know, the reception that that May statement got right across the Australian community really upsets the Opposition. It upsets the Opposition because it said that we needed $4,000m worth of cuts, and our figure was in excess of that. The money markets and the people in the business community know what this Government is doing. It is continuing its record of sound economic management. What really upsets the Liberal Party and the two factions of the National Party is that the reception by the Australian electorate is very positive. That is why the Opposition is coming up with all these silly amendments. We can just about read the disgust on the faces of honourable members opposite when they say: `Why are the business people not saying what a terrible statement that was brought down by the Treasurer?' The fact is that the business community gave them the big thumbs down last week when a survey of the business community showed that this was the best government that the country could have, not only for the business community, but as we have seen also for the average Australian, for the pensioners, for the veterans and for every section of the community. This Government recognises that it rules for all Australians and not just for sectional parts of Australia. In the newspapers today we saw the embryo of the Opposition tax policy, and I think the headlines said it all. It is one of those Mad Hatter options. The Liberal Party really is in competition with the Queensland Premier to see who can make the most outrageous promises. It is little wonder that the Opposition is not taken seriously. To bring in what the Opposition is proposing, depending on the figures, between $12,000m and $16,000m would have to be found. But as I said, when we try to pin the Opposition down and when we ask where the money for that is coming from, we never hear an answer. The other side of the Opposition's policy is, of course, the cuts that I have talked about. The fact is that it is just not articulate about where the money is coming from, but it will be pressed for details during the election campaign, which I am sure will be upon us very shortly. When the Opposition is asked where the money is coming from for these policies and when the Queensland Premier has the spotlight put on him by the national media, which he has never had to put up with before, they will not be able to come up with the answers. With all these outrageous promises and with all these Mad Hatter options to lower the tax rates there is just one saying that people should remember: If a promise sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Mr Humphreys —It is for the white-shoe brigade. Mr GEAR —Of course the Whip, the very perceptive gentleman that he is, says that it is for the white-shoe brigade. When we look at what is happening in Queensland and at where all the money is coming from, we see that it is coming from the members of the white-shoe brigade, and we all know why. They are the shonky operators who used to slip through the tax net via loopholes that we closed off. No wonder they want the National and Liberal parties back in government-to put back all those rorts and let them slip through without paying the tax which they should pay. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -The honourable member for Canning might come back to the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill. Mr GEAR —Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just making the point that it is a very wide-ranging debate. The honourable member for Farrer, who preceded me, spoke about veterans' affairs for all but 18 minutes of his contribution. It being a very wide-ranging debate, I thought I would talk of the May economic statement. The welfare record of this Government compared with that of the previous Government is a very proud one. When we came to power the age pension was 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. It had fallen from over 24 per cent of average weekly earnings when the Fraser Government was elected, and that was a disgraceful record on its part. It never really cared about the age pensioners. It lowered the real value of the pension throughout its period in office. This Government has brought it up to over 24 per cent in its period of office, and that has been underpinned, of course, by the assets test. Mr Cadman —I would like to campaign against you. Mr GEAR —I would like the honourable member to campaign against me too, because I would wipe the floor with him. The Liberal Party will get wiped off the face of the map in the next election campaign because we all know what a fraud it is. We see it in here every day. It is so incompetent that it cannot even get through Question Time properly. (Quorum formed). When we go to the people, which I believe will be very shortly, the Opposition will get the thrashing it got and deserved in 1984 not only on social welfare policy, but also on taxation or any other policy on which we like to campaign. The people of Australia rejected the Liberal Party in 1983. They rejected it in 1984, and they will reject it in 1987. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. 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, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D. Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W. Goodluck, B. J. Watson, D. J. H. Hall, Steele White, P. N. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Staples, P. R. Jull, D. F. Dawkins, J. S. Webster, A. P. Gorman, R. N. J. MacKellar, M. J. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Blunt's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. 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. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Hayden, W. G. Uren, T. Holding, A. C. West, S. J. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Humphreys B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D. Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W. Goodluck, B. J. Watson, D. J. H. Hall, Steele White, P. N. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Staples, P. R. Jull, D. F. Dawkins, J. S. Webster, A. P. Gorman, R. N. J. MacKellar, M. J. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.05) —I move: Clause 15, page 7, lines 13 to 27, omit proposed new subsection 99 (7), substitute the following subsection: `(7) Where: (a) subsection (3) applies to a person; (b) the person makes a request in writing in accordance with a form approved by the Secretary that this subsection apply to the person; and (c) the taxable income of the person for the year of income following the last year of income of the person is, or is likely to be, at least 25 per cent less than the taxable income of the person for that last year of income; that following year of income shall be used in calculating the total amount of family allowances payable to the person under subsection (3) during the period commencing at the beginning of the first family allowance period after the request is received by the Department and ending on 14 January in the calendar year following the calendar year in which the request is so received.'. The amendment is designed simply to ensure that the income test on family allowance, which as a general rule is based on taxable income in the financial year ending in the previous calendar year, may in some circumstances be based on the current year's taxable income, that is, where family income is reduced by 25 per cent. This provision protects families that have suffered such a fall in income against reduction or loss of family allowances. The shadow spokesman, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), referred very extensively to the issue of income testing of family allowances. The Opposition has to make up its mind. After all, it is suggesting that the Government needs to make very substantial cuts in relation to public expenditure. By whatever figure we choose, the cuts in public expenditure proposed by the Opposition, or the several Opposition parties in this Parliament, are very substantial indeed. The family allowance is the one major benefit within the social security portfolio which is not income tested. It has been in the very nature of our approach to social security since the early days of Federation to apply income testing and it has been targeted. This Government has had to face very difficult economic circumstances. In those circumstances it has had to make some very difficult decisions. I concede much of what the honourable member for Barker and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) had to say about the basic justification for family allowances. Family allowances are about equity. A substantial element of the argument, as the honourable member for Sturt pointed out last night, relates to horizontal equity. In the circumstances in which this country has been placed, and in light of the difficult decisions that have to be made, one must ask how far up the income range one should take the question of horizontal equity. This Government had to make a decision about that. It has said that where joint family income exceeds $50,000 a further adjustment of $2,500 will be made in relation to each successive child after the first child, so at the point of $55,000 a family with three children will begin to have the family allowance tapered back. That is a long way up the income range. Less than 10 per cent of families will lose the family allowance as a result of this measure. It is a measure that must be taken. The amendment simply makes clear that in terms of this legislation we have to take account of a change in circumstances, and when there is a dramatic change in circumstances the Government will look at the current income of the family. I believe that, given the difficult circumstances and the need to achieve reductions within overall expenditure, one simply cannot argue, at least not on the grounds of vertical equity, that the income testing of family allowances at such a high threshold is in any real sense inequitable when one recognises that for the most part people within the social security system have very little additional income apart from the principal pension payment that they receive. In the course of the debate there has been very little reference to the broader measures that are included in the Bill. It is necessary to refer to broader measures, in a sense, to put the question of the family allowance into context. Those broader measures were described by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), who is a member on our side of the chamber, among others, as being harsh measures. I must say to the honourable member for Melbourne that, in terms of achieving the Government's economic objectives, it has been necessary to take measures which are certainly firm and which I believe are essentially fair. It is also important to say that one must contrast the base level contribution made again by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) with the concern of the honourable member for Melbourne. No member of this Parliament has more consistently denigrated people on low incomes and more consistently pilloried and stigmatised the unemployed then the honourable member for Richmond. No honourable member has shown less capacity to deal with the broader policy issues which confront a government with respect to social security than that honourable member. The honourable member has again, in his contribution to the debate today, done nothing at all to put the difficult problems being confronted by the Government into any longer term perspective. It is important to recognise that that is what we are about. We are not simply about piecemeal change. We are about some areas of quite significant and quite fundamental reform, particularly in the area of unemployment benefit administration and policy and in the area of income security policy for sole parents. While the honourable member for Melbourne might regard the measures as somewhat harsh, I think that he and his constituents can be persuaded that they are nevertheless fair. Indeed, some of the alternatives may turn out to be more punitive than the measures actually adopted. I now turn to the problem of cohabitation, which is sometimes referred to as separation under the same roof, to which the honourable member for Melbourne referred. The Government has made a decision in terms of a period of six months and then a further period of six months where court proceedings are pending. The alternative to that is intrusion into the home in a way that I think the honourable member and his constituents would not want to see. There is concern on the part of the Department of Social Security and me that people might seek to avoid the impact of the Social Security Act in terms of the maintenance of their eligibility as sole parents. The Government has had to address that. It has tried to do so in a way which is fair and which is very much cleaner in terms of setting some time limits to provide an opportunity for people to sort out their affairs. It has sought to do that and, at the same time, it has provided a guide to departmental officers which will enable them to operate, I think, with greater sensitivity and sureness. In addition, it will enable people to understand much more clearly what the rules are. The honourable member for Melbourne also referred to the phasing out of the class B widow's pension. I assure the honourable member that that measure was not taken for any punitive reasons. What we are concerned to do is to say to sole parents: `We expect you to be moving towards independence'. Therefore, in terms of the legislation we have saved, effectively, all sole parents over the age of 45 years. However, we have said to the younger groups-those under the age of 45 years: `Your expectation has to be that in the future you will seek to achieve economic independence. If you fail to achieve that outside the social security system, the safety net will be the unemployment benefit and not a class B widow's pension, where there are no dependants'. As to the other change regarding children who reach the age of 16 years, again, the income floor that will be provided, the safety net, will be the unemployment benefit. By giving people a clear indication of where the Government is going, we are saying: `As a government, we will make every effort to ensure that sole parents receive all the assistance they need in terms of access to training and in terms of incentives in relation to restructuring of income tests'. As people know, we have introduced major changes-that is, income testing thresholds-which will take effect from 1 July. We will provide all the incentives and all the assistance we can. However, the bottom line, basically, is that we expect people to do all they can to get back into the work force and to become economically independent. I do not regard that as harsh. Every time that I have met with a group of sole parents around Australia they have said the same thing. They have said: `What we want to achieve is economic independence'. The Government is committed to taking up that challenge. We will provide the training that has not been provided and we will provide the support that has not been given in terms of access to child care places where there are government places available. Where they are not available, we will provide a subsidy in terms of private child care places. We will give priority within the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations to sole parents in a way which has never been the policy before. I do not think that that is harsh; I think that it is firm. People need to know where we are going and we are seeking to do that. The third area which the honourable member for Melbourne went to was the treatment of unemployment benefit and beneficiaries, particularly in terms of extended waiting periods. Regarding that aspect of the legislation, what we are seeking to do is to give a very clear message to young people which is, essentially, that we do not believe that there is any future for young people being on the unemployment benefit for an extended period. We believe that young people will have to plan and seek to get into the work force while they are still at school. Young people up to the age of 21 years and above from low income families will be eligible for Austudy until the end of the calendar year, not to the point at which they leave school. We are not talking about income support for a period of about 13 weeks, but for a lesser period. The Government has also indicated that it will provide a safety net for very low income people in terms of special benefit and that it will seek to protect young people who are exposed, if you like, by the new measures. We are saying very clearly to young people, and we must say it for their own good, that there is no future on the unemployment benefit, that the unemployment benefit is not a program which exists in its own right; it is a means to an end and the end is clearly job search. The unemployment benefit is there for job search and nothing else. The question that must be asked is: How early should we provide income support? Basically, the philosophy behind the legislation is that we do not believe that overall there is a responsibility to provide continuous income support, so that people are never without it, for people leaving school and moving towards the work force. However, we do believe that there is a need to ensure that once people have had a chance to think about their future and to test the labour market they are eligible for unemployment benefit after a reasonable time-we say 13 weeks. We are not stopping there. We are saying that once 16- and 17-year-olds go on to the jobsearch allowance, the rules change and we have a different situation. The Government will follow those young people through to ensure that every opportunity is provided so that they may enter education, training or work, or a combination of all three. In that position I do not think that we are out of line with the thinking within the trade union movement, or with many people in the welfare and education sectors who say that the fact that we have had tens of thousands of young people on unemployment benefit for extended periods of time, receiving no education, training or work experience has been extremely harsh. In the past this country has not been supportive of young people; it has been very harsh. We are able to make this move because, as part of our family policy and our income support policies, we will raise Austudy as a payment for 16- and 17-year-olds from $20-odd to $50 next year and the improved rates for people in the 18 and over age group who are in tertiary education and receiving Austudy payments have been dramatically improved. Those very substantial and unprecedented increases have laid the basis for further changes. Honourable members must look at what the Government is doing, not in isolation, but in terms of the gradual build-up of a range of policies which have enabled us to increase retention rates in schools in a very dramatic way. Also, those policies have enabled the Government to build the basis for major training programs for young people in the form of traineeships and to move towards restructuring, in many ways, our approach to the support of technical and further education and the higher secondary area. Those measures should not be seen in isolation. Certainly, it is a shock when governments make decisions such as the decision to introduce an income test relating to family allowances. It represents change, but I suppose one of the great virtues of this Government is that it has been prepared to make changes and to respond to the fundamental reality of very serious structural changes occurring within the Australian economy. Massive structural changes are occurring. In the period when the Opposition was in government, unemployment was left at something like 800,000. No significant measures were taken to address the problems of unemployment or the lack of a skilled work force. During that period of structural change no efforts were made to deal with the colossal problems being faced by sole parents, or to deal with the problems of transition. When the Opposition is faced with having to make its position clear for the future, we get waffle and piffle and not much else. The crass suggestion is made that somehow we can make people work for unemployment benefit and that it will not cost anything or that it will not create another round of problems. The amendment provides for a particular aspect of the change in terms of people whose income situation changes dramatically from one year to another. It is a similar provision to that which is embodied in previous legislation with respect to an earlier income test in relation to family allowances. I commend the amendment and the Bill to the Committee. Mr PORTER(Barker)(11.24) —Mr Deputy Chairman-- Motion (by Mr Humphreys) put: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. 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. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Hawker, D. P. M. Aldred, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hodges, J. C. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D. Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Watson, D. J. H. Hall, Steele White, P. N. D. Halverson, R. G. Wilson, I. B. C. Staples, P. R. Jull, D. F. Dawkins, J. S. Webster, A. P. Gorman, R. N. J. MacKellar, M. J. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mr Howe)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr PORTER(Barker)(11.32) —I want to refer the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) to clause 9, the secrecy provisions of the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Bill. I have no idea why the Government is determined to gag this legislation through the House. This is very wide-ranging legislation. Concerns have been expressed about the real intent of the Government as evidenced in this legislation, especially the future intent of this Government in relation to the extension of the means testing of family allowances and the fact that this Bill is the thin end of the wedge. The Minister virtually confirmed that in his contribution during the Committee stage of this debate and then, of course, the Government sought to gag the legislation through. The point that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister at this time and of the House relates to clause 9 and the secrecy provisions. This clause amends sub-section 17 (4) of the principal Act. The current sub-section 17 (4) of the principal Act enables the disclosure of information otherwise prevented by the secrecy provisions in sub-sections 17 (2) and 17 (3). Clause 9 substitutes a new sub-section 17 (4) which replaces paragraphs 17 (4) (a) and 17 (4) (c) and extends 17 (4) (b). Currently paragraph 17 (4) (b) permits the disclosure of information only to a prescribed authority or person. Section 17 of the Act states: (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this section, an officer may- (b) divulge any such information to any prescribed authority or person; That is a fairly limited ability to disclose information. The proposed new sub-paragraph 17 (4) (b) would permit disclosure of information to the secretary of a Commonwealth department or head of a Commonwealth authority for the purposes of that department or authority. The explanatory memorandum states: In practice, these other agencies would be agencies such as the Australian Taxation Office which have secrecy provisions preventing the further dissemination of the information. This provision of information is required to avoid misuse of the pension and benefits system and improve recovery of Commonwealth debts. Clause 9 of this Bill therefore allows, at the discretion of the secretary of a department, the dissemination of personal and confidential information to any Commonwealth department or authority. I refer the Minister to the report on privacy by the Law Reform Commission, and the point that the report made regarding the establishment of a national databank on private information. The concern that the Opposition has is that this amendment could lead to the establishment of such a databank. The Opposition appreciates the need for governments to have adequate power to pursue welfare fraud. But it is always a question of balance. The Government has been silent on the provisions in this amendment, apart from the comments in the explanatory memorandum. I therefore seek an undertaking from the Minister that this power will be strictly limited to the pursuit of welfare fraud and will not be used for the establishment of a databank. The Opposition is concerned about any further trespass by government on individual rights and liberties. We await the Minister's response to the questions that I have raised. Pending his response, we may seek to take further action in the Senate in relation to this clause. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(11.37) —I wish to make only a couple of brief comments because my time was interfered with last night. Like the shadow spokesperson, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), I have a concern about clause 9. I make three brief points. I will ask the Minister a final question when I complete my comments on clause 9, but I ask him why the provision for the divulgence of information about a class of cases has been included. This appears to be completely negative to individual rights. I agree with some of the comments and concerns expressed, and the seeking of an explanation for this, by the shadow spokesperson. It seems to me that there is a problem with the divulgence of information crossing from one department to another. I hope it is not the intent of the Minister or the Government to cause a situation to occur in which perhaps unscrupulous people could seek information to use in an improper way. This is a concern that was expressed to me by a number of people in the course of last week. Following an interjection from the Opposition earlier, I just make the point again that one of the reasons I am raising this is that people from all over Victoria have asked me to do so. So, it is not a question of concern being expressed in my electorate only; the concern has come from various agencies. Although the second reading debate has been closed, last night I wanted to address a couple of points relating to unemployment and sickness benefits, but I did not have time to raise them because my time was chopped off. As these measures are not to be implemented immediately, I seek from the Minister a guarantee to the House and the people of Australia that he and the Department will undertake extensive discussions with the existing agencies in all of the States, such as the Australian Council of Social Service, the Victorian Council of Social Service and other organisations, in order to seek to settle some of the concerns that people have in the lead-up to the implementation of these decisions by the Government. I genuinely make that plea to him, I think on behalf of many members on both sides of the House, that we get that commitment from the Government. I think many of the concerns that have been expressed in the course of the debate will then be put to rest, although that is not to say that people are enthusiastic about the decisions included in the Bill. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.39) —I wish to make a remark about the comments of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). He is a powerful member of the Australian Labor Party Caucus and again he is trying to get it on the record, so that he can get it back into his electorate, that he is trying to do something after the horse has bolted. It is a shame, because we know that these things are wrong. Our shadow Minister has been quick to point that out in this Parliament, because it is the only opportunity he has to do so. A faction leader has stood up in this place, having been rolled in Caucus-in fact, we do not even know whether he put up a plea in Caucus-but because he has had paintings put all over his shop window and he has suddenly realised that his own constituents will not have a bar of that-- Mr Howe —We will not sit here and have the honourable member go on with something that has no relation to the Bill before us. Mr TUCKEY —Is the Minister taking a point of order? The Minister does not have the call. What is going on here? Mr Howe —Why don't you sit right down? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! Mr TUCKEY —Have a look at that! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howe —This has nothing to do with it. Mr TUCKEY —The people hate you for what you have done. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for O'Connor is to address his remarks to the third reading, I suggest that he confine himself to the terms of the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have just seen a Minister get to his feet and carry on without any call from you whatsoever. He should be dealt with. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe that what the honourable member is discussing is relevant. However, if we are to have a debate about my office window and the circumstances-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Hand —On a point of order: I object to the honourable member having the licence of the Parliament. I said last night that he is no good; he is rotten as a quince and every member in this place knows that. He is a corrupt politician and should not be here. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will resume his seat. I have already reminded the honourable member for O'Connor that, if he wishes to take part in the third reading debate, he must confine himself to the terms of the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. But before the honourable member for Melbourne leaves, I ask him to withdraw the comments he made. I find them offensive. `Rotten as a quince' were the words. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Melbourne made those remarks, I ask him to withdraw them. Mr Hand —Does the honourable member object to being called rotten as a quince? Is that the comment that offends him? Mr TUCKEY —That is twice now, and he should be-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask-- Mr Hand —If he objects to being called rotten as a quince, I will withdraw the reference that he is rotten as a quince. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member. I call on the honourable member for O'Connor to keep to the terms of the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —That is four times, and in defiance of your request, Mr Deputy Speaker. What action do you propose to take on the matter? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Melbourne has withdrawn the remarks that the honourable member for O'Connor found offensive. If the honourable member for O'Connor is to make a further contribution to this debate, I ask him to confine his remarks to the terms of the Bill. Mr Hand —There are more-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will cease interjecting. I call on the honourable member for O'Connor on the third reading of the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —On the third reading of the Bill I have made the point, and I continue to make the point, that the Opposition has opposed these remarks-all credit to our spokesman. It is no credit whatsoever to the member for Melbourne to get up here in this fashion and try to have his comments recorded in Hansard so that he can distribute it around his electorate, when he let the people down in Caucus. That is where I will conclude my remarks. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.43) —in reply-Ignoring the final speaker, can I say, in relation to the assurance sought by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), that I understand the concerns raised. There is no reason at all why the Opposition could not be briefed in relation to the precise meaning of those clauses before the matter goes to the Senate. Certainly, I am more than happy to provide assurances with respect to the limitation that the honourable member suggests in relation to the use of those powers. New sub-section 17 (4) enables the release of information where it is in the public interest in classes of cases, as referred to by, I believe, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). This development is desirable to enable classes of cases to be specified as in the public interest, for example, where the Department of Social Security releases information concerning the whereabouts of a kidnapped child in custody proceedings to enable the return of the child to the person judged most suitable by a court. This is a convenient way to handle such situations rather than having a senior officer determine each such case. The delegation for the use of such power is very restrictive; only very senior officers in central office can hold that power. I believe there is concern about the release of information to other Commonwealth departments. This development is intended to assist in the crackdown on fraud, as well as other fraud against the Commonwealth. It is also intended to assist in the recovery of social security debts. The controls on this power are the same as those referred to in relation to access to information and the power to obtain. There is also concern about the release of information about a person to another person where that person has given implied authority for its release. I am told that that is the current position. Information can be released to a person such as a client's solicitor, accountant, next of kin, member of parliament or minister of religion as a person who can be reasonably seen to have the client's implied authority for release. I note the concerns of the member for Melbourne and the shadow spokesman, and I will seek to ensure that those fears are allayed. I might say that I have received a submission along these lines from, I believe, the Australian Council of Social Service, certainly from Julian Disney. I will give the Australian Council of Social Service the assurance that we will ask the National Council for Social Welfare to look at the operation of these provisions and a number of other provisions, which, I might say, are unrelated to the secrecy question, to see how they work in practice. If there is a need to make any change to restrict any powers, that matter could be considered in the Budget session. I recognise the concerns expressed by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt); I acknowledge that this is a very sensitive area, but at the same time I believe that the public is looking for an assurance that we are running the social security system with integrity. There are some tensions, and I believe that they have to be handled in a balanced way. The honourable member for Melbourne sought the assurance that I would consult very widely. Political circumstances permitting, it was certainly my intention over the winter recess to visit each of the States. Mr Porter —Maybe in a little less relaxed way. Mr HOWE —It will be a little broader than the welfare sector; a number of people are interested in aspects of unemployment that are not essential to social security. I had intended, and I still intend, to go ahead with a program of broad consultation. I am quite happy to give assurances to both honourable members. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill concurrently with the Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course. I call the honourable member for Ryan. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.48) —The two Bills before us, the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and the Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill 1987, flow from part of the May statement, or the mini-Budget, whatever way we care to look at it. The Opposition will move an in-principle amendment to the Customs and Excise Legislation Bill 1987 which will be circulated. In Committee we will move further amendments, both of which will be circulated. The Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill contains three principal items. The first is the payment of customs duty by Commonwealth authorities. It is well known that at present duty free entry of imports is granted to all Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities with the exception of a number of trading agencies, most notably Qantas Airways Ltd and the Commonwealth Bank. New section 131B will remove the exemption from liability to pay customs duty by those Commonwealth authorities or by persons acquiring goods for use of a particular Commonwealth authority. The issue as to the appropriateness of government departments, authorities and instrumentalities paying taxation on overseas purchases formed part of the considerations of the Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements, commonly known as the Inglis Committee. In its report of February 1986 the Committee recommended that all Commonwealth agencies, other than departments, be required to pay customs duty. The Committee concluded that the concession of duty free entry of imports granted to most Commonwealth agencies leads to economic distortions and promotes a loss of efficiency for the whole of the economy. However, the Committee was of the view that arguments in support of Commonwealth departments to pay duty were not as convincing as those used in support of duty payment by non-departmental Commonwealth agencies, the latter competing either directly or indirectly with the private sector. Hence, the Committee disfavoured recommending the payment of customs duty by Commonwealth departments. The decision to do this was immediately met by a response from Telecom Australia and Australia Post in passing on to the consumers of Australia the cost of the increase in payments affecting those two authorities. We saw that immediately in the recommendation of Telecom for an increase in local call charges of 3c and an as yet unspecified increase for long distance calls. Similarly, Australia Post is making noises about an increase in postal charges of 1c to cover the cost of the proposed imposts. It is a case of the Government once again taxing the users of Australia in areas where there is minimal competition, especially in the postal service, and gaining additional revenue for its own use through this means. On top of that the Government has moved to impose a processing fee on customs applications. Clause 7 of the Bill contains the supposed cost recovery provisions, which impose a charge of $200 upon the processing of applications for a refund of customs duty. The Australian Customs Service receives thousands of refund applications yearly. The necessity for the refund system arises as a result of an overestimation on the part of customs agents of customs duty payable. There are numerous reasons for refunds of duty. These are provided primarily under regulation 126 (e) of the Customs Act and include the following: applicability of a tariff concession at the time of customs entry which, for various reasons, may not have been utilised; an error in the rate of duty selected by the customs' computerised entry system; lack of complete documentation at the time of entry and, hence, in order to avoid additional storage changes, the higher rate of duty is paid, pending receipt of the correct documentation; and non-dutiable charges may not be available at the time of duty entry. It is claimed that this measure will raise approximately $6m in a full year. It is estimated that the application for refunds on duty that will not now be made as a result of the imposition of the $200 fee will involve approximately $1.1m in forgone refunds. Frankly, that is a tax on the users. It seems to me that the responsibility for an error made in the classification of goods or items at the time of their entry into Australia should not be imposed upon the owner of the goods in the way implied. For the Government to charge $200 to process any item, one of the great rewards of which is to make those concerned forgo $1.1m, is to ramp the system considerably. A person who applies for a refund of customs duty, where the overpayment is the fault of the customs agent or the Australian Customs Service, should not have to pay a tax on that error, as this legislation implies. On top of that, the charge involved forces a whole category of people, on the Government's own admission, to not apply for what is justly due to them. This measure is totally inappropriate and totally wrong in its application. If a charge is to be made for ascertaining whether an error has been made, and if the error is found to lie with the applicant, the forfeiture of the $200 would seem to be reasonable. But if the error is found to lie with the Customs Service, in my view that fee should be immediately refunded and the whole overpayment of the duty refunded to the person concerned, otherwise the fee is clearly another form of tax on the user. I would have thought that was highly unacceptable to any reasonable person. I turn to the procedures at the Customs barrier to be implemented in July-what have been commonly referred to as minor rearrangements. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), in his economic statement on 13 May, announced changes to the duty free concessions available to passengers arriving in Australia. Principally, the new arrangements governing duty free entitlements for passengers concern changes to the duty free limit such that from 1 July 1987 all goods to the value of up to $400 may be brought into Australia duty free and sales tax free, with a limit of $200 for persons under 18 years of age. Prior to the Treasurer's announcement, passengers were allowed a $200 duty and sales tax free limit. However, at the same time as increasing the duty free limit, the Government has severely restricted the duty free status of goods brought into the country. Whereas before the changes, goods for personal use were allowed duty free entry with no restrictions, from 1 July 1987 the only major passenger concession outside the $400 limit will be the duty free status of personal clothing. Most goods besides personal clothing and personal hygiene products will be fully assessable towards the $400 limit. While the Government's decision to increase the duty free limit from $200 to $400 is at face value a seemingly attractive measure for passengers arriving in Australia, the overall effect of the Government's changes involves a number of very significant problems. Prime amongst these problems are the effects of the changes on the duty free industry in Australia. As the changes involve the removal of duty free status from a number of high turnover goods, such as watches, cameras and certain jewellery items, some audio and electronic equipment and sports equipment, the duty free industry in Australia is likely to suffer as a consequence. Travellers are now likely either to reduce their purchases of high priced goods such as jewellery because the price of such goods would automatically exceed the $400 duty free limit, or transfer their buying intentions from domestic purchases to overseas purchases. The inevitable consequence is a downturn in the activity of the duty free industry in Australia, with a consequential loss of economic activity. Other major criticisms of the Government's new arrangements concern the very severe administrative problems that are likely to occur. While the Government has stated that the changes will result in fewer administrative problems, the opposite is the more likely outcome. The adverse effects of the changes on passenger facilitation through Customs points of entry will be significant. Because the Government has severely restricted the amount and type of goods that will be allowed into Australia free of duty and sales tax, the inevitable consequence is an increase in the policing of the new requirements. Travellers leaving Australia may now find it necessary to declare all goods at their point of departure-Customs Form No. G110; startling knowledge-to ensure that those same goods will be permitted duty free entry when they are reimported into Australia. Such arrangements will significantly add to the administrative burdens experienced at airports. A new brigade of Customs officers will undoubtedly emerge to ensure that adequate policing of the new arrangements can be carried out. I wish to pause here to recite some past experience. For years, the Customs Service had been trying to get more officers at the point of entry, both for inspection and to facilitate passenger and goods movements throughout Australia. Because of austerity programs within government over the years, its requests have usually been declined. I can well remember many occasions when the Comptroller-General has endeavoured to increase his work numbers in the front areas of entry-Sydney airport in particular and other airports and ports in general-without success. To require these forms to be filled out as people depart through, for instance, the Sydney terminal will add to the queues at the barriers. It will certainly mean that the numbers of people on duty at those points will have to be sizably increased. The flow of traffic could not be accommodated at the current barriers if this sort of documentation were to be required. Having received the documentation, what is there to guarantee that someone will not take out a watch, itemise it, and return with a different watch? It seems that, by going to such an extraordinary extent, we are inviting people to break the law. What about those passengers arriving in Australia? The sizable barrier that confronts them at Sydney airport will still be in place because it is a passport and health inspection area. Presumably, under the proposed arrangements, when a passenger comes to the next barrier-at 7 a.m.-with his declaration of goods, not only will he have to say that he has $400 of duty free goods but, presumably, he must vouch for them. There could be a variety of vouchers in a variety of currencies. Nobody can tell me that someone cannot cook up a foreign price voucher, because I have seen it done. So, at 7 a.m., a whole host of people coming into Australia-50 per cent of them tourists-will be required to prove that the goods, purchased in yen, American dollars, sterling or whatever, that they are bringing into Australia are worth less than $400. Customs officers will be expected to stand there and say: `Right, where are your documents for the following items? Unless you can prove otherwise, we are going to say that they are worth more than $400'. The hold up of passengers at major airports will be enormous. The staffing requirements of the Customs office will have to be substantially increased. Certainly, the revenue-to-cost analysis will probably prove the effort to be not worth while. As a consequence, there will be harassment of travellers, already angry from overnight trips, which will inevitably lead to a stream of protests to the Customs officers and to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) who will find that his correspondence and the level of complaints from a rather vexed area of Customs at Sydney airport will increase in large measure. Other unintended consequences-a good term these days-will be the treatment of travellers who departed from Australia prior to 13 May. Currently, 65,000 Australian tourists are overseas, and they may be especially disadvantaged by the proposed arrangements. If they return to Australia post 1 July, we are uncertain, at this stage, whether the Customs Service will assess their circumstances on a flexible basis. Australian tourists overseas face the very real possibility that they may be unduly taxed under the new arrangements. The Government has completely ignored the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission in this matter. Usually, governments take considerable notice of the IAC. It recently undertook a comprehensive review of customs and sales tax concessions available to passengers to Australia. In its report of 6 November 1985, its preferred recommendation was for a $1,000 duty and sales tax free limit, available for use every three months, to ensure that the Customs facilitation at airports was enhanced. Alternatively, the IAC recommended that the value of the concessional limit be reduced from $1,000 to $750 if a restriction on the frequency of use of concessions was not introduced. In completely rejecting the IAC's recommendations, the Government has forsaken Customs facilitation at the airports and, instead, has changed the rules merely to maximise revenue. It is quite clear that $400 will allow very little through and that, therefore, a substantial increase in the amount of inspection, charging and interviewing of all arriving passengers in Australia will be required. If the figure recommended by the IAC were accepted, a far more general approach could be taken, which would facilitate the much speedier handling of tourists and residents arriving home at points of entry. As a consequence, the Opposition finds the Government's proposals a general nuisance factor for operations at the airports. Another aspect of the Bill is the change in the fuel duty rebate system. The rebate of customs and excise duties respectively now includes the following measures. First, there will be an increase in the minimum amount of litres that may be subject to a claim for rebate of duty, from 1,000 to 2,000 litres. Secondly, there is the removal of the concession that permits applications to be considered on a quarterly basis-with additional details, as prescribed by regulation, to be supplied by the claimants for duty free rebate, including full details of sales, supplies and usage of diesel fuel. Thirdly, there is a provision to enable a collector to reduce, in certain circumstances-when the collector is not satisfied with the correctness of the particulars or estimates in an application-the estimated amount of litreage claimed as eligible for rebate. Fourthly, there is the averaging of the rate of rebate, whereby the price on the last day of each of the six months immediately before the month in which the application for rebate was made is the relevant rebate rate. That measure was effected because of the continual fluctuations in the duty rates as a result of import parity pricing changes. Fifthly, there will be the introduction of an on-the-spot penalty system as an alternative to prosecution, with the penalty being three times the amount of rebate wrongfully obtained, although that penalty can be offset against current or future applications for rebate. What are the consequences of that? Currently, the rural sector in receipt of rebates can apply on a quarterly basis for any deliveries of up to 1,000 litres made to a property. That has been wiped out, and the new figure is 2,000 litres. That is a considerable increase and above the average used by the average farmer or rural producer during the six-month period. We must bear in mind that deliveries are not made every day of the week; they are made in accordance with property activity, such as harvesting, planting and so on. There is no regular pattern of delivery of diesel. Therefore, the Government has moved away from accommodating that practice to a six-month claim. In addition, the average rate will apply, so that rises and falls within the six-month period will be the risk of the rural sector, the purchaser. That is passing the buck-but do not think that it stops there. Presumably, it means that unless a 2,000 litre purchase has been made within the six-month period, the whole rebate system will go out of the window. In addition the farmer is bogged down with a list of more forms to fill in. The farmer has done particularly well from this measure! He can now claim only twice a year rather than once every quarter. He can make a claim only if he purchases 2,000 litres within that time frame and, irrespective of the ups and downs in prices, his claim can only relate to the price on the last day of the period. In addition, he has to take out his pen and probably a small pocket computer-which the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) would use every day-to fill in the forms. So he has been really well treated. I am sure that even the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) would understand those problems. He faces them every day on his farm. As a consequence, the rural sector has been disadvantaged in every respect. The Opposition proposes an amendment, which has been circulated, to the motion for the second reading, and in Committee we will move the further amendments which have been circulated. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) notes with concern the Government's measures to introduce further imposts at a time when the business community and the general public are already suffering under excessive government taxes and charges; (2) condemns the Government for the adverse impact on families, business and the farm sector of the increases in telephone and postal charges which will result from the withdrawal of customs exemptions for Telecom and Australia Post, and (3) deplores the Government's decision to introduce a $200 processing charge for applications for a refund of duty'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Braithwaite —The amendment is seconded. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member reserve his right to speak later? Mr Braithwaite —Yes. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(12.12) —I address my remarks firstly to the main issue in the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 which concerns the imposition of Customs duty on Commonwealth authorities such as Telecom Australia. I do so because this matter has created some debate amongst members of the public and, indeed, some concern within those authorities. Obviously, some arguments have been put forward by those who have raised this issue. Their arguments have a point which must be met. I want to raise a couple of questions. I was surprised that the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) did not raise some of these issues in his contribution. In particular, we must ask ourselves whether we will set the parameters of our customs policy in such a way that will impact on the development of high technology products by Australian industry. That is the fundamental issue, because there is no question that the fact that some of these Commonwealth authorities have not had to pay customs duty has meant that they have not encouraged purchases of Australian produced goods. I know that in some cases goods have not been available in Australia. There is a kind of chicken and egg argument-that is, because many enterprises in Australia were aware of the fact that Telecom and other authorities were exempted from paying customs duty, they did not put into place measures which would have assisted in creating those industries in Australia. The Government has now made a decision which I think will be beneficial in that it will encourage companies in Australia to produce more high technology goods that can be sold to Telecom and other government corporations. (Quorum formed) I was speaking about the importance of these provisions for the Government's industry policy, and in particular, for the development of high technology industries. This Government, during the time that it has been in office, has worked very hard to turn Australian manufacturing around so that we can develop high technology industries in this country. I think it is true to say that no previous government even attempted this task, because previous governments always relied on the sheep's back to provide Australia's wealth, rather than on high technology industries and, in fact, on industrial development generally. This situation is being turned around by a number of measures that have been put into place by the Government, including the Management and Investment Companies Bill which provided for companies to acquire venture capital so that they could move into the high technology area. These provisions came from the recommendations of the Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements. That Committee put forward these proposals to change the customs duty provisions for Commonwealth authorities. Its view was that in so doing it could help to promote more investment in Australian industry, especially high technology industry. We want to see more judicious decisions of this kind to help promote industry development. A good job has already been done, but more needs to be done. This is one of the provisions that needs to be put in place if authorities such as Telecom are to be made to invest more in Australian production and Australian research and development, especially in high technology areas. We certainly support this key provision of the Bill. We believe that it ought to be supported by all members of this House. It is true that in the short term there could be some increase in the burden imposed on Telecom and other authorities, but we must recognise that that is a price that needs to be paid for the medium and long term development of Australian high technology industries. The boards of Telecom and other authorities ought to be looking at ways and means of purchasing from Australian industry. That is the way in which they should deal with this problem. They should be looking at ways and means of purchasing from Australian industry, and even encouraging Australian industries to get into projects at an early stage so that they can actually make some things in Australia. Unless we do this the future of this country, without industrial production in high technology industries, will be bleak indeed. We have the skills in Australia for this sort of thing. If honourable members want to know what Australians are capable of doing in the area of high technology telecommunications equipment, I urge them to visit the Ericsson factory in Broadmeadows in Melbourne. They will see that the standard of production at that factory compares to the standard anywhere else in the world. Indeed, the Ericsson people there are exporting telecommunications equipment to the whole South East Asian region and in some cases are capable of exporting back to Sweden itself. So if we take the development of high technology industries in these areas seriously, we can not only produce for the Australian market but also export to the whole South East Asian region. As I say, unless we build on those skills that we have we will not be able to turn the economic situation around. I want to say to anyone who thinks that Australians do not have those skills and capacities that they ought to visit the Ericsson factory and to see what we are capable of doing. We are capable of the best high technology production in the world and we will be promoting that high technology production by supporting provisions of these kinds. Rather than the boards of those authorities saying `We will just have to pay this fee and keep importing these products', they should look at the alternatives, which in some cases would be to go into joint ventures with Australian companies, to work with Australian companies and to make a lot of this equipment here. In that way we can not only provide more jobs for our people but also provide a future in terms of high skills for them. I would urge people to support these provisions. As I have said, I would urge the boards of those authorities to take on board the comments that I am making and in fact to concentrate on purchasing arrangements that focus on what we can do in Australia. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been involved in the Joint Committee of Public Accounts inquiry into offsets projects. I believe that one aspect of this must be the provision of offsets programs in cases where we are purchasing overseas, because in the past we have been lax with our offsets requirements and we need not only to emphasise the Australian content provisions of what we purchase overseas but also, in cases where the Australian content is insufficient, to emphasise the offset requirements of those high technology products. That is an area that we have been trying to get into further and further. When we came to government the situation in relation to offsets programs was absolutely disgraceful. Anyone could get out of the offsets program in this country simply by giving some cock and bull story to the offsets authorities about why he could not meet his offsets obligations. That situation has been substantially tightened up as a result of the various inquiries. But with every government purchase overseas of any substantial magnitude we need to keep emphasising the importance of the offsets requirements. If authorities are going to continue to purchase overseas, as I said, they should firstly look at what alternatives there are. If there are no alternatives in the short or medium term for them they should certainly try to ensure the maximum amount of work for Australian enterprises either in that area, through the Australian industry participation requirements, or in the offsets program, because it is only through these various provisions that we can ensure that we get the maximum industry development in this country in relation to these matters. I want to touch briefly on a couple of other provisions in the Bill that have been referred to. One of them is the increase in relation to duty free goods from $200 to $400 and the limit on what can be brought into Australia. There is no doubt that a number of people have been abusing the duty free provisions that exist not only to get around the customs duty that is required in relation to the importation of products, but even effectively to undermine the establishment of industries in Australia. I was surprised when the honourable member for Ryan said in his contribution that somehow the consequence of all this will be more imports from overseas and fewer domestic developments. Mr Lee —Who said that? Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member for Ryan said that. I find that quite extraordinary logic because I would have thought that the limits that the Government is putting in place were precisely to ensure that there would be more purchases from Australia. The kinds of abuses that were occurring in relation to the importation of a large number of electronic goods through the use of the duty free provisions will be circumscribed and limited. It seems to me reasonably fair that we have increased the limit from $200 to $400. We just do not want people to get around the customs duty provisions in a very large way by being able to import whatever they like simply because they have taken an overseas trip. There was talk about the poor fellow who manages only one overseas trip in 30 years. Okay, that case could arise, but what about the businessman, for example, who goes out of Australia five or six times a year and every time he returns he brings in all these electronic goods-- Mr Lee —For his mates. Dr THEOPHANOUS —For his friends, as the honourable member adds. We do not consider this to be a harsh provision. We think this is a tightening up that is important and, most importantly, it will assist Australian industry. This has been the key element of my contribution here today-the importance of our doing all we can to ensure that we are producing more in this country from our domestic resources, not only to meet our domestic needs but also to export high technology products. I conclude by saying that we support the Bill and we hope that the Opposition will do so as well. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(12.28) —As indicated earlier, I second the amendment which has been moved by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), the Opposition spokesman in this area, and I now speak to the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and the Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill 1987. As has been indicated to the House, these two Bills are part of the Government's May mini-Budget. They cover three main measures announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating): Firstly, the imposition of customs duty on Commonwealth authorities that are not Federal departments; secondly, the changes in the administration and eligibility requirements of the diesel fuel rebate system for off-road users; and, thirdly, the imposition of a $200 administration fee for the processing of applications for refunds of customs duty. Let me say at the outset that this Bill makes a lie of the Government's claim that the May mini-Budget does not impose any new taxes. In fact, the $4 billion reduction in the forward Estimates deficit that was promoted was not confined exclusively to expenditure cuts. The so-called administration fee is clearly a new and, in the opinion of the National Party of Australia, a totally unwarranted tax. If we look at the breakdown of the $4 billion that has been promoted as expenditure cuts, we find that $1 billion is to come from the sale of Commonwealth assets. It is ironic that in the Whitlam years we had a Federal Minister trying to borrow money to buy back the farm, and now this Treasurer is selling the farm, as it were. The $400m associated with additional revenue items is in no way related whatsoever to expenditure cuts. There is a $1 billion expenditure cut off the State budgets, which either has to be borne by the States or made up by the States. Effectively, we cannot say that that is a genuine $1 billion reduction right across the board. Six hundred million dollars is a deferment of payments. Only $1 billion can legitimately be claimed as expenditure cuts. So the promotion of a $4 billion expenditure cut, of course, is a myth. The requirement to make Commonwealth authorities pay customs duty also imposes a fresh charge and is in no way connected to reducing the size of the Government's functions. The National Party will not be opposing these Bills as we believe that they are part of the Government's Budget. However, we will be highlighting their adverse consequences on the community, and the fact that these adverse consequences have been brought about by the Government's budgetary incompetence. Since the last conservative Budget was presented in this place, the extra spending that has occurred under the Treasurer has seen a $10 billion rise in real spending between those two years. So there is a capacity for government expenditure to be cut on that basis alone. As well, I will be moving an amendment at the Committee stage to remove an unacceptable situation of retrospective payments that is embodied in one of these measures. This Government has complained that, because of international conditions beyond its control, Australians have had to accept lower living standards. The fact is-and these three measures are evidence of this-that this Government is dragging living standards and community facilities down because of its inability to meet its Budget deficit figures. I repeat that in the four Keating Budgets the deficits have blown out to an aggregate of $24 billion, which is a further commitment on the loan program, an increase in interest rates and a further reduction in the living standards of all Australians as a result. It is because there was a $4 billion blowout in the Government's spending that people will have to do without new phones, to fill in more forms and to wait longer to get imported goods. The first section concerns the changes to the Customs Act making public authorities liable for customs duty. It is the biggest revenue raiser of the three changes, raising an extra $75m for the Government every year. I must agree with the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) in his second reading speech when he said that this decision will bring public authorities into line with private enterprises engaged in the same field of commerce. No one can argue that a public authority engaging in the same industry as other enterprises should enjoy preferential taxation treatment. I also note the report of the Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements, which also recommended that Commonwealth agencies be required to pay customs duty, as the concession had led to `economic distortions and the promoting of a loss of allocative efficiency for the whole economy'. So if this change makes the purchase of Australian equipment more attractive to Commonwealth authorities, it is to be welcomed. However, this change will also adversely effect many Australians. Already our two biggest public authorities, Telecom Australia and Australia Post, have announced they will have to reduce services and increase charges to compensate for the extra expense that occurs. Other public authorities, without being as specific as Telecom, have indicated they will also be forced to reduce their services. In a Press release of 14 May, the National Media Manager of Telecom spelt out some of the reductions caused by this new requirement. Firstly, the rural and remote areas program which aimed to provide modern automatic telecommunications services to rural and remote area customers by 1990 will be severely curtailed and will not be completed by its target date. That is a real tragedy. Secondly, the network relief activity, meant to improve congestion levels in country areas, will have to be scaled down, and work to modernise switching equipment in central business districts to provide enhanced services will be put at risk. Thirdly, material orders in the short term to Australian manufacturers will have to decrease by about $50m. Fourthly, it is likely that the number of applicants experiencing serious delays will rise significantly. All these delays, these extra charges and reduced services are because of Labor's deficit blowout. They are not the fault of Telecom. They are the result of Labor's economic mismanagement. In my home State of Queensland, especially in the electorates of my colleagues the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) and the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), which take in large areas of rural Australia, these reduced services will be particularly felt. The supply of these services will also be curtailed. The rural and remote area program, an excellent program which has brought a reliable telephone service to thousands of Queenslanders who live in isolated areas, will be put on the backburner. Installation fees will rise and Telecom is apparently planning to reduce its Queensland work force-all a consequence of the May expenditure statement. Finally in this regard, if it is good enough for this Government to make Commonwealth authorities pay customs tariff, I suggest that the Commonwealth itself should pay its full way. I refer to the fact that local governments are asked to bear the costs of the rates on government institutions, authorities, and so on, that have those facilities rate free but suffer a substantial loss of revenue as a result. The 2 per cent tax sharing arrangement that was there at one stage was little compensation when the local governments had to pick up the services and everything else required for government buildings-in particular, buildings for local government authorities. I turn now to the second part of these Bills-the changes in the diesel fuel rebate scheme. These are of a relatively minor nature, saving the Government $6m out of the total cost of the diesel fuel rebate scheme which is estimated to be $500m this financial year. The changes are mainly savings in administration through requirements for farmers to fill out more paperwork and give more information when claiming the rebate. However, there will be virtually no financial disadvantage to the users of the scheme. I want to read into Hansard comments made on this by one of the farmer organisations: The changes . . . increase the minimum claim that will be processed, from 1000 to 2000 litres, and calculates the rebate on the basis of an average excise rate rather than refunding the actual excise paid. It is said by the farmer organisation to be mischievous to call the suggested changes efficient. To continue: They really mean that the Government will do half the job and leave farmers and others to bear the cost. Increasing the minimum claim to 2000 litres would mean that rebates in lots of less than about $400 would not be processed. It is suggested: No business would be allowed to refuse to pay its debts until they amounted to more than $400 and neither should the Government. These complaints are legitimate. The charges will ensure that farmers are put to extra trouble and time. We can hope only that the Government's claim that it will do something to streamline administration will offset the additional imposition on farmers as far as compliance is concerned. The third feature of these Bills is the imposition of a $200 administration fee for applications for refunds of customs duties overpaid. The National Party believes this is an extremely obnoxious new change from this anti-business Government. It has nothing to do with administration cost recovery and all to do with pocketing money at the expense of the business sector. It totally overlooks the basic fact that all refunds relate to overpaid money-that is, money which the Commonwealth is not entitled to in the first place. As it is, the Customs Service does not alert people if they have inadvertently overpaid customs duty. That is the responsibility of the client and his customs agent. However, quite correctly, it will go to great lengths to collect unpaid or underpaid customs duty. The Government is placing an effective disincentive for those people who have erred on the side of overpayment to reclaim their lost moneys. As well, the commercial reality is that there is often confusion over the exact value, the exact amount or the exact type of goods being imported. The client or his agent will pay the highest rate of duty to ensure speedy delivery of cargo and applies for the refund at a later time when the exact value of the cargo is known. Now, because of this high fee, there will be a strong disincentive to clear the cargo quickly and efficiently. As well, the Customs Act is extremely complicated. There will be extra, unfair pressure on staff and agents to ensure there is no accidental over- or underpayment of duty as the result is, in effect, a $200 fine for overpayment and substantial penalties for underpayment. The customer cannot win. I understand that the new, international harmonised tariff system is being introduced and it is inevitable that there will be some errors and teething problems before this scheme is up and running. One of the many customs agents who have contacted the National Party concerned about this legislation outlined his individual situation. He says that many customs entries-approximately 1,500 a year-are inadvertently overpaid either through ignorance of the correct rate or confusion over the nature, quantity or value of the goods. His firm lodges these applications, typically charging a fee for this service of $50. Under this legislation, the cost of processing a refund will rise to $250. This agent has checked his records and only about 50 per cent of refund claims exceed $250. So we will have a situation where at least half of the current refunds will not be worth pursuing when this $200 fee becomes law. I put it to the House that this is an unfair and extremely regrettable situation. Small businesses, importers, customs agents and manufacturers are in effect to be punished for making an honest mistake. As well, we will have the unacceptable situation of the Commonwealth receiving revenue it is not rightly entitled to, at the expense of individuals in our community. The level of the charge, that is, $200, is rated far too high by customs agents. They point out that for a similar service they charge $50, a fee which customs agents associations believe the Government should charge also if it is determined to impose a fee. The top rate charged by the Australian Customs Service for its officers time in providing services such as cargo examination, surveys, et cetera, is $16.75 per hour. On this basis, Customs is now charging at a rate of almost 12 hours of officers' time. Surely, to check an overpaid entry and refund the balance does not take 12 hours. If it does, there should be a careful look at the Department's mode of operation. If the Government was genuinely introducing a user pays principle fee, $200 would be by far too high. This fee is also retrospective in that it is to be imposed on goods lodged before the statement, when importers had no idea that an exorbitant $200 application fee was to be charged for refunds of overpaid duty. The National Party will be seeking to amend the legislation so that the fee applies only to those goods lodged for home consumption after 13 May 1987. The National Party can only assume that this is the manner in which the Treasurer will try to get the reverse on his J-curve. By making it so difficult-- Mr McGauran —And he's failing. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is his own failure, not only on that front but also on the economic front. Perhaps all of these issues, one by one, are designed to give an extra twist to the J-curve, which at present is at Z-level. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! It being past 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted, in accordance with sessional order 101a. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Sitting suspended from 12.48 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Is it a fact that trade union secondary boycotts on the waterfront are currently delaying the shipment of wheat, rice and maize to Fiji? Will the Minister initiate action under section 45d of the Trade Practices Act to ensure that these valuable rural exports, which are crucial to the immediate food requirements of the Fijian people, are not jeopardised by irresponsible trade union action? If not, why not? I ask the Minister: Who is running the country-the Government or the trade union movement? Mr WILLIS —I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that this Government is running the country and it will be running it for a long time into the future. I understand that there is a ship in Geelong which has a cargo for Fiji and which is subject to bans by maritime unions. That ban, I understand, is in response to calls from the Fijian trade union movement to unions in Australia and New Zealand to impose such bans on shipping. I have spoken to the Australian Council of Trade Unions about this on a number of occasions. The position is that the ACTU is currently reconsidering those bans in view of the fact that the Fijian trade union movement is now reconsidering its position in light of discussions it has had with the Fijian Governor-General and the assurances that it has had, apparently, that there will be a restoration of trade union rights in Fiji which were temporarily suspended when the emergency situation developed. My view is that, as the bans are likely to be lifted in the very near future, that cargo will be free to go to Fiji. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Can the Minister for Primary Industry inform the House of the Government's action in relation to the discovery of unacceptable levels of residue in export beef? Mr KERIN —I must stress to all participants in the Australian meat industry, particularly farmers, the seriousness of the situation. While only a small number of samples are involved, an immediate response has been essential to limit the possibility of the problem developing further. Positive action has been taken by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service to ensure that access to the United States of America and other markets is maintained. We have increased the sampling levels for beef at industry expense. We are examining the desirability of extending the increased sampling levels to sheep meat. We are tracing the causes of the problem, in co-operation with the States and the Territories as they have responsibility for, control of and distribution of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. The Commonwealth, through the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, has acted immediately. However, this is only one element of the response that is needed. I have been in touch with my State counterparts who have the constitutional responsibility in this area, to impress on them the need for a joint strategy to resolve the issue. The States must strengthen surveillance, control and education at the farm level and industry must direct its efforts to ensuring that individuals do not abuse the use of chemicals or use treated farm lands or products in such a way that unacceptable levels of residues can get into the food chain. Australia already conducts a national residue survey that gives a high level of assurance, but it is difficult to detect isolated instances of abuse. A major review of the national residue survey program will be undertaken. I conclude by saying that agricultural and veterinary chemicals are quite safe when used in accordance with directions. Farmers must be made fully aware of the economic consequences of abuse. Producer organisations, the States and those in the meat industry are requested to take strong action to stop abuse. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I refer the Minister for Primary Industry to comments by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, based on his recent visits to the United States of America as part of an all-party delegation, to the effect that no industry is facing greater threat in the United States market than the Australian sugar industry. I ask the Minister: What steps is he taking to ensure that the United States does not phase out the Australian sugar import quota by allocating Australia's share to so-called Third World developing countries? Will the Minister ensure that the leader of the delegation, the honourable member for McMillan, is given the opportunity to report formally to this House as soon as possible and that a full debate on the report is allowed? Mr KERIN —As to the second part of the question, that is up to the Leader of the House. The delegation was a back bench one. Mr Howard —I thought it was a Government one. Mr KERIN —It was a back bench delegation. The honourable member for McMillan has reported fully, with the full co-operation of his colleagues, including members of the Opposition parties. As to the first part of the question, we are making the strongest representations at the appropriate level. We do not control the activities of the United States Congress. All one can do, as with any other sovereign country, is to make representations to the highest possible level and put forward to as many people as possible and the decision makers in those countries the sensible views held by this country on those matters. I think that my colleague the Minister for Trade-I do not have his program in mind-is in the United States. If he is not in the United States now he soon will be, or he has just been there. Again, he would raise with Administration officials the exact situation. Mr Howard —He must be lost. Mr KERIN —If the honourable member wants some clarification, I can tell him that the Minister is either on the way from Ottawa to Washington or on the way from Washington to other parts of the United States. It is as simple as that. We are making the strongest representations. What the honourable member for McMillan has said is true. The United States has so encouraged the production of sugar that alternative sweeteners have been developed. A production subsidy is paid at a rate which is the equivalent of about US18c a pound. This means that sugar substitutes or alternatives are being developed, and that includes high fructose corn syrup-another primary industry in the United States which has a very strong lobby in the United States. In addition, President Reagan has his Caribbean policy which gives some privileged access to the Caribbean countries. The main problem with this enormous production subsidy is that the demand in the United States is going down to such an extent that if it lowers the quota evenly across the board, in terms of historical shares, the imported amount will be so little that Australia will get an increasingly smaller share. We are now down to a very small share of a declining market due to United States policies. Mr BRUMBY —Madam Speaker, I direct my question-- Mr Beale —Bye, bye! Another marginal. Mr BRUMBY —Can Opposition members be quiet? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my left will come to order. Mr BRUMBY —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Can he inform the House of the size of a consumption tax needed to finance a reduction in the top rate of income tax to 35 per cent, income splitting for single income families and a $8 a week increase in the family allowance? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable, experienced and very certainly to be returned honourable member for Bendigo for his question. The answer, very briefly, is that a 12 per cent consumption tax would be needed to finance those measures, plus the cost of abolishing the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the assets tax. That does not take account of all the other promises that are floating around. So a 12 per cent consumption tax would be needed to finance those measures. A consumption tax is not on, is it, Ian? Mr SHACK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it not a fact that section 45d of the Trade Practices Act has been used successfully to bring to an end at least 80 serious industrial disputes, including such well known cases as Mudginberri Station v. the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and various building contractors v. the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia? Will the Prime Minister guarantee to the House and to the nation that the Government will abandon its industrial relations legislation attempt to restrict and delay access to the use of this section, action which would bankrupt employers under union attack, and will he give an undertaking to leave sections 45d and 45e totally within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia? Mr HAWKE —At the outset, I remind the honourable member for Tangney of the record of this Government in reducing industrial disputation. Under this Government there has been a 60 per cent reduction in the level of industrial disputation compared with the pathetic and dismal record of his Party's confrontationist regime. I have made it quite clear, as has my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, that our legislation that concerns this matter will lie on the table of this House. It will be the subject of consultation with the employers, with the trade unions and, if they wish, with State governments. I welcome the fact that the Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry have welcomed this move of the Government. Ms FATIN —I direct my question to the Treasurer. What do the national accounts figures released today by the Bureau of Statistics show for Australia's performance in economic growth, exports and imports, wages growth and business investment? Mr KEATING —Broadly, they show that the Government's strategy is on track and on target. Today's national accounts figures show that in the year to March the Australian economy grew at a rate of 2.3 per cent and, also, they indicate that the general strategy of the Government in dealing with the current account deficit is working just as the Government said that it would. In the six months to March, export volumes climbed at an annual rate of 29.8 per cent and imports were static over that period. As a result, the current account deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product was 4.5 per cent in the March quarter of 1987 compared with 6 per cent in the same quarter of 1986, so the current account is coming down in a trend way, export volumes are up 30 per cent on an annual rate over the six months to March and imports are static. All of the growth in the last three quarters came from net exports. There is no contribution from demand; it all came from import replacement and exports, which is again indicative that the Government's strategy is working, that our secondary structures are being rebuilt, that we are finding the niches in export markets and that we are about pulling down our current account and hence our reliance on overseas debt. Inflation, as measured by the non-farm product deflator, declined from a peak of 8.9 per cent in the six months to June to an annual rate of 7.6 per cent in the six months to the end of March, so again, if honourable members look at another important indicator, they will see that it is coming down, just as the Government said that it would. Wages are a further confirmation of our continued success with the accord as a method of achieving economically responsible wage outcomes. Wages, salaries and supplements, including superannuation, grew by 4.8 per cent in the year to March which is, of course, in line with our trading partner average. We are maintaining all our competitiveness. In the six months to March the profit share recovered to 12.6 per cent from 11.3 per cent in the six months to September, so again we find that the business community's faith in the Government is being endorsed by a lift in the profit share. We have seen public sector demand fall at an annual rate of 1.9 per cent in the six months to March, so the public sector demand is coming down. In addition, today the business investment expectation survey lifts the business expectation outcome over the year, but, of course, none of these impacts and none of these outcomes have experienced the effects of the May economic statements made last Wednesday week or the Premiers Conference of Monday, which involve a further reduction of $4 billion off the Budget deficit in prospect and $1 billion off the State authorities borrowing program. That is a massive recasting of fiscal policy which has seen already very large declines in short term interest rates. As the Government provides scope for further falls in interest rates, we will see better expectations by business about investment and then better investment numbers. Looking across the gamut of the indicators, at this time the national accounts show that the Government's strategy is entirely on course, on trend, on track and on target. Export volumes are up, import volumes are static, inflation is coming down, the profit share is going up and earnings growth is 4.8 per cent. There could not be a better confirmation that the Government's policy is working and, if the nervous giggles from members on the other side are any indicator of their state of anxiety and nervousness, this outcome can only enhance their concern. Mr TUCKEY —We now have a chance to put some real numbers on what the Treasurer was just saying. I address my question to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is it a fact that the Government's own bank, the Common- wealth Bank of Australia, has increased housing loan interest rates from 15.5 per cent to 16.5 per cent for new customers and persons seeking to renegotiate outside mortgages and that that represents a 6 per cent increase to individuals in the community in the cost of servicing a home loan? Is it a fact also that the bank's stated reason for this increase is that it has been running short of funds because depositors have been pulling their money out in the search for higher rates of interest? How does the Minister equate this adverse judgment by a major bank, which effects ordinary Australians, with the Government's rhetoric that the mini-Budget would lower interest rates for all? Madam SPEAKER —I call the Treasurer. Mr Tuckey —Oh! Mr KEATING —If the honourable member asks a question about interest rates he will receive the answer from me. Since February we have seen a 3 per cent decline in short term interest rates. Mr Tuckey —What about housing rates? Mr KEATING —I will come to that. The honourable member has asked a question. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —We have seen a flattening in the yield curve as the long bond rate comes down and as the short rate comes down-- Mr Porter —But what is the yield-- Madam SPEAKER —Order, the honourable member for Barker! Mr KEATING —He ought to be pitied, rather than despised, Madam Speaker; do not worry about him. As the structure of interest rates comes down, the capacity of the deposit taking institutions, that is, the permanent building societies and the-- Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker, under standing order 145 relating to relevance. The Treasurer is giving all of his black tie answers instead of talking about ordinary people, which was the purpose of my question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Treasurer is in order. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, I am sorry that he cannot understand it. The deposit taking institutions, that is, the savings and the permanent building societies which have to compete in the money market for funds, are of course now finding an easier time of it with their instruments for attracting deposits. I remind the House that just last week the Westpac Banking Corporation and the Commonwealth Bank indicated that they were lending at a record level for housing. The Commonwealth Bank, like the other banks, has also been refinancing existing so-called cocktail mortgages. Those mortgages exist because of regulations left in the banking system for 30 years by the previous Government, which would not allow banks to offer large mortgage packages. Part of a loan was at the concessional housing rate, part at the overdraft rate and part at the finance company rate, which with some companies was at 20-odd per cent. The Commonwealth Bank is saying that if it is to negotiate the restructuring of a mortgage it may choose to do so at one percentage point above the existing housing rate, but if someone walks into the bank for a housing loan the rate is 15 1/2 per cent. In other words, the conclusion and the implication in the honourable member's question is quite wrong. In a deregulated world a bank is quite free to charge what it likes for, if you like, renegotiating a mortgage. The housing rate of about 15 1/2 per cent did not rise, as the Opposition gloomily predicted, when the Government did not renew the savings bank subsidy. We have seen a number of institutions reduce their housing lending rate by one-quarter to one-half of a percentage point in the last few weeks. As the structure comes down, at some point it will impact on the housing lending rates. Of course, that is what the honourable gentleman fears. If it impacts on those housing lending rates and interest rates come down, he thinks he might be embarrassed politically-and well he might be. The Government's job is to provide scope for interest rate falls. Not only has it been providing the scope; it has been watching the interest rate falls coming. Mr GAYLER —Will the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism inform the House about the lastest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on visitor arrivals in Australia and what the Government is planning in moves to follow up these figures? Mr JOHN BROWN —Following on the Treasurer's second last answer, may I say that the figures that have been released today indicate that in another area the Government's policies not only are on target but are succeeding beyond even our most optimistic dreams. Let me tell the House that the figures for visitor arrivals in Australia for the first two months of this year show a 54 per cent increase from the United States of America, a 42 per cent increase from Japan and an overall increase from all destinations of 33 per cent, which is just 30 times the world average, including the most successful tourist countries. If anybody in this House wants further indication of the success of the Government's policies, there it is in black and white for all to see. The statistics show that we had 287,000 visitors to Australia in January and February of 1987 as against last year's figure of 216,000. To put that in its proper context, in the last year of the previous Government's reign, the number of international visitors to Australia was something less than 900,000. This year the figure for international visitors will be 1.7 million, next year it will be 2.2 million and by the year 2000, using a very modest growth factor, it will be 5 million. If honourable members want to know how modest the projection is, we are using a projected growth rate of 10 per cent, as against the present 33 per cent. Mr Reith —What about penalty rates? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Flinders will cease interjecting. Mr JOHN BROWN —It has been the consistent cry from honourable members opposite that our success has been due simply to the fall in the value of the dollar. That may well have been relevant when it was worth US53c. It is now worth US72c, and the number of visitors is increasing even more. Had the Opposition still been in government, I can tell the House what would have happened with this increased number of tourists. The infrastructure that was left in place by the Opposition when we came to government would not have accommodated one additional person. But, because we instituted Government policies of an increase in the depreciation rate from 2 1/2 per cent to 4 per cent and removal of the silly Foreign Investment Review Board guidelines of the previous Government which precluded international investment, we now have in Australia the best tourism infrastructure in the world, with $9,000m worth presently under construction. Mr Reith —Fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax, high interest rates-you have done a lot. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Flinders. Mr JOHN BROWN —I will give him a decent warning one of these days. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will just get on with answering the question. Mr JOHN BROWN —He is the man who proudly proclaims he was the chairman of the penguin parade. He is the man who was intent, with his stupid land developers on Phillip Island, on destroying every penguin rookery on the island. Mr Spender —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister should be told to withdraw what he has just said, taking advantage as he has of the fact that you have warned the honourable member for Flinders. The honourable member for Flinders cannot reply and the Minister therefore thinks that he has a free kick. He should be told to withdraw what he said. Mr JOHN BROWN —No withdrawal, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister should withdraw if the honourable member finds it offensive. Mr JOHN BROWN —If he finds it offensive, I withdraw. He is unlikely to disprove it, though. Madam SPEAKER —Is the Minister continuing his answer? Mr JOHN BROWN —I just add that if every member of this House took the same interest in tourism as does the honourable member for Leichhardt-he has seen the extraordinary growth of tourism in his electorate in north Queensland, particularly in Cairns-maybe the gloom and doom that pervade the other side of the House would not be so great. To answer the second part of the question, about what we propose to do to capitalise on this great growth, we intend to do plenty more of the same-that is, to promote Australia in every part of the world, through the recently redesigned, slimmed down and much more commercially oriented Australian Tourist Commission, as the best holiday destination in the world. But, more importantly, to capitalise on the huge international investment in tourism infrastructure in Australia, I will be leading an investment mission to Japan in July. I noted that when that was announced the honourable member for Flinders put out a childish, churlish Press release that talked about a jaunt. Let me tell the House that the business community of Australia does not think that it is a jaunt. This will be a very innovative investment mission. It is the first one being paid for by those people going. It is not being paid for by the Government; it is being paid for by those people who want to go. At present 15 of the leading business houses in the tourism investment area have paid their $10,000 deposit to go with me to Japan to encourage even more Japanese investment in Australia. So much for the honourable member's description of this as a useless jaunt! It if fair to say that tourism is now the biggest industry in Australia. It is growing at an enormous rate, simply because of the policies which this Government has developed. It will continue to grow and continue to be an answer to many of the economic problems with which the previous Government left us. It had no answers, no wit, no imagination and no estimation of the potential of this country as a tourist destination. It is now the most quickly growing and the most successful tourist country in the world. Mr IAN CAMERON —I would just like to inform my friend Bob that, after 11 July, not only will there be no consumption tax; there will be no capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax or assets test. Under the new Sinclair-Howard government-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member asking a question or making a speech? Mr IAN CAMERON —I would like to refer to more mundane but more important matters, such as chook diseases. I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: What action has been taken to ensure that there is no repeat of last month's breach at the top security Australian Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong when an employee became accidentally contaminated with Newcastle disease virus? Why did established emergency procedures fail to ensure that the employee was not totally free of the virus before re-entering the community? What assurances can the Minister give poultry producers that this dangerous virus has now been contained, and why has there still been no formal advice of the incident to the industry? I also ask: Should there be an outbreak of disease as a result of this or similar incidents, what compensation arrangements for stock owners would apply if there was a mass slaughter of stock? Mr KERIN —First, I would like to say that the accident happened inside a cool room in the secure area. The microsecurity systems of the laboratory ensured that there was no danger to the outside environment. Since the AAHL staff are not allowed contact with birds outside the laboratory, there was no danger of the virus spreading to poultry or other birds. The virus can live only inside a chook. Although the safety precautions were effective, the AAHL board of management met on 4 May to consider a detailed report on the incident and asked the laboratory's independent security assessment group to review the incident and report as a matter of urgency on any changes in security procedures that may be required. The security assessment group met on 13 and 14 May and will present its report to the board of management shortly. The board of management will be tendering a further final report on about 11 or 12 June on this matter. When the Minister for Science and I became aware of this incident, we put out a statement. We take the matter seriously, but there was no risk. Mr CROSS —I direct a question to the Minister for Defence. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the reported comments of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen urging the abandonment of the submarine project and its replacement by patrol boats? If so, does the Government intend to accept this advice, or will the submarine project proceed? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Yes, my attention has been drawn to the remarks of Petersen on this matter. He said that, instead of spending millions of dollars on submarines, the Government should be building lots of patrol boats for surveillance of the coastline. I think it is worth reflecting on those remarks, given that this man would be, in his own estimation, the Prime Minister of this country and given that he says that, if he is feeling in a generous mood, he will lead the Liberal Party as well-in the unlikely event of a conservative success, a coalition no longer being in existence. We are beginning to see emerge from Petersen some of the sorts of views that he expresses on affairs outside the interests of his State. We have heard his views on foreign policy-that he does not want to discuss them. We have now heard the first defence view from Bjelke-Petersen, that is, a proposal for the cancellation of the submarine project and its replacement by patrol boats. The submarines are a critical section of our defence capability. Without those submarines, a very substantial capacity on the part of the Royal Australian Navy to deter attack on this country is effectively removed. To suggest that the project should be cancelled in favour of patrol boats is laughable and is the sort of comment we expect to hear from time to time when the editors of newspapers decide that they will include in their letters column oddball opinions that otherwise receive no dignity at all in the estimation of those involved in the political process in this country. That Sir Joh has arrived at that conclusion is a demonstration of the most appalling ignorance in someone who would count himself likely to be responsible for the affairs of this nation. We have no intention at all of abandoning the submarine project. It is a project that has been well managed, one in relation to which industry has come to see very substantial potential for the development of capabilities in this country. It is a product of a defence policy that has seriously matched strategy, capability and the financial means of achieving the objectives set. There is no other political party in this country that has so disciplined itself in the area of defence policy; there is no other political party in this country that can, in a systematic and effective way, as this Party does, provide both for the economic security of our people and the national security of our people. What is at stake in any subsequent election in this country over the next few months is now quite clear-that there is one party in this House, one party presenting itself to the Australian people, that has a coherent view on both how to manage the economy of this country and how to defend this nation. It would be to the very serious detriment of this country if this party were to be removed from office. Because of idiotic comments such as that referred to, that is an extreme unlikelihood. Mr CARLTON —I direct a question to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the large and widespread increases in State charges that were announced by the Premier of New South Wales yesterday-less than 24 hours after the Premiers Conference on Monday. Is it a fact that these increases, which range from 7.25 per cent to 11 per cent, take effect on or about 1 July 1987? Does the Government's inflation forecast of 6 per cent over the 12 months to the June 1988 quarter allow for increases in State charges of this size? What allowance was made in the 6 per cent inflation forecast for increases in telephone and postal charges? Mr KEATING —Every forecast, as distinct from an opinion, that the Treasury makes is a factor in some increases in State and local taxes and charges. Those charges rise from time to time with the inflation rate-sometimes at less than the inflation rate-to maintain their real value. I have not seen Premier Unsworth's statement, but I know that increases in charges were in the pipeline well before the Premiers Conference. That is probably what these increases reflect. Premier Unsworth has probably maintained the State revenue effort. Mr Carlton —He increased them over and above the forecast. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mackellar has asked the question. He might now listen to the answer. Mr KEATING —It has probably never occurred to the honourable member that Premier Unsworth is probably intent on keeping up the State revenue effort, which of course is entirely reasonable. As I got no question about the Premiers Conference outcome yesterday, I might record that the outcome which the Commonwealth secured was, of course, the best outcome for the nation. Mr Hawke —A historic one. Mr KEATING —And a historic outcome, as the Prime Minister says, in terms of relations between the Commonwealth and the States, because on Monday we saw the States sitting down with the Commonwealth and agreeing to an economic regimen and strategy, which never happened during the coalition Government. There was never any sense of order or decency brought to the proceedings of the Premiers Conference and Loan Council meetings. That has been the marked change. But the other change was that on Monday again the Commonwealth Government tightened the global ceilings on the State authorities' borrowing programs, which were let run rampant by the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong, and the former Prime Minister in the so-called infrastructure conference of 1980-81. In bringing some discipline to the size of the public sector and the public sector borrowing requirement, as usual Labor has had to do the mopping up and the dirty work. At the same time as trying to screw down the size of the public sector, we also confirmed the May statement commitment of taking $1 billion off the recurrent payments to the States. The overall outcome is a decline in real terms of 7.5 per cent. It will be the only time in memory where, for three years in a row, we will see negative outlays in terms of Commonwealth payments in real terms to the States. That is the kind of discipline which has come from this Government. It did not come in shrieks, it did not come in howls and it did not come in chaos; it came in an organised change down by getting the States to join the Commonwealth in its policy and bringing the States along, as we brought the community along, in the need to restrain public expenditures. It again illustrates the contrast between the way in which this Government runs its economic affairs and its policy-picking up the point made by my colleague, the Minister for Defence-and the sort of unorganised chaos which existed in the years between 1976 and 1983. Mrs KELLY —Is the Minister for Health aware of the Australian Medical Association's call to doctors to abandon the Medicare schedule and set their own fees? What will this proposal cost Medicare patients? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of statements made by the AMA. The first thing that I should point out is that on 1 August the great bulk of doctors in this country will receive a 6.1 per cent increase in their fees following a fee increase granted only nine months ago on 1 November. That is the first thing the AMA should take into consideration. Secondly, a number of reductions in fees have been carefully targeted in specific areas as part of an ongoing policy by this Government to do three things: First, to ensure that there are not improper financial incentives to medical activities in particular areas; secondly, to remove rorts and distortions that occur in the system; and, thirdly, to ensure that the fees relate to changes in technology. Let me give honourable members an example. The very commonly performed joint operation of cataract and lens implantation now costs just under $1,000. When that was established as a basis some 10 or 15 years ago the operation took a considerable period. Most operations are now done in less than one hour. There have been payments of $8,000, $9,000 and even $10,000 a day because the great technological changes enable the operations to be done in a much shorter time. It would be wrong for any government in this country to neglect to adjust the schedule fees in relation to those technological changes. So all the targeted changes meet the three principles laid down and we will continue to conduct those reforms within the medical benefits system. The final point I make is that there is in this land a notion that pensioners, the disadvantaged and ordinary working people should bear their share of restraint. We are saying to some elements of the medical profession-most of them have done very well in recent years-that we expect some restraint from them too. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Science. Mr Donald Cameron —None of those rude words again. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —There will be none of those rude words. This Minister is not having himself on like the Treasurer to whom I was previously addressing my question. I ask: Is it not the case that in respect of university research the Australian Science and Technology Council recommended to the Government some months back that an Australian Research Council should be formed by a rationalisation of the existing research granting schemes, including that administered by the Australian Research Grants Committee? Is the Government going to get around to a response on this important issue this session-which I doubt with the onset of election preparation-- Mr Braithwaite —A long session! Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It depends on how long the session is. It may not be very long. Madam SPEAKER —I might say the question is very long. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Which should result in administrative economies which would have thus obviated the need for the mini-Budget cuts in this important and vital area? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Berowra for his question. It is absolutely correct that ASTEC, in its recent report on the funding of higher education research, adopted substantially a submission from the Department of Science that an Australian Research Council should be created to absorb existing schemes such as the Australian research grants scheme on the Committee of which the honourable member for Berowra once served. The national research fellowships and the marine science and technologies grant scheme refer only to granting schemes from within my portfolio. The aim, as suggested by ASTEC, was that ARC would help to determine national priorities in research with a heavier emphasis on areas that come up suddenly and where it is highly desirable to be able to allocate money to some new project coming up. An obvious example, which will be at the tip of honourable members' tongues, is superconductivity and access to supercomputing, both of which are very important and which could not in the normal Budget process be anticipated, say, one year or two or three years in advance. Naturally, any decision about the creation of an Australian Research Council will have to be made by Cabinet at some time within the next few weeks, months, or however long we have to go. The size of its operation, its funding and the extent to which the ARC would cover other schemes would naturally have to be determined first of all by Cabinet, and the quantum of money available would be determined in a Budget context. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —For the information of honourable members, I present the summary record of proceedings for the fifteenth and sixteenth meetings of the Sport and Recreation Ministers Council held in Sydney on 30 April 1986 and in Perth on 10 October 1986. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report entitled `Program Management and Performance Review of the Australian War Memorial'. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed. That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Government's response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled `Footprints in the Sand-an inquiry into civil coastal surveillance'. I seek leave to have the Government's response incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Government response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure-`Footprints in the sand-an inquiry into civil coastal surveillance'. The report was table in the House on 3 June 1986. The Expenditure Committee decided to examine coastal surveillance arrangements in March 1985-and in particular to examine the arrangements put into place following the major review conducted by the Minister for Defence (in his then capacity as Minister assisting the Minister for Defence) which was tabled in the Parliament in March 1984. The arrangements put in place following the Beazley Report involved the establishment of a coastal protection unit within the Australian Federal Police with responsibility for the co-ordination and direction of coastal surveillance. The Government determined that the coastal protection unit should have authority to plan and set priorities for surveillance and to authorise response and enforcement action. The unit is co-located within the Federal Sea Safety and Surveillance centre of the Department of Transport, with regional coastal protection units in Broome, Darwin and Cairns. The civil coastal surveillance program is designed to meet fisheries, quarantine, immigration and environmental objectives as well as identification of major breaches of Australian law, including illegal drug trafficking. Elements of the coastal surveillance program include: Long-range patrolling of the Australian fishing zone by defence aircraft Use of RAN patrol boats for Australian fishing zone surveillance and enforcement Littoral aerial surveillance by chartered aircraft Aerial patrolling of the Great Barrier Reef, and National co-ordination through the Australian Federal Police Coastal Protection Unit headquarters in Canberra and close co-operation with the States through the Standing Advisory Committee on Coastal Protection and Surveillance. The principal recommendation of the Expenditure Committee's report is that the functions undertaken by the Coastal Protection Unit should be transferred from the Australian Federal Police to the Department of Transport, with the exception of the response and enforcement capacity. To a large degree, this would represent a return to the arrangements applying prior to the Beazley Review. The Committee came to this view on the basis of its assessment that coastal surveillance contributes to law enforcement, especially drug interdiction, only to a limited degree; and that the Department of Transport necessarily has infrastructure and expertise established for the search and rescue function which can efficiently be applied to the coastal surveillance co-ordination function. While acknowledging the work of the Expenditure Committee in this regard and the points it has raised for consideration, the Government is not inclined to change the basis of the present arrangements at this time. The arrangements involving co-ordination and direction of coastal surveillance by the Australian Federal Police have been in operation only since October 1984. They were still undergoing development and consolidation during the time of the Committee's review. There have been recent developments designed to bring closer together the roles of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs Services in the coastal surveillance area. These arrangements allow greater integration and utilisation of the combined Customs and coastal protection unit resources, as well as providing for greater co-ordination of response effort. Further, the Government believes that effective arrangements have been established for liaison with State and local agencies in Northern Australia and would not wish to disturb them at this time. The recent decision announced on the littoral surveillance aerial contract and present consideration of the Aerial contract for patrols of the Great Barrier Reef are major parts of the Government's continuing program in this area. An important development for the future of coastal surveillance is the recent announcement of the Government's commitment for the project development phase for a network of the over-the-horizon radars (Project Jindalee). Over-the-horizon-radar has the potential to revolutionise the coastal surveillance system in this country, and may bring about an approach in which interdiction of detected targets is a greater possibility. It can be expected that the capabilities of Over-the-Horizon Radar for Australia will be much better known in some 12-18 months and by that time the present arrangements will be thoroughly established. The Government would be looking to consider a major review of the coastal surveillance system at that time. In the meantime the coastal surveillance requirements of the relevant departments and agencies will continue to be met, in co-operation with the States. This is achieved through a program co-ordinated and directed by the Australian Federal Police Coastal Protection Unit, advised by the Standing Inter-departmental Committee on Coastal Surveillance and the Standing Advisory Committee on Coastal Protection and Surveillance. Issues which may improve the operational efficiency of the coastal surveillance and protection regime, under the co-ordinating authority of the Australian Federal Police, will be examined on a continuing basis taking into account the present financial constraints and responsibilities of the concerned ministers. Developing technology in various areas may provide an opportunity to increase the capability of the coastal protection system and enable the surveillance task to be conducted more effectively. Such technology will be thoroughly assessed as it becomes available. The Expenditure Committee also recommended that the user-pays principle continue to be applied to the coastal surveillance program and be extended to cover defence and response costs and costs of the Coastal Protection Unit. The Government is developing the extension of the user-pays principle in the context of the 1987-88 Civil Coastal Surveillance budget. In conclusion, I reaffirm that the Government continues to place considerable importance on the need for a coastal surveillance and protection capability which prevents the bringing or spreading of human and agricultural diseases and pests into Australia, identifies possible breaches of Australian law and clearly demonstrates Australia's resolve and ability to exercise control over its sovereign territory. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% 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 an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 86 to 1 July 87 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 86 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 Beale,Mr Blunt,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Dobie,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Free,Mr Kerin,Mr Lloyd,Mr Reith 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 Mr Kent,Mr Holding and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth 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 Ian Cameron and Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to show restraint with equity. In particular, the decision to defer the November pension adjustments has resulted in a loss of $25.62 for a single pensioner and $21.36 for each married pensioner. The prospect of a further deferral of the May adjustment will result in the loss of another $35.10 for a single pensioner and $29.10 for each married pensioner. When you are scrimping to make ends meet, as is the case with many pensioners, you can't afford such a cut in living standards. Pensioners are looking for a new deal from politicians-more of the same is not good enough! Your petitioners request an immediate return to payment of May and November CPI increases, and as is duty bound will ever pray the Government grant this request now. by Mr Chynoweth and Mr Martin. 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 sheweth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Peter Fisher and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth 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 Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows that the closure of the Killarney Heights post office agency is opposed by local residents and businesses. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and permit the continuation of the Killarney Heights post office agency. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That there is a shortage of nursing home beds within the Adelaide Hills Region. The ratio of nursing home beds per 1,000 people over 70 is only 34 beds, which includes the 30 beds for the proposed Strathalbyn Nursing Home. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government recognise that Strathalbyn is part of a rural sub-region which is desperately underserviced with nursing home accommodation and immediately provide capital funding to enable the Nursing Home at Strathalbyn to be built. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensions. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we believe Reference to God should be made in the National Anthem, as Australia is considered to be a Christian Nation and therefore we (here state circumstances of case) believe inclusion of His name is appropriate and desirable. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the last line of each verse of the National Anthem be altered to read In Joyful Strains Then We All Sing (here state terms of action petitioned) God Bless Australia Fair. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decisions being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable or responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Mortlake showeth concern for current and future funding for road construction in south west Victoria. Your petitioners therefore pray that: The Commonwealth Government increase the moneys allocated to the Victorian State Government for road funding, so as to allow adequate funding for the construction and maintenance of roads within south west Victoria. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. Petitions received. Assent to the following Bills reported: National Health Amendment Bill 1987 Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1986 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Bill 1986 Sugar Cane Levy Bill 1987 Sugar Cane Levy Collection Bill 1987 Olympic Insignia Protection Bill 1986 Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The implications for Australia of recent political events in Fiji. 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 SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.53) —In the setting in the world in which Australia lies, so rarely do international events have so direct an influence on this country as those that have happened in Fiji during the past few weeks. Indeed, the very spectre of the scene in the Parliament of Fiji is mind boggling. We have read of the intervention by Lieutenant-Colonel Rabuka and the manner of those with him who were dressed in balaclavas and came into the Parliament in their battledress with rifles at the ready. Anyone who understands the parliamentary system of democracy can be only mind boggled that such an event could happen in our region. Behind those events and the circumstances that, sadly, still beset that island nation, there are profound implications for Australia. It is important that the people of Australia understand that the genesis of those events lies very much within the fabric of the Australian Labor Party, within the left wing of the trade union movement of Australia and the manner in which those in it still impose economic sanctions and still set the guidelines by which this Government acts. Despite ministerial intervention to try to persuade them to change their direction, and despite the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) coming here today and saying that he thinks that the embargo that was placed on the loading of ships will be lifted tomorrow, as of this afternoon it still exists. It is important that, first, we remember the development of the Labour Party in Fiji-the party that was deposed in the military coup. Much of its genesis lies in the intervention of a man called John Halfpenny. Not so long ago, he was a member of the Communist Party, but now, apparently, he has acquired belated respectability. He is a member of the Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights Union and, in his earlier communist affiliations, he saw fit to attend the Soviet Union's meeting of the World Federation of Trade Unions in Prague in 1978. He was one of those who contributed towards the increased involvement of those who were surrogates to the Soviet Union in the Pacific. What has happened in the development of the Fijian Labour Party shows that those who have had political associations with the Soviet Union, with the Communist Party in this country and, through the Australian Council of Trade Unions continue to have an influence on industrial reaction to events that affect Australia's stance in the Pacific, are still seeking to set the political guidelines that impact on this Government and on the Australian people. I do not wish to go into the nuances of the circumstances of the development of John Halfpenny; I simply refer honourable members to two articles. One is by Michael Barnard in the Age on 26 May, and it illustrates the extent to which the Fijian trade union movement has learned so much from the Australian trade union leaders. Indeed, from statements by left wing academics and those within the trade union movement, it is quite apparent that they regard their greatest achievement as the way in which they have been able to introduce the elements of intervention by Australian trade unions into the minds of those who work within the trade unions in the South Pacific. My first point is that we need to understand that very much in the way in which the Australian trade union movement seeks to intrude its thinking into the countries of the South Pacific lie the attitudes that have developed within the Fijian Labour Party, and it is against those attitudes that the reaction of the Melanesian people of the Fijian islands have reacted. Part of the difficulty facing this Government in finding a solution to the problem is that it is hoist on the horns of its own dilemma. On the one hand, it has a very strong affiliation with the ACTU. It now has the latter-day respectability of John Halfpenny who, perhaps more than any other, together with Pat Clancy, has tried to determine the format of trade union activity in the South Pacific. They have had a role in applying sanctions, and a role in saying to this Government: `We are not prepared to let Australia find a solution that suits Australia's needs; we are going to find a solution that maintains disruption in the South Pacific and that ensures that there is a climate within which Soviet intervention is possible'. All that we need to do is to recognise that much of the Melanesian nationalism that was expressed in the takeover of the Fijian Parliament was a response to the imposition of external ideologies, most visibly seen in the incursion of Libyan influence in the region-I am delighted that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is sitting at the table because I want to say a word or two about that in a minute-but also in the neutralist, non-alignment and anti-capitalist views of the Fijian Labour Party. We can recognise those who are conservative and traditional within the Melanesian community of the Fijian islands, and who are concerned that the attitudes of the Fijian Labour Party are taking them in a direction that many of them do not want to go. We must remember that not only Colonel Rabuka but others in the Fijian military have been successively involved in international forces in the Lebanon, the multinational force and observers and the Sinai. They have seen other countries use military solutions to their problems, so perhaps it is not too much to accept that they must have learned lessons from that and applied them. Our concern, however, lies in the impact that this has within Australia. There are three things that I think we need to recognise. The first is that trade union intervention continues. There is no doubt that in the wheat industry-the Foreign Minister and, I hope, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and members of this Government will recognise this-as in so many other fields, the interests of the left wing trade unions of the ACTU are against the interests of Australian exporters, against the interests of preserving living standards, for which some on the other side have little regard, and against the continuity of a grain trade to a nation which at this stage provides about $10m annually in revenue to this country. What the ACTU and that group of left wing members within the ACTU have sought to do is to put the people of Fiji under a threat-a threat which denies Australian exporters their opportunities for trade and, certainly, puts very real pressures on the Fijian people. All we need to see is the headline in the newspaper which reads `Food supply dwindles as Fiji feels bite of bans', to realise that, as a result of the actions of the ACTU and this Government's inaction with the ACTU, the Americans, so we are told, will take over the supply of foodstuffs, particularly wheat and rice, to Fiji. An all-party delegation has visited the United States and has said how terrible it is that the United States is proceeding within the Congress to introduce more protectionist legislation to protect its farmers. Yet this Government allows the ACTU to impose bans which are directly affecting selling opportunities for Australia and which are running directly contrary to the actions which this Government says it seeks to take with respect to the solution of the problems in Fiji. The first of the difficulties lies in the field of trade. That follows inevitably because of the degree to which this Government has no ability to tell the trade unions where to get off. That is what lies behind just about every activity that this Government has embarked upon. Yesterday we saw the withdrawal of the industrial legislation. Never mind its withdrawal; we saw the introduction of a piece of legislation which was designed to pass over to the trade unions even greater influence in the control of the economy of this nation. While for electoral purposes the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) belatedly has said that he will leave the legislation on the table, let not anyone be fooled. The same sort of authority that is being exercised in foreign policy by the ACTU bans on trade with Fiji-the extent to which it is the trade unions that determine our foreign policy and not this Government-applies also in regard to economic policy. This legislation was designed to pass over so significantly to the trade unions responsibilities that are best reflected by the denial of the continuation of the exercise of sections 45d and 45e within a common law jurisdiction. The consequences for Australia do not just lie in trade. Perhaps the more profound area lies in our future stability and security. Without referring to the history of this Government's involvement in defence, it is worth remembering that Paul Dibb, in his report a little while ago, told us: In South East Asia and the South Pacific, which is Australia's area of primary strategic interest, defence policy has an important role to play in support of our more substantial foreign policy and economic concerns. In this region, our fundamental national security interest is to maintain the benign strategic environment that currently prevails, free from unwelcome external pressures. It is exactly that that has been changed by the left wing influence within the ACTU, by Mr Halfpenny and the colleagues of the Left of the Australian Labor Party who have vocally expressed their views so often in this place. We need to understand that no longer do we enjoy a benign strategic environment within the South Pacific. That strategic deterioration very seriously affects the whole environment within which Australia's economic planning now takes place. We have just had a $350m cut in defence spending in the mini-Budget. Those of us who have been concerned with defence for a long while will say that since the introduction of the Cross report-that is, the report of a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, chaired by the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross)-some 2 1/2 years ago, there has been no improvement in our short term deployment capability and combat sustainability. The Dibb report said: `Never mind what happens outside your region'. Do honourable members remember the way in which coastal continental defence was extended and the way in which it talked about low level insurgencies? That was the area of prime strategic concern as far as Paul Dibb was concerned. While the White Paper has broadened it a little, the reality is that Australia today is unable to maintain to any degree our ability to provide a combat force against a resisted landing. Our amphibious capability is virtually nil and our ability to be able to play, even if we should wish, any military role in the South Pacific is limited. Indeed, our regional maritime surveillance system, our airborne early warning system, is totally lacking. We all know that manpower resignations are at a level which creates enormous difficulties in maintaining our defence presence. Yet we are faced in this region with a deteriorating strategic circumstance. It is no longer benign, to use the words of Paul Dibb. We know that within the Department of Defence we have not only moved away from the 3 per cent recommended in the Dibb Report-that is, the 3 per cent of expenditure in order to maintain a reasonable level of defence output-but also, thanks to the mini-Budget, there is a level of growth of minus one per cent. The result will be a significant reduction in funds available for defence at a time when, should we wish, we are unable to maintain any sort of a military presence in this region. The consequences for Australia are concerned with trade; the implications of the involvement of the left wing members of the trade union movement within the ACTU; and the imposition of industrial bans affecting Australia's trade and export returns. The implications for this country are concerned with the fact that the left wing of the trade union movement sets Australia's foreign policy. The implications are very profound in a deteriorating strategic circumstance in our region and a declining defence capability towards which we must react. Apart from that there is something which is still more profound-that is, the degree to which this Government has walked away from providing any sort of reasonable reaction to the difficulties in the region. I have said on a number of occasions that it should have been possible for Australia to have utilised the South Pacific Forum, to have in some way played a positive role. We heard how the Foreign Minister has been totally ignored by the Prime Minister in the expulsion of the Libyans. We need only remember that it was the Foreign Minister on 1 May who said: There is absolutely no evidence that the Libyan People's Bureau is involved in anything that we would regard as disturbing and untoward and seriously disruptive in this region. What happened? On 19 May Bill was overseas. Bob said: `No, don't come back, Bill. You might do something sensible. We don't want you in Australia to handle the most serious foreign policy crisis in which we have been involved'. So he expelled the Libyans. But we see that Bill and Bob together will attend the South Pacific Forum this weekend-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Leader of the National Party should refer to Ministers and other office holders by their titles. Mr SINCLAIR —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister will attend the South Pacific Forum on Friday and Saturday this week. They have been able to persuade the Fijians not to attend, if we believe the news- paper reports. But why the devil could they not go along to the South Pacific Forum, or have convened an urgent meeting of it, to try to persuade the Melanesian powers of this region to see whether there was a possibility of a return to democracy? They could not do so because the left wing of the trade union movement holds this Government by the throat. The Government introduced adverse legislation yesterday. In the same way, in regard to foreign policy, this Government is a failure. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(3.08) —To say that I am perplexed would be the understatement of the year. We were, I understood from the proposal before the House, to talk about what had happened in Fiji and its implications for Australia. We did not hear the word `democracy'. There was not one reference to the constitution and no comment about the rule of law or basic rights. There was no condemnation of the coup. There was no evidence of an understanding of the delicate structure that is developing in our region with the recently independent island states of the South Pacific. We heard none of that. I put one simple question to the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the leader of the rump part of the National Party of Australia-or whatever part it is, after that frail old septuagenarian from Queensland tore it apart and left its gizzard staked on the fence. The question I put, very simply, to the right honourable member for New England is this: Does he or does he not condemn the coup? Whatever it is that he stands for, why did he not condemn the coup? In 15 minutes of the right honourable member's speech there was not one reference to all of these matters. John Halfpenny evoked more comment than the rights of people, democratic processes and our concern about constitutional proprieties in Fiji from the right honourable member for New England. He even resorted to quoting Michael Barnard as some sort of authority. That is like quoting Lenin on democracy or Bluebeard on child care. I must say that as I listened to his speech it sounded like a very thinly veiled understanding of Rabuka's coup, and that is the way it will be interpreted in parts of Fiji, to the joy of some and to the great dismay of others, and elsewhere in the region, to the total confusion of those people. The right honourable member well knows that this weekend the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and I are going to Apia for the South Pacific Forum conference. Mr Tim Fischer —Still going? Mr HAYDEN —Yes. What sort of constructive contribution does the right honourable member think he has made to the very important and delicate negotiations that both the Prime Minister and I will have to undertake there, in particular in the corridor conversations, the discussions which are extremely important and likely to be most productive, if anything is going to be productive, because they are not taking place in public? If his comments are resorted to and are drawn upon as some evidence of the evident division in Australian society on this matter, our jobs will be made immeasurably more difficult. A good part of the right honourable member's speech was devoted to attacking the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the current embargoes against exports to Fiji. I want to say only this: There is contact between the ACTU and the trade union movement in Fiji. I sincerely trust that, as a result of that contact, within the next day or two this matter will be resolved. It is, as the right honourable member rightly said, a problem but on the other hand it is an initiative which is understood by many people in this community and applauded by them, as it is applauded and encouraged by many people in Fiji. It has its inherent problems. It will affect exports to Fiji. Fiji can easily turn to other sources very quickly and obtain the sort of food supplies it needs. The consequence for us would of course be lost markets. I recognise that, but that having been said, the problem is not advanced one iota by his engaging in the sort of blatherskiting abuse of the trade union movement in what is a very difficult and delicate situation and when efforts are being made to try to sort it out satisfactorily. We do not need any lectures from the right honourable member on our so-called lack of ability to tell the trade unions where to get off, to use his terminology. The fact is that on comparative records we have a far superior record in containing industrial disputation than any previous government in something like the last 30 years-or more, if one makes some sort of allowance for the growth in the work force. Days lost through industrial disputes now are lower than they have been for a couple of decades. That means very simply that in comparison the Fraser Government, in which the right honourable member for New England was a senior Minister, was hopeless, it was woebegone, when it came trying to handle industrial disputation in this community. The right honourable member ranted about defence matters, quite evidently forgetting his own sorry record on defence spending, which was reduced in real terms while he was Minister for Defence. He made silly statements such as: `Australia would be unable to mobilise a combat force against a resisted landing'. He then decried our amphibious capability and made a number of associated condemnatory comments. I am more interested in the underlying unstated assumptions behind this sort of commentary by the honourable member. He clearly thinks that we should go off on a frolic, some sort of adventure, with military forces to land in Fiji or in some other part of the South Pacific if the whim takes us. That is some variation of the Monroe Doctrine of the turn of the century. I have never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life. This gives us the whole quality of his approach to this very difficult and very delicate issue. I am not going to waste time going into the detail of how our projection and deployment capabilities have been vastly improved since the honourable member for Swan (Mr Beazley) became the Minister for Defence. I think I can say fairly confidently that he is the most effective Defence Minister that this country has seen. His speech on defence initiatives in the South Pacific in this Parliament on 20 February 1987 set out all of those relevant details. But there we have it from the right honourable member for New England. Clearly running through everything that he said was sympathy for the people responsible for the coup, a reckless indifference for our obligations towards things such as basic rights, the Constitution, the rule of law and people's right to participate in the situation in Fiji. John Halfpenny was condemned, not once, but several times, but there was not one word of even mild criticism for the people responsible for the coup in Fiji. I ask the right honourable member for New England where he stands on that issue and what it is that he stands for fundamentally when these issues of principle come forward. This is a very complex situation. It has fairly complex roots. It is more than a matter of some people being discontented with an election result and wanting to restore the status quo as they knew it. It has its roots in what might be called communalism. It indicates that countries such as Fiji are now developing political responses to particular events as they unfold, responses which perhaps are going to cause problems and challenges in the region. But they will call for understanding and not for the ranting nonsense which we have just heard. I would suggest that they call for much more bipartisanship than we have seen, because we have a vast national interest in this. There are not many points to be scored in the way in which the right honourable member for New England sought to do so, either in our region or domestically, by trying to create unnecessary divisions in this country and by indicating a sympathy for what is a completely unconstitutional, unlawful and treasonable act. The right honourable member should have addressed himself to some of those matters. He should try to understand that the South Pacific is not the place it was in the 1960s or the 1970s. The political and social systems there are evolving, and in some cases quite quickly. Events in Fiji have shown that. Some developments in Vanuatu have also indicated that. The implications of some of these things reaching elsewhere show that there is fragility and also a big challenge ahead of us in handling these matters. The coup in Fiji needs to be seen in the context of much more rapidly evolving patterns of political development in the South Pacific. Since the beginning of decolonisation in the region in 1970 there has been increased complexity in the politics of the region, and this is a fact which we have to face. It is a fact which the right honourable member for New England evaded. He had a splendid opportunity to address it-he evaded it. We will have to devote greater energy and resources to this sort of thing. An obvious implication of the coup for Australia and the region is the precedental impact of the first military coup in the region. That is another reason why the right honourable member should not have been undertaking the sort of blatherskiting and bluffing that he went on with, which has no relevance to the real issue-in case it incites people, in case it is misunderstood and in case it leaves the impression that there is a solid core of support for the sort of activity that we have recently seen. It is for this reason, among others, that we have sought to put down a hard marker on our responses on this occasion. I draw the right honourable member's attention to several pages of the statement of the Prime Minister of 21 May 1987, released to the media and publicly, which indicate the responses we have taken and show the things that we have available to us if we need to use them. The issue of democratic principle is fundamental to the pursuit of our interests in this region. That is what the right honourable member for New England should have riveted our attention on in his debate. While the details of a solution to the present problems in Fiji are for the people of Fiji to resolve, we must do what we can to ensure that the principle of democracy is respected and that proper processes are observed. The communal dimension of the problems in Fiji has potentially difficult implications for Australia-not helped by the simplified non- sense from this populist who has come in from being stripped bare of any credibility within the National Party. What has to be recognised is that there is a fundamental social problem in addition to a constitutional crisis. If things do not resolve themselves-and more likely so if they were to deteriorate-we may face a very significant immigration pressure. A clown from the corner populated by the Country Party, and the Country Party members can always be recognised because they keep their shoes off in the House so that they can count above ten-- Mr Ian Cameron —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask the Minister to refer to us as the National Party and not as the Country Party. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAYDEN —With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it is a fair enough point. I will refer to them as the clowns of the National Party. Mr McGauran —You've been-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr HAYDEN —Honourable members should stop to think of the potential seriousness of substantial immigration pressures. If foolish statements such as those we have heard from the right honourable member for New England were to inflame people, if they were to be taken seriously, and if he were thought to be the leader of a substantial movement in this country implying sympathy for the coup leaders, he could easily provoke further action or a worsening of the situation. Then this problem to which I am referring could really be with us. The coup itself, and our response to it, will have an impact on our wider regional relationships. That is particularly so because of Fiji's focal position in the South Pacific and because of its more mature development as a consequence of its earlier experiences with colonialism. Our policy responses need to entail careful and fine judgment between the exercise of our influence and our need in that exercise not to impair our longer term influence and credibility. On the one hand, we need to recall that measures taken, for example, in the trade and aid areas can deliver hammer blows. On the other hand, we need to judge carefully, for example, the potential humanitarian impact of what we do. We also need to bear in mind that there is a longer term political consideration in all of these unfolding events-a longer term political consideration which relates to our national interest, our influence in the region, and our desire to restore stability and proper processes throughout that region. These judgments need to be made very carefully, not just by the Government but by others in the Australian community; for example, the trade union movement. The right honourable member for New England is right in this respect but he was wrong in the way in which he presented his views. It also needs to be recognised by the Australian media. Policy responses need, because of the immediacy of the problem, to be more than usually finely judged. And the present picture we see is not complete; it is unfolding. Day by day as I watch the cable traffic I find a new element developing in the situation in Fiji. Our relations with Fiji and, to some degree, with the Pacific as a whole will now always be more complex than they have been in the past. That is a trend which will continue. It is a trend with which the government of the day will have to grapple. It is a challenge which is not addressed or resolved by the extraordinary behaviour of the right honourable member for New England. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(3.23) —Very few people, if any, in this House will condone the actions of Lieutenant-Colonel Rabuka in staging a coup against the legitimate, democratically elected Fijian Government of Dr Bavadra. Certainly most of my colleagues and I do not. I acknowledge that both sides in the dispute have very real grievances and that, therefore, the Federal Government has, in one regard, acted responsibly by being wary of the action it has taken in response to this serious matter, although some would argue, I suppose, that it really does not know what to do about it. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) seemed to develop some confusion by asking the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to stay overseas so that he could take the front running on the matter. I would say that he is now sorry for that decision. I was interested to hear comments by a number of Commonwealth delegates at a conference I attended. When they heard of New Zealand warships going to Fiji and of other actions being taken, they were most alarmed that any Commonwealth country would take any action at all in the affairs of another country. Despite the Government's decision not to take decisive action, particularly in regard to sanctions, we find that its master, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, has decided to take matters into its own hands. As well as determining internal national policy in Australia, it is now again dominating our foreign policy by applying sanctions against Fiji. I draw honourable members' attention to the interests of the ACTU in the Pacific region. We know that John Halfpenny-he has already been mentioned in this House a number of times-of the left wing Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights Union, helped to found the Pacific trade union community in 1980-81. That organisation has helped to link left wing unions in Australia, Japan, New Zealand and a number of Pacific nations, including Fiji. Mr Halfpenny has continued to play a key organising role in the Pacific trade union community. After securing the support of the ACTU for that organisation, Mr Halfpenny's political ally, Bill Richardson, formerly Assistant Secretary of the ACTU, succeeded him as convenor of the organisation while Mr Halfpenny became organising secretary. So we can see the ACTU link, and unfortunately for the security of the Pacific region, the Fijian coup has played right into the hands of those anti-Western influences in Australasia and the Pacific, even though it was apparently one of Lieutenant-Colonel Rabuka's intention to rid Fiji of what was conceived to be a left-leaning government. I remind all Australians that Mr Halfpenny was formerly a member of the Communist Party and is now a member of the Australian Labor Party and a Victorian Senate candidate. Can the House believe that? If this is the case, heaven help Australia. I was pleased to hear the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that action was under way that would soon lift the sanctions. Anyone who thinks that this Labor Government is not dominated by people such as Mr Halfpenny needs to look again. I will read to the House a message that came from the National Farmers Federation. The message reads: Consider then, the entry of the ACTU into the arena after the Prime Minister announced there would be no `Rambo' style reaction to the coup in Fiji. Tas Bull, that well known ambassador for the waterfront, made the judgment without it seems, reference to the Prime Minister, that millions of dollars worth of export contracts with Fiji could go to the wall while the Waterside Workers Federation and the Seamen's Union black banned any export or import activity with Fiji. It was, they claimed, to support their union brothers on the friendly isles. Contrast that reaction with NFF's reaction to expulsion of the Libyans. We supported the Government. The trade unions decided they knew better. But where's the tough Government response to Mr Bull and his comrades? I've got no doubt that if NFF had adopted a different line to the government over Libya, we'd have been pilloried up hill and down dale. We might even have been branded as traitors. There's been no such Government reaction to the activities of the Waterside Workers and the Seaman's union over Fiji. That situation only reinforces general concern amongst employers in this country that there's one set of rules for the Government's mates in the trade union movement and another set of rules for the rest of the community. I ask the House to consider the ACTU imposed sanctions in humanitarian terms. How dare any Australian place hardship on the Fijian people? Not only will the indigenous Fijian people suffer when food supplies start to become scarce, but the Indian Fijian will suffer. We know that all Fijians will suffer. I wonder whether the Bollinger socialists on the other side of the House have ever been hungry or even known what it is like to be hungry. I would say that they have not. The majority of Fijians are totally innocent of the coup, yet apparently it is the intention of the ACTU to cause unrest which in turn will lead to turmoil, which has, so far, mostly been avoided. The troublemakers who wish hardship on our traditional friends, the Fijians, stand condemned. Apart from the humanitarian aspects of the situation, it may not be known by all honourable members that Australia provides 34 per cent of Fiji's total trade, amounting to $205m. Wheat sales alone represent $10m, and fresh foods $7m. Australia provides 50 per cent of Fiji's imports; Japan, 16 per cent; and Singapore, 5 per cent. Four hundred people a week travel to Fiji from Australia on Qantas Airways Ltd and 90,000 people per year-or 43 per cent-of the tourist trade on the island is Australian. As honourable members will know, wheat, flour and rice constitute basic dietary components for Fijians. Supplies are drawn largely from the milling in Fiji of Australian wheat and rice. As reported in today's Australian Financial Review, our wheat trade of $10m is being threatened. Fiji is waiting for a shipment of about 8,000 tonnes of Australian wheat which is in a ship also holding supplies destined for Noumea. Fiji has been purchasing its annual requirement of 60,000 tonnes of wheat from Australia but, with less than seven days of supplies left, local millers have already received offers from the United States of America to replace Australia's shipment. The United States offers were being made at the very time that Australia was requesting members of Congress in Washington not to damage Australian agricultural markets. Bans by maritime and stevedoring unions have been requested by Fiji's trade union movement, and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has announced that, once limitations on trade unions in Fiji were lifted, shipping bans here would similarly be lifted. No wonder people believe that the trade union movement is running this nation. Another important export industry for Australia is the rice industry. That industry has sent a number of messages to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Federal Labor Ministers, knowing of their close affiliation with that organisation, and have asked that the motor vessel Capitaire Wallis, which has been waiting to load rice and wheat in Geelong for a number of days, be allowed to load. The vessel also carries containerised cargo to Vanuatu, New Caledonia and Fiji. A message from the Ricegrowers Co-operative Ltd to the ACTU reads: On Friday 22 May our telex sought your assistance in removal of union bans to enable loading of rice and wheat destined for Fiji. Those bans remain in force. We wish to meet our contracts for Fiji because we do not believe that creation of basic food shortages will help remedy the regrettable political situation in Fiji. We believe food shortages will occur soon unless the cargo is loaded promptly. Food shortages will harm the ordinary Fijian and the reputation and reliability of Australia as a long term supplier. Grain suppliers in other countries are ready and able to step in and meet the need-indeed they will welcome the chance. Following today's Sydney Morning Herald article re food shortages, our Fiji buyers have been offered prompt deliveries of rice from Thailand. There is also talk in Fiji of food aid from the USA. There is no need to tell the House about the problems presently facing the Australian rice industry, as the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) and the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) and I have raised the matter many times before. Honourable members can be assured that this policy of the ACTU will only further damage the industry. Markets will be lost, as I am sure the United States will be only too pleased to provide wheat, rice and any other commodities requested by those governing Fiji. What an affront it was to the people of Australia when the Government introduced into the Parliament legislation that would further strengthen the hand of the ACTU, an organisation that already determines our domestic and foreign policy. What more does the ACTU want? Thankfully, the Government has withdrawn that industrial relations legislation, being worried about its adverse impact in the forthcoming election campaign. However, the people of Australia know that, if the Australian Labor Party is re-elected, that piece of legislation will be re-introduced. If the Government determines that sanctions have to be imposed, that decision will rest on its head but until that time I ask the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to have some intestinal fortitude-or guts, as we call it-in determining along with his Party his own foreign policy and then have the good sense, for the welfare of this nation, to ensure that those decisions are carried out. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(3.33) —The matter of public importance before us relates to implications for Australia of recent political events in Fiji. While one would have thought that we would hear a great deal about that, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) came into this House and made an extraordinary speech that had very little to do with the Fijian question. Indeed, he changed his speech mid-stream. We heard about industrial relations, domestic defence policy and Libya. We did not hear a great deal about Fiji. Indeed, we did not hear anything about democracy in Fiji nor about the Fijian constitution. We did not hear anything about the communal or racial aspects within Fiji, and we did not hear about the very complex situation that exists in Fiji today. Nor did we hear about the Melanesian people-the indigenous Fijians-and their rights, as well as the rights of the Indian people in that country. All we heard about was what one could be led to believe was an Australian Council of Trade Union-led coup in the South Pacific. What utter nonsense! In fact, the whole speech was utter piffle. Some days ago the right honourable member for New England attacked the Government when it sent Navy ships and soldiers into the Pacific. He said that the dispatch of a company of Australian soldiers into the area was an `unnecessary provocative act'. He accused the Government of bluff and gunboat diplomacy. That was in contrast to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who has said: Thus far the Opposition has not disagreed with the response taken by the Hawke Government to this crisis. That was said by the Leader of the Opposition last weekend-and he has said it on several occasions throughout the past testing fortnight-on what is a rather tragic question. It is not a question of a lot of nonsense about an ACTU-led coup. We should be talking about the problems in Fiji, what has caused the coup and what has caused the racial problems that exist there. It is basically a racial question, a communal question between the two major groups of people within Fiji-the Fijian people of Melanesian extract and the Indian population, which now comprises a slight majority. Indeed, the last census take in Fiji recorded 330,000 Fijians, 347,000 Indians and 36,000 people of Chinese, European and other races. Therefore, basically two peoples make up the vast majority of the Fijian population. There is a problem in Fiji which has existed for a long time, and it has now reached a head. The Australian Government has reacted responsibly. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) asked, do honourable members opposite honestly believe that Australia should have used military intervention in Fiji? The pious pontificating that we heard from the Prime Minister of New Zealand was utter nonsense. He threatened from time to time that New Zealand would intervene. That is nonsense. Surely honourable members opposite are not seriously suggesting that Australia should intervene in Fiji or in any other country in the Pacific. In every defence debate in this House honourable members opposite come forward saying that Australia should have a forward defence posture. If that is to be the case-and we did away with that approach 20 years ago-we have to pay for it. Firstly, about $10 billion would be required to pay for two or three aircraft carriers with planes, escorts, et cetera if one was fair dinkum about having a forward defence posture. That approach was done away with 20 years ago. It is nonsense. Honourable members opposite continue to sprout this garbage in the House, but no one believes them any more, apart from their colleagues in the rump section of the National Party. This is a very serious question. Although I disagree with the reasons for the coup, I understand them. We never hear anything about democracy from honourable members opposite. Democracy has prevailed in Fiji for 17 years. One would have hoped that, whatever the problems might be in Fiji, they could be worked through leaving democracy intact. Let us hope that there will be a very early return to civilian democracy within that country. Indeed, the Foreign Minister alluded to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 21 May. I will take the time of the House to quote from two passages of the statement, because they summarise Australia's position. They summarise our position throughout the crisis and what we are continuing to do. We are continuing to pressure for an early return to democracy in that country. On 21 May the Prime Minister said in part: Australia is accustomed to share with Fiji common values of the rule of law and of Parliamentary democracy based on free elections. Those values have been shared because of our respective sovereign commitments to them and in recognition of their contribution to the welfare, progress, and security of the South Pacific region. The Government accordingly believes that in emphasising publicly those values and objectives it has also been helping in a time of crisis to hold before the leadership of Fiji the values of that nation as well as of Australia. Later in his statement he said: Although the situation in Fiji is highly complex- which I have already suggested- and although there have been many twists and turns as the situation has unfolded, no analysis can escape on basic judgment. The essence of the crisis is the assault on Fijian democracy. The solution to the crisis must be the restoration of democratic principles and practice. We can be flexible as to precise solutions, but consistency with that basic principle is vital. I, and I believe every Government member, would stand behind those words. I would hope that every member of this Parliament would stand behind those words. We have a complex question. There may be varying solutions to it. I believe that the Governor-General in Fiji is doing an excellent job, in extreme circumstances, in holding that country together. He is holding the Constitution together so that, out of the problems that exist there, we will see a satisfactory solution and a return to democracy so that all people in Fiji-Fijians, Indians and others-have a fair say in the running of that country. It is extraordinary that in 25 minutes of debate we did not hear from honourable members opposite about the question of race. We did not hear about the Melanesian-Indian situation. We did not hear about democracy, the constitution or how the elections were run in Fiji. We did not hear about the Governor-General's role or about the Great Council of Chiefs. All we heard about was John Halfpenny, industrial relations, the ACTU led coup and other piffle that was not suitable for this Parliament. We heard nothing but absolute nonsense. It is about time that honourable members opposite woke up to the facts. Their rhetoric is that of the 1950s. The population has passed them by. They are still talking in terms of the 1950s and this is 1987. They will stay on that side of the House for a long time while they sprout such nonsense and rhetoric that comes forth week after week in foreign affairs and defence debates. We keep hearing about forward defence and military intervention in the Pacific, which is absolute nonsense. The Australian Government, as I said when I quoted from the Prime Minister's statement, has made its course very clear. It is pressuring the regime in Fiji for an early return to democracy and it will continue to do so, so that we will see a satisfactory outcome to this very complex and sad situation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The discussion is concluded. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 275th report of the Committee-the response to the Committee's 238th report on public hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs KELLY —by leave-The Committee's 275th report details the Government's response to the Committee's 238th report on public hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory. The 238th report outlined the findings of the Committee's inquiry into an efficiency audit by the Auditor-General on the administration of public hospitals by the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority. The Committee made 27 recommendations for action to involve planning of hospital services, clinical administration and hospital resource management. The Authority has implemented, or is in the process of implementing, 25 of those recommendations. For example, the Authority has implemented the Committee's recommendations on admission arrangements with the result that new admissions and discharge policy and procedures have been adopted; guidelines on elective admission priorities have been introduced, and all clinicians and service-related staff are involved in priority setting-the only problem is that the doctors are not working, but that is beside the point-and the Authority is encouraging further use of day beds. Two new committees have been established in the clinical administration field. The Patient Care Review Committee is responsible for the monitoring of hospital services provided and the Clinical Record Committee has been established to monitor the adequacy of clinical records. With regard to the planning of hospital services, community representatives are now included on the Authority and its boards. Progress on the Authority's planning activities will be reported in its annual reports. The Authority is also installing two new computer systems-that is, the computerised administrative hospital information system and the human resource management system. When these systems become fully operational, the Authority will be able to compare length of stay figures and resources used to detect inefficiencies and to review staff usage in relation to work load. In conclusion, the Committee is satisfied with the response to its 238th report. In particular, the Committee is pleased that the Authority has adopted the Committee's first recommendation and is introducing management and service practices which will enable its hospitals and nursing homes to apply for accreditation by the Australian Council of Hospital Standards. The Committee feels that there is high value in the accreditation progress because of the self- examination required of a hospital and associated remedial action in preparation for an assessment. I suppose the only thing we need now is for the doctors to return to work. I commend the report to honourable members. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -I remind the House that it has agreed to a cognate debate on the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill and the Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(3.47) —The Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill and the Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill seek to implement three of the measures announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the Government's May economic statement. I think that it is rather opportune that the Bills have come before the House today. What they seek to do is threefold. Firstly, they seek the payment of customs duty by Commonwealth authorities so they are not treated in any different fashion from any other group in the country; secondly, they seek the imposition of a $200 fee on application for a refund of customs duty; and, thirdly, they seek new arrangements to strengthen the diesel fuel duty rebate system. I propose to touch on each of those issues, and perhaps pick up a couple of points that have been made by speakers during the debate. The proposal to require Commonwealth authorities to pay customs duty-this appears in clause 6 of the appropriate legislation-stems from the Government's acceptance of the recommendations of the Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements. It is most appropriate, once again, to reflect on the fact that the Government, in deciding to go down any particular track, does so in the full knowledge of the industry which is under consideration and through the full process of consultation. This Government prides itself on the fact that it adopts such consultative methods and talks with people who are involved-in this case, in the customs and excise area-and arrives at a particular determination after careful consideration. The Committee concluded that the concession of duty free entry of imports granted to most Commonwealth agencies leads to economic distortions and promotes a loss of allocative efficiency for the whole economy. I think that that phrase is a very important one in our consideration of the Bill. I emphasise those words: It was found that it `leads to economic distortions and promotes a loss of allocative efficiency for the whole economy'. In three words, we are talking about efficiency and cost recovery. That is most important in terms of what this Government is all about. It demonstrates once again its bona fides, its economic capabilities and it clearly indicates that, as far as this Government is concerned, government authorities are to be subjected to the same sorts of pieces of legislation and requirements in terms of customs and excise as are ordinary importers. The second part of this legislation concerns the $200 fee for refund applications and it is set out in clause 7. This clause has been included because the Australian Customs Service receives thousands of such applications yearly and many of these are time consuming and they involve a complicated assessment and examination of goods. Quite clearly, again, the twofold aim of the legislation, namely efficiency and cost recovery, is being addressed by the application of this $200 fee. Again, I point out that it has come about because of the concern that this Government has for ensuring that all sectors of the economy pay their way. It is a payment for service or a user pays principle, to some extent, and it is to be applauded. The third part of the legislation sets out the changes to the diesel fuel rebate arrangements in Parts II and III of the Bill. Most of these matters were recommended in the efficiency scrutiny review. Again, there are the words `efficiency' and `review'. The Government is going down the track, as it has always, of conducting very complex reviews and extracting recommendations which will lead to efficiency within this area of government administration. The Government has accepted the scrutiny conclusion that a greater onus should be placed on rebate claimants to substantiate their claims, and why not? Why should rebates be given willy nilly without any substantiation? We know that the Government has gone through the process of substantiation in a variety of areas in relation to taxation. Of course, this is all part of the Government's drive to improve the system and to make it a great deal fairer. Consistent with the requirement for persons to substantiate their claims, the Government will now require more information to be provided about claimants' operations and the methodology used to calculate eligible usage of diesel fuel. Again, we are stopping the rorts and we are endeavouring to ensure that there is a fairer allocation when people apply for these rebates. Other important changes which have emanated from this diesel fuel rebate arrangement are threefold: First, there is a provision to permit a reduction in the amount of rebate claimed if satisfactory details are not produced; secondly, the averaging of the rate of rebate because of continual fluctuations in the duty rates as a result of import parity price changes, which is most important; and, thirdly, the introduction of an on the spot penalty system which provides, as an alternative to prosecution, a penalty of three times the amount of rebate wrongfully obtained. Looking at the whole question, efficiency and cost recovery are at the basis of these changes. During the debate on these Bills some points were made about the need for this sort of legislation and why Commonwealth authorities should be subject to levies and excise recovery. Quite clearly, one of the spin-offs will be to encourage local producers. Hopefully, it will mean that the Commonwealth departments affected by this will swing into import replacement and change the purchasing policies which they have adopted over a number of years. I can think of a number of areas where this will be most important. Over the past few months I have been made aware of difficulties being faced in the electricity industry in New South Wales as a consequence of electronic components which have to be purchased and used, but which are not available in Australia. That is one example in relation to a State authority, but through electricity authorities and other Commonwealth Government authorities that purchase these sorts of materials one would hope that we will see an encouragement of import replacement policies and that a flourishing local industry will produce a lot of the material that is now purchased overseas. Because of the devaluation of the dollar, I believe that incentives have been provided for local industry to enter the import replacement area. It is now more attractive to bring in capital equipment to re-establish industry and we should take advantage of this. We should now continue along that track of import replacement and try to ensure that, in the case of Commonwealth purchases, statutory authorities and Commonwealth Government departments look very carefully at Australian made components for a variety of things which they need. In his contribution to the debate the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) raised an issue with which I find myself in total agreement. I refer to a comment that he made in relation to consideration being given to public authorities paying their way in their obligations to local authorities. Prior to entering Parliament, some time ago I represented local government in the Wollongong area and it did not take me long to realise that substantial amounts of money were escaping local government through Commonwealth and State government entities. I refer to rates. There were Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board properties, State Government buildings and so on scattered throughout the length and breadth of the city of Wollongong, but those properties could not be rated. A valuable source of funding which could be returned to local government did not exist. I support the comments made by the honourable member for Dawson on this matter, because I believe that they would go some way down the track towards offsetting some of the very difficult circumstances in which local governments find themselves in relation to obtaining enough rate revenue to do the things for which local governments are responsible. I refer to the old rates, rubbish and roads type of syndrome. There must be some redirection of funds back to that area. As is the case with all measures that were announced by the Treasurer in the May economic statement, I find a great number of things that recommend this legislation. I believe that it will lead to import replacement by Australian industry. I hope that Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities will now look to local producers and, if they are not in Australia, perhaps some encouragement will be given to local producers to start up. I have given one example of where that might be possible. The whole question of efficiency and cost recovery has been addressed by this legislation. I commend the Treasurer and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) for taking this initiative. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(3.57) —I do not want to put too fine a point on it nor would I want you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to be acutely aware of the fact but, if one were to look around the House, as well as the Press gallery, one could be forgiven for supposing that this was legislation of very little consequence. Mr Braithwaite —You are short on interest but long on quality. Mr ANDREW —Precisely. As the honourable member for Dawson said, there has been all too little interest in what is a debate of some significance. I note that the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) said that he supported entirely these matters, which have emerged from the May economic statement. I have a good deal of reason to express concern about the Bills being debated cognately before the House. If one looked around the House, one would suppose that these were Bills of no consequence. Apart from one faithful reporter, even the Press gallery seems to be all but empty. We are dealing with three changes to the Customs and Excise Act. The first change relates to the payment of customs duty by Commonwealth authorities, the second to the imposition of a $200 fee on applications for a refund of customs duty and the third to new arrangements that will apply for those who seek a rebate, principally primary producers, on their diesel fuel excise. I note that yesterday in this House the Tasmanian members entered the chamber wearing black arm bands. They were suggesting that there was some reason why we ought to grieve for Tasmania and the way in which it was treated in the May economic statement. Without in any way being sacrilegious, I observe that during a funeral service one may hear the statement `the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away'. This legislation is an instance where, quite frankly, the Government is seen to have given with one hand and rapidly taken away with the other. The most pertinent illustration of this is the impact that the changes to the diesel fuel rebate will have on farmers. The Government says to farmers: `If you use diesel fuel for the purpose of primary production, we will rebate the excise duty to you'. Yet in the legislation before the House some of those rebate provisions are about to be very smartly taken away by the Government. There needs to be a wider appreciation of the role played by diesel fuel in primary production in Australia. It would not be realistic to say that it is as essential as sunlight, water or soil, but it would be fair to say that it is an essential part of every primary producer's tool for producing whatever crop is involved. Twenty years ago the use of diesel was not quite so widespread. Thirty years ago much of agriculture was conducted using tractors powered by either power kerosene or petrol. But today, whether in broadacre farming, grazing, horticulture, viticulture or even floriculture, a large proportion of the fuel used in that primary production is diesel. In the past the requirement has been that primary producers had to consume 1,000 litres of diesel within 12 months in order to make an application for the excise paid to be rebated to them. There was some flexibility, in that if one had not consumed 1,000 litres but had made the application within 12 months of buying the fuel consideration would be given to refunding the excise paid. The legislation before the House proposes that, for every primary producer in Australia, instead of the minimum usage amount being 1,000 litres, it will be 2,000 litres. That is a matter of some real concern to primary producers. My plea to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and to the Government is for them to consider at least exercising the sort of flexibility that will not demand the use of 2,000 litres within a 12-month period before one can apply for a rebate. I am suggesting that the flexibility that some States already exercise ought to continue in this legislation. A minimum claim of 2,000 litres represents, in the old terms, about 10 gallons a week. Whilst it is not difficult to consume 10 gallons a week in the middle of a planting or reaping season-in fact it is not difficult for most large area broadacre primary producers to consume more than 2,000 a year-some involved in smaller forms of agriculture, in intensive livestock rearing, pig breeding, horticulture and viticulture will find that the 2,000-litre limit exceeds their annual consumption. I see no reason why a small primary producer should be disadvantaged by this Government. The small farmer needs that $400 or so that he would be rebated on 2,000 litres of fuel-I confess that it is a fluctuating figure-every bit as desperately as does the farmer who has consumed an even larger amount of diesel fuel. I make the plea for the Government to exercise some flexibility with people who apply for the rebate but who indicate that they have used less than 2,000 litres. The other change to the diesel fuel rebate system in this legislation is a change in the averaging provisions. In the past the rebate has been made available to farmers on the actual amount of diesel excise paid. The proposal is for an average of the excise applicable over a six-month period to be rebated to farmers. That may seem to be all well and good and, as the honourable member for Macarthur has said, in the interests of efficiency. But I point out to the Government that, even in this area, there could be inequities, particularly if the farmer discovers that there is a rise in the excise rebatable in the latter part of that six months after receiving a smaller rebate for the large part of that six-month period. I make the point that, philosophically, the Government ought to be at least as committed as is the Opposition to protecting the small farmer and the family farmer. At least it ought to be philosophically committed to caring for small producers, but there is little evidence of that in this legislation. The legislation suggests that the Government no longer believes that small is beautiful. I bring that statement to its attention. Another concern that I have with the legislation is that small primary producers-all primary producers-may well be involved in more paper work; this additional burden ought not to be foisted upon them. An additional area of the legislation that I want to address is the proposal for the imposition of a $200 fee on all applications for a refund of customs duty. I am a little interested in this because, along with every other member of Parliament, I have had people come into my office claiming that they have been disadvantaged in some way by a decision made by the Australian Customs Service. To require that a $200 fee must be paid before such a decision can be reviewed when that $200 fee may not be refundable, seems to me an unfair burden. It is not difficult for the Customs Service to make a mistake. I am currently dealing with an instance where a large asset, in the form of pig killing equipment, was imported into South Australia and the Customs Service dictated that duty was applicable. In fact, subsequently I believe we have been successful in getting a refund of a large sum of money on that imported equipment. Mr Braithwaite —You were lucky not to have had to pay $200. Mr ANDREW —As the honourable member for Dawson says, we were lucky that the people affected did not have to pay $200. But I go on to make the point that, even if the $200 had had to be paid, it would have been a small proportion of the refund cheque that they would have anticipated. But for many people the items in question would be worth little more than $200 and they have every reason to be indignant at the action presently being taken by the Government. I have an agreement not only with the Opposition Whip but, I hasten to add, with one as elevated as the Government Whip to conclude my speech in 10 minutes. I will stand by that agreement, but I once again want to plead with the Government to ensure that its proposals to alter the present arrangements affecting the rebate of excise paid on diesel fuel are flexible and kept reasonable from the point of view of primary producers, particularly small primary producers. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(4.08) —It is my pleasure to speak to the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill and the Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill. These Bills and the proposed amendments relate to Commonwealth authorities being required to pay customs duty. Of course, this Hawke Labor Government is imposing just another tax upon Australians generally throughout the community with its revised arrangements governing the payment of the excise rebate on diesel fuel used by those people eligible for the rebate. The legislation also involves the imposition of a charge of $200 for the processing of an application for a refund of customs duty. So people claiming a refund of customs duty will be charged $200 for the privilege. Obviously, they will have to do a whole lot more paper work under the revised scheme for the diesel fuel rebate. The changes involve users providing more information when claiming the diesel fuel rebate. I wonder what more is needed. I thought the system already in place was very good. It was a simple system. All we had to do was to be registered and sign and return the document with the next invoice to receive the fuel rebate. The amount was paid into the bank account nominated. I have always thought that that system was a big improvement on the previous scheme and that it was operating very well, although obviously the Government has found more anomalies in the system. The minimum quantity in relation to which a claim can be made has been increased to 2,000 litres. The Government must be congratulated for extending the time limit. At present, the claim must be made within 12 months, and that time limit is to be extended. However, a person cannot make a claim until he has used 2,000 litres. I imagine that that would take some years for farmers, forestry workers, fishermen or other people who are entitled to make a claim. In other words, people will have paid the full price for diesel, including the 19.5c excise duty on that product, but they might have to wait for two or three years before they have used sufficient fuel so that they can make a claim and obtain the rebate which, under the law of the land, is due to them. Of course, the rebate was provided to help Australians compete on world markets in agriculture, farming and the fishing industry. That was sorely needed. It helped those export industries advance and it helped the balance of payments, which is in such a disastrous position under the present Government. I believe that the level of 2,000 litres is far too high. Obviously, fewer claims will be made. There will be supposed saving through the department of $6m, and most of that has to do with the administrative arrangements. I would have thought that that was the most overstretched estimate I have ever seen from any department. Honourable members cannot tell me that the department is spending that much money doing this job; it could not possibly spend $6m doing the paper work. The Government tried to tell us in the May statement that $6m will be saved, but I believe that that is farcical. It is also interesting to note that of the 156,000 people who in previous years claimed the diesel fuel rebate only 125,000 were primary producers. The fact that people have to make a claim to obtain these rebates is Treasury's way of ensuring that people do not get their just desserts. In fact, 250,000 primary producers are registered with the Australian Taxation Office, yet only 50 per cent of those people even bother to make a claim and obtain the rebate. I believe that that highlights the sorts of what I call shady taxation deals upon which this Government embarks whereby people are forced to fill out even more forms-and even more detailed forms-to be eligible for the rebate. That is wrong in the system that we have imposed. If this system is to be available to producers, it should be automatically available to all producers. Under this present Government only half the people who are eligible make a claim. The cost of the estimated rebate for primary producers for 1986-87 is $285m. This is a cost to revenue but, on the other hand, one could argue that the present taxing regime of this Government is fantastically high in regard to fuel taxation. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has just gone to Government House to call for an election on 11 July this year. He will rush off to the polls. I do not know what he is frightened of. But he will get a hell of a fright when the Australian Labor Party candidate for Maranoa is selected; there is still not a candidate there. But he will be thrashed on 11 July. The Prime Minister is jumping into his car and going off to Government House to call another election, for God's sake, but he told us only three weeks ago: `I will go my full time. I am a responsible Prime Minister'. What a lot of hogwash and poppycock. The Prime Minister has gone to Government House to declare an election on 11 July. I would like to tell the Government that it is running scared in not going its full time until the bicentenary year. And, of course, elections are a great cost to this nation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I point out to the honourable member for Maranoa that we are debating the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill, and I ask the honourable member to curtail that discussion. Mr IAN CAMERON —The estimated rebate for the mining industry is $205m, and for other areas, including hospitals, it is $10m. The total is roughly $500m. Most of the increase is due to the massive increase in excises which are now indexed to inflation. The Government has indexed the excises that we are paying. Under the Labor Government, the leader of which has gone out to call another election, for God's sake, on 11 July, taxes have increased from 10c a litre at the beginning of 1986 to more than 20c a litre at the beginning of this year-a 100 per cent increase. This is the highest taxing, highest spending Government that this nation has ever seen. It is sending us bankrupt by introducing these Bills, these new taxing measures. The rearrangement of these excises is a part of the May statement. We have seen a massive $3.5 billion increase in taxation. But the Prime Minister has the gall to tell us that he is balancing his books and running the country in some sort of sensible manner. What a lot of nonsense! I wish that he would get back from Government House and come into this House to hear what I have to say about this Bill. I challenge the Prime Minister and any of the candidates that he likes to put up in my electorate on 11 July. He will get one hell of a fright on election day, because this Labor Government will be defeated. I would also like to point out to the House that the fuel policy of the National Party of Australia is an excellent document, which we have spent many months running through. Our intention, when elected back into government on Saturday, 11 July, is to cut the wellhead tax. Initially, this Government took $1.2 billion at the wellhead. Our intention is to slowly reduce that. At long last we have the oil industry on-side, supporting us in this endeavour. I have always believed that the tax paid-up to 80c in the dollar-is too high and that, if we are to get out and find more crude oil in places like Maranoa, the Cooper Basin, Roma and other areas where oil is established, we must get off the backs of the oil companies and stop taxing them. The wellhead tax must be totally withdrawn. The revenue from the oil industry, including the crude oil excise on diesel in 1986-87, will total $1.2 billion; the LPG excise will total $103m; petroleum royalties will amount to $60m; and the petroleum products excise will be $5.6 billion. Most of that amount comes from petrol, on which the excise is now 20c a litre. That adds up to $7.02 billion. Company tax from the producers of the product amounts to $900m and company tax on refiners and marketers totals $200m. We are looking at a total tax take of $8.12 billion or 11 per cent of total taxes in this country. For many years I have argued that it is discriminatory taxation, that this industry is paying far too much of its share of production into taxation. We will be elected into government on 11 July, once the Prime Minister gets back from Government House and announces the election to the nation. We all have our mouths open waiting for this great event. The Prime Minister will be here at 5 o'clock to tell us what will happen. It is a pity that the proceedings are not being broadcast, because I would like to tell the electors of Maranoa what I think of the Hawke Government's fuel policies. The National Party will abolish automatic fuel excise indexation. We are also going to extend the rebate excise to all fuel used on farms, not just petrol, as this Bill indicates. Petrol represents 40 per cent of all fuel used on farms. It is important that producers in this country get a fair go and are able to compete. We will also remove the sales tax on lubricants and oils used on farms. As an extension of the taxes applied by the great Hawke taxing Government, we are now seeing sales tax applied to oils and lubricants. We will review the inequitable petroleum products freight subsidy scheme, something which this Government has withdrawn. We shall exempt the fishing industry from the 2c per litre Australian bicentennial roads development levy. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is at the table. He represents the Hawke socialist Government. We have the absurd situation in which his Government applies a levy of 2c a litre to the fishing industry. For God's sake! These poor fishermen are out at sea all their lives and yet the Government is charging them 2c a litre to use the high seas. They are not on the road; they are in their boats at sea, yet this Government is charging them. After 11 July, when we are returned to government, we will abolish these things. We will withdraw the crude oil excise to ease prices and we will reduce government revenue from oil production, et cetera. I believe this is a very imaginative and progressive policy. I look forward to being part of the new government after 11 July. I am sure that all my colleagues are looking forward to walking the few yards across the House to sit on the other side. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(4.23) —The Government cannot accept the amendment moved by the Opposition. We do, however, as a consolation prize, agree with the general thrust of the Opposition's amendment concerning exemptions from the customs duty refund processing fee. I mentioned in my second reading speech that exemption from the fee would be granted in circumstances in which the overpayment of duty was beyond the control of the importer. The Australian Customs Service has already given notice of the exemptions to the fee that will be set out in regulations. That notice, Australian Customs Notice No. 87/80, was issued on 14 May 1987. I will provide a copy of the notice for the information of members of the Opposition, should they wish it. Mr Moore —And for the information of yourself. Mr BARRY JONES —Indeed. It should be noted that there is a close correlation between the circumstances in the notice and the amendments proposed. Because the Customs Regulations already carry all of the administrative provisions concerning refunds of duty, and as these exemptions are of an administrative character, the Government is of the view that the proposed exemptions to the payment of the fee are more appropriate for the Customs Regulations. Mr Moore —Government by regulation. Mr BARRY JONES —We are adhering to tremendous precedents. I note that the Opposition amendment itself provides a provision to enable a prescription of other exemption circumstances by regulation. Further opportunity for debate on this matter will be available at the time of tabling the regulations. I want to comment on some other matters raised in the debate, which I know members of the House are all agog to hear. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) both commented on increased Telecom Australia and Australia Post charges. The Government acknowledges that Telecom and Australia Post will need to increase charges to cover costs involved with the removal of the customs duty exemption. The extent of such charges, however, will be a matter for the respective agencies, noting that any such increases will be subject to the normal Prices Surveillance Authority investigation and recommendation. In relation to the impost of duty on statutory authorities, it should be noted that the Inglis Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements estimated that benefits will actually exceed costs, but the Government has commissioned further analysis of the impact of the changes. The Government is, in effect, making its own agencies subject to the rules which it already imposes on the private sector and on State bodies. It is our view that the changes will lead to overall gains in economic efficiency, which will offset the adverse effects of the increased charges. The need for greater economic efficiency underlies our action in introducing the May economic statement. In relation to the charge for refund applications, I draw honourable members' attention to the fact that importers or agents will be able to avoid the application charge simply by making sure that entries for home consumption are correct. Many applications for refund are made known in which the original overpayment was due to carelessness or a lack of professionalism by the importer or his customs agent. It was suggested that, if the fault be with the Australian Customs Service, the fee should not be charged. That will be the case, and I have already said as much in my second reading speech. In relation to the cost recovery aspect, the $200 fee is calculated to recover costs which are presently running at an average of $194 per application. The number of applications has grown significantly in recent times to the point where there are as many as about a third the number of import transactions that the Australian Customs Service audits each year. Processing a refund application is as onerous as the audit of an original importation and has to be very rigorously controlled, as some $125m in refunds is expected to be paid out this financial year. The matters raised in relation to the new passenger concessions appear to centre on possible delays in passenger processing. The matter is not actually relevant to the legislation before the chamber, but I just say that the new arrangements are simpler to understand and administer than the old ones. They are a major improvement on the old scheme, which allowed exploitation by the knowledgeable and relatively affluent few. We do not believe that it will slow passenger processing, as the Customs priorities at the barrier remain unchanged, the first priority being accorded to drugs and quarantine matters. It is not intended to require passengers to substantiate all purchases or identify all goods taken out with them. Customs officers will be expected to use their judgment and common sense. In respect of the points that honourable members made about the increase in the claim limit for diesel fuel to 2,000 litres, we appreciate that there will be some inconvenience for some people. The fact is that, with higher rates of rebate now payable, claimants are applying for rebate more frequently and placing inordinate pressures on the processing system. For example, in the primary production sector applications have increased by about 30 per cent since 1984. The increase of the limit from 1,000 litres to 2,000 litres is a sensible safeguards to rationalise the processing of claims. It should be noted that initial applications will be processed for a quantity of less than 2,000 litres so that a person can be registered in the scheme. As a concession, the existing 12-month restriction on making applications will be removed in respect of purchases after the introduction of the new processing system. Regulations will be amended to achieve this change to operate concurrently with the provisions of the Bill. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) was concerned about the diesel fuel rebate. This is a subject dear to his heart. I recall that in an earlier debate in this chamber the honourable member wanted duty free fuel in 44-gallon drums to be available at inwards duty free shops for farmers. I can assure him that this is not going to happen, but we will examine whether such an event is feasible for purchase at outwards duty free shops providing that the passengers take the drums with them as freight. They can then enjoy them on the way back. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and wish the legislation a speedy passage. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 7-by leave-taken together. Amendment (by Mr Moore) negatived: (1) Clause 7, page 3, line 12, proposed subsection 163 (1c), omit `the regulations referred to in'. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(4.31) —I move: Clause 7, page 3, at the end of proposed subsection 163 (1c) add ``entered for home consumption after 13 May 1987''. It is the belief of the National Party of Australia that the Bill provides retrospective application of a fee. We believe that the addition of the amendment to sub-section 163 (1c) will clarify something which, at the moment, is left in the hands of regulations. Frankly, I must tell the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Mr Barry Jones) that we have no faith that regulations yet to be promulgated will clear up the case. The aspect of retrospectivity is, quite simply, that as from 13 May refunds would have been due to agents and customers for overpayment of duties in the normal course of events, as I explained to the House during my second reading speech. Before the introduction of the fee, it has been the custom that refunds could be applied for and obtained free of charge. Now, $200 will be levied from a certain date. We have already objected to the amount of the fee, but that is not the purpose of the amendment. We are seeking to provide that the fee should apply only to refunds sought on goods that enter for home consumption after 13 May 1987. The amendment extends the scope of the sub-section from the basis of an application made after 13 May for a refund of duty paid in respect of goods to those goods entered for home consumption after 13 May 1987. It is our firm belief that the proposed fee is a retrospective application of tax. I know that the Government has had no problem in this area in the past. It will be interesting to discover just how honest the Australian Democrats in the Senate want to keep the Government in this regard. We are not prepared to wait until regulations are promulgated that might catch this aspect. We want it made quite clear that applications can be made for refunds on goods received prior to 13 May 1987, and that the $200 fee applies only for goods received after 13 May. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(4.34) —I support the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) who moved the amendment, because the application of the charge of $200 for goods entered is clearly retrospective. When goods are entered for use in Australia they are recorded in the records of the well known computer of the Australian Customs Service on a particular date-and let us take 1 May. This charge is to be applied from 13 May. Clearly, if action on the goods is taken on 1 May, and a judgment is made at that point as to the appropriate classification, the duty paid is applicable at that point. With the passing of time, the customs agents or those carrying out the administration obtain a bill of lading and the customs invoice associated with it, and they check those against the classification. They may find that an error has been made in the classification, and therefore also in the duty payable. It is clear that, when an application is made in respect of goods entered prior to 13 May, the proposed charge will be effective on goods that entered prior to that point. Because of that, there is an element of retrospectivity. If a refund is sought on goods that entered before 13 May, it is quite legitimate that it should be given free of charge. However, to charge a fee of $200 after 13 May, relating to goods that entered before that date, is clearly retrospective taxation, and because of that the Opposition opposes it. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.36) —The Government opposes the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) for the practical reason that it would have the effect of deferring the introduction of the fee. As the whole purpose of the fee is the recovery of the costs of processing refund applications, and as those costs are running at about $6m a year, the Government cannot accept the deferral of implementation inherent in the proposed amendment. The cost must be covered from somewhere. That can be either from the person seeking the refund, or it can be spread across the community as a whole. I would have thought that the logic and the economic reality of the situation are that the legislation must be carried in its original form. Therefore, the Government proposes to oppose the amendment. How I can keep on talking about it until 5 o'clock, I am not quite sure. Mr Moore —We could have a division. Mr BARRY JONES —We could have several. Perhaps the honourable member would like to move for a procedural division, or even two. The Government's proposal will apply to applications received after 13 May 1987-- Mr Moore —You told us that. Mr BARRY JONES —Well, yes, it was announced on that day-- Mr Porter —On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The Minister is clearly being boring and repetitive and I ask you to rule him out of order. The CHAIRMAN — Order! There is no point of order. I call the Minister. Mr BARRY JONES —It was announced on that day and, according to the procedures that have been adopted over the years-hallowed procedures adopted by previous governments, and carried out, I am sure, by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) during that happy period when he was Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs-- Mr Moore —Shangri-la. Mr BARRY JONES —Indeed. The Government, with infinite regret, rejects the amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Braithwaite's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodges, J. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Watson, D. J. H. Hall, Steele White, P. N. D. Halverson, R. G. Wilson, I. B. C. Hawker, D. P. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. 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. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Jull, D. F. Staples, P. R. Webster, A. P. Dawkins, J. S. MacKellar, M. J. R. Gorman, R. N. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment (by Mr Moore) put: (2) Clause 7, page 3, lines 16 and 17, omit proposed subsection 163 (1d), substitute the following subsection: `(d) A fee is not payable under subsection (1c): (a) in the circumstances specified in paragraphs 126 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (ga), (h), (j), (k) or (m) of the Customs Regulations as in force at the commencement of this subsection; (b) where an officer assisted in making up the entry in respect of which the application for a refund of duty is made; (c) where an officer assessed the duty payable; (d) where the duty was paid under protest; (e) where the duty was paid as a consequence of advice given, or a ruling made, by an officer; (f) where all duty amounts were paid in good faith; (g) where the overpayment of duty was beyond the control of the applicant for the refund; or (h) in such other circumstances as may be specified in the regulations.'. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.46) —For reasons that I have already indicated when I summed up the second reading debate-- Mr Moore —I cannot remember what they were. Mr BARRY JONES —I will chat with the honourable member over coffee later. Honourable members who entered the chamber for the division said that they had been listening to the internal broadcast system and they thought that the argument was very well put, so I will not put it again. The Government rejects the amendment. Amendment negatived. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PORTER(Barker)(4.49) —As the snow on the hills in Canberra today indicates, the chill is setting in. The economic outlook for this country is grim. We are facing an economic recession. Inflation is out of hand. As a result of four years of a Labor government there are now 55,000 more families in receipt of incomes below the poverty line than there were when this Government came to office. There are more families without housing than there were when this Government came to office. There are now 160,000 families waiting for public housing. There are more families having difficulty getting the health care that they need. One hundred thousand members of families are waiting in public hospital queues for badly needed surgery. The community is despairing. The Government is terrified of the future. It does not want to face up to the August Budget and it knows that as a result of its grossly incompetent economic management the future is grim. The Government is running scared. I understand that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is about to call an early election in what will go down in history as Australia's winter of discontent. Let me tell honourable members that the electors will show their discontent. This will be the last time that the Minister at the table, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), will sit in the chair on the Government side of the House. This legislation is part of the Government's thrust to force people out of private insurance and into Medicare. In the place of the efficient, competitive private health insurance industry we have a bloated, inefficient and wasteful government Medicare bureaucracy. In just three years the Australian Labor Party Government has increased the annual tax take by some $4,400m to pay for Medicare. In just three years Labor has increased by 3,000 the number of public servants required to administer Medicare. In just three years Labor has increased personal health costs by 35 per cent. In just three short years Labor has forced 10 million health fund members to give up their private medical cover and join Medicare, and in just three years Labor has pushed up the cost of private hospital insurance, forcing 1.8 million people to give up their hospital cover. We are now paying over $8,800m for Commonwealth health care. That is twice as much as we were paying three years ago. What is worse, the standard of service has declined. Queues for public hospitals have trebled. One hundred thousands Australians are waiting for a public hospital bed while more than four out of 10 private hospital beds remain empty. Every day there are on average over 9,000 private hospital beds vacant in this country. Under Medicare the community is paying more for health cover. Patients are unable to gain access to a hospital bed when they need it. Health care providers are fed up and the level of industrial disputation in the health care industry is the highest ever. The level of waste and rip-offs has exploded. The only beneficiaries of the Hawke Labor Government's Medicare program have been the 3,000 new public servants employed to administer it. Medicare has been a disaster which has wreaked havoc on our health system. The Opposition will reverse this Government's failed Medicare policy. There is absolutely no reason why the Government should be involved in the provision of every medical service in this country. Some 12 million people will be encouraged to return to private health insurance under the Opposition's health policy-that is, the 2.8 million families and 2.3 million people who are currently paying the Medicare levy-and of course that will have a significant impact on the Commonwealth Budget. In addition to the savings from reductions in Federal expenditure there will also be a reduction in total heath costs through the elimination of waste and overutilisation fostered by Medicare. Together these will contribute to funding overall tax cuts. The Government's encouragement of bulk billing has resulted in significant waste. People are led to believe that medical services are free-and the provision of almost anything free leads to waste and overuse. Initially under Medicare the enrolled population was using an average of 5.8 services a years. Last year the average was 7.5 services, a 28 per cent increase in the volume of services in just two years. If this growth in the average number of services per patient had been contained, instead of encouraged with bulk billing, savings of around $600m a year would have been achieved. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has said on many occasions that my figures are incorrect. I tell the House that those figures are taken from the Health Insurance Commission's annual report of services. What the Minister does, of course, is compare services before Medicare, when private insurance covered a much larger range of medical services provided, with Medicare cover. These are not comparable. The fact is that there has been an explosion in the number of services per patient per year under Medicare, and that is costing an extra $600m a year alone. We will end bulk billing for all bar health care card holders. Of course we will obtain Medicare cover for the 3.6 million pensioners and social security health card holders and their dependants. These changes will enable us to make more savings by streamlining administration under the Commonwealth Department of Health. The Health Legislation Amendment Bill implements the May mini-Budget cuts. Basically the amendments do two things. Firstly, they reduce the Medicare rebate for doctors' services provided to private in-patients of hospitals from 85 per cent of the Medicare schedule to 75 per cent. At the same time they remove the $20 maximum gap in the hospital in-patient contribution for medical services. Secondly, they redefine the basic private table of benefits for private health funds. The private health funds will now be required to extend the coverage of gap benefits on the basic table so that all privately insured patients will continue to receive the full schedule fee for all in-patient hospital medical services. In the second reading speech the Minister for Health scrambled for justification for these hopeless amendments. He said, among other things, that significant increases in out of pocket expenses to individuals will be avoided. What absolute nonsense. Take the example of a family whose aging mother, who has no private insurance, suffers from crippling arthritis and requires a hip replacement. The family has two choices. The first is to allow mum to remain on the waiting list for a public hospital bed. In New South Wales, for example, because of the Medicare program, she would have to wait three years on a public hospital waiting list to have her hip replaced. For most families that just is not on. They are not prepared to make their parents suffer as a result of this Medicare program. The second choice is for the family to have the mother admitted to a private hospital where there are beds available, and to pay for the hospitalisation themselves. Currently the surgeon's and the anaesthetist's bills will be covered by Medicare except for the $20 gap for each of those two specialists. Of course the family will have to foot the bill for the hospital costs. Prior to the amendments being introduced in this legislation, the family's medical costs would have been $40-$20 for the surgeon and $20 for the anaesthetist. Following the changes in this legislation, the family's new liability will be $30 for the anaesthetist and $150 for the orthopaedic surgeon. In other words, the family will now have to pay not only mum's private hospital bill but also $180 towards the cost of the medical services provided-a cool 450 per cent increase in health costs. The Minister has the gall to say that significant increases in out of pocket expenses will be avoided. What absolute rubbish. First of all he lured people out of private insurance with his blatant lies about Medicare being the fairest health system that this country has ever seen. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that comment. Mr PORTER —Withdraw which comment, Madam Speaker? Madam SPEAKER —The comment about the blatant lies. Mr PORTER —I beg your pardon. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw the unparliamentary comment he made about the Minister. Mr PORTER —I said that the Minister had told a blatant lie. Madam SPEAKER —That is right. Mr PORTER —That is not about the Minister; it is about what he said. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw the comment. Mr PORTER —I withdraw. He obviously grossly misrepresented the Medicare program to the Australian public. He claimed that there would be free Medicare for all. Instead, he has provided a system which has jammed up the public hospital system. Now when people need hospital care they cannot get it. In desperation people are returning at their own expense to the private hospital system. They now find that this Minister and this Government have dumped another $100m on to the bills that they as private patients will have to pay for the privilege of saving the Government money by undertaking hospital care in the private system rather than in the public system. That is not all that this Minister has dumped on to the private hospital system. I get the feeling that there is some sort of expectation rising in the House. I am delighted that at long last so many honourable members have seen the concern that the Opposition has had for so long about the corrupt Medicare system that this Government has introduced. The Labor Government over the last three years has been intent on increasing the cost of private insurance and driving people out of private insurance into the Medicare system. This legislation will increase the cost of private cover by $100m. Since the Hawke Government came to office this Minister has eliminated the Commonwealth subsidy for patients to private hospitals-$140m a year. He has reduced the hospital reinsurance fund by $99m a year. In justifying these actions and the amendments that we are considering today, the Minister, using his typical Medicare mentality, says: `We do not have to worry about all these increased costs that have been added to the costs of the privately insured'. He says: `It is all right because private insurance will cover the extra cost that the individual will have to carry'. That is precisely the sort of attitude that has helped bring the health system of this nation to its knees. He says: `Do not worry about the doctors bills; Medicare will pay for everything. Under Medicare the bulk billing doctors visits are free'. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I recognise that everybody is a little excited, but I ask the House to come to order. The honourable member for Barker has the floor and the level of conversation is ridiculous. Mr PORTER —Perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has changed his mind. I could understand him doing so, considering the discontent in the community with this Labor Government's policies. It is indeed the Australian winter of discontent. Mr Ronald Edwards —Let's hear what you have to say after the election. Mr PORTER —I would not worry about that; it is the last speech I will be making on this side of the House. Every time this Government looks for savings to protect its precious Medicare program, it seeks to shift more of the burden for health costs on to the privately insured. My question to the Minister and the question of private hospitals, of the patients of private hospitals and of the private health funds is: Where will it all end? The answer is that it will not end under this Government. It will not end until this Government and its compulsory Medicare program are driven from office by a justifiably outraged electorate. The Minister has claimed that the action to be taken through this amendment will protect the main principles of Medicare. He claims that all Australians should receive protection against the high cost of medical treatment on a fair and equitable basis. Where is the fairness, where is the equity in forcing the privately insured population to shoulder the burden of $100m of the Commonwealth Government's commitment to pay reasonable fees for medical services simply because these people believe that the Medicare system has totally failed them and they have elected to purchase their own private health cover? Privately insured people pay the Medicare levy like anyone else. They do not participate in Medicare grants provided to States for public hospital services. These people contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to Australia's health system through their private health premiums. I understand that the Prime Minister has panicked and wishes to make an announcement to the House. Of course, it is not the first time we have seen him crack. We had the MX missile crisis and the Fiji crisis. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Does the honourable member for Barker wish to make a statement? Mr PORTER —Not really, but I will. I seek leave to continue my remarks later this day. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Mr HAWKE(Willis-Prime Minister) —by leave-Within the past two weeks two events have taken place of fundamental significance for the future of Australia. I refer to the May statement and to the Premiers Conference. Those events must be placed firmly in the context of the continuing work of this Government. The great need now is for certainty and continuity. In the past two and a half years and especially in recent months, the people of Australia have demonstrated a willingness to shoulder and share burdens and a sense of responsibility in the face of the huge difficulties imposed upon us by the changes in our terms of trade which have wiped $9 billion from our national economic capacity since December 1984. I believe it is essential for Australia's future that the sense of national responsibility, this new awareness and understanding of the problems, should now be harnessed to a great continuing and decisive national effort. The basis for this national effort is a renewed mandate from the people, a mandate to continue the directions now so strongly established, a mandate to finish the job. Accordingly, I have today met with the Governor-General and advised him to exercise his power under section 57 of the Constitution and dissolve the House of Representatives and the Senate on 5 June 1987 with a view to elections for both Houses being held on 11 July 1987. The dissolution is, of course, subject to the Parliament appropriating sufficient funds to enable the work of administration to be carried on during the election period. I am pleased to inform the House that the Governor-General has accepted my advice. In addition, the Government expects that the legislation presently before the Parliament necessary to implement our high priority programs will be enacted before the Parliament is dissolved. The May statement and the Premiers Conference together constitute the substantive part, and certainly the toughest part, of the budgetary processes for the year ahead. The large areas of fiscal policy-social security, education, community services, health, defence and Commonwealth-State relations-have been compre- hensively reviewed. We will not be returning to them to secure further savings of any magnitude for the 1987-88 Budget. Our strategy is now firmly in place. There has been a decisive reordering of policy from monetary to fiscal discipline. By cutting Government spending in this unprecedented fashion we have continued to improve the climate for reductions in interest rates. Our measures will also provide greater scope for lifting business investment in the export sector and in industries which compete against imports. There is, however, a significant element in our long term commitment which has been thwarted. The Australia Card Bill is an integral part of the Government's tax reform package and is aimed at restoring fairness to the Australian taxation and social welfare systems. The Bill's rejection by the Senate significantly reduces the Government's ability to crack down on tax and welfare cheating and the Budget deficit in the years ahead. The most conservative estimate by the Australian Taxation Office of revenue gains in the tax area alone is $724m a year, once the program is fully operational. Gains in social security and Medicare expenditure would be of the order of $153m, thus the total gain to public resources from this measure would be nearly $900m. This is the ground on which I have advised a double dissolution. We are committed to reintroducing the legislation in the new Parliament. The Senate's rejection of the Australia Card does not stand in isolation. Only today the Senate refused to reconsider the Government's legislation to extend television services in rural areas. The Government's intention to give five million of our fellow Australians living in country areas equal access to television services has been frustrated-for the time being. The pattern of conduct by the Senate introduces an element of uncertainty and instability into our national affairs at a time when Australia's greatest need is certainty, stability and continuity. That is the crucial issue in the election ahead. The measures that we have taken give this nation the tools for national recovery and reconstruction. Now let us finish the job. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding six minutes. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —The Liberal and National parties both welcome with relish the opportunity to test the policies and failures of the Hawke Government. The announcement that we have just heard from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has nothing to do with national reconstruction, it has nothing to do with Senate obstruction, and it has nothing to do with the long term interests of this country. It has everything to do with the supreme political cynicism of the current Prime Minister of Australia. This man, who only a bare month ago did not regard the identification card legislation as a sufficient warrant for a double dissolution, now has the temerity to tell the Australian people that it is. The real reason that the mob opposite is rushing to the polls is that it does not have the guts to show the next Labor Budget to the Australian people. The great irony is that by the time the election is held the Australian public will have seen John Howard's tax policy but not Bob Hawke's next Budget. What is more, they will not see Bob Hawke's next Budget. This has nothing whatever to do with Senate obstruction; it has everything to do with the supreme political cynicism of the current Prime Minister of Australia. Those who sit behind and those who advise him know well that by the end of the year-as the Hawke's Government's own economic statement of only a couple of weeks ago acknowledged-the Australian economy will be weaker than it is now. The Australian public is entitled to ask what the Government is hiding in its next Budget, what hidden taxation measures and new economic failures it is hiding. Why on earth would a government go to the polls a bare five weeks before the delivery of its Budget? Presumably, both the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister will tell us that the great issue in this campaign is economic management. Why on earth, therefore, if that is the great issue-and by interjection honourable members opposite endorse the fact that it is-can we not see the great instrument of the Government's economic management before the ballot takes place? Why is it that the Australian public is not to see the colour of the Budget? Why is it that we are to be treated to this deception by the Government on what the Government itself says will be the great economic issue of the time? As far as the Liberal and National parties are concerned, there are three issues that will dominate this election campaign, and they will ring around the country from now until the election is held on 11 July. The first of those issues is the way in which the Hawke Government has raped the living standards of Australian families over the past four years, the fact that over the past four years there has been a catastrophic fall in the living standards of Australian families. The alibi that it is all the fault of the foreigners is no longer available. The cut in national income over the past couple of years has been less than the reduction in national income suffered in the early 1980s as a result of the international recession and the domestic drought. After four years of government the mob opposite have to take a rap for what has happened to the living standards of ordinary Australians, and everybody on this side of the House will see that it takes the rap. After four years in office the Government cannot blame the foreigners or anybody else. The buck stops with the Government, and it is going to be made to stop with the Government over the next five weeks. The second issue that we will fight the election campaign on is the issue of trade union power. Everybody knows, after the past couple of weeks, that if this Government, by misadventure, is re-elected, the trade unions in this country will be placed above the law; that a vote for Hawke is a vote to draw a circle around the trade union movement and to give it a privileged position. The people know that a vote for Howard and Sinclair is a vote to treat all Australians equally before the law. That is the second great issue. The third issue that we will fight the campaign on is the taxation issue. If there has been an area where this Government has conspicuously failed, it is the taxation area. The Treasurer has said repeatedly that the task of tax reform in Australia has been completed. I say not only on behalf of those who sit behind me but also on behalf of the Australian people that, if the Treasurer believes that the task of tax reform in Australia has been completed, he has been listening to the hype of his close advisers and he has not been noticing the hurt in areas of Australia such as Bankstown and all the other suburbs that he and his colleagues in the Australian Labor Party once represented very effectively. The task of tax reform in Australia has not been completed. The task of tax reform is overdue. We will be offering to the Australian public a taxation policy that will benefit Australian families. The Australian public will see our taxation policy, unlike the Hawke Budget. They will not see the Hawke Budget, but they will see our taxation policy. They know that our taxes will offer incentives to Australian families; they know that our taxes will be lower and flatter; they know that our taxes will be funded out of reductions in Government spending; and they know that our taxation policy will include the abolition of the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. Above everything else, our taxation policy will restore equity, fairness, hope and incentive to the overwhelming majority of the Australian public. We welcome the election challenge with enormous relish. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement on the issue. MADAM SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Young —I do not mind, but Joh will be in next. He will want to make a statement, too. How many leaders are there? Andrew wants to make one and the honourable member for Goldstein and the honourable member for Maranoa want to make one. There are more chiefs than indians. Leave granted. Mr SINCLAIR —The National Party of Australia, with the Liberal Party, welcomes the announcement. We do so on three bases. Firstly, we do so on behalf of those thousands of small businessmen who, over the course of the past four years, have been driven into the ground by the regressive economic and social policies of the Hawke Labor Government. Secondly, we-particularly the National Party-do so on behalf of those 160,000 family farmers who no longer have a chance to survive while Labor ignores the very essence of their well-being and while interest rates run through the roof, while inflation continues to rise and while our overseas debt is established on the basis of the policies of a government which believes that it can fund present living standards on the payments of the citizens of tomorrow. Those family farmers badly need an election. Thirdly, and more importantly, on behalf of the pensioners and the young and average Australians, the Liberal Party, under John Howard, and the National Party, under Ian Sinclair, welcome the opportunity to be able to say to the Australian Labor Party, under the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), that enough is enough. There is no basis by which a government which successively has had its opportunity and has failed can again be given the opportunity of coming through a Federal election successfully. The most significant of all the polls that have been conducted in Australia in the last little while was that conducted in my electorate last Saturday. I can tell the Prime Minister that in the State electorate of the Northern Tablelands there was not only a swing of 4.1 per cent, as a result of which Labor lost the by-election, but also that that 4.1 per cent swing was achieved in a seat where it is agreed that the personal vote of the Labor candidate was about 7 per cent. Therefore, we saw a swing against Labor of about 11 per cent. It will be on that swing that the Liberal and National parties will look forward to assuming office in Australia on the evening of 11 July next. The people of Australia have had enough. On 11 July they will show the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that they too have had enough. Debate resumed. Mr PORTER(Barker)(5.23) —As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, the thrust of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill will be to increase health insurance costs for people carrying private insurance and thereby force more people out of private insurance and on to public hospital waiting lists. Therefore, I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that it unfairly discriminates against hospital patients with private insurance who will receive only 75 per cent of the scheduled fee for medical services, while Medicare patients will continue to receive 85 per cent, so forcing up the cost of private insurance and assisting the Government's objective of forcing more Australians out of private health insurance and making them wait in pain for up to 2 years in the 100,000-long queue for public hospitals beds'. When selling the Medicare program to the Australian people in the 1983 election, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did so with the assurance that, under Medicare, he would make private insurance more affordable. Having suckered the nation with that commitment during the past four years, he has done nothing but make private health insurance more expensive and indeed less affordable. He has done so in several different ways. Since the Medicare program started, both the Federal Government and the State governments have hit the privately insured. For example, the fee for a private patient staying in standard ward accommodation in a New South Wales public hospital has increased from $80 a day, when Medicare started in 1984, to $120 today. This morning, the State Minister for Health announced a further $10 a day increase to $130 a day. These increases mean that the cost of ward accommodation to the private patients of New South Wales public hospitals has risen by more than 60 per cent-almost 20 per cent a year. This has contributed to the increases in premiums for the privately insured. Secondly, this Government has reneged on its funding commitments and has withdrawn money from the private sector. Two examples of that include reducing the Commonwealth contribution to the hospital reinsurance fund by $99m a year and eliminating the $140m a year Commonwealth subsidy to the patients of private hospitals. The third way in which the Government has driven up the cost of private health cover is by eliminating benefits from the private sector and today we are debating another such move. Another $100m is to be taken from the pockets of those who voluntarily contribute to the Australian health system through their premiums, because it becomes more and more vital as public hospital beds become less and less available under Medicare. I cannot believe that this Government, as the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) said in his second reading speech, `gave careful consideration to the Medicare arrangements'. I cannot believe that this was the only way it could figure out how to save $100m a year out of Medicare. Fundamental changes to Medicare will result in a much more efficient and equitable system-a system where patients will actually gain access to hospital beds when they need them, resulting in enormous savings. As I have said, if we had just managed to hold the substantial increase in the number of services per patient delivered under Medicare and if we had managed to hold the number of services to the pre-Medicare level, we would have saved $600m a year alone. Instead, the Minister has chosen to attack only the privately insured and only when they are in hospital receiving the most essential of services. It is a cowardly attack without regard for fairness and equity. The result of these repeated and continued financial attacks on the private health sector has been a rapid rate of increase in the cost of private health insurance. Immediately prior to Medicare, an average wage earner was paying $9.66 a week for his medical and hospital cover. Currently, the same wage earner is paying $14.30 a week for his Medicare and private hospital cover. To that he can add up to another $1 a week as a result of the amendments we are considering today, which means that the cost of health cover under this Government has increased from $9.66 to around $15.30-an increase of $5.60 a week, almost 60 per cent, in the three years under the Medicare program. There has been a 60 per cent increase in private health costs in the three years of the Medicare program as a result of the previous changes taken together with the changes in this legislation. It is no wonder that families cannot make ends meet under Labor. As a result of this Government's policies, single income families with dependent children have been confronted with massive increases in costs and a reduction in their disposable income. Let us consider the average family. The tax of a family on average weekly earnings have increased by $37 a week. Their health costs have increased by 60 per cent or $5.60 per week and their average housing repayments have increased by $37.50 per week. Disregarding double counting in relation to the Medicare levy and the tax increases, in just those three areas of tax, health costs and housing repayment increases, families are $75 per week worse off under a Labor Government than they were four years ago. In addition, as a result of this Government's economic policies, which have caused substantial increases in the consumer price index, families have faced substantial increases. Of course, the CPI is a measure of increases in the cost of food, clothing, footwear, education and private health costs-and I refer to health costs not covered by Medicare and private insurance. All of those substantial cost increases have further reduced the available income for families. As a result of four years of Labor Government families are finding it extraordinarily difficult to make ends meet. This legislation will make it even more difficult for the substantial number of families who have private health cover. It ought to be remembered that nearly 60 per cent of families with dependent children have private health insurance, so we are not talking about a minority as the Minister would like to be the case. He would like to drive everyone out of private health insurance, to have all doctors on a salary and to have everyone covered by Medicare only. That is the ultimate goal. By forcing up private health costs to ensure that people can no longer afford private health cover, he is going about it in the right way. He is determined to force people out of private insurance and to force them into Medicare, and into the public hospitals which cannot cope. Let me remind the Minister of what has happened under his Medicare policies. Of the total number of families-which is 3.8 million-before Medicare 2.8 million or 73 per cent had private insurance. As a result of the introduction of Medicare that number has fallen to 57 per cent. More importantly, before Medicare was introduced, 84 per cent of families with dependent children had private insurance. As a result of Medicare and the increases in the cost of private insurance, the number of families with dependants taking out private insurance has dropped to about 64 per cent. There has been a decline in the number of families, especially those with children, who have private insurance. Nevertheless, a majority of families with dependants appreciate that Medicare will not deliver the health care which they need and want for their families. They have seen through the Government's promises and they have realised that Medicare will not deliver hospital care when they need it. They are aware of the 100,000 Australians who are waiting for public hospital beds and they are saying: `We are not going to allow our families and our children to be subjected to those sorts of delays in urgent health care. We will not make them suffer in pain while they wait for hospital beds because the Government's Medicare policy does not work'. They have paid more and more out of their private pockets while continuing to pay their Medicare levy in order to fund this Government's Medicare program which does not provide the services which they need. As I said, this legislation is another step down the Government's determined path to drive people out of private insurance into the Medicare net. No matter what pressure the Government places on them, Australians will not give up their private health insurance. They will do as much as they can to resist that pressure. As I have indicated, some have been unable to continue to pay their private health insurance premiums and they are suffering. Of course, they are the ones on the long public hospital queues. Pensioners and other people have great difficulty in maintaining their private health insurance cover and that is why it is the low income families, the pensioners and the disadvantaged in our society who are subjected to the long public hospital queues. Those who can afford, in spite of this Government's policies, to maintain their private health insurance have access to the empty private hospital beds. The Opposition's policy will enable more people to gain access to those empty private hospital beds. We will reduce the public hospital queues by reducing the demand on the public hospitals. We will have a truly fair and equitable health system. We will have a health system where people can receive medical and hospital attention when they need it. We know why the Government persists with its Medicare policy. It believes that, if it changes the policy, once again it will show that the policy has failed, so it sticks like grim death to the existing policy. There is no doubt that the Government cannot afford the cost of Medicare and, if it is re-elected, which it will not be, it will be forced to change it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Nehl —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment and I reserve the right to speak later. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(5.37) —I strongly support the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. I do not think that I have enough time to comment generally on health policy and to deal with the specifics of the amendments. So I will deal with the more general points first. It is probably the most inopportune time to do this just as we are about to begin an election campaign but I think that there are problems which, sooner or later, must be faced by any government. There is a lot of hypocrisy on all sides-the medical profession, the public, the health insurance funds and even governments, of all political colours. Medical practitioners oppose government intervention and they object to all third party intervention. They emphasise the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, but they know that very few seriously ill patients could afford treatment without payment by a third party. In Australia they have always happily taken money from insurance companies in third party and workers compensation claims and for the treatment of pensioners, whether veterans, invalid pensioners or aged pensioners. On the other hand, the public wants low taxation, first class treatment and facilities, little or no contribution at the time of service and a vague support for the doctor-patient relationship. Health insurance funds, whether public or private, want to discourage claims although they pay lip service to the doctor-patient relationship. Governments of all political shades promise low taxation, complete cover, free hospitals, free or cheap pharmaceuticals, non-interference with the doctor-patient relationship and, interestingly, contrary to their general political philosophy, they seem to disagree only on whether a means test is good or bad. Similarly, we see the hypocrisy of members of the medical profession who strongly support freedom of choice of doctors by patients, as long as the State provides them with free facilities, which are very expensive, which they can use to boost their income. All members of the organised medical profession strongly support the principle of individual responsibility for payment of at least the patient moiety, but they advocate the existence of gap insurance, which is of course contrary to the principle of patient moiety. Let me give some basic figures. In Australia there are about 27,000 active private medical practitioners. Those figures are based on at least one Medicare claim during the March 1986 quarter. About 10,350 of these are recognised specialists. We have about 70,000 beds in public hospitals and over 21,000 in private hospitals in Australia. Those figures are relevant because, when people give very impressive figures of 100,000 people on the waiting list, we have to remember that there are about 90,000 beds. As the average stay in hospital is five to seven days, that really represents only one or two weeks turnover. The occupancy rate for beds in public hospitals for the year ended March 1986 was 64 per cent, varying from 52 per cent in Queensland to 67 per cent in New South Wales. For acute patients the bed days were 10.2 million Medicare, 3.9 million private and 638,000 for compensation and other ineligible patients. It may be interesting to note that the occupancy rate for private hospitals was 56 per cent, varying from 54 per cent in New South Wales to 61 per cent in Queensland. The recurrent cost of a bed day in major New South Wales public hospitals now exceeds $300. It is important to note that, even privately insured patients contribute only about $120 towards this, and even those with insurance for and using a single room contribute only about $200. The Government pays the rest. We have about 5.7 hospital beds per 1,000 population compared with about 4.3 in the United States of America and far lower numbers in European countries. Yet we have a much younger population requiring fewer hospital beds. In the case of obstetric patients, the length of stay in hospital in Australia is between five and six days in the metropolitan areas and eight to nine days in the country. In the United States it is about half this time. If we look at the average length of stay in private hospitals in Australia for a number of common surgical procedures, we see significant variations. For example, for a curette the figure is 1.4 days in New South Wales and three days in Tasmania; for a hysterectomy it is 7.3 days in Queensland and 10.7 days in Tasmania. In the United States the average length of stay in federally owned hospitals decreased from 21.4 days in 1960 to 12.4 days in 1983, while the stay in non-federal non-profit hospitals has remained stationary at about 7.6 days. The average length of stay in the private hospitals is about six days. Remembering the huge cost of hospitals and the massive contribution of governments, either directly or indirectly, towards those costs-in the United States tax deductions are allowed for health expenditure or health insurance contributions-is it really interference on the part of governments to try to strictly regulate procedures? I do not think so. It is just essential. For those simpletons who see the Hawke Government as socialist-occasionally we get interjections along those lines from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who has obviously panicked and returned to Tasmania-and the Reagan Administration as free enterprise, it is interesting to note that the percentage of the Federal Budget spent on health care in Australia is just below 10 per cent and in the United States is around 11.5 per cent. For fiscal year 1985 federal health care in the United States amounted to $US108.9 billion out of a total Budget of $US946 billion. Yet it is important to remember that the United States Budget carries the huge burden of defence of the free world and currently has a Budget deficit of some $A200 billion compared with our approximately $3 billion or $4 billion. If Australia used the United States so-called spending restraints, we could have a Budget deficit of over $13 billion, which is even more than an update of the last Howard-Fraser Budget. If anybody is surprised at the United States figures, will they please read The Triumph of Politics by David Stockman, who was President Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget for 4 1/2 years. Hypocrisy comes from the Australian Medical Association and many individual doctors who pretend that they do not want government intervention. In the meantime, all the other health professionals, from dentists to physiotherapists, want to get their snouts into the public trough currently reserved for medical practitioners and optometrists. By the way, during 1985-86, for practitioners whose total fees charged exceeded $40,000-that is, active doctors-the mean total of fees charged to Medicare patients for different peer groups per year is included in a table which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- $ G.P.... 101,892 Optometrist... 101,112 Specialist Physician... 166,439 Dermatologist... 185,962 Obstetrician-Gynaecologist... 178,787 Anaesthetist... 100,516 Pathologist... 1,298,201 Diagnostic Radiologist... 483,460 General Surgeon... 127,823 Cardio-thoracic Surgeon... 190,862 Orthopaedic Surgeon... 124,484 Plastic Surgeon... 183,185 Ophthalmic Surgeon... 200,564 Dr KLUGMAN —It basically shows that the fees charged to Medicare patients in 1985-86 by general practitioners were just over $100,000, by specialist physicians $166,000, dermatologists $185,000, obstetricians and gynaecologists $178,000, pathologists $1,298,000 and diagnostic radiologists $483,000. It goes on to include cardio-thoracic surgeons and others. Well over 90 per cent of this money came from the Commonwealth Government and it must be noted when looking at the table that some of these groups receive a large additional amount from non-Medicare patients; for example, in the case of orthopaedic surgeons, from third party insurance claims or workers compensation payments. I believe firmly that no Australian should be denied access to health care only because of lack of money, just as I believe that no young Australian should be denied access to tertiary or any other form of education only because of lack of money. This is and must be the basic Australian Labor Party policy. However, I do not believe that it necessarily follows that my children should get a free university education or that I should get free medical and hospital treatment. I believe means test are essential if we want to reduce taxation. Politicians have to be tough and honest enough to say so. It is interesting to note that, whenever we propose any means test on benefits, whether medical, as we are doing today in a sense when we decrease the amount of money paid to people with private insurance, or any other benefit, members of the Opposition, with the hypocrisy befitting good politicians, say that, while they support lower taxation and lower payouts, the ones proposed by the Government are the wrong ones. They always say that. The estimated total health care expenditure in Australia this year will be over $17 billion. The private sector will contribute about 25 per cent of this-just over $4 billion-and the Commonwealth and State governments will contribute the rest, with the Commonwealth Government contributing the major share directly and the rest via various grants to State governments. The other three major items are for hospital services, subsidising pharmaceuticals and payments of nursing home benefits. In other words, I am sure we all agree that the cost of providing health care is very significant and that the Government will want to and will need to use regulations and controls to prevent what is regarded as unnecessary expenditure. I congratulate the Government on some of the steps that it has taken in these proposed amendments. Health politics are usually conducted in a favourable political climate. The notion of health is a popular one. For good or ill, the public remains convinced of the efficacy of medicine in promoting and maintaining health and believes that future medical advances guarantee less sickness and longer life. This results in strong popular support for spending money in all fields of health-public health, medical research and especially medical care services. The only important constraint is obviously budgetary; that is, people do not want their taxes raised or budgets unbalanced if this will hurt the economy. Other fields are not so fortunate when they enter the political arena. Welfare spending, for example, is not merely opposed because of possible adverse tax or spending consequences, but there are important segments of the public who oppose welfare spending in principle. We have all heard the arguments. Importantly for politicians, health has become established in public opinion as something so meritorious that its provision is regarded as a right. The increase in the health sector share of the GNP from about 4.5 per cent to 10 per cent in the 1960s and 1970s in most Western industrialised countries followed. I said earlier that in the United States the increase has been even higher than here. I would like to use my favourite quotation from H. L. Mencken: To every complex problem, there is a simple solution. And it is always wrong. Contrary to expectations, it became increasingly apparent that spending for health services was limitless; development of high technological medical services was reaching the stage of diminishing marginal social benefits; there was an over supply of hospital beds; increasing the supply of beds and doctors was not the solution to problems of maldistribution by location and type of practice; it was perilous to rely on professional self-regulation alone for the attainment of goals of economy and quality; and unrealistically high public confidence in the benefits of medical treatment was resulting in the `medicalisation' of many social problems that could be better dealt with through other means. I can give examples of care of the elderly, as the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) is sitting at the table. I could refer also to drug and alcohol. The final problem was that the magnitude of health spending was an impediment to economic growth. Governments therefore had to try to put a stop to overservicing by doctors and hospitals and thus interfered in some ways with perceived civil liberties of doctors and patients. By offering unlimited service to an insatiable public demand, the cost of living up to the political promise has been so great that the health systems have become controversial political issues and, in some instances, liabilities rather than the assets that their proponents thought they would be when they introduced them. In the short term and especially in times of affluence, they were politically beneficial. However, especially where prosperity declined and tax revenues fell, government sponsored health systems began to make up an increasing and alarming proportion of the Government's budget at the expense of other services. Governments are obviously concerned and are attempting to have the populace change its lifestyle, since many illnesses now appear to be directly related to modern day living. Up to the present, most of these measures have been proposed on a voluntary basis. However, the suggestion is now being made that if individuals are unwilling to change their lifestyles, they may have to be required to do so. Should this happen, there is bound to be a reaction from those individuals who hold dear the concept of individual freedom. Although government intervention may be an acceptable action for many areas, such as pollution control and seat belt legislation, it remains to be seen how acceptable it will be if it is applied to overall lifestyle. For example, even though I have always been a non-smoker, I consider the present proposals to ban even passive smoking extreme interferences with civil liberties. However, from the point of view of a government having to raise the revenue necessary to run the health system, it may ultimately be necessary for it to dictate lifestyle. This would seem logical if behaviour has the greatest effect on demands for health care and, hence, the cost of meeting the demands. One of the things that concerns me is that there is continuing pressure to increase the number of hospital beds in Australia. The argument that there must be no empty beds was advanced by the acting spokesman for the Opposition in this House. It is important to remember that, hopefully, the number of bed days used in the community will decrease significantly. I draw the attention of honourable members to an article by Frank E. Samuel, Jr, entitled Health Care in America. Changes and Challenges, a reprint from Vital Speeches of the Day at page 335. The speeches were given in Paris, France-a good place to be if one is in charge of health care in the United States-on 4 to 5 December 1986. No doubt the trip was paid for by those who take out insurance in the United States. The important point to remember is that Frank Samuel criticised-and I criticise very strongly-the system of straight fee for service health insurance. I note that earlier this year-and not for the first time, but more actively-the Minister promoted health maintenance organisations. In the long run that is the only way to reduce expenditure and provide reasonable benefits for people. It is terribly important to do that. To my mind, there is no real alternative, as long as we provide people with free medical and hospital services and make it possible for ordinary medical practitioners, especially the so-called medical entrepreneurs, to in effect write out their own cheques on the Government Treasury by providing, in many cases, extremely unnecessary services and relying on public pressure to oppose any sort of restriction in that regard. To my mind, we can never successfully go down that road and I hope that the Government will try to change to a different system of paying for health care. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(5.57) —I must say that I am very pleased to support the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) on this important amendment. It really becomes a little of an anti-climax after the announcement that was made to the House a little while ago, but I could not help but notice that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in concluding his remarks, made the point that his Government's strategies were in place. I suggest that, as far as health and so many other things are concerned, these strategies are strategies of failure. They have failed to contain inflation, interest rates and unemployment, and they have certainly failed to contain the blowout on health expenditure. Unfortunately, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill is just a little cut and tuck operation, rather like a facelift; it does not really address the main problem of Medicare, which is the real cost of the Medicare program. Total health expenditure in Australia is about 7.5 per cent of gross domestic product, or $13 billion a year-that is, State and Federal government expenditure combined. Commonwealth expenditure on health is 2.88 per cent of gross domestic product, and estimated total expenditure by the Commonwealth in 1986-87 is $7.3 billion in general health fund expenditure and $1.6 billion in identified health grants. In its 1986-87 Budget, the Government estimated that it would spend $4 billion on providing medical and hospital services under Medicare. In spite of that, the Medicare levy of 1.25 per cent of personal income tax is expected to raise only $1.7 billion, leaving the Government with a $2.4 billion gap. In fact, it was interesting to note that, should the levy be increased to a point where it had to pay for the real cost, it would have to be trebled. Frankly, the Government's record on health care to date is not a happy one at all. It includes the elimination of 50 drugs from the pensioner free list, forcing the people who can probably least afford it to pay the full cost for these drugs for the first time. Patient contributions for pharmaceutical prescriptions have been increased from $5 to $10 and the Medicare levy was increased by 25 per cent, despite the Government's promise that that would not happen. Of course, the people of Australia are accustomed to the Hawke-Keating Government breaking promises. The subsidy to the private hospitals was abolished. When we come back to basics, we are talking about ordinary Australian families. We are talking about men, women and kids who are trying to make ends meet, who are trying to survive. Prior to Medicare the average wage earner paid $9.66 a week for basic hospital and medical cover and since this Labor Government, this socialist Government, came to office that has increased to $14.30 per week, 50 per cent more. This Bill will increase it again, probably by an average of an extra $1 a week. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) mention the 100,000 people who are waiting for elective surgery. There is an incredible waiting list throughout this country. As a proportion of our population, many people are waiting. The honourable member for Prospect, in a rather dreadful attempt to dismiss the significance of having 100,000 people waiting for surgery, said: `This is only one week's turnover'. It may be only one week's turnover to the honourable member for Prospect, but for a person who has been waiting for a year to get a new hip and who is in agony every day of his life, it is more than a one-week turnover. It is significant that while we have so many people waiting for surgery to ease their pain, 9,000 private sector beds are vacant each day. I submit to this House that it is an absolute disgrace that our health system has got so out of kilter that we have people waiting for surgery and there are 9,000 empty beds. It is absolutely crazy. Let us look at the way it has happened. Since 1983, when the Hawke Government came to office, Medicare has forced 1.8 million Australian people out of private hospital cover and 10 million people have been forced to give up private medical cover. Traditionally this country has been based on private industry, free choice and free enterprise but, above all, we have always treasured the ability to have some choice. I assure the people of Australia and this House that after 11 July, when the Howard-Sinclair Government is in place, there will be a choice. I assure honourable members that the choice will be there. This Bill forces private health funds to bear 25 per cent of the medical costs incurred by specialist treatment in hospitals or day hospital facilities, but only for privately insured patients. Consequently, the contributions paid by the consumer must rise. We have a situation where there is injustice and inequity because people who are already paying once with their Medicare levy, and are paying again with their private hospital fund contribution, will be forced to pay a little more. It is distressing that this Bill makes no attempt to cut the administrative costs for the Health Insurance Commission, which in 1985-86 amounted to $185m. Nor does this Bill seek to utilise the facilities existing in the private health funds. I suggest to the House that this is one avenue that should be pursued. In June 1983 the Health Insurance Commission had a staff of 1,863, plus another 1,110 people in the Department of Health who were concerned with medical and hospital benefits. That number has now grown. From June 1986 the staff of the Health Insurance Commission has blossomed and ballooned to 4,592. It is obvious that the Government's cuts are merely a window-dressing. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) refuses to save money by even attempting to dismantle the administrative superstructure of Medicare. Medicare has 264 offices and agencies nationally which deal with only 22 per cent of Medicare claims. These are the over the counter cash payments. Fifty per cent of all claims are bulk billed and in the case of another 28 per cent cheques are either sent by post or paid in person to hospitals. Substantial savings could be made by the Government agreeing to one stop health insurance shopping and using the voluntary funds as agents for Medicare. On the figures that have been presented to me in just this minor area, savings of at least $65m a year could be achieved. The people of Australia are being inconvenienced. This is symptomatic of this Government's approach to people. It does not really care. A person has to go to the Medicare office to get one bit of business done with his medical claim and then he has to go to the Health Care Fund, the Medical Benefits Fund or whatever his private fund is. It is just inconvenient. I believe there is a possibility of our having a more convenient, one stop, health insurance. It is interesting, too, that voluntary funds have 69 per cent of the market, and it seems very silly not to use them. After all, while Medicare has 264 offices, the private health funds employ only 3,829 people and have 552 offices around Australia. It is a facility that could and should be used to the benefit of the Australian people. As I said earlier, this Bill will force up private premium rates by at least $1 a week and will force more people out of private cover. With the $10 a day hospital bed cost increase announced only today by the New South Wales Government, more premium rises will be inevitable in that State. In March 1987 personal health costs for each individual in this country had risen by 26.9 per cent-three times the current inflation rate. I suggest that this gives the lie to the 1983 election policy speech promise made by the Prime Minister that under Labor `nine out of 10 Australians will pay less for the health needs of themselves and their families'. This is most definitely and specifically not true. Let us just run through that point and detail what has happened: Fifty drugs have been removed from the pensioner pharmaceutical list; the patient contribution for prescriptions has increased from $5 to $10; there has been a 25 per cent increase in the Medicare levy; and there has been a reduction of $140m in the private hospital daily bed subsidy which was $16 a patient day. This just reinforces the point that the Prime Minister's promise that nine out of 10 Australians will pay less for the health needs of themselves and their families is totally wrong. It is obvious from the figures I cited at the start of my remarks that the amount for the average wage earner has gone up quite significantly, from $9.66 to $14 a week. This Government is supposedly committed to cutting costs. Of course, I applaud it for any action it takes to cut expenditure, but the way Medicare is functioning is an incentive to disregard the costs. As the honourable member for Prospect has said, it is an incentive for some individuals to write their own cheques against the Health Insurance Commission. Australia gets by with 1,300 bed days per thousand head of population a year. This has been reduced from 1,400 bed days last year because of strikes. Health maintenance organisations in the United States of America get by with 420 bed days per thousand population, in part because the emphasis in the United States is on health, not sickness. I think it is relevant that we should address the problem in this nation, that we should start treating for health and not just for sickness. When considering the future of health services we need to consider the possibilities for introducing health prevention methods rather than sickness cure methods. Unfortunately, this Bill does not reduce the number of extra public servants Medicare has added to the payroll. The number involved has increased from 6,571 in June 1983 to 8,726 in June 1986. In addition, we heard the Prime Minister say only an hour ago that when he goes to the polls on 11 July he will be talking about the Australia Card and what a wonderful job it will do. The people of Australia will know better. They will express their opinion in the only opinion poll that counts, and that will be on 11 July. Of course, not only has the Department of Health grown from 6,500 to well over 8,500 employees, but the Minister for Health wants to employ another 2,150 just to introduce the Australia Card proposal. It will not save this country money, it will not cut down on the social security fraud and it will not do much to prevent tax cheats. In 1983, the enrolled Medicare population was using an average of 5.8 services per year. In 1986, the figure jumped to an average of 7.5-an increase of 28 per cent. Obviously, with the growth in population we would expect the total number of health care services to grow, but attention must be paid to the fact that in only three years of the Hawke Government the number of health care services per head, on average, has increased by almost one-third. I suppose that, in one way, it may mean that the Australian people have become more unhealthy under Labor, and who can blame them? If the growth of Medicare and the Department of Health had been contained, instead of encouraged by bulk billing, savings of $600m would have been achieved. The Bill does not attack the 42 per cent blow- out in the cost of medical services in the first three years of Medicare. Goodness knows what the blowout will be in the next three years if, by some ill-fated chance, Labor is returned on 11 July. The people of Australia are not fools. They know this Hawke Labor Government has failed. They know that it is running scared. They know that it is going to the people with an election before it is game enough to bring on its horror Budget in August. The people of Australia will deliver their verdict on 11 July when they toss out Hawke, Keating and the rest of them. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(6.12) —It seems to me that the Opposition is lacking in people with elementary arithmetic-whether they are balancing the national budget, considering possible social security and taxation savings with the Australia Card or considering the health budget. How can the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) claim that health insurance delivery is getting more expensive, when the total cost of health insurance is now half of its cost in 1983? It is simply that we have one fund instead of 60 to administer basic health insurance. In a minute, I shall tell honourable members exactly how that affects the individual family. All the Opposition groups are great at being negative, but very poor at being positive about health costs and health care. Their negativism and confusing array of policy statements assure us that in the distant, if ever, possible likelihood of their being able to administer health funding and insurance, we will be back to the old Fraser-Howard record. The Opposition gave us five health schemes in only seven years of the Fraser Government-a new health scheme every 18 months. The latest document on health from the Opposition would bump up health insurance to $27 a week per couple or family for basic medical and hospital insurance. I warn the Opposition that every Australian who looks at its policy will compare what he or she is paying through the Medicare levy with the $27 a week alternative. I can tell the House what the sums will be. People who have Medicare cover only would be forced to pay, on average, $21.50 more per week under the Opposition's scheme-that is $1,120 a year. Of course, that relates only to basic insurance that covers bed day charges and doctors' fees. By stripping the public sector of financial support, State hospitals would be forced to charge for all the extras currently charged by the private hospitals. Unless a family is prepared to risk huge out of pocket costs, the Opposition, would, therefore, force all families to purchase top table insurance at a cost of about $37 per week. Those families on average weekly earnings who currently have Medicare and basic hospital cover would find themselves about $21 a week, or more than $1,000 a year, worse off. Those with only Medicare cover would be out of pocket by an additional $30 per week, or more than $1,500 per year. Against that, the Opposition mentions that health insurance costs will be lowered via tax relief. Even if the rebate were 30 per cent, as it was under the Fraser-Howard Budgets, it is obvious that families who are currently covered by Medicare and basic hospital insurance would be worse off unless their income exceeded $38,000 per year. So much for equity. The Opposition scheme is designed to benefit only the wealthy and the healthy-- Mr Porter —It is for 12 million people-hardly the healthy and the wealthy. Mr SNOW —What about those who are too poor to pay the insurance rates, but do not qualify for health care cards? I refer to the two million people who opt to stay in Medicare. Mr Porter —What is wrong? Mr SNOW —The Opposition's Medicare scheme to cover those people and pensioners would cost about $1.5 billion. Under Labor, about 60 per cent of Medicare expenditure is covered by the present levy. If that continues, contributors would be expected to cover $0.9 billion. If we assume that pensioners are exempt, 0.5 million single people and 0.3 million predominantly single income families would be expected to cover that cost; the honourable member cannot deny that. It is a cost of about $1,000 a year, representing a 5 per cent levy for the average wage earner. When it is considered that the public hospital system will be forced to charge for theatre fees and other extras, we have another question to ask-how would the Opposition cover those costs? The Opposition is asking the public to choose between crippling private insurance or an affordable levy that gives no guarantee of suitable hospital cover. The Opposition claims that it could achieve expenditure cuts of $3 billion in the health area by forcing 12 million people into private insurance-that is, all but pensioners, health card holders and their dependents. However, when the Opposition attempted similar schemes more than two million people opted to remain in Medicare. Presumably, they would again opt not to leave Medicare. The Opposition would, therefore, be forced to cover health costs for pensioners-about $1.1 billion-and for those poorer groups that choose to remain in Medicare-about $0.4 billion. Under the Hawke Labor Government, costs for medical services and administration of Medicare were $2.8 billion for 1985-86. Putting aside the $1.5 billion for pensioners and low income earners who do not opt out, the maximum that could be shifted directly on to the public from Medicare is $1.3 billion. Well, where is the $3 billion saving claimed by the Opposition? Scrapping the Medicare assistance grants to State public hospital services would cut a further $1 billion from Commonwealth expenditure. However, to get to the $3 billion mark, the Opposition would also be forced to slash $0.7 billion from identified health grants to the States and special programs. That would catastrophically reduce funding for the already pressed public hospital system and it would cripple community health and special schemes such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service and the Red Cross blood transfusion services. Let the Opposition spell out its policies. Against all that, the Opposition claims that the private sector would provide all the answers. Again, the question must be asked, at what price? As we go to the forthcoming election, the Opposition is already suspect. It will become increasingly suspect as we expose the fallacies in its arithmetic. It has its sums wrong in regard to national issues, the national Budget, taxation issues, social security and tax fraud, and health care. We will tell the Australian people about that. We will tell them that this Government, as was the case in the previous two elections, offers the best choice in health care funding. I take pleasure in supporting the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(6.21) —At the outset of this debate on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 I want to refute some of the statements made by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow). It is interesting that the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of 1986, which shows the income breakdown of contributor units with health insurance, reveals that many people on low incomes in this nation do have hospital insurance. These are the people who will pay more as a result of the changes contained in this Bill. If the honourable member for Eden-Monaro does not appreciate the fact that tens of thousands of pensioners and people on low incomes in this nation have private health insurance, he ought to visit some of the areas of his electorate in which there are large concentrations of pensioners, as I have in my electorate. Indeed, he ought to talk to some of the younger people in the community. He would find that it is not just the rich, the affluent, in our community who have private health insurance. Let me cite the figures that the Australian Bureau of Statistics has produced. There are 268,000 people in this country who have an income of less than $126 per week. There are 90,600 people who have an income of between $126 and $150. There are 444,900 people who have an income of between $151 and $250 per week, and there are 603,600 people who have an income of $251 to $350 a week. That is a clear indication that hundreds of thousands of Australians carry private health insurance. It is not just carried by the affluent in our society. In addressing specific aspects of this Bill I want to refer to four areas. Firstly, the community rating principle is being slowly eroded and destroyed. Secondly, I want to look at the advantages enjoyed by Medibank Private over the other private health insurance funds. Thirdly, I want to look at how the average Australian family is affected by increased health costs under the Hawke socialist Government. Finally, I want to look at the burgeoning cost of Medicare and the folly of bulk billing that is encouraged by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). In regard to the community rating principle, I noted in the 1985-86 report of the Health Insurance Commission that one of the corporate goals of Medibank is that it should adhere to the principle of community rating. What is happening in this country is that the healthy, and the young healthy, are being creamed off. The good risks in our community-the young healthy people-are being lured away into some of the new funds that are being registered, thereby creating great difficulties for some of the older funds which are carrying the poor risks. These new funds are offering lower rates, but are avoiding the patients with pre-existing illnesses, the higher risk patients. These people are discouraged from changing to the lower rates being offered by the new companies. Patients are forced to wait 12 months before benefits are paid if they change from their existing fund to a new fund. The community rating principle of having the high risk patients offset by the lower risk patients is slowly but surely being eroded. The Minister should allow patients with pre-existing illnesses to transfer from one fund to another without a waiting period. This would tend to sort out some of the more attractive rates that are being offered by the newer funds. Medibank Private, in my view, is guilty of creaming off some of the better risks. People seeking Medicare payouts in many instances attend Medibank Private offices, because they are dual offices. Medibank Private, through Medicare, has the profiles of patients. It knows which patients are the better risks and it has no problem in snaring those better risks. I know that there is supposed to be a manual issued to Medibank Private and Medicare offices which deplores this practice. But it is my understanding that quite a bit of this practice goes on. Is it any wonder that Medibank Private, with 264 outlets-or almost the equivalent thereof because of the dual offices throughout the nation-is the largest fund in Australia? Patients receive cash rebates at Medicare counters. They are prime targets to be joined up by Medibank Private's hospital insurance fund. I suggest to the Minister for Health that he investigate this issue as a matter of urgency, because I believe that we will see a rapid deterioration in community rating if something is not done. It is a matter of urgency. Let me refer to an advertisement in the Melbourne Age of Wednesday, 1 April 1987 for a firm called Health Australia which is endeavouring to attract people to its fund. It states: `Compare Health Australia's weekly rates for top Hospital and Ancillary cover'. It lists HBA Ltd at $22.68, ANA Friendly Society at $22.30, Manchester Unity at $21.42, IOOF Friendly Society at $24.60 and Health Australia at $17.80. Is it any wonder that some of the older funds which are carrying the high risk patients that I mentioned earlier are losing the better risks, thus helping to destroy the community rating principle? I turn to the advantages that Medibank Private has over other private health insurance funds. I referred a little earlier to the fact that it shares offices with Medicare. Medicare-Medibank has 264 offices with 4,600 staff Australia-wide. They are in prominent positions in many instances. If those offices are not in prominent positions, there is no problem as there is no shortage of money. It can close the office that has lower public exposure and open one with greater public exposure. It acts as a one-stop shopping spot for people. One in every four Australians enters Medicare offices for cash claims. It is on that basis that the Medibank Private staff are able to snare some of those people. The private health insurance funds should be agents for Medicare. This would improve the service to the public and it would break the monopoly of Medibank Private. Surely, any government would want to improve the position of the general public by allowing more outlets. The Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia, the VHIAA, has made numerous approaches to the Government to have Medicare operate through its agencies, but the answer from the Minister for Health has been a firm no. Medicare management expenses are low because the Australian Taxation Office acts as a collector for it. What does the Tax Office charge the Health Insurance Commission for collecting the $1.6 billion raised through Medicare? My understanding is that there is no charge made on Medicare for that collection. If we look at the audit fees for Medibank Private and Medicare we find that in 1982-83 Medibank Private paid $142,000 to the Auditor-General. I remind the House that in 1982-83 there was no Medicare. In 1985-86 it paid $44,350. The remainder, about $250,000, was charged to Medicare. The Health Insurance Commission commissioners received fees of $53,723 in 1982-83. Again I remind the House that there was no Medicare then. In 1985-86 Medibank Private paid $9,088 to its commissioners while Medicare was charged the extra $51,000-odd. How does the Minister explain these circumstances? The advantages to Medibank Private are obvious. Medibank Private and Medicare are obviously cooking the books. Let me turn to the Auditor-General's comments on the Health Insurance Commission annual report for 1985-86. He said that Medibank Private has so many unfair advantages over the private funds. It is causing hardship to these other funds. I would suggest to the Parliament that eventually it may send some of those smaller funds broke. The Auditor-General is very disturbed about this, but the unusual aspect of it is the fact that in the 1984-85 report he made some of the same comments as he made in the 1985-86 report, and yet the Health Insurance Commission seems to ignore them. I wonder when the Government is going to take some action on this. An election has been announced for 11 July and I am quite confident that the Howard Government will be able to investigate these matters. Let us listen to some of the comments that the Auditor-General has made. He mentioned the apportionment of expenditure between functions; that the commissioners breached sub- sections 34C (2) and 35 (5) of the Act in that the Commission retrospectively employed cost apportionment principles for 1985-86 contrary to those determined by the Minister for Health. He went on in that particular section of his report to criticise the Health Insurance Commission. The Health Insurance Commission has made provisions under Medibank Private for superannuation. There is an amount of $2 million that the Auditor-General says should be written back to the operating statement as an operating surplus available for appropriation. The specific item on public liability was mentioned in 1984-85 by the Auditor-General, yet it appears again in this 1985-86 report. A similar situation exists with building maintenance and workers compensation. The Commission has employed a lot of questionable accounting methods. In other words, in plain words it has been cooking the books to the advantage of Medibank Private. When we are in government there is no doubt in my mind that Medibank Private will be put on a privatised basis. There seems to be no reason why the Health Insurance Commission should operate as a statutory authority of the Commonwealth Government as it does with a distinct advantage. The average family has been fleeced of extra money for health care in the last 12 months. The Medicare tax-that is what it is; it is not a levy but a tax-was one per cent and it is now 1.25 per cent, an increase of 25 per cent. So a family with a taxable income of $20,000 paid $200 annually in the Medicare tax. That same family now pays $250, an increase of $50. The maximum gap for service between the benefit and the schedule fee has increased from $10 to $20. The limit on total gap payments remains the same, at $150 per person per annum. This is a difficult figure to quantify and it will vary from family to family. A five-member family could well incur an extra $100 annually. Pharmaceuticals have increased from $5 per item to a maximum of $10 per item. If and when a family reaches the 25-prescription limit in a year, all further items are provided at no charge for the remainder of that year. Again this is difficult to quantify in individual family terms, but the Government is going to save $67 million annually, and in my estimation the average extra cost for a five-person family will be about $20 annually. The private health insurance basic hospital cover has risen since June last year. We note here that Medibank Private is much more competitive-is it any wonder that it is?-than the private health funds because it enjoys all of those advantages that I mentioned earlier. In New South Wales the approximate average increase in private health insurance cover has been about $96 in the last 12 months. In Victoria it has gone up by $58 and in Queensland by $65. Most of these increases in premiums can be attributed to the abolition of the Commonwealth private hospital bed day subsidy. This latest change reducing the professional services to patients, in a hospital or day hospital from 85 to 75 per cent of the schedule fee, is saving the Government $105m and placing the extra cost burden on the private health insurance funds, which must pay the gap of the insured. This will result in insurance premium increases of about 75c weekly or about $39 annually. If we look at the total extra direct health costs of the average family as a result of the actions of the Hawke Government, we find that in New South Wales the average family is paying annually an extra $305, in Victoria an extra $267 and in Queensland an extra $274. Finally I want to deal with the overall burgeoning cost of Medicare. It has been a disaster financially for this Government and it always will be because of the way it is structured and the way it operates. Mr Ian Robinson —And for the people. Mr HODGES —And for the people. That is what it amounts to, as the honourable member for Page says. It is the people who finally pay. In this particular instance the Minister, in introducing Medicare, which came into operation on 1 February 1984, made the comment that the one per cent levy would substantially fund the whole Medicare program. Three years later we have the Medicare tax at 1.25 per cent. It is raising $1.64 billion. Yet Medicare is costing $4.7 billion. The extra money is coming out of Consolidated Revenue. But what is worse is the fact that the public cannot get the service that Medicare is supposed to provide. The fact that other than perhaps in my own State of Queensland, where we have had a so-called-and I emphasise `so-called'-free hospital scheme for about three or four decades, people cannot have elective surgery is, quite frankly, a disgraceful state of affairs for which the Hawke Government deserves to be condemned. There are about 100,000 people on waiting lists for operations. Only acute conditions can be handled. We were told by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in one of the misleading statements that he made in the 1983 election campaign, and he made more of them in the 1984 campaign-he will not fool the Australian people for the election coming up on 11 July-`A bed will be available for you in a public hospital. All Australians will have beds available in public hospitals'. At that time 60 per cent of Australians had private health insurance cover for their hospitalisation. With the introduction of Medicare that dropped to about 47 per cent. But since then many people have shown good sense, and the figure is now over 50 per cent. They have realised the folly and the misleading statements that were made then by the Prime Minister. They cannot get hospitalisation when they want it. Except perhaps in my State of Queensland, elective surgery is a thing of the past. One or two hours earlier in this House the Prime Minister announced that there would be an election on 11 July. I am staggered by the hypocrisy that he displayed when he mentioned that there would be a double dissolution. One of the reasons he gave for the double dissolution was that we-that is, the Opposition plus the Australian Democrats in the Senate-had blocked his Australia Card legislation, while the Government and the Minister for Health have encouraged bulk billing. Entrepreneurial medicine right around Australia is an absolute disgrace. Entrepreneurial medicine is running rampant in Australia and it ought to be stopped. Bulk billing should be restricted to pensioners and to the disadvantaged. Look at the direct billing figure. It was 44.9 per cent for five months of the 1983-84 financial year. It rose to 45.2 per cent in 1984-85, and it has gone up 3.4 per cent to 48.5 per cent in the last financial year. It ought to be abolished. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(6.41) —The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) and other honourable members on the other side of the House have spoken about the burgeoning cost of health care. Of course, this is of concern to the Government. In fact, it is the reason we are debating this legislation. Significant initiatives have been taken by the Government, as announced in the May mini-Budget statement, to prune areas of fat and inefficiency in health care, to remove distortions from the medical benefits system, and to target those cuts at the changes in technology and the improper incentives that exist in the health care system. It needs to be understood by everybody who is listening to this debate that the burgeoning costs that occur in medicine are of concern to us. They need to understand that the Commonwealth has always had to pay the bulk of the health care bill. We should never pretend that we previously had a purely private health care system; it was heavily government subsidised. This legislation and the Government's May statement go towards improving the situation. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) was concerned about the expenditure blowout, and the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) was concerned about the level of waste and rip-offs. This legislation attempts to turn around those inefficiencies, to change that system. The hypocrisy of the Opposition is extreme when we consider what is going on in the health debate in this country. Opposition members are today whingeing and whining about cuts in health care, yet in their policy they are auctioning off who can cut the most. The Opposition is suggesting that it can cut $3 billion from the health care budget; the National Farmers Federation is suggesting that it can cut $5.8 billion; the Monash study group is suggesting that it can do even better than that and cut $6 billion or $7 billion. Who will suffer if that is the case? If those massive cuts are made, we will have a less fair system, a less simple system, and the acceptability, assurance and stability that Medicare has provided will be removed. The people who will suffer will be those who are less well off, the elderly, families with large numbers of children, and especially poor families. They are the people who benefit most from the Medicare system. We see that as a virtue rather than as a crime. The attempt to save $2 billion by abolishing Medicare means that $2 billion is taken off the Commonwealth Budget and added to the budget of the nation's households. We are talking about transferring government expenditures to private expenditure and about basic health insurance levels of $27 a week for families. The Monash group has gone much further than the Opposition's proposals. It is talking about cutting out pharmaceutical subsidies and subsidies to nursing homes, and about cutting out subsidies in public hospitals so that people have to pay the full price. That will double the cost of private health insurance for families. They will be talking about spending $40 or $50 a week for private medical insurance. The public needs to understand that this is what the Opposition is about. The honourable member for Cowper talked about the 1.8 million people who have been forced out of private cover. Perhaps we should talk about the 1.8 million people who have decided that they are happy to be covered by Medicare and who have chosen not to take private cover. He does not talk at all about the two million people who, prior to the advent of Medicare, had no cover whatsoever. They are the people for whom we are concerned. They are the people for whom we defend Medicare. The honourable member for Barker, as he usually does, complained about hospital queues and said that there were all sorts of people who needed urgent surgery but who were missing out. The honourable member for Barker shows his ignorance of the hospital system because anybody who needs urgent surgery in this country is able to get it. I defy him to find me cases of people who are in need of urgent surgery but who are failing to have it delivered. Mr White —What about elective surgery? Dr CHARLESWORTH —The honourable member said `urgent surgery'. I am just quoting the honourable member for Barker, who said that there are people needing urgent surgery who are missing out. It was doom and gloom from the honourable member for Barker. Australians do not want it. They want the reliability, the certainty and the stability that Medicare has provided. Only one and a half hours ago the Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia-which is half of the Opposition, I suppose-was talking down the economy in his usual terms, talking about how he was going to provide taxation cuts which would be funded by expenditure cuts. The population needs to understand what massive expenditure cuts in health costs would do to the health care system. He also said that this election would be fought on trade unionism. He talked about trade unionism as though it was some sort of monstrous bogey about which he was concerned. We only have to look at health care to find that the Australian Medical Association is probably one of the best closed shop unions in this country. A headline in today's West Australian states: `AMA Vows Battle Over Health Cuts'. We have only to look seriously at the recent problems in the Australian Capital Territory, where doctors have been demanding significant increases far above those that are available to any other wage earner, to see that his abhorrence of trade unionism is indeed a very selective one. If we look at this legislation and at the May statement we will see that the changes included in them are targeted towards pruning areas where there is inefficiency. They are targeted towards removing distortions within the system. They are targeted so that they relate to changes in technology where procedures have changed or perhaps have become more efficient. They are targeted to remove those improper incentives which exist in particular areas. If we look at the face of health care, at technology and efficiency in health delivery, we will see that it is constantly changing. It is necessary for us to continually revise the medical benefits schedule because of these changes. In Question Time today the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) mentioned cataract surgery where there have been massive changes in efficiency. That surgery is the type of procedure which can now be undertaken within a doctor's surgery. So it is necessary that that benefit be reassessed. Many of us are aware of the CAT scanner and what a marvellous machine it is. The CAT scanner saves us money in many areas. If we talk to neurosurgeons about the treatment of patients who have had car accidents they will tell us that, instead of about eight or nine out of 10 patients requiring a craniotomy as a result of serious head injury, only a very small number, perhaps one or two out of 10, now require that procedure because of the availability of the CAT scanner and its effectiveness in diagnosis. That new technology saves us money. In other areas perhaps the CAT scanner is being abused, and it is necessary for us to look at the changes that are occurring. Magnetic imaging of body structures is something that over the next decade, I am sure, will provide vast efficiencies in medicine. The necessity for the surgeon to open patients up will become less important. As a result, the saving in hospital bed time and in Medicare rebates to surgeons will be significant. An area which is of concern in the May statement-and perhaps of concern to members on the other side of the House-is the growth of entrepreneurial medicine. One of the initiatives taken by the Government in changing the fee schedule for after hours services is directed at the growth in entrepreneurial medicine. I am sure that as a result of rationalising the benefits available for after hours services we will have a significant cutdown in that type of medicine which is inefficient and which is encouraged by the present fee structure. There may be problems for those who provide after hours locum services. However, the Minister has pointed out, very correctly I think, that benefits to those general practitioners who provide services during working hours and in their surgeries will be significant. Indeed, the Government has been very generous in providing, from 1 August, increased benefits for those general practitioners. As a result of that, it would seem reasonable for the commissions charged for locum services to be decreased by general practitioners making more substantial contributions to those services. It must be mentioned also that, as announced in the May statement and as part of the Government's initiatives, funding is to be increased in particular areas, such as that of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, in which the country's contribution to public health has been acknowledged by the United Nations and by international commentators all over the world. It is a vital and very important aspect of health care in this country, and it is one in which the Minister for Health has taken particular interest. Indeed, the Government is doing everything possible to make sure that the community is kept well informed. We can also look at the area of the drug offensive. Again, this Government is committed to education, treatment and rehabilitation in this area. It is important to understand that the health debate needs to be taken away from paying doctors, which it has essentially been about for a long time. It is necessary for us to talk about the very important area of prevention. Indeed, honourable members on both sides of the House have mentioned health maintenance organisations. Again, the Minister for Health has already agreed to take up the recommendation with respect to health maintenance organisations, which was made by the Better Health Commission, and pilot schemes in that area are envisaged. I think we should understand that this legislation is an attempt by the Government to make sure that the money raised from taxpayers to provide health care is spent efficiently and effectively. We are attempting to remove distortions from the system and we are attempting to be frugal with public money. We are certainly aware that changes in technology need to be taken into account when we consider the medical benefits schedule. We are hoping that the improper incentives that perhaps exist at the moment can be reduced. I wholeheartedly support this legislation. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(6.53) —In the dying hours of the Hawke Government we are now dealing with the Health Legislation Amendment Bill, introduced as part of the May mini-Budget package. The Bill provides precisely for the Medicare rebate to be reduced from 85 per cent of the schedule fee to 75 per cent. At the same time, the $20 limit per item is to be removed. All of this must be considered in conjunction with the Government's administration of Medicare, its determinations in respect of that scheme and its subsequent amendment of the operation of the scheme. It was only just over seven months ago that we experienced a 25 per cent increase in the Medicare levy. We have now seen the consequences of the effect of the operation of Medicare in this country over a period. There is no doubt at all that it has been to the detriment of the health care of the people of this nation. There will be an opportunity in the immediate weeks ahead, during the election campaign, for the people to make a judgment on this scheme. There is no doubt that that judgment will be to reject the scheme as it has operated since its introduction by the Hawke Government. I have no doubt that the policies that will be put forward from this side of the House to amend, change and replace this disastrous health care scheme will be embraced by the people of this nation. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) smiles. He has had the carriage of the Medicare scheme now for so long. In fact, he has been a survivor-and one wonders why. He has been a survivor through sheer luck. Every promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), by the Minister for Health and by other responsible members of the Hawke Government on the whole issue of Medicare has been broken since the inception of the scheme. At the same time we have seen the disaster that has befallen health care in this country. We have seen the hospital queues and the enormous escalation of health costs-an escalation which must be placed right at the feet of the Hawke Government. It is all very well to say that the administration of much of our hospital services is in the hands of the States, but the effect of the Medicare system has been to increase health costs enormously. This Bill provides for another reduction in the capacity of Medicare to provide for individuals who need health services. If one were to study in detail the content of the Minister's statement following the mini-Budget-there is not time for that in this debate-one would see instantly the deception and flaws in the whole concept of Medicare. One item in the mini-Budget is the removal of benefits for warts and related problems that people encounter. It is stated under `Specific items' that these benefits be removed. A fortnight later the Minister woke up to the fact that by removing these benefits he was throwing health care wide open to the consequences of the serious onset of- Mr Cowan —Skin cancer. Mr IAN ROBINSON —Skin cancer, as my colleague mentions, and other problems. The Minister quickly did an about face and restored this provision. In fact, just about everything at the high peak of determinations by the Government has at some point been reversed. Dr Blewett —It's news to me. Mr IAN ROBINSON —No, it is not news to the Minister. Did he not make the statement that he had the decision reversed? Dr Blewett —No. Mr IAN ROBINSON —I suggest that the Minister read his media releases and find out. Perhaps there is something here that he can clear up straight away while he still has that opportunity. If in fact there is to be no correction of that misfortune which has befallen the public in the sphere of health care as a result of the mini-Budget, perhaps after 11 July we will have a chance to set that one right as well. So many aspects of this vital health care question are appropriate for reference in this debate but time does not permit that. I will conclude by making the point that obscurity in health services is a great burden for the needy of this country. I say there is an obscurity about it because people do not really know what benefits they will receive. The fluid situation in relation to hospital costs particularly in the private hospital area, which very often is the only avenue that people can turn to for treatment-- Mr Peter Fischer —And pay twice. Mr IAN ROBINSON —And pay twice, as the honourable member for Mallee has said-is creating a dilemma for people who have serious illnesses in particular, because they have nowhere else to turn. With the consequences of the changes in fees charged by private hospitals and the reduction of the benefit that will now be available, this is a sad period for health care in this country. Yet the Government is hell-bent on destroying the private hospital system. Why? It is because the Government believes that there should be one common denominator for health care in this country. That common denominator does not take into account special needs. It does not take into account the facilities that are required, particularly in country areas. It does not take into account the fact that public hospitals, under the present financial restraints being implemented by this Government through the States, cannot provide those facilities but that private hospitals, in may instances, can. We are placing those facilities out of the reach of the patients in need. What a disaster, a calamity, that is for the people of this country. There are many other issues involved. Time will not permit one to canvass them in this debate. I deplore the Government's action in this matter and in so many others relating to the health care of the people of Australia. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —There has not been, as is usual in such debates, one single new argument introduced by the Opposition, apart from warts and keratoses which I will deal with in a moment. We have had the same cliches repeated again and again. I look forward to a much wider assize than this body making the decision in the next few weeks. I am confident that it will be in support of the Medicare system-the system which is more fairly funded than any yet introduced in this country and to which the Opposition's only alternative is a flat rate insurance system which will impact most adversely in payment terms on the less well off in this society. Taking up the one new point that was managed to be introduced by the Opposition in the whole two hours of the debate-that is, the issue of warts and keratoses-the reasons for removing the five items, and they will remain removed, is that the operation has become an extremely simple procedure. It is carried out mostly by general practitioners-in fact, three-quarters of them are carried out by general practitioners-in their own rooms in consultation times. We do not want to leave the incentive to have extra payments for those procedures which can now be done quickly and efficiently and mostly by general practitioners. Doctors will continue to be paid the consultation fee. Usually they do these procedures in consultation times because generally it takes a very short time to do them. There will not be built into the system an incentive to develop a rort and a quite unnecessary form of medicine by bringing people back for those procedures. We believe that it is a much better way of organising the system. However, that is not to say that doctors will not be paid. They will be paid their consultation fees for doing these simple procedures which they are able to do very quickly. The other point that I would make, because it is quite contrary to some of the nonsense talked by some self-interested specialists in this area, is that the decision does not affect skin cancers and their removal; it relates simply to the removal of warts and keratoses. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Porter's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. Maher, M. J. Charlesworth, R. I. Martin, S. P. Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H. Cleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L. Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodges, J. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R. Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K. Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C. Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D. Everingham, P. A. E. Sharp, J. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Staples, P. R. Jull, D. F. Dawkins J. S. Webster, A. P. Gorman, R. N. G. Hodgman, W. M. Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. House adjourned at 7.11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 27 May 1987: Defence Act-Determinations-1987-Nos. 37 and 38-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4320) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What revenue has been gathered from (a) sales tax and (b) customs duty on saddlery and related equipment for horses in each year since 1982-83. (2) Are there any exemptions granted for those sales tax and customs duties; if so, (a) who or what are exempt and, in particular, is the Australian Equestrian Team exempt and (b) what was the loss of revenue because of those exemptions. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Sales tax collected on particular commodities is not recorded separately. A coding system is used whereby a sales taxpayer is allocated a code (upon registration with the Australian Taxation Office) according to his major taxable sales. Taxable sales of all goods are totalled together for each code and therefore statistics on the particular commodities being sought cannot be tabulated separately. It is estimated however that the sales tax payable (at a rate of 20%) by taxpayers whose major taxable sales are ``saddlery and harnesses'' in each year since 1982-83 was as follows: Year $m 1982-83... 2.4 1983-84... 2.4 1984-85... 2.6 1985-86... 2.6 (b) Customs duty collected on ``saddlery and harness, collars, traces, knee pads and boots, of any material, for any kind of animal'' and ``certain base metal fittings and mountings suitable for saddlery'' in each year since 1982-83 was as follows: Year $m 1982-83... 2.6 1983-84... 5.2 1984-85... 7.5 1985-86... 9.6 (2) Saddlery and related equipment for horses are subject to sales tax at the general rate of 20%. Persons engaged in agricultural industry are entitled to exemption from sales tax on saddlery, harness, trace chains and horse rugs where those goods are for use exclusively, or primarily and principally, in carrying out agricultural operations. Exemption also applies where the saddlery is purchased for the use of an exempt organisation such as a government department or authority, or a non-profit university or school. There is no exemption from sales tax on saddlery, or other taxable goods, for use by the Australian Equestrian Team. The loss of sales tax revenue because of the exemptions mentioned above is unknown. Exemption from customs duty on saddlery and related equipment for horses applies to imports (i) from Forum Island countries and (ii) by exempt organisations such as government departments and authorities. Forum Island countries are listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Customs Tariff Act 1982. There is no specific customs concession available to the Australian Equestrian Team. The loss of customs duty revenue because of these exemptions is unknown. (Question No. 4359) Mr Conquest asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: In view of the collapse of the price of crude oil, will the Government (a) reduce the range of secondary taxes applied to current Australian production to ensure a reasonable rate of return on investment and (b) offer 100 per cent investor tax credits for investment in approved and bona fide exploration companies. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) I would point out that, in response to industry's concerns with existing secondary taxation arrangements, a review is currently being conducted of the arrangements applying to areas not subject to resource rent taxation. The outcome of this review will be announced as soon as possible. The Government's move in 1984 to introduce a resource rent tax (RRT) on offshore greenfields petroleum projects represents an attempt to put in place a more economically efficient and equitable system of secondary taxation, designed to achieve the above objective. The RRT will be payable only in respect of projects earning a high rate of return on outlays. The recent volatility of world oil prices has underlined the point that the RRT offers considerable benefits, over the long term, to the petroleum industry when compared with production-based taxes. The Commonwealth has also demonstrated its concern that its crude oil excise arrangements should remain relevant to prevailing circumstances. With the fall in oil prices in 1986, the Government acted to improve the flexibility of the crude oil excise by introducing certain concessions: - From 1 July 1986 the 87 per cent top rate of crude oil excise for free market sales of `old' oil was replaced by a sliding scale ranging from 65 per cent at a realised price of $A12.50 or less per barrel up to 87 per cent at $A35.00 or more per barrel. Also, rebates of excise were increased for free market sales of `new' oil where such sales were below the import parity price. - In addition, from 1 August 1986, the top rate of excise payable on `old' oil sold under the domestic allocation arrangements was reduced from 87 per cent to 80 per cent. Also, the excise on all onshore oil production was waived. These reductions in excise apply initially until 30 June 1987, subject to review if there is a sustained increase in the import parity price. These arrangements are due to expire on 30 June 1987 and are subject to the review referred to earlier. (b) Eligibility for treatment under the mining provisions of the tax law are dependent upon the Commissioner of Taxation being satisfied that the taxpayer concerned is: * carrying on or proposes to carry on prescribed petroleum operations; or * carrying on a business of petroleum exploration in Australia and the expenditure is necessarily incurred in carrying on that business. Where investors meet these requirements and thereby establish their `bona fide' status, they are already entitled to an immediate income tax deduction for mineral (including petroleum) exploration expenditures. (Question No. 4673) Mr McArthur asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 September 1986: (1) How many appeals are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). (2) Of these, how many concern the Department of (a) Social Security and (b) Veterans' Affairs. (3) How many appeals were lodged with the AAT in each year since 1982-83. (4) For each of these years (a) how many appeals concerned the Department of (i) Social Security and (ii) Veterans' Affairs and (b) how many appeals concerned assets test decisions by the Department of (i) Social Security and (ii) Veterans' Affairs. (5) For each of the years and categories mentioned in the reply to part (4), how many cases involved (a) the Department as appellant and of these, how many were decided in the Department's favour and (b) the beneficiaries as appellants and of these, how many were decided in the beneficiaries' favour. (6) For each of the years and categories mentioned in the reply to part (4) how many appeals were withdrawn by (a) the Department of (i) Social Security and (ii) Veterans' Affairs, (b) beneficiaries and (c) in total. (7) For each of the years and categories mentioned in reply to part (4), what has been the (a) longest and (b) average delay between the lodgment of an appeal and the handing down of the decisions. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following information has been provided by the Registrar of the Tribunal from records kept by the Tribunal. Where the statistics refer to applications concerning the Department of Social Security and Veterans' Affairs, they relate only to appeals from decisions of those Departments concerning benefits which they administer (i.e. they do not cover appeals from decisions of those Departments concerning, say, freedom of information matters). The symbol ``n.a.'' is used to indicate that the Tribunal did not have the relevant jurisdiction during the period in question. The Veterans' Appeals jurisdiction was conferred on the Tribunal on 1 January 1985; the Assets Test jurisdiction in relation to both Veterans' Affairs and Social Security matters was conferred on 21 September 1984. In respect of the current financial year the statistics provided by the Tribunal cover the period from 1 July 1986 to the commencement of the current sittings of the Parliament (i.e. to 16 February 1987). (1) There were 2,293 non-tax applications before the AAT as at 16 February 1987. It is estimated that a further 65,000 applications to review taxation decisions were before the AAT on that date. (2) (a) 635 and (b) 814. (3) 1 July 1982 to 30 June 1983- 1 721 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1984- 2 120 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985- 1 809 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986- 2 555 1 July 1986 to 16 February 1987- 2 030 (excluding taxation appeals) On 1 July 1986 47,162 taxation appeals were transferred from the former Taxation Boards of Review to the Tribunal. (4) (a) (i) 1982-83 ... 1 104 1983-84 ... 931 1984-85 ... 566 1985-86 ... 753 1986-87 ... 522 (to 16.2.87) (ii) 1982-83 ... n.a. 1983-84 ... n.a. 1984-85 ... 71 1985-86 ... 663 1986-87 ... 666 (to 16.2.87) (b) (i) 1982-83 ... n.a. 1983-84 ... n.a. 1984-85 ... 2 1985-86 ... 130 1986-87 ... 42 (to 16.2.87) (ii) 1982-83 ... n.a. 1983-84 ... n.a. 1984-85 ... 1 1985-86 ... 83 1986-87 ... 27 (to 16.2.87) (5) (a) Departments as Appellants (i) Department of Social Security as appellant The decisions which are subject to appeal are made by the Department of Social Security. Accordingly, the Department of Social Security is never the appellant. (ii) Department of Veterans' Affairs as appellant The Department has not been the appellant against any assets test decisions. In relation to other decisions the following information is provided: Total Number of Appeals Decision Favourable to Department 1982-83 ... n.a. 1983-84 ... n.a. 1984-85 ... 2 Nil (1 matter still pending) 1985-86 ... 46 3 (26 matters still pending) 1986-87 ... (to 16.2.87) 43 Nil (39 matters still pending) (b) Beneficiaries as Appellants (i) Social Security (All cases) Total Decision favourable to applicant 1982-83 ... 1 104 No figures are available 1983-84 ... 931 No figures are avail- able 1984-85 ... 566 298 (14 matters still pending) 1985-86 ... 753 258 (167 matters still pending) 1986-87 ... (to 16.2.87) 522 25 (436 matters still pending) (ii) Veterans' Appeals (All cases) Total Decision favourable to applicant 1982-83... N/A n.a. 1983-84... N/A n.a. 1984-85... 69 29 (4 matters still pending) 1985-86... 617 125 (185 matters still pending) 1986-87... (to 16.2.87) 623 4 (561 matters still pending) (iii) Social Security (Assets Test Cases) Total Decision favourable to applicant 1982-83... N/A n.a. 1983-84... N/A n.a. 1984-85... 2 Nil 1985-86... 130 39 (39 matters still pending) 1986-87... (to 16.2.87) 42 2 (36 matters still pending) (iv) Veterans' Appeals (Assets Test Cases) Total Decision favourable to applicant 1982-83... N/A n.a. 1983-84... N/A n.a. 1984-85... 1 1 1985-86... 83 18 (23 matters still pending) 1986-87... (to 16.2.87) 27 Nil (24 matters still pending) (6) (a) Appeals withdrawn by Departments (i) Department of Social Security: not applicable (see 5 (a) (i) ) (ii) Department of Veterans' Affairs: In relation to the relevant years, there is no record of any appeal lodged by the Department having been withdrawn. (b) Appeals withdrawn by Beneficiaries (i) Social Security (All cases) 1982-83... No figures are available 1983-84... No figures are available 1984-85... 137 1985-86... 222 1986-87... (to 16.2.87) 41 (ii) Veterans' Appeals (All cases) 1982-83... N/A 1983-84... N/A 1984-85... 27 1985-86... 230 1986-87... (to 16.2.87) 72 (iii) Social Security (Assets Test Cases) 1982-83... N/A 1983-84... N/A 1984-85... 1 1985-86... 35 1986-87... (to 16.2.87) 1 (iv) Veterans' Appeals (Assets Test Cases) 1982-83... N/A 1983-84... N/A 1984-85... Nil 1985-86... 36 1986-87... (to 16.2.87) 2 (c) Total Appeals Withdrawn See the answers to (a) and (b) above (7) (a) Longest Delay (i) Department of Social Security (All cases) Statistics are not available for each individual year. The longest individual delay on any matter to 16 February 87 was 470 days. (ii) Department of Veterans' Affairs (All cases) Statistics are not available for each individual year. The longest individual delay on any matter to 16 February 87 was 667 days. (iii) Department of Social Security (Assets Test Cases) Statistics are not available for each individual year. For applications lodged in 1986, the longest delay to 16 February 87 was 331 days. (iv) Department of Veterans' Affairs (Assets Test Cases) Statistics are not available for each individual year. For applications lodged in 1986, the longest delay to 16 February 87 was 300 days. (b) Average Delay The Tribunal does not have the information necessary to enable it to calculate the average delay in determining applications for review in each year, although some information (set out below) is held in relation to assets test cases lodged in 1986. Cases involving medical issues are generally set down for hearing within 7 months of the date of lodgment. Other cases are generally set down for hearing within 5 months of the date of lodgment. The actual date of hearing may be sooner or later than the listed date depending upon a range of factors including the parties' wishes. Of the assets test cases lodged in 1986 and determined as at 16 February 1987, the Actual delays were: Dept. of Social Security Veterans' Affairs No. of days between lodgement and completion No. of cases No. of cases 30... 0 4 30-120... 9 1 121-240... 33 15 241-360... 9 3 (Question No. 4902) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: (1) Has the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) recommended that all forms of smokeless tobacco be listed as prohibited imports. (2) Will action be taken to implement the recommendations of the NHMRC in this matter; if so, when. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) In recognition of the harm to health from use of these products, I have recommended to the Attorney-General that a ban on oral snuff and chewing tobacco manufactured in, or imported into, Australia should be introduced under the Trade Practices Act as from 30 September 1987. At the request of the Minister Assisting the Attorney-General for Consumer Affairs, the matter of whether the ban should include nasal snuff was discussed at the Australian Health Ministers' Conference on 13-14 April 1987. It was agreed that urgent advice be sought from the National Health and Medical Research Council on whether the scientific evidence on the harm to health from use of nasal snuff is such that it warrants inclusion in the ban. I understand that nasal snuff can be included in the ban at a later date, if this is deemed necessary. (Question No. 4965) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 November 1986: Will he establish a national register of deaths from cancer in Australia which would include information on the past occupations, lifestyles and place of residence of the deceased; if not, why not. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I share the honourable member's concern. As he is no doubt aware, cancer is the second most important cause of death in the Australian population and is the only major cause of death which is still increasing in our country. Cancer registries already exist in each of the States and the Northern Territory (Australian Capital Territory events are recorded by the New South Wales registry), and a National Cancer Statistics Clearing House is currently being established at the Australian Institute of Health in Canberra, as a co-operative venture between the Institute and the Australasian Association of Cancer Registries. The Clearing House will receive from the registries reports of initial diagnoses of, and deaths from, malignant tumours that occur in usual residents of Australia, commencing with reports from 1982. The reports include usual residence at the time of onset or death, but do not include past occupation or lifestyle factors; current occupation is recorded by four of the registries. The Clearing House will fill an important national monitoring function, including: (1) computation and analysis of cancer statistics on a national basis; (2) tracking of interstate movements of cancer patients; and (3) facilitating the conduct of follow-up studies to determine the outcome of cancer cases. However, the Clearing House is not a particularly suitable vehicle for establishing the role of environmental, behavioural and lifestyle factors in the aetiology of cancers. The time between exposure to risk factors, and mani- festation of cancer is often in the order of 15-30 years. Patients only come to the attention of the registries when a cancer is diagnosed, so in order to establish a connection, information would have to be collected retrospectively on the supposed risk factors in operation 15-30 years earlier. It would be impractical to do this for each case, as more than fifty thousand cancers occur every year. The Clearing House will, however, subject to ethical clearance and the agreement of the registries, be able to provide researchers with details of cases of particular tumours. The registries already provide this facility on a State basis. As part of the proposal to establish a National Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages under the Australia Card legislation, the Institute will establish a National Death Index, which will provide the means to determine whether a given person has died, and if so, the cause of death. The Index will include details of occupation as reported at the time of death, but that of course may not be particularly informative, especially if occupation is given as pensioner, retired etc. There have been proposals, for instance, to record `main lifetime occupation', or even a detailed occupational history, but again this would not be practicable for every death that occurs, or even for every cancer death that occurs. I would, however, point out to the honourable member that there is another, more appropriate method for investigating the link between occupation, lifestyle and residence, and cancer, which the Institute of Health is also pursuing. This involves the follow-up of persons known to have been exposed to possible risk factors, rather than the retrospective reconstruction of risk factors for people who manifest a disease. Experience in the UK, USA and Canada has shown that in conjunction with lists of people exposed to possible risk factors (eg residents of particular areas at particular times, employees of particular companies, and members of particular occupational groups), a death index of the kind that the Institute of Health will be establishing can provide a very powerful tool for investigating the contribution of environmental, behavioural or lifestyle factors to the causation of cancer. (Question No. 5045) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) Further to his answer to my question No. 2217 (Hansard, 23 May 1986, page 3916), (a) when did the major review of the structure, organisation and method of the Bankruptcy Branch of his Department begin, (b) what were the terms of reference of the review, (c) who was responsible for undertaking the review and (d) when is the review expected to be completed. (2) When did the Law Reform Commission complete its report on insolvency and when will amendments to the Bankruptcy Act, as suggested in his answer, be introduced into Parliament. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The review of the Bankruptcy Branch commenced on 10 November 1986. (b) The terms of reference of the Review were to; (i) Examine and report on the changes to work load and methods of operation of the Bankruptcy Branch resulting from amendments to the Bankruptcy Act and other new enactments passed and expected to be passed in the period 1980/1990. (ii) Examine and recommend changes necessary to the structure, organisation and establishment of the Branch in order that it be able to effectively and efficiently perform the commitments and work load ascertained in (i) above. (c) The review team was led by Mr Andrew Warden, a partner from K. M. G. Hungerfords. Other team members were Mr Digby Ross, Certified Practising Accountant, Official Receiver, Hobart, Mr Mark Zanker, Senior Legal Officer, Bankruptcy Policy Section, Mr David Waller, Management Improvement Branch, Attorney-General's Department. (d) The report of the Review was presented to the Secretary of my Department on 20 January 1987 and is presently under consideration. (2) The Australian Law Reform Commission has not yet completed its report on insolvency, but is expected to do so by the end of 1988. I intend introducing a bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act this session. The Bill will contain measures to enhance the investigatory powers of trustees in bankruptcy and enable the recoupment of assets from corporations, partnerships and trusts which are alter egos of a bankrupt; to introduce a pre-bankruptcy moratorium to prevent unnecessary bankruptcies; to reform the voluntary procedures under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act to ensure that creditors receive full and timely information about debtors' affairs; and to improve and simplify procedures under the Bankruptcy Act. (Question No. 5159) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 26 February 1987: (1) What financial assistance has been given in each year since 1970-71 by his department or any authority responsible to him to the (a) Australian Railway Historical Society (SA Division), (b) Steam Ranger Tours, (c) Victor Harbour Tourist Railway, (d) Australian Electric Transport Museum, (e) Mile End Railway Museum, (f) Pichi Richi Railway Preservation Society and (g) Steam Town Peterborough. (2) Did any of the organisations receive assistance for a project which (a) was subsequently cancelled or (b) the organisation subsequently requested permission to change; if so, what are the details of the project and is the Government able to ensure the new commitment is being honoured by the organisation. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Portfolio of Arts, Heritage and Environment (1) (a)-(e) Nil. (f) Grants were provided through the National Estate Grants program to the Pichi Richi Railway Preservation Society as follows: 1973-74 $ 9,000 1980-81 $ 8,000 1986-87 $19,950. (g) Nil. (2) (a) and (b) No. (Question No. 5173) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a joint publication, issued in 1981, by the FAO, WHO, and the International Atomic Energy Agency entitled Wholesomeness of Irradiated Food. (2) Was Australia represented on the expert committee which drew up this document; if so, by whom. (3) Has the document been accepted by WHO; if so, when, and was Australia represented at the WHO meeting when it was accepted. (4) If it has been accepted by WHO, was the Minister's Department asked to comment on it before it was accepted; if so, when. (5) Is the Minister able to say whether any further documents have been issued by the joint expert committee; if so, (a) when, (b) what are they and (c) what action has been taken on them. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. An expert committee does not provide for country representation. Professor M. J. Rand, University of Melbourne was a member of the Committee. (3) and (4) As indicated by the disclaimer on page 1 of the publication, the report is ``the collective views of an international group of experts''. The WHO notes the views of such Expert Committees but does not formally adopt them. This particular report was noted by the Executive Board of WHO at its meeting of 25 May 1981. (5) My Department is not aware of any further documents being issued by the Committee. (Question No. 5175) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Medical Journal of Australia, dated 17 November 1986, entitled `Caffeine: a toxicological overview' by Dr P. J. Abbott. (2) Is Dr Abbott a senior toxicologist employed by his Department. (3) Do the views expressed by Dr Abbott represent those of his Department; if not, why not. (4) If the views expressed by Dr Abbott represent those of his Department, when will he take steps to (a) warn consumers, and in particular, parents of young children, of the dangers associated with the consumption of caffeine and (b) require that all soft drinks, confectionery and similar products containing caffeine, be clearly labelled with the approximate content of caffeine, so that parents of young children can avoid products with a high caffeine content. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) The views expressed in the article are the personal ones of Dr Abbott. I am advised that a review was commissioned by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) as part of its overall examination of caffeine in the diet. My Department is awaiting the outcome of this review process. (4) The question of any potential health risk to consumers as a result of caffeine consumption is of great concern to my Department and is under consideration by both the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse (NCADA) and by expert bodies of the NH&MRC including the Women's Health, Child Health and Nutrition Committees. The NCADA has recently issued an information pamphlet which warns of the danger of excessive caffeine intake. Further action in relation to advice to consumers and the possible labelling of foodstuffs will be undertaken once the NH&MRC has made its recommendations. (Question No. 5230) Mr Halverson asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 March 1987: (1) Is it a fact that recent inquiries regarding the future use and ownership of the former Army School of Health site at Healesville, Vic., are being redirected by his Department to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. (2) Does this indicate that a decision has been made about the future use or ownership of the site; if so, when will this information be conveyed to the local municipal authorities and citizens of Healesville. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The future use and ownership of the former Army School of Health site is the subject of current discussions between State and Commonwealth Authorities. An announcement will be made once an agreement has been reached. (Question No. 5234) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 24 March 1987: When will he answer my question No. 3423 placed on notice on 18 March 1986. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My answer to question No. 3423 appears in Hansard, House of Representatives, on 30 April 1987, pages 2364-5. (Question No. 5254)) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 March 1987: (1) What has been the total cost of the defamation proceeding involving Comalco Ltd and the ABC program `Four Corners'. (2) What action has been taken to prevent a similar recurrence. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is: (1) The ABC's legal costs amounted to $566,778.07. These costs were made up of $435,394.80 for a trial over eleven weeks before the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court and $131,383.27 for the appeal to the full Federal Court. Terms of settlement with Comalco Ltd included a provision that, with the exception of a statement to air which included reference to the fact that the ABC had undertaken to pay Comalco Ltd a substantial sum by way of damages and contribution to costs, neither party publicly disclose the details of the settlement. (2) Over the last six months the Corporation has been in the process of restructuring its Legal and Copyright Department. As a result of the restructuring the Legal and Copyright Department now comprises five solicitors placing it in a position to provide an upgraded national service to the Corporation. In particular, it is the objective of the Department to centralise, monitor and control the program and copyright advice given day to day to all news and current affairs services and program makers. To effect its abovementioned objective a business-size card has been designed and distributed throughout the Corporation. The card lists the business telephone numbers of the Department together with the after hours telephone numbers of four of the five Corporation solicitors. These four solicitors are available for advice to all Corporation journalists and program makers 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The Legal and Copyright Department is particularly mindful of its responsibility to ensure that the staff of the Corporation and, in particular, its journalists and program makers receive adequate training in areas of the law relevant to them especially contempt, defamation, intellectual property and contract. Solicitors in the Department regularly address training sessions within the ABC and the Department has prepared and distributed throughout the Corporation a paper titled `Contempt of Court'. Further, the Department is currently preparing a paper on defamation. In addition to the above the Head and Assistant Head of the Department are in the process of visiting Corporation offices and agents in all capital cities outside Sydney to consolidate the above, ascertain any special needs they may have and to review all outstanding litigation matters. Discussions have taken place with a view to producing a videotape based on case law to be used in conjunction with training sessions and the papers on contempt and defamation. The program `Strangers In Their Own Land' which was the subject matter of the litigation between the ABC and Comalco Ltd was purchased from Granada Television. The contract for the purchase (a pro-forma contract prepared by Granada) did not contain an indemnity in favour of the ABC in the event that the program contained any defamatory material. This has now been rectified. All further purchasing contracts with Granada, for current affairs and documentary programs, will contain the following provision: `The licenser (Granada) undertakes and agrees to indemnify and keep indemnified the licensee and the television transmitting stations from which the programs are telecast pursuant to this agreement, and each of them against any loss, liability, cost and expense in connection with any action, suit, claim or demand made by any person, firm, company or corporation against it or them for alleged libel, slander, infringement of copyright (whether literary, dramatic, musical, artistic or otherwise), literary piracy, unfair competition, invasion of the right of privacy or otherwise arising in any way from the use by the licensee of the programs in accordance with this agreement.' (Question No. 5271) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 April 1987: (1) Is the upgrading of Moorooduc road fully funded under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) program; if not, what percentage is covered by the ABRD program. (2) What is the estimated date of completion of the Moorooduc road improvements. (3) What will be the cost of completing the Moorooduc road duplication. (4) What percentage of the cost of extending the Mornington Peninsula freeway is funded under the ABRD program or the Australian Land Transport Assistance Act. (5) What is the estimated completion date of the Mornington Peninsula freeway. (6) What will be the cost of completing the Mornington Peninsula Freeway. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Both Moorooduc road and the Mornington Peninsula freeway are State arterial roads for Federal funding purposes and as such responsibility rests with the State Government. The Federal Government does, however, provide supplementary financial assistance to the State for works on arterial roads. Under both the ABRD and the Australian Land Transport Program (ALTP) it is a matter for the State Government to determine priorities in relation to individual arterial roads projects which are submitted for Federal approval and funding. Furthermore, the responsibility for scheduling and timing of construction work rests with the State Government. (1) There is currently an approved commitment of $5.070 million in Federal funds from the ABRD Program for duplication of a 9.5 Km section of Moorooduc road between Humphries road and Craigie road. This commitment represents approximately sixty eight per cent of the estimated total cost of $7.5 million of the project. I am advised that, to date, the Victorian Government has been reimbursed for most of the Federal funding commitment to this project. Funds to complete this project will need to be made available either by the State Government from its own sources or it may seek additional Federal funding under either of the abovementioned road programs. (2) I am advised earthworks on the above section are completed but paving has not commenced. As this is a State arterial road, the State Government is best placed to advise on the estimated completion date. (3) $3.0 million for the above works. (4) There are three projects on the Mornington Peninsula freeway which have approved commitments from the ABRD Trust Fund. Details are as follows: (i) Construction of two reinforced concrete bridges to carry the Mornington Peninsula freeway over the Nepean highway at Dromana (ABRD commitment $1.250M) Pro- ject is complete. (ii) Construction of bridge at Mount Martha, associated earthworks and supply of pavement materials (ABRD commitment $2.030M) Project is complete. (iii) Construction of single carriageway from Moorooduc road to Dromana, including a culvert at Brokil Creek (ABRD commitment $4.200M) Project is under way. Of the $7.480 million total commitment in Federal funds, some $4.500 million has been expended to date. (5) The Mornington Peninsula freeway is a State arterial road and, while the Federal Government has provided generous financial assistance towards construction works on this road, the scheduling and timing of construction works is a State responsibility. Again, the State Government is best placed to advise on the estimated completion date. (6) $6.3 million for the construction of the single carriageway from Moorooduc road to Dromana, including a culvert at Brokil Creek. (Question No. 5275) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 2 April 1987: (1) Is it a fact that the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report, dated 30 March 1987, strongly criticised Telecom for the inefficient management of its 27,000 motor vehicle fleet. (2) What steps will be taken to ensure that Telecom acts immediately to overcome the deficiencies outlined in the report. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) No. In his report the Auditor-General concluded that motor vehicle costs have been contained and have contributed to the Commission's improved results in recent years. The recommendations made by the Auditor-General called for reviews of existing practices in a number of areas and for the development of a national fleet information system. (2) The Commission is undertaking reviews and other actions over the areas concerned. Some of these actions, such as the development of a national fleet information system, were already commenced and have been acknowledged by the Auditor-General in his report. (Question No. 5286) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 19 April 1987: (1) What policies and procedures governed the selection of private firms to collaborate with his Department in the development and marketing of the ORION computer system. (2) What has his Department contributed to the joint development of the system in terms of (a) money, (b) manpower, (c) equipment and (d) computer software. (3) What has each collaborator contributed to this development. (4) What involvement have departmental officers had in marketing the ORION system. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) HRM Consulting was selected following an assessment of the capacity and expertise of various private sector firms, to develop and maintain an integrated human resource management system. In reaching its decision the Department gave cognisance to: record of achievement quality of staff who would be engaged on this project ability and willingness to develop a system for the Department's WANG environment cost compliance with Finance Regulations and Directions (2) (a) $230,000 for contract programming, consulting services and departmental administrative expenses. (b) The ORION project has been supervised by the Executive of the Department. A project team of 4 staff was established in March 1986 to prepare user specifications, support system development, test the software, and manage implementation. Additional staff totalling one person year have been seconded to the project team at various times. (c) and (d) The Department of Community Services has been using existing WANG equipment and associated software to develop ORION. This equipment was acquired through normal government procedures at the time of the Department's creation for office-based purposes such as word processing. (3) ORION is being developed in collaboration with HRM Consulting and WANG Computer. The contributions of these organisations are as follows: HRM Consulting: Systems analysis, programming, consulting and purchase of computer equipment to a net value of $503,000. WANG Computer: Training, assistance with applications development, hardware and facilities to a value of $191,600. (4) A number of Departments and private firms are currently developing computerised human resource management systems for the Australian Public Service. The Efficiency Scrutiny Unit and the Department of Finance have taken an interest in these developments with a view to maximising investment to date and ensuring there are no new developments. Consistent with this approach my Department has demonstrated in a variety of forums, the functionality of ORION to ensure that unnecessary development of automated personnel systems is not initiated. (Question No. 5334) Mr Cadman asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 4 May 1987: Have any officers of the Minister's Department resigned in the past 2 years to take up employment with HRC Technologies Ltd, HRC Holdings Pty Ltd or HRC Time; if so, what are their names. Mr Young —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: No officer of the Special Minister of State's Department has on resignation, declared an intention to take up employment with HRC Technologies Ltd, HRC Holdings Pty Ltd or HRC Time. The Department is not aware of any former officer employed by HRC Technologies Ltd, HRC Holdings Pty Ltd or HRC Time. Mr Slipper asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, without notice, on 1 April 1987 (Hansard page 1868): In his joint statement with the Treasurer and the Prime Minister dated 20 March 1987 regarding the Federal Government's export control powers and their use in relation to silica mining at Shelburne Bay it was stated that mining would be contrary to the national interest, chiefly because of its impact on the environment. The statement went on to say that the Government's decision followed detailed and careful consideration of the proposal. I therefore ask the Minister: First, who were the environmental experts who advised the Government on this project; second, when was the investigation carried out; third, was the investigation carried out on site; and, four, will the Government make public the report that it received on the environmental impact? Mr Cohen —On 1 April 1987 (Hansard page 1868) Mr Slipper asked a question without notice concerning Shelburne Bay. I partially answered the question in the House. The following further information is provided to complete my answer: In assessing the environmental implications of the Shelburne Bay silica sand proposal, I received advice from officers of my Department, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC). In addition, the preparation and public review of an environmental impact statement (EIS), in accordance with the provisions of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act provided an opportunity for Commonwealth and State Government authorities, interested bodies and the public to comment and advise on the environmental aspects of that proposal. I sought the preparation and submission of an EIS on the Shelburne Bay proposal on 14 June 1985. The draft EIS, prepared by the consultants to the Shelburne Silica Joint Venturer, was made available for public review in June/August 1986 and some seventy-five submissions were received. In accordance with the Administrative Procedures under the Act, a final EIS was then submitted by the Joint Venturer. Upon receipt of this document an assessment report was prepared by my Department for my consideration. I subsequently made recommendations on the environmental aspects of the proposal to other Ministers on 20 November 1986. Prior to the submission of the final EIS, an officer of my Department together with officers from the AHC and the GBRMPA visited the site and inspected the area in company with the Joint Venturer's consultants. All environmental assessment reports prepared by my Department following the preparation of an EIS under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act are made available to the public upon request. the Shelburne Bay assessment report has been available, on request, since November last year and a copy was sent to the Joint Venturers at that time. (Question No. 4745) Mr Hodgman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 October 1986: (1) Do the provisions of the fringe benefits tax legislation require an employer to pay tax on (a) employer contributions to the cost of funerals of employees, including employees killed on the job (b) employer payments for incidental funeral expenses, including hire of hearse and mourning cars, insertion of death notices on behalf of management and staff and the provision of wreaths and (c) employer provision of ``free funerals'' to employees of undertakers and funeral directors. (2) Will payments under State Workers' compensation legislation for funerals of deceased employees attract fringe benefits taxes. (3) Is it a fact that the fringe benefits tax will apply to certain employer expenses incurred in respect of deceased employees. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3). No. The fringe benefits tax legislation has no application to benefits provided in respect of a deceased employee. (Question No. 4957) Mr Ewen Cameron asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether a Contracts Review Act has been in operation in N.S.W. since 24 April 1980. (2) Have recommendations to legislate for a Contracts Review Act been submitted to previous Attorneys-General, if so, why has this legislation not been proceeded with. (3) Will he consider introducing a Contracts Review Act in order to safeguard consumers from unconscionable contracts. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, as advised in my answer to Question No. 2411 asked by the honourable member on 13 November 1985. (2) and (3) Section 52a of the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974 prohibits a corporation from, in trade or commerce, engaging in unconscionable conduct in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a consumer. The section was inserted by the Trade Practices Revision Act 1986 and came into effect on 1 June 1986. It implements, in part, a recommendation made by the Trade Practices Review Committee (the Swanson Committee) in 1976 and a proposal in the 1984 Green Paper entitled `The Trade Practices Act-Proposals for Change' which was released by the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, the then Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Cohen and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis. The section is designed to cover conduct which, while it may not be false or misleading, is nevertheless unconscionable in all the circumstances. The Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs in my Department is monitoring the operation of the provision to ensure it is having the intended effect. For further details see my response to Question No. 2411. (Question No. 4987) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: (1) Is the main runway at the new Brisbane Airport aligned with the critical winds which prevail during wet weather conditions; if not, why not. (2) Was the alignment of the main runway at the airport changed during the planning stage; if so, (a) why, (b) what was the original alignment, (c) what changes were made and (d) what effect will this have on noise reduction over surrounding areas and which areas are affected. (3) Will there be any limitations placed on the operation of the airport; if so, (a) what are they and (b) why were they not eliminated during the design stage. (4) Will noise abatement procedures be necessary at the airport; if so, (a) what procedures are proposed and (b) over or near which areas will noise be reduced. (5) What is the estimated cost of any noise abatement procedures to (a) the airlines and (b) air traffic control operations. (6) Are there any obstacles within or near the takeoff splay of the main runway in either direction; if so, what are they. (7) Will the airport be required to operate under any airspace control restrictions, special considerations or directions; if so, (a) what are they, (b) why were they not eliminated in the planning stages and (c) will they operate for the life of the airport. (8) If such restrictions will operate for an initial period but not over the life of the airport, what factors will enable the restrictions to be lifted eventually. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The direction which would have the least amount of cross wind in wet conditions is approximately 115* magnetic. In this direction significant cross winds could be expected for a total of 10 hours per year fewer than the main runway as constructed; an insignificant amount in an annual total of 8760 hours. The location and orientation of runways are determined from consideration of many factors and in the case of the new Brisbane Airport the main runway orientation was determined or influenced by: the pattern of winds at the new airport site the available land area and shape which dictated that wide-spaced long parallel runways, as desired, were only possible in a NNE/SSW direction the proposed location of the Kedron Brook Floodway taken in conjunction with rising ground and development to the west of the airport site the existing major sewage pipes on the eastern side of the airport site the need to avoid runway orientation aligned with the Central Business District the aim of minimising the noise nuisance of aircraft to residential areas the need to achieve compatibility with the proposed high Gateway Bridge the shoreline of Moreton Bay. (2) No. The alignment has not changed since it was selected in 1971. (3) No limitations will be placed on the operation of the airport. (4) Noise abatement procedures will be instituted at the new Brisbane International Airport (5) (a) procedures will include preferred runway conditions preferred flight paths for arrival and departure of aircraft. (5) (b) The noise abatement procedures will reduce noise exposure over areas in the vicinity of Cannon Hill. (5) (a) The cost to the airlines will come from the extra travelling distances and delays caused by the noise abatement components of the flight paths and the preferred runways. As these have not yet been finalised it is not possible to calculate the final cost to the airlines. (5) (b) There is no monetary cost to air traffic control. However there is a cost to air traffic control in the extra complexity of the traffic separating functions caused by the noise abatement procedures. This leads to an increased work load. (6) All obstacles in the take off area to the main runway area below the obstacle limitation surfaces specified by ICAO and the Department of Aviation standards. (7) No. (8) Not applicable, in view of answer to 7 above. (Question No. 5049) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What measures were agreed to at the International Monetary Fund conference in September to support Mexico. (2) Is he able to say what the voting was on these measures and which countries voted in the affirmative. (3) Why did Australia abstain from voting on the measures. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No specific measures to support Mexico were agreed to at the Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development held in Washington DC from 1 to 3 October 1986. The Communique from the meeting on 29 September 1986 of the Interim Committee of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund, however, noted that: `Committee members welcomed the proposed package for Mexico as an example of the strengthened debt strategy and hoped that the package can be finalised promptly'. The package was finalised on 19 November 1986, when the International Monetary Fund approved a stand-by arrangement for the Government of Mexico. Details of the stand-by arrangement and accompanying economic program are contained in IMF Press Release No. 86/43 of 19 November 1986, a copy of which has been provided to the honourable member. (2) Discussions and voting within the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund are confidential. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to comment on the voting of Executive Directors representing other countries. (3) As a general rule, I consider it inappropriate to comment on the position taken by the Executive Director representing Australia at the IMF (who also represents the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Western Samoa, the Solomon Islands, the Seychelles and Kiribati). However, in view of the imputation contained in the honourable member's question, I believe some comment is warranted on this occasion. On 19 November 1986, when the final package came before the Executive Board, the Executive Director for the constituency of which Australia is a member, expressed support for the package that was announced later that day. (Question No. 5180) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 18 March 1987: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement in the issues of the Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age of 14 March 1987 by the Somerset University Independent, Ilminster, Somerset, England, offering accelerated programs. (2) What is the status of the first and higher degrees offered by this independent university. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) The Council on Overseas Professional Qualifications (COPQ) has advised that the degrees offered by the Somerset University Independent are not recognised by the British Government. I am therefore unable to advise the honourable member of the status of these degrees. (Question No. 5202) Mr Hawker asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 March 1987: What is the (a) quantity and (b) value of agricultural trade each way between Australia and New Zealand in: (i) wool, (ii) beef, (iii) lamb (iv) dairy products, (v) vegetables and (vi) fruit. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is presented as follows: Table 1: Quantity and Value of Australian Dairy Imports from from New Zealand 1981/82-85/86 Table 2: Quantity and Value of Australian Dairy Exports to New Zealand 1981/82-85/86 Table 3: Quantity and Value of Australian Wool Trade with New Zealand 1981/82-85/86 Table 4: Quantity and Value of Australian Beef Trade with New Zealand 1981/82-85/86 Table 5: Quantity and Value of Australian Fruit Exports to New Zealand 1981/82-85/86 Table 6: Quantity and Value of Australian Fruit Imports from New Zealand 1981/82-85/86 Table 7: Quantity and Value of Australian Vegetable Exports to New Zealand 1981/82-85/86 Table 8: Quantity and Value of Australian Vegetable Imports from New Zealand 1981/82-85/86 Table 9: Quantity and Value of Australian Lamb Imports from New Zealand 1981/82-85/86 Table 10: Quantity and Value of Australian Imports of Meat of Sheep, Lambs and Goats from New Zealand 1982/83-83/84 It is not possible to provide aggregated quantities for vegetables for two main reasons. First, there is a very wide range of vegetable products which are not measured in homogeneous units. Second, within various categories, units of measurement have changed from year to year, or within years, making comparisons between years meaningless. Similarly, for the lamb category, available figures are inconsistent, since during 1982/83 and the first six months of 1983/84, ABS trade statistics for lamb were not recorded separately. During this period lamb statistics were included in the category of `Meat of sheep, lambs and goats'. Available figures are presented in Table 9 `Quantity and Value of Australian Lamb Imports from New Zealand 1981/82-85/86' and Table 10 `Quantity and Value of Australian Imports of Meat of Sheep, Lamb and Goats 1982/83-83/84'. No lamb was exported to New Zealand during the last five years. Table 1 QUANTITY AND VALUE OF AUSTRALIAN DAIRY IMPORTS FROM NEW ZEALAND 1981-82-85-86 Quantity Value (tonnes) ($A'000) 1981-82 Uncond Sweet Milk and Cream... 30.6 92 Milk Powders... 717 1,020 Milk (nes)... 373 1,725 Butter... 336.2 571 Cheese... 5,382.2 10,332 1982-83 Whey ... 18.4 18 Milk Powders... 1,205.3 1,453 Milk (nes)... 331.8 1,604 Butter... 7.6 22 Cheese... 6,406.6 13,686 1983-84 Whey ... 91.5 228 Milk Powders... 943.6 1,294 Milk (nes)... 417.7 2,229 Cheese... 5,732.5 13,389 1984-85 Uncond Sweet Milk and Cream... 7.1 37 Whey ... 67.1 148 Milk Powders... 1,240.8 1,502 Milk (nes)... 467.5 2,148 Butter... 18.3 57 Cheese... 7,961 16,391 1985-86 Fresh Milk and Cream... 5 5.5 Whey ... 49 119 Milk Powders... 1,051 1,484 Condensed Milk... 467 2,148 Butter... 18 57 Casein... 74 604 Cheese... 6,973 16,343 nes-not elsewhere specified Source: ABS Foreign Trade Statistics Table 2 QUANTITY AND VALUE OF AUSTRALIAN DAIRY EXPORTS TO NEW ZEALAND 1981-82-85-86 Quantity Value (tonnes) ($A'000) 1981-82 Cheese... 129.1 340.7 Other powders... 12.2 28.7 Condensed milk... 34.6 45.1 1982-83 Cheese... 132.0 358.1 Whole milk powder... 176.8 308.7 Other powders... 0.9 4.0 Condensed milk... 15.0 27.0 1983-84 Butter (CBE)*... 3.3 9.0 Cheese... 222.9 647.2 Casein... 5.1 11.2 Skim milk powder... 0.2 1.9 Other powders... 11.8 33.4 Condensed milk... 353.9 399.4 1984-85 Cheese... 159.9 512.9 Icecream... 4.0 8.7 Other powders... 20.4 62.3 Condensed milk... 361.6 416.2 1985-86 Butter... 2.5 3.6 Cheese... 156.0 485.4 Casein... 0.2 9.9 Icecream... 0.1 0.3 Other powders... 13.4 49.8 Condensed milk... 263.3 296.9 * CBE-Commercial Butter Equivalent Source: ABS Foreign Trade Statistics Table 3 QUANTITY AND VALUE OF AUSTRALIAN GREASY WOOL TRADE WITH NEW ZEALAND 1981/82-85/86 Imports Quantity Value Exports Quantity Value (tonnes) ($A'000) (tonnes) ($A'000) 1981/82... 9517.1 28672 287.3 1325 1982/83... 7839 23436 232.6 994 1983/84... 10168.6 32716 286.8 1637 1984/85... 11748.6 37799 265.4 1652 1985/86... 10934 46523 571 4221 * Import value estimated on NZ Free On Board values/kg Sources: Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Wool Corporation Table 4 QUANTITY AND VALUE OF AUSTRALIAN BEEF TRADE WITH NEW ZEALAND 1981/82-85/86 Imports Quantity Value Exports Quantity Value (tonnes) ($A'000) (tonnes) ($A'000) 1981/82... 1646.5 4009.9 - - 1982/83... 3583.5 9489.8 - - 1983/84... 1788.8 5021.1 - - 1984/85... 3481.1 11084.1 - - 1985/86... 1879.9 6143.6 20.0 29.4 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics Table 5 QUANTITY AND VALUE OF AUSTRALIAN FRUIT EXPORTS TO NEW ZEALAND 1981/82-85/86 Fresh Fruit Quantity Value Preserved Fruit & Fruit Preparations Quantity Value Fruit Juices Quantity Value (tonnes) ($A'000) (tonnes) ($A'000) ('000 ltrs) ($A'000) 1981/82... 13,867 11,686 3,677 2,988 931 887 1982/83... 10,767 10,204 1,584 1,786 1,920 1,320 1983/84... 16,345 12,547 2,432 2,818 1,858 1,649 1984/85... 12,827 10,104 4,787 4,891 1,496 1,266 1985/86... 16,597 17,721 12,071 11,936 1,825 1,423 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics Table 6 QUANTITY AND VALUE OF AUSTRALIAN FRUIT IMPORTS FROM NEW ZEALAND 1981/82-85/86 Fresh Fruit Quantity Value Preserved Fruit & Fruit Preparations Quantity Value Quantity Value Fruit Juices Quantity Value Quantity Value (tonnes) ($'000) (tonnes) ($A'000) ('000 ltrs) ($'000) (tonnes) ($'000) ('000 ltrs) ($'000) 1981/82... 1,342 3,746 1,716 1,949 1,091 1.017 - - 77 170 1982/83... 1,206 5.340 1,525 1,710 1,230 1,231 - - 273 550 1983/84... 2,162 7,551 2,317 2,955 869 1,110 - - 706 1,222 1984/85... 2,339 10,289 2,480 3,588 1,845 2,413 - - 2,659 3,885 1985/86... 3,933 13,509 2,265 4,311 1.022 1,292 12 5 14,327 5,832 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics Table 7 VALUE OF AUSTRALIAN VEGETABLE EXPORTS TO NEW ZEALAND 1981/82-85/86 $A'000 Fresh, Dried, Chilled Frozen and Preserved 1981/82... 1,179 1982/83... 1,143 1983/84... 1,022 1984/85... 1,238 1985/86... 3,566 Source: Department of Trade and Australian Bureau of Statistics. Table 8 VALUE OF AUSTRALIAN VEGETABLE IMPORTS FROM NEW ZEALAND 1981/82-85/86 $A'000 Fresh, Dried, Chilled Frozen and Preserved 1981/82... 12,184 1982/83... 13,925 1983/84... 19,424 1984/85... 20,650 1985/86... 26,849 Source: Department of Trade and Australian Bureau of Statistics. Table 9 QUANTITY AND VALUE OF AUSTRALIAN LAMB IMPORTS FROM NEW ZEALAND 1981/82-85/86 Quantity Vale (tonnes) ($A'000) 1981/82... 0.2 0.4 1982/83... nsr nsr 1983/84*... 0 0 1984/85... 0 0 1985/86... 11.3 14.1 nsr-not separately recorded * January to June only. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Table 10 QUANTITY AND VALUE OF AUSTRALIAN IMPORTS OF MEAT OF SHEEP, LAMBS AND GOATS FROM NEW ZEALAND 1982/83-83/84. Quantity Value (tonnes) ($A'000) 1982/83... 445.3 421.9 1983/84*... 994.6 669.2 * June to December only. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (Question No. 5220) Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 March 1987: (1) How many English as a second language teachers were employed at Drummoyne Public School during 1986? (2) Has the number of these teachers been reduced in 1987: If so, why? Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Since the inception of the ESL Program the responsibility for determining priorities for expenditure of Commonwealth funds and allocations to individual government schools has rested with the relevant State Minister for education. The New South Wales Department of Education has indicated that during 1986 two (2) English as a second language teachers were employed at Drummoyne Public School. (2) The New South Wales Department of Education has informed the Commonwealth Schools Commission that in 1987 1.4 equivalent full-time English as a second language teachers are employed at Drummoyne Public school. The reduction since 1986 is due to a reduced need for ESL assistance resulting from fewer first-phase ESL learners enrolled at the school. The remaining 0.6 teachers have been employed in other schools were the need for ESL assistance is greater. (Question No. 5236) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 24 March 1987: (1) Is he able to say (a) how extensive is the spread of atrophic rhinitis is in the pig population of Australia and (b) whether recent imports of live pigs carrying the main causal organism are responsible for the current outbreak of the disease. (2) Is the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service presently considering an application for the further importation of live pigs into Australia; if so, will action be taken to reject this application since other, safer methods already exist for the introduction of new and improved genetic material. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Information obtained from the report of the April 1987 meeting of Animal Health Committee shows the following; New South Wales reported that cases of atrophic rhinitis had been found in a piggery at Carcoar in pigs which had been introduced from South Australia; Victoria has reported one recent case; Western Australia has reported nine herds with signs of clinical disease however only one instance of loss of production has been recorded; Queensland has reported one suspected case but not positive identification was made; South Australia has also reported an outbreak. (b) I am advised that atrophic rhinitis has been reported sporadically in Australia since 1959 and that experts are divided as to the source of the virulent form experienced in recent years. The disease is complex in that husbandry and management practices play a significant part in its clinical manifestations. Several causative organisms which can be spread by a number of means are involved. Recent outbreaks of the disease cannot be attributed directly to imported pigs. (2) At the time of the honourable member's question one consignment of 18 pigs was in the process of importation from Canada. This shipment is undergoing quarantine at the Spotswood Animal Quarantine Station in Victoria and is due for release on 15 May. The process of quarantine and testing before export from Canada is both lengthy and costly to importers. The recent shipment had been in preparation since November 1986 after the importer had sought and was given confirmation by my Department that the 1986 Chief Quarantine Offices (Animals) Conference agreed that importation of live pigs under existing stringent conditions was safe and could continue. In light of these details, I believe it would have been inappropriate to stop or delay that importation. No further applications for importation of pigs are under consideration at this time. (Question No. 5242) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 25 March 1987: (1) What action will the Minister take in response to the letter of 4 December 1986 from the Auditor-General concerning the 1985 audit of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. (2) Will the Minister give further details as to how the matters of concern detailed in the letter arose. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Two reports dated 4 December 1986 were provided to the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, by the Auditor-General on his examinations of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust; the first was the audit report on the 1985-86 financial statements and the second report concerned other matters relating to the general operations and reporting that were considered appropriate to bring to attention. On receipt of the reports Senator Walsh wrote to the Principal Member of SFIT seeking his comments and advice on the several matters raised. That response is being examined within the Department of Finance and in accordance with the usual practice will be provided to the Auditor-General, together with any additional advice of the Department, with a view to establishing that the remedial action taken resolves the queries to the Auditor-General's satisfaction. (2) The Auditor-General's report on the financial statements was unqualified except in respect of the matter of overdrawing of the Fund which occurred twice during the financial year primarily as a consequence of clerical error. The Government is examining the recommendations and conclusions of a Service-wide efficiency scrutiny into aspects of the processing of accounts which, if accepted, should, together with further refinements being made to procedures within SFIT, largely overcome the problems that have contributed to SFIT's overdrawings. As to the other matters of concern, these were brought to attention in detail by the Auditor-General in his further report of 4 December 1986 to the Minister which was tabled in the Senate on 17 February 1987 and in the House of Representatives on 18 February 1987. It should not be overlooked that the Auditor-General's report notes in some detail the continued improvements being made by SFIT through the development of new systems and procedures to support its significant investment operations and reporting. (Question No. 5308) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 30 April 1987: Do any AUSTRADE officers regularly or occasionally provide economic or political intelligence directly to Australian or overseas intelligence agencies, if so, what instances have there been of such activity by AUSTRADE officers. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is the long-standing practice of this and previous governments to decline to provide information which might confirm or deny speculation on intelligence and security matters. I am sure the honourable member is fully aware of this practice and I repeat it only for the record. (Question No. 5313) Mr Adermann asked the Leader of the House, upon notice, on 30 April 1987: 1. Is it a fact that the House of Representatives Notice Paper has had the resumption of debate on the Flags Amendment Bill 1984 (1985) listed as a general business order of the day since 28 February 1985. 2. Is he able to say whether the Bill has been the subject of many supporting petitions to the Parliament. 3. Will the Government make time available to facilitate debate and resolution; if so, when. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. No. The Government has previously indicated publicly and unequivocally that it has no intention of changing the Australian Flag. The Government feels the time of the House would be used more productively debating the considerable number of major policy issues which the Parliament will be required to consider in this Sitting and Budget Sittings. (Question No. 5323) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 30 April 1987: (1) Further to his answer to my question No. 2132 (Hansard, 11 February 1986, page 43), as a further measure in the fight against organised crime through illicit money laundering and facilitating large scale tax avoidance, when will the Government enact similar legislation as applied in the USA which would grant immunity to bank officers who report to the appropriate authorities when they detect such illicit money transactions. (2) Will the Government introduce legislation granting access to both tax records and bank records to combat the escalation of organised crime. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Legislation giving financial institutions protection where information is communicated to law enforcement agencies about suspected use of banking facilities for unlawful purposes was introduced on 30 April 1987. The relevant provisions are clauses 79 and 80 of the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987. (2) The Proceeds of Crime Bill also provides for production orders, search warrants and monitoring orders which permit law enforcement access to banking and other records to facilitate the following of the money trail in relation to organised crime. The question of access to taxation information is under consideration by my colleague the Treasurer and I understand that legislation will be introduced later in the year. (Question No. 5324) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 30 April 1987: When will he introduce legislation similar to that operating in the USA requiring all banks to report cash transactions exceeding $10,000, to combat the role played by Australian financial institutions in assisting organised crime through illicit money laundering and facilitating large scale tax avoidance, as he indicated he would in his answer to my question No. 2132 (Hansard, 11 February 1986, page 43). Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I introduced the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987 into the Parliament on 13 May 1987. That Bill establishes a similar scheme to that operating in the USA requiring financial institutions to report cash transactions exceeding $10,000 to combat the role played by Australian financial institutions in assisting organised crime through illicit money laundering and facilitating large scale tax avoidance. (Question No. 5395) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1987: Is an Australian citizen permitted to hold a passport of another country. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Australian law does not prevent an Australian citizen with dual nationality holding a passport of another country. Whether an Australian citizen is entitled to a passport of another country would depend upon the laws of the other country. (Question No. 5099) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: (1) What accidents and incidents have involved departmental aircraft in the last 10 years. (2) What has been the cost of repairing departmental aircraft involved in these accidents. (3) What is the percentage breakdown of the causes of these accidents. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Bureau of Air Safety Investigation computer records show that in the last 10 years Departmental aircraft have been involved in four accidents: 30 August 1978 Swearingen 26 AT Mount Hagen PNG Nose landing gear collapsed on landing roll 11 June 1979 Beech 36 Latrobe Valley Victoria Engine failure on cruise followed by wheels-up landing. 5 September 1983 Gulfstream 695A, Launceston, Tasmania Nose landing gear malfunction on landing roll. 2 November 1986 Gulfstream 695B, Mangalore, Victoria Crew failed to extend landing gear prior to landing. An incident is defined by Air Navigation Regulation 270 as follows: `. . . an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of the aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of the operation of the aircraft' This is a very wide definition. It includes such events as: communication difficulties, bird strikes, hazardous cargo, fuel spillage and airworthiness occurrences eg faulty switches etc. In the years 1977-86, a total of 271 incidents involving departmental aircraft have been recorded in Australian operations. The department has no record of Papua New Guinea incidents since 1975. (2) The cost of repairing departmental aircraft involved in the above accidents was $255,200. (3) The breakdown of causes of these accidents is as follows: in one accident (Gulfstream 695A in September 1983) the factors were not determined; in two accidents aircraft components were factors Swearingen 26AT August 1978 nose wheel tyre failure Beech 36 June 1979 engine failure in two accidents (Beech 36 in June 1979 and Gulfstream 695B in November 1986) pilot factors were present. (Question No. 5255) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 30 March 1987: (1) Does the Crimes Act make it unlawful to use a silencer on a firearm. (2) Is the Minister able to say whether it is unlawful (a) to sell, purchase or possess a silencer, (b) for an Australian person or company to manufacture silencers on behalf of either local or overseas clients and (c) to either import or export silencers. (3) Is the Minister able to say whether Australian police authorities have expressed concern at what they regard as inadequate legislative controls over the manufacture, sale, ownership and use of silencers. Mr Young —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No such offence exists under the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914. (2) (a) and (b) The sale, purchase, possession or manufacture of a silencer does not constitute an offence under Commonwealth legislation. The control of silencers within Australia is the responsibility of each State and Territory whose laws and offences covering silencers vary between jurisdictions. In the Australian Capital Territory, it is only the use of a silencer which is an offence under the Gun Licence Ordinance 1937. (c) The importation of silencers is prohibited under provisions of the Customs Act 1901. There is no Commonwealth legislation prohibiting the exportation of silencers. (3) I am advised by the Australian Federal Police that the matter has not been officially raised in the forums provided by the Australasian and South West Pacific Region Police Commissioners' Conference or the Australian Police Ministers' Council. (Question No. 5288) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 29 April 1987: What are the (a) names and addresses and (b) parachute organisation membership details of the parachute (i) instructor and (ii) rigger examiners approved by the Secretary of his Department and currently holding appointment. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The names and addresses and (b) parachute organisation membership details of the parachute (i) instructors and (ii) rigger examiners approved by the Secretary to my Department and currently holding appointment are: Name Address No. Approved Instructor Examiners G. Bermingham... PO Box 460, Springwood, Qld 4127 01 C. Hold... 5/183 Lower Dandenong Rd, Mordialloc, Vic. 3195 02 F. Cox... PO Box 5007 MC, Townsville, Qld 4810 03 C. Smith... 25 Kennedy St, Melville, W.A. 6156 04 T. Collins... PO Box 4692, Darwin, N.T. 5794 05 R. Marker... 17 Stanley St, Chatswood, N.S.W. 2067 06 T. Edwards PO Box 162, Albury, N.S.W. 2640 07 P. Osborne... PO Box 64, Yarrawonga, Vic. 3730 08 G. Myors... 30 Gordon St, Sorell, Tas. 7172 09 R. Llewellyn... PO Box 144, Brunswick Heads, N.S.W. 2483 10 P. Hindley... PO Box 144, Curtin, A.C.T. 2605 11 M. Carre... 25 Mark St, Merrylands, N.S.W. 2160 12 R. Collins... PO Box 144, Curtin, A.C.T. 2605 13 C. Gillard... PO Box 21, Doveton, Vic. 3177 14 R. Ryland... 25 Bakewell St, Cranbourne, Vic. 3977 15 D. Waterston... PO Box 85, Woodend, Vic. 3442 16 S. Whalan... 120 Bungaree Rd, Pendle Hill, N.S.W. 2145 17 D. McEvoy... 15 Wynnum Rd, Norman Park, Qld 4170 18 J. Knox... 90 Brompton Rd, Wembley Downs, W.A. 6019 19 Approved Rigger Examiners D. Smith... 18 Nardange Rd, Bradbury, N.S.W. 2560 All these persons are members of the Australian Parachute Federation. (Question No. 5320) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 1 May 1987: For the purposes of cost recovery, will the new international departure tax receipts be attributed as revenue to (a) international aviation, (b) domestic aviation, (c) aviation generally, or none of these categories. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Departure tax receipts are offset against system overhead costs; they are therefore credited to aviation generally, not to any particular sector or category. (Question No. 5322) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 1 May 1987: (1) When the Senior Examiner of Sport Aviation was appointed, was it stated to that person, his Department and the aviation industry, that the examiner would be the only officer employed in that section in sport aviation generally. (2) How many staff are now employed in his Department (a) in the Sports Aviation section or (b) whose positions mainly relate to sport aviation. (3) How many additional staff will be necessary if the flight crew licensing review proposal for the compulsory licensing of all sport aviation is adopted by his Department. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) Five, two in Central Office in Canberra, one each in New South Wales, Victoria/Tasmania and Queensland. These officers perform sport aviation related duties previously undertaken by Examiners of Airmen but, unlike Examiner of Airmen, have specific knowledge, background and training in sport aviation. As a consequence, the Department now has officers capable of providing the specialist advice necessary to ensure that it is able to respond properly to the needs of the twenty thousand sport aviation enthusiasts in Australia. Additionally, the Department has had, since 1962, an officer outposted to the Gliding Federation of Australia. It is unlikely that this officer will be replaced when he retires in the near future. (3) It is not anticipated that there will be any overall additional staff required in the Department. My Department is presently reviewing the entire flight crew licensing system and has established a joint Department of Aviation/aviation industry advisory committee to develop recommendations. The desirability or otherwise of requiring persons engaged in some or all sport aviation activities to be licensed is obviously a matter for that committee to address.