Thursday, 8 October 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Bill presented by Mr Humphreys, and read a first time. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill before the House makes a number of important changes to procedures associated with the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. These have been announced previously either as part of the 1987-88 Budget package or in decisions taken as a result of the efficiency scrutiny into the payment of pharmaceutical benefits conducted earlier in 1987. Honourable members are well aware of this Government's scrutiny of all areas of expenditure and, in regard to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme in particular, the measures implemented last year to better target assistance on those in greatest need, especially families who require large numbers of drugs. The changes incorporated in this Bill, although less significant than the changes made last year, maintain this momentum in achieving value for the taxpayers' dollar and improving efficiency. Amendments included in this Bill will make significant changes to the operation and activities of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). The role of this Committee is to advise the Minister on the listing of drugs and medicinal preparations as pharmaceutical benefits. The Government is concerned about the increasing cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme over the last two years, much of which has been caused by greater prescribing of expensive drugs. For example, in 1986-87 the average price of drugs supplied to pensioners under the scheme was $8, some 24 per cent higher than in the previous year. As mentioned in the Budget Papers, the major changes implemented in November 1986 are expected to save about $100m in 1987-88. If these changes had not been introduced expenditure on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme would have reached an estimated $970m in 1987-88, an increase of 58 per cent in the two years since 1985-86. This Bill includes amendments that will require the PBAC to take account of comparative effectiveness and cost in recommending drugs as pharmaceutical benefits and in considering any change to prescribing restrictions applying to pharmaceutical benefits. In the past the PBAC has not been required by its statutory charter to take costs into account when making its recommendations. In practice it has taken price into account when considering drugs of similar efficacy and toxicity, but only as a secondary consideration. The obligation to consider comparative effectiveness and cost will require the PBAC to give consideration to alternative forms of treatment, for example, surgery, in making recommendations. The Committee will not be allowed to recommend the listing of a particular drug which is substantially more costly, unless it is satisfied that, at least for some patients, the drug provides significant therapeutic advantages over alternative therapy. The Government has no objection to paying high prices for new drugs that offer significant therapeutic advances over existing drugs or other forms of treatment. But it does not believe the taxpayer should foot the bill for very expensive drugs that offer only minimal advantages over much cheaper alternatives. To assist the Committee to take account of these wider considerations, the Government intends to upgrade significantly secretariat support for the PBAC, with greater utilisation of specialist consultants to advise on selected areas of drug therapy. Together with the upgrading of the PBAC secretariat, the Minister will be empowered to increase membership of the Committee by up to three; all of the additional members must be medical practitioners. This enlarged membership, additional secretariat support and greater resources to engage consultants complement the provisions in the Bill for the PBAC to appoint sub-committees to provide the best available advice in this technical area. In addition, this Bill deals with the Minister's power to remove an item from the list of pharmaceutical benefits. The proposed amendment will enable the Minister to act quickly when circumstances change; for example, where a cheaper alternative drug becomes available. When taking action under the proposed amendment, the Minister will be required to have regard to previous views expressed by the PBAC. Clause 4 of the Bill requires that the declaration removing an item from the list of pharmaceutical benefits under these circumstances be tabled in the Parliament and be subject to disallowance. I turn now to two other provisions of the Bill, which arose out of the efficiency scrutiny of the payment of pharmaceutical benefits. Honourable members will be aware of delays which have occurred in the past in paying pharmacists for pharmaceutical benefits they had supplied. A major initiative to prevent delays in paying pharmacists' claims and reduce processing costs has been to encourage pharmacists with compatible computers to submit claims on floppy disks or via modem to the central claims processing facility. This method of submitting claims has a number of advantages which include more rapid and accurate processing. The Bill provides for a cash incentive of 2.5c per pharmaceutical benefit to be paid to pharmacists and other approved suppliers who utilise this claims transmission system. The incentive payment may be paid for a period of two years to each supplier using this system. The rules governing the payment of the incentive will be made by the Minister, published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and laid before each House of Parliament for its scrutiny. The provisions in the Bill will formalise interim arrangements under which the incentive has been paid to eligible pharmacists since 1 July 1987. Earlier this year the Government announced that the incentive would be paid to all pharmacists, and other approved suppliers, who are ready to submit computer-readable claims by 1 November this year. Already the proportion of pharmacists participating in the claims transmission system has jumped from 11 per cent in February to more than 37 per cent at the end of September. A further initiative to prevent delay in reimbursing pharmacists is provided for in clauses 5, 6 and 7 of this Bill. This is the establishment of an alternative payment system whereby the reimbursement to pharmacists is calculated based on processing a random sample of prescriptions submitted in each claim. The proposed arrangement provides pharmacists with greater flexibility in the ways they can receive reimbursement and will also assist the Department in handling peak work loads which occur from time to time. Pharmacists will be able to participate in this arrangement by voluntary election. The Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Finance have been involved in the development of the sampling arrangements. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia has been consulted and has given its approval in principle to the sampling arrangements. Further consultations will take place on the detailed rules which will govern this alternative payment method. The Bill provides that a copy of the rules be published in the Gazette, as well as being tabled in each House of the Parliament. It is expected that the rules will preclude from these arrangements very small pharmacies and those with computers capable of submitting data under the claims transmission system. The rules will specify how samples will be selected and how sample sizes will be determined for each pharmacy. To minimise the sampling variation in payments and take account of high priced items, the rules will allow pharmacists to submit up to 10 per cent of items in a claim for full proces-sing, with the remainder to be reimbursed by the sampling method. In order to encourage pharmacists to choose this method of processing, the rules will provide that sample claims will receive both priority in processing and an incentive payment of 2.5c for each pharmaceutical benefit covered by the claim. Clause 7 of the Bill will extend the Commonwealth recovery power to any overpayments made under the sampling method. Together with the other provisions in this Bill, the sample pro-cessing arrangements are expected to contribute significantly to the efficiency of the pharmaceu-tical benefits scheme. While it is impossible to be precise about the expenditure savings flowing from the changes in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee's procedures, these have been estimated at $5m in this financial year. These will be offset by the additional expenditure of $0.5m for additional staffing and consultancies. The operational savings from the claims transmission incentive and sample processing will depend on the number of approved suppliers participating. If 50 per cent of approved suppliers participate in the claims transmission system and a further 25 per cent elect to have their claims processed by the alternative payment method, the gross operational savings are estimated at $7m and $3.5m respectively in a full year. Offsetting these savings would be the incentive payments themselves, amounting to $1.25m and $0.6m per annum respectively. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Consideration resumed from 7 October. Schedule 3. Department of Social Security Proposed expenditure, $623,707,000. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.13) —The appropriation debate on the Department of Social Security is significant principally because the Department is responsible for expenditure of one of the major areas of the Budget. There has been a growth in expenditure this financial year to $18,176,252,000, representing approximately 22 per cent of the Budget. However, the tendency has been to see these figures purely in terms of the role of the Department in meeting the income problems of sections of the Australian community which, for whatever reason, are not able to meet or maintain what is regarded as a minimal standard of living. In the short time available to me, in addition to questioning this issue as well as the problems of fraud in social security and other matters relating to the Department generally, I would like to canvas briefly the philosophy behind the role of the Federal Government using the Department of Social Security to establish an attitude of mind as well as mechanisms which will ensure that Australians and their children are able to maintain an adequate standard of living and that social attitudes and the attitude of government towards families should be given much greater consideration. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 We have recently in this place and elsewhere participated in a national debate on the issue of the Australia Card, which we are well aware has now reached its rightful demise. In that context, however, one of the issues raised by the Government was that the Australia Card would have a major impact upon dole fraud and cheating of the social security system. The role of the Department of Social Security in this context, therefore, is very important. For example, the Department administers some 15 income maintenance programs, has some five million clients and makes some 100 million payments per annum. It is a vast administrative machine. As I said earlier, it is responsible for administering substantial amounts of money. A recent report tabled in this House, Review of Systems for Dealing with Fraud on the Commonwealth, makes particular mention of the role of the Department of Social Security. Page 181 of that report contains a very interesting table relating to detected overpayments against programs. I emphasise the word `detected' because we have no idea-I hope the Minister will be able to assist us in this matter-exactly what the potential undetected fraud or overpayments against those programs may be. Over the years methods of recovery of such overpayments have varied from extremely poor to less than adequate, which would be a generous way of putting it. No one disputes for a moment the difficulties encountered in this area. I think it is significant that, in evidence given to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, the Department said that only 0.6 per cent of fraud was due to false identity and that the majority of people who were participating either actively or passively in such fraud were those who were experiencing changed economic circumstances about which the Department had not been informed. As I said earlier, when one is dealing with some five million people, of course some difficulties will be encountered in managing those programs. However, evidence that has been put to the House and that is contained in other reports tabled in the Parliament cause one to question whether in fact enough is being done and whether what is being done is being totally effective. For example, in February of this year in Sydney and elsewhere in Australia the Department carried out a crackdown on dole cheating. I think it is fair to say that on the face of it that crackdown was effective in some areas. For example, it is said that some 4,000 people were interviewed by five teams of social security officers in areas where social security officials had identified a concentration of abuse. They found that one in four of those interviewed should not have been receiving the dole. That would suggest, if we were to extrapolate from those figures, that up to 180,000 people receiving the dole throughout the country are not eligible to do so. We do not know what has taken place since February this year-whether significant further reductions have taken place in that particular area-but no doubt the Committee will expect the Minister to go into further detail about that matter. Movement in this area has been somewhat late. After all, we are now considering the Government's fifth Budget; it has had plenty of time to move on fraud and overpayments. The activity to date has been quite belated. Nevertheless, there are serious cases of social security fraud. According to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in his report, either such cases have not been investigated or the methodology of the investigation has been less than satisfactory. I should just mention in passing that when I was Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts under the previous Government we drew attention to precisely that issue. When we were examining the problem of medifraud, for example, it became very clear that the submissions to the then Commonwealth Police and to the prosecutor's office were too often of such a dubious nature and character that it was not possible to maintain successful prosecutions in the courts. The Director of Public Prosecutions Office says that it has met with the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Social Security because of its concern that welfare fraud has not been effectively controlled. We accept, as does the DPP, that there are some reasons for this, but the DPP claims that the essential reason is that many of the cases are not being adequately investigated. Though the Department claims that it naturally utilises its resources on what it regards as the most serious cases, according to the DPP the real problem now is that a significant number of what I shall call intermediate cases of fraud are effectively being passed over, allegedly because of inadequate distribution of resources to investigate them. The point is also made that the evidence coming from the Department of Social Security is not of good quality and often, therefore, is not an adequate basis for the DPP to carry out the necessary action before the courts. As I said earlier, I want to widen this discussion briefly to cover a point of great importance, the future of the family. The policies of this Government have been essentially anti-family for the past five Budgets. Despite its approach to poverty on the one hand, it is effectively making middle income families significantly poorer than they have been in the past. The result of that is a significant reduction in Australia's birth rate, to 1.8 per cent, which has fallen below the replacement level. Australia is now the only Western country not to have significant tax relief measures that recognise the costs of raising children. Over the past five Budgets every attempt has been made by this Government to remove from the Income Tax Assessment Act the range of deductions that were previously permitted for Australian families. The issue that support is given only on the basis of need totally misses the difficulties of determining need at the margin. As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is well aware in the context of his own much-heralded poverty package, the simple realities are that families in poverty will in some cases be hit by a marginal tax rate of 110 per cent. For example, families with two children and on $374 to $394 per week, with three children and on $410 to $437, with four children and on $450 to $480, and with five children and on $490 to $520, will find themselves in a poverty trap. That will be a significant disincentive for families in those brackets to increase their income, as they will be better off if they stay on lower earnings and remain dependent on social security. In other words, the Government is effectively giving with one hand while trying to grab back with the other. Effective marginal tax rates show the effect an additional dollar earned of taxable income has on the amount of money that a family has at its disposal. Deductions from that extra dollar are made by both the taxation system, including Medicare, and the Department of Social Security, through the income test. It is relevant that the Government at the time of the Budget chose to ignore the impact of the Medicare levy on people in that marginal position. That again demonstrates the fact that there are a whole range of isolated-nevertheless very significant in statistical terms-reasons why we must have a basis for social welfare policy which shows a greater integration of the taxation arrangements with social security than we have at present to achieve nationally acceptable objectives. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(10.23) —On 15 September the Treasurer (Mr Keating) delivered to the nation a portentous Budget. The reason for its unusually significant status is that it provides manifest evidence that Australia has finally turned the corner. It has turned the corner and, at the same time, turned its back on the years of malign neglect of the poor and deprived in our society. Just over three weeks ago the Government delivered in full its election promise to commence the fight to eliminate poverty in Australia, and so laid a solid foundation for the growth of social justice. Over the past few years we as a nation have been subjected to severe economic restraint in order to break out of the downward spin the country succumbed to in the early 1980s. It was a necessary time for belt tightening for both ordinary Australians and government alike. When the Labor Government came to power, 16.9 per cent of Australian children had been categorised, according to reports and studies, as living in poverty. That figure was substantially higher than corresponding numbers in countries such as Great Britain, which in 1979 recorded a figure of 10.7 per cent; Germany, 8.2 per cent; and Sweden, which tabled only 5.1 per cent of its child population as living in circumstances of poverty. Therefore, the centrepiece of this year's Budget is of particular significance because it addresses the very question of child poverty. In June this year the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a commitment to eliminate child poverty within three years. The introduction of the family package is the first step towards achieving this goal. This is in stark contrast to the great poverty creating measures of the previous conservative Government, which used its high unemployment policies as an economic weapon. The family package replaces the old family income supplement. It creates a range of new benefits for at least 200,000 low income Australian families. Eligible parents earning $300 a week will receive $22 a week for each child under 13 years of age. That amount will rise to $28 a week for children aged 13, 14 and 15. This extra $6 is in line with recommendations put to the Government by the Social Welfare Research Centre of the University of New South Wales that children in this age group require an extra amount in view of the higher costs incurred in satisfying their basic needs. The family allowance supplement will be paid in addition to the basic family allowance now payable to every family earning less than $50,000 a year. The ceiling limit of $50,000 for the recipients of the benefits was announced by the Treasurer initially in the May economic statement. These two measures underline the Government's ethos of redistributing benefits in the welfare area away from those who have the capacity to look after themselves. It is consistent with the Australian Labor Party's philosophy that those who can readily support themselves should do so rather than put out their hands to the taxpayer. In all, this year's Budget directs $250m towards the family package for the 1987-88 financial year. That figure should grow to $500m by the following financial year. Hence, in December the family allowance supplement will be introduced to replace the current scheme. Those on social security benefits currently receiving child payments will automatically receive the increase in the family allowance supplement (FAS) rates. Family allowance supplement eligibility will be subject to a more liberal means test than the one now in existence. For instance, a single income family with two children, earning $350 a week and renting privately, will receive an extra $40 in FAS a week. In all, the family allowance supplement is expected to benefit more than half a million families and one million children. Mr Sciacca —It is a great achievement. Mr LAVARCH —As the honourable member for Bowman says, it is a great achievement. Another increase in the Budget concerns a vital aspect of welfare assistance, namely, rental assistance. It is to be remembered that this payment is the first that any government has granted to assist low income families with private rental costs. Parents currently on unemployment benefits renting privately have to wait six months before they are eligible for a maximum rental assistance of $10 a week. Under the new family package the rental assistance benefit will be increased by 50 per cent to $15 a week. From next month the new child disability allowance will replace the old handicapped child's allowance scheme. The new scheme will involve an increase in current benefits available to disabled children by almost 20 per cent, from $92 to $112 a week. The new allowance, unlike its predecessor, will not require any means testing and completely does away with the previous two separate categories of benefit under which a child needed to qualify, namely, of being severely disabled or substantially disabled. Thus the new allowance removes the distinction between benefits and rates of payment and introduces one all-encompassing payment. It also alleviates the expensive administrative processes and difficulties involved in ascertaining eligibility for each separate category. Another significant measure introduced in this Budget is the relaxation of earning restrictions for ordinary pensioners. From 1 November, eligible pensioners will be entitled to an earnings credit system. This means, in effect, that once a pensioner has built up an earnings credit of $1,000 based on the amount he or she is able to earn each week, that pensioner can earn up to $1,000 in casual income over a four-week period before his or her pension rate is reduced or fringe benefits are withdrawn. Further, as from 1 January next year, pensioners will be able to keep their health benefit card for up to three months if their income rises by no more than 25 per cent over the fringe benefits limit, which at the moment stands at $75 for single pensioners and $126 for couples. These changes should remove the problems previously experienced with small fluctuations in pensioners' private income, which may come about through interest earnings or exchange rate movements. I have already looked at the effect of the family package on my own electorate, and the effect is indeed considerable. I have calculated that approximately 6,000 families will gain immediate benefit from the changes announced. However, there is a limiting factor that, in my few remaining moments, I would like to raise. I refer to the accessibility of Department of Social Security offices to welfare users. Like all government departments and services, the Department of social security has had restrictions placed on it in recent times. This means that in some cases whole communities and large numbers of benefit recipients have to travel consi-derable distances to gain access to a social security office. Obviously, we will never reach the stage where every individual community will have a social security office within it; that is simply beyond the country's means. However, I believe there is in my electorate a very genuine need. At present, there is no social security office in the Fisher electorate. The area is covered by several offices, the two most important being the Redcliffe office, which covers the Caboolture area, and the Chermside office, which covers the Pine Rivers area. Both of these areas are among the fastest growing in Queensland, evidence of which is the fact that the Fisher electorate has received the largest number of successful applications under the first home owners scheme, which I believe demonstrates not only the rate of growth within the area but also the type of growth which is towards the lower economic scale. As a result of these changes in the population, over 40 per cent of the clients at the Redcliffe social security office come from the Caboolture area. The need for an office in the area has been recognised by local officials and I am delighted that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) will be visiting my electorate and the Caboolture area later this month to assess personally the need for an office in the Caboolture area. In summary, the Budget is to be commended for its social security policies. It is a Budget which recognises genuine need and contains poli-cies which target those areas of genuine need. Essentially, the main issue which this country is facing, that of poverty, particularly child po-verty, has been tackled very effectively by this Budget. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(10.33) —While I recognise the sincerity of the sentiments of the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch) I hope that when he has been here a little longer he might turn a slightly more critical eye on some of the social security policies of his Government. Unfortunately, time is very brief in the committee stage so I will not be able to cover very many topics at this stage. But there are a couple that I want to talk about, and I think the honourable member for Fisher may be interested in the first one. If he is in the position of not having an office of the Department of social security in his electorate at all, this is undoubtedly a problem that will present itself to him. It is certainly one that has presented itself in my electorate and will be alleviated to some extent by the very welcome decision by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) of a few months ago to set up a social security shopfront in the town of Beenleigh, which is part of my electorate. There is a very high rate of social security payments in that area and, previously, those people had no choice but to travel to Woodridge, which is very relevant to the first point I want to raise. Last year in the Budget debate I referred to the Government's decision requiring recipients of the supporting parent's benefit and the widow's pension to report to an officer of the Department of Social Security shortly after reaching the status of pensioner to explain what they were doing about getting employment. At the time I could get no response at all from the Government on the effect of this decision. I was very sorry about that because I thought it would be something that would concern certainly its women members to some degree. But I received no response on it. At the time I described the policy as callous and heartless. It has now been in operation for some time and we have had an opportunity to look at its actual operation. I made the point then that women who would not qualify for the supporting parent's benefit or widow's pension unless they had dependent children, and since they were also coping with either a bereavement or a breakdown of marriage, they were in a very vulnerable position. I felt that to require them to present themselves shortly after bereavement or marital breakdown and to explain to some bureaucrat why they did not have a job, was very unfeeling and certainly did not show any understanding of their position. At the time I also queried with the Minister the cost of implementing this scheme. If there was to be all this checking on these recipients each quarter, and if they were to be counselled each quarter on how to get jobs-in other words, to have pressure put on them to get jobs-obviously it would be very costly. At the time the only comment made by the Minister-as I recall, by way of interjection-was that the cost would be covered by the savings. What actually happens, I understand, is that a recipient receives a letter saying, `Mrs Jones, it is time for you to report to the Woodridge social security office and tell us what you are doing about getting a job. Please bring this letter with you'. Mrs Jones, who lives at Eagleby and has no public transport to the Beenleigh railway station, pays a taxi fare, possibly carting along two or three pre-school age children, travels to the social security office, and presents the letter. The staff take out a list, tick off her name, and say, `You may now go'. No effective counselling is taking place. It might soften the blow a little if it were. Mr Howe —There is an interview. Mrs SULLIVAN —There is no effective counselling, in my experience. Furthermore, I am informed, there is no requirement to prove identity. The letter in the hand is supposed to be proof of identity. It is possible that Mrs Jones is in fact in a job and is receiving a supporting parent's benefit, and her neighbour, who is not in a job, presents the letter and is ticked off on the list as being Mrs Jones. If the system were to work properly, it would incur major costs. Having made the decision-a pretty tough decision given the personal hardship it creates-the Government has not been prepared to fund what ought to flow from the sugar coating of the pill, because it would be enormously expensive. The other anti-family, and certainly anti- female, action of the Government this year was the means testing of the family allowance. When the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced in the May statement that the family allowance would be means tested on joint parental income over $50,000, no explanation was given of the implications. The first opportunity I had to ask a question of the Minister about that matter was during the first week in June, which was, of course, the last week the Parliament sat-in fact, as I recall, it was the last day of the sitting. On that occasion there was no opportunity to follow up the Minister's answer to my question. I asked the Minister what would happen in the case of divorcees or people separated from their spouse where, as on most occasions, the female is the custodial parent and the recipient of the family allowance. I asked the Minister whether the Government intended to set up files on everybody receiving family allowance in Australia. The Minister slid off on to the topic of handicapped children and did not give me an answer to the main thrust of my question. What will happen with recipients of family allowance who are unable to obtain from the other parent-the test is applied to joint parental income-information about that other parent's income? Forms have been sent to recipients, asking them to enter on the form the taxable income of the other parent. Last week there was a news item that some tens of thousands of recipients of family allowance have not responded. I am aware that at least some women have returned the form with the notation, in relation to the taxable income of the other parent, `He will not tell me'. I am aware that there are other women who simply cannot find out. I am concerned about what happens. A lot of them will not have returned their forms yet. Are they to lose their family allowance? If not, under what circumstances will the Government pay family allowance without knowing joint parental income, and how are those circumstances framed so that the means testing is effective at all? Is it possible that a woman can send back the form saying that the father of her children will not tell her what his taxable income is? Maybe it is $100,000 a year, or some major sum of money. I do not know how the Government gets around that problem. I will be interested to hear how it can effectively means test without causing hardship to what I believe is a considerable number of women who are not in a position to respond to the Government's request. I am sure that some honourable members realise that while many women know, or think they know, what their husbands earn-they know what he gives them for housekeeping-they really do not know what is on his tax return. I think that there are many women in that position. Many of them would not have cared previously, but now they need to know. It was my opinion, at the time, that the Government was opening a hornet's nest with that particular item. The Minister for Social Security might justify it on the grounds that family allowance should not go to people of high income. Before those words leave his mouth I ask him to give some thought to the things that were said by members of the Labor Opposition in relation to family allowance when it was introduced by the Fraser Government, and when in a subsequent Budget proposed the so-called newsboy tax. Mr White —The infamous newsboy tax. Mrs SULLIVAN —That is right; the infamous newsboy tax. I am on the public record as opposing it at the time, but so are a number of present Australian Labor Party members of parliament. The reason I opposed it was that we said at the time that family allowance was introduced that it represented some sort of economic recognition of mothering, or parenting, if the Committee prefers. The point is that approximately 99 per cent of its recipients are women. The criticism that was made by the Labor Party of the newsboy tax was that it was an attack on the principle of family allowance. When family allowance is means tested the same attack is made. For many women in this country it is the only truly disposable income they have, in terms of total discretion, to themselves. By requiring these women to become social security recipients with a file in the Department of Social Security on the subject and by having them enter into a different sort of financial relationship with their husbands or ex-husbands, the Government has overturned all that, and in so doing has shown a very poor understanding of the significance of family allowance to nearly all the women who received it. There is a subject I do not have time to speak on, but it is referred to in an excellent article in the Catholic Leader of 27 September 1987. It is about the care of acutely ill patients, particularly the elderly, in hospitals. I seek leave to table that article. Leave granted. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.43) —I always find it interesting to hear members of the Opposition criticising the Government on the measures it is taking to try to improve the plight of people in poverty. I am not questioning the sincerity of the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan); I am saying that this Government is at least trying to address the problem. When I was in opposition I do not recall the Fraser Government doing that sort of thing at all. I think one has to recognise the efforts of this Government and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table, to try to overcome these very severe problems. I will be talking about a problem of one of my ex-constituents in a little while. In my speech on the second reading I congratulated the Government on the family package of $250m. We honoured our election promise, but there are still a number of problems. I would like to quote from a very excellent short paper called Welfare: A Fair Slice of the Cake recently prepared by Julian Disney, who is the President of the Australian Council of Social Service. He said: The number of Australians living in poverty has increased very substantially over the last decade or so. Precise measurement of poverty is impossible but the number of people living below the Henderson Poverty Line, which is the most widely-used measure in Australia, has more than doubled since the mid-1970s and is now in excess of 2 million. In the short time available to me I want to deal mainly with a problem in relation to an ex-constituent of mine. I mentioned it during my speech in the second reading debate. It relates to the circumstances of Mrs Olive Richards and her daughter, Adele. I know that Olive would dearly like to be able to speak directly to the Minister, but she is at least speaking to him through me. She will be aged 50 years on 17 March next year. She owns her own house and she has a daughter, Adele. She is, however, living below the poverty line. She is finding it extremely difficult-increasingly difficult-to make ends meet. She is a widow on a Class A pension of $276.30. When Mrs Richards' daughter Adele reaches the age of 18 on 3 January 1988, having left secondary school on 23 October this year, Mrs Richards will fall back on to a Class B widows pension of $224.30 per fortnight. Mrs Richards also receives an English widows pension of #23.88 per month, which varies according to the sterling-dollar exchange rate, which has not been in Mrs Richards' favour over the last few years. In December Mrs Richards will lose #15.20 per month from her English pension, which will then fall to #5.97 per month. In confirmation of these matters I quote from the letter which Mrs Richards received on 10 August 1987 from the Department of Social Security: Dear Mrs Richards, You are currently in receipt of a Class A Widow's Pension at the rate of $276.30 per fortnight being made up of $224.30 per fortnight payment in respect of yourself, plus $28.00 per fortnight Child's Allowance and $24.00 per fortnight Mother's Allowance in respect of your child. We make this payment because you are supporting a student child, should this child cease to be a dependant on you or leave school you will receive a Widow's Class B Pension at the rate of $224.30 providing your domestic and financial circumstances remain unchanged. Mrs Richards also received a letter from the Department of Health and Social Security in England which advised her that her pension from there would be made up of the widowed mother's allowance at the personal rate of #2.17 and a child dependency increase at the rate of #3.80, making a total of #5.97. The letter stated: I should also advise you that while you are living in Australia permanently, you do not qualify for the annual increases of widow's pension. This is because we do not have a reciprocal arrangement on social security with Australia which allows for the increases of widow's pensions to be paid to persons living there. I say to the Minister that I think it is unfortunate that we cannot have some reciprocal arrangement. I now quote directly from Mrs Richards's letter: Believe it or not I am now to be taxed on my income. I cannot claim for daughter as she receives Austudy $2,086 and she works after school. I have double checked that with the Australian Taxation Office. Mrs Richards then explains that she pays $367.76 to the Commissioner of Taxation and she gets a pensioner rebate of $109.75, so the total amount of tax that she must pay is $178.01. Her letter continues: If I don't pay, I'm given an extension of time to pay. If I still don't pay I am summoned to court, and have to pay tax plus court costs. If I still refuse to pay-articles are taken out of my home equal to the amount owing. If I won't let them into my home, I may go to prison. If I had worked at a paying job . . . earning the $40.00 per week allowable income before it takes 50 cents in the dollar out of my pension, allowing for public holidays, my earnings would have been $2,000, of this I would have to pay $900 Tax! This bad news has dashed any hopes of me even bothering to look for paid work next year. The only paid work I would under-take now, would be strictly CASH, and this is precisely what the Hawke Government wants to outlaw. Yours, fed up, Olive Richards This letter demonstrates the rather desperate straits Olive Richards is in. I would like now to go to another quote from Julian Disney's paper, in which he says: Popular prejudices about sole parents are often based on images of young girls conceiving children without any serious relationship in order to enjoy a comfortable life on social security. In fact, more than 80 per cent of sole parents who are receiving social security bore their children while living with a partner . . . A further cause of increased poverty in the community has been that over the last decade all categories of social security payment to meet the costs of raising children have fallen in value. Family allowance, for example, has fallen by about 30 per cent in real terms and the special payment for sole parents (the mothers/guardians allowance) has fallen by about 20 per cent. Moreover, most income tests for these payments have become tougher. I want to draw the case of Mrs Richards to the attention of the Minister. I know he is concerned for people like her. I do not believe the social security package which we brought forward for families in poverty will help Mrs Richards. This problem relates partly to taxation also, and I know the Minister cannot have direct responsibility for that. The Treasurer should be made aware of the problems facing these people, and there should be a tie-up between the Social Security Department-- Mr White —We would like to give him a go at that, though; put him in charge of taxation. Mr MILTON —Perhaps that will happen one day; it remains to be seen. Meanwhile the Minister is doing a very good job where he is. I think we will find that the record will show he is one of the best Ministers and one of the most caring Ministers that this country has seen for many years. I bring this case to his attention in the hope that something might be done for people like Mrs Richards. She finds it very difficult, at her age, to get a job, and in fact all the schemes being run now are for much younger women. I believe something has to be done for people like Mrs Richards, and I hope that the Minister might find some way around her problem. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.53) —I was impressed by the compassion shown by the previous speaker, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), for certain clients of the Department of Social Security. Compassion definitely needs to be shown to many people who are suffering because of the inadequate administration of many of the Government's welfare programs and because of the inefficient and perhaps uncaring administration within the Department. I am sure that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is well aware of this issue and I would be very interested to hear in his remarks later what he proposes to do about the appalling level of staff morale within his Department and also the almost unmanageable industrial relations situation that exists in some States. Without citing individual regional offices of the Department of Social Security-and I am quite sure that many members of this chamber are aware of the problems I am going to allude to as a result of their own experiences within their electorates-there are major morale problems, and regional managers are encountering major discipline problems in terms of achieving work targets and the objectives of government policies within the Department. The major consequence of this is that the people who are in need of help are suffering. Only the other day we saw a 24-hour strike within the Department of Social Security. Pity help anybody who was in trouble on that day, because the Department just closed its doors and said, `Tough; if you are in trouble! We are more interested in our staff positions than in helping the people we are getting paid to help'. I wonder what the Minister has to say about that. He was conspicuous by his silence on that whole issue. As I said before, the question of industrial relations within the Department of Social Security is a joke. I refer to the radiation testing of the visual display unit screens that was forced on the Department by the union, and I might ask the Minister how many screens have been found to be faulty as a result of that. When he is answering that question he might also tell us how much money he spent buying new furniture as a result of demands made by the unions, where the old furniture is and perhaps how many people he could have helped had he not bought that unnecessary equipment. He might also make reference to some of the other problems of his Department in terms of repetitive strain injury, or whatever they choose to call it right now, and the way in which the Government buckled to the union's pressure in that area. Unfortunately, that is perhaps only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the problems within Social Security. This Minister, for I do not know how many years, kept telling us that there was no problem with fraud and overpayment within the Department and then, as a result of immense public pressure and pressure from members on this side of the chamber, it was suddenly decided that there was a need to do something about it, and something is beginning to be done about it. The regret is that literally billions of dollars were wasted. There is no way of accurately checking the figures that the Government lays claim to right now. Mr Howe —Why don't you make it trillions, Charles? Mr BLUNT —Every time the Government makes a new initiative, it is very hard to reconcile that initiative figure with the previous one. We have saved hundreds of millions of dollars of waste on the Minister's own admission in his Press releases and in the Press releases put out for him by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). If we go back a little further we will see Press releases in which he himself said that there was no problem within the Department. I wonder exactly what sort of detailed understanding he has of the Department's administration. Perhaps he would do better to spend more time running his Department and less time involved in factional brawling. The Minister interjected to ask why I did not make it trillions. That is a pretty weak response. The reality is that the administration of the Department of Social Security has gone downhill dramatically since he took over. He knows that. The Department knows it. The Government knows it. And the people of Australia know it. That is what it really comes down to. We have a social security review, which is a very good idea. It is about time we had consistency within social security policy in this country. But we have not achieved it. We have seen new income tests introduced for pensioners. The commentary on that is that they are so complex and so confusing that most people do not understand how they are going to operate. It is another example of the Governments changing the rules of the game after the game has started. That is what it did with pensioners, with the assets test, with the superannuation tax and now that is what it is doing with the income test. The great pity is that is does not know where it is going. Whilst it is playing around with changes in this area, what is it doing to make sure that the changes in terms of income support are consistent with the programs of welfare delivery in other departments? Mr Milton —Your Government did nothing when in office, nothing at all. Mr BLUNT —The honourable member from the back bench interjects that my Government did nothing. Let me remind the honourable member that I have never been in government. I suggest that what he really ought to do next time he goes into the Caucus is to ask this bloke at the table what he has been doing for 3 1/2 years. The answer will be, `A big fat nothing', because there are more people in poverty in Australia right now than there were when this Government came to office. We are spending more money on welfare than we ever have before and we are doing less good. He knows it. The left wing knows it. The Minister knows it. The Treasurer knows it. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) knows it. And the reality is that the people of Australia know it. Welfare in Australia is out of control because the Labor Party, which comes to office saying, `We are compassionate, we understand welfare, we know what we are going to do', does nothing. It takes three years to set up an inquiry. Once it gets an inquiry, it starts rewriting the reports because it does not like their conclusions. Let us talk about family assistance and about the inconsistent approach in averaging incomes for the family assistance program and what this Government has not done for pensioners. How come it can lag the reductions in income support for families but cannot provide the same sort of concession for the income test for pensioners? Where is the consistency in that? How come the Caucus battle was lost when tax cuts for wage and salary earners were obtained but nothing could be done to implement anything to relieve poverty traps at the same time? Where is the compassion of this Government? It has not got any. The Government is making an unholy mess of maintenance collection. We have had a number of statements. We have had some inadequate booklets. The other day the Minister, instead of putting down a statement in this place, came in here, answered a dorothy dixer and said nothing. The expectation that has been raised in the community is significant. The detail that the community has been given is almost non-existent. We do not know what is going to happen. We have not been told how it is going to be enforced. We do not know whether it is going to be universal. We have no idea what stage 2 is going to consist of. We do not know what the formula is. There has been no genuine consultation. It is typical of the way in which this Government operates in this area. What it does not appreciate is that, while the bureaucrats may be quite cosy out there in some high rise bunker working out what they are going to do, there are literally millions of people in Australia who suffer as a result of this sort of total confusion. We have a government that has no direction and a Minister who has no real concern for his Department's administration. We have a Minister who cannot appreciate that there is a need on a day to day basis to make sure that the shopfront operates properly. I invite the Minister to visit a few social security regional offices and just have a look. The Minister should walk in with a false moustache, make sure that counter staff do not recognise him and see what their attitude is when he applies for something. What is he going to do about the attitude and efficiency of counter staff? What is he going to do about the efficiency of communication with his clients? Not a thing. A few years ago we had a big Press release which said-- Mr Howe —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. While I understand that you have discretion to allow pretty wide debate on the Appropriation Bill, I suggest that you advise the honourable member to address himself to the appropriation and to indulge rather less in his usual whingeing, whining personal insults. The CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. The appropriation is to pay for the running of the Minister's Department. The honourable member is talking about the running of the Minister's Department. Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Mr Chairman. The Minister's pathetic point of order underlines his lack of understanding of what constitutes the administration of his Department. He is probably not even aware that his Department has a computer that generates the most impersonal confusing letters to his clients. It would be a good idea if he read some of the things that go out under his Department's letterhead because, let me tell him, what is written is almost unintelligible. This Department regularly writes to people at the wrong address, demanding repayment of debt or offering cash discounts for debts that have yet to be proven. The detailed administration mistakes within the Department of Social Security are absolutely horrendous. Mr Howe —It is a long time since you have prepared a speech on social security. Mr BLUNT —The Minister sits at the table and makes gratuitous interjections. It is a long time since he did any policy work in social security. When someone does put a policy up to him, either he does not like it or it gets rolled in Caucus or Cabinet. That is the problem. It would not be so bad except that millions of Australians are suffering as a result of the inadequacies of this Government's social security policy. Mr Howe —What about the report that was prepared recently. You should read the report-- Mr BLUNT-The Minister sits there talking about the Cass report. I pose this specific question to him: Why do we have an inconsistent approach to income averaging for families and pensioners and how does he justify that if he is genuinely concerned about consistency within the Department in respect of its income support programs and equity within the Australian community? I would be interested in his justification. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker)(11.03) —I must say that it is rich to hear the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) criticising this Go-vernment's implementation and administration of social security policies. Of course, the Opposition when in government had no problems with the implementation of its new programs because it did not have any. In addressing the social security aspects of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88, I wish to concentrate on one feature, namely the provisions made in it for the security of income for the aged in our community. This latest Budget represents a continuation of the commendable action which this Government has taken over the last 4 1/2 years to maximise that security. Income and services for the aged are of vital concern to me because, as I have said before in this place, I represent the electorate with the largest number of aged people in the country where almost 20,000 people are in receipt of an age or similar pension. This fact is certainly not lost on me and neither, I might say, was it lost on the Opposition candidates in Hawker during the last election campaign. In its dealings with the aged people of this nation, the Opposition usually works on two premises-one incorrect and one correct. The first premise it works on is that old people are fools. The second is that old people are easily scared. Old people are not fools. I have never assumed that they were and my dealings with them have shown that they have an accumulated wisdom and common sense which I respect and a canniness born of experience which enables them to see through people who are trying to put something over them. However, many elderly people are easily frightened. Because of their age and, in many cases, their infirmity or illness, they can be easily alarmed at any threat, real or perceived, to their well-being. For the Opposition to exploit this propensity for fear, as it has done and did in particular during the 1984 anti-assets test campaign, is shameful indeed. The misinformation and distortion of facts and the mental acrobatics in which the Opposition candidates in Hawker engaged during the last election campaign in order to ingratiate themselves with elderly people and turn them against the Government were remarkable to behold. We had the Joh Nationals candidate running on the platform of a better deal for pensioners, while the economic guru of his party, the then Senate candidate John Stone, was on record as advocating the cessation of the indexation of pensions, restriction of the portability of pensions for some Australians who had migrated here from other countries and a massive $12 billion in spending cuts which, by necessity, would have impacted hugely on aged services such as nursing homes, Meals on Wheels and home and community care. Yet, in this context, we had the bizarre spectacle of the Joh Nationals candidate running around Hawker on a platform of a better deal for pensioners. Mr White —Do not worry about him any more. Mrs HARVEY —No, I will not. Either he did not know what his Party's policies were, which is a distinct possibility, or, more likely, he chose to ignore that policy and try to deceive the elderly into thinking that they would be better off under his Party. However, as I said, elderly people are not fools and the size of the National Party vote in Hawker-1.9 per cent-attested to that. The candidate for the Liberal Party of Australia distributed a pamphlet throughout the electorate claiming that the elderly had been forgotten and deceived by Labor. To disprove this allegation, we need only look at the facts. In the 4 1/2 years of this Government, pensions have risen in real terms by 7.5 per cent, while, during the seven years of the Fraser-Howard Liberal Government, they increased by only 1.5 per cent in real terms. In addition, funding for services for the aged, particularly through the home and community care scheme, has increased dramatically since this Government came into power. So who is deceiving or forgetting the elderly? It is not us. This Government has done all within its power to ensure adequate income and services for the aged. This Budget includes two major initiatives affecting pensioner incomes. These are, firstly, an earnings credit scheme to come into effect on 1 November this year and, secondly, a relaxation of the fringe benefits income test. The earnings credit scheme gives pensioners the incentive to go ahead and supplement their income. This new earnings policy means that pensioners with limited private income can take short term jobs without worrying about cuts to their pension. Under the earnings credit scheme, eligible pensioners will be able to earn up to $1,000 each from casual jobs without losing their fringe benefits or having their pension reduced. At present, people on a pension or the supporting parents benefit can have gross weekly income of up to $40 for single people and $70 combined for couples before the pension is reduced. An additional weekly income of $12 gross is allowed for each dependent student or child in a pensioner's care. Pensioners will be able to accumulate an earnings credit equal to the difference between such amounts and their actual income. The new policy on fringe benefits means that pensioners will be able to reduce their entitlement despite short term fluctuations in the level of their income, and this will be of particular assistance to those receiving indexed sources of income, such as superannuation, and those receiving overseas pensions, which are subject to fluctuating exchange rates. From 1 January 1988, pensioners will be able to retain their fringe benefits for up to three months as long as their income does not rise by more than 25 per cent above the fringe benefit cut-out levels. These levels are $75 gross a week for single people and $126 gross a week combined for a couple, plus $20 for each child or student in their care. If the income does not drop below the 125 per cent level within that three-month period, eligibility will then cease. This Budget adds to the measures already introduced by this Government to remove the separate income test on rent assistance and to increase the income test free area for pensions. This Government has already made progress towards achieving its commitment to raise the standard rate of pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. I believe that at the moment that figure is 24.8 per cent of average weekly earnings. One area related to pensioner incomes is a cause for concern for many people in my electorate and for me, and that is the erosion of the gap between pensions and the tax free threshold. This difference has reduced considerably over the last few years. For example, in 1983-84, the difference between the annual pension income and the tax free threshold was $744.60. In 1985-86 it was $517 and in 1986-87, $478.10. With the present additional income that pensioners can now earn without losing their pension, many of the people in my electorate are rapidly approaching or overtaking that tax-free threshold. I am pleased to note that at the moment the Government is examining the whole relationship between the pension and the tax free threshold. I commend the Government for undertaking that examination and I look forward to a positive result from it. I commend the Government for its actions in this Budget in the social security area. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(11.11) —I wish to make some comments on the Government's Budget allocation for family assistance and in particular the allocation which constitutes its new family assistance package. I believe that we on this side of the chamber must acknowledge the necessity and significance of the new family assistance allocation. If my colleagues wish to form an objective judgment of the assistance package I refer them to the assessment of the package by the Institute of Family Studies, when it was first proposed during the election campaign, and to a paper entitled `Ending Child Poverty: An Assessment' by Peter Saunders and Peter Whiteford from the University of New South Wales. Those two assessments make it clear that this package of extended assistance will bring about a significant increase in the disposable income of low income families with children. Support for families with children with disabilities will also improve significantly. The Minister will be pleased to learn that I regard that as being positively praiseworthy. I draw honourable members' attention to six general points from the Saunders-Whiteford assessment which I think provide context for this Committee discussion. Firstly, child poverty has increased dramatically, with the incidence of child poverty over the last decade rising from 8 per cent to just over 20 per cent. I believe, and I am sure the Minister will agree, that that is a statistic of which we all should be ashamed. Secondly, child poverty in Australia in the early 1980s was significantly higher than in all other countries except the United States of America. That international standing is not one we should accept, particularly as we enter our bicentennial year. Thirdly, despite the fact that family assistance in Australia is available to all families with children, the level of payment has simply been too low in relation to need. Fourthly, the effect of the Government's package is to reduce this poverty headcount by 130,000 children, or by around 23 per cent. Fifthly, the raising of the rate of payment for younger children to the older child rate will raise another 165,000 children out of financial poverty, at a cost of $250m at November 1987 prices. However, that will still leave some 285,000 below the poverty line. Sixthly, two other policy areas-employment and housing-can significantly affect poverty levels, and policies designed to get people jobs and into affordable housing are essential to the long term fight against poverty. I wish to respond in a number of ways to those six points. I believe, along with my colleagues on this side of the chamber, that in the long term, responsible government should make significant improvements in family disposable income and independence by lowering taxation levels and interest rates and removing the current barriers to job creation that exist in an over-regulated labour market. The elimination of poverty should not be achieved at the cost of making people permanently dependent on the state. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind. Those should be our long term goals. In the interim, additional community assistance should be available. I believe we should be realistic and accept that, even with significant tax cuts, interest rate declines and a deregulated labour market, there will be many families who, through no fault of their own, need assistance from the community via the social security system. The second thing I want to say is that if it is true that employment is such an important factor in helping a family out of poverty and into self-reliance, it is time we considered whether preference in employment should not be given to those applicants who do not already have a job, have dependants and would not, by being appointed to a job, simply bring a second income into a family already receiving an average income. My first comments have to do with the need for this assistance package and for all welfare payments to be subject to ongoing and rigorous review and assessment. It was unfortunate that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in response to a question the other day, seemed to accept that a by-product of this package would be that it would be a poverty trap for approximately 20,000 families. He seemed to say that that problem was outweighed by the benefits that would flow to a larger number of families. Frankly, that kind of utilitarian approach to social policy is dangerous. Let me draw the attention of honourable members to the comments of two researchers which I think are significant in considering the need for constant monitoring of social policy. The first comes from a ground-breaking work by Charles Murray on social policy in the United States undertaken in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The work is called Losing Ground and many honourable members will be familiar with it. Murray writes: Government's social policy helps set the rules of the game-the stakes, the risks, the pay-offs, the trade-offs, and the strategies for making a living, raising a family, having fun, defining what `winning' and `success' mean. The more vulnerable a population and the fewer its independent resources, the more decisive is the effect of the rules imposed from above. The most compelling explanation for the marked shift in the fortunes of the poor is that they continued to respond, as they always had, to the world as they found it, but that we-meaning the not poor and un-disadvantaged-had changed the rules of their world. Not of our world, just their's. The first effect of the new rules was to make it profitable for the poor to behave, in the short term, in ways that were destructive in the long term. The second effect was to mask these long-term losses-to subsidise irretrievable mistakes. We tried to provide more for the poor and produced more poor instead. We tried to remove the barriers to escape from poverty, and inadvertently built a trap. The second set of comments comes from a recent article on the impacts of policy actions on the family and household by John Ermisch of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research in London. In the article Ermisch finds that a number of social policies over the years in the United Kingdom have had `significant influences on important aspects of the way in which we live, and in most cases these demographic effects were not recognised by policy makers'. In particular he found that `the structure and generosity of income maintenance programs can have substantial effects on the rate of marital breakdown and the formation of one-parent families and households'. I point out to the Minister that the present cost of the breakdown of marriage is approximately $500 for each of our four million families in Australia. The cost of the Government's marriage education program designed to stop this utilisation of our social security funding is only 25c for each Australian family. That is a matter about which the Government should give some thought. As we know, marriage breakdown is the major cause of child poverty in Australia. I hope that the Minister and the honourable members will accept my remarks in good faith. My concern about the package and our social security system in general is that it is possible that we are simply throwing money at our problems of poverty in an attempt to salve our consciences by simply altering income statistics. In all cases we should be concerned with the long term impact of any policy on the family unit, and in particular on the underlying social values that we are nurturing or undermining by law and social policies. It is with this concern in mind that I and my colleagues on this side have pressed for implementation, for example, of work for benefits schemes as one way of addressing the attitudinal and value questions which can be so crucial in breaking poverty cycles. I ask the Minister to take these comments seriously. I ask the Minister also to consider whether more use could be made of the Institute of Family Studies in providing multi-disciplinary monitoring of the impact of government policy on families. I am sorry that the funds of the Institute are being reduced in the latest allocation from the Attorney-General's budget. There is one other aspect of the social security package before us on which I wish to echo the concerns of the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) in regard to cuts to widows' pensions. At the very least, no community can, in conscience, accept the work of women in raising our children and then not provide comprehensive and sensitive programs that assist them in the transition from family care and pension to full time participation in the work force for which they are unprepared and disadvantaged. More importantly, both sides of the chamber need to reconsider their policy decisions to deny eligibility to women who have sacrificed career and income to care for their children under the additional burden of being alone in that task when their children turn 13 or 16 years of age, or, so far as I am concerned, 18 or 21 years. I also refer the Minister again to the suggestion I raised last year that both widows and the community would benefit if widows were allowed to earn significantly more than the $36 they can earn now before losing their pension by raising the figure maybe to $136. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(11.21) —In taking part in this debate on the estimates for the Department of Social Security, I should like to open my comments by bringing to the attention of the Committee a quotation that appeared in a recent journal published by the Department of Social Security. The quotation is as follows: A nation's compassion may be shown in its care for the disabled and those past work, but for the evidence of its concern for its future (which also includes its capacity to exercise this compassion) we can only look at its care for its children. Whilst I would be one of the first to wish us to achieve that desirable goal of removing child poverty, I am deeply concerned that the way in which we achieve that goal should be such that we raise the standards of all children and not bring their standards down to the lowest common denominator. I recognise the Government's attempt through its family assistance package to focus attention on poor families, but I think it is a very bad thing. It shows a lack of compassion and concern for all children if we remove poverty from poor children by making other children poorer. That is what the Government is doing. The cost of providing for the poor children of the nation through the family assistance package is being met by squeezing the benefits that are available, or have been available, to other children. If we look at the level of family allowances, we find that in this year Australian families as a whole will receive $1.1 billion less in family assistance than they were receiving in real terms under the Fraser Government, because this Government has frozen family allowances. As a result of that, families with children helped, in a unique and special way, carry a burden that single taxpayers and families without children were not called upon to pay to cover the Government's deficit and, in this current year, to meet the cost of providing for poor children. So we are making all children poorer so that we can make poor children less poor. Over the years that the Labor Government has been in office families have been denied $3,170m as a consequence of the freezing of family allowances. It is worse than that because, in addition to freezing family allowances and in spite of the Government's promise, the spouse rebate has been frozen. A significant proportion of the spouse rebate-a reduction of tax liability to families where there is a dependent spouse-is a tax relief that assists families with children. This year families who have a dependent spouse or a single income will be denied $320m compared with the amount that they should have been relieved of tax had the spouse rebate been adjusted to take account of inflation. I have a view that we are going about the situation of providing family support in totally the wrong way. I believe that if we want to be concerned about the future of the nation, we should be providing for all families tax relief, or cash allowances equivalent to the tax relief, and cash allowances we pay to children and families who are totally dependent upon the Department of Social Security. Yes, I know that will be a major change, but we are faced with a major crisis. Our population is not replacing itself. I read a headline in the Australian newspaper some weeks ago entitled `The birth dearth'. Australia is not replacing her own population because our birth rate fertility rates are below the replacement level. It has been customary wisdom to say that population policy cannot be influenced by giving substantial family allowances. I think that customary wisdom is wrong. If one studies the history of Western industrialised nations over recent years, takes account of the change in social attitudes as a result of people's capacity to have birth control, and looks at the peaks and troughs of economic fortunes, when a country's economic fortunes are down, like they were in the Depression, one will see that the birth rate fell. That was because people took a conscious decision recognising that they could not afford to have families, or to have larger families than they already had. I believe that honourable members constantly meet with young people of child bearing age who say, `We are putting off having children and when we do have children we will have two'. Families who have two children say, `We would love to have more children but we will not because we do not believe we can give more than two children a fair start in life'. Why is that? Why are they saying it? They are saying it because the tax system is crucifying them. They are taxed as single individuals. In our public policy for families in general, other than those on the social security system, we are treating them, as the economists would say, as though they were consumer goods. We are not recognising them as people from the date of birth to the date of death. We are saying, `While you are a child you are a luxury of your parent, the indulgence of your parent'. The parent, in making the decision to have children, must pay the total cost of maintaining those children over the 16 or 20 years, if they go on to tertiary education, that it takes to get them to a stage where they can be independent and self-reliant. Here we are picking up the poor children who are becoming poor because our total tax and social security system denies the existence of the children in the intact families. I want to look for a moment at the effect of this Labor Government's policies on intact families compared with separated families and ask the question whether or not these differences cause a change in social behaviour. I have chosen in my first illustration to pick a family that, looking at overall averages, would be regarded as being one of which there were probably quite a number-a family with two children and an income of $25,000. After allowing for tax, adding back spouse rebates and family allowances, the disposable income of that family would be $20,380. But if that family splits up, what is the disposable income of that family? The disposable income is not $20,380; the disposable income of the split family is $28,323. A family is $7,900 better off if it is split. It is crazy that we should be funding families in a way that gives them a financial incentive to split-- Mr Chynoweth —They do not do it voluntarily. Mr WILSON —You say they do not do it voluntarily? Mr Chynoweth —Or course they do not. Mr WILSON —The honourable member should study the situation a bit more. A lot of families are stressed because of the Government's tax burdens, its failure to index family allowances and its failure to increase the spouse rebate. That causes family tension and as a consequence of the breakdown of the family the Government rewards them as a total group by giving them an extra $8,000. We need to give every family an extra $8,000 and make a major and genuine reform of the tax system that takes account of those who support dependants-dependent spouses, dependent mothers and dependent children. If we do not do that our population will continue to decline and the number of poor children will grow and add more to the burden of the intact families. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.31) —First, I want to thank honourable members on both sides of the chamber for their contributions to this debate on the Estimates. I was pleased because a number of honourable members on both sides referred to some policy issues and from various points of view made contributions to those policy issues. Certainly I welcome any suggestion that we need to do more thinking about social policy and we need to be more open-minded about the approach taken. It would be a good thing, even when the Senate is considering Estimates, if we put the balance more on to policy and got away from some of the preoccupations about various aspects of administration, particularly if we are going to take, as the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) was suggesting, something of a longer view. I now refer briefly to some criticisms and suggestions made by the shadow spokesman, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), that the Government had not made progress in the area of overpayments. Improvement in identification of and procedures for recovering overpayments has resulted in the raising of $89.9m, or an increase of 22 per cent in the 1986-87 year over and above the previous year. The overpayment recovery totalled $52m, an increase again of 25 per cent over the previous year's figures. At the end of 1986-87, $170m in overpayments remain uncollected. However, the figures to September 1987 indicate a higher recovery as a result of decisions made and announced as part of the May statement. In 1986-87, 1,813 prosecutions were launched for breaches of the Social Security Act, with convictions recorded in 1,794 cases. Nineteen charges were dismissed. Fines, excluding costs, totalled $650,000 and 173 offenders were gaoled as a result of offences during that period. In addition, there were 284 prosecutions under the Crimes Act relating to social security matters and only four charges were dismissed. I am sure that more can always be done. I am aware of the context in which the honourable member for Bradfield made his remarks, which was to draw the attention of the Parliament to the scale of the social security system. It has a budget of more than $18 billion, with more than 100 million single payments in any one year. In a system of that scale, clearly vigilance is required and we need to be giving a great deal of attention to seeking to avoid fraud and overpayments. Certainly it is something we have sought to do, and I believe with some effect. That is not to suggest that we may not need to do more. We need to improve the quality of decision-making in the Department. We need to improve some of our procedures, but that is an ongoing task. I hope that in the debate we will seek to avoid what I have regretted most in the past several years, that is, the pillorying of clients by category, some stigmatising of people, which is unfortunate. The honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) raised the question of the procedures adopted when spouses had separated or were divorced. In those cases the income of the non-custodial parent is not to be taken into account. I think the honourable member also had in mind the case of the spouse not providing an income to the mother. The Department will pursue those cases to ensure that it establishes what the appropriate income level is. In such cases we do not put the onus on the mothers to provide that information. Clearly we will have to concern ourselves with some people. Perhaps a significant number of people will not return forms, and it is intended that they will be followed up. There will be a period of grace, if you like, of three months in which people will be able to secure payment if it has been stopped as a result of non-return of forms by the appropriate date. As usual, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) traded a great number of unsubstantiated insults about the Department of Social Security, regional offices, counter staff and Ministers. Anyone who came into sight seemed to attract his ire. I do not propose to go through his remarks, except to say that in passing he made reference to the massive problem of repetitive strain injury (RSI). He was suggesting that the Department of Social Security wasted money on furniture, the problem was out of control and no one was concerned about it. I think that was the strength of what he was saying. The Department has taken the problem of repetitive strain injury very seriously, as indeed has the Government. We have sought to do the things the experts believe help in relation to that problem. Clearly, the better ergonomic design of furniture is an important aspect in ensuring that people do not suffer from RSI. If that means that some furniture has had to go somewhere else, it seems to me to be not unreasonable. It has been important to ensure that occupational therapy services are available and that there are proper rest breaks for people. We are operating one of the largest public sector computer based information systems of any department in the world. With such a scale of operations there is a lot of repetitive work and a great deal of attention has to be paid to the conditions of workers. The attention that has been given to the matter by management and very legitimately by staff associations and unions appears to be paying off. The trend certainly is towards fewer working days lost. To go back not all that far, 9,853 working days-the equivalent of 43 working years-were lost in the September quarter of 1985, whereas in the quarter ending June 1987, the last quarter for which figures are available, 4,340 working days, or 19.28 working years, were lost. If one looks at the figures for each quarter-I cannot go through them at the moment-one sees a progressive improvement over that period. I appreciated the spirit in which the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) entered the discussion. I thought the articles by Saunders and Whiteford and the analysis undertaken by the Institute of Family Studies were of a great deal of interest. I welcomed very much the very objective analysis that Saunders and Whiteford made of the family package. We do have to be careful not to claim too much and we have to be precise about what it is that we are claiming. I think they focused very much on that point. It is a little unfortunate that, when people talk about children in poverty-I think Julian Disney was referred to by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton)-they take the 10-year figure. Without wanting to beat the Opposition over the head, the reality is that child poverty, or the presence of children in pensioner or beneficiary families, grew very substantially during the period that the Opposition was in government. In 1976 there were 283,000 children of pensioners and 89,000 children of beneficiaries, or 372,000 children in pensioner and beneficiary families. In 1983 there were 472,000 children of pensioners and 309,000 children of beneficiaries, or 781,000 children in pensioner and beneficiary families. So, by the time we came into government, one in every five children in Australia was living in a pensioner or beneficiary family. While the family allowance was introduced in 1976 and while it may have been a very good scheme when it was introduced, it is a fact that it was not indexed and the payments for additional benefit and additional pension for children not only were not increased but fell by quite massive proportions in real terms. Our problem is that we inherited a very large number of children in very low income families. On current figures, just to complete that picture, the figure for children in pensioner and beneficiary families went from 781,000 in 1983 to 786,000 in 1986; so there was not much movement between 1983 and 1986. In fact, the beneficiary population has been reducing significantly during the period that we have been in government. Whereas there were 309,000 children of beneficiaries in 1983, that figure is down to 256,000 in 1986. That indicates the Government's success in dealing with unemployment. I agree with the honourable member for Macquarie that it is important that these initiatives be monitored. Let me say that we have invited the Institute of Family Studies to monitor the child support scheme. It is my intention to discuss with the Institute of Family Studies the role it might play in terms of what is a very necessary monitoring and evaluation of the changes we are making in relation to the family allowance supplement (FAS) and the other changes affecting income support for families. I am not sure whether very many members of the House have read Charles Murray's Losing Ground but I have read it and I found it of a great deal of interest. But I am not sure that I agree with the proposition in that book that the more one does for the poor, the more poverty one produces. Mr Wilson —It is the way you do it. Mr HOWE —I was going to say that. The quote was that the more one does for the poor, the more likely one is to produce more poverty. That relates to his analysis that the poverty program in the United States of America and some of the changes that flowed out of the poverty program are responsible for, for example, the very massive increase that occurred in the United States in the number of families receiving the AFDC, or aid for dependent children, which is the equivalent of the sole parent benefit. There are many different social security systems operating around the world in developed countries but in recent years all have seen a massive increase in the number of sole parents and the number of dependent children in often very poor sole parent families. Frankly, whatever the weaknesses of the American social security system, whatever the weaknesses of the Johnson war on poverty and the various programs that came out of that, I simply do not believe that the poor are so largely responsible for their position or, if you like, that sole parents act to become sole parents or even to remain sole parents so largely because of the characteristics of the social security system. It followed from the honourable member's analysis-an important analysis in the social security debate-that what we really have to do is to change essentially the attitudes and values of poor people, as if somehow it is that culture in which people live that is fundamental to their being poor. I do not deny that attitudinal factors are extremely important but I believe there is a lot more to it than that. I would not want him to think-I am not sure that he was suggesting this-that the family package is designed to do other than provide incentive for people to move from a pension or benefit into the work force. That move significantly widens the effective gap between the level of benefit, particularly for people with children, and the level of income that they are likely to receive, even if they are in relatively low wage occupations. That takes me finally to the contribution of the honourable member for Sturt, who decided to take a rather broader and a very much longer term view. Frankly, I do not think that the honourable member for Sturt has thought through the difficulties involved in managing a social security budget when we have the horrendous economic difficulties that this country has been going through. I love the principle of universalism. I suppose I am a universalist philosophically. But how do we cope with the situation in which this country's national income has been falling and in which we have had to frame extraordinarily difficult budgets? In those circumstances it is important to ensure that, whatever else one does, one targets those most in need and ensures that the social security system, and indeed the overall income distribution system, is progressive. We will be paying something like 60 per cent of our total family assistance payments, including FAS and the family allowance, to families who are in the bottom third of the population in terms of income. The honourable member for Macquarie mentioned relief from the tax system. The reality is that low income families simply do not pay enough tax to get relief through the taxation side of the equation. I would certainly like to see the benchmarks that we are establishing in this year's Budget in relation to the family allowance supplement more generally shared. But the reality in current circumstances is that that is very hard. I make one further point. We have made some quite strong claims about the family package. Never since the introduction of child endowment in the 1940s have there been any benchmarks or indexation. The crucial element in this package is the commitment to benchmarks and to standards of adequacy. I guess we will have to think about that -that is where the Institute of Family Studies comes in in terms of the real adequacy. Never have we had that commitment to indexation or to the maintenance of the real value of child allowances. Those are very significant policy reforms that will need to be developed in the course of this Parliament. Though I have concentrated on the comments Opposition members made during the debate, I welcome the contributions made on this side of the chamber. I shall look at the case of Mrs Richards, referred to me by the honourable member for La Trobe and see whether something can be done, although I suspect that part of the problem is that, despite very strong representations, we have been unable to persuade the British Government that it should index payments. Recently a delegation was in the United Kingdom pursuing that issue. Many people from the United Kingdom who are now permanent Australian residents feel very strongly about that issue. In terms of the tax threshold and the tax rebate, I know there is a great deal of concern about that matter in the pensioner community in Australia. I am sure that the Australian Pensioners Federation raised that issue with members on both sides of the chamber yesterday. I cannot deal with the issue in terms of Mrs Richards's case but we are well aware of the concern that is being felt. I would like to refer to the remarks of the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey). The population in the honourable member's electorate is skewed very much towards the aged. The honourable member has demonstrated her concern for aged people, as well as other groups, in her electorate, but her remarks referred particularly to the aged. I think the Government has sought, in difficult circumstances, to maintain the real value of pensions. But it is important, in terms of our policies towards the aged, not to look only at income security. I appreciated the way in which the honourable member for Hawker referred to the importance, for example, of the home and community care program. I conclude by thanking all speakers for their contributions to the debate. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Proposed expenditure, $958,593,000. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(11.55) —I wish to start the debate today on behalf of the Opposition by addressing the tourist industry and the specific problems relating to it. First, I want to say that the tourist industry is becoming very tired indeed of hearing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) taking full credit for the growth of this industry in recent years. Lately there has been a tremendous growth in tourism to the point where it is now quite obvious that it is one of our largest industries and, without much doubt, our fastest growing industry. Tourism is going to be Australia's golden egg, but let us not pretend that this Government laid it. Certainly, to be fair, this Government-as have previous governments-has played a role in the growth of the industry; but to claim, as the Minister is so eager to do, that all credit should flow to this Government, is an insult and an injustice to the thousands of individual operators who comprise Australia's tourist industry. If we are going to talk about distributing credit for the success of our tourist industry, we really should be sharing it among a whole range of factors. Firstly, I think the Government's inability to properly manage our economy has caused the value of our Australian dollar to collapse. This has had the unexpected effect of making Australia a much cheaper place for foreign tourists to visit. At the same time it has meant that it is more expensive for Australians to travel overseas and therefore, in relative terms, cheaper to holiday in Australia. That is an unexpected side effect of what turns out to be this Government's inability to properly manage our economy, which has caused our dollar to fall so far. Secondly, we have had the good fortune to have a succession of good films which have excited people's interest in Australia. The most obvious example is Crocodile Dundee. This has helped to promote Australia in a most effective way. Thirdly, I want to make it quite clear that in Australia we have an array of entrepreneurs who have worked in the industry to ensure that every possible detail is properly attended to, and that both domestic and foreign tourists have the level of sophistication and service that are now demanded by today's tourists. These include a whole host of people-from restaurateurs, hoteliers, hire car companies and bus and coach lines, to boat hire operators, resort managers and so on. It is these people who ensure that tourists get what they want, that they are satisfied, and that they return home to tell their friends and neighbours what a good time can be had in Australia. At the present time the tourist industry is in uproar over the Government's decision to axe the tourism overseas promotion scheme (TOPS). People in the industry are upset because of a Press release of the Minister on 4 June this year which said: `I am happy to say that the Government has agreed to a forward commitment cover for the Tourism Overseas Promotion Scheme (TOPS) of $9m for 1987-88', Mr Brown, Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism said today. That statement was made by the Minister on 4 June, at the beginning of the recent election campaign. In that Press release the Minister went on to say: Those applications which have been held up pending the resolution of this matter will now be processed forthwith. The commitment given in that Press release that not only would TOPS continue but the funding of the scheme would be doubled from about $5m to $9m is very clear. The other clear intention of the Press release was to give those tourist operators, who had applications in the pipeline, the impression that their applications would be processed forthwith. For a long time now the Minister has said there will be no axing of TOPS. I wish to quote from a Press release of the Minister on a previous occasion: The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown, today denied speculation in the trade press that there was any intention of dropping the Tourism Overseas Promotion Scheme (TOPS). The Scheme is fully operational and is proving itself to be the most cost effective incentive scheme. This sort of impression was being given to people in the tourist industry before and during the recent election campaign. The importance of this election promise cannot be overstated. The tourist industry had been using TOPS extensively. Prior to 4 June, rumours were circulating that the scheme would be axed. With the commitment from the Minister, these rumours were swept aside. The industry went ahead with its plans to commit thousands of dollars in overseas promotion of our tourist product, knowing that the applications were in, that they met the guidelines for funding eligibility, and so had an excellent chance of receiving government funds to reduce the cost of promotional activities. The sudden decision announced in the Budget Speech to axe TOPS shocked the industry and has left a number of operators financially embarrassed. It is all very well for the Minister to say that these people had no right to expect to get these funds, but he ignores the fact that these people are trusting souls who, on hearing of the Minister's commitment during the election campaign, placed faith in what he said and expected that he would deliver the goods. They were, of course, assisted in believing that this Government would continue with TOPS because the Minister spent a great deal of time during the election campaign saying that the Australian Labor Party was good for tourism because it would maintain TOPS while the Opposition would axe it. I wish to quote from another Press release of the Minister on 8 July, just a few days before the election on 11 July: . . . all Australians should be aware that the Liberal/National Coalition proposes to abolish the tourism portfolio and the Tourism Overseas Promotion Scheme. Such moves would severely inhibit the startling growth of this industry. That statement, made three days before the last election, was clearly designed to indicate that the Labor Party in government would continue the TOP scheme and that the Liberal and National parties in government would axe it. It was those words which added to the confidence of operators who made their commercial decisions after the election based on the promises of the Minister. Of course, the Minister also completely misrepresented the Opposition's policy on tourism. We had written into our policy brochure quite clearly a firm commitment to continue an effective overseas promotion scheme. We recognise the value of such a scheme. TOPS has proved to be a very valuable tool in our tourist industry's attempt to attract foreign visitors to our shores. I could give many quotations to the Committee from the Minister which verify the effectiveness of TOPS. If there were to have been any changes made to TOPS, they should have been done with plenty of notice to the industry so that there was no one hurt financially by those changes. As it stands now, there are a number of operators who are left considerably hurt and it is worth stating that, like it or not, the Minister's own reputation has been injured; some in the industry would say that it has been irreparably damaged. I asked a question of the Minister on this subject during the week in Question Time. He did his best to wriggle out of the election campaign commitment, but I can assure him that the only person he may have convinced was himself and perhaps a few of his deluded colleagues on his side of the chamber. Moving from this to a more positive note, I want to raise the subject of work practices within our tourist industry. An impartial observer could comment only that Australia's tourist industry labours under a set of work practices that are a left-over of the Dark Ages. An enlightened person would recognise that there is a need for change to these archaic conditions that handcuff tourist operators' hands to the point that they cannot perform to the level of sophistication and quality of service that is required in today's modern tourist industry. Tourism occurs seven days a week, 24 hours a day. However, the work practices that operate are set by the standards of an industry that should operate Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. In April last year, the coalition released the most advanced industrial relations policy ever put forward by any political party in Australia. That policy was specifically designed to cater for the needs of our growing tourist industry. It would have enabled, through voluntary contracts mutually agreed upon by both employer and employee, our tourist operators to provide the same level and quality of service for tourists on a Sunday as are now provided on a Wednesday or any other day during the normal working week. Our policy would have sensibly addressed the issue of penalty rates which at present this Government supports and which presently cripples our tourist industry making it either impossible or too expensive for it to provide proper services outside the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday to Friday. I conclude by saying that this Government needs to stop congratulating itself for the growth in our tourist industry. We need to recognise the needs of the industry. We need to recognise that there is a role for an effective overseas promotion scheme like TOPS. We need to recognise that there is a need to change our work practices so that the tourist industry can take full advantage of the potential to earn income for Australia. I also want to put on record that I believe that the Liberal and National parties have the best policy in this area. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(12.06) —I wish to speak today on the environment. I invite every Australian to consider a recent news story which was casually reported during September which stated that the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic was larger than ever and that a reading showed 15 per cent less ozone than the previously recorded minimum in 1985, and 50 per cent less than 10 years ago. I invite every Australian to consider a recent scientific finding that the large hole that has been appearing in the ozone layer over Antarctica each spring since 1985 is not a natural phenomenon. The scientific community has reached a very unpalatable finding, that this earth is about to be turned into an immense greenhouse which will spawn higher temperatures, increased sea levels and, in terms of biological effect on humans, will mean an increase in the incidence of skin cancer, especially amongst fair-haired and fair-skinned people, and those living above the 40 degree latitude. It will also increase eye disease. Ultraviolet (UV) is known to be a major cause of cataracts and the main cause of blindness among people in developing countries. It will also damage the immune system. Laboratory evidence has demonstrated that exposure to UV can harm our immune system making us more susceptible to disease. Environmentally, the impact would be just as serious. The higher ultraviolet levels would cause a destruction of ocean plankton which is the first link in the marine food chain. It would cause the collapse of a complex ecosystem in the aquatic environment. It would also mean a reduction in crop yields. It would also contribute to the climatic changes that are already occurring because of the greenhouse effect forcing the world's agricultural areas closer to the north and the south poles. We must now accept the very chilling announcement that mankind is actually fouling its own nest. For the first time, the life habits of one of earths inhabitants is upsetting the very balance of all life on this planet. The carelessness of man means that much of the damage that has already been done to the earth's atmosphere cannot be repaired very quickly. In the short term, the time has come for us to pay the price for our pressurised spray-can existence. Spray-cans are not the only source of chlorofluorocarbons. Chlorofluorocarbons are widely used in refrigeration, air-conditioning, electrical solvents and in the production of some plastic foams. Some manufacturers of spray-can propellants have been very responsible and have changed the method of propelling their products. However, I urge the general public to look at the spray-can before they make a purchase and buy only those that do not contain chlorofluorcarbons or halons. The propellants are usually marked on the outside of the can. The Australian climate is going to change as temperatures rise two or three degrees centigrade. Rainfall will increase by up to 50 per cent in summer and there will be decreases of 20 per cent in winter. Already in Western Australia, farmers are very concerned about the changes in the rainfall patterns at present. Tropical cyclones will move further south and occur much more frequently. Sydney is being affected by more and more cyclones. The sea level will rise by almost 80 centimetres. The snow lines will move higher. Floods and droughts will become even more common and salinity problems will occur even more rapidly than at the present loss of 100 square miles per year in Australia. I am sure that many people who live in my electorate of Dunkley will welcome a few more warmer days on our very spacious and sandy beaches around Frankston and Mornington. Furthermore, I am sure that an expanded tourism industry on the Mornington Peninsula will become a reversal of the annual winter exodus to the friendly climates to be found in beautiful electorates such as Leichhardt, Herbert and Capricornia, which are well represented in this chamber. However, I am not so sure that our homes, schools, offices and work places are set up to cope with the large increases in heat and humidity that will occur. I am not so sure that those in my constituency who live along Port Phillip Bay will enjoy the tranquil blue bay lapping under their back doors. More importantly, I am not so sure that those who are enticed to bask in the sunlight will be aware of the heightened dangers to their lives from skin cancer. Maybe the medical profession will gain some joy with the reduction of the ozone layer. We are about to be overcome by a dilemma that pervades almost every aspect of our very existence. Traditional, often inflexible, areas of our welfare will be assaulted. How will centuries old housing structures stand up to the new weather extremes? What will happen to agriculture? Can the leisure industry adjust? Will the health budget grow even more? Will the benefits of economic growth be cancelled out by climatic changes? Who will pay for the cost of coastal destruction? It is very possible that we may direct the long term scenario. A prescription for recovery and repair is being formulated, but it must be administered in the very near future, lest dramatic and irrevocable impacts of procrastination be felt in the next century. The moment for talk has passed and an age of consensus now calls for bans. Of course, the year 2000 is only 12 years away, but can we afford to wait until then to see the elimination of chlorofluorocarbons? At present the production of CFCs in aerosol propellants, refrigeration devices and even hamburger packaging, continues to grow. Every one of the additional cases of fatal skin cancer, as well as the damage to wildlife and agriculture, should be a reason to prevent a further deterioration in the ozone layer. Each Australian should understand the basic science behind the greenhouse effect and support further research to provide long term planning. The Government must increase funding for research in this vital area-an area that affects our very existence-and perhaps compensate industries, such as Australia's developing electronics industry, which may suffer when the use of halogen gases is banned. I call on the Government to implement urgently legislation to limit the manufacture of ozone-depleting chemicals. I also urge it to sign the protocol which was recently written in Montreal. I believe that the States have to be consulted before new laws can be framed. This must be done with the utmost haste to avoid further damage to our fragile environment. If we plan properly for the change in climate and other changes which are coming, we will be able to benefit from them. However, if we stick our heads in the sand and do no research or planning, our nation and our future inhabitants will suffer greatly. Clearly, in order satisfactorily to complete this experiment, an input is required from everyone. The whole world is the laboratory and the life support system crafted by nature over billions of years. It is waiting to be redeemed by us and not crisply toasted-a toasting brought about by ignorance, a lust for profits and a lifestyle which can easily be changed. We must act now. Mr JULL(Fadden)(12.12) —In speaking to the estimates for the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, I confine my comments to the area of tourism. I commend the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) for his contribution a few moments ago. I thought he was correct to target the abolition of the tourism overseas promotion scheme-the TOP scheme-which has really done a great deal to make Australia capable of promoting itself on the international world tourism markets. I give the Government full credit for introducing the TOP scheme and the help it provided. But parts of the industry are in very deep trouble as a result of the abolition of this scheme. I tend to agree, too, with the honourable member for Gilmore in his criticism of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown), for the claims that it has been he and this Government that have brought about this tremendous revolution in the tourist industry. I think the proper credit should be given to a great number of people who for many years did some tremendous work to make sure that Australia did become an international tourist destination. I am sorry that the Minister is not present for this debate. I hope it does not mean that he has lost interest in the industry. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give due recognition to people such as the late Frank Stewart, a former Labor tourism Minister, who did a great deal to form the foundations of our international industry, and the late Sir Phillip Lynch who, in the Liberal Party of Australia, did a great deal to make sure that we had the right basic infrastructure and that we were prepared to go out in the international markets to promote Australia as an international tourist destination. I also hope that he will give credit to this chamber for what it did in the promotion of tourism. It is now 10 years since the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism met to determine whether we should try to encourage a tourist industry in this country. The 48 points that the Committee recommended to this chamber were acted upon by the then Liberal Government and by Sir Phillip Lynch, which laid the foundations for the build-up of this tremendous industry in Australia. It is Australia's fastest growing industry, the only industry in Australia that has a real capacity to be able to provide long term jobs for all Australians. So there has been a tremendous contribution by members on both sides of the chamber. There has been a tremendous contribution from people in the industry who have battled overseas against insurmountable odds to make sure that Australia was promoted. I pay particular tribute to people such as the inbound tourist operators of Australia and the quality hotel groups which went into the Japanese market 15 years ago and which laid the foundation for the buildup of this industry. While I congratulate the Government on all that it has achieved in tourism, we must never rest on our laurels. One thing about international tourism is that it can be a very fickle industry. One thing about which we must be very careful is that we must make sure that we have the capacity to meet the demands of the international visitors who are coming to Australia in ever-increasing numbers. One of the reasons that Australia has done so well out of the Japanese market is due not only to the devaluation of the dollar-and this might sound quite strange-but also to the fact that the Japanese who, year after year, went to Hawaii, found out all of a sudden that Hawaii was not safe any more. In fact, the muggers on the back streets of Honolulu have probably done more to promote Japanese tourism to Australia than many of the other issues that are raised. We must make sure that the industry can provide that safe environment to those international visitors. We must make sure that people who are involved and employed in the industry are properly trained and have the capacity to be able to deal with those international visitors. I think that governments, both Federal and State, should feel good about what has been achieved in the training schools and colleges in recent years. But a lot more must be done. It is only now that we have proper tertiary facilities for the training of people in the hospitality industry. The opening of a degree course at the James Cook University of North Queensland in Townsville is a tremendous innovation. One of the things that have happened in Australia in recent years is that there has been an explosion in the number of large hotels and hotel chains in the country. We have not had the people to manage them. We have had to import overseas expertise to get the tourist industry running. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, because we have a lot to learn from some of the big international operators, but we must make sure that at every level we have the capacity to be able to train our young people to go into that industry and, as I say, to provide the types of services that international visitors need in Australia. While the Minister trumpets the fact around Australia that at least two million international visitors will come to Australia in 1988, during our Bicentenary, one thing worries me at the moment; that is, whether we will have enough airline seats into Australia to be able to handle the traffic. If one reads today's Press one will see that there is a very great difficulty in Singapore at the moment, where more than 100 people are waiting to get airline seats to Australia. It is almost impossible to get on an aircraft between Japan and Australia, despite the fact that we have gone from just five services a week to about 17 services a week in a few years. We cannot handle the traffic out of there. The expansion of the North American market will continue. Despite the fact that we hear about rows between the Australian and the United States authorities, there will not be enough seats on that route, either, if we are not careful. One thing that has happened is that one cannot get seats on Qantas Airways Ltd aircraft across the Pacific. While it is great that Qantas is the most popular carrier, let us make sure that we do not become so narrow-minded that we are not prepared to open up the skies a bit more. It is almost impossible to get a seat on an aircraft in and out of Cairns in north Queensland because the Great Barrier Reef has become very much a focal point of Australia's international tourist effort. We hear that it is almost impossible to grant extra services into Sydney because Sydney Kingsford-Smith Airport is stretched to the limit. That is true, but the facts are that overseas tourists want to enter the front door of Australia-the Great Barrier Reef. They do not want to enter by way of the tradesmen's entrances of Sydney and Melbourne. We should make sure that any international carriers which want to apply for traffic rights in places such as Cairns, Townsville, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth do not have to wait months and, in some cases at the moment, years to get approval to operate those services into Australia. There is no longer the excuse that international carriers coming to Australia are only after the Australian business. Virtually every international air carrier coming into Australia now brings in more inbound passengers than it takes out Australians. Qantas Airways Ltd is a fair example of that. It openly concedes now that 60 per cent of the passengers it brings in are international visitors while only 40 per cent of the passengers it takes out are Australians. That is great for Australia but let us not kill the goose before it lays the golden egg by putting up every conceivable sort of barrier against new carriers or additional services coming into Australia. As I say, although the tourism industry is growing very well, it is a fickle industry and we must make sure that we take full advantage of it while we can. In so many of the debates in this chamber we tend to confine ourselves to what is happening in international tourism. To some extent we should do that, too, because after all that is the cream and the area that will provide the long term employment. But let us never forget that we do have a significant domestic tourism industry as well and that it will remain very much the bread and butter of our tourism economy. We should be doing all we can to promote it. It concerns me that for one reason or another many Australians do not have an annual holiday; they do not have the capacity to go out and see what Australia has to offer. We hope that special efforts will be made to get those people, for the good of their own health, out of their homes and into some of the magnificent areas that abound in this country. It seems from statistics available that better than 40 per cent of Australians do not go on an annual holiday. Quite frankly, if we could get that 40 per cent moving we would not have the infrastructure to handle the situation in a domestic sense, let alone an international sense. We must try to do everything we possibly can to get more and more people holidaying in Australia, and especially to get that 40 per cent who never have a holiday out and about. That is why it was essential that the report on the deregulation of the Australian airline industry be released yesterday and that it be examined very closely. One of the prime reasons people do not go on a domestic holiday in Australia is the high cost of air fares. Not many people realise that only 14 per cent of Australians have ever been on an aeroplane. One of the principal reasons they have never been on an aeroplane is the high cost of air travel. I am confident that with deregulation we will see more innovative fares, that we will see the capacity for more and more Australians to travel around the country, and everyone in this chamber should do everything possible to make sure that deregulation of the airlines occurs in this country in the next three years so that we have that capacity to enable people more and more to move around Australia. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(12.22) —Let me lay to rest one of the canards floated by the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) when he suggested that an unexpected side effect of our alleged economic mismanagement and the subsequent devaluation of the dollar was a boost for the tourism industry. It was never an unexpected consequence. Every time the Treasurer (Mr Keating) talked about the J-curve, the Opposition pooh-poohed and carried on. The effect of the devaluation was substantial and immediate in the area of tourism, and certainly it was something we anticipated. It was part of the process of rebalancing the economy. It is important for us to understand these appropriations in the context of the Budget. We have to understand that this Budget has the second lowest deficit of any Budget for 35 years. It is a balanced Budget. We have to put these appropriations in the context of this time of economic restraint. It needs to be clearly understood that we have had the largest fall in outlays in the 35 years for which comparable data is available. It is the second successive year in which we have had a real fall in outlays. Gross expenditure cuts in this Budget total over $4 billion, with net program cuts totalling $2 1/2 billion. It needs to be understood in that context that some programs and areas of expenditure have suffered as a consequence. I intend to speak today about the appropriations in the area of sport and recreation. At a time when it was necessary for restraint and a cut in outlays, the Government gave priority to the areas of education and training and family assistance for the needy. We were able to increase expenditure on those priority areas. As a consequence of that and in the context of restraint and economic parsimony at a time of rebalancing and reinvigorating our economy, any impartial observer who looked at the appropriations for sport and recreation would have to say that they are static. Those who have an interest in this area of human activity would say that it is not enough. But sport is not a life and death issue in our society; it is not the most important issue we face. However, it is an issue that relates to the quality of our life and it is very important to the vast majority of Australians. At the risk of being called a philistine, I would say that there is still in this country a substantial cultural cringe, and while expenditure in the area of the arts remains much more substantial than expenditure on sport I suppose many in Australia will feel that there is an imbalance. One would have to say that in a unique way sport touches the lives of every Australian. Very few families in this country would not have one member-be it one of the children, a parent or a grandparent-in some way or other being involved every weekend in some sort of sporting activity, whether it be participating or watching on television or live. Indeed, it is an integral part of our life. Earlier this week a very famous Australian, Sir Donald Bradman, commented on the social benefits of sport. Many people over a long period of time have suggested that sport is an outlet for frustration and a counterbalance for the changes resulting from the associated difficulties with our sedentary lifestyle and that it plays an important part in educating our society. As I have already mentioned, when one looks at the budgetary allocations in this area one can only say that those allocations have remained static. I would say that the response of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) and his Department would be that we have tried to produce a more lean and efficient way of administering the programs in which we are involved. The Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) has been asked to tighten its belt. Certainly it has been asked to look for marketing and sponsorship opportunities that perhaps it did not seek in the past. Those sports that have particular programs which benefit from the Australian Institute of Sport funding are being asked to provide more assistance for those programs. Individual programs are being reviewed. I do not have any difficulty with any of these moves, even if it is necessary for me to watch Dr Dick Telford, from the Institute of Sport, selling cereal on television. That is a way these programs can receive additional assistance, and it is a necessary and important form of sponsorship for the Institute of Sport. The Government, by its commitment to the Institute of Sport, through the enormous amount of infrastructure produced and as a result of the number of programs in place, which continues to increase, has led the way for States to get involved in such institutes. In Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales-many States-we find increasing interest and growing institutes. By leading the way the Federal Government has decentralised even more talent identification and the interest that surrounds institutes of sport and sport in general in the States. The other important initiative announced by the Minister on 25 September was the establishment of a single national sports body. Through the amalgamation of the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) and the AIS the Minister sees significant efficiencies in administration, and I understand the savings in the first year in rental costs alone will be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Indeed, through that, it will be possible for this national body, which is to include the AIS and the Australian Sports Commission, to provide more money for its programs. The most important increased allocation in the Budget is that to the Australian Sports Commission. That is a response to the many sporting bodies throughout the country that were concerned about the sports development grant which the ASC provides, and it will provide the Australian Sports Commission with the wherewithal to increase the programs which provide grass roots administrative and coaching assistance for the many sporting bodies throughout the country. It is important that we see these allocations not in isolation but in the context of a time when economic imperatives must take first place. This is a time when the Government has to determine priorities and, as part of the response, I hope that we will find a leaner and more efficient expenditure of money in this area. Perhaps this Budget will teach sport that it has to be more efficient and careful in its expenditure. I hope that the Government's program will, as a result, become more efficient, and that in the future we shall find ourselves in a position to expand these programs further and provide increasing opportunities for Australians to excel and become fitter, healthier and more involved in recreation. I hope that the effect of this period of parsimony will be that we shall have a more efficient expenditure on sport and recreation. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(12.32) —I would like to address the Government's expenditure priorities in relation to the environment part of the portfolio of the arts, sport, the environment, tourism and territories. I find the priorities that the Government has outlined in this area interesting in many respects and rather disappointing in some others. The way the Government has approached the whole issue of the environment, including expenditure on it, is in many ways not surprising. It is not surprising because the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, (Senator Richardson) is the Minister responsible for numbers within the Australian Labor Party-the man who describes himself as a `born again greenie'. That is not because he is concerned with the environment-we all know that-but because the one thing that he desperately wants is to get new people on the electoral roll to vote for the Labor Party rather than not voting at all. That has been the priority of the Labor Party. That is why the former Minister responsible for the environment, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), who did a creditable and sincere job, although there were times when we disagreed strongly with the details of what he did, has been replaced by a man who is, frankly, very cynical in his administration of the portfolio. That attitude shows up in the 1987-88 Budget estimates for the environment. The environment budget, in a small way, relates closely to the election campaign and to the pay-off now coming from the Labor Party to those more militant environmental groups which gave the Labor Party what it believes to be such valuable support throughout the election campaign. We on this side of the House are of the view that organisations such as the Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF)-great beneficiaries of this Budget-behaved somewhat disgracefully during the election campaign. That does not reflect on all the members of those organisations, many of whom have a very strong and sincere commitment to environmental issues, but it does reflect on the very political nature of the leadership of those groups. Some of the claims that they made in support of the Labor Party during the election campaign were outrageously dishonest, and their claims were synonymous with those made by the Labor Party. For example, the Australian Conservation Foundation argued that if the Liberal Party of Australia were to be elected we could kiss goodbye to the rainforests, particularly in the Queensland wet tropics. Nothing could be further from the truth, particularly as some 75 per cent of Queensland rainforests are already within a national park. The Liberal Party said throughout the election campaign that it would support the World Heritage listing of the Queensland wet tropics, provided that the boundaries for the World Heritage area were properly and honestly drawn-there are real questions about the boundaries put forward by the Government-and provided that this was done in co-operation with the relevant State government. Apparently that was not acceptable to the Australian Conservation Foundation, which still persists with its claim that, under a Liberal government, we could kiss goodbye to rainforests-something which is manifestly untrue. It was also claimed that we would hand over to the Northern Territory Government the Kakadu and Uluru national parks. We did not say that at any stage in the past 12 months. Not once have we said that, yet the ACF, doing the bidding of the Labor Party, claimed that that was our position. As to mining in stage 2 of Kakadu National Park, we have made it clear all along that mining could proceed only if we and the bureaucracy were satisfied that it was environmentally sensitive. Mr Chynoweth —That is not what Joh said. Mr DOWNER —Not once was that concession or policy recognised by the leadership of the ACF. It claimed that we favoured oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef, yet the Fraser Government and subsequent Liberal-National Party politicians at the Federal level have repeatedly said that there would be no oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef under a coalition government. Mr Price —Why do you repudiate Fraser all the time? Mr DOWNER —The Tasmanian forests, according to the Labor Party and its friends in the leadership of the ACF, are also under threat. It is interesting that the Labor Party, particularly the Left of the Labor Party, interjects in support of the ACF. Of course it does, because this is the great pay-off. This is the great deal that it is doing. Mr Chynoweth —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. I would like to point out that I am not of the Left and I have been interjecting-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member may raise that matter later. It is not a point of order. I remind the honourable gentlemen on my right that they are contributing to spoiling the environment and should remain silent. Mr DOWNER —That is a very good point, Mr Deputy Chairman. It has also been claimed that the Tasmanian Forests would be destroyed under a coalition government and under the policies of the Tasmanian Government. There has never been any suggestion that that would happen. Great play was made by the Labor Party, perhaps understandably because it is in opposition to the Liberals, but also on Labor's behalf by the ACF and the Wilderness Society, of the claim that, by abolishing the responsible department, which in any case has been abolished and merged with another department, we would somehow desecrate the environment. All that we were suggesting was merging its function with those of other departments to improve its efficiency, something that the Government has now done. The hypocrisy of the argument put during the election campaign has subsequently been exposed. There has been not a whimper from the ACF or the Wilderness Society about merging the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment with the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. That is interesting and very revealing. Throughout the election campaign, we made positive commitments, for example, to revitalising the national conservation strategy for Australia, which has been completely ignored by this Government over the past 4 1/2 years, and to the need for proper reafforestation programs which, while not quite ignored, has been given a very low priority by the Government. I draw the attention of the other side of the chamber to the fact that funding for the national trees program in this Budget has been reduced in real terms, whereas funding for the ACF and the Wilderness Society has been increased by about 20 per cent in nominal terms and about 13 per cent in real terms. No concessions were made to our constructive policies on soil conservation and on water quality, but anybody who is genuinely interested in the environment knows that important as rainforests are-they are a very important issue, and one dear to my heart-the issues of soil conservation and water quality are the fundamental issues for Australia. The sort of cant that we get from the other side of the chamber about Labor members being the only people who care and about nobody else being interested in rainforests is absolute, complete and utter nonsense, and Australians ought to know it. The Liberal and National parties care very strongly for the environment. We are prepared to concede-we are quite open about it-that aspects of our policy need to be strengthened. We have said already that our commitment to States rights was perhaps too dogmatic in our policy and that we would like to find an improved formula. We have said already that the decision not at any stage to use the export powers of the Commonwealth in relation to environmental objectives needs to be reconsidered. We have said those things and made those things clear. But our profound commitment to the environment should never be taken away from us. I have to concede that the Labor Party, in co-operation with the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society, has been very clever in putting together a false campaign which has promoted us as environmental vandals. But the great pay-off for that is in the Budget: grants to voluntary conservation organisations are to be increased by 20 per cent. Interestingly enough, this year's Budget Papers for the first time do not give a breakdown of how those grants are to be distributed. However, in contrast to organisations such as the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society which are to receive a 20 per cent increase in their grants, the World Wildlife Fund will receive no increase in funding. That is a very interesting contrast. This Government has ignored, in spite of the fact that the matter has been raised in this place, the way by which the Australian Conservation Foundation has been laundering funds through its tax deductible status on behalf of organisations such as the Sydney Peace Squadron, the Movement Against Uranium Mining and the People for Nuclear Disarmament. Contributions to those organisations should not be tax deductible. The Government and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) know that, but they will not do anything to stop this very public scheme because it would offend the leadership of the Australian Conservation Foundation which has done so much to advocate the case of the Labor Party. I am profoundly disappointed that so many people in the Australian Conservation Foundation have been deceived by their leadership. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. For the guidance of the honourable member for Dunkley and the honourable member for Chifley, I point out that they must secure the call from the Chair if they wish to address the Committee. It being nearly 12.45 p.m., I shall report progress in accordance with sessional order 106a. The Deputy Chairman having reported accordingly- Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(12.42) —This is the first opportunity I have had to speak since re-election, so at the outset I would like to congratulate all on their appointments, except probably myself. Anyway, I would like to congratulate everybody. I would like to pay a tribute to my fallen colleague the Hon. Michael Hodgman. He will be sorely missed in this Parliament. He did a good job for the people of Tasmania; he did a good job for the people of Hobart. I have been watching with interest the new member for Denison (Mr Kerr). I heard his maiden speech and I remember a few things that were said during the campaign, but there will be plenty of time for me to come back at him on a few things that he has said. The only thing that I would like to say to him is this: please do not talk about parts of my electorate; do not isolate a couple of areas that have been pin-pointed by the so-called experts of the world, talking about the low level of incomes and the high levels of unemployment in that particular area. We can all pick out parts of our electorates and start talking about them, but anybody who has been in this game for 12 years, who knows the people of Bridgewater and Gagebrook and who has worked for them would know that there are problems there. Those people out there are trying to make a decent and respectable living. If people like politicians and the media keep saying that they are such and such and so forth, they will get an inferiority complex. Of course, they have high levels of unemployment. Most of the young people who go out to those areas go out for a roof over their heads; they know that they are unemployed, but they are trying to work out of it. They also know that there are people out there, single mothers, et cetera, who go to those particular areas. When politicians and other people start talking about statistics that are plucked out of the air, all they are doing is drawing attention to the problems of those people and giving them an inferiority complex. If they had dealt, as I have done for 12 years, with those people, these so-called experts would know that there are out there very decent people trying to make a go of it and that they were behind the eight-ball before they started. The former member for Denison, Michael Hodgman, I am sure, will be fighting to come back, and I am sure he will be back, but his work will be remembered. Now I have a couple of grievances: firstly, I have listened intently to the ladies in the House, although some of them like to be called women. They are always talking about the problems associated with women. But I very rarely hear them talk about elderly women. Therefore, today I thought I would start talking once again about the aging population of Australia and the lack of strategic directions that we have to look after them. If I cite a few facts, we might start to realise that we have a massive problem on our hands and that all parliamentarians need to work together to overcome this problem. We have an aging population in Australia: that is, 1.6 million or 10.23 per cent of the Australian population are over the age of 65. In the course of aging, the aged population will continue to increase and the young population will continue to decrease in both relative and absolute terms. Australia must face up to this massive problem. For example, a problem that is never addressed, and one that I think that we had better start addressing because it is right before our very eyes and is starting to bring its own problems, is that women live, on average, 10 years longer than men. In fact, many of the elderly women in Australia today did not want to go out and work but wanted to stay home and look after their children. The honourable member for Canberra, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), will smile at this because I usually give her a few serves, but she will understand the point I am driving at. I can understand women who have to go out and work, and I appreciate that. But many women who stayed home and looked after their children are now all of a sudden on their own. Some of them have moved to areas to retire. Regrettably, the husband dies, usually 10 years, on average, before the woman. That woman is left, probably away from her family; and, of course, there are problems associated with that. Many of them never learnt to drive, consequently there are problems with transportation. I think that we in Australia had better start addressing this problem. As I have said on many occasions, we had better start addressing this aging population problem to try to work out systematic schemes that will help them. I hear all this stuff about their being better looked after in their own homes. Who the dickens is going to provide that army of helpers to look after the aging population in their own homes? There are not enough people equipped to do it, and some of them work on the old union rules; they would not even lift a mat to clean the floor. The point that I make is that it is silly to talk about it; we need a systematic plan. We must realise that the aging population needs special attention and special assistance. For example, an article on the front page of today's Hobart Mercury-everyone probably knows that I come from Hobart; I am the member for Franklin-talks about an 87-year-old lady who is left by herself and needs accommodation. She wants to stay by herself; she wants to stay in accommodation for herself, but she cannot get it because she has a little dog. That is another important point. The point that I make is that she cannot get accommodation because she has got a little dog, probably the only thing that she loves. We have to start realising that when we get older we change dramatically. I am only young yet, but some on the other side are old and they must realise this. We have to realise that there are circumstances that change one's personality. There are reasons that problems will come to the fore that one has never had before. I mentioned the mobility one: looking after one's own home, the roof and paint and all the other things, when one is left by oneself. As a nation we are going to have zero population growth and an aging population, and we should be very aware of this problem. The women of Australia, the elderly women, those between 50 and 65, should start to realise that they had better plan for that sort of situation because, if they do not, they will be in a problem area. I know that people on my side are starting to realise it. It really hurts me. I have been talking to the Minister for Forests in Tasmania today, and he was telling me about the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into logging in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests area of Tasmania. I know that Australian Labor Party members have all gone green. Somebody said to me, `Bruce Goodluck, you would have got more votes at the last election if you had supported the conservation movement, the greenie vote'. I said to them that I was just as dogmatic as they were. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), a very good member, mentioned something about being dogmatic about our concerns with conservation. They are just as dogmatic. We were talking generally about the Helsham report. It is going to cost about $3m. We have QCs and juniors running around, all with their hands out, because they get big dough. They will criticise the politicians for their salaries but, boy, they reap it in. They are going over the same ground again. We all know the problems with the timber industry in Tasmania. We have had about 11 reports. We are going to get another report. They are all down there in Tasmania with their cameras and spotlights, they are all getting the big dough, and it is costing the taxpayers of Australia about $2m to $3m for a report that is going to contain something that we already know. I think to myself, `We talk about one in five in Australia living below the poverty line, yet we will expend money on this sort of stuff'. They will say, `Bruce, the trees are more important than the elderly of Australia. They are more important than the one in five that is living below the poverty line'. What a lot of rot! That $3m could provide a village for the elderly people of Tasmania, somewhere they could live for the rest of their days in peace and quietness and not have all of these worries that are confronting them. But it is far better to spend the money to save the trees! Save all Tasmania for the fellow with the haversack on his back but forget about the elderly of Tasmania, forget about that one in five who, I heard those opposite tell me today, is living below the poverty line! Things are getting out of all proportion and it is about time we started to wake up to it. That has got that off my plate. That is one grievance. It is good to see the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) in here supporting me. It seems unusual not to have the former member for Denison in here supporting me. Mr Kerr —He's not supporting you; he's laughing. Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member for Denison is not supporting me. No, he has a look on his face as long as a fiddle. We will spin that one up before we are finished, too, so do not worry about that. We will get on to petrol pricing. Mr Kerr —What have you done about that? Mr GOODLUCK —I knew the honourable member would say that. The old Labor Party was going to fix petrol pricing in Australia. It set up the Prices Surveillance Authority-with a lady in charge, too. I heard her the other day. She probably gets a big salary, too. She was going to fix up all the problems of the petroleum industry. What has she done? Nothing. We have poor retailers in Victoria walking out of their businesses because they are taken to the cleaners by the big oil companies. In Tasmania, people are writing letters and are talking about the price of petrol. But let me say that the reason why we have this problem all over Australia-- Mr Kerr —Liberal State taxes. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, because the shortfall to Tasmania by this Government was such that Robin Gray had to impose-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(12.52) —I would like to raise an issue, the significance of which it is impossible to overstate. It is interesting, sitting in this chamber, to hear the quantity of trivia that gets debated. Yet I believe we are dealing with an issue that is going to have incalculable consequences both for the present generation and the generations to come. Honourable members would be aware of the concern which has been expressed over the past three or four years about the emergence of a doughnut-shaped ozone hole in the Antarctic region. This concern has been given new impetus with the preliminary findings for this spring of the United States-British study of ozone levels in the region. Those concerned with this problem have been monitoring the situation carefully and anxiously awaiting the release of the results of this spring's monitoring. I believe that these readings, which apparently show that the ozone layer over the Antarctic region is around 15 per cent lower this year than in 1985-which formerly had the lowest readings-will much more unambiguously point the finger at chlorofluorocarbons, generally known as CFCs, as the cause or, at least, as the factor which is distorting and grossly exaggerating the effect of a naturally occurring phenomenon. It has been argued that people mistakenly speak of the global depletion of the ozone layer and the Antarctic ozone hole as the one issue. In my view, this year's readings, as well as the results of this study, indicate that they can be regarded as just different faces of the same problem and that the problem is a pollution problem caused by us that should be cured by us. Although many people are aware of the effect of ozone depletion, and I know that my colleague the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) has raised this issue on a number of occasions, most recently half an hour ago-and I must confess that I was not aware of that-it is probably worth pointing out briefly the causes and effects of ozone depletion. Ozone is a highly volatile gas which constantly converts to and from normal atmospheric oxygen by interaction with certain ultraviolet rays. The conversion process is from O3-that is, three atoms of oxygen joined together-to O2. However, these conversion processes normally balance out so that the level of ozone remains more or less constant. In other words, there is a two-way process. The problem with CFCs is that they accelerate the process of destruction and mean that more ozone is destroyed than created. The extent of the destruction of the global ozone layer is still argued, but it is widely believed that its destruction will expose us to dangerous levels of ultraviolet radiation, causing significantly increased rates of skin cancer, immune system damage, an increase in smog and a rise in global temperatures-the so-called greenhouse effect. Even small increases in ultraviolet light damage life on earth. As to the specific effects of the Antarctic ozone hole, this is such a recent phenomenon that its effects are still a matter of study. However, there is no reason to suppose that its effect will be less harmful than the global ozone depletion and it may introduce new problems. This must surely be of special concern to Australia because of its proximity to the Antarctic region and its already high level of skin cancers. I believe that our proximity also imposes a special burden of responsibility on us. CFCs are in wide use throughout the world in aerosol spray propellants-although this use has been voluntarily restricted in recent years-in refrigerators, in air-conditioners and in plastic foam. They are also, as I understand it, used in solvents in the manufacture of computers. As we sit in our air-conditioned offices in Parliament House with the windows nailed shut, we are almost certainly contributing to the very problem I am referring to. Although it is uncontroversial to attribute this global depletion to the effect of CFCs, there has been considerable controversy about the cause of the Antarctic hole. Until the bad news of this spring's ozone readings, it had been widely argued that the hole was a somehow naturally occurring phenomenon. The argument gained a lot of credence from the fact that the hole mysteriously shrank to half the size last year, which is why this year's results were so eagerly awaited to see whether the shrinkage was a trend or an aberration. It now appears to be well and truly an aberration, if these preliminary findings are confirmed. The theory has been undermined not only by these latest preliminary findings but also by the recent study detailed in Nature magazine last month, which offered the first major evidence of a causal relationship between CFCs and the hole. This study found that chlorine compounds, almost certainly of man-made origin, bloom in the Antarctic at the same time as the hole appears each year. In other words, things are looking bad. Now is the time that serious action must be taken on this. It is imperative that we not wait for incontrovertible proof. CFCs can last in the atmosphere for up to 100 years, so we have already bequeathed the present depletion levels to our descendants. The least we can do is mitigate the effects of our environmental vandalism by the technology developed by our generation. Our technology inevitably develops faster than our knowledge of its ramifications. For example, the Age reported recently that the Cape Grim atmospheric monitoring station in north-west Tasmania is measuring a dramatic rise in concentrations of the particular halogen used in the electronic industry to clean circuit boards, a problem which will presumably increase rather than decrease unless drastic action is taken. As far as action in international forums which was concentrated on the much better documented global depletion of ozone goes, this Government's record has been good. We are to become a party to the 1985 Vienna International Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and have consulted widely with interested groups in Australia as a lead-up to this step. However, the proposed international action to freeze the rate of emission of CFCs and halogens and to implement progressive reduction in the 1990s is not enough, dictated, as it inevitably is, by such factors as protecting the interests of developing nations in the high technology industry race and protecting individual nation's industrial and economic interests, The Government is engaging in further consultative processes over the next couple of months prior to signing the international convention. There is no doubt that it will continue to be subjected to lobbying pressure on this. Australian industry has co-operated over the last four or five years in voluntary reduction of the use of CFCs in aerosols. However, as with the computer industry example I gave above, the reduction of CFCs in the aerosol area is being constantly offset by increases in new areas and the pressure will undoubtedly be on for government not to introduce measures which interfere with the development of industry in Australia. Any regulatory moves will undoubtedly be represented by lobbying bodies as conflicting with this Government's well-known commitment to industry development. I also have a commitment to the development of new industries and high-tech industries in Australia, but I believe that we must ensure that this is not at the cost of the destruction of the environment in this particular fashion. The Government must be resolute in acting in long term global environmental issues and ensuring that industry continues to develop alternatives to these destructive agents, as has happened with aerosol propellants. In this context, even McDonalds has announced that it is abandoning the use of CFCs as a blowing agent in the foam containers it uses to keep its hamburgers hot in the United States, in favour of an identical looking but differently made foam. The United States actually has a relatively reasonable record in this area, having unilaterally taken action some time ago to ban the non-essential use of CFCs. They have also exerted a lot of pressure internationally, by way of threatened trade restrictions, to ensure that controls are introduced on CFC11 and CFC12, which are the most stable and therefore the most harmful of the CFCs. This was a strong factor in the international acceptance of a 20 per cent cut in CFC consumption by 1993-94 stipulated in the agreement reached last month on international controls on substances depleting the ozone layer. Ironically these cuts would hurt them disproportionately as they have already cut the fat from their consumption. CFC manufacturers in Australia seem to be using the argument made famous by the tobacco industry, that the Government should go easy on legislative controls on the use of CFCs because of the absence of so-called absolute scientific proof. However, I would say to those who maintain that the argument at present consists more of suspicions than of certainties that, in a situation where a correction of the problem would take up to 100 years, suspicion should be enough for strong action. I strongly suggest that the Government should bite the bullet on the domestic level and take unilateral action by introducing legislative controls which ensure that we become a world leader rather than a follower in the solution to this problem. Voluntary agreements on reductions have not even held the ground, let alone led to real overall reductions. More is called for before it is too late. Mr MILES(Braddon)(1.02) —I rise in this grievance debate to raise my concerns and those of my electorate at the economic constraints which are being imposed on Tasmania as the Hawke Government courts the conservation movement. I am proud to be a Tasmanian and I am proud of Tasmania's forests. Forty-seven per cent of Tasmania is currently wooded, the largest percentage of afforested land of any of the Australian States. These areas include some of the most significant forests in Australia: the Huon pine forests of the south-west, the ferntree forests of the west coast and the temperate rainforests of the far north-west. Mr Chynoweth —They are beautiful. Mr MILES —They are beautiful, indeed. It is noteworthy that Tasmania contains approximately 30 per cent of Australia's rainforests and is second only to Queensland. Whilst other States have cleared their forests thoughtlessly and suffered the consequences in soil erosion and the onset of deserts and arid land, to this day Tasmania remains the best forested State. I am also proud of the Tasmanian forest-based industries. These industries are Tasmania's second largest value-added income earner, contributing $276.4m to the Australian economy in 1984-85. They employ 22,000 people, one in seven of Tasmania's workers. Even without allowing for the multiplier effect of the $124m that they pay in wages and salaries to their workers, forest industries are clearly an integral component of Tasmanian economic life. Tasmania maintains a responsible managed approach to forest development. In 1985 Tasmania enacted Australia's first forest practices code to ensure that, as forests were cleared, fresh vigorous forest would grow in their place. The code is a process of ensuring that timber harvesting is conducted in an environmentally acceptable manner. It lays down guidelines covering issues such as acceptable equipment to minimise compacting in the forests; how close one can log to a stream; and visual management issues. Good forestry practice in Tasmania is not just a statute, it is an ethos. I have spoken to Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd chainsaw workers in my own electorate who have suggested to me ways in which the forest could be managed better. They know that good forests are Tasmania's future. I have been to meetings of private foresters, 60 or more just recently, who are keen to hear how best to manage the forest environment on their private property. Mainlanders seem to have the impression that in Tasmania the last forest is about to be logged. I can understand that because of the actions of the Wilderness Society and the conservation movement in Australia. Mr Goodluck —And the Labor Party. Mr MILES —As the good member for Franklin has said, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) as well. That is simply not the case. Forty per cent of the State forests and 43 per cent of private forests will never be logged. Harvesting is at a sustainable yield; thousands of hectares of trees are being planted to maintain the forestry stock on an 80-year cycle. With life expectancy in Tasmania at 72 years, this is nothing but an investment in the future. Tasmanians over many years have conserved their natural environment. Ironically, it is our success in conserving the natural beauty of Tasmania that has resulted in our being targeted by the conservation movement and its suitor, the Hawke Government. We are like the virgin being forced into a nunnery to appease the conscience of her loose-living sisters. A current example of the Hawke Government's purist approach to Tasmanian conservation is its actions in relation to the Lemonthyme forests. The Lemonthyme State Forest was first proposed by the Forestry Commission in 1963. The Tasmanian Cabinet approved gazettal of the area as a State forest in 1983, with logging due to commence in 1987. In June 1986 the Tasmanian Liberal Government and the Commonwealth signed a memorandum of understanding relating to the granting of export licences. Lemonthyme was well and truly on track. I would just like to quote briefly from that memorandum. It said: In entering into this Memorandum, the Commonwealth recognises the professionalism and competence of the Tasmanian Forestry Commission and accepts that the Tasmanian Government acting through the Tasmanian Forestry Commission will duly and efficiently perform the many activities necessary on its part to give effect to this Memorandum. But, of course, the Labor Party turned its back on that memorandum. Let me just outline some of the things which are included in it. It included things which show the sensitivity of the Tasmanian Liberal Government to the environment, such as: identification of archaeological sites; fauna habitat protection; visual management systems; linking corridors for fauna movement; the use of machinery and erosion control in such areas that are logged; soil fertility maintenance; genetic diversity maintenance; fire management; and I could go on. We then had a meeting of ALP secretaries in Sydney which decided that there were votes in conservation. For purely political reasons the Federal Cabinet decided that there was to be no more logging in the Lemonthyme-throw away any memorandum of understanding, do not trust this Federal Labor Government because it does not have any intention of sticking with the agreements which it makes with other governments. The Commonwealth legislated so that no trees in the two forests could be damaged or removed from the protected area until 18 June 1988 while it had an inquiry, the tenth inquiry into Tasmanian forestry since 1972. Putting aside the 1987 Budget provision of $1.9m for the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into logging in the Lemonthyme and Southern forests area of Tasmania, the Tasmanian forestry industry will lose more than $8.5m in revenue. Tasmania is being forced to lock up one-third of its resource potential. In mainland terms it is like closing down all the resource-based industries of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Clearly such a move would be ludicrous and nonsensical. It is patently obvious that, for electoral purposes, the Government is intent on bringing Tasmania to its knees. These actions restrict the economic development of Tasmania and narrow the revenue base of the State. At the same time the Hawke Government has reduced grants to Tasmania over recent years. For example, the Federal Government's allocation to Tasmania of general revenue funds in real terms has fallen by 11.4 per cent since 1984-85, a cut of 9 per cent deeper than any other State. The home State of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), New South Wales, had 5 per cent real growth in the same period. On a per capita basis this year, Tasmania should have received $24m for Commonwealth capital works, but instead it received only $8m. Under Liberal government Tasmania has not faltered in its drive for self-reliance, in spite of the fiscal rape by the Commonwealth. Of all the Australian States, Tasmania finances the highest proportion of State government outlays from own source revenues. The Hawke Government continually obstructs development of our resources, from which we are building a strong, dynamic State economy. This Government seems to act on the principle that what matters is votes and that it wins more votes on the mainland than it loses in Tasmania by locking up economic resources in Tasmania. Let me relate this dilemma to the national economic scene. We are running heavy current account deficits and trying to replace imports with exports. If the conservation movement's objectives in forestry are achieved, more than $5 billion of forest-based products will have to be imported into this nation. As our national debt rises to $110 billion, the resulting pressure on the balance of trade will be enormous. Each month, as our balance of payments wallows in the red, we are taking another billion dollar leap down the Argentinean road. Over recent years, under the leadership of State Minister Ray Groom, Tasmania has developed a forestry management framework which is sensitive and dynamic. He is a good Minister. I believe that in 10 years time the Tasmanian people and the Gray Government will be seen as the acknowledged Australian leaders in forest and environmental management. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(1.12) —I must begin by contrasting the commitment of the honourable member representing Tasmania on this side of the House, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr), to the betterment of Tasmania and the balance of jobs and protecting the environment with the very distorted view that members of the Liberal Party of Australia display on this important question. I commend the honourable member for Denison for his constructive efforts to protect the environment and to protect jobs. Having said that, I wish to use this opportunity to urge members of the House and the people of Australia to use the opportunities presented by the bicentennial year to support initiatives for sensible and progressive constitutional reform. I do not seek to make a partisan contribution to this debate, but rather to assert the view that, without a bipartisan approach to constitutional reform, there will be no real prospect of satisfying the requirements of section 128 of the Constitution, which requires not only a majority of electors to support a proposed change but also a majority of electors in a majority of states. There have been, as honourable members would be aware, some 36 attempts to reform the Constitution and I believe that only eight of those have been successful, thus demonstrating that, without Opposition support or, at least, acquiescence, the prospect of constitutional reform is bleak indeed. I note that there will be a debate later this day, moved at the initiative of the Opposition, in which some of these issues will be canvassed in greater detail. As honourable members are aware, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has initiated a bold new move to promote constitutional reform by establishing the Constitutional Commission. The Attorney's idea in establishing the Commission was to take proposals for constitutional reform away from politicians and put them in the hands of a bipartisan non-party political group of eminent Australians recognised for their contributions to our country. I believe that it is essential to the Attorney-General's proposal that the Commission seek the widest possible contribution of the Australian people to ideas for constitutional change by means of publicity, submissions, public meetings, reports and other initiatives such as those already set in train by the Commission. I note, with great regret, that the Opposition has not given strong support to the work of the Commission. It is, however, heartening to see that the Opposition does not have a closed mind to all proposals. The shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), pointed this out in a news release of 9 September: As for the coalition we have opposed the Constitutional Commission as a vehicle for reform but we have continued to make it clear that we will take a sensible and considered attitude to any reasonable proposals. I endorse the view of the honourable member, who went on to say, `Disunity is death not only for parties but also for referenda'. I welcome these words if they mean what they appear to, namely, that the Opposition is prepared to work in a bipartisan way to secure public support for reasonable proposals. I truly believe that all of us will be judged by future generations for the contribution we make to the process of constitutional change in 1988, because that year gives us an unsurpassed opportunity to grasp the nettle of reform, not just reform for reform's sake but because reforms, I believe, will improve the quality of Australian democracy. The Constitutional Commission is, I believe, a very representative body and is chaired by Sir Maurice Byers, QC, the former Solicitor-General. It includes among its members Sir Rupert Hamer, a retired Liberal Premier of Victoria, who of course was instrumental in establishing the Australian Constitutional Convention. That Convention, regrettably, did not achieve a successful record of constitutional reform, as I have already indicated. For that reason, Sir Rupert and others who share his goal of constitutional reform have embraced the possibilities offered by the Constitutional Commission. The Commission's advisory committees are also representative of a cross-section of Australian political opinion, and include among their members Sir James Killen, well known to this House, Haddon Storey, a former Liberal Attorney-General of Victoria, George Polites, former Director-General of the Confederation of Australian Industry, Mr Greg Percival, former President of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, and, of course, the very well-known Mr Peter Garrett. None of these people could be considered pawns of the Federal Labor Government. They are truly eminent Australians and well suited, I believe, to the task that the Attorney-General has set for them. The advisory committees of the Commission have examined and published reports on the following subject areas; executive government, distribution of powers, trade and national economic management, individual and democratic rights under the Constitution, and the Australian judicial system. The recommendations of the advisory committees will be considered by the Constitutional Commission after public comment has been sought over a period of months, and early in 1988 the Commission will report. It will then be a matter for the Government to assess which of the Commission's recommendations are likely to be able to achieve the majority support of Australians necessary to satisfy section 126 of the Constitution. As I have already indicated, the likelihood of bipartisan support will obviously be crucial to whether or not a particular proposal is successfully passed at a referendum. The purpose of my contribution, above all else, is to urge members of the Opposition to keep their options open and not to make pre-emptive statements which will rule out the possibility of bipartisan support for a package of constitutional reforms which are broadly supported by the Parliament. I regret that that plea for the Opposition not to sabotage the work of the Commission appears not to have been heeded by senior Opposition spokesmen, as we will hear in future debates today. I now turn to refer to aspects of the recommendations of the advisory committees as an indication of some of the issues which may form the basis of discussion of future amendments. I stress that the recommendations are still to run the gauntlet of further sustained public debate and subsequent rigorous consideration by the Government and the Opposition. The first report launched by the Commission was on individual democratic rights. This committee adopted what it described as a practical approach, basing its recommendations on not including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution but recommending change to that Constitution to ensure basic restraints on the power of governments to interfere with individuals and to guarantee participation by all Australians in the democratic process. They are, of course, high ideals. We hear in this House many times calls from the Opposition for greater respect of the rights of the individual. Here is an opportunity to enshrine for all time in our Constitution some of those fundamental human rights which we hold dear. Specific recommendations from a committee's report for considered amendments to the Constitution include proposals, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not, to ensure that one vote one value and the right to vote are guaranteed to all citizens over the age of 18 years; to ensure fundamental common law principles so that individuals are not wrongly deprived of liberty or property; and to ensure fundamental common law values, such as the place of the Queen and English as our common language. They include recognition of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in the Constitution and the adoption of a citizens initiative approach to proposed changes to the Constitution, as well as the existing approval of referendum proposals put forward by the Parliament. The recommendations of a further advisory committee on trade and national economic management, I believe, are also worthy of serious consideration by business, by consumers, and by the trade union movement. There are other advisory committees concerning the judicial system and a further advisory committee concerning the distribution of powers. My limited time does not allow me to make detailed reference to those particular proposals. It is appropriate that I conclude on the theme that prompted me to speak in this debate today, that is, a plea for a bipartisan and reasonable approach by the Opposition to constitutional change. I ask those opposite not to pre-emptively sabotage the work of the Commission. Let us see whether we can work together constructively to propose amendments which will be broadly supported by the Parliament and which we can reflect on with pride, having been successfully carried by referendum in 1988. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(1.22) —Many times I have risen in this House and spoken of the problems facing the Aboriginal people in my electorate and, in particular, those people living in Wilcannia. I suppose that Wilcannia is really a microcosm of what is happening in many parts of Australia as far as the Aboriginal people are concerned. I do not think it is a matter, as some people have said, of our not doing enough or not trying to do enough or not spending enough; I think it is a matter of mismanagement by governments, State and Federal-and I am blaming not only present governments but governments before that-and by the bureaucracy. I think it is high time that something very constructive was done about it. That is why I am hoping that the new Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand)-although we are quite far apart ideologically, I think he is a genuine man-might be the man to do something to clear away the dead wood and get this act on the road. I have mentioned before that in Wilcannia, because of the hygiene problems, there is probably the highest incidence of hepatitis B in Australia and one of the highest, so I have read, in the world. It is disgraceful that in a country like Australia this should be so. It is more important, of course, that the young people are looked after. There is at the moment an investigation going on. People are trying to raise money to see whether all youngsters in Wilcannia, or particularly the Aboriginal youngsters, should be immunised against this dreaded disease. I instance in particular the conditions at a place called the Mission, which is on the eastern side of the river. I go there quite often because I am invited there. The Aboriginal people are frustrated. Several times they have asked me, `Can you do something for us, please? Can you please get us out of the terrible situation in which we live?'. Anyone who went over there to have a look would have to agree with them that it is drastic. There are a number of houses there. The roofs leak, the windows are broken, the windows are out of the houses, the doors are off and the taps are continually leaking. Despite this, the Aboriginal people there try to keep these homes tidy. The septic tanks are overflowing. At one stage earlier this year the septic overflow was flowing under the houses and the situation really was desperate. Despite all this, the Aboriginal people have approached me and said to me, `Why are we living like this? We pay our rent; no one is doing anything about trying to upgrade our existence'. I say to them, `The main thing is to keep paying your rent'. They do that because they have some pride, but unfortunately nothing much is being done. I believe there are some houses planned to be built in that area, but in the meantime the progress is very slow. I did see the other day over there, would you believe, a working gang putting in some kerbing and guttering. I really do not know what that is going to do to improve the lot of those people, but someone must have had the idea that that would help in some way. We are looking forward to new housing at the Mission, where it is bad enough. If one crosses the river and goes into Hood Street, Wilcannia, one will see there four houses that have septic systems which are always overflowing. I have tried to get something done about those septic tanks, but the tradesmen are very reluctant to empty the tanks out because they are not sure that they are going to get paid. This seems strange to me when I see that the Minister has announced that this year there is going to be a relative 8 per cent increase, I believe, in expenditure on Aboriginal affairs, taking it up to $671.6m. Something is drastically wrong when all of these departments, the governments and the bureaucracy cannot do anything about emptying out a septic tank. The situation is so bad now that the ground is saturated, it is really not worth replacing the pipes that are broken and really the whole system needs connection to the sewerage. That could be done and quotes have been given over the last two years for connecting the septic tanks to the sewerage. The houses that are there are model houses. It would not matter whether one was an Aboriginal person or a non-Aboriginal; the houses are spotlessly clean. I think that these people really need a better deal. The problem now is that the Aboriginal people have said, `Okay, we want a quote to connect these houses to the sewerage system'. The problem is that now the Central Darling Shire is owed a substantial amount by the various Aboriginal organisations and is very reluctant. I can understand that, because we are talking about a fairly substantial amount of money. The Central Darling Shire is the most isolated shire in New South Wales and covers a vast area. It cannot afford to be paying out money which it knows that it will not get back. I am sure that one of the main problems that I have come across is the number of Aboriginal departments or bureaucrats that are running around the place trying to organise all of these things. Anyone who can get through that red tape is certainly `a better man than I am, Gunga Din'. It is a very difficult situation we face out there and I believe that something has to be done by the present Minister to sort the whole sorry mess out. I think one of the major problems has been that in the bureaucracy there has been a tendency to try to make sure that the people who are running the organisations are Aboriginal people. To my way of thinking, because these people have not been trained, that is a nonsense. I think we should get the best people for the job if we are trying to help the Aboriginal people to get a high living standard, which they are entitled to. The other problem that faces the area-I notice here also that the Minister has said that the Government is going to spend $60m on housing for Aboriginal people over the next 12 months-is that there are so many of these departments that they really do not know who owns what, who is entitled to what and who is doing what. For example, there are several anomalies, amongst which are the complication of the Bakandji Housing Trust building on land that the Land Council owns, Land Council's rents being applied to Bakandji at the cost and expense of Land Council tenants, and the attendant legal implications. There is such a mix- up there that I do not think anyone really knows what is going on. I once again implore the State and Federal Ministers to go to Wilcannia and see what they can do about improving the plight of those Aboriginal people. I know that I have been on my feet in this House many times raising this matter and that there has been very little done about it. It is not because people are not spending enough money. In fact, I believe the Aboriginal Council up there at one stage a few years ago had millions of dollars, not thousands, in its bank account and still these people are living, if I can put it bluntly, in their own excreta. That is really not good enough in this day and age in this country. I would say to the Minister that the sooner he comes up there the better. I know that he is settling into his portfolio. As soon as he is settled into that, I will be making a request to him to come to Wilcannia because I am sure that, if he can solve the problems in Wilcannia, he can solve the problems in the rest of Australia. Talking about this amount of money that is being spent and the misappropriation, non-responsibility and non-accountability, last year we had a clean-up through a community employment program grant given to Wilcannia. I think it read something like, `$62,000 dollars to clean up around houses and plant gardens'. If for $5,000 I could not clean up around those houses in two days with an emu-bob, with 10 able men, and pick up all the car bodies, take them away and give some people some work, I would give the job away. I know that there is absolute waste. There has to be something done if this $671.6m is going to be spent in the right direction. I do not believe some of the statements by the Aboriginal community and the non-Aboriginal community, church leaders, members of parliament and the bureaucracy that not enough money is being spent. I believe that we could say that about anything. There is enough money being spent, but there is no accountability in some of the areas that I am talking about, despite the fact that some people are trying very hard. I just hope that the present honourable member for Melbourne and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs can do something to sort the situation out. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(1.32) —My grievance concerns the activities of a group of companies known as the D. F. Johnson group of companies. These companies operate under the umbrella of a parent company, Ascot Management Corporation Ltd. Over a number of years, the Johnson group has been active in promoting investment in the property market by the use of unlisted private unit trusts. These trusts are created, operated and managed by the Johnson group. As well as management and promotion, a company registered at the same address, Syndicate Nominees Pty Ltd, is used as a trustee for the unit trusts. An example of the manner in which the Johnson group operates is the history of trusts numbered 125 and 126. A glossy brochure published in 1980 by this group sought applications for 40 investment units of $7,500 each in the D. F. Johnson Trust. Nos 125 and 126 were established to acquire 16 two-bedroom strata titled townhouses at 17 to 21 Paton Street, Merrylands, in Sydney's western suburbs. These 16 units are in fact contained in a single building and eight units were put into each trust. The purchase price for each of the eight units was $385,000. In addition to the purchase price, $10,500 was required to renovate the units; $30,500 for formation costs, legal fees and stamp duties; and $36,000 for manager's expenses and trust formation fees-for each trust an all-up cost to the unit holders of $462,000. In other words, the building purchase price was $770,000, but the cost to the unit holders was $924,000. In effect, to buy the building, unit holders paid a premium of 16.7 per cent over and above the purchase price. Of that amount, the Johnson group collected a sum of $72,000 or a commission of some 9 per cent. If a prospective unit holder was concerned by those costs, those concerns were soothed by the calculations on page 8 of the brochure. This calculation detailed a profit of $221,000 for each trust after a period of five years. This profit was described as a capital growth estimated at 74 per cent over five years. Page 11 of the brochure listed 33 trust syndicates, already sold, showing an average annual capital gain per trust syndicate of 16 per cent per annum. The average total return of each syndicate was estimated at 25.2 per cent. Despite the high on-cost to acquire the investment, the brochure cleverly suggested profits. Why would the two unit trusts be established to buy the one building? Why split 16 strata units into two lots of eight? Was it only to increase the commission payable to the D. F. Johnson group, or is there any other explanation why this procedure would have been adopted? The use of the two trusts was unarguably more expensive for the investors and added greatly to the on-costs of the purchase price. And what is the result in 1987 of these trusts? In a report to unit holders dated 16 April 1987, Mr B. P. Whiting, director, advised that the profit suggested in the 1980 brochure had not been obtained. Various reasons were given for this failure and all of those reasons must be questioned. The D. F. Johnson group suggested a solution. The Johnson group estimated the value of the property owned by the 55 unit trusts under its control, as at 30 June 1987, at $24,223,500. So it is not peanuts that we are talking about. A public shelf company was acquired and named Integrated Investments Ltd. Integrated has the same registered address as the Johnson group. The directors are all existing Johnson group direc- tors. The unit holders of the 55 Johnson group of unit trusts, the real owners of the estimated $25m worth of real estate, are being offered ordinary shares in Integrated at a par value of $1. In other words, unit holders of trusts Nos 125 and 126, who, it will be remembered, purchased their units in 1980 for $7,500 per unit, are being offered 7,176 $1 ordinary shares in exchange for the $7,500 investment. It is interesting, Mr Deputy Speaker, to see how an investment valued at $7,500 in 1980 can be reduced to a value of $7,176 in 1987. It is also interesting to see who will profit the most from this offer. I have no knowledge or information to help me make a reasonable value judgment on the original cost of the investment properties. I can, however, express concern at what appears to be an excessive purchase price. After all, the Johnson group also includes a real estate agency. In 1987 the Johnson group engaged the services of R. V. Dimond (Valuations) Pty Ltd to value the trust properties, with the exception of one property only. An information bulletin dated 29 June 1987 from Integrated gave the unit holders the first and only information on the estimated present value of their trust properties. A question which arises at this point is: whatever happened to Syndicate Nominees Pty Ltd, who, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall, are the trustees of trusts Nos 125 and 126? A trustee is placed in a special relationship to the beneficiaries, the unit holders. It is a fiduciary relationship controlled by law and of great importance. Strangely, Syndicate Nominees has at no time corresponded with the unit holders or advised or assisted them in any way whatsoever, and I have no doubt that Syndicate Nominees is a shelf company with no assets and that it would be useless to sue it for breach of duty. Why should this occur? Why has the trustee played no role at all in this saga? It would appear to me that Syndicate Nominees owes a duty to the unit holders to protect their interest. Yet it has not caused any independent valuation to be obtained. Integrated, on the other hand, has full details on the investment of all of the unit holders. It has also obtained valuations of their property. It is also necessary to examine the validity of the valuation provided by R. V. Dimond (Valuation) Pty Ltd. I quote from Bulletin No. 2, dated 29 June 1987: `The residential property valuations were carried out as in-line values'. I suppose that to the uninitiated that statement sounds very impressive, but what does it mean? What indeed is an `in-line valuation'? I bothered to check with the Institute of Valuers of Australia and the answer is that it means nothing at all. There is no such expression in valuation terminology. The only valuation of any value is a sworn valuation detailing market or cost valuations. So we have a statement made to the unit holders on in-line valuations, which is a meaningless expression and which tells them no information whatsoever. In fact, why has R. V. Dimond, supposedly valuers, used an expression that has no meaning? What is the true market value of these properties and why is such information being withheld from unit holders? The story is far from over. The real sting is the benefit that the Johnson group of companies stands to gain. It is proposed by Integrated that the Johnson group of companies acquire options totalling up to 20 per cent of the issued capital of Integrated. Such options are to be exercised within three years. If exercised within the first 18 months the exercise price will be $1.05 and, thereafter, $1.10. There is still more to come. D. F. Johnson Investment Pty Ltd will get a consultant's fee of one per cent of the sale proceeds of property sold by Integrated, potentially, on its own valuations, a profit of a cool $2.5m. I have a view that, if the scheme proceeds, the value of the properties acquired by Integrated will rapidly escalate in value to the advantage of the Johnson group. BIS-Shapnel Pty Ltd in August forecast that Sydney real estate, where all of this property is held, will increase in value by 45 per cent in real terms in the next three years. It is a pretty good scheme for Johnson, is it not? The company takes other people's money and sets them up in private trusts, controlled by no legislation. Over seven years the unit holders of trusts 125 and 126 have effectively seen, according to the Johnson group, the value of their $7,500 share drop to $7,176, yet Johnson proposes that they go into a public company and that all the real estate be transferred so that Johnson picks up 20 per cent of the issued capital at preferential option values. I have no doubt that, if this scheme goes ahead, those unit holders will end up forking out more and more money to the Johnson group. This whole scheme demands investigation. Complaints have been made to the Corporate Affairs Commission of New South Wales. I have contacted the Commission in writing, formally requesting a full inquiry. I am also seeking a full inquiry from the Federal Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Federal Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Staples). It is a scam; it is a scheme; it stinks and it should be stopped. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(1.42) —Attitudinal change in industrial relations by employers and the unions should contribute to a great extent to the abolition of the `them and us' attitude by management and the work force. Co-ordination, negotiation and co-operation by both employer and employee would lead to a greater element of trust in the work place. The coalition policy advocates flexibility in industrial relations, with voluntary agreements between employers and employees. The more flexibility, the more chance of success in determining the wages and conditions which are acceptable to both employer and employee and which respond to the needs and profitability of particular or individual enterprises. In what is considered to be a landmark in industrial relations-the Melbourne Age went as far as to call it `nothing short of an industrial relations miracle'-the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd is leading the way, setting the pace for the rest of Australian industry. In the motor industry, one of the most fragile of all our industries, the Ford company has introduced voluntary employee involvement, which has had a greatly beneficial effect on both attitude and behaviour in the work place and helped Ford consolidate its position as market leader. In 1981 it was a very different story. Ford emerged from a crippling six-week strike with both employees and the management realising that for the company and the industry to survive there had to be change. Wayne Blair, Federal Secretary of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation, said at the time, `We all knew we had to change. We could not let that happen again'. An editorial in the Melbourne Age aptly put it: `Crisis is often a marvellous catalyst for change'. The implementation of a program of voluntary employee involvement brought about a new spirit of co-operation between management and staff which culminated in the ratification last August of a most significant award under the second tier of the national wage fixing system when a 4 per cent wage rise was granted to more than 10,000 Ford car workers in exchange for a range of efficiency improvements. In the six years since the strike Ford has lost only two days of working time, and they have been in isolated disputes. For Ford, employee involvement has changed the face of its industrial relations. It is an example which other industries and companies could well follow. But success did not come overnight. Ford has been an industry leader in providing in-house training and retraining programs and has used the focus of these new wages systems on skills development to gain considerable co-operation from the unions. In its plants in Geelong, Broadmeadows and throughout Australia, award classifications have been streamlined to introduce multiskills and flexibility between trades. In the Geelong plant, for example, jobs traditionally performed by skilled tradespeople are being carried out by unskilled workers who have been trained to accomplish simple tasks. This frees up skilled tradesmen for more skilled tasks and means less machine down time. Fitting tradesmen are trained to perform some of their own incidental welding, non-structural welding and so on. This program is aimed at broadening the scope of tradesmen's duties, which traditionally has not been done because of restrictive work practices. The result is a much more efficient use of skilled resources, time saving on the shop floor, greater job satisfaction for the work force and greater productivity. The company has given a guarantee that no employee would fail in job preference or in the full realisation of job potential for the lack of adequate training. The company has, to a large extent, developed the blueprint for successful employee involvement. The historic 4 per cent second tier wage rise bears testimony to this. Arbitration Commissioner Smith stated that the increase was granted on the basis of productivity gains. Both management and the Australian Council of Trade Unions welcomed the agreement as a credit to constructive negotiations between them. However, Commissioner Smith warned that it must not become the vehicle for a bogus wage increase or any other sham arrangement. Ford claims that the 4 per cent pay rise will be completely absorbed by the efficiency offsets and will not flow on as a rise in price of the company's products. Other members of the industry have followed the Ford blueprint and have recognised the importance of multiskilling and of having involved employees in long term planning; and a sense of trust seems to be developing as an integral part of union-management relationships. As we move to the twenty-first century, there is a growing acceptance amongst employers and unions of work flexibility to meet the requirements of the technological and organisational changes. These changes are necessary if productivity is to increase at a rate which will allow us to offset the decline in the terms of trade and raise our standards of living. The coalition wholeheartedly supports work place agreements. But the point I would like to emphasise is that they should be arrived at company by company. There should be no flow-on to other companies in the same industry as a matter of course. In the case of Ford, the negotiating skills of the company and the unions allowed them to bring down the agreement which suits both parties on their shop floor. One might wonder why the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission needs to be involved at all or why a third party should be involved in an agreement between the two consenting parties. What must not be allowed to follow is the flow to other companies in the same industry. Unless companies like General Motors-Holden's Ltd (GMH) and Mitsubishi are able to negotiate their own productivity offsets, why should their workers automatically expect the 4 per cent second tier rise granted to Ford? Commissioner Smith's view is that restrictive work practices must be eliminated before the second tier wage rise is granted. When he ratified the second tier negotiation between the Ford Motor Co. and the Vehicle Builders Union for restructuring and efficiency agreements, Commissioner Smith used considerable documentation that had been prepared by the working parties over their 100 meetings. This documentation formed the background of negotiation between the parties and their final agreements. In essence, the subject matter covered included: the grouping of award classifications; the make-up of workers compensation; the spread of hours; absenteeism; grievance procedures; maintenance work programs; adult apprenticeships; 38-hour four-day a week programs; preventative maintenance and demarcation problems; and the removal of restrictive work practices. The impressive feature of the various proposals and the suggestions put forward by the working party was the detail. There was a genuine desire for both the union and management to reach a conclusion that would improve the efficiency of the company's operation and create a more harmonious working environment. In ratifying this decision, the Arbitration Commission, the Ford Motor Co. and the union have accepted the general thrust of the coalition's industrial relations policy in that productivity and work place harmony are very important features of Australia's future industrial relations environment. In the case of this particular decision, the Commissioner said in his judgment: The restructuring and efficiency principle in itself deals with-changes to work and management practices; reduction in demarcation barriers; advancement of multi-skilling; the provision of training and retraining; broadbanding, and changes to working patterns. Having had a look at the practical side of these changes, Commissioner Smith has hopefully accelerated the move, both in attitudes and practical application, towards a better way of achieving a happier and more efficient work force in an Australian industry. The climate is right for change in industrial relations. The speed of change will be determined largely by what can be achieved by direct negotiation between the parties at the enterprise or company level. Undoubtedly, it will lead to a fundamental change in focus of industrial relations and changes in functions of the major participants. The coalition's policy objectives are to achieve a better system of wage fixation and dispute prevention and settlement, and more flexibility and accountability in the Commonwealth conciliation and arbitration system. Bill Dix, Managing Director of Ford Australia, has led the way in implementing participative management and employee involvement. His company has put theory into practice and shown, without a shadow of doubt, that the program has proved effective and resulted in greater productivity. Mr Dix believes that `if a company shows its employees that it trusts them, they will be so much more likely to trust the company. If it makes sure that they are kept informed, they in turn will respond in the same way by keeping the company informed'. Throughout Ford, middle management is encouraged to handle employees in a human way, recognising problems on the job, accepting and adapting suggestions for practical operational improvements and encouraging a positive co-operative contribution. Seventy-five per cent of suggestions received have been put into practice. The company recognised that it had to be flexible and adaptable to change or it would not survive. In 1981 Ford suffered the crippling six-week strike. Then it was number two in the market. It is currently market leader with 30 per cent of the market, 10 per cent ahead of GMH. Ford's landmark second tier wage increase in return for a 4 per cent increase in productivity bears witness to the success of changes in attitude and behaviour of both management and the work force. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(1.52) —In the short period of time that I have in this debate I want to raise a couple of matters that in fact I alluded to some week or two ago in my maiden speech. I refer to two particularly beautiful islands that are situated in my electorate of Bowman, namely, North Stradbroke Island and Moreton Island, which is in the picturesque Moreton Bay district of south-east Queensland. This is an area where industry and the environment actually work together. We are often criticised as a Government and certainly as a Labor Party, the Party that I represent, for being greenies and for always looking at the environment and not being prepared to look at other issues. In fact, that is not exactly the case; it is far from the case. A perfect example of this is in my own electorate of Bowman where we have Moreton Island and North Stradbroke Island. We have a balanced policy on all of these matters. On North Stradbroke Island we have a large sand mining company that is a world leader in its field. I refer to Consolidated Rutile Ltd. Consolidated Rutile is actually a world leader in the production of rutile, of zircon and of ilmenite. Those particular products are used in a wide range of commercial activities. In fact, rutile is used in the production of titanium oxide, a pigment used in the paint, paper and plastic industries, and in the manufacture of titanium metal, which has important uses in aerospace applications. Zircon and ilmenite also have a large number of commercial uses. The company exports all these products and it contributes in no small way to the balance of trade situation in Australia. In addition, the company supports a very thriving population which is permanently some 2,000 but which at holiday time extends to some 30,000. To those honourable members that might have the opportunity and the good fortune one day to come to that particular part of the world, I can say that it is probably the most beautiful 26 kilometres of unspoilt beach anywhere in the world, let alone in Australia or in Queensland. One of the things that I am very happy to say is that, as the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) has said, it votes in the right way. The people there are very nice people and they vote the right way in the main; and I thank them for that. One of the major areas on which this company has to be commended is its rehabilitation program. It has a rehabilitation program that is absolutely excellent. Mr Ian Cameron —You blokes are against sand mining; tell that to Joh. Mr SCIACCA —I will tell him. Shortly I will get on to the position with respect to sand mining on Moreton Island, which this Government and my Party are definitely against. If we have anything to do with it, it will never occur on Moreton Island. That is contrary, of course, to what the Premier of Queensland wants. He and his National Party of Australia always like to try to do what they can to sand mine and develop anything they can for a few lousy dollars. The days of the Premier of Queensland are numbered and, of course, that might go a fair way to ensuring that we do not have sand mining on Moreton Island. Even the Liberal colleagues of the honourable member for Maranoa are against sand mining on Moreton Island. The rehabilitation program of Consolidated Rutile is an excellent program. In fact, I would dare anybody who comes to the island and sees some areas that have been mined some 10 years previously to point out the difference between the original contours of the land and the land that has been mined. There is no difference to be seen, even from the air. After 10 years it is very difficult to find. I must commend Consolidated Rutile for its rehabilitation programs. Consolidated Rutile is so serious about rehabilitation that it even has on its staff an agronomist. Some six months before the mining begins the company has already planned what environmental matters it is going to look at; it actually replaces the same type of material and the same types of plants that were there before. By the way, it also spends some $10,000 per hectare on the rehabilitation process and employs six to eight people full time. Before I finish I want to turn to Moreton Island. Mr Ian Cameron —What is the difference between the two islands? They are both heaps of sand. Mr SCIACCA —I am glad that the honourable member for Maranoa brings that up. The fact is that Moreton Island is probably one of the largest sand masses in the world. It is an area of great natural beauty, which the honourable member for Maranoa does not appreciate. It is probably better than areas in his electorate. Only a couple of days before the election, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) visited that island and said straight out that no export licences would be granted. No matter what the Queensland Government wants to do, there will not be any mining on Moreton Island. I will tell the honourable member for Maranoa something else: the only way the position is going to be changed is if the fellows in the Opposition ever get into government-and it probably will not change anyway, because the Liberals outnumber them. Those opposite are going to have a long wait, anyway, so we have nothing to worry about up at Moreton Island. As I said, this Government is prepared to be balanced in its views. We are not greenies. Where industry and commerce can work together with the environment and do the right thing, we will always ensure that in fact happens. The commitment of this Government to these types of industries is evidenced by what it is prepared to allow to happen on North Stradbroke Island, that is, sand mining, provided the rehabilitation process is allowed to proceed. Mr Ian Cameron —It's all the same. Mr SCIACCA —I find it very difficult to be able to say too much about what the honourable member for Maranoa says, and all I can say to him is that the Prime Minister has made it clear that Moreton Island will not be mined-and it certainly will not be. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SCIACCA —It really surprises me when I listen to Opposition members yelling out about this, because they cannot cop the fact that we are prepared to look at all matters that are of importance to the people in that area. There are on Stradbroke Island many people who live off that particular industry. For that reason, we, in our balanced view, are prepared to ensure that sand mining, provided those rehabilitation programs are there, will continue. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy, will be absent from Question Time today as he will be shortly leaving for overseas on Government business. He will return to Australia on 21 October. Questions normally directed to Mr Duffy should be addressed to the portfolio Minister, Mr Hayden. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister to give the House a firm assurance that his Government will not seek through referendum to implement those recommendations of the Constitutional Commission which would cut the powers of the Australian Senate. Mr HAWKE —I want to say these things in response to the question from the Leader of the Opposition: firstly, I welcome the initiative of my colleague the Attorney-General in instituting the Constitutional Commission. Without having yet had the opportunity, of course, of reading all that will be coming out of that Commission, I certainly hope that all members will agree that it is important that as we come up to this important period in the life of this nation we should be prepared objectively to look at recommendations coming from a wide group of people as to how the Australian community may be better served by a consideration of some changes to the Constitution, which, of course, was drawn up in extraordinarily different circumstances than those of today. I shall be discussing the issues with my colleague the Attorney-General. The Government will be examining the recommendations. I have nothing to say until we have undertaken that consideration. Mr CHARLES —Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade been drawn to the escalating violence in Sri Lanka? Will this continuing violence pose any threat to the agreement recently signed between India and Sri Lanka for an end to the communal conflict there? Mr HAYDEN —The Australian Government welcomed the agreement, signed on 29 July 1987, between Sri Lanka and India to bring peace to Sri Lanka after years of intercommunal strife. I expressed my support for the agreement in a Press statement on 31 July 1987, which outlined the main features of the agreement, including a general cease-fire on both sides and a surrender of weapons by Tamil insurgents, the establishment of an Indian peacekeeping contingent to enforce the ceasefire and the joining of the northern and eastern provinces into one administrative unit. Since the signing of the agreement, the Australian Government has been increasingly disturbed by the number of violent incidents that have occurred-most recently, the indiscriminate slaughter of about 140 Singhalese civilians. The Australian Government deplores such violence and calls on both governments to take all necessary steps to ensure the full implementation of the agreement. The Government urges all groups in Sri Lanka to respect the agreement and work together to bring peace and stability back to Sri Lanka. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. He will recall the report that Australia's credit rating has been significantly downgraded in the recent six-monthly survey of 100 international banks conducted by the American business magazine International Investor. The extent of the downgrading of Australia's credit rating is reported to be second only to that of Brazil. In view of the fact that Australia's unit labour costs are projected to increase by rates well above our competitors, I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will be opposing the first tier wage increase of 1.5 per cent which is to be considered shortly under the national wage case. Mr HAWKE —I have, of course, noted the report to which the right honourable gentleman refers. I want to assure him that the Government is confident about the appropriateness of the policies that we have in place. Indeed, I think the right honourable gentleman will recall the quote I read earlier this week from a relevant international source on that point. I would remind the right honourable gentleman just what has in fact happened in terms of the situation that we inherited from the coalition Government. The Government can understand the desire of the Opposition to ignore these facts, but I remind the right honourable gentleman that from a prospective deficit of 5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) we have now got the Budget into balance. The gross public sector borrowing requirement has been reduced. I ask the right honourable gentleman to notice that that has been reduced from 8 per cent of our gross domestic product in 1983-84 to an estimated 2.2 per cent of the GDP this Budget year. The Government has underwritten the conditions for sustained falls in interest rates so necessary for private sector investment. Our new wage setting system is geared to productivity gains. It comes against the background of falls, I remind the right honourable gentleman, in real wage costs, thus facilitating adjustment without the cost to employment that might otherwise prevail. The fact is-and I do not know whether the right honourable gentleman is interested in facts or not-that we have in prospect in this year a fall of one per cent in non-farm real unit labour costs following falls that have already occurred. The Opposition does not like to be reminded of what has happened, but I remind it that as a result of the wages policy this Government has brought into place, it has succeeded in securing a situation where during the period of office of this Government there has been a significant fall in real wages-a fall of some 7 per cent. That is the first time that that has occurred in the history of this country in a period of economic growth. That has not happened accidentally. It has happened because the trade union movement of this country has, with a great degree of responsibility, in agreement with the Government said that the interests of its members can be protected not simply by the mechanism of increases in money wages but also by attention to what is broadly described as a social wage, which, without being exhaustive, covers such matters as Medicare, employment, housing, education, and so on, as well as occupational health and safety. In the event, as a result of the responsible co-operation of the Australian trade union movement, the right honourable gentleman ought to share pride that Australia had twice the rate of employment growth of the rest of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries-not just marginally better, but twice the rate of employment growth of the OECD countries. That has happened because this Government has had a total, comprehensive, responsible macroeconomic policy. The achievement of the Liberal-National Party Government was the historical first of simultaneous double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. Even during the period of devaluation-induced inflation, inflation under this Government never at any stage reached the point that we inherited from the Opposition of over 10 per cent. So we never have reached the level of inflation reached under the former Government, and this Government has produced over 800,000 new jobs-I repeat, a rate of employment growth more than double that of the rest of the world. Honourable members will be aware that today, the latest statistics show that Australia's unemployment rate is down at 7.7 per cent. When this Government needs any sort of instruction from the Opposition on how to conduct economic policy, then this country will indeed have reached a very sorry point. I remind the right honourable gentleman of the judgment made by people outside this country on whether the economic interests of Australia would be better handled by the Australian Labor Party in government or by this motley collection opposite. I remind you, Madam Speaker, of the assessment made by that institution acknowledged by the Leader of the Opposition to be a responsible and informed organisation, Goldman Sachs. This is what that organisation had to say in regard to the possible outcome of the last election: . . . a sizable proportion of the industrial and financial business community have expressed a preference for a continuation of the Labor government. In fact, they have even gone so far as to argue that domestic financial markets, and especially the A$, would be significantly more vulnerable if the government lost the election than if they won it. We agree . . . That is Goldman Sachs saying what is the obvious truth: those opposite are a hopeless mob. They were hopeless in government and, what is even more surprising, they are even more hopeless in opposition than they were in government. This Government will continue to have responsible, comprehensive, relevant economic policies which will produce, as they have in the past, record employment growth, falling interest rates and a stable dollar. Mr FITZGIBBON —Has the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy seen today's Press stories about Japanese coal buyers forcing big price cuts for Australian steaming coal? How does he explain this latest blow to New South Wales steaming coal producers? Mr KERIN —Yes, I did see the Press cuttings. They were all over the place. Unfortunately the reports are not well researched. It is true that CSR Ltd has settled the terms of its Japanese financial year 1987 supplies to EPDC, the Japanese power utility, at prices around $A11 lower than for Japanese fiscal year 1986. Its Japanese fiscal year 1986 price was a formula escalated price that was regarded by many as being way above the going price. My Department has been advised that the other three New South Wales producers involved in these negotiations with EPDC will also accept similar terms. However, it is quite inaccurate to present this settlement as a new victory for the Japanese utilities. The marker price for Australian steaming coal into the Japanese power market this year was established in a significant deal with Chugoku in April which was reflected in settlements with all other contracted utilities except EPDC. EPDC had been holding out since then for a lower price still. Notwithstanding the unprecedented delay, EPDC was not successful in achieving further price reductions. At today's exchange rate, the EPDC settlement, which is denominated in Australian dollars, is slightly above the Chugoku marker. I refer honourable members to the Sydney Morning Herald, which reports a more balanced view of these settlements. As to the comments that certain other terms of the contract with EPDC have been eroded, I would simply add that others have been enhanced. For example, the sellers have achieved a mechanism to take much of the negotiating pressure out of the arrangement for future years and see this as most advantageous. The commitment from EPDC to increase liftings from this group of suppliers by two-thirds from 1990 is particularly encouraging. References by so-called analysts and others to the significance of the contracts being written in Australian dollars show a lack of knowledge of these particular contracts, which have been expressed in Australian dollar terms since April 1985. Notwithstanding all that, as the honourable member for Hunter is aware, it is a matter of very great concern to the Government that conditions in international steam coal markets have deteriorated to the extent they have. I am keenly aware of the seriousness of the situation for Australian mine workers and producers and, indeed, for the nation's external balance. I am hopeful that we may have approached the bottom of the coal market. Oil prices are much more favourable; Japanese power output from coal fired stations has increased markedly; and, of course, there has been significant rationalisation in the coal mining industry. Also, while the Australian coal industry is the most efficient in the world, a position has been reached where steaming coal producers cannot bear further price reductions. Japanese consumers must recognise that it cannot be to their long term advantage to see reliable suppliers at internationally competitive prices put out of business. However, competition in this market is fierce, particularly from suppliers in South Africa, China and the Soviet Union, and a substantial excess supply capacity persists. The Government is intensifying pressure internationally to hasten the removal of subsidies and other barriers, in an effort to expand the global market for tradable coal. I have also intensified the scrutiny of applications for approval of permits to export Australian coal, with a particular view to curbing unacceptable price competition between rival Australian suppliers. Mr SPENDER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will recall his public statements on Tuesday about the so-called political realities in Fiji and the inevitability of further entrenchment in Fiji's Government of the position of the minority Fijians-statements which he reaffirmed on Wednesday-and that they were greeted with public happiness and relief by Colonel Rabuka and have reportedly been widely broadcast in Fiji. Does he not agree that what he said amounted to a public concession that illegally enforced constitutional change was inevitable and that his statements were bound to be used by Colonel Rabuka as endorsement for his plans for a racially based minority rule? Was it not a diplomatic blunder by him of the first magnitude to make this kind of concession? Mr HAWKE —The answer is no to all parts of the question of the honourable member. It is a pity that the honourable member seems to share the inability of Colonel Rabuka and others to understand what has been said on this issue consistently by the Foreign Minister and by me. Mr Howard —Don Dunstan; some of your old mates. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —So that perhaps even the honourable member for North Sydney and the Leader of the Opposition, as well as Colonel Rabuka and anyone else who is interested, can understand the position, let me make it quite clear that we have said publicly in this place and elsewhere and in direct conversation with the Governor-General that, as far as this Government is concerned, we recognise no constitutional authority in Fiji other than the Governor-General. That continues to be the case. What I said in regard to the issue mentioned by the honourable member in his question was, whether we like it or not-and certainly we on this side of the House do not like it; I do not know what the feelings are on the other side of the House-in the developments that have occurred in Fiji, including the involvement of Dr Bavadra in the discussions that have taken place, it seems to be inevitably accepted that the 1970 Constitution as it stands will not continue to operate in Fiji. To say that, to recognise that that is something that has followed not merely from the actions of Colonel Rabuka but the discussions involving Dr Bavadra, is in no way to condone or to endorse but to say that that seems to be the reality. It having been said that that is the reality, Colonel Rabuka need draw no comfort from that observation. There will be no recognition, in these circumstances, by the Government of his actions. The position will continue to be as I put it to the Governor-General directly yesterday, and I hope, as I said, to be able to speak to him tomorrow morning before I leave for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to get the most up to date assessment from him. The position will continue to be that we will recognise the Governor-General as the sole constitutional authority. They are facts. They are not open to any argumentation. It is merely another example of the total irresponsibility and irrelevance of the Opposition to try to read into a statement of that factual position anything more than those words will bear. The tragedy, which is what should concern the Opposition as well as this Government, is that the nation of Fiji and its people are suffering from the unconstitutional action of Colonel Rabuka and will continue to suffer because the damage, to a very considerable extent, has been done. Rather than continuing to grovel around in the political gutter, which is becoming its natural habitat these days, it would serve the Opposition's interests better if responsibly it tried to bring whatever remaining influence it has to bear towards a constructive discussion of this tragic issue. Mr BALDWIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Science and Small Business. Is the Minister aware of the intense international interest in the development of superconducting materials? What are the implications for the Australian economy if everyday materials are able to transmit electricity with virtually no loss of energy? Is Australia in a position to take advantage of superconductivity? Mr BARRY JONES —Superconductivity-the fact that electrical resistance falls as temperature approaches absolute zero; that is, minus 273 degrees celsius-is a phenomenon that has been recognised since 1911. However, this has had no practical significance, as such low temperatures could be reached only at extreme expense in laboratories. However, beginning in February this year, there have been a number of significant discoveries in laboratories in the United States of America and Japan which suggest that superconducting can take place at very much higher temperatures by using special ceramic-I stress ceramic, not metal-materials. I have here samples of a superconducting ceramic with the formula YBa2Cu3O7-- Mr Donald Cameron —Say that again. Mr BARRY JONES —I will explain it very carefully. It is made up of one atom of yttrium, two of barium, three of copper and seven of oxygen. Rare earths are central to the creation of superconducting materials. China and Australia have 90 per cent of the world's supplies of rare earths. This could place Australia in a very favourable position to supply underground cables for electrical transmission as there would be no heat loss from resistance. Therefore, the cables could be underground, assuming that research will confirm that the temperature at which superconductivity operates continues to rise. Throughout North America, Europe and Japan, there is an extraordinary increase in activity because the economic significance of superconductivity is becoming obvious. If the opportunity is not taken up here, and if superconductivity becomes an economic fact of life, it could have a serious impact on the supply of primary energy materials. On the positive side, it could lead to enormous increases in computer capacity because operations can be speeded up without generating heat. It could revolutionise transport with supermagnetic levitation. Think what that could do for Mr Brereton in New South Wales. It could make artificial intelligence a reality and permit more effective medical technologies. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr BARRY JONES —Well, the natural variety has not worked too well here. Superconductivity may be as important in the 1990s as the silicon chip was in the 1970s and 1980s. Of course, it is a very high risk area. The outcome is still uncertain. Australia is facing superconductivity with its customary caution, not to say sluggishness. The highest priority for us over the next few months will be to develop a strategy for a national response leading to a strong and coherent multi-disciplinary program. This must involve discussions with industry, academia and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to work out the next steps. We cannot afford to let this one get away. Mr WHITE —This question should go to the Minister for Defence but, as he has dodged the issue and passed the buck to the honourable member for Canberra-- Madam SPEAKER —Will the honourable member just get on with his question. Mr WHITE —I refer the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel to the view she expressed on 25 August that `the Defence Force had to accept the fact that high wastage rates were good for morale and the Services had better get used to it'. Why, then, is the Minister suppressing the monthly Australian Defence Force (ADF) employment statistics, which have been issued since 1973 when, according to the Minister's unique theory, the information contained in those reports should be sending morale through the roof? Is it a fact that ADF separation rates for September are at a record level, exceeding the 1,000 ADF personnel who left in July and the 823 in August? Is it also a fact that over 70 Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) pilots have submitted their resignations in the last three months? What does the Government intend to do about the crippling of our defence forces? Mrs KELLY —I thank the shadow Minister for his question. There is no doubt that separation rates are causing problems in the defence forces. What I have done with the figures is to issue them annually because we have changed the nature of the figuring in the defence forces so that we have a trained component and a training component. I have received correspondence from the shadow Minister in relation to the availability of the figures, and I intend to reply to him to tell him that the figures will be available on request from the Department. On the issue of separations, there is no doubt that they are causing some concern for me, for the defence forces and for the Minister for Defence. But, instead of just throwing our hands up in despair and criticising, as the Opposition is doing, we are addressing them case by case in areas affected. As the shadow Minister said, one of the areas causing great concern is that of pilot separations. We are tackling this issue head on. We are taking a two-track approach to finding effective short term and long term solutions. Mr Reith —What are you actually doing? Mrs KELLY —On the first track we are talking to Qantas Airways Ltd. I will be putting to Qantas the view that all of us benefit from an effective defence force, and I will suggest that Qantas look at ways in which it might manage its recruitment programs to keep disruption to the Royal Australian Air Force to a minimum. I have already had discussions with the Chief of the Air Staff and the RAAF is looking at a range of options for adjusting its own procedures and practices to help reduce the pilot separation rate, including career streamlining for officers who prefer to continue flying, increasing the retirement age in certain cases, reducing the number of pilots in dedicated desk positions in the Air Force and Department of Defence central offices and, in the longer term, increasing the output of the RAAF flying training system. I will elaborate on all these points in the next few days. Mr MOUNTFORD —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. In view of the costly and at times dangerous situation faced by many Lebanese citizens seeking to cross into Syria to visit the Australian Embassy in Damascus on official business, will the Minister give earnest consideration to the reopening of the Australian Embassy in Beirut or, alternatively, the opening of a temporary embassy at a safer coastal location north of Beirut? Mr HAYDEN —I have given consideration to this proposal, which has been put to me off and on over the past couple of years, and, regrettably, I have to say no. The response is negative because of the dangers to Australian representatives who would be required to serve on the ground in Lebanon. There are other factors which apply to any suggestion that accreditation could be applied to some point outside of Beirut. The Australian Government is accredited to the Government of Lebanon, the capital of which is Beirut. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to open an office outside the capital. To do that would be to give some impression of support for the cantonisation of Lebanon. It would also lead to requests, which it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to resist, to open up similar posts in other parts of the Lebanon. Another consideration is that it would be extremely difficult-again probably impossible-for members of all religious groups to travel to places such as Jounie. Currently visa issuing for people from the Lebanon is carried out at the embassy in Damascus. For those unable to travel to Damascus, other Australian posts-for instance, Cyprus-can issue visas. Mr BEALE —My question is directed to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. I refer the Minister to the Menzies report, which he tabled after Question Time the day before yesterday, and to the Government's monumental blunder on the Coastwatch contract. Can the Minister explain how a committee of three people, established only three weeks ago, was able, after that very short period, to discover that the entire tendering process of the Minister's Department was in disarray, and point to no fewer than 15 major shortcomings with the Coastwatch tender document alone? How will the Minister avoid a repeat of the Coastwatch disaster when he calls tenders for the replacement VIP fleet? Mr DUNCAN —The proposal is that we will review the tender processes in response to the report that we have received. In particular, I understand that the Department will enjoy the benefit of support in the tender process from officers of the Department of Administrative Services who have considerable experience in this area. By applying the procedures recommended in the review and seeking that additional support and assistance, we believe that the matter will be able to be handled competently, appropriately and effectively. Mr JENKINS —My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services. What are the Government's plans for the ongoing provision of efficient services to Government departments and instrumentalities? Mr WEST —I am conducting a reappraisal of the mechanisms for the efficient delivery of services to government departments and instrumentalities. The criteria I am using are threefold: firstly, the extent to which the central provision is necessary, as against the central setting of standards but the provision by individual private sector agencies; secondly, the extent to which any provision by a central public authority should be in open competition with provision by the private sector; and, thirdly, the extent and method of application of the user pays principle for partial or full cost recovery or on a full profit-making basis. I am preparing a general guidelines paper for consideration by Cabinet and the Government. After that paper is endorsed by the Government, I intend to prepare a number of specific papers which will canvass, on a case by case basis, the delivery mechanisms for the provision of construction and property management services, for instance-and perhaps the guarding service-to government departments and agencies. The name of the game is going to be efficiency in the public sector and, where necessary, competition. Mr Beale —That is why you are privatising Australian Airlines. Mr WEST —The honourable member for Deakin raised the issue of privatisation. I can inform him that what I am proposing is definitely not privatisation in the sense that one may read `privatisation' as equalling `sell-off'. That is not what I am proposing at all. What I am proposing is efficiency and competitiveness within the public sector. I am confident that the Department of Administrative Services will be able to deliver this. The issue of transport and storage services is of close personal interest to many members of the Parliament. Because of that, and because an example of what I propose has already been achieved as at 1 October, I shall give the House a quick rundown on what will now apply with regard to transport and storage services. I begin by saying that the area of car with driver services for entitlees-Ministers, members, judges and so on-and also self-drive vehicles to agencies and the transport of goods with a security rating will not be open to competition. These services will be provided totally by the new Transport and Storage Group which will be run as a corporation within the Department. The areas that will be open to competition in future are car with driver services to government agencies, the transportation of non-security goods, storage services and office removals. So, there will be some competition in those areas and the departments and instrumentalities will be able to go out to the private sector, if they wish, and receive those services. But the other side of the picture is important, too, because we must be fair and have a level playing field when we talk about these issues. The new Transport and Storage Group in my Department will be allowed to provide services, on a competitive basis with the private sector, to State governments and their instrumentalities, to local government and its instrumentalities, and to those areas of the private sector which I approve on the basis that the services provided are of a specialised nature. If I may quickly tell the House about the financial arrangements, they are simply these: when we talk about efficiency and competitiveness in the public sector, we have to talk about achieving a level playing field. Otherwise, it is a bit of a joke. This is what I have done regarding the Transport and Storage Group: first, all the assets will be transferred to the group, which will have control of them. The group will have the right to rationalise property-that is, to buy and sell-and keep the receipts to ensure that it becomes increasingly competitive. The services provided-even personal car transport for members-will be on the basis of full cost recovery. A factor will be included which will involve a return to government of the capital which is deployed. We will also be removing average staffing levels, or ASLs. For Opposition members who do not understand, that means that staff ceilings will be removed so that the departments can be competitive or expand if the opportunities are around. Finally, in consultation with the unions involved, we will be undertaking a review of any outmoded work practices which may still exist. I expect full co-operation with the unions on that issue. I repeat that the name of the game will be efficiency and competitiveness. I have no reason to disbelieve that, if we go about the reform of some sections of the public sector in the way I have described, it will be capable of providing efficient services in competition with the private sector. As a Minister, I, for one, accept the challenge. Mr LLOYD —My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will be aware that yesterday's announcement that Australian Airlines will be transformed into a government-owned company, still subject to public sector borrowing limitations, will do nothing to overcome that organisation's critical requirement for capital to be able to afford new aircraft to compete against Ansett Airlines of Australia in a deregulated industry. As the Government will not provide the minimum $200m of urgently needed capital, and unless the Government is deliberately reducing Australian's ability to compete against Ansett, does the Minister agree that the only alternative is to privatise-- Mr Hawke —Which Minister? Mr LLOYD —The Prime Minister. I will read the question again. I said `Prime Minister'. I shall start again; I am quite happy to do that. I said `Prime Minister'; but I want to be sure that he hears the question, because the answer is important. Madam SPEAKER —Order! If everyone will be quiet, the Prime Minister will hear the question. Mr LLOYD —That is right. The question was directed to the Prime Minister from the start. The Prime Minister will be aware that yesterday's announcement that Australian Airlines will be transformed into a government-owned company, still subject to public sector borrowing limitations, will do nothing to overcome that organisation's critical requirement for capital to be able to afford new aircraft to compete against Ansett Airlines of Australia in a deregulated industry. As the Government will not provide the minimum $200m of urgently needed capital, and unless the Government is deliberately reducing Australian's ability to compete against Ansett, does the Prime Minister agree that the only alternative is to privatise Australian Airlines? Mr HAWKE —I point out to the honourable member that what we have done as part of the decision of the Minister for Transport and Communications yesterday is to announce the incorporation of Australian. I point out to the honourable member that the incorporation of Australian is consistent with the principles espoused in the Government's guidelines on the efficiency of its business enterprises. Mr Lloyd —That has nothing to do with trading capital. Mr HAWKE —Would the honourable member like to have another go? The Government believes that the incorporation of Australian is essential if the airline is to have a chance of becoming competitive in the deregulated environment which the Government has announced. By incorporating Australian, the airline will be released from the weight of restrictive day to day inconveniences in its relationship with government which Ansett Airlines of Australia and other private sector airlines do not face. In other words, the deliberate decision to incorporate Australian in broad terms, as the honourable member will appreciate, to put it on a similar status and basis to Qantas Airways Ltd, we believe will mean that it will be put in a more competitive position, vis-a-vis Ansett and other operators, than it would have been without incorporation. We are very concerned-and I assure the honourable member of this-to ensure that Australian can compete with Ansett and any other domestic carriers in the deregulated environment that will come about. So rather than simply say that we are concerned to see that it can be competitive, we have decided to establish a high level advisory group to advise the Government on what more can be done to enable Australian to compete with maximum flexibility and efficiency. We will await the report of that group with interest and, obviously as a government, we will take into account the recommendations that it makes to us. It would be entirely premature to make any observations until we receive the report of that high level advisory group. Mr JOHNS —Can the Minister for Veterans' Affairs comment on the delays in the hearing of cases before the Veterans Review Board? What are the problems and what is being done to ensure that applicants, who can be sick or in hardship, are not kept waiting for longer than is absolutely necessary? Madam SPEAKER —The first part of the question is out of order. The Minister cannot be asked to comment. The second part of the question is in order. Mr HUMPHREYS —I thank the honourable member for Petrie for his question. I also take this opportunity to thank him for his service to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and to veterans in Queensland as a member of the Veterans Review Board in Queensland. He has been a member of the Board for the past 2 1/2 years and I am sure that he will be the member for Petrie for many more than 2 1/2 years to serve the constituents of that electorate. I am sure that all honourable members will be pleased to know that in the 1986-87 annual report of the Veterans Review Board, which I tabled in this House on 24 September, there are some very interesting facts about the Board's operations and particularly about the waiting times. I was extremely pleased to note that there was again an increase of 50 per cent in the number of applications for review finalised compared with the previous year, and that there were significant reductions in the average times taken to finalise applications. I am also happy to announce that these trends have continued this financial year. The Board has finalised almost twice as many applications as it has received, and waiting times are now 40 per cent less than they were in late 1986. There was also a reduction to $550 in the average cost for each application finalised. This is 35 per cent lower than in 1985-86 and a fall of around 60 per cent compared with the previous period in real terms. Mr Bilney —It is an excellent record. Mr HUMPHREYS —I know. It is a very excellent record. However, I am concerned that there still are a few problems in relation to the hearings of the Veterans Review Board. Only about 43 per cent of the currently outstanding appeals are, in fact, with the Board for hearing and related action. In a further 43 per cent of the applications, action is required on the part of the applicant, or his or her representatives, before the case can be brought on for hearing by the Veterans Review Board. Regrettably there is a high rate of adjournment-almost 16 per cent of entitlement hearings-and many of these are caused by the advocate not being ready to conduct the hearing on the day the case is called on for hearing, despite having given the Veterans Review Board a certificate of readiness. Mr Spender —I think you will take the Stewart West prize this year. Mr HUMPHREYS —If the honourable member is quiet he might help everybody. I know he is not interested in veterans but we are. Mrs Sullivan —Make a statement. Mr HUMPHREYS —I will be happy to make a statement later on for the honourable member. The Board has now introduced measures which it hopes will discourage applicants, or their representatives, from indicating they are ready when they know that they are not. Better case preparation by advocates, leading to fewer adjournments, would reduce waiting times for applicants. Over all, though, I am pleased with the operations of the Veterans Review Board. It is clear that the three-tiered determining system introduced by the second Hawke Labor Government at the beginning of 1985 is working, and working well. Mr HOWARD —My question is supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for North Sydney and is directed to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that on Tuesday of this week he said: I don't think that any of us, including it seems, Dr Bavadra, can realistically expect that there is going to be a constitutional parliamentary system which doesn't involve some greater in-building of protection for the Fijians. In what way does it involve the politics of the gutter or the politics of misrepresentation for the Opposition to suggest that that particular statement gave aid and comfort to Colonel Rabuka? Mr HAWKE —What has been done by the Opposition in the last few days is totally consistent with the description I have given. Today we have had the Leader of the Opposition delivering another of his desperate Press conferences in which he had this to say of me: He showed a double standard. He moralises and lectures about democracy and then in effect says that it is okay for one racial group to have an entrenched privileged majority over another. The Leader of the Opposition has developed a constitutional incapacity to tell the truth. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will withdraw that comment. Mr HAWKE —I withdraw it and I say that the Leader of the Opposition consistently misrepresents the facts. He does it on every issue these days on which he opens his mouth. It does not matter whether it is about tax evasion or-- Mr Ruddock-I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Traditionally when honourable members are asked to withdraw a statement, the withdrawal is expected to be unqualified. The length of this qualification does not make it any less an inadequate withdrawal. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister withdrew. Mr HAWKE —It does not matter whether he is trying to talk about his Government's pathetic record on tax evasion or whether it is on the question of Fiji-- Mr Spender —I raise a point or order, Madam Speaker. Relevance is required under the Standing Orders. What the Prime Minister is doing is using the answer that he should be giving as an opportunity for a wide-ranging personal attack, and that is not relevant. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. Mr Spender —He should be told not to continue. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will not direct the Chair on what to tell the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I make the point that the Leader of the Opposition is deliberately perverting my comments into a proposition that I am saying it is okay for one racial group to have an entrenched, privileged majority over another group. That is a measure of the desperation and the incapacity of the Leader of the Opposition properly to present the facts. I have said-and I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to dispute that it is a correct statement-that on all the evidence, including the involvement of Dr Bavadra in discussions with Colonel Rabuka, the Governor-General and Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, it seems to be the case that all parties involved accept the fact that there will not be a return in Fiji to the 1970 Constitution as it stands. At no point have I or any other spokesperson for the Government suggested that we view that situation with any pleasure. Mr Downer —Why does Dr Bavadra-- Mr HAWKE —Dr Bavadra, for instance, is engaged in discussions with Colonel Rabuka-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Mayo. Mr HAWKE —Dr Bavadra is engaged in discussions with Colonel Rabuka, the Governor-General and Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, on the basis, clearly, that there will not be a return to the 1970 situation and the Government has made a statement that it appears on all the evidence that the reality in Fiji is that there will not be a return to that situation. That is indisputable. It does not carry any implication that anyone on this side takes pleasure in that fact. Mr Howard —You gave the game away. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —At some stage the Leader of the Opposition and those who sit behind him will come to the conclusion-we hope they will-that when they talk about the tragedy which is Fiji they will bring to that discussion an analysis which is reasonable. They should not seek to make cheap political capital out of a situation in which the Government is doing no more than stating a factual position. It is not a position from which the Government draws any comfort. The responsibility of this Government, in the interests of the people of this country, the people of Fiji and the people of the region, is to try not to exacerbate the situation or be abrasive, but to recognise those realities which exist and to continue to say, as we have, that we sincerely hope for a return to a parliamentary system and to an outcome in which the rights and the interests of all communities in Fiji are properly respected and safeguarded. That is the position of this Government. That is the outcome that we want to see. Without exaggerating the capacity of Australia to bring about a result from outside, in regard to what will happen inside Fiji, we will continue to emphasise that the sole source of constitutional authority in Fiji rests with the Governor-General. We will continue to assert, as I say, that the interests of the people and the nation of Fiji, as well as, I suggest, the interests of the people of Australia and the region, consist of a return, as speedily as possible, to the parliamentary system and, I repeat, an outcome in which the rights and interests of all communities in Fiji are properly respected and safeguarded. Without seeking to make political capital in the desperate way in which the Opposition does, we will continue to press that responsible position. The tragedy is that the rabble on the other side does not have the wit, the decency or the intelligence to associate itself with that honourable position. Mr KERR —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. I direct the Minister's attention to comments made by the Tasmanian Premier and Treasurer, Robin Gray, in the Tasmanian Budget Speech on Wednesday, 23 September, in which he stated that Federal funding arrangements precluded the State Government from proceeding with the proposed Claremont Senior Secondary College. Is there anything in Federal funding arrangements that has prevented the Tasmanian Liberal Government from honouring its 1986 election promise to commence the building of that college? Mr DAWKINS —One of the most disreputable tactics employed by a State government is to make an election promise in an area for which it has total responsibility and then, when it discovers that it cannot deliver that election promise, to seek scapegoats-in this case, the Commonwealth Government. Of course, this is not a new tactic, but it is one which the Tasmanian Government, particularly, has employed time and time again. It is a particularly unfortunate occasion on which to use this particular tactic. We are talking about desperately needed educational facilities in a State which already has the lowest level of participation in its secondary schools. One would have thought under current circumstances that the Tasmanian Government would have given the highest possible priority to the election promise which it made under no duress from us before the 1986 election campaign in that State. The fact is that the Tasmanian Government in its recent Budget decided to allocate $31m of capital expenditure to the education area. Yet it was unable to find one single cent for this election commitment which it gave in relation to the Claremont College, an area-- Mr Goodluck —That won't hold a seat in Tasmania. Mr DAWKINS —I do not know what the honourable member for Franklin has been doing about this matter. I would have thought that it might have served the interests of Tasmanians for the honourable member to join the honourable member for Denison in persuading the Tasmanian Government of the importance of this facility. The first point I make is that the Commonwealth has already made available $4.6m this year in capital funding for schools in Tasmania. The allocation of that money and the determination of priorities is entirely a matter for the Tasmanian Government. It decided that many other projects, amounting to $31m, came above the Claremont College. It sought to blame the Commonwealth for its inability to deliver its own election promise. Of course, it is true that over the last few years there has been some reduction in funding for States-not just for Tasmania, but for all States. I also make the point that those decisions to reduce funding were made by agreement between the Commonwealth and the Premiers at the Premiers Conference. There was a national agreement that it was important for the Commonwealth and the State governments to reduce their claim on the financial resources of this country in order to sustain the lowering of interest rates that has occurred in recent times. In the context of the bleatings from the Tasmanian Premier in relation to how badly done by it has been, it is important to remember that in terms of dollars per head, Tasmania is still receiving four times more than New South Wales or Victoria. Mr Lionel Bowen —Four times? Mr DAWKINS —Four times more. Under those circumstances one would have thought that it would have been possible for the Tasmanian Government either to fulfil its commitment in relation to its election promise or to say honestly that it had decided not to proceed with it, rather than blaming us. Mr JOHN BROWN —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to provide further information in answer to a question I was asked yesterday by the honourable member for Mallee. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr JOHN BROWN —Yesterday, the honourable member for Mallee asked whether the proposed boundaries for World Heritage nomination of north Queensland rainforests excluded `numerous properties owned by radical conservationists and Government supporters'. Further to the answer I gave the honourable member, I advise him that the basis for the indicative boundaries of the proposed World Heritage area, drafted by my Department, was the stringent criteria for national sites laid down by the World Heritage Convention. These criteria relate to the World Heritage values of the area. The Department used this expert advice and available information on these conservation values. My Department did not know who owned land in the vicinity when it prepared the indicative boundaries, and it had no reason to inquire about the ownership because World Heritage listing has nothing to do with land tenure, merely the conservation value of the intended nomination. Furthermore, World Heritage listing of the north Queensland rainforest will of itself have no effect upon ownership of land in the area. It is obviously ridiculous to suggest that conservationists who have been lobbying to have the rainforest protected and to have more land included in the World Heritage area would want their own land excluded from the protection that World Heritage listing would provide. Indeed, we have received submissions from some people whose land had been excluded wanting it included. The areas specifically referred to by the honourable member for Mallee were excluded simply because they did not meet the stringent World Heritage criteria. However, the period for nomination of areas remains open until 22 October. Within that period it is open for anybody to suggest that additional areas be included, and some people have already done so. I suggest to the honourable member for Mallee that if he feels very strongly about this, if he feels that his question is justified, he is entitled to nominate the properties he has named for inclusion in the area. My Department would certainly review the issue then. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Pursuant to section 9b of the Public Service Act 1922, on behalf of the Speaker I present the annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives for 1986-87. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for 1986-87. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Pursuant to section 27 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978, I present the annual report of the Australian Science and Technology Council for 1986-87. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —Pursuant to section 135 of the Wool Marketing Act 1987 and section 90 of the repealed Wool Industry Act 1972, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Wool Corporation for 1986-87, together with the Auditor-General's report. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 68 of the Archives Act 1983, I present the annual report of the Australian Archives for 1986-87. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 68 of the Archives Act 1983, I present the annual report of the Advisory Council on Australian Archives for 1986-87. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 24 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian Statistics Advisory Council for 1986-87. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 24 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian Bureau of Statistics for 1986-87. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health) —Pursuant to clause 19 of the Order-in-Council which constitutes the National Health and Medical Research Council, I present a report of the 101st session of the National Health and Medical Research Council held in Brisbane, June 1986. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I claim to have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). On several occasions during Question Time the Prime Minister quite incorrectly accused me of perverting the truth by quoting back to him some remarks he made about events in Fiji. In support of my contention that the Prime Minister has misrepresented me, let me remind the House that on Tuesday the Prime Minister had this to say: I don't think that any of us, including, it seems, now Dr Bavadra, can realistically expect that there is going to be a constitutional parliamentary system which doesn't involve some greater inbuilding of protection for the Fijians. On Wednesday, in the course of another Press conference, the Prime Minister had this to say: . . . including the understanding of Dr Bavadra-that there does appear inevitable that there will be some further entrenchment in whatever happens of the position of the Fijians. I put it in my question to the Prime Minister, and I have said it outside this place, as have others, that those remarks were taken as giving aid and comfort to Colonel Rabuka. Mr Holding —That's only your view. Mr HOWARD —The Minister interjects that it is only my view. It happens to be Dr Bavadra's view as well, and it also happens to be the view of the coalition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will get to the point. Mr HOWARD —I am. In rebutting the claim by the Prime Minister that I had misrepresented the true import of what he said, I remind him that Dr Bavadra described the Prime Minister's remarks as indicating support for the views of Colonel Rabuka and that a statement from the coalition parties said that they were appalled by the Prime Minister's comments. They went on to say: Mr Hawke must first decide whether he stands for the basic principles of representative democracy and the free expression of the will of the people or whether- and these are not my words-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I would like the Leader of the Opposition to come to the point where he has been misrepresented. Mr HOWARD —I have pointed out where I believe I have been misrepresented, and I have demonstrated a misrepresentation by quoting the reaction of people other than me to the remarks the Prime Minister has made. I stand by what I said this morning: this has crippled the Prime Minister's diplomatic capacity on the eve of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no need to proceed any further. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SPENDER —I do, Mr Deputy Speaker, by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SPENDER —I put a question to the Prime Minister in which I said that he would recall public statements on Tuesday about the so-called political realities in Fiji and the inevitability of further entrenchment in Fiji's Government of the position of the minority Indians. I pointed out that these were statements which he had publicly reaffirmed on Wednesday, and that these statements were greeted with public happiness and relief by Colonel Rabuka and have reportedly been broadcast widely in Fiji. The Prime Minister, in his answer, said: What I said in regard to the issue mentioned by the honourable gentleman was, whether we like it or not-and certainly we . . . do not like it . . . -in the developments . . . in Fiji, including involvement of Dr Bavadra in the discussions . . . , it seems to be inevitably accepted that the 1970 Constitution will not continue to operate in Fiji-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will come to where he has been misrepresented, not where someone else has commented on some other matter. Mr SPENDER —I have to point to the background. The Prime Minister went on to say this: They are not open to any argumentation. It is merely another example of the total irresponsibility and irrelevance of the Opposition to try to read-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Can we get to the point where the honourable member has been misrepresented? Mr SPENDER —I am showing you. He said: . . . to try to read into a statement- he was referring to the statement he had made- anything more than those words will bear. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney has to come to where he personally was misrepresented by the Prime Minister. Mr SPENDER —I am coming to that. I have pointed out that he said that I was trying to read into that statement by him more than the words would bear, and he went on to say to grovel in the political gutter-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think we have got to the point where the honourable member is no longer demonstrating where he was misrepresented. He is attempting to make a point. Mr SPENDER —Mr Deputy Speaker, if you will give me the opportunity instead of interrupting all the time, I will get to the point. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am having considerable difficulty in all these beginnings to find out where they will end. Mr SPENDER —If you would listen, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would understand. What I did in the question that I put to the Prime Minister was to cite the effects of what he had said on Tuesday and on Wednesday, and I also specifically referred to what Colonel Rabuka had said on Wednesday. In an interview he said, `I am very happy-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair thanks you very much for all that information, but I do not think that you have elucidated where there was any misrepresentation. I intend to call the Leader of the House. Mr Spender —I have a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —What is your point of order? Mr Spender —The point of order is that you have not heard me properly on the question. The misrepresentation was directly to say-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have given the honourable member about 2 1/2 minutes to indicate where he was misrepresented. He has given me a whole lot of information which has not elucidated that in any way. Perhaps he can quickly come to the point. Mr SPENDER —The point was that I had correctly represented what the Prime Minister had said. He misrepresented what I had said and he misrepresented himself. He should have owned up to the words that he used and not sought to escape them by misrepresentation as he did. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his point. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 20 October 1987, at 2 p.m. unless Madam Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: Committees That, in addition to Madam Speaker, ex officio, Mr Goodluck, Mr Hollis, Mr Katter, Mr Martin, Mr Price and Mrs Sullivan be members of the House Committee. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in addition to Madam Speaker, ex officio, Mr Cross, Ms Jakobsen, Mr McVeigh, Mr Smith, Dr Wooldridge and Mr Wright be members of the Library Committee. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr N.A. Brown, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Campbell, Mr Cleeland, Mr Gear, Mr Kerr, Mr Millar, Mr Reith and Mr Tickner be members of the Committee of Privileges. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr Blanchard, Mr Brumby, Dr Harry Edwards, Mr Jenkins, Mr Leo McLeay, Mr Nehl and Dr Woods be members of the Publications Committee. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946, in addition to Madam Speaker, ex officio, Mr Ronald Edwards, Mrs Harvey, Mr Hicks, Mr Juhl and Mr Scott be members of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, the following members be appointed members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, viz.: Mr Cleeland, Mr Dubois, Mr MacKellar, Mr McGauran and Mr O'Keefe. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, the following members be appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, viz.: Mr Aldred, Mr Fitzgibbon, Dr Hewson, Mr Lee, Mr Martin, Mr Nehl, Mr Ruddock, Mr Scholes and Mr Tickner. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following members be appointed members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, viz.: Mr Burr, Mr Gear, Mr Halverson, Mr Hollis, Mr Millar and Mr Mountford. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —On behalf of Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that correspondence has been received from the Party Whips nominating members to be members of certain committees. As the list of nominations is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. It will be incorporated in Hansard and recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. The list read as follows- STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS Mr Blanchard, Mr Campbell, Mr Cross, Mr Gayler, Mr Hollis and Mr Snowdon have been nominated by the Government Whip; Mr Andrew, Mr Connolly and Mr Miles have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Ian Cameron has been nominated by the National Party Whip. STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY AFFAIRS Mr Dubois, Ms Fatin, Mrs Harvey, Mr Johns, Ms McHugh, Mr O'Keefe and Mr Sciacca have been nominated by the Government Whip; Mr Cadman, Mr Connolly and Mr Wilson have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Blunt and Mr Cowan have been nominated by the National Party Whip. STANDING COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING Mr Brumby, Ms Fatin, Mr Free, Mr Gear, Ms Jakobsen, Mr Mildren and Mr Price have been nominated by the Government Whip; Mr Prosser, Mrs Sullivan and Dr Woods have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr McVeigh and Mr Ian Robinson have been nominated by the National Party Whip. STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, RECREATION AND THE ARTS Dr Charlesworth, Mr Chynoweth, Mr Ronald Edwards, Mr Jenkins, Mr Lamb, Ms McHugh and Mr Milton have been nominated by the Government Whip; Mr Dobie, Mr MacKellar and Mr Webster have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Peter Fisher and Mr Sharp have been nominated by the National Party Whip. STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Dr Charlesworth, Mr Courtice, Mr Gear, Mr Jenkins, Mr Martin, Mr Saunderson and Mr Simmons have been nominated by the Government Whip; Dr Hewson, Mr McArthur and Mr Wilson have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Braithwaite and Mr Cobb have been nominated by the National Party Whip. STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Mr Baldwin, Mr Beddall, Mr Cunningham, Mr Grace, Mr Mildren, Mr Allan Morris and Dr Theophanous have been nominated by the Government Whip; Mr Hawker, Mr McArthur and Dr Wooldridge have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Hunt and Mr Lloyd have been nominated by the National Party Whip. STANDING COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE Mr Gorman, Ms Jakobsen, Mr Langmore, Mr Leo McLeay, Mr O'Neil, Mr Saunderson and Mr Scott have been nominated by the Government Whip; Mr N.A. Brown, Mr Downer and Mr Halverson have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Blunt and Mr Tim Fischer have been nominated by the National Party Whip. STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS Mr Charles, Mr Cleeland, Mr Griffiths, Mr Johns, Mr Kerr, Mr Scholes and Mr Tickner have been nominated by the Government Whip; Mr Moore, Mr Reith and Mr Ruddock have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Adermann and Mr McGauran have been nominated by the National Party Whip. STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE Mr Ronald Edwards, Mr Lamb, Mr Lindsay, Mr Mountford and Mr Scholes have been nominated by the Government Whip; Mr Donald Cameron and Mr Ewen Cameron have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Millar has been nominated by the National Party Whip. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PETER FISHER —Yes, Mr Speaker, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr PETER FISHER —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) has today again misrepresented me in attempting to respond to a question that I asked yesterday. I asked: 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?: The Minister suggested that I was seeking a further extension of the boundaries. That is not the case. I was asking the Minister: why, in places such as Cape Tribulation, where the rainforest meets the fringing reef and which the Government claims to be undocumented anywhere else in the world, is all privately-owned beachfront land excluded from World Heritage listing? I am not suggesting that it should be; I am asking why it is. The Minister has once again failed to answer the question. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made the point as to where he claimed to be misrepresented. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —by leave-The Defence Budget for 1987-88 is the first in which the delineation of Australia's Defence Force (ADF) for the 1990s and into the twenty-first century can clearly be separated from the concepts and strategies of the 1950s and 1960s. The Australian Defence Force of the future will be more capable; a co-ordinated fighting machine, rather than three largely separate services; and equipped and trained to prevail against any credible threat in Australia's area of direct military concern. This Government believes in a self-reliant defence of Australia. It believes that our people should know that this is possible, that Australia can do it, can afford to do it, and must do it. This Government believes that our servicemen and women should know that they are members of an organisation that has clear cut direction; that they are at the heart of the most fundamental of national responsibilities-the security of the nation; and that the Government takes its responsibility for defence seriously. The Australian Defence Force now has that direction and, as demonstrated in this Budget, the Government will provide the resources for the reconstruction of our fighting capabilities. Efficiency improvements in the last two years are now providing a dividend to defence. Further funds for high priority activities will flow from management changes now being undertaken. Each of the three services is being re-equipped with the best and most appropriate weapons, missiles, transport and support equipment that money can buy. The command and control of the ADF is being refined and centralised under the Chief of the Defence Force because the Government intends that, should Australians again be called upon to fight, they will, for the first time, fight as an Australian defence force and under Australian national leadership, rather than as part of some larger nation's force. Our national surveillance capability is being revolutionised, based on Australian technological excellence in the Jindalee over the horizon radar. The role of the reserve forces has been given higher status than at any time since World War II. In any future time of national military crisis the reserves will be critical to our survival. The rejuvenation of the reserves, the improved recruiting and particularly improved retention show that this is being recognised by them. Industry has been brought into the Australian defence network. At some cost to the defence budget, the capability of Australian industry to produce, support and maintain defence equipment has been dramatically upgraded in the last few years. The submarine project will take this process even further. Within the ADF the new posture of self reliance, the emphasis on the north and the strategy of defence in depth have required rethinking of old ideas at all levels. The opening of a new Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base at Tindal, the expansion of HMAS Stirling to be the base for half the Australian Fleet, the transfer of battlefield helicopters to the Army, the requirement to manage over 100 major equipment projects and to bring the new weapons, systems and equipment into service are all providing new pressures in the ADF. The fact that the cost of the new equipment program demands constraint on personnel numbers does increase the pressure. I am pleased to be able to report to the Parliament that the ADF is responding very well. Australia's service men and women did not join up for any easy life. They joined for a challenging life and to serve their country. There is growing evidence now that the Australian public understands the vital role our service men and women are playing. The public is throwing off the mental shackles that years of miseducation on our alleged inability to defend ourselves imposed. The enormous support defence open days and displays now draw is but part of this evidence. Among young people there continues to be a strong desire to join the forces. We must make sure that the enthusiasm that brings them in continues to motivate them through their service career. To keep that enthusiasm, our service people need to be aware not only of the challenges but also of the opportunities. Our re-equipment program is producing opportunities for involvement in the use of advanced technology. Service conditions are changing, albeit slowly, to reflect the realities of the community expectations on lifestyles. That those changes are occurring has not been fully understood in the Services or the community. To explain the changes and to ensure that the continuing needs of service personnel remain in focus in government decision- making were the major reasons for appointment of a Minister directly concerned with this area. The opportunities are there for fully satisfying service needs. This year's Budget follows one of the most extensive and far-reaching periods of review and reassessment in Australia's defence history. In a little over three years the Government has provided shape and structure to the concept of defence self-reliance and an ordered and rational approach to fill the gaps in capability. The same ordered and rational approach has been applied to defence management, both in the Defence Department and Defence Force. By seeking efficiency from improved management and rigorous internal review and control, defence is able to shift resources to enable the Government to correct the deficiencies identified in the White Paper and to get more capability at the sharp end. The defence budget for 1987-88 is $7,404m. The Budget is a 2.7 per cent increase in dollars and a one per cent real reduction compared with 1986-87. I would add that these figures must be seen against the backdrop of the 2.4 per cent real reduction in Commonwealth outlays in the overall Budget for 1987-88. These statistics, which reflect the relatively beneficial effect of our decisions in relation to the Defence portfolio, demonstrate a continuing strong commitment by this Government to our defence requirements. In the past four years defence spending was insulated from the effects of currency fluctuation while we shaped the strategy and direction for defence self-reliance and put in place the machinery for the management improvements that produced an efficiency dividend. These two key initiatives enable this year's Budget to be held at $7,404m without affecting the blueprint for the next 15 years provided by the Government's 1987 defence policy information paper. On 19 March this year I presented in this place the defence of Australia policy information paper. In conclusion I observed: Whatever his critics might think of the Dibb review it has set a new standard for defence debate in Australia. Never again will those who wish to participate in the defence debate in this country simple be able to run off at the mouth with wish lists, persiflage and grandiloquence. I also said: The program outlined in the White Paper is a prudent one, with clear cut priorities. It is based on a realistic assessment of our circumstances and our important alliance relationships. We are a powerful nation in regional terms, but with some serious deficiencies. We could not now deny ourselves self reliance in the terms set out in the White Paper. The goal is achievable. The central message of this defence budget is that the White Paper is on track and will stay on track. Defence self-reliance is realised through a strategy of defence in depth. It gives priority to meeting any credible level of threat that could occur at relatively short notice in Australia's area of direct military interest, that is, the area in which developments can most directly affect our security. It means that any potential adversary knows that he will be faced with a comprehensive array of military capabilities, both defensive and offensive. The Government believes that our focus on credible contingencies strengthens the priority needed to be assigned to the major elements of our capital equipment vote. To be distracted from this course could thus leave holes in Australia's total defence capability. The Dibb report and the White Paper have shown the direction that the ADF should go to take it out of the 1960s and into the twenty-first century. Force structure developments have emphasised intelligence and surveillance, strike and interdiction, upgrading maritime warfare and mine countermeasures capabilities, increasing the Army's capability for dispersed northern operations, enhancing command, control and communication systems and streamlining administration and logistics. The emphasis on these areas is being reflected in the type of equipment being introduced into the ADF. It is access to adequate intelligence and effective surveillance that gives the defence forces of a relatively unpopulated country such as ours a chance to respond to threats in timely fashion. Timely intelligence is necessary to allow us to respond appropriately to any developing threat. Some of our most effective indigenous scientific developments are associated with attacking these problems. In this regard, I would like to emphasise the contribution of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) in developing capabilities that are appropriate to Australian strategic requirements. For example, DSTO is developing a towed acoustic array which is a sensor to be used from specialist surface ships and from our new submarines and which will provide wide area surveillance in important ocean basins and focal areas. Australia is a world leader in this field. The emphasis on surveillance capability is highlighted by the continued development of the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar. This is the world's most advanced long-range radar and represents a wide area surveillance capability that is essential to the ADF's force structure. It is another of the developments of DSTO's of which we can be justifiably proud. This year $16m is being spent on upgrading the Alice Springs site and I hope later this year to announce the next phase of this important project-the acquisition of computers and the development of specialist software. Given the excellent work that has been done by our scientists, it has been particularly appropriate to give them a Minister of their own. I am pleased that she is present in the House. I believe-no doubt she will have opportunities to discuss this matter later-she will ensure that our scientists get the attention they need and that we are fully able to exploit their product. Our Navy and our maritime warfare capacities are undergoing a massive restructuring and improvement of capability. Individual programs generate excitement in Australian industry with the attractiveness of their new technologies, but their importance to the new strategy is sometimes missed by the public and in debate in this place. Our Navy is developing the ability to protect vital choke points, patrol considerable distances, sweep our ports clean of mines and strike an enemy's forces at the source. That is a pretty comprehensive array of naval activity. In the debate that surrounded the decision by the previous Government not to proceed with the aircraft carrier, endorsed by us, the considerable potential of our maritime forces was obscured. A navy with these tasks is going to look different from a navy focused on force projection. However, its role in the contemporary era will be more vital. The six new Kockums type 471 submarines to be built in Australia to replace the Oberons will be the largest, longest ranging and most lethal conventional submarines in the Western world when they enter service in the 1990s. The new submarines will increase our maritime surveillance capabilities, as well as provide a formidable strike capability. The great significance of our submarine fleet runs in tandem with the major upgrading of the maritime warfare capability of our surface fleet. It will leave us with a major increase in the number of platforms. The increased numbers are no accident. They are a result of addressing the enormously difficult problems of simultaneously confronting our need to defend the choke points to our north and south and develop a capacity to patrol further afield in areas such as the South Pacific. The size of the surface combatant fleet when this Government was first elected was related to keeping one aircraft-carrier battle group operational. Not only was the concept inadequate for the strategy of forward defence and power projection applied in the 1950s and 1960s, but that size force-12 destroyers and 20 patrol boats-was clearly insufficient for the defence of Australia itself. This position is being rectified now with the creation of a rational structure of three levels with the numbers in each related to the tasks and capabilities required for maritime warfare within the strategy of defence in depth. This will largely be a substantial improvement in defence planning over the largely `rule of thumb' approach of the past. The surface fleet will contain three broad levels of capability. The highest level will be represented by the larger ships-destroyers and frigates; the second level by the new light patrol frigates, and the third by the patrol boat force. At the highest level of capability, $116m in this Budget is to be spent on two new FFG7s being built at Williamstown Naval Dockyard and $45m towards modifying three of the existing four FFGs to carry the new Seahawk helicopters. The first two of 16 Seahawks are scheduled for delivery in November 1988 with $141m being spent in this year's Budget. Three of the guided missile destroyers are to be modernised at Garden Island Dockyard at an estimated cost of $385m, with $72m of that in this year's Budget. The modernisation will upgrade weapons and sensors and generally extend the operational life of the ships. The first two ships will complete the modernisation program in 1988 and 1989, with the third to complete in 1990. That is a massive level of commitment on behalf of the Australian taxpayer by this Government to that first tier of warships and a substantial amount of it is in this year's Budget. At the middle level of the fleet of surface combatants, we plan to construct in Australia eight light patrol frigates for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and up to four for the Royal New Zealand Navy. The new light patrol frigates will be suitable for dealing with lesser forms of military pressure and capable of extended patrols within our resource zones and proximate waters in our area of direct military interest. They will have superior range, endurance, sea keeping and survivability compared with patrol boats and will be able to carry the Seahawk helicopter. They will be designed so that their sensors and weapons can be enhanced to enable them to contribute in more substantial contingencies. On 9 September I announced the selection of three ship designers to further develop their ship designs for the Anzac light patrol frigate project. A ceiling cost of $3.5 billion has been set for all activities associated with the procurement, outfitting and support of the eight ships for Australia. The Government has also given a high priority to the development of a capable mine countermeasures force to ensure that our ports can be kept open. Our strategic circumstances dictate that we need both a minehunting and a minesweeping capability. Minehunters are designed to use a forward-looking specialist sonar to hunt mines and then to detonate them using charges placed by a remotely piloted submersible vehicle. Minesweepers are needed to complement the minehunters by operating in deeper waters where the nature of the seabed makes hunting less effective. In the air, Australia's strike and interdiction forces can hit further, faster and harder than ever before. The Royal Australian Air Force is being re-equipped to play its role in the defence in depth strategy. This means having high-technology aircraft, sensors and weapons with the range and power to find and destroy targets anywhere in our area of direct military interest. The Air Force will get another 18 FA18s this year, making a total of 44. By 1991, there will be 75. The FA18 is a combined fighter and strike aircraft which carries the best radar and weapons for Australia's air defence, ground attack and strike needs. One squadron will be based at a major new airbase at Tindal, near Katherine in the Northern Territory. A major upgrade is being considered for the F111s, to maintain and enhance the long-range, highly accurate land-strike capabilities which they provide the ADF. A new training aircraft, the PC9, is being built in Australia for the Air Force. It is the best basic trainer aircraft in the world, and it will allow the Air Force new, more flexible and more economical training programs. A new air-to-air refuelling capability is being developed in the ADF to increase the range of the FA18s, and a string of bare bases is being built across northern Australia from Learmonth to Cape York. Focusing on the defence of Australia has meant a substantial rethink in the Army. The Army is being re-equipped from the boots up to carry out its role of defending Australia. Tactical and strategic exercises are increasingly looking towards the areas in the North in which the ground forces will operate. In 1989, Exercise Kangaroo 89 across the north of Australia will be the biggest peacetime exercise ever carried out by the Australian Defence Force. The soldiers will have new individual and light support weapons-the 5.56 mm Steyr and Minimi-with deliveries from Australian factories beginning in 1989-90. Operations will be supported by new field guns-the 105 mm Hamel, again manufactured in Australia-and troops transported by Black Hawk helicopters in the biggest upgrade to Army mobility in the last 20 years. We are also considering the acquisition of wheeled armoured vehicles for operations in northern Australia, and the possible upgrading of part of the fleet of M113 light armoured fighting vehicles. Ongoing projects to upgrade Army mobility include the purchase of a further 600 4-tonne Mercedes-Benz Unimog trucks at a project cost of over $57m and the purchase of 3,300 Land Rovers at a total cost of $145m of which $22m will be spent in this year's Budget. Initiatives to upgrade our communications capability include a number of projects using the latest communications technology. Examples include new Raven tactical battlefield radios and cryptographic equipment, as well as the continued development of the Discon-defence integrated secure communications system-which is planned for completion by the end of 1991. Another important continuing communications development is the Defaussat project, which will provide an enhanced use of Aussat by defence, including field use by the ADF through transportable earth terminals. The system should be operational by 1989. The White Paper recognises that our people-the men and women of our fighting forces-are our most valuable asset and a vital resource in the security of this nation. A capable defence force needs capable people. But along with the need, indeed part of the need, for a capable defence force is the need for the Government and the community to recognise the special demands that are placed on service men and women and their families as a result of service life. In establishing the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, the Government broke new ground in pay fixing machinery. A range of pay and allowance matters are currently being addressed by it. We have a positive program in place to improve defence housing, and some key recommendations of the Hamilton report have already been implemented. I spoke earlier on the strategy of defence in depth. Let me give some detail on the changing focus in defence activity resulting from defence in depth. Any force hostile to Australia must attempt to advance in ships or aircraft. Accordingly, the program gives priority to the air and sea defence in our area of direct military interest; particularly to the north, as this is the region through which major threats must pass. Australia's long-range strike capabilities are being developed to respond-quickly and lethally-to early warnings far from Australia's shores. These include air and naval forces. Our air strike forces operating from bases in the north will comprise squadrons of F111 long-range strike aircraft; FA18 multirole aircraft and P3C long-range maritime patrol aircraft. In all, over one hundred of these aircraft will be capable of carrying the Harpoon anti-ship missile; the F111 and FA18 aircraft are also fitted for the Sidewinder air-to-air missile, and the FA18 also carries the Sparrow air intercept missile. Australia's long-range forces are also capable of striking land targets such as enemy bases and force concentrations. The F111s are the central element of our land strike forces, and the Government is seeking advice on a major upgrade of these aircraft to maintain them in service. Installation of the precision target acquisition tracking and designation system in the F111 bombers is proceeding, with 12 aircraft now modified and in service. Some $6m has been allocated to the project this financial year. The effectiveness of the FA18s for long-range missions is being greatly enhanced by the Government's decision to provide aircraft refuelling. The first of the RAAF's four Boeing 707 aircraft to be fitted with this capability will be available in late 1989 or early 1990. We are also completing a comprehensive network of air bases in the north to support these operations. In addition to the major airbase nearing completion at Tindal, a bare base exists at Learmonth in Western Australia and another is being built at Derby in north-west Western Australia. The Government also intends to build an airfield on Cape York Peninsula and to have it operational as early as possible in the 1990s. Recent measures to rationalise assets and boost northern surveillance capacity have included changes to patrol boat basing. Of the five Fremantle class patrol boats based at HMAS Waterhen in Sydney, one will transfer to Cairns, two to Darwin, and the remaining two will transfer to the reserves-one for the Sydney port division and one for the Melbourne port division. This shift is a good example that cost cutting and strategic concerns are often compatible if innovative management is brought to bear. The shift to Cairns is both good defence and good economics. The operational expenses of commanding the patrol boat fleet from Cairns are considerably less than from Sydney. The strategic advantages are that the patrol boats will have quicker access to, and extended cruising time in, our northern waters. The Cairns command basing is likewise more relevant to the increased emphasis on patrol boat activities in the South West Pacific. Another initiative is the Government decision to strengthen our northern defences by basing major elements of the Australian Army permanently in northern Australia for the first time in peacetime. The 2 Cavalry Regiment of 340 men and associated vehicles will be based in the Darwin area. This transfer will be completed by the end of 1992. The White Paper goal of greater defence self-reliance has resulted in greater priority being given to the reserve forces. One thing is crystal clear: we cannot achieve defence self-reliance without the reserves. Gone are the days of the reserves being seen as providing a basis for expansion during national mobilisation in some distant future. The reserves are an integral and essential part of our defence planning and of our force structure. The role of the reserves is being substantially widened. Navy reservists will play a vital role in mine countermeasures to safeguard our ports and shipping lanes, while RAAF reservists will be integrated into various units of their host formations to provide an expanded capability. It is in the Army Reserve, which provides the majority of reserve manpower, that the introduction of a total force concept can most clearly be seen. `Total Army' means integration of regular and reserve forces at unit and formation level. This will allow elements of an upgraded Reserve to enter the operationally ready first line, while the remainder will form the important base element for any rapid expansion at a time of increased tension. The Army Reserve will be required to assist in the surveillance of the country's north. In recent years increasing emphasis has been given to regional surveillance units in the north and north-west and these are predominantly Reserve units. Access to local knowledge and skills in remote areas of Australia could prove vital for the early detection and countering of a military threat. In the more credible contingencies most likely to occur in the north and north-west of Australia, the Army Reserve will have a critical role in the protection of key areas, releasing regular units to conduct offensive operations. Such key areas would include protection of the Darwin-Tindal region, the Learmonth, Derby and Cape York airfields, and other civil and industrial infrastructure. It is intended that the reserves take a greater responsibility for heavier capabilities, such as tanks and medium artillery, as part of the expansion base. For example, 1 Armoured Regiment will become an integrated regular and reserve unit. The reserves now have a sense of purpose and they can take pride in the fact that they will be directly involved in the defence of Australia. Reserve recruitment and retention rates are both up. Total reserve force strength increased over the year from 25,977 on 1 July 1986 to 27,673 at 30 June 1987. The strength of the Army Reserve at 30 June this year was 24,632, which was 132 above the target strength of 24,500 for 1986-87 and closing in on the authorised ceiling strength of 26,000 which is to be achieved by 30 June 1988. The retention rates are comparable with other Western nations and, indeed, are the best figures in well over a decade. One further initiative is central to the Government's perception of the new role of the reserves. Legislation passed in June of this year for restricted call-out of reserve forces in situations other than in war or a proclaimed state of defence emergency is a key factor in defining the role of the reserves in the full range of credible contingencies. This means that reserves are now available to be used in the sort of low level threat which could emerge with relatively little warning. Steps will be taken to protect reservists' employment following call-out. Although defence self-reliance is the major theme of the White Paper and our Government's defence policy, the paper makes it quite clear that this can be achieved only within our current alliance framework. The United States alliance does not suggest an unhealthy dependence on the United States; rather it results from a mature recognition by both nations that their own self-interests are best served by the relationship. Much of the debate in the community on the value of the United States alliance remains sterile. There is too heavy a focus on very unlikely contingencies such as global nuclear war or on the reliability of either partner to guarantee uncritically a force commitment on the basis of the other partner's political judgment. This level of debate is misleading. The nature of an alliance partnership where a threat is not clear-cut is always going to be more subtle and complex. In such circumstances the United States alliance allows us to maximise the options we have in any crisis that is likely to emerge. From Australia's point of view that results in defence, not dependence. If we were to be involved in a conflict our first request to our ally would be for that which is easy to deliver-intelligence, diplomatic support, supply of vital parts, and so on. An opponent wishing to escalate the conflict further, would have to consider the consequences of involving the United States more fully. Although these questions are hypothetical in nature, I raise them because they go to the heart of considerations which make defence self- reliance a realistic policy for us. More concretely, the alliance provides immediate benefits in the influence it gives us in the arms control process and the contribution we are able to make to deterrence through our co-hosting of the joint facilities. Another advantage Australia derives from our relationship with the United States is that we have access to technology, equipment and intelligence that would otherwise be unavailable to us. Consequently, Australia is able to maintain a level of defence capability that enables us to realistically aim for defence self-reliance, and at a cost that is acceptable to peacetime governments facing periods of economic stringency. This Government realises that a positive contribution to regional security is an essential part of our contribution to the Western alliance. Consequently, the White Paper focuses attention on the region of our northern approaches and to the south-west Pacific area. As a result of this emphasis, Australia supports defence co-operation activities with regional countries which share a similar strategic outlook. As I announced in February this year, this Government now gives defence co-operation with our neighbours in the South Pacific the same priority as that given to our older and more substantial defence relations with the nations of South East Asia. This co-operation is being mainly directed towards assisting with the maritime surveillance of their exclusive economic zones. In the current year, additional resources will be devoted to this assistance, principally the Pacific patrol boat project, development of national surveillance centres, RAAF long range maritime patrols, and RAN ship deployments. The estimated cost for the defence co-operation program in 1987-88 is $58.3m. This represents an increase of $3.7m on last year's expenditure. Through our involvement in the defence co-operation program and through the continued consultations and contacts with military and defence officials from nations within our region, Australia is able actively to promote shared strategic concerns and contribute to developing regional stability. This, in the long run, is the best form of self-defence. I turn now to the area of improved efficiency. It is apparent that the pursuit of improved efficiency and productivity is a considerable challenge in an organisation as diverse and complex as defence. At the same time, because of the extent of the community's resources we consume, there are major benefits both to the defence area itself and to the community at large if we can improve our capacity to meet our objectives in a more cost-effective fashion. I see it as a major task to stimulate an appreciation of the importance of achieving the best possible value for expenditure of the defence dollar. The defence organisation is undergoing a period of rationalisation to tailor the organisation to meet the economic and strategic realities of the 1980s and the future. This is not a `cutting for cutting's sake' program but a responsible and orderly process of adjustment that makes it possible to contain defence outlay while building up defence capability. More efficient management will mean that resources will be shifted to where they are needed-to the sharp end. A leaner, more streamlined organisation will be created. As the organisation is trimmed, so costs will be trimmed-thus releasing more of the defence dollar to increase combat effectiveness. It is sometimes forgotten in the defence debate that we are unique in our budgeting processes in defence. We have a global outlay so, if we can trim our defence costs by $100m or $200m a year-for example, as we have in the case of the Government Aircraft Factories to the tune of about $100 million-we will be able to expend those funds on other purposes though the total defence outlay will not increase. To this end, the Department of Defence has instituted a management improvement plan that has identified and set in train substantial changes to its structure aimed at improving its corporate management and the drive for greater efficiency. We are currently spending in the order of $2 billion per annum on new facilities and equipment. We are presently managing some 140 different capital equipment and facilities projects, each costing more than $5m. Defence capital project management is marked on the whole by high investment, high risk, technical complexity and the potential for international collaboration. Managing the procurement of major capital equipment therefore presents the project manager with many challenges not shared by his or her contemporaries in other areas of management. Defence will continue to place a high priority on the training of project staff with continuing in-house training on all aspects of the procurement process, and by the establishment in 1988 of a masters degree program in capital project management at a tertiary institution. New demands for civil manpower are being generated at a time when the Government is conscious of the need to keep tight control over the numbers of personnel in public employment. A revised approach to manpower is being developed as part of the five-year defence program. The proposed strategy includes the following elements. We will meet the Government's `across the board' efficiency dividend. Three per cent of the 3.75 per cent civil manpower reduction required over the next three years will be achieved in this financial year. We will continue a vigorous program of rationalisation of the work force in the defence dockyards and production establishments. A high percentage of the manpower savings achieved in the Office of Defence Production and elsewhere in defence will be used to strengthen high priority areas requiring additional staffing. We will pursue a program of conversion of some service posts to civilian ones using some of the civilian savings achieved from elsewhere, so as to release highly trained service personnel for redeployment in accordance with Defence Force priorities. At the same time, there will be a cut of more than 1,300-to 38,369-in the approved average staffing level for civilians. We will further develop our capacity to meet our existing and new commitments by a vigorous program of management improvement-based reviews and studies, which will include the rationalisation of functions and the contracting out of certain activities. As the scope exists for overall productivity improvement in the use of our personnel resources, manpower and management arrangements will be major preoccupations over the next two to three years. Specific measures are being addressed across the entire organisation. The rationalisation of the work force in the Office of Defence Production, while achieving a better balance between the size of the work force and the existing work load, is only partially complete and will be pursued rigorously over the next two years. The Government Aircraft Factories have now been established as a government owned company. Williamstown Dockyard is being sold as a going concern as part of the rationalisation process. Restructuring of the munitions factories has resulted in more direct working hours from fewer people. These rationalisation measures in the Office of Defence Production are being undertaken so that the extent of government subsidy to defence production establishments is reduced significantly and, as I have said, the funds saved are directed to other areas of defence priority. A review of defence logistics is currently being undertaken. This is aimed at: improving performance and effectiveness across the range of logistics functions significantly reducing costs reducing requirement for service manpower and thus making manpower available for other ADF priorities rationalising, to the greatest possible extent, property holdings falling within the defence portfolio rationalising systems and approaches to logistics putting authority closer to the point of action. The longer term benefits and savings will be considerable. I expect rapid progress from civilian and service management towards changing some traditional approaches to defence logistics. There will in future be greater focus on: cost consciousness greater authority being vested in individual service offices closer to the point of action, together with greater accountability for decisions actually made introduction of more commercial approaches including the provision of some services by contractors. The heavy burden of day to day logistics works will continue during 1987-88, for example: preliminary work on the basing of half of the fleet at Garden Island in Western Australia will continue work is under way to develop a bare base airfield on the Cape York Peninsula planning is well advanced on facilities associated with the move of the 2 Cavalry Regiment to the Northern Territory new measures to merit better management of information throughout the Department will be introduced the development of a modern, common-core computer based supply system will continue logistic support arrangements with other countries in South East Asia and the south-west Pacific region will continue to be developed. Recent months have also seen major initiatives for management improvement within the Services. Efficiency measures are to be effected across the board and the Services are playing their part in ensuring that the defence dollar is wisely spent. It is indeed very much in the interests of every member of the Defence Force because the savings mean more defence capability, not less. This equation is unprecedented in Australia's history. The new personnel resource strategy for the Defence Force outlined in the White Paper will be implemented in 1988. Part of this important initiative involves moving away from undue emphasis on the strength of the Defence Force on a particular day each year and towards the balancing of ongoing activities, recruitment and separations to produce an average strength over the year. More significantly, the new strategy identifies separate average staffing levels for the year for an operational force of trained personnel, and for a training force comprising personnel undergoing pre-employment training. When higher than normal separation rates are experienced, the training force will be supplemented to maintain the level and capacity of the trained force. These concepts will allow the strength of the training force to rise and fall in parallel with variations in separation rates while maintaining the trained force at the strength necessary to meet the objectives set for it by government. The manpower resource available to the ADF in 1987-88 will provide an operational force with an average strength of some 63,000 trained personnel supported by a training force of some 7,000 and active reserve forces of 30,800. The planned average regular strengths for 1987-88 are Navy, 15,657; Army, 31,746; Air Force, 22,612. This strategy will improve the management of defence manpower by allowing Service chiefs to allocate resources in a clear and defined manner. In this statement I have highlighted the main features of the defence budget and shown how it is tailored to meet the real defence needs of Australia. The significance of this budget is that it shows what can be achieved in improving defence capability when the Government gives clear guidance, sound strategy and defined priorities. This budget is not a formula for less defence but a reordering of practices and procedures designed to get the utmost benefit for the taxpayers' dollar that will provide dividends through to the start of the twenty-first century. The 1976 White Paper mooted the notion of self-reliance but failed to grapple with the specifics-that is, the force structure necessary for such a defence strategy. Even that germ of an idea was not allowed to come to fruition because of the previous Government's failure to implement any measures that would have given this country a self-reliant defence policy. Lance Barnard began the process of rethinking Australia's real defence needs some 15 years ago. Once again it is a Labor government that has brought that period of review to a close. A revolution in defence planning and in shaping defence capabilities means that this Government is reshaping the Defence Force for the twenty-first century, and not leaving itself and the Defence Force with the inappropriate legacy of the 1960s. Motion (by Mrs Kelly) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Motion (by Mrs Kelly) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for McPherson speaking for a period not exceeding 48 minutes. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(4.03) —I thank the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) for the defence budget paper, of which he gave me a copy some two hours ago. I congratulate the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) on her appointment; I have not had an opportunity to do so before now. I noticed that she could not last the distance while the Minister for Defence was speaking but I am glad to see she returned to the House at the end of his speech. The Minister for Defence has produced a paper which has managed to avoid all the real defence issues presently confronting us in this country. I really think that the Minister should now be called the Minister for Defence Equipment or the Minister for Defence Reserves, but hardly the Minister for Defence, as he has dodged the real issue, the greatest problem, which is the personnel wastage which is debilitating the defence services almost day by day. In 27 pages of the statement we have just heard, not one single reference has been made to improvements in conditions of service which are bugging the defence forces of this country. The statement gives no hope for the 70,000 uniformed men and women who, for over two years, have been looking to the Minister for Defence in the expectation that he will implement some of his grand rhetoric about improving conditions of service for defence personnel. The statement contains no reference to any initiative which will improve life for those 70,000 men and women. In 27 pages there is only one paragraph on personnel. The Minister and I know-or I hope he knows by now-that that will be the judgment on this paper by the men and women in the defence services. The paper will ensure the continuation of the record separation rates presently overtaking the services. It is an academic statement by a Minister who is presiding over a defence disaster. The Service chiefs and I have attempted to explain to the Minister-and I am sure the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel has also attempted to explain-just what is happening out there. It is beyond me how the Minister for Defence can come into the House and deliver 27 pages of a so-called defence budget paper and not address the biggest single issue. Mr Beazley —Because Ros is going to do it tonight. She is the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Mr WHITE —You are the Minister for Defence. Mr Beazley —You asked her a question about it today. Why didn't you ask me? Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, here is the Minister for Defence again dodging the issue. He says, `It is not my responsibility. I am just the Minister for Defence. Ask the assistant Minister. There are 70,000 men and women who comprise the defence forces of this country but they have nothing to do with me. I just pass the buck to the new Minister'. Mr Beazley —I said she would do it tonight. Mr WHITE —You are the Minister for Defence and you are ultimately responsible for the welfare of those people. I can only conclude that this defence budget paper has more to do with the ultimate political ambitions of the Minister for Defence than with the defence problems now facing this country. The Minister has been left out of the limelight a little; he is feeling that, and so he has come into the House with a paper containing no new initiatives but which has everything to do with his own political career. The Minister referred to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. I am interested to hear that she will make a statement in the House tonight. We look forward to that, but it is the responsibility of the Minister for Defence to make that statement. So far the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel has made several statements. I regret to say this-I do not say it with any pleasure-but to a large extent she has become a laughing-stock in the defence services. She has created so much damage and has achieved a legacy which I think will be difficult for her to overcome. She talked today in Question Time about covering up the figures that we had. She made some flimsy argument that it is better to have annual figures than monthly figures. What would it be like if the trade figures or unemployment figures came out only once a year? That is the sort of stupid argument that has been put today. She said that it was good for morale in the services that 36,000 out of 70,000 men and women left in four years-that is a turnover of over half of the total defence services in four years. She blamed the number of women leaving the services for increasing the figures. That is about 10 per cent of the total. She blamed all the Vietnam veterans who just happen to be getting out of the Services at the same time. My God, the Vietnam veterans left years ago. The Opposition looks forward with interest to the contribution she will make tonight. This paper is an insult to the Services. It is academic and patronising. In the paper the Minister for Defence said: Changes have not been fully understood. Changes have not been fully understood! Why does the Minister think that personnel are leaving the Services in droves? They understand only too well what is happening out there. What a patronising comment to make. The Minister went on to say: The service men and women did not join up for an easy life. Who is patronising the service men and women? They have been struggling with eroding conditions of service year after year, hoping like hell that someone will take note of their plight. In the end the Minister for Defence brings in a paper which does not address even one single issue. It is childish, patronising stuff. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel said that wastage rates are good for morale and the defence forces must get used to it. Three main problems face the defence forces of this country at the moment. The first and major one is the debilitating effect of record wastage rates. The second is that, despite what in many ways has been a good ground plan for a White Paper, we have no capacity to reach out in our area of interest or to influence events. That has been clearly demonstrated by our lack of capacity to react, if we wanted to do so, to the situation in Fiji. Mr Beazley —Are you suggesting military intervention in Fiji? Mr WHITE —The Minister knows very well that I am not. That was a ridiculous statement and that has never been suggested. I supported what the Minister did in May and I support what he has done this time. It is because of what he did in May that he has been a bit more sensible this time when he realised our incapacity. Our area of interest is 7,000 kilometres by 5,000 kilometres. It is a massive area but we are confined basically to the Australian mainland. So that is the second big problem. The third problem is the reduction of funding support for this grand plan in the White Paper. Year by year it gets eroded. I turn to some personnel wastage matters and the reasons for the wastage. In 1983-84 we lost 6,700 men and women from the Services. By June this year the figure had gone up from 6,000 to 9,000. In July this year-the figures were not released then, but eventually were, not by the Minister I might add-we lost 1,000 people in one month. In August we lost 823. If we project the figures from those two months over a full year, we see that we will lose 10,000 people in 1987-88. That means that in the last four years we have lost 36,000 men and women from the defence forces from a total base of 70,000. In four years we will lose over half. Mr Beazley —What is the normal loss rate? Mr WHITE —I will give the Minister a normal loss rate. It is a good thing he asked that question. The normal loss rate amongst officers for some years has been 6 per cent. It is now 12.5 per cent. You asked the question and that is your answer-it is double. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the Chair. Mr WHITE —The average annual loss rate for pilots, who were mentioned in Question Time, over a 20-year period until last year has been roughly 47. To June this year we lost 107. In the first two months of this financial year, as I understand it-I asked the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel about this and she did not deny it-there were 72 Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) pilot resignations in the Department of Defence. If we project that over 12 months we are talking about nearly 300 pilots which would absolutely cripple the Royal Australian Air Force. The effect of all this on the Services is that the experience level is diluted. We have young and inexperienced people doing very important jobs. I might say that they are doing their very best; some of them are good, but there is no substitute for experience. Because so many people are leaving the Services there are increased postings resulting in turbulence as people are moved around the country to plug gaps. We have this enormous diversion of manpower from the operational squadrons and units to the training establishments so that more people are trained. I understand that in the RAAF something like one-half to two-thirds of the qualified flying instructor positions are vacant. We have an enormous downward effect on morale as people see others around them leaving the Services, and we have the enormous financial cost. On the most conservative figures, the cost to train the 10,000 who will leave this year will be $350m. By the time a pilot reaches his first squadron he will have cost the defence forces and us as taxpayers about $2m. By the time he is a useful pilot and has some experience-with 1,000 hours-and he leaves the Air Force, the cost will be about $6m. If we lose 100 pilots a year we can work out an average to be $400m. It is not as though the Minister for Defence and the Government have not been warned about the effect of this enormous wastage. The most prominent warning they got was in a paper from the Service Chiefs earlier this year. It was a long paper compiled by the Assistant Chief of Policy in the Defence central office to say exactly that-that the Services are wasting away and they cannot stand this debilitating damage. Apparently, the Minister ignored the warning, as has the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. They chose to put forward this fantasy until today, when at least the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, in answer to a question, said, `Yes, we have a problem'. That is the first time that it has ever been acknowledged. Maybe that is significant. Maybe we will now get some action in those areas where it is so badly needed. Let me tell the House why personnel are leaving. They are leaving because they are quite convinced that this Government does not care about them anymore, and the paper put down today by the Minister will reinforce that. They are leaving because they feel that they have become second-class citizens by civilian community standards. They are leaving because the Government has made no attempt to address the damage that has been done in their conditions of service. They are leaving because every time a pay claim goes before the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal the Government, up until now-and I hope it will change-with the full weight of the Department of Defence, which should be in there battling for its employees, opposes it. In addition, there are anomalies in pay. In some cases a major will take home more than his commanding officer who is a lieutenant-colonel. We recently had the fiasco of the service allowance which again was opposed by the Government. The Government eventually gave service men and women about $700-about $1 for every hour they work. Mr Beazley —A 21 per cent increase. Mr WHITE —By any recent survey the average working week of a service man or woman is between 52 and 55 hours. Is the Minister defending that allowance? Mr Beazley —It is a 21 per cent increase. Mr WHITE —Does he think it was adequate? The Minister thinks that an extra $1 an hour is adequate compensation when personnel were expecting at least $2 and hoping for $3. The Government makes a great claim about an extra $75m for defence housing, and I am very pleased to see that, but it is a sleight of hand trick because $28m of that this year will be going to new base housing at Tindal and about $8m will be going into Rockingham. It is certainly going into housing, but the fact is that the men and women in the Defence Force thought that that money was going into existing housing and new housing in existing areas. Half of it is going to new housing on new bases. Unit strengths have again been reduced. The people in those units are expected to work more hours and have the same output. The education allowance is a classic. There are 70,000 uniformed men and women in this country. Out of the total 70,000-not all of them are married with children, of course-the number in Australia at the moment who are receiving some education allowance to assist them to keep their children at school as they are moved around the country is 55. If there is one thing that is really getting up their noses it is the education allowance. The consumer price index increase in Defence Force retirement and death benefits, was reduced by 2 per cent in the year before last and there is no sign of restoration. The Minister talks about the Army being re-equipped from the boots up. I wish he would start with the boots. I mention this because it is boots, belts, webbing equipment and basic mortar ammunition in many units that are in short supply. The soldiers in field units in many cases simply cannot wear the boots they are issued with because they are so badly made. If the Minister is going to start re-equipping the Army from the boots up I suggest he do exactly that and start with the boots. We have the fire sale that is going on with Cooksey running around saying that we will sell Victoria Barracks in Melbourne and other prime spots. Some of it may well deserve to go and should go. But if the Minister is going to start this business again of pushing the Services out because they are on prime land, pushing them into a corner, which a Labor government did at the end of the Vietnam war-they have taken a long time to recover-they will suffer. There is every reason in the world why servicemen should be placed in prominent positions in our community. The best example of why personnel are leaving happened a couple of weeks ago in the midst of the defence service housing debacle. The Budget announced that the Government was going to cancel the old scheme and give service men and women a $10,000 grant. It was a further erosion of their conditions. There is no way that $10,000 equates to the $25,000 cheap loan over 32 years that was in place. For the first time I am getting calls from various units around Australia, from non-commissioned officers and officers, who are saying, `The soldiers are lined up in delegations outside my door, demanding to know what is going on'. I have never heard of that before. The Government had the good sense to back down on that decision, but the damage has been done. All that the Minister has said is that it will be left in place until the end of the year, when a new scheme will be introduced. Having regard to the Minister's record, these people know that the new scheme will not be to their favour. For all of those reasons it is no wonder that we have this enormous wastage rate in the Services. What has been the Minister's response? The Budget contained nothing in regard to personnel matters, and there was nothing about them in today's statement. He has passed the buck to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, for whom I have a great deal of sympathy. She is trying to pick it up on the run. She has advanced unique theories about management, about losses being good for morale, about women and about Vietnam veterans. In the end, she despaired and she passed the buck to Mrs Mayer. Who is Mrs Mayer? Mr Sharp —Jobs for the girls. Mr WHITE —It is jobs for the girls. She is the defeated Australian Labor Party candidate for Chisholm. The Minister passed the buck to Mrs Mayer and said, `Mrs Mayer will point me in the right direction'. I suspect that there is probably no one who knows less about defence service problems than Mrs Mayer. How much is it costing us? Mrs Kelly —She is not dealing with that. Mr WHITE —What is she doing? Where is she? Is she in Melbourne? That is a good place; there are lots of servicemen there. How many staff does she have? It is probably costing us-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER-Order! I again remind the honourable member to address his remarks through the Chair. Mr WHITE —It is costing us half a million dollars to employ Mrs Mayer. The Minister should be ashamed of herself, and I suspect that she is. The Minister suppressed the personnel wastage figures and gave some excuse today, which everyone laughed at, and rightly so, that it is better to have figures every 12 months than once a month. I hope that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel can do something for those people, but she has a long way to go. I say to the Minister: for God's sake, act like a real Minister, take control of the personnel problems and stop running away from them. The problem involves 70,000 men and women. It is not an academic exercise. It is not a matter of playing around with submarines and new frigates. We are talking about the people who, in the end, have to make it work. We can have the finest equipped Army or Services in the world but, in the end, if we do not have experienced, well-trained men and women to run it, we have nothing. Let me say briefly what should be done as far as personnel are concerned. The first thing that the Government must do is to display some interest and responsibility. It should stop opposing every pay rise on the basis that it is bad. It should stop opposing every service allowance, and give the people a fair go for the extra 14, 15 or 20 hours that most of them work every week. It should stop talking about $75m being spent on housing when half of it is being spent on new bases. It should do something about the education allowance and give service men and women prior access to their superannuation entitlements in the hope that they might stay in the Services. It should stop hiding the figures. It will not achieve anything by hiding those figures. It is a flimsy, fragile excuse. For God's sake, it should come clean and it might get some help from members on this side of the House. It should not try to dodge the issue all the time. It should implement some of the promises that it keeps talking about month after month. The Minister keeps talking about the report of the Hamilton Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses. Practically nothing has been done to implement the recommendations of that report. The second major area is that of equipment. The big deficiency, apart from some of the good things that are being done, is the capacity to exert any influence in our area of responsibility. Fiji is a good example. In May we sent some ships and men-and rightly so, I thought. The fact is that, had they been required to do anything to safeguard our nationals, they simply could not have done so. This time, as far as I know, we have not repeated that exercise. I think that that is very sensible. The fact is that we did not, and could not, carry many troops; we could not carry any equipment; we had no air cover; we had no vehicles; we had no helicopters or airborne early warning system. Most of all, we had no way of getting those troops from the sea to the shore, and we still have not. One thing that the Government must do is to reactivate the landing ship squadron-the heavy landing craft, or LCHs. There are three of them rotting away in Cairns, two are involved in survey work and one is in Brisbane with the naval reserve. If there is one thing that has been proven to us in recent years, it is that that squadron must be reactivated. Also, if any credibility is to be given to the White Paper, the Government must provide aerial refuelling for the F111 and get that update for the F111 on the books. I notice that today's statement refers only generally to having another look at it. We have been hearing about it for a long time. We must have some aerial early warning radar system. The third major deficiency is funding. The Minister, in today's statement, said that the White Paper is on track. When we first started to go down that course, with the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities and the White Paper, the decision was based on a 4.5 per cent real growth in budgetary support. That figure was reduced to 3 per cent, and we were told that that reduction would not make any difference. How one can reduce funding and not make any difference is beyond me, but that is what was said. In 1986-87 there was zero growth, but apparently that still did not make any difference. Perhaps people are giving us equipment for nothing. In 1987-88 the figure is minus one per cent. We still hear the tired old statement that the White Paper is on track. All the time, budgetary support is going down. In fact, I think that the claim that the figure is only minus one per cent is a bit suspect. The fact is that $7,404m will be spent this year and the Budget figure for last year was $7,415m. So we are budgeting less for this year than we did for last year. We are budgeting more than we actually spent, because somehow we knocked $200m off it last year. I think that the figure of minus one per cent is probably about minus 4 or 5 per cent, when one takes the inflation rate into account. I say to the Government that it cannot go down this track of saying that the White Paper plan is still on track if the money is getting less and the bets are off. It must reassess its priorities in a realistic way. Where is the extra money coming from? It must reassess its capital spending priorities. There is no other alternative, unless it can get some more money, which it cannot. It must reassess its priorities because it must find money to put into conditions of service for the service men and women of Australia. I suggest that the Government should take a good look at the report of the Auditor-General on fraud totalling $800m. I will be very interested to know what it is doing about that matter. An amount of $800m is not exactly peanuts. If it can cut down the debilitating wastage, it can cut down a lot of its training costs. It could probably save up to $350m if the wastage rates could be reduced to a reasonable level. While we are discussing defence, let me refer to one or two other things which are very important in the defence debate. Firstly, let me pay tribute to those who marched in, and those who organised, the national welcome home parade last weekend in Sydney. I thank them and hope that that march has gone a long way towards healing some very bitter wounds. Also, I hope that the march did something to restore the defence forces in this country to their proper position in the community. After the Vietnam war those of us who served in it were pushed into a corner. Our wives and children were abused. It was a very uncomfortable period and very hurtful for many people. That was mainly under a Labor government, with Cairns, who I think was then the Treasurer, entertaining North Vietnamese in this country at the very time that we still had servicemen in Vietnam. The Services were badly abused. Mr Rocher —Traitorous. Mr WHITE —It was treachery; that is what it was. Mr West —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I believe that the use of the word `treachery' when describing a former Minister and member of this House is unparliamentary and ought to be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr WHITE —I regret that I cannot withdraw. Mr Rocher —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: there are no provisions in the Standing Orders for you to require that remarks such as that made about a former member of this place, whether or not he was a Minister, be withdrawn. Whilst you may ask the honourable member for McPherson to withdraw, I put it to you very respectfully that he is not obliged to do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I realise that you have raised an important point of order, but I have asked the honourable member for McPherson to withdraw. To maintain the decorum of the House, I would prefer that he withdrew that statement. Is the honourable member prepared to withdraw? Mr WHITE —I do not think I will. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —In that case, you are placing me in a very difficult position. Mr WHITE —That is why I hesitate; I have no wish to do that. The former Minister was hosting and entertaining North Vietnamese in this country while we were engaged in operations against them. That, I believe, was treachery and that is the word I have used. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Again I ask the honourable member whether he is still not prepared not to withdraw. Mr WHITE —I am. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —In that case, the House will stand in judgment on you on this matter. Mr WHITE —So be it. I hope that the Vietnam veterans march will go some way towards restoring the proper place of the Services in the community in this country. I turn to the matter of submarines for this country. Again I ask the questions that have already been asked of the Minister. What is the position with the first submarine? Is it to be built overseas or not? If it is to be built overseas, why do we not have a statement to that effect? Who will foot the bill for the final integration of the submarines? It does not seem to me, from any statements I have read, that that matter has been addressed. We generally support the frigate project but we want to know where it is at the moment. We know one plan has gone up to the Minister and that the Minister has sent it back to the Royal Australian Navy. When will we see some finalisation of those frigate plans, and why were they sent back to the Navy? The patrol boat program with which we are assisting countries in the south-west Pacific is an excellent one, but I notice in a statement by the Papua New Guinea Defence Minister that the ones we are providing to that country must be modified. I ask the Minister why that is the case. There are problems with the defence computer, and the supply systems computer project is still floundering around after four years, employing some 50 to 100 people per year. What is to happen to that? I see in the paper presented today that the project is continuing, yet I understand that consultants have been brought in to advise the Government. I believe this is a lightweight and patronising paper. It has all been said before. It has little to do with defence and everything to do with the Minister's political aspirations. It is notable for its omissions. It has not addressed personnel matters, it has not addressed our capacity to extend our influence in this part of the world and it has not addressed the very real question of funding for the measures referred to in the White Paper. I say to the Government, `Reassess your priorities, even though the White Paper is only six months old, and address the problem of wastage of the Services, above all'. To the Minister, I say, `For God's sake, show some concern for the 70,000 men and women in uniform who are looking to you to fight their battles and which so far you have completely dodged'. If the Minister is not very careful he will find he is the Minister for an empty shell and the problems that I have outlined will overwhelm him. Debate (on motion by Mr West) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —by leave-As honourable members will be aware, it has been the custom of this Government and past governments to regularly review progress of the new Parliament House project and to report on that progress to the Parliament. I will accordingly report on the nine-month period to May 1987. During this period progress was at a sufficient pace for the new Parliament House to open on schedule in May next year and for the Parliament to be operational by August 1988. The building budget updated for the nine months to May 1987 now stands at $862.15m while the budget for non-building items is $164.75m. The total project budget is therefore increased from $987.4m to $1,026.9m at May 1987 prices. This updating includes $24.6m for adjustment of the uncompleted portion of the project for the effects of inflation in the nine-month period. This procedure has been applied throughout the life of the project. Additional components include an allowance to cover the costs of industrial disputes, insolvencies of contractors and exchange rate fluctuations-costs outside the control of the Parliament House Construction Authority of $9.9m, $4.6m and $0.4m respectively, a total of $14.9m. The five components of the total revised budget of $1,026.9m are the original 1978 building budget of $220m; the original 1981 non-building budget of $82m; the accumulated inflation escalation adjustment of $463m; an allowance of $66m for costs beyond the control of the Parliament House Construction Authority for industrial disputation, contractor insolvency and exchange rate variations; and $196m for accumulated budget additions. The $196m comprises $87m which should normally have been allowed for as contingency allowances, including $36m for contract variations and contractors' claims, $8m for adverse ground conditions, $11m for changes to non-building items and $32m for associated fee costs on the foregoing items; $104 for approved extensions to the building, including $4m for placing the eastern carpark underground, $41m for accommodating additional senators and members, $9m for minor user changes, $20m for sound-vision equipment and furniture, $33m for design-user refinements; and $9m for associated fee costs on the foregoing items. The overall cost of the these additional items was subsequently reduced by $12m following a reduction in costs in other areas, and the $104m figure includes $5m for reinstatement of landscaping. A number of conclusions can be drawn from this full disaggregation. The non-building budget of $82m and the contingency allowance of $87m ought to have been included in the original budget. There is no doubt about that. On a project of this nature, one cannot simply say in 1978, `$220m for this new building' and not include a contingency allowance, as everyone in the private sector does and certainly as my Department does in the public sector, or an assessment of a non-building allowance. That is the first conclusion to be drawn from the disaggregation. The Fraser Government should have included the non-building budget and the contingency allowance in 1978. There is no argument about that. I do not think even honourable members opposite would disagree with it. The second conclusion is that it was not possible to escape the effects of inflation, at $463m. Thirdly, it was not possible to escape the costs of industrial disputation, insolvencies of contractors and exchange rate variations-a factor of $66m all up-which on a pro rata basis are probably less than would be experienced on most major private sector construction projects anywhere in Australia. Finally, the other additional factors were the $104m for approved extensions, such as when the size of the Parliament was increased in 1984, and the $5m for landscaping. These figures show that the claims of massive cost over-runs are a misunderstanding of the true nature of the full disaggregation of the costs involved. All this is not to say that, in some limited instances, cost over-runs or control lapses have not occurred, but it clearly refutes these sensational claims of unrestrained cost blowout. The new Parliament House building has been created, designed, built, and furnished by Australians and Australian made products and artworks. It highlights the pinnacle of Australia's building, architectural and construction talents, products and natural resources and should be a source of national pride for future generations. The construction phase has almost been completed. Nearly all of the external pre-cast concrete wall panels are in place, and a large proportion of the granite cladding of the curved walls is completed. The flagmast is finished. Work on the forecourt is progressing rapidly. The western and northern sides of the site are almost clear and shaping of the landform is proceeding. Internally, the building is taking on its final appearance. The staircases in the foyer are complete and the House of Representatives chamber is well advanced, as are the offices in that wing. In many places built-in furniture is in place and equipment has been delivered and is soon to be installed. Permanent power has been supplied to the north, south and east zones of the building and the central energy and air handling plant rooms have been commissioned. So the project is now well advanced. We can expect it to be operational next year. This is an achievement, considering the constraints of design time together with providing the additions required to accommodate the larger Parliament. It is a building on which honourable members can be sure that all Australians can justifiably be proud. The project has, of course, as have previous major national, State, and private sector projects, been subject to criticisms. I have already generally covered the `cost blowout' allegations made by some sections of the media. Also, the Parliament House Construction Authority has prepared a detailed response to the Auditor-General's report. This report was tabled on 2 June 1987. The report and the response will now be considered by the Public Accounts Committee in accordance with normal Parliamentary practice. I intend to table the response to the report, as is only fair, at the conclusion of my speech. Perhaps the most unfair allegations made against the project involve misrepresentation of the project's industrial record. I will not, of course, sanction unjustifiable work practices or strikes. However, some of these types of allegations have been proven wrong and in other instances, private sector industry practices have been wrongly presented as being somehow peculiar to the new Parliament House site. It has been asserted that the project has been a pacesetter for wages and conditions in the private sector. However, the project has consistently been short of labour by up to 200 because of the attraction of other private sector projects in Canberra and interstate which offer more attractive financial rewards. Because of the nature of the project, it has often been the pressure point for industry-wide issues. For example, the 14-week dispute in 1984 was caused by industry-wide pressure to obtain superannuation and severance pay. At the time, the Authority was congratulated for not giving in to these demands and becoming a pacesetter. As everyone will know, the new Parliament House site was also a focal point during the very difficult period in which the Builders Labourers Federation was deregistered. The site industrial agreement has generally proved a successful way of resolving disputes resulting from on-site issues but cannot be expected to cope with industry-wide disputes. Given the nature of the project and the potential for disputation, I believe that the Parliament House project has a reasonable industrial record. There is little basis for claims that the project has `an appalling industrial record' or that it has been a pacesetter in wages and conditions. With a few notable exceptions, most unions on the Parliament House project have acted responsibly within the terms of the site agreement to create a safe and satisfactory work environment, which has in turn generated a team spirit and pride in the project. However, the Hawke Labor Government is determined to continue the control that it has exercised over the past four years. This project, if it is allowed to run the course it is currently on, will be completed on time-a marvellous achievement. However, I will sound a clear note of warning. The run up to completion dates could be the most difficult and challenging phase of the entire project. The Government will not bow to blackmail by either unions or contractors. Industrial disputes or forced contractor insolvencies must not be staged in the belief that the Government will be willing to capitulate in order to have this building fully operational by August 1988. As I have said, this project has not been an industry pacesetter, and this position will remain. Building industry union claims should be processed within the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's wage principles. Contractors and unions should note this and act accordingly to ensure the smooth completion of this magnificent national project. The target date for opening by the Queen is 9 May next year and the new Parliament House is targeted to be operational from August. These targets will be achieved with clear co-operation and commitment from all involved. If my warnings are disregarded, the opening will still be in May, but the Government will make the necessary adjustments regarding timing of occupancy. In the interests of providing honourable members with detailed information, I table further data and graphical representations of the project's budget and the Parliament House Construction Authority response to the Auditor-General's report. I thank the House. Mr DOBIE(Cook) —by leave-On behalf of the Opposition I would thank the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) for presenting to the Parliament his progress report on the new Parliament House. Having been a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House for the past 4 1/2 years, it is the source of personal satisfaction and gratification that it would seem the building is going to be finished on time and, apart from a few hiccups, within a reasonable budget considering the size of the undertaking. Members of the House should be reminded that the new Parliament House is by far the nation's biggest building project to date and they should also be reminded that the 4,500 rooms in the complex will accommodate something like 3,500 people working in the building, in addition to visitors who are expected to total more than one million per year. It should also be borne in mind that the new chambers will seat more than 1,000 people in the public galleries and there will be over 2,000 underground and ground level parking spaces provided. It is, in anyone's language, a very large building. Nevertheless, it is of great concern to many members of the House that on this occasion we notice that the total project budget has hit the billion dollar mark at May 1987 prices. It is interesting to see that the accumulated inflation escalation adjustment of $463m is the basic cause of the $724m increase over the original 1978 building budget of $220m and the original 1981 non-building budget of $82m. Many members on this side of the House who did not vote for an increase in the number of senators and members are noting the fact that there has been a $41m cost for accommodating the additional senators and members. However, one of the most intriguing increases I have noted in the Minister's statement is the $5m for the reinstatement of landscaping in the Parliament. This follows a ridiculous decision by the then Executive to have almost impossible cutbacks in the last financial year regarding the completion of the building, and the present Executive Government also stands condemned for its actions at that time. It is interesting that there has been an additional cost of $5m for the reinstatement of the landscaping, a cost that was totally and completely due to a foolhardy Executive decision by this Government to stop the landscaping, and the Government must stand condemned for this basic waste of money. It would be appreciated if the Minister could inform the House now or at some future time as to the final cost of landscaping following the stop-start decisions by the present Government. I find myself in agreement with the Minister about the sensational claims of unrestrained cost blowout. The Opposition is certainly aware of the controversy surrounding this new, national building and has not been unaware of problems that have been facing those charged with the responsibility of having this very large building project completed in such a relatively short time framework. After all, we should all remember that the first sod on Capital Hill was turned on 18 September 1980, only seven years ago. I am pleased to note that proper parliamentary processes are in train and have been in train since the undertaking was announced in 1978. I believe there has been a proper management task performed, and when one considers the enormity of the size of this project, then one must sit back and be impressed that so much has been achieved in this period by this Government and past governments. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many people who have been responsible for the progress of this project. One thinks immediately of Gordon Peatey, Chief Executive of the Parliament House Construction Authority; his executives, Ian Fowler, John Marr, Brian Harrison, Frank Toman, Rod Dalgleish and all the staff of the Authority; of the Chairman and members, past and present, of the Parliament House Construction Authority; of the architects, Aldo Giurgola, his partners, Ric Thorp and Pam Berg; and the curator, Katrina Rumley. All these people, as well as the 2,000-strong team of construction workers, have shown a remarkable pride in this project. Let me remind the House of a very fine incident. When the flag was flown for the very first time on 24 January this year, members of the Joint Committee, along with executives, visitors and large numbers of the construction workers were on site to see this happen. During the playing of the national anthem, the flag was broken. The whole crowd, as one, broke into cheers. It was quite an emotional moment and I am sure this will be the case when the building is finished next year and opened by Her Majesty on 9 May. There is tremendous pride in the building by the workers on site and, though I do not wish to take this opportunity to talk of industrial matters on the site, I agree with what the Minister for Administrative Services said in his statement. It is true to say that there have been extremely trying and difficult circumstances over the past seven years for all concerned. I praise the workers, the Executive, the planners and the consultants on the fact that these very trying and exacting moments have been overcome by consultation and, occasionally, by tough action. However, I do note that the Minister said in his speech that the Government will not bow to blackmail either by unions or contractors. This is welcomed and, on behalf of the Opposition, I place the Government on friendly notice that we in the Opposition will be monitoring the Government's performance and comparing it with the words the Minister has used today. Because of the forms of the House, it was not possible for me to make a contribution to the debate on Tuesday, 6 October regarding the decision not to take the present Speaker's chair to the new Parliament. I believe the decision not to take the chair is wrong. I believe the arguments used for its non-transfer are specious and I have grave doubts that the planned replacement chair will be completed in time for its use as from August 1988. The only fresh argument that has been put forward in recent days has been the alleged difficulty in transporting it to a new site. When this objection was overcome a series of lightweight, inconclusive arguments was used and it saddened me to see this House divide on party lines without having thoroughly considered the matter. Let it be noted that the Joint Committee vote was also on strict party lines. I regretted that equally. When one considers that no decision at all has been taken with regard to the future use of the provisional Parliament House, I believe it is scandalous that the Speaker's chair, this revered symbol of parliamentary government in Australia, should be left here, deserted to fulfil no role whatsoever. May I conclude by referring to the opening of the Parliament in May and the symbolism of that opening. The opening of the new Parliament will be not only a symbol of the expertise and skills and talents of Australian artisans, craftspeople and artists, but also a fitting monument to what many people sometimes conveniently forget about this building and the new building, and that is their role as the focal point of our democratic way of life for generations to come. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —by leave-I join the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) and the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) in complimenting the people who have worked on the planning phase of the new Parliament House and the people who have worked on the construction phase of it. I have been a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House since 1979 when I was first elected to this Parliament. I think only two or three of the current members of the Committee have been on the Committee for that long or longer. I think the honourable member for Cook is one such member and the President of the Senate is another. I think the three of us are the only members of Parliament who have been on the Committee since 1979. Members of the Committee have witnessed many changes up on the hill. Some of us are fortunate enough still to be members of Parliament so that we will see the work come to fruition next year. The Minister for Administrative Services, his Department and the workers on the site have done a marvellous job in bringing to fruition what was a concept some years ago and what will probably be one of the most important public buildings constructed anywhere in the world. It is a tribute to Australian workers, Australian craftsmanship and the creativity of Australians that this building is now coming to fruition. I might just say a couple of things on what the honourable member for Cook said about the Speaker's chair because it was a matter of some debate the other day in the House. I think the case for leaving the chair here should be put. It does not get down really to the question of whether there is difficulty in getting it out of the building or, indeed, the cost. People have put a little bit too much symbolism on the chair. Indeed, I suppose if one looks at the symbolism that the Clerks are interested in-and I recall that a Clerk of one of the Houses in a paper I read referred to the Clerks as the golden thread that held democracy together-they might say that the table is more important, because the journal of the Clerks of the Commonwealth parliaments is called The Table, and they call themselves the Clerks at the table. So it might be said that the table has great symbolism, and to some people it probably has. The chair no doubt does have symbolism, and that symbolism has more merit in some eyes than in others. But if members asked me what I saw as the important symbol of the independence of the Parliament, then I think it must be the Mace in this House and the Black Rod in the Senate. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that we shall take those two symbols of the independence of parliament up to the new House. As well, we shall take the symbol of parliament in the Westminster system in one of the few copies of Magna Carta available in the world, which is owned by this Parliament. I would think that that is one of the most precious objects this Parliament owns. It is one of the original vellum copies of Magna Carta. But to suggest that the Speaker's chair is all that holds together the rule of law in Australia is a bit of a thin argument. The important thing when this building becomes a museum is that when people come here in the future they should see what 87 years of Australian parliamentary history have been and what 60 years of parliamentary history have been in this chamber. To take that chair out of this chamber would leave this place unlike it should be, the same as to take the table, or these benches, or other parts. There is no doubt that the chair, the table and this whole chamber have some symbolism, but the important thing that I think we are taking up the hill to the new Parliament is the body of Standing Orders that this Parliament works on, the body of laws that are the laws of Australia, and the parliamentary practice that we have determined here in Australia, which is unlike the parliamentary practice in England, or in Ottawa, and is a uniquely Australian system of government. For some who suggest it is not, I guess we should just wait and hear the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) on the matter of public importance when he will be most certainly telling us very shortly how important the role of the Senate is in Australia. Of course, that role that the Senate in Australia has is an abhorrent role to the people who sit in the House of Lords in England. So to suggest that we should be saying that the most important thing that we here in Australia take up to the new Parliament House is British parliamentary traditions is to miss a little bit of the symbolism of this Parliament moving from the lake shore to the commanding heights of the city. So, while a number of people hold quite properly to a view that there is a lot of symbolism in the chair and it should not be kept here, I think the other argument that says that the chair is part of the history of this chamber and should stay with this chamber is just as valid, and in my view is more valid. The important thing that we are taking up the hill is the system of parliamentary democracy that we have developed here in Australia. That is embodied in all the individuals in this chamber and it is represented by the independence of the Parliament, by the Mace and by the Black Rod in the Senate. It is important for members to recall if we are looking at the sentimental argument about the chair that the senators who tend to think more about symbolism and form than is sometimes thought about in this House had no compunction in leaving in the present Senate chamber the President's chair, which was a gift to the Australian Senate by the Canadian Parliament. The senators were quite happy to move up the hill and have a new chair. I found it interesting at the committee meeting that some of the people who were interested in telling members of the House of Representatives what they should do with their chamber were senators who had already made the decision to leave the President's chair in the old Senate chamber when we move. So, I commend the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) and his Department on the way that the people who have worked for them have built the new building. It is a great credit to Australian craftsmanship and Australian workers. Indeed, it is a credit to those people who have been on the parliamentary committee over the years, who chose the design in the first place, that they have persevered for so long. They will see the fruit of their labour in May of next year when the building is opened for all to see. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-I should only like to observe, as one who did serve on the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House for a short while, that this matter was one that excited a good deal of interest over time, and it has done so again today. That matter is the removal of the chair in which you sit, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the new Parliament House or its remaining here in this chamber. I was interested, having regard to what were some incidental remarks commenting on the statement of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) from the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), that we had a lengthy statement from the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) on those short remarks of the honourable member for Cook, because that ought to be compared with the comments made the other day by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young)-I think I have got his full title. He suggested on that occasion that this was a trite matter, that it was not deserving of serious address, and he was very critical of the fact that it was raised in the context of a discussion on the Speaker's statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). I am glad that we have had this opportunity today at least to hear some more detailed reasons from the honourable member for Grayndler why this decision has been pressed. I am glad because I think it shows the shallowness of the views which led the majority of the members of the Joint Committee to come to this view. I can remember well, as a former member of the Committee, the strength of the views of a former Speaker, Harry Jenkins, when it was suggested that the Speaker's chair might be left in this chamber. I would have to say that he, as a former Speaker, held very strong views about the symbolism of the chair. Any prospect of its remaining here in this chamber was one that he greeted with a good deal of foreboding. I must say that, if we knew with any certainty the Government's intention for this chamber, we might well see some significance in leaving it here. If we knew that it was to be left here symbolically to show the way in which former Prime Minister Whitlam chopped off the head of Jim Cope as Speaker and that people were able to know that that was the place where it happened, there might be something in that symbolism, but at this stage we do not even know whether the Government has in mind turning it into some glorified convention centre, or perhaps a place where we can hold international conferences where the symbolism would be that there would be a whole lot of other people sitting in the chair. Now, I must say that it needs a good deal more thought than was evident, and I found the statement of the honourable member for Grayndler on this matter a poor justification for the Government's decision. I regret that, in a matter that might well have been simply a discussion of a reasonable report from the Minister about the blowout of costs in relation to the building of the new Parliament House and the very reasoned response from the honourable member for Cook, it has become a revival of a debate that occurred on the Speaker's statement to this House. I should like to make only one other observation, in view of the politics introduced into this subject by the honourable member for Grayndler. One of the very significant cost blowouts mentioned in his statement today was the extra $41m the public of Australia has had to pay for the benefit of the enlarged Parliament, a decision of the Australian Labor Party. We are now starting to see, as a result of that decision, the additional costs the Australian people are having to bear. That is what I think ought to be seen as significant, not the remarks of the honourable member for Grayndler endeavouring to justify the very poor decision of the Government to leave the Speaker's chair in what may be a museum or what may be something else. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: 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 resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Burr,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Goodluck,Mr Halverson,Mr Hicks,Mr Rocher and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Beale,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Halverson,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Millar 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 Queensland 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 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 taxpayers' 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 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 taxpayers' 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 the 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 the 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 Ian Cameron. To 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 Dawkins,Mr Prosser,Mr Rocher and Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Member 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 Downer and Mr Wilson. 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 1985-86 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 on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Hicks and Mr Kerin. 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 Tim Fischer and Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: (1) We strongly oppose the introduction of the Australia Card or any other form of national identification numbering system. (2) We believe that the introduction of a national numbering system is not only totally unnecessary but is also a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. (3) We condemn the Labor Government's actions on this matter, particularly as the Government has produced no reasonable justification for the introduction of the Australia Card legislation. (4) We call on the Parliament assembled to reject the Australia Card legislation and improve management of existing legislation to crack down on tax evasion and welfare fraud. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the proposal: (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 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 matter; (c) will cause a further larger and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the tax payer; (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hicks and Mr Webster. 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 Australia Card, and a 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 Nehl and Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the assembled in Parliament. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the Superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: We are concerned that consideration may be given to limit the time for local telephone calls. Your petitioners therefore pray that this proposal will be avoided. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth 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' questionnaires 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 Petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- We, the undersigned citizens, object to the proposal of Telecom to charge for each three minutes of a local call, as we feel this would disadvantage the elderly and people who are unable to leave their homes. The telephone is sometimes the only contact relatives can have to check on the safety and well-being of those they care for. Also, when making business calls, you are quite often asked to hold the line or are transferred from one Department to another and this all takes time. We sincerely feel that the charges Telecom makes at the moment are quite adequate. Your petitioners therefore pray that Telecom will not introduce a time charge on local telephone calls. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth opposition to the introduction of any form of national identification system especially a system known as AUSTRALIA CARD Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should oppose any legislation designed to impose such a system on the people of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. 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 Parliament assembled. The humble petition of these Electors sheweth that as: In Australia, tobacco kills about four times as many people as the total killed by drink, drugs, murder, suicide, road accidents, rail accidents, air accidents, poisoning, drowning, fires, snakes, lightning, and every other known cause of accidental death all put together. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will prove your worth with effectual action against the promotion of tobacco. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerr. 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 combatting 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 petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Peacock. 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 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 Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purposes of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office Agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. The Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr 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 Ruddock. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows that: 1. Continuing proposals by the Department of Social Security suggest the Hawke Government intends to reduce social security services to the people covered by the Warrawong, Dapto and Corrimal Social Security offices. 2. We are opposed to the proposal of reducing the present social security services to shopfronts, staffed by few people, resulting in longer waiting queues, longer travel time, more fares and increased hardship. Your petitioners pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to those most in need in our community by: 1. Ensuring that social security services in Warrawong, Dapto and Corrimal not be reduced to shopfronts. 2. That the Hawke Government provide for a complete range of services and staff for the Warrawong, Dapto and Corrimal communities. by Mr West. 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 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 Bills 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully request that Road Funding be increased to a level that will arrest the constant deterioration of the road system and enable roads and streets such as Sutton Street, between Sebastopol and Delacombe to be reconstructed. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Mildren. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The fundamental threat to the role and power of the Senate contained in the proposals of the Constitutional Commission. 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 HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(5.15) —The Liberal and National parties bring this matter of public importance before parliament because it does in every sense of the word fit the description of a matter of public importance. On 2 October the Constitutional Commission published a series of proposals relating to projected referenda to be placed before the Australian people that, if implemented, would effectively reduce the Australian Senate to having no greater powers than those possessed by the British House of Lords. These proposals go far beyond a mere tinkering at the edges; they go to the fundamental role and power of the Australian Senate. They are nothing more, in the view of the Opposition parties, than a continuation of the vengeance streak that has consumed the Australian Labor Party since the events of November 1975. They must be judged by this Parliament and by the Australian people in that context. The proposals are being put forward as a package designed to bring about something which in general terms a great number of people in Australia think desirable; that is, the replacement of the present three-year term of Federal parliaments with four years. It is a great pity that the Constitutional Commission has confused the two issues. At the outset I say to the Government that, if it wants to get a referendum for a four-year Parliament accepted by the Australian people, do not wrap it up with proposals to destroy the power of the Senate. If it is serious-and let me say that many on this side of the House would support the concept of four-year parliaments; they make a great deal of sense-for heaven's sake do not confuse it with its malice inspired desire to destroy the power of the Senate. Keep the two things completely separate and it will have some hope of getting a referendum for four-year parliaments accepted by the Australian people. The other thing I suggest the Government do is not to confuse the presidential system of government that obtains in the United States of America with the Westminster system that obtains in Australia. I fundamentally reject the concept of fixed term parliaments. Four-year parliaments, yes; four-year fixed terms, no. Four- year parliaments wrapped up with a package that destroys the power of the Senate, also no with a capital `N'. Let me turn to the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission. I have a great deal of personal regard for a number of people who sit on the Commission, in particular its Chairman, Sir Maurice Byers, a former Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth who has served with great distinction political parties and governments of both persuasions. What the Constitutional Commission is proposing is nothing short of a constitutional revolution so far as the Australian Senate is concerned. The main proposal is not the four-year proposal. That may be the public relations gloss. The main proposal is that which would in effect take away from the Senate any power to do other than delay for more than six months a measure passed by the House of Representatives. In effect, what the Constitutional Commission is recommending, and what the Government would be supporting if it put those proposals to referendum, is a suggestion that a money Bill as defined by the Constitutional Commission could not be delayed for more than 30 days and that in the event of any other measure being rejected by the Senate, the joint sitting proposals now contained in section 57 of the Constitution could be invoked, not after an election was held but after a subsequent rejection by the Senate after a period of three months. Mrs Sullivan —The Senate would be a rubber stamp. Mr HOWARD —The Senate would be no more than a rubber stamp. The Liberal and National parties say to every voter in Australia, particularly those residing in the less populous States, that this is a charter to overturn the federal compact. The federal compact rested upon the understanding that the less populous States would enter the Federation on the basis that, having a popularly elected House of Representatives reflecting the overwhelming numerical superiority of New South Wales and Victoria, that in turn would be counterbalanced by the States House which would adequately protect the position of the less populous States. This is nothing more than an attempt to overturn that. The remarks in this debate are therefore directed particularly to those people residing in the less populous States who quite properly see in this a charter to overturn the basis of the federal compact. It is very instructive to go back to 1949. My research has gone no further back than 1949. If the joint sitting provisions that are now proposed in the Constitutional Commission's report had obtained since 1949, it is a fact that on every occasion the government of the day would have had a majority at a joint sitting and that, as a consequence, it would not have been possible for a non-government majority in the Senate to delay for more than six months any measure which had been passed by the House of Representatives. If that does not reduce the role of the Senate to that of a mere rubber stamp and to a mere cipher, nothing does. If that does not destroy the protection that the Senate as now constituted gives to the people of Tasmania, Queensland, and Western Australia in particular, nothing does. In a nutshell, the basis of our objection to these proposals, the basis of our rejection of these proposals if the Government puts them forward at a referendum, is that they will reduce the Australian Senate, one of the most democratically elected chambers in the world-a body which at present more faithfully represents the popular will of the total Australian people at the last election than does the House of Representatives; that is a fact in terms of the proportional representation system-to a body with no more power than that of the British House of Lords. Is it not ironic that the Australian Labor Party, which so derides our so-called colonial links and which wants to throw out our magnificent Speaker's chair because it is an over-weaning reminder of our links to Westminster, is about to embrace some constitutional changes that would reduce the power of the Australian Senate to no more than that of the British House of Lords? Under the 1911 Act passed by the United Kingdom Parliament, the power to delay legislation was reduced virtually to no more than a delay of some three to six months. That is all we will have. That might be all right if the Australian Senate were an appointed chamber, but the Australian Senate is a democratically elected chamber on full adult franchise. That is the difference. That is why we find utterly untenable the proposition that the existing powers of the Australian Senate ought to be destroyed. I say to the Government: get off your 1975 kick. Do not maintain any rage over this proposal. Mr Chynoweth —Why should we get off it? Mr HOWARD —There is the little matter of the fact that the Australian people twice told those opposite that they had no kick to complain about. That is the reason. Out of the mouth of the honourable member for Dunkley have come the words as to what it is all about. Some of the others are not maintaining their rage, but there is absolutely no doubt that he is maintaining his rage. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is at the table-I think he may be genuinely interested in some serious constitutional reform-that he has no hope of getting a referendum carried for a four-year parliament if he wraps it up with this absurd Senate-destroying nonsense. That is something that ought to be fundamentally understood from the very beginning. Mr Bilney —Aren't you ashamed of 1975, John? Mr HOWARD —Not in the least. As I have been asked, let me say that I will defend to my last breath the action taken by the Liberal and National parties in 1975. The only thing that is shameful about 1975 is the way in which those opposite have persecuted and destroyed by character assassination a former Governor-General of this country. The treatment of that man by the Labor side of politics is one of the most shameful chapters in the political history of this country. He was the chosen and appointed constitutional keeper of the ring. If those opposite have any venom and any wrath, let them expend that venom and that wrath on us, but not on a man who took an oath to uphold the Constitution. It is the honourable member for Kingston who should be ashamed of himself. Having dealt with that aberration, if there was any doubt that this Constitutional Commission is all about 1975, that doubt has been dispelled in the last five minutes. That is what it is all about. I simply say to the House that there is nothing like something to do with the Constitution to bring out the sort of hidden desires of the Labor Party. The former Federal President of the Labor Party wants an Australian republic. I wonder where the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) now stands on that issue. He used to favour it. It is still in the Labor Party platform. But do those opposite believe it? I wonder where the Deputy Prime Minister stands on this issue. In 1981 the Deputy Prime Minister wanted Australia to become a republic. The Prime Minister wanted Australia to become a republic when he delivered the Boyer lectures. He said in 1984 that it was inevitable that it would happen. This is absolutely priceless: Biggles, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), has been waxing lyrical about deregulation of the airline industry. But he is even better on the Senate and the flag. Listen to this: The Senate has by all accounts always been rather a silly and pompous- fancy Evans talking about pomposity- institution, but now it is obvious to most people that it has become a very dangerous one as well. If one believes, as I do, along with all good Labor men and women true, that the Senate ought to be abolished, or at the very least deprived of its capacity to destroy properly elected governments, there is surely no better forum in which to promote its insidious heresies than the institution itself. That was Senator Evans. The reality is that beneath the surface the Labor Party still believes in a unicameral system of government. Mr Hunt —That is their policy. Mr HOWARD —That is the Labor Party's policy. It does not really believe in the Senate. It does not believe in protecting the rights of the less populous States. Under the cover of promoting the idea of four-year parliaments, what it will want to do with this proposal is to bring about a constitutional revolution that will undermine the power of the Senate. On behalf of the Liberal and National parties, I say to those opposite and to the Parliament that we will campaign against these proposals right across the country from this day onwards, and those opposite will suffer the same defeat on them as they have suffered on their discredited identity card proposals. If the Government dares to put these proposals to a referendum, the defeat of the Bill of Rights and the ID card legislation will look like a holiday weekend by comparison. These proposals represent nothing more than the final working out by the Labor Party of its agony of vengeance over the events of 1975. It could never accept, in a month of Sundays, the simple principle by which democracies live or perish, and that is the will of the people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The Chair points out to the House that, while it elected to play the advantage rule, that did not make the interjections from its right in order. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.31) —This is a matter of public importance which relates to a matter which I consider could not be more important to Australia-that is, the review of our Constitution and how well it is working for this nation. When one listens to the recent remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the histrionics about what has always been the underlying factor, the hidden agenda, it is no wonder that the people of Australia say, `A plague on both sides. We do not want any reform. We do not trust any of you'. I do not know whether that is the Opposition's view. In fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, I give him top marks because when he started the debate today he admitted for the first time that he had a high regard for the members of the Constitutional Commission. That is a little different from what some other people have been saying. I acknowledge that the Leader of the Opposition did not agree with the establishment of the Constitutional Commission; in fact, he favoured its abolition. But, the Commission having brought down a report, the Leader of the Opposition is good enough to acknowledge that some of the matters it tries to identify as being matters which could be solved certainly would encourage debate. But let us face the issue of what we are about in this nation. When the debates on the Constitution took place, it was proposed-indeed, it was hoped-that those who occupied positions in the Senate would not be wedded to any political party. The Senate was to be a House of review. It is a fact of life in Australian political development that that is never going to be the case. Senators are there by political organisation. All parties represented in this House are effectively represented in the Senate, with the addition of minority parties. That is the problem that probably is bedevilling a genuine review of the Senate because senators are instructed how to vote as soon as legislation is introduced in this House. There is no question of the senators changing; the party organisation guarantees that the independence of the Senate has gone out of the window, because it becomes necessary in a party organisation to dictate to the senators how they will vote. As a result, there has developed an extraordinary situation which was the target of the Constitutional Commission-the frequent elections in this country. Since World War II 22 Federal elections have taken place. The average life of a parliament is two years. Mr Wilson —We have told you how to overcome this; just introduce a four-year parliament. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not want the assistance of interjections by the honourable member for Sturt. He will have an opportunity to speak in the debate. The facts of life are that everyone knows that too-frequent elections are a curse and a worry. I think we all would like to follow some of the examples of the States and say, `Why cannot we have a four-year term?'. I know that that is a valid statement; but the facts of life are that one can never get a four-year term if one cannot get a guarantee of the term. Mr Wilson —Why not? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —One cannot get a guarantee of the term. I do not know why the honourable member is so abysmally ignorant of that. One cannot get such a guarantee if the Senate decides not to give it. That is the position. Let me make this point in fairness to the Constitutional Commission: I can think of no better expression of opinion than that of Sir Rupert Hamer. Opposition members will admit that Sir Rupert is considering this matter from the standpoint of what is in the best interests of the nation, and not from any party political advantage or with the madness of Professor Blainey thinking he has some vested interest in making this statement. Sir Rupert said: The proposals are a package because they all contribute to a central idea, which is to ensure there is at least three years ahead of a new government as it comes into power, barring the loss of its majority in the lower house. To achieve that, there has to be . . . a trade-off. The government of the day loses its power to call a premature election and the senate of the day loses its power to force one. No Opposition members have addressed their minds to that point. That is the issue-a concession on both sides of the coin. Sir Rupert went on to say: I think people who have the interests of good government at heart will accept that. The Opposition would be fooling the people of Australia if it said that it favoured a four-year term because, if the Senate has the power to get rid of the lower House by refusing Supply, for example, it will not be a four-year term; it will be whatever the Senate dictates. That is the position. I will not hark back to the heart-rending circumstances of 1975: one can see what a disaster that has caused here today. Nothing will be achieved by saying, `What about this and what about that?', except that it was a party political decision by the Opposition to instruct its senators how to vote. That procedure will continue. The one miracle that happened, which might have prevented civil disturbance in this country at the time, was that the Government, by accident-and I mention that-passed Supply in the Senate. As a matter of interest, the Government did not know that it had been sacked. I ask honourable members to consider the troubles that would have been caused to this country if Supply had not been passed by the Senate. The Opposition could not have got Supply through the Senate because it did not have the necessary numbers. If the Government had withdrawn the Appropriation Bills, this nation would have had no Supply from November onwards. Assuming the Governor-General acted, as he did, and an election was called in December, can honourable members imagine this nation's problems with no money for State governments, schools, hospitals or the ordinary services of government in the ensuing period? Thousands, perhaps millions, of people would have been out of work. Perhaps that was the lesson we needed to learn in Australia-what the people would have thought of an action that refused annual appropriations to keep government functioning. That would have been the test. All that the Constitutional Commission is saying is, `Do you really want to undergo that again?'. I am not here to argue the powers of the Senate about other Bills. The Leader of the Opposition has addressed his mind fairly to the question whether the Commission has got the balance right in saying, `We will ensure that all Bills, except money Bills, are passed, because there will be a joint sitting of both Houses'. There may need to be some reassessment of that proposal. But it is a fallacy to be talking about having a four-year term with a hostile Senate. The Senate does not even have to go out for review by the public. That is the great weakness in this debate. All that the Government is asking-and it still requires the consent of this Parliament-is to put a number of propositions to the people of Australia. The Government will not be able to put anything through unless the Parliament agrees that it can be put as a question. Mr Howard —If you want four years. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —One wants four years and one will need to get it on the basis that the Commission has addressed part of its mind to the inability of the Senate to reject a government in the first three years. One will need to do that on Supply. Mr Howard —Why? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Once the Senate rejects a government, that government cannot stay; it has no power-- Mr Howard —Once in 87 years? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is not so from now on because the Opposition created a precedent that in future it is in order to instruct its senators. Obviously every future government will face the problem of a hostile Senate. One has no idea what might be the view of other parties. Some parties, seeking increased representation, might favour dissolutions sooner than other parties would. It would depend on the climate at the time. I am not impressed by the Premier of Queensland-whom the Leader of the Opposition at times sought as an ally, though I doubt whether he will do so in future-welcoming these things because he wants to go out and fight the idea of constitutional reform. That is the very reason I am trying to keep the politicians out of the debate at this stage. What value are Opposition members to the debate? They should look at their performance today. They should look at their performance in the constitutional conventions where they did nothing but cause trouble on the basis of arguing with each other. The propositions we put up they could not agree on. Malcolm Fraser wanted simultaneous elections, but by the time we got around to putting the proposal even the States would not agree with it. It was a ridiculous problem. I do not know what their alternative is. Their view is to live in the hope that the Senate in the future will not exercise the powers that they know it now has. They say that is good enough for them. Twenty-two years of history shows that we are facing the people every two years. We have had double dissolutions four times since 1974. If honourable members opposite look at Hansard, particularly in 1973, they will see that their Party in the Senate was threatening the refusal of Supply for no other reason than that it was deemed to be valid to do it in 1973. It was threatened again in 1974. In fact, we had a double dissolution. It was threatened again when Sir Billy Snedden was Liberal leader. It is a normal thing to try to force a government out. We can understand the game of politics. How long would any honourable member stay in opposition if there was a chance to get into government? They would use opportunities as fast and as often as they could. What will happen to this nation if that is the issue? They do not give a damn. It is only a question of expediency. All politicians would grasp the nettle if they could, knowing that it was to their advantage. But it does nothing for this country. The Commission is not to be lambasted on this issue; it has asked for constructive suggestions from Opposition members. Mr Donald Cameron —The Commission got them today. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is good. The point I want to make is that it does not add up. Sir Maurice Byers said: You can't have a fixed term unless the Government has the money to carry on government. That's obvious . . . It is nonsense to say that governments will have four-year terms unless they have the money to carry on the terms. That is the issue. If we accept that the Opposition can refuse to grant Supply, this problem will arise. The Opposition invented this refusal to grant Supply; it accepted it, encouraged it and, in fact, exploited it. Conventions in the past endeavoured to face up to it. The House will recall the issues that were suggested by Sir Charles Court, and by everybody else who was not in this Parliament of course, as to how best we might be able to manage the situation. Mr Howard —But Sir Charles did not agree with this. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I am talking about what he suggested, which was, `We put a proposition to the Senate and, if it is rejected, we will have a double dissolution; and if we then win, it will have to be passed the second time round'. Such ideas are just as cumbersome for the Australian people to understand. This is not the only matter I want to see put to the Australian people; there are a number of matters, all of which, I think, are very healthy from the point of view-- Mr Howard —Some of the others we might agree with. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I hope you do. Mr Howard —What about the defamation laws? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, but the only problem with the defamation laws is that the media themselves have a view about defamation laws. We could have got uniform defamation laws if the media had agreed that they were liable if they defamed someone after his death-the question of truth and public benefit. These are the issues that would prevent only uniform defamation. That is not a problem. The problem with uniform defamation is getting the media to agree to what they will accept. That has been the discussion with the Attorneys-General. Coming back to the point, what we are about here is constitutional change. Sir Maurice Byers made it very clear that the proposals are now in the public arena. They have been made available with a view to informing the public about what the Commission is thinking. It is not stated that this is the absolute position. When they were selected he invited modification of the proposals. He made it very clear that he would welcome any constructive suggestions from members of the public and, because it is a fair proposition, from the Opposition as well. It is worth noting, as I am reminded, that other people in Australia, such as Mr Eric Mayer of the Business Council of Australia, think that this is an excellent set of recommendations. The business community, although it does not address itself to the detail as we do, knows that having elections every two years is fatal. Mr Howard —We can fix that without this. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It cannot be fixed in the way that the Opposition has suggested. It is a parrot like repetition of something we know cannot last unless we have the compliance of the Senate to allow the Government to remain. We are not going to get that if there is that chance, in a Senate that is hostile, to remove Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(5.46) —We are talking about a matter of public importance which is the fundamental threat to the role and power of the Senate contained in the proposals of the Constitutional Commission. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has just said that we cannot go ahead with just a straight out increase in the term of the House of Representatives to four years because we would not have the compliance of the Senate. That is what the Australian Labor Party is all about. It is about having the Senate doing its bidding. It is as simple as that. This sort of proposal from the Constitutional Commission is not about four-year terms; it is about having a Senate that will lie down before the executive government-and a Labor government at that. The Opposition is saying today that it will fight the proposal to slash the powers of the Senate. We will fight it long and hard. We will fight it throughout the country. We will fight to ensure the maintenance of the powers of the Senate. The reality about the Senate is that it is one of those checks and balances against excesses of executive power by governments. In recent years this Labor Government has put up a number of propositions which if passed would have fundamentally altered the relationship between the government and the Australian people. On each occasion the Government's proposals have been for nothing other than more power for Canberra. Things like the Bill of Rights and the ID card have been nothing but barely disguised attempts to increase the power of executive government. One of the reasons I am in Parliament, and interested in politics and our institutions of government, is that I believe that one of the safety mechanisms for the Australian people is to ensure that political power is spread throughout the community as widely as possible. Thomas Hobbes said: Freedom is political power divided into small fragments. Or to put it another way: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I am in the Liberal Party because it believes in markets. One of the reasons it supports a free market is that it is a mechanism for distributing economic power. It distributes economic power, of course, to the consumers and keeps it out of the hands of the bureaucrats and the central planners. These are always the characteristics of totalitarian regimes whether of the Left or the Right. The reality is that the Labor Party loves to attack the Constitution, and it does so because it has an agenda for change. Basically, that agenda is all about removing those checks and balances against the excesses of government. That is what it is on about when it attacks the Constitution and when it puts up proposals such as these from the Constitutional Commission. They are simply a grab for more and more power in pursuit of Labor ideals. Associate Professor Mark Cooray of Macquarie University described it: The Labor Government's approach to Constitutional reform is based on a conviction that a Constitution should serve the aims of a Government which holds power at a given moment. The Constitution itself should be an instrument of Labor Party ideology. He continued: The present Government has learnt from the lessons of the Whitlam times. The Whitlam Government was honest and told the people what it intended to do. Of course, the people responded as one would expect them to respond, but the Hawke Government takes another approach. Professor Cooray continued: Its tactic is to introduce changes gradually without the people knowing what is happening . . . That is absolutely right. We have seen it in relation to the ID card. It is no wonder that Labor Party members were not keen to ensure that that got the sort of coverage it should have been given during the election campaign, because it was part and parcel of the agenda of the Labor Party, which was keen to see greater power centralised in Canberra. What we are about this week is ensuring that the Australian community understands the extent and the ramifications of these proposals. This week marks the start of that campaign to ensure the safety of the mechanisms embodied in the Constitution. One of the institutions which the Labor Party has long been keen to undermine is, of course, the Senate. Many people, like the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), do not really understand the issues. For him, of course, 1975 was the start of it all. Of course, for others, it goes back much longer than that. The late Lionel Murphy is often referred to as a great supporter of the Senate. He used it for political purposes when he was in opposition. But the reality was that he was an opponent of the Senate's powers. When he was Attorney-General he appeared before the High Court of Australia to attack the powers of the Senate by claiming that the House of Representatives was the leading legislature and the Senate basically had to do the bidding of the House of Representatives That was the proposition that he, as Attorney-General, put in the 1970s. It was a proposition which was obviously, and quite properly, rejected by the High Court when it made it clear-if it was ever in doubt, and I do not believe it has ever been in doubt-that the Senate and the House of Representatives are co-equal. The ideologues have been at it since 1975. Last week, when the massive bungle and blunder of the ID card was revealed, what was Labor's response? Labor's response was, `Look, the Senate has to bow down and do what we in the House of Representatives tell it to do. It is all constitutional vandalism if you don't give us a cover for our monumental blunder on the ID card'. The proposals released by the Constitutional Commission last Friday are, of course, very popular with many members of the Labor Party. Senator Gareth Evans, a former Attorney- General, has introduced similar proposals previously. This week the Attorney-General indicated to the House his support for the slashing of the Senate's powers. He did so again today. It was a disgrace that at Question Time, when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), was asked this straight-out question, `Will you give the Australian people an assurance about maintaining the powers of the Senate?', he gave not a word of assurance. No; he will keep the door open for a referendum in 1988 to cash in on the euphoria of the Bicentenary. That is his game plan. We in the Opposition say that that is not a game plan to which we will be a party. Members of the Labor Party love to talk about the events of 1975 as constitutional vandalism. What they forget is that the resolution of the events of 1975 was that an election was called. They will not accept the result of that election. The reality is that they are continuing to whinge about it. Their constant whinging about 1975 is not about the Constitution; it is about the fact that they would not accept the will of the people in a general election in the Australian democracy. They ought to be big enough to wake up to the reality of what they are on about. Labor Party members have been full of talk and full of rhetoric about constitutional reform. Of course, until now, when it comes to what is in their greatest interests, their interest in constitutional reform has been marked by nothing but the greatest cynicism. Last time some of these proposals were put forward was in 1983. They ditched them for one reason: because the right wing of the Labor Party decided that it wanted an early election in 1984. That is why they ditched the proposals then. When it came to what was to their advantage, they said, `What is to our immediate, practical advantage? Shall we go ahead with some constitutional referenda or shall we back off and pave the way for an early election?'. When the Attorney-General puts forward these proposals on the basis that we have too many elections, I invite the Australian people to remember that the present Prime Minister has had the opportunity to call two elections since he has been Prime Minister, and both of them have been early. Government members have the cheek to say that they are concerned about the number of elections. The reality of the arguments by Labor Party members about the frequency of elections is that they are just the coating of a poison pill, and it is a poison pill which has at its centre one of Labor's cherished ambitions regarding Australia's Constitution-that is, to knock down the Senate. Labor wants to knock down the Senate because that means more power for the executive government and more power for Labor Party members to enable them to undertake their agenda for radical reform of the Australian community. We will fight them tooth and nail. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(5.56) —I find this debate to be a tragedy, because there has never been a better time in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia for a proposal to be put forward for a comprehensive series of referenda which, I believe, in the spirit of 1988, has every chance, not just for a successful passage through the Parliament, but also of attaining the support of the Australian people. Honourable members know that it is not my practice to inflame division and to take a partisan approach to a debate when there is some possibility of building common ground with members of the Opposition about important matters of public policy. It is a bitter irony that in the grievance debate a few hours ago I called for an attempt at bipartisan consideration of constitutional change. I argued that the view put forward by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), who has just spoken, that disunity means death for constitutional change, was a view that had some great substance. But the problem is that, in order to be able to have any attempt at reaching a bipartisan approach on these important questions, one first needs rational debate. I regret that the contribution made today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), both in this debate and in his comments outside the Parliament, do a disservice not only to himself and his Party, but also to the Parliament and the country. What he has done is clearly to launch a pre-emptive strike which, I believe, is calculated to sabotage not just the proposal for a change in the Senate's powers, but to undermine completely the work of the Constitutional Commission. The whole idea of setting up the Constitutional Commission was to take the process of constitutional change away from the rarefied atmosphere and the passions of this House and this Parliament. I believe that, if ever we needed evidence that the view of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in setting up that Commission was fully justified, we have seen it today in the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition, who referred, in the course of his remarks, to everything from the ID card and the Bill of Rights to his suggestion that the proposals that were put forward were `a malice-inspired device by the Government to destroy the power of the Senate'. He said that the idea behind the proposals that were put forward was part of the vengeance kicks of the Australian Labor Party. He said outside the chamber today that there was a vengeance streak in the Labor Party regarding the events of 1975 and the proposals that were put forward were intended to castrate the Senate. He went on and on about castration and vengeance-hardly, I would have thought, the sort of language and approach that one would expect from an alternative Prime Minister in relation to the process of constitutional change. I would ask not just members in the Parliament today but the people of Australia to have regard to the sorts of people that the Leader of the Opposition attempts to label as having a vengeance streak and who seek to castrate the power of the Senate. The members of the Constitutional Commission are hardly the sorts of people one would find in the precincts of an Australian Labor Party branch meeting and are hardly, one would have thought, tools of this Government. They are eminent and esteemed Australians who I believe have been defamed by the Leader of the Opposition both in the Parliament and outside. The Commission is chaired by Sir Maurice Byers, a former Solicitor-General. One of its members is Sir Rupert Hamer, a retired Liberal Premier of Victoria who was instrumental in establishing the Constitutional Convention. He supported the setting up of the Commission because the Convention had failed in its attempts at constitutional reform. The Commission also has on its advisory committees a whole range of people who could hardly be said to be embittered about 1975. Sir James Killen saw fit to lend his esteemed services to the work of the Commission. Yet the Leader of the Opposition comes in here today seeking to sabotage the work of that Commission. Also on the Commission is Mr Greg Percival-not a friend of the Labor Party but indeed someone who has made a great contribution to local government in this country. There is also Mr Haddon Storey, a former Liberal Party Attorney-General in Victoria. I would have hoped that the Leader of the Opposition, as someone who sees himself as an alternative Prime Minister of this country, would have been able to come into this chamber and engage in a rational debate instead of rambling and ranting in a way that I believe, as I said, did a great disservice not only to him but to the Parliament as a whole. It is extremely important that people understand just what the Constitutional Commission recommendations are. They are not government recommendations. They have never been discussed in a Labor Party Government committee, they have not been discussed in the Labor Party Caucus and they have not been discussed in the Cabinet-they are recommendations of an independent commission. I would have thought the dust would have been allowed to settle after those recommendations were first made before we had the Leader of the Opposition causing an incitement and orchestrating a reminder to this House of the bitter divisions caused in 1975. It is for that reason that I believe the bringing forward today of this matter is clearly a misuse of the Parliament. It is not a Government proposal. I remind the House that the Constitutional Commission was established because of the failure of the Constitutional Convention, and that of some 38 proposals it put forward for change only eight were successful. I might also say that the belated support now given by the Opposition to the Constitutional Convention stands rather uncomfortably with its failure even to have that Convention meet during a large period of the former Government. I heard in the course of the remarks of the honourable member for Flinders a great deal of debate and a number of assertions about individual rights and not allowing power in Australia to become concentrated. If the honourable member is serious about pursuing those things there are many people on this side of the House who would willingly join with him in moving towards constructive change in order to be able to confer additional rights on individuals. I note that one of the proposals put forward by an advisory committee to the Commission is to ensure the principle of one vote one value. I would have thought that at least the members of the Liberal Party of Australia would have some sympathy with that principle, although I do not expect that that view will be universally shared by members of the National Party of Australia, and certainly those from Queensland. The Commission's advisory committee also recommends the enshrinement of common law principles so that individuals are not wrongly deprived of liberty or property, and it proposes also extending constitutional protection to provide just compensation for the appropriation of private property by any government, including State governments. The existing constitutional provision simply does not apply to State governments. I appeal again for some rational debate on the processes of constitutional change, and I ask people to contrast the way the Attorney and I have approached the matter with the attitude taken by the Opposition. If Opposition members want to get a quick headline, if they want to knock off the Constitutional Commission as any sort of effective body, if they want to have years of work by that Commission, including innumerable public hearings and submissions and efforts by a whole range of people, including members of their own Party all simply result in the abandonment of any attempt at constitutional change, they can probably do it. They can probably achieve that end, but let me tell them this: history will judge them, as it has judged them before, as the wreckers and the saboteurs of progressive and reasonable change in this country. They are on the wrong track and I ask them to think again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The discussion is concluded. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Consideration resumed. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(6.07) —A unique feature of the Federal Budget is that it includes the budget for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). There is no separate State budget for the Australian Capital Territory as there is for the States and the Northern Territory, nor is there a separate municipal budget for Canberra such as is prepared by every local government council in the country. This is because the Federal Government has complete and absolute control over how the people of the ACT are taxed and what funds are spent here. The people of the ACT have no power to determine budget priorities in Canberra. That is one of the central reasons why we must have self-government. I will return to that theme in a moment. The 1987 budget for the Australian Capital Territory makes significant advances in preparing the way for self-government. For the first time revenue collected in the Australian Capital Territory has been recognised as part of the Territory's own budget. In the past, tax revenue from the Australian Capital Territory went straight into Consolidated Revenue and the Commonwealth gave us back whatever it thought appropriate. The Government has not unreasonably decided that taxes in the Australian Capital Territory should be at levels comparable with taxes in the States. This was, in effect, recommended in the last report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. There is no reason why the people in the Australian Capital Territory should welcome this; on the other hand, it is important for us to demonstrate to the rest of Australia that we are paying our way. This we are now doing. The Australian Capital Territory is continuing to receive from the Commonwealth grants which are broadly in line with those made to the States and which take into account the special conditions which apply to Canberra. These arrangements bring Canberra to financial maturity but leave us as politically backward as ever. The Australian Capital Territory budget provides for an increase of 7 1/2 per cent in outlays-a little more than the increase in funds given to the States, but then population is growing in Canberra faster than the Australian average. A large increase would have been desirable, because there are many high priority programs needing additional funding, but the parameters for this Budget were set by Australia's poor trading position. Outlays for all programs had to be restricted so that the Government could make a contribution to the reduction of imports, and the ACT had to make its contribution to this restraint. Despite these constraints, there a number of important new initiatives in the Budget, and several existing programs are to be improved or extended. Amongst major new initiatives are the School for Hospitality Studies at the Canberra College of Technical and Further Education, and a sharp increase in pay for nurses. Most people in the community recognise the equity of increased pay for nurses and will therefore support the $16m being allocated for their pay rise. Much of their new pay structure has been agreed, but there are still some important areas of disagreement between the Royal Australian Nursing Federation (RANF) and the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority. This is an industrial dispute between the nurses and their employers which has to be resolved either by negotiation and compromise or by arbitration. So far, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has thought that its role should be limited to statements of general principle about the new pay structure rather than to direct mediation. This is a pity because the Commission could have played a more constructive role in the resolution of this conflict. The value of mediation was shown by the effect of the involvement of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in drawing the parties much closer together and resolving several of the issues in dispute. The dispute between the Health Authority and the RANF, together with the doctors' strike and the recent disputes between the Authority, the Hospital Employees Federation of Australia and the Professional Officers Association, suggests that health industry-industrial relations in the Australian Capital Territory need a thorough overhaul. From outside, it is impossible to know what all the underlying causes of the conflict are, nor where compromise would be responsibly possible. Therefore, I have suggested to the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown), the Health Authority and the unions that an industrial relations expert be engaged as a consultant to study the causes of the problems and recommend solutions. The consultant would have to be acceptable to all the parties-that is, the Authority and the unions. I have also spoken to the President of the Arbitration Commission, and he has recommended someone who might be appropriate. I hope that this proposal will be implemented quickly, because the people of the ACT are thoroughly tired of perpetual conflict in the health area. Far more importantly, the health and security of hundreds of people are being eroded by the frequent stoppages and the loss of morale which inevitably flow from such sustained conflict. Canberra is a dictatorship-a benevolent dictatorship, certainly, but a dictatorship. One man has complete power over every aspect of government in Canberra. This is not a personal criticism of the present Minister, but simply a factual statement about our system of government. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has, among all his responsibilities, complete and final power over most aspects of government in the Australian Capital Territory. In fact, with the amalgamation of all major aspects of government into the Australian Capital Territory administration, and the consolidation of all outlays and revenues into an Australian Capital Territory fiscus, the Minister has more power than ever. He not only controls more functions but also no longer has to consult his ministerial colleagues about his decisions. The Australian Capital Territory residents have no direct way to influence the Minister's decisions. Not only is there no elected Parliament or council for the Territory which would be accountable to the community for decisions, but also the elected members of the Federal Parliament have no direct involvement by right in most decisions affecting the Territory. Of course, we have influence and can make suggestions which are taken seriously, and are often consulted, but this is a most informal and inadequate means of representation of the Territory's interests. The Australian Capital Territory is the only part of any Western democratic nation which does not control any of its own affairs. At present we are a dictatorship without direct representation in the decisions affecting us. The only way in which Australian Capital Territory voters can influence the choice of dictator is by voting at national elections, which determine which party will govern the country. At the last election, the vote for Labor in the Territory increased. In fact, the vote in Fraser went up by more than in any other safe Labor seat in the country. Mr Duncan —Hear, hear! Mr LANGMORE —I thank the honourable member. Some 65 per cent of people, nearly two-thirds of all voters, supported Labor in Fraser on a two-party basis. That was a strong expression of support for the Labor Government, and the Government remains committed to self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. You may remember, Mr Deputy Chairman, that the Government tried to introduce democratic government for the Australian Capital Territory about 18 months ago, but it was stopped by the coalition parties and the Australian Democrats in the Senate. They opposed the electoral system being proposed by the Government-a system which had been reorganised to recognise their concerns. I see the previous Minister, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), sitting here, and I congratulate him on the fine work he did in preparing those proposals. At that time, the Government was suggesting an Australian Capital Territory council in which about half the members would be elected from single member constituencies by preferential voting and half from a Territory-wide electorate elected by proportional representation. This would have provided an opportunity for the representation of small parties, while at the same time providing a framework for stable government. This was a fair compromise between the concerns of all parties, yet even that was rejected. Electoral systems are now being reconsidered, but it will be difficult to find a more reasonable compromise than that previous proposal. Therefore, I hope that each of the other parties will reconsider its position in the coming months so that agreement can be reached on an appropriate system. The introduction of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory is essential for the good government of Canberra. That is increasingly widely recognised in the community, and the election results are some indication of that. The Government will try again to introduce self-government, and I hope that this time the Opposition parties will co-operate. I support the Bill. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(6.17) —I wish to make some remarks in this debate on the appropriation for the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Firstly, I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) the enormous potential that I see in the introduction of regional games throughout rural Australia particularly, and possibly in the capital cities. In Victoria there has been some experience in the organisation of regional games. In 1983 regional games were conducted in south- west Victoria. In 1984 similar games were conducted in Hamilton, with 600 competitors taking part. Since then we have seen games conducted in other areas throughout the State as well as in Queensland, where I believe that such games have had enormous success. In 1984 the first north Queensland regional games took place in Townsville, with some 6,500 competitors in 42 sports. In 1986 these games were held again in Mount Isa with 54 sports and in 1988, as we know, the games are to be conducted in Cairns. Recently I placed before the Minister a submission prepared by Mr Richard Coppin, the Executive Officer of the Northern Mallee Sports Assembly in my electorate. This is an organisation of over 50 sporting bodies operating throughout the Sunraysia region and representing over 10,000 active sports people. This group has managed to put together a submission which has been accepted on a tri-State basis and which will result in regional games being conducted for the first time, with sporting bodies representing the Riverland of South Australia, Broken Hill in New South Wales and the Sunraysia region in my electorate. I believe that the benefits that will accrue to sports men and women, sporting groups and business houses in our region is most significant. This opportunity to initiate the tri-State concept is unique, and, I believe, if handled correctly would enable us, through the Minister in Canberra, to achieve national attention. I believe that in the not too distant future regional games, if given the support of State and Federal governments, will be a significant part of the sporting calendar throughout most of Australia. Ultimately, they may be the regional component of a true Australia games. In the past I have supported the concept of Australia games being held in the period between the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games. Those games have not been as successful as they should have been; they have not attracted the sorts of competitors and competition from overseas that we would have liked. Such games have also been extremely costly to hold. I ask the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories to consider seriously this submission and whether his Department, and the Australian Sports Commission in particular, can allow this concept to be promoted across Australia. The second point I wish to raise is the very significant issue of chemical use in this country-an issue that is creating real concern. It is vital that the Parliament does not allow the debate on chemicals to degenerate in the same way as the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) has allowed the debate on the Queensland rainforests to degenerate. It has done so mainly because of his macho, dictatorial campaign of misinformation. In 1982 the Joint Committee on Environment and Conservation, of which I was a member, took a reference that required it to examine the adequacy of Commonwealth and State legislative arrangements and to research the assessment and dissemination of information on the use of chemicals in this country. The report brought down by that Committee very largely has not been acted upon. We are all aware that chemicals play a large part in our every day lives. Probably the current standard of living in this country and that throughout most of the Western world and parts of the remainder of the world is very much dependent upon chemical products. It is therefore important that we have a balanced debate on this issue and ensure that the essential gains that we have made through chemical use are consolidated and not outweighed by deleterious effects. Of course, the farming community is very interested in this issue. I guess it has been brought to the fore by the crisis in the beef industry. However, it should be remembered that farmers have no desire to use chemicals. They basically use chemicals for two major reasons: firstly, because they are such a part of farm management operations and technique and, secondly, because, particularly in this country, domestic policies, especially in respect of crude oil, have forced the farmers, because of cost, to use chemicals in the major part of their farming operations. I ask the Minister to get his Department to examine the report that was produced by the Joint Committee on Environment and Conservation in 1982. The Committee found that the control of chemicals in this country is poor; that there was enormous fragmentation between the States and the Commonwealth; that there were tremendous deficiencies in the assessment and control machinery of chemicals; that most industrial chemicals, particularly cosmetics and toiletries, did not require any assessment or clearance prior to their being marketed in this country; and, perhaps of more concern, that the public health structure of the National Health and Medical Research Council was not sufficiently comprehensive and it was very slow in coming to grips with problems associated with chemical use. The Minister should ensure that his Department acts quickly on this report. It is not the role of primary producers or those engaged in secondary industry or manufacturing to understand the effects and the hazards of chemicals. Suitable agencies such as the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, the Commmonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the National Health and Medical Research Council and the committees of this Parliament are responsible for the assessment of hazardous chemicals. It is their role to look into these matters, and they should do so immediately before some of the problems that were encountered in recent weeks in the beef industry are imposed upon us. I wish to refer now to the Queensland rainforest situation. The debate on that matter has been conducted in such a way that we have been provided with no information that would allow us to make a balanced assessment. I particularly blame the Minister for the Environment and the Arts for the present situation. Even at meetings held this week, in answer to three questions posed to him, he virtually stated without any explanation that the heritage listing would go ahead, no matter what, and that all logging would cease, no matter what. The only topic open for discussion was the very vague one of compensation. In the few minutes I have left, it is worth while to make a few points about the Queensland rainforest issue. We know that no clear-felling of rainforests for timber harvesting purposes has been taking place in Queensland State forests. We know that less than 20 per cent of the rainforest is available for harvesting; that is, 75 per cent of the 850,000 hectares in that area which stretches some 500 kilometres from Townsville to Cooktown, is either designated national park or is not available for logging. We know that in the areas where logging does take place in that less than 20 per cent of the rainforest, only six to 10 trees are harvested per hectare. Only one-half of one per cent of rainforest is disturbed by harvesting in any one year. Only trees marked by forestry officers may be harvested. Their professional management and dedication to their environment have ensured that Queensland has this enormous and lasting resource of rainforest potential. As we know also, harvesting is carried on only in a 40-year cycle. It is ironic to contemplate where we will get our timber supplies from if timber operations in this country are curtailed. Last year Australia exported some $324m worth of timber and imported $1,607m worth of timber. In other words, our import-export ratio is 5 : 1. It seems to me that we will have to seek alternative sources of hardwood for importation from areas such as Asia and Brazil where forest management is often substandard. If the purpose of the lock up of Australian rainforests is to preserve the world's rainforests, I believe the opposite effect will be achieved. The morality of stopping the harvesting in Queensland is highly questionable. It is surely wrong to shift the harvesting out of sight-in other words, overseas-simply because we are an affluent country. Apparently it is immoral to chop down trees in Australia but it is all right for it to be done overseas. Sitting suspended from 6.27 to 8 p.m. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.00) —I wish to speak tonight in relation to the estimates for the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, but particularly in relation to the Territories aspect and in relation to the environment. Firstly, I want to raise one brief matter on which the Minister may care to comment. I do not know the way in which stationery is used in the government service, but I must say that members on this side of the chamber are disturbed always when information comes into their hands where obviously the facilities that are provided to employees of government are abused by, in this case, an organisation called the Redeployment Action Group. The president of that group happens to be one of our parliamentary colleagues, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore), although I am sure he would not have been involved in this himself. On 7 October this letter, in which Government members might be quite interested, which is rather caustic, in fact, of the Government for ignoring its long-standing responsibilities for the work force engaged by the Australian Public Service, was sent on stationery headed `Department of Territories'. It is a matter I think that warrants some investigation as to how the facilities of government departments come to be used in that way-I suspect used quite improperly-and I am sure my colleague would want the matter investigated. I am sure also the Government itself would like to know how it comes about that the facilities of departments are used quite improperly in that way. The other matter that I want to address relates particularly to the carriage of toxic chemicals on our roads. Honourable members may recall that some weeks ago there was a toxic chemical spill on the Hume Highway near Breadalbane, between Yass and Goulburn. There, on 11 September this year, some 30 of 70 drums of poisonous solvent, methylene chloride, ruptured after falling from a truck which had taken a corner too sharply. Honourable members will remember well, I am sure, the photographs that appeared of men wearing special gas masks, and equipment designed for mopping up this solvent. They needed full protective clothing and breathing apparatus to ensure that the road could be cleared. But, of course, the road on that occasion was closed for something of the order of 12 hours. I know that investigations are proceeding and it is perhaps too early to state whether the truck was going too fast or whether all the statutory requirements for the carriage of dangerous goods were being met. Of course, it has been reported that the driver has been charged with negligent driving. Although the full details of the accident are not known and there are still many worrying aspects that need to be addressed. Members will be aware that the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation undertook two inquiries into the carriage of hazardous chemicals. When the first Committee report was brought down it contained a recommendation that if State governments had failed to incorporate the Australian code for transport of dangerous goods by road and rail into legislation by 1985, the Commonwealth should legislate to enforce the code to the full extent of its power. There was a second report tabled in the Parliament. That report said specifically that it repeated its earlier recommendation and further recommended that the Australian code for transport of dangerous goods by road and rail be amended as soon as possible to include a comprehensive and detailed response to measures which take into account environmental hazards associated with chemical emergencies. I have never seen a response to that Committee report, but I understand that we are still in a situation where all States, except Victoria, it seems, have incorporated into legislation the Australia code for transport of dangerous goods by road and rail, the fourth edition of which was published in the periodical Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 7 April, 1987. The code was put together under the auspices of the Australian Transport Advisory Council and was based on recommendations prepared by the United Nations Committee of Experts on Transport of Dangerous Goods. The fact of the matter is that this chemical, methylene chloride, is listed as packaging group III under that code. That is the least dangerous of three categories. I might say that some of the material that I have seen published on these matters suggests that this particular product is one of the fastest growing in terms of usage and, of course, is more frequently being carried on our roads as a result of that growth factor. The approved method of transport of methylene chloride is in fairly ordinary 44-gallon-type steel drums, according to the Department of Transport and Communications, and such drums need survive only a 0.9 metre drop under standard conditions without leaking. If methylene chloride had been classified as packaging group I, then the approved drums would have to survive a drop of two metres. While there are clearly much worse chemical nasties around than this chemical product-for example, explosives, poisonous gases, such as chlorine and substances which react violently with water-there is good reason for the listing of methylene chloride as a dangerous substance in the code. Standard reference books in the Parliamentary Library refer to it as very dangerous to the eyes; decomposing by contact with hot surfaces and open flame to yield phosgene, a highly toxic gas, and, hence, a disaster hazard; a narcotic; an anaesthetic in high concentrations, and can lead to death; and is becoming one of the most important halogenated industrial solvents, especially at low-temperature extractions. Methylene chloride appears to have been listed by the United Nations as only a group III chemical because of its relatively low toxicity compared with the most common industrial solvents, but the overall hazard is really different because of the different speeds of carriage, the different standards of roads and, of course, how often it is being transported. I have indicated that it is being transported more frequently on our roads at this time. Other important hazard factors include the release of toxic phosgene under conditions of heat-which is likely in a road accident, and, of course, this is more likely to occur in some of the more isolated and certainly dry areas of Australia-and an inhalation hazard in enclosed situations, where deaths have occurred. To sum up, a relatively mild type of accident such as occurred on the Hume Highway has resulted in a significant spillage of a chemical which could have been very dangerous under different conditions, where we could have seen fire in an enclosed space or if it had occurred in a built-up area, and so on. In effect, the listing of methylene chloride in the dangerous goods code seems to change nothing so far as its transport and packaging is concerned. The approved packaging is in an ordinary drum which could be used anywhere. One can therefore ask whether the code is helpful at all in preventing such a spillage. The method of securement of drums to trucks is not well spelt out in the code, so securement and drum strength emerge as particular problems in this accident, apart from the negligence of the driver. Perhaps securement could be tested by swerve tests on a standard course using a truck loaded with drums of a harmless liquid of equal density to dangerous chemicals such as methylene chloride. I have made some inquiries in relation to the availability of drums and the cost involved of making a change to ensure that this product is carried in a drum which will enable it to survive a two-metre fall. If one obtains the closed head type with two small holes in the top for pouring, heavy duty, which is the most expensive, it costs $42.59. That is used for group I and some group II chemicals of the highest density. The medium gauge drums would cost $33.73, and the light gauge, for group II and group III products, would cost $30.86. The costs for the open head drums are different again. One can see from the costs I have mentioned that for a mere $12 more one would be able to have this dangerous product carried in a drum that would be able to survive a fall, which is very likely if it is loaded on the back of a truck and the truck has an accident. Is it any wonder in this case that 30 drums went off the back of the truck, fell that short distance and broke open? For 12 hours the most important highway in Australia was closed to traffic and many people had to put themselves at risk to clear the area. The community was put to very considerable cost and difficulty as a consequence. There is a need for urgent action on the Government's part to enable this particular problem to be addressed. We deserve a clear response from the Government to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation report which, about four years ago, raised some of these problems and difficulties. Although a parliamentary committee has sought action, there has been no response of an adequate nature. There has been a further accident on our roads, which indicates the nature of the continuing problem that faces us. Clear and unambiguous action is required on the Government's part to ensure that this difficulty is properly addressed. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Community Services and Health Proposed expenditure, $1,251,369,000. Department of Veterans' Affairs Proposed expenditure, $1,141,145,000. Department of Aboriginal Affairs Proposed expenditure, $317,510,000. [Quorum formed] Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.15) —I am grateful for the enlarged audience as I speak on the estimates for the Department of Community Services and Health. This Department has the responsibility for the Government's housing program, and that is the matter I wish to address. I can recall not so long ago, when I was a Government member, time and time again Labor members of parliament emphasising the plight of young people anxious to obtain their own homes in our great cities. One of the aspects I lament most is that tonight those honourable members seem keen to leave the chamber and not participate in this debate. I would have liked the opportunity to take them through their speeches about the plight and circumstances of our young people who are not able to acquire their own homes. What I want to do in the course of this debate is to ensure that people are aware of what is happening in our society today, because it has never been more difficult for young people in the Australian community to obtain their own homes than it is at this time. It is well known that interest rates under the Australian Labor Party have risen to quite extraordinary levels. Though there has been some levelling recently, the high levels of interest rates have made it very difficult for young people to obtain accommodation. With the prospect of interest rates levelling out and young people being given the opportunity to seek loans to obtain homes, the Government has been reducing its own commitment through first home ownership schemes in general, and the prices of houses have continued to rise at a rate which will place ordinary homes outside the reach of young people aspiring to own their first homes. In the city I come from, the city of Sydney, it is quite clear that the significant level of prices for homes in areas close to the city is flowing out to locations more distant from the city. House prices there are reaching quite astronomical levels. It can cost in excess of $100,000 to buy an ordinary two-bedroom or three-bedroom home. Prices of this order are out of the range of most young people when they are first setting out to acquire a home. One of the reasons for this change in the level of prices in Sydney is not, as the Labor Party would have us believe, that there has been a limited number of foreign investors seeking to invest moneys in property in Sydney. The primary reason it has occurred is that the whole pattern of investment in this country has changed as a result of the tax policies of the Labor Government. The most significant issue that has impacted upon prices has been the imposition of the Government's capital gains tax. The capital gains tax, implemented as it has been so the principal home is exempt, has meant that many people are now investing in upgrading their homes. They are putting more money into extensions, buying more expensive homes in more expensive or salubrious areas. The flow-on effects of those investment patterns have been considerable. In Sydney some homes are now approaching prices not of $1m or $2m but $8m, $9m and $10m. The principal reason for that has not been the investment by people from overseas in properties in that city. It has been substantially because of the Government's taxation policies whereby people have been encouraged to change their investment pattern. The Labor Party would have us believe that the change announced in the recent Budget, whereby the Government reintroduced negative gearing after having previously abolished it, will have a significant impact on private investment and that larger numbers of rental properties will be made available. I have to say to the Government that its belief that the reintroduction of negative gearing will be a significant factor in encouraging people to invest in rental housing, to build new home units and so on and put them on the rental market, is a very naive approach indeed. The fact is that the disinvestment in rental properties occurred not only because of the abolition of negative gearing; the more significant factor, in my view, in the changed investment pattern was, once again, the introduction of a capital gains tax. That tax that the Government brought in is still in place. It is very unlikely that the reintroduction of negative gearing will have the impact that the Government thought it might have when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced this change in the recent Budget. I say to the Government that, as I have moved around my electorate, particularly during the last election, one of the most significant factors I noticed in areas such as Ryde, West Ryde and Meadowbank was that, where there had been significant investment in rental accommodation in previous years, those sorts of investments have not been taking place in more recent years. Rental properties have become in short demand and, as a consequence, rentals have been increasing significantly. It was a major factor in the swing against the Government in metropolitan Sydney in particular. Young people who otherwise would have sought to acquire their own home or to rent accommodation in Sydney were finding that the prospect of either renting reasonable accommodation or owning their own home was getting beyond their reach. When that occurs we see very significant changes. None of the decisions by this Government in the recent Budget has addressed the problems that young people face in finding housing in the major urban centres of Australia. The fact is that the Budget, particularly the budget of the Department of Community Services and Health wherein the responsibility for housing now lies, will mean that the plight of the young people in our community will be aggravated even further in future years. I say to the Government that, when it faces an election at some future time, there will be a very severe problem facing young people, and at the ballot box the Government will face a very significant rebuff because of the extent to which it has failed to recognise the enormity of that problem. It is in that context that I believe that we ought to look very critically at the budget of the Department of Community Services and Health and encourage the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) to look not only at the direct lines in the Budget where he allocates funds for housing but also at the particular tax changes that the Labor Party introduced without any real knowledge of the way in which market forces operate. I refer particularly to the capital gains tax which has had such a disastrous impact on the housing needs of young people in the Australian community. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(8.25) —I want to address my remarks to the appropriations for child care within the Department of Community Services and Health. This Budget provides the Government with the financial resources to implement the 1984 election promise by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to create 20,000 new child care places by 1988. It will also enable extensive indexation of subsidies from 1 October. Total child care spending is up from $175m to $235m, that is by 34 per cent. No comparable program has experienced such growth. Amongst those increases for family day care, the operational subsidy is indexed and a new equipment grant of $50 per place will now be payable to new services. These measures will improve conditions for family day carers and are a positive response to considerable public pressure for an increase. For outside school hours care, the operational subsidy is indexed and existing services will get a once only upgrading grant of $300 for the purchase and maintenance of equipment. In addition, the establishment grant for new services has been increased from $500 to $1,500. In the area of vacation care, Commonwealth grants to the States and Territories are up by 10 per cent, from $3.5m to $3.8m. For centre based day care, the amount allocated for the capital upgrading of existing services is up from $1m to $2.8m, and the operational subsidy is indexed. An extra $0.7m has been provided for supplementary services, in addition to the $5.4m already provided this year. These services will improve access to mainstream services for groups with special needs, a real priority under our child care program. The operational subsidies for occasional care are indexed and are up from $16 to $17. In times of economic restraint, this Government's support of child care has grown markedly over the last 4 1/2 years, but it has not been easy. It is an expensive program and it still does not service the existing need, let alone the growing need. Government initiatives to assist women in the work force, such as equal opportunity and affirmative action programs, go hand in hand with the need for access to affordable quality child care. Yet, even when the 20,000 new places are all delivered, nine out of 10 Australian children will not have access. The demand for child care will continue to increase as a result of the likely increase in women's labour force participation rates. Every member of this chamber is aware of the demand-of the long waiting lists at child care centres, the legitimate expectations of families who need two incomes to exist and the desperate cases of those unable to find child care. We know that the number of families in poverty would double if women could not go to work. So, of course, this program is one of the utmost importance to this Government and will remain so while we continue to try to fill the need. That is why I find it incredible and offensive that now, with the essential nature of the program so well established, we are starting to hear questioning of the Government's involvement in the provision of child care and to hear suggestions that it should perhaps be left to the private sector. We hear attacks on the cost of the program, questions on the very need for it and questions on the need for standards of quality care, which include attacks on carers as being self-serving. Worst of all, we hear claims that this child care program subsidises middle class women at the expense of the poorer taxpayer. That is a complete misunderstanding of the aims of, and the need for, the child care program and a complete misrepresentation of the facts of the current provision of child care. I want to nail the false propaganda being put about and I want to give some facts. The first piece of deceitful propaganda is that the Labor Government wants to, or should, get out of its involvement in child care funding. The Australian Labor Party remains committed to the program it has developed as a result of its policy commitment in 1973. It understands as a government the necessity for the program and will continue to give priority to it. It has no intention of relinquishing its role. We believe that the provision of affordable quality child care is one of the keys to social justice and the elimination of poverty. The second falsehood is that this Government could ever come to the view that child care should be the responsibility of the private sector. The fact is that the private sector is interested in profit, has never had a large investment or an interest in the field and has consistently fought government regulations and standards. The third falsehood being spread is that the child care program is one which merely subsidises the middle class. The fact is that fees in Commonwealth funded services are charged on the basis of a family's capacity to pay. The lowest income families receive the highest fee relief subsidy. One who spreads falsehoods is David Clark. In an article in the Australian Financial Review of 28 September he said: All but $4-$5 of the $91 average cost of centre based care is provided by the Commonwealth. As Deb Brennan has pointed out, that is completely false. As she says, people on joint incomes above about $33,000 or $34,000 a year are paying fees of about $90 a week, but their subsidy from the Commonwealth is about $14 or $15 a week. So, those attacks are based on a complete reversal of the facts. I remind Mr Clark that joint incomes of $33,000 or so a year are probably the incomes of two people earning about $15,000 or $16,000 a year each-in other words, probably unskilled workers and hardly the middle class. In the same article David Clark said that children of wealthy parents keep the children of poor families out of child care centres. The fact is that places in Commonwealth funded child care centres are allocated according to priority of access guidelines. These guidelines give pri- ority to parents seeking employment or training or who are in the work force. In addition, high priority is given to children with disabilities, Aboriginal children, and children from ethnic communities. Again, David Clark talks derisively about the `potty lobby'. Apart from his facile insults, particularly to the many men and women who are part of the child care lobby, does David Clark not understand the need for, and the provision of, out-of-school services for children between the ages of five years and 12 years-a vital part of the Commonwealth's child care program? The history of this program is that at the 1973 Australian Labor Party conference, the Party adopted a policy to provide comprehensive, community based, government funded child care to be delivered on a priority of need. In the years since then, that policy has been developed. It was adopted as a response to the demand from working women and women in need all over Australia. I was one of three women who attended that conference to lobby for the adoption of this resolution, because it expressed the needs of women throughout Australia. I cannot believe that now, in 1987, we are having to fight again some of the arguments that were advanced in those days by people who simply did not understand that working women were leaving children tied to their cots, leaving them in locked houses, because they could not provide them with child care or else they were making private child care arrangements which were far from suitable for their children. Our policy did not originate from a middle class push; it was quite the reverse. It was because of the way our policy developed, and because it was responding to the needs of working women, that we had to abandon our original submission-based model and make sure that the Government discovered where the need lay. The submission-based model meant that often people from the better heeled sections of the community, and people who knew the ropes, were able to make a submission and get child care. More importantly, many of those areas where the need was greatest did not have the know-how to put in those submissions. We have now adopted a program whereby committees in each State assess the availability of child care, investigate the need and decide where child care services will be established. This Government has a proud record in child care. It has achieved more than all previous governments. The completion of the Government's program for 20,000 new places at the end of 1988 will mean that the number of child care places funded by the Commonwealth will increase from 45,000, when we came to office, to 110,000. This is the most substantial growth in child care funding undertaken by any Australian government. There is still a very long way to go, but I can assure all those who need child care facilities that this Government will not withdraw from an essential responsibility to fund those services. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(8.35) —It is a great pity that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) cannot take part in this debate tonight as I think he would have a lot to say about the programs administered by the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). The Minister for Finance has some fundamental concerns about the philosophy of those programs. It was he who said the other day-I think in Perth-to the Society of Labor Lawyers that one of the great mistakes was that child care was ever taken out of the private sector. I do not think the Minister's reasons for that comment were reported comprehensively, but let me just go through some of the mathematics so that people listening tonight will perhaps understand why Senator Walsh, who probably has greater claims to be Treasurer of this nation than the present incumbent, would make such a remark. If the money currently spent by this Government on community based child care were put into the private sector, another 20,000 child care places would be available. What that really means is that there are 20,000 children in the community who, as the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) said, are tied to beds and locked in houses because this Government is committed to public sector child care. If the funds were put into the private sector, 20,000 additional places would be available on an annual basis. I see the Minister for Community Services and Health is taking notes. In order that he might have comprehensive notes, let me go through the mathematics for him. Private child care is about $7 a day cheaper than public child care. The basis of that calculation is simple. There are about 38,000 community child care places. If they were shifted to the private sector, on the basis of a saving of $7 a day, about 20,000 more places would be available. Using the example of a child care centre in Brisbane-and the centre makes a profit-the cost is about $13 per child per day. The cost of a community child care centre in Melbourne is about $20 a child per day, and it does not make a profit. The difference is $7. If one starts looking at the allocations, it is fairly simple to see where the additional 20,000 places come from. A previous Minister for Community Services, the much missed Senator Don Grimes, said that one of the great problems he had with the militant feminist lobby was that he did not believe there should be gold plated child care for a certain privileged section of the community while the overwhelming majority missed out. I think the logic of Senator Grimes's argument is most compelling. In a community where we cannot provide for everybody access to this important facility, what right do we have to provide gold plated child care for a certain privileged section of the community? I believe that the Minister for Community Services and Health, as a good, committed democratic socialist-and he is certainly not a bourgeois, from the remarks I have seen attributed to him in various places about identity cards and the right to hold private property-would certainly agree that there should be an egalitarian model for child care. On that basis perhaps he would have some sympathy for the argument that there should be maximum access to child care facilities. That brings me to the point of the philosophy of the Department of Community Services and Health at the present time. I have high hopes that under the administration of the Minister, who has a reputation for intelligence, logic and a rational approach-and I hope that reputation will not be undermined simply because of his ill-guided attempts to introduce a facility that would name, number and photograph and otherwise identify about 16 million Australian men, women and children-the remainder of the Administration will see that he is applying a degree of intellectual rigour to the expenditures of his Department to ensure that we optimise the benefit to the Australian community. We have a problem not only in child care, as a result of departmental attitudes, but also in domiciliary care. The Department-I hope not with the blessing of the Minister-has gone to the service model approach. The problem with the service model approach is that it really does not take into account the needs of those people who are seeking domiciliary care. It pretends that in some circumstances a group of people who are providers of that care, or who are arbitrators of the system, can determine what is the appropriate type and style of care and conditions of service for those people. I have spoken to a number of community groups who are involved with people with disabilities. There is a fundamental disagreement with the philosophy of the Department with the expenditure of these funds. The consequences of this difference in philosophy are seen again in the number of people who actually benefit from Commonwealth Government expenditure. As a result of the commitment to the service model approach, the number of people who will benefit from the expenditure has been reduced dramatically. I would like to quote from a report on the Department of Community Services and Health from the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled (ACROD) to its members in which it deals specifically with disability services. ACROD. In the report, talked in part on the national attendant care scheme. It said that the scheme had survived as a government program. It expressed some gratitude that it had. The report states: When announced last year funding was estimated at $0.5 million in 1986/87, $4 million in 1987/88 and $6.5 million in 1988/89-the same as the figures presented here. What is different, regrettably, is the number of people who will benefit under the program. Originally it was thought 100 people would enter the scheme in the first year rising to 360 by the end of 1988/89. I remind honourable members that we are talking about a national program and 100 people are not really significant in terms of the Australian population of people with disabilities, and really 360 is not all that significant. But it is a start and I believe that the Government should be given some recognition for moving in the right direction. The report goes on: The first $0.5 million we understand has been fully expended and only about 50 people are now on the scheme. The original estimate was 100, so that is a 50 per cent failure in the Government's estimates. The report continues: The steep increase in the costs of the service model are the problem- I think the Minister should take note of this and ask his Department to give some explanation as to why the cost effectiveness of this program has been reduced- especially since the introduction of new award rates in several States-at this rate we will not reach 200 people by the end of the third year. And, I add, not the 360 estimated in the program. ACROD has expressed some concern about this. While 360 or 200 people are not really significant in terms of the total number of people who are seeking this sort of assistance and who are in genuine need of this sort of assistance, what is really important is to examine the consequences of a particular approach to program spending. As I said when I was talking about child care, this country cannot afford gold plated anything right now. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), depending on the mood of their rhetoric at the time, would probably agree. The Prime Minister at times has said that we are at war, that we have the most difficult economic circumstances we have encountered for some time. If the objective of the Department of Community Services and Health is to provide the best possible assistance we can afford to the maximum number of people consistent with responsible fiscal administration, perhaps we should look at the approach we use to expend these moneys. It is fine to cave in to the trade union movement if we can afford it, but it is not appropriate to cave in to militant trade unions when it is at the expense of people with disabilities. Let me tell the Minister that that is exactly what is going on right now. We have awards that have been handed down in various States which are concerned with the benefits and conditions of people who are providing the service and not with the people with disabilities. That is something that has to be looked at. If there were more time in this debate tonight I would like to address the question of nursing home residential care for aged people. There has been, on the part of this Government, a willingness to politicise the provision of this very important facility in the Australian community. There has not been, in the four years of this Government's administration, any concerted attempt to come up with a comprehensive, consistent and viable policy for aged care in Australia. Not only has the Government failed in terms of income support-we do not have an effective retirement incomes policy in this country-but also we do not have a viable aged care policy. All we have got is a piecemeal approach to provide patches to the existing system. After four years one would think a government with a commitment to this area would have done something. I hope that the Minister is not tempted to say at the conclusion of this debate that nothing was done by the previous Government. It is a bit like saying that nothing was done by the Fisher Government. After four years in the job, it cannot pass the buck. It has had a majority in this place for some time. It has had the capacity to do something and it has done nothing. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(8.45) —I propose tonight to confine my remarks at the committee stage of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. In so doing I wish to put matters in perspective. Next year, 1988, this country celebrates 200 years of white settlement on the east coast of Australia. Being from the west coast, I particularly mention the east coast of Australia. Yet in the euphoria surrounding the Bicentenary it is important that we do not forget the original settlers, who we now know were living in Australia as long as 40,000 years ago-the Aboriginals of Australia. This Government cannot take the high ground in debates in world forums on racialism when there is still too much racialism displayed in this country against Aboriginals. One cannot forget the vicious and mischievous propaganda put out by the mining industry against land rights-a campaign blatant in its misuse of the facts concerning land rights acquisition. The legacy of that campaign still lingers on. This places an onus on the Government to embark on a program of education to combat the rampant racialism that still exists in this country. After 200 years of white settlement, we find that all the major social indicators show that Aboriginal people are Australia's most deprived and underprivileged. No white Australian can be proud of the fact that life expectancy at birth is 20 years less than for all other Australians. We cannot be proud of the fact that Aboriginal child mortality is three times higher than the national average. We cannot be proud of the fact that in some communities up to 36 per cent of Aboriginal children aged under 10 suffer from some form of trachoma compared with 1.6 per cent of non-Aboriginal children. We cannot be proud of the fact that many Aboriginal families live in sub-standard housing or temporary shelters. We cannot be proud of the fact that the unemployment rate for Aboriginals is six times the national rate. Nor can we be proud of the fact that the imprisonment rate for Aboriginals is 20 times that for the total population. That is a sorry recital of the state of play in Aboriginal affairs in this country today. It is not my intention to look for scapegoats, for this situation has been brought about by years of neglect by governments of differing political persuasions at both the Commonwealth and State levels. We all share the blame for this sorry state of affairs. This Government since 1983 has had a commitment to overcome these problems and to assist Aboriginals in the achievement of these goals. This can be demonstrated by the fact that since 1983 the Government has greatly increased spending on Aboriginal programs. In the 1987-88 Budget there has been an increase of 8 per cent in real terms. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who I note, is at the table, has made that clear, and I quote: The Government is determined to increase and improve Aboriginal economic independence and to ensure that essential services are delivered to Aboriginal communities. He has a difficult task. Knowing the Minister, I am aware that he does not underestimate his task. I am sure, however, that he will devote all his energies to accomplish his aims. I must, however, intercede with a word of warning: it does not help the Aboriginal community for the Government to provide large sums of money if that money does not filter down to the grassroots where it is most needed. Too many people involved in this area are taking some of that money before it reaches the grassroots. There is a need for strong accountability. There is a need to co-ordinate services among the State, Territory and Federal governments. We cannot afford overlapping and duplication of services. This is a problem of which I am sure the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is aware, and he will attempt to overcome it. I have already referred to the health problems of Aboriginal people. I note in Budget Paper No. 1, Budget Statements 1987-88, that the Government is committed to raising Aboriginal health standards to the level enjoyed by all Australians. Of the amount provided for Aboriginal health programs in 1987-88, $23.6m, compared with $19.6m in 1986-87, is expected to be applied to the operating costs of 55 Aboriginal health services, including four that were established or first funded during 1986-87. I am also very pleased that $4.6m will be allocated for programs to combat problems caused by alcohol, illicit drugs and the sniffing of volatile substances such as petrol and glue. In my travels with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs-the present Minister was with me on many of those trips-the extent of petrol and glue sniffing in the outback was alarming. It is an issue which we cannot leave alone. We must try to come to grips with the problem and overcome it. The lack of water and sanitation in some communities leads to poor health. The Government deserves to be congratulated on providing $7.9m for the provision of public health works, such as safe and adequate water supplies, sewerage systems and associated power generation, to alleviate the ill health that arises from sub-standard living conditions. I am pleased that the Minister has read with understanding and sympathy the report of members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs entitled Return to Country, who were unanimous in their support for the Aboriginal homelands movement. The Government is considering that report, which is intended to address the critical needs of outstation centres to ensure the availability to dwellers in such communities of the minimum basic living standards which are commensurate with their lifestyles. That Committee in its travels around the outback certainly saw some of the most depressing sights that any committee could have witnessed. There are Third World conditions in Australia which need very urgent and critical attention. Finally, I appeal to the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles)-who, I am glad to see, is present-to follow the example set by his predecessor, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who showed a real willingness, as a member of the Standing Committee, to work towards a bipartisan approach in this very sensitive area of public policy. Having got to know the shadow Minister, I am sure that I can look forward to his co-operation in the tasks ahead. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.55) —I wish to speak tonight about the area of health. I would like first to make a remark about the speech made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard). I do not want to be critical of him, but when the honourable member, who spoke so strongly on behalf of the Aboriginal people, realises that $500m a year is spent in this area, he might ask himself what we are doing wrong. I think the problem might be that we have thought that money would solve the problem. I sincerely suggest that we must look very carefully at how we are spending the money and how it should be delivered to those areas of need. Mr Blanchard —That is what I said. Mr TUCKEY —Good; we agree on that. We are having a good night so far. I wish primarily to talk about the problems of health. Mr Hand —We are in fact doing it too, by the way. Mr TUCKEY —I think we have tended to satisfy ourselves by allocating the money and maybe not allocating the effort. Of course, expenditure on health has again moved ahead of interest charges to the Commonwealth. I do not know which Minister has responsibility for interest charges; I suppose it is the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Last year interest charges to the Commonwealth exceeded our expenditure on health, defence, education and, in fact, everything but social security. The Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) may be pleased to know, although I am concerned about it, that health is consuming more of the Australian taxpayers' money than interest charges. It is a huge amount of money, of the order of $8,212.9m. That figure comprises an estimated $3,527m for medical services and benefits, $1,685.5m for hospital services and benefits, $999m for pharmaceutical services and benefits, and $1,442.8m for nursing home subsidies and domiciliary care services. These are huge amounts of money, and there are other lesser amounts. In particular, expenditure in the area of pharmaceutical services and benefits is 14.8 per cent higher than the figure for the year before, whereas expenditure on medical services and benefits has grown by 8.8 per cent, and on hospital services and benefits by 8 per cent. The point that I want to make, of course, is that the Australian people have had to fund this massive increase. The estimated total increase for the year is $713m, of which $350m is to be picked up by the increase in the Medicare levy-something, of course, that Australians were promised would never happen. A free medical service was to be funded by a one per cent levy on tax revenue. It should be remembered that the tax base has increased dramatically. Nevertheless, the Government has found the need to raise the levy to 1.25 per cent. If we are prepared to make the calculation, we will see that the area of medical services and benefits is the area which is primarily serviced by the levy. The levy, which this year will bring in an estimated $2,065m, barely compares with the $3,527m of expenditure on medical services and benefits. Quite clearly, some of that money must also be spent in the area of hospital services and benefits. I think that the Minister should make it a practice in these debates of telling us the true cost of the service we understand to be Medicare. It is very difficult to find it in the Budget Papers as a single, one-line item. Considering the publicity it gets and the amount of claims that the Government makes on its behalf, one would think that the Government would be quite prepared to tell us exactly what the service costs. I guess it could say that there is some difficulty in doing that, but it would be very helpful to us and to taxpaying Australians in order to make some judgment as to whether the service is worth it. I do not think it is worth it. I think now everyone knows that Medicare is a disaster. We have talked about the cost of Medicare, and it is notable that health was one of the major areas of cost overrun following last year's Budget. Quite huge amounts were involved. Pharmaceutical benefits overran by $76m, hospital services for veterans by $42m, nursing home benefits by $30m, nursing home assistance by $25m, and home and community care by $9m. A large number of other cost overruns, particularly that in nursing homes, were related to substantial increases in awards for nurses. The community and I would agree with many of those increases, but it shows what a tiger the Government has by the tail in attempting to give the community free medical services when in fact many could afford to pay themselves. I think the Government's responsibility should be better directed, towards those who cannot. I do not think the Government's intention was to provide service for those who cannot afford it; it just wanted to grab the medical services of Australia by the throat. Earlier today the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) was boasting about how efficient he would make his Department, about how he would make it compete with the private sector. He did not really tell us how it would compete with the private sector, although he did tell us that the private sector would not be able to bid for work in many areas. We have discovered the same situation in the health area. Instead of the public sector facing the healthy competition of the private sector, particularly from private hospitals, the Government has denied private hospitals the opportunity to compete in the open market. There is a special market for public hospitals. People who choose to pay just the levy and go to hospital as public patients have to go where they are directed-and they are not directed to private hospitals. We have this most remarkable situation of huge waiting lists. We are going to start a club for the patients in waiting. I am sure that in time the Minister will be embarrassed by their activities. The reality is that, as I understand it, probably every day of the year we have some 9,000 vacant beds in the private sector. They are public resources already invested in health and it is absolutely ridiculous that the Government should boast that this year it asked the Australian taxpayer to contribute an additional $25m-almost the sum of the deficit, if the Treasurer has it right-for the purpose of expanding the public hospital sector whilst we have those sorts of vacancies. We can call them private resources, we can call them public resources-it is people's money sitting there, having been invested, and those resources are being underutilised purely and simply because of government policy. That does not make sense to me; it would not make sense to anybody but a socialist who believes that those things do not have to be explained and that there is some difference between private money and public money. When we take the public money from private people, it is all the same. It is obvious that governments should look at that, and they should be prepared to accept the discipline of the efficiencies of a private hospital versus a public hospital. We get it to a degree, and we are told there is probably a $100 per bed per day cost difference. I know that figure cannot be used properly because of the additional responsibilities often accepted by public hospitals, particularly their responsibility as teaching hospitals; but it does not change the fact that when all that is accounted for it just happens to cost more to run a public hospital than a private hospital. If people had a choice and the Government contracted to buy the cheapest beds in the market-place, there might be some sense in what it is doing. The Minister would not want to say that I am therefore suggesting a substantial lowering of services. In my mind getting the cheapest in the market-place means getting the cheapest price for the same service. We have here a remarkable situation. A noted tertiary educationist, a man of considerable intellect, said to me on a plane a couple of years ago that it would be absolutely essential-this was rather refreshing, coming from the education sector-to introduce tertiary fees. That was his argument, not particularly mine. It was based on a simple premise: the longer tertiary education stayed hooked on the Government, the closer students would be to getting from that sector exactly what they were paying-namely, nothing.That is the situation that will confront people in the health area before very long. The Minister is well aware that, as much as he would like to, he cannot conscript doctors, and doctors will maintain an independent stance and become less and less available to the public sector. It is no good bullying them and trying to tell them that they are cheats and things like that, even though some of them might be. The reality is that the Government would be much better letting them provide the service and assistance to the community instead of trying to run, with its State colleagues, a huge business in the delivery of medicine. Furthermore, in most cases, the smaller it gets in terms of unit delivery, the better it is. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(9.05) —The appropriations for the Department of Veterans' Affairs total some $3.8 billion, but there is a significant program over and above that amount which delivers to veterans a unique form of redress in their claims for pensions. That program is the pensions appeal system. The key element of that program is the Veterans Review Board (VRB). The Board's function is to review decisions of the Repatriation Commission, and seamen's pensions and allowances committees, on such matters as claims for the acceptance of injury or disease as service related, claims for war widows' pensions and the assessment of the rate of pension paid for service related incapacity. In other words, the Board considers appeals from the Repatriation Commission on disability and widows' pensions. The disability pension is awarded at two basic levels: the general rate and, the most valuable of all pensions, the special rate, or the totally and permanently incapacitated pension-the TPI. One of the many success stories in repatriation has been the work of the Veterans Review Board. I was privileged to serve as a member of the Board in Queensland from its inception in January 1985 until my resignation prior to my election to the House. The Board was established by this Government in order to shorten the lengthy queue of appeals to its predecessor, the Repatriation Review Tribunal. The Board for the first time enabled the establishment of panels of review in each State, including Queensland, which has the third largest veteran community, where previously they had existed only in Melbourne and Sydney. The Board is the second tier of the review process, which commences at the Commission and ends, on the matter of review of the merits of a case, at the senior Commonwealth tribunal, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As I wrote in a recent edition of the Queensland Law Journal, one measure of the maturity of a government is the ability of the individual to seek the reasons for a decision and for a government to supply those reasons. Although the whole area of redress to decisions of governments as they concern the individual is an expensive one, I can assure the chamber, from my experience, that administrative tribunals are a very fair and civilised way indeed to conduct open government. Administrative tribunals have their critics, but the fact that a veteran, with or without an advocate, and at no cost, can have a hearing, can have his day in court and receive written reasons for the decision of the Board, is a marvellous thing. In the many hundreds of cases that I sat on, I always remember how nervously some veterans started out, but how calm and relaxed they were by the conclusion of the hearing. I remember these were people of senior years who were suffering serious illness and/or disability or, in the case of the widows, a grieving loss. It is a mark of good government that the so-called bureaucracy can handle these people with such sensitivity, care and fairness. These sorts of success stories are rarely told. It is sometimes difficult to keep it in perspective that these people before the Board are our veterans. They are the people who made great sacrifices during World War II and in the later conflicts of Korea, Malaya and Vietnam. It is difficult for me as a young man to come to grips with the experiences of our veterans. I did my best to acquaint myself with their experiences, though such knowledge was inherent in each panel of the Board as each panel had an ex-serviceman as a member. The best illustration of war experiences other than from the mouths of the veterans themselves was a book I read about the war in New Guinea. The book, called Green Armour and written in 1945 by Osmar White, is a brilliant illustration of the sheer physical endurance that our soldiers showed during the very difficult New Guinea campaign. But that was over 40 years ago. Today the veterans, especially those from World War II, who are the biggest client group, require great care and attention. The number of claims before the Board has reached a peak in the last few years, a direct reflection of the fact that these men and women are reaching retiring age, and an age when ill health is readily apparent. There are currently some 17,000 applications before the Board Australia-wide. The Board is in fact the largest single jurisdiction tribunal in the country. It costs $7m per year to run and published nearly 11,000 decisions in 1986-87. The key change in the system of review has been the huge gains in productivity. This increase in productivity is a credit to the previous Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Arthur Gietzelt; the present Minister for Veterans Affairs (Mr Humphreys); the principal member of the Board, Mr Stephen Skehill; and all members and staff of the Board. The Board commenced with a huge backlog of cases, and it commenced operations at a time when the number of appeals was rapidly rising. The increase in productivity in the operation of the Board is the key reason why the backlog has not only been stabilised but has started to decline. In the figures published in the Board's annual report of 1986-87, the following achievements were posted: In the last year, an increase of 50 per cent in the number of applications finalised; a reduction of almost 9 per cent in the number of applications outstanding; significant reductions in the time to finalise applications; a 28 per cent reduction in the average waiting period for a hearing before the board; and a reduction in cost of around 60 per cent for each application finalised. Such achievements are impressive indeed. Another element to such productivity, however, is not just the speed of the decisions, but their quality, their accuracy. The veteran has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) over decisions of the Board, at no cost to himself. Despite this, only 6.6 per cent of cases before the Board were appealed to the AAT and, of that group of appealed cases, only 20 per cent were conceded at the AAT. In other words, the VRB is getting its decisions right, it is not simply passing on the difficult cases to the higher tribunal. Even more recent figures, up to September this year, indicate further improvements in productivity. In the 12 weeks prior to September 1987, there have been 1,752 lodgments, which is an annual rate of 7,600. The applications finalised were 3,477, which is an annual rate of 15,000 a further 16.5 per cent increase on top of the 50 per cent previous increase. In other words, finalisations have virtually doubled the intake rate. The Board is finalising twice as many cases as it receives. At the peak of lodgments in late 1986, there were 21,008 applications. At the end of the last financial year, there were 19,205 cases outstanding, but as of September 1987, the number was down to 17,466. By whatever yardstick one would care to use, whether in the public or private sector, this is indeed a marvellous achievement. These achievements are to be applauded, and I would like to compliment my former colleagues on the Board for their good works. I congratulate especially the principal member, Mr Stephen Skehill, for his skilful efforts in lifting productivity. More particularly, I would like to thank all of my colleagues on the Queensland Board for sharing their knowledge and experience with me. I would give special mention to Mr John Gallagher, senior member, a very talented lawyer and adjudicator, and to Mr Tom Shaw, service member, and former New Guinea coast watcher who has served the Board with great compassion for the veteran, and who retires at the end of this year. The critical element of the Board's operation for me was the integrity of its deliberations and its decisions. The difficulty of decision-making in a medico-legal area has to be experienced to be appreciated. But let me say that decisions were rarely made easily, and rarely without considerable debate. In past years, review panels have consisted solely or mainly of medical practitioners. Then, the emphasis was all wrong. The emphasis was on the veteran to demonstrate his ailments, not to demonstrate the connection between a given ailment and war service. The emphasis now, and quite rightly, in matters of entitlement, is on sifting evidence to demonstrate the relationship between a disability and a veteran's war service. To the credit of all members of the Board, such decision-making was always based on intelligent and informed debate. It is too easy to criticise the repatriation system or an administrative tribunal. I can say that the veteran community has been well served by the repatriation system in general and the Veterans' Review Board in particular, and it should continue to be so. I wish the board well in its future deliberations. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILES(Braddon)(9.16) —I start, Mr Blanchard, by commenting on the remarks that you made, when speaking as the honourable member for Moore on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I will endeavour, as did the previous shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), to be as helpful, co-operative and bipartisan as possible. I note that he is in the chamber at the moment. I trust that, particularly over the next year or so and perhaps for the length of the Parliament, we will recognise that there is a great need for sensitivity, understanding and a common-sense approach to the issues that face Australia in regard to Aboriginal affairs as we celebrate the Bicentenary. That having been said, I must go on to a few other issues which I believe to be of concern in trying to achieve that sort of bipartisan approach. It was largely due to the policies of the Australian Labor Party in pursuing national land rights which, once it got into government, it realised could not be delivered, that that bipartisan approach was broken in the period 1982-84. It was a tragedy for Australia that we were not able to maintain a fairly bipartisan approach to this area of administration. I see the same difficulty arising again with the proposal for a treaty. I believe that again the Labor Party is going to fail the Aboriginal people, having raised expectations beyond what can be delivered. I refer to its promise to the Aboriginal people in its 1986 policy platform that it would meet all Aboriginal housing needs within six years. That expectation among the Aboriginal people will, I believe, not be satisfied. It is a great tragedy that, so far, one of the hallmarks of the Labor Government in this area has been the way that it raises expectations with crucial promises that cannot be delivered. I remind the Government that at this stage about 17,600 housing units are required. If the Government is to fulfil its platform promise to the Aboriginal people, it will have to build at the rate of 3,000 or 4,000 units a year, which is obviously beyond its resource capacity unless there is a great change in the income of the nation. Tonight we are debating a budget that covers $671.6m. New programs are involved and the Government has kept certain older programs which it refers to as priority ones. I wonder whether the Government is spreading its resources in the Aboriginal affairs area too thinly by undertaking these new programs when some of the key priority areas, such as housing, community infrastructure, education and health, are not being satisfied. Are there roadblocks that prevent the money getting to the grassroots of the Aboriginal community; or are there inefficiencies in the system which are really soaking up millions and millions of dollars in this area? Let me put it this way: I think it was in your speech, Mr Deputy Chairman, that you were talking about various social indicators. It is interesting to note that the unemployment rate among Aboriginal people is now six times the national rate, but in 1981-82 it was four times the national rate. It is interesting to note also that Aboriginal life expectancy has not changed over the past three or four years, since this Government came to office. The income level of Aboriginal people also has not changed. The mortality rate of Aboriginal children has not changed; it is still three times higher than the national average. It appears that the trachoma rate among Aborigines has actually increased slightly. However, the rate of imprisonment among Aborigines has increased from 14 times the national average in 1982-83 to 20 times the national average at present. Yet, in that time the Government has allocated to the Aboriginal affairs area, including the allocation in this Budget, $2.5 billion; and there has been no change in that period in the social indicators. If anything, they have got markedly worse in two areas. That indicates to me that real problems are being encountered in the money allocated to Aboriginal people getting through to the grassroots of the Aboriginal community to bring about the change that is so desperately needed in so many areas. In the course of your remarks, Mr Deputy Chairman, you spoke about alcoholism, petrol sniffing and those sorts of matters. Obviously such things are of great concern to me. We should be trying to establish for the Aboriginal people a program-we probably cannot even think in those terms-that will achieve greater dignity and a sense of self-worth among the Aboriginal people. I know that achieving that goal will require a mammoth effort. In the few minutes remaining to me I wish to refer to a couple of other matters. One is the Aboriginal capital account, an account that was set up in 1980 as a recognition of the need to compensate the Aboriginal people for their dispersal; it was set up also in an effort to provide them with the means of self-management and self-sufficiency. The Labor Government has not contributed one more dollar to that account. If contributions to that account had continued at the level at which they were made when Senator Fred Chaney, as Minister, started that account-that is, $10m-we would now be providing for between 8 per cent and 10 per cent of the financial needs of the Aboriginal Development Commission, which would make it self-sustaining. I believe it is important that we move down a track which will enable the Aboriginal leaders to have a great deal of say in and control over financial matters so that Aboriginal communities can become self-sufficient in the future. I think that is very important, and I certainly support that sort of approach. I believe the community development employment projects scheme to be worthy of support. I note that $68.74m is to be allocated to that scheme this year. It is hoped that the scheme will provide 1,600 extra jobs. We support that scheme, which was originally established by the coalition Government. We certainly believe in that style of approach to the Aboriginal affairs portfolio. We believe it to be a positive and healthy step if Aboriginal elders are able to take control of dole moneys payable to Aboriginal people and use those moneys to assist their Aboriginal communities. Finally, some of the performance indicators within the Department are very broad and very general. In fact, they are broad and general to the point where I do not believe they can be measured. In that circumstance they are really not very good performance indicators. It is important that the Department measure its performance by using specific quantity figures rather than just having general aims which, as everybody who has carried out an evaluation of any program knows, cannot be evaluated. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(9.26) —Mr Blanchard, first I wish to endorse your remarks about expenditure on Aboriginal affairs. In particular, I endorse your remarks in which you emphasised the need for the Government to examine the public awareness program in an effort to combat the racism that has been evident in campaigns waged against Aboriginal interests by some sections of the community. I also endorse very strongly your remarks in relation to the Aboriginal homelands movement. I suggest that the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) would do well to read the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I invite the honourable member for Braddon also, if he is truly interested in a bipartisan approach to Aboriginal affairs in Australia, to have discussions with those people in the community who have sought on previous occasions to divide the community against the interests of Aboriginal people, and specifically against the aspirations of Aboriginal people towards land rights. In that regard I suggest that he sit down and have a yarn with the Australian Mining Industry Council, whose offices are located on Northbourne Avenue, and those who seek, like the Australian Mining Industry Council and the Western Australian Chamber of Mines, to divide the Australian community on the issue of race. Having said that, I wish to raise two matters in relation to the Aboriginal affairs portfolio. The first of these is in the area of employment, education and training. The Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who is present in the chamber, announced a package of measures in the Budget to address the appalling employment and economic disadvantages of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The package is part of the Aboriginal employment development policy (AEDP) which was developed in response to the findings of the Committee of Review of Aboriginal Employment and Training Programs-the Miller review. The purpose of the Aboriginal employment development policy is to promote Aboriginal economic independence and to reduce welfare dependence through the creation of jobs in rural and remote areas where nearly half the Aboriginal population lives; by ensuring that Aboriginal people have fair access to jobs throughout the conventional labour market; and by improving educational opportunities for Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal employment development policy was established in August 1986 in response to the report of the Committee of Review of Aboriginal Employment and Training Programs-the Miller report. It is a long term and comprehensive policy and aims at equity between Aboriginal people and other Australians in the areas of employment, education, training and economic development by the year 2000. This is in response to the demands from Aboriginal people for measures aimed at lessening welfare dependency and enhancing economic independence. The AEDP has been designed to take account of the different aspirations and employment needs of Aboriginals living in different geographical areas and situations across Australia. This is essential if the AEDP strategies are to meet the diverse needs of Aboriginals throughout Australia. The AEDP involves both a restructuring of existing Aboriginal employment, training, education and enterprise programs, plus new expenditure in 1987-88, as well as the new expenditure provided in 1986-87. The overall equity objectives of the AEDP include: employment equity with other Australians by the year 2000; equity through access to education and training opportunities for all Aboriginal Australians; income equity with other Australians by the year 2000; and a reduction in welfare dependency to a level commensurate with that of other Australians by the year 2000. Almost half of Australia's Aboriginal population live in rural and remote communities where the Aboriginal employment rate is often over 80 per cent. That is a matter on which I commented in a previous debate. The other half of the Aboriginal population lives in and around larger towns and cities and faces severe unemployment which is compounded by racial discrimination and lack of education and job skills. In 1987-88 the Government will continue to emphasise the development of education, employment and training and economic resource programs and the restructuring of existing programs. The aims of the AEDP can be summarised as follows: to create jobs in remote and rural communities; to ensure that Aboriginal people have fair access to jobs throughout the conventional labour market; and to improve educational opportunities for Aboriginal Australians. The portfolio appropriation is made up of $93.575m to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and $26.07m to the Aboriginal Development Commission. A significant initiative under the AEDP will be the expansion of the community development employment project scheme, a matter which I commented on last night in the discussion in this chamber on education. I would like to address my attention to the community development employment project (CDEP) scheme for the remainder of my time. I had a particular interest in this project. It was devised primarily by Dr H. C. Coombes, otherwise known as Nugget, who, as all honourable members know, since his retirement from public service for the Australian Government, has spent most of his spare time, if I could call it that, working at the Australian National University on projects invariably associated with research into the problems of Aboriginal Australians. One of the proposals he put forward in 1976 was over the matter of CDEP, and it is basically an initiative of his which the Fraser Government, through the offices of Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, was able to implement. That project was devised in response to Aboriginal criticisms of the effects of unemployment benefits on Aboriginal recipients in their communities. It is very important that members of the Committee accept and examine what in fact this means. The principle that the Government accepted in agreeing to the request for Aboriginal Australians to have CDEP was on the basis that residents of communities participating in the CDEP would not receive unemployment benefits; that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs would pay to such communities funds to enable them to offer part-time employment to those who would otherwise be eligible for unemployment benefits; that the amount of these funds would be equivalent to the average unemployment benefit multiplied by the estimated numbers of unemployed to be offered work; that award rate wages for the hours worked would be paid for work decided upon by the community, or its council, within general guidelines; that the on cost of wages would be met by an addition of 20 per cent to the wage funds towards costs of administration-for example, for materials and equipment; that employment under the CDEP would not replace full time positions provided for in the departmental and community establishments; and that there would be periodical reviews of the program. It is very important, Mr Blanchard, that people understand exactly what this means. In 1986-87 the Budget figure for community development programs was $39.4m. In 1987-88 that figure will be in the vicinity of $58.5m. As the honourable member for Braddon pointed out, it would mean allowing for an additional 1,600 Aboriginal people to come within that program. But it is significant-and I do not think it is recognised by many members of this Committee-that what that in fact means is a reduction of $48.8m in the unemployment benefits bills of this Government. I think it is significant that we ought to get the Australian community to recognise that it is only Aboriginal Australians, those people who are denigrated by many sections of the community, who have seen themselves able to approach the Government, in effect, and say, `Instead of unemployment benefits, we would like you to give us a bulk sum which we can administer ourselves and distribute for our own work purposes'. It is significant, therefore, that it is understood that CDEP allows Aboriginal people to determine the nature of work that is undertaken. I think that is important, because it means that we are not dictating to Aboriginal people about what we regard as work. That is very significant. Only two weeks ago, Mr Deputy Chairman, I was at Kintore in the Northern Territory with the head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Perkins. That community suggested-in fact requested-that it come under the CDEP. Mr Connolly —Kintore is a disgrace. Mr SNOWDON —I know that the honourable member for Bradfield has a very great interest in the community of Kintore and has spoken of it in this place on a number of occasions. I understand he may have even visited there on one or two occasions. Let me tell him, just for his information, that the new store is magnificent and the food is terrific. The prices are even commensurate with what one would expect to pay in communities elsewhere in Australia. I know that the honourable member was very interested in the standard of food being supplied at the store. Let me tell him that the Aboriginal Development Commission has funded a magnificent enterprise in the store at Kintore and a number of other enterprises in that community. It is important that the Kintore community, in my view, get support for its application to come under the CDEP, because it is this sort of community that will benefit most by such a program. I would like to inform the Committee, for the information of honourable members, that the Kintore community is a relatively new community and it is a result of people moving back to their lands. I go back to the point I made earlier about the support of the homelands movement. I would suggest to the honourable member for Braddon that he make contact with his counterparts in the Northern Territory Government and suggest to them that they would be wise also to support the homelands movement, because they have previously indicated that they are not prepared to support the movement in communities of fewer than 50 people except for the establishment of water. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(9.36) —I wish to speak this evening on matters within the Appropriation Bill that actually affect Aboriginal grants and also the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I have to say that yesterday at Question Time I asked the Prime Minister whether unrealistic demands from parts of the Aboriginal community for 40 per cent of Australia's land mass and 7 per cent of gross domestic product had been fuelled by his reckless proposal for an Aboriginal compact. The Prime Minister dismissed this suggestion and emphatically said no. It was interesting that he actually proceeded to contradict himself. He said he was only trying to stimulate a consideration of the relationship between the 200 years of European settlement and the 40,000 years of Aboriginal tradition. `It is obvious', he said, `that in such a consideration the representatives of the Aboriginal people themselves will make demands . . . that to us may seem outrageous'. He thus admitted that his stimulation-that is, his compact-had fuelled such outrageous demands, and, of course, he did not offer any indication as to what he thought that his compact might contain. I have been informed that the demands reported by Mike Seccombe in the Australian newspaper on Monday last are contained in the draft treaty submitted to the National Coalition of Aboriginal Organisations in Sydney only two weeks ago. I have a copy here of this draft treaty, which is circulating freely within the community. Copies are certainly available to people wherever they may happen to require them. I have nothing against the principle of that. I want to make that quite clear. But what I am concerned about is that the strength of Australians, both the whites and the Aboriginal people, rests very much upon the unity of all of us concerned. Over the years my own association with Aboriginals, in the Lyne electorate has been very close indeed because I have great respect for them. I have worked with them; I have played sport with them over the years, and they always feel free to come to me to discuss any of their problems. I would be very concerned if the Prime Minister is leading the Aboriginal people to believe that they will receive something that they may not receive finally from the Government. I do not want to see their expectations built up, but they are going to be a disappointed group of Australians. I think this would be very sad indeed. The reason that I raised the matter this evening is just to point out that fact and to request the Prime Minister and the Government not to build up the expectations of the Aboriginal people to something that they finally may not receive. I appreciate the fact that this submission is only a draft one. It is to be considered by the body that is responsible. I hope that there are sensible negotiations, because you, Mr Deputy Chairman, and I and others fully appreciate the fact that today what the Aboriginal people require in Australia is understanding because of the basic traditions of their race, and subsequently they do need this extended help with housing, health, work and other problems within the communities. This is taking place as time goes on. If we in a sensible way are going to integrate the two races, because we are both the same, and if this is to continue to make a pleasant Australia in the way that we would want to see it done, this can only take place over the decades ahead. I am sure it can in the approaches being made, but I sound that warning to the Prime Minister. I do not want to see the Aboriginal people I represent let down because of these expectations he may have. We know he made the statement because he was so pleased with the Budget and pleased with what was occurring after the elections, and the Bicentenary is next year. However, he will not keep the Aboriginal people quiet by promising them a compact, an arrangement of some kind, unless he speaks with them, unless the community knows what is going on and their realistic demands are considered. I wanted to raise that point on behalf of the Aborigines I represent because I think it is most important. They are a proud and happy people in their own way and they deserve all the assistance we can give them. I wish to say something about the estimates of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It is pleasing to see some very sound things in the Budget Estimates. I am pleased to see extensions to the benefits for World War II ex-service women included. That is long overdue. It is pleasing to see a $10,000 lump sum payment to the prisoners of war who were in nazi concentration camps. It is nice to see that a new garden of remembrance is to be constructed in New South Wales. It is also pleasing to see increased expenditure for hospitals, particularly the repatriation hospitals, and for equipment. It is sad, though, to see that all the veterans admitted to nursing homes in the future will be required to meet the statutory patient contribution as from January 1988. There will be 750 veterans affected by this. I suppose many in the community will ask why the veterans should not be placed on the same basis as any aged person. However, I think we as representatives of the people have to appreciate the fact that these people have served their country in time of need, and it is very important that we recognise this by giving them these various concessions. Over the years concessions have been taken away from ex-service men and women. The concessions or entitlements they may lose concerns them, and they worry about it. These people are getting on in years and they have a tendency to worry. They want to know who is going to care for them, and the like. I know that defence service home loans have been discussed in this place over recent days, ever since the Treasurer (Mr Keating) brought down the Budget. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) has made it quite clear that he has changed his mind and it will be the end of the year before it is finally determined what the new setup will be. Ex-servicemen, and present day servicemen from the Williamtown Royal Australian Air Force base in my electorate, have come to me and pointed out that the proposal before us-which has been placed aside for a time-is detrimental to them. They will lose some thousands of dollars. A loan of $25,000 is not a large one when one has to buy a home today. Even in country towns a home will cost $70,000 to $80,000. Servicemen and ex-servicemen like to buy homes of the same quality as any of us. They are entitled to that. A loan of $25,000 is not a lot of money. If this is changed and they are given a grant of $10,000 to purchase a house, what occurs with the entitlements a widow receives upon the death of a veteran? I think I am correct in saying that the rental available under the old scheme is very low. What happens once they receive this grant? What happens to those people who have stayed in the service for 15 or 18 years and actually retire after 20 years when someone who has been in the services for six or seven years retires and is entitled to the loan? The person who has stayed there and done the job over the years may not be entitled to the loan. I think these are factors we have to look at. It concerns me also that, as the Budget and the accompanying papers show, the home care service for veterans is now part of the home and community care (HACC) program. I have no great objection to that but HACC has to have the money. There is $2m extra available in the Budget for this. As one travels around the countryside one finds that HACC is unable to meet the demand of aged people or any person in the community who needs assistance, simply because funds are not available. I know that a reorganisation is taking place. It is voluntary help that counts but some funds have to be available. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(9.46) —In this committee debate I wish to comment on the allocation of funds for measures to combat the transmission of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Firstly, I acknowledge the significant comments made in this place by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) last Tuesday. Honourable members would benefit from reading his speech. I shall not go to the trouble of quoting the statistics of the problem AIDS constitutes, as the honourable member's speech covered them quite comprehensively. I also commend the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) for the additional funds available this year for AIDS prevention and research. I believe the Minister can be justifiably proud of the reputation Australia has internationally for its AIDS programs. I do not want the Minister to float away, but I am quite sincere about this. The community owes him its thanks for the speed and success of his efforts to introduce AIDS screening of blood donations for transfusions. It is to his credit that he identified the significance and urgency of the challenge that we face and that he was able to gain from Cabinet the increased allocations we are considering tonight. I suggest also that the effectiveness of the work in preventing AIDS is not as great as it could be, as the community, this Parliament and the Government have not come to grips with the fundamental questions that the AIDS epidemic poses. I believe we are ignoring at our peril five fundamental questions. I ask them now in order of priority. Firstly, what is the role of government in nurturing or moulding community values and individual behaviour? Secondly, what is the obligation of the Government to prevent harm to innocent individuals caused by the behaviour of other individuals, if necessary by restricting the freedom of those other individuals? What is the nature and extent of individual accountability to the community for behaviour which creates significant financial burdens on that community? What balance is to be struck between individual privacy and liberty and community interest when dealing with an extremely serious epidemic of the type the AIDS epidemic represents? Finally, do our young people in schools have the maturity, conceptually and morally, that sex and AIDS education programs assume they have? I do not believe our allocations will be effective until we have gone through the process of addressing these questions. The Government in particular will be directionless and constantly responding to various pressure groups if it does not consciously clarify its views on these five very important questions. I wish to put my own views briefly on these five questions. The Bishop of London, Dr Graham Leonard, recently stated that he believed that many of the problems that we face today as a community and polity have arisen because the West has lost its soul. He went on: I believe that this has happened because it has rejected the one essential belief which marked it for centuries, namely that man, by his very nature, has to be obedient to an authority over and above himself. He continued: The rejection of such authority leads not to freedom but to tyranny-a tyranny which springs not as in past centuries, from a fundamentalist approach to truth, but from the bestowal of absolute authority on the expression of what individuals, or a group, believe to be self-evident truths but which, in fact, only reflect contemporary fashions. [This] subjectivism is based on the belief that principles and values are in essence no more than statements about the likes and dislikes, desires and aversions of those who hold them. Across the Atlantic, a Harvard professor recently described values as being `personal preferences so central to our collective lives that as a political community we cannot properly be neutral about them'. He-I agree with him-endorsed the observation of another academic that a principal purpose of publicly proclaimed laws and regulations is to stigmatise anti-social behaviour and thereby to influence citizen values and behaviour code. It is time that we restored the role of the Parliament, the courts and our schools in helping citizens to form a view of what is right and wrong in human relations. Our laws have ventured into this area in race relations and on sex discrimination. It is time we pondered the potential educative role of law in anti-social behaviour that spreads AIDS. Secondly, I believe it is patently obvious that the balance of rights and duties has not been achieved in the AIDS context. Too many innocent people are being harmed-indeed, killed-because we refuse to limit the freedom of irresponsible individuals. I do not say that all AIDS carriers are irresponsible, but there can be no doubt that many are, and consciously so. One solution would be the compulsory testing not of any one group but of the whole population. My colleague Senator Stone has noted that tuberculosis was a comparatively mild disease compared with this new acquired immune deficiency syndrome, yet, in the course of its eradication, all Australians at the time submitted to a nation-wide program of testing for it-and that despite the undeniable, if minor, radiation hazard of the testing process. As to the accountability of those who consciously put others at risk by refusing to alter their sexual behaviour, I believe social and legal sanctions are increasingly legitimate. The drug-using prostitute, the unfaithful bisexual spouse or the militant gay should be held accountable for the human and financial harm and costs that their conscious actions cause. I deal lastly with our education programs for young people. Recently I read a review of a United States of America National Research Council study on adolescent sexuality, pregnancy and childbearing. The reviewer noted, firstly, the findings that young teenagers are handicapped in assessing the personal risk of pregnancy because of their cognitive immaturity-a very significant point. The research also argued that, since many teenagers are still incapable of thinking abstractly and relating actions to specific consequences, they have a difficult time planning for sexual intercourse and using contraception. The reviewer concluded his analysis as follows: Since pregnancy due to contraceptive failure will issue either in abortion or in birth, with the former raising the chances of future infertility, and the latter increasing the risk of death to a young mother by 250%; since early childbearing entails marital and career deprivation, physical, intellectual and social harm to children, and a burden of welfare expenditures to be borne by the rest of society; since there are accelerating risks of venereal disease such as herpes and AIDS the first of which is incurable, the second fatal-for all these reasons one would think it a morally responsible course of action to urge educators and other adult authorities to state such facts bluntly to the young and admonish them against early intercourse. That is the crux of the problem. Our education programs assume a maturity that is not present. They assume moral relativism and promiscuity and in so doing legitimise both. They give our young people false confidence; I believe they betray them. We do not tell young people to use drugs in moderation. We say, `Do not even try them'. We do not say, `Smoke in moderation', we actively stigmatise smoking altogether. It should be the same with sex outside of faithful marriage, especially with the current AIDS crisis. We need to tell young people that if they fool around it is very likely they will die a lonely and miserable death. They should be warned that through the self-abuse of drugs or sexual irresponsibility they can break a trust with the community, forfeit certain rights and expect certain sanctions. This should also be the view put bluntly to adults, heterosexual or homosexual, who in the AIDS context are acting like children. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(9.56) —Given the comments reportedly made yesterday by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), it is an opportune time to dwell upon some aspects of medical education. The Minister in his comments may merely have intended to generate debate by gingering up his criticism of universities, which he claims resist change and are `ossified bodies incapable of adaption'. Perhaps the Minister was looking for an excuse for the failings of his Government, or perhaps he was out to make a cheap point. If so, the institutional universities are, of course, an easy target, even though the wealth of talent within the universities far exceeds that of either the Minister who offers gratuitous criticism or the bureaucrat who wrote his speech. That Minister, and indeed the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), who is at the table, could inform themselves by studying the remarks of Professor Joske, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Western Australia. In a paper entitled `Medical Education in Australia in the Next 10 Years', delivered on 25 August, Professor Joske made it clear that politics as being practised today forces change. I do not think I misrepresent the views of Joske when I postulate that politically imposed change is not always conducive to desirable progress in educating future medical practitioners. While the divorcement of medical practice from politics is never likely to be achieved, and may not even be desirable, the quality of political intervention over recent years has led to regression rather than progression in medical education, and that is likely to continue. The rhetoric of Minister Dawkins, as reported, is not only unhelpful; it is naive. Perhaps he was pandering to the latent prejudice that plainly exists towards universities in the wider community. Professor Joske said in August-I quote him at length: In Australia an egalitarian, highly-taxed and somewhat insular community resents the elitism and cost of Universities. Paradoxically, the Universities have contributed to their falling public image by lowering of academic standards to teach the trivial and `relevant', at the expense of scholarship, and by loss of their traditional virtues of tolerance, free discussion and scholarship. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission recognises this by grouping Universities with Colleges of Education as centres of teaching rather than learning, and by calling for `much greater discrimination . . . as to what is supported in terms of research'. He went on to say: All this reflects upon medical education which is tied to the University system. Faculties of Medicine are expensive, and have already received cuts in real funding. Recruitment of academic staff is becoming more difficult: many preclinical departments are without medical graduates. All these factors lead to increasing difficulties in medical education, and will remain major factors affecting academic and other decisions in this field in the next decade. Those words encapsulate the thinking that might motivate the Government to avoid superficial remarks such as those attributed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. While political intervention in medical practice today might be described as subtle, it is most certainly more pervasive and enduring than ever. The jewel in the Government's crown of intervention is, of course, Medicare. Of Medicare, Joske says-and I agree with him: Medicare is not concerned with medicine or care of the sick. It is concerned with money and administrative control of the health fields, and in both areas it has been spectacularly successful. Joske goes on to comment on some other features of Medicare. Though one remark he makes cannot be said to reflect my amazement at this strange public acceptance, he observes rather dryly that the Medicare levy is not considered to be taxation. The fact that, although based absolutely on income, pay as you earn deductions are made and must be included in the taxation returns we all must file each year and the fact that more than $1.5 billion is raised annually in the process-somehow it is not an income tax but somehow, mystically, it is a levy in the eyes of the Government-are a wondrous deception. Mr Braithwaite —That is the thimble and pea trick. Mr ROCHER —As my friend the honourable member for Dawson says, it is the thimble and pea trick. By removing health and related costs from the consumer price index, the Medicare income tax has had the benefit of reducing automatic wage increases, which has saved governments in this country billions of dollars. Had those same governments not then proceeded to squander the savings so generated, we might have felt that at least that aspect would have been of some enduring benefit. Sadly, it was not to be. Professor Joske also said of Medicare: It has led to documentation in Canberra of almost all health transactions and effectively brought health services under control of the Federal Government. In actual provision of health care, Medicare has been irrelevant. It has provided no more doctors, nurses, paramedics, hospitals, hostels or pharmaceuticals. Indeed, it has decreased the effectiveness of existing services by increases in their administrative time and costs. It has had minimal direct effect on medical education. These are not the words of a terribly self-serving medical practitioner of the type Government members love to malign when trying to justify some aspect of the Government's largely discredited health policy. While Medicare may have had minimal direct effects on medical education, the indirect effects seem to be much more evident. For example, in its initial rhetorical efforts to justify Medicare, the Government, and apologists for the Government, conducted a campaign of political vilification of the medical profession. That the campaign was successful cannot be denied, and that it prevails even today is sometimes to be deplored. A sad consequence, and therefore indirect effect, is one which led Joske to observe: I think we will lose very idealistic students as the personal vilification of the medical profession proceeds. That is a very sad comment indeed. While expressing reservations about the future for medical students, Joske is nevertheless optimistic when he concludes on that subject: But overall they will remain the dedicated intelligent youngsters who are the emotional life-blood of medical schools. However, Joske is less optimistic about the future of academic staff. He said: . . . the number and possibly the quality of academic staff will decrease as money becomes more scarce and the financial differentials between University and hospital clinicians increase. The loss of medically qualified academics will be greatest in pre-clinical departments, but all will be affected. Those remaining will do more organisation and administration of teaching by non-medical graduates and non-academic doctors in hospitals and private practice. Scholarship and creative research will decline, and morale and recruitment will suffer. These are but excerpts from the paper which I identified at the outset of my contribution to the debate. For a full appreciation, the paper should be read in its entirety. Its importance derives from the pre-eminence of its author, and it should be compulsory reading for the Minister for Community Services and Health if he wants some insight into the future of medicine as a profession, and medical education as a necessary adjunct to that. If the Minister is sincerely interested, I shall arrange for him to receive a copy of the paper. I urge him to read it at length and to learn from it. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health)(10.05) —I wish to thank all honourable members on both sides of the chamber who have participated in the debate on the appropriations for the Department of Community Services and Health. I wish to comment briefly on some of the points that have been made. First, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) spoke about homes for young people and problems being experienced in that area, but seemed to become somewhat muddled by then talking about million-dollar homes in Sydney. There was some suggestion that the honourable member had mislaid his notes. I point out to him that this Government, over its 4 1/2 years in office, has made a massive commitment to public housing. As a result of our economic policies, in these difficult times, we have begun to achieve a reduction in interest rates which will flow through to the availability of housing. A series of support schemes for rental assistance has been developed, particularly by my colleague the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), which will also benefit young people searching for accommodation. In this year's Budget we have provided increased funding of over 10 per cent for the first home owners scheme. We have developed the supported accommodation assistance scheme, again particularly for young people in need of housing. If one looks at all the efforts of the Government in the housing area, while we recognise the very real difficulties in this area and are not running away from them, the Government has a record in addressing these problems that certainly is second to none in the history of this country. I would also like to thank the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) for her very clear defence of the Government's child care program. The fact is that we have made a commitment, in the three years between 1985 and 1988, to increase available child care places by 20,000. We have already approved over 17,000 of those 20,000 places. Of course, we have to make sure that the program is fully implemented and operational by the end of next year. The honourable member for Phillip certainly demolished most of the arguments advanced by the critics of the Government's child care program, but it seemed to have no effect on the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), who immediately stood up and talked about the gold-plated standards of our child care approach and made the usual glib comparisons between the cost of government-funded child care and the costs of private sector child care. Those comparisons are glib because they simply ignore the extra demands and directions of the Government's child care policy. For instance, government funded child care often has to provide for very unusual hours to accommodate the needs of parents on shift work. That, of course, is something the private sector operators usually do not worry about as they generally have much more standard hours. However, we need to have those extra provisions if we are truly to support families who need child care. Again, it is not possible for private child care centres to cater effectively for those in real need in the community. Let us compare child care centres with nursing homes. When nursing homes were simply a private business or private activity, they were littered across the wealthy and affluent suburbs of our cities, and very poor and inadequate provision was made in poorer areas. The entire child care program of this Government has been planned in order to see that there is a proper geographic spread. It is not only the areas that can easily afford to pay for child care that are provided with centres, the distribution must be fair and according to need across the community. That means that we are putting them in areas in which private child care will not be so frequently found because there is not the same affluence and resources to pay for them. Again, because we are basing our whole program on need, we have systems of fee payments so that those who are less well off can afford child care. But we are increasingly demanding that those who have more resources make a bigger contribution. We will continue to ensure that this needs based child care is maintained but, equally, we will be ensuring that it is as cost efficient as we can possibly make it. We do not believe in making glib comparison between the service provided by the private sector-we acknowledge its contribution-and that provided by the government sector. The government sector has a whole series of needs to meet. Again, the honourable member for Richmond at the tail end of his speech made one of the most superficial judgments that have ever come from his rather superficial mouth. He talked about our aged care program as a piecemeal approach. This is the first government in the history of this country that has had an integrated approach to the needs of the aged. Not only have we maintained the nursing home sector, but also we have supplemented it with a major expansion of hospital provisions, and we have created the home and community care program. For the first time in this country we are offering old people and their relatives the choice of accommodation and support that most suits their emotional, medical and social needs. Of course, we have a long way to go, but it is the first government in this country's history that has not had a piecemeal approach. It is just the opposite to what the foolish honourable member for Richmond was saying. This is the first government that has had an integrated approach to try to provide a whole range of alternative accommodation and support services for the aged. The honourable member O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) concentrated mainly on the health area and began his remarks with a statement of disasters in the health area. The only obvious disaster in the health area is, of course, the Opposition's health policy. It was the fifth health policy that this Opposition has provided in four years. It was developed during the election. It has now sunk completely without trace and, of course, its designer, Senator Michael Baume, has sunk with it. So the only real obvious disaster we have had in the health policy is the Liberal's health policy. The honourable member for O'Connor noted the overruns that took place in last year's Budget. He listed them as though there was something particularly wicked about these overruns. They occurred in pharmaceutical benefits, hospital services for veterans, nursing home benefits, nursing home assistance and the home and community care program. The one thing all those programs have in common is that they were programs particularly designed for the aged. We make no apology for the fact that, in the area of care for the elderly people in this country, we had some extra expenditure in last year's Budget. The honourable member for O'Connor repeated the simplistic analysis that the levy did not meet the cost of medical benefits. But, of course, that ignores entirely the fact that well before Medicare all governments provided generously out of general revenue for public hospitals, for pensioners and others. All the Medicare levy and the associated changes do is pay for the extra costs of Medicare. Those extra costs are fully covered by those changes. I now deal with the very sincere and honest remarks made by the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) who, unlike many honourable members opposite, is genuinely concerned about serious health problems posed for this country by the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic. The philosophical issues he raised are ones that this community will debate for a very long time. I do not necessarily agree with all of the comments he made, but I believe his approach to this very difficult problem was very genuine. We should judge every possible course of action in relation to AIDS by one simple and single criterion-is it or is it not productive and cost effective in limiting the spread of AIDS? Finally, I thank the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) for referring me to Professor Joske's speech which I have already looked at. The only comment I make about the honourable member's comments and those of Professor Joske is that they both could have given a little attention to the fact that we have had going for almost 12 months the first major inquiry into medical education that this country has had since the Second World War. This inquiry is conducted by a number of distinguished medical people and educationists. I believe they will produce this Government and future governments with a blueprint for medical education well into the twenty-first century. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. It being 10.15 p.m., I shall report progress. The Deputy Chairman having reported accordingly-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Dr Blewett-Mr Deputy Speaker, I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Mr HAND(Melbourne-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(10.15) —I wish to answer some of the questions raised at the committee stage of this Bill. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) addressed one of the important initiatives of the Budget, the recognition by the Government of the report Return to Country which was prepared by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, of which the honourable member for Moore was the Chairman. The point he made about the bipartisan approach of that report is worth noting. In the not too distant future the Government will be preparing its response to that report. In an interim way we have allocated funds for that very important area of servicing what we now term the original land areas. We look forward to being able to bring that response back to the Parliament. I say `original lands' in response to the terminology used by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon). Obviously, he has not caught up with the new term yet. I make that comment in a friendly way to point out to him that perhaps the term `original lands' is better than the term he used. In relation to comments made by other speakers in the debate, I address firstly the comments made by the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). Having had a fairly lengthy discussion with him, I say quite genuinely that I look forward to working with him as best I can, given that we are on different sides of the chamber. I repeat what I said to him privately: I look forward to that co-operation that is needed. Mr White —He'll give you a hand. Mr HAND —I am looking forward to his giving me a hand. The point he made about a bipartisan approach is one which other speakers addressed. It is important that we do not look back at who said what and who is responsible for the bipartisan approach not being there in recent years. I make the offer to the Opposition to forget the past and look to the future. Perhaps if we work together we can adopt a bipartisan approach to this issue. There will be times, of course, when there will be disagreement. Mr Cadman —That should be; that's healthy. Mr HAND —That should be. For argument's sake, it would be terrible if we all thought the same way, particularly when one looks at the honourable member for Mitchell. I would not want him to think that I thought the same way as he does all the time. The point I am making in a quite genuine way is that I will ensure that the suggestions from the Opposition about bipartisan attitudes are taken on board. I look forward to that approach occurring. I will do everything in my power to support it. When bipartisan attitudes fall away, the only people who suffer in this area are the Aboriginal people. If we feel strongly about the need to improve the performance of government in this area, a bipartisan approach will be one way in which we can get that level of achievement that we are all looking for. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) made the point that, when looking at expenditure, previous governments and this Government had perhaps-and I stress the word `perhaps'-thought that money should be just handed over for spending in various areas and that that was the right way to go. I inform him and the Committee that we have engaged in an exercise with the States to the effect that every program at the Commonwealth and State level will be looked at. We will address the question raised by a number of speakers about whether there is a duplication of services. I anticipate that towards the end of the year that assessment of programs will have neared completion, and it will certainly enable the Commonwealth, in its discussions with the States in December, to be better informed than it has been in the past as to how the various programs which are being operated by both the Commonwealth and States are performing. The point that the honourable member made is a valid observation. I inform the Committee that we are already addressing that point. The shadow Minister also referred to the question of housing. I suppose it would be simple for me to read out all the figures about our allocation of money for housing in this year's Budget. I will not do that. I say to him that one must always look at where one started from. Believe me, if one goes back some time, things were very bad. They are not good now. He suggested that people are not trying. I pay tribute to the attempts made by former Ministers in his Party who attempted to address the question of housing and shelter for Aboriginal people. He referred to Senator Chaney. I think that Senator Chaney would be the first to admit that it is not an easy task to fix the question of housing and housing needs of Aboriginal people. I say to him in a very friendly way that it is not a time to score points. Perhaps he was not trying to do that, but this is not an issue about which we have the luxury, as we do in other policy areas, of having a point-scoring exercise. It is a question of our making sure that what we are all trying to see happen, does happen. Rather than go into the question of how good our performance in this Budget is, I again make the point that we are in the first eight weeks of the term of this Government. We will not engage in a point-scoring exercise. We will suggest to people that we can address these questions together. Other comments were made by the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) and by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Braddon, about the treaty and the compact. I say to the Committee that that was the topic of a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I make the plea to the Opposition that we have a unique opportunity to address this question in a bipartisan way. We should not engage in point-scoring; we should stand back, look at this issue, discuss it with Aboriginal people and hope that, at the end of that discussion process, no matter how long it takes, we are able to achieve a treaty, compact, makarrata arrangement-whatever the title is-that is to their satisfaction and ours. I guess it is a challenge to all of us in this place who feel very strongly, as many honourable members do, about the need for something to be done and some recognition to be given to Aboriginal people. I think that we have a duty, as elected representatives, to do everything we can in as non-political a way as we can, to achieve the sorts of things for which Aboriginal people have been asking over the last 200 years. I again make the point that they have been here for 40,000 years, but it is really only in the last 20 years that they have had a chance to make any real gain. For the first 180 years they were not considered to be citizens of this country. If we go back 20 years and look at the gains that they as a community have made, we must come to the conclusion that they as a people have made remarkable progress in the way in which they have struggled and taken up the challenges that they have had to face. So there is the question of their 40,000 years of occupation of this land, the 200 years of non-Aboriginal settlement, and the fact that it has been 20 years since the referendum was held which resulted in their being treated as equals in terms of the law. We should look at that 20 years and at the progress they have made. Again, in regard to the question of the treaty and the compact, the honourable member for Lyne was, I think, quite right to say that there is an expectation in the community and in the Aboriginal community that there will be a result from those discussions. I, for one, have no doubt about it. I cannot see why we cannot reach an agreement that it is satisfactory to all. I will be doing everything I can, as long as I am in this job and afterwards, to see that that satisfactory conclusion is reached. I again make the point to the Opposition that there have been too many examples over a long period of politicians and others point-scoring at the expense of Aboriginal people. Those days must end. I make the point, in answer to an interjection, that I have not been backward in scoring a few points during debates on this issue; I admit that. I say that now is the time, given events of recent times, for us all to put that sort of performance behind us. Mr White —What's different now? Mr HAND —Maybe we all mature from time to time. I put it to the Committee in as genuine a way as I can that significant things have occurred in recent months that I think have brought about a change in the community. That change is expressed in the results of some recent polling. If one looks at the results of polls conducted two years ago, I suggest that the figures would not have been anywhere near what they are today. So this shift is taking place in the community. That shift has been reflected by all sorts of people speaking out in the media about the need to acknowledge that there is something radically wrong with the way in which Aboriginal people are struggling in the community. The question of the treaty, attitude and bipartisanship arose in the course of the debate. I ask people to look at the Budget allocations, and not to question the new programs in the way in which some people did. The new programs are needed. They address communications; they address basic shelter in the original lands, in the isolated areas of central Australia, where people do not have any shelter, where kids do not sleep under shelter, where kids do not have running water, let alone hot water, where kids are not able to go to school because there is no school. All of the statistics that honourable members cited in the course of the debate today are there to be seen. I am reminded of a comment made by an Opposition member of the Standing Committee which has stuck with me since the day he said it. I refer to the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), who made the comment that it would do every member of the Parliament good to serve six months on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I guarantee that if that were to happen, the changes we all talk about would happen very quickly, because no one could allow the sorts of conditions that exist within our community to occur for very long. They would demand change. Whilst we in Australia are often very critical of and quick to point out the problems of other countries, I say for the record that we as a community and as a nation have been very slow to address the points that were made in the course of this debate. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $7,150,478,000. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.29) —We have had a fair debate today on defence. I do not intend to go over that ground. I made some points about personnel matters which I hope the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) heard; I am sure that she did hear them. I hope that some of them will be taken on board. Mr Cadman —They need a bit of reinforcement. Why don't you do it now? Mr WHITE —I think she got the message. I speak from the heart on these matters. It is easy for me to say this, having served for many years in the forces, but I very much hope that she accepts what I say as being genuine. If at the end of the day we have magnificent equipment and no men and women to man it, we really will not have very much at all. I wish to raise tonight in the short time available some other questions concerning the defence of this country which really need some answers from the Government. I refer first of all to an alleged contracting fraud within the Department of Defence which has been reported recently in the media. I have no idea whether these reports are genuine; certainly some of the allegations refer to enormous amounts of money. The Canberra Times of 9 September cites an amount of $800m. An amount of $800m out of a total budget of $7.4 billion dollars comes out at a bit more than 10 per cent-an enormous amount of money when the defence budget, like any other budget, is short and we are desperately trying to improve the conditions of service for people in the Services as well as purchase all the capital equipment required and improve all the bases. So I ask the Government what is happening. I understand there is a departmental investigation and I hope that the results of that investigation will be made public as soon as it is established one way or the other whether or not those allegations have any truth to them. I return to the submarines project. We on this side of the chamber support the project but we were very disappointed that the contract was signed so quickly before the last election. I believe it was signed in haste. We asked the Government not to sign it, in anticipation that we would be returned to office and we wanted to have a closer look at it. In the event we were not, and the contract will stay in place. It would not have been repudiated had we been returned to government, either. Since the election, and since the program has got under way, some questions have arisen. I have asked them two or three times before but to my knowledge they have never been answered by the Government or by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). It is of no use the Minister dodging them. If the Government wants bipartisan support and a bipartisan approach to defence matters, this side-and I speak as the shadow Minister-would be delighted to give that support and take such an approach. No one is here to try to denigrate or in any way belittle the defence of this country, but when there are genuine differences of opinion as to how that defence is to be conducted, obviously there will be debate. We agree with the submarine project but three questions about the project, which I have asked before, need to be answered. It would appear now that some or all of the first submarine is to be built in Sweden. That admission was dragged, with some difficulty, from Mr Bennett, the Defence Department's Chief of Capital Procurement. To my knowledge, there has never been a statement on that matter by the Minister. The only statements I have ever been able to dig up from the Minister are that all those submarines-they are the words he used in all his Press statements, time after time-were to be built in Australia. Now it would appear that part of the first submarine is to be built in Sweden. That may well be a good thing; there might be good reasons why that should happen. We need a clear statement for the benefit of Australian industry, as to just how much of that first submarine is to be built in Sweden, and why. Secondly, we want to know what performance standards will be required of that submarine. When the Swedish consortium was tendering it listed a certain set of performance standards. The Royal Australian Navy took that submission and significantly upgraded most of those standards. Now we have the Navy's upgrading of the Swedish consortium's standards and we have the Swedish consortium's own assessment of its performance standards. What are the standards to which that submarine will be built? Finally, and this is probably the most important point, it seems to me that in the haste to sign this contract before the last election one vital element was not tied up. When we eventually get the hulls and have to put a combat system in those hulls-two separate contractors are involved-who will be responsible for the final integration of the hulls and the combat systems? Maybe that has been tied up. I very much hope that the principal contractor, the Swedish consortium, has accepted that responsibility but I am not clear on that and neither are a lot of other people. If that has not been tied up, who will accept responsibility? In the end we could well be talking about a cost of millions and millions of dollars to get that match right. There will be two contractors involved in the enormous job of integrating a combat system into a very sophisticated submarine. These are not casual questions, and I note with some interest that Mr John Halfpenny-I hesitate to name him; he is hardly a colleague of mine-is also raising some of these questions. Between the two of us, Mr Halfpenny and I in collusion, we may get some answers. I ask the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel to take on board just a few other quick queries. The M113 project is very important to the defence of this country, especially in relation to the northern development of the Army. Initially there was to be a Project Waler, an Australian developed armoured personnel carrier (APC). That was scrapped. The Government has been talking for some time about the refurbishment of the existing APCs. I see no mention of that in the Budget or in the defence paper presented today; it seems to have been put on hold. It is important that we get a clear statement on that project. The F111 update also gets only a vague mention in passing. It seems to me that the submarines and the F111s are the two most effective deterrents this country has. I do not think we can afford not to update the avionics on the F111s as they have 25 years of life left, but that issue seems to have been dodged. I also hope very much that the Government will look at putting equipment on the Boeing 707 aircraft to enable the F111s to have an aerial refuelling capability as well as the FA18s. It simply does not make any sense, with our limited capacity to reach out from our shores, not to have the capacity to refuel the F111s in mid-air. I also ask when that 707 aircraft conversion is to start. This Government and the previous Government have talked about that for a long time. The Opposition also supports the frigates pro- ject, but there seems to be a hiccup with it. I know that the Navy recommendations have been to the Minister's office, and I know that they have been sent back to the Navy. We would like to know what the problem is. Is the whole project to be recast? Was it too expensive? Were the frigates too big, or were they too small? Was there too much equipment? What is the problem, and why have those recommendations been sent back? Finally, I refer to the Hamilton Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses, which is more directly the responsibility of the Minister at the table, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. We hear a lot about when the Hamilton report will be implemented. To my knowledge, a few cosmetic measures have been implemented. People spent a lot of time on the Hamilton report, and if the Government could make some genuine effort to implement some of the more important recommendations of that report it would go a long way to proving to the service men and women of Australia that it is genuine in its desire to improve their lot. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.39) —I congratulate the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) on the post-Budget statement on defence matters he made to the House this afternoon. It was a comprehensive and perceptive statement. It dealt with Australia's security alliance with the United States of America, it re-affirmed the defence strategy of the Government, it detailed the capital equipment program, it outlined a specific role for the Reserve Force and it gave a guarantee of continued efforts to improve efficiency in the Australian Defence Force, and that priority would be given to improving the pay and conditions of service for defence personnel. The statement should be required reading for every member of the Australian Defence Force. It should also be required reading for every member of the Opposition. This Budget enables the Department of Defence to spend $7,404m in 1987-88. Approximately $2,200m will be spent on major capital equipment, other equipment, stores and repairs and new housing and construction maintenance. The Minister's statement this afternoon detailed much of this expenditure. In line with the Hawke Government's commitment to upgrade defence housing stock and standards, this Budget provides $75m to be spent on defence housing this year. Defence personnel based at Townsville will welcome this. Fifteen additional houses will be constructed in Townsville for defence personnel this year. In addition, a further $60m has been committed as part of a program to upgrade single living accommodation. In Townsville, where approximately 11 per cent of Australia's Army is based, it is intended to convert 2,808 existing bedspaces, currently in the four-man-room configuration, into 312 separate modules, each comprising four individual bedrooms of about 12 square metres, a common room shared by the four occupants and a shared ensuite. This important program is expected to be under way in 1988 and be completed by 1992. The work is long overdue, as existing single living accommodation is very much sub-standard. Defence personnel in Townsville will welcome this initiative. I especially welcome the Minister's remarks on the integrated role of the Army Reserve. The Townsville-based 11th Brigade is now the most highly trained and combat effective Army Reserve formation in Australia, and it continues to improve. Its effective current strength is about 1,800 personnel and this should increase to about 2,300 personnel in the next three years. Reserve defence personnel in Townsville welcome the total force concept advocated by the Minister and are eager to integrate, where possible, with operationally ready and deployable combat forces. Defence reservists in my electorate are proud to serve their country to the best of their ability. They want to be competent, effective soldiers. That they will be, through the implementation of this new concept. I now refer to some aspects of the capital equipment program. First, I totally support the emphasis that the Government is placing on the program. Significant ongoing projects include the provision of $585m for the purchase of the FA18 aircraft and associated equipment. Twenty-six of these aircraft have already been delivered and 18 are planned to be assembled in Australia this year. I briefly mention other significant projects in the Budget. There is an allocation of $175m for the construction stage of the new submarine project. The first submarine is scheduled for delivery in 1995. There is an allocation of $141m for the acquisition of 16 Seahawk helicopters for operation from the guided missile frigates. The sum of $116m is allocated for the cost of construction of two FFG7 class guided missile frigates at Williamstown dockyard. The sum of $49m is allocated for the purchase of 39 Blackhawk helicopters to supplement the existing fleet of UH-IH Iroquois helicopters. Deliveries are to commence in November 1987 and these helicopters will be based at Townsville. The amount of $88m is allocated for 67 Pilatus PC9 trainer aircraft from Hawker de Havilland, Bankstown. Deliveries are expected to commence in November 1987. There is an allocation of $70m for various army communication projects including the new single channel radios, replacement cryptographic equipment and the hiport/medport trunk communications equipment. Furthermore, $14m will be spent this year at Townsville on facilities for the introduction of the new Blackhawk helicopters to be based there. There is almost unanimous support within the defence community for the decision of the Government to acquire eight new surface combatant ships, which are to be built in Australia. The Minister described the exceptional capabilities of these ships in his statement this afternoon. The first ship is planned for delivery in the early 1990s. The acquisition of these ships will help the Royal Australian Navy to acquire a two-ocean capability, which is essential for the self-reliance defence capacity advocated by the Government. The limitation of time permitted in this debate does not allow an exhaustive description of the Hawke Government's capital equipment program. That is a pity. Australians should be reminded often of the failure of the Liberal and National parties when in government to equip the three services with `the best and most appropriate weapons, missiles, transport and support equipment that money can buy'. They left it to the Hawke Labor Government to re-arm the Australian Defence Force. Yet one still hears the carping and the whining by the Opposition that this Government places too much emphasis on its capital equipment program. What items of defence equipment do members of the Opposition suggest are not essential for Australia's defence? Dare they answer? Hardly ever is there a constructive suggestion from the Opposition, so it should lift its game. I now refer to the pay and conditions of service for defence personnel. Honourable members are aware that defence personnel have never had a wage pause under the Hawke Government. The last wage pause for defence personnel was under the Liberal-National Party Government in 1982. What bitter memories defence personnel still have of that decision. The Hawke Government quickly established the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. It is an independent tribunal and its decisions are binding on the Government. The Tribunal has made a number of decisions on the pay and conditions of service. Generally, these decisions have been accepted by the vast majority of defence personnel. However, I strongly believe there is still much to do to raise the standard of pay and conditions of service for defence personnel. I urge the Government to continue to give this matter urgent priority. I know that service personnel require continual reassurance that their interests will be protected at all times. Uncertainty among service personnel in this regard can lead to disillusionment. The nation cannot afford that. I now refer to the defence service home loan scheme. There is tremendous opposition among many defence personnel to the Budget proposal to replace the defence service home loan of up to $25,000 with a non-repayable non-taxable cash grant of up to $10,000 for home acquisition. I am aware that the proposed arrangements are to be discussed with the Returned Services League and other interested parties before a final decision is made. Many serving defence personnel and ex-service personnel in my electorate see this proposal as an erosion of a Defence Force condition of service. They assert that no credible argument has yet been advanced that the $10,000 grant is an improvement on a loan of $25,000. The Government would be well advised to proceed with great caution on this issue. This Government has the trust and loyalty of defence personnel. We must never forget that. Finally, whatever the cost, Australia must have a Defence Force that is well equipped, well trained, well motivated and capable of defending Australia and its people. That is a fundamental duty of any Government. It is an obligation which this Government has accepted and it is an obligation that will be fulfilled by the best Federal Government that this country has had since World War II. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(10.49) —It is with great pleasure that I take part in this debate, because it gives me an opportunity to state again my concerns about one of the major capital equipment projects in the defence estimates; that is, the new submarine project. The amount of money allocated to that project in the Budget statement for the 1987-88 financial year is $175m. Members of the Opposition, including me, have on a number of occasions expressed considerable disquiet about aspects of this project. I think a lot of what we have been saying for a long time is now being confirmed in a number of publications and various sources in this country and elsewhere. I draw the attention of the Committee to an article written by a former submariner, Peter Scott-Maxwell, in the October edition of the Pacific Defence Reporter-a most professional publication. Among other comments, the article makes these remarks about the submarine project: Now that the Department of Defence has made a catastrophic decision to buy conventional submarines from a neutral country which has no wartime operational experience, the prospects of the RAN submarine service are indeed dismal. The Department of Defence is in effect committing the RAN to outmoded technology with which they will have to live, or die, for the next 30 years. The RAAF were not fobbed off with the subsonic aircraft. Why should the RAN become the laughing stock of the Pacific? A straight technical evaluation per se, does not necessarily ensure an ongoing technological involvement with the main stream of submarine development-whereby the Stirling engine is really only a gimmick and one believes a very expensive one at that. Now we have Canada apparently taking seriously what this article is all about, namely the small nuclear option with inherent higher speed, and endurance at that speed, which will be imperative to survival. The Canadians have thought out their rather similar problems, where we have not. The article goes on to say: Cannot the Department of Defence see that it is committing future generations of submariners to certain death in the event of hostilities. Have that on your conscience! The May edition of Navy International gives a very frightening update on antisubmarine torpedo development. What it will be like in say 15 years' time when the RAN is locked into old fashioned technology I hate to think . . . The decision to buy Swedish conventional submarines appears to have been a governmental decision, rather than a recommendation from the RAN-which will inherit the ultimate responsibility for this decision. They will still be there when the government in question will be in limbo. Peter Scott-Maxwell made some very telling points in that article. It is also interesting to note that Canada is moving in the direction it is because Kockums, the Swedish supplier to our own submarine project, was depending on some economies of scale on a larger production run by possibly obtaining the Canadian contract. That has not now come about, as it never properly should have. So all those rather disquieting concerns have been expressed by Peter Scott- Maxwell, which in fact confirm many of the matters that have been raised in this place by me and others over the past year to 18 months. We now also find ourselves in a situation where the purely pork-barrelling aspects of the project directed at particular State governments are also starting to come apart. Earlier tonight the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) referred quite correctly to the fact that after all the to-do there was about building all six boats here in Australia, in fact the decision has been made formally and confirmed by Fred Bennett, who has the appropriate responsibility for this area in the Department of Defence, that the forward section of the first boat will in fact be built in Sweden. The publication Defence Industry of 16 September 1987 carries an article on its front page that clearly says: No matter what light Mr. Bennett or other Defence Navy officials or officers might now wish to place on it, there was the clear impression that the Government's commitment was to build all sections of every hull in Australia. That attitude has been emphasised in official Defence and Ministerial briefings ever since the Hawke Cabinet, through the Defence Minister, Mr Kim Beazley, decided in May 1985, that all the submarine hulls would be built in Australia. This decision scrubbed an earlier option to build the first or lead boat overseas, and possibly even part of the second boat. That was the great telling propaganda point that Kockums kept putting forward to sell its project to the Defence Department and to this Government, that in fact all boats would be built in Australia. This was supposed to be the great advantage of choosing that company over certain of the other tenderers. Now we learn that that is not to happen and that the much vaunted pork-barrelling exercise directed at South Australia will be considerably diminished. I understand that there is already growing disquiet in South Australia, because that State realises that it will not achieve the expected employment opportunities in industry or the high technology that the Minister said it would get some time ago. I might add that there are suggestions going around that the aft section of the hull of the first boat is also to be built in Sweden. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response to those suggestions because at present they have some currency. If they prove to be correct, I will be fascinated to see what happens, because the Government's proposition in the first place was that the hulls be constructed here in Australia, and that was supposed to be the great advantage of giving the contract to Kockums. Now the suggestion is being made that the hull-certainly the forward section and quite possibly the aft section-is to be built in Sweden. So much for the propaganda that was being churned out some time ago. That brings me to some of the quite serious concerns that were raised earlier about the security of the project. The building of the boats here in Australia was also meant to be a device by which some of the aspects of probable penetration of the project could be avoided, having regard to many of the security considerations that have permeated industry in Sweden and that have particularly affected its armaments industry and its shipbuilding industry. Recently the Bofors scandal broke in Sweden and it was covered also on British television. It was made apparent that various people in the Swedish armaments industry and in the Swedish Foreign Ministry have been systematically involved in moving Swedish armaments illegally to Iran. One of the people who have been exposed as being heavily involved in that process is Mr Carl-Johan Aaberg, Under-Secretary of State at the Swedish Foreign Ministry's foreign trade section. He finds himself at the centre of this controversy. He is the Swedish Government official who is alleged to have given the covert go-ahead for the illegal smuggling of arms, ammunition and other war materiels from Sweden to Tehran using South East Asian paperwork as a cover for direct transit to Iran. Mr Aaberg has admitted his involvement in the Swedish Bofors arms deals but has stated publicly that the Swedish supplies of explosives, missiles and high-powered gunboats were not and are not war materiels. That is not a very convincing argument on his part. What is the significance of Mr Aaberg in this matter? Mr Carl-Johan Aaberg, who has now been shown throughout this exercise not only to have been organising the supply of arms to Iran but also as having an ongoing contact with the KGB, was the Swedish Government official who gave the assurances to this Government in the negotiations on our submarine contract that there had been no Eastern Bloc penetration of Kockums. We now find ourselves in a situation where a major part of the first boat will be built in Sweden, and that opens up once again the whole question of security considerations. At the same time we find that the Swedish Government official who assured us that there was no Eastern Bloc penetration of Kockums is now shown to be in contact with the KGB and heavily involved in the Bofors arms scandal which has just been exposed in Sweden and on British television. Mr Cadman —You will not get any answers to those questions tonight. Mr ALDRED —I shall be interested to see whether the Government has any answers on this occasion or future occasions. The Opposition does not intend to let these questions rest now or at any stage. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.58) —I am sure that every honourable member is concerned about the defence of Australia. Honourable members were interested this afternoon to hear the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) deliver his White Paper on budget matters and defence issues. This evening I wish to make some remarks about the personnel in our Defence Force. I am particularly interested in this matter because I happen to represent in this place those stationed at the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base at Williamtown, situated just north of Newcastle. Over the past week or so I have had the opportunity, at the request of the wives of quite a few of the servicemen, to meet those personnel and to have general discussions with them about the matters about which they are worried at present. I am sure that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) will be interested in this matter because she now has ministerial responsibility for it. The defence budget of $7,404m is a very large amount. We must appreciate the fact that most of that money, or the extra funds that are sought, will be used for the purpose of materiel acquisitions. There is a falling away in the fact that those 70,000 service personnel, both the men and women who actually conduct the three arms of the service, are the ones who are being depleted. In fact, I can say to the Committee this evening that in the last week or so five FA18 pilots at the Williamtown base resigned. There were six, but one has withdrawn his resignation. They have resigned only because they are dissatisfied with the actual conditions of service that are available for them at the present time. The wives have pointed out to me, and quite honestly, that the actual conditions of service have deteriorated over a period of time. We must recall and remember, of course, that is of no use our having all the new submarines, aircraft, ships and guns unless we have the well-trained personnel to operate the three arms of the service. We are losing pilots now at such a rate that it would take at least twelve months to train the replacements for the losses of pilots we have had from the service in the last three months. The Minister nods her head. I am sure she agrees with this, too. I would like to extend to the Minister an invitation to go to that area at some time. Mrs Kelly —I am going to. Mr COWAN —I would love to join her, because I want to co-operate. We will talk with the wives, because the wives are a very important element today of service life. We have to realise that people who are serving within the Services, particularly within the Royal Australian Air Force, are people who are moved from place to place throughout Australia all the time, and even overseas. If they spend a year, or two years at the most, in one centre, they are doing pretty well. But the fact of the matter is that they come and they go. I think actual statistics will show that service personnel have larger families than other people in the community, which is great to see, but they have their educational problems, and particularly housing problems. If honourable members go around the housing areas-particularly in my area, like Raymond Terrace, Nelson Bay and Newcastle-they will find that most of the personnel are actually living in housing commission homes, and the standard of those homes is not as good as others the community. The Minister for Defence today made it quite clear that servicemen and service women have now got a clear cut direction within Australia. He said that the service personnel joined for the challenge and to serve the nation. We do not disagree with a word of that. That is true. But it is not doing justice to those people, and that is the thing that I want to raise here this evening. I have spoken about the base. The Williamtown base is a pleasant, happy base. Everybody is happy there. What I speak about this evening are not the conditions existing on the base but those existing in the arms of the Services right throughout the Commonwealth of Australia, and particularly within the RAAF, and these people are worried. That is why I wanted to raise the matter here. Actual conditions that were available to these people, and I suppose one could say concessions that were available to them 5, 10 or 15 years ago, are now gone. The salaries are not commensurate with the salaries that people receive in private industry. I know that pilots speak about a salary they can get if they go over to Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines or Ansett Airlines of Australia. I do not compare it with that, but I do compare servicemen in all grades with people outside. That is why they are finding that when they look at their conditions today they want to get out and get themselves a job elsewhere within the community. They pointed out to me that pride in service to the country has gone. They pointed out to me that the special Defence Force dwelling loan that was available before the housing loan, which gave some security to them after retirement, has now gone. They have not got that. They also pointed out the fact that the cheap married quarters that were available for rental years ago are just not available at this point of time. Of course, the Government's dedication generally to the service by the provision of equipment and facilities to enable servicemen to carry out the job safely and properly is not there now. It was there before. I spoke before about the morale. The wives have pointed out to me, as I said earlier, the educational problems and the fact that they have to move from house to house. They find that they have to get jobs. Many of the wives, even with a family, look for work in the community, but the truth of the matter is that it is hard for them to get a job because they are moving and people who want to keep a permanent secretary or a shop assistant will not put on a serviceman's wife because they know that after a time the women will move on. So these are the problems that we have. If we look at events the last couple of years, we find that the tax on superannuation was a severe blow to service personnel. I know that others have to pay that tax, but look at the conditions of service people. The imposition of the tax upon their superannuation is something that they do not deserve, after serving their country-and all these people are available to serve their country in times of war, to defend Australia, and we must never forget that. We are inclined to forget these important things. We think they just have a job and they are there to do it, but they are the front line so far as we as civilian people in Australia are concerned. Sixteen million people are dependent upon them. We want them well-trained, and we want them happy in their job, because Australia is a producer of food and goods and minerals and the world is dependent upon us. So it is that we have to be actually prepared at all times. The servicemen and women spoke to me about their defence forces retirement and death benefits scheme. That was a good scheme, but the actual scheme is not much better than any government scheme. They do not receive any further concessions. They are not like an aged pensioner or other pensioners in the community, who are able to get concessions on the railway or concessions on the rental of housing in their elderly period of life. Those things are not available to them. They also pointed out to me the fact that many personnel, particularly the pilots and the air crews, are sent from place to place. They serve very long hours. It surprises me that the five who have just resigned-and all of them are instructors at the Williamtown base-have been grounded. They are not allowed to fly. I did not inquire, but I doubt whether that instruction came from anybody on the base; it has come from higher up. I wonder whether these people higher up realise the problems that face the personnel below them. I hope the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel will look at this very seriously. I know the Minister is new in her job; I know that she is conscientious, and I have respect for her, but I hope she will look at these things and see that the people who work within the forces are considered and the problems that they have are recognised by the people further up. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(11.08) —It is very decent of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) not to stand because I notice that she is next on the list. I just want to refer to an article run in the Australian newspaper on 18 August this year, an editorial on the personnel crisis in the armed forces. I quote three brief paragraphs which get, I believe, to the heart of our personnel crisis and which I think the appropriations we are discussing tonight ignore. The first quote read: Slightly fewer than 25,000 members of the armed forces, or more than 36 per cent of the total defence force, have resigned during the past three years. A record number of just under 9,000 resigned in 1986-87. The losses have been particularly great among officers and senior non-commissioned officers. The second paragraph I wish to refer to read: These dreary statistics mean, in short, that Australia, which finds itself in an increasingly unpredictable and hazardous region, is increasingly unable to defend itself. Finally: Any economy, however admirably motivated, that puts our national survival at risk is a false economy. The Government must not forget that, if we cannot defend ourselves, all our other endeavours will be in vain. It is important to note that that assessment of the implications of current resignation rates is shared by the chiefs of staff. Indeed, they have put that view to the Minister in writing. It was also grudgingly acknowledged in the White Paper in March. That paper states: The Government is concerned at the present rate of separation from the ADF . . . while a reasonable turnover of personnel in the ADF is necessary to exercise the training infrastructure and maintain a young fit force, the present level is higher than desired. That was the understatement of the White Paper. Unfortunately neither the new Minister-and I am not launching any special attack on the Minister because I know, as the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), said, she is very conscientious and will no doubt come to grips with many of these daunting problems that confront her-nor subsequently these allocations appreciate fully the nature and extent of our defence personnel crisis. It will suffice to quote what the new Minister said on 10 August in an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio interview. I think the Minister may have said something about this during Question Time. The Minister said: And frankly, I think the whole issue is being incredibly exaggerated. There's no doubt there is an increase in our separation rates over previous years, but it isn't very dramatic. The allocations under discussion tonight reflect the Minister's failure to understand the seriousness of our problem. Perhaps I am being a bit unfair by saying that. It is not just the personal dimensions of career and family frustration of this crisis which should concern the Government; it is the impact they are having on our operations. Just after the election I was sent a copy of a minute from a former Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) member at Richmond. The minute was written by Air Vice-Marshal Bradford and was critical of the Government's zero manpower growth strategy which, he wrote, has occurred at a time when demands on RAAF manpower resources have increased dramatically. Air Vice-Marshal Bradford states: During the same time the RAAF resignation rates have increased. Although statistical proof would be difficult, my belief is that operating standards have decreased as a result through lack of experienced manpower . . . Many RAAF sections are so critically manned that productivity is inhibited when personnel are moved from one task to another to rationalise another operational `bush fire', and crisis management results. An unfortunate consequence of this style of management is the significant time that is wasted as personnel are moved from familiar to unfamiliar tasking, because of the learning time that is required. This waste is compounded further if, and when, the moved personnel revert to their familiar tasking with an additional catch-up/learning component. Of real significance, however, is that section of the minute where the Air Vice-Marshal links manpower and subsequent information management problems with aircraft losses. He goes on: One area of tasking throughout the RAAF that is slipping, for example, is the amendment status of many publications. This slippage occurs because other higher priority requirements are seen to be more important. Yet publications are the documentation that supports the configuration management and control of our systems. This shortfall will lead to similar deficiencies that caused the aircraft oxygen fires and the Mirage undercarriage related losses. The trend, therefore, will be towards lower safety standards. I will not comment further on this aspect of the allocation. I refer honourable members and those listening to this discussion to the comments by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) earlier today on the latest statement of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). Not only does the Minister now not have the support of his Cabinet for his portfolio requirements; his academic approach to defence and security is being highlighted by the expertise and experience the honourable member for McPherson brings to the debate as an officer who has actually seen service in a theatre of war. I will refer briefly to a number of other concerns about these defence allocations. When the Minister for Defence took up his position his guarantee and boast were that the long term planning process and certainty in budget growth would characterise his period as Minister. What these allocations show is that his boast was not based on a realistic assessment of his chances of sustaining political support in Cabinet over a number of years. He-and I want both sides to be honest in this regard-like past Ministers, has failed to deliver on what were necessary goals and schedules. He told us we required 3 per cent real growth in defence allocations over the next several years. He lost in Cabinet. He told us we could get by on zero growth. He lost in Cabinet. He tells us now we can survive with real cuts. That is simply not true. Unfortunately, Australians may not come to appreciate that fact until they face an unexpected security crisis. I will raise only two other questions with the Minister. The first concerns the following claim put by Vice-Admiral Leach and Commodore Robertson in an article in The Australian recently. The review of our force structure, they claim: . . . will not be achieved with a Defence Department that is so top heavy that it has an incredible 168 public servants of the equivalent rank of Brigadier or above (including 10 three-star ``generals'', 35 two-star ``generals'' and 12 unattached). Nor will it be achieved ``they continue'' with a military officer corps which is over-officered to the extent that, in relative terms, Australia has 3 1/2 times as many officers as the US armed forces-which are themselves considered to be over-officered. I ask the Minister for his response to that claim. The second concerns the need for the Minister to renew public debate on the White Paper. I am not convinced sufficient resources have been allocated to the task of assisting the broader community to participate in what must be an ongoing discussion of defence policy. The vast majority of our citizens are not only unaware of the content of the White Paper but are not equipped to deal with the paper's arguments. Not many people read the 27-page documents the Minister puts down from time to time. The challenge is how to bring the views of the Australian Defence Association and the Peace Research Centre, for example, before those who ultimately determine who sits in parliament to draw up defence policy and send troops into the field. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(11.17) —Tonight few honourable members are in the chamber. We are sitting late and we have a new Minister, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), at the table. No advisers are in the boxes. Honourable members on this side are asking critical questions and taking the debate seriously. They are not being needlessly critical of the Government or vindictive in their speeches. They deserve from the Government answers to these questions. I want an undertaking from the Government that the effort put in by honourable members on this side will be recognised and properly dealt with. We could be calling quorums at this hour of the night; we have chosen not to, but in the spirit of this debate and in the Estimates debate in general the Opposition deserves from the Government proper attention and courtesy that it is not receiving. I shall not extend my remarks. I know the Minister cannot answer the questions raised by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). They are substantial defence questions. The honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) raised critical questions on the submarine project. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) raised matters of defence service homes and accommodation that could have been answered in the chamber by an informed Minister. The honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) has raised a number of issues in a sympathetic and low key way. I want an undertaking from the Minister that the Opposition will receive the courtesy of the Government in the spirit in which the Estimates debates are normally conducted. Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel)(11.19) —First of all, I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the Government to thank all honourable members for their contributions. I can assure them I take very seriously the contributions of honourable members to this debate, especially because this is my first formal speech as a Minister. In fact, I think it is probably the first speech by any woman Minister to the House of Representatives chamber in Australia's history. It is a bit odd making history at 20 past 11 on a Thursday night. Nevertheless, I assure the honourable member for Mitchell that I do take those comments very seriously and I am quite sure many of the issues referred to-of course, some of them were addressed in the statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) today-will be addressed in further detail. I was very pleased to hear so many comments about the issue relating to personnel because it is true that this is an area of great importance and significance to this Government. That is the reason I have my portfolio. Before I go into detail on some of the issues that were raised, particularly those relating to separations, I would like to make a few brief comments on some of the contributions. My more general comments will cover many of the points made. I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) for his contribution and for his dedicated service to his constituents. I was in Townsville last week and I was made aware of some of the issues he raised. In particular, I had a look at some of the housing that he discussed. I can assure honourable members that the Government will continue its commitment to provide defence service housing, and I will make further comments on that. I appreciated the comments of the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan). He is obviously very sympathetic to his constituents. However, the issues that he raised are very complex. He discussed the number of resignations from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). I will go into that in some detail, but I think the reasons for those resignations are incredibly complex. They do not relate just to conditions of service. What the honourable member for Lyne failed to point out was that the Government is attempting to address many of the issues relating to pay and conditions. It was his Government which put a freeze on defence service personnel salaries, and that needs to be considered in the context of the defence service conditions now being looked at through proper arbitration and industrial relations channels. I can assure honourable members that this is an area of great concern to the Government. My portfolio covers both the personnel area and the area of technology. Both of these are vital to the effective defence of Australia. This country obviously needs technology, and it needs it where the people are fewest. I want to go on later to talk about defence science and technology because that is a key area in the defence portfolio that seems to get very little consideration. But the first thing I want to do is to take up the issue that has been raised by many contributors tonight, the issue of separation rates. At the moment, as honourable members will have heard in Parliament today, this issue is the centre of some controversy in my portfolio. By `separations' I mean the number of men and women leaving the Services for any reason at all, including illness, resignation or death. It is a very emotive issue and I am very concerned about it. I do not want to brush it aside but, in the interests of informed debate, it is important that we put it in perspective and get a few facts on it. Then we will deal with some of the key areas where there are problems. First of all, overall separation rates last financial year stood at 12.8 per cent. The 10-year average has been 11.1 per cent. Some of the reasons leading to an increase in separation rates relate to the changing nature of the Defence Force, to demographic changes. One is the increase in the number of women in the Australian defence forces. Another one is the number of recruits and the use of reservists on full time duty. All of these have higher than usual separation rates, and they account for a percentage. The fact is that the increase in separations among full time male service personnel is accountable for less than one per cent of the overall increase last year. I do not present this figure as a reason for satisfaction, much less any jubilation. It is a trend that neither I, the Chief of the Defence Force, nor the service chiefs would want to see continue. None of us are burying our heads in the sand of optimism or saying that all will be well and leaving it alone. However, the present figure is not a disaster; it is not a national tragedy. It does not herald the inevitable decline of Australia's Defence Force. Moaning about it and refusing to admit that there is a problem are both equally futile responses. This figure of 12.8 per cent is a trigger for action. We need to identify causes and address them specifically. There are many reasons for this rise. It is a very complex issue. The effect of the rise does not fall equally on all the many groups that make up the Australian Defence Force. One of the groups that I referred to in Question Time today is the pilots. The honourable member for Lyne rightly highlighted that as a problem. We need pilots not only because they are essential to the defence of this country and to the strategy of the White Paper, but also because we devote large resources to training them. The basic problem is that pilots are scarce and they are very highly sought after. The Royal Australian Air Force pilots are the cream. They are the best trained and the most highly skilled pilots one can find. Commercial operators want them and currently more are going to commercial jobs than we would like. I will be talking to the senior management of Qantas Airways Ltd to explore how Qantas might adjust its recruiting practices to help the RAAF manage the destabilising effects on the separations of the current recruitment drive for civil pilots. There is no magic solution to halt the drain of pilots from the RAAF. In consultation with the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Marshal Funnell, I have identified strategies that will work to maintain adequate experience levels in our fighting units. The high number of applications for pilot training shows that flying in the RAAF is still very much an attractive career. As the increased availability of better paying civil flying careers attracts more experienced pilots away from the RAAF, the opportunities for people to enter training must increase. This will be expensive but it must be a major feature of our strategy to overcome the current problem of pilot shortages. We are also investigating the possibility of a `flying only' stream in the Air Force. The Royal Air Force has had such a scheme for many years. The RAAF may not be big enough for such specialisation but we are keeping an open mind on that possibility. We are also looking at options for increasing the retirement age in certain cases. A step towards solving the problem that some pilots have with flying desks is also being taken. Jobs which have traditionally gone to pilots but which could be performed by other personnel are being targeted for reclassification. The posting of flying instructors will also be stabilised. Currently, some instructors serve for as little as one year on a posting, and this turnover is a factor in the loss of some very highly skilled pilots. Pilots will be the beneficiaries of the improved conditions of service that are being introduced and constantly being reviewed by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. It is in the area of specialist allowances that really useful increases in pay can be directed to serving members of the forces, particularly in areas where we are having the separation problems. The Tribunal begins its investigation of the flying allowance later this month. The Government's commitment to sizable increases in the allowance has been shown just recently with the field allowance, which has been tripled from $4.01 a day to $12 a day, at a cost of $17.6m a year, and the submarine allowance, which has been raised to $6,800 a year for seamen posted to a sea-going submarine. Other smaller but very irritating problems associated with postings are being dealt with. These may seem little things to people in this chamber but they are big things to many of the Defence Force personnel and their families. I refer to such things as having to change a drivers licence when moving from State to State, accommodation difficulties and all the turbulence of moving. Those things are being addressed. I am addressing all of those things individually for the benefit of all service personnel and their families. It is up to us and to the commanders in the various bases to let servicemen and women know that these issues are being addressed and that practical solutions are being found for the difficulties that may be affecting them. Of course, pilots will benefit from these improvements, too. The RAAF is looking very carefully at its structure and its operational needs. The downstream effect of current enlistment levels, the best allocation of resources, sensitivity to individual posting requests-all of these are under constant review. As I have previously stated, enlistment is the key. We have been experiencing higher levels of recruitment recently. There are young men and some women who really want to fly and fly the best. There are many-they are the future of our air defences-who see a move from the RAAF to commercial airlines, attractive though it may be financially, as a real waste of their skills. That is a key matter to which we must give emphasis. Flying RAAF planes is in a class of its own. It is almost like comparing driving a racing car and driving a school bus. It is important that we encourage these people to stay in the service by giving them the opportunity to fly, if that is what they want to do. There is no way that we can pay the salaries being paid to commercial airline pilots, so we must consider other things, such as making conditions more attractive and looking at the housing provided. It must all be done as a package, as well as looking at the operations of the RAAF. These matters are being addressed. To me they are an area of top priority, but I think this is the way to deal with the separation problem. We must look at each affected area, attempt to target it, and try to come up with a package of solutions designed for that particular area, in addition to looking at overall conditions in the service. The other area about which I am most enthusiastic-it has not arisen in this debate but I take the opportunity to give the Committee some education about it-is the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), the other area of my portfolio. The DSTO is the second biggest research facility in Australia. It has been part of the Department of Defence since 1974. In its role of providing scientific support to the defence forces, DSTO has carried out its task with great skill. It has wide acceptance in the world as being top class. Its budget is about $170m and it employs between 3,000 and 4,000 people, so it is a fairly substantial part of the defence budget and an area which I think is doing some very exciting work. I am reorganising DSTO to allow it to concentrate on the priorities set out in the White Paper. Australia needs to concentrate its efforts on intelligence-gathering technologies, surveillance technology, mine warfare, command control and communication systems, improved tactical mobility and electronic warfare. To this end DSTO will be setting up a new surveillance research laboratory at Salisbury in South Australia. If any honourable members are interested in this field, I would be happy to organise for them to visit some of our laboratories. There are five of them, centred mainly in Melbourne and in Salisbury in South Australia. In addition, one of this Government's highest priorities is to broaden Australia's industrial base and to encourage import replacement and export. DSTO has a contribution to make in technology transfer and putting out to industry development work previously done in-house. From now on DSTO will concentrate on the research end of the research and development spectrum. Its work force mix will include more research scientists, engineers, and technical staff who will partly offset the several hundred support staff no longer required because of work contracted to industry. New ways to commercialise the considerable number of appropriate DSTO inventions are currently being investigated. Exciting possibilities exist in joint ventures and in other commercial links between industry and DSTO laboratories. The organisation has done a marvellous job. The reorganisation of DSTO will streamline and concentrate its operations and widen their impact, thereby providing more effective support to DSTO's principal customer, the Australian Defence Force. Separation rates and high technology are only part of the portfolio of Defence Science and Personnel. If we had more time available tonight and it was an earlier hour, I would go into further detail of some of the areas of my portfolio, but I shall possibly do that in the next sitting week. As Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, my first concern is servicemen and women, but they are not the be-all and end-all of my responsibility. Service people have spouses and families whose lives are profoundly affected by service conditions. As a result, those conditions cannot take account only of the needs and legitimate expectations of serving members but must also cater for the needs of the wives, husbands and children of defence personnel. This Government has been very much aware of the impact that service life has on families and has actively sought to find out how it can ease the adjustments that families must make. The Government commissioned the Hamilton report-the Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses. I do not really want to refer to the report in any detail, but I simply say that I am addressing the contents of the report. In my maiden answer to a question in this chamber by the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey), I spoke about one major area of the report that has been implemented-the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Service, which is well on the way to being operational. That is only one aspect of the report but I am acting on the recommendations contained in it. Obviously, much discussion is still needed, particularly with the chiefs of personnel, so we can work out the priorities for implementation. But I do place a high priority on the implementation of the report's recommendations. There has also been some controversy in this chamber today about the appointment of a Helen Mayer to undertake some work as a consultant of mine. Let me say there has been a lot of misunderstanding about that. Mrs Mayer's work is to implement one of the recommendations of the Hamilton report. One of the key issues that affect personnel is the movement between States. What I have asked Mrs Mayer to do-- Mr Beale —Who is Mrs Mayer? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will refrain from interjecting. Mrs KELLY —I have asked Mrs Mayer to look at the issues that relate to State conditions. Mr Beale —With great respect, Mr Deputy Chairman, we have had a reference to Mrs Mayer. I am asking who Mrs Mayer is. Mrs KELLY — She is a consultant to me. I am concerned about my constituents, and my constituents are the defence men and women of this country who will have the very best people working for them. I am explaining that what this woman will do as my consultant is look specifically at negotiations with the State governments on issues-- Mr Lloyd —What salary is she receiving? Mrs KELLY —I will go into that in a moment. She will look specifically at negotiations with State governments on issues that affect defence service personnel as they move interstate. Mr Beale —Is she an expert on this? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Mrs KELLY —I shall give the honourable member an example. Each State has different laws about the adoption of children. I think it is very unfair that when a service man or woman moves from one State to another, they may lose their place on a waiting list to adopt a child. If, for example, they move to Victoria and have been on a list in New South Wales, they can lose their place on the waiting list. We must work out some uniformity in handling issues that affect defence personnel. Another area is car registration. Different States have different regulations. Defence trainees may be located in a new State for only 12 weeks but they must acquire a new driving licence. Mr Lloyd —Sometimes they have to pay additional stamp duty. I would like to take that up. I know a few people who have been caught with that. Mrs KELLY —That is right. That is a key issue. These are State government matters and are the sorts of issues she will be looking at. Mr Beale —Who will be looking at them? Mrs KELLY —My consultant. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Deakin and the honourable member for Murray will cease interjecting. Mrs KELLY —If the interjectors keep quiet, I shall go into more detail. Mr Beale —Well, answer the question on salary and qualifications. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Deakin is close to being warned. Mrs KELLY —There has also been some confusion about the amount of money referred to. My consultant will be working out of the Department of Defence in Melbourne. She is on a level 1 salary. She has no staff of her own. She has the use of a steno-secretary in the Department of Defence and that is it. Mr Beale —What is the salary? Mrs KELLY —That is the work she is doing. I think this area is extremely important to the defence forces and we are implementing one of the recommendations of the Hamilton report. Mr Beale —Why don't you answer the question about the salary? You told the honourable member for Murray that you would say what it was. Mrs KELLY —I told you: level 1. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The Minister will address the Chair. Mrs KELLY —So what is extremely important is that we get some results for the defence forces. This is the first time these issues have been addressed. They are things that really niggle at defence service personnel as they move from State to State. Another area which is extremely important is that of education. We need to get some sort of uniform school accreditation and reporting procedures as kids and their families move from State to State. At the moment, there is very little uniformity at all. I consider these areas very important and ones which I will address. I have also begun the process of going around various bases in Australia. I have had meetings with the conveners of the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses, which was another group set up as a result of the Hamilton report recommendations, with the Townsville area group of service spouses and with representatives of the Navy, Army and Air Force wives associations. These consultations are enormously valuable. They have given me a very good sense of what the priorities are. Mr Cowan —Are you going to meet my ladies? Mrs KELLY —The honourable member for Lyne has invited me to visit the base in his electorate, Williamtown. I intend to visit that base. I will also meet with service spouses if that can be organised. I have also asked the chiefs of the three Services to report to me on what they see as the most pressing priorities for implementation of the Hamilton report. I expect their reports in the very near future. Since I will be introducing into the House later this month the Defence Housing Authority Bill, I will not go into-- Mr Beale —Another one. It has been off again, on again, gone again, Flannagan. Mrs KELLY —It is quite obvious that the Opposition is not concerned about these issues that are of vital concern to the Defence Force personnel and their families. I will not be going into the details of the subject of defence housing tonight because that will be discussed, as I said, later this month. It is enough to reaffirm the Government's pledge of $750m over the next decade to defence housing, to building and maintaining it. I intend that the pattern I have been reporting tonight will continue. There will be ongoing consultation, and specific and effective action taken where a need has been identified. This portfolio is a very challenging one. I am enjoying that challenge. I can assure the honourable members who have spoken tonight that I am very committed to the implementation of improved conditions of service in the defence services. I am enjoying it because I believe that I can really do something of great importance in the defence of Australia. I thank all honourable members for their contribution. Mr Aldred —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. The trivia about Mrs Mayer was all very fascinating, but some very serious questions were raised tonight on a number of major capital equipment projects. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Aldred —I would like confirmation from the Minister that the serious questions raised tonight by me, the honourable member for McPherson and others will be answered. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Mr Beale —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. The Minister undertook to reveal what the financial circumstances were with regard to Mrs Helen Mayer but she has not done so. Would you please ask her to do so? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —It is not within my power to direct the Minister to answer a specific point. Mr Beale —Are you saying, Mr Deputy Chairman, that, after the Minister having said she would do so, and now not having done so, you are not going to require her to do so? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The Minister will be in contact with honourable members later. Mr Beale —Mr Deputy Chairman, are you saying that the Minister will be in touch with honourable members later? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The Minister will no doubt relay the information that is required to the honourable member later. Mr Beale —Is that an instruction from you, Mr Deputy Chairman? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —No. There is no instruction. The Minister is quite capable of determining her own priorities. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Primary Industries and Energy Proposed expenditure, $349,568,000. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(11.45) —The figure I wish to concentrate on is the Budget figure for the primary industries sector of $403.6m, down $56m from the previous year, to which can be added $22.4m for fishing and forestry. The first point I wish to make is that the figures for agricultural or primary industry are meaningless. Mr Beale —You have the Minister for Consumer Affairs in front of you. You are going to be terrified. Mr LLOYD —He is going to become a staple in this place, is he not? The figures in the Budget Papers for assistance to agriculture are meaningless. When I say `meaningless', I am not necessarily criticising the Government, but I am criticising the way in which these figures are presented in the Budget Papers. A significant percentage of what many people would think is actual government assistance for primary industry is, in fact, only transfer payments, such as grower levies and promotion for research, or assistance which should really be for the manufacturing industry, such as fertiliser dumping rebates, or assistance under the steel plan with regard to the new grain terminal at Port Kembla. I believe it is time that an accurate Budget figure of assistance to agriculture was provided, not this mixture of transfer payments, growers' money and government assistance. It is high time that the rural Press became investigative, sorted out what is the real figure and what is not, and stopped blindly accepting government figures. If we compare the level of assistance shown in the Budget Papers with the more real assistance given to other sectors of industry, we see that it is dramatically less. To quote the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), `It is under 0.5 per cent of total Budget expenditure'; that is, $426m out of $78,000m. But if we take the real figure, it is considerably less. The genuine level of assistance to agriculture obviously must vary depending on the economic circumstances of an industry from time to time. Therefore, whether assistance is up or down is not as important as whether it should be up or down to meet those varying circumstances. We must also acknowledge the value of underwriting for a range of different agricultural industries, even if there is no actual payment. One has to view with concern the threat to underwriting of the wheat industry now in the draft report of the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC). Everybody in agriculture would be more than happy if no assistance were needed for the primary industries sector, and there would be little need for assistance if all other sectors were treated in the same way as the agricultural sector is treated and if Australia were allowed to be internationally competitive with wages, inflation rates and interest rates and had an equitable taxation and cost-sharing burden. Unfortunately, that is not the case because agriculture must face an unfair burden. One has to acknowledge that real assistance for agriculture is needed and justified on social equity grounds and because of the lack of an equitable cost and tax distribution allocation between sectors. There must be recognition of the forms of assistance for agriculture, our greatest export earner, which will continue to be our greatest export earner for years to come. Despite all the rot about new technology and sunrise industries, there are more innovations, more new products and more dynamism in agriculture than in any other industry in Australia. One can contrast this with the Labor Government's lack of concern for agriculture, lack of concern for equity in agriculture, and its broken promises. That is the cause of the mistrust of the rural people of Australia for this Labor Government. They know that they cannot trust it. Let us look, for example, at wool promotion. I quote from a telex from the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), dated 16 June 1987, to Mr David Moore, Executive Director of the Wool Council of Australia: In reply to your telex of 4 June 1987 concerning the Government's contribution to wool promotion, the Australian Labor Party is committed to continuing the current arrangements which it put in place whereby the government contribution to wool promotion has been placed on a predictable long term basis by contributing 1.2% of the gross value of wool production. Government funding of wool promotion has risen from $20 million in 1982-83 to over $38 million expected for 1987-88. Yours sincerely John Kerin That was dated 16 June. What happened in the Budget? Mr Hunt —They pulled the wool over their eyes. Mr LLOYD —That is right, the Government pulled the wool over the eyes of the wool growers because it broke that promise in the Budget in September. We do not need to rely only on that example. Let us look at the Industries Assistance Commission and the double standard that the Government applies to decisions in relation to its reports. The level of assistance for agriculture is under half that which is given to the manufacturing industry, and is decreasing rapidly. The IAC reports may recommend the removal of any form of assistance for agricultural industries and the Government automatically accepts that recommendation. But it rejects requests in regard to manufacturing industries and quite often increases the level of assistance. If we look at the unfairness of input costs on fuel we will see that they have been indexed to over 20c since the Labor Government came to power. This imposes a great cost on country people. With regard to the rural adjustment scheme, less than one month after the Minister said that there were more than adequate amounts for the rural adjustment scheme for this financial year, his Labor colleague from South Australia contacted him, saying: South Australia is seeking more rural crisis funding from the federal government to help farmers who could be forced off the land. He was referring to wheat growers on the Eyre Peninsula who are affected by the cut-out of the season. So less than one month after the Budget was handed down, when there was supposed to be this assistance, or additional assistance, for rural adjustment already there is not enough. A further example is export inspection charges. The Commonwealth supposedly meets 50 per cent of the charges. With regard to beef residue testing, which is a legitimate export inspection requirement and an additional cost to the industry of about $35m, the Government has said that it will not meet its half share of this additional cost. In regard to new levies and taxes in the fishing industry, there is a completely new levy of $295 per vessel, as well as the doubling of licence fees in three years. There has been a lack of consultation with the wool industry and the fishing industry. Labor says, `That is fine because rural people are getting more assistance in the social areas-welfare, quality of life and family assistance. You are given a 008 number and the counselling arrangements are in the rural directory'. I acknowledge that that is a good, positive move to provide information. If one looks at the real social assistance provided for farming people one will see that the Government has devastated many of the programs that we introduced. In 1975 Labor, when it was in government, refused to introduce the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme and the country areas program for disadvantaged students. We introduced it and the Government has now allowed it to become stagnant and handed it back to the States. It decimated the fuel freight scheme from $120m to $8m. It introduced the assets test and made it impossible for the self-employed to receive the unemployment benefit if they were farmers. Local telephone charges for many country people are now impossibly high. It has put back remote area telephone upgrading. It has moved against and made it impossible for remote area commercial television. It has in every way down graded not only the industry aspects of primary industry, but also the social welfare and other aspects which are so important to country people. My final point is that; if one looks at the efficiency of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, one must ask why it is that the Department is increasing its administrative cost requirements so much in this financial year when it is supposed to be taking part in this exercise to reduce the number of public servants and increase efficiency. Why is there this dramatic increase from $51m last year to $60m this year? That is the concluding question that I ask of the Minister. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(11.55) —Perhaps before addressing a couple of issues relating to the energy section of this consideration of the appropriations for the Department of Primary Industries and Energy I should put a couple of points to the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). He talked about the effect of this Government's policies in the bush. I think the honourable member needs to be reminded that the election and return of the Hawke Labor Government for a third historic term was won in the bush. In fact, every rural seat held by the Australian Labor Party prior to 11 July was retained, many with an increased majority. Of course, we won four additional seats in Queensland. I think that says something about the ability of the rural voters to determine who will support them. Mr Brumby —What about Bendigo? Mr MARTIN —Of course, as my colleague reminds me, we won the seat of Bendigo. We won the seat of Northern Territory as well. My concern in tonight's debate relates to the coal industry and, in particular, the ongoing discussion about a coal industry plan. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) has indicated in the last couple of weeks that in fact the Government is prepared to pursue the development of a long term strategy for the coal industry. I commend him for that. I commend also the Caucus coal industry task force for the work it is performing in helping to develop that strategy. What concerns me greatly is that any strategy developed for the coal industry must take into consideration the wishes of all the participants in that industry. I am referring not only to the miners themselves, who have a vested interest in ensuring that job opportunities are retained, but also to the companies which wish to ensure that economic viability exists and that profitability return to that industry. What greatly concerns me are some proposals presently mooted in Queensland by the outgoing Premier who has indicated that he supports the development of two brand new coal mines and a new port facility, called, of all things, Port Petersen. In fact, if we talk to people from the Australian Coal Association, particularly representatives from Queensland, they will tell us that there is sufficient productive capacity in existing mines in New South Wales and Queensland to meet the existing contracts or, indeed, to meet any contracts that might be developed in the future. In this regard I am, of course, referring to all those communist countries with whom the Queensland Premier is prepared to trade but which he would put down at the earliest opportunity. I believe that any consideration the Queensland Government gives to the establishment of new coal mines has to be taken with a grain of salt, simple because the productive capacity already exists. The consideration of the appropriations for the Department of Primary Industries and Energy in respect of proposals for the development of a coal industry plan must also take into consideration the fact that a major structural readjustment is taking place in the coal industry today. It is not, as some people believe it to be, something that comes along in a boom and bust cycle. I think many of us who represent coal mining districts would say that a lot of the present problems have been caused by a combination of factors-both on the side of management and, to some extent, as a result of activities of the trade union movement. Nevertheless, there has been a conscious effort made over the last few months to identify those problems. Indeed, there has been a conscious effort not only to identify those problems but also to try to put forward some reasonable solutions. I am hopeful that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy will develop a long term strategy that will take into consideration all of those concerns developed so far. Friday, 9 October 1987 Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(12 midnight) —In speaking to the primary industries section of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) I would like to begin by quoting some of the words of the Governor-General in his Speech at the opening of the Parliament. He said, under the heading `Primary Industries and Energy': In addition to the encouragement and promotion of Australia's traditional primary industries, which must remain a very high priority- they are very interesting words; he says encouragement and promotion should remain a very high priority- the Government will help rural and provincial Australia gain greater access to Government programs. I want briefly in the time available to talk a little about those points, and in particular talk about the shameful efforts of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin). He has made reference to the promotion highlighted by our shadow Minister, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), but I would like to reinforce the point because it really is a disgraceful effort by the Minister and it is something we will remind him of for a long time to come. There is a lot of talk about access to government programs, but I see this as nothing more than a smokescreen for cuts in country areas to the basic services which are so desperately needed and without which all these other things are irrelevant. Briefly, to put the whole primary industry situation in context it is worth looking at the current issue of the Quarterly Review of the Rural Economy, put out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. It says: Conditions in the rural sector continue to improve, although the disparity between livestock and crops is forecast to widen further in 1987-88 . . . the gross value of rural production is forecast to rise by 7 per cent in 1987-88 . . . the value of rural exports is forecast to rise by 9 per cent, to a new record of $13,300m . . . That shows what a great contribution primary industry is making to Australia's economy, but it does tend to mask the real figures. When we look at farmers' terms of trade we see how they have survived and how, despite very adverse terms of trade figures, they have continued to support this nation dramatically. Taking 1980-81 as the base year of 100, we find that farmers' terms of trade for the coming year, 1987-88, will be down to 76-up only two points on the previous year and three on the year before, which was the all-time low. The consumer price index has gone up to 173 while the farmers' terms of trade figure has gone down to 76. Farmers have continued to contribute to this nation despite extremely adverse terms of trade figures. When looking at the record of what the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has said prior to elections, it is worth going back to the 1984 election, when he was very quick at a meeting in Horsham to tell farmers in the strongest terms that he would oppose capital gains taxes, the assets test and death duties. Mr Lloyd —Who was this? Mr HAWKER —This was the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Mr Beale —What is his name? Mr HAWKER —Mr Kerin, speaking at Horsham in 1984. Mr Lloyd —He has not been caring very much lately. Mr HAWKER —No, he does not care. He said back in 1984 that he would oppose all these measures. Mr Beale —Is Mr Kerin at the table? Mr HAWKER —No. Where is the Minister? Has he gone to bed? Back in 1984, before the election, he was very quick to talk about his opposition to a capital gains tax. What happened after the election? He was silent. In fact, when I asked him a question in this chamber he could not find an answer. Before the election in July he went to the Australian Wool Council and gave it a very clear undertaking that the Government would keep funding going for wool promotion. In fact, he said that the Government would ensure that this funding would continue on a predictable long term basis by contributing 1.2 per cent of the gross value of production. Only two months later, in September, we see in the Budget that the Government has reneged on this, an undertaking that the Minister expected primary industry to take seriously. What is his word worth? It is worth very little. The wool industry is even more concerned about the fact that the Government has announced that it will review promotion. One wonders whether the Minister will go even further and renege on even the undertaking that has been given in the current Budget. It is interesting that the Government is prepared to cut back on promotion at a time when we still have a chronic balance of payments problem and a massive overseas debt that is rising. I know the time is late but I want to touch just briefly on the so-called increase in access to government programs. At the same time we have seen an enormous cut in government services. In particular, I refer to road funding, which has been frozen for the last three years. The money allocated to the road transport program has been cut again this year. One only has to travel around country Victoria and other States to see what this will mean. The honourable member for Murray also talked about the increased prices Telecom Australia is charging and the increased prices of communications. If basic services and basic infrastructure are to be cut back, what is it worth to have increased access to government services? If people cannot even get access to them, they are not worth much. It is getting late and other members want to speak, so I will conclude my remarks. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has seriously dented his reputation, not once but twice, in the last two elections. He was very frivolous in making election promises which he had no intention of keeping. He very quickly reneged on them and the Government reversed its decision. The way the Minister has treated primary industry is something he will carry to his eternal shame. More than that, he has to lift his game and show that he is serious about helping primary industry and country people in particular, because without providing the basic infrastructure, decent roads, decent communications and access to telephones at a reasonable price, the Government is failing the country. I have no doubt that after the next election we will see a serious reversal. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(12.07 a.m.) —I was not intending to speak in this debate but I cannot let the contribution by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) go unchallenged. I want to put an end to the Opposition assertion that this Government has reduced government services in country areas because it is patently untrue and any proper analysis of the facts shows that it is patently untrue. I want to give just a few examples of the sorts of services which affect people in my electorate. It is a common electorate in country Victoria; it is very like that of the honourable member for Wannon. It has a high proportion of elderly people. I will tell honourable members what has happened in my electorate during the term of the Hawke Labor Government. New senior citizen centres-not just one or two-have been established throughout my electorate. They have been established in Elmore, Donald, Strathfieldsaye, Wedderburn and Avoca-they are all in the Bendigo area. Five new senior citizens centres are bringing services to country people and that did not happen under a coalition government. What about hostels? Mr Lloyd —There has been a dramatic slow down in the care for the aged in Victoria. Mr BRUMBY —What nonsense! This is the great National Party myth. It is a party on the run; it is losing representation around Australia. It has lost seats in Queensland. There are five new senior citizens centres in the Bendigo electorate, which is basically a rural electorate. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The estimates before the Committee are for the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. They do not relate to senior citizens centres. The honourable member for Bendigo will come back to the estimates that are before the Committee. Mr BRUMBY —Thank you, Mr Chairman, for your guidance. I was respondng very briefly to the points that were made by the Opposition. These primary industry estimates show that the performance of this Government, in terms of our primary sector, has been second to none. It is this Government which floated the Australian dollar; it is this Government which has reformed statutory marketing authorities; it is this Government which has seen the rate of increase of farm costs come down from an average of 12 per cent under the coalition Government-the Fraser Government-to 7 per cent this year. The quarterly estimates of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, to which the honourable member for Wannon referred, put the figure at 3 per cent. That is not bad-3 per cent compared with 12 per cent. Yet the Opposition continues with the myth that the Labor Government is penalising country people. I have never heard such nonsense. The Opposition has referred to the gross value of rural production. Why does it not refer to the net value of rural production, which in 1986-87 increased by more than 30 per cent? In 1987-88, it is predicted to increase by more than 35 per cent. That shows that the Government's strategies of reducing costs and floating the Australian dollar are working. The honourable member for Wannon made ludicrous claims about the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. Again, it is a pathetic myth put about by National and Liberal Party members in rural seats that farmers would be decimated by this tax when less than 3 per cent of farmers have been in any way affected by it. Those opposite were running around the the country saying that farmers would be paying all the fringe benefits tax and would be going broke because of it, but less than 3 per cent of farmers are affected. Members of the Liberal and National parties keep up this persistent myth. As the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) made clear, the runs are on the board. In all the Government-held provincial seats in the last election, Australian Labor Party members substantially increased their vote, and that is more than we can say for the honourable member for Murray, whose vote substantially declined. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(12.11 a.m.) —I would like to say a few words about the primary industry estimates. I do so against the background that there have been recent rises in wool, lamb and beef prices and falls in interest rates, although the falls have not been big. All this has tended to cloak the deep, serious and underlying problem affecting the agricultural sector. The Government has the feeling that the heat is off, but the damage has been done. The Government has done terrible damage to the average farming family with its high interest rates which, over a sustained record period, have plunged Australian farmers into a debt of somewhere near $10 billion. Do not think for one moment that the trouble is over in rural Australia. Farmers there are left with a very serious residual problem. The Budget did not attempt to redress the very serious and specific problems affecting the Australian farm sector. For instance, why are adequate funds not provided for debt and farm adjustment? The Australian motor industry, which is a multinational industry, has a plan that will cost our taxpayers $500m. The textile, footwear and chemicals industries have a plan to try to help them get through a difficult period. A whole range of industries have had their problems addressed in a serious and sensible way. For some two years I have been calling upon the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) to come up with some strategy to try to overcome the serious sectoral problems affecting the rural areas. No industry has been hurt more than the dairy, sugar and wheat industries. I do not think that any sector of the Australian community is much worse off than the wheat growers and their families who are struggling, not knowing whether they will be on their farms at the end of this year. The wheat crop appeared to be promising in great areas of my electorate, but frost damage and drought have resulted in serious damage to the oncoming crop. I have spoken in the last few days to a number of bank managers, and they fear greatly for farming families in the northern wheat belt of New South Wales. The Minister, busy as he is with his mammoth Department of Primary Industries and Energy, has not a hope in hell of coming to grips with this serious problem because of the pressures that he has from the coal and mining industries and sectors of Australian farming. This is a very serious social problem which is not being faced up to by an unsympathetic government. Why does the Government not recognise the importance of the agricultural industry, which will be vital in overcoming the great debt problem that underlies the economic difficulty facing all Australians? The Government must recognise that, with a gross overseas debt of $109 billion, now forecast to reach $160 billion by 1992-the equivalent of $41,000 per Australian family of four-it will be necessary to maximise the natural advantages that we have in agriculture because of both geography and the efficiency which has been built into these industries for some time. Even Ross Gittins, an economist with whom I do not always agree, drew attention to this matter this week in the Sydney Morning Herald of 7 October when he said, inter alia: My other realistic thought is that part of our salvation- he talks about Australia's debt problem- more than it's fashionable to acknowledge, will lie not in a wholesale shift into manufacturing, but in greater diversification within the rural and mining industries. Mr Peter Fisher —Hear, hear! They have woken up at last. Mr HUNT —He has woken up at last, but this Government has not woken up to the serious problem that is affecting the prospects for the living standards of the Australian people. I will briefly refer to another report that has come to hand, the report of the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) on the wheat industry. In the current domestic economic environment, deregulation of the wheat industry would leave our unassisted growers exposed not only to a corrupted world commodity price structure but to the predatory trading practices of huge private traders. There are policies, outlined in that report, to terminate the guaranteed minimum price, abolish pooling, remove underwriting and return to the bad old days of exploitation of our wheat farmers. This is all in the name of deregulation, the removal of market intervention and the so-called free market. Let us face it: there is no such thing as a free market, either in this country or internationally. The Australian Wheat Board (AWB) has served the interests of wheat growers well and, I might say, people generally, in the past 50 years. The AWB's recent record in the world is second to none. In recent years, the more flexible charter of the Wheat Board has served farmers well, especially in domestic marketing, Australia has been the only major wheat exporting country to sell its entire crop in a tough, shrinking world market over the past two years. Why would one want to abandon the Wheat Board? Would it be to satisfy the demands of the traders? In a deregulated market there will be winners and losers. Honourable members can bet that if the IAC recommendations to the Government are adopted, it will be the farmers who will lose. The report is badly thought through. It ignores the fact that we have the least protected and least assisted farmers in the world. In the European Economic Community the level of assistance is 160 per cent. In the United States it is 100 per cent. In the manufacturing sector we have a level of a assistance of 26 per cent and in the wheat industry the level is 2 per cent. Let this Government not fall into the trap, in the name of deregulation, of adopting the recommendations of that IAC report. If it does, it will destroy one of Australia's most important export income earners. I am sorry that the Minister is not here, even though the hour is late, to respond to some of the points that I have made. There are serious problems in these important export industries. Rural industry is responsible for something like 60 per cent, in net terms, of Australia's overseas earnings. It cannot be allowed to languish because of the policies that this Government has adopted-policies of costs that have been imposed upon the industry as a result of taxing fuel to the extent it has been taxed, and the failure to remove the tariff burden from input costs such as farm machinery parts and veterinary and agricultural chemicals. Those sorts of costs cannot be borne by an industry which is largely unassisted and trying to compete on a corrupted world market. Let us do away with this rubbish that there is such a thing as a free market, either in this country or in the rest of the world. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Staples)-by leave-read a third time. Madam SPEAKER —I have received messages from the Senate acquainting the House of appointment of senators to the following committees: Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings Senators Michael Baume and Childs Joint Committee of Public Accounts Senators Bishop, Gietzelt, Giles, McKiernan and Watson Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Senators Burns, Devereux and Sheil Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House Senators Michael Baume, Colston, Devlin, MacGibbon, Reid and Schacht. House adjourned at 12.22 a.m. (Friday) until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 October. The following notices were given: Mr Scholes to move- That this House advises His Excellency the Governor-General that the arrangements for the opening of future Sessions of the Parliament, whether after the dissolution of the House of Representatives or the prorogation of a Session, should be altered to remove all elements which place the House of Representatives in an inferior position to the Senate and, in particular: (1) that the declaration of the opening of a Parliament by a Deputy appointed by the Governor-General and the speech of the Governor-General on the occasion of the opening of a Parliament be delivered in the Member's Hall or the appropriate equivalent in the new Parliament House; and (2) all parliamentary arrangements for the formal opening be the joint responsibility of both Houses. Mr Scholes to move- (1) That the rules covering the Order of Australia be changed to restrict the award of Knight of the Order of the Queen of Australia, her heirs and the person holding the office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth; (2) That all other persons not having held the office of Governor-General who are currently Knights of the Order of Australia should be accorded the same precedence based on seniority as Members of the Order of Australia, ranking equal to Commanders of the Order of Australia; (3) That only those persons who hold rank above that of the Order of Merit will be given precedence above Companion of the Order of Australia, and (4) That these rules would not apply to the Queen of Australia or her heirs. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 8 October 1987: Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of Ministerial determination made pursuant to section 106aa, dated 26 August 1987. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determination listing fees for purposes of Real Property Ordinance, dated 9 September 1987. Taxation (Administration) Ordinance-Stamp Duties (Conveyances) Determination (No. 3), dated 21 September 1987. The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 6) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Has any work been done by his Department to remove the distinction between severely and substantially handicapped children; if so, with what results. (2) Would removal of the distinction involve extra cost to the Government; if so, what is the estimated extra cost. (3) When will the change, as recommended by the social security review, be implemented. (4) How many children will be affected by the change in each (a) State and (b) category of disability. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) As announced by the Treasurer in the 1987 Budget, from December of this year Child Disability Allowance (CDA) will replace the existing Handicapped Child's Allowance. CDA payments will be made free of any income test and at a uniform rate of $112 a month, reflecting removal of the distinction currently existing between severely handicapped children and those marginally less handicapped. This also represents an increase of $20 in the maximum rate of payment of $92 a month. Payments of up to $92 a month are currently made for children who need marginally less care than severely handicapped children where the parents are in financial hardship. It is estimated that the change to be introduced in December will cost some $20 million in a full year. Without the increase in rate, the cost would be about $12 million in a full year. (4) The number of children receiving handicapped child's allowance in each State at June 1987 is shown below: Severely handicapped Marginally less handicapped New South Wales... 9,253 1,392 Victoria... 6,936 614 Queensland... 3,672 474 South Australia... 2,793 516 Western Australia... 2,503 976 Tasmania... 727 374 Northern Territory... 217 27 ACT... 554 33 Australia... 26,655 4,406 Information on the disability characteristics of these children is not readily available. It is estimated that, in addition, some 10,000 children will become newly eligible for CDA during 1987-88.