Wednesday, 7 October 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Consideration resumed from 6 October. Schedule 3. Department of Transport and Communications Proposed expenditure, $1,189,592,000. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(10.02) —In debating Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 this morning, I want to raise briefly the question of the surveillance of our coastline. In so doing I refer for just a few moments to the failed contract which has so embarrassed the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) because of the actions of his predecessor, the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris). I have noticed with some amusement that his predecessor has sat back whilst the Minister has been taking the brunt of the criticism over that failed contract. One of the problems about this failed contract is that it rather takes the heat off the Government in relation to the overall question of coastal surveillance. We know that the Government, for a very odd and peculiar reason, awarded the coastal surveillance contract to a company which had no planes, no expertise and obviously no future in fulfilling the requirements set out so clearly for it. However, that is a diversion from the real question of what is happening with coastal surveillance in Australia. One has to go back years to understand the problems facing this country. Over a number of years Australia has become slowly aware of the problem of drugs coming into this country and fauna being exported from this country-an illegal trade which is a shame visited on this nation. A dereliction of duty by governments has allowed this to develop to the degree that now exists. One of the dismaying things about the growing drug trade in Australia and the growing incidence of crime based on it is that over the years all of us have known of the rumours that have developed and the information that has been available to the general community, to members of the police forces and to members of parliament in serving their electorates and moving around this country. We have become aware of a general pool of crime which we have been unable to attack because of the want of proof to be able to pin down those who are responsible for this nefarious trade. Over the last few years we have been pleased to see the development of the National Crime Authority at least giving a national direction to the fight against crime in this country. But, as I have said, all of us have known, from rumours and information which has been available, that something has been drastically wrong in this country. Today we in our respective States know of information, some of which must be based on fact because of past revelations, which causes a great deal of concern to us all. The matters which are now being pinpointed in Queensland illustrate yet again how defective Australia's surveillance is in relation to protecting the public from this area of crime. As far as coastal surveillance is concerned, we know that planes are entering this country across our northern coasts. We know that drugs are being dropped from ships that pass well-known ports in Australia. For instance, in my State of South Australia, the soft underbelly of the coast of this country, there are plenty of well-based rumours that drugs are being dropped off the coast and are being picked up and brought through ports in the south of the State. Rumours are rife about Port Lincoln and other ports in South Australia. If this is occurring in that part of Australia, one can imagine how rife it is in Sydney, off the coast of Queensland and in the northern parts of Australia. It therefore becomes a matter of will and of how much determination exists in this Government to attack this problem which has developed to such an enormous degree in Australia. Why are we arguing about a simple defect in awarding a contract to a company to conduct a series of surveillance flights which all of us know are ineffective? Why is the argument centred on that matter? Why is it not centred on the wider question of what we will really do in Australia to survey our coast properly and to prevent the ingress and egress of illegal goods and fauna? Until this question is properly addressed, we will argue around its edges. We will effectively combat the importation of drugs into Australia across our coasts only when we can prove to those who would come to this country that we can intercept their activities. It is no good our flying over creek beds or signs in the sand and reporting to the naval authorities that they can send a patrol boat there two or three days later to investigate some manifestation of landing on Australia's coast. Those who perpetrate these activities have to be intercepted within Australian waters. The Government must address itself to this question. I believe that it will have to look overseas to find out what other countries do to safeguard their coastlines effectively. Australia will have to develop a coastguard or at least a command under one of the services not only to develop effectively the organisation of personnel but also to acquire the hardware to intercept and prevent the illegal trade across our coasts. I notice with great interest that the Indian Government has placed enormous emphasis on not only its navy but also its coastguard service. It has under its coastguard service a system of organisation which is backed up by a tremendous amount of hardware-boats, planes and helicopters-to a degree which shames Australia, which has a coastline far greater than that of India and therefore presents far greater opportunity than many other countries to those who transgress. We have a responsibility to our future and to our young people to ensure that the drug trade is kept to as low a level as can possibly be maintained. This Government must look far beyond the meagre and totally ineffective operation it now has and, as I have said, must establish a single command to put in place proper surveillance forces. I do not criticise the Australian Federal Police, the Army, the police forces of the various States involved, Customs officers or the Royal Australian Navy. We have people who genuinely in the interest of Australia are doing their best to protect our future. What is lacking is the determination of government to give them the necessary organisation and equipment to carry out their duties. I strongly urge the Minister for Transport and Communications to lift his sights beyond the current failure in relation to the Amann contract and to consult his colleagues to establish an attitude to coastal surveillance which will be effective, understand the priorities and provide funds to back up the organisation which hopefully will be set up in the next few years. This could totally turn around the Government's ineffective attitude and provide the protection on which so many of our young people in future will depend. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.11) —I wish to address a few remarks to the communications side of this rather extensive portfolio which we are now considering under the Appropriation Bill (No. 1). I wish to draw attention to the affairs of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), Australia's two national broadcasters. I support unashamedly some form of amalgamation of these two broadcasters. It is ludicrous to continue to support through public funds two completely separate broadcasters. I have long put the view that if the present situation is allowed to continue, we will see at some time in the not too distant future, within 10 years or so, the SBS network withering on the vine. If the present situation continues that will happen because a government down the track-it may not be this Government but a government in about 10 years' time-may well say, `We will not front up with a couple of hundred million dollars'-as the figure will be by then-`out of the public purse, for a separate broadcasting authority to run in competition with the ABC'. I have made many speeches in this House in my seven years here stating that Australia should have a dual national broadcaster under the one board-a little like the ABC has with its radio network, Radio 1 and Radio 2. Speaking as a Melbournian, in that city it is 3LO and 3AR and one station is directed more to popular entertainment, the other specialising in more particular aspects of broadcasting. I think that this is the only way to go and I believe that it will occur; it is only a matter of time before sanity prevails. The SBS has done a marvellous job. What I propose will ensure that multicultural broadcasting continues. If we allow the present situation to continue and let that network stand out by itself, multicultural broadcasting will hit the fence somewhere down the track, lock, stock and barrel. Dual national broadcasting under the one board is the only economically sensible system under which we can have planning incorporated into a dual broadcaster. It will enhance Australia's independent programmers and producers as they look to producing programs for the second network, such as the Channel 4 system in Britain. There is no network like that in Australia at present, except for the occasional example of such programming on ABC or SBS. Because each acts independently, neither broadcaster has come near the Channel 4 position in Britain. Neither broadcaster has enhanced the lot of Australian program producers or independent producers one iota in the last seven or eight years since the introduction of the SBS. I believe that this will come about and I think that sanity will prevail. Despite all the people who are saying, `What about all the ruckus?' and all the people who were dead against the merger and caused so many problems when the Government announced its original decision, I really believe most of that opposition came from professional ethnics. In the last Parliament I was Chairman of the Government's communications committee and I am still waiting for the first person to come into my office and complain. I received two letters about the amalgamation; one was against it and the other came from an ethnic organisation which was in favour of it. Apart from that I am still waiting. I have opened my doors and I was willing to put a sign out the front for all the protesters to come, but no one fronted. Indeed, the vast majority of the ethnic communities could not care less. It is mainly the professional ethnics, who want to sit on various boards and put their hands in the bickie tin, who are really complaining about it. It is a selfish attitude because the SBS will hit the fence in another 10 years if it is allowed to float along in the way that it is. This is notwithstanding the fact that it has done a very good job. The other issue I want to raise relates to the prescribed interest in regard to television in particular. Because of the quite substantial changes that the Government made earlier this year-the biggest changes in television in the 30 years since its introduction-the old 15 per cent prescribed interest in a television station went by the board. At present it sits at 5 per cent which means that there are several people who are in breach of the existing law and who are waiting, believing that the Government may lift that back to the old, traditional 15 per cent rate. There have been rumours that the Government is looking into that. It has not come before the Government at this stage, but I am sure there will be a vigorous debate within the Government about it. I put it on notice quite strongly that I will be dead against any lifting of the rate above 5 per cent. Indeed, on the issue of cross media ownership I quote the Treasurer (Mr Keating) who said, `You are either a prince of the print or a queen of the screen'. If one is to have a genuine cross media ownership, the figure should really be zero. But I will give in to 5 per cent. No one has put one argument to me-not one solitary argument-as to why it should be 15 per cent. Why should the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), with all his millions of dollars or whatever he has in the bank, be able to buy up to that amount of interest in a company? Why should Rupert Murdoch, Kerry Packer or whoever be able to buy into stations? Whilst they will not have control, they have a significant influence because, if they want to, they will have a position or two on the board. They are not there doing it for nothing. Mr Saunderson —They are undermining the principle. Mr CHARLES —As the honourable member for Aston has said, they are undermining the principles that the Government introduced in this legislation earlier this year. As I said, it is interesting that no one has put such a proposition to me. In fact, the only proposition that has been put to me is that the interest was always traditionally 15 per cent. I consider that the Government really turned the rules on their head earlier this year when it did a complete turnaround and changed the system completely. In changing the system, the Government ensured that a number of things went out the window. The 15 per cent rate, to my mind, went out the window. To alleviate the concerns of institutional investors exemptions can be made-we can set a certain limit for them. That situation exists now; it does work and there is no reason why that should not continue. I am not against institutional investors buying into a company, but individuals should not be allowed to buy in above the 5 per cent rate that presently exists. If someone wants to own half of Australia's newspapers et cetera, so be it. But, as the Treasurer once said, `You can't have both'. If the proportion were raised to 15 per cent it would be a complete undermining of the spirit of what the Government was on about earlier this year in respect of cross-media ownership. I think there will be a rather vigorous debate about that. I am still waiting for a reasonable proposition to be put to me for why we should move to lift the proportion to 15 per cent. One could raise many other matters, including Telecom Australia, Aussat Pty Ltd, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and, indeed, the possible extension of radio licences-which I am also against-but they will have to wait for another time because they would involve rather lengthy discussions. I am quite certain that such discussions will be held within the Government and I hope they will also be held within this chamber. I support the Government's estimates and I trust that the Committee will, too. Mr JULL(Fadden)(10.21) —I am pleased to follow the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) in this debate and, indeed, to express my own concern about the future ownership of some of the media outlets in Australia. I know that I do not agree with every honourable member on my side of the chamber on the matter of the new bidding system that is being proposed for new licences in the electronic media field. Before we proceed right down that track, I think that we should be very careful indeed to make sure that we know exactly what we will be getting ourselves in for. I think some of the points raised by the honourable member for Isaacs impinge on that. One of the real worries is that we will have more and more in the electronic media in Australia a greater command by the big members of that particular community; that we will see bigger and bigger companies gaining more and more control of our electronic media. I think that is particularly relevant in the case of radio and it must be of particular concern to a great number of members of this chamber that we are likely to see a diminution of the amount of creative talent, of the creative broadcasting, that for so many decades now has been associated with commercial radio in this country. It is a fact that commercial radio around Australia is under real pressure and, in many cases, a lot of those stations are having real problems-not at the moment because of the bidding for a licence system but because of the technology involved. It is fairly well established that in most of the markets where FM radio stations are operating the FM stations have the audience and their share of the revenue. I know that Brisbane in my home State has one FM station which has about 26 per cent of the audience and commands about 32 per cent of the revenue that is spent on commercial radio in that city. That has put tremendous pressure on the AM operators there. They are struggling now to make a living. What has happened is that the amount of money that they would previously have spent on creative broadcasting has now been put aside. Basically, we are finding that the AM radio stations of Australia-not all of them but a great number of them-have had to revert to being no more than electronic juke boxes. One puts on the record and announces the time and that is all there is in it-because these stations do not have the money to spend on creativity. That is a great shame. It will also be a great shame if we find a preponderance of the big operators taking over so many of these new licences, because I am afraid that they are in it for the financial return that they can get rather than to make a creative contribution to the electronic media industry in Australia. We should be very careful indeed to ensure that we do not see our whole commercial radio operation come under the control of perhaps three or four operators, as has probably happened with the Press and television. We have probably gone so far down the track that we will find ourselves in Australia completely networked by virtue of the latest moves in the television industry. There is a great argument for networking around Australia, but it does mean that the whole of Australia will get very much of the same television and that we have the possibility of losing some of that creativity in the television industry. But we still have a chance with radio to be one of the leading countries in the world in terms of the quality of the broadcasts being put out. I hope we do not allow the present situation to go on much longer because, as I understand it, there are more than 40 AM radio stations around Australia that are presently in a loss situation, and many of those commercial radio stations are in fact in our capital cities. I think we should be very careful to try to preserve that very special part of Australia and those very special services, especially in the rural areas, and are contributed to by the AM radio operators. As this particular debate today covers both transport and communications, could I turn now to the area of transportation and a couple of things that I would like to raise briefly. The first one is the situation regarding the new Brisbane International Airport, which I understand was going to open originally in September of this year. At this time we do not have an official opening date, despite the fact that Australia is heading towards its bicentenary operations, that Brisbane will host Expo 88 in April next year, that we have had the most incredible increase in the number of international tourists coming to Australia, and that at many times during the week Brisbane International Airport cannot handle the present traffic that is flowing in there. I ask the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) whether he can give us a definitive date as to when Brisbane International Airport is going to open. Most importantly, can he spell out the timetable for the construction of the new Brisbane International Airport terminal? I have been in this place long enough now and have spoken in debates such as this about the desirability of that airport terminal. But the plain facts are that we have been caught with our pants down because the decision not to proceed with that international terminal was made before the increase in the traffic for the Commonwealth Games; it was made before the tourism boom took off; it was made before Expo was given to Brisbane for 1988, and we really have got a farcical situation now where Brisbane International Airport terminal, which was originally designed as a store shed, is trying to handle the most incredible increase in the number of visitors coming through that city. I would like to stress to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support the need now to get everything into operation and get that new international terminal building not only to handle the present traffic but to overcome a number of the technical difficulties that will come about once the new airport is opened and we are still operating from the old international terminal. International jets will have to taxi up to 14 or 15 kilometres at Brisbane to reach their take-off point. There will be some technical difficulties in terms of the heating of brakes of international jets which are going to use that particular airport and the cost that will be involved. My suggestion would be that as the Government already has the plans for the new Brisbane International Terminal it should look as fast as it possibly can to turning the whole thing over to private industry. I suggest that the Government should call for tenders from the private sector for the construction of that terminal. It would probably be completed and up and running in time for Expo 88 next year. Rather than go through all the difficulties we have had in the construction of Brisbane Airport over the last decade, for once let us ask the Government to hand it over to private enterprise and get the airport up and operating. Already Brisbane has seen what the dithering of the Government and the construction authority has meant in terms of loss of traffic. British Airways, on two occasions, has said that it was told that the airport would be operational in September. It put together its schedules for operation into the new curfew-free Brisbane Airport, but now that the airport cannot operate I understand that Australia is losing four services a week from British Airways alone through Brisbane because of that dithering. I ask the Minister, too, in light of the fact that Senator Evans in the other place today will make a major statement about deregulation of Australia's domestic airlines, when is there a chance of the Government making an investigation into possible further deregulation and loosening up of the system of international operations into Australia. Despite some of the garbage that we read in the newspapers-and, unfortunately, some of that emanates from Qantas Airways Ltd-regarding the United States routes, there is very great difficulty on a number of those routes getting seats into Australia at the moment. At a time when better than 60 per cent of the traffic coming into Australia consists of foreign visitors, I think the time is ripe now to start loosening up some of our agreements and allowing some additional capacity on selected routes. We know the story about Japan, and an announcement was made this week that Qantas was going to provide more services on the Tokyo-Australia run. But even those additional services are not enough. If we are really going to go out for this tourism boom we have to make sure we capitalise on it as much as we can as fast as we can. We are not going to do that when seats into Australia are not available at certain times of the year. I sincerely hope that the Government will try to overlook some of the intransigence of the people in the Department of Transport and Communications and sometimes of Qantas-but not always-and will allow a greater capacity on some of those routes. The Japan route is building up well and the routes out of Asia are also building up well. It is almost impossible to get a seat over the Pacific at the moment because of that traffic. The European traffic is also building up. I hope that, after the statement which the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) will be making today, both he and the Minister at the table will look very closely at opening up a greater variety of air services, perhaps away from Sydney and Melbourne, into his home city of Adelaide, where airlines want to operate at the moment but cannot, and into Perth, into Brisbane and into north Queensland, in particular. If the airlines want to go there and can justify the international traffic, I believe those rights should be guaranteed so that we can get maximum benefit out of that inflow of international tourists. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(10.31) —I have a number of concerns about broadcasting, in particular, one about the changes which the Government has made to the ownership rules. What has concerned me and, I think, a lot of people has been the way in which, with the freeing up of the rules, the purchase of television stations and the transfer of the ownership of those stations have on two or three occasions happened before the organisations have been able to settle down properly. We have seen a rise in the value of some stations. People would argue that in many instances they are overvalued. My main concern is that the role played by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in determining the correctness or otherwise of people in a position to be owners of licences is being subverted by the process of transfer of ownership prior to any approval by the Tribunal. The Government has held discussions in relation to this. I know that my colleagues have supported the view that I have put-that we should revert to the position of approval being given prior to the actual transfer of the licences. I believe it is essential to ensure that the integrity of the broadcasting system and its service to the community is maintained in a fashion that we expect. It is also essential, in my view, to ensure that the licences do not simply become assets available for transfer for quick capital gain by people who have no interest in broadcasting or in providing a long term service to the community. If we do not do something about this, we will leave ourselves open to a drop in standards of service which will not be appreciated in areas where there is less choice, particularly the rural areas. Another thing which concerns me and which was mentioned by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), is the decision to go to auctioning of licences. I have some serious reservations about the way in which that would be handled. I think that in the end the Government should rethink its position on this. It is not a good situation to be in if we say that the person who is most cashed up at a particular time is the most suitable person to be involved in broadcasting. I do not walk away from the fact that there are profits in broadcasting. Certainly in some areas people are doing very well out of it, but in other areas it is not necessarily super-profitable. It is not necessarily good for the industry overall to be in a situation in which the wealthiest people automatically obtain the licences simply because they can out-bid everybody else. In the past people have applied for a licence and, after a hearing, the Tribunal has made a judgment as to the best applicant. That is an appropriate way to go. It may well be argued that the Government should be gathering more money from licences, because there is no question that a new licensee has an asset which becomes a commodity. I would not object to some form of bonding system whereby people pay bonds for the licence which would be transferable upon some future sale. Another area of my concern is the print handicapped. There are a substantial number of such handicapped people in Australia. Some are totally blind; other have a partially handicapped reading capacity. They have great difficulty following the news and keeping up with current affairs. In a number of capital cities radio stations have been set up providing what is called radio for the print handicapped. It is unfortunate that the Government has not given them as much support as we would have hoped. I know they had hoped to receive substantial assistance in the Budget, and it is a great pity that we have not paid greater attention to providing better services for those attempting to help the handicapped. I would like to take up another question which also relates to handicapped people, that is, Telecom Australia's attitude to serving the community. Many honourable members would know that, as an ex-Telecom employee, I have been a fairly staunch supporter of Telecom. However, over the last few years I have become very disappointed with Telecom's attitude to the social concerns it ought to have. One area in particular is the provision of telephone services for the hearing impaired. Telecom has consistently refused to provide services for the hearing impaired in the form of telephoning typewriters. These instruments enable people who have a severe hearing difficulty to communicate with other people via the telephone system. As Telecom refuses to assist these people by providing these telephones via the normal rental service, they are forced in many instances to spend thousands of dollars to be able to communicate with members of their families. Telecom spends thousands of dollars providing services for people in the remote outback-which it should do. It subsidises, by cross-subsidy means, telephone services in regional areas. In many suburban areas people receive subsidised telephone services. So it is a great pity that Telecom refuses to provide a service for this small group of people spread throughout Australia who suffer greatly from isolation, even though many of them live in capital cities, simply because they cannot communicate via the normal system. The service would not cost a substantial amount of money in relation to Telecom's overall turnover. It is something Telecom ought to pick up as part of its community service. Another area which disappoints me is Telecom's attitude to its customers and to face to face contact with the public. Telecom has begun a program of closing down its business offices, which are the only public forum in which people can come to Telecom and talk face to face with a person who knows the system and who can help them with problems with their accounts and with advice on Telecom instruments they may wish to utilise. Telecom has an appalling record in consumer affairs. It is a backward step for Telecom to close down its only public forum and provide only telephone contact for the public to communicate their problems to Telecom and obtain services from it. It is something that is not done by any other organisation providing public services to the community. Certainly people in private industry would not operate in the same way. I think it shows an appalling attitude to the community. Telecom should be made to reverse that decision and begin to open itself up to the community which is, after all, its customer. I am most concerned about the way Telecom is turning itself into a monstrous bureaucracy which is uncontactable by the community other than through its telephone service. If one reason for contacting Telecom is because your telephone service is not working well, it is not much good that one must contact Telecom by telephone. If your telephone is not operating then you must find a public telephone. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.41) —Mr Chairman, it is my pleasure this morning to speak in the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1). In doing so I commence by supporting the comments made by the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) regarding the proposed auctioning or calling for tenders of FM radio licences. Suddenly the Government seems to want to take this new initiative. I am unsure why the extra revenue is needed as the Government has been long winded in espousing the fact that the 1987 Budget is a balanced Budget, although many millions of dollars had been borrowed from overseas in the meantime before this point has been reached. However, in the last few days we have had a number of people in the House who are interested in getting into the business of establishing FM radio stations throughout Australia, but who suddenly find that the Government wishes to introduce a tendering system whereby the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I thought this Government was concerned about equalisation in the community. That is what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is on about all the time in rhetoric, but in fact things do not work out that way. It is the Prime Minister's big mates in big business who seem to get their bellies scratched. This is happening again in the field of radio. If this type of situation continues, rural Australia will be disadvantaged. It will kill regionalisation. Similarly to the new television arrangements, the big operators will have the dollars to put up front to gain the FM radio licences. When the envelopes are opened, the big operators will have the greatest number of dollars in the envelopes and they will get the licences. As the honourable member for Aston said, it does not matter how good they are at broadcasting or how good they are in the long term with providing radio services; it is the money that will talk. I like to think that the National Party of Australia is opposed to this type of operation, in the same way as it opposes the auctioning of oil exploration licences and the up-front taxing of coal exports. The honourable member for Aston mentioned Telecom Australia. The total appropriation of $1.15 billion for the Department of Transport and Communications is a reduction of 3 per cent over the previous year. It is not as if the Government is gung ho in this area of communications, although it should be. What we have witnessed in Telecom is a cutback and we are forcing it to pay sales tax for the first time. Indirectly Telecom has grabbed at tax by forcing the people, the users of the telephone service, to pay more for their telephones. Hundreds of thousands of people in my electorate still do not have access to a subscriber trunk dialling (STD) telephone. The digital radio concentrated system now being used-an Australian invention for which I congratulate Telecom-is being installed throughout my electorate in the far south-west of Queensland. I have recently visited Thargomindah, Innamincka, Noccundra and Jackson. Mr Cowan —They would be pleased to see you. Mr IAN CAMERON —They were. It is not often they see me but they were pleased to see me on this occasion. Mr Duncan —How is Innamincka? Mr IAN CAMERON —Innamincka is very good. Telecom is operating out of Thargomindah into Innamincka with the digital radio concentrated system, but because this Government has imposed even more taxes on Telecom, the whole program has been put back at least two years. Many of these people do not have phones at all. They are waiting for Telecom to put in new equipment. Those who do have the old earth return system that hardly ever works these days are waiting for the new equipment. The Labor Party is supposed to represent all Australians, but again it is slamming the people in remote areas into the ground and forcing them to wait. It is all very well for most of Labor's constituents who live in the capital cities and who have STD phones that work probably 99 per cent of the time. They operate on an untimed call system. They do not have to pay for any operator assisted long distance calls. Most of their business is done within the city limits. These people have all the advantages of this technology, but people in inland Australia who continue to produce the commodities for export in an attempt to improve the balance of payments position and maintain our standard of living find that they cannot get a decent phone system to carry out their business. They are not able to keep up with the rapidly changing technology. I would also like to congratulate the Department of Transport and Communications for completing, at long last, the construction of the radio station in Charleville. Jim Corbett, my predecessor in the electorate of Maranoa, was instrumental in getting the funding for this stat- ion back in the 1970s. At long last a station is operating out of Charleville. It means that people in that area can hear some radio. Some parts of Australia are so isolated that one is able to drive completely out of contact with radio communications, especially in the day time. So people in the far south west, in the Channel Country, who are within two or three hundred miles of Charleville, are now able to get a better Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) radio service. I congratulate both the previous Government and this Government on continuing to fund this project and at long last completing it. No doubt I will be attending the official opening of this station in some months time. Whilst I am on communications, I would like to mention the lack of any reference in the Budget Papers to remote area television. I asked the previous Minister for Communications, the present Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy), to support Australians who still do not get any commercial television service. At long last we have a satellite system, for which taxpayers have paid half a billion dollars, which provides an ABC service throughout Australia, but there are still no commercial services for some areas of Australia. Yet we have seen this Government, and our Party in the Senate, support the previous communications regulation which called for the aggregation of existing commercial television stations. People in regional areas who had one service will now have three. My great beef has always been that those who live in real isolation in this country do not have proper services although we have the technology and we have launched yet another satellite, only three weeks ago, from Guyana. We now have two satellites that we can use. There is plenty of transponder space available, yet this Government fails to do anything about giving a commercial service to the inland. It is an abomination and it is something I will not stop talking about until these services have been provided. Although the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) who is at the table had a rocky start, I suggest that he up his act and talk to Biggles about getting some action taken in this area. It is high time he did. The other thing I would like to mention is the subsidies that are provided for inland air services. They have been whittled down. We have the local aerodrome ownership development program which was granted $7m. It is a continuing function that councils are involved with. I point out to the Parliament that this Government seems to be able to hand out money willy-nilly to all sorts of welfare organisations and to its mates, yet funding for roads, the infrastructure of this country, has not increased for the last four years. There has been zero growth for road funding. The level of funding remains at $1.2 billion. As the shadow Minister for Local Government, it is my intention to howl from the rooftops until the Government increases the amount of funding made available for the road system of this nation. There is no point in our talking about wanting to lift exports and balance the Budget if we let the infrastructure fall to bits. We need to be able to take our wool, wheat, produce, cattle and sheep to the ports in this island nation of ours. If the whole road system collapses during this Government's term of office it will be a disgrace. Yet we see in the Budget an item for a subsidy for the bus service in this fair city of Canberra. The subsidy on the ACTION bus service has gone up by 10 per cent and is now at $19.2 million. Canberra probably has the best road service of any city in Australia and yet we see fit to continue to subsidise that service. There does not seem to be any user pay principle applied. Great long buses run around and around in circles in the city, with hardly a soul on them, at a cost to the taxpayer of nearly $20 million, and I believe it is a disgrace. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.51) —We are debating in committee Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 and dealing with the estimates for the Department of Transport and Communications. I support some of the concerns raised by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). Mr McVeigh —He's a good member, too. Mr SNOW —I would not like to be confused with the honourable member for Maranoa. I will never forget when the Canberra Times attributed to me a statement that was made by the honourable member for Maranoa because of the slight similarity in the names of our electorates. But I do support him on a number of issues, particularly on the important issue of feral animal control, on communications in country areas and on a wide range of other matters about which we share a common concern. The honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) also raised concerns about Telecom Australia. The Managing Director of Telecom Australia, Mr Mel Ward, has recently announced the principles driving what he terms the new Telecom. I believe there is some room for optimism in the attitude of Mr Ward. First of all, the new Telecom will be truly customer driven. It will have the principle of differentiated service to different customer groups. It will give full account to the dual imperatives of financial success and service quality and it will operate through units focusing on achievable results, with each manager truly accountable. This will involve quite a change in management style and a strong management information reporting system. Responsibility and accountability will be taken into full account to the lowest level in the organisation. Telecom will be decentralised to make it closer to its customers. So, while I share the concerns of the honourable member for Manaroa and the honourable member for Aston, I point out to them that Telecom intends to change. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) raised problems, as he saw them, with coastal surveillance. All I say to him is that the present operating format for civil coastal surveillance is substantially the same as that put in place by the then Liberal Government in mid-1978. It was changed only marginally in 1982. So, while things may not be all that we desire, and I believe we have a lot more to achieve, we certainly should take into account the fact that this Government is relying mainly on the previous Government's record in development of coastal surveillance. However, we are building on that. For instance, in 1983 there was a review by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) of civil coastal surveillance arrangements, which concluded that there was no benefit in giving the task to the military on the grounds that there is no substantial correlation between peacetime civil and contingent defence surveillance requirements. The different targets and the basically different nature of the threat being confronted lead to a divergence between the type of surveillance operation needed in peacetime and that needed in a situation of military threat. But, at the same time, I believe we ought to take into account the substantial role of voluntary groups in coastal surveillance. You, Mr Chairman, have traversed with me much of the electorate of Eden-Monaro when we looked at lightstations at Green Cape and Montague Island as part of an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Expenditure. You will have realised that local community groups and the lightstations play an extremely important role in coastal surveillance. The lighthouse keepers and the people in the voluntary coastal patrols get messages from the Australian Customs Service, the Australian Federal Police who have responsibility for civil coastal surveillance vested in them, and the State police. But I mention particularly the voluntary organisations which take seriously the work that they do not only in safety but also in providing information which is required by Customs and other organisations to deal with the important matters raised by the honourable member for Boothby, particularly the possibility of smuggling, especially drug smuggling. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) raised problems with the Brisbane Airport. I just briefly mention that there was protracted negotiation of lease terms and conditions for Brisbane Airport. I hope that the Government will take into account the fact that a busy school holiday period is coming up. With the change from the old to the new airport in Brisbane, it is very important that adequate time is allowed for staff to be trained and familiarised with the new airport. Even more importantly, there has to be an internationally agreed date for the promulgation of new or revised aeronautical information. I know that the security and the processing of passengers arriving on flights have to be looked at. We have to look at representations made by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots on that matter. It is important that the Government, while proceeding as quickly as possible, take those important matters into account. I point out to the honourable member for Fadden that there have been other instances where construction has been substantially in the hands of private contractors and where there have been overruns of completion times and low standards of workmanship. I was not particularly happy with the record of the Canberra Airport-- Mr Cadman —It is a shambles. Mr SNOW —It is a shambles. That airport services not only Canberra but also my electorate of Eden-Monaro and the electorates of Gilmore and Hume. Neither the Government, representing the taxpayers, the consumers, the users, nor the people involved in employment there should have had to put up with the overrun on completion time and the standard of workmanship of the contractor involved. Another matter that I will just briefly mention is the new Federal Airports Corporation, which will assume responsibility for Australia's 17 major civil airports, including the international terminals, as early as possible in 1988, bringing a new coherence to the administration of the nation's aviation infrastructure. Mr Ian Cameron —I thought you were going to sell them off. Mr SNOW —The Government's decision, which was incorporated in the Budget, to proceed with the Corporation and to retain public ownership of the international terminals really reflects the Government's determination to enhance the efficiency of airport operations, to encourage innovative and commercial use of airport terminals by airlines and to put in place the most efficient possible regulatory regime. I am sure that members of the National Party of Australia, who could be described as agrarian socialists or bad weather socialists, agree with me that it is very important that those aspects are properly looked after, particularly in country areas. One of the most exciting areas of policy in the next year or so will be the area of transport and communications. The Government's policy committee, which I chair, has an exciting and very busy year ahead. In the past couple of weeks it has dealt with today's statement on domestic aviation and to come in the next year are serious considerations about the future of telecommunications in Australia and our overseas telecommunications network, vital waterfront issues and national broadcasting issues. Important considerations will also crop up about media ownership, about safety-not only at sea, but also in the air and on the road-and about important road programs. As the honourable member for Maranoa said, it is important that we look at road programs, but I point out to him the substantial increase in road funding, in real terms as well as in money terms, that has occurred since 1983. There was a substantial input in road funding in 1983 and 1984 and the Opposition is being quite unfair when it overlooks that substantial increase. Even in the past year there had been no reduction in road funding in money terms. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(11.01) —Today I want to talk basically about roads. I was interested in the comment that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) has just made. None of us would disagree that there has been an increase in road funding over the last four to five years, but this has been brought about by the bicentennial road funding program, a program which was initiated under the previous Administration by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) when he was Minister for Transport. I was on the committee which talked about this matter for months. It is an innovation which has certainly been of tremendous assistance to the country and city roads of Australia. As has been stated, there has been an increase in road funding. Australia is terribly dependent on transport and communications. We in the Opposition respect the necessity for some expenditure restraint, but it all comes back to basic priorities-what we believe should be the priorities for Australia and what the Government believes they should be. The Opposition, particularly the National Party of Australia, of which I am a member, believes that there should be increased expenditure in the Department of Transport and Communications compared with what is given to other departments. This morning I want to mention roads specifically because I believe they are of great importance to Australia. They are our life-blood in getting our products to market, our children to school and our goods to the waterfront for shipping, but particularly in the actual community and social life of people who live in the various parts of the outback of Australia. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) and the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), who are all in the chamber this morning, all represent far-flung electorates in this great continent of ours. It concerns me that this year the Budget Papers show a reduction from $1.323 billion to $1.313 billion in land transport funding. The funds available to administer the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act were $848.841m last year but are only $739.35m this year. There has been a reduction in the funds available for the maintenance and building of roads in this country. It is important to realise, irrespective of what the honourable member for Eden-Monaro says, that this Government has brought about a reduction in road funding in Australia. The Pacific Highway is in my electorate. I travelled it at the weekend. It needs a dual carriageway. Many other main arterial roads throughout our continent are badly in need of upgrading. The ordinary arterial roads that serve rural communities and the rural and urban roads have to be upgraded to cope with the number of vehicles that are travelling on them. Today the amount of goods being carted over our roads is greatly in excess of what it was years ago, simply because the manufacturer and receiver of the goods are looking for expediency and efficiency in transport. Our railway systems are not meeting our transport needs, so industry has to depend upon our main arterial and national roads; and they are unable to cope with the very great demand placed on them today. I press that point: We are very dissatisfied indeed that the Government has seen fit to reduce the basic funding for roads in Australia. This is not necessary when one looks at priorities. If I am wrong, I hope that the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) will point out where my figures, which I cited from the Estimates, are not correct. If he looks at page 352 he will find those figures. This year there has been a reduction in road funding, and that is what I criticise. I appeal to the Government to help local government and the States with this issue. Today we are loading local governments with lots of responsibilities which they argue are not theirs. They now have to look after more things than they had to previously, but what matters to local governments is that they must provide roads, kerbing, guttering, drainage and sewerage-the basic services and amenities that are so essential for people living within the community. Australia is a growing and developing country. I am sure that our friends in the gallery are very dependent on trade with Australia. They want us to produce our goods cheaply so that we are able to compete with other countries. Our friends have to look after their economies. They want to deal with Australia and that is why they are here. They are looking to us to provide them with goods which we are able to produce efficiently. That is why roads are an important issue. I want to raise the matter of our fuel freight subsidy. According to the Budget Statements, the total outlay for the subsidy will be cut by $8.5m this year. That is a 52 per cent cut on the 1986-87 level. Actual outlays will amount to $7.8m as opposed to $16.3m last year and $21m the previous year. What this adds up to is that the differential between the cities and the country has virtually gone, so we will place an extra burden on those people who are producing particularly primary, agricultural and mining goods in outer parts of Australia. I raise this matter because it involves increases in costs to the consumer of at least 4c a litre to 10.2c a litre. This is patent discrimination against people living in the country areas of Australia. The National Party remains firmly committed to reintroducing a meaningful and equitable fuel freight subsidy scheme for people living in the outback of Australia. I turn to communications. I do not know much about FM radio stations. There are two in my area and they appear to be efficient. But what impresses me about them is the fact that local people were able to start them. The other night in Forster, the Great Lakes Area, 2GLA celebrated its birthday. I was there and it was a wonderful party of 600 local people. All of the community had got behind the station and put in the money, and today it is thriving. What will the Government gain by the auction system it is talking about? Will it deprive those people of their own FM station? Will it give it to the bigger boys, who will be able to outbid the local people, the business people and others who live within the community? I sincerely hope that will not be the case. I want to raise the subject of the provision of telephones in caravan parks. My electorate is on the coast and is similar to areas along the whole coastal belt of Australia. There must be a change in policy as to the provision of services to permanent dwellers in caravan parks. They must be offered a service at the same standard rate paid by other people in the community, but at present that is not happening. I would like the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support to examine this matter which is most important for permanent caravan park dwellers. Yesterday the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) said that 450,000 people lived in caravan parks. Most of those people are aged people or young family folk who are working and who require telephones. I wish to say a few words about public telephones, too. I know that vandals are pulling them to pieces but they are an important facility in our community. Why cannot a credit card system for phones be introduced on the same lines as that used in the United Kingdom? In such a system money does not have to be put into the machine. This might be a way to discourage the vandals. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(11.11) —I wish to refer to only a couple of points in this debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) dealing with the Department of Transport and Communications. The point made by the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) about the provision of telephones to people living permanently or temporarily for a reasonable period of time in caravan parks was a very good one. I do not know the details of Telecom Australia's policy on that matter, but I shall certainly take up the point to see that something is done to ensure that those people can be provided with telephones. That is eminently sensible and I see no reason why such people, assuming that they are living in caravan parks on a fairly permanent basis, should be deprived of telephones. That is a worthwhile suggestion and I shall look at it. As to the opening of the Brisbane Airport terminal, I can now tell the Committee it is expected that the opening will be in February next year. There are two matters delaying a final decision on the date. One is that the fit-out by the domestic carriers is under way, but as yet the Department has not been advised when that fit-out will be properly completed, although it is anticipated that a date in February would be appropriate. The second reason why a decision is being delayed is that, even if it were possible to open the terminal earlier, in other circumstances that might be desirable but because Christmas is the heaviest period of use of these facilities it is felt that, in order to arrange a proper transfer from the old domestic terminal to the new one, that process should not take place in the heaviest traffic period of the year. Rather than to open it earlier if the terminal is ready then, my advice is that it would be desirable to wait until February next year to avoid that rush period of the year. On the issue of road funding, I would like to see an increase in such funding, as would everybody in this place. It is easy for Opposition members to rail at length against the Government because we have not been able to increase road funding in real terms this year. On the other hand, members such as the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) are very happy to get up in this chamber and congratulate the Government on the fact that it has balanced the Budget. They cannot have it both ways, as everybody knows. I am saddened by the fact that we cannot give a higher priority to road funding, but it is fair to reflect on the fact that this Government has spent far more on roads than has any previous government. That is a well-known fact. Mr Braithwaite —Yes, through the bicentennial levy. Mr DUNCAN —Of course it was part of the bicentennial program. We intend to continue that program, and details of the new program will be announced shortly. The Government's record on roads is second to none. I ask people as they drive around Australia to cast their minds back four or five years and recall what our road system was like then. They should compare that recollection with the present state of our roads, which is demonstrably better. Anybody who drives around the roads of this nation can see that under the Hawke Government the situation has improved dramatically. We have a very good record on roads and we are proud of it. We shall continue to ensure that roads are given high priority. I hope that we shall see a return to an increase in road funding in future, but the need now was to ensure a balanced Budget. We have achieved that balanced Budget, and I believe that the Government should be congratulated on what it has been able to achieve overall. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $196,653,000. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(11.17) —I wish to examine the immigration program announced at the time of the Budget by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), and a couple of other factors in this area of Government responsibility. In announcing the 1987-88 immigration program the Minister said, in part: The program therefore will continue to place a sharper focus on the economic benefits of migration while at the same time maintaining its commitment to social and humanitarian needs. In fact, the Government has consistently steered away from the basic economic factors in its immigration program. If one examines the proposals for the current year, one notices that family migration is up but that the skilled labour, business, independent and concessional program is down as a percentage of the total program. Those factors are altering the balance of our immigration program. The coalition parties have argued consistently in this Parliament that it is beneficial to Australia to maintain a consistently high immigration program. However, we will not convince Australians to maintain that program unless it takes into account economic factors. Despite the Minister's statement, the Government has not maintained those economic factors this year. Sure, in raw figures the program is up in economic terms, but as a percentage of the total it is not. I believe that this drift should be examined by all Australians. I am pleased that there is to be a review of immigration factors and the immigration program, and that the Immigration Review Panel will report to the Minister and the Parliament by March next year. I hope to make a contribution to that process, but I am disappointed that the Minister continues to press the Government line that the underlying factors are economic. They are not. If this country is to grow, develop and accept a large immigration program, the community needs to be assured that people's jobs and opportunities are not threatened by a substantial unskilled migration flow. That is the concern in the community at the moment. We on this side of the chamber have the shared objective-shared to a greater extent on this side than among Labor members-that a large immigration program is good for Australia. That shared view will be presented effectively only if we can explain to the Australian community that immigration is beneficial, that the reviews and surveys conducted by the Government are sound and are being expanded. One review commissioned in 1986 by the previous Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs indicated that only 5 per cent of immigrants admitted to Australia because of their high skills are unemployed, compared with 18 per cent for all recently arrived immigrants. That is according to the Department's survey. So there we have it. That survey showed that the total program produces unemployment at a level of 18 per cent whereas the economic factors produce an unemployment level of 5 per cent. If we were to look at various sections of the program, we would find that unemployment is higher than that 18 per cent for some categories of migrants. I am not mounting an argument that we should preclude family reunions from consideration, nor should we endeavour to change the processes of family reunion. I am making a sustainable argument on economic grounds that the Government can honestly present. It is no good giving this matter the flick pass with smart words because the Government will not convince Aussies that way. The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs in his statements has tried to gloss over the change in balance that has continued since this Government came into office. That will not be convincing to the Australian community and the sons and daughters of those Australians who are currently employed and who wish to see their young people employed. I am concerned about this matter. I want to warn the Government that it should not follow that path, because it does not help the debate on immigration. If we are to press forward and take advantage of the technology, the skills, the entrepreneurial spirits and the drive of new arrivals in Australia, we must go forward in a way that the Australian people can accept and understand. I want the Minister to look at the program after the review is finished and see whether adjustments should be made to it. We would argue for an increased program drawing more people here who are job creators. In that way we would balance the immigration program. I argue that the only way to balance the program is to increase it with people who can make a major contribution. They are available and there are no shortcomings. One only has to look at this year's figures to suspect that there is a shortage of business migration applicants. That is not true. There are plenty of business migration applicants around the world. They are being delayed inordinately-17 months for a business application from Cologne. What is the Government on about? Is it concerned that a terrorist businessman might want to apply from central Europe? We are talking about some of the financial capitals of the world. A delay of that sort is just unconscionable and gives a false impression about the degree of business investment that could be available to Australia. I have noted and included in the calculations I have made the independent and concessional immigration program because that in part is economic-not completely, but in part. In my call to the Government to give greater emphasis to economic factors by an expanded program, I have considered the new independent and concessional immigration portion of the program. Also in these estimates I wish to draw to the attention of honourable members the strange arrangements that may exist following the Minister's decision to authorise work for genuine applicants for residence or refugee status. We had a long running debate here on the identity card, and the constant argument of the Government was that illegal immigrants take work away from Australians. By his discretion, the Minister has given the capacity and opportunity to work to those people awaiting the determination of their status. No one knows on what basis a bona fide application will be assessed. Will there be a three-assessment process: pre-assessment on whether the applicant is allowed to work, a second assessment made by the Department, and then a determinative assessment made by an immigration review panel? How many processes does the Government want? The situation has arisen where it is possible for someone to come to Australia, marry, seek to stay here, get divorced, enter into a de facto relationship, run the gamut of appeals right through the system and three or four years later be allowed to stay on compassionate grounds because he has built a family, a house and a whole series of contacts. That system has to stop. I trust that the review will give its attention to the inordinate delays that have brought about the Minister's decision to allow people awaiting a decision to work in Australia. If there was a pinching of jobs process, this must be it. In order to solve the delay problem, the Minister has decided to allow people to work. On what grounds? Will they be issued with a temporary visa or a conditional temporary visa? I think not a conditional temporary visa, but a temporary visa to allow them to work. That almost certainly will qualify them for Medicare and for a stronger consideration of their claim for permanent residency. That Press statement, which was issued to solve the problem of a few refugees who went off social security, due to the May economic statement, has now come home and is creating problems. Finally, I wish to warn communities around Australia that their opportunities will be somewhat restricted under the Government's decision-making process. There was not a line in the Budget about funding for the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia. I believe that the Government basically mistrusts migrant community groups because during the election campaign they ran a campaign on the English as a second language program which the Minister did not like. Mr Young —It is in the Prime Minister's Department. Mr CADMAN —Well, it did not appear in the Budget Papers. Mr Young —It is not in my Department. Mr CADMAN —The Minister says that it is not in his Department, but he felt strongly enough about the situation to suggest to these councils that they should moderate their criticism of the Government in order to gain consideration from the Government. It may have been more veiled than that but I am concerned that there is that threat that these groups should accommodate themselves to the Government. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(11.27) —I have been sitting here listening to the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and I feel that he is a little bit unfair-in fact, grossly unfair-when he says that this Government is not serious about its policies on immigration. It seems to me that over the last couple of weeks the Opposition has been very strong on rhetoric but, when it comes to the facts, it does not particularly like to acknowledge them. I see from the Budget allocation to the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs that the Government is very conscious of the part that immigration plays in the community. In fact, the Budget allocation is positive proof of the Government's commitment to the area of immigration and ethnic affairs. There will be an obvious general expansion of the level and quality of services provided to the community. Of course, it will cost a little bit more but I think we all understand that these costs are not something that will be taken lightly by the clients or the people who require these services. But by the same token I think we all know that we are in a situation of budgetary constraint. The actual increase in the level of services that will be given to people will more than adequately compensate for the increased receipts. I am certainly against a lot of the increases, as the Minister knows, but by the same token I think the increased efficiency and the delays that will be scrubbed out as a result of the extra receipts will more than adequately compensate those people who will feel a little bit hurt by the extra moneys that will be taken off them. One of the major initiatives relates to the immigration review committee which advises the Government on Australian immigration policies. Again, the Government has done something substantive to look at the problems that we have with our immigration policies and to see whether they can be improved. I, for one, would like to see an increase in the family reunion program. People of my own ethnic background-I understand there are about 10,000 of them-are waiting to come over but they do not come within the guidelines of the family reunion program. Of course, in some continental families, European families in particular-and that is the area in which I have most knowledge-sometimes one's first cousin, uncle or auntie is just as close as one's father or mother, or son or daughter. Obviously this is something which the review committee will look at, and I am sure that it will come up with some recommendations. The Government has actually increased funding in a lot of areas. In addition it has increased the migrant intake for the 1987-88 year from 115,300 to 120,000. That is nearly 5,000 more. I would like to see a lot more than that. Obviously many of us who believe in migration would-by all means. But by the same token we cannot do everything straight away. It is a step in the right direction. The fact is that we are bringing in an extra 5,000, and this matter will probably be looked at even more closely again by the new immigration review committee that is being set up. One matter I find very interesting relates to the recognition of overseas qualifications and the Fry Committee of Inquiry into the Recognition of Overseas Qualifications. Extra funding has been allocated to that area. Probably there is nothing worse than highly qualified migrants coming to this country and then finding that they cannot get their qualifications accepted by the Australian authorities. In many cases their qualifications are probably higher than those required for Australian conditions. But again the Government is looking at that matter and it is prepared to see whether there is some way in which the mechanics can be improved so that we can arrange to have these qualifications looked at and, in some cases, accepted. I have to commend the Government and the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) in that regard. I think it is a very worthwhile exercise. The matter of receipts, as I said, is certainly one which I find unpalatable. I am sure many members of the migrant community will also find it unpalatable. But while the fees for the various services have increased, obviously those fees do not represent the actual cost to the Department to provide those services. The receipts will grow sharply as a result of the new fees. But, whilst the Government regrets the increases, I am sure that the faster and more efficient service to clients which will flow from that measure will please most users of the services. I take up the point made by the honourable member for Mitchell about delays. We cannot bury our heads in the sand. There is no doubt that the delays have been very bad, particularly in respect of immigration review panels. We know that. But by the same token the Government has done something concrete to try to fix that up. Mr Cadman —It took them three years. Mr SCIACCA —This Government has done more in 3 1/2 years than the previous Government did in 10 years. The fact is that it is prepared to do something and it is doing it. It is putting the money where the mouth is, so to speak. We are actually bringing these services in. The staffing levels will be quite significantly increased, again as a result of the extra budgetary allocation that has been made. Mr Cadman —Ten people. Mr SCIACCA —The honourable member says, `Ten people', but let us have a look at the immigration review panels. This is one of those areas in which there are great delays. We all know that. They can be anything up to 18 months. But the fact is that the Immigration Review Panel membership will be increased by a massive 125-from 32 to 157. Panels will be established for the first time in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, in addition to the ones that already exist in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne. At this particular stage I would like to say that I was most upset when recently I saw in one of the local Brisbane newspapers some strong criticism from one of the migrant groups. The spokesman actually criticised the membership of the panel in Brisbane. I want to say that I know three or four of those fellows personally. I can say that they have the highest qualifications and I am sure that they will prove excellent people for that immigration review panel. I refer actually to the previous member for my seat, Mr Keogh, and also a gentleman by the name of Jim Fouras. Mr Ian Cameron —Jim is a good member, a good bloke. Mr SCIACCA —He certainly is a good member and a good fellow. He is the sort of person who has the qualifications to do that job. This touches on one thing that the Government is very good at. It does not do what the Queensland Government often does. In fact, in Queensland, unless one is a friend of the Queensland Government, one cannot get on to any statutory body. But this Government even put Greg Chappell on the immigration review panel in Queensland. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) would be happy to know that. Mr Ian Cameron —He's a gentleman! Mr SCIACCA —Yes, but he is certainly someone who supports the honourable member's side of politics. We do these things because we want to make sure that we have the best possible people on those immigration review panels. It is an area on which I think the whole of the community will congratulate the Government. It makes nonsense of the statement of the honourable member for Mitchell that the Government is not serious. It is serious and the increase is an incredible increase. I am told that the backlog of cases will probably keep the Immigration Review Panel membership busy for some 12 months. But I am sure that we can then knock down the 18-month delay to something like six months. I am sure that is what the Government wants and I hope that that is in fact what happens. Another matter on which the Government ought to be congratulated is the fact that it has actually allocated $1.3m for the State-based language services. Unless one deals with migrants who have these language problems one does not understand just how much this particular service is of value to them. Of course, the Commonwealth Government already funds the telephone interpreter service, and this $1.3m will go a long way to helping the situation. In addition, I understand that a review process has already been begun to see whether there can be an improvement in the area of co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth. There can be no question that the Government is serious about improving immigration policies. We are looking at this matter; we have set up the review committee. There are many people out there in the migrant community who are waiting with a great deal of anticipation to see what is in the report that it will bring down. I commend the Government for its improvements in its immigration policies, and I commend it particularly for what it is doing in respect of increasing the number of immigration review panels. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.37) —I am pleased to speak this morning to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 at the committee stage, particularly to the area of local government. Unfortunately, we do not get many immigrants out in Maranoa these days. We did once upon a time under the assisted passage scheme and the subsidy scheme whereby property owners used to give them jobs and encourage them to work. These schemes no longer operate and generally migrants all end up in Newcastle, Fremantle and Sydney, I suppose. But those of us who still live in inland Australia have to be very interested in local government. I am very pleased to have been appointed from our side of politics as the shadow Minister for Local Government. It is an interesting and responsible position. Local government represents 900 councils in Australia and probably something over 100,000 councillors. They serve a very useful purpose in the third tier of government. Having served on the Tara Shire Council in my own area for nine years, three terms, I am very keen to support this level of government. I believe it is most important. It carries out very vital day to day functions in the lives of all Australians-basically, the maintenance of their road systems and providing most of their essential services. This is something that continues. We have complained earlier in the Budget debate about the funding of this area. Unfortunately, although the appropriation for the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs is $197m, up 11 per cent, that is for the Department. I guess, as with all good governments, departments tend to grow from strength to strength; whereas funding for the more essential things like roads tends to diminish. There has been quite a bit of debate on road funding. I ask the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), who is at the table, whether I may table a graph from Budget Paper No. 1. It was prepared by the Government's Treasury people. It shows that there was no increase in funding in 1985-86 or 1986-87. It shows also that there has been no real increase in total road funding from the Commonwealth since 1983-84. So, in effect, there have been five years now in which there has been no real increase. There was quite a substantial increase in 1982-83. Honourable members might like to do an arithmetical computation and take into consideration the fact that there should have been an increase due to inflation. I always argue that bush inflation runs about 10 per cent higher than the so-called consumer price index figure that is given to us. There is nothing more costly than maintaining and building roads in isolated areas. With the enormous costs of fuel to cart all the metal and with the work involved in carting the material and housing people, it is a very expensive exercise. These days one does not get much length of road for $1m expended. This graph covers a five-year period including 1987-88. The Australian land transport program is shown in black with the Australian bicentennial program on top. If they are added together, the figures show that there has been absolutely no increase in five years. That is a disgrace. I do not know how any Government can expect local authorities to continue to maintain the road system, let alone construct new roads, under this sort of funding arrangement. If a reverse calculation were made, one would find, in effect, that councils are worse off now in real terms than they were in 1982-83 when the Government increased the funding. That is a fact of life. One only has to spend a bit of time in the bush to see that. This Government wastes money on employment programs trying to create jobs. If the Government gave local authorities adequate funding, they would pick up and employ all the people around every small country town and every metropolitan city throughout Australia. In most towns in Australia the local authority is by far the biggest employer of people, which is important for families. If the local authority had to close down, the town would practically fold up and we would lose this most essential facet of maintenance of our road system, our sewerage system and our water system. The local authority has to do all these things for the people. Mr Chairman, I would like permission to table this graph. That should put to rest any argument we had in the previous debate about the fact that real funding has not increased for the last five years. Leave granted. Mr IAN CAMERON —The other things that I would like to touch on in particular are the new general grants to councils and the new criteria that this Government has put in place. The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs sits opposite with a big grin on his face. It is a bit like his redistribution Bill. It was very well done. Of course, it helps his side of politics. The same thing has happened with the new criteria for funding. The old 2 per cent of general revenue funding that came from our personal tax fund-although it is not done in quite that way, but that is the way it was introduced-disadvantaged country councils, and under the new criteria this Government will do that again. In Queensland alone 11 councils have been disadvantaged. After much negotiation during the local government conference that was held recently at Surfers Paradise with the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds), the Government decided to take the 11 councils that were funded under last year's allocation back to what last year's allocation was by increasing their funding by 5 per cent. The new criteria will be introduced over a period of six years. Some rural councils in Australia will be disadvantaged more than 50 per cent at the end of that six years. I do not know how anybody could call that good government. I think it is a disgrace that new criteria should be introduced. Councils have employed people; they have purchased machinery and put in place equipment for doing the jobs that they have been doing under this funding arrangement, and all of a sudden the rug is pulled out from under them. They have no means of raising revenue other than continuing to increase rates. Things have not been good in the bush. It has been very dry. Many industries, particularly the grain industry, have been severely affected by the recession. Honourable members hear the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) every day in the House talking about the world recession and how bad things are and that is why Australia has been running up horrendous debts. The new funding arrangement will apply in Queensland, although the Queensland Government has not yet agreed to the new criteria, but in the Labor States, which have agreed to the new criteria under the Grants Commission, basically rural shires will be disadvantaged. Of course, this Labor Government is moving its funding away from areas of need, away from the area of real productivity in this nation, to the area of people. The only determinant seems to be the number of people that live in a particular area. It is much cheaper to operate a council in a highly populated area than it is to do so in rural areas. Under the new criteria, no allowance is made for isolation, the fact that there might be a new oil field or the establishment of a new coal mine. Nothing in the criteria allows for extra funding to help councils get on with the job at this very important level. I must say that it is important for us also to remember that under the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services other programs are in place. There is a $2.7m allocation to the local government development program, which is the same as last year. There is quite a deal of funding available to the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation-$430m. I am not quite sure why that Corporation continues. It seems to have been put in place and the Government cannot get rid of it. That is a hangover from the Whitlam era. He was going to regionalise every area in Australia and do away with local government, but fortunately he was put out of office just in time and that did not come to pass. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(11.47) —From the outset I would like to take the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) to task. It may be only a small pedantic point, but as he is the shadow spokesperson on local government I think it needs to be brought up that he referred earlier in his speech to local government as the third tier of government. Having previously been a local government practitioner myself, I think there is a greater need to recognise the role that local government has by talking about local government as a sphere of government. By referring to it as a tier, it conjures up in one's mind a hierarchical thing, and that is not quite appropriate. The honourable member for Maranoa might like to take that on board. Local government should be seen as a partner with the other spheres of government at State and Federal level. The Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 provides for an expansion in the service to the community provided under the portfolio of immigration, local government and ethnic affairs. There is an increase in outlays of some $20m. The Budget implements a number of promises made in policy statements in the run-up to the election. It also contains an announcement of a modest increase in the migration program from some 115,300 in 1986-87 to some 120,000 in 1987-88 and, importantly, the statements indicate that this increase in the migration program will be matched by a commensurate increase in post-arrival services. The definition of post-arrival services and when the responsibility of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs ceases is a vexed point. That is a matter of debate amongst ethnic communities. Post-arrival services conjure up in a lot of circles different periods of time. Some believe that the care of aging European migrants, especially those who came here in the immediate post-war period, could be catered for under post-arrival services. If we used the wider definition of post-arrival services and perhaps called them settlement services, that point of view could be sustained. This is a vexed question that the Government has to come to grips with, because there is an expectation that perhaps we need to look at those post-arrival services in that wider immigration policy context. I wish to spend some time discussing three of the programs that are indicated under our settlement services. The first is the grants-in-aid scheme. I note and welcome the increase of $140,000 which will provide an additional eight grants. Of course, we can always say that that is insufficient, but at least it is a move in the right direction. The grants-in-aid scheme enables many ethnic communities to have a greater degree of self-help in catering for their welfare needs and is an important part of our post-arrival services. Another program that has had an increase in funding is the migrant resource centre program. I welcome the continuing Government support for those centres. Again, in an ideal world, we would like to see more centres as a tool to enable those ethnic communities that see the need to develop a greater degree of self-help. I thank the Minister for his visit to the Broadmeadows migrant resource centre last week and for taking the time, in a busy schedule, to sit down with the members of the committee of management of that migrant resource centre to discuss problems that they saw both with the program and with the wider issues in the immigration and ethnic affairs field. One of the important increases in this Budget is the 17 per cent increase in funding for the adult migrant education program. Figures accompanying the Budget estimate that, of the new migrant intake this year, 27,900 visaed settlers over 16 years of age will have poor or no knowledge of English. The increase in funding for this program is an indication of the Government's commitment to ensuring that new migrants are given the opportunity to learn English. It is also complementary to the initiatives in the English as a second language program for children which are being undertaken as part of the Government's national language program. Again these are areas where, if we could, we would perhaps give more resources. But at least this Budget helps to improve the situation. In June this year I was pleased to attend the opening of the Broadmeadows English language centre at Broadmeadows High School. I note the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), who was also present at that opening. I think we should acknowledge the efforts of the honourable member for Calwell, previously the honourable member for Burke, in that regard. He was quite a driving force in getting that language centre off the ground. In many ways the community education centre is a unique development, and it is a great credit both to the Federal and State departments and to the school community at the Broadmeadows High School that it was put in place. This centre caters for not only adult migrant education but also child migrant education, the home tutor scheme and various ethnic schools conducted by local ethnic communities, such as the Turkish, Arabic and Spanish communities. This is a good and fine example of an ability to maximise the use of scarce resources. I think that all those who are connected with the Broadmeadows English language centre should be congratulated. I look forward to the Government's response to the Fry Committee of Inquiry into the Recognition of Overseas Qualifications and acknowledge the $200,000 as a special Budget allocation which will help to improve the procedures used to assess the professional qualifications of migrants. There have been some delays in this area and I think it is important that the Council on Overseas Professional Qualifications continue to play its important role in assessing overseas qualifications and skills and ensuring that those assessments enable migrants to obtain jobs where their skills can be best put to use to help the economy. It is widely recognised that the non-acceptance of overseas qualifications is a constant factor in the under-employment and unemployment of immigrants, and that is simply a waste when we are trying to maximise the potential human resource that our migration program gives us. In fact, many of the migration cases that I deal with in my office concern the problem of the acceptance of overseas skills and this has an impact by delaying assessments of applications. I welcome the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), put down in the policy statement before the election, that there would be an increase in staffing for immigration review panels. The panels that will be established in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth are also welcomed. They will enable a higher degree of service to be given in those cities. I note that the departmental staff that will be involved in the review processes have been increased by 85. I think that the Government needs to get the message across that the increase in the staff numbers in the immigration review process, et cetera, has been enabled, in part, by the increase in fees and by the institution of new fees. I think we have to acknowledge that those fees for the review panels have been introduced on a user-pays basis. The modest increases in the other fees are again on the basis of the user-pays principle, and I think it is important to get that message across. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.57) —I endorse very much what my colleague the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) had to say about the difficulties faced by those who seek recognition of their qualifications. I think all of us have experienced the problems of advising people who have settled in Australia and who find that qualifications which would be regarded as outstanding in their own country are not recognised here for a variety of reasons. I think that situation demands a good deal of advocacy, particularly amongst the professions that are notoriously conservative about recognising overseas qualifications. I commend the honourable member for his remarks. In a speech that may be full of bouquets and brickbats I suppose I ought, in the 10 minutes I have, to get on to the brickbats. The first relates to the Government's announcement during the election that it would establish a committee to conduct a review of immigration. In the context of immigration, where we have achieved an element of bipartisanship, which I think is very welcome and important, I regret that the Government has put aside, for the time being, its advocacy of immigration programs for an inquiry, which would suggest that many matters that might otherwise have been beyond doubt can be reviewed. I have looked carefully at the terms of reference. I wonder why we are having an inquiry when the Government seeks to circumscribe the terms of reference, as it has, although I must say that I welcome that circumscription, particularly when the Government has emphasised that the inquiry, in carrying out its work, must `have regard to the principles that Australia's immigration policies are non-discriminatory in respect of national or ethnic origin, race, sex and religion and that it is a sovereign right of the Australian Government to determine who should enter'. Having raised in an election context expectations that the wider issues of immigration might be examined by some form of inquiry, then to circumscribe it is certainly not going to meet the criticisms of those who do not believe in immigration. It means that the efforts that the Government, along with the Opposition, ought to put in place to ensure that there is a proper understanding of why active immigration policies are important for Australia's interests are put to one side. I hope that the Committee will work through its report quickly and that it will be helpful in developing the Government's resolve once more to become a forceful advocate of high levels of immigration in Australia's national interests. In my efforts to offer bouquets I take the opportunity to commend, for the second occasion in a debate in the Parliament, a report by an honourable member opposite on a particular aspect of immigration. I am glad that the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) is in the chamber. I am still carrying with me his report entitled The Tragedy of Kampuchean Refugees. I regard the report as a very thorough, well-prepared and important document which I would like to see the Government respond to. I strongly believe that unless the Kampuchean question is addressed we will be creating in our own region a problem of enormous dimension for ourselves as a nation. The dispossessed people of Kampuchea will become the Palestinians of Indo-China in the generations ahead unless the problem is overcome. Mr Tim Fischer —Operating out of Site 2. Mr RUDDOCK —Operating out of a number of sites on the border. I have visited a number of those sites. Site 2 might be one. As we know, the Khmer Rouge are in a number of other sites. They are no slouches when it comes to, I guess, undermining the situation in Kampuchea, so far as those who are in charge there now are concerned. Whilst one does not want to ascribe motives to those who are involved, those who have seen the situation where this difficulty, this dilemma, that we face remains unresolved, one suspects that there are wider political motives involved in ensuring that this position continues because of the prospective destabilisation in the area. I think we ought to be doing our part to address the problem. One of the questions which I hope the Government will answer-I will raise it in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade estimates debate when the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) might be able to comment-concerns its view of Hun Sen's statement that the Kampuchean Government might now be prepared to negotiate with Khmer Rouge leader Khieu Samphan to seek a political settlement of the Kampuchean war. It is important to know the Government's view of that situation because we need to work on the political front as well as on humanitarian aspects when addressing this problem. What has concerned me-this is another brickbat, in a sense-is the extent to which the Government has been exhibiting what in South East Asia is called compassion fatigue. We have seen a continual rundown in Australia's commitment to deal with the Indo-China refugee problem. Under the refugee program for 1983-84 we took 15,485 people; in 1984-85 we took 14,207 people; in 1985-86 we took 11,700 people; and in 1986-87 the figure was 11,300. It does not take a wizard to understand that there has been a reduction each year in the refugee program under this Government. Not only have we seen a reduction in the number of people taken as refugees but we have seen also a reduction in the number of people we have taken from Indo-China, from Vietnam, Kampuchea and Laos. We have a continuing emphasis on the part of the Government to run down the Indo-Chinese refugee program and to build up the numbers we take from other parts of the world. I do not want to suggest in any way that there are not situations in which there are refugees whom we ought to be viewing compassionately but I think we must have regard to the particular problems in our region and to our future. We have to recognise that there is an ongoing problem in Indo-China that needs to be addressed. We need determined action on the Government's part to ensure that the ongoing problems of Kampuchean refugees in particular are addressed. The report of the honourable member for Calwell highlights the problem we face in our region. I commend to the Minister the recommendations by the honourable member for Calwell. In his report he highlighted the rundown in the number of Kampucheans being brought to Australia. On page 17 it states that, in 1983, 4,399 Kampuchean refugees were brought to Australia. These figures are recorded by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In 1984 the figure was 816; in 1985, 1,082; and in 1986, 736. His recommendation-it is one that I support strongly-is that the Government should announce as soon as possible that it will sustain at least the same level of Kampuchean refugees in the 1987-88 and 1988-89 immigration programs as that adopted for this year. He said that that recommendation should be communicated to the UNHCR. He went on to refer to the closure of the camp at Khao-I-Dang. That is a matter of ongoing concern, particularly the large numbers of people who were moved out of Khao-I-Dang and back to Site 2 and whom we do not know whether we will be able to process as refugees to Australia. The Minister has lists, provided by the Kampuchean community, of relatives who ought to be capable of sponsorship. I would like the Minister's undertaking that those lists will be properly assessed and expeditiously dealt with, and that the Government will be making efforts to ensure that those families will be reunited in Australia under a humanitarian program which pays proper regard to the urgency of the situation. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(12.07) —I congratulate the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) on his continuing interest and concern in the Kampuchean refugee issue. He has spoken to me privately about it, as well as having publicly promoted the cause of those refugees. The report entitled The Tragedy of Kampuchean Refugees, which the honourable member referred to, has been considered by the Government and by the Caucus immigration and ethnic affairs committee. Most of the report's recommendations which related to administrative arrangements have been adopted. Some of the recommendations-the honourable member referred specifically to the recommendation concerning the proportion of refugees to come from Kampuchea-are part of the overall immigration program and can be announced only within that context. However, as I said, the recommendations relating to changes in administrative arrangements have been adopted. I understand that changes have been taking place. As the honourable member will know, the Kampuchean situation is that the border camps are not recognised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as refugee camps. That is the problem. Our officials-this is stated in the report-have great difficulty even in interviewing people in these camps. They have to pretend to be doing something else in order to get to interview people. So we have a political problem which has to do with the classification of these people. It is also a problem which has to do with the general politics of the Kampuchean situation. I believe that we ought to be taking it up. Through the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), we have continued our attempts to find a resolution to the complex crisis of Kampuchea. Without such a resolution there is no future for those people, especially those on the border. This was the point I made in the report and the point which is being made continuously. I understand the Minister will soon be visiting Kampuchean refugee camps, where he will be able to see with his own eyes the problems referred to in the report. I urge that we as a parliament must in a bipartisan way not only ascertain what we can do to assist those people, especially those with relatives, to come to Australia, but also see what we can do to resolve the problem and ensure that those 300,000 people return to their homeland, rather than be stuck in a no-man's land situation. Mr Ruddock, I know that you have been there yourself, but I assure honourable members that the situation is dreadful. At Site 2, for example, there are 140,000 people at a camp that has no electricity, no water and no market-place. Day after day people must line up to receive food and water. It is outrageous that people should have to live in such conditions. Australia has done a great deal to try to resolve the position, through the actions of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and through the humanitarian assistance given to the United Nations program to assist those people on the border. But let me say that I hope the Government will continue to regard the plight of the Kampuchean refugees as a priority. I believe their situation is in some ways more desperate and more serious than that of many other groups. On those points I certainly agree with your comments, Mr Ruddock. In the time available, I wish to refer to a couple of other points about the Budget allocation for the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. In some ways the immigration aspect of this Budget is probably the most comprehensive and the most generous towards multiculturalism that we have seen for a number of years. Let me say this: many of the congratulations for this achievement must go to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) for the work he has done. Prior to the recent election, many people considered that some of the changes being made in multiculturalism and ethnic affairs were cosmetic, that they were only for election purposes, and so on. What has been proved since the election is that this is not the case, but the Government has an unshakeable commitment to multiculturalism and to a sustained and growing immigration program. In this context the Minister deserves congratulations on all that has been done. The immigration review which has been announced is extremely important as it will look at immigration within the context of economic policy, population policy, and humanitarian considerations and obligations. In that context it will be the most important review for many years of where this nation is heading in terms of its composition. I congratulate the Government on establishing the review. I wish the review committee well, especially Dr Stephen FitzGerald, its eminent Chairman. One of the things I find extraordinary is the little publicity given by the mainstream media to the announcement of the establishment of the review. The review will look at what is probably one of the most important aspects of our future as a nation, yet it has received almost no publicity. Mr Blanchard —There has been a deafening silence. Dr THEOPHANOUS —As the honourable member says, there has been a deafening silence. All I can say is that I believe we should be supportive of the inquiry. I urge the community to make submissions and representations to the inquiry. Let us make it a comprehensive review. Anyone interested in any aspect of the immigration program-whether it be the composition of the program, a points system, review procedures, or overall factors such as how many people we will have in Australia, where they will be located and how to cater for them-should make representations to the inquiry. Even people opposed to immigration, those who do not want any more immigration-such as Dr Bob Birrell with his continuous comments-should make representations to the inquiry and let them be analysed and scrutinised. Let their facts be brought forward and analysed and scrutinised by the committee secretariat. As far as I am concerned, very often Dr Birrell and others make statements against immigration which have no foundation in economic or population terms. The other aspect I wanted to refer to briefly, and on which the Government should be congratulated, is the national language program. That program, which was funded to a considerable degree in a difficult budgetary situation, is proceeding. It is an exciting program that will transform the teaching of languages in this country. It is about time Australia had a sustained national language program which ensures that every person can be taught English and which at the same time will give Australians generally an opportunity to learn other languages, whether they be the major community languages, the major Asian languages of our region, or the Aboriginal languages which are unfortunately beginning to disappear. Undoubtedly this is one of the most important cultural programs introduced by the Government. The Government should be congratulated on its actions. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(12.17) —Mr Ruddock, I wish to thank the honourable members who have participated in the debate this morning on the departmental appropriations and to reply to some of the comments made, including some of your comments relating to the refugee program. Perhaps I could deal with those first, as you are at present in the esteemed position of Deputy Chairman of this Committee. The figures do not lie; it is true that there has been some slight reduction in the overall migrant intake. However, when talking about the Indo-Chinese refugee intake, one must take into consideration the program commenced by the previous Government to try to cement orderly departure from Vietnam, as against giving the impression that our future programs were to be based completely on just taking people out of the refugee camps in Indo-China. To some extent we have been successful in the orderly departure program from Vietnam, so those figures do not show up as part of the refugee program. Australia has always placed emphasis on orderly departure. We recognise the importance of our humanitarian programs. As indicated yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in some ways we are frustrated in seeking approval from the Soviet Government for the departure of people who have already received approval to migrate to Australia. In some cases we do not have complete control over the numbers or the people to whom we have given approval to migrate to Australia, as the governments of the countries from where they emigrate do not give approval for them to depart. When one is talking about the Indo-Chinese refugee program and the numbers involved, I think one must take into consideration the number of people who might be leaving Vietnam under the orderly departure program, through family reunion, and other aspects of the total migration program. As you would expect, Mr Deputy Chairman, I have had several meetings with the Indo-Chinese communities around Australia. I am more than aware of the frustrations they face in relation to the programs. In some cases I have been present when there has been discussion between them about who should be given the greater priority. As honourable members know, the Laotian and Kampuchean people think that too much emphasis has been given on some occasions to the Vietnamese and on others to the Laotians. It is a very hard formula to unravel. The Government, of course, in the final analysis remains committed to a refugee and special humanitarian program which pro rata, I think, is second to none in the world. If we look at other settlement countries, none is doing more or better than we are. But we have to put the program in its total context. We are not just talking about a separate refugee program for Indo-China. When I meet with people from the Afghan community they say they would like greater consideration given to applicants from the refugee camps in Pakistan. When I talk to the Timorese community they have the very peculiar and unique problem of the many people who were taken out of Timor at the time of the Indonesian takeover and who have gone to Portugal. They are considered Portuguese citizens and now cannot be interpreted as refugees. They were for some time, under a special humanitarian program, given the right to come to Australia. That has not been in place for some years, so we have some members of families here and some members of families in Portugal, and we have some people still trying to come here from Timor. They would like special consideration. There is the continual civil strife in Lebanon. The Lebanese communities, whenever and wherever one meets them, say that they would like greater consideration given to their people to come here. We do not even have an office in Beirut because of the security problems. People have to travel to Damascus to put in their applications. Processing takes much longer than we or the communities would like. When we talk about these refugee and special humanitarian programs, we have to understand the enormous pressures that are building up in Australia and our capacity to deal with them. We now have a very large Spanish-speaking community. People have come from trouble spots in Central America; in some cases from camps in Honduras, Costa Rica and other places. We have to be able to say about this aspect of our migration program, as well as about every other aspect, that we are not discriminating in favour of or against any group. If the United Nations, with which we work closely on these issues, declares a certain group of people to be refugees, it expects the United States of America, ourselves, Canada and other settlement countries to help out. The final word about all this is that whatever the correct number is, whether it be 10 million, 15 million or 20 million refugees around the world, the settlement countries are never going to be able to solve the problem. We can never talk in terms of all these people being settled. The only way we are going to be able to solve these problems is by political solutions. If Gorbachev decides to take the Russian Army out of Afghanistan and the Afghan refugees return to their homeland, in one swoop the vast problem of the Afghan refugees now situated in Pakistan will be overcome. If the Vietnamese Army gets out of Kampuchea we might solve a great deal of the problem of people in the camps in Kampuchea. This is the only way in which we will get a final solution to the problems of the refugee question around the world. But in terms of what we are doing, it is incorrect for people to speculate that we are not doing as much as other countries or that we could be doing more. When the Government decides on the migration intake each year, it has a system of calling for submissions from over 300 organisations around Australia in order to get their views. Their views range from cutting out migration altogether to taking in 350,000 or 400,000 migrants. So the Government has to make up its mind about what it thinks is right and wrong and about the various categories. Many of the comments have been on the refugee question. Whilst the Liberal Party put out a policy statement before the last election saying it would have an intake of, I think it was, 145,000, I do not recall the Party saying that there would be any increase in the refugee program. I think it was basically the economic area which-- Mr Cadman —We would maintain our responsibilities. Mr YOUNG —Yes, but the Party was basically proposing increases in areas where it was thought that skills may be needed. Our view, of course, is that there is a two-pronged approach to the skills area. We recognise that there will be gaps in the Australian work force that can be closed by bringing in skilled people, but foremost we do have a responsibility to do whatever we can to provide training for people who are already in Australia to fill those jobs. To that extent, we have done an enormous amount by increasing the number of apprenticeships, investing in training and in education. Whilst we will never reach the zenith of being able to fill every job that may be required in Australia, our first and foremost responsibility is our investment here to train people to do the jobs. We have a skilled labour intake and we have an employer sponsorship intake. But we have mechanisms that deal with these things. We have employer and trade union representatives who look at the make-up of the labour market, agree on the shortfalls and agree on the intake. That is a mechanism that has worked very successfully under previous Liberal governments and under this Labor Government. It is not something that should be interfered with easily by saying that we are going to bring in a whole range of skilled people in the hope that they will find jobs here, thus overriding the mechanism which has worked so successfully for governments in past years. We do not intend to interfere in that mechanism. I could not quite grasp the point you were making, Mr Deputy Chairman. I understood that you thought I had put some restrictions on the review of our migration program that will now take place. The only restriction I put on it-and I think this is the rock upon which the Parliament has made the policy about migration-is that there will be no discrimination. I do not think the Parliament should say to a committee, `We are asking you whether we are right or wrong in our non-discriminatory migration program'. I certainly was not, as the responsible Minister, going to recommend to the Government that we hand that power over to a committee; not that I think for one instant that the committee that has been appointed would do other than what the Parliament decided many years ago. Nevertheless, the Parliament has decided. I say `the Parliament' quite consciously because it is the Parliament, not just the government of the day, that made this unanimous decision not to have a discriminatory migration policy. It is not up to some committee to tell us otherwise. Apart from that matter, the terms of reference are very wide. I expect that a lot of interested parties will come forward with their views. There are many people with very strong views about migration. I know that my friend the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) thinks our migration intake should be much more than it is at the moment. Nevertheless, we do have these problems and they are not just problems of the refugee program, the pressures that are building up or the problems coming out of Lebanon. I must say, from my experience, that some of the most acute criticism of the present system comes from some of the older established communities in Australia, such as the Greek community and the Italian community, which are very critical of the present system. They feel that it is discriminating against them. When people have these points of view-and it has been so long since we have had a total review and so much has changed in Australia-it is obviously time we reviewed the system again. Hopefully this review will take us well towards the end of the century. It is an important aspect of government administration in Australia. I hope that what comes out of it will be of great benefit to the country. I agree with the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins). He raised a question which is not directly attributable to this portfolio. People who are interested in this area of immigration will know that if they ever go to a meeting of any of the communities, all issues are raised. They are not necessarily restricted to discussing matters which may be directly under my portfolio. One of the biggest issues the communities now have is care for the aged. That is continually raised with me and I have raised this with the responsible Minister. Apart from the package, which was announced last year, of some $40m for care of the ethnic aged through nursing homes, hostels and so forth, those people are facing an enormous problem. At every function that I go to, and in every group of community leaders that I meet with, which I am doing almost every day of the week, this issue is raised. It is something that governments will have to face up to more and more. My good friend the shadow Minister for Local Government, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), was saying that some of us should visit the bush more often and get the feel of how local government operates in some of the remote areas. I must tell the honourable member that when I was 15 years of age I worked in his electorate at Cunnamulla, so I am well aware that the roads are much better now as a result of what we have done than they were in those days. I cannot see how he can legitimise his criticism of this Government's contribution to and recognition of local government. I do not think there is any person in the national Parliament more respected by local government than the former Minister, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), who had great influence in the Government in making sure that general purpose grants in particular were kept at a maximum level. The figure for general purpose assistance to local government in 1983-84 was $461m. This year it will be $642m. That is an enormous amount of commitment to local government throughout this country. Another point about the recognition of the role of local government that people sometimes do not realise is that local government receives money from this Government through a number of programs, including those involving nursing homes, home and community care, Meals on Wheels, aged and disabled persons' homes, handicapped persons' assistance and children's services. In the children's services area, in 1983-84 local government received $21m. In 1987-88 it will receive $73m for children's services-an increase of 350 per cent in just four years, which is a significant indication of the importance that this Government places on children's services being provided through local government. There are lots of other grants made to local government in recognition of the role it plays in Australia. I agree with the honourable member for Scullin about the importance of local government. I reiterate that, although the committee which I have set up to review migration programs is a very small committee, I nevertheless thought it important that a member from local government be on it. Mr Jim Hullick, who is the administrator of local government in South Australia, is a member of the committee which we have set up. So, local government will have an input into the final report that will be handed down to me. Some people have said that the committee may take a long time. I have given the committee roughly 26 weeks in which to carry out its work. As you, Mr Ruddock, know from committees of this Parliament, that is not a long time in which to carry out its task. It will be a very intensive task. The committee will have to meet with as many of the communities as it can and talk to all the interested parties. I emphasise that this is not an exercise merely for the ethnic communities; it is an exercise for the Australian community. It is so important to the future of this country that any person-or group-who is interested should have the opportunity either to put in a written submission or to appear before some members of the committee to make his views known about what the continuing policy ought to be. It is an enormously important exercise. Hopefully, the final report will give us a lead on where the Government ought to be going in the years ahead. The policy is not something which changes every time we have an election. We try as much as possible to see that it can last for many years. I thank those honourable members who have participated in the debate. I want to make a point about the Khao-I-Dang camp. Following upon the notice that we received that closure was anticipated, we immediately went into the camp and got special permission from the Thai authorities to interview card holders. The intake from Khao-I-Dang increased by 40 per cent. In raw figures that probably does not represent many people, but we were able, to the satisfaction of the Kampuchean community in Australia, to move quickly to get those people shifted out of the Khao-I-Dang camp and settled here in Australia. But people who are looking for long term solutions to the refugee problems in the world have to look for political solutions because we will never be able to solve them through migration, refugee programs or settlement programs when 10 million, 15 million or 20 million people are involved. We have to remember that a lot of community groups in this country would like special priority from this Government, but it is just not possible to give the priority that our hearts would like to give to all of those groups. The problems of settlement in Australia would be just overwhelming. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Administrative Services Proposed expenditure, $1,355,369,000. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(12.37) —With your indulgence, Mr Ruddock, I would like to extend my appreciation to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) for his co-operation in a rather urgent situation. We are addressing the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services and I think it would be fair to say that at first blush the title of the Department could be described as innocent. It requires a more studied examination of its function to appreciate that the Department, by its very nature, could well be the instrument by which a great deal of mischief could be perpetrated. Indeed, in a statement in the handbook entitled Portfolio Programs 1987-88, the Department describes itself as follows: . . . the Commonwealth's major design and construction agency, the Department provides public facilities and structures central to the nation's continued development. The Department operates some of the largest business undertakings in Australia through the provision of support services to Government departments and agencies. Some of these undertakings, such as the Transport and Storage program are commercial enterprises. Those are just some facets of its total operation. This brings me to what I essentially wanted to say in the limited time available to me about the role of the Joint Committee on Public Works as against those obligations that the Department must address. As honourable members will be aware, there is a requirement that all capital works programs in excess of $6m be referred to the Public Works Committee under ordinary circumstances. It has concerned me somewhat that there has been an increasing tendency through the 1980s for the Government to seek exemption from this requirement. I am pleased that the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) is at the table because he has been involved first hand in a number of these requests for the House to exempt from scrutiny by the Public Works Committee various projects, for reasons advanced to the House and found acceptable by the House. Prior to 1980 it was a very rare circumstance for such exemption to be sought. As a consequence, since 1913 the Public Works Committee has addressed itself to protecting-it can be described in that simple term-the interests of the Australian taxpayer and the reputation of the Parliament. If these exemptions are to be sought with increasing frequency, or even the present frequency, we must be increasingly at risk. The reputation of the Department and its efficiency and effectiveness in all areas must suffer. The Commonwealth Public Works Committee has been around since 1913 and is very highly regarded. It had predecessors in the State parliaments. It was Sir Henry Parkes who in 1888, if my memory serves me correctly, was instrumental in establishing the first Public Works Committee whose function he described in language appropriate to the day. I would like to read to the chamber what he said: I conceive that it is our duty to preserve the power of this Parliament as unimpaired as possible over the whole province of the public expenditure. I think there can be no higher duty, no more sacred obligation, cast upon us, and I have sought in the Bill, the second reading of which I have just moved, to preserve the full and unfettered power of Parliament, and at the same time to throw around the expenditure of the public revenues the strongest security I could invent to prevent extravagance or misdirection in the expenditure of public money. Whilst the language is quaint and in the style of the day, it was most forceful and appropriate. Whilst it was said a long time ago, it invites serious consideration by the Parliament of how the Public Works Committee should function. I know that there is a division of opinion as to how far the Committee should go in the area of capital works. Former Minister Killen took serious umbrage in his book at the Committee presuming to challenge the fitness of a Cabinet decision in respect of a particular project. He took the view that, if the Cabinet of the Government of this country should decide to do something, it was inexcusably presumptuous for the Public Works Committee to challenge the wisdom of that decision. We have seen that situation occur quite recently in Canberra with the aviation training college being relocated from Melbourne. I will not regurgitate what the House debated at the time it addressed that matter, but it would be fair to say that members of the Committee expressed genuine concern as to whether the college should be relocated in Canberra. They argued that it could be more effectively located in another place in closer proximity to a major airport and that cost savings would accrue. However, the Government-maybe properly, maybe improperly-decided that it would be moved. No doubt the decision was made on advice from the Department of Aviation, which invariably is of a persuasive nature and which would ordinarily prevail if there were not an instrumentality such as the Public Works Committee which, within the terms of its charter, could properly address the project on the basis of whether the works were needed, whether the means proposed to achieve the objective were appropriate and whether, in the view of the Committee, it was regarded as wise and judicious expenditure of public moneys. Mr Tim Fischer —Standing up to the Sir Humphreys. Mr MILLAR —Precisely, even though some of the Sir Humphreys are pleasant and per- suasive gentlemen in their own right and their competence is beyond dispute, it is simply a question of how they are using it. In that respect, the representatives of the people of Australia are fully entitled to express a view, singular though it may be. I have referred to the arguments for exemption, some of which are not unpersuasive. Recently we exempted from the Committee's scrutiny the Royal Australian Navy's survey motor launches. The exemption of the provision of new submarines almost imbues me, a past Vice-Chairman of the Committee, with a sense of relief. To conduct an inquiry into the submarine project in toto would be a daunting undertaking and perhaps there are valid reasons why it should have been exempted: there are only 30 hours a day and nine days a week! The Committee could have spent a long time on that project. The rationalisation and redevelopment of property holdings in Tokyo was a rather unique project and could well have invited, indeed demanded, the close attention of the Committee. There are a whole list of such projects. I feel beyond question of doubt that, in the interests of the Department of Administrative Services, of this Parliament and of the people in the broad, we should desist from seeking exemptions from referral to the Public Works Committee for all projects of over $6m and at the same time should be on the alert to ensure that projects are not fragmented or sequenced so that an objective in excess of $6m could be attained over stages. That is something that the Public Works Committee should keep very much in mind, as it has done in respect of lease arrangements by the Commonwealth as distinct from the erection of new structures. In practical terms this achieved the same effect, but in the first instance Public Works Committee scrutiny of the project was sought to be evaded. As I mentioned when I commenced my remarks, the Administrative Services Department, a familiar and innocent sounding title, contains extraordinary possibilities for neglect-innocent neglect at best-of taxpayers' best interests, but also have incredible scope for mischief to be perpetrated through neglect, indifference or an attitude of a singular nature which arguably is not consistent with the best interests of our country. I have pointed out that the Public Works Committee has been around for a long time. In recent days it escaped the intention of the Government to restructure some of our committees so that it would cease to be a joint committee. There has been a reversal of opinion, for which I congratulate the Government. Mr Braithwaite —The submarines were trying to torpedo it. Mr MILLAR —Perhaps, but I suggest that this debate is far too dry for submarines. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It being past 12.45 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 101a, I shall report progress. The Deputy Chairman having reported accordingly- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The House may at a later hour this day again resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole. Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to reports in this morning's Press that the most recent report on Australia by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has forecast that our net foreign debt will continue to grow to new record levels of between 43 and 45 per cent of gross domestic product by 1992. On the basis of current policy settings and the latest advice from both the Treasury and the Economic Planning Advisory Council, does the Government agree with this forecast, and does it believe that it is a satisfactory path for our debt accumulation? In the event of any adverse external developments during the next five years, such as an international recession or a further decline in our terms of trade, what policy options would the Government consider to prevent our debt position deteriorating any further than envisaged by the IMF? Mr HAWKE —The Treasurer and I have said, not only in the Budget but consistently inside and outside this House, that neither the Government nor the people of Australia should be complacent about Australia's external debt position. However, the Government's policies are appropriately aimed at correcting the external imbalance and stabilising the external debt over the medium term. We are doing this through this year's balanced Budget, through the more flexible and appropriate two-tier wages system, and through the fundamental ongoing structural reforms that we are bringing about in the Australian economy. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will agree that there has been a significant reduction in the current account deficit-from 6 per cent of gross domestic product in 1985-86 to 5 per cent in 1986-87, with a further reduction to 4 per cent in prospect for 1987-88. Our export base is diversifying. Again I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to note, and I hope he shares my enthusiasm in the fact, that manufacturing and tourism provided 24 per cent of our exports of goods and services in the last financial year 1986-87. That 24 per cent from such exports was a significant increase on the figure of 20.5 per cent in 1985-86. At the end of June 1987 Australia's net foreign debt, at $83 billion, was actually lower by $1.6 billion than it was at the end of March. This principally reflected a rise in the exchange rate in the quarter. Net foreign debt fell to 31.4 per cent of gross domestic product from 33 per cent at the end of March. I also note, and hope that the Leader of the Opposition has noted, the comments reported in today's Australian by Mr William Chambers, Vice-President, International Finance, of Standard and Poor's Corporation. His comment was that the policy responses of the Australian Government to the terms of trade collapse had been `impressive'. I agree with him. Mr LAVARCH —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What is the Government's reaction to the declaration by Colonel Rabuka that Fiji is now a republic? Mr HAWKE —As the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade said this morning, we continue to recognise the Governor-General of Fiji as the only source of legitimate constitutional authority in Fiji. We do not recognise the actions of Colonel Rabuka. I can inform the House and the honourable member that this morning I rang the Governor-General of Fiji, Sir Penaia Ganilau, and informed him directly of our support. I found, as I had during a similar call that I made to the Governor-General last Friday, that the Governor-General continues firmly and unequivocally to assert his authority and to reject the pretensions of Colonel Rabuka. I repeat that it is not for us to seek to tell the people of Fiji how they should get out of this political crisis, or to lay down any detailed blueprint for a political outcome. It is critical that a solution be found in Fiji which restores the parliamentary system, which protects the basic human rights of all the people of Fiji and which permits a reversal of the economic decline which unquestionably threatens economic tragedy for that country and its people. Today's devaluation underlines the predicament which Colonel Rabuka's actions have created. We sincerely hope, and I am sure that I speak for the whole House, that the Governor-General is able to find such a solution. I have arranged to have a further discussion with the Governor-General before I leave on Friday for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting so that I will be in a position to have at the latest point before my departure the clearest indication I can of the Governor-General's position. I repeat the great admiration that we have for the steadfast, dedicated, committed and courageous way in which the Governor-General of Fiji has discharged his responsibilities. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to his answer yesterday regarding exchange rate policy when he used the following words: When you float the dollar it bloody floats. I ask the Prime Minister whether he can reconcile this description of our exchange rate policy with, first, the heavy intervention in foreign exchange markets by the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Bank having bought over $5 billion worth of United States dollars in just the last six months to prevent our exchange rate from appreciating quite significantly, and, secondly, with this statement by the Reserve Bank in its annual report: . . . its heavy intervention in the foreign exchange markets and its consequent impact on the free operation of those markets was much greater than the Bank would think appropriate. Did the Prime Minister or his Treasurer, or indeed Senator Button or Senator Walsh, authorise or request that intervention by the Reserve Bank? Mr HAWKE —I do not regard those statements as inconsistent with the position I put. It ill behoves the Leader of the Opposition to talk about Australia's exchange rate because one of the fundamental reasons why the Australian economy became such a mess in the period 1975 to 1983 was the consistent refusal of the then conservative Government, with the Leader of the Opposition in the prime position of responsibility as Treasurer, to adopt a responsible attitude towards exchange rate management. He blindly kept the Australian dollar overvalued. That was a significant part of the reason why Australian industry was not able to be as competitive in this world as it should have been. This is not just a judgment made by me having succeeded that Government; it is the universal judgment of all analysts of the Australian economy in that period. The Leader of the Opposition simply did not have the courage or the wit to conduct a sensible exchange rate policy. As for the latter part of the honourable member's question, I would point out that the Treasurer has the prime responsibility for the conduct of Government economic affairs in regard to monetary policy and exchange rate policy. Obviously he has frequent discussions with the Governor of the Reserve Bank. I am not privy and do not seek to be privy to the details of those conversations, although the Treasurer keeps in broad contact with me. Senator Walsh and Senator Button have had no part, obviously, in any directions to the Reserve Bank. Mr SNOW —I direct my question to the Minister for Community Services and Health. Given recent criticisms of the Government's allocation of $25m to assist with public hospital waiting lists, will the Minister advise the House of progress in the implementation of this program? Dr BLEWETT —Of course there have been the usual exaggerated claims about the nature of waiting lists in the public hospital system. I notice that the honourable member for O'Connor has got to 150,000, which is just as much an exaggeration as his previous 100,000. I am very glad about the way in which the States have responded to the offer by the Commonwealth of matching $25m for a waiting list program. Indeed, the States themselves have made it quite clear that Medicare is not the problem with or cause of the hospital waiting lists. They have identified the specific reasons in the work that they have done. For instance, the States have identified nursing shortages, an undersupply of some specialities, particularly orthopaedic and ophthalmic surgery. It has also been noted that advances in technology have made a whole range of operations possible now which can be much more routinely performed than they were 10 years ago. Of course there is also a growing awareness of these changes and therefore a greater demand. Many of the States had already targeted these problems with programs of their own. While the Commonwealth does not wish to interfere with those targeted programs by the States, we wish to back them up and give them support. That was the reason for the $25m announcement during the course of the election campaign. That money has now been distributed on the following basis: New South Wales, $9.6m; Victoria, $7.4m; Queensland, $2.8m; Western Australia, $1.1m; South Australia, $2.3m; and Tasmania, $350,000. The Northern Territory has indicated that it will not have a program this year but may well develop one next year. It may be of interest for honourable members to know the kinds of specific targeted programs that are receiving this money. In Victoria there is a five-part program which covers specially dedicated facilities to deal with specific surgery items, overseas nurse recruitment to deal with the shortage of nurses, the use of private hospitals for recovery and rehabilitation, more day surgery provision and a management review of the handling of the waiting list problem. In South Australia the money is being used to open new day surgery facilities, to provide extra theatre sessions for orthopaedics, ear, nose and throat, and urology. In New South Wales there has been an expansion of cardiac and orthopaedic services, improved eye surgery, development of day surgery facilities and paediatric enhancement programs. All of these are targeted programs to deal not with the sort of ideological noise but with specific problems that hospitals have in this area. We are confident that this co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth will mark an important advance in dealing with a difficult problem. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Prime Minister to reports in the Australian newspaper on Monday that the Treasurer has predicted that investment in plant and equipment might increase between 7 and 10 per cent in 1987-88 compared with the 3 per cent forecast in the Budget. As the estimates released today for private capital expenditure indicate a continued poor outlook for investment, I ask the Prime Minister: What additional information has become available during the three weeks since the Budget which would lead to such a significant revision to the forecasts for investment as indicated by the Treasurer? In addition, what is the likely impact of the upwards revision to the forecast for investment on the demand for imports and hence on the balance of payments? Mr HAWKE —In regard to the first part of the honourable gentleman's question, I have not had any discussion with the Treasurer as to what detailed considerations were in his mind. One of the factors would be the very bullish forecast that was made by the Metal Trades Industry Association, of which I imagine the honourable gentleman is aware. Its most recent survey found that metal and engineering firms are planning to increase investment in plant and equipment by 22.5 per cent in 1987-88. In real terms that is about a 15 per cent real increase. That is the result of the survey by the Metal Trades Industry Association. The honourable gentleman is obviously well aware of that Association and of the dimension of its coverage and the integrity of the organisation. I therefore believe that when the Treasurer was talking about significant increases in investment in plant and equipment that survey by the Metal Trades Industry Association would have played quite a significant part in his assessment. As to the second part of the question, we acknowledge of course, to the extent that a large part of that investment in plant and equipment involves the purchase of capital equipment from overseas, that that in an initial sense will have some adverse impact on the external account. Again, I think the honourable gentleman would agree that to the extent that that equipment is being brought in place to make Australian industry more competitive, to enable us to compete better not only externally but also against imports, and if we take the medium to longer term point of view, that is to be regarded as a plus. Mr SNOWDON —Can the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories inform the House of progress being made in finding alternative industries to phosphate mining on Christmas Island? Mr JOHN BROWN —I think most honour- able members would be aware that the economy of Christmas Island is dependent upon the phosphate mine there which has been in decline for a number of years and which is about to be wound down. Obviously, there was a degree of urgency about finding alternative industries and employment for the people who live there. I am pleased to inform the House that at the end of Question Time I will be tabling, for the information of honourable members, the heads of agreement between the Commonwealth and the developer of the Christmas Island resort and casino, which represents a major breakthrough and is the culmination of 12 months negotiation instigated by my predecessor, the honourable member for Corio. I am sure that he will be delighted that at last this has come to fruition. The condition of the agreement is that the developer, Mr Frank Woodmore of Perth, will spend $35m on building a 200-room resort hotel with a casino. He will also be establishing his own engineering works and will be paying for the upgrading of the island's airport to the standard required to service this new development. A condition of the development was that a casino operator be found who would be suit- able to the Commonwealth and would pass the most rigorous examination of his credentials by the Australian Federal Police. I am pleased to report that Federal Hotels Ltd, the operator of the very successful Hobart and Launceston casinos for a long time-I notice a smile on the face of the honourable member for Franklin-and highly regarded as the operator of the two casinos in the Northern Territory before the debauchery of the operation by the then Northern Territory Government, has been accepted as the operator of the casino on Christmas Island. The examination by the Australian Federal Police has found Mr Haddad's operation to be one above question and reproach. I can assure the House that this development will go ahead on Christmas Island and will provide alternative employment for those people who are resident there-the Chinese and the Malays. This is a very positive step forward which, as I said, was started by my predecessor and will lead to some sort of prosperity for those people who live on Christmas Island. Mr MILLAR —I address my question to the Prime Minister. On the premise that reasoned address should result in mutual benefit, I ask the Prime Minister whether he will exercise his influence to bring about an extension of time allowable for presentation of submissions on World Heritage listing of Queensland rainforests. Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Wide Bay for his question. I cannot give an undertaking about such an extension of time. I believe that for a very considerable period of time the public must have been aware of the intentions of the Government in this matter. I would remind the honourable member that in the election campaign of June and July not only I but also other spokespersons for the Government made it quite clear that our intention was to seek World Heritage listing. So I find it difficult to believe that people would not have had a very considerable period of time in which, firstly, to be aware of the Government's intentions and, secondly, following from that, to prepare their submissions if they so wished. I have confidence in the capacity of the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, Senator Richardson, to handle this matter. I must say that I believe that the whole handling of this issue would have been a much more sensible, rational and sane business within the Australian community if that fast-disappearing figure on the Australian political scene, the Premier of Queensland, had not sought deliberately to provoke public passion and indeed, I would say, physical activity on this matter. That did nothing to assist the proper consideration of this matter. Fortunately one of the benefits that will occur in the Australian community from what appears to be his imminent disappearance from the Australian political scene is that we will be able to have a much more sensible debate on this issue. I do want to be positive in regard to my friend the honourable member for Wide Bay. I do encourage people to prepare their submissions. As I say, I would hope that they have had time to do it, but they should do it as quickly as possible because we want everyone who has an interest in this matter to have their interests represented. I repeat to the honourable member that we as a government have made it clear that it is our belief that the tourist potential in the area is such that there is no reason to believe that, taking the medium to longer term point of view, there should not be a net addition to employment opportunities in the region. This is a belief which is shared by some members of the National Party of Australia who identified with our judgment in that area when I visited the Daintree during the election campaign. Finally, I say to the honourable member that we have indicated that we are prepared to look sympathetically at the cases of those for whom some compensation would be appropriate. Mr PUNCH —Is the Minister for Employment, Education and Training aware of widespread concern in the private sector, which views the shortage of skilled labour as the main problem facing Australian manufacturing today? What is the Government's response? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question. Obviously it is true that one of the problems confronting particularly the newer and expanding industries in Australia is the lack of sufficient skilled people to be employed within those industries. I might say that one of the important reasons for this is the deliberately induced recession of 1982-83 brought about by our opponents when they quite deliberately decided to overvalue the currency. Of course, that led to a massive downturn in manufacturing. It led to an historically low level of intakes of apprentices, the harvest of which we are now beginning to reap in that we now see a smaller number of apprentices coming out of their training than is necessary to satisfy the demand. Happily, we have seen since that time a 50 per cent increase in the number of people taking apprenticeships, and therefore the future for skilled people joining the work force now and in the future is much brighter. As well as that, there has been a 17 per cent increase between 1982 and 1986 in the enrolments of students in engineering and science courses, which again is a very important requirement if we are to find the kinds of people necessary to fill the jobs which are opening up now and which will open up in the future in this economy. I make the point that in the Budget context the Government tabled a very important policy statement which brought together our various approaches to skills training, whether it be in the programs administered by my Department or in relation to our funding arrangements for technical and further education. All of those measures are designed to achieve a greater enrolment of young people, particularly in skilled training, and also to encourage a greater commitment on the part of industry-that is, private employers-to investing in skills. It is true that in this country there has been a very shallow commitment on the part of industry generally to investment in skills training. We hope that through our programs we will see some turnaround as far as industry is concerned. In order to assist that, a new program which was first announced by my predecessor, the Minister for Industrial Relations, is now being brought into effect. This new skills training program will provide some $22.6m. It is designed to provide funding, along with industry funding, to encourage new and innovative training schemes in order to encourage a greater number of skilled tradespeople in the future. Mr COWAN —I refer the Prime Minister to the demands for 40 per cent of Australia's land mass, 7 per cent of our gross national product and other concessions contained in the draft Aboriginal treaty as reported in Tuesday's Australian. Does the Prime Minister concede that he has fuelled such impractical demands and unrealistic expectations in sections of the Aboriginal community by his reckless, off the cuff floating of a proposal for a compact with the Aborigines? What concessions does the Prime Minister consider such a compact should contain? Mr HAWKE —Briefly, the answer to the first part of the honourable gentleman's question is no. I am disappointed that he should approach this matter in this way. The observation contained in the honourable gentleman's question that I made an off the cuff comment is, of course, totally fallacious. I had had discussions about this matter with a number of people, including the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and I thought it appropriate on my visit to the Northern Territory at the first opportunity to make such a statement. So I can assure the honourable gentleman that if I were to be looking for an excuse-which I am not-I would not be pleading that it was an off the cuff comment; it was a considered statement. It is a tragedy that this pathetic Opposition should seek-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw. There is no evidence of that. We have been doing him like a dinner this time back. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAWKE —That this pathetic Opposition should-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Madam SPEAKER —Is it the same point of order? Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, the point of order is directed to you. I do not believe that that is parliamentary language and I ask you to have it withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will be aware that there is a certain give and take within this House on political matters. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —The issues involved in the honourable gentleman's question are of fundamental importance, and I believe they should be considered in a much more constructive way than that embodied in his question. I think it is important. I would have hoped that the overwhelming majority of the members of this Parliament would share my view that it is a matter of overwhelming importance that, as we approach our 200 years of European settlement in this country, we do so in the recognition that that 200 years comes after 40,000 years of a proud tradition and culture of the Aboriginal people, and that we will not as a nation properly celebrate the 200 years of European settlement if we do not have that fact in our minds. As Prime Minister of this country, I am concerned to try to stimulate, if I can, a consideration by the Aboriginal people and the non-Aboriginal people in this country of what the nature of that relationship between the 200 years of European settlement and 40,000 years of Aboriginal culture and tradition should be. It is obvious, I suggest, that in such a consideration the representatives of the Aboriginal people themselves will make demands and suggestions that to us may seem outrageous. We should not be surprised by that fact, but what we should do, if we have a proper sense of responsibility to the people of Australia today and in the future, is to encourage discussions between representatives of the Aborigines and the Government and other organisations so that, if it is possible, we can go into 1988 with a sense of shared commitment on the part of the non-Aboriginal people and a recognition that in those 200 years many injustices have been done to the Aboriginal people. That is not something which is the monopoly of one side of politics. It has been a guilt-if you like, a responsibility-shared by all of us in politics and by all generations in those 200 years. We do ourselves little justice and have little cause for pride if we try to sweep those facts under the carpet. We will be a prouder nation in 1988 if we can recognise those facts. If in the process, as I say, some demands or claims are made which appear somewhat outrageous, so be it. I hope that under the strong leadership of my Minister for Aboriginal Affairs there will be serious discussions. I am encouraged by the indications that have already been forthcoming from sections of the Aboriginal people that they do want to engage in such discussions. I am also encouraged by a public opinion survey reported in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday which showed that 58 per cent of those surveyed supported the compact proposal in principle. That is not something which should be subject to this cheap gibberish and interjections from the other side. If Opposition members are really serious about their responsibilities as representatives of the Australian people in this Parliament, they should understand the nature of the problem, the depth of feeling of the Aboriginal people and their sense of accumulated injustice. We will be the better people and the stronger nation in 1988 if we accept and recognise those facts and constructively together try to get a sense of mutual understanding and obligation between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in this country. Mr LAMB —I direct my question to the Minister for Consumer Affairs. In view of the rash of product recalls last week which affected all Australian car manufacturers, a major food manufacturer and a home goods manufacturer just outside my electorate, will the Minister advise the House on the success or otherwise of these recalls and the implications for Australian consumers and manufacturers? Mr STAPLES —There was a rash of recalls last week in certain areas of manufacture. At this stage I am able to advise honourable members that the recalls are progressing quite satisfactorily. The voluntary recalls provision was brought into effect in July 1986 under the Trade Practices Act and the system is working quite well. The Government, nonetheless, appreciates that recalls are quite costly and do upset production schedules, just as industry and manufacturing recognise that it is important to protect their reputations and responsibility to consumers in this way. I take this opportunity to congratulate industry and manufacturing in Australia on their compliance with the voluntary recall provision and point out that consumer affairs is more than simply consumer protection. As Minister for Consumer Affairs I will certainly take every opportunity to support and encourage industry where actions benefit the consumer, industry and the economy. The whole question of recalls points out again the issue of quality in Australian manufacturing. There is a need for greater efforts in inbuilt quality in Australian manufacturing, particularly in the areas of design, materials, the process and, indeed, workers' skills. Such efforts to improve quality will improve the reputation of Australian manufacturing for quality, productivity and competitiveness and will bring a mutual advantage, I believe, to business, to the consumer, to government expenditure and, indeed, to the economy. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I refer the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs to the now abolished community employment program and remind him that when it was announced on 13 May that CEP was to be abolished the then Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations extolled the virtues of CEP for assisting people to return to the general labour market and claimed specifically that 130,000 long term unemployed and disadvantaged job seekers had been assisted. Is the Minister aware that the since tabled Auditor-General's efficiency audit report on the CEP states, among other trenchant criticisms of the program, that professional advice indicated that the net effect of the program was to gain employment for a mere 9 per cent of the former CEP participants? I ask the Minister whether or not the Government was aware of the Auditor-General's audit findings before the program was axed. If so, why did the Government mislead the nation on the scheme's success? Mr HOLDING —The decision to abolish CEP was taken after many of the objectives in respect to CEP had in fact been achieved. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HOLDING —I can appreciate the fact that had some of the honourable gentlemen opposite been applicants for CEP they would not have been admitted. Nevertheless, I remind the House that, despite the sort of carping criticism that has come from honourable gentlemen opposite, many of whom were responsible for creating the highest level of unemployment in recent years in Australia, they are not prepared to face the fact that this Government has not merely turned around that situation but is now embarking upon new programs which are designed to train many of our unemployed young people and mature aged unemployed for real jobs and to provide real training to equip them for permanent employment. I should have thought that that was an emphasis in government policy which would be supported by members of the Opposition. It is certainly a general proposition which, by and large, has been accepted throughout the community. It is a proposition which is enjoying the support of business enterprises within the community and in levels of the trade union movement. At the time the decision was made, as far as I am aware, no regard was paid to the recommendation contained in the Auditor-General's report. The decision was taken on the basis of the decision of the Government to realign its total strategy and to meet the objective of training unemployed young people in our community for real jobs. I suggest that if honourable members look at the detail of what was achieved by many CEP programs they will see that many of those programs received strong support. Indeed, the change in government emphasis in going to a broader strategy of employment training created some criticism among local councils and other organisations which had benefited from the results of CEP. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order- Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no need for the honourable member to bang the desk. I can see you and hear you. Mr Donald Cameron —I didn't touch it. Madam SPEAKER —Do you have a point of order? Mr Donald Cameron —Yes. I refer to the Auditor-General's report, which states that 13 May, the day after-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not have a point of order. Please resume your seat. Mr Donald Cameron —It is a good point of order because it shows that the Minister is not telling the truth. Madam SPEAKER —Would you please resume your seat. I warn you that, if you do not sit down, I will take action. Ms McHUGH —Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade inform the House of the Government's attitude towards the Compact of Free Association between the governments of Palau and the United States of America? Is the Minister aware of criticisms which have been made of the compact on the grounds that it allegedly deviates from the nuclear free provisions of the Palau constitution? Is he aware of recent violence in Palau apparently associated with the compact? Can the Minister comment on those matters? Madam SPEAKER —You cannot ask the Minister to comment, but the first part of the question is in order. Mr HAYDEN —A referendum was held in Palau on 4 August this year. That referendum provided that the constitution could be amended by a simple majority, if that was the wish of a simple majority of the people of Palau, to provide for a compact of self-governing free association with the United States on the part of Palau and additionally that the United States would attend to defence and security matters. I should stress that that referendum was conducted strictly in conformity with the provisions of the constitution of Palau. On 21 August a further referendum was conducted in relation to the proposal for a compact of free association with the United States. It was carried by 73 per cent of the voters, that is, nearly three out of four and a clear majority, which is a bit better than what happens in my home State of Queensland, where one in three voters is able to impose his will on the majority of the people. That referendum was conducted under the supervision of a visiting United Nations observer team. The provisions in respect of nuclear matters are now what they were before either of those referendums; there has been no change. I have absolutely no evidence to link the matters of violence with the issues that the honourable member has raised. Mr PETER FISHER —I ask the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories: Is there any truth in the assertion that boundaries drawn for World Heritage listing of Queensland rainforests specifically exclude numerous properties owned by radical conservationists and Government supporters? Will the Minister investigate these assertions and advise the House who was responsible for drawing the boundaries and what the processes of consultation and professional input were? Mr JOHN BROWN —Provisional boundaries have been drawn that are now the subject of discussion and consultation and, as the Prime Minister alluded to in his answer to the honourable member for Wide Bay, there have been submissions from people who have an interest in the area. I can assure the honourable member for Mallee that I will come back to him with a response that is as responsible as that question was irresponsible. Opposition members interjecting- Mr JOHN BROWN —I can assure him and all members of the Opposition, cynical as they might be, that of course there has been no attempt to provide a set of circumstances that are in line with the question asked. Ms FATIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister advise the House what progress has been achieved in removing discrimination against women in the work force since the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act was passed by the Parliament last year? Mr WILLIS —In response to the honourable member for Brand, I can say that the Act to which she refers came into effect on 1 October last year. I am pleased to say that there have been encouraging developments in the 12 months since. As the House would be aware, that Act involves a graduated approach, with higher education institutions and companies with more than 1,000 employees being covered in the first instance and with subsequent extension to companies with 500 or more employees by February next year and to companies with 100 or more employees by February 1989. The companies and institutions covered by the Act are required to develop affirmative action programs, that is, to develop a profile of where women are placed in their company structure, and to develop their own objectives and forward estimates on how they might change that profile. They are also required to report annually to the Affirmative Action Agency on the plans that they have developed and what they have done to implement them. The first year of operation has understandably involved the Agency in extensive educational activities; that is, advising companies of what their obligations are under the Act, of what benefit it can be to them and what affirmative action entails. I am pleased to say that the attitude of companies in general has been quite co-operative. A significant number of companies had already adopted affirmative action plans prior to the legislation and indeed had co-operated with the Government in a pilot program prior to the legislation being brought in. In the first 12 months of the operation of the Act over 300 companies have contacted the Agency to obtain information and assistance to develop their plans. It is also true that some companies have been less than enthusiastic about this Act and their obligations under it. This stems in large part from a misconception of what is involved. They need to understand and indeed the wider community needs to understand fully that we are not seeking by this Act to give priority to women. We are seeking to give women equality of treatment with men. Experience has already shown that when companies look more closely at their practices and eliminate discrimination against women they achieve a much more efficient use of their work force; so there are real benefits to them from this process. As companies understand that more, I am sure that there will be more enthusiasm than there has been in some companies which have had to face up to this legislation. This legislation, along with the equal employment opportunity legislation in the public sector and other actions by the Government to encourage women to enter male dominated occupations, will certainly ensure that in the next few years we will take very substantial steps towards achieving equality of treatment of the sexes in the work force. The result of that will be that we will see a much more even spread of women across industries, a much more even spread of women across occupations, a much higher proportion of women in management and executive positions, where they are abysmally represented, than we presently have and, as a consequence of those changes, a much higher level of female earnings relative to male earnings than currently applies. The action of the Government in this area has been extensive. It is very effective and it will make a great difference to the women in the work force in future years. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —Pursuant to section 49 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation for 1986-87, together with the Auditor-General's report. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —Pursuant to section 46 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Act 1985 and section 63h of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation for 1986-87, together with the Auditor-General's report. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —Pursuant to section 23 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Act 1984, I present the annual report of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee for 1986-87. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the agreement between the Commonwealth and the developer of the Christmas Island resort and casino. The agreement sets out the rights and obligations of the parties with regard to the development. This fulfils an undertaking by my predecessor, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), to provide this information to the Parliament. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —Yesterday in the Senate my newly acquired relative, Senator Walsh, made the following remarks when answering a question on tax file numbers. In part, he said: In other words, it would appear that Mr Tuckey seems to think that it is all right for an employer to supply a false name to the Taxation Office, but he is not so keen on an employer supplying a correct name. A little further on he continued: . . . but it seems to me that what Mr Tuckey is objecting to is any onus being imposed on employers to notify the Taxation Office of the tax file number of the employee to whom payments are made and on whose behalf an employer is required, under long-standing law, to deduct PAYE tax instalments. That statement is totally untrue and could not be substantiated on even the broadest interpretation of the remarks I made on the Morning Show. I have expressed concern for the rights of millions of honest taxpayers in Australia as to the confidentiality of their tax file numbers and possible illegal activity by someone who can obtain another person's tax file number, such as the redirection of tax refund cheques. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not go on to debate the issue. He has made his point. Mr TUCKEY — I have another point, Madam Speaker, relating to the same matter. Senator Walsh, in concluding his remarks, also said: Mr Tuckey has a record already of abusing public office for personal gain, and I warn it that it would be most unwise to follow him very far down that road. Senator Puplick then rose on a point of order and Senator Walsh concluded: Very well, I will withdraw it and think about tabling the file on the Carnarvon Shire Council. Not only is the first part of this remark untrue, but also it recycles previous unsubstantiated assertions by other members of the Australian Labor Party. In particular I refer to the implication of Senator Walsh's final remarks which could give credibility to his withdrawn allegation. I now demand that Senator Walsh keep his threat to table his Carnarvon Shire Council file, of which he apparently claims ownership, so that it can be exposed to proper parliamentary scrutiny and compared for accuracy with his other tabling of photocopied cheques which proved to be a fabrication and for which he was censured in the Senate. Upon tabling it I will comment further but Senator Walsh should be aware of the level of scrutiny by others of those allegations. Finally, Madam Speaker, you would be pleased to know that, considering my new-found family responsibilities, it is my intention also to have a talk to Peter about his affairs with his secretaries. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that comment. Mr TUCKEY —I withdraw, but it is a message for Senator Walsh-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not add to it. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Before the honourable member proceeds, I ask for some courtesy so that he may be heard. He may proceed. Mr Cleeland —Here is your lap-dog, Tuckey. Madam SPEAKER —I do not want any interruption from that area, either. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) specifically referred to my conduct of exchange rate policy as Treasurer in the Fraser Government. He made the oft-repeated claim of the Government, particularly of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and other senior Ministers of the Government, that I, as Treasurer in the Fraser Government, had followed a policy of deliberately overvaluing the exchange rate and that the exchange rate had been liberated from that overvaluation when the Hawke Government floated the dollar in 1983. That claim is totally incorrect. My statement that it is totally incorrect is evidenced by the fact that when the Australian dollar was floated in December 1983 the trade weighted index of the dollar stood at 84. Twelve months later-that is, 12 months after the float, which I supported at the time and continue to support, as it is one of the few sensible decisions of the Government-the trade weighted index of the Australian dollar still stood at 84. One would have assumed that if my policies of a managed float had deliberately suppressed the value of the Australian dollar it would have fallen immediately after the float. The reality is that it did not. The claim the Prime Minister made, which repeats one of the canards of the Treasurer over the last 4 1/2 years, is completely discredited. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PETER FISHER —Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr PETER FISHER —In response to a question I asked of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) today, the Minister accused me of irresponsibility. Could I table in the House a map of the Mossman-Daintree region, which clearly indicates properties under challenge, so that the Minister-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may seek leave to table the document, but this is not strictly a personal explanation. He will need leave to table his document. Mr PETER FISHER —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the document. Leave not granted. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Moreton. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The personal explanation of the honourable member for Mallee was directed to what he believed to be the false assertion of the Minister that his question was irresponsible. He was seeking to put in evidence before the House a map to demonstrate the basis of his claim that the Minister had falsely represented the motive behind his question. I would have thought that the honourable member's request to make a personal explanation was perfectly in order. Madam SPEAKER —I gave the honourable member the right to make a personal explanation. I understand what the Leader of the Opposition says. However, leave was refused for the tabling of the document. Mr Howard —I thought you then went on to call somebody else. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member wanted to table the document but leave was not given. Mr Howard —But he had not finished his personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —If he has not finished his personal explanation he is perfectly at liberty to continue. He said, `I seek leave to table the document', and that is what I ruled on. Mr PETER FISHER —If I am not able to table the document, Madam Speaker, could I read in my personal explanation the names of the threatened properties so that the Minister can clearly identify the owners of those properties for me? Mr John Brown —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I submit to you that this is not a personal explanation. In my answer to the honourable member's question I said that I would examine the matter and come back with an answer which would be just as responsible as the question was irresponsible. I stand by that. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will come back to the honourable member for Mallee. I presume that they could have a discussion about the matter. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DONALD CAMERON —Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr DONALD CAMERON —During Question Time I tried to raise a point of order, and you may well have properly seated me. I wanted to explain that I had been misrepresented, and that the Auditor-General's report says, `On 13 May-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton knows that this is not a personal explanation. The honourable member has not been personally misrepresented. Mr DONALD CAMERON —It is, because my integrity has been put in doubt by the Minis- ter-- Madam SPEAKER —I assure the honourable member for Moreton that he has not been personally misrepresented. The honourable member will resume his seat. Whether the Chair believes him or not is irrelevant. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations) —by leave-I would like to report to the House on the outcome of my visit to Canada, the United States of America, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay from 11 to 29 September. From the outset, I would like to report that in the United States and the various Cairns group capitals visited, I received many expressions of appreciation for the positive contribution made by the former Minister for Trade, the present Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), in progressing the movement for world agricultural trade reform and for his most effective leadership as Chairman of the Cairns group. The purpose of my visit to the United States (US) was to register strongly Australia's concerns with several of the proposals contained in two trade Bills currently being considered by the Congress. The two versions of the trade Bill, which were originated in each of the Houses of Congress, are in the process of being negotiated to a single Bill by a joint conference which includes members of both Houses. The Bill agreed to by the conference will then be returned to both Houses for ratification before forwarding to the President for his agreement or veto. Many of the proposals in the present versions of the Bill are protectionist in intent and unfortunately accurately reflect the current mood of many of those in Congress. This is a mood which countries like Australia must fight-the alternative is to allow the undermining of the international trade system to the detriment of all countries. While in Washington I met with 10 congressmen-all of whom are participants in a joint conference of the Congress to consider the Bills-and with leading members of the Reagan Administration. I argued strongly for those congressmen to reconsider the most damaging elements of the Bills. I stressed the obvious contradiction between the radical United States proposal for agricultural trade reform which they have tabled in the Uruguay round negotiations in Geneva, and the protectionist tendencies evident in draft US trade legislation. I pointed out that such a contradictory approach to trade policy put at risk the credibility of the United States. I argued that, in the interests of all nations, what the United States should be doing is providing leadership in the process of trade reform, not trade destruction. Apart from the illogical and unsustainable direction of the draft legislation, I argued that specific measures, which would directly damage Australia, should be reconsidered. I argued most strongly against the provision in the draft legislation which would restrict the entry of Australian lamb into the United States market. I also argued for the removal of a proposal to introduce an effective export subsidy for United States sugar refiners. I repeated the Government's views on the intention to increase the funding for, and duration of, the export enhancement program (EEP). I also expressed concern at other elements of the Bills which would provide increased protections for US industry. I can see no justification for any of these proposals, and I said so. I received a good hearing from all those I met and was able to detail Australia's concern about the Bills and the general direction of US industry policy. I am reasonably optimistic that the final version of the US trade Bill will emerge from the US Congress in an improved form. I took up these same concerns with the United States Administration. While there was some agreement on the desirable direction of trade policy, I was particularly disappointed with the differences between us on the operation and extension of exports subsidy provisions under the export enhancement program. The Administration's position is that while it opposes export subsidies in principle, the EEP is seen to have value as a retaliatory measure and as a means of putting pressure on the European Community, in particular, to negotiate on agricultural trade reform in the Uruguay round of trade negotiations. I indicated to the Administration that current US policies were placing only marginal pressure on the European Community. I pointed out that, contrary to US claims, their strategy was proving ineffective in adding substantially to the cost of the common agricultural policy, and that rather it had shifted the adjustment burden on to non-subsidising countries like Australia which were being caught in the subsidies cross-fire. I drew out for them the consequences of reduced export income for Australia's purchasing power and what that could mean for future trade between our two countries. I would like to note that despite the strong protectionist mood which prevails in the Congress, there are some signs of recognition that increased protectionism is not the right path to take. One recent indication of this welcome development has been the failure of the textiles Bill to attract enough support in the United States House of Representatives to avoid a presidential veto. I left the United States encouraged in this view by the efforts of certain congressmen and the Administration to work towards an open and fair trading environment, not only in the United States but also globally. The statement last week in Washington by President Reagan to the International Monetary Fund-World Bank meeting that he would veto any protectionist proposal is also a welcome reaffirmation of the Administration position. I am convinced that the repeated representations by this Government, especially given the reasonableness of our views, is essential if we are to protect both our bilateral trade position in the US as well as our position in international trade. During my discussions in Canada and the US, I indicated clearly my concern that Australia's trading interests should be properly protected in any US-Canada trade agreement. Our officials are closely monitoring more recent negotiations in North America and have again been in contact with Canadian officials this week. It is still too early to judge the final form of the US-Canada agreement. However, the Government will continue to represent strongly our trading interests as the negotiations unfold. While overseas I held discussions in Canada, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, which are members of the Cairns group of fair traders in agriculture. The principal objective of my visit to these countries was to discuss with Ministers our common interests in seeking comprehensive agricultural reform, to gain an appreciation of the priorities of these countries in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations, and, in particular, the strategy which the Cairns group might follow for the remainder of 1987. Firstly, I would emphasise that it was evident during my visit that the Cairns group has become a recognised and respected voice in the debate on agricultural trade reform. I received strong encouragement, including support from the United States, for the group to continue its efforts in maintaining the momentum for agricultural trade reform in the Uruguay round of trade negotiations. In all four countries, I was impressed by the strong commitment to the group. I was reassured of the future of the group by the strong expressions of support for the group's objectives and by the assurances I received of active and constructive participation in its future activities. Argentina has offered to host a further meeting of the group at ministerial level in the first quarter of 1988. I welcomed this offer and indicated Australia's participation towards its success. I will be visiting Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia on my way back from Europe later in the month. These Association of South East Asian Nations countries are also members of the Cairns group. I shall take the opportunity of my visit to obtain their views on the appropriate future strategy of the Cairns group. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-The fact that the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) has returned and reported to the House is to be commended. As I understand, he is leaving for overseas again tomorrow, and it is important that at a time when conflicts between the giants of world commerce are leaving considerable ripples in their wake, there should be an opportunity for some debate and consideration of the implications for Australian export trade. It is particularly important because, as we have been discussing in the House, the real problem in the Budget and in the Australian economy is the continuing chronic balance of payments deficit. The only way that can be overcome is by improving export returns and generating a flow of funds which will enable us to offset, to some degree, the ballooning overseas debt which the economic policies of the Australian Labor Party are unfortunately not only permitting but encouraging. Sadly, the Minister is one of the casualties of the Cabinet reshuffle of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). While there were some policy areas in the communications portfolio with which the Opposition was in significant disagreement from time to time, the Minister assiduously performed his duties, but the people of Australia must have a major worry now that the Minister is travelling the world, properly trying to learn his task but learning it at the expense of many Australian exporters whose backs are to the wall, and a country whose economy has its back to the wall. I am concerned that the Department of Trade is to be dismembered into four components. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), to whom the Minister for Trade Negotiations is junior, has recently been overseas, but has not bothered to involve himself at all in trade negotiations. It should be understood that there are a number of major implications for Australia in relations with the United States of America, not only in the export enhancement program, to which the Minister has referred, but also in the problems between the United States and Japan, the United States and the European Community, and, as the Minister said, in the flow-on from the signing of the United States-Canada new free trade arrangements. I in no way denigrate the Minister for what he has attempted to do, but it should be understood that, in trying to achieve a recognition of the impact on Australia of the policies being undertaken by other countries, status and stature are important. My first concern is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade did not see fit in his new role to make as his first task an attempt to ensure in his overseas visits that trade is given the status and recognition it should enjoy. Mind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, after the failure of the Department of Foreign Affairs in advising the Government on events in Fiji, I am very apprehensive about any role the Department of Foreign Affairs might play in the market-place. The Department of Foreign Affairs was absolutely inept in advising the Prime Minister only a few hours before the whole of the political situation in Fiji changed. The manner in which the Prime Minister made a statement to this place is illustrative of the fact that the Department or the Minister's advisers are totally inadequate. The point I seek to make is that on this side of the House we are particularly concerned about the impact of changing trade conditions. While I commend the Minister for his efforts to learn the job, Australian exporters cannot be the bunnies while he is doing so. Unfortunately, it will be only senior Ministers who will be able to grasp the significance of our concern with administrations abroad. Within the United States context, for example, one commodity to which the Minister refers is sugar. I am very pessimistic about its present prospect. While I note that the Minister argued for the removal of the proposals to introduce an effective export subsidy, it will require far more than a single Minister's efforts to get that lifted. From what I hear about the substitution of various artificial sweeteners-the way in which corn glucose and other substitutes are taking the place of sugar in various manufacturing processes in the US, for reasons unrelated to trade-there is an enormous problem ahead for Australian sugar exports. We all know that we have had difficulty with lamb. I am glad that the Minister referred to lamb. While I know that the industry is relatively sanguine about its prospects, I am not. I am concerned that industries such as those should be very high on the agenda in negotiations. As I have said, while I respect the Minister for the role he played on earlier occasions, the fact that he went overseas to learn his job does not really put Australia in a particularly good light. In his opening comments from Canada on a radio program The World Today-and we all recall the remarks of 14 September-he said: . . . on the question of the joint facilities . . . you cannot assume that because the alliance between the United States and ourselves is as solid as it is, we're going to sit back and allow them to enter into arrangements which are going to be extremely damaging in relation to trade. It is quite clear from what the Prime Minister said that at some stage those matters could well become an issue. Frankly, I blame the Prime Minister; I do not blame the Minister. The Prime Minister has been shilly-shallying and shuffling around over the whole deal. It took the edi- torials in Australia to bring him back to his senses, editorials such as that in the Melbourne Age of 17 September which quite properly identified the fact that security and trade are separate. Honourable members will recall that in that editorial the remark was made that, `they are quite separate issues, and to mix them in anger could be not only futile but counter-productive'. Being prickly in other aspects of the defence alliance may not prove effective either, as New Zealand's idiosyncratic behaviour has shown. As a result of those remarks in the media, the Prime Minister suddenly decided that the Minister for Trade Negotiations had made a blue and he had to retreat from it. How ridiculous it is to have a junior Minister overseas at a very critical time for Australia, putting the joint defence facilities on the plate and being in a position where the Prime Minister had to deny the comment only a few hours after he made it. I know that the Minister, in all sincerity, had not met that consequence, but the point is that the Prime Minister permitted it to happen and Australia suffers. As I have said, it is no time to send abroad a Minister learning his job to do a man's job. It is a serious situation. Australia is in a very critical state because of the difficulties between Japan and the United States and between the European Economic Community and the United States. We have to get out there with the most senior Ministers available. We now have four Ministers responsible for trade. It is the most junior of them who has been given this very important job. No doubt, once he knows the job he will be able to undertake these responsibilities. But the point is that the anti-American blunder that he made very early in his visit abroad did no good for Australia. I recommend that the Minister on his next visit, whether it be to Europe or to the South East Asian countries, be careful about what he says and not listen to the Prime Minister before he says it. The second thing I would say to the Minister is that as he travels he will have a good deal of time. Apart from perhaps trying to read the Melbourne Cup race book there are a few other documents that would be worth considering. He needs to understand that there are very important problems caused by government which are also adversely affecting Australian trade opportunities. We all know that, with the coal industry facing declining prices abroad, government charges are a major adverse factor for profitability. During the Minister's absence we have had the imminent threat of the closure of all the Hunter Valley coal mines. We know that there is a very serious position right throughout New South Wales with the total failure of the New South Wales Government to realise that its charges on the coal industry are one of the contributors. In addition, of course, there are this Government's charges. I pointed out in a speech here the other day, during the Minister's absence, that Mount Isa Mines Ltd, for example, pays somewhere between $3m and $4m by way of fringe benefits tax. There are all sorts of charges for which governments are responsible. The Minister has not only to talk to other countries but also to try to reduce costs for Australian exporting industries and, significantly, to try to make sure that when he talks to other countries he is not put in a position of their being able to say to him, `Yes, but it is your Government's charges that put you in a disadvantageous situation'. I am told that the New South Wales Government received $754m in revenue from the State's coal industry. If, for example, there were a reduction in rail freight charges, an improvement in efficiency within general handling and a privatising of coal loading there could be a reduction of about $3 a tonne in costs generally. Therefore, I suggest that next time the Minister might take with him a very excellent book which was published during his absence called The Game Plan: Successful Strategies for Australian Trade. Mr Duncan —What would you know about this? Tell us about-- Mr SINCLAIR —I suggest that the honour- able member keep very quiet in this place in view of the mess he has made of his administration over the last little while. The total failure to examine the normal processes of tendering, his inability to comprehend facts that have been put forward to him and his colleague, the failure to report accurately to this House and the conflict in answers given day by day in this House make him one of those who will be very early casualties of this Hawke Ministry. We look forward to his demise. The book Successful Strategies for Australian Trade has been written by Andy Stoekel, formerly the Director of the Centre for International Economics, and Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and Sandy Cuthbertson, formerly a first assistant commissioner with the Industries Assistance Commission. The book points out that one of the problems lies in the extent to which, in policies designed to improve trade, 60 per cent of effort must be aimed at the domestic market. I commend the book to the Minister because there are some very good stratagems in it and many of them go directly to the sort of input that he must address if his voice is going to be effective abroad. There is a real problem, as I see it, in our voice being equal. It is all very well to say that what is happening in America and in the European Economic Community programs, and what is happening in Europe and under the common agricultural policy, are the reasons our trade is in difficulty. The reality is that it is this Government's program in Australia that is causing most of the difficulties. There is a real problem, as we see it, in world trade. I commend the fact that there is now a Minister who will be spending so much of his time in negotiations abroad, but I say to his colleagues, those other more senior Ministers, that whether it is a valid assessment or not, status in government is critically important in ensuring that our voice is heard, and unless those who have more senior responsibility in trade, and the Prime Minister, are prepared to assert our concerns, Australia's export opportunities will suffer. There is no doubt that we need to have an effective voice abroad. We are concerned on this side of the House about the problems not only in the United States but also in the South East Asian region, in South America, in Europe and in Japan. I believe a great deal more needs to be done. The way by which the problems of world trade can be solved is by lifting trade barriers, as in the Cairns group concept. It is that idea of removing barriers rather than applying them that we must get through to other countries. I know that that is the objective of the Minister's visit. But I say to him that in his forthcoming visit to South East Asia he should understand that one of the problems during the administration of the present Government has been that too little attention has been given to trade opportunities in our closer markets. Ministers such as the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade have been quite keen to go to New York. Of course, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) loves it in Washington and enjoys going to Europe. He likes to get away from the hurly-burly of the Australian domestic scene. Ordinary Australians are not for him. Mr Reith —He likes Paris. Mr SINCLAIR —He likes Paris, of course. But there are enormous opportunities for Australian trade in South East Asia. I am delighted that the Minister is going to Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. I am only sorry that his visit to those countries seems to be almost an adjunct to his visit to other parts of the world because South East Asia is far more important to us than almost anywhere else. A lot of countries close to Australia have for far too long been neglected in terms of trade opportunities and, as I said a moment ago, in security matters. Unless we treat our regional responsibilities more responsibly than we are at the moment, I fear that, no matter how effective the Minister may be with his rhetoric in those more glamorous capitals of the world, our trade opportunities will not be as good as they should be. 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. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Carlton,Mr Connolly,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr McArthur,Mr Moore and Mr Shack. 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 the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Andrew,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Downer,Mr Steele Hall and Mrs Sullivan. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Sinclair,Mr Shack and Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Maranoa Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Lyne Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available it will not tackle in the most cost-effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID Card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or by illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australia Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID Card would be enormous, outweighing any gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID Card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID Card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID Card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID Card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. 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 Murray electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID Card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID Card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Halverson,Mr Jull,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton and Mrs Sullivan. 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 Halverson,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate select committee to outlaw destructive experiments of human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Grace and Dr Klugman. The Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for the possession of child pornography, and has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a Criminal Offence, with Deterrent penalties, and close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X rated videos, (and ER) and END the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia Connections. Because 98% of Australians in other States have banned X rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and it's availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. Because anyone can have these tapes in their possession for private use. Because the Government does not intervene in that. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard and Mr Gear. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of certain Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Government by persisting with the Australia Card Bill has wilfully rejected the advice and recommendations of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia's ``Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card'' which unequivocally rejected the Government's proposal in these words: ``The majority believes the creation of a new bureaucracy of 2000 public servants within the the HIC [Health Insurance Commission], with the sole task of identifying every man, woman and child in Australia, is a wasteful exercise which will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud but will provide the mechanism by which the very fabric of our society will be irreversibly altered, opening the way for the greatest attack on the privacy of individuals as the `Identity Bureau' identifies, monitors, and updates information on every person in Australia.'' (Report, 4.55, page 148) Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government now withdraw the Bill as being contrary to the Common Law and traditional freedoms we have hitherto enjoyed in Australia, and should the Bill be nevertheless re-introduced, that the Members of the House without regard for party should unanimously reject the Australia Card Bill as being contrary to our personal liberties and the national interest. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard and Mr Prosser. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs; to further erode Veterans' benefits and privileges (monetary and/or medical) including Home Nursing services; 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 assure Australia's veterans there will be no further erosion of their benefits. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Ruddock. The Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth concern: about the evil caused by the fact that x-rated videos with their depiction of unnatural sex and often horrible violence, are allowed to circulate around Australia from Canberra. And Your Petitioners, therefore humbly pray that such circulation be prevented. The laws regarding obscenity in the media should also be revived and enforced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBO's) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new service, selection of telephones and complaints, in person at a convenient and easily accessible location. Telecom Business Offices provide this service, and therefore it is wrong that their contribution and performance will only be assessed on their sales revenue. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: instruct the management of Telecom Australia to immediately cease all action to close any Telecom Business Offices, and to re-establish the services provided by TBO's already closed. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Crawford and Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; Your petitioners respectfully showeth; That the introduction of an Identity Card, to be called the Australian Card, and National Identification Numbering System, is not in keeping with the established rights, privileges and customs of the Australian people. It is therefore, the will and desire of the said petitioners that the proposed legislation be neither introduced in its original form, nor amended in any way, but TOTALLY withdrawn. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jull and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Government's Australia Card will be an attack on the civil liberties and privacy of all Australians, will not achieve the claimed results, will provide a boost to organised crime and will be an enormous burden to the private sector, especially small business, already snowed under with government charges, taxes and red tape. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to abandon legislation for any type of national identity system and work towards building a society based on trust not suspicion. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl and Mr Sinclair. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to time local telephone calls gravely concerns all country people. Isolation and communication was the second biggest problem facing rural women according to the `Survey of Rural Women' questionnaire and any attempt at timing local calls will only add to this problem not decrease it. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that Telecom do not proceed with the timing of local telephone calls. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose the reductions in staffing of the Department of Social Security over recent years, and deplore the plans to reduce staff further. Social Security payments are the only source of income for many Australians. It is important that these people and their dependants receive their correct entitlement in a timely and efficient manner. This has been been made difficult by the effect of widespread changes in the last Federal Budget and the May Economic Statement, combined with a continued reduction in staff. We believe that people who are dependent upon the Department of Social Security for their most basic needs of food and rent should not be expected to put up with inefficiencies in the Department caused by insufficient staffing and the resultant inadequate training. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to instruct the Department of Finance to accept the findings of the recent Joint Staffing Review (JSR II) and increase Social Security staffing levels accordingly. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Crawford. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: We strongly condemn the Australian Government's reversal of its electoral policy to restore land rights, dignity and economic security to the Aboriginal people. We call on the Australian Government to immediately set about negotiating a treaty with the Aboriginal sovereign nation, and that this treaty with full land rights, be implemented under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, before 1988. We call on Australian Government to adequately fund and support the negotiating process of the Aboriginal nation. Should the government fail in this resolve, we call upon the Australian people to demonstrate their solidarity with the Aboriginal people by boycotting the bicentennial celebrations and sharing a national year of mourning in 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. 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 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawke. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the World in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. We consider that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. We therefore ask the House to take action to prevent the implementation of this legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The decision by the Department of Defence to close down the Macksville Sub-Section of 41 Battalion, Australian Army Reserve, is of grave concern to the unit members and citizens of the surrounding districts. The decision to direct unit members to Coffs Harbour, some 60 km distant, would impose sufficient hardship to prevent many continuing in the reserve and be a major deterrent to potential members. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to intervene to stop the proposed closure and sale of land at Wallace Street, Macksville, and initiate action to have a permanent Depot built on the Army's Macksville land. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia show us that whereas: The residents of Harkaway request the immediate replacement of the public telephone service removed on the 12th day of May 1987 by Telecom Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud; (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. 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 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: The Hawke Labor Government's Industrial Relations Bill will increase industrial disputation, bankrupt companies, and give the union movement total and absolute power over the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's Industrial Relations Bill to save Australia from the actions of militant unions and give our economy a chance of recovering. 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 Murray electorate respectfully showeth that: The August 1st changes to Medicare Benefit rebates are unfair to patients, such as those with chronic disabilities requiring consultant physician or after hours consultations. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to amend the Health Insurance Act and the National Health Act to restore the original rebates. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Beaudesert and district respectfully showeth: That we are strongly opposed to the proposal for metering of local telephone calls by Telecom since- (i) most phone calls by residents in country towns are already STD and it would be unfair to have to pay further charges for local calls; (ii) higher phone bills would add more pressure to the family budget, and some would not be able to pay them; (iii) elderly, sick and lonely people rely on the telephone as their communication with the outside world. We therefore request the House to give this matter a lot more thought before acting on the proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Sullivan. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The necessity for the Government immediately to implement the next stage of deregulation of the Australian airline industry by giving effect to its commitment to privatise Australian Airlines. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr BEALE(Deakin)(3.27) —In the Senate today the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Evans, moved a motion to terminate what is known as the two-airline agreement and tabled a document entitled Domestic Aviation: A New Direction for the 1990s. A number of things about the document should be noted. The first is that it seeks to implement parts of the coalition's policy on aviation. The second is the question of the timing of release of the document. The third is that the document is notable not so much for the things it says but for the things it does not say. It is particularly notable for what it does not say about what is clearly now the Government's commitment to privatise Australian Airlines. It is for this reason that we bring before the House and the Australian people this matter of public importance today. The Opposition has been pushing for deregulation of the domestic airline industry for some years now and we have done so against Government objections. I will give an example of those objections. This is what the then Minister for Aviation said in 1984-- Mr Lloyd —Who was this? Mr BEALE —He is now the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). We will come back to him. He said: . . . if the Opposition goes the whole way with its enthusiasm . . . deregulation would be thrown in for good measure. This is what he said: If the Opposition follows this scenario there is every chance that Australia's aviation system would slide into chaos. Despite all these objections, in an extraordinary act of hypocrisy the Government has adopted yet another plank from the Opposition's policies. Targeting of restrictive work practices, the reintroduction of negative gearing and tax reductions-all of those are now followed by deregulation of the domestic airline industry. What remains intriguing about this document is its timing. The first day on which notice could have been given to terminate the two-airline agreement was 26 January 1987. Yet the Government has brought itself to terminate the agreement nine months later-in itself an interesting period, presumably, as the Government has now found itself in a position in which it can bring this baby into the world. If the Government was committed to deregulating the airline industry, why did it not do it nine months ago? It matters a great deal that it did not do it nine months ago. Nine months ago, in addition to Australian Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia, East-West Airlines Ltd operated many services around Australia and gave consumers more choice at lower cost, much as would be the case in a deregulated environment. In that nine-month period, however, East-West has been purchased by Ansett and as a result, by waiting, the Government has created a situation in which there is less competition, not more. By waiting, the Government has created a situation which is quite the opposite of the situation it had hoped to create. By waiting, the Government has made it more difficult for there to be an open, competitive domestic airlines system operating for the benefit of consumers. We can, however, unlock the secret of why the Government waited until now to release this statement by noting how the Government's views on privatisation have changed over the last few months. Let me give some examples of what Ministers have been saying about privatisation. Listen to what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said on 23 May 1985: No matter where one looks whether it be at T.A.A.- now Australian Airlines- or the other authorities there is no case for the Opposition's argument in economics except simply to indulge ideologically in a Thatcherite vandalistic splurge to try and destroy these authorities. This is what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in the same year: Privatisation is a one-off fire sale. A sale of the century of your assets-they would transform them into the hands of a privileged few to the cost of every one of us. This is what the then Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation said on 19 September 1985: Privatisation is a cop out from proper government responsibility. It is the ultimate con job trying to sell people what they already own. As recently as 8 March this year in Bathurst the Prime Minister, when asked what he intended to do about Australian Airlines and whether he would sell it, stated: The Government has no intention in that regard. What has been happening in recent days is something quite different, for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been on the road to Damascus. This is what the Prime Minister said on 26 August 1987: Freed of these public sector borrowing restraints these public enterprises may become more efficient and more viable-an outcome which could only benefit consumers, taxpayers and the employees of the enterprise itself. A few days earlier, he stated: Certain government holdings that could have, and no doubt did, make good sense in earlier times are not necessarily what is appropriate for current circumstances. On 27 April this year, the Treasurer said: Some public assets may be used more efficiently outside the public sector. So there we have it. Need I say that we see yet another example of the Government adopting the coalition's policy? The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been converted to the privatisation of certain public assets. That explains the delay; that explains why the Government has waited nine months longer than it should have to bring out this document; and that explains why we are still hearing conflicting comments on privatisation from members of the Government. In a sordid little trick the Government is using this document on domestic aviation to sort out its own internal critics. The Government is using it as a means of resolving yet another faction fight. The Government is toying with public assets in order to have the cash to balance the Budget without adopting the urgently needed policy of curtailing the growth of government expenditure. This sordid little trick, this act of hypocrisy, this cynical exercise in the manipulation of opinion inside the Australian Labor Party is what the delay is all about. To confirm that the Government still has a job ahead of it in persuading its internal critics, let me give just one quote from the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton). This is what he said just six weeks ago: I am appalled at the proposal to sell off to private interests the public assets of Qantas, Australian Airlines, the Commonwealth Bank and Telecom. The Government has the job ahead of it, but it is quite clear that it is now committed to privatising Australian Airlines; and in this matter of public importance we are urging the Government to make that commitment openly and honestly and to give effect to it immediately. Under the heading `Role of Australian Airlines' in the document tabled today there is a commitment to `a strong, viable, efficient Australian Airlines' and then it says: This means that it is essential that the constraints on the airlines management flexibility and effectiveness are minimised and that it has an adequate capital base. The first thing the Government proposes to do is to incorporate Australian Airlines as a public company to improve its management's flexibility and effectiveness. There is a sense of deja vu about all this. In 1981 the coalition converted Australian Airlines-or TAA, as it was then known-to a public company. The present Government repealed that legislation in 1984. The Minister for Aviation at the time, who is now the Minister for Defence, does not know where he is on privatisation. Just look at the defence home loans scheme: it is on, it is off-and it is on again. This is what the then Minister for Aviation said at that time: It is the Government's view that there is nothing to be gained in setting up TAA as a public company. He continued: It is the stated policy of this Government that TAA will remain wholly owned by the Commonwealth. He said on 9 May 1984 that there was nothing to be gained in setting up TAA as a public company. Now we have the ultimate act of hypocrisy, the complete somersault by the Government on the establishment of Australian Airlines, or TAA, as it was then known, as a public company. Another aspect of this shilly-shallying that is going on is how it affects the employees of Australian Airlines and their morale. By failing to clarify what Australian Airlines' future will be, by failing to come clean about what the Government wants to do with the company and whether it intends to privatise it and by failing to make the necessary commitment on funds, the Government has sentenced Australian Airlines to a further period of instability and concern amongst employees as to their future. How can any management operate any company under these circumstances? How can any management placate the justifiable concerns of its employees? How can any management continue to run an undercapitalised business? Australian Airlines has already had to defer its purchase of nine A320 Airbuses. It has done this in an environment of uncertainty about the future of the company and, in doing so, it will apparently have to pay penalties to the manufacturer. What a shambles! The Government is simply not giving Australian Airlines a chance. That brings me to the advisory group. We always have an advisory group when anything becomes too hard or requires a sorting out of the factions. Guess what the advisory group will advise the Government about. After all the waffle, we get straight down to it. In the domestic aviation document, the Minister says that the advisory group will advise on: . . . in particular how it-Australian Airlines-will be able to meet its future capital requirements. What a gigantic smokescreen all this is. If the Government has no intention of privatising Australian Airlines, I will tell honourable members how it will be able to meet its future capital requirements. Almost anybody with any knowledge of business would be able to tell the Government how a public company could get its future capital requirements. If the Government is not going to privatise Australian Airlines, it just gives it some money. This is how the airline can meet its future capital requirements. We do not need any advisory group for that. The establishment of the advisory group now makes it clear that the Government has not the slightest intention of giving Australian Airlines any money. It is a smokescreen for privatisation. In six months, which is when the advisory group is required to report back, it will say to the Minister, `You have two choices: give it some money or privatise it'. There are no other financing arrangements that can be reached-either give it some money or privatise it. It will also say to the Minister, `By the way, you did not need us to tell you that the simple way to resolve Australian Airlines' financing difficulties, if it is to remain in public hands, is to give it some money; and since you did not tell us that we suggest you privatise it'. The advisory group will also say, `By the way, we have locked everybody in. We have locked the Australian Council of Trade Unions in, because the ACTU Secretary is on the advisory group, and if you do not lock the ACTU in you cannot do anything; we have locked in the Department, because the Secretary to the Department is on the advisory group, and we have locked in the left wing in Victoria because a former Labor Party president in Victoria is on the group. So, Mr Minister, now that we have locked everybody in, go ahead and privatise it'. It is abundantly clear that this Government has a commitment to privatise Australian Airlines, to take yet another plank of coalition policy and sell Australian Airlines to the Australian public. We are seeing a game being played by the Government in order to manage its internal factional fight. This game is being played at the expense of the Australian airline industry, at the expense of the future of Australian Airlines, at the expense of the employees of Australian Airlines and at the expense of the Australian travelling public. The Government stands condemned for playing this sordid little game. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(3.42) —What a great example the speech by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) was of shadow boxing and method acting, if ever I have seen such a thing. It is typical of the misrepresentation by the Opposition of which we have seen so much in the recent past. This morning the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, made a major statement on the new direction for domestic aviation and its future in this nation. Clearly, the Opposition appears unable to read or hear what was so clearly spelt out in Senator Evans's statement. It in no way committed the Government to privatising Australian Airlines, and we have seen the Opposition's old trick of setting up a shadow. The Opposition, in this matter of public importance, talks of giving effect to the Government's commitment to privatise Australian Airlines. The Government has no such commitment at the moment, and no Opposition member pointed to any statement by a responsible member or Minister saying that this Government has a commitment to privatise Australian Airlines. On the very day of the announcement we have seen the Opposition launch this type of humbug and wishful thinking. The honourable member for Deakin clearly is attempting to distort rational debate in the community about the future of domestic aviation. The Opposition had three decades in which to do something about the future of the Australian airline industry. In 30 years it did nothing to address the question. If there was justification for the two airlines agreement, the so-called duopoly, it ended in the late 1960s when the airline industry became a mature industry. But from that period on those opposite were in government for most of the time and they did nothing to address that issue. From that point of view, the Opposition has had ample opportunity to develop policies which would have provided benefits to the industry and to air travellers. It has a pretty shabby record as a basis for coming to this place today and saying the sorts of things that the shadow Minister had to say. It is typical of the sort of performance we have seen from the Opposition since the Hawke Labor Government came to power. This Government has taken its time, it has carefully analysed the situation, and as a result Senator Evans went into the Senate today and put a carefully reasoned and well-argued case for deregulation. Apparently the Opposition did not disagree with any of that, because it did not come into this Parliament this afternoon wanting to debate Senator Evans's statement. Opposition members came in here seeking to set up a smokescreen-and that was exactly what the shadow Minister attempted to do. Big talk and no action has been the hallmark of the Opposition. It has a total lack of understanding of the issues and concepts involved in the development of appropriate policies to lead this nation into the next century. The Opposition has no vision. All one ever hears from Opposition members is carp, carp, carp. There are major differences between deregulation and privatisation which Government members recognise clearly. Obviously the Opposition is attempting to mislead the public debate by confusing these issues through trivialisation of the sort we heard this afternoon. That can be the only reason I can see for the Opposition moving this motion today, especially given the clear statement made this morning by Senator Evans. I want to deal with the differences between deregulation and privatisation. I shall put it as simply as possible so that those opposite can at least attempt to grasp it. Deregulation is the process of removing regulations which unnecessarily restrict the operations of the organisation or the industry. That is very clear. Privatisation is the transfer of public assets to the private sector. One does not preclude the other, but equally does not necessarily include the other. The Hawke Government has taken appropriate action to develop policies for the future of the Australian economy. This morning's statement by Senator Evans continues that process. It sets the appropriate timeframe for future developments in the domestic airline industry. It sets in place the appropriate structures for a proper examination of the issues that need to be addressed to make sure that the right decisions are made within the right timeframe. We have given the industry three years in which to plan for the future. Three years notice is required by the legislation. The Opposition might criticise us for delay, or whatever, in relation to the timeframe that has been set up, but of course the Opposition when in government set up the three-year period of notice that is required under the legislation. It is pretty cheeky of Opposition members to get up in the House today and criticise the Government over the timeframe of the actions we are taking when they placed in the agreement the three-year period of notice which is required to be given to Australian Airlines and to Ansett Airlines of Australia before the notice period can run and before the agreement can be set aside. This is in my view an entirely appropriate timeframe for the industry and for the Government to develop effective proposals for the future. I believe that the three-year period is entirely appropriate, and it is ridiculous for the Opposition to seek to criticise the Government about that timeframe. If Opposition members are trying to say otherwise, they cannot be taken seriously in regard to their own previous policies, the legislation or the realities which face the industry. Senator Evans' statement sets out a comprehensive policy in which the future of Australian Airlines is an essential element. Is the Opposition seriously suggesting that we should make decisions about Australian Airlines in isolation from the industry as a whole? The statement outlines three steps which the Government is already taking to enable Australian Airlines to compete effectively in the post-1990 environment. The first thing we are proposing is to allow Australian Airlines to become incorporated. It will have the same corporate structure that Qantas Airways Ltd has had since the 1940s. As well, the Government's policy will remove day to day controls and restrictions on Australian Airlines in all but exceptionally significant expenditure decisions. It will detail terms and conditions of borrowing and leasing arrangements, investment of surplus money, choice of auditor, dividend recommendations and provision of insurance against risk. In all these matters Australian Airlines will be freed up as a result of today's statement. We will examine the scope for removal of broader controls in line with the Government's proposals for all government business enterprises and statutory authorities involving major borrowings, remuneration of board members and senior executives, industrial relations arrangements and superannuation provisions. When those matters have been addressed it will ensure that Australian Airlines will be lean and in good shape to compete in the post-1990 deregulated environment. The third step is the establishment of an advisory group to examine those questions which remain about how Australian Airlines can optimise its managerial effectiveness in the post-deregulation environment. The advisory group will consist of Mr Ted Harris, who will soon be the Chairman of Australian Airlines and who is now the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Ampol Ltd; Mr Colin Carter, commissioner of Australian Airlines and a partner with the consulting firm of Pappas, Carter, Evans and Koop Pty Ltd; Mr Bill Kelty, Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and member of the Reserve Bank Board and the Economic Planning Advisory Council; Mr Peter Redlich, senior partner in Holding, Redlich and Company, solicitors-- Mr Beale —That locks in the left wingers in Victoria. Mr DUNCAN —The honourable member will be very interested to hear that then. The other member of the group will be Dr Peter Wilenski, Secretary to the Department of Transport and Communications. The terms of reference for the group are as follows: to advise the Government against the possibility of either the removal or retention of the broad ranging controls to which I have already referred on the extent of Australian Airlines' capital requirements and options for meeting these requirements; and the means of enhancing the airline's management, flexibility and effectiveness and the efficiency of its operating structures. The advisory group will generate options and hard data across the range of possibilities for the future of Australian Airlines. This will enable informed debate to take place and decisions to be made, unlike the pathetic attempts by honourable members opposite, who would prefer to treat the Australian public like morons or mushrooms. The Government has ruled out only one option-that of the amalgamation of Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines, for the reasons that Senator Evans outlined in his statement this morning. The proposals that the Government has announced today do not promote or restrict privatisation as a future option. This matter needs debate within the Australian Labor Party and elsewhere, based on hard data which the advisory group will put together in the future. Labor Party policy is quite clear on this matter and any changes to it require debate within the Party forums. The steps announced today provide the opportunity for Australian Airlines to compete effectively with the private sector and to examine alternative means to increase its capitalisation. The Government's record on this matter is positive, especially when compared with the shabby behaviour of the Opposition when it was in government, which has continued since it was ejected to the Opposition benches. It is quite easy to see that once again the Opposition is attempting to mislead the public so that its own lack of initiatives is forgotten. The Australian people will not be so easily fooled. This Government has taken the initiatives and the hard decisions. The decisions which were announced today will lead to deregulation of the Australian airline industry. That will lead to significant benefits to the Australian travelling public, benefits which were available for years and years. As I said before, the Liberal and National parties in government for 30 years never did one damned thing to bring on proper deregulation of the airline industry in this country. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(3.54) —I support the necessity for this matter of public importance debate and just repeat its inexorable logic: The necessity for the Government immediately to implement the next stage of deregulation of the Australian airline industry by giving effect to its commitment to privatise Australian Airlines. A second point of equal logic is that the only way to save Australian Airlines as a proud and competitive major airline is to sell it to the Australian public-that is, to privatise it. That is the point that the left wing has to learn. If it really wants to help Australian Airlines it must agree to the airline's sale, otherwise it has no future because of the lack of capital and the lack of commercial expertise. That is something that will be rolled over Government members by the trojan horse of this statement today and of the advisory committee which will recommend that it be sold. The Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) indicated in his speech-I will be pleased if he will acknowledge that this is an accurate assessment of what he said-that Australian Airlines will not be sold. Is that correct, Minister? If it is sold will the Minister resign? Does he favour the sale of Australian Airlines or not? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member will not ask rhetorical questions. Mr LLOYD —I believe that as the Minister is representing the Government in this regard, he has a responsibility to answer those questions. If he does not answer it can only be on the basis that he is so confused about the Labor Government's policy on domestic aviation, that he really does not know the answer. After listening to him speak about Amann Aviation I think it has to be true that he does not know the answer. At least he has learnt not to open his mouth automatically whenever anyone puts something to him. The third point I wish to make after the point that the only way to save Australian Airlines as a major airline is to privatise it, to sell it to the Australian public, is that only by the sale of Australian Airlines will there be a genuinely competitive domestic aviation industry. It has been repeated time and time again by potential competitors in a deregulated environment that there is no way they will put their money into expensive capital equipment if one of the major players remains government owned. In other words, they are not facing a fair and competitive commercial situation. Mr Milton —It belongs to the Australian people. Mr LLOYD —That is interesting-it belongs to the Australian people. Has the honourable member read this document? This document allows for far greater foreign ownership of Australian Airlines than does the Opposition policy. The honourable member is supposedly a supporter of Australian Airlines being owned by the Australian public. That is absolutely laughable. He does not even know what the statement says. He is not only left but he has been left by the Left. One of the inevitable consequences of pressures on governments around the Western world today is that they are not able to provide adequate capital for their commercial enterprises. There is no more succinct example of this than what has happened to Australian Airlines by its inability to maintain its order for nine 320B Airbuses. That sort of aircraft is essential if Australian Airlines is to remain a frontline competitor. It has now had to defer these Airbuses from next year until the mid-1990s-the never-never. No modern government will provide the necessary capital. This Government is no different from any other government. Therefore, if it really wants to support Australian Airlines it has only one basis of operation-that is, to sell it to the Australian public and not to foreigners as it will be doing with this policy. The Minister has made comments about the policies of coalition governments of earlier times. He should look at the attitude of the Labor Opposition at the time when those issues were debated. Which was the most regulatory and restrictive party at that time? If the Minister looked at those sorts of things he might shut up a little bit and refrain from such comments in the future. Since the 1981 review with Hunt and later Fife as Ministers, the coalition parties have had a clear policy-a very graduated and sensible policy-in the 1982 legislation to transform Trans Australia Airlines (TAA) into a public company with all of the shares initially owned by the Government. And, wonder of wonders, five years later a major statement is made by the Government that it will do the same thing, it having repealed our legislation after being elected to government. That move has considerably damaged the ability of TAA, now Australian Airlines, to adjust its management to meet a deregulated environment. Honourable members opposite have a lot to answer for in relation to Australian Airlines' ability to meet competition and to give any confidence to its employees that they have any future whatsoever. That uncertainty on the part of Australian Airlines' employees will remain at least until the Australian Labor Party national conference next year. As honourable members opposite know, today's statement is a setup. It is a setup not only because it gives three years notice of termination but also because it is as inevitable as day follows night that Australian Airlines will have to be sold. That is the only future for Australian Airlines. The Government therefore is establishing a trojan horse advisory committee which will make such a recommendation which the Government will be forced to follow. If you people opposite say, `it will not automatically follow', you will be damned. You will be damned because you prevented Australian Airlines from ever having any real future or any real part to play in domestic aviation in this country. Australian Airlines, having come from a regulated environment in which it was automatically given basically 50 per cent of the passengers on the major trunk routes, will be devastated in a more commercial situation. However, this commercial environment will be to the tremendous advantage of the airline travelling public of this country. You will carry a tremendous cross-- Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member should be addressing his remarks through the Chair and not to `you' on this side of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —There is no point of order. Mr LLOYD —Further, the policy of the coalition parties-advocated first by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) in 1984 and then by me in July 1986; this logical policy of progressive deregulation which honourable members opposite are now copying-would have given Australian Airlines adequate time to adjust. Honourable members opposite would do a damned sight better if they copied our policy completely rather than just copy it partially as they are. If honourable members opposite really read the Minister's document and see some of the shortcomings in it they will realise they still have a lot to learn. The Government is not abolishing the Independent Air Fares Committee until after the three years notice period-and the Government has already wasted nine months of that time. Certainly the Government is allowing some independent charter services to start domestically, but it should follow the same course of deregulation began under the Carter Administration. Informal deregulation was allowed through discussions among the airlines and the competitive adjustment took place far more easily. Mr Saunderson —What a disaster that has been. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Aston. Mr LLOYD —Every time we put forward this logical progression, which the Government is now following and is wasting time in doing so, the Government poured scorn on us, impugned us and imputed improper motives to us such as advocating ownership by foreigners. Today that duplicity is continuing. It is inevitable that Australian Airlines will be sold. It must be privatised. If it is not honourable members opposite will carry on their shoulders the even greater cross of what to do with what was once a great Australian airline. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(4.04) —I am amazed at the belated concern shown by the National Party of Australia for Australian Airlines. I am amazed that the honourable member-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair wants to hear the honourable member for-- Mr Howard —We want the honourable member for Calwell. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr SNOW —I am amazed that the honour- able member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) talked about privatisation in the way he did. The Shepparton News has reported the honourable member for Murray as opposing the sale of Telecom Australia. The Opposition parties have a different policy. Mr Howard —Are you in favour of selling Telecom? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the Leader of the Opposition continues to interject I will warn him. Mr SNOW —The problem with the National Party-- Mr Lloyd —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Shepparton News has never reported me as being opposed to the sale of Australian Airlines, and that is the subject of this discussion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr SNOW —It is typical of members of the National Party to say these things in this House. I have a lot of time for them. As I said earlier today, they are bad weather socialists, and I can understand their defending country people. But it is relevant to note that our Party now has a substantial number of members-22 in fact-from country areas. In 1983 the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) described the two-airline agreement as something which was forcing Australian Airlines to fly with one wing tied behind its back. It is interesting that the honourable member for Gwydir has been sitting here throughout this debate. How can the honourable member for Gwydir reconcile that sort of statement with the sort of statement we have heard today, particularly from the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) and the honourable member for Murray? The honourable member for Gwydir, of course, knows that he was the Minister for Transport when that agreement was renegotiated in 1981. But here he is sitting behind people who are preaching new messages to this Government. In fact, the Opposition parties pursue privatisation with a great religious fervour-the same sort of religious fervour which resulted in the sale of British Telecom for less than its value, to try to avoid concentrated ownership. We now find British Telecom making a subscriber in Scotland pay the equivalent of $10,000 for a new telephone service-and, for remote areas, Scotland has nothing on Australia. The honourable member for Deakin may think that he sees the light; but he forgets about the hill. Good government means responsible government and the religion of privatisation which possesses the Opposition, particularly the honourable member for Deakin, has no official support from members of this Government. Every government regulated industry needs to be looked at constantly by government. Its efficiency, viability and best means of operation all need to be checked. The Opposition's blind support for privatisation-whether it be Australia Post, Telecom, Australian Airlines, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation or the Snowy Mountains Authority-ignores the need to look at each enterprise separately. In the consideration of the future of such enterprises as these we need to take into account Australia's dependence on the vast areas which provide a large proportion of its exports. The Opposition has taken no account of the needs of people in remote areas-whether they be shopkeepers, school teachers, government or professional providers, farmers or industry owners-to be provided with traversable roads, reasonable communications services and adequate transport by road, sea and air. That is why country people are better off when the government owns enterprises which can cross-subsidise, whether it is Australia Post or Telecom. Mr Lloyd —Why is the Government going to sell Australian Airlines, then? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member for Murray has contributed to this debate. I ask him to remain silent. Mr SNOW —If lucrative parts of Australia Post and Telecom were to be sold, as the Opposition wants to do, the city parts would be sold and people in country areas would be left to pay, in the case of Telecom, rents perhaps as high as $500 more than they are paying now; they would have to pay higher taxes or their services would be drastically reduced-probably all three. This is the sort of proposition that the Opposition is putting to us. It is important that we look at the historical basis for the current situation whereby the Government has a significant role in the airlines industry through its ownership of Australian Airlines, most major airports and airline terminals and Qantas Airways Ltd. In the mid-1940s the Chifley Labor Government reflected the Government's concern that if market forces were allowed to operate in a completely unregulated fashion a private airline monopoly in the industry would ultimately result. That is what this Government has to be careful about. It does not want to go along the track of the United States of America, where there was a massive deregulation, a sacrifice in safety and increased concentration of ownership. Subsequently, following the decision of the Chifley Government, the Menzies Government decided to retain Trans Australia Airlines as a public enterprise which would operate under a controlled form of competition with the major private airline under the umbrella of the two-airline policy. There are strong arguments for the retention of Australian Airlines. First of all, we need to ensure the maintenance of competition in the deregulated airline industry. We need to prevent, for instance, Ansett Airlines of Australia from dominating the market. Ansett is a well-established operator with a solid financial backing, under the ownership of Thomas Nationwide Transport Pty Ltd and News Ltd. It would appear to have benefited substantially from its legacy of 35 years of protection from market forces which the two-airline policy has afforded it. As such, Ansett has a head start on any potential newcomers to the industry, including a privatised Australian Airlines. Australian Airlines has been disadvantaged by its government status in terms of inadequate capitalisation and other restrictions on its commercial freedom-for example, superannuation and Loan Council approval requirements. The Opposition, when in government, encouraged Australian Airlines to decline. It is interesting that the May Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation observed: It may . . . be more reasonable to assume that in a completely deregulated environment Ansett Airlines' position would become such that only a government-owned competitor could be assured of survival. Another argument for retention of Australian Airlines would be that to give the Government an insight into the workings of the industry it is useful for it to retain Australian Airlines. These are matters which need to be debated in the coming year. One of the traditional arguments for government ownership of Australian Airlines has been to give the Government an insight into an industry which has particularly significant public interest dimensions. Also there is a major social role in bringing cohesion to a nation with a relatively small population. With deregulation, the need for the Government to have first-hand insight into the workings of the industry will be enhanced by maintaining Australian Airlines under public ownership as a public company. It is particularly important to ensure the maintenance of fair competition. We have to remember continually that Australia is a large country with fairly concentrated populations but with a very important need to service remote areas and outlying districts, which often provide our exports. How National Party members can hypocritically say the things they are saying, I do not understand. The government airline could assume a significant social, economic development role in maintaining those services to remote areas and in promoting down-market tourist services, which may otherwise be neglected by private operators. All those things need to be considered as we enter the debate. We also need to keep options open for a Qantas-Australian Airlines merger. We should not preclude such a merger by privatising Australian Airlines at this stage. The Opposition is not only jumping the gun; it is also ignoring the interests of millions of Australian people. It is particularly important that an international airline industry become increasingly competitive, and the need for Qantas to have direct access to a domestic airline network of its own will become more and more important. So we should not exclude that sort of option. Australian Airlines has operated under some disadvantage. It is expected to comply with various broader government policies in areas such as purchasing, salary structure and a wide range of exclusions-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(4.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill contains amendments to the Migration Act 1958 to implement decisions taken in the Budget context to recover some of the costs associated with the provision of various services under my portfolio. The 1987-88 Budget expands the level and quality of services provided to the community and to clients of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. In order to help fund these improved services some existing fees for departmental services are to be increased, and this legislation introduces some new fees. This reflects the Government's concern that some of the costs of services of benefit to clients should be borne by the user, and not the community as a whole. The increased revenue proposed also reflects the demand by clients that the Government provide faster and more efficient services. Such improvements are not always possible without resources being increased-resources which have to be funded. As announced on Budget night, there will be a fee, which will be set initially at $240, for reconsideration of certain decisions taken under the Migration Act. This is the same amount as the fee for lodgment of appeals with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In order to protect public revenue, the clause of the Bill that relates to the scheme-clause 9 (a)-will, on enactment of the Bill, be taken to have come into operation on 16 September 1987. The details of the scheme will be prescribed by regulations, which will specify the types of decisions which will be able to be reconsidered under this procedure; who will have standing to apply for reconsideration; the time limit in which such a request will have to be made; and the limited circumstances in which the fee will be refundable. The Budget also provides for an augmentation of the resources devoted to reconsideration of decisions under the Act. The membership of the Immigration Review Panel has been increased from 32 to 157 and the panels now meet in all mainland State capitals. Departmental resources allocated to the review task have been more than doubled. These steps have been taken to provide improved service and overcome the present backlog of cases. As honourable members know, the Immigration Review Panel was established in 1982. It is independent of my department and recommends to me whether decisions which have been appealed should be maintained or changed. The review system is essentially directed to providing an avenue for Australian citizens and permanent residents affected by a refusal decision made overseas in respect of an application by a close relative or a sponsored employee to seek the reconsideration of that decision. In some cases, the actual person who is the subject of the refusal decision-especially where that decision is made in Australia-will have the right to seek a review under these arrangements, provided that he or she was legally in Australia at the time the refused application for further temporary stay, or resident status, was lodged. Simultaneously with the introduction of the fee, the range of reviewable decisions has been significantly widened. Among the decisions that will be prescribed as reviewable, following a request by an eligible appellant, will be refused migrant entry applications, with the exception of people applying to settle in Australia under the refugee or special humanitarian programs; refused applications for permission to come for a temporary stay in Australia, apart from those in relation to persons coming to study; unsuccessful applications for the grant of resident status; and refused applications for extension of stay by persons in Australia on a temporary basis. Decisions not prescribed will not be reviewable under the legislation, but will be subject to existing arrangements. The fee that has now been introduced is refundable to appellants where the decision-maker on appeal is of the view that, on the basis of the information available to the earlier decision-maker, a favourable decision should have been made by the earlier decision-maker. To explain these new arrangements, I recently wrote to all members and senators. I note that representations concerning these prescribed migration decisions-if they are to be effective-will need to relate to a formal request for reconsideration. That is, no effective action on a request for reconsideration will be taken unless statutory requirements have been fulfilled, including the payment of the notified fee. Where a valid request for reconsideration has been made, representations from honourable members of parliament will be able to be considered by me and by the Immigration Review Panel. As I have mentioned, the introduction of the fee is in the context of the new arrangements to provide a much improved and speedier service for reconsideration of decisions. The estimated cost of providing the review mechanism in 1987-88 is $5.9m. The estimated revenue from the fee is $1.44m in 1987-88 and $1.92m in a full year. These changes are not meant to affect the recommendations about the review process made in 1985 by the Administrative Review Council. Those recommendations will be considered afresh following the report of the Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. Clause 7 of the Bill establishes the mechanism whereby a new immigration clearance fee for service can be collected and paid to the Commonwealth. At present, the full cost of undertaking immigration clearance services at ports of entry is borne by the Australian taxpayer. These costs are increasing dramatically each year, because the number of persons travelling to Australia is increasing and because of improved clearance services. In order to recoup part of these costs, it was announced in the Budget package that passengers over 12 years of age arriving on international flights and who require immigration clearance on arrival will, from 1 January 1988, be required to pay a $5 immigration clearance fee. The fee is to be collected by international airline operators who bring the passengers to Australia. In turn, the operators will pay the fees collectable by them to the Commonwealth. The amount of the fee payable by airlines will be a debt due to the Commonwealth. Revenue generated from the fee is estimated to total about $17m in a full year. It will be used to offset the cost of immigration inspection of passengers at airports; the costs relating to passengers who are refused entry; the cost of facilities to detect fraudulent immigration documentation; the cost of issue of visas; the salaries and other costs of airport staff; and general administrative overheads. Consultation with the airline operators is taking place to ensure that the legislation and mechanisms to impose the charge will impose as small an administrative burden as necessary on the airlines. The Bill also seeks to introduce a system of on the spot penalties for airline and shipping companies bringing foreign nationals to Australia without proper immigration documentation. At present, carrier companies commit an offence under the Act and, if found guilty by the courts, are liable to a maximum penalty of $2,000, for each foreign national they bring into Australia without proper immigration documentation. Clause 6 (b) provides that the maximum penalty will be increased to $3,000. The level of the maximum penalty has stood at $2,000 since the offence provision was established in 1979. Clause 9 (c) of the Bill will provide power to establish a mechanism whereby, as an alternative to proceeding in courts, it will be open to the Department to serve a notice on the carrier stating that it is in breach of the Act and requiring it to pay a prescribed amount as a penalty. The system, which is to operate from 1 January 1988, will provide that the maximum penalty will not exceed $1,500-which will be half the maximum penalty which can be imposed by the courts. As publicly announced on Budget night, it is intended that initially the penalty will be $1,000. The option will, however, still be open to the Department to institute proceedings before the courts under section 11c of the Act. Clauses 6 and 8 make amendments to section 11c and section 57 to facilitate the production of evidence in court, in the event of prosecution under section 11c. The present system of instituting prosecutions is both time consuming and costly, even though the factual issues are relatively straightforward and simple. The number of prosecutions able to be initiated by my Department is very small, which is of concern, given that the number of people arriving without documentation is increasing. Overseas experience indicates that a system of on the spot fines acts as a powerful incentive for international carriers to check more adequately their passengers' documentation prior to boarding and helps to reduce the number of inadequately documented passengers arriving at borders. It is not, of course, proposed to impose the penalties where a carrier can show that it had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that passengers had valid documentation when they boarded the aircraft or ship. A final matter dealt with in the Bill is that amendments are to be made to the provisions in the Act dealing with requests for entry permits and visas. In order for a valid request to be made, it will be necessary for any prescribed fee to be paid, and the request to be made in writing in accordance with the relevant form approved by the Minister. This was also announced on Budget night and will, on enactment of the Bill, be taken to have come into operation from 16 September 1987. The amendments-clauses 3, 4 and 5-will clear up an anomaly identified in a recent court case which cast doubts on the requirement that the prescribed fee actually was payable. The need to lodge applications in accordance with the relevant form will help overcome problems which officers of my Department have experienced in identifying whether in fact a person is making an application. Of course, in the vast majority of cases, applicants have always paid the relevant fee and lodged their application on an official form. This amendment is merely designed to help underpin that practice. Similar arrangements will be put into place, by way of regulations, in relation to requests for reconsideration of decisions. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. This contains details of the amendments I have outlined. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(4.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make a number of amendments to legislation affecting Australia's meat and livestock industry, namely, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Act 1985, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Act 1984, and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Act 1984. This Bill is associated with the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1987 and the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987. In regard to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977, the Bill formalises the ability of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation to work with the Australian Pork Corporation in the development of marketing schemes for meat and livestock. Provision is made for the Minister to prescribe by regulation individual marketing schemes such as computer aided livestock marketing, known as CALM, and the authority for the uniform specification of meat and livestock known as Ausmeat. The Bill also provides that the AMLC will be required to consult with the peak industry bodies in the preparation of its five-year corporate plan and its annual operational plan. In addition, the five-year plan is to be a rolling plan; that is, it will need to be updated each year so that it always covers the next five years. A number of specific additions are made to the information to be contained in the AMLC's annual report; these are intended to improve the level of reporting by the Corporation to Parliament on its activities. The powers of the AMLC to meet the costs and expenses incurred by industry organisations attending consultations with the Corporation are clarified. The AMLC will be able to make payments in addition to travelling expenses, in accordance with guidelines issued by the Minister. These guidelines make it quite clear that only reasonable costs associated with consultations can be met, and it will be up to the AMLC to ensure that activities for which it meets the costs are consistent with its powers and functions. The legislation proposes to limit the making of such payments to the Cattle Council of Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council. There is also, however, a provision for other organisations to be added to the list by regulation, should it become apparent that this is appropriate. Under the current AMLC Act, members are appointed for a fixed three-year term with appointments being staggered so that not all members change at once. It is proposed to make this arrangement more flexible by providing that members may be appointed for periods of up to three years. A number of changes are intended to streamline the administration and operation of the AMLC's annual general meeting. These include greater flexibility in the timing of annual general meetings, the closing date of voting registers, lodgment of notices of motion and the deadline by which proxies must be lodged. In addition, the provision requiring a vote of 75 per cent of those people on the register to pass a special motion or to overturn a Corporation motion for an increase in the levy is to be changed so that a vote of 75 per cent of those people present, either in person or by proxy, is all that will be required. In line with the Government's policy on the reform of statutory marketing authorities, the legislation requires the AMLC to adopt an equal employment opportunities program. This program is to be incorporated in the Corporation's corporate plans and a progress report is to be included in the Corporation's annual report to Parliament. The changes to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Act 1985 are designed to streamline the administration and operation of the AMLRDC's annual general meeting and mirror the changes being made in this regard to the AMLC Act. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Act 1984 is to be amended to remove the requirement that the Policy Council hold an industry-wide conference at least every two years to canvass industry views on matters currently affecting the industry. The Policy Council will, however, retain its power to call such conferences whenever it feels they are needed. This Bill also seeks to amend the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Act 1984. This Act provides for a selection committee to nominate members for appointment to the AMLC and the AMLRDC. The proposed changes are to allow for the appointment of members of the selection committee for periods of up to three years instead of the present fixed three-year term. Also it is proposed to remove the requirement for the selection committee to prepare an annual report to Parliament. The preparation of an annual report is considered unnecessary as the committee has only a single purpose and meets on an ad hoc basis. The amendment will bring the selection committee into line with other statutory marketing authority selection committees. The changes proposed by this Bill will have no impact on Commonwealth income or expenditure. I commend the Bill to honourable members, and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(4.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to increase the maximum rates of export charge that may be imposed under the Live-stock Export Charge Act 1964. This Act imposes a charge on the export of cattle, sheep, lambs, buffaloes and goats from Australia. As in the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964, the charge consists of three components which raise funds to finance the activities of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation (AMLC), the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation (AMLRDC) and, in the case of cattle and buffaloes, bovine disease eradication. Maximum rates are set in the legislation for the AMLRDC component, the disease eradication component, and the total of the AMLRDC and AMLC components. The maximum available for the AMLC is the difference between the current operative rate for the AMLRDC and the maximum rate prescribed for the total of the AMLRDC and AMLC components. The individual operative rates of charge for each class of livestock are set by regulation. The export charge rates for the AMLC and the AMLRDC are varied only after the Minister has received recommendations from the relevant body; that is, either the AMLC or the AMLRDC. Neither the AMLC nor the AMLRDC is permitted to recommend a change to the operative rates of export charge without having first had a motion endorsing the changes passed at their respective annual general meetings. The amendments proposed in this Bill will increase the maximum level of the export charge and therefore the AMLC's potential share of the charge, while not increasing the maximum rate prescribed for the AMLRDC or disease eradication. The proposed increases in the maximum charge rates are as follows: cattle, from $6 to $18; sheep, from 60c to $1.50; lambs, from 67c to $1.50; buffalo, from $6 to $18; and goats, from 60c to $1. The considerations behind the substantial increase in maximum charge rates are the same as I outlined in my speech relating to the livestock slaughter levy. The proposed increases will have no effect on the current operative rates of the livestock export charge, nor will they have any direct impact on Commonwealth income or expenditure. I commend the Bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(4.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to increase the maximum rates of levy that may be imposed under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964. This Act imposes a levy on the slaughter at an abattoir of cattle, sheep, lambs, buffaloes, goats, calves and bobby calves for human consumption. This Bill is associated with the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987. The levy consists of three components which raise funds to finance the activities of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation (AMLC), including its promotion functions, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation (AMLRDC) and, in the case of cattle, calves, bobby calves and buffaloes, bovine disease eradication. Maximum rates are set in the legislation for the AMLRDC component, the disease eradication component and the total of the AMLRDC and AMLC components. The maximum available for the AMLC is the difference between the current operative rate for AMLRDC and the maximum rate prescribed for the total of the AMLRDC and AMLC components. The individual operative rates of the levy for each class of livestock are set by regulation. The slaughter levy rates for the AMLC and the AMLRDC are varied only after the Minister has received recommendations from the relevant body; that is either the AMLC or the AMLRDC. Neither the AMLC nor the AMLRDC is permitted to recommend a change to the operative rates of levy without having first had a motion endorsing the changes passed at the respective annual general meetings. The amendments proposed in the Bill will increase the maximum level of the slaughter levy and therefore the AMLC's potential share of the levy, while not changing the amount set aside for the AMLRDC or disease eradication. The proposed increases in the maximum levy rates are as follows: cattle, from $6 to $18; sheep, from 60c to $1.50; lambs, from 67c to $1.50; buffalo, from $6 to $18; goats, from 60c to $1; calves, from $2.10 to $6.30; bobby calves, from 60c to $1.80. Substantial increases in the maximum rates prescribed for the livestock slaughter levy have been recommended by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation, with general support from the major industry organisations. The levels recommended to me allow scope for the AMLC component of the levy to be increased to enable the purchase and disposal of meat with a high risk of containing pesticide residues and to finance anticipated expenditure by the Corporation on programs being initiated to avoid a repetition of the recent chemical residues crisis. They also provide scope for the AMLC to seek additional funding for its promotion activities in Australia and overseas. On the matter of pesticide residues, I would like to congratulate the industry on its preparedness to tackle the problem. The industry, apparently universally, accepts the need to get its house in order and to take whatever steps are necessary to re-establish its reputation as a supplier of nutritious product to the world's markets. Domestic consumers can be assured that Australian meat remains a healthy and desirable part of a well-balanced diet. The adequacy of the AMLC's present promotion activities was the subject of lively debate at the last annual general meeting of the AMLC. It was apparent at that meeting that there was general willingness to support significant increases in promotion expenditure if the AMLC thought it would be cost effective. Passage of this Bill will clear the way for the possible introduction of new operative rates of levy if such are recommended by the forthcoming annual meeting of the AMLC. The proposed increases will have no effect on the current operative rates of livestock slaughter levy, nor will they have any direct impact on Commonwealth income or expenditure. I commend the Bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(4.39) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The principal purpose of this Bill is to amend the Export Inspection Charges Collection Act 1985 to complement the amendments to the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Act 1985, which are included in the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 1987. The Bill amends the provisions in the Export Inspection Charges Collection Act 1985 which prevent the extension of the `continuous registration' initiative to establishments which are subject to establishment registration charge. An explanation of this initiative is given in the second reading speech on the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 1987. The Bill also makes general consequential drafting changes. Other effects of the Bill are to replace a provision describing the time within which various charges are to be payable, so as to leave that kind of detail to be specified in regulations, and to remove a provision which will serve no purpose following the entry into force of amendments to the Export Control Act 1982, which are included in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1987. The Bill will have no direct financial impact, as the amount of charge collected will not be affected by the amendments. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(4.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Act 1985 to remove impediments to the full implementation of an initiative designed to reduce the red tape burden on exporters of foodstuffs. The Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Act 1985 is one of three Acts-the others being the Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act 1985 and the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act 1985 introduced by this Government to give as much flexibility as possible in determining appropriate export inspection charging systems for different sectors of the food export industry. At the time the Act was introduced, export establishments were registered on an annual basis subject to renewal, and the establishment registration charge was modelled accordingly, to be a charge on that registration, payable annually. Earlier this year, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service initiated a system of continuing, or perpetual, registrations, not requiring any renewal. This is attractive as reducing the paper work for the Service and for industry, and reducing administrative costs in the long run. Because of the inflexible nature of the establishment registration charge, establishments subject to that charge have not been able to participate in that system. These are all establishments involved in the preparation of fish and poultry products for export. The Bill amends provisions in the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Act 1985 which prevent the extension of this initiative to establishments which are subject to the establishment registration charge. Under the Bill, the charge may be imposed on a periodic basis and not linked to the commencement or renewal of registration. The Bill also makes several consequential drafting changes. The Bill will have no direct financial impact, as the amounts of charge imposed will not be affected by the amendments. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(4.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Sea Installations Bills were passed by the House in the autumn sittings and honourable members will recall that the legislation had the support of all parties in the House. Passage of this legislation is necessary so that a regulatory system is in place in the time for the opening of the floating hotel to be installed at the John Brewer Reef by Barrier Reef Holdings and to consider proposals for other similar ventures. There have been several proposals for establishing off-shore installations on the continental shelf beyond the territorial sea, mostly, to date, in the Great Barrier Reef area. Some of these can be dealt with under existing arrangements involving the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, both of which involve continuing Commonwealth and Queensland co-operation on policies and day to day management. However, proposals are now being made which require regulation beyond the scope of those arrangements. This legislation provides a framework not only to ensure that new developments are technically sound and environmentally acceptable, but also to provide a basis for the application of important Commonwealth laws in an area of Commonwealth responsibility where presently no general body of civil or criminal law applies, and for State or Territory laws to be adopted as Commonwealth laws. These provisions are parallel to those already applying under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, which regulates off-shore petroleum and mineral exploration and extraction. That Act and the Bills are based on the belief that the most efficient approach is to adopt State and Territory laws and to develop administrative arrangements involving State and Territory administrations. This approach also takes account of the satisfactory arrangements we have with the Queensland Government for day to day management of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park activities by the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. It is important that off-shore installations not be used as a basis for evasion of Australian laws, particularly those regulating customs, migration, taxation and quarantine. The proposed legislation will deal with this by requiring contact with the installations to be from the mainland or an adjacent Territory, and by including provisions to ensure that the laws in question can be efficiently and effectively applied. The Bills do not cover sales tax and income tax, both of which will be the subject of separate legislation in accordance with the announcement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in January this year. The approach taken in the legislation is to require proponents of off-shore installations to seek permits. They will have to provide information about the purpose of the installation, structural and technical issues, the extent of use and occupation by people, insurance arrangements and so on so that proper standards can be applied, and assessments made of the impact on the environment. Where necessary, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act will be invoked, as was done in the case of the proposed floating hotel off Townsville and is now being done for a similar proposal for the Fitzroy Reef. Permits will be accompanied by whatever safeguards are necessary to ensure that safety and environment considerations are paramount in day to day operations. Variation, revocation and renewal provisions have been included to provide a means of continuing monitoring and to allow changes to accommodate any new factors which arise. Thus, concerns relating to the number of permitted sea installations, particularly tourist complexes, which were raised during the second reading debate earlier this year, are groundless. This Government is not about to authorise a chain of floating hotels in the Great Barrier Reef region, which this legislation is designed to protect. The application of State laws and the use of State administrations will be an important part of this monitoring, in areas like health standards and others which will normally apply to similar operations on the mainland. The Sea Installations Bill makes clear that the States will be paid for their participation. There are several categories of installations which do not require further regulation, such as certain fishing vessels and historic shipwrecks. These are already subject to effective and sufficient regulation. It will also be possible under the regulations to exempt other installations from the new legislation. A provision has been included to allow exemption from particular aspects of the regulatory scheme. This will also ensure that there is no unintended interference with existing regulatory arrangements directed at matters not within the objectives of this Bill. On the other hand, care has been taken in defining sea installations to include non-exempted ships which remain constantly or continuously in the seas in question and thereby provide a basis for evasion of the legislation. These provisions acknowledge our obligations in respect of foreign shipping. The Bill's delayed passage has given officers of the Government the opportunity to fine tune its provisions. For example, the definition of `sea installation' has been amended to provide for further exemptions from the operation of the legislation, including commercial fishing and pearling vessels, navigational and meteorological aids, commercial cargo carriers, wharves and jetties and historic shipwrecks. These exemptions will ensure further that over-regulation will not occur. The Government has also recognised the desirability of amending the levy arrangement to permit a flexible and simple approach. In some cases, a fixed fee based on revenue or market value may be appropriate, while in others a fee based on the number of visitors may be best. This approach recognises the variety of installations, ranging from fairly simple pontoons to large hotels, which may need to be covered. The development of off-shore installations is already a fact of life. We are committed to harmonising conservation and sustainable development in the natural environment. This includes the seas. This legislation will be part of the Government's policy of protection, wise use, understanding and enjoyment of the environment. This approach is already being applied by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to installations subject to its regulations. I commend this Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(4.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is part of a package of Bills to provide for the implementation of the Government's decisions relating to sea installations. The levy Bill provides a framework for imposing taxes and charges on these installations. This will ensure that the administrative costs of the States and Territories are met, and that general revenue can benefit, as it would if similar installations were located on the mainland. The States have quite rightly pointed out that the development of off-shore installations for commercial purposes should not be at the expense of the mainland economy, and should not provide a basis for evasion of State and Territory legislation. The Commonwealth accepts this, and so the intention is that the levy be set with these factors in mind. I recommend this Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(4.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is part of the sea installations package and provides for the extra-territorial application of several Commonwealth Acts to sea installations installed in waters off Australia as a consequence of the proposed introduction of the principal Bill in the package, the Sea Installations Bill 1987. The proposed amendments to the Customs Act 1901 and the Excise Act 1901, contained in parts II and IV respectively of the Bill, extend those Acts to sea installations installed in coastal waters of Australia, or areas adjacent thereto, and give to officers administering those respective Acts, customs control powers over such installations and any ships, aircraft, persons or goods arriving with or at the installations or departing overseas from such installations. The extension of customs control to these installations includes the respective customs and excise tariff Acts, so that with regard to sea installations brought to Australia from overseas, for example, import duty will apply under the Customs Tariff Act in the normal way. The proposed amendments to the Migration Act 1958, contained in part VI of the Bill, essentially identify the point when sea installations and the persons on board such installations enter Australia, and extend the migration control powers of that Act to such installations, once installed. The proposed amendments to the Quarantine Act 1908, contained in part VII of the Bill, apply, similar to the previously mentioned Acts, a wide range of quarantine controls to sea installations which are installed in coastal waters of Australia or areas adjacent thereto. The principal of these is to make newly arrived installations, and persons or goods on such installations, subject to quarantine. The Bill is proposed to commence on the date on which the principal Sea Installations Bill 1987 receives the royal assent, with the exception of the customs and excise related amendments, which will be deemed to have commenced on 15 October 1987, so that the duty provisions of those Acts noted previously can apply as and from that date. A standard penalty transitional provision is provided for those amendments, however, to prevent any penalty or offence provisions under that legislation from applying to acts done, or omitted to be done, prior to the royal assent of this Bill. The proposed amendments in this Bill have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the House, and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the imposition from 1 July 1987 of an annual levy on all borrowings, including raisings of money otherwise than by borrowing, by Commonwealth semi-government authorities. The levy is imposed in place of the Commonwealth guarantee charge introduced in 1986-87. The Commonwealth guarantee charge was introduced to take account of the favourable interest rates paid by Commonwealth authorities where their borrowings are explicitly guaranteed by the Commonwealth. The Government's objective in imposing the charge was to ensure that the effective cost of borrowings to authorities was more directly comparable with that faced by private sector borrowers, thus ensuring that authorities take full account of the cost to the community of their investment decisions. Following a review of the operation of the charge in 1986-87, the Government has decided that the arrangements should be modified in three respects. First, the charge on explicit Commonwealth guarantees should be replaced by a levy on all borrowings by authorities. This is because the authorities' government-owned status confers advantages in financial markets similar to those which arise from an explicit government guarantee. The cost of funds to Commonwealth authorities appears to reflect an expectation by lenders that the Commonwealth will stand behind those authorities whether or not an explicit guarantee has been given. Second, the levy should not apply to Commonwealth-owned financial institutions, such as the Commonwealth banks and the Australian Industry Development Corporation. These institutions gain only little advantage in terms of borrowing costs from Commonwealth ownership beyond that arising from their status as financial institutions. Third, the rate of the levy should be lowered to reflect more closely the benefit that authorities gain from Commonwealth ownership. These modified arrangements are to apply to borrowings undertaken on or after 1 July 1987. Borrowings undertaken in 1986-87, which were subject to the Commonwealth guarantee charge, will continue to bear that charge until they mature. The Bill provides for the imposition of the levy at a rate not exceeding 1.5 per cent per annum, the rate of the Commonwealth guarantee charge applying in 1986-87. It is intended that, in respect of 1987-88, a levy at the lesser rate of 1.125 per cent per annum will be imposed by regulation. The levy imposed by this Bill is expected to raise revenue of some $1.3m in 1987-88, while ongoing revenue from the Commonwealth guarantee charge is estimated to amount to $7.6m. The impost is now described as a levy because it will apply comprehensively to borrowings and will not be related to the provision of a guarantee, which in most cases could be sought by authorities at their discretion. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(5.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the collection of the Commonwealth borrowing levy imposed by the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Bill 1987. The Bill defines the borrowings in respect of which the levy may be payable to include all borrowings and other raisings of money which the Commonwealth authorities subject to the Levy Bill are empowered to undertake, and provides for the making of administrative arrangements to collect the levy. The Bill also provides for the repeal of the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Act 1987 except insofar as it applies to borrowings undertaken in 1986-87. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(5.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, which is now before the House, contains a number of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1987-the harmonised tariff-which was passed by Parliament in the autumn sittings. The international convention on which the harmonised tariff is based will come into force on 1 January 1988. It is the Government's intention that the new tariff and the amendments proposed in this Bill will operate from the same date. These amendments, which are explained in detail in the explanatory memorandum presented with the Bill, can be divided into three main categories: First, those required to implement decisions on industry assistance and trade relations matters taken since the close-off date for the principal legislation. Many reflect changes already implemented in the current tariff; Second, amendments to correct anomalies created by the translation of current assistance arrangements to the harmonised format; and Third, editorial amendments to clarify the intention of the convention and to correct errors in the original legislation. The first group of amendments results from Government decisions on the development of the pharmaceutical products industry and the chemicals and plastics industries, and those taken following receipt of Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) reports on vegetables and vegetable products; luggage, handbags and similar containers; and reconditioned automotive engines. With the exception of pharmaceutical products and reconditioned engines, the amendments implement, in the harmonised tariff, changes which have already been commenced in the current tariff. Amendments following the Government's consideration of the pharmaceutical products industry and the IAC report on reconditioned automotive engines are consistent with the Government's policy to encourage internationally competitive industries and to reduce reliance on tariff assistance. The amendments reduce the general tariff rate on glycosides from the current 20 per cent to 2 per cent, crepe bandages from 20 per cent to 5 per cent, wadding from 20 per cent to 10 per cent and certain automotive engines from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. Also falling to this category are amendments implementing the Government's continuing sectoral policies in respect of textiles, clothing and footwear and passenger motor vehicles. The second group consists of amendments to redress assistance anomalies which have become apparent following publication of the harmonised tariff. In its report on tariff harmonisation, the IAC calculated that its recommended option two would have little effect on industry assistance generally. However, it conceded that duty rates for particular goods might vary significantly. Seven anomalies have been brought to notice which would have unacceptable consequences for the industries concerned. These, and the remedial actions proposed, are: Chain of precious metal: duties are increased from 2 per cent to 25 per cent to maintain the current assistance level. Solar cells and assembled solar arrays: duties are increased from 2 per cent to 20 per cent to maintain current assistance levels. Beverages concentrates: duties are decreased from 10 per cent to 5 per cent to maintain the current duty rate. Wadding of textile materials: duties are decreased from 25 per cent to 2 per cent which is the current rate. Certain air compressors: these goods are currently under reference to the IAC. Pending the outcome of this review, duties have been increased from 5 per cent to 15 or 25 per cent. The amendment reflects the more detailed structures proposed by the IAC in option one of its recommendations on the harmonised tariff. Motorcycle exhaust systems: duties are increased from 5 per cent to 20 per cent to maintain current assistance levels. Certain commercial cooking equipment: duties are decreased from 25 per cent to 15 per cent to maintain the current duty rate. Finally, the third group of amendments includes minor redrafting and additional notes to some sections and chapters considered necessary to clarify the intent of the convention, to correct errors and to strengthen some provisions in the principal Act. The opportunity has also been taken to remove a redundant item in schedule 4 to the principal Act. Financial Impact The decreases in customs duty rates for the pharmaceutical products will result in an estimated decrease in revenue of $568,000 during the financial year 1987-88. The vegetables and vegetable products industry has undergone considerable rationalisation in recent times, particularly in the processing sector. It is expected that there will be further rationalisation in the tomato growing and processing sector. The rationalisation of the rates of duty is expected to have minimal financial impact. It is difficult to quantify the financial consequences of the decision on the chemicals and plastics industries. However, it is likely that the removal of the concessional arrangements will provide some increase in duty payments. However, in the context of the Government's overall decision on chemicals and plastics which considerably reduced tariff rates, the net effect of the current changes will be minimal. The impact of the change to flax yarns is also difficult to isolate from changes associated with a move to a uniform 15 per cent duty rate for yarns and threads not subject to bounty. In the financial year 1987-88 the changes affecting flax yarns are likely to add approximately $200,000 to revenue and $400,000 in a full year. This is based on annual imports in recent years averaging around $8m from those sources affected by the 5 per cent increase in duties. The remainder of the changes to textiles, clothing and footwear are expected to have no financial impact. The reduction in duty on off-road vehicles from an average rate of 63 per cent to 25 per cent is expected to reduce revenue by up to $400,000 in a full year. This loss to the revenue could be offset by additional customs duty through increased imports as the lower duty rate plus removal of quota restrictions increases demand and available supply. The imposition of a surcharge of 3.9c per litre on aviation gasoline will raise an estimated $3.9m in the financial year 1987-88. There is expected to be minimal financial impact caused by the other amendments in the Bill. Details of the amendments contained in the Bill have been included in an explanatory memorandum which has been circulated for the information of honourable members and which I now table. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. 894 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 895 896 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 897 898 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 899 900 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 901 902 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 903 904 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 905 906 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 907 908 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 909 910 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 911 912 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 913 914 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 915 916 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 917 918 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 919 920 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 921 922 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 923 924 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 925 926 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 927 928 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 929 930 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 931 932 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 933 934 REPRESENTATIVES 7 October 1987...Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88...7 October 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 935 Consideration resumed. Mr LEE(Dobell)(5.10) —I wish to address my brief comments this afternoon to the appropriations for the Australian Electoral Commission. Budget Paper No. 3 provides for an allocation of $73,310,000 to the Australian Electoral Commission in the coming financial year. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Chairman, will be aware of the great importance to Australia of an independent non-political Australian Electoral Commission. Arising out of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in the Thirty-third Parliament, the Parliament passed legislation to dismantle the previous organisation, known as the Australian Electoral Office. The Australian Parliament decided that it was very important that we establish an independent Australian Electoral Commission which would be not separated from ministerial approval but made independent of the party political process. That is something which is quite important to the fair functioning of elections in a democracy. I wish to address my comments today to an attack by one member of this Parliament on the independence of the Australian Electoral Commission. The fact that that attack was made in the heat of an election campaign does not excuse the fact that a member of this chamber has sought to slur the independent Australian Electoral Commission. During the election period the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) put out a Press release on 2 July 1987. I will read the full text of that release so that I cannot be accused of not providing the full details of it. It is headed `Official Federal Election Guide Misleads Voters'. Above that heading it states: Julian Beale, M.H.R., Shadow Minister for Communications, Shadow Minister assisting the Shadow Treasurer. Mr Martin —He is the shadow. Mr LEE —As the honourable member for Macarthur suggests, he is the shadow. I mentioned that he was the shadow Minister assisting the shadow Treasurer because he has made a few arithmetical errors in this Press release. The Press release states: The Hawke Government's official Federal Election Guide grossly misleads voters, according to Julian Beale, Federal Member for Deakin and Shadow Minister for Communications. The Federal Election Guide has been posted to all Australian households. The instructions for Senate voting in Victoria are incredibly biased towards the A.L.P. The Ministers responsible for electoral practices must immediately recall all of these bogus guides. The Senate ballot paper in the guide indicates three ways to vote, described as A, or B, or C. A happens to be the D.L.P.; B happens to be the Industrial Labor Party; and C happens to be the A.L.P. ticket. No other political party gets a mention at the top of the Senate ballot paper. The Senate guide is laid out to indicate that these are the only three options. This is a travesty of the supposed independence expected of official government publications. I demand that the Prime Minister have letters of clarification immediately sent to all electors. It appears that the Government's dirty tricks department has excelled itself. The Guide favours the A.L.P., not only in Victoria, but in almost every other State. I will go on to explain where the errors are in this Press release. The honourable member for Deakin built up such a head of steam that he issued a second Press release on the following day, 3 July. In that one he again mentions the different parties in Victoria, group A being the Democratic Labor Party, group B being the Industrial Labor Party and group C being the Australian Labor Party. The Press release states: No other parties or their letters are mentioned in the Guides. The honourable member for Deakin, through this Press release based on misinformation, has launched an attack on the independence of the Electoral Commission which deserves close examination. I have the advertisement which was placed by the Electoral Commission in newspapers throughout not only the electorate of Deakin and those electorates in the Melbourne metropolitan area but also all the electorates in Australia. In no way could this ballot paper be alleged to be biased towards the Australian Labor Party. The honourable member for Deakin, in his Press release of 2 July, states: The Senate guide is laid out to indicate that these are the only three options. By that, he is referring to groups A, B and C. The honourable member for Deakin obviously had failed even to bother to read the text of the advertisement. I will quote the text of the advertisement which gave instructions for voting for the Senate. It states: The simplest way to vote is to use the top part. Just place the single number 1 in the box of the party or group you prefer. But if you want to chose your own Senate candidates, you can vote in the bottom part below the black line. To do this, you must put the number 1 in the box of your first choice candidate, then the number 2 in the box beside your second choice, then the number 3 in the box beside your third choice and so on until you have numbered every box in the bottom part of your white ballot paper. Your ballot paper may have more boxes than this sample. I emphasise that it states: Your ballot paper may have more boxes than this sample. The Australian Electoral Commission simply used this demonstration ballot paper as a standard for all of its advertisements throughout Australia. The allegation by the honourable member for Deakin that this was a bias towards the Australian Labor Party was simply a cheap publicity stunt to try to get a few column inches in the midst of an election campaign. In the last sentence of his Press release of 2 July, the honourable member for Deakin states: The Guide favours the A.L.P. not only in Victoria, but in almost every other State. Not only did the honourable member for Deakin seek to cast aspersions on the Electoral Commission, but he failed even to study the draw for positions for the Senate throughout Australia. The honourable member for Deakin alleged that the Australian Labor Party was successful in gaining the A, B or C group in most of the States. I took the trouble to obtain the details and in fact the Labor Party obtained group K in New South Wales, was lucky enough to get group F in Queensland, obtained group G in South Australia and group F in Western Australia, in addition to group C in Tasmania. So the suggestion of the honourable member for Deakin that the Labor Party gained from these advertisements was simply a fabrication of his own vivid imagination. Yet he went to the trouble of alleging that the Australian Electoral Commission was somehow part of the Government's dirty tricks department. That is a scurrilous attack on independent appointees to the Electoral Commission and he should have had the courage to withdraw and apologise to the Electoral Commission. Instead, he issued a further Press statement on 8 July. He did not have the courage to admit that he was wrong. He went on to state that another set of guides were misleading in that they provided misleading information for the House of Representatives. The simple point I wish to make is that the honourable member for Deakin was unlucky enough to draw the fifth place on the ballot paper in Deakin. As the standard advertisement which the Electoral Commission had run throughout Australia showed only four candidates, the honourable member for Deakin thought this was a conspiracy against him. His Press statement of 8 July states: Half of the seats for the House of Representatives are being contested by five or more candidates. The advertisements and the guides discriminate against candidates placed fifth or sixth or lower. The honourable member's claim that half of the seats for the House of Representatives had five or more candidates was another figment of his imagination. I have gone to the trouble of going through all of the 148 electorates throughout Australia for the House of Representatives. There were only 48 electorates in which there were five or more candidates-not more than 74, as the honourable member for Deakin suggested, but only 48. Having been lucky enough to obtain an engineering degree, I am a bit embarrassed to find out that the honourable member for Deakin, a fellow engineer, has made the basic arithmetic mistake of thinking that 48 is equal to 74. Mr Spender —He's a very successful engineer, too. Mr LEE —I am very grateful to the honourable member for North Sydney for paying me that compliment. The other point I wish to make before I conclude is simply to express my concern about the large increase in the number of section votes in my electorate of Dobell. In the 1984 election, only 67 section votes were cast. In the latest election, 701 section votes were cast. I would like to believe that that is the result of the Electoral Commission staff encouraging citizens to know their rights and to know that they are entitled to a section vote if their name is not on the roll. But what I am concerned about is that I suspect that a very large number of citizens have had their names removed from the electoral roll between the 1984 and 1987 election campaigns. It is my hope that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters will be able to investigate these and other matters. As the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) is present in this chamber, I am sure that he will ensure that these matters are thoroughly investigated. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.20) —I would like to reply to the speakers who have participated in the debate and to run over quickly some of the key aspects, policies and numbers concerning what is being done in the new Department of Administrative Services. A number of other portfolios and a range of common services were brought together in the new Department. I indicate my wish-and it is the wish of the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-to conduct a pretty fundamental reappraisal of the provision of common services to government agencies by the new Department. The three criteria I will be using are, firstly, the extent to which the central provision of services by individual agencies is necessary, as against just the central setting of standards; secondly, the extent to which any service provided by a central public authority should be in competition with the private sector; and, thirdly, the extent and method of application of the user pays principle for partial or full cost recovery or cost recovery on a full profit-making basis. I will refer in a moment to some sweeping changes that I have already made to the Transport and Storage Division of the Department-it is now called the Transport and Storage Group-which basically means that the division now runs along corporate lines. To an extent it allows partial competition in a wide-ranging number of areas. I will have more to say about that in the Parliament if I get the opportunity over the next few days. The assessment of the criteria I have just mentioned regarding the future provision of common services will achieve diverse results as we sequentially address the different common services. I have already mentioned transport and storage. For instance, competition will not be allowed in the supply to entitlees of cars with drivers or in the provision to departments of cars without drivers, but it will be allowed in the area of car with driver services for public servants-enabling competition with taxis and hire cars-and in the movement and storage of goods except in high security areas. We will be removing the average staffing level (ASL) limits of the division and effecting full cost recovery which will now include recouping the cost of capital. We will allow the new Transport and Storage Group to proceed and to be managed along business lines so that it will be able to retain in a trust account the funds that it might generate from the rationalisation of its property holdings, the sale of cars and so on. It will apply charges across the different departments on the basis of full cost recovery which will include a return to government on the cost of capital deployed. Many changes have been made and perhaps I will have the opportunity to explain them in more detail at a later date. I have mentioned that I have already achieved some of these measures but that does not mean privatisation or a sell-off; it means efficiency and competition. That is the approach I will be adopting. I will be producing for the Government and Cabinet a paper which will outline the principles which we might apply for the provision of common services. We will then proceed, as I have with transport and storage, to address different areas such as design, construction and property management on a case by case basis. We are certainly not proposing full and open competition, the removal of ASLs in all areas and even full cost recovery in all areas. We will look at all of them, as was done with transport and storage, on a case by case basis. We are now running a very large Department of Administrative Services. It has the construction groups from the old Department of Housing and Construction, all property management-both overseas and domestic-and, as I have mentioned, transport and storage. It also has surveying and mapping, the Australian Protective Service, purchases and sales, the Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology, the Australian Valuation Office from the Department of the Treasury, Australian Archives, the Parliamentary and Ministerial Staff and Services Division of the old Department of the Special Minister of State, authorities and commissions such as the Australian Electoral Commission and the Parliament House Construction Authority, the Commonwealth Grants Commission and media groups in the National Media Liaison Service. Basically that adds up to a budget which provides for total appropriations of some $2.25 billion to the portfolio, which is an increase of around 25 per cent on the 1986-87 expenditure. As I have just mentioned, the Department covers many areas now amalgamated into one area. The revenue to be generated in 1987-88 is estimated to be something like $482m, excluding the special assets sales which we hope will realise about $1 billion. Key components of this sales program are the revenue which is expected from the rationalisation of the Tokyo embassy complex and also the sale of the Commonwealth office blocks at Chifley Square in Sydney and in Melbourne. Net Budget outlays take into account the fact that expenditure and income will be approximately $1.758 billion. I have talked a little about the machinery of government changes, which really involves common services, construction, property and all of the other areas I have mentioned and the way that has affected the Department of Administrative Services. As a result of that reorganisation process, there will be a staff saving over two years of 750 on the ASL, 375 of which will be achieved by the conclusion of 1987-88. In other words, by the end of June 1988, the staff saving will be approximately 750 although the ASL will be down by only 375. The Department will have approximately 750 fewer staff members than when it took on these new divisions. This Department will be meeting the assurances that the Prime Minister gave when he announced the machinery of government changes. I will quickly mention a few issues and pro- jects in the property development area. In 1987-88 we will be providing $52m for civil land acquisition. A major element of the civil program is an allocation of $15m for the continuing acquisition of properties for the second Sydney Airport site at Badgerys Creek and $1.5m for site acquisition for Commonwealth offices at Logan City, Queensland. I also got Budget approval for the construction of a $143.5m project of 60,000 square metres of planned office accommodation in Melbourne. We are selling the old centre and building a new one. Similarly, in Sydney the 50,000 square metre project at the block bounded by Pitt, Hay, Parker and Barlow Streets in the Haymarket is a $120m Commonwealth development. That will supersede Chifley Square, after it is sold, as the main Commonwealth centre in Sydney. We will also refurbish the Edmund Barton Offices in Canberra, which will cost $25m. I have Cabinet approval for that project. We will get all of the asbestos out of that building. I think that is a very worthwhile project. Some $15.3m is allocated for new Commonwealth offices at Frankston and Oakleigh. We will be extending existing offices in places such as Ipswich, having allocated $5m for a major extension. Despite the constraints of the public sector borrowing decisions taken by the Government, because of the work that is already in the pipeline, we have an increase of about 19 per cent in the public works program for 1987-88. All up, it will total about $1,385.7m, including the civil works program of $195m and the defence program of $269.7m. So, $1,385m covers all civil works, all defence fitouts, repairs and maintenance in the departments, authorities and Commonwealth instrumentalities. I have already informed the Parliament that the Bureau of Meteorology has been given an extra $7.5m over several years to upgrade its severe weather warning systems. I have already mentioned transport and storage. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories will go into its second year of the cost recovery program and revenue will be boosted by around $6.5m. Overall it is a fairly exciting picture in the new Department of Administrative Services. Mr Spender —Do you mean that? Mr WEST —A lot is happening. It is starting to do things that involve looking at efficiency, running government businesses like corporations and effecting full cost recovery. These things are on the agenda. Mr Reith —What's on the privatisation agenda in your Department? Mr WEST —I am glad the honourable member raised that issue because efficiency and competition do not necessarily mean selling off or privatisation. What I aim to do particularly in the transport and storage areas and in other areas such as I have flagged which will be given attention is to give the private sector plenty of what it has always asked for: competition. I shall prove just how efficient and competitive a division of a federal government department can be. My view is that as I do that we will come out on top of many of the organisations that those opposite applaud in the private sector. We will see just how good the public sector can be. Vociferous Opposition members have suddenly found their tongues. Therefore, I draw attention to the fact that Opposition members were so interested in the debates on the estimates of the Department of Administrative Services that they put up only one speaker. I conclude my remarks, having not been given very much to answer in the debate, apart from what was contained in the remarks of the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), whose points I shall now address. It is a pity that Opposition members who have found their tongues did not rise to their feet during the debate and put forward some of their views. I can only conclude that they are as pathetic in debate in committee as they are at Question Time every day of the week. The honourable member for Wide Bay, who is one of the best back bench members in the Opposition-he would beat many of the members who are now taking up space on the Opposition front bench-raised the important issue of the Government's attitude to the Public Works Committee. Therefore, in conclusion I shall deal with the only salient point that arose from the Opposition's ranks. He mentioned referrals to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. I assure the honourable member for Wide Bay and the Committee that I want the client departments to comply with the requirements of the Public Works Committee Act to the maximum extent possible. I personally have great respect for the Committee, as does the honourable member for Wide Bay. As an example of that respect, the Government and I have ensured that the new instalment purchase projects for new office buildings, some of which I referred to earlier, if over $6m will now be referred to the Public Works Committee. I assure the honourable member for Wide Bay that the Government's policy is that projects worth $6m plus, both civil and defence, wherever possible are referred to the Public Works Committee. However, honourable members should understand that under the Act defence equipment purchasing is not necessarily referable to that Committee, nor ought it to be. There will always be the occasional project, particularly defence project, which has Budget funding approval and which can be legitimately exempted, on the grounds of urgency, from referral to the Public Works Committee. The Department of Administrative Services, while I have ministerial responsibility, will be examining the big issues regarding the provision of common services to government departments. At this point the actions we have taken to weld together a very large number of divisions from six or seven former departments is working very well indeed. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Proposed expenditure, $1,229,496,000. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.38) —In the short time that is available to me I wish to make some general observations about East-West security relations. The first thing I want to say, which is very obvious, is that security interests are globally interdependent. There is a tendency to focus on negotiations between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Social Republics and on tensions between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact countries. But over the last two decades the centre of gravity of international affairs has moved from the NATO-Warsaw Pact area to the Pacific region. What happens in the Pacific region, for example, in the Philippines, affects security interests in Europe just as what happens in Europe can affect security interests of Australia. The second point I wish to make is that it is said that we have had a peaceful globe since World War II. We have in the sense that there has been no world war, yet on one estimate the many wars that have been fought since 1945 have accounted for 35 million lives. Almost without exception, these wars have been fought in Third World countries such as Afghanistan and Africa. The irony is that it is likely that future wars which involve the interests of the West, even if the West itself is not directly a participant through Western countries, are likely to be fought in Third World countries where Western military strategic thinking and Western capabilities lie very much on the periphery. We have not focused our attention on what our capabilities and strategic thinking should be with regard to wars, conflicts in Third World countries, and how we may respond, as we may have to. The third thing that needs to be said is that crucially the security of the West depends on its economic strength and technical innovation. Without the continued growth in Western economies and technologies which underpin our military and defensive capabilities, our security is placed at risk. This is why the current protectionist sentiment in the United States and the Bills presently before the conference between the United States Senate and its House of Representatives are so dangerous. The last thing we need is the erection of trade barriers by the United States as inevitably the economies of other countries will be hurt and the likelihood is that the protectionist sentiment will emerge in other developed economies. The process of international `beggar thy neighbour' through protectionism is a formula for economic stagnation with potentially ruinous consequences for some countries, especially developing countries. Just as security is globally interdependent, so is the economic strength and hence the security of the West affected by what takes place in developing countries. This is why Third World debt is, and will remain, such an important issue. The burden of debt which has been incurred by countries such as Mexico, which owes $US108 billion, Argentina $50 billion and Brazil $106 billion, together with a number of African countries and others, is such as to present immense problems in debt servicing and even greater problems in repayment of what has been borrowed. It presents to those countries a burden on the growth of their national economies. One of the major issues which now face the West and developing countries is how to manage the debt problem. It seems inevitable that a greater writing off of debt will have to take place, just as it is inevitable that there will have to be a greater rescheduling of debt and interest repayments. To say this is but a recognition of the economic incapacity of a number of countries to repay the debt they have incurred. The reasons why they are unable to do so and the reasons why the debts were incurred are, to an extent, irrelevant. One has to look at the economic reality. It is in all our interests that the countries which are presently burdened by high levels of debt should become economically viable, since we live in a world whose economies are economically interrelated. I would like to say something about Mr Gorbachev, the General Secretary to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He is the most astute, sophisticated and innovative leader of Russia since Lenin, with a talent for negotiations and skills as a publicist and a propagandist for himself and the Soviet Union of a very high order. It is too early to attempt any final assessment of his likely effects on his own country, on the Communist Party in his own country or on international relations, but some things can be said of him. Plainly, he realises the depth of economic failure and stagnation in the Soviet Union. He realises that the strength and political power of the Soviet Union depend almost exclusively on its military capabilities and that as an economic model or a source of political inspiration it has failed. This means-and he has addressed this issue with great energy-economic reform within the Soviet Union coupled, as we have seen, with some signs of improvement in the Soviet system; for example, the release of some of many, but only some of many, political prisoners. In the Berlin communique which was issued a few days ago at a meeting of the International Democrat Union which I attended this was said of Gorbachev and what might be called the `new Russia': . . . but until all prisoners of conscience are released, and steps are taken to guarantee that basic human rights are observed within the Soviet Union and especially in Soviet prisons and mental hospitals, the situation will remain unsatisfactory. I add to those comments the words `deeply unsatisfactory and still deeply wrong'. There is no evidence of any change of commitment to the Soviet system. Some people believe that such a change exists. Plainly, from what Mr Gorbachev has said it does not exist. He is not talking about democratic pluralism; he is talking of reform within a Marxist-Leninist context. We should never forget that. The test of his intentions will lie in his actions and not in his words. In foreign affairs he is a far more innovative leader and a far more challenging negotiator than any other we have seen. His skills have been shown in the arms negotiations with the United States, both in the meeting with President Reagan and later, and with the conclusion of the intermediate range nuclear forces agreement, which has not been concluded but is likely to be concluded, I believe, before the end of the year, we will be further tested. The resolution and political skills of the West will be further tested in the complex of negotiations in main nuclear weapon systems, chemical weapons and conventional forces. We must not become mesmerised by nuclear weapons negotiations, because at the same time as those negotiations continue it is crucial that there be negotiations to reduce Soviet superiority in conventional forces. Let me give just one example. In Europe the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has 17,730 main battle tanks at its disposal. The Warsaw Pact countries have 50,000. Nor should we be beguiled into thinking that disarmament agreements are good in themselves or that disarmament is, in itself, a desirable objective. Everything depends on the terms of the agreement and on the balance of forces achieved. It is in mutually verifiable and balanced reductions in forces that the safe path in negotiation lies. The unsafe path is to seize upon agreements for the sake of having an agreement. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(5.48) —I direct my remarks tonight to the issues of trade. For almost three decades since World War II, the Liberal and National parties were in government in this country. While they governed, their policies were responsible for Australia slipping from eighth to twenty-third in world exporting rankings. Australia lost ground in almost every major overseas market, including Japan, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Western Pacific. The people of Australia should never forget this and they should never forget that the paralysis of will of the Liberal and National parties and their lack of capacity to develop policies to meet the challenges of international trade are still evident. I do not know what it is that prevents the Opposition from coming to grips with the realities of the challenges that face Australian exporters. It may simply be lack of ability, laziness or lack of leadership. Even so, given the paucity of new ideas and proposals from the Opposition, I do not believe its contribution to this debate will be constructive or helpful to Australia's exporters. The top priorities of the Hawke Government have been, firstly, to arrest Australia's slide in trade performance under the previous Liberal-National Government and, secondly, to put in place machinery and policies which will enable a dramatic improvement in Australia's foreign trade performance. The Hawke Government has established the Australian Trade Commission. It has actively sought out the views of industry leaders in agriculture, mining, high technology, manufactures and services. It has aggressively encouraged the development of the Australian Trade Commission to be an organisation of flexibility and independence with the ability to provide early warning of international market trends and to seek out and develop new market opportunities. Above all, the Hawke Government has developed economic policies capable of successfully adjusting to the ever-changing international economic circumstances whilst, at the same time, laying the foundations for structural change within the Australian domestic economy. Indeed, from the time the Hawke Government was first elected it recognised that it was essential to develop integrated industry and economic policies if Australia's future well-being was to be assured. Earlier today the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) made a statement to the House on the outcome of his recent visit to the United States of America, Canada, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. I will comment on Australia's present trade difficulties with the United States shortly. I now make some observations regarding the challenges and opportunities for trade that Australia faces with the Pacific region. It has often been said that the Asian Pacific region is now the most economically vibrant region in the world. Although the region includes the world's two major economic powers in the United States of America and Japan, it also includes many small island states in the central and South Pacific. As a Pacific region nation, it is essential therefore that Australia continue to focus more and more on our Pacific neighbours. The importance of developing stronger socio-economic ties with the countries of the central and South Pacific cannot be underestimated. One way we can do this is by fostering trade between Australia and these countries. These new opportunities must not be missed. Australia's trade with Papua New Guinea deserves the close attention of the Federal Government. Last year total two-way trade between Australia and the western Pacific region amounted to more than $32 billion, including nearly $780m with Papua New Guinea. Total two-way trade with countries of the South Pacific Forum amounted to just over $400m. Regional Australia has a vital role to perform in developing an awareness in industry that exports are the arteries of our national economic health. North Queensland is playing a vital role developing new trade links between Papua New Guinea and Australia. Honourable members will be interested to know that in 1985-86 total exports from north Queensland seaports and airports exceeded $3.4 billion and, given current annual growth rates, will probably exceed $4 billion this year. As an exporting region with a population of almost 500,000 people, north Queensland contributes over 47 per cent of Queensland's total exports, ranking it ahead of South Australia, southern Queensland, central Queensland and Tasmania. Major export items include coal, mineral sands, bauxite, kaolin, gold, marble, sugar, maize, wheat, beef, frozen prawns, fruit and vegetables, tea, dairy products, copper products, nickel briquettes, cement, industrial alcohol, molasses and fabricated steel. Exports from north Queensland to Papua New Guinea have experienced a marked increase since mid-1986-due almost entirely to barges and small-deck ships operating out of Townsville. These vessels regularly service the Ok Tedi mining project via the Fly River port of Kiunga, Port Moresby and less frequently Lae and other island ports. Since the commencement of the new shipping service by the Townsville company of Curtain Brothers the value of exports into Papua New Guinea from Townsville exceeds $30m. Dr Doug Hartley of the Townsville office of Austrade-established by the former Minister for Trade, Minister Bowen-has organised a trade mission from Townsville to Papua New Guinea from 12 October to 23 October this year. A 56-page Townsville export directory specifically dealing with Papua New Guinea is being printed this week. The Austrade office in Townsville is also actively promoting two-way trade to open up opportunities for Papua New Guinea industry to sell products to north Queensland. Timber, coffee, seafood and wood products are possible exports from Papua New Guinea to Townsville. Business in Townsville is enthusiastic to develop trade with Papua New Guinea. Given aggressive and co-ordinated export marketing, annual exports into Papua New Guinea and neighbouring islands from north Queensland could well exceed $100m per annum within four years. Three words sum up the motivation of north Queensland exporters-sell, sell sell. The people of north Queensland ensure that the quality of their product is better than that of anyone else; the next step is to go out and find the markets and sell. I now turn to Australia's trade relations with the United States of America. Australia and the United States have enjoyed a long and stable trading relationship. For the United States, it has been an extremely beneficial trading relationship. The balance of trade runs two to one in favour of the United States. In 1986 the United States sold goods valued at $US5.6 billion to Australia, and imported from Australia more than $US2.9 billion in goods. In May this year Guy Barnett of Taft, Stettinius and Hollister, a Washington firm, prepared a paper entitled `Summary of Current issues Impacting on United States/Australia Trade'. He made a number of important and accurate observations. First, he noted that Australia was the ninth ranking-in size-United States export market in 1985. Sales to the United States accounted for 10 per cent of Australia's exports in 1985-86. Major Australian exports include beef, petroleum, sugar, metal ores, wool, fish, uranium, iron and steel, metals and a range of manufactures. Australia supplied less than one per cent of United States imports in 1986. In 1985-86 the United States accounted for 21 per cent of Australia's imports. In 1986, 77 per cent of United States exports to Australia were cleared by Customs at non-protective rates of duty; that is, 5 per cent or less. Over 800 United States companies have established a presence in Australia, with the stock of investment being estimated at $US9 billion. The United States farm legislation-that is, the Food Security Act of 1985-introduced a new element of subsidised competition on world agricultural markets, and this has caused severe disruption and depressed world market prices, particularly for wheat, cotton, rice and feed grains. The system of `marketing loans' for cotton and rice and the export enhancement program-that is, the subsidisation of exports for wheat-have been particularly detrimental to world prices and to Australia's export earnings. Australia is competing in trade in agriculture with countries that subsidise heavily-for example, those of the European Economic Community, the United States and Japan. The European Economic Community's common agricultural policy has imposed tremendous burdens on the Australian economy. The cost of this policy to Australian rural exports has been estimated at over $1 billion per year. The two trade Bills presently before Congress are protectionist and if passed and put into effect they would hurt Australia's exports to the United States-particularly sugar, meat and wool. Given the increase in protectionism in the current United States Congress, Australians must be willing to protect their own interests-for no one else will. We have in Washington one of our most competent and experienced diplomats, Mr John McCarthy, who is responsible for promoting the trade interests of Australia with congressmen and senior American trade officials. He is there to ensure there is no misunderstanding on the part of our American friends of the gravity of any move by Congress that would deliberately hurt Australia's export trade with the United States. The process of reform of the international trade system must be pursued by Australia. We must be creative and tenacious on the question of reform of agricultural domestic trade policies. In this regard the efforts of the former Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, deserve the enduring gratitude of every Australian. In August 1986 he brought together 13 countries which shared Australia's interest to establish the so-called Cairns group of fair traders in agriculture. This group, chaired by Australia, has succeeded in ensuring that agricultural issues will never again be side-lined in the process of reforming the world trading system. The group includes Brazil, Argentina, Canada and New Zealand. Four of the six ASEAN countries are members of the Cairns group, and this has helped establish new lines of communication and co-operation with ASEAN. The Cairns group played a decisive role in urging the European Economic Community to move more quickly to unravel its elaborate system of farm subsidies. Japan, too, has been forced to acknowledge that it cannot continue for long with its protective barriers against agricultural imports. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.58) —I was interested in the remarks of the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), particularly those in relation to the need to free up trade and on the influence of trade in the well-being of the nations of the South Pacific. I was particularly interested in the part of his speech relating to Papua New Guinea because I wanted to bring to the attention of the Committee this evening some of the developments within our immediate region which are causing me a very great deal of concern and which I suggest should be causing the Government a very great deal of concern. I am particularly sorry to notice that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) is not in the chamber this evening while his estimates are being discussed. I start with the issue of Papua New Guinea because, as the honourable member for Herbert has already outlined to the Committee, that country has particular associations with Australia. There are traditional relations going back many years now and we have accepted a particular responsibility over many years in our relations with Papua New Guinea. I received very recently a copy of a newspaper printed in Papua New Guinea which disturbed me greatly. It reinforced reports that have been increasingly evident in our media about the problems that are occurring in that country in relation to the treatment of expatriates and what appears to be a breakdown of law and order. I do not think it should ever be forgotten that what happens in Papua New Guinea is of extreme importance to this country. I was pleased to see the development of a better relationship between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia because, of course, that has significant political effects in Australia. But I must say that I am becoming increasingly concerned that Australian influence in Papua New Guinea seems to be diminishing. I am also concerned about some other developments in that country, such as, as I said, the treatment of expatriates and that country's looking outward to other sources of supply. These are warning signs of which I suggest the Government should take very close notice, and I have not seen any evidence from this Government so far of its capacity or preparedness to deal with those potential problems, or even its awareness of them. Looking around the South Pacific generally, it is of concern to me that, whilst this Government is paying lip service to having a strong commitment to the area and whilst there is no doubt that officials from various departments have travelled around the South Pacific, there is also no doubt that at a senior political level it has been almost totally ignored by the present Government. There are developments in the area which must cause concern to all Australians. We all know that Australia is vitally placed, both strategically and economically, to play a very major role. Obviously we do not want to become an overbearing Big Brother. On the other hand, we do not want to be so timid in our relationships with the area that we do not take those positive steps we should as a nation in our situation, which would do something to dampen down some of those strategic wobbles which appear to be growing in the area. I only have to mention New Caledonia to highlight an area which has the potential for some real problems, both to its immediate neighbours and, of course, to Australia. The problems in New Caledonia have already had their flow-on effects in our relations with France, and obviously we have been taking a very consistent attitude towards France's continued testing in the South Pacific. But we should not allow that to stand totally in the way of effective liaison with France in dealing with the problems of emergent countries such as the, in my view, quite legitimate wishes of many of the people of New Caledonia. Vanuatu is another area that has the potential to cause Australia some problems. We now know that Father Lini's unfortunate sickness earlier this year has led to his decision not to continue, as I understand it, in the long term in a political sense in Vanuatu, but there are also developments there which have caused some concern. Particularly we remember the midnight flight to New Zealand of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) when the question of Libyan involvement was raised, and the problems that that overly dramatic gesture raised in our relations with Vanuatu. That is an example of an overreaction by the Minister to a situation which needed some calm political thought rather than a media publicity gesture-which really appeared to be the sole reason at least that one heard about in relation to that particular matter. We all know that the problems of Fiji are very much with us at present. I believe that the Government has not been well advised in relation to the developments within Fiji. People holidaying in the Fijian islands who returned to Australia some time before the first coup took place spoke quite openly about the potential for a coup such as occurred with Colonel Rabuka. We all know the unhappy sequel to that event. At this stage, of course, the situation in Fiji is extremely fluid. I hope that the reporting that the Government is getting at this stage places it in a better position than obviously it was at the start of the events. I should like to mention also, in relation to the particular area in which we live, the effect of New Zealand's foreign policy and its capacity to add to what I regard as the strategic decline in the South Pacific area generally. There is no doubt that the effective New Zealand break with ANZUS has added yet another factor to those elements which are combining to influence actions in the South Pacific. Add to those the increased interest of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the area and the reports of Libyan involvement and the situation is markedly different from anything which has confronted this country since the Second World War. It is not good enough for the Government to pay simple lip service to its responsibilities in this area. As I mentioned at the time it was proposed, I believe that the Government's pursuit of the nuclear free zone proposal has in fact added another factor to the instability of the region, because it has not solved the problems; it has not stopped France from continuing to test. It certainly has, as I said, added yet another factor to these changes within the region which may well have very significant effects on Australia's secure environment. I should like to see more than just the officials of the various ministries concerned being fully involved in the region. I believe they are; I believe a lot of departmental officers are doing very good jobs in the various states of the South Pacific. I do not think enough senior political attention has been paid by this Government to our responsibilities as a nation towards this area of the world. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to appear at a Pacific Forum meeting or for the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to have one trip around the place in four years of government. We need to have a succession of Ministers going into the area on a continuing basis to prove to those microstates, and the larger ones, that we are genuine in our concern for their well-being, that we are genuine in our efforts to develop their economies and that we are genuine in our commitment to producing a stable and secure region, not only for them but for us. Unfortunately, there has not been any indication of that senior political will within the Government, and I believe it is a very great mark against the performance of the present Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade that he has allowed that situation to occur. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(6.08) —In the time allocated to me to discuss the proposed expenditure under the portfolio of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I shall of necessity concentrate on only a few issues. In the Budget Papers under discussion, Australia's contributions to international organisations are listed. It is becoming increasingly fashionable in certain quarters in Australia and overseas to criticise international organisations, especially United Nations bodies such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). I have no doubt that many will argue for a downgrading of our role in UNESCO. Some might even suggest that we withdraw altogether from that body. Although understanding the reasons, I was disappointed that our ambassador to UNESCO was recently withdrawn. One of UNESCO's major achievements has been the establishment of a world forum for the discussion of global problems, particularly in the fields of education, science and culture. Australia has profited from UNESCO by contributing to solutions to a wide range of problems of interest to Australian departments, professional bodies and non-government organisations. In particular, Australia has benefited by building bridges within the Asian-Pacific region, which has helped to overcome our geographic isolation and generally furthered our foreign policy interests. UNESCO has 157 member states in its network of activities radiating from the Paris headquarters and, from UNESCO regional offices in places such as Bangkok, Jakarta and Apia in Western Samoa in the agency's Asian-Pacific region, helps improve the lives of people at all levels. UNESCO is the only international agency capable of providing the mechanism for such a wide variety of practical programs which promote peace, security and collaboration among nations in the fields of education, science, culture and communications and social sciences. Each year Australia's contribution is 1.64 per cent of the total UNESCO budget. In 1987 this represents $4.3m. The operating budget of the Australian National Commission for UNESCO-its guiding body-is about $160,000 annually. I might say that I am a member of that Commission. The return to Australia can be measured both directly and indirectly by our participation in UNESCO-sponsored seminars, training workshops and consultancies. Just recently there has been the opportunity for Australian consultants in electronics and robotics to work for UNESCO in their specialised fields in Singapore and Thailand. Around 250 Australian academics and industry people are paid for by UNESCO, Paris, each year to contribute to meetings, to exchange state-of-the-art technical information and to do research and consultancy work world-wide, and particularly in the Asia-Pacific area. The gains are obvious in terms of acquired expertise which later results in benefits to Australian education and industry and, indeed, frequently opens markets for Australian products. Australia also benefits as a signatory to UNESCO conventions such as the World Heritage Convention and UNESCO's international network of biosphere reserves. Such well-founded projects protect natural and cultural sites and unique animals and plants in Australia and around the world, for the benefit of future generations of humanity. The Australian section of UNESCO's APPEAL program-the Asia-Pacific program of education for all-which is to be launched in Canberra on 20 November, aims to improve vastly literacy throughout our area. Overall, the APPEAL program seeks to achieve complete world literacy by the year 2000. Australia was one of the original signatories at the formation of UNESCO in 1946. Its National Commission was founded in 1947 by a decision of Federal Cabinet. Today the 16-member Commission, appointed in an honorary capacity for a three-year term, has, among its various duties, the duty to advise the Government on the effectiveness of Australia's participation in UNESCO programs and to suggest ways to overcome any deficiencies or shortfalls. The National Commission has two regular publications-a newsletter and a quarterly review-which detail UNESCO activities in Australia and the Asia-Pacific region and provide a forum for discussion about UNESCO and its work. The Australian secretariat for UNESCO is based in Canberra and is provided by the Department of Employment, Education and Training. The specialist officers of the secretariat provide a working link between the UNESCO National Commission, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian permanent delegation to UNESCO in Paris and UNESCO headquarters in Paris. The secretariat is responsible for circulating reports, publications and technical material produced by UNESCO for assisting Australians contributing to the work of UNESCO and for assisting with the organisation of UNESCO activities, particularly the increasing number of projects directed to the Asia-Pacific part of the world. The Hon. E. G. Whitlam represents Australia on UNESCO's executive board, which is currently conducting its 127th session in Paris. Plans for UNESCO's major activities for the next two years will be formulated at the Paris general conference. Australia should continue its contribution to the work of this international agency while also striving to improve further and streamline the overall UNESCO operation. With the expansion of the former Department of Foreign Affairs to cover trade, I hope that more attention will be given to our relationship with India. I listened with interest to what other speakers in this debate had to say about our relationships with various countries. Having visited India several times in recent years, I must say that our diplomatic and trade staff in the New Delhi and Bombay posts are the most dedicated that I have seen anywhere. There have been some recent rumours that the Consulate-General in Bombay may close. I personally believe that this would be a great tragedy. India is a great untapped market for Australia. It amazes me that Australian business people fly over and view India from thousands of feet on their way to and from a market in Europe that is, to all intents and purposes, closed to us. I know that this is a time of economic restraint, but we should consider spending more money on our posts in India. We should have more people involved in trade there. India is a huge potential market for Australia. Not only is there a huge domestic market there, but also there is great potential for export to the rest of Asia and Africa. I do not think India would be a market for our manufactured goods, but we should be looking at joint ventures. If we had, say, a component of only 10 per cent of a finished product on the Indian market, this would be better than perhaps 100 per cent of the finished product on, say, the Malaysian market. There are many advantages in trading with India, not the least being that both countries are English-speaking. The business community in Australia is often very critical of the Government, but I think the business community has a lot to answer for in that it is not developing trading contacts with India. Japan, Canada and even Denmark are leaving us far behind in this respect. Recently when I was in India I met a representative of a company from Denmark who was selling windmills to India. When I questioned him, he said, `Do you have any idea of how many windmills there are in India?'. We would have a huge market if we manufactured only one component of each windmill sold in India. There is also great potential to develop scientific and technological links between the two countries. Naturally, I would also like to see more cultural links with India. The relationship between India and Australia is good but it could, with an effort, be even better, to the mutual benefit of both countries. In the minute or so that I have left, I would like to mention briefly our new embassy building in Beijing. Last week I had the privilege to be in Beijing and, because of my role on the Standing Committee on Public Works, I took the opportunity to inspect progress on the work of the new embassy building. This work was approved in September 1984 after being referred to the Public Works Committee in April of that year. The cost at that time was estimated at $33.8m. Work is only now commencing and the cost, for various reasons, has risen to over $60m. The Australian Embassy in Beijing performs a broad range of functions under conditions which, it could be argued, are among the most difficult of any of our diplomatic missions and which are undoubtedly more difficult than those at any post of comparable importance in policy terms. The building which is under construction is architecturally very pleasing. But, more important, it will give to the staff representing Australia in the People's Republic of China acceptable working and living conditions. I hope that the work on this important building progresses speedily. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.18) —In the few minutes available to me I want to say a few things about the estimates of the Department of Foreign Afairs and Trade. I find it rather appalling that the Government treats this place with such contempt. I have long been concerned about the way in which these Estimates debates are conducted. It is quite apparent from the fact that a very junior Minister is at the table that there is no proper consideration of Estimates in the House of Representatives. We all know that the Australian Labor Party, through its Constitutional Commission, wants to destroy the effective power of the Senate. It is doing that because it is only in the Senate at the moment that there is any effective scrutiny of the expenditure of individual departments. While I commend the public servants who sit in this place and no doubt take some note of the particular matters that are canvassed, it is the responsibility of Ministers to appear in the House of Representatives and to consider and debate those comments that are canvassed with respect to their individual departments. I know that the Government does not favour the idea of having Estimates committees. There is good reason for individual expenditure items to be examined far more closely than the debate at this Committee stage now allows. I am concerned that so many significant errors have been made in a whole range of areas. I do not believe that a proper opportunity has been given to us in this debate to pursue matters in a way which I believe is desirable and necessary. The first thing I would say about the estimates before us is that I am concerned about the effect on the integrated staff of the former Department of Trade as a result of that Department having been split into four parts. Even Gaul was originally divided into only three parts; yet, the Trade Department has been divided into four separate sections. It is in part the responsibility of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade; in part the responsibility of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce; in part the responsibility of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy; and in part the responsibility of the Minister for Trade Negotiations. Earlier today I made a few remarks in response to a statement made by the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy). I identified the concern of this side of the Parliament about the general trade war being undertaken between the United States of America and Europe and between the United States and Japan, and the repercussions for Australia. I also made the point that part of my worry is that not enough is being done within Australia, and much of the effort that used to be undertaken by an effective Department of Trade is now being totally negated by the split in the Department, and the fact is that the morale of so many members of that Department is certainly at a low ebb. I am concerned that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) is far more inclined to be engaged in the capital cities of Europe and the United States than he is in the markets and in the market-place, which is where, if he is to be Minister for Trade, his prime responsibility should be. I repeat my concern that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, as far as I am aware in the time that he has been overseas since his appointment, has not expressed much concern in what are the fundamental matters affecting every Australian, at a time when we have this chronic balance of payments difficulty, when our overseas debt is ballooning and when we must expand our exports and our overseas revenue in order to survive. I do not accept that the present restructuring of the Department is efficient, and I am particularly concerned that its fragmentation will weaken Australia's export and trading efforts at a time when I believe maximum effort must be given to exports, and not just to manufactured exports, for while we support them we believe our traditional exports still have a major role to play. Those honourable members who read the article by Ross Gittins this morning will know that there has been this year quite a significant increase in the returns from our wool exports. We know of the problems with our mineral and coal exports, and the Government is doing nothing. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) obviously knows very little about those problems. He gave me an answer in the House the other day and said that the problem in the shortfall of oil revenue, as a result of the rundown of the Bass Strait reserves, is going to be countered totally by the increase in the North West Shelf production. He does not comprehend that even if there is an ability to produce that much oil from the North West Shelf-which I doubt-the time factor will not meet the rundown and there will be about a $3 billion shortfall in Commonwealth revenue. That is an illustration of how the split in the Department of Trade is leading Ministers to make major errors in areas which affect Australia's profitability and which will certainly affect our future ability to fund the growth and development of this country. I do not believe that the general operation of the Department of Foreign Affairs lends itself towards the market-place. I have always believed that individual high commissioners and ambassadors should have prime responsibility in their particular posts, but if the Department of Foreign Affairs is going to assume policy responsibility for overseas trade negotiations, and, through the Minister for Trade Negotiations, undertake that responsibility with only a little back up from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, once again it must understand that the status of Australian Ministers abroad is critical. For example, in Japan a junior Minister has no opportunity to get through to the Minister who will be able to influence the Ministry of International Trade and Industry or the overall policies of the Japanese Government. It is of no use the Government pretending that because it has somebody there, he will get access. He will not get access in the United States or in Europe and certainly not in Japan. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the departmental officers have to comprehend that the role the traditional trade commissioners played, particularly the senior trade commissioners, was critical not only in the development of Australia's very considerable status as a major trading nation, but also to our reputation in policy formulation. In that respect I believe the Cairns initiative was well worth while, but I am apprehensive that it will not be able to be maintained by a government that has been decimated. I am very concerned at the way in which this Government is going in the defence area. There were a few brave statements by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about what we would be able to do in Fiji. But we no longer have an ability to land troops in Fiji if we need to. It was absolute nonsense for there to be some illusion that Australia would be able to send a defence force to Fiji to help Australian tourists if we needed to. The landing ships heavies have largely been put in mothballs in Cairns, and those that are not in mothballs are carrying out surveying operations in conjunction with HMAS Cook. It is not possible for the Australian Services, with the rundown in manpower and the change in the structure of the Defence Force, to undertake their responsibilities in this part of the world. I have said on other occasions that I am concerned that the Government began with a report which, through Mr Dibb, was hailed as being the solution to all of Australia's defence problems. Progressively through the Dibb report on the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, and in the White Paper, there was an expectation that we would have a better defence capacity. That is not so, and today we have in particular a major rundown in defence personnel. None of that has come out in these papers because the Government is refusing to release half the statistics on the people available within our defence forces. I am told that within the first six months of this year 4,770 service personnel left the Australian Defence Force. In a paper prepared by the Assistant Chief of Defence Force Staff and given to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in January of this year, by the Chief of Defence Force Staff, alarming wastage trends were highlighted. Statistics for the first quarter for 1987-88 show actual wastage of 128 against 98 for 1985-86. Among other things, the paper said: The increased wastage rates are impacting adversely on the Services as increasing resources are diverted into recruiting and training functions to allow increased training rates. Administrative and other costs are also increasing and experience levels are being diluted. The Army officer separation rates are of major concern and, particularly so, because of the increasing tend for MAJ/CAP and LT/2LT ranks to separate from the Service. The Army male officer wastage rate for financial year 1985-86 was 9.7% compared with five and 10 year rates of 6.9% and 6.4% respectively. The high rates experienced by Army in 1985-86 show little sign of abating. The Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force are experiencing exactly the same problems. The point is that this Government is not doing anything to overcome the wastage rates, because it has not undertaken the necessary measures to reduce the run-off in personnel. Unless there is an urgent inquiry undertaken by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal into comparable terms and conditions in the bureaucracy and in the private sector, we are not going to be able to offset the problems in personnel. The Government must understand that we, on this side of the House, do not accept that our Defence Force today is in a proper state, simply because the Government has been walking away from its proper responsibility to those members of the armed forces who wear the Queen's uniform in Her Majesty's Australian colours. I think it is critical that in any analysis of these estimates we understand that in defence in particular this Government has failed miserably in its responsibilities to the Australian community. Sitting suspended from 6.27 to 8 p.m. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.00) —I wish to discuss the estimates of expenditure for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In that context I want to address myself primarily to the elements of the budget for the Department which deal with Australia's overseas aid program and, in particular, to the statement circulated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) as Budget Related Paper No. 4. Mr McLeay, it may surprise you that some years ago I undertook the preparation of a paper on human rights. I have been a long-standing member of the parliamentary group of Amnesty International. As such, I am very much aware of the emphasis many of us place on what we regard as the fundamental human right of personal freedom. I have worked strongly for prisoners of conscience, those who have been tortured or lost their lives because of their political views. While preparing my paper on human rights I came across a speech given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade-a very eloquent speech which went into some detail about human rights in the terms in which I understand them. It also posed the question as to what we, as Australians concerned about personal freedoms, were doing about the other aspects of human rights: the right to eat, the right to live and to bring up one's family with dignity; in other words, the right to enjoy a reasonable standard of living and to live in a country where one is able to achieve development and where resources will be available to ensure that the freedoms we regard as fundamental can be enjoyed. In other words, one cannot talk about freedom of the individual unless one is prepared to give people food to put into their stomachs. That argument put by the Minister was very reasonable and very strong. Yet now, under a Labor Government, we have had one of the most remarkable turnarounds in Australia's history. For the first time the countries which have problems in feeding people, the countries to which all the points the Minister was making so eloquently and so strongly can be applied, are now very poorly supported by Australia. For the first time we have slipped below the international average for aid donor countries. The level of aid this year is expected to drop to 0.36 per cent of gross national product, compared with the forecast international average of 3.8 per cent. That is the information given to us by the Australian Council for Overseas Aid. The foreword to the statement circulated by the Minister is the most remarkable foreword I have ever read. He had this to say about our miserable performance: Because the growth rate of the Australian economy is expected to be somewhat faster than the increase in aid, as a share of GNP aid is expected to be lower than in 1986-87-0.36% compared to 0.38% last year. What a remarkable piece of convoluted logic to describe the enormous reduction in real terms in Australia's overseas aid budget. In real terms there has been a 3.4 per cent cut in aid in this year's Budget. Aid is at its lowest level for more than a quarter of a century. All of this has happened under a Labor Government. Recently I heard a statement about our present relationships with countries overseas. The view was put that in the context of Australia's economic difficulties charity ought to begin at home. But somebody put to me more recently a more accurate statement of that euphemism which is often used as a basis for reducing overseas aid. It was this: charity may begin at home but it should not end there. Recognising that we have problems in Australia and that we need to take a critical look at our own levels of expenditure, we still have to have priorities. In the region in which we live as a nation-the Pacific, South East Asia-we have a special responsibility. I draw the attention of honourable members to the speech made earlier by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who spoke about possible future problems in our region vis-a-vis Papua New Guinea. Whilst Papua New Guinea will remain the largest recipient of Australia's overseas aid, nevertheless overall aid to that country will continue to contract. The Minister's statement made the following point: The level of Australian aid to Papua New Guinea, which has been steadily declining for some time, is expected to continue to fall in 1987-88. Assistance to the rest of the South Pacific region will also fall slightly in 1987-88, reflecting the fact that expenditure in 1986-87 was inflated by the provision of a once only payment . . . for the Tuvalu trust fund. There are significant problems in the way Australia is perceived by nations in the South Pacific; yet Australia's relationships will be jeopardised by the continuing contraction of its overseas aid in the region in which we live. In the time left to me I would like to make briefly some other points in relation to the aid program generally. I am disappointed that Australia continues to give such a poor performance in support for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I am very conscious of the programs he supports in our region, which are important in providing a resolution in part to the problems occasioned by people being dispossessed of their homelands, as we have seen in Kampuchea, Vietnam and the like. I would like from the Minister some clarification of questions I have posed previously about the International Fund for Agricultural Development. The Minister would no doubt be aware of the important role played by this fund for the rural poor. He would also be aware of my continuing concern that Australia ought to make known its contribution to the second replenishment that that organisation has requested and its contribution to the sub-Saharan Africa pledge, which Australia has been requested to assist. In the context of this debate I would also like to seek from the Minister information on the situation involving Kampuchea. I note that there were some weeks ago news reports that the Kampuchean Prime Minister, Hun Sen, had said that he was willing to deal directly with the Khmer Rouge leader, Khieu Samphan. I would like the Minister to clarify for the Parliament the developments occuring in relation to Kampuchea in particular and whether he sees this new approach of the Kampuchean Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister as a realistic move on their part, one from which we might see some new developments. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(8.10) —Mr Chairman, last year when I spoke in this very same debate-I recall it was on 16 October-I expressed my concern about the South Pacific region. At the end of my speech I called on the Government to make a substantial statement on what it proposed to do in the region-a coherent statement indicating the direction and the substance of Government policy in that part of the world so vital to our future. What disturbs me is that, over the past 12 months since I made that speech, the Government has done absolutely nothing to co-ordinate and make coherent its policies in our region. That is, I think, a very serious matter; and that has been shown up so clearly in our responses to the two coups that have taken place recently in Fiji. Over the past 4 1/2 years the Opposition has repeatedly commented that the Australian Government has given too low a priority to the South Pacific. If it is not too cheap a political point to make, there is no doubt that the fact that the Minister has made the one, albeit extensive, sweep through the South Pacific-and I point out that he has made one visit also to Central America in the same period-is a matter of concern. I think the Minister should spend more time in the South Pacific, more time talking with the leaders and the governments of those nations. I have said before that I am concerned that the Government abandoned the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meetings. I think the Minister would now concede that, in retrospect and in all honesty, that was a pity, because that organisation would have been extremely helpful in the sort of crisis we are now faced with in Fiji. The Opposition had some very real reservations about the one initiative that this Government has pursued in the South Pacific-the establishment of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. That has, of course, come at a time of real concern about the stability and the security of the region, at a time of real concern with the collapse of the ANZUS alliance and the withdrawal of New Zealand into a Finland- isation policy. The Government's only initiative has been to pursue the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, something that weakens the role of the United States of America and the Western alliance in our region. I take up the very important point made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). Year after year the Government has reduced our aid as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP), and I assume that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) has simply been rolled on this matter time and again in Cabinet by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). But when one looks at the figures for aid to the South Pacific, excluding Papua New Guinea, it is a matter of real concern to me that the Government has once more given our region such a low priority. The total figures are not too bad. There is a decline, but it is a decline of $1m in the estimated aid to the South Pacific from $69.7m to $68.2m. Taking into account that it was proposed to increase aid to Fiji from more than $12m to $20m, as a result of the Government's response to the second coup in Fiji we can assume that that $20m will not be spent. There has been a reduction in real terms in aid to countries like the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tonga, Western Samoa, Kiribati, the Cook Islands, and so on. It seems to me that, at a time of regional instability and regional concern, the Government should be moving in the opposite direction. It would be good foreign policy to be moving in the opposite direction and, as the honourable member for Dundas pointed out several times, it is good humanitarian policy to ensure that the level of aid as a proportion of GDP aims towards the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. But we are moving in the wrong direction. These are practical issues of Australia's relationship with the South Pacific. I sincerely believe that, in confronting that complicated and ever-changing relationship, the Government, to use a word, has been negligent. We are never told by the Government or by the Minister specifically what the objectives are in our region and what the principles are by which the Government will abide in pursuing its regional diplomacy. We should have elucidated by the Minister very clear and very simple objectives. After all, putting it simply, we as Australians want stability and prosperity in our region. That is why a coherent foreign policy and a generous aid policy are important in the pursuit of those objectives. Australia is a force in this region and we should not be ashamed of that. We should not be walking away from that; we should not be wringing our hands and putting our heads down and saying that we should not be a force in the region. We should believe that we, as Australians, are a force for good-not nasty, overbearing imperialists but a country with very strong philosophical values which are humanitarian and caring about individuals and a country also with considerable regional economic strength which can be used not to oppress people but to the benefit and the enrichment of the region. The Government, in my view, has been embarrassed to play a role-I suspect for philosophical reasons-and it has therefore tended to ignore the region as though it were nothing to do with Australia, as though it would be wrong to use our influence for good in the region. I think that is very regrettable. That shows the Government's lack of response to our regional objectives. But what of the Government's principles in relation to the region? I imagine that, as an Australian government, it would believe in the values of self-determination for all the peoples of our region and in the pursuit of a pluralist democracy. Certainly the Opposition believes that, if individuals are free to determine their own futures, that is the sure path to domestic stability in any country. As far as those principles are concerned, there is some confusion in relation to the Government's policy. The Government does not pursue the principles of self-determination and pluralistic democracy in the case of New Caledonia. A referendum was organised-I think on 13 September-by the French Government in New Caledonia. The Hawke Government did not allege that the referendum was in some way stacked or illegal, or was in some other way illegitimate, but accepted that it was legitimate. We all know the result of that referendum: in a genuine act of self-determination, whether we like it or not-and I know the Government does not like it-the people of New Caledonia expressed a majority view that they wanted to remain part of France and not become an entirely independent country. I believe there has been no Press statement from the Minister on this issue, but in subsequent briefings the Government has said it did not really like the result of the referendum and that the French Government had given the people of New Caledonia the wrong choices. So the Hawke Government decided that the referendum did not count. In a briefing note which has kindly been provided to me by the Minister's office the Government said that its objectives in New Caledonia were an orderly transition to multiracial independence which recognised the rights of indigenous people and so on. It is fair enough to recognise the rights of indigenous people, but what is this about having a policy which pursues multiracial independence when we are supposed to be a country which believes in self-determination? There is an issue of the rights of indigenous people. We do not know how the Government addresses that issue. We do not know what its policy and its philosophy towards the rights of indigenous people are. We assume that the Government supports the principle of self-determination; but at the same time the Government is arguing for decolonisation in New Caledonia and is apparently putting the rights of indigenous people, as the Government sees it, above the right to self-determination. I would like that matter clarified, particularly as the Government's policy on New Caledonia-without having time to explain it-contradicts its policy on Fiji. I am not criticising the Government's policy in general on Fiji, but I want the Government to make a clear statement about our relationship with the South Pacific, about the values and the guiding principles of that relationship, and about the economic objectives that we as a nation can pursue to enhance the living standards of ordinary people throughout our region. Do not let us be ashamed as Australians of the important role we can play in the Pacific. We should be a force for good; we should be proud that we are a force for good; and we should pursue the objectives we believe in in our region. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(8.20) —I wish to comment on this year's overseas aid allocation. This year's overseas aid allocation was cut by 3.4 per cent in real terms. Our aid allocation will drop as a percentage of gross national product and drop below the international average for aid donor countries. As a result of inflation, our aid allocation is 16 per cent lower than it was two years ago. I want to put these statistics in context. Each week across the globe 280,000 children die in what the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) has described as the `silent emergency' of frequent infection and widespread malnutrition. In developing countries the number of child deaths under five years of age each year is almost equal to that of the population of Australia-over 14 million. It is not hard to understand such statistics of death when one realises, for example, that in our Asian backyard only 31 per cent of the 160 million children in rural areas have adequate water resources and only 12 per cent of those children have adequate sanitation in their communities. We all know the reason Australia gives for its declining commitment to overseas aid. It is what is known internationally as `adjustment policies' developed in response to international economic pressures and past domestic policy negligence. As UNICEF points out in its latest report on the state of the world's children, as is always the case it is the poor, women and children who are suffering from the international phenomena of recession and adjustment. Adjustment policies in both developed and developing countries are producing deteriorating health and nutrition for millions of poor families in developing countries. So in Australia today, adjustment means deferred tax cuts and fewer luxury items. In developing countries it means death from malnutrition and disease. That is the undeniable truth that these real cuts to overseas aid ignores. Let me bring home the significance of this policy question by quoting briefly from the UNICEF report to which I have already referred. I ask honourable members and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) to listen not just in mind but also in heart. The report states: At the moment, it is still accepted as normal for more than 14 million of the world's youngest children to die every year and for millions more to live on in malnutrition and ill-health-despite the fact that recent technical and social advances have rendered hollow the inevitability on which that acceptance is based. It is now time for morality to catch up with capacity, for a sea-change in public and political perception, a change to redraw the line of what is acceptable in our times . . . a change which will make it unconscionable not to do what can now be done. The report concludes: Surely the time has come to say that it is obscene to let this continue day after day, year after year, as our civilisation moves into the twenty-first century. Surely the time has come to put the mass deaths of children alongside slavery, racism, and apartheid on the shelf reserved for those things which are simply no longer acceptable to mankind. Surely the time has come to mobilise national and international capacity to put known low-cost measures into effect on the necessary scale, to exert the moral muscle to transform what can be done into what will now be done. It is interesting to juxtapose this quote and the statistics discussed thus far with Senator Walsh's observation that it is time to `challenge most of the absurd notions that the majority of Australian's have, about what they are entitled to and what is essential to them and what isn't'. This Budget allocation should be about the priority of basic human needs over secondary needs or wants. The cuts to overseas aid reflect the triumph of domestic political demands in that consideration. The majority of honourable members in this place are sworn in with a Bible in their hand. Each day we commence our deliberations with a prayer asking Almighty God to prosper our deliberations to the advancement of his glory, and the true welfare of the people of Australia. I assume, therefore, that honourable members will not consider it inappropriate if I suggest that we take note of the biblical warning in Proverbs: He who closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself cry out and not be heard. Our unwillingness to maintain our aid commitment in real terms and as a proportion of our national wealth, even as our economy expands and the recession grinds the poor further into despair and death, is in reality a closing of our ears to the cry of the poor. Perhaps we should consider, therefore, how the Almighty will consider our cry to prosper our deliberations for the welfare of the relatively wealthy people of Australia. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade)(8.26) —A number of views have been put forward in the course of the debate, in particular by my good friend the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) who leaves me with a vast sense of deficiency. But for all that I will forbear and not only respond to the key points that have been made but also hang on to the job a bit longer. I think that perhaps some of the points which have been made have been a little overstressed, presumably even a little distorted. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), if I can distil what he had to say to two key areas, discussed glasnost and his reservations about the genuineness of the Soviets in respect of that declared objective. His other point concerned arms control and his worries-worries which I share to some important extent-that perhaps people are expecting too much in presuming that as progress has been made on the intermediate nuclear force arrangements, which we perceive should lead to an agreement soon, it will be a simple matter to roll on to strategic arms control and conventional arms control. I share his concern to the extent that this will be a very difficult task. I should say first that, in respect of glasnost, the openings that are taking place in the Soviet Union, it is desirable to suspend judgment; it is far better to make judgment on performance or, as we see things unfolding, on the developments which are taking place with their clear implications. If those things are positive, both for the relationship between East and West and in improving circumstances in the Soviet Union, it is a highly desirable enterprise. If we should find on the other hand that glasnost turns out to be a castle of cards with no substance to it, that is the appropriate time to express our criticism; not too late of course, but the judgment can be made at a suitably early point and adjustments made. It is my very strong view that glasnost is important to the Soviet Union and that the dominant view will be to try to make it succeed; it is in its interest. But it is also in the interests of the West that it succeed. Firstly, it will mean a healthier dialogue and a healthier commercial and political involvement with the rest of the world. That is positive and that ought to be encouraged. Secondly, it should also be recognised that while on the one hand the enormous cost burden of maintaining the military machine in the Soviet Union is one which cannot be borne interminably into the future, at the same time the cost burden of the military machine in the West, most particularly for the United States of America, represents a vast obligation that cannot be borne uncritically into the future either. Some of the economic problems in the United States at the moment-I mention parenthetically here that those problems are reflected in deficits on both the external account and the domestic account, the latter feeding into the former-have been generated by the enormous defence programs that the United States has undertaken. That is not a criticism of the United States; the United States has been extraordinarily generous in the way in which in the post-war period it has taken on such a huge burden of supporting the defence structure which has attended to Western interests. It seems to me that that role is increasingly difficult for the United States to maintain. Simple comparisons bear that out. The European Community has a somewhat larger population than the United States and its per capita income is only marginally less than that of the United States, yet the United States has been taking upon its shoulders the burden of protecting Western global interests. That has meant a much greater outlay of expenditure on defence than the rest of the West has borne. That cannot go on ad infinitum; there has to be a limit. More particularly, other countries in the West, recovering from the devastation of the post-war period, now have very strong advanced industrialised economies. It is in the interests of both the West and the East that glasnost succeed. On the issue of nuclear arms control and conventional arms control, I want to say, first, that it is evident that there is to be a major breakthrough in achieving an agreement which will lead to the elimination of intermediate range nuclear forces. This will be the first occasion ever in the nuclear age that there will be a comprehensive elimination of a whole range of weapons representing an important part of the arsenal of nuclear capability of both East and West. We have had the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, SALT I and SALT II. They set limits, but limits which were higher, generally, than the stockpiles of weapons that the East and the West had. So, they were limits which either side could climb up to, and they were limits which created contention because it was alleged that they gave advantage to one side as against the other. Thereafter, there was conflict and dispute and there was lack of credibility in important sections of communities about those agreements. The agreements on the intermediate range forces will be unambiguous, as I said, at the moment anyway. They will lead to the elimination of all of those intermediate range forces. The next, bigger and much more difficult step will be to get rid of strategic nuclear arms. As the honourable member for North Sydney rightly observed, these are inextricably linked to conventional capabilities, in particular in Europe. Whether there is in the asymmetrical relationship between East and West nevertheless a counter-balancing effect-for instance, whether or not the excess of tanks or the superiority of tank capability in the East is matched by a superiority of anti-tank capability in the West-is immaterial to the issue. The issue is simply that the way people make decisions will be affected by the way they see things. In the East and the West there are beliefs that there are imbalances in conventional arms. It is believed very much on the part of the West in Europe that the strategic nuclear arms capability of the West, dominantly that of the United States, is therefore essential to counterbalance the superiority that it believes it sees on the part of the East. Although I see asymmetry between East and West on particular capabilities, on counter- capabilities I tend to see a symmetrical outcome overall. But that is a debatable point. Europe sees it otherwise. If there is to be progress on strategic nuclear arms, there will also have to be concomitantly progress on conventional arms. I move on, although not without observing that the points made by the honourable member for North Sydney were quite substantial and important ones, to the views expressed by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). The honourable member for Warringah referred to a breakdown more generally in the social and political system in Papua New Guinea. I trust I do him no misrepresentation. There are difficulties in Papua New Guinea not the least of which are matters related to law and order. These in turn relate to the movement of people away from traditional village life into urban areas, attracted by the prospect of a new, better and more exciting way of living. There is nothing novel about that. That has happened in just about every developed country. It has particularly happened in the developing countries of black Africa. But when these people congregate in the outer areas of these main urban centres, unemployed, with time on their hands, resentful and having no support, inevitably there is a resort to criminal activity. This is not exculpation of what has taken place; it is merely a statement of fact about what has occurred. Papua New Guinea has experienced this problem. But what has also to be borne in mind is that Papua New Guinea is one of the few democracies in the world; there are not many of them. It perseveres with democracy after more than a decade of independence. That is remarkable. If we look at the history of Papua New Guinea, we did not first of all give it much opportunity to develop a fountain of experienced people to run private and public sector administration, and, secondly, we did not therefore give it the additional opportunity to experiment, to graft on to what it had learned from us, from what we had taught it, its own cultural values and cultural interpretation of ways in which things should be done. For instance, our legal system is totally alien to the people of Papua New Guinea. Towards the end of the period, when we were the colonising administrators of the country, we started to realise that. Peter Hastings, a well known journalist who has specialised in this area of our region, was one of the seminal thinkers and writers concerning how this cultural grafting had to take place. The court systems, the legal systems, had to reflect the more traditional values of the people in the community. Similarly, the parliamentary system with which Papua New Guinea perseveres even after all these years is something totally alien to the culture of the people of Papua New Guinea. It is no easy matter for them to make that work, but they persevere with it. The complexity of public sector administration was a huge and daunting novelty suddenly cast on to their shoulders. But they work with it. There are strains and there are problems. But Papua New Guinea is still a fledgling country and it is working hard at trying to make things succeed. It has had lots of problems and it will have more. On the other hand, it has had many successes and we ought to commend and applaud those. We ought to seek to get a balanced account of what is taking place there and be fair to the people, not put them down. Reinforcing their confidence is important, without being patronising. Of course, as the honourable member for Warringah observed, we have substantial interests in Papua New Guinea. I have to say that, while Papua New Guinea's interests have broadened in the region and are now starting to broaden beyond that, that does not necessarily imply a decline in interest in Papua New Guinea in Australia. I believe it to be indisputable that interest in Papua New Guinea in Australia is strong, healthy and robust. It is something that will endure. However, at the same time as Papua New Guinea matures as a nation it will want to do many more things its own way-differently from the way in which we do things in Australia, for instance. It has a different culture and different values. It is struggling in a different milieu from this developed and well-off country. If it decides to go into the non-aligned movement, so what? There are many countries in the non-aligned movement representing a great variety of views. After all, if a representative of Cuba can become the chairman of the non-aligned movement, which happened a couple of years ago, it is a very interesting non-aligned movement. A great range of countries are members of the non-aligned movement many of which have a deep commitment to the West. Mr White —Is that in our interest, though? Mr HAYDEN —I do not see any problem at all. It is Papua New Guinea maturing in its policy decisions, in the way in which it sees its role in the world and in taking an independent position. Singapore is a member of the non-aligned movement and so is Indonesia. Many of the closest friends we have in this region are members of the non-aligned movement. This country is an observer. Dare I say it, in case someone thinks I am a fellow traveller, that I raised this matter at non-aligned movement meetings and I think that is very important. We have sent a number of distinguished representatives from this Parliament to these meetings. The honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) has been there on three occasions. Was it three or one? Mr Bilney —One. Mr HAYDEN —I am sorry, I cannot count. I should have joined the National Party instead of the Australian Labor Party. The right honour- able member for New England (Mr Sinclair) made some criticisms of the rearrangements of departments insofar as they affect the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. All I have to say is this: He may be correct. There may be insurmountable problems because of the amalgamation of the two departments in which case I, in particular, have a problem, apart from the Government having its problems. I have to say on my experience so far that I see no evidence that problems will occur. All of the evidence I see reveals that this is a natural amalgamation between two departments. More than that, I believe that it will give a sharper cutting edge to the role of foreign affairs and looking after the interests of this country externally. We are most fortunate in this country in the quality of the officers who are serving us in the Department of Foreign Affairs. They are recruited into the Department having a very high level of performance. Some of them are misguided enough to be sitting on the other side of the Parliament but, fortunately, the honourable member for Kingston more than balances that. We are also fortunate now to have recruited to our ranks the very fine quality officers of the Public Service who have worked for the Department of Trade. The symbiotic relationship to me is very clear and productive already. I think this amalgamation will prove to be one of the more outstanding successes of the rearrangements which have taken place. I now mention the comments of the honour- able member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). He addressed his remarks particularly to cuts in aid. He and I have shared a very long time in this Parliament and there is no disputing the genuine and long-standing concern he has about this area. I, too, share his worry about the cuts in aid, as I mentioned earlier. These decisions are not easily arrived at. Both sides of the Parliament agree that there is a need to restrain government spending. If one is to take that seriously as an injunction, where the aggregates about which we are talking are quite large, there is little opportunity for immunity for any particular section of government spending. There have been substantial cuts in aid. I was not, as I think the honourable member for Mayo said rather vulgarly, rolled by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Rather, I freely co-operated in the cuts which took place but not without, of course, expressing reservations about the effect of such a measure. In particular I expressed reservations about the discomfort I felt personally as a democratic socialist-one of a dying race, a little like the dodo in some ways-presiding over this matter. It was an inevitable result of the things the Government had to do. If it is successful-I believe that it is-in getting the economy back on to an even keel, in restructuring industry, getting more substantial growth and moving into new areas, we will be in a better position later on to support more extensive and expansive aid programs. The honourable member for Dundas referred to Kampuchea. I envy him. A few years ago he had the opportunity of being there and of observing the situation first hand. I am not sure what will happen in respect of Kampuchea. I had rather hoped that the initiatives of Dr Mochtar, the cocktail party and the efforts to bring people together might have been successful. At this point I think I should say that things seem to be somewhat in abeyance. There are talks and attempts at contacts between various groups in the hope that something might be produced that will help to bring about a political settlement of Kampuchea. The sine qua non in the settlement of Kampuchea is a withdrawal of Vietnamese troops. Mr White —Do you think the Vietnamese have any intention of getting out of Kampuchea? Mr HAYDEN —I trust so. They have said it to me often enough and they have said it to others often enough. They have to perform. They say that by 1990 they will have arrangements in place to have withdrawn all of their troops. I sincerely trust that that can be achieved and it would be even better if it could be achieved earlier than 1990. All I can say is that I am not in charge of Vietnamese foreign policy. I urge the Vietnamese to fulfil that commitment. I state for the record that Dr Mochtar, the distinguished Foreign Minister of Indonesia, has worked untiringly to try to bring about a set of circumstances which would lead to contact, to dialogue and, in turn, hopefully, result in a formula which would allow the withdrawal to take place and for Kampuchea to become self-governing. There is some faltering in that process at the moment and I hope it can be recovered. The honourable member for Mayo said that I had made only one visit to the South Pacific, that I had neglected it; that I had abandoned Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meetings (CHOGRM); that I had introduced a fraudulent South Pacific nuclear free zone; that I had not caned New Zealand for its misbehaviour; and that I had cut aid to the South Pacific. The only thing he did not ask me to do was to resign. In spite of that savage indictment he presented against me, there are some errors of fact that are quite explicitly involved. I have made more than one visit to the South Pacific and I have visited more countries in the South Pacific than has any Foreign Minister. I do not want to labour the point, but it would be desirable if we all eased back a little. I do not expect honourable members to stop scoring points in this place. After all, I spent many years doing it when I was on the other side of the House before I came to this side of the House. Before I go too far with mea culpa and enrage honourable members opposite, let me say this: all of us should spend more time in the South Pacific area and in our regional area. Too many honourable members are using their travel allocation to go to certainly very interesting places and places important politically which are well removed from our immediate region. But our immediate region is where the action which takes place will most likely have the most profound effect on this country. I am not the only Minister in this Government to have visited the South Pacific. A large number of Ministers have visited there and they continue to do so. I have not abandoned CHOGRM meetings. It may interest the honourable member for Mayo to know that I do not get to CHOGRM or Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings and neither did my predecessors except on very rare occasions. CHOGRM has not been abandoned. At the last meeting at Port Moresby it was agreed that CHOGRM should meet as the need arises and that in turn is determined by the members of the CHOGRM association, not by Australia. There will be a meeting when it is decided there should be one. We will not impose one on it. The honourable member for Mayo was disparaging about the nuclear free South Pacific zone. Let me say this to the honourable member: if he disparages it, he does no good for our standing in the region because the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty reflects a deeply felt article of faith on the part of the countries of the South Pacific region. Those countries which have not signed the Treaty, such as Vanuatu, have not signed it because they do not like it for the reasons which the honourable member outlined-that is, that they see it as some impediment to Western interests. Rather, they see it as wanting. They would prefer it to be much tougher in its prohibitive qualities. It is an effective treaty and it reflects an interest commonly shared in this region. In turn, its introduction has improved greatly Australia's presence and influence in the region. Aid in the South Pacific, the honourable member for Mayo egregiously claimed, had been cut by $1m or $2m compared with last year. The honourable member has impaled himself in his own self-set bear trap because last year we made a special one-off allocation of $8m to the Tuvalu Trust Fund. With the United Kingdom and New Zealand, we provided money from the surplus funds from the wound-up, defunct British Phosphate Commission. The aim is that from income generated from the trust fund the Budget of Tuvalu, a country of between 7,000 and 8,000 people with a very limited resource base, will be supplemented to give the Tuvalu people more independence and more determination over their own economic future. If we take out that $8m, we are down only $1m and are ahead at least $7m. I hope that I do not confuse the honourable member with simple arithmetic. The honourable member asked me for a statement of objectives and principles in the region. These come off the top of the head. The things that we are interested in are topics such as the right to self-determination of the countries in the region, a preference for democracy but recognising that there are countries in the region for which democratic values are quite alien. Malay-type countries, for instance, find democratic values quite alien to their traditional cultural ways of decision-making. We want to see economic and commercial success. In fact, the Cairns group reflects this concern not only for our own interests but also for those of developing countries, particularly those in our region. We want to see political stability both domestically and regionally. We want to see an avoidance of conflict and a diminution of tension, should there be a tendency for it to arise. We want to see the minimisation of super-power competition in the region, and we want to see shared interests that apply here as well as in the Western association of nations upheld. Australia is the largest and most developed country in the immediate South Pacific region playing a role of assistance, support and encouragement without being intrusive, overbearing or interfering. In the case of New Caledonia, our policy is not in conflict with our attitude on Fiji. New Caledonia is a region which is before the Committee of Twenty-four in the United Nations, the Decolonisation Committee. It is an issue of decolonisation and what will be the appropriate outcome. In the case of Fiji, it is an issue of an independent country being subverted by a military coup. We have not at any stage supported the arguments of the Melanesians in New Caledonia that they, and they alone, should be allowed to vote to determine the future of New Caledonia, nor do we support the views of the Melanesian-Polynesian population in Fiji that they should be able to dominate that society on some sort of structured communal basis. We should bear in mind, however, that there is a vast difference between South Africa and apartheid, on the one hand, and communalisation that is institutionalised, on the other hand. No one will suggest that Malaysia, which has institutionalised communalisation or communalism, reflects the values of apartheid. No one sensibly would say that. I could not imagine anything more inappropriate or more offensive, but I ask honourable members to bear that in mind. The honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) made a powerful and heartfelt statement about the aid cut. His views have a profound impact on me and I share them deeply. On the other hand, I have had certain responsibilities as a Minister over a succession of years of tough budgetary decision-making, and I cannot shirk my responsibility to carry some of that sacrifice, if that is the decision of the Government-a decision which I fully endorsed. I have sought to pull my weight. If we are successful in our economic management, as we are being, later on we will be better off and better fitted to do more and be more generous. But if we do not apply the disciplines now, we will not help anyone much, not even ourselves. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Employment, Education and Training Proposed expenditure, $1,825,267,000. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(8.55) —I have only 10 minutes to deal with the estimates for the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Although my colleague the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) will be concentrating on the employment and training aspects of the Department, I wish to divide the 10 minutes that are at my disposal into five minutes for primary and secondary education and another five minutes for tertiary education. It is a great pity that my remarks have to be concentrated into that short period of time because the subject is of immense importance to every Australian family, but so be it. To deal first with primary and secondary education: it is quite clear that the new Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) intends to make changes in the Commonwealth structure in this area. But the basic problems we face in primary and secondary education are problems of how one empowers the consumer of education services against the excessive power of the centralised bureaucracies which run the educational systems and the excessive power of the teaching unions, which are more part of the industrial structure than they are of the professional structure. Fundamentally, that is the problem we face. I am told that the New South Wales Department of Education is the most centralised and the largest single educational unit running an education system in the world outside the Soviet Union. Most education systems, certainly in the democracies, are much more decentralised to local government or regional units, whereas the New South Wales Department is a highly centralised, highly controlled system in which the demands of the consumer are very far down the scale of priorities. It is not possible, for example, within the New South Wales system, or indeed within the Victorian system, for parents to choose even between one school and another within a particular region. There is a zoning system and they have no choice. If there happens to be a bad principal or a school that is badly run, as inevitably in a centralised bureaucracy there will be, there is no capacity for parents to vote with their feet, unless they incur the additional cost of moving to a non-government school, which they may, for religious or other reasons, not wish to do. Mr Holding —I do not think that is true in Victoria. Mr CARLTON —Is the Minister saying that it is not true in Victoria? Mr Holding —I think it is much more flexible. Mr CARLTON —Slightly more flexible. I think in South Australia it is quite flexible, but I think in Victoria there is a great deal of rigidity. Certainly in New South Wales one cannot do that. That surely is one of the first requirements that we should have in the system-that within the government system there should be a chance for parents to choose between one school and another within that system. That would be supremely inconvenient for the centralised bureaucracies that run those systems, but it would be a necessary tonic. There is no better discipline than losing customers for people to make sure that they change the system, change the principal, change the teachers and change the teaching systems so that they maintain students at that school. Mr Shack —It would slow the drift to non-government schools. Mr CARLTON —As my colleague the honourable member for Tangney says, if that happened it would probably slow the drift to the non-government schools. I have been in situations as a parent with children in government schools in two cases where the principal became quite unacceptable to the body of parents and it was not possible to remedy that situation for a long time. It was only when the children had subsequently moved on to a different school, a high school, that one was able to have any redress. The Commonwealth has, since the advent of the Whitlam Government, tried to overcome the deficiencies in the State systems by superimposing the Commonwealth Schools Commission, a new bureaucracy, on top of the State bureaucracies. That is an attempt to overcome the distortions and difficulties of these overcentralised systems by superimposing another bureaucracy on top of them. While that system has had some impact and there have been some beneficial outcomes of the work of the Schools Commission, essentially it has been a very inefficient and costly process because the State systems simply failed to face up to their basic responsibilities if they believed that someone else would come in and solve the problem for them. Recently I had occasion to talk to some people who had organised an education centre in a remote area of Australia and I asked those people who were running the centre precisely what functions they were carrying out with the assistance of Commonwealth funding. It became clear that what those people were doing in a remote area of Queensland was an essential ingredient of any basic rural education system. The Commonwealth was saying that it intended to reduce its funds and that what these people were doing would not be done any more. It is a disgrace that the State system concerned has not taken the responsibility for those quite basic functions. I do not think it will actually do so whilst the Commonwealth pretends that it will continue in some way with that sort of support. Therefore, if we look back over the years since 1974 or so when the Schools Commission was set up and Commonwealth intervention in its present form was established, we see that the overall effect of that, whilst beneficial in a number of ways, has resulted in State systems failing to be sufficiently innovative or sufficiently concerned about the fundamental requirements of their consumers. Therefore, I think that some fundamental change is required. I would hope that whatever changes the Minister makes will result not merely in replacing the Schools Commission with a centralised bureaucracy of the Federal Department but in taking steps that will generally empower consumers in the schools themselves to dictate a great deal more of the direction of education. Mr Holding —Have you any suggestions? Mr CARLTON —Well, I have many which I would detail if I had more time, but I have gone well over time on the Schools Commission. Let me turn to tertiary education. The Minister has announced a wide-ranging inquiry into tertiary education. I mentioned two components of that which will be important in relation to whether the results of that inquiry will be beneficial. The first is again this question of centralisation. Will the thrust of the inquiry and its recommendations merely have the effect of transferring what is an overcentralised bureaucratic system through the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission into a new centralised bureaucracy in the Department, or will they empower the institutions to be more responsive to consumers at the grass roots level with a genuine alteration to the power structures of tertiary education? That will be the first important issue. The second important issue is the source of funds and the total volume of funds for tertiary education. It is generally agreed that the resources going into tertiary education are inadequate by international standards. It is quite clear that the taxpayer has not sufficient funds to meet that requirement. Therefore, there will be a need to generate additional sources of funds from the private sector and from individuals. Therefore, the question is how one can best organise this new input of funds to expand the capacity of the tertiary education sector. There are problems within the internal structure of the Australian Labor Party on the question of fees. The present Minister is grappling with this issue; obviously he is not in agreement with the present Labor Party platform on this matter, any more than Senator Walsh is. A lot will hinge on the Minister's ability over the next couple of years to alter the party platform on that, but it is obviously necessary to arrange for additional sources of funds for tertiary education which are not wholly dependent on the taxpayer. Those two elements will be critical. Mr Holding —What is the Opposition's position on fees? Mr CARLTON —Our position on fees is well known. We published it before the last election and the Minister would be familiar with it. The two elements of additional funds-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(9.05) —I rise in support of the Government's Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 and, in doing so, address myself to the employment, education and training expenditure outlined in the Bill. In doing that, I would like to emphasise my wholehearted support for public education in Australia. This Government has total commitment to employment, education and training, which is reflected in the Budget, but I will confine myself to expenditure related to particular areas in the Northern Territory. In his media release on the night of the Budget, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) said that the most successful economies have given high priority to education and skills development, and that Australia must now adopt a similar strategy. I agree wholeheartedly. My electorate is in desperate need of this sort of commitment. On the latest figures available to me, retention rates of school students in my electorate are more than 16 per cent below the national average. This particularly affects isolated children, especially Aboriginal children, who do not enjoy the advantages of their fellow students in major cities. In fact, the retention rates for Aboriginal and Islander students in the Northern Territory is only one third of the retention rate for the Northern Territory as a whole. The Government has committed $28.5m in 1987-88 to the assistance for isolated children scheme, which provides assistance for the parents of children who, because of geographic isolation or a disability, must live away from home to attend school, study by correspondence or live in a second family home which provides daily access to schooling. In 1988, isolated children living at home and undertaking secondary schooling by correspondence will be paid a flat rate of $10 per week. The number of children who are expected to qualify for benefits in this way nationally in 1988 is expected to be about 19,000 and a significant number of these will reside in my electorate. Continuing on the commitment of the Federal Government's support for Aboriginal education, the remote area program for Aborigines (RAPA) is designed to provide students of post-primary age in remote communities with an extended and improving range of course options. I add that it is important that these options are provided because, from my experience as a teacher in the Northern Territory and having been employed on a special project to analyse the impact of education and government services on Aboriginal children and families, I am aware that there is no greater need for these services than in remote areas of the Territory. The Northern Territory Government participated in the pilot RAPA program in 1985-86 and funds were provided for the setting up and operation of a manual arts learning unit, which is a mobile instruction unit offering vocational instruction to a number of communities in central and northern Australia. Under the Aboriginal employment development program, RAPA has been established as an ongoing program which will benefit isolated communities and help them to have access to training they may otherwise not get. There is a widespread concern that the educational achievements of Aboriginal children are lagging noticeably behind those of other Australians. There is a growing appreciation that educational provisions for Aboriginal children have not adequately considered their cultural outlook or aspirations. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander pedagogy project is researching successful programs that improve the learning outcomes of these children and is funded by this Budget. As a result of the project, it is expected that significant changes in learning and teaching styles will result. The total budget for this project for 1987-88, its second year of operation, will be $255,000 nationally. A significant element of the project will be directed to the Northern Territory. With the approach of the Bicentenary, the Northern Territory faces the intolerable fact that although Aboriginal people make up 33 per cent of the 17- to 64-year-old age group in the Northern Territory, they comprise only 7 per cent of the student population in that age group. In the last Budget, the Government increased the amount to be spent on Aboriginal student assistance nationally by more than $7.8m. Consequently, the number of students assisted nationally has increased from 30,000 in 1982 to 46,000 last year. Again, a significant proportion of these were in my electorate. To make it clear, it needs to be stressed that applicants for allowances under the Aboriginal secondary grants schemes (Abseg) and the Aboriginal study assistance scheme (Abstudy) will continue to be exempt from the income test applied to recipients of other forms of student assistance. Students of over 16 years of age receiving Absec and those over 21 years of age on Abstudy will receive higher rates of allowances if they are enrolled in employment-oriented courses. This Government's major concern is to involve more Aboriginal students in forms of education or training which are likely to facilitate increased employment, at the same time ensuring that any such programs are in accord with the needs and aspirations of Aboriginal people, as perceived by them. I might point out that under Abstudy and Abseg programs the Commonwealth funds a number of special courses in the Northern Territory-some at Batchelor College, some at the Darwin Institute of Technology and some at the Institute of Aboriginal Development at Alice Springs. Two of the courses at Batchelor College are centred on Aboriginal teacher education training. One is the D-Bate program and the other is the homeland centres remote area teacher education program. The D-Bate program is run by Deakin University and is funded by the Government. Last year it saw its first graduates. Bakamanu Yunupingu, Norma Joshua and Robyn Ramsay were the first Aboriginal Northern Territorians to graduate with Bachelor of Education degrees from Deakin University. In addition, very important courses are being run at the Darwin Institute of Technology by the Aboriginal task force unit. The courses are for the community work certificate, the certificate in general and technical studies for Aborigines and a preliminary course. Aboriginal employment rates are half the national average. Indeed, in my electorate there are some communities which have a far higher unemployment rate, with some having a rate in excess of 60 or 70 per cent. The people in these communities are desperate for work. They do not want to be forced to receive social security benefits forever. This Government is committed to providing the funds that are needed to conduct relevant training and education programs. It is worth pointing out at this point that Aboriginal people in these communities are the only people in Australia who volunteer to work for the dole, or an equivalent of the dole. These people, under the community development employment program, agreed to pool their unemployment benefits and, with the addition of an administrative component of 20 per cent as a top-up for resources, materials and administrative expenses, they run their own employment projects. They do this on the basis that they are paid for part time work at award rates. This Government's concern is to promote Aboriginal control over their own affairs, and this has led to a stated commitment that Aboriginal people must participate in the design and implementation of education and training programs that are both economically and socially relevant. For too long schemes have been imposed from above on Aboriginal people and their communities. This is seeking to make schemes more flexible and more relevant as part of its long term commitment to Aboriginal people's self management. In order that appropriately qualified teachers are placed in Aboriginal schools, induction and in-service courses and professional development programs are funded by Federal Government education and training programs. To date, over 60 teachers and 18 teacher trainees in the Northern Territory have benefited from this program. This level of Federal Government involvement will continue in the Territory. In 1987 the Federal Government provided for 101 extra places for Aboriginal students at Batchelor College and the Darwin Institute of Technology at a cost of nearly half a million dollars. The Government will maintain its commitment to these sorts of programs which have provided teachers who are far more responsive to community needs and who have a long term responsibility to the community. I might add that the commitment and dedication of the teachers who work in these remote communities is something to be seen and it should be applauded. I think it has been recognised by this Government, through the amount it is prepared to spend on education, employment and training, that Australia's economic potential has been held back by an inadequate commitment to skills training and education. If people are starting from a position of disadvantage, as many people in my electorate are, the need for this sort of government initiative is doubly important. The Government has pledged continued support for community based program assistance, over time, and the Minister has indicated that a single community program aimed at maximising training and employment for the most disadvantaged of the unemployed will eventuate. On that matter I might point out that the Federal Government in another area of my electorate, Christmas Island, has underscored its commitment to retraining and employment assistance. The Government's legislation demonstrates its view that the people of Christmas Island are fully entitled to responsible and socially relevant government. With this in mind, $1.5m has been allocated for retraining and employment assistance on Christmas Island. I know many people in my electorate who receive the unemployment benefit who would give almost anything for a job. As I indicated previously, Aboriginal people, who are vilified by many members of the community-most notably those who belong to the Opposition parties in this chamber and elsewhere in Australia-for being recipients of the unemployment benefit and other social welfare payments, are the only people in this country who have sought assistance from the Government to run projects and employment schemes that effectively involve working for the dole. Mr Carlton —Started by the Fraser Government. Mr SNOWDON —That is to its credit, and to the credit of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, who was the Minister at the time. I hope that Opposition members will support, and continue to support, that move. The Government deserves praise for recognising, because previous conservative governments have not, the importance of training to the national economy. I believe it is vital to our continued prosperity. At the same time it is imperative that we do not throw out the baby with the bath water. Education for education's sake is as important now as it has ever been. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(9.15) —The feature that stands out in this Budget and, indeed, in the consideration of the appropriations for the Department of Employment, Education and Training, is the fact that this Government is making no real attempt to reduce the unemployment rate below 8 per cent. Six hundred and thirty thousand Australians are unemployed, and this figure does not include the substantial pool of discouraged job seekers-the so-called hidden unemployed. Of that figure, 120,000 teenagers cannot find work. The unemployment rate among 15- to 19-year-olds looking for their first job stands at a dismal 22.7 per cent. Budget Statement No. 2 states that the average unemployment rate in the next year will be 8.3 per cent. By June 1988, in our bicentennial year, there will be 10,000 to 15,000 additional jobless Australians. We must face the fact that the actual result may be worse than what is forecast in the Budget Papers. It is not impossible that at this time next year we will be looking at an unemployment rate which is closer to 9 per cent. Employment growth is vaguely forecast to slow further in 1987-88. The employment outlook of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which the Government has admitted is only marginally different from its own expectations, predicts that employment growth will slow to 1 1/4 per cent next year. The OECD expects our unemployment rate to rise from the present 8.1 per cent to 8.5 per cent, which is, of course, fully consistent with the 8.3 per cent average rate of unemployment that the Government expects in 1987-88. The sad fact is that we are continuing directly to undermine our own competitiveness with wage and price increases which are still miles ahead of those of our trading partners. Productivity, according to the Confederation of Australian Industry, has actually fallen by 4 1/2 per cent in the last two years. With an unemployment rate of 8 per cent and a foreign debt of over $100 billion, it is criminal for the Government continually to condone wage increases which undermine our international competitiveness. It is inhuman to waste the talents and energies of 630,000 fellow Australians by accepting 8 per cent unemployment as the trade-off for peace with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. There are now two Australians between which there is a growing gulf of hostility and alienation. There is the Australia of the employed and the Australia of the jobless. The average duration of unemployment has reached historically high levels under this Government. Mr Deputy Chairman, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table setting out this information by age and gender. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AVERAGE DURATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT-WEEKS August 1987 Age Group 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-54 Total (a) Males... 28.8 46.6 57.2 74.7 56.8 Females... 36.3 35.1 29.5 46.4 37.3 Persons... 32.5 41.9 45.7 62.2 48.6 (a) Includes persons aged 55 and over. Source: The Labour Force Australia, August 1987 (ABS No. 6203.0) Mr SHACK —If one looks at this table one will see that the average duration of unemployment for all age groups now stands at 48.6 weeks, which is roughly the standard working year before annual leave. This figure varies significantly for different age groups. For males aged between 35 and 54 years, the figure is a staggering 74.4 weeks. This means that the ranks of the very long term unemployed have increased dramatically. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a further table which shows the distribution of unemployment by duration. Leave granted. The table read as follows-DURATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT-DISTRIBUTION BY WEEKS Duration of Unemployment (weeks) Persons as proportion of total unemployed Under 2... 6.93 2 and under 4... 9.85 4 and under 8... 11.20 8 and under 13... 9.35 13 and under 26... 13.97 (Less than 6 months = 51.3) 26 and under 39... 15.78 39 and under 52... 4.24 52 and under 65... 6.58 65 and under 104... 6.10 104 and over... 16.00 Total... 100.00 Source: The Labour Force Australia, August 1987, ABS 6203.0 Mr SHACK —As this table shows, almost half of our unemployed-almost 300,000 people-have been out of work for six months or longer. Sixteen per cent of the unemployed, about 100,000 people, have not worked at all in the last two years. This brings me logically to the so-called `new directions' component of this portfolio: the long-overdue shift away from job creation schemes towards active labour market strategies. The skills in Australia strategy is a weak apology for the Government's mistakes over the last four years, for its misplaced emphasis on artificial and cosmetic job creation schemes. We praise the Government for admitting that its approach has been wrong. Only 15 months ago the now Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said that the community employment program was money well spent and that it demonstrated the Government's `concern for the long term unemployed'. To suggest otherwise, according to the Minister, was `living in a fantasyland of ideology'. Well, that Minister can join his counterpart in the Senate, Senator Ryan, in the Priority One rogues gallery because their philosophic approach was stuck in the 1970s. The new directions announced by the current Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) are a slap in the face for them both. This Government is stepping cautiously in the right direction by focusing on the skills side of the labour market, and about time too. But the measures so far announced, in the Skills Formation in Australia Budget Related Paper, are inadequate and concentrate on narrow and shallow skills. To a degree, the overhaul of training schemes is a reflection of Sir Humphrey's timeless motto: `When all else fails-reorganise'. There are glaring deficiencies in the Government's strategy for skills formation. Firstly, it does not matter how many people we train each year, or what degree of resources we devote to skills formation, if all we end up with is a more intelligent and more talented pool of people without jobs. The Government still refuses to permit greater flexibility in wages and conditions in order to boost employment demand and to increase training intakes. But through wage subsidy schemes-and this is the perversity of it all-the Government implicitly recognises the truth of wage relativities. What is Jobstart, which pays employers up to $180 a week to take on long term unemployed people, if it is not a recognition of the link between wages and employment? Secondly, the traineeships scheme will continue to fail until the Government bites the bullet on trainee wages. Every target for traineeships has been missed, because union rejection of an appropriate training wage has simply deterred employer participation. As Mr Kelty said, the Australian Council of Trade Unions will not accept a training wage, in his words, `simply to give employers a financial incentive to employ young people'. The Government still has not met the June 1986 target, and has no hope of hitting the 75,000 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised by the end of next year. On the Government's own figures, there will be only 13,000 traineeships operating by June 1988. Thirdly, some of the new programs seem to amount to little more than remedial education, providing basic skills which should have been gained in secondary schooling. The job clubs, which will teach the unemployed how to read job advertisements and write an application after 6 months on the dole, are a prime example of this. Fourthly, the so-called initiatives in the Skills Formation in Australia document are little more than a collection of quick-fix schemes aimed at the longer term unemployed and those otherwise disadvantaged in the work force. Mostly they are old schemes with a new name. An emphasis on short term vocational courses designed to meet local skills shortages is not sufficient to fulfil our needs for skill enhancement. To put it simply, let us not be deluded by the Government's rhetoric. Training schemes will not by themselves solve the problem of unemployment. Wage flexibility needs to be addressed urgently to restore opportunity for all Australians who want work. Until we face up to wage flexibility, a fact which the Government, in its own heart, knows to be the reality of the unemployment problem, we are kidding ourselves and tinkering at the edges. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(9.25) —I wish to address some of the training programs which are set out in the estimates of the employment, education and training portfolio. It is a very wide-ranging portfolio. So many changes, initiatives and some winding-down of programs have been undertaken within this portfolio that time will not permit me to look at the entire spectrum. However, I agree with the concern expressed by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), who has just resumed his seat, regarding the division in our community between those with jobs and those without jobs. It is very important that different sectors of society, such as employer and employee and people of different political parties, pull together in this respect. As has been delineated, people without jobs have been searching around and have been more or less left on the outskirts of development while we go through the different measures, trying to seek a resolution to the problem. This has gone on for many years, but I can remember that between 1980 and 1983, under the previous Government, there were wage subsidy schemes. A lot of the things that are now being attacked were right up front of policy at that stage. I disagree with speakers opposite who have attacked job creation schemes, such as the community employment program, as being shallow and of no use. When we introduced the community employment program in 1983, we ended a situation where unemployed people had not gained the recognition that they needed specific programs. In fact, they were termed `dole bludgers' at that stage. They were told to scrub up and front up for a job and they would surely get one. The previous Government did absolutely nothing to alleviate the situation. While we most certainly needed to look at the longer term plans, which is what we are doing in this Budget, we also needed to ensure that people on the unemployment benefit who were given no hope-they were hanging around at home, turning up for jobs and never returning home successfully; some turned to drugs and to drink-were given something a little better than that. The community employment program has been a fine alternative use of taxpayer's money to the empty payment of the unemployment benefit. It has provided community facilities in many areas. Also, it has taken those who were chronically unemployed out of the hopelessness of hanging around at home and has put them into a job situation. Granted, people were in a job for only three to 12 months, but the program gave them some confidence. It gave people who had never been in a job before a taste of the discipline of work. Anyone who has had young people close to him in the hopelessness of the unemployment cycle would agree with the benefits which obtain to the community employment program. Another aspect which the program addressed was that of 17-, 18- and 19-year-olds looking for a job who, when they turned up before an employer, were told that at their age job experience was required. It was a hopeless situation in that young people of 20 had never been given an opportunity to gain experience. At least the community employment program got many people into full time work and gave them a curriculum vitae. It gave them some experience, something to present to a potential employer. For that reason I have felt very warmly about that job creation program, the community employment program. I have noted that honourable members on both sides of this House have taken advantage of the program and used it extensively within their electorates. I turn to some of the problems that we are trying to address within this portfolio. Despite the recent rapid increase in secondary education retention rates from 36.3 per cent in 1982 to 48.7 per cent in 1986, school level retention in Australia remains low by comparison with countries such as Japan and United States of America. The Commonwealth has set a goal of a 65 per cent retention rate to year 12 by the early 1990s. We need to get people into higher education and to see that the education they receive is appropriate and fits them with skills needed in the market-place. Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, we must look at what is happening in the market-place. Increases in tertiary participation will also take top priority. If we are to meet the challenge of providing job opportunities for those who wish to have them, we must increase the overall level of participation in education and training, and we must expand our national training capacity. The most successful economies internationally give high priority to education and work skills, and it stands to reason that we must do the same. We must take new paths to broaden our education and training system and we must look at achieving a better balance in our national education and training effort to meet the long term economic and manpower needs of Australia. We have to raise the level of private sector investment in giving young Australians appropriate training and skills. That is one of the things that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) is looking at within the context of this Budget. I turn now to the extra funding for training programs. Budget Paper No. 3 states that the objective in training is: To promote increased and better opportunities for job seekers who are long-term unemployed or otherwise disadvantaged in the labour market to obtain and upgrade skills relevant to the current and future labour market requirements. I am very pleased to see an increase to $30.8m for the adult training program. Funding for the youth training program, which is very important, is $31m. Funding for the trade training program, at $131.1m, is important because apprenticeship programs will assist an estimated 92,000, 15- to 19-year-olds in 1987-88. These are a number of different sectors which we are trying to pull together to fill a need. But we need a supplement to that apprenticeship system, and I hope that the private sector will even more strongly put its weight behind the traineeship system. The traineeship system complements apprenticeships as a major entry point into the labour force, particularly for those in the 16- to 18-year-old group who have not completed their year 12 education or its equivalent. Like an apprenticeship, a traineeship involves a combination of structured on and off the job training and contracts between employers and trainees. I am pleased to see that, while progress has been slower than we originally envisaged, substantial advances have been made. I commend those sections of the private sector which have taken up the challenge of the youth traineeship program. However, I am disappointed that some key employers and unions are still resisting the introduction of the traineeships. However, those traineeships have filled a great need within our society. Traineeships are available in both public and private sectors, in occupations and industries such as office and clerical work, furniture removals, the textile, clothing and footwear industry, the building and construction industry, banking, and the rural and hospitality industries. Nearly three-quarters of the trainees to date have been 16- to 18-year-olds without year 12 qualifications. Some 1,250 trainees have already completed their training. The vast majority have found subsequent employment and have gone on to further education or training, a most important aspect of this program in breaking the cycle of unemployment. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(9.35) —All going well, on Friday night I will be attending the graduation of the nurses from Broken Hill Base Hospital. It will be an historical and sad occasion because on that evening the last three-year trained nurses will be graduating from the hospital. If the present system that has recently been implemented continues there will be no more three-year nurses graduating from the Broken Hill Base Hospital. This is a result, of course, of the new training methods whereby nurses have to be trained at colleges of advanced education. I am one who has been opposed to that. The other night I was in an argument with a male matron in the west of New South Wales who was all for the training of nurses in colleges of advanced education. I have had to rethink exactly where I stand on the matter. Perhaps what is required is a compromise whereby the nurses, whether they are male or female, can train in the hospitals for one or two years and undertake post-graduate course. Perhaps even better, we could use the old university building as the college of advanced education for the training of nurses in Broken Hill. I am keen to keep the training in the hospitals. In Broken Hill, to use that as an example, in any year in the past we would have 30 young people being trained in the hospital as nurses. If one takes away the humanitarian aspect of being a nurse, the fact that training has supplied 30 jobs a year in a rural area is very important to that area. Now those 30 people will have to pay to be educated in colleges of advanced education. They will have to leave Broken Hill. The youngsters from many of the poorer families would make incredible nurses. A lot of gold medals have been issued from the Broken Hill Base Hospital. Those people will have to have their training in colleges, and they just cannot afford to go there. Therefore, firstly, they will lose a career and, secondly, we in Broken Hill will lose those very vital jobs. I ask the State and Federal governments to look at that matter to see whether they can come up with a compromise for hospitals in bush areas, because once young people leave those areas we find it very difficult to get them back again. I doubt that there is any hospital in western New South Wales which does not have a shortage of trained nurses and which could not find employment for those nurses. I am very concerned about this matter. Enrolled nurses even now have to travel to Dubbo to be trained on block release for a number of weeks at a time. They do their nursing in Broken Hill and have to travel to Dubbo. Perhaps we can look at an extension of the Mitchell College of Advanced Education in Broken Hill and allowing those nurses to train there. I know it is a difficult subject because the nurses certainly want to upgrade their status in the community. I believe that, with modern technology, they have to be better trained and better equipped. However, I believe that a nurse is a nurse and that the basic training can be gained only in a hospital. Some nurses who go to a college find after 12 months, or whatever the initial period is, that when they go into a hospital environment they are not suited to that career. This is something that we have to look at. I once held very strongly the view that nurses should be trained in the hospitals. I now think a compromise can be obtained whereby they can be trained both in a hospital and in a college. But, for heaven's sake, we have to look after our bush hospitals because we have enough problems as it is trying to obtain nurses for those areas. I would like now to turn to Leeton in my electorate. Recently the St Francis de la Salle College has had boarding facilities built especially for 26 female students. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on providing that money. It has seen a need there. There is a need particularly for boarding school facilities. People in rural areas, particularly the more isolated areas, are finding it ever more difficult to send their children to school. Many people say that sending children to boarding school is elitism and that children should go to colleges, particularly in capital city areas. But the fact is that if they do not go to a boarding college they do not get an education. It is time for a reversal of the Government's thinking about boarding colleges. The Government should be providing more funds for these colleges. It is interesting to note that the college in Leeton has had boarding facilities established for young ladies, an area of real need. Once again, I congratulate the Government for providing this facility. I also congratulate the college and in particular Sister Jean, the Principal, for the tremendous work they have done in organising the plans and getting the facility built. As well as boarding colleges, there are the hostels in bush areas such as Cobar, Broken Hill and Tibooburra in western New South Wales. These hostels are finding it very difficult to meet their financial problems. This is another area the Government has to look into. We can go back to the nurses again. If one lives in a capital city as a young student one can live at home, go off to college and return home at night. It is all so simple compared to what one has to do if one lives in the bush. It is the same with students who may come down from north of the Queensland border to go to Cobar or to Broken Hill. It is very difficult for them. We must have hostel facilities for these people. Another aspect I would like to speak about-I suppose it is more relevant in capital cities but it is also affecting us in the west-is the problem of family breakdown. I believe that, because of laws that have been passed and laws that have not been passed by State and Federal governments, the family unit as we know it, understand it and would like to believe it exists is breaking down. This is putting tremendous pressures on school teachers throughout Australia. We are imposing on school teachers problems which are not theirs to handle. They have not been trained to handle them. We are making them the victims of the social problems we face in our schools and in society. We have a problem in Broken Hill because the State education department is not providing enough school counsellors. It is a pity that we need school counsellors but, with the problems we have, we need them. There is a shortage of school counsellors in Broken Hill. If there is a shortage in Broken Hill, there must be a shortage in other areas of New South Wales. Some of the problems school children face are caused by the more liberal ideas-some people would call them liberal; I think they are crazy-such as the idea that one cannot reprimand students or have any real control over them. Students are allowed to do almost what they like without any retribution. School counsellors are called in to handle the problem. If the schools do not have these school counsellors, I feel sorry for the students and the parents, and particularly for the teachers who have to handle the situation. I would now like to touch on the problems we have in Griffith and other areas in regard to the integration of physically handicapped children into the major school system. I have been to a number of schools in my electorate and it is wonderful to see physically handicapped children attending schools in both the State and private school system and being treated as equals. At a school one day I saw a young child who could not walk picked up by a couple of young primary school children, one on each arm, and dragged along, laughing and joking. He was one of the class. When I was a young student young disabled people did not have the opportunity to go into the major school system. The only problem with this integration is that, if physically handicapped children are in the school system, ramps, special toilet facilities and, most of all, teachers' aides have to be provided to look after them. The New South Wales Government put out a statement called `Principles and Objectives in Relation to Services and Programmes for People with Disabilities and Families containing a member who is Disabled in New South Wales'. The report said that the Government upheld the principles of: (a) individual freedom of choice (b) conditions of every day life being the same for the disabled as those provided for, and enjoyed by, the majority of non-disabled people, and (c) where special services and support are essential, they will be provided as part of the local service system. I know that in my electorate $1,000 per child per annum is provided in those areas in schools. That is totally inadequate. If the Government really wants to implement that scheme-I believe it is a worthwhile scheme because these young people have a lot to contribute to our society; they are part of our society-the Government has to do something about funding those young people and those schools. I have in mind in particular the Griffith Catholic High School, Wade Agricultural High School and Griffith High School. All those schools really need more finance and more facilities to provide for those wonderful young people with physical handicaps who are trying to make their way in the school system. Of course, while they are doing that they are educating the other children in the school system to be tolerant and teaching them what the meaning of life is all about. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(9.45) —I rise to support Appropriation Bill (No. 1) because in my view it represents one of the most significant opportunities for government in Australia, and those on the other side of the House, to co-operate in a restructuring of employment, training and education. I was a little disappointed that during Question Time today the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), in a fairly cheap point scoring exercise, decided to ask a question that in his view poured the can on the community employment program (CEP). As my colleague the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), who spoke a little while ago in this debate, said, the community employment program that was instituted by this Government has played a very major role in helping many Australians to get a foothold back into the work force. If one went to the Parliamentary Library to research a few of the local newspapers one might find that many members on the other side of the chamber who for political reasons like to bucket this program have been right up front in putting out Press releases in their local newspapers claiming credit for programs that have created jobs and worthwhile community projects in their electorate. They do not hesitate to claim the credit for our programs when there is an electoral benefit for them. All I am saying is that they ought to be a little honest about it in this chamber. In my electorate alone over 1,000 jobs were created in three years under the community employment program. For the record, the success rate of the projects was over 70 per cent. By that I mean that 12 months down the track 70 per cent of the people involved were in full time employment after leaving the CEP project. That was a very meaningful and successful program. It leads me on to say that providing it is done well, providing we can put together packages that incorporate work experience with a worthwhile task that is seen and valued by people around the local area and a worthwhile training scheme, we have every chance of making these sorts of projects work. I want to pick up some of the comments made by my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) in his contribution when he-- Mr Lavarch —It was excellent. Mr O'KEEFE —As my colleague said, it was excellent. The honourable member for the Northern Territory referred to the role of teachers and the role of education. They are often criticised, especially by those on the other side, and not well understood. In the teaching service in Australia are thousands of highly qualified and trained teachers. They are able to communicate and they are able to pass on skills. In my view the lack that there is, if there is one, is in the linking of education to industry and commerce in a way that shows what those teachers and their skills can contribute. So one of the things that I think we ought to be picking up on in these new programs is an expansion of work experience. I would like to see the normal school experience expanded to 13 years so that students in their last three years of secondary education, at whatever institution, in the 15, 16 and 17 years age group have 40 weeks of work experience built into their education program. I would like to see much of our teaching done in real work situations. I would like to see our teachers in offices, in plants, in places where new technology is operating. They should be able to take their students to have some on the job experience, co-operating with industry. I know that many decision makers in industry are themselves desperately looking around at the moment for people to train and educate within their own work force. They are starting to see that some of these skills are very real and are quite adaptable to what we might call a real work situation. Another opportunity that I think lies before the Government at the moment under this new program is for the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) to play a much greater role in the training and preparation of job applicants. For whatever reason-and I guess it is simply the sheer volume of unemployed people inherited from the previous Government-the CES has, to a large extent, found itself shuffling job vacancy cards hoping that job applicants will find themselves a position from the board. Whilst that is successful in the turnover of new job entrants-the profile of the labour market at the moment shows that many new entrants to the work force are finding jobs-it is the longer term unemployed who need more time spent with them. Last week I spent some time in a meeting with a number of my local CES regional managers discussing ways that the CES, at the ground level, could play a greater role. To a person, they felt that what they need to do is to spend more time with people who are unemployed and to spend more time with the decision makers-the personnel officers, the people in the industry and in the work force who are looking for job applicants-in order to do more in the role of matching faces with places, as I describe it. I want to see during the next three years a much greater participation from employers in job placement programs. We have reached the situation where those in management have to take a very solid look at themselves. They can no longer point the finger at the trade unions and say that they are the problem, because in the last four to five years under the accord, Australia's trade union movement has shown a remarkable degree of both flexibility-- Mr O'Neil —And responsibility. Mr O'KEEFE —As my colleague says, the trade union movement has also shown responsibility in addressing these issues. They can no longer blame unions. They cannot keep pointing the finger at schools and saying that they are the fault, that they are the problem. They cannot keep waving the finger at parents saying that they are the problem. I am saying to employers and those in this field that it is time they had a damn good look at themselves. It is time they had a good look at the training programs they have in their own operations. It is time they had a good look at the way they can relate to CES more positively. The other thing I found in talking to CES managers was that they too were able to build up a profile of poor employers. They find that there are very specific reasons for a high labour turnover in a number of places. Some of the reasons are that employers treat their employees poorly; they mislead their employees in job expectations; they say to them, `Take up this position and you will be trained and given careful attention. You will be helped, phased in'. Employees are given about a three-hour crash course on how to turn the machine on and are then left to their own resources. Employers wonder why they become dissatisfied and move on. The whole concept of employment, education and training is an across the board responsibility. There is a role for everyone; there is a role for the educators; there is a role for government through the CES and other training institutions; there is a role for the trade unions; and, most importantly, there is a role for employers and people in a position to take new job entrants, ease them in, train them and turn them into worthwhile, dedicated employees. I think everyone understands that good staff are the answer for high quality productivity and turnout. I simply say that this Bill and the changes that are incorporated under the new structure represent the first real opportunity in nearly two decades for Australia to approach constructively the question of education, employment and training cohesively. I very happily support the Bill. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(9.55) —The knowledge that the current Commonwealth funding period ends next year and that the Department of Education is about to deliberate on schools funding categorisation prior to the ensuing funding period makes it timely to discuss possible changes. Integral to the several issues of immediate concern are the components of the education resource index (ERI). I understand that the Department has the ERI under examination right now. The community standard element is pertinent because of its effect on the ERI. The community standard reflects the costs of government schools, with effects for funding targeted at non-government schools. Costs incurred by non- government schools and not in community standard figuring include: superannuation, long service leave provisions, depreciation allowances, workers compensation insurance, professional liability insurance and various other administrative expenses. Because such costs do not find a way into the figuring of the community standard they consequently do not form part of the denominator, which is the education resource index. It is a distorting omission. The community standard should take account of the income non- government schools have to allocate to such essential expenditures. Alternatively, these outlays could be excluded from the ERI numerator with the same effect. Considerable and rapidly escalating fees charged to parents of students in government schools are similarly missing from this equation. This is despite an inclusion of charges for similar purposes in the fee structures of non-government schools. An outstanding example of the widening gap between the costs in government and non-government schools is workers compensation insurance, where costs to non-government schools are becoming almost incomparably greater. There should be provision in the community standard to reflect changes in relativities. Since the community standard came into being in 1983-84 significant compulsory changes have been imposed on government and non- government schools alike. Changes in curricula, particularly in my State of Western Australia, are a case in point. Considerable additional expenditure by schools has inevitably ensued. In complying with this Government's priorities, costs and fees where appropriate, are increasing as an inevitable consequence of lifting the retention rate in senior secondary years. Lifting retention rates requires increased costs, both of a one-off nature and in recurrent expenditure. Increases imposed include the costs of extra staff, more equipment and buildings and a whole range of alternative curricula needs. With the review of the community standards seemingly under way I suggest that it is an appropriate time to urge that the Government amend it to reflect the changing and higher level of resources required for all schools. Speaking in the time available in this debate allows only a brief reference to the very important matter of schools with special needs. It seems that the education resource index fails properly to take account of expenditure incurred by some non-government schools in providing for students with special needs. Tonight I am content to canvass a proposal by the Association of Independent Schools of Western Australia, without dwelling on the very good supporting argument. Briefly, it is that additional per student costs in meeting the special needs of students should be recognised by an appropriate increase in the ERI denominator, that is, by an augmented community standard. The boarding school allowance component of the ERI based categorisation is also in need of adjustment. It is very doubtful that the setting of a single allowance to apply throughout the nation is in any way appropriate, leaving aside for the time being the arbitrary $3,000, at 1983 prices, operating allowance per boarder now in place. Of course, the adequacy of that operating allowance is arguable because of the way it was first struck; but is even more debatable, given the later effects of the fringe benefits tax and the national superannuation imposts which are telling burdens on boarding schools. Serious criticism of the capital allowance also seems justifiable. It has always been open to grave doubt. While it is a doubtful measure of the so-called average capital needs for schools, the allowance is unacceptably inflexible as a key element of the ERI. The range and pattern of capital expenditure by non-government schools is simply not catered for at present. The factors not accommodated include widely differing curricula, varying client groups and widely differing local and historic circumstances. It should also be self-evident that establishing schools have vastly different needs and priorities from those schools which are established and concentrating on broadening services. Assuming, as the Government does, that the capital needs of schools vary with fee levels has no logical basis. An outcome of tying the capital allowance to a percentage of private income unreasonably restricts schools with the will and the capacity to maintain private effort from allocating more than 7.5 per cent of private income to capital expenditure. Also, it is a matter of record that for many schools the capital allowance as it stands is simply inadequate; it is not large enough to cater for the essential capital expenditure in too many cases. Furthermore, the disallowance of interest costs on long term loans taken out for capital expenditure purposes is difficult to support. Although the ERI, by the application of the numerator, adjusts some element of debt servicing, it does not adjust total debt servicing comprised of principal and interest. Again, problems with the capital allowance are exacerbated by the demands mentioned earlier involving curricular changes and retention rates. In fact, it is less than equitable that schools funding be penalised as a result of decisions by State or Commonwealth governments-it being therefore beyond the capacity of the schools to influence and control subsequent and flowing development. Earlier I listed categories of unavoidable running costs which have escalated and warrant an enlightened reappraisal of the community standard and the ERI. That aside, the imposts of the Commonwealth sponsored 3 per cent superannuation scheme, and the fringe benefits tax with its accompanying burdensome administrative costs, merit special accommodation and understanding by the Department and by the Government. Given general acceptance of this Government's approach-I acknowledge that there seems to be general acceptance of its approach to school funding with strings attached-refinement and major adjustments are needed for the next funding period which starts in the not too distant future. I urge the Government to pay attention-maybe it already is-to the concerns of the non-government schools and to give very serious consideration to the weaknesses that are already apparent in the system as it now stands. Certainly I would urge the Minister at the table, the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding), to convey to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) my concerns along with the hope that the Government may, in the coming funding period, address the matters I raise and those very real concerns that I am sure have been expressed to it by representatives of the non-government schools. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.05) —At a time of economic restraint the Hawke Government has increased general recurrent grants to all Australian schools by almost $60m, a real increase of 4.8 per cent over 1986-87. This increase is designed to meet the Hawke Government's objective that by 1992 two-thirds of Australia's school students will be completing their secondary schooling by year 12. While this initiative is to be applauded, an action deserving of even more applause is the decision by the Hawke Government to provide $38.4m to fund an extra 3,500 to 4,000 intakes for young school leavers wanting to attend universities or colleges of advanced education in 1988. The additional funds also allow for the construction of new facilities and new equipment to meet the expanded number of places. It is generally acknowledged in the Australian community that no Federal Government since World War II has committed more resources to tertiary education in Australia than the Hawke Government. The creation of more than 43,000 new places at tertiary institutions throughout Australia in less than five years is evidence of a determined commitment by this Government to provide an opportunity for higher education for all Australians. Nevertheless, there is still much to do if Australia is to establish a well-educated, highly skilled population. I note that in Queensland less than 55 per cent of students who complete grade 12 proceed to tertiary education. I take the opportunity this evening of recording the gratitude of all Australians for the effort by the previous Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, in ensuring that Federal Government funding for education increased in real terms during her tenure as Minister, despite the economic difficulties the nation has faced over the last three years. Whilst the Federal Government is to be congratulated on its outstanding record of increasing the opportunities for all Australians to participate in tertiary education, I wish to bring to the notice of honourable members a number of matters concerning the inequality of funding for tertiary studies in northern Australia when compared with funding for tertiary students in southern Australia. Honourable members will be aware that there are three tertiary institutions located in northern Australia. I refer to the James Cook University of North Queensland, the Darwin Institute of Technology and the Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education. Each of these institutions is funded by the Federal Government through the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. Approximately one million Australians reside north of the twenty-sixth parallel. In 1986 Federal Government recurrent funding for tertiary studies in Australia amounted to $2,444m, or about $153 for every Australian. However, for the three tertiary institutions in northern Australia Federal Government recurrent funding totalled $54m or about $53 for every northern Australian. It is astonishing that such inequality of Federal Government recurrent funding for tertiary studies should be allowed. It is an inequality that calls for immediate rectification. Pleas to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for fairer allocation of funding for tertiary studies in northern Australia have not been successful. The case for increased funding for tertiary studies in northern Australia has been proved over and over again. The James Cook University of North Queensland, with its main campus in Townsville, has already achieved an international reputation for excellence. Its Vice-Chancellor, Professor Raymond Golding, and Assistant Vice-Chancellor, Professor Edward Scott, are in the Speaker's gallery this evening. Its graduate school of tropical veterinary science is among the best in the world. It plays a major role in the provision of teaching and research assistance, not only within northern Australia but also within Indonesia. It is a university of which Australia can be proud. Australia's only university in the tropics-the James Cook University of North Queensland-is constantly seeking Commonwealth funding to meet its desperate needs for additional student residential accommodation. Special pressures are associated with the growth of James Cook University, whose students come from such a large area of Australia. Student enrolment targets have been exceeded in the last two years by more than 20 per cent. Total internal enrolments are projected to reach 5,000 by 1990. About half of the internal students are in off-campus accommodation. The housing problem for internal students is desperate. James Cook University will fail to meet genuine student needs if more housing cannot be provided. Two residential halls-University Hall and John Flynn College-have indicated strong interest in the provision of more places in independent self-catering units. At least 100 places are required to make a significant impact on the shortage of accommodation. I ask the Federal Government for urgent financial help to accommodate tertiary students in north Queensland. There is one further priority and that is the need for an extension to the university library building. The main library building was completed in 1974 and was designed to accommodate 150,000 volumes, 400 reader places and supporting staff. At December 1986 it held 329,453 volumes and 336 reader places. A second building, a branch library, was acquired in 1982. It was formerly the Library Resources Centre of the Townsville College of Advanced Education and was designed for 60,000 volumes and 200 reader places. As at December 1986 it held nearly 97,000 volumes and 103 reader places. Both library buildings are full. The library needs 143 square metres of additional book storage space alone per year just to maintain the present inadequate status quo. This space is not available either within the building or in independent bulk stores. Even if the latter were available, within five years almost one quarter of the library's complete book stock would be in store. Within 10 years almost 40 per cent would be in store. No academic library in Australia operates on such a basis. Lacking any other alternative, as book stock grows seating space for readers decreases. The library system has lost 161 readers places in the last 10 years and this is at an Australian university in 1987. In 1986, at the time of the submission to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the 1988-90 triennium, the library system had one seating place for each 6.75 effective full time study units. Anything above one in five can be considered a serious problem. In 1987 student numbers increased by 11 per cent, reducing the seating ratio to one seating place for each 7.5 effective full time study units. It has now become a routine situation for there to be no free study places in the library. If the university's student enrolment projections for the future are achieved-they almost certainly will be-this overall ratio will fall to one seat per 10.9 effective full time study units, or one seat per 13 students, by 1990, that is before the beginning of the next triennium. This assumes that reader spaces will not be resumed for book storage space. If there is no extra space, all reader places will have disappeared within 10 years. For 1985 to 1987, James Cook University has requested an extension of 4,600 square metres gross to the main library building in its submission to the university council. This request was supported by the university council but funding was not approved by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. The library extension is now the University's top capital works priority and the growth and academic life of the James Cook University will be in jeopardy without it. I again appeal for immediate funding from the Federal Government for this urgent project. Early this year James Cook University established the Anton Breinl Centre for Tropical Health and Medicine. With the aid of a Federal Government grant of $2.7m, this new facility will deal with the epidemiology of infectious diseases, Aboriginal and Islander health and nutrition, and specialised research into such matters as skin cancer, marine medicine and community health in the tropics. The establishment of this research centre at James Cook University was a recognition by the Federal Government that of all the developed countries, Australia alone has the capacity to establish facilities for tropical medicine in the tropics. With the appointment of a distinguished scientist to the first chair of tropical health and medicine at an Australian university, I am certain that this new centre for tropical health and medicine will quickly earn for itself international renown for technical excellence. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) -Order! It being 10.15 p.m. I shall report progress. The Deputy Chairman having reported accordingly- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Holding-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —In 1988, a masters degree course in tropical agriculture will be introduced at the James Cook University. This is an important initiative by the university to provide virtually the only tropical masters degree award at an Australian university. I urge the Federal Government to consider the issues that I have addressed in this chamber tonight, to realise that James Cook University is an important part of Australia's educational system. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.17) —It is all too easy for politicians and other commentators to slip into the habit of talking about Australia's unemployment in convenient, statistical terms and in so doing to ignore the real issue; that is, not that 8.3 per cent of the work force is unemployed but that 600,000 Australian people are out of a job. Those Australians are men, women, adults and juniors and for many of them their inability to obtain or difficulty in obtaining suitable employment will cause personal suffering and hardship which will stay with them throughout their lifetime. We have all heard, at various times, the Government and others talk about people as being Australia's greatest resource. Yet I see little in the Hawke Government's recent Budget which acknowledged that behind all that talk of foreign debt, the balance of payments difficulties and many other economic statistics, the real concern of government is not those economic indicators but their impact on the well-being of people-you and me, our relatives, children, friends and next door neighbours. There is a section of the Budget Speech under the heading `Employment, Education and Training', but honourable members will look long and unsuccessfully for any acknowledgment that the Hawke Government's policies have failed to have any impact on reducing the unemployment rate below 8 per cent or that an unemployment rate at that level really means that over 600,000 people in this country are facing the uncertainty of seeking and obtaining another job. We are not talking about statistics; we are talking about real people. Elsewhere in the Budget documents is an admission that 1987-88 will probably see some slowing of employment growth with little change expected in the 1986-87 unemployment rate of 8.3 per cent. Again, if we convert those statistics into human facts, the Budget-and that is what we are talking about tonight-is really saying that there is little hope over the coming year and not much to look forward to for about 630,000 unemployed Australians. I would like to bring that fact to the attention of this Parliament-there are 630,000 unemployed Australians. I believe that this Government must rightly be condemned not only for its failure over its four years in office to reduce unemployment but also because it is seen increasingly to regard that level of unemployment as natural and something that has to be accepted as a permanent feature of the economy. I, for one, do not accept that figure as being a natural feature of our employment situation. Does the Hawke Government really expect people to accept an unemployment level which means that 22 per cent of Australia's youth are unemployed and that the average duration of unemployment has increased steadily from 32.9 weeks in 1982-83 to 47.1 weeks in 1986-87? I would like to hear some interjections from the Government side about the increase in the level and duration of unemployment for Australia's people. Here we have a government-and a party-which says that it has real concern for Australia's youth and Australia's unemployed. But look at the figures! How can honourable members opposite justify these simple straightforward facts-47.1 weeks in 1986-87? Again, I wish to convert those statistical terms into human factors by saying that unemployed Australians will take an average of almost one year to find another job and that about one in every four young Australians will be without a job. How about those people on the Left of the Australian Labor Party who sit opposite? How do they feel about the fact that under their Government about one in four young Australians will be without a job in the coming year? They accept it. I see them sitting over there. How will they react to that fact-that about one in four young Australians will be without a job and without the prospect of a job under their Government? They should be-and I believe that within themselves they are-ashamed of the fact that their Government, after four years in office, has been unable to grapple with this factual situation. It is a disgrace and they know it. I believe that within themselves they are deeply ashamed of those statistics. There has to be something seriously wrong with the very structure of our economy to have these entrenched employment features. Of course there is something wrong. It is the misplaced economic policies of the Labor Government which has poured millions of dollars into vote catching but extremely trivial expenditure programs, while largely ignoring the urgent need for those structural changes which will create jobs and skills both to reduce our unemployment and to improve our economic health. What do we hear from the Government about those sorts of situations? Not one single word. I was brought up in this country in the belief that the Labor Party was concerned with those people within the community who were less advantaged. But what do I hear from the Government? What do I hear from the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, about those 600,000 plus young Australians who are without a job? What do I hear about those people? Not one single word. One of the areas of structural change of the utmost importance to the future of this country is the need for business investment in enterprises with improved trading opportunities. Of course that really means manufacturing industry. Manufacturing employment in Australia has been static for almost five years and it is no coincidence that this is precisely the same period in which our unemployment has become entrenched at seriously high and totally unacceptable levels. It is not too much to say that the Hawke Government has a totally unimpressive record in its economic management for the long term rehabilitation of Australian export manufactures. This Government does not seem to understand what is really needed. Up to now its attitude has all too often been a simplistic chastising of Australian businessmen for their investment timidity and lack of real entrepreneurship. Has this Government given any thought as to why there has been frantic entrepreneurship in corporate takeovers, the foreign exchange and stock markets and other financially oriented activities, yet no such interest in manufacturing activities? The simple explanation is that the Hawke Government has failed to create the overall climate conducive to that form of investment. Certainly there have been some positives, such as improved competitiveness resulting from devaluation, reduced industrial disputation and moderation in wage growth, but the Labor Government must accept that this has not been sufficient and there is now an urgent need for policies which will redress the many other factors which are essential prerequisites to get business investment moving and, more to the point, moving in the direction which will help to ensure our future living standards. The single most important factor to be realised is the need for a return to historically high levels of profitability and in practical terms this means a rate of return on investment of between 20 and 25 per cent, depending on the particular industry and the corporation. I point out that that rate is presently 17 to 18 per cent. Despite the four years of economic growth, it must be acknowledged that businessmen have a number of sound reasons for feeling uncertain about the Australian investment climate. Our interest rates are high by international standards. Labour productivity and industrial relations are improving, but much remains to be achieved compared with our trading partners. While wage restraint is evident, there are continuing uncertainties about the full impact of the second tier wage formulation and the trade union controlled industry superannuation scheme. While the Treasurer (Mr Keating) talks about an economic revival, the fact remains that a significant number of Australians simply have no prospect at this stage of getting a job. Of course, that is a very debilitating concept for these people to realise. For a Labor Government to accept these situations, as it appears to be doing, is a tremendous acknowledgment of failure. If we cannot get jobs for our people and if families cannot look forward, at the end of university, technical school or other training, to their children having the opportunity to have worthwhile employment, there is no solution to the real and serious problem which faces the country. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(10.27) —In talking about the appropriations for the Department of Employment, Education and Training, I wish to comment on the Government's announcement in the Budget that it intends to integrate three community employment and training programs into a single program. These three programs are: the community youth support scheme (CYSS), the community training program (CTP) and the community volunteer program (CVP). Expenditure on these community programs has increased sharply over recent years. In 1982-83, expenditure was in the vicinity of $21m. In 1986-87, the estimated expenditure on these programs was $59.6m. Tonight I want to speak in particular about the CYSS program. During the leadup to the Budget, there was much speculation as to the future of CYSS. During this period, I indicated my strong support for the continuance of CYSS as a community-based program with a labour market focus. I have had extensive contact with the three CYSS groups servicing my electorate. They are the Glenroy CYSS, the Broadmeadows unemployment project and the Lalor-Epping-Thomastown unemployment support group. Each of these groups makes a positive contribution to assisting young people in transition. Each has developed effective labour market programs. I can illustrate their work by outlining the programs provided at the Broadmeadows CYSS, but I should indicate that similar programs are provided at the other two CYSS centres. In the job skills area there is a range of hands on courses, ranging from basic carpentry, metal-working skills and tiling to basic accounting, typing and filing. Where possible, the CYSS group has arranged on the job work experience as part of each course. The aim is not only or even primarily to impart basic skills but to give the participants skills that will be useful in future employment. Equally-and I think this is important-the aim is to provide to participants an insight into employers' expectations and to enhance the confidence and self-esteem of the unemployed who attend CYSS. An important aspect of the Broadmeadows CYSS program is its Jobsearch element. This teaches participants how to look for employment through classified advertisements, at the Commonwealth Employment Service and through other avenues. It provides a segment where techniques for preparing and submitting job applications are taught and participants practice interview techniques and other aspects of attending interviews. It also introduces the unemployed to a first-hand look at the office or factory environment. It is important also to look at the announcement in the Budget that the Government is establishing a job search training program. I should indicate that this program will be along similar lines to those of the program already in place at Broadmeadows. I welcome the fact that this program, which will provide job search skills, will be open for community bodies such as CYSS projects, technical and further education bodies and other such organisations. Broadmeadows CYSS also places great importance on support and personal development. This element of the program includes everything from an awareness of diet and health and the uses of appearance and deportment in obtaining and keeping a job to career planning and human relations. Also of interest is the fact that this CYSS group, under the special initiatives funding provisions, gained funding for a job club. I think another announcement made in the Budget speech was that the Government will be providing, on a trial basis, funding for 40 job clubs. I think it is to the credit of the Broadmeadows group that, before the announcement of this project, through the special initiatives funding provisions it will be able to put into practice a job club which will provide more intensive training courses and practical experience in job search skills. In speaking of special initiatives funding, I note that this valuable source of additional funds for CYSS groups is to be wound down. That perhaps is disappointing, because it is something that the local CYSS groups in my electorate have made good use of through implementing innovative programs. Many aspects of the Broadmeadows program are clearly designed to facilitate a transition from school or long term unemployment to either further training or to employment. Broadmeadows CYSS has a high record of success in that its participants move on to employment or to training such as TAFE. Its committee has developed good relations with several local employers, including Yakka Pty Ltd and Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd, who have commented on the skill and motivation of participants. The importance of this transition role cannot be underestimated. In many ways, CYSS is a first port of call for young people who are deeply disillusioned and depressed. When we are considering some of the young unemployed people in areas such as the electorate of Scullin, we have to realise that, even to prepare them for the training opportunities that will emanate from a number of the measures announced in the Budget, some of them need to be given assistance to come forward and get proper benefit out of training programs. Unfortunately, because of the environment in which they have been brought up, some of them lack a great deal of self-esteem. Some of them come from families in which the parents are unemployed, making them second-generation unemployed, and have, therefore, lost what is traditionally called the work ethic. That is something on which a great deal of importance has been placed in programs such as Broadmeadows CYSS in order to prepare those young unemployed people to get the maximum benefit out of some of the training programs. I was pleased that continued funding for CYSS was indicated in the Budget. Although the Government has indicated its commitment to ongoing funding for community-based youth support programs which provide structured training and employment related support supplemented by relevant counselling support and advice services for the most disadvantaged job seekers, I am concerned that the program for the proposed integration of CYSS with CTP and CVP is as yet sketchy. In fact, whilst I can see a lot of merit and relevance in integrating CYSS groups and enabling them to take advantage of the community training program, I am suspicious of the ability of the CYSS program to embrace the community volunteer program. I should also stress that momentum plays an important role in all community-based programs. Over the history of CYSS programs it has been very unsettling for those who have worked with and participated in those programs and for those who have carried out duties on committees of management that in that period there have been many changes in the guidelines. Recently announced changed guidelines will be coming into effect on 1 November. Whilst I have no qualm with the general direction and the labour market focus of those guidelines, I indicate that I hope that in the integration process we are not putting upon the CYSS groups too much change which it will be difficult for them to embrace. I note that the Department is working on monitoring procedures and indicators of the effectiveness of CYSS programs, such as areas of access, the activities provided and the consequent outcomes of participants. I agree that that is important. Already the morale of CYSS groups in my electorate has been shaken a little by pre-Budget speculation. I welcome the letter that has been sent by the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, which reassures CYSS projects that they will have continued funding. I look forward to the Government's announcement in the near future of a plan for consultation with CYSS management committees regarding their role in an integrated community support program. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs)(10.36) —I will reply very quickly to some of the points that were made by some honourable members opposite. I commend all honourable members who have participated in this debate. I undertake that my colleague the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) and I will closely examine what was said by all honourable members. There are a number of points which I believe must be addressed because some of the contributions made by members of the Opposition failed to address the enormity of the problem which the Government faces in regard to the whole question of education, unemployment, training and how we should turn around this economy. The contributions of honourable members opposite, while critical of the Government's performance, were very short on any kind of alternative proposition. They began with the contribution by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). Mr MacKellar —No, Warringah. Mr HOLDING —No, the honourable member for Mackellar, who indicated that while he was deeply critical of the state school system-he referred to its somewhat centralist position-he presumed that somehow or other the Government endorsed that position. I assure him that that is not the case. My position, and I am certain that it is the position of my colleague the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, is that we believe there ought to be as much choice as possible for parents in the state school system. Honourable gentlemen opposite belong to parties which are absolutely committed to the concept of States rights. If any area traditionally has been an area occupied by the States, it is the area of education. Honourable members opposite, including the two shadow Ministers-the honourable member for Mackellar and the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack)-failed to address this point: what do they, as supporters of States rights, say is an appropriate point of intervention by the Commonwealth? At what point should we say that we are unhappy about these aspects of State policies? Does one imagine for one moment that if my colleague and I were to indicate that we would intervene at some point because we were unhappy about some aspect of the State school system in Tasmania or Queensland that would be greeted with rejoicing by honourable members opposite? Commonwealth intervention, the overriding power of the Commonwealth, would be greeted with condemnation. We have heard it all before. I think it is time that honourable gentlemen opposite addressed the matter in a less hypocritical way. I say that with some kindness, because the other aspect is that less than three months ago all of the honourable gentlemen opposite went to the people of Australia and said, `We must give to the States those responsibilities which are theirs and we will see that that occurs under a Howard government by ensuring massive cuts in Commonwealth support for those areas which traditionally belong to the States'. They cannot have it both ways. There is no point coming in here now three months later and saying, `Oh, dear me; think of the funding that should be going into education'. What would the reality have been if we had taken them at their word in terms of the policies they put to the Australian people less than three months ago? Does anybody believe that the logic of their position would not have involved massive cuts at every level of education at which the States operate? That is the fact of the matter. So it is not appropriate for honourable members opposite to come in here and tell us about their concerns in respect of what we are doing for the consumers of education. I will tell them what we have been doing. There is student choice in schools. The certainty of current school programs implemented by this Government has produced a substantial increase in the number of students who are choosing to stay on in year 12. When we became the government, the honour- able gentlemen who were crying crocodile tears tonight had a school retention rate of 36 per cent. What have we done for the consumers of education in the very short time we have been in office? We have increased significantly the retention rate. We have made it perfectly clear that our long term policy is to get the retention rate up to 80 per cent. That is what we have done. Similarly, while we have been in office the number of higher education places has increased substantially by around 43,000 positions. There are now 43,000 more places available in tertiary institutions than there were when the Fraser Government left office. That is perfectly true. Honourable gentlemen opposite can say that we still need more places. We agree with that; we do need more. But we have to find the funds if we are to produce that result. Without those funds it becomes increasingly difficult, economically, to increase the number of places. When we come into this place and seek to implement measures which not merely will broaden the tax base but also will pursue those people who consistently evade paying tax, it is the people opposite who say, `Oh, no, you must not do that'. At the same time as they seek to restrict the capacity of the Commonwealth to raise revenue from some of their friends who persistently dodge and evade paying taxes, they come in here and want to make speeches about how we should be spending more to provide more places. Has there ever been such an exercise in double standards? Has there ever been such an exercise in hypocrisy? It is no wonder that these people failed so miserably and were rejected by the people of Australia at the last election. Concern was expressed about an unemployment level of 8 per cent. The suggestion was made that somehow or other such a level of unemployment had become part of the concept of this Government. Let me say this: When this Government came to office it inherited from honourable gentlemen opposite an unemployment rate of over 9 per cent. We have reduced that rate. One will not find a Minister or a member on this side of the chamber who will say that the present level of unemployment is still unacceptably high. Mr MacKellar —You have done nothing about it. Mr HOLDING —What have we done about it? Mr MacKellar —Not a thing. Mr HOLDING —If the honourable gentleman can take his silver spoon out of his mouth for long enough to listen, he will know what we have done. I will not apologise to the honourable gentleman. I learnt years ago that one should not argue with people in that sort of situation. But let me say this: We have created over 800,000 jobs. Let me quote the figures to the bellicose gentlemen opposite who are so full of guilt. They are the people who created unemployment. Mr MacKellar —What about 1972 to 1975? How many jobs went out of manufacturing? Mr HOLDING —Listen to the honourable member. He is not only interjecting when is not in his correct place-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) — Order! I call the honourable member for Warringah to order. Mr HOLDING —I do not know whether you will be successful, Mr Ruddock, but we will do our best. When this Government came to office it not only had to create new job opportunities but also, at the same time, it had to try to turn the economy around. That has not been easy. It has been increasingly difficult and it has involved making some very hard decisions. Every decision that was made was opposed by honourable gentlemen opposite. The traineeship scheme in Australia is not just another labour market program which the Commonwealth can readily put in place. Mr Hawker —Priority One. Mr HOLDING —The problem with honour- able gentlemen opposite is that most of them went to public schools. Most of them inherited the old family property. They graduated from there to the Melbourne Club, having taken a degree on the way, and then inherited a few seats in the Parliament. And they want to lecture us about unemployment. Look at that bunch of sodden silvertails. We are not about to be lectured in terms of their perception of unemployment. Let me quote the figures in terms of the apprenticeship system and the new concept of traineeship. As at 25 September 1987, we had created over 11,600 traineeship positions. Forty-eight per cent of those were in the private sector. Over 9,500 people had commenced a traineeship, 43 per cent of whom were in the private sector. In conjunction with the trade union movement, 150 industrial agreements have been negotiated. Over 2,500 private sector employers are currently participating in that scheme. There is still a long way to go and the negotiations are continuing. I suppose that at 10 minutes to 11 at night it is asking a bit much to expect honourable gentlemen opposite to comprehend either the significance or the importance of those figures, so I will leave it at that. This Government stands on its record, and I bid you all a fond goodnight. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Progress reported. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.49) —I wish to take the opportunity tonight on the adjournment to speak for a few moments about a matter that would be of interest to all honourable members, and that is the importance and potential of private forestry. In this nation we seem to have had debates over the last several years about forestry in Tasmania and now in Queensland. In the long term we will have to come to some decisions about renewing our wood resources and utilising them to the best advantage. Tasmania, unlike the rest of Australia, is well endowed with forest resources and about one quarter of this valuable resource is owned privately. Tasmania's crown and private forests cover approximately 47 per cent of the State, compared with the Australian average of only 7 per cent. Of Tasmania's commercial forests, 23 per cent are privately owned. Three-quarters of the privately owned forest land is in the hands of farmers and the wood using industries. About 40 per cent of Tasmania's wood resource comes from private land, and that is a significant proportion. As we, as a nation, continue to dedicate more and more of our crown forests to national parks and reserves, which is not a bad thing, the privately owned forest resource will become more important and more valuable in the future. Tasmania's forests compare favourably with those of the rest of the world. The combination of species type, high rainfall and good soils produce annual growth rates which rank very highly by world standards. A significant proportion of Tasmania's forests represents the top 5 to 10 per cent of the tree growth rates for Australia and New Zealand combined. There is presently little encouragement from the Federal Government to tap this valuable resource on private land. It was disappointing that not more was done in the Budget. A recent survey conducted in Tasmania, called the Pearce report, was carried out by the Tasmanian Private Forestry Council. Mr Chynoweth —It was rigged. Mr SMITH —I think the honourable member should listen to this debate. The Council examined the potential of farm land for afforestation. The survey found no less than 100,000 hectares complementary to agriculture which could be devoted to forest growth. Roughly 5 per cent of each farm property could be planted to trees for shelter, for aesthetic purposes and for commercial timber values. That is quite significant when taken over the many farms in Tasmania. However, as all of us would know, growing trees is a very long term project. Projects such as Greening Australia are worthy of greater support. Large projects obviously require specialised finance over a very long period. It takes in the order of 35 to 60 years to grow a sawlog, a resource which is rapidly diminishing in our State and indeed in the rest of Australia. So the time for decision making is fast running out. The biggest impediment placed on private landowners in developing potential forested land is the pulpwood export restriction imposed on Tasmania's forest industries by the Commonwealth Government. Before there is hysterical reaction, let us consider the reason. Selective logging over the past century has denuded our forests of high quality sawlogs, leaving material suitable only for pulpwood. The sale of this pulpwood for export is critical in the financing of new productive forests. Because of cost economics, private forestry is far more economic than wood production on crown land. The Government needs to review its assistance to private forestry in order to encourage wood production. The Tasmanian Government is leading the way in this regard. It has developed new financial incentive schemes for private forestry which will be a model for the rest of Australia to follow. Environmental protection practices are just now coming into place, and they also lead the nation. The new Forest Practices Bill and the innovative Forest Practices Code have been hailed by those from all sides of the forestry debate around this country. The development of private timber reserves, the new tall trees preservation program and the skyline and streamside reserve requirements are a first within the Commonwealth. In summary, forestry leaders all around Australia have shown that productive capacity potential and environmental protection can be achieved if there is further development of the private forestry industry. The final point I make is this: Only community support, and support from both sides of this Parliament, will ensure that productive new forests, employment and the continuing availability of timber resources will be met in the future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(10.54) —Tonight I would like to put on the record my unequivocal opposition to the privatisation of Australia's Telecommunications network. Privatisation is indeed an ugly word, and it tends to have ugly consequences for political parties that claim it to be the panacea for all our ills. The Leader of the State Liberal Party in South Australia, Mr Olsen, will attest to that fact. It is pleasing that some weeks ago the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stated that this Government has no intention of privatising Telecom Australia. This continued commitment to the public ownership of Telecom is welcomed, especially by people living in country and rural areas such as my electorate of Grey. Unfortunately, many uninformed people still consider that Telecom, as a whole or in parts, should be sold off to the private sector in the name of efficiency and competition. What they really mean is that Telecom is the jewel in the crown. It is the organisation that the private corporate sector wants most to get its hands on because it has the potential to return huge profits. There is a notion that finds great support with our conservative friends, that the sale of a public enterprise which might turn a profit for someone in private enterprise is innately good. If it can make money for someone in private enterprise it must be a good thing. This argument completely ignores the essential economic and social needs of our nation in favour of a rigid ideological dogma. It is a view which totally ignores the effects that privatisation has on those who happen to need a service rather than want a profit. In the case of Telecom, any sell-off to the private sector would result in the new owners concentrating on maintaining and upgrading its profitable services, such as the major subscriber trunk dialling routes and the central business district services. Those services which are unprofitable, or even marginally profitable, would be decimated in the name of efficiency and rationalisation. The development of Telecom's national network has, in the past, been based on the policy of universal access to the national telecommunications system at a price all consumers can afford. The New Right claims that the privatisation of Telecom would expose it to competitive forces which would act as a spur to greater efficiency. This all sounds very nice for those who do not live in the real world. Those of us who do inhabit the real world realise that if private networks were allowed it is inevitable that their duty to their shareholders would be to make profits by improving services on the profitable routes and removing services on the unprofitable routes. We all know that Telecom presently cross- subsidises its rural network to the extent of approximately $500m every year. This massive cross-subsidy ensures that telephone subscribers in my electorate are able to afford to have a service installed and maintained. Honourable members would be aware that Grey covers some of the most isolated and remote towns and communities in Australia and the cost of maintaining the telecommunications network in the region runs into millions of dollars. It is estimated that the real cost of installing a telephone service in some areas of Grey could be as high as $20,000 to $30,000. Who would cover this cost in the brave new world of privatisation? Unfortunately, it would be the consumer. People living in rural and regional Australia would be forced to either do without a telephone service or pay the full cost of its installation and maintenance. No right-thinking Australian would accept a system which provided no telephone service to about a third of the people and about 95 per cent of the country, yet this is a distinct possibility if Telecom is privatised. Many people point to the supposed success of the policy of privatisation in Great Britain under Margaret Thatcher. Instead of looking at the effects of the sale of British Telecom on the consumer, many commentators proudly state that more people in Britain now own shares in public companies than at any other time in history; therefore, privatisation is a success. This nonsense ignores the fact that the British telephone subscriber is now paying a higher price for a poorer service. It is a fact that in Britain the cost of local calls and charges has risen faster than inflation since the sale of British Telecom. Britain now has the world's dearest local call charges and rural areas are being forced to pay the full cost of new telephone services. No wonder private investors want to get their hands on British Telecom shares-they appear to be a licence to print money at the expense of the telephone consumer. One could ask: Why would the sale of Telecom in Australia be any different from the sale of British Telecom? The answer is, of course, that the sale would be no different. Australia's rural and country people would be fleeced to fill the pockets of a few investors. Another aspect of privatisation which is often overlooked is the massive unemployment and de-skilling that occurs when the motive becomes purely profit and nothing else. Telecom's buy Australian policy has in the past ensured that up to 90 per cent of Telecom's high technology purchases have been made in Australia. In 1985-86 this was valued at $900m spent by Telecom in Australia on high technology goods. Where would this money be spent if Telecom was driven by the profit motive? It would be spent in the factories of Asia rather than in Australia, causing large scale unemployment and adding to Australia's balance of trade problems. The British experience has shown us that this is not merely scare mongering, it is fact. Many thousands of jobs in British industry have been sacrificed on the altar of privatisation already and as many as 45,000 others are at risk. What then are the benefits of privatisation? A cash injection to the Treasury coffers would assist in paying unemployment benefits to those thrown out of work by the sale of Telecom. In Britain the sale has helped to provide income tax cuts, but these cuts may not even cover the increased costs of telephone services. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(10.59) —Mr Deputy Speaker, last evening I read to the House a letter written by a former policeman in 1981. A Constable Dillon of the Queensland Police Force was applauded for coming forward at the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct. I wish to acknowledge the bravery of this constable who came forward almost six years ago. There was no applause on that occasion. He received vilification from the then Police Minister, Mr Hinze. As a result, corruption in the Queensland Police Force became so ram- pant that a senior member of that force, a self-confessed corrupt officer acting on appointment from the Queensland Government, was able to sit on the National Crime Authority. If only the Bjelke-Petersen Government had taken action in 1981. The Bjelke-Petersen Government could have acted, should have acted, but did not. I have now received advice that some of these allegations had been forwarded to the then Attorney-General in Queensland, Mr Doumaney. It took many months before the allegations were forwarded to the then Police Minister, Mr Hinze. The officers involved in making the allegations then appeared on the Nationwide program. The actions of Mr Hinze at the time are interesting in hindsight. Mr Hinze required the officers to meet with him and make sworn affidavits and then he would look into the allegations. In other words, these officers who had already put their jobs on the line had to leave themselves further open so Hinze could see whether or not he would investigate. Yet Hinze is the same Minister who was reassuring the Queensland public a year earlier that no inquiry into illegal casinos and brothels was needed because they did not exist. This similar line was adopted almost six years later by the current Minister for Police, Mr Gunn. In other words, why would honest members of the police force ever bother to come forward when members of the Bjelke- Petersen Government mislead the public? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 11 p.m. Mr Scholes to ask Madam Speaker: (1) How many papers were presented to Parliament in each year since 1982. (2) How many papers were presented to the House of Representatives. (3) How many papers were distributed (a) under the Parliamentary Papers series and (b) by request. (4) What action is taken with the remaining stocks of papers. (5) In how many instances were the total stocks of papers supplied to the Parliament exhausted. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 7 October 1987: Health Insurance Act- Approvals pursuant to subsection 23db (1), dated 28 May 1987 (2). Determinations pursuant to subsections- 4ba, dated 21 July 1987. 4bb, dated 21 July 1987. 23dn (2), dated 28 May 1987. 78c (2), dated 21 July 1987. National Health Act-Principles formulated under subsection 40aa (7), dated 28 June 1987. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question Nos 41 to 61) Mr Blunt asked 21 Ministers, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: Did the Minister make any formal or informal statements during the 1987 General Elections campaign concerning the implications of the Australia Card on matters for which the Minister was, at that time, responsible; if so, will the Minister provide copies of those statements, speeches or comments. Mr Hawke —As indicated above, the honourable member asked identical questions of 21 Ministers. The following answer is provided on behalf of all those Ministers: The details sought by the honourable member are on the public record and facilities are available in the Parliamentary Library to assist members and their research staffs in relation to such matters. For all ministers to whom the question is addressed to assemble and provide this material, in a number of cases in relation to statements they would have made in former capacities, would entail significant diversion of departmental resources and I am not prepared to authorise the time and expense that would be involved. So far as the election campaign is concerned, apart from individual ministers' statements, the Government's commitment to the reintroduction of the Australia Card legislation as part of its determination to make the taxation system fairer and more efficient was set out in the Australian Labor Party policy statement which I launched on 23 June, and on many other occasions. (Question No. 121) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 22 September 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the answer to question No. 868 (Hansard, 7 June 1984, page 3188) in which the then Minister for Administrative Services stated that responsibility for the proper use of premises occupied by departments and authorities rests with the permanent heads of departments and the chief executive of statutory corporations. (2) Was there an approach from a group entitled ``People for Nuclear Disarmament'' which was formed in the Victorian Branch of his Department; if so, did his Department take the view that the group was political and its activities were unrelated to work matters. (3) Did the former Minister overrule, or cause a change in, that decision of management and accept the position of honorary secretary of that group. (4) Does this decision constitute a precedent in relation to the use of premises occupied by his Department and what are the guidelines for the establishment in relation to other requests for the formation of special interest groups and political organisations within his Department. Mr Humphreys —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) I am told the previous Minister accepted the position of Honorary President. (4) No. The rule must be, however, to apply commonsense and to act consistently within the general spirit of the guidelines outlined previously by the then Minister for Administrative Services.