Thursday, 22 October 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —The following message from the Senate has been received: The Senate acquaints the House of Representatives that it has referred this day the following matters to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for inquiry and report: (i) the extent and magnitude of the Australian Defence Force wastage problem; (ii) the effects of the present level of wastage on the capability of the Australian Defence Force to fulfil its role in an effective manner; and (iii) measures to reduce wastage and an assessment of the relative effectiveness of those proposed measures. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.02) —I move: (1) That the resolution of appointment of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be amended: (a) by omitting `3 sub-committees' from paragraph (8) and substituting `4 sub-committees'; and (b) by omitting paragraph (11) and substituting the following paragraph: `(11) That the quorum of a sub-committee be 3 members of that sub-committee.'. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence. This motion merely extends the operation of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to four sub-committees in place of the previous three sub-committees. I have been heavily influenced by the arguments of the Chairman, the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), who has persuaded me that the Committee will need this extra sub-committee. The motion also sets down the quorum for the operation of the sub-committees. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 21 October, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —Before the debate is resumed on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, the Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1987. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde)(10.03) —I rise to speak in support of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987, the Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1987. I am incredulous that speakers on the other side of the House should have spoken about fairness in the tax system. I find it incredible, for as we all know when the Opposition was in government it supported the whole basis of the tax evasion industry and, in fact, pursued it. Since my time as a member of this Parliament its opposition to the Australia Card Bill has been based simply on the support of tax cheats and tax evaders. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) can claim that one of the major growth industries under his term as Treasurer was tax evasion is a testament to the kinds of policies on tax reform which the Opposition espouses. The Australian public has rejected such-not once, not twice, but three times. The Australian public is not stupid. It stands for fairness, it stands for equity, and it stands for a just taxation system. While we acknowledge that Opposition members are slow learners it seems extraordinary that they continue to oppose matters of tax reform which the Australian public has wholeheartedly embraced. Mr Katter —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence, and not in a facetious manner. May we be issued with earphones? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. He is out of order. Ms CRAWFORD —I draw to the attention of honourable members the Opposition's debate on the fringe benefit tax, to its very real opposition to the introduction of such a tax, to how it claimed that the hotel industry would collapse and the res- taurant industry would be in disarray, and in fact, that tourism would no longer exist. Madam Speaker, let me tell you of a restaurateur in my electorate whose opposition to the fringe benefits tax was enormous. He has recently won an award. His restaurant has gone on to become exceedingly successful. People are swarming through his doors and he has become a very successful businessman, despite his railing against the fringe benefits tax. Such opposition to measures of fairness and equity within our community is what we have come to expect from the Opposition. But as we all know, the public does not accept that. In fact, the fringe benefits tax has been responsible for one of the major advances in social justice within our community-the introduction of the family assistance package via our Budget. The fringe benefits tax provided the basis, along with moneys from tax cheats and social welfare cheats, on which we could provide very real assistance to poor working families, to enable them to have cash in their hands for their children. Indeed, this is what this Government is about-addressing the very real needs of real Australian workers who are fighting to pay off mortgages and to keep their children in schools. It is only with policies of tax reform and social justice that we can move to such a result. Indeed, we are the Government of tax reform. Such provisions as we have put in place for sub-contractors have been welcomed within my electorate. Many of those people who, prior to that, operated on the black market and within the cash economy have found themselves willingly drawn in to be part of our taxation system. No longer are they at the margins of society. No longer do they need to look behind their backs. They know exactly what their tax bill is, and they know that they are making a very real commitment to their community and that they are very much part of Australian society. They are happy to join with those provisions because they know them to be fair. Let us face it: this is what these tax amendment Bills are about-the creation of a fairer and more just society. The pay as you earn group within our society has for too long borne the brunt of the payments within our taxation system. For too long companies, wealthy financiers and others have escaped the payment of tax. Of course they are unwilling to pay it now. They have not been part of our society and they have not contributed to our community in any real way, other than in the making of money for themselves and for their own benefit. They do not see their role as being part of the creation of a society in which we can all participate. So it is with pleasure that we see the amendment Bills raise the rebate for married couples to $430, and that the margin for taxation for single people is raised to $5,850 and for married couples to $10,350. This is an acknowledgment that it is the pay as you earn people within our community who have supported the taxation system for too long. The fact that we will now be requiring companies and the capital gains tax to contribute to our community and our society at large shows a very real commitment on the part of this Government to move down the path of social justice. Another issue that the Bill addresses is the Medicare levy. Australian society now accepts the delivery of health services to all members of its community as a right. But during the last election campaign we heard the Leader of the Opposition declare that he would dismantle Medicare. The Australian public failed to buy that. In fact, he suggested that health care should be provided to only those people who had $250 in their pocket-and $250 for every member of a family, which for an average Australian family would have meant $1,000. He would make health care the prerogative of the rich. My Government does not seek to do such a thing. We are committed to Medicare. We believe that the future of this country and the future of its citizens depend upon good health care. Medicare has some very severe critics in the form of the doctors and the medical associations. Because they are unable to charge whatever prices they want, because they are not given a free rein, they believe they should not participate in Medicare. But let me remind the House that the very real losers in the doctors' campaign against Medicare are the patients whom the doctors supposedly, under their hippocratic oath, care for. Medicare is here to stay. Medicare is part of the Australian way of life. It represents a fair go for all. It means that health is the right of every citizen of this country. Those who can afford to pay must pay to ensure that all of us are participants in health care. The raising of the Medicare levy to 1.25 per cent is an acknowledgment of the way in which our community has moved. The raising of the margins to $8,980 for single people and $15,090 for married couples, with $2,100 for each dependent child, is an acknowledgment of the kind of people who most need our support within the community. We as a government acknowledge them. We as a government acknowledge that we must care about them. These Bills represent the Government's commitment to a more just and fair society. They take us down the path of reform which was set when this Government came to office two parliaments ago. It is, indeed, an acknowledgment that we as a community must all work together and participate not just in the wealth of this country but also in the distribution of that wealth through a fair and just tax system. I support these Bills. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.13) —This package of legislation, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3), the Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill, has come about because this Government considers that it knows better than every Australian and it is going to redirect its resources in a way that suits the Government rather than the citizens of this nation. The last election gave this Government an opportunity on coming into office to exercise restraint and to provide benefits in a way that the community is willing to accept. That opportunity has been missed for a combination of reasons. The two basic reasons have been the personal ambitions of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) within the Australian Labor Party and the lack of determination of the ALP due to union controls. The personal ambitions of the Treasurer can be dealt with briefly; he sees himself as the successor to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and an air of popularity is necessary for such a successful election within the ALP. I point out to members of the Government that, even within his own electorate, the people of Bankstown strongly rejected the policies and attitudes of the Treasurer with a 9 per cent swing against him-the largest swing against the Labor Party around Australia-at the last election. The Treasurer is seen as elitist and remote from the needs of real Australians. This legislation does nothing to recapture the concern that the Australian Labor Party should be expressing for the citizens of Australia. The Government has missed the chance to take steps of restraint and to provide benefits for Australians. Rather, it has seen this as an opportunity to increase taxes and impose more restrictions on the average Australian family. The union control of the Government in the circumstances leading up to the Budget-a theme that will continue right through its years in government-is easily demonstrated when one looks at the Government's incapacity to control the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) in relation to the sanctions against Fiji. Despite the complaints and comments of Ministers in this Parliament over the last two days, nothing has been done to remove the intransigence of the union movement and its ideological commitment to damage the economy of Fiji. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) and the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) both have deplored the actions of the ACTU without any effect. One has to look only at the Budget to see the impact of union control of this Government because the Government has accepted, without the full process of the two-tier wages system going through, that there will be an automatic flow-on of 6 per cent to all wage and salary earners in Australia. That 6 per cent is the predicted increase in wages and salaries across the board as contained in the Budget Papers. Therefore, before the negotiations on work conditions have been concluded, the Government has accepted the 6 per cent as a natural flow-on. So the increases in productivity that are sought may be illusory and may, in fact, not be delivered. The Government has agreed with the union movement that that 6 per cent will be achieved. There was a chance, I believe, for the Government to move forward in an atmosphere of restraint and with the co-operation of the Australian people. They understood the seriousness of Australia's economic circumstances and were willing to take some reduction in government expenditure provided there was an easing in the dreadful and biting taxes, the pervasive taxes, that have been imposed by this Government and which have reached into every aspect of human endeavour. The willingness of the Australian community to co-operate with the Government in restraint, with a real eye to the future potential of bringing Australia back into the world economy and of providing benefits for all Australians, has been bypassed. But Australians did see the options at the last election, and the fact that more Australians voted for the Opposition is a clear demonstration, I think that they understood the facts that were on the board. The fact that the Australian Labor Party could, by electoral processes, gain more seats, is a real anomaly; it proves how inequitable the current redistribution and the current political system are. We have to thank the former Special Minister of State for the processes that actually won the Opposition more votes than the Australian Labor Party, yet it is not in government. I note in passing that that type of situation created a constitutional crisis in the island of Malta. It altered its constitution to take account of the fact that the majority of voters across the nation should express the real intent of the people. The fact that the policies of the Opposition were understood can be put down to the proposals that were put forward in the election campaign that now is the time for restraint in government expenditure, now is the time to reduce the cost of government to the Australian people and to give that cost reduction back to those people who best know how to spend their own money. I remind the House that the proposals that were put forward by the coalition before the election campaign were a reduction of the top marginal rate of income tax from 49 per cent to 38 per cent, a flatter two-tier tax structure of 25 per cent and 38 per cent, a clear bias within the personal tax scales towards families with children and an increase in the tax free threshold from $5,100 to $5,900 to protect low income earners. In this Budget the Government has chosen to increase taxes mainly from pay as you earn taxpayers and then dole back those proceeds. The philosophical differences are clear if one examines the approaches that the two parties have adopted. Before the election our proposition was that we would leave more money with the people who earned it and give bias in favour of low income earners and people with families. The Government, in a prescriptive way, has decided to collect the money anyway and hand it back on the basis of the formulas contained in this legislation. We are ideologically at odds with that approach. We do not believe that it is appropriate for a government to impose its own view of society in the way in which this Government seeks to do with these amendments. The fact of the matter is that the Government's tax raising effort in the Budget is really significant. Pay as you earn taxpayers will pay 6.5 per cent more. That is not a reflection of increased productivity or anything like that; it is the fact that the Government expects to collect a lot more tax. So, as the rate of inflation increases tax gatherings will increase. Nobody will be better off in his or her normal pay packet. In addition to that impost on pay as you earn taxpayers, I point out to the House that small investors and those running small businesses will be up for an 11 per cent uplift on provisional tax in the forthcoming year. That 11 per cent is the calculation in the Budget Papers for the increase in what provisional taxpayers will be providing ahead of the time at which they are required to pay taxation. That calculation of 11 per cent is based traditionally on the projected expectation of inflation for the forthcoming year. It has nothing to do with expectations as to profitabi-lity. It is a calculation that the Treasury can put forward, based on the sound grounds of its expectation of the increase in the consumer price index. But in this instance the Government has chosen to claw back 11 per cent, not 6 per cent as one might expect. The capital gains tax yielded in the Budget $50m or $110m more than expected. Company taxation is up from 46 per cent to 49 per cent. Fringe benefits tax collections are up by 40.1 per cent to $750m. The prescribed payments tax collections increased last year by 48 per cent and will increase this year by 9.1 per cent-a total of $835m. One can go through the Budget and see the tax raising exercise-in duties, fees and the many techniques which are used to spread a tax increase across the board. The Government is raising more money. That is what the Australian Labor Party fails to recognise. The Government has balanced its books by grabbing more from the Australian community and flogging off a few assets. In that way it claims to have produced a balanced Budget. Well, it is not balanced, and the whole community knows that. In fact, it is being achieved by additional tax grabs. There is no compensation for the Australian community for what the Government has done. I think that the bodgie Budget outcome that is produced by asset sales and tax increases leaves the Australian community not only poorer but also less equipped to take this nation forward, driven by incentive and opportunity. The Treasurer, in his approach, is really saying that we must have big government; that it must be acceptable to the Australian community that we continue with big government. That is not the case. There are plenty of examples to indicate that a country such as Australia does not need, and will not benefit from, big government and big government taxation. There is no real consideration for families, apart from the small measures contained in this legislation. It is a prescriptive approach. But Australian families wanted some relief; they needed some incentive-and I point out again that more families voted for my Party than for the Australian Labor Party at the last election. Look at the young people in Australia today, those seeking a chance, an opportunity and some incentive. It is deplorable that the Government can continue to lift taxation and expect people to achieve things. One has only to look around and see the enthusiasm of young Australians for a more moderate tax regime, better restraint and more rigor on the part of the Government. There is no incentive. The country is floating into stagnation because the Treasurer has been unwilling to take hard, firm decisions. What we are doing is waiting for our birthday party. It is like a family who has borrowed some dough so that they can have a birthday celebration. The Government has borrowed the money to celebrate Australia's 200th anniversary, to the detriment of Australian people. The country will wake up at the end of the birthday and find that the cupboard is bare and that we owe a lot of money around the world. It is not responsible management. The satisfaction, the sense of achievement and the pride of success that is needed in the Bicentenary cannot be there because we have been self-indulgent. The Government has put our birthday party on tick, and that is a tragedy. It has missed an opportunity, a short period of unpopularity with those sections of the Australian community-it is mainly the Government's supporters-which think government should provide everything. The situation would be resolved very quickly with additional job opportunities, an expanding economy and a more competitive nation. Government does not have to be involved. In this legislation there is just a small indication of the way in which things can be done if the Government would so choose. I refer to a program which few Australians know about but which is of great and deep significance to this country, and that is the Australian-Hellenic Memorial. This legislation gives tax deductibility to donations to that memorial. The Government is just giving a tax deduction; it is not building the memorial. It is saying to those people of Australian and Greek background, `Let us remember the great traditions that were established between our two nations over a long period but particularly in the First and Second World Wars'. The tax deductibility of donations will cost little and is an incentive to achieve. Instead, the Government has chosen in its bicentenary program and many of its other programs to pay the whole bill. The last figure I saw for the cost of the Bicentenary was over $400m of taxpayers' money. The Americans had their Bicentenary at a cost of $10m. The rest was an incentive to private enterprise and individuals to get out and to celebrate. But no, this Government has to collect the money and pay for the lot: it is spendthrift waste on every front. One has only to wander around Darling Harbour to see some of it. One need not move far out of Canberra to see some of the bicentenary waste because the Government feels that it must pay for the projects. It does not trust the people with having some incentive to do something worth while; that is what the Australian-Hellenic Memorial proposals do. I do not know why the Government cannot pick up this example and use it as a model for future activity because the memorial is being constructed to commemorate those who died in the Greek campaigns of the Second World War, particularly in the Battle for Crete. The Greek community has contributed a great deal to this nation. If there is any bond that is strong it is that between Australians and the people of Greece or Crete who were involved in the great conflict of the Second World War. One has only to visit Crete to understand the continuing link and feeling that is still there. It is a bond that cannot be expressed or denied by government, but it can be encouraged by government. It is being encouraged by this Government, and I endorse what it has done. But it is a great shame that in the tax area the Government has not seen that the need to give people incentive is part of a complete and worthwhile tax regime. The terrible experiences that people went through in the Second World War will be commemorated in Canberra. The work that the Chairman of the Australian-Hellenic Memorial Committee, Sir William Refshauge, and the patrons-the Archbishop of Sydney, Archbishop Stylianos, Major-General Sir Ivan Dougherty and Major-General Ian Campbell-are doing is to be commended. It is exceptional work, and they are a driving force of fine Australians who want to see that bond, that memory and that commitment to individual liberty, freedom and the democratic principles that the Greek nation stands for enshrined here in Canberra at the War Memorial. Having mentioned that part of the legislation, I just wish to return to my main theme. Mr John Brown —You are not going to return to the Bill, are you? Mr CADMAN —I have been talking about the Bill. That interjection shows the Minister's lack of knowledge. The matters I have raised concerning the Australian War Memorial make up a very important part of the Bill and I am surprised, because of the Minister's background and claimed knowledge of these issues, that he was not aware of that. The Government has seen fit to increase taxation, as I have said, on pay as you earn taxpayers and on small business. It dampens incentive and reins back productive activity by increasing its tax stranglehold on this country, and then it hands out in a patronising way to those poor families of Australia what it considers appropriate. The difference in the living standards of the poor and the wealthy is one of the reasons why the Left of the Australian Labor Party is taking up the call for an investigation of wealth. Members of the Labor Party know that. They have encouraged this division; they have encouraged their wealthy friends and have not watched carefully enough the well-being of those constituents they claim to represent-those who are less well off. They have neglected them, and the result achieved by the Treasurer in his own electorate is an indication of the way the people feel about the treatment of those who are less well off. The Government will not alleviate the problem by adopting a prescriptive approach. What it has to do is take the reins off the Australian community to a greater degree and apply a rigor and a discipline to government expenditure, which it has not been prepared to do. By taking that approach it will draw into active participation those families with low incomes, those families with medium incomes and of course the wealthy. They will come together to work as a nation. I have never seen policies as divisive as those of this Government. It has divided the Australian community into various strata. That is a great shame. I can understand the Left wanting a wealth inquiry, although I do not endorse it. That would also be divisive, though maybe its ultimate objective is to divide the country in that way. It is time for the Government to be positive and adopt positive policies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(10.33) —I wish to make some analytical remarks this morning on the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1987, which will enable me to introduce debate on Medicare itself. The Bill is designed to amend the Medicare Levy Act to declare and impose the basic rate of Medicare levy for 1987-88 and for all subsequent income years. As announced in the 1986-87 Budget, the basic rate of the levy will be 1.25 per cent of taxable income. That rate has been effective since 1 December 1986. The Bill also contains increases in the income threshold levels, and people with incomes below that threshold will not be called upon to pay any levy-a significant achievement indeed. For 1987-88 and subsequent income years individuals with taxable incomes of $8,980 or less and married couples and sole parents with family incomes of $15,090 or less will not be required to pay the levy. The income threshold for married couples and sole parents will increase by a further $2,100 for each dependent child or student. For example, a married couple with two dependent children will pay no levy until their combined taxable incomes exceed $19,290. In other words, more Australians are being freed from the burden of medical costs. Those who can least afford to become ill are being protected by Medicare and further protected with this amendment. It is a pity that this debate on Medicare allows people with an axe to grind to peddle a series of myths about our public health system. I wish to take up some of the most common myths and, in turn, strike them down. The most common of these myths are that Medicare has caused waiting lists in public hospitals; that its bulk billing mechanism leads to overservicing; that Medicare is inequitable because it subsidises the rich; that it destroys freedom of choice; and that it is a first step towards nationalised medicine. I want to draw from two excellent documents which shed a great deal of light on this matter, because I am afraid that in these debates we often deal in rhetoric. I propose not to deal in rhetoric; rather, I will deal in facts this morning. The first paper is by Dr John Deeble, written in September 1987, and entitled `Health Care Under Universal Insurance: The First 3 Years of Medicare'. It is an excellent document. The second is a paper entitled `Medicare a Doubled-edged Sword' produced by the Health Issues Centre, Victoria. It is important to remember what Medicare is and what it is not. Medicare is a health insurance program to provide basic cover for medical and hospital treatment. But it is not a total funding system for all health. It is certainly not a scheme of income maintenance for doctors. Medicare extended the public benefits to the whole population. Its introduction in 1984 provided insurance for private medical fees to around 2.3 million additional Australians-that is, 16 per cent of the population. Previously, those people were not covered; they had to think about becoming ill. They no longer have to think about becoming ill; they are covered by Medicare. In addition to those five myths that I want to discuss, there are assertions that Medicare is administratively expensive and has increased health as a cost to the nation. On the first point, the previous system of paying medical benefits through about 70 private health funds was costly and inefficient. Centralising the payment function in one fund-that is Medicare-has saved over $100m a year in administrative costs. Administration costs for Medicare are about 4.6 per cent compared with around 14 per cent for medical benefits delivery through the major funds prior to Medicare-significant savings. On the second point, the proportion of all health expenditure to gross domestic product (GDP) has, since the introduction of Medicare, been virtually stable. In fact, it has even declined slightly. Health expenditure as a proportion of GDP in 1983-84 was 7.6 per cent; in 1985-86, the latest figure, it was 7.5 per cent. It is a myth that health is costing Australians more. It should never be forgotten that Medicare is a part of the prices and incomes accord. Living standards have been held by virtue of the social wage, a major component of which is Medicare. In other words, Medicare has played a part in maintaining our central economic management program, the prices and incomes accord. Now to the myths. We hear much of Medicare's supposed involvement in hospital queues around the country. Let me remind people that running the public hospital system is traditionally a State responsibility. However, the issue of waiting times for elective surgery, particularly in some specialist procedures, has been unjustifiably depicted as Medicare related. State governments have already identified the reasons underlying the waiting lists. These are as follows: first, we know that there are nursing shortages which result in bed closures. Second, we know that there is an undersupply of some specialists such as orthopaedic and ophthalmic surgeons. Third, advances in technology, which allow previously difficult or dangerous procedures to be more routinely performed, have drawn more people into the system. And of course, most importantly, there is now a greater public awareness and higher expectation leading to an increased demand for these services. Some States are coping with those hospital queues or at least they are trying to be creative in finding a solution. They are developing a range of programs to address particular bottlenecks. For example, New South Wales and Victoria are dedicating funds to specific proposals designed to reduce waiting times and have already achieved some impressive results. It is worth remembering that nearly 2 1/2 million people were treated in public hospitals last year. Indeed, last year more people were treated in Australian hospitals-both public and private-than in any previous year. Whilst the Federal Government would not wish to be seen as intervening in an area of State responsibility, there is scope for it to develop a program which will support and maintain the momentum of current State initiatives. Honourable members will be well aware, of course, that this Government has introduced a two-year hospital waiting list assistance program which will provide $25m a year over two years from 1987-88. These funds will be available for specific State government programs where it can be clearly demonstrated that they will have a real impact on waiting times. Funding within the two-year program will be on a dollar for dollar basis with the States and the continuation of funding will be based on the results achieved. I will provide examples of programs which could be funded under this initiative. First, we could create more dedicated facilities-that is, a more efficient throughput could be obtained if the hospital area were dedicated to a particular speciality. Secondly, we have programs to increase the number of nurses. This has the potential to increase significantly elective surgery capacity, thus reducing queues. Thirdly, the development or expansion of same day surgery facilities-treating patients in dedicated day surgery facilities-is the most cost-effective and efficient means of carrying out many procedures. On present estimates as many as 35 per cent of all operations could be undertaken on a day surgery basis. With matching State funds more than $100m will be made available over the two years of this new program. I come now to the second myth-that bulk billing leads to overservicing. The basic aim of Medicare is to break down the financial barriers which prevent people from using the health services they need. Many people argue that in eliminating this barrier Medicare has created another problem-excessive and unnecessary use of medical services. This argument relates particularly to bulk billing. Advocates of the view claim that, when people pay no money from their own pockets for each health service, there is no incentive for them to limit the numbers and types of services available to them. No doubt the argument is attractive, but there is simply no evidence to support that myth. Numerous overseas studies have shown that overall use of medical services is reasonably unaffected by price changes. Using a large United States study, an Australian economist recently estimated that the payment of 25 per cent out of pocket expenses for medical services, lead to a 5.7 per cent reduction in the use of services, but a 50 per cent out of pocket payment reduced use by only 7.6 per cent. This is probably because most people use services when they need them, irrespective of cost and certainly irrespective of any marginal increase in cost. We must remember that most doctors have professional standards about overservicing. The price does not seem to affect the use of the service. That is essential to remember. The lack of connection between cost and use has been confirmed in another recent study of the billing practices of all doctors in Australia. The study revealed that the number of services per person barely changes from doctors who bulk bill most people or doctors who bulk bill few people. The same study shows that bulk billing may be important for a very small percentage of doctors-probably only about 100 in the whole of Australia-who provide many more services per person than the average doctor. These doctors are likely to act in an unscrupulous way under any system of payment. They are not beholden to Medicare for their dastardly deeds. It would be unfair to deny people the benefits of bulk billing simply to attempt-probably unsuccessfully-to prevent a small number of doctors from abusing Medicare. There are other ways of preventing these doctors from misusing Medicare. It must be remembered that any such action would also have an inequitable effect on low income people. The removal of bulk billing would defeat one of the major purposes of Medicare, that is, to stop financial difficulties being a barrier to medical care for low income groups. The growth in the use of and spending on medical services has been rising throughout the last decade. That is true. But it has done so with or without Medicare and bulk billing. Between mid-1975 and mid-1983, pathology use increased by 105 per cent. Radiology increased by 55 per cent. There was an overall increase in medical services of only 20 per cent. With Medicare, there has been a slight increase in the use of services. However, that is to be expected because we have removed the financial barriers which have prevented people from using medical services. Medicare itself has not caused any blowout in health spending. Let us take the third myth-that Medicare is inequitable because it subsidises the rich. The claim that Medicare is inequitable because it subsidises the rich is a commonly heard myth. Those who argue this refer to the health care system of 20 years ago, when people who could afford to use private health services paid out of their own pockets and poor people used public hospitals or were provided services by doctors as charity. The old charity model is no longer accepted as a way of ensuring that people on low incomes have their basic needs met. It is stigmatising and demeaning. But apart from the stigma aspect, there are strong reasons to believe that Medicare is more equitable than the previous private health insurance system. All people with an income above a specified level, as I outlined before, pay for Medicare through the Medicare levy. Under the pre-Medicare system all people with income paid the same minimum amount for their health insurance, regardless of how much they could afford. Prior to Medicare, the lower a family unit's income, the higher the percentage of its income went to paying for medical insurance. For example, a family on the average weekly wage of $304 in 1981 paid 2.2 per cent for basic medical and hospital cover, while a family on a weekly wage of $465 paid only 1.4 per cent of its income for the same benefits. In short, Medicare is more equitable because people pay for health services on the basis of their capacity to pay. I turn to two other myths. One is the old chestnut that Medicare destroys freedom of choice. Medicare has expanded people's choice. We should not forget that two million Australians, prior to the introduction of Medicare, had no choice. They could not afford to become ill. We have given to 16 per cent of the Australian population, for the first time, a real choice. They can now afford to become ill. They can go to their local general practitioner, be referred to a specialist and go to the best hospitals in the country. Before Medicare those people were not covered. They could not afford any choices. Medicare provides the added freedom of a cheaper basic medical and hospital cover than any offered by private health insurance funds prior to Medicare. These funds offered only limited choices and marginal differences in price. For example, a person could not only insure to be seen by the doctor on duty in a public hospital but also she or he had to take an insurance package which included cover for a private hospital and the doctor of the person's choice. If a person needs further treatment that person's choice is usually limited to specialists who are nominated by the general practitioner. Generally, people's choice of doctors is more restricted by the lack of information available on hours, billing practice and competence of doctors than by their health insurance status. Let me take the last myth-that Medicare is the thin end of the wedge and that it will lead to a nationalised medical system. The myth that Medicare will lead to the type of nationalised health system that exists in England is a scare tactic which ignores some basic facts. First, Medicare actually underwrites, rather than threatens to replace, the private medical system in Australia. It is a huge public subsidy which strengthens our existing system. Many people who support Medicare have often seen this as its great weakness. We see it as its great strength. It supports the entire private medical system. Secondly, it is constitutionally impossible for any government actually to control doctors' fees or to make all doctors come on to the government payroll. So it is simply a myth to talk about a nationalised health care system. I now move to a discussion of medical fees, dear to the hearts not only of public and private sector doctors but also of this Government. The lack of control over doctors' fees has been one of the thorniest problems faced by any Federal government. The medical profession has strongly resisted attempts to control fees due to the belief that neither government nor non-medical groups should in any way regulate the profession. The fear that the Government might nationalise health services has also prompted vociferous opposition to control over fees. Another crucial factor has been the desire to keep doctors' incomes at a high level. This justification has been criticised by our Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) who stated: The Government is running a health insurance scheme, not a doctors' income maintenance scheme. The effectiveness of Medicare, to the extent that it is limited, is limited because of the lack of control over doctors fees. I will cite some interesting examples of doctors fees in Queensland as opposed to those for the rest of the country. There was a similar lack of success in ensuring the predictability of the level of fees as far back as the early 1970s. In 1973 a medical fees tribunal was established by the then Labor Government. The following facts came to light. In Queensland, the level of observance of medical fees-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.53) —I want to take the opportunity today, which is provided by the Bills before the House-the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987, the Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1987-to talk about something absolutely fundamental to Australian society. It is often said that we Australians are an apathetic lot and that we do not take nearly enough interest in some of our basic institutions. In a sense that is right, although it is also a reflection on Australian society that we are lucky. We do not have to worry about some of the really basic freedoms because we have them. We do not have to worry about the rights that people have in regard to wrongful imprisonment because habeas corpus has been part of our common law tradition. In fact, it is a very old tradition, going back to the Magna Carta in 1215. That is a long time ago, but it is a law and a concept that is as relevant today as it has been for over 700 years. The former Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs, when talking about the Bill of Rights, questioned whether we need a Bill of Rights in a country such as Australia when we have these rights already. Then he contrasted that with the statement: `If you need a Bill of Rights, you really have problems'. In fact that point was picked up by Judge Scalia, a member of the Supreme Court of the United States. He came to Australia to attend the law conference held in Perth and he read out part of a Bill of Rights. It was a tremendous Bill. It had absolutely everything in it, plus the kitchen sink. It had rights against wrongful imprisonment, rights of freedom of speech and guaranteed rights of freedom of religion. And where was that Bill of Rights to be found and entrenched? It was in the constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That is very much a feature of Australian society. We are lucky, as we go into 1988, that so many of these rights are very firmly interwoven into the fabric of Australian society. Whilst I say that, I have to remember my responsibilities to the people in my electorate of Flinders, south-east of Melbourne, who sent me to Canberra. They say to me, `One of your duties is to be concerned about some of these issues'. Since being appointed shadow Attorney-General by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), I have spent more time looking at some of these fundamental issues. That has brought me to note the provision in one of these Bills before the House, which is to provide tax deductibility for donations to the Lionel Murphy Foundation. The Opposition does not oppose that clause, which is part of the Bill which we do not oppose. But I do want to draw members' attention to a concept which is to be promoted by the Lionel Murphy Foundation. It is to be promoted with our taxes and, so, is obviously a matter very relevant to this Bill, and it is important that we look at it. The Foundation includes, for example, an intention `to study international law as a developing force for peace and as a means of achieving the rule of law in all nations'. That is a highly commendable objective and one which I strongly endorse. Peace is one of the great issues of our time. I think it is absolutely right and proper that we look to that issue and look at international law as part and parcel of that issue and as a mechanism for working towards and achieving peace. As difficult an issue as it is, it is obviously one which we on this side of the House, and those on the Government side, believe is one we should work to. However, one of the other objectives is `to study law and the legal system in a social context' and another is `to study law and the legal system as a means of attaining social justice and human rights and as vehicles for change'. This concept of social justice has a lot of currency in Australian Labor Party circles. Mr Holding —It doesn't have much in your circles, that's for sure. Mr REITH —Well, for very good reason, Minister, which I will come to. The concept of social justice is a term which was used by the honourable member for Forde (Ms Crawford) in her address-which simply brought to mind how good a member was the previous member for Forde, Dr David Watson. I hope, for the sake of this Parliament, that Dr Watson will find himself back here, because, regardless of which side of the House we are on, people such as Dr Watson make a tremendous contribution to Australia. I think this is a place that could do with his further contributions in the future. The Labor Party in Victoria even has a policy which I understand is called a policy for social justice. It is a term which we hear much about. The view I am putting today is basically that it is a perversion of the term `justice' to put those two words together as `social justice'. Let me give the House the definition of `justice' from the fifth edition of Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary, which defines `justice' as: `the upholding of rights, and the punishment of wrongs, by the law'. I think that is a reasonable definition. I looked for some others, and the Oxford Dictionary refers to `justice' as: `just conduct; fairness'-and I think perhaps most relevant to what I am saying today-`exercise of authority in maintenance of right'. At the convention in Perth, Lord Ackner of the House of Lords gave a very interesting and good address, if I may say so. He referred to the following quote from Lord Sankey, who was Lord Chancellor, who said at a dinner given at the Mansion House by the Lord Mayor of London to His Majesty's judges: Amid the cross currents and shifting sands of public life the law is like a great rock upon which a man may set his feet and be safe, while the inevitable inequalities of private life are not so dangerous in a country where every citizen knows that in the Law Courts, at any rate, he can get justice . . . I think that is as good a definition for our purposes today as one could get. He talks about law as being like a great rock. Of course, that raises the concept which I think is better known to us, and that is the concept of the rule of law. If that is all a bit heavy-and I realise it is-let me put it in another way, for example by referring to Australian rules football. I am a Victorian, and my boys enjoy it, as I used to, although I do not enjoy it so much now. Imagine that half-way through the last quarter of a game of footy the umpire blows the whistle and changes all the rules. He says that instead of getting six points for kicking the ball through the middle, the team will get only one point, but will get six for kicking it through the two outer posts. If that happened, particularly in a grand final in Melbourne, there would be absolute uproar. The people would say that the umpire had changed the rules of the game in the middle of the game. People would say, `This is not fair and it is a denial of justice'. They would be right, because one of the things about the rule of law is that it establishes a framework by which people can conduct themselves and know in advance the manner in which they will be treated. Given that definition of justice and law, let us look to the concept of social justice. When we look at the term `social justice' against the definition of `justice', as I think most of us know it, we will see how greatly at variance is the concept of social justice. This subject has been traversed before. In 1976, out to Australia came someone by the name of von Hayek. He is a very great economist and would, I suppose, be in the league of Lord Keynes, and someone we will have been thinking about this week with the great crash, Milton Friedman. Von Hayek wrote a book called The Road to Serfdom. In looking at economics, he really comes to grips with some of the basic issues about society. The last words of his book put an emphasis, rightly, on his interests. He says: The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only true progressive policy remains as true today as it was in the nineteenth century. When von Hayek came to Australia he delivered a number of lectures. One of his lectures, in particular, is very interesting in terms of relevance today. It is entitled `The Atavism of Social Justice'. Let me say, as I should have done, that Hayek was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economic Science in 1974. He says about social justice-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) — Order! I know that the honourable gentleman did approach me before regarding the very limited time that he was going to spend on this. He indicated that it might be a rather tortuous route in deciphering relevance. I am afraid he is begin- ning to lose me at this stage regarding relevance. Will he please come back to the Bill. Mr REITH —I do not want to lose you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because this is a fundamental issue. I realise that it encompasses matters of such significance that they do not find themselves raised often enough in this Parliament. But the relevance of them is, of course, very simple. Mr John Brown —You may as well be talking about the penguins on Phillip Island. Mr REITH —I know this matter has gone over the head of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. It is no surprise to any of us. But it ought to be within the realms of understanding of the Standing Orders of even the Minister that the Bill that we are discussing provides taxpayers' funds to promote a concept of social justice. I am entitled to stand in this Parliament today and bring before the Australian people the Opposition's concerns about the use of the concept of social justice, and the ramifications of this term for our system of justice in Australia. As I was saying, Professor Hayek, in his lecture, explained why he had come to regard social justice as `nothing more than an empty formula, conventionally used to assert that a particular claim is justified without giving any reason'. I think that is a very good summary of the criticism of the concept of social justice. What he said was that social justice is basically distributive justice. But the question then is: who does the distributing? There is no definition, and can be no definition, of justice of this sort because there is no agreement on the definition of testing the concept of justice in that phrase. It is a matter of fundamental importance to the sort of society that we have in Australia. But it was not just von Hayek who, 10 years ago, talked about social justice. In fact the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is very fond of social justice. He was reported in the Times on Sunday last Sunday as follows: He called for the introduction of a national social justice strategy that involved looking at greater redistribution through tax, social security and other key areas of social expenditure. ``Our directions for the third term of government and beyond is the creation of a fairer society, a greater degree of social justice, full employment and a society where people have more opportunities to participate and realise their potential, he said. ``Social justice is the foundation of what we are about. A fairer and more participatory society. This is the nub of the argument; this is the highlight. This is the ultimate definition of social justice from one of the high priests of social justice. The report continued: It is about the redistribution of power and economic opportunity.'' That is the relevance of it for Australians today. That is what social justice is about. It has nothing to do with justice as we understand the concept-absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. Social justice for the Australian Labor Party is about things like the wealth tax. If people find that subject a bit far removed, let them understand that it was only this week-- Mr John Brown —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that you have been very tolerant with the speaker, but whatever relation this has to the Bill before the House, which relates to tax law, is beyond my comprehension. I ask you to draw the speaker's attention to relevance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Flinders will attempt to become more relevant to the specifics of the Bill. Mr Peacock —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The shadow Attorney-General is not opposing the clause to which he is referring, but he is absolutely relevant because one of the provisions in the Bill is to give tax deductibility for donations to the Lionel Murphy Foundation. We do not oppose that. But one of the aims of the Foundation is to sponsor research by students into social justice under the law and to print those reports. That is an abiding principle of the Foundation. That is what the honourable member was referring to, and he is in order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I still ask him to become more specifically relevant. Mr REITH —Firstly, I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his support. Let me add, as a second leg to the relevance argument, the fact that this Bill-the Minister should read it-relates to the capital gains tax. In many situations in this country the capital gains tax raises a liability on the family home. The point I was about to make, before I was interrupted for the sole purpose of the Minister's attempting to deny what I was saying, was that Senator Walsh said this week that the implications of a wealth tax are not just for the few-the Bonds, the Packers and the mates of Hawke-but rather are for every Australian because the family home would be subject to tax. As I have said, the concept of social justice has nothing to do with justice as the ordinary person in the street understands it. Social justice is very much a part of Labor's philosophical agenda for this country. It is all about equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. It is all about a radical socialist Left agenda. I say to the people of Australia, `If you believe, as we do, in the importance of justice as a central and fundamental concept in our sort of society, when you hear the term social justice, stand up and deny it because it has no relevance whatsoever to the concept of justice as we know it and it needs to be stopped'. People need to be made aware of the ramifications of Labor's policy of social justice. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(11.12) —I thank the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, for allowing me to speak for a few minutes. I rise to speak in reaction to the comments of the recently elected honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns), who today extolled the virtues of Medicare, and I do so during the debate on the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill which increases the levy from one per cent of income to 1.25 per cent of income. This represents another of the Labor Government's broken promises to the people of Australia. Time and time again we were assured that a one per cent levy would be sufficient to fund the Medicare program. It became more and more obvious that to continue funding the Medicare program would require a topping up perhaps by up to $2 billion, taken out of Consolidated Revenue or from the taxpayers' funds. What the Government has had to do in this legislation is to increase, finally, the levy, to 1.25 per cent. If the price of bread, the price of milk or, indeed, even parliamentarians' salaries were to increase by 25 per cent, the nation would understandably be up in arms. Yet members of the Australian Labor Party sit there on the other side and treat this 25 per cent increase in the levy as a matter of course. It deserves analysis because what it underlines is that Medicare is a runaway cost program. It is a form of medicine the cost of which cannot be contained. As evidence of its effectiveness I hold up today's Daily Telegraph from Sydney. If one wades through the reports on pages 1 and 2 of the misfortunes of the stock exchange, one comes to page 3 which has the first main non-stock exchange story. It says, `13 dead in queue for surgery'. Thirteen people have died in three months waiting to get into the St George Hospital in Sydney. The article shows a chart of how long people in Sydney have to wait in that particular-- Mr John Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think it would be only fair if the honourable member read what is stated further down in that article. The Minister for Health in New South Wales pointed out that all of them died from natural causes and that it was nothing to do with their waiting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The Minister wants me to read a bit more. It says: At least 13 people died in three months while waiting for surgery at one of Sydney's biggest public hospitals, State Parliament was told yesterday. Do you want me to keep going? I can keep boring it right into you. I said to you that I would not speak for too long but I will not be side-tracked. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the Chair. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for bringing control back to your side of the House. The honourable member for Petrie told the Parliament how marvellous the Government's approach to Medicare was. So much faith have the poor people, the lower income people, in the Government's health system that 42 per cent of the pensioners have opted for private health cover that enables them to go into a private hospital because they know that the Government system is so clogged up. They do not want to join that queue in Sydney where 13 people have died in three months just waiting to get into hospital. The Government, in its approach to health, said, `We will take care of your doctor's bills if you are uncovered, you can go into a public hospital. But if you want to take extra precautions you can pay into a private health fund which gives you a doctor of your own choice in a private hospital'. The Government has destroyed the incentive for people to care for themselves. It has caused hundreds of thousands of people to bail out of private hospital cover. This has had the effect of transferring a great slice of the community into dependence upon the public hospital sector. That is where the Government scheme has fallen down. Whilst I am on my feet, I put my finger on another little dirty act perpetrated by the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) in recent times. If I go into a public hospital as a citizen who does not have private health cover, 85 per cent of the doctor's fees are refunded. But if I have skimped and saved to give myself private health cover to enable me to go into a private hospital, this lousy mob that runs Australia at the moment says that I get only 75 per cent back. If ever there is a form of double discrimination, this is it. The Government effectively transferred another $100m of the cost of Medicare on to the backs of citizens-I remind the House that that includes 42 per cent of all pensioners-who are frightened of the health system and who, regardless of the heavy cost, have opted to take additional private health cover. The honourable member for Petrie alluded to the fact that at the beginning of the 1980s somebody earning $305 a week was paying 2.2 per cent of his income on medical and hospital cover. He told us how marvellous it was that a lot of these people now do not have quite the type of insurance cover that they used to have. Granted, they have Medicare cover, but they no longer have hospital cover. That 2.2 per cent also included the right to doctors of choice and to private hospital treatment. I undertook to make my contribution short. It has not been sweet, but when it comes to the subject of Medicare there is very little sweet about it. The reality is that the Government is endorsing a 25 per cent price slug on the contribution that the people will have to make towards keeping this ineffective system afloat. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.23) —in reply-One can easily summarise the arguments put forward by Opposition members, because their points were mere reiterations. After listening to those very same arguments that were put to the Australian people less than four months ago, one would have liked a glimmer of hope that the Opposition had some new approach or some sense of new direction which would have enabled it to start to move away from the very discredited policies that it put to the Australian people in the election and which were rejected by the Australian people. Opposition members have come back to this House, on tax legislation, and virtually repeated their comments using the same generalities and the same arguments that were put before. They were not always put concisely or accurately, but they were certainly rejected. In the course of this debate we were told that what was needed was rigour and discipline in government expenditure. That sounds well, but certainly one needs only to remind the author of that sort of prescription that this Government, probably more than any other government in history, has applied not merely rigour and discipline but also some sense of social justice-if I might use that term-in seeing that expenditure items have been carefully curtailed. I remind the people of Australia, and I remind this House, that what was put to the people by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in the last election could hardly be described as exercises in rigour and discipline. They were promised a fistful of dollars. `Vote for us and you will get massive tax cuts', the Opposition said. Nobody believed it. The Opposition could not even get its arithmetic right. When Opposition members were asked how it was going to pay for these tax cuts they said, `That's easy. There'll be massive cuts across the board, but don't ask us where we are going to make those cuts; we wouldn't want you to get excited or upset. We wouldn't want you to know that we are proposing cuts in social welfare, in defence or in health. We wouldn't want you to know about that. But you trust little Johnnie Howard and all will be right'. The people of Australia rejected that argument because they saw through it. It was as cheap a con trick as was ever attempted to be foisted upon the people of Australia. Yet today we hear the same old arguments being used, being recycled like some worn out suit that one does not know what to do with, so one takes it to some second hand shop hoping to get a few bob for it. That is the level of the Opposition's contribution, except for a couple of novel propositions. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) told us that not only were these arguments still valid, but the Opposition had actually won the support of the Australian people. Somehow or other the Opposition had won the election; it just did not get enough seats. That is the level of the contribution in this debate. I will not bother going into the kinds of arguments that, again, show the pathological hatred of some members of the Opposition for the whole concept of Medicare. That has been dealt with, I think very adequately and succinctly, by my colleagues on this side of the House and I do not propose to take up the time of the house reiterating them. There was one further argument which I felt ought to be mentioned because it was raised by a number of members of the Opposition. It does not add anything to the debate about fiscal policy in this country, but apparently they felt that it was worth a bit of a run. I refer to the argument that somehow or other this Treasurer (Mr Keating) has a need to seek personal popularity and that that need has somehow or other affected his fiscal judgment. I have heard of some unworthy arguments in this House from time to time, and I think that members of the Parliament are used to over-exaggerated comments. But no Treasurer in the history of this Commonwealth has produced such important and significant changes to our tax system-again, with a sense of social justice-which produce some sense of equity in our tax base. It was not easy to introduce such concepts as a capital gains tax and a fringe benefits tax-and dire predictions were made. But, at a time when this Treasurer has produced virtually a balanced Budget, when he has won the acclaim of the business community, the average Australian and indeed the international community, we are told that this person-who not only has produced these concepts but also has been prepared to stand steadfast against a level of hysterical criticism that was weighed against these policies-despite his history, is somehow allowing his fiscal judgment to be affected by some seeking of personal popularity. We still do not know whether the honourable gentlemen opposite are pledged to repeal the assets test, the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. I mention that sleazy argument for no other purpose than to consign it to the gutter whence it emanated. It has been a disappointing contribution from the Opposition. I feel sorry for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). I wish him well in his belated attempts to take this polyglot mob on the other side in some new direction which may at least give some credibility to the sorts of arguments that these people are prepared to put in this House. There are real issues to be enjoined in this whole area of fiscal policy, and it is about time we heard about them from a responsible Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(11.29) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 8, page 6, line 13, omit from the definition of ``asset re-valuation dividend'' in proposed subsection 46e (1) ``4 June 1987'', substitute ``23 September 1987''. (2) Clause 8, page 8, line 12, omit from proposed paragraph 46e (6) (a) ``4 June 1987'', substitute ``23 September 1987''. I simply wish to say that our concern relates to proposed section 46e contained in clause 8 of the Bill before the Committee. Without going into details on the substantive provisions of the clause, the new section 46e should remove the scope for tax avoidance by denying the inter-corporate dividend rebate in respect of dividends paid out of asset revaluations in the circumstances described by the proposed new section. Our complaint is that the Bill will have retrospective effect on those dividends which were paid on or after 4 June of this year. On 4 June-prior to the election and during the last Parliament-the Government introduced legislation and announced its intention to implement similar provisions. However, that legislation was not passed with the calling of the early election. Since that election the Government has introduced this later Bill. The relevant proposed new section in the earlier legislation put before the previous Parliament has been amended considerably since that time. It still purports, however, to have effect from 4 June, and therefore has retrospective effect. Taxpayers, noting the nature of the legislation introduced in June, who then legitimately arranged their affairs so as not to contravene the proposed section 46e released in that earlier Bill, now find that they may have contravened the amended proposed new section. The ambit of the proposed new section has been widened by the amendments and regrettably those alterations do not include the date from which the new section is to have effect. So, as a matter of fairness, we are proposing amendments to allow the new section 46e to take effect from 23 September 1987. We are not opposing what is contained in that proposed section other than the date. It would therefore take effect not from 4 June but from 23 September, the date on which this particular Bill was first presented to the House. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(11.32) —I support the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) in moving these particular amendments. I spoke briefly on this matter last night and, I hope, made the same point that my colleague has made this morning. I must say I was amused when the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding), in responding to the second reading debate, conveyed the impression that he was aware of all the arguments that had been put in that debate. He was not even present in the chamber last night and he was therefore unprepared to answer my argument or perhaps even foreshadow a reaction to the amendments that have now been put. I want to deal with clause 15 in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3), which seeks to amend sections 108 and 109 of the principal Act. Like the present section, the proposed section deals with the possibility of an actual distribution subsequent to the deemed dividend. While the existing section eliminates double taxation, it is fair to say that the proposed amendment is not revenue neutral. Proposed sub-section 108 (2) provides that, where the whole or a part of a dividend is set off in satisfaction of the whole or part of the amount deemed to be a dividend by early application of section 108, the amount set off should not attract further income tax. It does this in a very curious and tortuous way indeed in that it seems to invoke a grammatical triple negative. It is very hard to read these provisions, given that they are expressed by way of a triple negative. Specifically, proposed paragraph 108 (2) (b) provides that so much of the amount of the dividend or subsequent dividend as is set off and as does not exceed the unfranked part of that dividend shall be deemed not to be a dividend other than for the purposes of imputation. Plainly-but after a great deal of study-this means that subsequent unfranked dividends will not be assessable while subsequent franked dividends will remain assessable and, incidentally, while partly franked dividends are partly assessable. The proposed changes are simply unfair, in the way that I read the application of the clause. It seems to be sloppy draftsmanship. I cannot for a minute believe that the Government would want to do what it seems effectively to achieve in this context; that is, triple taxation by the imposition of a triple Medicare levy on a transaction. If we assume a shareholder, whose marginal tax rate is always 49 per cent, has received a loan of $1,000 from a private company, that loan is first deemed to be a dividend and is subsequently offset by a fully franked dividend. In the year of deeming a dividend in these circumstances the shareholder will pay income tax of $490 and a Medicare levy of $12.50. In the year the franked dividend is distributed, the shareholder will be assessed a tax of $960 as well as being entitled to a tax rebate of $960. He will also be assessed a Medicare levy of $24.50. It will be seen that there is no mechanism in the clause to refund the tax paid earlier and that a triple Medicare levy has been imposed under these provisions. The Bill also contains a transitional section-proposed new section 108-which caters for situations where the existing section deems amounts to be dividends but where the set-off will occur when the proposed new section is in force. This transitional section is equally unfair, in the way I have described, to subsequent franked dividends. I believe that this is a drafting error. I accept that my interpretation might be at fault but that is my advice. I would like the Minister to consult with his advisers because I am sure that if that is what the Government has effectively achieved-triple taxation by the imposition of three lots of the Medicare levy-further amendments will be required. As I have already said, I do not believe that this Government would intentionally get into a situation in which it would impose a triple impost in the manner described. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.37) —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) summarised his arguments in favour of this amendment on the basis that it takes the provisions beyond 4 June 1987. This has to be seen in the context that on 4 June this year the Treasurer (Mr Keating) released an exposure draft of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987 in order to inform the business community of proposed anti-avoidance measures so that legitimate business planning could be proceeded with. In releasing the exposure draft the Treasurer announced that some technical provisions were not yet fully settled. He emphasised that the provisions of proposed new section 46e, as contained in the exposure draft, would be extended to apply also where entities were interposed between a company revaluing its assets and a company disposing of its shares. The provisions contained in the Bill before us do precisely this. To prevent the tax avoiders, at whom these measures are directed, from circumventing the measures by arranging for an associate to sell shares which effectively give control of a company, but not the shares on which asset revaluation dividends are paid, the provisions also apply where, as part of a scheme to avoid tax, shares are disposed of by another party in such circumstances that a tax benefit is conferred on the company which has received asset revaluation dividends. I assure the Committee that legitimate business will not in any way be affected by these measures. Only those actively seeking to avoid paying tax, by contrived arrangements, will be affected and these people were clearly advised of the Government's intention by an exposure draft and the Treasurer's announcement on 4 June 1987. That being the case, the Government will oppose any move to have the provisions apply from a date later than 4 June. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Peacock's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. McVeigh, D. T.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles. C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Katter, R. C. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Lloyd, B. Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S.Gayler, J. Punch, G. F.Gear, G. Saunderson, J.Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Grace, E. L. Sciacca, C.Hand, G. L. Scott, J. L.Harvey, E. R. Simmons, D. W.Hayden, W. G. Snow, J. H.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. Shipton, R. F. Jones, BarryFischer, Tim Charlesworth, R. I.Goodluck, B. J. Beazley, K. C.Carlton, J. J. Edwards, RonaldWhite, P. N. D. Snowdon, W. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. (No. 2) 1987 Consideration resumed from 23 September, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 3-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 4 (Levy of tax). Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(11.50) —The Opposition opposes clause 4 and will vote against it. I gave the reasons during the second reading debate last night. It is an attempt to deny the annual review of tax scales by the Parliament, and the Opposition regrets and opposes the clause and will vote against it. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.51) —The present situation is that the legislation declares both personal and company tax rates. It is now put before the Parliament only when there is a change of rates, and the rates are not declared on an annual basis. In this situation the Government questions whether there is any necessity to continue to have a Bill formally imposing income tax each year. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) pointed out, there is not an annual imposition of other Commonwealth taxes, and the Commonwealth Office of Parliamentary Counsel has advised there is no legal requirement for the annual imposition of income tax. The past practice of annual imposition apparently had an historical basis. In a climate where staff resources for drafting legislation and time for parliamentary debate are at a premium, it seems a waste to process a Bill each year when it is not required. It is not the imposition of income tax that is the usual subject for debate, but the rates at which it is charged. For that reason the Government will insist on the clause. Question put: That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Courtice, B. W. McHugh, J.Crawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. C. Morris, PeterFatin, W. F. Mountford, J. G.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Free, R. V. O'Neil, L. R. T.Gayler, J. Price, L. R. S.Gear, G. Punch, G. F.Gorman, R. N. J. Saunderson, J.Grace, E. L. Scholes, G. G. D.Griffiths, A. G. Sciacca, C.Hand, G. L. Scott, J. L.Harvey, E. R. Simmons, D. W.Hayden, W. G. Snow, J. H.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. McVeigh, D. T.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Lloyd, B. Jones, Barry Shipton, R. F.Charlesworth, R. I. Fischer, TimBeazley, K. C. Goodluck, B. J.Edwards, Ronald Carlton, J. J.Snowdon, W. E. White, P. H. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(12.00) —by leave-I move: Clause 5, page 2, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Repeal of sections 9 and 10 ``5. Sections 9 and 10 of the Principal Act are repealed.''. Clause 6, page 2, lines 9 and 10, omit ``of all subsequent years of income'', substitute ``of the next succeeding year of income''. I have moved these amendments for the reasons earlier discussed, namely, the supremacy of the Parliament and the duty of the Executive to answer to it for its annual review of tax scales. Amendments negatived. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 23 September, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 3-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 4 (Application of amendments). Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.02) —I move: Clause 4, page 1, line 14, omit ``and for all subsequent financial years''. The strength of debate on this Bill is evidence that the Government has a responsibility to present its tax levies for annual scrutiny. A number of honourable members chose to speak very widely on the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill in giving their views as to how Medicare is treating Australians. That process is very healthy because it puts the system under scrutiny, and that is what Parliament is for. Parliament is the place where the activities of the bureaucracy and of executive government are monitored. To suggest that because there is not to be a change in a tax levy such provisions should continue ad infinitum is not sustainable. In the debate on that Bill honourable members heard an excellent presentation by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), who raised severe concerns which were published in the media yesterday as to people on waiting lists who were dying. I was surprised that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) took a point of order and said that those people all died of natural causes. He can take it from me that it does not matter much. Most people who are waiting to get into hospitals are waiting because of natural causes. The system has not yet got that bad that a person who has a car accident or who is badly injured cannot get into hospital. It is people with natural causes such as eye problems, heart and arthritic conditions who are on waiting lists for four years, and it was reported that in three months 13 of them died. We are quite prepared to admit the Minister's view that those people died of natural causes. The reality is that they are dead. Prob- ably all of them suffered from operable conditions and had they been able to get into hospital immediately, as they could have done in the past before this wonderful thing called Medicare came about, and had they been able to have the necessary treatment, no doubt a number of those people would be living today. These are the sorts of issues that the Parliament is entitled to raise when these levy Bills come before it annually. That has been the practice of this House for many years. If this Government continues with these sorts of actions-the automatic indexation of various excise taxes-it will have a scandal on its hands. The community no longer has any chance to lobby against increases in those taxes because they are imposed automatically. People see a rise in costs at the bowser, for example, or down at the local hotel and they no longer know whether that is due to a government imposed tax, a wholesaler's imposed price increase or a retailer's imposed price increase. That is not the way in which a democracy such as Australia should operate. We know of the ambitions of certain Government members for a corporate state, but let us get this straight: this is still a parliamentary democracy, a tax is a tax is a tax and it should be debated annually, irrespective of its change, because it is there to produce certain results. This is particularly so with something like the Medicare levy. In other words, even if the levy is not to be increased, the people are entitled to consider whether they are getting value for money. As this debate has proved, the Opposition is clearly of the view that the public is not getting value for money in this case. The levy represents a very small amount of the money that is being spent in this area. There is excellent reason for having the opportunity to refer to items appearing in the Press. I thought it was a matter of considerable interest that the Bulletin chose in its 27 October edition to run an article on `The crisis in the surgery-why your GP is considering militant action'. One part of that article points out just how much many doctors are actually making in personal remuneration. That is a point well worth making because it indicates that the gross income of a doctor is $153,000, which is apparently indicative of a country practice. However, he is left with a net income of $62,801. That is a point that the Government should accept because the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories spoke on television the other day in terms of the scandal of the medical services in Canberra, saying that the doctors are earning $200,000 a year. That is grossly misleading the public. It is totally unnecessary and it is similar to remarks that could be made about politicians' salaries. One would never hear that Minister or any other Minister making those sorts of remarks about politicians! Let us be honest about it; let us talk about the doctors' personal, disposable incomes received from their work. As many politicians might want to argue in their own cases, let us look at the hours that doctors put in for their money. This is not a case for them to screw the system any more than anyone else. The point I am making is that that television statement by the Minister, which I observed personally, was grossly misleading and is indicative of the type of tactics so often used by him. It is about time that he gave up and just told the truth. The truth is that $200,000 a year is the gross income of some of the better off in Canberra; it is far from their net income when one looks at the sort of expenses they have to pay. For example, they have to pay receptionists, practice managers and for telephones, stationery and so on. A receptionist takes $16,000 a year out of that and I guess most would be lucky to find a good receptionist for that money today. Mr Cunningham —Are you talking about specialists or GPs? Mr TUCKEY —I am talking about the people to whom the Minister referred the other day. The Minister said that the doctors of Canberra get $200,000 a year-- Mr Holding —I take a point of order, Mr Chairman. I did not want to restrain the honourable member for O'Connor, but the amendment he has moved is very narrow and technical and the comments that he is making are perfectly appropriate to a speech in a second reading debate. I am reluctant to restrain him, but I think that the amendment is narrow and should be addressed at this stage. The CHAIRMAN —There is some validity in the Minister's point of order-- Mr Griffiths —A lot of validity. The CHAIRMAN —There is no real validity in the interjection of the honourable member for Maribyrnong, however. The honourable member for O'Connor might refer more directly to the matter before the Chair, which is that clause 4 be amended to omit the words `and for all subsequent financial years'. Mr TUCKEY —The purpose of the amendment is to remove those words `and for all subsequent financial years'. The Government's purpose in including those words is to remove this legislation from the parliamentary debate as is presently required every year, irrespective of present and past arrangements and irrespective of whether the Government chooses to change the levy. It has a responsibility to have the matter reaffirmed by this Parliament every year. I was giving examples to the Parliament as to why there is a need for this debate, even if there is no change in the levy. The most interesting thing about that is that it was amazing that the Government was not prepared in its original legislation, when it brought the levy in at one per cent, to say, `and for all subsequent financial years', because that was the intention at the time. We were promised faithfully that the levy would never exceed one per cent. Of course, in reality, it is now more like 5 or 6 per cent when one looks at the total expenditure on Medicare. These are the reasons why the Opposition demands that those words be removed and that the other amendments, to which I will refer, be accepted because it is essential that each year the Government be asked to answer on the issue of the taxes it raises. It is not just a matter of the amount of money the Government extracts from the Australian taxpayer; it is the value that the Australian taxpayer gets. This is a wide-ranging debate and the very strength of that debate and the evidence brought forward by various members is such as to demonstrate the need to expose a massive expenditure-in total $5,000m to $6,000m-to the scrutiny of Parliament. Let us face it. The estimated raisings of the levy this year are $2,065m and the Minister is suggesting that that is not a matter which should be discussed by the Parliament annually. Next year that amount will be $2,300m or something like that, even if the levy remains as it is. If that is not a good reason to remove those words, I do not know what is. We are well aware why the Government wants to get this matter off the debating agenda. It is embarrassed by the ineffectiveness and the cost of its proposal. It is also embarrassed by the fact that so many people are not getting the service that the Government promised, particularly the less well off in our community. For those reasons I have pleasure in moving this amendment. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(12.13) —I oppose the amendment put forward by the Opposition because I support the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill, just as I support Medicare. This Bill amends the Medicare Levy Act to declare and impose the basic rate of Medicare levy for 1987-88 and all subsequent income years. It also increases the income threshold levels below which people with low incomes will not be called upon to pay any levy. In supporting the Bill and opposing the Opposition's amendment, I wish to comment on those remarks that have been made by Opposition members in relation to the New South Wales hospital waiting lists. The Opposition consistently raises this matter in connection with Medicare for one simple reason-the Opposition loathes Medicare and the Australian public supports it. This is an attempt by Opposition members to reverse Australian public support. They constantly blame Medicare which, I remind them, is a universal health insurance system, for any problems that occur in the delivery of health care. There are problems at every level in the delivery of health care, but those problems are the responsibility of the health carers, including the hospitals. The hospitals are primarily the responsibility of the States. Honourable members opposite referred to the story in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, which was also referred to in the New South Wales State Parliament, of deaths of people allegedly on a hospital waiting list. These people were waiting for care in St George Hospital. I have some information which I think is worth including in this debate. Hospitals do not keep waiting lists. The document which has been referred to is apparently an internal management document, compiled from individual doctors' lists. It is the doctors who keep lists. It is the doctors who determine the priority of admission into hospital. Serious doubts can be cast on the accuracy of doctors' lists. For instance, they sometimes forget to delete the names of people who no longer require admission to hospital because they have received care at another hospital, perhaps at very great expense, under the doctor's persuasive rhetoric in one of the doctor's private hospitals. But the name will remain on the doctors' lists for admission to hospital. So serious doubt can be cast on the accuracy of these lists. Apparently, the list quoted was so inaccurate that it involved four and not 13 deaths. I am not here to say that four deaths are meaningless. Four deaths are very meaningful. It appears that the four deaths were of aged people, all over 70 years of age, who have every right to everything the public hospital system can offer, which is the best in the world. But what we are arguing about here is whether they were on a hospital waiting list, unable to get into hospital to be treated for the condition from which they died. Not one of the people who died died as a result of a condition which caused them to be placed on the doctor's list. The tragic cases referred to in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald are being investigated by the New South Wales Department of Health. I have enormous confidence in the New South Wales public hospital system. The sort of thing the Opposition is saying and the sort of story that is being put around about deaths on waiting lists are designed to undermine faith in our great public hospital system. St George Hospital has reduced from four months to four weeks the waiting list for cardiac surgery. This year it has conducted 1,011 more operations than last year and has treated 2,421 more patients than it treated last year. It has opened 62 extra beds. It has reduced by 171 the number of people waiting for surgery for more than 12 months. This Government, responsible for the universal health insurance scheme which is so successful and which the Opposition, even if it gets into power, will never undermine and will never get rid of because it is so popular, nevertheless recognises that there are difficulties and problems in the delivery of health care through our public hospital system. For that reason it is helping the States with extra funds. We recognise that there are problems. Many of them are because of the current shortage of nurses caused by the transfer of nurse education from hospital-based to tertiary education. But the States are addressing that problem. In New South Wales, which is so constantly under attack, 300 new nurses will arrive from overseas within the next six weeks. Mr Goodluck —Shame! Ms McHUGH —I beg your pardon! This will overcome a current difficulty. When the transfer of nurse education is complete the current shortage of nurses will be overcome. I repeat: the Commonwealth Government recognises its responsibility. Specifically to address hospital waiting times it is providing $25m a year over the next two years to assist the States rapidly to reduce waiting times for elective surgery for Medicare patients. Because the funding will be on a dollar for dollar basis with the States an additional $100m will be allocated under the public hospital waiting list assistance program over the next two years. In New South Wales a $27.4m program has already been introduced which is specifically shaped to open beds and reduce waiting times in public hospitals. The only point of the Opposition's attacks in regard to this problem is to undermine public confidence in the best public hospital system in the world-the public hospital system of Australia-and to help the doctors who are trying to get people out of our magnificent public hospital system and into their own profit-making private hospitals. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.19) —I will not take very much of your time this time, Mr Chairman. I note that the interest of the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding)-I refer particularly to him and not to you, Mr Chairman; I think you have treated this debate very properly-in relevance seemed to disappear all of a sudden. I think that point is worth making. Mr Holding —You could have taken a point of order. Mr TUCKEY —I was at pains not to do so because I did not believe that it would have been proper to do so. I thought that the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) had the right to make the remarks that she did. At no point did I choose to stop her. I have chosen to take some of my own speaking time to remind the Minister that it is quite reasonable for one to stick to one's beliefs. If the Minister believed that I was digressing too far he had a responsibility, as is his charge, to raise questions as to the relevance of the honourable member for Phillip. He did not, for pure-- Mr Holding —I will deal with that. She was certainly relevant. Mr TUCKEY —Of course she was relevant, in the Minister's view. So was I. That is the point I wish to make. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Let us not have a debate about relevance. Mr TUCKEY —Let me quickly respond to the points that have been made. Medicare is not a health insurance program. The Minister, in his second reading speech when he introduced the Medicare legislation, was at pains to tell us that. Medicare is very selective about where it will give people financial assistance if they have medical problems, particularly in regard to where they go if they need to be hospitalised. They can go only to a public hospital. If they want free hospital treatment under Medicare they are obliged to go to a public hospital. Because that has happened and because of the effect that Medicare has created by grossly overcrowding public hospitals and putting demand upon their operating facilities, we have problems with those hospitals, dumped as was said, on State governments. There are 9,000 beds vacant in the private hospital sector. The honourable member for Phillip made it very clear why this Government does not want to give financial assistance to people who choose to go to a private hospital. The honourable member is concerned that someone might make a profit. That is her worry. She is desperately concerned that someone might make a profit. She overlooks the fact that frequently that profit is made through efficiency, not through overcharging. The true cost of a hospital bed in the public sector to the taxpayer is about $350 a day, whereas for a bed in a private hospital one pays about $250 a day. But the honourable member chooses to hide all that. She says that a public hospital bed costs nothing. The cost of hospitals in the New South Wales system, which the honourable member says is so remarkable-- Mr Holding —Mr Chairman-- Mr TUCKEY —Come off it! The Minister sat right through her speech and said nothing. I am responding to what she said. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr TUCKEY —I hope that it is a relevant point of order. The CHAIRMAN —I call the Minister. Mr Holding —It is a relevant point of order. The honourable member for O'Connor produced amendments which were very narrowly based. I was perfectly happy to sit here and let him be general. Then I took a point of order which you, Mr Chairman, properly upheld. Following that matter a speaker chose to answer the honourable member for O'Connor, who now wants to extend this debate into a general debate on Medicare. That is not the issue before the chamber. They are his amendments. He has made some statements that have been replied to. To allow him to go on in this vein would constitute a gross abuse of the Standing Orders. I ask him through you, Mr Chairman, to come back to the issues that are before the chamber which are very narrow and very specific. The CHAIRMAN —The Committee has before it a Bill in relation to the collection of money to finance the Health Insurance Commission. There has been a reasonably wide debate on the amendments to and the clauses of the Bill. The honourable member for O'Connor used some examples. The honourable member for Phillip used some examples. The honourable member for O'Connor, in speaking for the second time on the Bill, because of the number of examples we have allowed to be used can use examples, but we do not want him to regurgitate his second reading stage speech on the matter. Having taken that on board, I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will take the least possible time. I have spoken on this second occasion, which the Standing Orders allow, only to rebut the remarks made by the honourable member for Phillip. I was about to tell her that the cost to the taxpayers of delivering medical services in New South Wales is $3,000m a year. In fact, when we add up the total cost of health to the Australian taxpayer, it comes to $23 a week per family. That cost should be the subject of some consideration. As the honourable member has admitted, there are some huge problems, particularly in the New South Wales health system. She is entitled to defend it, and we are entitled to criticise it. I hope that the Australian people will be the winners from that debate and will be able to make a judgment. But I tell honourable members that if only four people die because of the failures of the system, their relatives will already have made their judgment. Whatever the arguments we have had here today, we say that the debate should be held annually. The Government proposes to hide a revenue provision of $2,065m this year, which is not peanuts. The honourable member for Phillip, as a Government backbencher, should be given the opportunity once a year to express her strong support for the system, just as I, as a member of the Opposition, should be given the opportunity to criticise it in the public interest. That is the point we are on about. That is exactly why the Opposition is suggesting the omission of just these words. We are not in any way opposing the Government's right or intention to lift the levy to 1.25 per cent. We are criticising it and we are saying that we want to delete the words that this levy be applied for all subsequent financial years. We agree to one year, and we expect the Government to come back, irrespective of whether it wants to increase the levy, and give an accounting to the Australian people of that $2 billion or $2.5 billion which it soon will be. That is exactly why we invite the honourable member for Phillip to support that very worthwhile amendment that does no more than guarantee that there will be a debate on this issue in approximately 12 months time, and, I hope, after each subsequent 12 months whilst the proposal is in existence. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(12.27) —The amendment is rejected by the Government because it really is specious. Looking at the principle involved, the Opposition is really saying that if any charge or addition to revenue which is raised on an annual basis is proposed, that has to come back before this Parliament on an annual basis so that it can be debated, even if there is no change. The result of that would be, considering the range of charges that are encompassed in our laws, that this Parliament would never get up. This is a nonsense proposition. Despite the fact that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) regards himself as something of an expert on the Standing Orders, he knows as well as I do that if he, as a member of this House, is concerned about any aspect of public policy, be it Medicare or any other aspect, he has a whole range of parliamentary opportunities to deal with that issue. He has the choice of matters of public importance, the Budget debate itself and the debates on the Budget Bills. There are all the provisions within the Standing Orders. This shows just how ill-contrived and badly thought through are the basic propositions. It is a nonsense proposition in parliamentary terms, because if this precedent were established in respect of this item, we would have to say that it was part of the parliamentary process for a whole range of items. One could imagine the problem that would create. The fact is that the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill is like any Bill which imposes an income tax. Like other taxes, the levy is imposed as a standing measure. If there is any change in the rate of the levy, either up or down, that will be put before the Parliament when those changes have to take place. Honourable members will then have an opportunity to debate that. For those reasons the amendment is rejected. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Tuckey's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. McVeigh, D. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Courtice, B. W. McHugh, J.Crawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. C. Morris, PeterFatin, W. F. Mountford, J. G.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Free, R. V. O'Neil, L. R. T.Gayler, J. Price, L. R. S.Gear, G. Punch, G. F.Gorman, R. N. J. Saunderson, J.Grace, E. L. Scholes, G. G. D.Griffiths, A. G. Sciacca, C.Hand, G. L. Scott, J. L.Harvey, E. R. Simmons, D. W.Hayden, W. G. Snow, J. H.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Shipton, R. F. Jones, BarryFischer, Tim Charlesworth, R. I.White P. N. D. Beazley, K. C.Carlton, J. J. Edwards, RonaldMcGauran, P. J. Snowdon, W. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Amendment (by Mr Tuckey) negatived: (2) Schedule, page 2, omit the amendment to subsection 11 (1), substitute: ``Subsection 11 (1): Omit `1986', substitute `1987' ''. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! It being near 12.45 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106a, General Business will be called on. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(12.39) —I move: That this House expresses concern at the effects of road trauma on Australian society and commends the Government for policies aimed at lowering deaths and injury of drivers on Australian roads. Around 3,000 people are killed each year on Australian roads. At the end of 1986 the national toll was 2,883. Of those people, 482 died on Queensland roads. Since the beginning of this decade, over 21,800 people have been killed in road crashes in Australia. The Federal Government shares the deep concern of the Australian people regarding this trauma. We acknowledge the extensive nature of a problem which is hard to quantify. Accidents may be caused by an emotional driver, a driver who is feeling frustrated or aggravated for some reason, one who overtakes on a road which is rutted with potholes or a person driving into the evening sun just before an intersection. Who can tell which of these factors is the cause of any resultant collision? However, a number of practical and, in some cases, innovative measures have been undertaken by the Hawke Government which I believe have contributed to the national fall in the road toll. I say this in complete awareness that people on both sides of the House share the great concern of the Australian people about the number of drivers and pedestrians-young people, children and the aged-who are being killed on Australia's roads. However, while there were 2,883 road fatalities in Australia in 1986, there is a bright side to the picture. This figure is lower than for any year between 1964 and 1982. In fact the number of road fatalities to 30 September 1987 has fallen by 8 per cent. The figure is 1,972 this year compared with 2,149 in 1986. We take some encouragement from that. But I must stress that there is still a need for continuing action to reduce fatalities and injuries resulting from road crashes. There is absolutely no room for complacency. The annual cost to the community in dollar terms alone, not to mention the greater cost of grief and lifelong disablement, is estimated at about $3,000m per annum. Moreover, a comparison of Australian and overseas figures shows that we have more road fatalities per head of population in this country than in the United States, Canada or Great Britain. In 1986, 18.1 Australians per 100,000 were killed on the road. This staggering figure is almost double that for Great Britain. This is the size of the problem facing us as a community. This problem has been faced by this Government, firstly, by the previous Minister for Transport, now Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris), who was known for his energetic work in the area of road safety, and now by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), who has already shown that he will follow on that interest in this area. They have worked in conjunction with the Federal Office of Road Safety. I mention Bill Upton, who has worked in this office for many years, and Peter Makeham and Carol Boughton. I mention also the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety, which has changed its name to the Standing Committee on Transport Safety. Those committees have worked in a bipartisan manner and have included as members the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb), who is here at present, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), who was the chairperson of the Road Safety Committee before I had the honour to carry on in that role. A number of members on both sides of the House, some of whom will be speaking later in this debate, have co-operated with the Government to enable the Commonwealth to undertake a leadership catalyst role which has been developed together with a Government road safety strategy consisting of three fundamental elements. The first is to provide safer roads. An allocation of $1,250m has been made for road construction and maintenance in 1987-88. People in local areas will be aware of the excellent Australian bicentennial road development program which has brought better roads to many areas, including in the Brisbane area of Queensland. The national highway program has been most successful. But, in saying this, I make the comment that providing safe roads alone is not enough. I feel that we must look at attitudes and drivers. We have become a pretty soft and pampered society which is willing to speed and take risks on roads which in some areas may not be 100 per cent and then complacently turn around and blame the roads. I think drivers have to take note of existing conditions. If they do not really want 3,000 people to be killed every year, though that number is down below the 3,000 now, thank God, and if they do not want continuing disablement, they should go more slowly. They should not drink drive. They should make sure that it is their responsibility to see that they get safely across that particular road. The second element is to ensure safer vehicles. This is a most important aspect. The stability and safety aspects of cars, buses and trucks are an issue of concern to most people. New certification arrangements, together with regular checks on vehicle safety standards, provide Australians with vehicles which are amongst the safest in the world. The cost of the new certification system is only $5 per vehicle, which is recover- able through the sale of compliance plates. This is one of the areas in which the Government is seeking to implement practical policies, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the last meeting of State and Federal Transport Ministers a new design rule was endorsed to require the labelling of all new vehicles with a unique vehicle identification number. This will help prevent the reregistration of stolen vehicles. Some other areas at which the Commonwealth is looking are those of general standards, including noise standards. Although we have made substantial progress with vehicle safety standards there are, unfortunately, still some problems with non-uniform vehicle noise and emission standards. In our cities there is a community expectation for vehicles to meet reasonable contemporary noise standards. There is a growing consensus that the best way of achieving this is by using United Nations standards applied uniformly. This is another area at which this Federal Government is looking. The third element of Commonwealth road safety policy is research and promotion to counter the human act factor. Attitudes are the most important aspect of road safety and the most difficult to change. The aim of this element of the Government's strategy is to change attitudes and promote responsible road user behaviour. Just over $2m has been spent on this activity in recent years. I would point to Federal Office of Road Safety publicity campaigns, such as the Molly Meldrum `Wear a bicycle helmet' campaign and the Paul Cronin campaigns against drink driving-`Would you let a mate drink while he or she has been driving?'. They were most effective programs. It is very hard again to evaluate just how successful in money terms such a program is, or in terms of saving lives. But I can only say that one must keep putting these programs forward. I think the overall lessening of the road toll does show that the programs being followed have been effective, at least to a noticeable extent. There are two groups in the community most prone to road deaths. The first is the under-25 age group. For Australians 15 to 24 years old there are three times as many deaths from road crashes as from suicide, the next largest cause of death. In 1984 there were 955 deaths from road crashes and 310 suicides. This may be a real indictment of the attitude to road safety in Australia. A number of programs have been undertaken to try to counter this problem. I can note only some of them here because, again, a variety of programs has been carried out at different levels over a number of years by people who share the Government's concern at what is happening. One program that we are putting out, aimed at young people, is the Road Warrior video program, our most recent video for young drivers. The Road Warrior video seeks to involve young drivers and give them a more realistic perspective of the time involved in becoming a safe driver. Without this realistic perspective some young drivers believe they are highly skilled, even in their first year of driving. Research and crash statistics show that over-confident young drivers place themselves in situations they cannot handle, for example, through inappropriate speeds or risky overtaking, and serious injuries can result. The video is designed to be used as a discussion starter: a poster and an L-plate leaflet which promote the video are available and are being actively used in student driver education. It is encouraging young people to ask questions such as: `When do you become a safe driver? How?'. It deals with the relative importance of car handling skills and, most importantly, the danger of over-confidence. The second group are probably the real victims of the senseless road slaughter-children. A total of nearly 400 children is killed each year on Australian roads, and another 44,700 are seriously injured. Around 170 of these children are passengers in fatal car accidents. Thirty per cent of the children are under five years of age. One thing that the Government is doing most actively now is presenting the out and about campaign. It is material for primary schools, a road safety book and a book for parents which will encourage young children to follow the program in a fun way, and at that early age have an attitude towards road safety which could save their own lives in the younger years and carry on as they develop and save other peoples' lives within the children's adulthood. The guide is now being put out in 10 different languages, including Italian, Turkish, Croatian, Greek, Vietnamese and Arabic, and is an excellent program available to people in the community and available to schools. The material for primary schools has five components: a teachers' guide; workbooks; stickers; a parents' guide and other activities which reinforce in a fun way children's knowledge of how traffic and pedestrians use the road. I thoroughly commend the Government and the Federal Office of Road Safety for promoting this excellent program. I have spoken of three major elements of road trauma, about which the Federal Government is concerned, and for which they are framing policies; but there is another killing factor-alcohol. Alcohol is the major single cause of road fatalities in Australia with 40 per cent of all road deaths being directly related to drink driving. We must never lose sight of that fact. We should not, because of the social acceptability of alcoholic drink, overlook the fact that drink underlies most of the road slaughter; on the road it was 50 per cent, now down to 40 per cent, of all road deaths. What we mean by that is that 40 per cent of drivers killed on our roads have an unacceptably high blood alcohol level; that is, over .05 per cent. It is not that we are sitting on the sidelines and condemning drink, condemning a habit which is socially acceptable and enjoyed by many people, without having evidence on which to base our contentions. We are not even looking at the number of people who could have been killed and have not been identified. We are looking at blood sampling from the people who have died in road trauma, and we see that 40 per cent of those drivers have had high blood alcohol levels. Of all road users involved in a total of 1,935 road traffic accidents in Queensland last year, 1,565 registered a positive result when receiving a blood alcohol analysis; that is, over three quarters of accident victims had been consuming alcohol. Only 102 of that total of 1,565 with blood alcohol content were within the legal limits. The number of road traffic accidents for the 17 to 20 years age group is the highest of all the age groups, and the proportion of positive blood alcohol results is just as high, even a little higher. The combination of alcohol and inexperience in driving is a particularly hazardous one. But survey results also indicate another alarming trend, and that is that the use of drugs other than alcohol may also be contributing to the road toll with 80 per cent of commonly used drugs being known to increase the effects of alcohol. Between 30 per cent and 65 per cent of driver and pedestrian fatalities have used drugs other than alcohol, caffeine and nicotine according to surveys of crash victims in Australia and overseas. A study completed in Melbourne revealed that over 46 per cent of the drugs used by those involved in fatal crashes were prescription drugs. Another third were over the counter preparations. Twenty-two per cent of road user fatalities had used illicit drugs, mainly cannabis. Although reports have concluded that alcohol has a greater effect on driving skills than marijuana, the combined effects of alcohol and marijuana are far greater and therefore more dangerous than if either drug is used separately. More research into the combined effects of alcohol and legal or illegal drugs on driving skills is definitely needed and the Federal Office of Road Safety has been taking a lead in this area for some years now. It set up a research program over a number of years, a program of activities in which a study was undertaken with people being stopped at random breath testing stations and policy being directed to ask those people what medications they had taken. This research looked at driver and pedestrian fatalities and did an analysis of blood samples to determine drugs in the system before the crash in which they had died. This research basis which has been undertaken by the Commonwealth Government has been carried on at State level with practical research in the way in which people can be tested for drugs, which is not an easy dilemma. There is not any type of device such as the random breath testing device which can instantly and easily take a reading from drivers. The New South Wales Government has evolved what it calls the tandem mass spectrometer with which it can take blood samples for testing. It is working on legislation to introduce this program. The New South Wales Government will be looking at people involved in crashes, at this stage. It will mean pricking the finger of persons who had been driving and involved in a crash to see the extent, if at all, to which those people had been taking drugs. In Tasmania there have been some encouraging developments regarding on the spot breath sampling for drugs. They are at the research development stage but there is hope here. The device which they have developed within Tasmania is not sophisticated and we do not know at this stage how effective it will be but the major point, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that the States are co-operating with the Federal Government, are taking up the lead offered by the Federal Government and by people in non-government organisations to get together and show that we in Australia mean business when we say that it is not acceptable to have thousands of people dying on Australia's roads every year. Mr Hollis —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(12.59) —I am pleased to lead for the Opposition, Mr Deputy Speaker, as the Chairman of its Transport and Communications Committee and to say that we are pleased that the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) has brought this matter before the House today. We support the features that she mentioned, particularly with respect to the measures that are being adopted so far as road safety is concerned. I suppose it could be termed a great social problem, Mr Deputy Speaker, today within Australia because we are a motorised society. We are a society that lives on wheels which is important to industry and important to the individual. And so, when we have a country with a geographical situation like Australia's, with very long roads, it is very important indeed that the Commonwealth and all the States are very cognisant of the road safety problems. It is a great trauma, as the honourable member for Lilley said, particularly for families, when we see the younger generation being killed off. This nation cannot afford that loss because we need more people. So we have to protect as best we can the people that we have. It is of interest to note that there were more people killed in the 15 years up to 1983-52,243-than were killed in the Second World War. Those are alarming figures when one comes to think about them. I suppose in the community today we basically accept the fact that while we have vehicles on the road we will have deaths, and so it is that we have that responsibility to create the measures to give as much safety as we possibly can. It is not only the expenditure of funds; it is a matter of being able to spend those moneys in the most appropriate way in order to create those safety measures that are so necessary today. Looking at the future, the experts inform us that over the next decade at least 35,000 people will be killed on our roads, which in turn will cost Australia about $3 billion; that is a lot of money indeed. We in the Opposition realise that the measures that are being adopted by the States particularly have meant that there has been a reduction in the number of fatal accidents within Australia over the last year or so. This has been caused by the education program, particularly, that is being embarked upon, and I must mention here our driver training that is taking place in a lot of our secondary schools. I find this particularly valuable because it is teaching our younger people how properly to look after and handle a vehicle. In Australia, so far as deaths per number of vehicles and deaths per number of population of people and also of kilometres are concerned, we have more fatal accidents and injuries on our roads than most other countries of the world. But that can be accepted because of what the honourable member for Lilley has said. There are three factors that I think we have to look at: the first is the personal factor so far as people are concerned; the second is the vehicle; and, of course, the third is the condition of the roads. On the personal side, let me say that we recognise that excessive speed, alcohol, irresponsibility, inexperience and wilful disregard for the law are all factors that we have to consider. We know that penalties are a most important factor on the personal side and that police supervision is another important factor. My own experience-and I travel the roads of my electorate of Lyne quite a lot, particularly the Pacific Highway-is that where there is police supervision on the roads one does not see nearly the number of accidents that would otherwise occur. It is nice to know that the breathalyser effort today has achieved a considerable effect. Previously one in every two accidents actually related to alcohol; today it is one in every three, which is a decided improvement. I think there must be a greater sense of responsibility on the part of our people who drive vehicles. As I said earlier, our school training program is one factor, but people have to be told and the younger generation must be told because they are the ones who are suffering; up to 36 per cent of the fatal accidents today in Australia involve people under 25 years of age. This is very, very concerning. Is receiving a driving licence a right or is it a privilege within our society? I know it is a right but it is also a privilege because one can go out and drive upon the roads. We have to get that message across as best we can. The personal element in this is very important indeed. Gradually we are improving our driving standards. Our States are doing a reasonably good job with their L plates and with their P plates. Compared with other nations of the world we have not trained our drivers as well as we should in this regard. Let me turn to the vehicle because the vehicle itself is a most important factor. Over the years our safety design standards have greatly improved and, slowly, we are building ourselves up to the international standards of vehicle quality. Research, of course, has pointed this out to us. Being a farmer, I often think of the value of roller bars on a tractor. There were many accidents on farms and on roads because tractors without roller bars were turning over. That safety was not there. So this is being taken today into the vehicle industry generally, particularly in our larger semi-trailers and the trucks that are becoming much more numerous today on the roads. We can refer to seat belts. They have been a major factor, like the breathalyser, in overcoming fatalities because the seat belts have proved themselves to be an advantage. These are the measures that we have to look at. There are approximately 8 1/2 million motor vehicles today within Australia, and about 450,000 motor cycles. When we talk of motor vehicles we must never forget the motor cycles or the pushbikes, because approximately 100 children were killed on bikes last year in Australia. These are the things that we have to recognise. I want to say something about the condition of roads because in the House on Tuesday of this week I was one who participated in the debate on the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance Amendment) Bill. It is interesting to note that a vehicle is not safe unless the condition of the road is good. That is one of the problems that we face today within Australia-the conditions of the roads generally. I suppose that in a period of 200 years we are lucky to have the communications and the arteries of roads that we have. We are so dependent upon roads for communication; in transport, in every way, getting our produce to market and our children to school and people getting to work. We have to give a greater priority to road spending. It is disappointing. While I give credit to the honourable member for Lilley for what she has done as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport Safety, I want to point out to the Government that it is extremely disappointing to us that in four years there has not been an increase in road funding in this country. I would go so far as to say that there has been, allowing for an average of 9 per cent inflation each year, 36 per cent less money in real terms being spent on our roads than we were spending back in 1983. This is rather disastrous. As much as we have to cut, and we support the cutting back of government spending, our priorities must be sensible and must realise the importance of our nation's roads. We appeal to the Government once again to give roads a greater priority. I have here the figures from the Budget Papers of this year which indicate that there has been allocated for roads $1,245m in each of the years from 1984-85 to 1987-88. In fact there is only $1,244m this year, a reduction of $1m. Those are the dollar terms. As to the actual value of the dollar, allowing for the inflationary trend, there is at least 35 to 40 per cent less money being spent today on roads, irrespective of the fact that we have the bicentennial road funding program in operation today. Where would we be without that fund? We would be in a disastrous situation so far as our main arterial roads and our rural and urban local roads are concerned. I will not go into the further figures because we have not the time, but it is terribly important. The wealth of the nation, as we say, is in the country areas of Australia. Yet, as we see in the Budget, the national roads are getting 43.3 per cent of the finance, the local roads are getting 20.5 per cent, the rural arterial roads are getting 14.8 per cent and the urban arterial roads are getting 21.4 per cent. The point which I wish to raise here is that it is the rural arterial roads and local roads that we are very concerned about. I am pleased to see Mr Peter Morris come in the House, because as the Minister for Transport he did his best with the money available to put the roads of this nation in order. I will give him that credit. We have told him our views from this side of the House and I guess that he agrees because he is dependent upon priorities of funding, too. We have pointed out on many an occasion that the priority is such that roads do demand extra expenditure because they are the arteries of Australia, they are the ones that this economy will actually depend upon-communication and transport. It is so important that this be recognised and be recognised so far as our road safety is concerned. I live on the Pacific Highway at Taree and I phoned the Taree police this morning to find out that in the Taree district in 1984 there were 17 fatal accidents and 20 people killed; in 1985 there were 21 fatal accidents and 31 people killed; in 1986 there were 21 fatal accidents and 25 people killed. That is principally in a little area just south of the town of Taree. I want to point out quickly some of the things that we can do to roads that will improve the situation there. The New South Wales Department of Main Roads, the police, the local council and the community have done everything that they can possibly do with the funds available to overcome the problems. It is one of the worst patches in Australia. The State road safety organisation came and looked at the area specifically. The thing about it is that we must spend the money that we have wisely in the design of the roads to overcome frustration and error and this is very important. I believe that motorists get frustrated, not only from fatigue; if there is a narrow part of the highway and then a dual carriageway after that, as soon as motorists get on to the dual part or a wider road or a passing lane, they increase speed to pass the fellow in front. We have to look particularly at realignments to take out the sharp corners and the curves, at general signposting, electronic too-fast warning signs, the removal of trees beside the road or the placing of guards around them, speed restrictions, divided carriageways wherever we can put them, and warn people that they should rest periodically to avoid fatigue. We know that we need more police supervision on the roads. Of course, associated with this are the rescue squads, the ambulances and also the medical care. These make up a combination that we have to look to so far as road safety is concerned. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(1.14) —I am pleased to speak in support of the motion moved by my colleague the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling). Members on both sides would be aware of her interest in the general area of transport safety. In the last Parliament, and indeed the Parliament before that, she was Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport Safety, a committee on which I was pleased to serve. The new awareness of transport safety in this country is in no small measure due to the untiring work of the honourable member for Lilley. There would be no argument in this chamber about the necessity of lowering the number of deaths and injuries on Australian roads. Road accidents impose a cost on all Australians; this cost should not be measured only in financial terms, there is also the social cost and indeed a psychological cost. Each weekend, especially holiday weekends, as we learn of the carnage on our roads, it is interesting to reflect that road fatalities in Australia are actually decreasing. For example, although there were 2,883 road fatalities in Australia in 1986, this figure was lower than for any year between 1964 and 1982. Road fatalities in 1987 to 30 September have fallen by 8 per cent. But, and this point must be stressed, there is still a need for continuing action to reduce fatalities and injuries resulting from road crashes. The annual cost to the community is estimated at about three billion dollars. I am proud of the record of this Government for the part it has played in reducing road accidents. A fundamental aspect of this is the Government's commitment to provide safer roads. I noticed when the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) was speaking that he said that this Government had not done enough for roads; but, given the economic constraints that this Government has had imposed upon it, I think it is doing a good job for roads. I am particularly pleased to see the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris) at the table, because it was under his guidance as the Minister for Transport that so much was done for Australian roads. Recently I represented the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) at the opening of an intersection at Hoddles Crossing near Moss Vale. I mention this project not only because it is in my electorate but also because; it is typical of the work that has been done by this Government in eliminating black spots. This project cost in excess of $10m and eliminated one of the accident black spots on the Hume Highway. But we are doing that not just in my electorate; we are doing that in many, many electorates throughout Australia. I listened carefully to what the honourable member for Lyne said. I know the north coast region very well, including the Pacific Highway. I say to him that it is a much, much better Pacific Highway than it was 20 years ago when I used to travel up and down it. We are doing, given the economic restraints that were imposed on us, what we can on roads. There is never enough money, as we would all agree, to do all that we would like to do everywhere, and that applies whatever government or whatever political party occupies the treasury bench. I think the honourable member for Lyne actually made the point that you can have the safest roads in the world, but the vehicles travelling on these roads must also be safe. This Government has a commitment to ensuring safer vehicles. New certification arrangements together with regular checks on vehicle safety standards provide Australians with vehicles which are among the safest in the world. The cost of the system is only $5 per vehicle, which is recoverable through the sale of compliance plates. A third aspect of the Government's approach is research and promotion to counter the human factor. The aim of this element of the Government's strategy is to change attitudes and promote responsible road user behaviour. Just over $2m has been spent on this activity in recent years. This basic three-pronged strategy is continuing in 1987-88. Road improvements continue, more effective police enforcement of road law infringement is apparent and the task of changing attitudes and developing more responsible road user behaviour also continues with the out and about child safety campaign, the Road Warrior film aimed at young drivers, the Right Rider motor cycle video training package which I will mention later, and the safety of older pedestrians campaign. A road safety resource package is being developed for community groups to assist them in developing their own road safety programs. Road safety remains our most horrific social problem and despite the publicity and alarm created by other causes of death, such as drug overuse or violent crime, nothing anything near approaches the trauma and suffering of death on our roads. More Australians have been killed on our roads in the past 12 years than died on active service in World War II. Another area of concern is the high number of accidents involving bicycles. Each year in Australia some 100 bicyclists die on our roads and about 1,000 are seriously injured. Sixty per cent are children under 16 years of age. The Transport Safety Committee inquired into bicycle helmet safety a few years back. Head injuries are a major cause of death of cyclists. There is no doubt that if all cyclists wore helmets, especially helmets complying with the Australian standards, their chances of being killed or severely injured would be greatly reduced. Bicycle safety is one of the elements of this Government's road safety activities; in fact, a number of initiatives have been taken which are intended to increase the rate of voluntary helmet wearing. The Federal Government is also doing a great deal to encourage more bicyclists to wear helmets. Following the Molly Meldrum campaign and associated State activities there was an increase in the number of young people wearing helmets whilst riding their bicycles. Further promotion using this successful approach will continue. As part of the parallel activities, Victoria has had a rebate scheme covering the purchase of approved helmets. There has also been a number of school and bulk purchasing schemes. Perhaps other States could follow the Victorian lead. It is desirable to improve helmet wearing rates by schoolchildren by such methods as schools requiring students to wear helmets whilst in the school's jurisdiction and perhaps they should consider bulk purchasing schemes. Whilst steps are being taken to encourage the wearing of bicycle helmets, another important aspect of bicycle safety is the establishment of minimum standards for helmet design and construction. I noticed this when I was on the committee looking into bicycle helmets. I see in the chamber other members, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), the Chairman, the honourable member for Lilley and the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb). We were horrified, Mr Deputy Speaker, when one day we saw something like 70 helmets and the standard of some of them was quite frankly appalling. They had great deficiencies including a lack of ventilation and some of them were too heavy. We reached the conclusion that it would have been safer for some people to wear no helmet at all than to wear some of these deficient helmets. We all stand up here and talk about how important it is for children to wear helmets. We were very worried about the false sense of security incurred when a parent had purchased a helmet which was a cheap, and dare I say it, import. Mrs Darling —Just like toys. Mr HOLLIS —Yes, like toys. Those parents then thought their child had security and protection. We actually said that it would be better to wear no helmet at all than to wear some of the helmets that were on the market. In regard to bicycle helmets and the campaign to have more people, especially young people, wear them-we should not forget the oldies either-I should like to pay a tribute to my good friend Alderman Mick Pilton of Shellharbour Council, who, as a personal campaign, has promoted the wearing of bicycle helmets. He uses every opportunity and, I might say, every media outlet to promote the wearing of bicycle helmets amongst the young. Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe the Transport Safety Committee performed a very valuable function during the years of its existence. This work now falls to the Infrastructure Committee. I hope that the members of this Committee continue the work of the Transport Safety Committee and, indeed, take up the current reference that we had started to look at of enforcement because that is a very important area that has not been looked at very carefully in this country. Road safety in Australia has advanced rapidly in recent years. The new era is characterised by a new approach to a problem that simply will not disappear within our lifetimes. The goal of saving lives and reducing injury is not achieved by considering the total picture. The days of simple solution and the quick fix are gone. There is a need to recognise that we are dealing with the hard part of the problem from now on. Some might argue that returns will be hard won and not spectacular. The many measures to reduce deaths and injuries need to be weighted to achieve the desired results in the most cost-effective way. The Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support recently launched the first stage of a special road safety program specifically targeted at older pedestrians. Pedestrians are often described as a traffic system's forgotten people and older people, in particular, must feel this acutely. About one in five people who are killed on roads is a pedestrian. Two groups stand out as being particularly vulnerable: children, who make up about 20 per cent of the total pedestrian deaths, and people over 60 years of age, who make up about 40 per cent of pedestrian deaths. Already the Federal Government's out and about campaign for primary school children is addressing safety for children as pedestrians. However, the safety of older pedestrians is a much more complex issue. On the one hand, we are dealing with people who have had a lifetime's experience of coping with traffic, not that this will help anyone who simply steps out into traffic while his mind is on something else. On the other hand, we are dealing with people who may resist the idea that somehow they are not coping so well any more. The Federal Government is mounting a nationwide campaign to demonstrate the positive actions that older pedestrians can take to protect their safety and ultimately their lives. This campaign is part of the Government's continuing effort to reduce the horrific and senseless deaths of Australians killed in road crashes. Hopefully, in the future we will see pedestrian protection receive a higher priority from all of us. Finally, I wish to make a few comments about motorcycles. It is a few years since I have been on a motorcycle, I might add. A particular group in the community at risk on our roads is the motorcyclist. The number of motorcyclists fatally injured on our roads is extremely high. Each year they represent 14 per cent of road fatalities, yet motorcycles are only 4 per cent of registered vehicles. Mr Lamb —Did you ride your brother's motorcycle? Mr HOLLIS —My brother has a motorbike, so have my two nephews; that is why I am so interested in it. Last year nearly 400 motorcycle riders and pillion passengers were killed in road crashes. Most of us will be aware also that youth and bravado coupled with inexperience all play a major part in road crashes. Motorcycle riders have benefited from a number of safety measures over the years. Compulsory helmet wearing and random breath testing are two important measures, but more needs to be done. Research has shown that inexperienced riders have 20 times the risk of being killed in a crash compared with car drivers. So it would seem that the best insurance available for riders is experience. Fortunately, proper training can successfully substitute for a lot of the trial and error that goes to make up experience. The Federal Office of Road Safety has produced a motorcycle training package recently launched by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. I would also make the point that it is not always the motorcyclist's fault. Many drivers of motor vehicles pretend not to see or really do not see motorcyclists and I do not put all the blame on the motorcyclist. The video package aims to give motorcyclists off-road training by teaching rider skills in control and braking before they ride on the road. Training is needed because in 75 per cent of crashes motorcycle riders do not use their brakes correctly; that is, both front and rear. Some collisions could be avoided or their severity reduced if riders had the skills to use their brakes correctly or if they could take other evasive action. All blame, as I said, for motorcycle accidents is not the fault of the cyclist. There are many drivers who do not seem to be able to see motorcyclists at all. This campaign has been endorsed by Mr Wayne Gardner, current 500cc world motorcycle champion who happens to come from the Illawarra. As the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) so eloquently informed the House last Tuesday evening, not only does Wayne Gardner come from the Illawarra, but last Saturday he came home to the Illawarra to a richly deserved hero's welcome in which both the honourable member for Macarthur and I participated. Let me quote from the world champion: It does not make sense to treat the road as a race track. What does make sense is to learn to ride your bike properly. Anyone can go fast. There is nothing too clever about twisting a throttle but not everyone can use their brakes properly. On the track the best riders are usually those who are able to use their brakes well. But on the road good braking is even more important. It could save you from injury or worse. He continues: I am delighted that the Commonwealth Government is getting behind rider training and education because it has been neglected too long. Besides, like anything, you will find that once you learn to ride properly you will enjoy it so much more and is not that what motorcycling is all about? We all have a part to play in reducing road accidents, whether it is through our own driving behaviour, our own attitude as pedestrians, the instructions we give or the example to set for others. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(1.29) —Mr Deputy Speaker, this motion, to the extent that it deplores the effects of road trauma and the deaths and injuries in road accidents in Australian society and to the extent that it would urge the Government to step up its policies to lower deaths and injuries on Australian roads, is one which would command the general support of members of this House. As you said, Mr Deputy Speaker, just a little while ago, the Opposition applauds the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) for bringing the matter before the House as well as for the work she has done in this area over many years. I think I would be bound to say, however, without detracting from that, that this approbation falls short of commending the Hawke Labor Government in all aspects and particularly in the matter to which you referred and to which I will refer subsequently, Mr Deputy Speaker-the matter of road funding, or the lack thereof. The statistical facts of the problem are tragic and horrific and have in fact been set out by the honourable member for Lilley. I repeat some of them for the benefit of listeners who may not have heard the earlier part of this debate. We start, for instance, from the position that on average eight people are killed and 80 seriously injured each day in road accidents around this country. Since the beginning of the decade over 22,900 people have been killed in road crashes in Australia. Next, road crashes are the largest single cause of death for people aged under 45 years, in 1984 killing 800 more people than all forms of heart disease and 300 more than cancer. For Australians, 15 to 24 years old, there are three times as many deaths from road crashes as from the next largest cause. That group, of course, would include many of those who are regular riders of motorcycles. I second and commend the remarks of the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) who has just completed his remarks in that area. He is obviously speaking from some experience, which I actually do not share. But I do state the fact that the number of motorcyclists fatally injured on our roads is extremely high. Each year they represent 14 per cent of road fatalities, yet motorcycles are only 4 per cent of registered vehicles. Last year nearly 400 motorcycle riders and pillion passengers were killed in road crashes. So I certainly commend the remarks on the importance of proper training in this area which in some measure can be a substitute for the trial and error that goes to make up experience, which is all important but often lacking. As has been said, the approach to road safety requires systematic effort in respect of the main elements of the situation-roads, road users and vehicles. In respect of road users, I recall that the mandatory provision of seat belts and their compulsory use, an initiative of the Victorian Liberal Government of some 17 years back, has been the single most effective road safety counter measure. Mr Webster —And child restraints. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —And child restraints should be added, as my colleague mentions. Also I note in this context that excessive speed and drink driving, to which now increasingly is added drugs, as the honourable member for Lilley stressed, are among the most widely acknowledged causal factors in road crashes. I have no hesitation in asserting that excessive speed and drink driving, either in isolation or together, constitute irresponsible and unacceptable behaviour by drivers or riders of vehicles, as they put at risk all other road users. They very certainly directly offend the second of the great commandments that `thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'; or the royal law of the Scriptures, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So albeit some people will refer to these activities of drink driving and excessive speed as merely unwise or indiscreet, it is fortunate that an increasing number of people regard it as anti-social as a minimum and criminal at its worst. Of course in this area random breath testing has been an important counter measure. Introduced in New South Wales in January 1984, the resultant effect was dramatic. Some people look for an ongoing reduction of that order, but that is not a proper expectation. The important thing is the continuing preventive effect. I commend the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), who in a Press statement of 14 August last stressed: In surveys undertaken by the Federal Office of Road Safety only 2 per cent claimed that they would drive after drinking, yet, nationally, 40 per cent of drivers and motorcyclists killed still have a blood alcohol content over .05. I admit that there has been a reduction, but still 40 per cent of those drivers or motorcyclists killed have a blood alcohol content over .05. It is a very big problem. The Minister went on: As the Minister responsible for road safety matters I will be maintaining a concerted effort to change the attitude of people who persist in driving after drinking. I commend the Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am endeavouring to limit my remarks so that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) can participate in this debate. I turn to the third aspect, which is the condition of the roads. It was claimed in another Press release: The Hawke Government has done more to assist road safety nationally than any other government since Federation. Our road system has been dramatically upgraded and motor vehicle safety standards have been improved. I want to question that statement, particularly in the area of the provision of road funds. We all recognise the importance of containing government expenditure. It is not as if-despite the boast of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that there is the greatest cut in government expenditure for 35 years-that that has really been done. That boast is an idle one. There was a claimed cut in excess of $3,000m. Of that, $1,000m was a cut in grants to the States, which I do not necessarily disapprove of. One thousand million dollars represented, of all things, asset sales-the sale of land in Tokyo and the ambassadorial residence in Paris and things of that order. When one looks at the remainder, while there are cuts from the Forward Estimates, the Commonwealth's own spending, in areas of its own direct responsibility, has in fact increased slightly in real terms. I repeat: in areas of the Commonwealth's own responsibility the spending has increased slightly in real terms. That means it is to be increased more in actual money terms, despite this claim in respect of cutting. What I want to drive home is that within that context, within that framework, the provision of funds for road funding has been held constant in money terms. In virtually most other areas spending is to go up in money terms so that in real terms the level is the same; in this area of road funding it has been held level in money terms. It is to be the same this coming year, as it was last year, and as it was the year before. So this represents a very significant reduction in the Government's provision of road funding, of the order of 20 or 40 per cent in real terms depending on the index used. I was going to go on and point out that this has come home to me in my own area in respect of the freeway from Pearces Corner to Berowra, a most important commercial and defence artery carrying all the traffic to the north in New South Wales and very important for Hornsby and surrounding suburbs. Mr Cowan —You have done a lot. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I have, indeed, endeavoured to push this project along, as my colleague says, basically because of its effect in relation to the development of Hornsby, not only residentially, but also as a commercial and shopping centre. That project which was set down for completion by May 1988 has now been pushed back to 1989 or who knows when. The Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris) and former Minister for Transport is at the table at the moment. I know he has done much to further that project and indeed for the whole matter of the highway north to Newcastle. I commend him for that effort. I suspect that perhaps what has been behind this cut in the allocation of funds has been the intervention of the New South Wales State Government. I suspect that some of the funds, as I said the other day, that should have gone to this freeway, have been directed by the Unsworth Labor Government in New South Wales to its pet project, the Darling Harbour. What we have in New South Wales is the Unsworth Government-`the Brereton-Unsworth Government' might be the better description-which is consumed with the provision of `monuments and circuses for the people' at the cost of getting ahead with the more basic factors that contribute to the welfare of the people of New South Wales, such as this road. I will not elaborate further on that point in the interests of allowing a short period for my colleague the honourable member for Franklin. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(1.41) —I am pleased to join the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) and the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) in this debate. Road safety is one of those things we all agree with, something we are all working hard for, and so this debate is essentially bipartisan. I notice that two honourable members opposite have introduced the subject of road funds-as they quite rightly should have-but I do not wish to dwell on that, except to say that one can argue all day about the level of funds. It is simply true that there are never enough dollars, there is never enough money for road funding. I would agree with that. I think that given, however, the general cuts in government expenditure, which the general public demand so that they can have lower taxes, it has been some achievement of the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris), who is now at the table, that we have been able to maintain in dollar terms at least consistently over the last three years, a level of $1,250m a year to be spent on roads from Federal government sources. Mr Ian Cameron —What is great about that? Mr LAMB —I will tell you what is great about it. It is great that people like you go out in the community and argue strongly for cuts in government expenditure, except in the single area that you might be interested in. You cannot have it both ways. I think it is a compliment to the Minister and this Government that the road funding has been maintained. As I said, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to concentrate on road safety as much as anything in this debate and to give some recognition of that to the bipartisan approach that is necessary towards this topic. Since the beginning of this decade, as other speakers have pointed out, we have lost some 23,200 Australian citizens in road crashes in Australia. It is not a small number; it is almost the size in total of the population of Queanbeyan. We are talking about a large country town being wiped out in 7 1/2 years. That is the magnitude of the losses of Australian lives. In fact, the number, if extended over a 12-year period, rivals those of our Australian forces who were killed on active service in World War II. So we are not talking about insignificant numbers, and members in this House have a right to be greatly concerned about the effects of road trauma on Australian society. The honourable member for Berowra pointed out, for instance, that road crashes are the single largest cause of death for people aged under 45. The two great killers of our society, heart disease and cancer, ran a poor second and third to our road killer as one of the greatest killers. He pointed out that on average eight people are killed and 80 seriously injured each day in road crashes around the country. That means that while we are talking here in this debate for an hour and a quarter, a number of people-if you spread the statistics evenly-have been seriously injured, and possibly one or two deaths have occurred in that time. We cannot go on talking; we have to take action, and that is what this debate should be more about. Road crashes cost the Australian community in excess of three billion dollars each year, and based on the 1985 estimates each fatality costs $300,000, representing a community cost of some $881m in 1985. Each serious injury costs $52,000, representing a community cost of some $1,500m in 1985. Approximately a billion, or $1,000m, is attributable to the cost of minor injuries and property damage. I think one should be aware, too, when talking about those aggregate figures, of the personal and family trauma resulting from road accidents, as well as those national costs. I am talking about the lives, the potential of those people, the skills and the contributions to family, love and care, and the contributions to society represented by those statistics. They are not included in those money terms but they are just as important to the human way of life as actual cost to the community. I will give two examples: one very serious accident occurred in my own electorate at Healesville. In the late afternoon or the early evening five young girls set out for a twenty-first birthday party for one of them, their lives before them, their whole future, their future marriage, having children and so on all to come; and in the other direction came a young man, a good sportsman. All of them as a result of an accident were killed, wiped out. One can imagine the impact on the town of Healesville where those girls and the young boy all went to school together. They knew each other well and suddenly four or five families were affected, devastated by a single split second accident. One just cannot really comprehend, unless one is directly involved in that sort of thing, the impact of road trauma on human lives. My wife's family, only a few years ago, suffered something similar. Her cousin, a very promising architecture student at Melbourne University, was hitchhiking during the Easter holidays in Tasmania. He was picked up by some other tertiary student friends in a van and a freak accident occurred. The van slipped in gravel and in a split second once again another life was snuffed out. Two years later that young man's father was killed in another freak accident, not far from his own home in the Gippsland area, just outside my electorate. That man was noted for his responsible and careful driving. So there is no way that we can avoid all accidents. Some will inevitably happen. What we can do, what governments can do, is make sure that there are programs spending on those factors which contribute to avoidable accidents. I think that is what we should be talking about. The second part of the honourable member for Lilley's motion here before the House commends the Government for the policies arrived at in lowering the deaths and injury of drivers on Australia's roads. It is true that our road safety road performance has improved over the years. From a peak of 3,800 road deaths in 1970 the number has dropped steadily, if somewhat erratically, to 2,883 last year. The trend line downwards has occurred over the last decade covering both the Fraser years of government and the Hawke years of government. But significant drops have occurred since the change of government. This year we may be rewarded, we may be headed for the lowest level yet since 1983, the best year, if I can call it that, for road deaths over the last 25 years. That is not to say that governments of different political persuasions are better than the others. But I will in the next few minutes give some statistics that indicate that either cumulatively or incrementally contributions by previous governments and this Hawke Government have increased the downslide in deaths on the roads. We know that the vehicle numbers and distances travelled, along with the population, have increased rapidly over the years and the improvement in road safety is more clear and marked when we examine not just the absolute number of fatalities but also measure it against those growths. In terms of fatalities per 10,000 vehicles registered, the incidence has dropped from eight or nine in the 1960s to just over three over the last four years. Fatalities per 100,000 population over the same time have dropped from 25 or 30 to around 18, while the fatalities per 100,000,000 vehicle kilometres travelled has stabilised at one-third of what it was in the 1960s. The record is impressive, especially over the years of the Hawke Government. But we would be chauvinistic and false to claim that only the Labor Government has contributed to this improvement. All governments are committed, State and Federal, all persuasions, and all have contributed and improvements are built as much on past initiatives and contributions as they are on more recent ones. Road safety advances are incremental and are harder to achieve, as the honourable member for Throsby pointed out, each year. This makes the current Government's achievements even more remarkable. But we have a long way to go yet before we compare favourably with other similar countries. In a comparison Australia, the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Sweden and Germany, countries we can conveniently and accurately compare ourselves with, and using the same statistics as I did earlier, fatalities per 10,000 vehicles, fatalities per 100,000 population or fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometres travelled, Australia ranks well behind all those countries except New Zealand. But, and we have to point this out, the gap is closing gradually. This Labor Government is not content to see Australia simply catch up, it wants Australia to be in the forefront of road safety. The Minister responsible, Mr Peter Duncan, the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, is as committed to this objective as was the Minister before him, the Minister for Resources, Mr Peter Morris, who is now at the table and who oversaw the big improvements over the last four years. Future improvements will come, as they have from improvements in areas before, in better roads. Despite the debate about the lack of money-as I said, there is never enough money for roads-we must admit that we do travel on better national highways and if there is a fault that we are not getting good roads in local roads and rural arterial roads, that depends on the distribution of Federal Government funds by State governments as much as anything else. I know that the Minister at the table worked very hard to try to secure a better deal for rural roads in Victoria. Hopefully, the new Minister, Mr Duncan, will bring that about. The future improvements for better roads should always be continued, just as we have gained improvements from safer vehicles through the Australian design rules, another matter which the honourable member for Throsby gave some attention to in his speech. I believe that the biggest gains are to be made by concentrating on the human factor, through education, both formal and informal, and through appropriate law enforcements. The Government, to its credit, has spent over $2m in recent years on research and promotion to counter the human factor in road accidents. Through the Federal Office of Road Safety half a million dollars each year has been spent on amassing a national mass data system. One cannot target or plan campaigns if one does not have a good data collection. It is essential to pinpoint the areas for further work for government action. Through the Federal Office of Road Safety the Government has promoted education of young children, inexperienced drivers and riders and elderly pedestrians. The purpose is to change the attitudes and behaviour of those groups, in fact, the whole community indirectly, towards road use, to bring about more responsible and defensive behaviour. I turn to some of the programs. The out and about program is designed for grades 2 to 4, the 7- to 9-year, olds at primary schools. This is in booklet form and is designed to encourage children so that by the time they are able to ride a bike responsibly and cross roads on their own at the age of 9 they have had some preparation. A film called Road Warrior, which is directed towards young drivers, is not an attack on young people as such; it is a demonstration that young people, because we do not give them licences until they are 18, are inexperienced drivers. It is the inexperience associated with other factors confronting youth, the socialisation process, that demands that they be a target audience. Right Rider is a video training package produced at a cost of some $350,000 and directed towards preventive motorcycle safety. Finally, a television campaign has been directed to our eldest and senior citizens of our community, for the safety of older pedestrians. All these campaigns embody the proper technique of communication and persuasion; that is, using an appropriate medium, employing colloquial language for the particular age group and role models with whom the groups can strongly identify and aim to emulate. Each campaign is targeted to groups which form an overwhelmingly high percentage of road deaths in relation to their size and the total population. Motorcyclists, as the honourable member for Throsby pointed out, form 14 per cent of road fatalities, yet only 4 per cent of registered vehicles are motorcycles. Inexperienced riders have 20 times the risk of being killed in a crash, compared with car drivers, yet experienced motorcycle riders have only twice the risk of car drivers. Older pedestrians form 18 per cent of road fatalities and yet 40 per cent of those victims are aged 60 and over and 20 per cent are children. Obviously they have to be a targeted group and it is to be noted that it is between the hours of 4 and 8 p.m. that elderly people are the most vulnerable. I congratulate those behind the campaigns for their recognition that targeting is the most likely avenue to bring about desired results. It is an on-going task to turn back the chilling tide of road deaths. I congratulate the Federal Office of Road Safety and the Ministers responsible. I urge them to continue their work and the financing of these essential programs. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(1.56) —Firstly, I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) on introducing this motion and thank my good friend the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) for giving me four minutes to speak in this debate. Bruce John Goodluck can say a lot in four minutes. I would also like to compliment the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris), who is at the table, for when he was the Minister for Transport, he gave the Standing Committee on Transport Safety a lot of support, but I regret that we have closed that committee down. It has been incorporated with some other committee. I have not had time to look at it. Self-praise is no recommendation, but, as a committee, I thought that we did a dashed good job in promoting awareness of problems associated with road safety in Australia. We brought down many reports that this Government is starting to bring into play; State governments are starting to wake up to the fact that they were good reports, that they were reports given a lot of research, a lot of thought and a lot of time. And sometimes, I think, in this Parliament-and I have said it before-a lot of politicians join fashionable committees because they think they can get up the ladder a lot quicker and sometimes they did not give transport safety enough thought. That happened on both sides of the House regrettably. It was one of those committees that were bi-partisan, where the members worked together without getting into politics or trying to outplay one another, because we were doing it in the common good of trying to save young lives and old lives in Australia. If we had had a war and lost a certain number of lives each year there would have been a hue and cry. Everybody would have been walking in the streets protesting. But each day on the roads, on average, over the last 10 years 10 people have died, one invariably a young motor cyclist. Regrettably, publicity comes, of course, the media do their job, spasmodically, but it is not one of those ongoing things. And the speeches today have been excellent. It is good to see my friend Mr Bob Katter, the honourable member for Kennedy, coming in because he was the Chairman before the honourable member for Lilley and he did a lot in that Committee to promote road safety, to tell the people of Australia that we need to do something if we are to save lives on the road in Australia. The honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) made a very good point. We talk about the number of people who die but what about the people who are left behind, the parents? I am a father and when my daughters started to learn to drive the worst possible thing was waiting for them to come home at night. Sometimes they came home rather late, too. Mr Lee —Where were they? Mr GOODLUCK —Do not ask that question. Mrs Kelly —A negligent parent. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, all right; interrupt me, good. But I was trying to make the point that we are all parents or grandparents; some are grandparents, I am not, I am not old enough. I ask honourable members to be serious for a minute. The point that I was making concerns the suffering, the problems associated with young people losing their lives and, of course, older people. So we have all got a part to play in a bipartisan way. There were a few things said today that I could disagree with. This Government has gone down the road of normal upmanship. I understand that. But we have to be careful of that, we have to work together if we are going to reduce the road toll in Australia. It saddens me that we changed our committee system, that we have not got a committee specifically on road safety, because it is going to be with us, it cannot go on-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It is now 2 p.m. In accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence to General Business has expired. The honourable member for Franklin will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Hume. Mr FIFE —Madam Speaker, is the Minister for Administrative Services coming into the House today? Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr SPENDER —Where is the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Madam Speaker? Madam SPEAKER —As there are no questions without notice-- Mr Spender-Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is Question Time-2 o'clock-and the practice of the House is that if Ministers are not going to be here an announcement is made on ministerial arrangements. Here is the Minister for Administrative Services at last. I am glad to see the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade as well. GRUMMAN TRACKER AIRCRAFT Mr FIFE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Administrative Services. Have the agents appointed by the Government to sell the Grumman Tracker aircraft sold all the spare parts belonging to those aircraft? Because the Government agreed to sell the spare parts separately, has the Korean Navy now withdrawn its interest in purchasing the aircraft in a multi-million dollar transaction? Did the agents purchase all the spare parts from the Government for about half a million dollars and on-sell them overseas for up to $5m? What steps were taken to satisfy the Government that the spares were properly valued at only half a million dollars? What assurances were received that the aircraft could be disposed of without any spare parts? Finally, can the Minister explain how the Government allowed a multi-million dollar sale to slip through its fingers, and how the taxpayers received half a million dollars for spares and nothing for the 14 aircraft which are now rotting in Jervis Bay, all of which were valued at many millions of dollars? Mr WEST —I am a little at a loss to understand the thrust of what the shadow Minister is talking about. Basically, I think he has his facts astray. For instance, in June 1984 these Tracker aircraft and a large quantity of spares were declared for sale. I am informed that between August 1984 and June 1986 three companies involving similar groups of directors were appointed to market the package. The companies were Ford and Vlahos Australia, Ford and Vlahos Australia Pty Ltd and Defence Equipment Pty Ltd. Ford and Vlahos, was also involved in the attempted sales of the Hercules aircraft. It has not been very successful, I can tell the House, on any front. So the arrangements were unsatisfactory both for the Hercules aircraft and for these aircraft. There have been some problems with regard to particular aspects of that company's activities, and the Australian Federal Police are investigating these matters at present. I have asked that they be followed up very stringently. In July 1986-this comes to the tail of the honourable member's question-new registrations of interest were invited and in December 1986 Hookway Aerospace Pty Ltd obtained the sole rights for five years to market the aircraft. The Commonwealth has received payment in full. With regard to the technical aspects of the question, it is the first I have heard of the Korean connection. I will certainly look into it. As far as I am concerned, my Department has informed me that Hookway Aerospace Pty Ltd obtained the sole rights to market and it has paid its commitment to the Government in full for the aircraft and for what remains of the spare parts. Mr Beale —What remains of the spare parts? Mr WEST —I have already told the honourable member that the company that had the sole agency rights was unsuccessful in selling them and we are not satisfied with certain aspects of its handling of the matter. Those aspects are in the hands of the Federal Police. I have directed the Federal Police, through my Department, to keep up their investigations of those matters most stringently. Dr KLUGMAN —I direct my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer to reports of stoppages by Federal public servants today and proposals for a 24-hour strike tomorrow. Can the Minister advise the House of the Government's attitude towards this action? Mr WILLIS —It is the case, as the honourable member for Prospect said, that there are stop work meetings in every capital city of Australia today by public servants who are members of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association (ACOA) and the Federated Clerks Union (FCU). They have before them proposals from their executives for a 24-hour stoppage tomorrow and for rolling stoppages thereafter. It is the Government's view that that action is utterly unnecessary, pointless and quite counterproductive. The background to this matter is that there have been, for some months now, negotiations taking place between the Government and the unions, particularly on the office restructuring, which is the restructuring of classifications for office based staff which will be the main basis by which a second tier increase can be awarded to public servants. The unions have also known for months that the Government's position is that we would need to get full cost offsets before we could agree to a second tier increase. Recently, we gave them a proposed package of measures, which includes the office restructuring, and also some other measures which are required in order to enable us to have a satisfactory package to provide for the second tier increase. The unions' reaction to that was to discuss it for three hours, walk out and then threaten the stoppages which are now occurring, and industrial action after that. They have demanded the withdrawal of some of the items which were in that package as a precondition of the recommencement of negotiations. We have told them that that is an unacceptable position, that we are prepared to negotiate on the whole package on which there is some flexibility, but that we are not prepared to remove items piecemeal on demand from the unions. They have also organised the stop work meetings which I have mentioned. The program we now face is one of considerable industrial action if the members support the executive in the recommended action. The effect of all this is to delay members of the Federal Public Service from receiving a second tier increase. Already their union officials have wasted this week which could have been used productively to negotiate the package. So long as industrial action is taking place, or there is a threat of it, the Government will certainly not be resuming negotiations on this matter. The members of the ACOA and the Federated Clerks Union should understand that it is not the Government that is delaying the finalisation of this issue; it is their own unions that are refusing to negotiate. They have already wasted the time I have mentioned. Union members of the ACOA and the FCU should understand that the Government will not accept a situation in which the key areas of government activity are targeted for disruption. If the unions go down the path that they are now contemplating they will meet a very strong Government reaction. Mr BEALE —My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services. It is interesting to hear from the Minister today that we now have the Grumman aircraft debacle following the Amann affair and the Hercules fiasco. Does the Minister recall the haste with which the Prime Minister moved to capitalise on his public relations stunt by sweeping aside all bureaucratic rules in order to get the Hercules aircraft delivered quickly to Ethiopia? Will the Minister confirm that a special unit within the Australian Federal Police, which has investigated Amann Aviation Pty Ltd and is now, as we learned today, investigating Grumman as well, is also investigating the Hercules disaster? Will the Minister advise the House whether the Hercules investigation arose because of the Prime Minister's action? Will the Minister confirm the nature of all the police investigations? Mr WEST —The first thing I should say is that I am unaware of any connection between Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, the Hercules transaction and the Grumman transaction. Opposition members interjecting- Mr WEST —Seeing that the honourable member has asked a detailed question, I now ask him to have the decency and, I would hope, the astuteness to listen to a detailed answer. I want to tell the honourable member about the Hercules aircraft. The first point to make is that they were made available for sale back in 1977 and there were four attempts between 1978 and 1981 to sell them by tender. Contrary to certain stories in the media, nothing like $30m was ever offered by tender for the 11 original aircraft. Subsequent to that, the Fraser Government entered into an exclusive agency arrangement with an outfit named Ford and Vlahos Pty Ltd of California. This company sold two aircraft in 1983. In 1984, the United States Government withheld permission for the sale of two aircraft to a Colombian company and money paid in connection with these aircraft is the subject of litigation in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court at the moment. One further aircraft was refurbished and leased to the Red Cross for famine relief in Ethiopia in 1986. The agency arrangements with Ford and Vlahos-that is, the company that the former Government appointed-proved most unsatisfactory and steps have been taken to ensure that such problems do not recur. We have heard, I think in this House-certainly in the media, I think on the Four Corners program-about a number of extensions to this Ford and Vlahos company that were granted by the Fraser Government and by former Ministers. There were six extensions by Ministers for Administrative Services under the previous Government and, I think, five or six by Ministers of the present Government-all on the recommendation of the Department of Administrative Services, I might add. Mr Beale —You are ducking. Mr WEST —What I am saying is right. By any judgment, the sole agency arrangements with the private sector operators were proved unsuccessful. The Australian Federal Police are inquiring into two aspects of all of this, at my direction. They are the alleged theft of spares and alleged fraud against the Australian Development Assistance Bureau during this period under Ford and Vlahos. The agency arrangements that honourable members opposite commenced were terminated by us in July 1986. In 1986, new registrations of interest were sought and an entirely different exclusive agency arrangement for the sale of the nine remaining aircraft was established in March 1987 with Military Aircraft Sales Pty Ltd (MAS). The financial arrangements signed on 16 March last required a substantial payment to the Commonwealth, with a guarantee that it would be paid by 15 April and with the major balance due to be paid by 15 May. As far as the private sector exclusive agency with MAS was concerned, there was a failure to pay the guarantee by the due date and also a failure to pay the balance by the due date. The Government then extended to 12 June. In early August, when I took over the portfolio, I found that no further payments had been made. I approved the termination of the contract with Military Aircraft Sales on 13 August 1987. I gave the company 50 days to reach an agreement on a new contract with the Commonwealth which had to include payment of a down payment and automatic termination if the company failed to pay the balance on an agreed date-no more extensions to these outfits. No such agreement was reached and neither I nor the Government will extend again. On 19 October this year, I approved a sales strategy involving direct individual sales by the Commonwealth against the firmest of guidelines. There will be no agencies with exclusive sale rights. They will be dealing directly with the Commonwealth on an individual competitive basis only. If MAS wishes to compete with other players, it may do so. But, as far as I am concerned, while I hold this portfolio there will be no more dealings with the types of exclusive private sector, small time agencies that honourable members opposite started as far back as 1981. Mr Beale —It is your predecessor-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will remember that, while the Chair accepts some interjections, continued interjections are disorderly. Mr ROBERT BROWN —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health. I preface the question by referring to the fact that the Government's aged accommodation program has been very warmly received in the community, but there appear to be some residual misunderstandings about the extent to which the program is being implemented. I ask the Minister: Will he inform the House and the Australian community about the progress that the Government is making in connection with the implementation of that program. Dr BLEWETT —I acknowledge the question from the honourable member for Charlton. I recognise that he is one of the members of this House who recognise that the challenge of aged care is one of the great challenges facing late twentieth century governments in all advanced industrial societies. As with so many of these problems, this problem was neglected by our predecessors, so that the quite formidable and difficult questions have had to be addressed by this Government. We started with the basic principle that we should provide as broad a range of services as possible for the aged so that they could choose between the most appropriate care services in terms of their social, medical and emotional needs. Thus, we have emphasised home care and hostel care as well as nursing home care. We have already put in place funding arrangements for non-government nursing homes which will protect the residents from financial exploitation and put an end to the rorts that occurred in some aspects of the nursing home industry, which were recognised, of course, in the report of the all-party Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes. At the same time, we have achieved some measure of control over nursing home costs while providing the industry with greater flexibility and efficiency incentives. We have adopted for the first time in this country a clear needs based approach to residential accommodation, and we have planned that, again for the first time, so that we get a fair and proper distribution of residential accommodation for the aged across the country. We have substantially increased and indexed recurrent subsidies to the hostel industry to provide for more elderly people. We were the first national government to establish proper assessment systems so that, again, there could be appropriate assessment of the needs of the aged. We have increased substantially capital subsidies to the hostel sector to assist the industry to cater especially for disadvantaged groups-particularly Aboriginal and other ethnic groups. I am very glad today to be able to announce the commitment we have made for the next three years in residential accommodation for the aged. We commit ourselves to provide 12,197 places in nursing homes and hostels in that period. There will be 1,295 nursing home places and 10,902 places in hostels. I will be announcing next week the details of this year's program which will include 396 nursing home places and 3,552 hostel places. We note the greater emphasis on hostels, which is in recognition of the need to boost this sector to give people greater access to a more appropriate range of residential care services. Next week, when announcing these details, we will also indicate the location of the new places and that location will be part of our long term strategy to ensure a fair distribution of residential places for the aged across this country. Mr SPENDER —I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I draw his attention to the report in the Australian today to the effect that `influential members of Suva's new power elite are counselling Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka to ``play the Moscow card'' and take up long-standing offers of help from the Soviet Union' and the suggestion in the report that the proposed Australian Council of Trade Unions flight bans have been a contributing factor to this counselling. Does the Minister agree that moves by Fiji to play the Moscow card would be damaging to our national interests and destabilising to the South Pacific region? Is the Government willing to put Australian's national interests at risk by allowing the Australian Council of Trade Unions to go ahead with its proposed bans? Mr HAYDEN —There is no evidence that Fiji intends to play what is described by the honourable member as the Moscow card. There is a report in the Australian but, if one accepts that as evidence, one is easily persuaded. I answered a question on the Australian Council of Trade Unions bans yesterday and a little later the Minister for Industrial Relations will be responding to a matter of public importance on the topic. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Will the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs inform the House of the details of his recent trip to Asia, especially to the refugee camps? Can he inform the House of what conclusions he has drawn in regard to refugee policy and immigration policy in the light of his trip? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for Calwell for his question. It was very pleasing to note, in talking to the various authorities in Thailand, Japan and Hong Kong, that Australia is held in the highest regard for the programs we have carried out over the last 12 years in the settlement of refugees from Indo-China. That is due to the success of both the Fraser Administration and the Hawke Administration in dealing with this question. We have now settled in this country about 100,00 people from that area at the same time as the United States has taken about 845,000, Canada about 120,000 and France about 120,000. The first thing to say is that, to the extent to which we are involved in discussions in this region, we are held in the highest regard because of what we have been able to achieve in the settlement of these people. The problem is not diminishing very much. There is still an enormous problem in this region. Tens of thousands of Kampucheans, Laotians and Vietnamese are still in camps in Thailand. I was able to visit the camps there and those in Hong Kong. An increasing number of people are now coming from North Vietnam to the camps of Hong Kong and this is of great concern to the authorities there. Whilst our quotas for the refugee and special humanitarian programs for 1987-88 have been set at 12,000, in my discussions I was unable to indicate to any of the authorities that we would have the capacity to increase that number. I indicated that the number we will take from Thailand this year is 2,100 and the number we will take from Hong Kong is 475, as originally planned in the program which I previously announced to the Parliament. However, a great number of other political problems have to be settled and I will be discussing many of the matters that were raised with me with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade because, obviously, as honourable members on both sides of the House know, the only way this massive problem can be solved is by political solutions. There is no way that the major settlement countries-which are now the United States of America, Canada, ourselves, France, Britain, New Zealand and others-can possible solve the problem by trying to achieve the total settlement of those people who may wish to settle in a third country. The issues have to be solved politically. It was very rewarding to be able to talk to people in all of these areas about what is trying to be achieved and the work that is now being done by not only governments, including the Thai Government, but also the various voluntary agencies that are working in the camps both there and in Hong Kong. To the extent that we are able to assist, our reward is that we are looked upon with great favour in this region and we are spoken of very warmly for what we have achieved. Both the Fraser and the Hawke governments can be extremely proud of what they have done for this country. Mr DOWNER —I direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer him to the fact that the Chief Executive of the South Australian Financial Authority wrote to the South Australian State Government Insurance Commission on 19 November 1986 pointing out that it is possible to circumvent South Australia's Loan Council borrowing limits by using the State Government Insurance Commission as a conduit for overseas loans. Is the Treasurer aware that this letter was written on the express instructions of the South Australian Premier and that, in exploiting this loophole, as instructed by the Premier, the South Australian Government was able to exceed its previously agreed Loan Council borrowing limit by 126 per cent? How does the Treasurer reconcile this breach of the spirit of the Loan Council borrowing limits with his stated attempts to control Australia's exploding overseas debt? Mr KEATING —The first thing is that our debt is not exploding; the rate of increase in our debt is slowing down. If the honourable member wishes to frame a question he should at least frame it in terms of there being a very greatly diminished slowdown in the accumulation of that debt as a result of the Government's policies. On the first point, I am not aware of the correspondence to which the honourable member referred. I can only say that whenever we have become aware that States may attempt to circumvent the global limits of the Loan Council arrangements, we have taken up those issues with the States to have the position corrected, as we did recently with Victoria in respect of the Victorian Equity Trust. I will examine the issues raised in the honourable member's question to see whether the claims he has made-directly or by implication-are correct. But I ask the honourable member, `Where do you think the damage was done when the States bolted from the Loan Council?'. The answer is: `Your mate's infrastructure program'. Mr Spender —Years and years ago. Mr KEATING —Does the honourable member know when it was? It was in 1982 or 1981. When I became Treasurer only 25 per cent of the States' borrowings was under the control of the Loan Council. We re-established the global limits and brought all the surrogate borrowing instruments back under control. We have been reducing the gross public sector borrowing requirement, obviously through the Commonwealth deficit and the States, and we are now reducing the net PSBR by squeezing down the cash reserves or liquid reserves of the States. That position should never have obtained. It was the height of folly and irresponsibility on the part of the last conservative Government in this country to allow the States to borrow willy-nilly for a thing called the infrastructure program which, I think, was thought up a couple of hours before the meeting actually occurred. It was a typical case of policy on the run, no forethought, no regard for the long term economic interests of the country and, as usual, as I often say, guess who was left to clean up the mess? It was us. In 1984 we put a ring around the States with the global limits and we are bringing them down. I will examine the implications of the claims made by the honourable member in his question, but let us not have any indignation about the Opposition's role in the PSBR. It allowed a disgraceful haemorrhaging of the public sector borrowings of this country over the last few years it was in office. Mr BEDDALL —I draw the attention of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel to recent Press reports indicating that pilot separations from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) have reached record levels. I ask the Minister to indicate what steps are being taken to ensure that the continued growth in civilian aircraft traffic does not give rise to continuing losses of pilots from the Defence Force at such a level as would prejudice our defence capability. Mrs KELLY —It is a fact that separation rates of RAAF pilots over the last couple of years have been considerably higher than was previously the Air Force's experience. In the 20-year period 1966-67 to 1985-86, the average annual loss was 47 pilots. In 1985-86, 70 pilots left the Air Force, and in 1986-87, 107 left. So far this year, 75 pilots have either resigned or retired. The number of new pilots graduating is between 55 and 65 per annum. Separations-that is, people leaving-are occurring for a number of reasons. About 40 per cent of the separations in 1986-87 involved those who had completed 20 years of service and were pensionable. Many of the other 60 per cent were responding to pressure from the private sector, particularly from Qantas Airways Ltd. In 1986-87, 32 of the pilots we lost indicated that they were going to Qantas, and so far this year about 13 have gone to Qantas. We are adopting a range of measures to deal with this problem. We have confronted it in two ways. First, we have had discussions with Qantas and, secondly, we have taken steps internally. Of course, Qantas is going through a growth phase, and one of the reasons for that is the success of this Government's tourism policy. Of course, we hope that that will continue. However, it is a fact that when Qantas is recruiting more of our pilots are likely to go there. I recently met with John Menadue, the Chief Executive of Qantas, to discuss the issue. It was a very fruitful meeting. There was general agreement that Qantas and the Air Force should work more closely in the future to ensure that Qantas's recruiting activities are better understood and that they are not pursued in such a way as to prejudice the operational capability of the Air Force. A range of practical measures were proposed which would help to minimise the impact of continuing pilot losses from the RAAF to Qantas, and I am confident that the talks that have taken place will lead to a satisfactory continuing relationship with Qantas. Pilots are very expensive to train. To ensure that the Defence Force receives a reasonable return for its investment in training, the return of service obligation for pilots has recently been increased from six years to eight years. Of course, this will take some time to impact. The Chief of the Air Staff has now taken additional steps to increase the attractiveness of a RAAF flying career. I would like to go into the details of some of those. Mr Sinclair —Not now; it is all rubbish. Mrs KELLY —This is an extremely important issue for this country. We are increasing the compulsory retiring age for pilots with the rank of wing commander and below to 55 years. This change will allow many of those who want to stay to do so. Also, we are introducing a limited air crew specialisation scheme which will allow an extended flying career for selected officers. This scheme may necessitate operational promotion and new salary scales at existing rank levels which recognise higher levels of experience. We are also adopting policies designed to widen promotional opportunities for non-pilots in such areas as personnel and materiel, thus reducing the demand for pilots in staff posts. To meet the need we are also increasing training opportunities, and we are looking at increasing recruitment activities and therefore recruiting more people into the Services. Also, the Chief of the Air Staff has indicated that there will need to be some reductions in the levels of activity in the operational force because of pilot shortages, but we must still give high emphasis to the training area. I believe that all of these measures, taken together, will ensure that the Air Force is able to adjust to the changing market situation and will provide a better basis on which to plan for the future. Mr NEHL —I draw the attention of the Acting Minister for Defence to the proposed closure of 8 Platoon, 41 Battalion, Australian Army Reserve, situated at Macksville, in the electorate of Cowper, where Reserve members are eager to continue serving Australia, and ask the Minister: Is this indicative of the Government's overall attitude to the rundown of Australia's defence forces, including the Army Reserve? Can she give an undertaking that this and other valuable units of the Army Reserve will continue and not be destroyed by departmental shortsightedness? Mrs KELLY —The fact is that under this Government the Army Reserve has had an enhanced role in the Australian Defence Force. It is this Government that has done more to integrate the reservists into the total Defence Force than any other government in the history of this country. I have taken note of the particular unit to which the honourable member has referred, and I will give him a written response on that in line with the points he has raised. Mr FREE —I ask the Minister for Consumer Affairs: Has his attention been drawn to an article appearing in today's Sydney Morning Herald which alleges that patrons in New South Wales clubs and hotels are being ripped off by the use of undersize glasses? Mr STAPLES —I am sure that all honourable members will be interested in this matter. I know the honourable member for Lindsay has a great interest in weights and measures in a variety of industries, and I have noticed his very serious interest particularly in the racing and hotel industries. Of course, many other honourable members have a great interest in weights and measures. I also commend members of the Press Gallery because they have brought this serious matter to our attention today. There was a report in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning relating to tests carried out by the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Bureau concerning undersize glasses and incorrect measures. It is difficult to relate this problem to the Trade Practices Act; it is more a matter for the State consumer affairs agencies and their weights and measures divisions. Nonetheless, if there is a problem, I am sure it will be handled efficiently. I know the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, who has responsibility for Australian Capital Territory weights and measures, will look into this to see whether there is any problem. I am sure he will get to the bottom of the matter so that the shouting can die down and we can continue to have consumer confidence in this and many other areas. Mr PETER FISHER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Is the Government considering reducing the level of Export Finance Insurance Corporation (EFIC) cover to Australian exporters and thus placing significant exports at risk? In particular, is the Minister aware that insurance cover for wheat sales to Egypt provided by EFIC is in the process of being withdrawn? Can the Minister assure the Australian wheat industry of the Government's continued support for EFIC cover to this very important and strategic Egyptian market? Mr HAYDEN —As is proper, the function of the Export Finance Insurance Corporation is being looked at at present. I mention in passing that this matter is not within my ministerial portfolio responsibility but, from time to time, I help other Ministers with comments not always helpful to myself. This matter is being looked at and the honourable member, I am sure, as a committed member of the National Party, will be pleased to know that we shall be looking at the matter on the basis of market principles. Mr GAYLER —Can the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy advise the House on the implications for the rural community of the Government's decision to impose anti-dumping duties on imports of urea fertilisers? I ask the Minister to comment specifically in relation to the sugar industry, one of the most efficient sectors of our primary industry. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will not make any comments, but will answer the first part of the question. Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge his representations to the Government on this issue. As the House well knows, the honourable member for Leichhardt takes a close interest in fertiliser. The simple fact is that anti-dumping duties on urea will have no impact whatsoever on farmers-even the sugar farmers whose interests he so closely guards. Through the section 96 arrangements with the States, the burden will be borne by the taxpayer, not by the farmers. I note that the National Farmers Federation has been highly critical of the Government in this matter. Its Press release said that the Federation was outraged, that the Government was hypocritical, that we were mollycoddling the industry and that we were putting up the price of fertiliser by $50 a tonne. The Federation's comments are wrong. A simple telephone call would have established that farmers will be protected by the section 96 arrangements. My colleague Senator John Button has twice reviewed the anti-dumping system to ensure that we have the most prompt and efficient operation consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade codes. This is a difficult area and this Government is committed to effective anti-dumping arrangements that adequately balance the interests of both consumers and producers. We cannot have it both ways. If the National Farmers Federation wants otherwise, it should first get its own affiliate-for example, the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation-to stop complaining about cheese imports. That is an area in which we have taken action to protect the Australian dairy industry by putting on the tariff quota arrangements. This will not affect the sugar industry. I understand the industry's concern, but some people have simply got it wrong. Mr ANDREW —Does the Treasurer agree with his Finance Minister that to be effective a wealth tax would have to be imposed on the family home? Mr KEATING —The Minister for Finance was giving views on questions put in the Senate speculating about such a tax. I made it quite clear on behalf of the Government in the last election campaign, as did the Prime Minister, that the Government has no intention of introducing such a tax. We also made it clear in the White Paper on tax reform that we would leave the whole system subject to review, despite the provocation in the 1984 election campaign from the Opposition, and then we chose not to move on a wealth tax either. That is the Government's current position. Opposition members-Current position. Mr KEATING —`Current' being always. Mr GRACE —Is the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs aware of certain allegations by radio broadcaster Ron Casey that Asian immigrants are getting preferential treatment for employment from employment assistance programs through the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES)? Can the Minister answer these baseless and racist allegations? Mr HOLDING —I am aware of comments made by Mr Casey, of radio station 2KY, to the effect that unemployed persons could get a job through the Commonwealth Employment Service by having plastic surgery on their eyes, to make them slanty, and their noses, and by having contact lenses fitted that give nice big black eyes. From their own knowledge of the way the local Commonwealth Employment Service operates, all honourable members will know that it is a function of that service and its employees to place job applicants with employers on the basis of the skill requirements of those employers. In making those allocations there is no basis upon which any CES officer would give preferred treatment. In respect of job training schemes, the emphasis is on the long term unemployed. Credit should be given to the management of 2KY, which immediately suspended Mr Casey. Such is the nature of the allegation that I think that, unless Mr Casey apologises for the gross and misleading statements about CES officers, but more importantly withdraws the comments and apologises for the offence he has given to many Australian citizens of Asian origin, he should not be allowed to go back and pollute our airwaves. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 33 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, I present the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions for 1986-87. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report of the Family Law Council Access, Some Options for Reform. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 47 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979, I present the annual report of the High Court of Australia for 1986-87. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977, I present the annual report of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd for 1986-87. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975, I present a report of the Inter-State Commission on an investigation into potential extension of intermodal rail services. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975, I present a report of the Inter-State Commission on an investigation into the efficiency of interstate transport arrangements. Mr UREN(Reid) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr UREN —Yes. During Question Time the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) made a reply relating to Hercules. I have nothing to add to the Minister's reply in the earlier part of his answer relating to Ford and Vlahos Pty Ltd Australia; but I wish to say something that is relevant to my former Ministry. The Government entered into an agreement with a firm-I understand it was known as Military Aircraft Sales Pty Ltd. That firm paid a 10 per cent deposit and was given time in which to make the remaining payments. It failed to meet the payment in the given time. As Minister, I extended the date by 14 days and instructed my Department that if the firm did not pay the amount in that time the contract should be terminated. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —by leave-I wish to expand briefly on an answer that I gave at Question Time. I agree with the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) and there is absolutely no inconsistency between what he has just said and what I said at Question Time. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Cobb,Mr Langmore,Mr Ruddock,Mrs Sullivan and Mr White. 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 Jenkins,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Saunderson and Mr Scott. 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; 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 are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life; That we call upon the Labor 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 Ian Cameron,Mr Dobie,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Porter,Mr Sharp and Mr White. To the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Dobie,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock and Dr Wooldridge. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, call on the Federal Government to give notice to terminate the lease of the US base at Pine Gap before October 1986. We believe that in the interests of world peace and the Australian people, this lease should be terminated and the base closed because Pine Gap is a spy base and a war base: Since it was opened in 1969, it has eavesdropped on Australian telephone and telex communications. Information obtained in this way was used by the CIA to destabilise the Whitlam Government in late 1975. It provides communication facilities for CIA activities in countries throughout the world, much of which is connected with overthrowing other country's governments. Last year it became clear Pine Gap was spying on Greece. The electronic and photographic information its satellites receive is used to select nuclear targets in the territory of the Soviet Union and its allies. Many US military activities short of nuclear war are also co-ordinated by Pine Gap. These include the war against Vietnam and the invasion of Lebanon by US marines in 1984. Pine Gap spends only a tiny percentage of its time monitoring arms control agreements, and even then the data gathered is so top-secret Australia has no access to it. Pine Gap's role will be expanded under Reagan's Star Wars scheme to extend the arms race to outer space, threatening the existence of our planet. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Scott and Mr Snowdon. To the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: 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 tax and social security fraud in the most cost efficient manner. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: Reject the ID 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 Cadman,Mr Cobb,Mr Cunningham,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in 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 wastage 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 Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain 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-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 Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fairfax 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 Adermann. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Dawson 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. by Mr Braithwaite. 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 Beale,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Allan Morris and Mr Ruddock. 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 Cunningham,Mr Prosser and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Andrew and Mr Wilson. 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: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the proposal: Is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud, and to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud, Will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private matter, Will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer, and 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 Cobb and Mr Sharp. 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 State 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 petitions, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Fatin and 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 purpose of Post Offices should be to service 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 Cadman. 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 House of Representatives 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 respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBO's) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new services, selection of telephones and complaints, in person at a convenient and easily accessible location. Telecom Business Offices provide this service, and therefore it is wrong that their contribution and performance will only be assessed on their sales revenue. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to instruct the management of Telecom Australia to immediately cease all action to close any Telecom Business Offices. And 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, your humble petitioners showeth: The Federal Government has done nothing to ease concerns that it will support Telecom's plans to introduce timed charges for local calls; and Call upon the Government to undertake that such plans will not be implemented. 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' questionnaire and any attempt at timing local calls will only add to this problem not decrease it. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that Telecom do not proceed with the timing of local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the Undersigned Citizens of Maranoa 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' questionnaire and any attempt at timing local calls will only ADD to this problem, NOT DECREASE it. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to: Ensure that Telecom do not proceed with the timing of local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should not be considered any further, and in the event of it coming again before parliament it should be rejected because: We do not accept the concept of an I.D. card as necessary to control social security fraud or tax evasion, It would be an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy and our democratic society, in particular because it being required to work, operate a bank account, enter hospital or enter into any transaction, It would cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on tax payers, It cannot be guaranteed that the aggregated private information would not be misused for other purposes, The people of Australia should be fully informed and consulted in a referendum before legislation for any such change with such wide-ranging effect is considered, and We call upon the Government to cease immediately any endeavour to introduce this invasion upon our lives. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth. Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House direct that the existing 4 (C4) zoning on the Kurnell Peninsula, in New South Wales, be removed and that this be replaced by a zoning more appropriate to the unique ecology of the area and to the historical significance of the Kurnell Peninsula, being the birthplace of the nation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 Oct. 86 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. This cut has reduced the base for future adjustments. The Government has promised to restore the base as soon as economic circumstances permit. Having regard to state of the economy as portrayed by members of the Government during the recent election campaign, your petitioners humbly pray that the Government restore the pension base in the 1987 budget. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. We consider that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. We therefore ask the House to take action to prevent the implementation of this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: The decision by the Department of Defence to close down the Macksville Sub-section of 41 Battalion, Australian Army Reserve, is of grave concern to the unit members and citizens of the surrounding districts. The decision to direct unit members to Coffs Harbour, some 60 km distant, would impose sufficient hardship to prevent many continuing in the reserve and be a major deterrent to potential members. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to: Intervene to stop the proposed closure and sale of land at Wallace Street, Macksville, and initiate action to have a permanent Depot built on the Army's Macksville land. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- That the number of hours of English language tuition for migrants and refugees has been reduced in South Australia Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs reinstate English language tuition hours for migrants and refugees to their previous levels. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the division of Kennedy and Herbert respectfully showeth: We are strongly opposed to the proposed nomination of Wet Tropical Rainforests of North Queensland to the World Heritage List. The listing of such a vast area will inhibit the future development of North Queensland on a broad economic base; We are deeply concerned that roads presently connecting the coast with the hinterland may be eventually closed; Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament rejects any moves to list the Wet Tropical Rainforests. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will forever pray. by Mr Katter. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The adverse implications for Australia's trade and foreign policy of the ACTU bans against Fiji. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.57) —In a week when the stock markets here and around the world have been uncertain and unstable and when people are looking to the Government to give leadership, nothing shows the ineptness and incompetence of this Government more than its total inability to address the bans applied by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) on trade with Fiji. We all know that over a little while there has been a deal of rhetoric from Ministers of this Government about the way in which they have been speaking severely to Simon Crean and Bill Kelty of the ACTU, telling them how serious it is that they should dare to usurp the foreign policy of the country. Yesterday we heard that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) had actually spoken twice to Mr Crean on the whole issue. We learned that the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) had been extraordinarily silent, although on an earlier occasion he said he had tut-tutted his way around telephone calls with the ACTU. The reality is that the ACTU is imposing disciplines on this Government which are far more profound than just an internecine fight between one element of the Australian Labor Party and another. For a long while there has been concern on this side of the House that the Government does not appreciate the significant relationship between Australia and the island nations of the Pacific. Even less does it understand the way in which the Melanesian nations look to Australia in terms of both their trade and political ties. They also look to Australia in communications and as being a stable and reliable friend. They have customarily come to look on this country as a nation on which they can rely, whatever might happen to the super-powers and other countries in the region. The sad reality is that, whatever the rhetoric of the Government or the Foreign Minister, this Government's attitude to Fiji in particular is being totally undermined by the fact that the leadership of the ACTU knows that it has to bow to yesterday's communist and Senate Labor candidate for Victoria, namely John Halfpenny, and the attitudes that he and some of this colleagues have had in their intervention to establish the trade union movement in Fiji. On an earlier occasion when I spoke in a similar debate I referred to the long-time association between the Pacific Trade Union Forum, which subsequently became the Pacific Trade Union Community, and the establishment of the trade union movement in Fiji. We should remember an editorial in the Northern Territory News on 15 April last which actually pointed to the fact that the Pacific Trade Union Forum, which was sponsored and endorsed by friend Halfpenny, was the brainchild of the Soviet sponsored Prague Congress of the World Federation of Trade Unions in 1978. The point of that association is that within the ACTU there is obviously an inability to address any significant direction being placed on it by the left wing unions. After some discussion between the Government, some members of the ACTU and the waterfront unions there was a temporary lifting of the earlier waterfront bans that were imposed after the first coup in Fiji but they were subsequently reimposed on 28 September. This Government is not prepared to take the actions necessary to ensure that Australian interests are protected in the trade pattern that should be continuing in a normal way between this country and Fiji, irrespective of our concern about the manner in which Colonel Rabuka has taken, or usurped, power in that country and without in any way prejudicing the continued concern of this side of the chamber about the reintroduction of democracy and the preservation of the rule of law. It is paradoxical that, while this Government is so inept in its relationship with the trade unions that it is unable to get the trade union bans lifted, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is in Geneva at the moment talking about the problems for Australia because of the actions super-powers take against countries like Australia in their primary industry and minerals trade. We had the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the last few weeks telling us how he had been berating the world about how the United States and European countries should run their economies. But when it comes to domestic affairs, the Labor Government and Labor Ministers, from the Prime Minister down, are totally unable to say or do anything that might in any way deny the ACTU leadership or, for that matter, the left wing unions of this country taking away from the Government the power to direct its foreign and trade policies. The significance of all this is that this Government, more than ever, is showing that within the third Hawke Ministry there is not only a splitting apart of the factions but also the Government no longer has what we were told was a euphoric relationship with the trade unions which was epitomised by the nonsensical words `consensus' and `accord' which, according to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, were symbolic of their success in their first two ministries. The Minister for Industrial Relations has been weak and ineffective. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has spoken to Simon Crean twice, but it is a bit like being hit across the wrist with a feather. It has had absolutely no bearing on the decisions which the leadership of the ACTU has taken with respect to trade bans and the airline bans, about which I will speak in a moment. As to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, there has been continued silence from the mountain-tops. I do not think they even realise the significance to Australia, to Fiji or to the whole Pacific region, of this Government's inability to exercise the sorts of controls that are possible over the trade union movement with respect to the maintenance of our trade with those countries. The airline situation is as alarming in itself as the whole of the shipping bans. We should recognise that about 90 per cent of Fiji's air links are with Australia. Qantas Airways Ltd and Air Pacific are the main carriers to the island. A significant part of Fiji's traditional links with the world comes through its association with Qantas and Air Pacific. The whole of the establishment of its airport facilities has been because of the involvement of Australia's Department of Aviation in the island. Yet because of the ineptness, incompetence and inadequacy of the Australian Labor Party there is no ability for the maintenance of those communication links. We should remember that those air links are similar to others that have been severed with South Africa. I am quite sure that the result will be not just a temporary cessation of those air links once the bans have been imposed but a search for other airlines to resume that airline traffic. Singapore Airlines will be the major beneficiary, both from the severing of the links with South African Airways and also from the potential trade union ban on air traffic to Fiji from the first of next month. The character of Australia's trade with Fiji and Fiji's trade with Australia has been totally ignored in the Government's failure to act with respect to the trade unions. I do not know whether the Ministers of this Government understand that within the whole package of goods exchanged with Fiji there is a favourable trade balance, something that unfortunately does not occur with enough countries. Roughly $175m worth of goods is sold to Fiji and about $50m worth of goods is bought from Fiji. Components of the trade to Fiji are manufactured products, petroleum products, which form a very significant element, and a number of agricultural products which at the moment are extraordinarily sensitive to the difficulty of achieving international sales which are very adversely affected by the trade union bans. I am told, for example, that Australia has been the traditional supplier of rice to Fiji. Instead of proceeding, as would normally be the case, with negotiations for the current term of contract, Fiji has turned to Thailand. The loss of the rice trade is worth about $5m a year. Mr Hicks —Shame. Mr SINCLAIR —The honourable member for Riverina-Darling, who is particularly concerned with the Riverina rice industry, has raised with me his worry that this decision alone could drive a significant number of rice growers off their rice farms. So the trade unions, in usurping the exercise of the foreign policy and trade decisions of the Australian Government, are driving rice growers in the Riverina off their rice farms. Australia has traditionally been the major supplier of wheat to Fiji. The Australian Wheat Board, I am told, sends a ship to Fiji each month. The last ship left just before the ban was imposed. Since the bans have been imposed Fiji has already been looking for alternative markets. We all know the problems there are in the wheat industry. The wheat trade is worth $8m a year. So in two trades alone, thanks to the actions of the trade union movement and the inability of this Government to do anything about it, primary producers have lost about $13m a year. The point of all this is that the Government is not without some power to do something about it. There are actions and procedures which this Government could and should undertake. Indeed, part of the problem of this Government is that it walks away from any sort of a confrontation with the trade union movement. We heard this morning about how worried the Government is about small glass sizes in hotels. We have heard from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister about how seriously they take actions by overseas countries. But they totally ignore the fact that to maintain trade with other countries one must start by looking in one's own backyard. In our own backyard, this Government has to be prepared to excercise the same discipline against trade union leadership as it pretends to exercise against the governments of other countries. Unless the Government does so, countries other than Australia will benefit. I have already mentioned the prospects in terms of the competitors of Qantas. In the Australian earlier this week there was a suggestion that both France and Israel are upgrading their representation in Fiji. There was also a suggestion that the Soviet Union is doing exactly the same, as my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) canvassed in Question Time today. We all know that unless Australia's industrial reputation can be lifted it is pointless for any of us to think that we will be able to overcome our chronic economic problems. All this has a real relevance in a week when so many are apprehensive about their savings because of the downturn in stock markets. There are steps which this Government can and should take with the trade union movement. It has an ability to enter into negotiations, not just a mere wrist slapping exercise or a couple of telephone calls from the Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister, but a conference. We have a summit about some sort of consumer credit but there is not even an ability on the part of the Government to exercise normal and proper negotiations with those who seek to usurp its proper policy function. Any cry that the Government exercises major control is put into its proper perspective when we see the Government's inability to act. Today I am told that there is a move by Garry Brack, the Executive Director of the Employers Federation of New South Wales, to seek an urgent conference to ensure that the ACTU bans on exports to Fiji are lifted. We are told that in petroleum products, cereals and cereal products, iron and steel, and chemicals, there is a very serious and imminent consequence for a whole range of employment in this country. The Federation points out that Australia is not a monopoly supplier, that the effect of the bans is simply to force Fijian businesses to source their stocks elsewhere, and that this is already happening. So we are not only losing trade, we are losing status and influence, and we are prejudicing the ability of Australia to have any say whatsoever in restoring democracy to Fiji. But more importantly, there are other powers available to this Government. Section 45d of the Trade Practices Act gives this Government the power to intercede, together with those affected, to ensure that there is an ability to get the unions to return to work. But let me, beyond that, point to section 30k of the Crimes Act, which, under clause (d), makes it an offence to `obstruct or hinder the transport of goods or the conveyance of passengers and trade or commerce with other countries or among the States'. There are powers. There is an ability to call the trade unions and the exporters together. There is an ability within the Trade Practices Act and the Crimes Act to take action against the trade union leadership. Any pretence that this Government is running the affairs of this nation is put totally in perspective when we realise that it is unable even to stop the trade unions from maintaining bans against Fiji which are seriously injurious to Australia's foreign policy and trade interests. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations)(3.12) —What we have just heard from the Opposition is the usual exercise of hypocrisy, particularly from the person who submitted this matter of public importance. We have been told that there is a serious situation in respect of bans in relation to Fiji and that there are actions available to us which we should use. One should perhaps note at the outset what the Fraser Government did when it was faced with similar trade union bans in relation to political activities in other countries, particularly Chile and South Africa. What was the reaction of the Fraser Government? Did it use the Crimes Act, which the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) suggests we should now use? Of course it did not, although it had the power to use it. Nor did it use the Trade Practices Act, although it had the power to use it. Did it utilise any other legislative form of approach in respect of those bans? No, it did not, although it perhaps had the power to do so. At the outset we should note the enormous amount of hypocrisy which encompasses this matter of public importance. In other words: `Do not do as we did when we were in government; do as we say you ought to do'. What the Fraser Government did was to try to talk the trade union movement into removing those bans, and, to a substantial degree, that was successful. That has been the approach taken by this Government.We have made it clear to the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) that we believe that these bans are inappropriate, that they are possibly counterproductive and that it would be unfortunate in the extreme if they were to be maintained-for several reasons. It is not really appropriate for me to state what those reasons are, but we have told the ACTU, in detail, why we believe its actions are inappropriate and counterproductive and are not likely to bring about the results which it seeks. We believe that the process of discussion with the ACTU and the trade unions is one which can lead to a productive outcome. Let us get matters clear at this point. We have a union decision about prospective airline bans, but we have no airline bans applying at present. Maritime bans are in place. To my understanding, so far they have affected two shipments. The prospective impact of the continuance of the maritime bans and the imposition of airline bans could be quite severe. That, of course, lies behind a lot of our opposition to them, because we believe that they will be severe in a way which will be counterproductive to the concerns of the ACTU and of this Government. We share the concerns of the ACTU about the rights of trade union officials to conduct their affairs within the law of Fiji. The freedom of association and the freedom of trade union officials in that country to conduct their legitimate business has been curtailed by military might; that is, there has been a detaining of union officials. The Secretary and the Treasurer of the Fijian Trade Union Congress were detained for some time after the second coup. There has been closure of offices. There has been close surveillance of union officials. Some have gone into hiding for fear of being detained, or worse. There has been very close surveillance of unions, including all communications and other activities. That has meant that it is impossible for there to be free trade union activity in that country. That is a deplorable development. It is just one example of the loss of democratic rights, and that is of great concern to us. We understand the ACTU's concern about that. Perhaps it should also be noted that its actions have been taken after specific requests from the members of the Fijian Trade Union Congress to assist them to regain their rights to operate as free trade unionists. With all of that said, however, we have made it clear that we do not believe that the actions being pursued are likely to bring about the kinds of results that the ACTU wants to achieve. For that reason, we believe it would be sensible for there to be a lifting of the bans now in place and a non-imposition of the proposed bans. Discussions have been held between ourselves and the ACTU, and there will be further discussions in an attempt to bring about that result that I have indicated the Government would desire. If we are unable to achieve that result, we will have to consider what else we can do to try to bring about an appropriate result. But I think it should be noted that it is absurd for the Opposition to be suggesting that we should be rushing around and throwing around the Crimes Act, which it never used, or that the Trade Practices Act should be used for bans which are apparently prospective. That is an absurd suggestion. We will not be taking that kind of extreme action until it is quite clear that reasonable action cannot take place. We will then consider what other action can be used. Mr Spender —Just like you have acted towards the waterside workers. Mr WILLIS —I am happy to look at industrial relations records. I would like to hear the honourable member's response to that, because those who wander around threatening the big stick attitude-which the Opposition is delighted to do most of the time, and of course in government it tried to implement this-usually finish up with a disastrous situation, with high levels of industrial disputation. It should be noted that since we have been in office there has been a 60 per cent reduction in the level of industrial disputation. That is an enormous reduction, and one which demonstrates that this Government does not need advice from a failed previous government which showed itself hopelessly incompetent in the area of industrial relations and whose members are in no position to give advice to this Government, or indeed to anybody else, about the appropriate way to conduct industrial relations. The last group we would be listening to about what we should do in respect of this or any other industrial relations matter would be the Federal Opposition, because it is the least qualified group in this country to give advice to anyone about how industrial relations should be conducted. When it had its seven years in government, it showed that it was totally incapable of bringing about any degree of consensus or compatibility between the industrial relations parties. Its whole approach was one of `Hit them with a big stick as much as you can', and when that led to further confrontation it would throw up its hands and face a situation of very substantial loss of production through heavy levels of industrial disputation. At the same time, the Opposition faced much higher levels of wage increases than have applied under this Government. Labour cost increases were much higher under the Fraser Government than they have been under this Government-about double the rate. So we do not need any lectures from the Opposition about how to conduct industrial relations. We have shown, on the basis of diminished industrial disputation and on the basis of much better labour cost outcomes, that we do not need the Opposition's advice. Indeed, the position that has prevailed under this Government has been infinitely better than that which prevailed when the Opposition was in office. The action in relation to Fiji is one which we have discussed in detail with the ACTU. The process of discussion which has taken place is one which will lead to the possibility of the withdrawal of those bans. I think that is so because the logic of the position which we have put to the trade union movement is one which is very compelling in terms of attempts to achieve the ACTU's objectives in relation to the trade union movement in Fiji, in terms of Australia's position in the South Pacific and in terms of Australian trade at a time when we need all the trade that we can get, particularly where it is a plus for us in net trade considerations. In all of those respects the bans on trade and communications with Fiji are not likely to be very helpful to this nation. They are not likely to be helpful to those who seek to obtain a particular result. However, at this stage the ACTU has not given us a considered response on those issues. We await that considered response and we are prepared to have further intensive discussions with it. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) and I have had separate communications with the ACTU and have indicated that we are quite willing to meet jointly with the ACTU in the near future to discuss this matter in depth and, hopefully, to bring about a resolution of the dispute. As I have said, the bans that have been proposed are in the maritime area only. Mr Spender —Neither here nor there! Mr WILLIS —What a stupid comment that was. That just shows how much intelligence the honourable member brings to this debate. I was saying that the bans are in the maritime area only and, to this stage, have affected only a couple of shipments, so the impact has been small. Much greater and more damaging bans were imposed, under the previous Government, in respect of Chile and South Africa. We did not see the response from the Government then that the Opposition seeks to have us make on this issue. We certainly would not wish to take up the Opposition's invitation to rush around with a big stick and produce a much worse situation, which would be the most likely outcome of pursuing the activities that the Opposition suggests we should undertake. The position of the Government is quite clear. We have demonstrated fully to the ACTU why the imposition of bans is not an appropriate course to take for a number of reasons. The ACTU is giving consideration to the reasons that we have put to it. We expect a full and reasoned response from it in the near future. If that response is the one that we expect, eventually we will have a decision by the ACTU which is the appropriate one in respect of these bans. Mr Sinclair —The Government won't do anything about it. Mr WILLIS —I say to the Leader of the National Party that we will do much more about it than the previous Government was able to achieve in respect of removing bans of a similar kind against Chile and South Africa. We will certainly be more effective than the previous Government was in that respect, as we have been in all other respects in industrial relations matters. We do not need the Opposition to lecture us about how we should go about dealing with this issue. We agree that this matter is important. We agree with the Opposition in the sense that the imposition of bans on trade and communications is an important matter. It is one that the Government is not taking lightly. It is one that the Government agrees must be taken up, and it has been taken up, with the ACTU. We agree that all efforts must be made to have those bans lifted. Those efforts are being made. They will continue to be made in the most appropriate way and we have confidence that we will get the appropriate response. If that appropriate response is not forthcoming, we will certainly give consideration to what other actions we would need to take in order to bring about a desirable result. But we will certainly not be rushing into a Rambo-type reaction which the Opposition would have us undertake, a reaction that it never utilised in government for the same sensible reasons that we would not wish to pursue it now, which is that such action would be counter-productive. Only an extremist would wish to utilise the kind of action which has been suggested here today. I believe that this matter of public importance is properly brought before the Parliament. I say to the Parliament that the Government is responding adequately and appropriately to this situation. For a host of reasons we believe the bans should be removed. All appropriate actions are being taken to remove them and we are confident that we will get an appropriate response in the not too distant future. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.26) —What we have just heard is a gutless, unprincipled and pathetic surrender by this Government to the trade union movement in the management of a vital area of foreign affairs and trade policy. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) came into the House-he is the wrong Minister; the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) should have been here-and tried to say that this is an industrial issue and that it has to be handled as such. It is not; it is a trade and foreign policy issue. He has raked up ancient history dealing with Chile and South Africa. But this is a special problem in our own region. Let me remind the Minister of some of the history of this matter. Maritime bans against Fiji were originally imposed after the first coup. They were there for two months. The second coup took place on 25 September. On 28 September the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia imposed shipping bans and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) supported them. What happened then? On 29 September, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade protested, which was reported in the Australian Financial Review on 29 September as follows: But the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Bill Hayden, returning to Australia, spoke strongly against both imposing trade sanctions and severing diplomatic relations. Mr Hayden yesterday telephoned Mr Crean to say he believed trade sanctions against Fiji were neither helpful nor effective. He said trade bans would jeopardise Australia's $175 million trade with Fiji ``if not permanently, for a very long time''. That was a very strong warning and a very strong statement. In fact, we have learned from Mr Brack of the Employers Federation of New South Wales that we are talking about $200m. As he points out, we are talking about $200m of trade which can easily be substituted from other sources. The Minister's telephone call to Mr Crean back in September was the first of a series of humiliating telephone calls by him to Mr Crean. Let me just note in passing that we have seen an intellectual somersault in the Government's approach to the question of sanctions. The Government believes that sanctions should be imposed against South Africa. It believes that sanctions should not be imposed against Fiji. We agree with the Government when it says that sanctions should not be imposed against Fiji. But mark this: what concerns us is that in Fiji we are seeing the proposition advanced, and to be entrenched, that a racial group should have special political powers. What is the difference in principle in those two countries? The Government has been unable to tell us that, but plainly it has done an intellectual somersault. Regardless of the Government's motives, it has at least come to the right conclusion about Fiji. What was the next move after the shipping bans? We know that two ships have been prevented from going to Fiji and that nothing has happened. The Minister appears to think that this is of no consequence. Well, on 20 October Mr Simon Crean, the President of the ACTU, announced that there will be bans on airlines going to Fiji as from 1 November unless certain action is taken. What was the Government's response? Once more, it was a telephone call. Yesterday, the Minister was asked in this House about the action that he had taken. He said: I have spoken to Simon Crean on this matter on two occasions in the last two days. He said later: We have registered our concern very firmly. Our opposition to those sanctions has been expressed on a number of occasions, and will continue to be expressed. I will continue to make very strong representations to the trade union movement to withdraw the sanctions. I ask honourable members to note that the Minister is talking about representations by a government to the trade union movement. He continued: The Minister for Industrial Relations has also been associated with this matter. He would be a very strong ally to have around the place! The Minister concluded by raising the industrial dispute alibi. That alibi is the argument that what the Government has on its hands is an industrial dispute. On can imagine what will take place in the Cabinet room when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) comes back and he runs through the agenda. It will go something like this: `First of all, fellows, I have to tell you about my success in Ireland. By the way, Bill, what is happening in Fiji? Do we have a policy?'. `Yes, Prime Minister, we have a policy. The policy is that there will be no sanctions'. `Good, Bill. What does Simon say about it?'. `Well, I spoke to him, Prime Minister. I telephoned him and he took my telephone call'. `Good stuff, Bill. What did you do?'. `I made very strong representations on behalf of the Government to allow the Government to run its foreign and trade policy as the Government sees fit'. `What did Simon say, Bill?'. `Well, Simon can be a shade colourful, Prime Minister, but, in fact, he said no'. `Bill, I think you have handled it pretty well. Just keep on telephoning Simon and don't worry about the cost of the telephone calls; this Government is good for them'. That is really what it amounts to. It is just extraordinary to have this Government advancing, as a serious proposition, the notion that it should go as a suppliant to the ACTU, to Mr Simon Crean, requesting him to allow the Government to conduct its foreign and trade policy as it sees fit. What about, for example, the real concerns that we have? Take what Mr Brack said today in an urgent telex. After outlining the exports amounting to $200m that go to Fiji from Australia every year, he said: Australia is not a monopoly supplier. The effect of the bans is simply to force Fijian businesses to source their stocks elsewhere. This is already happening. Once lost, many of the markets we now enjoy will never return. Mr Brack is in agreement with the Foreign Minister. They are both saying the same thing, that once these markets are lost they will never be returned. The bans will lose these markets for us. Leaving aside for one moment the foreign policy consequences, the trade bans are going to damage irreparably our trade with Fiji if they are allowed to go on. The Government's answer is: `Let's hope it works itself out. We do not get ourselves precipitately involved in action against the ACTU'. There would be no doubt about that. Can honourable members ever see the Government taking the ACTU to court? Can honourable members ever see the Government taking the unions responsible for these bans to court? Can honourable members ever see the Government invoking section 45d of the Trade Practices Act? It wants to get rid of section 45d. Can honourable members ever see the Government invoking the common law remedies that it has? Of course they cannot. Can honourable members ever see the Government moving for the deregistration of the Waterside Workers Federation or the Transport Workers Union for imposing these bans? No chance at all. Can honourable members ever see the Government considering the ultimate sanction-and it is an ultimate sanction, it would not be needed-under the Crimes Act? Never. So what has happened? We know that the maritime bans have been imposed and that they are in place. Only two shipments have been held up; that is, two shipments have not gone. That is neither here nor there. We know that unless Mr Crean is good enough to change his mind, to take a few more telephone calls from the Foreign Minister, or somebody else as suppliant on behalf of the Government, the bans proposed by him are going to go into force. What are the consequences? The consequences are, of course, first, that we will see this Government placed in a client relationship with the ACTU. The Minister let it out so beautifully when he said that the consequences would be `severe in a way that will be counterproductive to the concerns of the ACTU', and he added `and the Government'. I would add, `and Australia's traders'. Second, it is plain that the ACTU and Mr Crean are taking a position on the conduct of foreign and trade policy. Third, it is plain that Mr Crean gives himself the right to exercise a veto, not only over domestic decisions made by this Government but also over foreign policy and trade issues, generally and in this particular case. I ask the House to mark one of the consequences: it is a risk-I put it only as a risk-that as a result of what is now taking place, the Soviet Union or Libya may be able to enlarge its influence in Fiji. It is certain that if these bans continue our trade will be badly damaged and the risk is there-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! the honourable member's time has expired. Mr SPENDER —Of the Soviets or the Libyans moving in place of Australia-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The honourable member knows that he should not continue to speak after his time has expired. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would never disregard an injunction from you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That would be a first step. I call the honourable member for Charlton. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(3.36) —I think it was probably fortunate that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) chose to extend the comments that he was making because, had he finished at the time he was supposed to finish, he would have finished on the note that a takeover of the southern Pacific by the Soviet Union was a possible result of the coup in Fiji and the actions that have been taken by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). It is a completely absurd proposition. I am surprised to have heard it presented to this Parliament and, through this Parliament, to the Australian people. The honourable member for North Sydney is now escaping from any further criticism. There is no question that the Government has determined a very clear attitude not only in relation to the circumstances that developed in Fiji when the Government repudiated the actions of Colonel Rabuka, when the Government appealed for an early restoration of the democratic processes and democratic procedures in Fiji, but also in relation to the position that the Government has adopted as far as trade union decisions are concerned in Australia. The Government has not endorsed those sanctions. I know that the Opposition has not endorsed those sanctions. There is no chance at all for the Opposition to be successful in what appears to have been an appeal to the Government to adopt some sort of macho industrial relations response to these circumstances. Of course, the purposes of the Opposition are completely transparent in relation to this alleged matter of public importance. They do not involve a concern, as it has suggested, about the implications of the ACTU ban against Fiji on Australia's trade and foreign policy. That is not the purpose of this at all. The purpose is simply to engage in another political exercise and to attempt to restore the macho response from the Opposition as far as its industrial relations policy is concerned. If we put all this into objective context we can examine the extent to which these trade bans are affecting the level of Australia's trade. In the last financial year, 1986-87, the total value of exports from Australia to Fiji was $174m. Australia's total exports were almost $36,000m. Would it be a catastrophic effect on Australia's export performance if even all those exports disappeared? Our imports from Fiji would be about $28m. Total imports would be $37,000m. I have heard expressions here today from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) to the effect that the bans are seriously injurious to our trade and foreign policy. Seriously injurious to our trade? No. Seriously injurious to our foreign policy? How could the ACTU bans be seriously injurious to the foreign policy of a government which has been clearly and explicitly stating a balanced and sensible approach which has been endorsed not only by the Australian community at large but also by the Opposition? Indeed, it has been endorsed by spokesmen for the Opposition who purport to speak for those people who are attempting to interject now. Those honourable members attempting to interject are not even aware of the position which their leadership has adopted. Their leadership and the Government are as one in relation to the attitude towards those sanctions. The Leader of the National Party also said that the approach of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden)-in contacting Mr Crean and indicating to him that the Government did not endorse those sanctions and appealing to the trade union movement to reconsider the decisions-was like hitting Mr Crean on the hand with a feather. Mr Cadman —Of course it is. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It seems the honourable member for Mitchell endorses that sort of attitude and the sort of macho response that the Leader of the National Party was trying to present. The Leader of the National Party went on and said, `Let's be courageous; let's show a little bit of strength. Let us not hit these people on the hand with a feather. Let's use the trade practices legislation. Let's hit them with the Crimes Act'. This is typical of the punitive, confrontationist and provocative sort of approach which honourable members opposite always take towards trade union questions and questions of industrial relations in Australia. This simply reflects the attitude which members of the Opposition-and the interests which they represent in the community-have adopted to this question and similar questions on other occasions. I do not know whether honourable members opposite expect us to conscript labour in Australia in order to ensure that the trade continues. I do not know whether they expect that the Government will take action to send out the army and force labour to perform as they would expect it to perform. Would they expect, then, that we would repudiate the conventions of the International Labour Organisation which we have ratifies? I refer in particular to convention No. 105, article 1. Having ratified this, we are bound by it. We are committed to endorse it and to act according to it. Article 1 says: Each member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress and not to make use of any form of forced or compulsory labour . . . as a means of political coercion. Where do we stand? The honourable member for Mitchell thinks that this is a great joke. He should be ashamed of himself. The article goes on to say that the members will avoid the use of forced or compulsory labour `as a method of mobilising and using labour for purposes of economic development'. That is what honourable members opposite are allegedly talking about now-trade. Of course, they are talking about nothing of the kind. What they are talking about amounts to a series of circumstances that they are taking advantage of in order to continue their vendetta against this Government and against the trade union movement. Their motives are absolutely and completely transparent and we repudiate them absolutely. We can go on to convention No. 29, which we have also ratified and which I believe had bipartisan support in this Parliament. It is another convention concerning forced or compulsory labour. Article 1 states: Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period. Article 2 says: For the purposes of this Convention, the term ``forced or compulsory labour'' shall mean all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily. Let us not be confused about the purposes for which this matter of public importance has been raised. Let us not be confused either about the motivation which lies behind the arguments that have been presented here this afternoon. I would just like to ask one question of the members of the Opposition, and perhaps at some time in the future they will take the opportunity to respond to it. I ask: Why, in deciding to attack the trade union movement in the way that they have, did they not also earlier this month take the same opportunity to attack Britain which was threatening then to cancel its sugar contracts with Fiji? We heard not a whimper from them. At the same time, why have they not taken advantage of the opportunity to criticise the insurance companies in Australia which have refused to write cover for people who travel to Fiji? What a serious act against the tourist trade of Fiji! Why has the Opposition been silent on that matter? I will tell honourable members why they have been silent on it. It is because that action taken by insurance companies was designed, of course, to support and protect their corporate profits. Let us not criticise any action that a private company in Australia might take, for any purpose and in any form, to protect its corporate profits! But let us scream and howl and kick the communist can as soon as a trade union decides to take action which is designed to protect trade unionists in Fiji. Even the Age newspaper earlier this year said: That the ACTU should be disturbed by recent events in Fiji is right and proper and perfectly understandable. Of course it is perfectly understandable to all those people who have ears to listen, to all those people who want to take an objective attitude and to all those people who are responsive to reasonable argument. In conclusion, I repeat that the Government has made its position perfectly clear. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The honourable member for Charlton nearly incurred my wrath in the same way as the honourable member for North Sydney did. But I think I was a bit harsh with the honourable member for North Sydney before. The discussion is now concluded. Mr JENKINS(Scullin) —I present the first report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(3.48) —I move: That this House consents to termination by the Commonwealth of the Airlines Agreement 1981. After 35 years of detailed economic regulation of interstate aviation by successive Australian governments, I today place before the House of Representatives a motion which will bring the two airlines policy to an end, and open Australia's interstate air services to free competition. The 1981 airlines agreement, a copy of which is set out in the schedule to the Airlines Agreement Act 1981, was put in place by the previous Government. It requires three years notice of termination. The motion now before the House, which was introduced into the Senate by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) on 7 October, seeks to enable the Government to serve that notice and to bring the existing arrangements to an end in 1990. In essence, the Government's major objective in bringing the two airlines policy to a close is to create an environment which will foster an increased responsiveness by airlines to consumer needs; a wider range of fares and types of services to provide enhanced travel opportunities; increased competition and pricing flexibility leading to greater economic efficiency in the industry; and a continuation of Australia's world renowned aviation safety record. To achieve this objective, the Government has decided to withdraw from aviation specific economic regulation and to allow the market to operate within the constraints of the established competition policy controls applicable to industry generally. I emphasise that this withdrawal is from economic regulation, and not the regulation of safety. The airline industry in Australia is now well developed by world standards. The aircraft and facilities used are of the highest standard, and the expertise and safety achieved in Australian operations are of world renown. Given the size and established position of the trunk airlines, there is simply no longer a need to continue the absolute protection from domestic competition. In fact, the development of the aviation industry has now reached a stage where detailed economic regulation can no longer help, and may be hindering, the achievement of the broader economic and social objectives which have previously underlined the two-airline policy. The question of the Commonwealth's role in the economic regulation of the industry has recently been subjected to the most detailed and public scrutiny in the industry's history by the Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation-the so-called May Review. The May Review was critical of existing arrangements and drew attention to significant public dissatisfaction with the current policy, including the widespread view that it works to the disadvantage of consumers and encourages the airlines to serve the high yield, that is, business, markets to the detriment of the leisure market. It found that in comparison with its overseas counterparts, the Australian aviation industry is characterised by relatively low labour productivity and relatively high and stable profit levels. Public comment on the May Review generally favoured substantial withdrawal by the Commonwealth from economic regulation of the industry. We have decided to adopt the broad thrust of option 5 proposed by the Review. What this means is that the Government will, upon termination of the airlines agreement in October 1990, withdraw from the detailed economic regulation of four matters. First, controls over the importation of aircraft will be removed. These controls have provided the threshold underpinning of the legislative and contractual arrangements which currently regulate the industry. Secondly, the detailed determination of the amount of passenger capacity that may be provided by each trunk airline, and each regional airline which uses jet aircraft larger than 30 seats, will cease. Thirdly, the Independent Air Fares Committee which currently sets all air fares will be abolished and the Commonwealth will withdraw from the determination of air fares. Fourthly, the existing constraints on the entry of new domestic operators to trunk routes will be removed. Let me make it clear what this deregulation decision does not mean. First, as I have already stated, economic deregulation does not mean that the Government will in any way withdraw from, or lessen the effectiveness of, air safety regulation. On the contrary, a series of new initiatives are proposed that will significantly further strengthen Australia's already outstanding aviation safety record. They are spelt out in full in the detailed statement I shall be tabling at the conclusion of this speech. Secondly, it does not mean that there will be any abdication of the Government's responsibility for consumer protection, or any lessening in our commitments to ensuring that effective competition prevails in the Australian aviation industry. On the contrary, we have taken the view that there is a need to apply the Trade Practices Act to the new aviation industry environment, to maintain a limited degree of price surveillance of the kind that applies in many other deregulated industries, and to ensure that in the operation of the airport infrastructure under the Federal Airports Corporation new entrants will not be excluded from effective access to terminal usage. Thirdly, economic deregulation does not mean that an open skies policy will prevail domestically insofar as foreign airlines, and in particular those operating international services to Australia, are concerned. There is a close interrelation between the position of domestic and international carriers, with the viability of each depending to some extent on how the boundaries are drawn between them. The Government has made decisions and formulated guidelines on all these matters, and they are set out in full in the statement I am shortly tabling. Fourthly, it does not mean that we will abdicate our responsibility to ensure that the Government's own domestic airline, Australian, is well equipped-both managerially and in terms of its capitalisation-to succeed in the robust competitive environment that will prevail from 1990 onwards. Again, the steps we are proposing to follow in this regard are set out in full in the statement I will be tabling. The Government has been acutely conscious of the difficulties that have occurred in the United States following deregulation there in 1978, and our policy is designed to avoid the undesirable effects of the kind of economic deregulation that occurred in that country. We have also had the benefit of the Canadian experience, where the industrial relations framework and market size and characteristics are closer to Australia's and where economic deregulation has not in fact resulted in the significant problems experienced in the United States. What is involved in the Government's economic deregulation policy is not a simple, or simple-minded, lifting of existing controls, but a complex group of interacting policies involving a number of internal checks and balances. The key elements of that total policy are, in summary, as follows: First, withdrawal from detailed economic regulatory controls over aircraft imports and capacity, air fares and route entry; second, continuation and enhancement of regulatory controls over aviation safety and security; third, watchdog protection for consumers through the application of the Trade Practices Act, appropriate fare scrutiny by the Prices Surveillance Authority, and assured access to terminal facilities by new entrants to the industry; fourth, action to strengthen Australian Airlines to confront the post 1990 environment, including immediate incorporation, removal of a number of public service controls immediately with a review of others to follow, and a full review of options for generating necessary capitalisation and enhancing managerial effectiveness; fifth, neither Qantas Airways Ltd nor any other international airline to carry domestic passengers or freight on regular services; international operators into Australia to be confined to less than 15 per cent equity in any Australian domestic carrier; and Qantas to remain Australia's sole designated international carrier; and, sixth, as interim measures to encourage competition before 1990, Qantas's interlining rights to be restored, and restrictions on large aircraft passenger charters by domestic operators to be modified; arrangements for the approval of commercial domestic charters by Qantas to be subject to review on termination of the airlines agreement. The Government has not taken in isolation its decision to terminate the two-airline agreement. The deregulation policy we have developed is based on a comprehensive approach encompassing sweeping changes to the Commonwealth's role in Australian aviation, including new approaches to the provision of infrastructure and services, safety regulation and the role of Government aviation business undertakings. The policy is designed to take the domestic aviation industry into the 1990s and beyond. I table a detailed statement by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) in support of the resolution to terminate the airlines agreement 1981, and commend this motion to the House. Mr Beale —Mr Deputy Speaker, I sought, and obtained, from the Minister an assurance that he would facilitate a debate on this matter next week. I want to express my appreciation. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations)(3.59) —I move: The the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend both the Management and Investment Companies Act 1983 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 by permitting a management and investment company (MIC) to raise non-tax concessional capital in conjunction with tax concessional capital as well as enabling an MIC to exit the program without triggering the tax clawback arrangements by surrending its licence. The proposed amendments follow the Government's consideration of the Bureau of Industry Economics (BIE) review of the MIC program. The MIC program commenced in early 1984 with the objectives of encouraging the development of a viable private sector venture capital market and providing management support and equity capital to young export oriented businesses using innovative technology and having the potential for rapid growth. This followed the report Developing High Technology Enterprises for Australia, prepared by a committee of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences, chaired by Sir Frank Espie. The Espie report found that the lack of risk capital and a widespread lack of management and commercial skills within new high technology enterprises were obstacles to the development of those enterprises. Since the inception of the MIC program there has been a rapid increase in the availability of venture capital and continued strong growth is expected. The BIE in its review estimated that at 30 June 1983 only some $2m of venture capital had been available; by 31 March 1987 this had increased to approximately $310m with a further projected increase to about $570m for 31 March 1988. This rapid expansion in the availability of venture capital is indeed significant, and represents not only the activities of the MICs but also reflects growth in the availability of venture capital outside the MIC program. To 30 September 1987 the MICs have invested and committed almost $140m in 129 businesses across a range of industries, including computer hardware and software, medical equipment and products, scientific and technical services and industrial products and machinery. This is a clear indication that the program has gone a good deal of the way towards demonstrating the viability of a venture capital market. However, despite the increased availability of venture capital, the Government remains unconvinced as to the durability of the venture capital market if the MIC program were to be terminated at this time, the danger being that premature termination of the program would not only place the MICs and their investee businesses at risk but could also lead to a lack of confidence in the venture capital market as a whole. The Government has therefore decided to continue the MIC program until at least 30 June 1989. In reaching this decision the Government has taken a number of factors into consideration, which include the following: firstly, many of the new non-MICs are still a good deal smaller than the MICs and with only a limited amount of capital available; secondly, the MICs, unlike the non-MICs, focus their investments primarily at the more risky start-up and early growth stages of business development, with emphasis upon technology-based and export-oriented industries; thirdly, MICs appear to devote more time towards providing management support than the non-MICs. It was also felt that while financial deregulation had resulted in greater flexibility and competition within the financial system, this had not yet, to any great extent, flowed over into the high risk venture capital market, but had mainly benefited the more traditional areas of financial activity. The Government believes that the key to the long term viability of the venture capital market lies with its ability to attract funds from the major financial institutions. The institutions have begun to show an increased interest in venture capital but it is still very tentative. Indications are that institutional investors are reluctant to provide ongoing investment in venture capital as they regard the market as still being immature. The financial institutions are looking for an established track record in portfolio management of venture capital investments. The MICs, with their spread of investments across the venture capital spectrum, are well placed to show that such a track record can be achieved. An integral part of the MIC program is the 100 per cent tax concession which is provided in order to encourage investment in the MICs. The Government has therefore decided to refer the program to the Review of Business Taxation announced by the Treasurer in his recent Budget Speech. The future of the program beyond 30 June 1989 will be determined in the context of the Review's findings, with due regard being paid to the program's objective of encouraging the development of a viable private sector venture capital market and assurance as to the long term viability of that market. The Government has decided that the upper limit of $20m per annum as the cost to revenue of the program will be retained for the life of the program. On the basis of a marginal tax rate of around 50c in the dollar, the $20m of revenue forgone will result in about $40m of tax concessional capital being available to the MICs per annum. In addition to the continuation of the MIC program the Government has recognised the need for a suitable mechanism by which MICs could exit the program. This is required so that individual MICs are allowed to exit the program voluntarily in an orderly and non-prejudicial fashion. The raising of non-tax concession capital provides such a mechanism. At the moment MICs can raise only tax concessional capital. By allowing MICs to raise non-tax concessional capital in conjunction with tax concessional capital, they will become less reliant upon the tax concession in order to attract funds, assisting in an orderly exit from the program. Apart from providing a suitable exiting mechanism, the raising of non-tax concessional capital will also increase the amount of venture capital available to these young innovative businesses without any additional cost to revenue. In order for the exiting mechanism to function, MICs must be able to voluntarily surrender licences without triggering the tax clawback provisions. To do otherwise would be prejudicial to interests of both the individual investors in the MICs and the businesses in which MICs have invested. The clawback provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act operate to withdraw the 100 per cent tax concession for shares in an MIC which are disposed of within four years of the MIC becoming licensed or the shares being paid up, whichever is the later event. The clawback provisions are designed to encourage patient investment in the MICs while at the same time preventing abuses of the tax concession by investors. This Bill proposes to amend both the MIC Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act to enable a MIC to voluntarily surrender its licence without triggering the clawback provisions provided investors do not dispose of their shares in that MIC within the statutory four-year period. The Bill also proposes a number of minor amendments to the MIC Act. These amendments are necessary to clarify certain provisions, to remove a number of unnecessary restrictions and to resolve other administrative difficulties. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill, and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Smith) adjourned. Debate resumed from 7 October, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill concurrently with the Sea Installations Levy Bill and the Sea Installations (Miscellaneour Amendments). There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr SMITH(Bass)(4.08) —The House is debating cognately three Bills: the Sea Installations Bill 1987, the Sea Installations Levy Bill 1987 and the Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987. This legislation has come back to the House because its passage was interrupted by the intervention of the early election. There have been some amendments to the original proposals put forward by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown), which will be discussed today. We in the Opposition do not oppose the Bills and we will join with the Government to ensure that they have a speedy passage through this House. We recognise that their main purpose is to clarify the legal status of off-shore installations, which may become increasingly numerous, particularly on the Great Barrier Reef. We also recognise that these Bills seek a balance between the protection of unique environmental and often fragile ecosystems and the development of off-shore installations in Commonwealth waters. Some of the installations covered by the Bills will enhance our tourist potential, and we recognise that tourism is an increasingly important sector of the Australian economy. The shadow Minister with responsibility for tourism, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), will be making some remarks about that later. When this legislation was first introduced it received quite a deal of publicity, some of which appeared in the Australian newspaper. It referred to the installation which will be the first to be subject to this legislation, the $40m luxury motel that will be lodged, if that is the right word, or secured, on John Brewer Reef, which I think is about 72 kilometres off Townsville. This will be the legislation that applies to that. I am sure my colleague the honourable member for Gilmore will expand on that point. As I have said, we recognise that tourism is an increasingly important sector of the Australian economy. But this legislation refers to off-shore installations such as historic shipwrecks, commercial fishing boats, fish aggregation devices, maritime platforms, off-shore drilling rigs and vessels, defence installations and navigational aids, which are already covered by other Acts but which under this legislation will be exempt from the present provisions. The Opposition believes that the installations covered by the Bills, such as floating hotels and installations which exploit the resources of the sub-soil of the sea bed, which are not already covered by other Acts, should be subject to the same levies and taxes that they would attract if located on the mainland. In other words, the Opposition is as keen as the Government to see that off-shore installations are not used as tax avoidance measures. The Opposition welcomes in particular the attempt to clarify Commonwealth and State responsibilities and arrangements. In general terms, the States are to administer the regulation on a practical day to day basis, for which the Government will pay an administrative fee. The Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill will bring to bear the existing provisions of the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Migration Act and the Quarantine Act to have application to these sea installations. We hope that the Bills will eliminate unnecessary duplication by the Commonwealth and the States. I have raised a number of points which I now wish to pursue. They pertain to the legal status of off-shore installations, environmental issues, the levies that will apply, and Commonwealth-State arrangements, all of which are inextricably linked. In regard to the legal status of off-shore installations, the legislation extends Commonwealth law to adjacent areas-that is, the area between the territorial sea, which is administered by the States, and the limit of the continental shelf or the Australian fishing zone. While the legislation is primarily aimed at recent proposed developments on the Barrier Reef, an amendment now includes Heard and Macdonald islands and the Australian Antarctic Territory. As shadow Minister for science and energy, I have a particular interest in the Antarctic and I would be concerned about any off-shore installation in that area. Any proposal to establish an off-shore installation, particularly a floating hotel, off the cost of Antarctica should be examined very carefully by the Opposition, and will be. The Antarctic represents one of the few remaining true wilderness areas in the world. The entire marine ecosystem relies on the krill found in the area. Any pollution which affects this organism which may destroy the delicately balanced ecosystem would attract international concern. The coalition parties will be vigilant in monitoring any proposed developments in Antarctic's off-shore regions. It was interesting at the time this was brought forward that the Minister referred to the possibility of the development of floating resorts in the Antarctic; indeed, this matter was referred to in the Canberra Times and also in the Australian Financial Review. If one looks at the Antarctic Treaty system, one sees that it was never envisaged that there would be activities for profit in Antarctica. Perhaps with a view to the fact that the Antarctic Treaty is soon to be renegotiated, Australia should be looking far more carefully at what it is doing in that area. We must ensure that in signalling to the rest of the world that we see potential commercial activities there we do not transgress the spirit of the original Antarctic Treaty system which was set up in the late 1950s. Indeed, it might be a good idea to say that we want floating hotels in the Antarctic, but it might be a product of the Minister's undoubted enthusiasm for tourism. Perhaps there are other considerations before we run holus bolus into developing activities of that type in that area. There would be opportunities to develop staging points at Heard and Macdonald islands for tourists to embark from there on excursions to Antarctica; but the environment there is delicate and there needs to be a great deal of consideration before we embrace such a concept. I urge the Minister to look at this matter carefully and to keep in mind the difficult complex international relations, defence and other issues pertaining to our activities in Antarctica. It is a shame that more honourable members do not take an interest in Antarctica. Australia claims a very large area of Antarctica. I know that the member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) has visited Antarctica and has expert knowledge. Perhaps he will comment about it. More honourable members on both sides of this Parliament should take a greater interest in Antarctica. I think that we will need to do so in the years ahead because many interesting topics will need to be addressed. I also want to deal with environmental issues. I have already alluded to the fact that legislation should take into account a reasonable balance between environmental and development issues. The Opposition values the variety of ecosystems and environments found in Australia, both on-shore and off-shore. Mr Chynoweth —What about the rainforests? Mr SMITH —I shall mention that point. The Opposition is keen to see that these attributes are protected by legislation. Under the legislation it will be necessary for the operators of sea installations to obtain permits from the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. The Minister will have the capacity to permit or refuse the granting of a permit. That is a great deal of power and we trust that the present Minister and future Ministers will use it wisely. The Minister is now somewhat constrained by a recent amendment under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. A consequential amendment provides that the time limits in which the Minister must finalise an application is subject to, inter alia, whether or not an environmental impact statement is required. I am not sure whether that is mandatory, and perhaps the Minister in his reply could elaborate. In respect of the proposal for the John Brewer Reef an extensive environmental impact study was undertaken by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The Minister also has it within his power to take action if an installation has an adverse effect on the environment, or where improvements so directed have not been completed within the time specified. As long as the Minister treats all such cases on an individual basis and is not arbitrary in his decision making, we regard this power as reasonable-so long as the prime objective is to protect the environment rather than to raise revenue from those who could be described as miscreants. The subject of levies and taxes always creates some interest. The Government, quite rightly, extends the scope of the income tax law and sales tax law to include income derived by non-residents from commercial activities conducted in certain island territories and from fixed tourist and other installations in the waters surrounding Australia and those islands. The legislation will raise a levy from the operators of sea installations, except those for which an exemption certificate is in force, and those which fall into a class declared by the regulations to be exempt. The legislation now specifies a maximum of 20 per cent of the valuation of the installation or 20 per cent of the gross revenue derived from the installation, whichever is the greater. It is interesting to study the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills report which looked into the first set of legislation. It is an extensive report and raises some concerns about the levy. The legislation formerly did not provide for a ceiling in relation to the percentage of levy that would be payable, and as the rate was to be set by regulation the Senate Committee considered that this was inappropriate. It is also interesting to look at the speech in which the levy was introduced and which contains the reasons for it. It is important to understand why the levy has been imposed. It will ensure that the administrative costs of the States and Territories are met and the general revenue can benefit as it would if similar installations were located on the mainland. Quite rightly, the States have pointed out that the development of off-shore installations for commercial purposes should not be at the expense of the mainland economy and should not provide a basis for evasion of State and Territory legislation. The Commonwealth accepts this, and the intention is that the levy be set with these factors in mind. It is also interesting to note that the first legislation had no ceiling on the levy and that this legislation does have a ceiling. Those who are contemplating commercial activity by introducing sea installations will be pleased to note what amount they should be factoring into these calculations. It is now an offence to fail to pay the levy within 28 days of its becoming due. I hope that this provision will not be dealt with in a summary way. I also hope that there will be no retrospectivity. Looking through the legislation I saw a reference indicating that this would not be the case, and I believe that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee so recommended. Most elements of the legislation will commence on 15 October. It is just as well that this legislation goes through with the support of the Opposition and, I believe, the Australian Democrats. As shadow Minister for science and energy, I am pleased that certain research facilities are exempt from the levy. It is very important that Australia continues to take the lead in fundamental research which has no known immediate application. Australia already has a fine reputation internationally in the area of marine research and any measures which can ease its carriage are welcome. An amendment will permit exemptions from the legislation to be made by the Minister, whether or not an application for exemption has been made. This is eminently sensible. It will simplify the operation of the provision so that individuals will not be put to the trouble of applying where this is unnecessary to achieve the desired result and where the understandings which Australia has with Antarctic Treaty countries can be pursued effectively. I draw attention to what happened in Senate Estimates Committee A on 19 October when members of the Australian Institute of Marine Science appeared before that Committee. The Institute is established in Townsville and it has, as its charter, an overview of marine research right around the country, but because of budgetary constraints which have existed under the present Government and coalition governments it has the ability to look at only tropical areas. Dr Baker, the Director of that Institute, in his evidence to the Estimates Committee and following questioning revealed an important point about the crown of thorns starfish phenomenon, of which many honourable members are well aware. We know that unless it is controlled and understood it could ravage the Barrier Reefs which is probably our biggest single natural phenomenon of world note. Dr Baker said: . . . the important aspect is to be able to maintain a survey program over a large number of years. Research has indicated that the life cycle studies, and the way in which the crown of thorns affects the reef, requires a study period of at least 15 years. The incidence of crown of thorns outbreaks apparently is in the 15 to 30 year phase. He went on: The funding, which goes through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, is guaranteed only until next year. I hope that the honourable member for La Trobe heard that-that the funding for the crown-of- thorns starfish program is guaranteed only until next year. Dr Baker then said: I have discussed with the Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority a joint approach to our two Ministers to draw attention to the importance of the continuing survey. Whilst this is important to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Institute of Marine Science, it is also very important to those people who want to set up sea installations because one of the ways in which they attract people is to get them to come and have a look at the fantastic Barrier Reef. To put the debate in its simplest form, if the starfish eat the coral we would want to understand that and take steps to overcome it. Perhaps in this debate about research we should ensure that we are not looking at everything in terms of getting money or results back very quickly because there are some problems, such as starfish in Australia, which, because of the 15- to 30-year-cycle, need research now. But research done today will not produce benefits or knowledge until way down the track. Let us not close our minds to the problems that exist there. I turn to the question of Commonwealth-State arrangements. States have responsibilities and can raise revenue from installations in the area defined as `territorial sea'. Beyond this-to the limits of the continental shelf or the Australian fishing zone-the responsibility belongs to the Commonwealth. The legislation sensibly avoids unnecessary State-Commonwealth duplication and the consequent expense to taxpayers. The legislation extends State regulations out to the Commonwealth boundary. Even though it is Commonwealth territory, the States will administer the regulations on a day to day basis. Recent amendments include Norfolk Island in the consultative processes and a new clause consolidates consultations with the States and the Northern Territory in relation to the granting, renewing, varying and revoking of permits. Recent amendments also include the islands that I mentioned earlier-Heard and Macdonald. As a Tasmanian, as well as the shadow Minister for science and energy with an interest in Antarctic matters, I wonder who will administer these areas. It is not particularly clear at the moment. A number of concerns have been voiced by the States, primarily Queensland. Queensland has objected to the definition of the `territorial sea' and consequently of State and Commonwealth jurisdiction. For example, Queensland has argued that floating hotels on the Barrier Reef are de facto extensions of the Queensland territorial sea because they are serviced by the mainland. We see little merit in that argument. Another concern voiced by Queensland is that the State might lose revenue-for example, from liquor licences which it otherwise would have obtained had the off-shore installation been in territorial waters. We view this as an invalid argument, given that such installations under the present legislation are in no way avoiding their responsibilities and, by and large, they are in a location determined by environmental features and not by considerations of State-Commonwealth taxes. I turn to the States' lack of veto over the provision of a permit. Once again, we regard this as an invalid concern. The legislation specifically requires that the Commonwealth Government consult with the States on the issuing of a permit and that the administration costs of the State are fully met. As yet, I know of no formula to ensure that the States obtain full recompense for their services. It is important that the States be fully recompensed for their administration of the installations. We will follow with interest any such negotiations between the Commonwealth and the States to see that the Commonwealth does not short-change the States in any way. There is also another concern which I will raise in committee because there are two amendments to this legislation, which we support. The concern involves the definition of `aircraft' given in the legislation. I point out that there are no pirate radio stations in Australia-that is, stations that are set off-shore-but, under this Sea Installations Bill, it is conceivable that that could be the case. Someone could go off-shore, anchor something there and beam signals into Queensland. We all know the controversy over the auctioning of radio licence systems. If one missed out on a licence one could apply to the Minister for a permit, perhaps obtain it, go off-shore and set up a radio station. I do not think that this legislation envisages that problem and I do not know whether any consideration has been given to it, but it is interesting to note that the amendment refers to `aircraft' and the definition of `aircraft' is a little different from that in the Federal Airports Corporation Act. I would like to know how the advisers were able to change the definition; perhaps they did not go far enough in the first instance. The amendment refers to dirigibles, or what are commonly called airships. Perhaps one could describe this amendment as the Bond amendment, because basically it will mean that an airship anchored on the John Brewer Reef will be deemed to be a sea installation and therefore required to pay a levy. Under this amendment it will also be required to have a permit. Perhaps someone has been thinking about the consequences of setting up pirate radio stations and having those signals beamed out of Bond's airships. It will be interesting to see whether anyone from the Department or any of the Ministers will give us more information as to why this amendment has been presented and why this was done only this morning. The number of permits issued and the location of those permits are other concerns. The whole thrust of the legislation balances conservation and development. There is hope not only that the legislation will provide for consideration of all the issues involved, but also that the Minister will be able to deal sensitively with the inevitable conflict resulting from differing values, beliefs and attitudes. If the northern Queensland rainforest issue is an example of how the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) deals with sensitive issues, then this is indeed a matter of concern. The power vested in the Minister is considerable. One only hopes that his Department will provide the necessary rein. In conclusion, as I stated earlier, the Opposition will not oppose this package of legislation or the proposed amendments. In theory we regard it as a sensible and practical approach to a sensitive problem of State versus Commonwealth responsibilities and environmental and development issues. We will, of course, be vigilant in overseeing the operation of this legislation in practice. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.28) —In supporting the Sea Installations Bill 1987 and the accompanying Sea Installations Levy Bill and Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, I take the opportunity to add to the remarks that I made when the earlier Sea Installations Bill was debated in the House because this Bill now covers sea installations which might be put in place in the Australian Antarctic Territory. It was refreshing to hear the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and to find that there is so much agreement between the two sides of the House on this Bill. That does not often happen in this place. I did not quite agree with some of his comments about the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) and the rainforests; nevertheless, I heartily agree with his comments about the Antarctic Territory and the crown-of-thorns starfish. I think it is absolutely vital that research on the crown of thorns starfish continue and I will certainly do my utmost to prevail upon the Minister to ensure that he supports more funding being made available. I commend to the honourable member for Bass the report which the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, as it was previously known-it has a different name now-prepared on the crown-of-thorns starfish. We made recommendations to the Minister-- Mr Chynoweth —It was a good report. Mr MILTON —Yes, it was a good report, as the honourable member for Dunkley said. He took part in its preparation and I was the Committee Chairman. We will try to ensure that the recommendations that we made at that time are acted upon. As a result of our recommendations, money has been spent on this research and it is absolutely vital that the funding continue, as the honourable member for Bass said. Clause 7 (6) of the Bill refers specifically to the Australian Antarctic Territory and defines the area covered by the Bill in respect of that Territory. Clause 7 (7) deals with all those territories not previously mentioned and would include Heard Island and Macdonald Island. I am not sure whether the honourable member for Bass was thinking that, because Macquarie Island is part of the jurisdiction of Tasmania, it should also have Heard and Macdonald islands. It is highly unlikely that would happen. I am quite sure that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) would be very happy if they were included, as Macquarie Island is also part of his electorate. It is an indication of the immense responsibilities Australia has as a nation that the seas adjacent to the Australian continent and our external territories, including the Antarctic Territory, cover many thousands of square kilometres. The Bill has been specifically introduced at this time, I presume, to enable monitoring of the environmental consequences of a floating hotel which is to be installed on the John Brewer Reef and which is to be opened very shortly. Proposals have also been made by some entrepreneurs that a floating hotel be installed off the coast of Antarctica, although I understand that that proposal has not yet been put to paper. I am most pleased, therefore, that the present Bill covers the Australian Antarctic Territory as it gives me the opportunity to say something about the problems which could affect any sea installations which might be put in place in the coastal seas adjacent to Antarctica. It also gives me the opportunity, publicly, to thank the Antarctic Division and the Director, Jim Bleasel, for giving me the opportunity to join the 1986-87 Antarctic voyage No. 5 on the Nella Dan from last November to February and to experience, at first hand, the awesome grandeur of frozen Antarctica. It is a pity that the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) is not in the chamber because he has often asked me when I was going to talk about the Antarctic. I am now speaking about the Antarctic and he is not here. The Antarctic Division has now been moved from the Department of Science to the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I must say that I was disappointed to read, in an article about the transfer of the Division in the September issue of the ANARE Club journal, Aurora, comments by Ian Bird which referred to `another round of junket tours of Antarctica by yet another wave of bureaucrats and parliamentarians set to become instant experts'. On behalf of the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), the honourable member for Farrer, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), who have all been to the Antarctic, as have a number of honourable senators, I can only say to Ian that not all expeditioners or Division officers consider that parliamentarians who visit Antarctica are junketing. I hope that the report I produced in February, after my seven-week extensive tour of our bases in Antarctica-the only one I did not visit was Mawson, unfortunately-will prove a useful contribution in support of the valuable work of the Division. Having established my credentials to talk about sea installations in the coastal waters of Antarctica, I note the interpretation of such structures as set out in clause 4 of the Bill. A sea installation is defined as `any man-made structure, partly or wholly constructed or the remains of such a structure that, when in, or brought into, physical contact with the seabed or when floating, can be used for an environment-related activity'. An environment related activity under the same clause includes any activity relating to and including a scientific activity and a transport activity. The Bill makes it clear that a sea installation covers a wide range of structures, including floating hotels, oil rigs and diving platforms, but not off-shore installations such as jetties and harbours. The Bill also refers to a number of existing Acts which will also apply to sea installations, such as the Crimes Act, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. I propose to deal mainly with the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and to say specifically how pleased I am that the Act applies to sea installations. Clause 33 of the Bill gives the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories the power to require within a specified period an environmental impact statement in relation to obtaining, renewing or carrying a permit to operate a sea installation. In this respect it would be interesting to sight the memoranda of undertaking which I understand the Minister's Department has prepared in relation to sea installations. The memoranda are used to set out the procedures which are to be followed to give effect to the Environment Protection Act. I imagine that the memoranda would be very different for a sea installation to be put in place in Antarctica compared with the floating hotel which will be put in place at the John Brewer Reef on the Great Barrier Reef. Whilst, as I have indicated, I am pleased that the Sea Installations Bill applies to the Antarctica, it amazes me that anybody could consider constructing a sea installation such as a floating hotel in such a hostile environment. Imagine the scene: a floating hotel in a totally frozen sea in mid-winter, with temperatures as low as minus 60 degrees centigrade and fierce winds sometimes gusting to 250 kilometres per hour. As the glaciers flow off the great ice desert continent, which is almost twice the size of Australia, huge ice shelves and ice tongues are formed from which icebergs, some as large as 100 kilometres long and 50 kilometres wide, drift through the pack ice. It is incomprehensible to me that anybody could contemplate constructing a sea installation in Antarctic seas subject to such adverse conditions. An environmental impact statement would make it very clear to anybody contemplating such a venture that it was folly of the highest order and also a potential risk of pollution to one of the most unpolluted places on our planet. How could a floating hotel or an oil rig avoid a crushing collision with even a small iceberg, and how could such a structure withstand the hurricane force winds? Even the pack ice can be dangerous as I found when, as passengers on the Nella Dan last summer, we were trapped in the pack ice for eight days. The pressure of that ice caused the hull of the Nella Dan to be forced upwards and large icebergs were moving slowly towards us as the days progressed. Fortunately, we were rescued by the Soviet ship, the Mikhail Somov. Thus we were fortunate, as in another 20 days, some of the expeditioners on board calculated, we could have been crushed to pieces by one of the icebergs. An oil rig would be an even greater hazard in Antarctic conditions because of the possible spillage of oil. Many millions of seabirds, penguins, seals and fish abound in Antarctic waters. An oil spillage would be a disaster of inestimable proportions. I would like to quote from a letter I received from the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Inc.: It should be noted that even `state of the art' semi-submersible accommodation facilities such as the Ocean Ranger drilling rig and accommodation platform in Newfoundland, Canada, are very dangerous facilities for which employees are paid high risk wages. In the case of Ocean Ranger, `despite its size, its reputation for invulnerability, and the regulatory control over its design, construction and operation, the Ocean Ranger and its entire crew were lost less than two years after the rig arrived on the Grand Banks'. The final words enclosed in quotation marks came from a royal commission report of 1984. With reference to the requirements in clause 33 of the Bill for an environmental impact statement in relation to a sea installation permit, the Antarctic Division has developed, in consultation with the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, a set of guidelines for the environmental assessment of human activity on our Antarctic bases. The guidelines, suitably adapted for any proposed sea installations in the Antarctic would, in my view, be appropriate for the application of the Sea Installations Bill in relation to the Antarctic. I certainly hope that the Minister gives consideration to those guidelines if permits should be sought to construct a floating hotel in Antarctic waters. With regard to oil rigs, we probably have some time up our sleeves. The Government has already commented that the possibility of mineral exploitation of the Antarctic is extremely remote. Oil exploration is complicated by political questions of sovereignty, resource control and environmental protection. Some 32 nations are signatories of the Antarctic Treaty. There is considerable co-operation and a free flow and exchange of scientific data amongst those nations. No provisions are in place to deal with mineral exploitation and Treaty nations have urged a voluntary restraint on exploration and exploitation until a minerals regime has been established to control those activities. The construction of oil rigs in our Antarctic seas is unlikely to occur until a whole range of complex political problems has been solved. I hope that a 30-year moratorium is introduced at the very least. Nuclear weapons and minerals and other military activities are banned in Antarctica. Why not mineral exploitation also? Hopefully, one day Antarctica will become a world park. But in the meantime, a conservation strategy should be adopted by the Treaty nations which bans all mineral exploitation activities. To refer again to the floating hotel proposal, whilst I am not aware that a floating hotel might be located in the Australian Antarctic Territory, it is possible that a site close to the Davis Station might be considered. However, even if constructing and locating a floating hotel at Davis were technically feasible, it is not a proposition which would gain my support. I am glad to see that the honourable member for Bass agrees with me. Whilst the possibility of an airstrip at Davis might be considered, I do not believe that our activities at the stations are sufficiently advanced to deal with an influx of private tourists. The airstrip could be built on the flat land area on the seaward side of the Vestfold Hills, provided that no disturbance occurred to the penguin rookeries on the outlying islands and there was no pollution from the jet engines, which might adversely affect the many lakes in the hills. An airstrip could provide an important boost to our support facilities for expeditioners in Antarctica, and is a project which I understand is under consideration. A floating hotel with private tourists could prove to be a hindrance to our scientific activities and I doubt that such a presence would be welcomed by expeditioners. The political complexities of the Antarctic Treaty system and Australia's presence in Antarctica have an integral relationship to the legislation before the House. It is vital that we control the developmental and environmental consequences of sea installations located in the Antarctic coastal waters, and our legislation assumes that we have sovereignty over 42 per cent of the Antarctic continent. I would like to quote the following passage from my own report, which I submitted in February 1987 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation: Four claimant countries mutually recognise each other's claims to Antarctic Territory, namely, Australia, France, New Zealand and the United Kingdom; the three remaining claimant countries, Argentina, Chile and Norway, do not recognise the other claims and the remaining 25 Treaty members, including the USA and the USSR do not recognise any sovereignty claims to Antarctic Territory. In fact, the USSR maintains 4 permanent stations and 4 summer stations in the Australian Antarctic Territory. Many other Treaty countries also maintain stations in other claimant areas. It can be seen that the sovereignty issue is complex, but one thing is clear: Australia has a responsibility to the international community, and particularly to Treaty nations, to ensure that the environment of the Australian Antarctic Territory and the surrounding seas is fully protected in respect of our own nationals, regardless of the sovereignty issue. In that respect, the present Bill is an important piece of protective legislation, and it is to be hoped that other treaty nations will follow Australia's example and introduce similar protective legislation. I would now like to add to the remarks made earlier in this speech with regard to proposed floating hotels on the Great Barrier Reef. The John Brewer Reef floating hotel is presently being constructed in Singapore. I understand that it is a seven-storey structure and has 200 rooms and suites, which will have outstanding views of the reef. It also has world class amenities, including telephones with international dialling, and so on. There are three dining options and a fine a la carte restaurant, a coffee shop, an outdoor barbecue facility and other facilities. I understand that, since the original proposal was submitted to the Government, it is intended that it will be modified by the promoters. Indeed, even the proposed location of the hotel may be changed. If such modifications are to occur, it will be important to ensure that the proposed floating hotel be subject to all the provisions of the present Bill, including an environmental impact statement. Perhaps the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) could comment on what would happen if such modifications were to take place. In common with the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland and the Australian Conservation Foundation, I have strong concerns about the potential impact which floating hotels and other structures will have on the Great Barrier Reef. As I mentioned in my previous speech in this House, on 5 May, in relation to the present legislation, the prospect of freehold real estate on the Great Barrier Reef, and the consequent uncontrolled development of both private and tourist facilities, could present a great threat to the fragile environment of the reef. It is vital that stringent monitoring studies should be undertaken of the impact of the John Brewer Reef floating hotel tourist facilities on the Great Barrier Reef as a whole. Another proposal is also in the pipeline for the construction of a $20m floating hotel to be anchored in the Fitzroy Reef lagoon off Gladstone. This proposal includes a five-storey hotel accommodating 360 beds and includes an underwater restaurant and facilities for day trippers. It seems to me that it is absolutely vital that consideration of this proposal should be deferred until a satisfactory monitoring study of the John Brewer Reef floating hotel has been completed. Another problem is the fact that a third proposal for a floating hotel, accommodating 100 overnight guests and 100 day visitors, proposed for the Lady Musgrave Island lagoon does not come under the provisions of the present Bill, because it is in waters under the control of the Queensland State Government. However, the proposal also comes under the provisions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and its accompanying regulations. The reef is also part of a World Heritage area and, therefore, Australia has a responsibility to the international community to ensure that the reef is protected from environmental damage, and that includes controls on tourist development. It is important for both tourism and conservation that the Great Barrier Reef is not irrecoverably damaged by overuse or inappropriate development. The immediate responsibility lies with the officers of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, whose job it is to ensure that such damage does not occur. The Authority is led by the Director, Graeme Kelleher, and I have seen some of their very valuable work. I want them to ensure that the fragile beauty of the Great Barrier Reef is protected. I now refer briefly to one omission from the Bill, which gives both me and conservation groups a number of concerns. Clauses 20, 26 and 31 deal with applications for a permit or renewal or variation of an existing permit. I would suggest that consideration be given to a requirement that preliminary environmental advice be included as part of the application, so that the Minister is alerted to possible environmental matters which could necessitate, or negate possibly, the need for an environmental impact statement under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, as is provided in clause 33. I hope that the Minister will take into account the comments I have made. I have much pleasure in looking forward to the implementation of the provisions of this most important Bill. I note that the Opposition is supporting the Bill, and I understand that the Australian Democrats are supporting it in the other place, so it has every possibility of passing through both this House and the other chamber in prompt time. That is very important, as we need to get this legislation operating as soon as possible, because there are proposed sea installation developments, particularly those concerning the Great Barrier Reef, which are moving forward. We need to get this legislation set so that we can apply it to all those proposals. In my view, that would include the John Brewer Reef floating hotel proposal also. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(4.48) —I am glad to see that the Sea Installations Bill, the Sea Installations Levy Bill and the Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill have been reintroduced after they became invalid as a result of the Federal election held on 11 July. When this legislation was introduced in May of this year, I spoke as shadow Minister for the environment and conservation. I said then, and I repeat now, that the Opposition welcomes this legislation. We most certainly support it, because it is simply recognising a changing situation on the Great Barrier Reef and in off-shore areas generally around Australia. The legislation puts forward very constructive and practical solutions to the problems that will be brought about by having various floating structures anchored off the coast of Australia. These Bills basically attempt to clarify the legal status of off-shore installations around Australia. These installations are going to become an important part of the tourist assets of this country. In principle there would be practically no honourable member of this House, if any member at all, who would be opposed to that form of development to enhance Australia's tourist potential. But what has happened with this legislation, and what differentiates it from its predecessor introduced in May, is that it also addresses the issue of Antarctica. I have been particularly interested to see that. It had not occurred to me that anybody was planning some sort of tourist related off-shore installation in Antarctica. Mr Milton —It has been talked about. Mr DOWNER —That interests me. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) said that far too few members of this House were interested in Antarctica. I can claim to have a very real interest in it, having been for eight years a member of the Department of Foreign Affairs and, during that period, having served in Brussels where we played a very important part in negotiating the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will bear with me in this slight digression when I say, to be party political, that that Convention was one of the real achievements of the Fraser Government in the environmental and Antarctic area. I do not doubt that the present Government would have done the same thing, but it was certainly one of our achievements. We had enormous difficulties in negotiating that Convention-difficulties of which few people would be aware-which related to the status of the European Community, a status which the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not willing to recognise. At one stage, in about 1978 or 1979-I forget precisely when-the whole prospect of this very important Convention was in doubt because of this log-jam between the Soviet Union and the European Community. It was a great tribute to Australia that we were the country which eventually found a formula which broke that log-jam. So I have a great interest in Antarctica. I envy the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and others who have had the opportunity to go there. I hope that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) will one day extend to me the same opportunity as has been extended to my colleagues, because I am interested in the reports that they have brought back from Antarctica, and I very much agree with many of the points that they have made. I must say that I have some reservations about the Antarctic Division in Hobart, which I have visited, being transferred from the former Department of Science, where it sat very snugly, to the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, where I suspect it will be given a much lower priority. I pay tribute to the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) for his interest and enthusiasm for the Antarctic Division when it was part of his portfolio. I wonder whether-I hope I am wrong-the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) will accord it the same priority and bring to it the same enthusiasm and interest. Also, I have been concerned by the controversy that has surrounded the future of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. That Treaty is basically an extraordinarily important and valuable document. The honourable member for La Trobe spoke of some of the inconsistencies over claimant states and who recognises claims and who does not. This Treaty is one of those curious examples of international compromise and common sense where the issue of claims has really been set aside so that everybody is somehow or other happy about the issue of claims. If, however, we were to anchor off-shore installations off Antarctica-installations that would be covered by this legislation-it would raise some questions about how non-claimant states would feel about the status of those installations. The Antarctic Treaty has really managed to progress over the years in a very pragmatic and intelligent sort of way. Of course, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources was something which, effectively, came out of that Treaty. I regret the approach that the Malaysian Government has taken to that Treaty. It has been a little headstrong and I suspect it is motivated by things other than practical common-sense solutions to foreign policy issues. I do not want to wander into that and spend the time of this Parliament attacking Dr Mahathir, but I must say that the attitude of the Malaysian Government has been of real concern to me. Some people-again the honourable member for La Trobe alluded to this-have spoken to me about the need for Antarctica to be turned into a world park. I suppose that prima facie that is not an unattractive idea, but it would raise very fundamental questions about the legal status of Antarctica and about the Antarctic Treaty itself. I really feel that in the end, but certainly in the short term, it might be better to go on with the few achievements we have in Antarctica rather than run the risk of unscrambling the whole of the omelette and ending up with just a lot of egg on the floor-if that metaphor works. In any case, this legislation is an interesting aspect and an interesting extension of Australia's approach to Antarctica. I would be interested to hear from the Minister, when he winds up the debate, what he believes to be the legal status of this legislation in the case of Antarctica. But I am happy to support that aspect of the legislation. Of course, in the short term the legislation applies primarily to the Great Barrier Reef. Others have spoken of the Reef Link proposal, to establish a floating hotel on the John Brewer Reef. This is a $31m floating hotel, seven storeys tall with 200 beds and so on. Provided it is environmentally responsible-environmental impact statements have been done and it is believed that it will be-I think it is quite an interesting idea. But let me say that I am sorry that the ship, if one can call it that, or the installation, is not being built in Australia. It is an interesting point that the new policy of the Government on shipbuilding bounties would, in fact, discriminate against this sort of project being built in Australia because, as the Minister told me some two weeks ago, these bounties are not to be used to support ships which are part of the tourist industry. They are really simply to support the building of ships in the field of other aspects of international trade in particular. That is a rather short-sighted way of applying the bounties. Anyway, it is a pity that the ship is not being built here in Australia. But, there we are; it is not and it is too late to worry about that. The particular proposal on John Brewer Reef will enhance the tourist attraction of the Great Barrier Reef. As I have said, it is being done environmentally responsibly and so from that point of view I am satisfied. The Great Barrier Reef is without doubt one of our greatest national assets and we are happy to have it on the World Heritage List. The Fraser Government did a great deal to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef achieved the status that it has today. I am proud of that achievement of the Fraser Government. We do not want, and nor, I am sure, does anyone in this House want the Great Barrier Reef in any way to be abused. There are two very obvious abuses that need to be avoided and which this legislation ensures are avoided. Of course, the first is the preservation of its environment-its unique beauty and its enormous ecological significance and, in a way, its importance as a tourist asset. If we start to destroy or denigrate the environment, we will not get the tourist potential from that asset. In any case, this legislation ensures that the Commonwealth's approach to responsible environmental policy is applied to the Great Barrier Reef and to any off-shore installations on the Great Barrier Reef. As I said when I last spoke in a similar debate back in May, I have had a concern that the result of these proposals to place off-shore installations on the Great Barrier Reef-there are several proposals, and there are some pontoons there already-will be that one day we will end up with a great flotilla of off-shore installations, what I described last time as a naval review of off-shore installations. That would be terrible. But this legislation gives the Minister the discretion to issue or not to issue permits, so presumably the Minister would be able to stop that happening. The legislation does not explain how the Minister would necessarily apply that; that does not necessarily matter. But I simply say that I hope no Minister of State in Australia would allow a great flotilla, a naval review, of off-shore installations to clutter up and destroy the natural beauty of the Great Barrier Reef and threaten its ecological importance. The second aspect of this legislation, which overcomes a major problem, is that these off-shore installations could be used as a massive tax avoidance device. This legislation addresses that. If we did not have this legislation, a whole series of off-shore installations would be established to avoid State and Federal taxes, customs duty and so on. One can imagine the pressure then for a flotilla of off-shore installations to be established. But this legislation, in applying State and Commonwealth taxation laws and other laws to these off-shore installations, ensures that that tax avoidance angle is well and truly overcome. So I am glad that that has been achieved. My colleague the honourable member for Bass raised a number of concerns which I will simply repeat, which were brought to our attention back in May by the Queensland Government. I will run through those again, really on behalf of that Government, in support of the Government. I will refute its concerns because I do not think it has any need to worry in the way that it seems to have worried. First of all, the Queensland Government expressed concern about the definition of the territorial sea. Under the legislation, the territorial sea is defined as extending three miles off shore. But, if there is an installation which is a direct extension from within that three-mile limit, the extremity of that installation becomes the territorial sea of the particular State. The Queensland Government has argued that off-shore installations would be part of the territorial sea. I do not think that argument carries any weight whatsoever. The installations are not connected directly to the mainland. They are not connected at all to the mainland. They are not connected, therefore, to the territorial sea. As that is the case, they should remain within Commonwealth jurisdiction and not under the jurisdiction of the States. I am happy with the legislation on those grounds. I do not think the objection of the Queensland Government has a great deal of substance. A second objection that has been put forward is that this legislation will ensure that the States will lose revenue. If the States had had control of these off-shore installations and not the Commonwealth, the argument goes, they would have been able to issue liquor licences, which are obviously a form of tax. They would have been able to issue a whole series of licences, and what-have-you, in order to raise revenue. They argue that the levy which is imposed on the installations in this legislation is to raise money to cover the administrative costs to the States of simply administering those off-shore installations, which is correct, but that the levy does not have a component to compensate for the lost revenue if those installations had instead been within the territorial sea or part of the mainland of the State. That whole argument is predicated on the assumption that the installations would have been created on the mainland of the State rather than off-shore had it not been possible to install them off-shore. That is simply an unreasonable assumption. In any case, the States get the benefits of these off-shore installations through a multiplier effect. People who want to go to the John Brewer Reef will first fly to Townsville, I suppose, and then get a motor boat, hovercraft or hydrofoil to the reef. Therefore, the city of Townsville will benefit from the additional influx of tourists, and to make the concession that the States should control the off-shore installations is to change the whole legal basis of the Commonwealth-State relationship in regard to the territorial sea and beyond the territorial sea. The third concern of the Queensland Government is one that needs to be thought about fairly carefully by the Commonwealth, but one which I do not think requires an amendment or change to the legislation. It is that the Commonwealth, under this legislation, could grant a permit without the agreement of a State. For example, this could be a problem for Queensland in the case of Townsville where there is a casino. The State has given an undertaking-I would imagine but I am not sure-to the operators of the casino in Townsville that other casinos will not be able to spring up all around that city. Therefore, if the operators of the casino were suddenly to find that a new casino was floating just outside of the territorial sea, the operators of the Townsville casino may have very good reason to be concerned about the implications for the financial viability of their casino. That is a reasonable concern. I urge that, where the Commonwealth is considering granting permits, there be proper, effective and sensitive consultation with the relevant State. It is Commonwealth territory beyond the territorial sea, but let us ensure that when the permits are issued an intelligent assessment is made of the implications for facilities on the mainland. A fourth problem that the Queensland Government raised with us back in May was the question of the levies and the administrative payments. I do not want to go into the details of the levies as I see that the Government has amended this particular piece of legislation, placing a ceiling on the levy. Before there was no ceiling on the levy. Presumably, the levy could have been at any level. The levy is designed to collect money in order to make the payments to the States for the administration of the State and Commonwealth regulations of the off-shore facilities. Let us ensure that the Commonwealth covers the administrative costs of the State and does not short-change it. Certainly, the Queensland Government, in relation to other administrative payments made to it in respect of the administration of the Great Barrier Reef, has expressed concern that it has been short-changed. I have not investigated those allegations. I do not know how correct those allegations are, but it is going to be important that the full administrative cost to the State is covered by the levy, otherwise, as anybody in this House would agree, the system would be seen to be a system by which the Commonwealth used the levy simply to raise additional tax. Let me make the point that there has to be a reasonable levy in any case. If the levy was set at too low a level-and I know the operators of the John Brewer Reef project probably would not like to hear me say this-it would create an effective tax haven with the off-shore installations. So the levy has to be at some reasonable level. It has to be at a level which reflects the cost of the administration of the various regulations. In conclusion, I come back to the point I made earlier: how many permits does the Commonwealth intend to issue on the Great Barrier Reef? I repeat: I do not want a naval review of off-shore installations running down the Great Barrier Reef. It is one of the world's greatest environmental assets and future generations will never thank us and never forgive us if we do silly and greedy things which will simply destroy that asset. This legislation is good legislation and it is nice to see the Government doing something constructive in introducing positive legislation to help with the development of our country. I only wish that it could do that sort of thing every day. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(5.07) —It is with much pleasure that I speak on the Sea Installations Bill, the Sea Installations Levy Bill and the Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill. The Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill is a piece of intelligible legislation that seeks, not to part the calmed waters, but to calm part of the waters in Australia where man-made sea installations may be located. Remarkably, 200 years ago, almost to the day, one of the world's major overseas package tours was preparing to undertake the final leg of its voyage to our Australian wonderland. At the conclusion of some meticulous preparation and provisioning in South Africa, and at the coming of the high tide, the First Fleet of 11 ships set sail on a hazardous and exacting journey across the great Southern Ocean. Clearly, their passage from Capetown to Australia's primary overseas visitor destination could have been made considerably more comfortable had a luxurious floating accommodation and recreation centre been anchored in the uninhabited waters of the Great Australian Bight. Hence the Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill seeks to atone for the inadequacies of history by paving the legislative path with the necessary mechanisms of regulation and control for the proper development in Australia of off-shore resorts and floating hotels. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) talk about a pirate radio station possibly being established on these installations. I am not certain whether he is aware that one of the directors of the company establishing the floating hotel on the John Brewer Reef is one Doug Anthony, a former member of this House, who I believe has made quite a bit of money out of his family's radio stations. Maybe we should call this amendment the Anthony amendment. Hopefully we can stop National Party propaganda being beamed into Queensland from this off-shore spot. Australia is a nation of ancient mariners, and its people still go down to the sea in ships to seek pleasure, relaxation, education and a living. The passage of this Bill will allow this facet of our life to be enhanced, not only through the utilisation of this vast aquatic playground, but also by reinforcing some very special guidelines that guard against misuse and abuse, and ensure the protection of our environment. Unreservedly, I state that this latter purpose must be the aim of members of the human race who are the present custodians of this beautiful planet. To this end and with regard to this Bill's forebear, the Sea Installations Act 1987, I have already issued a stern warning that our environment must be protected at all costs. There should be no reason, given the wonders and the achievements of marine technology in the space age, why a predominantly land loving creature cannot enjoy the waters off the Australian coast, in harmony, of course with the sea creatures that live there. But we must approach this issue with extreme caution. The concept of floating hotels as a part of our tourism industry deserves success. However, the future generations of Australians and overseas visitors who may one day wish to inspect the Neptunian majesty of our bays, shipwrecks, reefs and oceans deserve an assurance that these barnacled aquariums will exist unspoiled forever. This Government sought such an unconditional guarantee from the owners and operators of the world's first floating hotel resort which is soon to be situated within the lagoon of the John Brewer Reef in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The opening of the complex in February of next year will signal not just the availability of a 24 hours a day room service amongst the beauty of the world's largest living and extremely fragile thing but also the beginning of one of the most thorough and enduring tests that any Australian industry has ever seen. The test is: Can human beings, without gills, live in a habitat which until now has been beyond their natural domiciliary environment? Can the marine life that currently inhabits the John Brewer Reef satisfactorily share its home with a greedy, thoughtless and overpowering creature? Is this complex really the best blend between development and conservation? Clearly, this is an examination that no participant in what is taking place can afford to fail. There is no supplementary examination or second chance to allow for atonement when the unique and precious life forms of nature are exterminated by ignorance. For this reason I am still concerned that the development at John Brewer Reef may precipitate a flurry of aquatic real estate activity. We do not allow pilots to fly unless they have passed their examinations and have been presented with their wings. We do not allow mechanics to work unless they have passed their examinations and been presented with their indentures. We do not allow medical practitioners to practise unless they have passed their examinations and been bestowed with a degree. So, why should we allow the practice of further floating hotel complexes when we are still uncertain of the outcome of a thorough examination of the results of our first experience with pollution control mechanisms and the strain it may place upon the environment? Australia's hydrous property should be seen as a part of the crown jewels of this nation. Such off-shore real estate is a priceless resource that must never be subdivided or auctioned to the highest bidder. Of course, as time passes and this world teeters more precariously on the brink of urban holocaust, the value of beautiful coral cays, crystal clear waters and magnificent marine life appreciates dramatically. But such wealth presents a fundamental dilemma. That dilemma is in essence at the centre of this Bill. Should Australia's off-shore treasures remain locked away forever to gather seaweed in a vault where the light is filtered, or should the intricacies and beauties of Australia's marine culture be displayed for all to see and admire? What purpose is there in holding a valuable and beautiful pearl if no one can see it? What purpose is there in displaying a valuable and beautiful pearl if everyone, in viewing or handling it, destroys it? Perhaps the lapping of the sea against the hull of the Four Seasons Group's seagoing pleasure palace will provide the right answers. It is imperative that the most precise monitoring occur and that when comprehensive results are available they be made known to all sections of society for further analysis and deliberation. I maintain that certain key elements of this installation's operation are crucial to the survival or extermination of the environment in which this seven-storey holiday-maker's paradise is to be anchored. What will happen in the likelihood of one of the following accidental events occurring? Are contingency plans in place for the following possibilities? Firstly, in the unlikely event of the malfunctioning of the sewage treatment plant, will the life-giving water upon which the hotel is buoyant be threatened with contamination? Secondly, in the unlikely event of the spilling of diesel fuel as a result of a fuel hose rupture or some other accidental event, will the rich environment in which so many unique kinds of fish and animal life live be threatened with a black murky mask? Thirdly, in the unlikely event of a fire on the gently swaying hotel convention centre, will the entire lagoon be threatened by a fiery phenomenon that has never been known before in this type of environment? Fourthly, in the unlikely event of a loss of moorings and the subsequent grounding of the complex on the reef, will the delicate balance of nature be threatened by an unnatural and non-compatible man-made structure crashing on to fragile coral reef? Finally, in the unlikely event of an accident occurring to the vessels servicing this giant changing room anchored on top of one of nature's perfect swimming pools, will the unspoiled beauty of the location be stained irrevocably? Perhaps I am being pedantic to go so far as to suggest that one of these unfortunate outcomes may occur. However, I would prefer to describe my concern as justified in the light of the huge fire on the resort of Hamilton Island. I would prefer to call my uncertainty wise when read in conjunction with the recent breakdown and fire on one of the giant Reeflink Resort Pty Ltd ferries in the waters beyond Townsville. I would prefer to label my hesitation and concern as constructive criticism. I could quote many examples of oil spillages and sewage disposal to back up my argument. Essentially, my basic premise remains unchanged. The advancement of mankind into a vacuum devoid of the elements necessary to sustain the human life form without breathing apparatus and flotation devices must be a very careful and calculated step. My purpose in highlighting the floating complex at the John Brewer Reef has been to illustrate some of the basic problems that may impede the harmonious integration of any sea installation in Australia with the environment in which it is placed. We will never outrun the inescapable fact that human beings were not made to live on, or in, the water. Hence, the presence of homo sapiens in flippers and floating fun factories is, and always will be, an artificial creation. Man is simply seeking to become a tenant of the seas. Unfortunately, his stay will incur an ecological price. In considering the introduction of further floating hotels off the coast of Australia, we must assess the price of a room and who is going to pay. Our answer to the question on tariff must be tempered with an understanding that once nature has been violated it cannot be truly redeemed. Similarly, our answer to the question of who foots the bill rests with our desire and ability to enjoy the beauties of this planet. Clearly, from a tourist developer's viewpoint, John Brewer Reef is the ideal location for the development of a holiday haven. I have been there. I have swum in its crystal clear waters and I know its beauties. A myriad of features, from the colourful coral to the tempting temperatures, should lure tourists by the boat-load and the helicopter-load. But what about elsewhere? Perhaps the tempestuous seas of Bass Strait or the ferocious waters of the Great Southern Ocean could display to tourists the true ruggedness of the Australian coastline and the abundance of marine life that shares a dislike of warmer waters. Even the coral reefs of the Indian Ocean would be a delight to explore. However, I am most intrigued and disturbed to learn of the proposal to site a floating hotel and other shore-based tourist resort facilities within the boundaries of Australia's Antarctic Territory. I am intrigued because I had no idea that penguins, fur seals and, indeed, blue whales had any need of a five-star international watering hole at the South Pole. I am disturbed because I suspect that the locals will be driven away from the facility by the high prices, sophisticated service and, above all, an influx of human tourists. The proposals may represent novel thinking. However, their enactment could spell disaster. Obviously, Antarctica's land and sea attractions are many-huge glaciers, teeming penguin rookeries, seal colonies, whales, towering ice cliffs and icebergs, and stunning white wilderness and mountain scenery. It is a truly unique part of our planet. Surely there need be no better reason why the unspoiled continent at the base of the world should not remain untarnished by the stain of the tourist dollar. Of course, some people believe that unique and fragile ecosystems are no match for foreign currency and that endangered species of penguins are no substitute for the $20,000 per day that, it is rumoured, some wealthy tourists are prepared to pay to feast in the delight of Antarctica. These suggestions are part of an array of arguments that may hold the affirmative cause for the rape and pillage of the land of the midnight sun. This Government must never allow this biological oasis of Antarctica, particularly at Davis base, to be plundered. Already a large ice free area near Davis has been assessed as a suitable area for an airstrip. We must be aware the developers are lobbying for part of the polar action and, in some instances, they have already convinced certain people that a sea-based tourist development is preferable to air-orientated tourism. That is because tourists and waste disposal may be better controlled. It is shameful that whilst Australia has no biological inventory of the species in Antarctica, many sources can catalogue at least two proposals to scatter the wildlife and explode the human population by constructing tourist developments. Will we allow waste materials from a floating hotel to be dumped at sea when a major clean-up campaign of Australia's Antarctic garbage tip has just been completed? If honourable members think environmental problems that occur at the John Brewer Reef are difficult they will pale into insignificance when compared with Antarctica. Without a doubt, any degradation of the Antarctic environment will cause untold harm. Clearly, any action on Antarctica will be expensive in monetary and environmental terms. Therefore, it is essential that the continent be protected until a correct proposal is formulated. Similarly, it is fanciful to suggest that Antarctic tourist facilities would have a strategic appeal. Certainly they would add to the impression of a permanent presence and legitimate territorial claims. However, Antarctic redevelopment must take on a new form beyond the current station rebuilding program, for unless many of the scientific projects receive increased funding there is a danger that Australia's stance in the Antarctic will be seen as nothing more than token. Maybe this proposal would be the catalyst for the construction of our very own ice breaker, a much needed piece of equipment. Hence, the siting of further floating hotels within Australian waters presents society with a number of stark value judgments that must be carefully made. Will the lure of the wealthy tourist be all pervasive? Will the muted voice of nature be heard? The purpose of the Sea Installations Bill is not to make these complicated and loaded value judgments. Its purpose is to create the necessary legislation to control sea installations and any ships, aircraft, persons, or goods arriving at, or departing from, the installation once a decision has been made to integrate man and the watery world beyond our coastline. Once again, with the exception of Antarctica, I cannot pre-empt any decision on where floating hotels should, or should not, be installed. However, I can urge further study, careful monitoring and increased funding for a type of research that is vitally concerned with our future. Surely to add large quantities of tourists to this unknown area would be a recipe for disaster. The nations that have bases in Antarctica have not yet collated the facts that need to be analysed to enable a true picture of the Antarctic environment to be drawn. The unknown content of one the world's largest continents must not be ignored because of the lust for tourist dollars. Hence, we must think carefully about floating hotels and holiday resorts upon the high seas. This Bill allows such caution. We must also think carefully about our marine environment, how we use it now and how we leave it for future generations. In the end, floating hotels are here to stay. I hope that the environment in which they are installed remains too. Sadly, I suspect that in an increasingly money-orientated world, the patrons of such lavishly appointed half-way houses will be the kind a travel writer described last century when he wrote: The owl and the pussy-cat went to sea In a beautiful pea-green boat. They took some honey, and plenty of money Wrapped up in a five pound note. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(5.26) —The Opposition gives its approval to the Sea Installation Bill, the Sea Installations Levy Bill and the Sea Installation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. I address a few comments particularly to the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) who, in his very thoughtful address, pinpointed a lot of the problems that could eventuate in a pioneer venture such as this. I am sure that the aims in relation to the Great Barrier Reef and the permits that are involved in this program are regarded as being a pioneer effort and that every care will be taken. The concept of a floating hotel off Townsville is the type of innovative and creative vision which is characteristic of the best in Australia's tourism industry and which has made this legislation necessary. All Australians should be doing all they can to provide the incentive and to encourage developments such as this to take advantage of our diverse, unique landscape and seascape. Next year it will be some 200 years since Australia was settled and while this has taken place on land, it is as though those 200 years have meant nothing as far as the discovery of the sea and the reefs around Australia are concerned. It is almost as if Captain Cook could come back to the islands he sailed around in the 1770s and remark that the human race has found out very little about what exists in the sea. The honourable member for Dunkley quite correctly drew the attention of all Australians to the nature of this project and this legislation. At present resorts built beyond the three-mile territorial sea of Australia, but still within the outer limits of the Australian fishing zone, would not be subject to State or Federal laws. This package of legislation ensures that sea installations outside the territorial seas are made subject to Australian law. The legislation requires that permits will be needed and that a levy will be imposed. It also prevents the evasion of Australian laws, such as those relating to customs and taxation, by requiring contact and entry to off-shore installations to be made from within Australian territorial jurisdiction. It provides within the maximum levy of up to 20 per cent of the capital cost of construction or of the annual gross income, whichever is the larger, potential licensing as a casino. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) has already mentioned that this legislation must be very sensitive to how permits are distributed so far as casinos are concerned. Queensland law guarantees to the licensee that no other licences will be permitted within a certain area. Mr Lloyd —Do you mean the Prime Minister's friends and that sort of business? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I would hope so but I can assure the honourable member that the people who are involved in this project are very politically naive in that regard. I understand that the levy takes the place of local government rates-I hope that is understood-and other fees that will be forgone because of its being outside the control of State or local authorities. At this stage the legislation will affect only Barrier Reef Holdings' proposed floating hotel. However, further developments are expected around Australia outside the territorial seas. The legislation will ensure that a sea installation such as the proposed floating hotel will make the Barrier Reef more accessible to tourists without threatening the reef's delicate ecosystem. The $40m Four Seasons Barrier Reef Hotel, which has been constructed in a shipyard in Singapore, will be towed to its location in a lagoon of the John Brewer Reef about 72 kilometres from Townsville. Like the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dunkley, I have also had occasion to visit Brewer Reef, but that was some 35 years ago on a boat that was so slow it took three or four hours to get there. I recall that the sea was so rough on the way that I wished I could die, and on the way back the sea was so rough that I wished I was dead. It just goes to show that in the space of 35 years we have been able to develop transport which will make such a facility available to tourists so quickly, as if it were just another tourist destination. It is planned to open the hotel on 1 December this year. The resort will allow a greater number of people to enjoy the Barrier Reef from a unique position upon a world class floating hotel. It is yet another investment in north Queensland, one of Australia's most popular tourist destinations. The hotel will have seven storeys and 200 bedrooms of an international first class standard. The main feature of the hotel is the fact that people will be able to stay out on the reef for lengthy periods. Facilities in the hotel will include a restaurant, nightclub, wine cellar, conference facilities, swimming pool, gymnasium, tennis courts, sauna, speciality shops, a submarine and a helipad. It has been designed to withstand the most severe weather conditions, and under extreme conditions evacuation will occur under procedures to be approved by the Marine Park Authority. The hotel is the first of its kind to be allowed by the Federal Government to be positioned on the Great Barrier Reef, and it represents further growth in Australia's tourist and leisure industry. Already there has been interest from overseas since promotional campaigns in the United States and Europe have commenced. These types of developments will have far reaching effects for the Australian tourism industry, and for north Queensland in particular. In fact, I know the accountant who was initially responsible for the financial studies into this venture, and have followed him through the venture. Mr Lindsay —Who was that? Mr BRAITHWAITE —Trevor Butler, from a firm of chartered accountants. He is a very good accountant, too. Mr Lindsay —A great north Queenslander. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes, he is a good north Queenslander. The fact that he was a partner of mine at one stage is quite incidental. Mr Millar —He won't hold that against you. Mr BRAITHWAITE —No, I hope he will not. He was a very good accountant and, apart from that, he has the vision that many north Queenslanders possess, and have to possess, to develop the type of ventures that will capture the imagination not only of the rest of Australia but of the rest of the world. The project reflects the innovation, the imagination and the risk that Australian entrepreneurs are prepared to exhibit, and demonstrates that people are still prepared to pioneer in the exciting new world of north Queensland tourism. The Boeing commercial aircraft company's report on Queensland tourism reflects the glowing prospects of north Queensland and northern Australia. The report said that by 1990 Queensland would have 45 per cent of total inbound international tourism to Australia, and by 1995 north Queensland would have 40 per cent of that market. It is expected that by 1990 Queensland will have more than one million overseas visitors, and that figure is expected to reach 1.5 million by the year 2000, when Queensland will have 47 per cent of all international visitors to Australia. This will mean that by the year 2000 north Queensland could have around 20 per cent of Australia's international tourism. This reflects the need for the type of developments we are talking about. The economic benefits of a north Queensland boom in international tourism will help redress Australia's balance of payments. The balance of payments deficit to the September quarter was $1.35 billion, and our foreign debt to June 1987 was about $110 billion. These figures demonstrate that there are still deep-set structural problems with Australia's current account as a result of the present Government's policies. One benefit of the devaluation of the Australian dollar is that it has increased Australia's popularity as an international tourist destination. In this context the development of the floating hotel must be considered an exciting project and of major benefit to all Australians. There will also be employment benefits, not only from increased international tourism but also from increased interstate and intrastate tourism. This legislation provides the mechanisms for regulation and control while also taking into account environmental matters. The resort has been subjected to environmental assessment by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and I am delighted to see that the Federal Government has started to recognise the fact that progress and development in the form of a floating hotel can co-exist with the Barrier Reef without resulting in detrimental consequences for the environment. Not only that, but also the establishment of the floating hotel will enable a much wider appreciation of the reef and will provide a base for marine research. A marine research laboratory will be established on the resort for research purposes, as well as to monitor the hotel to ensure it does not affect the reef itself. The development of the resort is a major step in technology and tourism ideas generally. A recent report puts private research in Australia at a much lower level than public research, so this research provided by Barrier Reef Holdings will be a great bipartisan effort with the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), as well as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, governments and civilians. While talking about AIMS, I mention particularly the work of the Institute's Dr Joe Baker, who comes from Townsville, and the manner in which he has endeavoured to bring to the attention of all Australians the necessity to know what the sea, the reef and the surrounding waters of Australia contain as far as our future is concerned. The honourable member for Dunkley put forward constructive criticism in relation to several aspects of this development, and those matters are all part and parcel of the work of the dedicated professional. Australia gains a lot by having him work in AIMS and in conjunction with projects such as this. The concept for the floating hotel originated from technology developed by the off-shore oil industry, such as that used for the Bass Strait rigs. I had an opportunity only last year to visit and inspect one of those rigs. A single buoy system will be used to moor the hotel, similar to the design used to moor supertankers when loading off-shore oil. The floating hotel will be fully self-contained and self-supporting. It will have its own desalination system and its sewerage and waste water plants will be of a standard the same as or better than those of other marine facilities around the world. Again one can only say that the research that has gone into this has provided technology that will be vital to Australia in the future. The benefits from this will be that there will be no direct pollution of the waters of the Barrier Reef. Waste will be off-loaded regularly on to a service barge. The company, in conjunction with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, has developed a comprehensive resort management plan which will include strict controls on activities to ensure that the environmental impact of operating the resort is minimised. The smooth passage of this legislation will enable a regulatory system to be established in time for the resort to open and other proposals of this type to be considered. There has been an increased interest in recent years in establishing sea installations such as floating hotels off the coast of Australia and elsewhere and, as has already been suggested in this debate, an Antarctic resort is also at the planning stage. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) has given his full approval and endorsement of that. Mr Millar —I think that is on ice. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is on ice; it is being held under control. The legislation also covers Antarctica and areas adjacent to the Heard and Macdonald islands. Some installations will be made exempt from the legislation, such as platforms used for petroleum exploration, as they are already subject to sufficient regulation. Commercial fishing and pearling operations, navigational aids and historic shipwrecks will also be exempted. Australia has tourist attractions which are far superior and have much more to offer than many popular destinations elsewhere in the world. However, our ability to cater to this standard has been somewhat lacking. I draw the attention of the House to an Australian Associated Press report of only yesterday, which indicates that the standard of Australia's facilities was attacked by Japanese tourist operators at the Australia-Japan Business Co-operation Committee conference in Perth. It was suggested that Japanese tour operators would take over some duty free and souvenir outlets and tourist resorts to ensure that Japanese tourists received the best of service. The Chairman of the Japan Travel Bureau was particularly critical of Australia's hotels and the lack of Australians who spoke Japanese. He said that hotels located inconveniently did not suit the requirements of Japanese travellers, who expected the best and were willing to pay for it. He went on to say that in Australia there is a lack of first class facilities generally. That is interesting because in the gallery today we saw quite a number of Japanese tourists, and one often wonders what satisfaction they are getting from their visit here. Those comments only reiterate the need for people in the tourist areas catering particularly to the Japanese tourist trade to take Japanese as a second language and provide for those visitors as much as possible. It is all very well to say that we must maintain the uniqueness of Australia's characteristics and the resources that are available-and let us hope that that is what the tourists come to expect when they visit our country-but we must also put ourselves in their shoes and make sure that we ensure, to the best of our ability, that their requirements are taken care of. In my own city of Mackay a lady called Hilda McLean has recently set up Japanese teaching facilities and interpretation services for those who might require them. That is the type of facility we must try to offer. The major source of tourists to the resort on Brewer Reef is expected to be Japan. One hopes that the new facilities of the standard of the Four Seasons Barrier Reef Hotel in north Queensland will prevent bad publicity. Again, it is in the hands of the entrepreneurs. The Managing Director of Barrier Reef Holdings, Malcolm Clyde, has also been quoted in the papers as criticising the corporate finance sector for having difficulty in coming to terms with such an innovative concept. Apparently, the finance sector cannot come to grips with this novel type of security. He said that the corporate finance sector's grasp of tourism lagged a long way behind developments in industry ideas generally. Tourism particularly requires innovation and risk, and the service sector must keep in step with these methods if we are to develop Australia and north Queensland as an attractive and exciting tourist destination. As the financial industry in Australia has been deregulated, let us hope that that sector can keep in step with the potential that Australia offers to the rest of the world. We should not take for granted that our tourism boom will continue and that world tourists will naturally be attracted to Australia. While Australia is fortunate to have a natural wonder like the Barrier Reef, anything we can do to develop its tourist potential, without damaging the reef's natural attributes, should be considered. It is time that we looked into more unique concepts such as the Four Seasons Barrier Reef Hotel and the newly developed Great Barrier Reef Wonderland Aquarium in Townsville to attract the tourist dollar. I wish to quote from a speech by Dr Graham Saunders, Director of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, given at the Northern Australia Development Council meeting in Bundaberg last week. He said: Since World Heritage Listing of the Great Barrier Reef . . . and the resultant promotion of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park we are being inundated by individuals and groups who wish to exploit its resources ahead of all others, getting their own slice be it whole islands, leases of parts of island national parks and even floating hotels on the reef itself. So he even gave the floating hotel a mention. He continued: I should stress the fact the Commonwealth's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is one of the few highly successful Commonwealth/State co-operative exercises ever undertaken-both at the political and bureaucratic levels. Day to day management is carried out by Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service officers on behalf of the Authority. There is no duplication of expenditure as responsibilities are clearly defined and accepted. The boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are fixed over its length of 2000 kilometres. Queensland has its area defined. It has sovereign rights over its terrestrial resources and over its defined offshore resources of tidal lands and tidal waters along some 7400 kilometres of coastline. In the wet tropical rainforests region, the Queensland Government is clearly the responsible land and resource management authority. What it comes down to is that, with some co-operation, great things can be achieved, as they have been in this regard. The Chairman of Barrier Reef Holdings, Mr Doug Anthony, not only was a visionary leader of the National Party, and a visionary Deputy Prime Minister, but also he now leads the way in new concepts for the tourist industry. His vision, dedication and commitment when in politics has now been carried on to work in the tourist industry. His company will be one of the few Australian listed companies to offer a direct investment in tourism. Although I have no pecuniary interest in the venture, I have a vested interest in projects that will provide benefits for northern Australians and all Australians. It is tremendous that these Australians who form Barrier Reef Holdings have such faith in not only Australia but, in particular, the part of Australia I like, north Queensland. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(5.46) —I seek the indulgence of the House to make a short announcement. A few moments ago I returned from the Australian Institute of Sport where I was privileged to witness a national record set by our men's relay swimming team. The members of that team set the record in the short circuit 4 x 100m event. On behalf of every member of the House, I wish to congratulate the team members at the Australian Institute of Sport. I am sure that they will go on from this event to represent Australia at the Olympic Games and I am quite sure they will win a gold medal. Mr Braithwaite —Did they train in Townsville? Mr SHARP —They may well have trained in Townsville. I specifically address myself to the Sea Installations Levy Bill 1987. As shadow Minister for sport and tourism, I point out that the Bill deals specifically with the tourist industry. The reasons honourable members are present today is to pass legislation that will ensure that a tourist facility will be able to operate some 72 kilometres from Townsville off the Great Barrier Reef. I congratulate the company which has been the driving influence behind the establishment of this floating hotel. Reef Link Resort Pty Ltd is the firm that has carried out this work. It is setting up for the first time in our history almost an experimental operation, which I think will lead the way in the future to similar operations around our coastline. I wish to congratulate not only the company but also the Government on the sensible way in which they have dealt with this matter. The Government has tackled some very difficult problems and it has to consider the issue of the environment. There has been a great deal of concern from conservationists about the establishment of floating hotels on the Great Barrier Reef. All the concerns about the environment have been addressed not only by Reef Link but also by the Government. I thank those concerned because by addressing the matter sensibly we are laying the groundwork for the establishment of an additional feature in our tourist industry. The creation of a floating hotel is a magnificent concept. This is the first of its type but it will also be a feature which Australia will be able to publicise overseas as an added attraction for our tourist industry. As I have said, it is an experimental exercise and therefore nobody can be sure that the whole operation will be profitable. Therefore, it is important that the Government consider the charges and fees to be levied on organisations such as Reef Link which will operate this floating hotel. A number of additional costs are associated with the operation of a floating hotel. For example, the operators will have to make their own fresh water. A desalination plant will be installed in the floating hotel project. The process of converting salt water to fresh water is very expensive. Not only has water to be made but also electricity has to be generated. Once again, this is a cost over and above those which normal hotel operators on the mainland have to deal with. The sewage treatment system is an additional problem for the operators and again is an expensive exercise. There is further expense in that the staff who operate the hotel must be flown the 70-odd kilometres each day in a helicopter or taken out in vessels. All these additional costs will mean that those who run the hotel in its first few years must be careful to ensure that it will be a viable and profitable operation. After seeing those additional costs, I believe that there is no great financial gain from having a floating hotel as opposed to having a hotel on the mainland. I have heard it said that because it is cheaper to build a floating hotel than a hotel on the mainland, the Government should establish charges on the floating hotel proprietors so that there is not some excessive advantage in having a floating hotel. From the points that I have made today, it can be seen that the additional running expenses remove much of the advantage of having a cheaper floating hotel built. Bearing in mind all these considerations, I was very surprised to see that in this Bill the Government has outlined what it will charge as a levy for the hotel operators. The Bill indicates that a levy will be imposed upon the hotel or installation operators which will be either up to 20 per cent of the market value of the installation or 20 per cent of the gross revenue of that installation, whichever is the higher. A levy of 20 per cent of the market value of the installation each year could work out to be of the order of $7m a year. While I am sure that the Government will not charge up to the 20 per cent limit, I would say that what we are setting in place here is the potential for future governments to set charges for that levy up to the 20 per cent and, as I said, 20 per cent could be $7m a year. I have just done a few calculations. If the hotel had an average occupancy rate of 70 per cent, and in the first few years that would be a fairly optimistic occupancy rate, and if the price per room were to be around $150, and I would say that that was not a bad guess, total revenue from room sales for the hotel would be around $7.6m a year. The potential maximum levy could be up to $7m a year, so obviously the economics of that are not too good. The Government must be very aware of the viability of this operation. It cannot, in any way, move towards charging hotel operators anything like 20 per cent of the market value of the operation or of the gross revenue. If it does, it will kill this enterprise off in one fell swoop. It will not only kill off this operation but also will put a hurdle in front of any similar developments that may be considered by any other business operators in this country. When they look at the potential charges that could be levied upon them by governments, they will say, `This is just horrific; it is just too much and we will not go ahead with this type of operation'. The important point which I wish to drive home to the Government today is that this levy cannot ever be taken up to its maximum. It should never be taken up to its maximum because if it is this project will be finished off and a major asset to our tourist attractions will be knocked out. I wish to talk about the Sea Installations Bill, not just in terms of this hotel but also in terms of our tourist industry. This Bill presents us with an opportunity to discuss tourism because it deals with a new installation in our tourist industry. I cannot resist this opportunity. I wish to take up a point that was mentioned by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). I am concerned about the many Japanese tourists who will come to this floating hotel. Services in this hotel must be up to the standard that Japanese tourists expect. It is not just services in this hotel that must be up to standard. Throughout Australia we must be able to ensure that Japanese, American and European tourists receive the standard of service and sophistication that they would expect, not just in Australia but also throughout the world. I take this opportunity to say that the shopping hours review announced by the Minister for the Arts, Sports, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) yesterday in the Parliament may well be nothing more than a window dressing operation unless the Government is prepared to address the real issue in the tourist industry-that is, work practices within that industry. I assure the Government that unless that issue is addressed this floating hotel and all our tourist facilities throughout Australia will not be able to capitalise on the full potential that exists in the years ahead to make dollars for Australia. I know that the potential is there for five million tourists to come from overseas. If we do not attack the issue of work practices within the tourist industry we will not capitalise on that potential. If we do not address the issue of levies and charges on operations such as floating hotels, I am afraid that we will not realise the full potential that the tourist industry offers for Australia. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(5.56) —I wish to conclude the debate on the Sea Installations Bill and cognate Bills by thanking everyone who involved himself in this discussion for the constructive way in which the contributions were made. With the support and co- operation of everyone in the Parliament, this Bill will lead to improvements which should mean that in this aspect of the government of the nation we are able to have a very effective set of regulations to ensure that the hopes expressed by honourable members can be met. I look forward to the Bill passing this Parliament quickly and coming into effect so that some of its proposals, which have been dealt with by honourable members in the debate tonight, can come to fruition. I note in passing the number of proposals that exist in various areas around the nation which will be affected by the legislation and if half of those referred to this evening come to fruition, it augurs well for this country's tourist industry. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(5.58) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 4, page 2, after the definition of `affected Territory' insert the following definition: `` `aircraft' means a machine or apparatus that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions from the air or from buoyancy;''. (2) Clause 40, page 21, lines 23 to 26, omit subsection (1), substitute the following subsection: ``40. (1) Subject to this Part, the Minister may, on his or her own motion or on an application made by a person under section 41, give a certificate that a specified sea installation may be installed at a specified location in an adjacent area without a permit.''. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(5.59) —Each of these Bills relating to sea installations was debated in a slightly different form in this place on 5 May 1987. The Bills lapsed on the dissolution of the House of Representatives and are now being reintroduced. I spoke at length on these Bills when they were debated previously so I do not intend to repeat the statements I put forward on that occasion. However, I wish to make a brief comment on the Sea Installations Levy Bill 1987. Clause 6 of that Bill provides for a levy to be paid by a permit holder in relation to the operation of a sea installation. The levy has been designed to meet the administrative costs of the States and Territories in the application and enforcement of the relevant laws and regulations applying to the operation of the sea installation. The rate of levy to be imposed is expressed as a percentage of the valuation of the sea installation. The valuation of the installation will be calculated annually in accordance with the valuation practice adopted by valuers of the Australian Taxation Office. Their valuation may be reviewed on application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I have some concern in respect of clause 8 (3) of the Sea Installations Levy Bill. This clause provides for a maximum annual levy of 20 per cent of the market value of the sea installation. There is no doubt that if the maximum levy were to be applied it would render unviable the economic operation of the sea installation. I cannot understand why the clause has been phrased in this way. I know that the Government intends that the levy should have regard to State taxes and local government charges for the relevant activities provided by government. The concept of the levy is designed to avoid duplication by the Commonwealth of the State taxing and charging laws that ordinarily would apply if the operation were land-based. I am informed that the Government intends that the levy should approximate such costs as would normally be levied on a land-based project. This clause has caused concern to the owners of the proposed seven-storey Four Seasons Barrier Reef Hotel, which is to be located on John Brewer Reef about 73 milimetres north-east of Townsville. The 200-bedroom floating hotel has been constructed in Singapore and will be in place on John Brewer Reef in November 1987. The concept of a floating accommodation facility, as has been said by previous speakers, is well proven, having been introduced by the off-shore oil industry in the mid-1970s. The floating hotel is a further development of this concept to provide luxury standards of accommodation. It will be approximately 90 metres long by 27 metres wide and is designed to accommodate up to 426 guests. I am certain that this hotel will, in time, constitute one of Australia's great tourist attractions. The hotel will accept its first paying guests on 1 February 1988. I believe that most honourable members would be opposed to the construction of additional floating hotels on the Great Barrier Reef. As the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) indicated, a naval review of floating hotels along the Great Barrier Reef would be a disaster. The Government must be resolute. It must make it clear that only one floating hotel will be permitted on Australia's Great Barrier Reef. The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) advocated other sea installations similar to floating hotels. I would support that suggestion as long as it did not apply to the Great Barrier Reef. I applaud the speech made by the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) during this debate about the sacred trust put in this Government to preserve, protect and defend the integrity of the biggest and greatest living creature on this planet, the Great Barrier Reef. Notwithstanding the fact that all environmental impact studies required by the Government have been carried out by Barrier Reef Hotels Ltd and that this new facility will give us one of the best known tourist attractions in Australia in the years to come, I reaffirm my earlier suggestion that it would be a tragedy if the Minister, this Government or any future government were to permit any additional floating hotels on the Great Barrier Reef. I take this opportunity to record the outstanding contribution of Mr Trevor Butler, referred to by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), and Mr Kel Griffith towards the development of this fantastic facility. Above all, I would like to record the gratitude of the people of north Queensland to the former Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen). His efforts in convincing the Government, guiding this legislation through and, on a ministerial basis, his assistance to many people associated with this wonderful project will earn for him the enduring gratitude of the people of north Queensland. He has ensured that the new facility of the floating hotel at the John Brewer Reef will be environmentally compatible with the Barrier Reef. It will not only provide accommodation but also it will serve the interests of science in the investigation of the marine environment. Finally, once again I stress the fact that most honourable members, whilst appreciating that accommodation facilities such as a floating hotel may be compatible with other off-shore areas in Australia, believe that only one should be permitted on the Great Barrier Reef. This Government and future governments should be diligent in protecting the Great Barrier Reef from the intrusion of other floating hotels. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(6.06) —I congratulate the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) on his remarks. The point he made was a point I had made in relation to concern about the viability of the operation if the 20 per cent maximum were ever applied. I appreciate that the Government is saying that the figure is absolutely and utterly a maximum and that there is no likelihood at this stage of the maximum ever being applied. But I make the point that we are setting in place the potential for that to happen. It has to be inscribed in concrete here in the Parliament and in the eyes of this Government and future governments that it is never the intention of this House to see that 20 per cent maximum reached. The whole purpose of the levy is just to cover the cost of local government, State government or even Federal government services that may be provided for the floating hotel. Perhaps in a wiser moment it would have been better to have written into the legislation a provision for the costs of the various tiers of government to be totted up each year and the bill sent to the hotel proprietors rather than the way it has been written into the legislation today. At any rate, the Opposition supports this legislation on the basis that the operation will not be made unviable, that it will not be taken up to the 20 per cent maximum. If it does, it will kill off a unique and an attractive addition to Australia's tourist industry, to the economy of Townsville in the electorate of the honourable member for Herbert. It will certainly be a great addition to our tourism industry. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(6.08) —I appreciate the sentiments raised by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) and the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp). I am advised that, if anything, the maximum has been put into the legislation to calm fears that might exist in the industry that the originally drafted proposal which did not have a maximum might have led to excessive levies. It is a maximum and it will be seen as such. I assure the honourable member for Herbert and the honourable member for Gilmore that the Government, in administering the levy, will be sensitive, not only to the comments that are being made by honourable members this afternoon, but also to the needs of local projects in particular areas. If a need for an amendment is seen, in some time to come, the Government will certainly bring back this matter to Parliament. I stress that this is new legislation. It is experimental legislation to that extent. As such we are sailing into what I might describe as uncharted waters. In light of that I give honourable members an assurance that we will be sensitive to the sorts of concerns that have been raised. Mr SMITH(Bass)(6.09) —The purpose of this Committee is to consider two amendments proposed by the Government for consideration. We support those amendments as we support the original legislation, as I mentioned when opening this debate. I thank the Minister for the comments he made a moment ago about the levy. Considerable concern has been expressed about this matter by honourable members on both sides of the chamber, by the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay). One cannot walk away from the point about viability which was made by the honourable member for Gilmore. There is now a change in the legislation. It differs from the original legislation that was proposed because of a decision by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills to insert a clause providing for a maximum levy of 20 per cent. I would, however, point out to the honourable member for Herbert that to suggest that there ought to be only one floating hotel on the Barrier Reef might be a little bit much to ask. The Barrier Reef covers an exceedingly large area. A future Minister will perhaps be put in the position of at least having to consider issuing other permits for similar installations. I share the concern of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) about there being eventually a whole string of them. We have in this Bill vested discretion in the Minister and we hope that he will exercise it sensibly. Mr Lindsay —The whole environmental movement will be opposed to it. Mr SMITH —I have talked in some detail about the environment. One of the things I mentioned is the concern than many of us have about the crown-of-thorns starfish. If they are not kept under review and if research does not continue, they will play havoc with the reef, and all the tourists who are going out there to see the beauty of one of the world's major environmental assets will be faced with not much to see. I made a plea earlier that the two Ministers concerned make sure that they make a commitment as soon as possible, as has been asked for by the Director of the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Townsville, Dr Baker, when he was in Canberra this week for the Senate Estimates committee hearing. I hope that those on the other side of the chamber will join with me in pushing the Government to make a decision on that. I return to the two amendments. The first amendment relates to a definition section within the Sea Installations Bill concerning the definition of aircraft. It is unfortunate that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) is not here. He has deputed the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), who I understand does have some role within that portfolio relating to sea activities. The point I want to make is that the definition of `aircraft' reads: . . . means a machine or apparatus that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions from the air or from buoyancy. Quite clearly, it is referring to airships. But if we go to the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986 an Act which the Minister at the table now has ministerial responsibility for, we will see that there the definition of `aircraft' is quite different. It leaves out the words `apparatus' and `buoyancy'. I would have thought that the definition would need to be the same, so perhaps someone ought to spend a little time ensuring that an aircraft is an aircraft for the purposes of both Acts, and that it is described in the same way. I do not think we ought to start off with having separate Acts of this Parliament with different definitions of aircraft, because that will lead to confusion. We know what lawyers are like; I am one myself, and we can find all sorts of reasons to argue. In the basic definition, we ought at least to have consistency in the legislation. It is interesting that that definition has been put in and that now aircraft, so defined, will be subject to the Act, and that it brings in airships. As I said earlier with the furore about radio licences-and this is another area in which the Minister at the table has some interest-if radio licences are not awarded to those currently seeking them, will they go off-shore and set up pirate-type stations, which we have seen in Europe? We would need to have a much closer look at that. But the thought occurs to me that someone could anchor an airship out there and broadcast radio signals into Queensland. The mind boggles, but perhaps we ought to give some consideration to that. I wonder why this definition has been put in the Act and why this amendment has been made at such a late stage. The second amendment will permit exemptions from the legislation to be made by the Minister, whether or not an application for exemption has been made. The proposed change will simplify the operation of the provision, so that individuals will not be put to the trouble of applying where this is unnecessary to achieve the desired result, and the understandings Australia has with Antarctic Treaty countries can be pursued effectively. We have heard a lot this afternoon about the importance of Antarctica from both sides of the chamber. Many of us are very concerned about what is happening in Antarctica. We all know that the 1959 treaty is coming to an end after 30 years, and it needs to be renegotiated. Our presence in Antarctica is extremely important, given that we claim so much of that continent. I think it is important that when this Bill came forward on the first occasion, the then Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, who was very enthusiastic about his job, made mention of the fact that these floating hotels may be set up in Antarctica. Several of us from both sides of the chamber have expressed caution about that proposal. There needs to be a lot more thought put into it. We do not want to do anything in Antarctica, as we move into those very sensitive treaty negotiations, to jeopardise our position. There are many issues with regard to the sensitive ecosystems that must be considered, the minerals regime and the scientific program that must be considered. All this is happening at a time when we have seen the Department of Science abolished after 15 years. We have a Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), whose Department is not responsible for this area. The responsibility for Antarctica now falls under the Minister with responsibility for the environment. This amendment at least recognises the significance of Antarctica. I think the Government has thought about it afterwards. Obviously there has been some discussion within the Government to see that this amendment is made. It is reasonably significant, not for the amendment itself, but for the fact that it recognises the importance of Antarctica. I hope that is a first step from the Government towards recognising that we still have a long way to go, and very little time to get there, in terms of convincing the rest of the world that we are very serious about what we want to do in Antarctica now and in the future. Once the new treaty system is renegotiated, we will then again be sitting, I imagine, for a 30-year period. There was some discussion about Antarctica being made a world park. Before we rush headlong into that, we need to look very carefully at the matter. The honourable member for Mayo spoke quite eloquently about the difficulties and problems of that from a foreign affairs point of view, and I think we need to be sensitive about those issues. The Opposition supports both amendments, as we do the Bill. We are pleased that it is going through. It is a significant Bill. It is one that I think will be looked at very carefully over the years as Australia's off-shore areas are developed in terms of tourist and other potential that perhaps we are not currently aware of. But the Bill certainly is significant and we support it wholeheartedly, with the reservations that have been expressed by the many speakers here, particularly with regard to the levy. I think this issue was raised by the States. They pointed out that the development of off-shore installations for commercial purposes should not be done at the expense of the mainland economy. The Government has had a bit of a change of mind, as I mentioned, and has put a maximum there. We hope that it will be a maximum. We do not want in any way to put detriments in the way of the viability of economic activity in this country, especially in the tourism industry, which all of us, from both sides of the chamber, know is particularly important to us. With those few remarks, I think we can gladly see this Bill go forward with those amendments included. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duncan)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 7 October, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duncan) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 7 October, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duncan) read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 September, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(6.21) —The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1987 seeks to make a number of amendments to the sales tax laws. Included in the amendments are exemptions from sales tax for certain tourist publicity and tourism promotional materials acquired by overseas national tourist organisations, certain television transmitters operating in the ultra high frequency (UHF) band that are purchased after 30 April 1987 and before 1 January 1993 for use in regional areas, and certain items to give effect to the proposed Status of Forces Agreement between Australia and Singapore. This Bill further seeks to remove anomalies currently existing between the sales tax law and customs and excise laws in relation to vice-regal exemptions. Finally, it seeks to make minor amendments in consequence of amendments of the customs laws. I turn, firstly, to the matter of tourist publicity and promotional materials. I note that the cost to Consolidated Revenue of the proposed exemption, as provided by the inclusion of a new item, item 72b, is estimated to be between $50,000 and $100,000 in a full year, commencing in 1987-88. Of course, Australia is obliged, under the international tourism policy agreement adopted by the Council of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in November of 1985, to provide freedom from import duties and taxes in respect of certain tourist advertising materials supplied by other member countries. The exemption in this legislation is a fulfilment of that obligation. It is heartening in this instance to see that the Government has taken steps to see that local industry will not be greatly disadvantaged by taxation laws that favour imported items by applying the sales tax exemption to locally manufactured goods as well. This will help leave open the opportunity for production orders for the Australian printing industry, an industry that has been particularly heavily battered in recent years by the high costs that this Government has imposed upon manufacturers generally. It is these high costs that have forced so much printing off shore, with subsequent business closures and job losses being acutely felt back here in Australia. I turn to the next matter dealt with by the Bill relating to UHF transmitters. For too long country audiences have suffered a dearth of choice in electronic entertainment and information dissemination. As the Government has said, the exemption as it relates to UHF transmitters is an incentive to licensees to fulfil the Government's policy objectives, sooner than prescribed, of introducing new commercial television and radio services to country areas. The estimated cost to Consolidated Revenue over the period that the exemption is in force is $14.5m in June 1987 prices. Whilst this is not an inconsiderable sum, we on this side of the House believe it to be money well spent, although frankly we remain unconvinced that transmission of television on the UHF band rather than on the very high frequency (VHF) band is the most desirable option. There is some technical data available to support the proposition that the VHF band provides for greater ease of reception than does the UHF band. However, the doubtful technical choice the Government has made for the UHF band is not sufficient cause for the Opposition to oppose this aspect of the Bill. We accept it, with reservations about the quality of the technical decision. I turn now to the matter of the Status of Forces Agreement with Singapore. The Opposition welcomes the decision to provide certain sales tax exemptions in accordance with the proposed Status of Forces Agreement between Australia and Singapore. The exemptions, which mirror those provided under Australia's status of forces agreements with the United States of America and Papua New Guinea, can only operate to strengthen the already good relations that exist between Australia and Singapore. Good relations with our near neighbours are a vitally important factor in ensuring not only our own future security but also that the future security and stability of our geographic region is enhanced. There is much more that remains to be done by the Government in strengthening Australia's relations with the other countries in our region. However, the exemptions provided under the proposed Status of Forces Agreement with Singapore are a step forward. It is a positive legislative action that will enhance the goodwill towards Australia of the limited number of Singapore military personnel who attend the Royal Military College Duntroon, the Staff College at Queenscliff and other training courses, plus those who on exchange schemes take up various staff postings in Canberra and elsewhere. It is a pity that this Government has not been more positive about its other military and diplomatic responsibilities to this region, and thus played some part in preventing the calamitous crises now besetting several island states in the Pacific area. I turn next to the matter of vice-regal exemptions. The Opposition recognises that the decision on the vice-regal sales tax exemptions is simply to remove anomalies currently existing. The similar provisions that previously existed in the customs and excise laws have now been amended by the Customs Tariff Amendment Act 1986 and the Excise Tariff Amendment Act 1986, which removed the allowable exemptions. This Bill will therefore bring the sales tax law into line with the customs and excise laws in this area by removing the existing sales tax exemptions available in respect of articles for the personal use of the Governor-General, a State governor, their family members and staff. In the view of the Opposition this legislative rationalisation is a reasonable course of action. Let me briefly comment on the matter of consequential amendments. Following changes to the customs laws, the Opposition acknowledges that certain sections of the legislation now contain incorrect references. We therefore have no objection to the technical corrections to the sales tax laws made in this Bill. In conclusion, it is worth noting that sales tax realised a total of $6,348m, or $394.60 per head, in the financial year 1986-87. In the financial year 1987-88, it is estimated that revenue from sales tax will increase to $7,110m, or $440.10 per head. This is an increase in revenue of $762m, or $45.50 per head. Sales tax, like every other tax, is a major growth area for this Government. Small business continues to be stifled under the onerous burden of high taxation. Australian families, especially the single income families, are suffering now as never before. Whilst we on this side of the House reject the Government's overall taxation policies, we do not oppose the purposes of this Bill. Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(8.00) —The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill should be welcomed by any person interested in tax, especially when it is appreciated that the Government is exempting further categories of goods from sales tax. Most people would join with me in saying that no one likes paying tax. But we have to understand that if governments are to provide the facilities, the amenities and the services that people need and demand, they must have revenue. The choices are limited. They have to earn that money, have it given to them, which does not happen very often, borrow it or take it from the people, the taxpayers. The Hawke Labor Government has repeatedly reviewed the tax system, especially in the income tax area and also in the sales tax area over the last 4 1/2 years. There has been a simplification of the tax system. We now have three levels of tax: a 10 per cent level, a 20 per cent level and a 30 per cent level. There has been an effort to bring some sanity into the tax system. I believe that this Hawke Government has adopted the idea that the user should pay but has moderated that principle with the ability to pay. Exemptions have increased. The amount of tax applying to certain products has been varied. In some cases it has been increased and in other cases it has been lowered. There is also the principle that the more expensive item should attract the higher tax. This is certainly true of the luxury products. One would expect that the people who are buying these luxury items would have more money. Therefore, the principle of the ability to pay applies, yet it still means that the user is paying. Likewise, those who are able to pay should do so. However, those who are working for a charitable cause or for some organisation that is performing a community role in hospitals and so on should have exemptions. This is the policy, the principle, pursued not only by this government but also by previous governments. Yet for all this, there are still anomalies. Whilst I welcome the amendments that have been brought forward, I urge the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Holding) to consider the anomalies I am about to raise. I refer specifically to senior citizen's organisations in comparison with pensioner leagues. The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act allows senior citizens to be exempted from sales tax, but the pensioners in pensioner leagues are not. The same is true for police youth clubs in Queensland. They can buy goods exempt of sales tax, but the scouting movement cannot. We have another anomaly whereby certain purchases by charitable and community groups are sales tax exempt if those goods are gifted or donated. But if the same organisation uses the same type of product for its own purpose, be it a charitable purpose, sales tax still applies. I will develop this point. It does not matter whether the organisation is a non-profit one. It does not matter whether the organisation is carrying out or pursuing a charitable purpose; if it uses the product for its own purposes tax must apply. I give full credit to this Government for the courageous way it has tackled the taxation system, for the simplification it has introduced, for the streamlining, but I suggest that there are still some loopholes and there are still some anomalies. Why should a senior citizens organisation be sales tax exempt but not a pensioners league? I ask the House to make a comparison. Senior citizens draw their membership from all walks of life: the rich and the not so rich; the semi-employed and even the employer. So if we start to question the idea of the ability to pay we must start to wonder whether the membership of senior citizens organisations is in the limited ability to pay group. I do not want to take away that exemption but I want to argue for the pensioners leagues. In contrast, the pensioners leagues, by their own rules, can attract to their membership only those persons on the pension, be they aged or be they invalid. They are not able to get anyone who walks in. They can have honorary membership and they do this for community leaders, politicians and so on. But the actual voting membership, those who run the organisations, are people who are aged, invalid and on a pension. In other words, they are in the low income bracket. They have a lower capacity to pay, yet regardless of the fact that they are non-profit organisations, regardless of the fact that they are promoting the needs of the pensioners, of low income groups in our society, they do not have sales tax exemption. Apparently, the problem is not so much what the organisations do; it is what they say they do in their objectives and in their constitutions. I have checked the Act and I find that there are many exemptions. To get this type of sales tax exemption it seems that an organisation, in the categories of which I am talking, would have to be a public benevolent group or institution. That is under section 80 of the Act. I suggest that it should not be what they say they are; it should be what they do. There are 1.4 million pensioners in Australia. The pensioner leagues do a mighty job not only for their half a million members, who are the paid up members, but for all pensioners. As I said, I do not want to take away any tax advantage that the senior citizen groups have, but I argue for the rights of pensioners. As the pensioner leagues have similar roles and a similar purpose, as they are more for the aged and for the less privileged and as they have a massive task in raising funds because many of their people are very elderly-many are infirm-they do not have the money to spend to raise enormous amounts of money to pay for their services. They have to draw from their own membership by way of donations, raffles and so on. We need to look at the present rules. As I have written to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the constitutional objectives are different. To change the constitutions and the objectives of all these leagues would be a very expensive exercise. I ask the Treasurer and the Ministers involved to take a broader look at the Act and apply a broader interpretation. I suggest that an amendment is necessary. As I have said before, a similar problem besets the scouting movement. It was to be reviewed, but to my knowledge there has been no change. It is difficult to understand why the scouting movement should not be sales tax exempt when organisations such as the police youth clubs are. If we are going to make the comparison, both are working for youth, both are broadly community based, both are non-profit, both depend very much on volunteers, families, parents and community people-although I point out that the police youth clubs usually are supported financially by the police departments throughout the nation and therefore have another advantage-and they both carry a very important role in the development of personal values, in the self- esteem of individuals and the enhancement of skills. Yet we do not seem to be able to break through. This is anomalous and there needs to be a review. Another anomaly is that clubs carrying out a charitable purpose can get sales tax exemption if they donate the item, but if they use it for themselves or for a charitable purpose sales tax must apply. As an example, my own Rockhampton Community Service Club, which has raised something like $1.5m since it began 14 years ago, is an incorporated body under Queensland law. It is registered as a charitable organisation under the Queensland Charitable Funds Acts. It is also registered under the Art Unions and Amusements Act to allow it to raise funds. It has the legal right-it is the only one outside groups such as the Heart Foundation of Australia that has-to conduct door to door appeals. It is bound by rigid and very strict auditing rules by the Attorney-General in Queensland. If it buys something for itself to carry out its purposes, its objectives, in a charitable community manner it does not get sales tax exemption, but if it purchases something and gives it away it gets that exemption. I appreciate that governments must have taxes, but I question whether the application of that tax on such community groups is proper. I suggest that there needs to be a review. I want to refer also to an issue that may not at first seem to be within the terms of the Bill, but I intend to prove that it is. I refer to low alcohol beer. For a long time there has been an ongoing campaign to change the drinking habits of Australians. This Government-I give it full credit-has initiated a campaign across the nation to try to do that. The Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), through a number of organisations, has appropriated $1.4m which we hope, over a period, will turn around people's drinking habits-I suppose to get them to drink less but, importantly, to take away the social and other consequences of the abuse of alcohol. I praise that campaign. The Government deserves full credit for bringing forward a massive amount of money when times are difficult. But I suggest that the target should be very clearly low alcohol beer. The objective should be to encourage drinkers to switch to low alcohol beers. About 8 per cent of the total beer consumption in our nation is of the low alcohol variety. I think that is pathetic. In fact, it is quite frightening in some ways. I refer to the variety of beers of 2.2 per cent alcohol or less. One might well ask why consumption is so low. I have seen tests carried out-and hoteliers have proven this-that show that after a person has had three or four beers one could almost bet the person anything that he could not tell whether he was drinking a 5.6 or a 2.2 beer. A question of attitude is involved. A lot of fellows think that they should drink only the heavy beer. But mostly it comes back to the pocket; it comes back to price. The real issue is not the alcoholic content but the price of the beer. One could ask: why should anyone pay the same price for 0.9, 1.5, 2.2 or whatever as one pays for the heavy beers? Regrettably, hoteliers do not pass on the very small price difference at the wholesale price level. The breweries are to blame for this because they are not providing enough price difference between the low alcohol beers and the heavies. The hoteliers of Queensland, particularly central Queensland, want a nationwide campaign to change drinking habits, to get people to drink low alcohol beers. We have had the support of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union and we have had some indication of support from others in the brewery industry. But this campaign will be successful only-and this is where I come to the relevance of my comments-if governments, breweries and the hotel industry combine and work together to bring about that contrast in price. The Government draws considerable revenue from beer. It has, for instance, an excise duty of 70c plus per litre on all alcoholic beverages of between 1.15 per cent and 3.8 per cent alcohol content. The excise then rises from the 70-odd cents to a figure of over 80c a litre-I am not sure of the exact figure; it has just been increased-for beer above the 3.8 per cent alcohol content. Below that level of 1.15 per cent that I mentioned there is no excise duty but there is a sales tax of 20 per cent. I would not suggest that we remove the sales tax because I believe that that would be totally unfair and would create some problems. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) joined me in Brisbane when we met with hotelier groups and also union representatives to discuss this issue. No one suggests that we suddenly exempt beer from sales tax when fruit juices, soft drinks and other such beverages attract sales tax. But what we suggest is that in the first instance we change the levels of alcoholic content at which sales tax is attracted. At the moment the cut-off point is 1.15. So beer with an alcohol content of between zero and 1.15 per cent attracts no excise but has a sales tax. If we are to create that contrast in price to give an incentive for people to drink the low alcohol beer, the sales tax application has to be changed. Instead of applying only to beers of up to 1.15 per cent content it has to apply to beers of up to at least 2.2 per cent. So on the one hand we have to remove the excise and on the other we have to allow the sales tax to apply. If that happened and if the breweries came to the party and were prepared to cut their profits, which are massive-we talked about them in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars-I believe we could achieve that difference and create a 10c per glass incentive for the drinker to take up drinking low alcohol beer. Madam Speaker, as you would appreciate, there would be a cost to government. There would be a loss in excise duty. But I suggest that that could be made up in part-I suggest most of it-by an increase in the sales tax application. But the advantages may not be able to be measured in money terms. What would be the advantages to the Australian community in road safety terms? What would be the advantages in terms of having to spend less money on hospital care and on trying to combat alcohol abuse? We are talking about multi-million dollar campaigns and multi-million dollar appropriations to meet this social need. In respect of road safety, I do not know what the cost is for having to repair just the cars let alone the people who are the victims of accidents that occur because someone has abused drink and then got behind the wheel. I put it to this chamber that there are many advantages if we can move to more sensible drinking. From a sheer monetary point of view, I suggest that there could be greater income for government because hotels could sell more beer of a low alcohol variety. This could mean more jobs in the hotel industry, which means more pay as you earn tax, so the Government would gain on that. Of course, if a greater amount of beer is sold there would be higher taxes on the profits of hoteliers. But, more importantly, there would be better community drinking habits. So, to achieve this, we need to rethink the revenue base in the alcohol area. As this is an issue involving sales tax, I suggest that we have to rethink the application of sales tax on alcoholic beverages. There is surely a need for investigation. We do not know the full effect on government revenue. But I suggest to honourable members that the full effect on the community would be amazing. If we could get people to drink a low alcohol beverage it could be something that changes our society. Therefore, I say to the Treasurer and those other Ministers who are involved in these matters: congratulations on spending the $1.4m on this changing of drinking habits campaign, but let us use that money in what I believe would be a more positive way; that is, to lower the tax structure on low alcohol beer so that people would change their drinking habits. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(8.17) —Perhaps I could serve both this chamber and the listening audience well, without reflecting unkindly on my friend the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), if I were to draw both your attention, Madam Speaker, and that of the listening audience to the Bill before the House and currently being debated in this chamber-the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill. The Bill seeks to make a number of amendments to the sales tax laws. Included in the amendments are exemptions from sales tax of three categories of items: first, certain tourist publicity and tourist promotional material acquired by overseas national tourist organisations; secondly, certain television transmitters operating in the ultra high frequency (UHF) band that are purchased after 30 April 1987 and before 1 January 1993 for use in regional areas; and, thirdly, certain items to give effect to the proposed status of forces agreement between Australia and Singapore. Also the Bill seeks to remove anomalies currently existing between the sales tax law and the customs and excise laws in relation to vice-regal exemptions and to make some minor amendments in consequence of amendments to the customs law. My colleague the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) has already drawn the attention of the House to the impact of these amendments and the legislation currently before the House. I would like to address two areas that directly affect rural Australia. The first of those areas, and the principal one, is that of the exemption for certain television transmitters operating in the ultra high frequency band that are purchased after 30 April and before 1 January for use in regional areas. The vast majority of Australians who live in part of the eastern seaboard, or on any seaboard in Australia, have no idea of the remoteness of central Australia. Given the speculative nature of many of the programs we watch we may well say to colleagues in central Australia, `Well, what are you missing out on?'. We need to appreciate the fact that they are denied not only the variety of television programs that we take for granted and the variety of radio programs and, in some cases, the opportunity of listening to Federal Parliament but also the daily newspaper that lands on our doorstep and keeps us familiar with what is going on in the world. For them there is no theatre. Their entertainment is largely the entertainment they generate themselves by travelling vast distances to inter-station functions of a social nature, to sporting functions that may be organised by schools or to the gymkhanas which are so much a part of the way of life in central Australia. The comforts, the entertainment and the variety that we take for granted are denied to them. The Government has chosen, at a cost to revenue of $14.5m, to provide an incentive that will encourage people to erect television transmitters in central Australia and enable them to have the program variety that we take for granted. While the Opposition questions the wisdom of the Government choosing the ultra-high frequency band rather than the very high frequency band, it does not oppose any of the four areas of sales tax affected by the legislation before the House. We question the Government's motive in making the $14.5m available to increase the opportunity of central Australians, remote area Australians, to receive television programs. That motive is not necessarily the recognition of the need of remote area Australians, rather it is an incentive to allow the Government to fulfil its policy objectives to licensees within a prescribed period. We welcome the fact that remote country areas will have new commercial television and radio services. While we imagine that remote country areas are, in some way, close to Ayers Rock, there are a number of poor television reception areas close to the seaboards of this nation. Even in my area, which encompasses the Barossa Valley, there are places known to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), such as the township of Angaston that have poor television reception simply because they are located within a particular range in the Barossa Valley. People within 100 kilometres or so of the city of Adelaide have had to take snowy television for granted and they too will have improved television if they avail themselves of the sales tax exemption that will encourage better transmission facilities. I make these points because there has been too little recognition of the disadvantage that Australians in remote areas face. I point out that although this Bill provides some incentive and makes $14.5m available to improve the transmission of television in remote areas, nonetheless the Budget recently handed down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) imposed some burdens on the people in remote areas of Australia. Take, for example, the fuel freight subsidy scheme. The threshold on the price of petrol was lifted from 6c per litre to 10c per litre before the fuel freight subsidy came into play. That disadvantage was carried particularly by people in remote areas. An excise on fuel that goes up every six months is a disadvantage principally carried by Australians in remote areas because they are mainly the people who use fuel. People living in remote areas of Australia cheerfully accept the discomforts that go with being in an isolated place; they cheerfully accept the hardships of drought, and they are entitled to this gesture from the Government which will provide them with some immediate relief. The honourable member for Bruce addressed two other areas of the legislation before the House-the exemption for tourist publicity and the vice-regal exemptions. I briefly turn honourable members' attention to one other area and that is the exemption that gives effect to the proposed status of forces agreement between Australia and Singapore. This is a gesture of goodwill to those Singaporeans who are coming into Australia and it brings them into parity with forces from the United States of America and Papua New Guinea that are on our shores. It is an exercise in good relations with our near neighbours and we in the Opposition commend the Government for it. Singaporean armed forces personnel posted principally to Duntroon and Queenscliff and to staff postings in Canberra and elsewhere will now be able to avail themselves of the same sales tax exemptions that exist for service personnel from Papua New Guinea and the United States. It is both timely and ironical that this week we should be discussing these provisions, that this week we should be extending an olive branch to the armed forces of Singapore who come to us, while we see in other parts of the community sand being kicked in the faces of our allies from America who currently man the Pine Gap facility. In making that statement I am not criticising the Government. I simply wish that a few more voices had been raised this week in defence of the Americans and what they are doing for us at Pine Gap. I note with pleasure that in the Senate yesterday both Government and Opposition speakers rose in defence of what the Americans are currently doing in the joint defence facility at Pine Gap. I quote briefly from a speech by Senator Chaney: . . . the great mass of Australians who support the cause of peace and nuclear disarmament, but who believe that both peace and nuclear disarmament require in the short and immediate term the maintenance of effective deterrence. They believe that in the longer term the capacity to achieve genuine disarmament and, hence, genuine peace should be on a phased, mutual and verified basis. These are the simple conditions which are supported by the Government, by the Opposition and by the great mass of the people of Australia. We propose to ensure that Singaporean forces serving in Australia are given precisely the same sales tax advantages as are forces from the United States of America and Papua New Guinea. I am anxious that we restate that it is not our intention to ensure that Singaporean forces are treated in precisely the same way as are forces from the United States because I believe that we could have been much more welcoming of our American colleagues than were some members of this Parliament-principally in the other chamber-this week. I was a little affronted to hear a story from a colleague of mine about a friend of his from America who was hitch-hiking around Australia with cloth badges sewn on to his knapsack. This week those badges were ripped off his knapsack in a gesture against Pine Gap. This legislation has little to do with the Pine Gap facility but it has a great deal to do with the way in which we treat the Singaporean forces. The intention of this legislation is to bring them into line with the tax situation currently faced by forces from Papua New Guinea and the United States of America. I hope that we will welcome our American friends as we do our Singaporean friends. Madam Speaker, I close by referring to some remarks made by the honourable member for Capricornia, who drew your attention to what he rightly saw as inequitable sales tax treatment of low alcohol beers. I simply say that the record of this Government in the taxation area in total has been a sorry one. This Government's tax take has been at a record all time high. The honourable member for Capricornia referred to the impact of sales tax and excises on low alcohol beers. I draw the attention of the House to the impact of sales tax on both wine and citrus fruit juices. I concede that the legislation before the House is a genuine effort to redress four areas to which the Government has felt it appropriate to apply an exemption from sales tax. Those areas are the tourist publicity area, the vice-regal exemptions area, the exemption for television transmitters in remote areas and an opportunity to ensure that armed forces from Singapore are treated in a manner parallel to that currently available to the armed forces from the United States of America and Papua New Guinea. While the Opposition has some reservations about the detail of the legislation before the House, it has no intention of opposing it. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health)(8.30) —I thank members of the House for the contributions that they have made to this debate. We have noted the critical comments made by colleagues, and I will certainly ensure that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) takes them on board. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 September. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(8.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. It is now some 3 1/2 years since the introduction of legislation to provide the Australian National Railways Commission, or AN, with a charter which gave it the task of becoming a commercially oriented business operation. In the previous year, AN had recorded its highest ever loss, of $106m. Since then, AN has made considerable progress. This progress reflects this Government's approach of creating an environment in which its business authorities can get on with the job of improving their performance. In real terms AN's call on the Federal Budget has been reduced by over 60 per cent during this period. It is a record in which everyone associated with AN-the Chairman, commissioners, AN management, unions and the AN work force-can take justifiable pride. But we cannot stop there. Accordingly this Government is continuing to work with AN and its staff to maintain that momentum which will lead AN to become a genuinely commercially viable government railway. As part of this continuing drive for improved efficiency, on 1 October 1986 the former Minister for Transport, the present Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris), announced a package of further initiatives including a new approach to AN's passenger services. The fact is that, like those of virtually every railway in the world, AN's passenger services are not currently commercially viable. However, with operational and marketing initiatives their future prospects can be improved. While AN's performance is better than that of many of the other Australian rail systems, particularly for its long distance services, there is room to achieve greater efficiency. The Government and AN are embarking upon the demanding approach of upgrading these services rather than allowing them to drift into a state where they are beyond redemption. We have agreed with AN a set of increasing cost recovery targets to be achieved in respect of these passenger services. From a level of around 45 per cent in 1984-85, AN now has the task of improving its passenger cost recovery level to a 60 per cent target by 1988-89. AN has already launched a number of major initiatives to provide better, more efficient services to its customers. These include: Upgrading the Mount Gambier service with improved transit times and on-board service, which has resulted in a 15 per cent increase in patronage; The launching in 1986 of a new Adelaide-Whyalla Budd car service which replaced the Adelaide-Port Pirie service. This service, know as the Iron Triangle Limited, is currently running at almost full capacity; The diversion of the Indian Pacific into Adelaide in 1986 without adding to the total journey time; The launching of a new service, known as the Silver City Limited, between Adelaide and Broken Hill in December 1986; and The launching of a conference car on the Ghan to cater for business functions. AN considers that it should further extend the facilities it provides to its passengers to make train travel a far more enjoyable experience in itself. Accordingly it has refurbished rolling-stock to provide a special entertainment car, offering facilities such as video and sound booths, video games for children, tables for cards and chess, a souvenir shop, a hair salon, and a limited number of poker machines. To provide a clear legislative base for these activities it is necessary for the amendments contained in clause 3 of this Bill to be enacted. AN has consulted both the South Australian and Northern Territory governments on the proposal and both governments have raised no objections. The second amendment incorporated in the Bill will preserve the existing workers compensation entitlements for AN employees who were transferred from the South Australian Railways in 1978. A condition of the transfer was that these employees would have the option of claiming compensation benefits under either the South Australian or Federal provisions. This was embodied in section 47 of the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983. However, the existing South Australian Act is to be repealed on 1 October 1987. This means those employees would lose their right to claim compensation under South Australian law. In view of the Government's commitments at the time of transfer, it is only proper that the Government should continue to honour those commitments. This amendment will ensure that the right to choose between the current South Australian provisions and Federal provisions is maintained. The third provision of the Bill will amend section 70 of the Act to expand the powers under which boards of inquiry undertake investigations into the causes of accidents involving AN. Two boards of inquiry have been established under the Act. They have proven to be extremely valuable in having an independent body examine major accidents. It is considered that future inquiries would benefit by having wider powers to allow them to consider the broader causes of accidents. The proposed powers are similar to provisions governing accident inquiries under the Air Navigation Regulations. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(8.37) —I thank the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) for making available to me a copy of his second reading speech on the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation. It will not oppose propositions which will improve the operational capability of those statutory authorities which remain under the control of the Government and which rely to a great extent upon the goodwill, as well as the managerial expertise, of the government of the day in order to bolster their services to the community. The Bill before the House is presented in three parts. The first part deals with the provision by the Australian National Railways Commission, trading as Australian National, or AN, of entertainment, including some limited gambling facilities, on its passenger services. The third part of the legislation will effectively extend the ability of the Commission to investigate rail accidents which involve Australian National through affording greater powers to any commissions of inquiry which may be established to look into such accidents. Both of these amendments are very similar to amendments included in a Bill which was before this House in the earlier part of the year and which the Opposition did not oppose. The second part of the Bill, which was not included in the earlier Bill, seeks to maintain the existing right of employees of Australian National who were transferred to Australian National under the Railways Agreement (South Australia) Act 1975 to elect to claim workers compensation under either the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 or the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1971 of South Australia after the latter Act is repealed as of 4 p.m. on 30 September this year. I understand that the Minister has prepared an amendment to the Bill to ensure that those employees presently covered by the South Australian Act will not be not covered, as it were, when the South Australian Act is repealed as of 4 p.m. on 30 September and before the relevant section of this Bill is due to come into force-midnight on 1 October 1987. It is pleasing that the Minister's Department has picked up this discrepancy with the South Australian legislation. However, I would have thought that the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, a former Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, could have been expected to have the inside running on ensuring that these two complementary pieces of legislation dovetailed neatly to ensure that the employees of Australian National covered by the soon to be repealed South Australian legislation would not be left in a sort of limbo should they injure themselves between the time that the South Australian legislation is repealed at 4 p.m. and the time when this legislation comes into effect at midnight. It is always difficult to understand what goes on within the factions of the Australian Labor Party and perhaps the reason that the Minister did not have the inside running is that he is a member of the left wing of the Labor Party and the Labor Government in South Australia is more moderate in its views. This amendment to the Act has not been before this House before today and, as a result, deserves rather closer scrutiny than the other sections of the legislation, even though my colleague Senator Watson has quite rightly raised some questions which the Opposition has concerning the numbers and types of gambling entertainment to be provided on Australian National services, to which I shall refer in a moment. Employees who are eligible to make a choice of opting for the Commonwealth workers compensation provisions or the provisions of the South Australian Act, which is soon to be repealed, are those who were transferred from South Australia's non-metropolitan railways to Australian National and who have continuous service from 1 March 1978. As of 4 o'clock on 30 September the South Australian Workers Compensation Act 1971 will be repealed by the South Australian Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1987. The amendment before the House will continue the right of eligible employees to have access to the provisions of the South Australian Act. I mention in passing that the proposed legislation to come before the South Australian Parliament is the South Australian equivalent of similar legislation in Victoria, which is labelled WorkCare. I warn the South Australian Government that the WorkCare experiment in Victoria has been disastrous; its liability in a few short years has blown out to billions of dollars. On a number of occasions the Victorian Government has acknowledged that the Work-care program is unworkable. The Victorian Government has made a series of amendments to the legislation to try to bring the costs of Workcare under control. If the South Australian Government is not careful, it will end up with its equivalent Workcare legislation in the sort of shambles in which the Victorian Government has found itself on this matter. Mr O'Neil —They have a good Minister looking after that in South Australia. Mr BEALE —Then the honourable member can take a message to his good Minister in South Australia. He can tell that good Minister that if he implements a Workcare program in the same way as the Victorian Minister did, he will not be a good Minister any more. He will be a very bad Minister. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I remind the honourable member that we are debating legislation within this chamber, not in the State chamber. Mr BEALE —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was reacting to an interjection from the honourable member who referred to a good Minister in South Australia. I was giving him some advice so that his good Minister can stay that way. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill says that it has no financial implications. Having been briefed by officers in the Minister's Department, for which I thank the Minister, I can appreciate how the complicated arrangements will work. Perhaps the only financial implication will be in additional administrative costs. I understand that the number of ex-South Australian employees eligible for this workers compensation provision is constantly decreasing and does not amount to nearly the number that it did a few years ago. Turning to the other amendments which I referred to earlier as parts 1 and 3 embodied in the Bill, I point out that they have been before this House on another occasion in a similar, if not identical, state. The performance of Australian National has improved significantly since its restructuring under a Liberal-National Party Government. The amendments dealing with providing an entertainment car for some of the Australian National passenger services is a further step along the line for Australian National to become a truly commercially oriented company, capable of drawing passengers and other businesses in its own right, rather than relying on any monopoly that it may have on the transport of particular goods to certain places. Having said that, it is still imperative that Australian National, in co-operation with the Government, continue that drive to be more commercial, more competitive and more attractive as a form of transport. I note that, like all other Australian transport industries involved with the carriage of passengers, there is considerable scope for improvement so as to take advantage of the recent rapid growth in international tourism to Australia. The Ghan railway service operated by Australian National between Adelaide and Alice Springs is one of the great train journeys of the world, and I believe that in the expansion of the tourist industry this is something on which Australian National will be able to build in the future. Australian National's performance in carrying passengers is like that of all other railways in Australia, as recognised by the Inter-State Commission's report on cost recovery arrangements for interstate land transport-that is, the worst performing sector of its operations. It is to be hoped that Australian National is doing all it can within its present charter to improve that situation as it relates to the potential of increased tourism. I believe that the amendment before the House today dealing with the addition of an entertainment car is a step in that direction and I commend Australian National for its initiative. It is to be regretted that Australian National does not have the car operating now. The Government's behaviour in calling an early election, which meant that the previous Bill lapsed, has resulted in a delay in the passage of these amendments. Australian National can blame this Government for the delay in the addition of appropriate facilities for this car and Australian National, in common with the people in the rest of Australia, are fed up with the Government calling elections. Three elections in four years is far too many. Although the rail entertainment car has been running on the Ghan since August, it has been without the poker machines. So far as it goes, I understand that it has been at least a modest success and that the entire operation is proving worthwhile. The passage of this amendment today allowing gambling facilities on Australian National trains will further improve the attractiveness of the Ghan and other trains that Australian National may eventually decide to run with entertainment cars. However, as I said at the outset, the Opposition has some reservations about the operation of gambling facilities, although I think that the Minister in responding to this debate may be able to allay our fears in this respect. One problem that we envisage is access to the poker machines. If they are to be all together in one car along with video games, sound booths and so on, one wonders who will regulate the use of these poker machines by minors. It is conceivable that this could involve more staff, and I would welcome the Minister's comments on this matter when he replies to the debate. Another question that arises with the amendment of gambling facilities is that the provision of such facilities is not limited to train carriages; it is also applicable to premises owned or occupied by the Commission. Again, I seek the Minister's assurance that nothing will be done by the Commission, no matter how much it might improve its performance, which would compromise the positions of the States in relation to their laws on gambling. I would welcome the Minister's assurance on that matter at the end of this debate. I am sure that his Department has discussed this with its State counterparts to ensure that there will be no difficulties in this regard but the appropriate commitment from the Minister on the record would be worth while. The amendment concerning the extension of the powers of commissions of inquiry into accidents involving Australian National is a sensible step which the Opposition supports. Australian National has improved its financial performance over the past five years or so, but I stress that it is still imperative that it does not rest on its laurels. Compared with other forms of transport, especially road transport, Australian National-and, indeed, this applies to all railways-is not as efficient or productive as it could be. Having said that, I should put on the record that Australian National is the leading railway in Australia in terms of financial performance, presentation of accounts and willingness to improve its image and performance. I contrast here some facts and figures in comparing Australian National with the State railways to highlight the fact that while the Commonwealth is trying to put its business enterprises at least in the right frame of mind, if not always in the proper financial state to move towards something resembling a commercial operation, New South Wales and Victoria are among those States not doing anything meaningful to improve the shambles that pass for their rail systems. I highlight the fact that the Commonwealth is not doing everything it can to put its enterprises in the proper financial state and refer briefly to its treatment of Australian Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd. Qantas needs some $400m over the next five years to re-equip its fleet and remain competitive internationally. Australian Airlines also needs some hundreds of millions of dollars in what will become a deregulated airline environment so that it can remain competitive. I stress again, as I have done on a number of occasions over the past few weeks, that the only way that the Government will be able to solve the financial difficulties associated with Qantas and Australian Airlines is to convert part or all of the ownership of those statutory bodies from the public sector to the private sector. The coalition parties have been pushing the Government for some time to privatise Australian Airlines by transferring 100 per cent ownership of the shares from the public to the private sector and to do the same with a minority interest in Qantas. I return to the railways and refer to the shocking performance of the New South Wales and Victorian railways compared with that of Australian National and the railways of some of the other States. I wish to record that Western Australia has made progress in rationalising its operations, especially in terms of moving grain by rail supertrains. Queensland has just finished, or is in the process of finishing-and at some considerable cost-a series of improvements to its system by electrification of heavily used lines. Unfortunately, the days of bludging and rorts and entrenched inefficiency are not over with the State railways in New South Wales and Victoria. Last year alone, 44,836 working days were lost through industrial action on the Victorian railways. The work practices and non-productivity of the Victorian and New South Wales State rail systems are legendary, or perhaps more correctly, infamous. For example, take the Melbourne-Sydney freight corridor, which is theoretically ideal for the interstate transport of freight. Although some progress has been made on this route with the introduction of super-freighters, one must ask why some 75 per cent of total freight on this route goes by road. On the Sydney-Melbourne freight run we have a situation that is ideal for rail transport, yet rail transport takes only 25 per cent of the total business. Clearly there are arguments which go backwards and forwards between the road freight, railways and shipping industries about subsidisation and cost recovery and how each industry is disadvantaged by the subsidies the others receive. However, the bottom line is really which industry can do it cheaper, more reliably and with less call on the public purse. The State railways do not do very well by any of these criteria, as is evidenced by the fact that on the Sydney-Melbourne route, which is ideal for train movements, the railways have only 25 per cent of the business, with 75 per cent being carried by road. One only has to look for an explanation at some of the work practices. For example, on the Sydney-Melbourne trip the old coaling and water changes still take place at Goulburn, Junee and Albury-Wodonga. I believe that on the New South Wales side of the journey there is still a provision for a `call boy', whose job it is to wake up the crews. I hope that we do not need a call boy to wake up the Government on this matter. There is also the extravagance of crews being returned to their homes by taxi once their shift has finished, even though they may be very many kilometres from where they started the journey. These sorts of rorts are ridiculous in this day and age of government restraint and economic belt tightening. I point out that transport is fundamental for our exports. This country desperately needs exports in order to bring our balance of payments under control and to try to get our exploding overseas debt under control. In this House today, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) objected to the word `exploding' to describe what is happening to Australia's overseas debt. I would have thought that `exploding' was not a bad word to describe what has happened to Australia's overseas debt. Since the Government came to power that debt has increased from $30 billion to more than $110 billion. That is exploding overseas debt. The railways are equal to the waterfront on this score. These two areas are the worst in the entire transport chain for inefficiency, which adds greatly to the final cost of every item which is transported-and that is almost everything. These sectors add tremendously to the cost of our exports and our imports and all this reflects on our competitiveness as a trading nation. The total deficit of the railways system in Australia is approaching a shameful $3 billion. How can Australia continue to carry this sort of legacy when we are being subjected to every sort of pressure to become more efficient, more productive and more competitive in both international and domestic markets? The answer is straightforward. We simply cannot afford this sort of $3 billion bill for a party to which only the trade union movement is invited. The rest of Australia is paying for all the rorts, lurks and inefficiencies of our transport system and this country simply cannot afford that any more. Our freight handling rates, whether for wheat, containers or whatever, do not approach the performance of countries with which the Treasurer likes to think we are equal. It is about time the Australian people, the Australian work force, and especially the Australian unions, woke up to the fact that the way we have done things in the past is now costing us dearly and that we simply cannot afford to pay for them any more. We have to improve our performance in the transport sector and we-when I say `we' I include the States and, in regard to railways, particularly New South Wales and Victoria-have to start now. The previous Minister for Transport established targets for Australian National. He, and I assume his successor-as I understand the responsibilities in the Department of Transport and Communications it is the Minister at the table, the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, who has the prime carriage for the performance of Australian National-want to lift the cost recovery rate on Australian National's passenger services from 45 per cent to 60 per cent by 1989. If this is achieved, it will make Australian National's passenger cost recovery superior to any of the States which are presently struggling to recover 40 per cent of costs. V/Line in Victoria, for example, has a cost recovery figure of around 25 per cent for its passenger services. Metrail hopes to get to 50 per cent within five years. The Inter-State Commission, in its landmark report on cost recovery for land transport, put the figure for interstate passenger rail services at around 37 per cent. That contrasts with Australian National's objective to lift its cost recovery rate on passenger services to 60 per cent by 1989. The total deficit for Australian National last year was $70m. Of this, Tasrail's freight service accounted for $20m and mainland freight for another $20m. That leaves $30m for the remaining activities of Australian National. The progress made by Australian National in reducing its deficit, in both dollar terms and real terms, is especially encouraging as it operates in South Australia, which has a relatively deregulated transport market. In government, the coalition parties would intensify the process of exposure and elimination of rorts and inefficiencies in Australia's transport industries, especially the stevedoring industries and the railways. In government, the coalition parties would work harder to encourage Australian National and the State railways to increase cost recovery on passenger services. It is imperative that this Government, despite its political affiliations with the trade union movement, use the only tool it has to get improvement in the State sectors of the total transport chain. That tool is exposure of the rorts and inefficiencies that are taking place within the transport chain. Ridicule is a great engine of change. Royal commissions, the Industries Assistance Commission, the Inter-State Commission and commissions of inquiry must be used to increase the awareness of the people of Australia that they are being ripped off by the inefficiencies in the State transport systems, particularly the State rail systems in New South Wales and Victoria. Mr Duncan —And Queensland. Mr BEALE —By that interjection the Minister is acknowledging the rorts and inefficiencies in the New South Wales and Victorian State railways and is adding another State to the list. I invite him to do what he can to encourage New South Wales and Victoria and, if he chooses to do so, Queensland to improve their performance in this area. The Federal Government has a responsibility to embarrass, cajole and help the States to improve their transport systems wherever possible. The days of being able to afford the sort of nonsense that we have in the Victorian and New South Wales rail systems are gone. The total railway deficit in Australia has been put at up to $3 billion. We can no longer afford to ignore that scale of inefficiency, nor can we condone continuing restrictive work practices and mediocre productivity levels. Both the waterfront and the railways are an essential part of the transport chain. They must be made to become efficient. The coalition regards this legislation as helping in the efficiency development process and regards Australian National as setting the standard for railway operations in Australia. It has reduced its work force by 32 per cent and increased its productivity by 115 per cent since 1978. It must continue this drive for efficiency and must continue to take initiatives to ensure its share of the transport task. The Government must also continue to put pressure wherever it can on the States to improve their performance in the total transport area. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(9.06) —When the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill was introduced last year, the then shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), was very constructive in his support of this Bill. He was very bipartisan indeed. He acknowledged the tremendous work that had been accomplished by the trade union movement to achieve the improvement in transport that has occurred in Australia. It is a terrible indictment of the Opposition that the new shadow Minister for Transport and Communications, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), has had to revert to the old days of bashing the trade union movement. Any objective person would know that the reason we recovered from the diabolical economic situation in which we were left in March 1983, when the coalition lost government and left us with a deficit of $9.6 billion, the reason we recovered our footing on the economic scale, was the tremendous support of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the trade union movement. I place on record the Government's acknowledgment of the superb support we have had from the trade union movement. We are certainly looking forward to its continuing support. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today in support of the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1987. As most honourable members would be aware, my interest in a sound future for Australian National (AN) stems from the fact that many hundreds of my constituents rely directly on AN for employment and many thousands of others rely on it indirectly for their well-being. So it is of paramount importance to me that AN be given the opportunity to continue as a major freight and passenger carrier. I am pleased to note that AN increased its freight carrying by 12.9 per cent, and its passenger revenue by 21.9 per cent, in 1985-86. This Bill will help to improve the amenities available to passengers travelling with AN. This pleases me greatly, because it was not too many years ago that the future of passenger rail was less than assured. One of the reasons for AN's improved efficiency is its commitment to improving its plant and equipment. An example of this is the maintenance and upgrading of mainline tracks. The innovation of concrete sleepers, which are manufactured in Port Augusta, has allowed AN to resleeper 1,326 kilometres of track. Manufacture by contract of 700,000 concrete sleepers was begun in 1985-86 in Port Augusta, providing employment and a much needed economic boost to a depressed region in my electorate. These indirect benefits of AN are often overlooked. Cities such as Port Augusta and Port Pirie depend heavily on both the direct and indirect effects of AN. The primary objective of this amending legislation is to allow AN, consistent with its charter, to act commercially to improve the financial performance of its passenger operations, through improving the quality of service provided-being innovative in the selection of activities offered to passengers-and to maintain and increase patronage. The three most famous rail passenger services in Australia, and perhaps three of the most famous in the world-the Ghan, from Adelaide to Alice Springs, the Indian Pacific, from Sydney to Adelaide to Perth, and the Trans-Australian, from Adelaide to Perth-all run through the electorate of Grey. I am reminded of that famous quote from John Cheever: We travel by plane, oftener than not, and yet the spirit of our country seems to have remained a country of railroads. The spirit of Grey remains very much the spirit of the railroad. In this age of high speed travel and communication, the humble railway still provides a service that is efficient and safe, both for passengers and for freight. Australia's railway network has played a major role in the development of our nation, although some would argue that the development of State railways with their different gauges did more to hinder the growth of the nation than it did to help. The 1983 Australian National Railways Commission Bill provided a firm legislative base within which Australia's rail network would continue to play a role in the development of the nation. The Bill we are debating today will add to this legislative base and will provide Australian National with even more flexibility to compete in a business like manner. At this point I must commend the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, (Mr Peter Duncan) for introducing this Bill in this House. I am sure that the Minister will prove to be one of the most able and competent Ministers to serve this Parliament. As the Minister knows, there is a long-standing invitation for him to visit Grey, and I am sure that this invitation will be taken up shortly. He has a hard act to follow as the previous Minister for Transport, Peter Morris, was an extremely progressive Minister, with a dedicated vision for the transport industry in general. We backbenchers with a keen interest in the transport industry sincerely thank him for his co-operation, assistance and unstinting help in broadening our knowledge of the intricacies of the transport industry in general. We trust that he has the same success in his new portfolio. As most honourable members would be aware, in recent years there has been a boom in the number of tourists visiting Australia from overseas. The vast majority come from Japan, the United States of America and New Zealand. They come here not only because Australia provides a relatively cheap holiday, but also because we have a country rich in natural endowments, which can be experienced in comfort and safety. People, when travelling overseas, travel for that experience, the experience of seeing new and exciting countries, and the experience of taking part in activities that they would not otherwise take part in. Australian National's railway network offers an experience which many overseas tourists take advantage of. The three great railway journeys mentioned earlier all offer an opportunity to see a part of Australia that many Australians do not see. The Ghan travels north from Adelaide to Alice Springs, within easy reach of the beauty of Uluru and the Olgas. The Indian Pacific and the Trans-Australian travel west across the Nullarbor Plain to Perth, surely a trip that is memorable for its length and the rugged beauty of much of the country. These rail journeys offer a unique view of Australia and one which is very attractive to many overseas tourists. It is therefore pleasing to see Australian National attempting to provide a level of service and a range of activities which should help to entice foreign visitors to see Australia by rail. These facilities are, of course, aimed not only at overseas visitors, but also at Australians holidaying at home. The Bill before us today will provide Australian National with a sound legislative base to provide additional entertainment facilities on its Ghan service. A specially fitted out rail car has been operating since August, providing such things as private video and sound booths, video games for children and other services and amenities. This legislation will allow for the installation of poker machines, which will provide an added incentive for many travellers to make use of the rail system. Whilst this special rail car is initially intended for use on the Ghan service, it is hoped that its success will allow AN to provide a similar facility on many of its other rail services. It is pleasing to see Australian National taking the initiative when confronted with the problem of competition. The completion of the sealing of the Stuart Highway has meant that many tourists now have the opportunity to drive from Adelaide to Alice Springs on a sealed road for the first time. The sealing of the Stuart Highway has opened up the north of Australia to many thousands of people, and I am pleased to say that it has had a marvellous affect on the economy of Port Augusta and northern towns such as Coober Pedy. In fact, I have received reports from many people in the north of my electorate suggesting that there are not enough motel units and caravan park spaces available for the influx of tourists. Such has been the effect of this Government's sealing of the Stuart Highway. The success of the highway, however, threatens to reduce the patronage of the Ghan service and this is why Australian National has decided to take positive steps to retain, and improve, its share of the passenger market. Passenger train services world-wide are notable for the losses that they incur. Australian National also suffers substantial losses on the passenger services that it operates. However, it is committed to maintaining those services and also to improving its cost recovery performance for them. In 1984-85, AN recovered only 45 per cent of the costs associated with its passenger services. Its aim by 1988-89 is to recover 60 per cent of its costs. The inclusion of the new entertainment carriage on the Ghan run is one step in the direction of improving its passenger service and performance, and it is a step that should be encouraged. The amending legislation also broadens the power of boards of inquiry, established under section 70 of the Australian National Railways Commission Act, to examine the causes, rather than just the circumstances, of accidents. These powers are consistent with provisions for accident inquiries under the Air Navigation Regulations. The two boards of inquiry which have been established under the Act have proven to be valuable, by virtue of having an independent body examine major accidents. It is considered that future inquiries would benefit from having wider powers to consider the broader causes of accidents. When this Bill was debated earlier in the year there seemed to be universal bipartisan support for the approach taken by Australian National in its commitment to maintaining passenger services, with as little call as possible being made on the taxpayer for support. It is pleasing that Australian National has taken the step of expanding its passenger service in some areas such as the opening of the Iron Triangle Limited, which runs from Adelaide via Port Pirie and Port Augusta to Whyalla. This service has proved to be a remarkable success, due no doubt to innovative marketing, provision of an efficient regular service, and also the provision of a level of comfort and amenities in the refurbished Budd car, which makes for a very pleasant journey. This new service has been running at almost full capacity for well over 18 months, and I feel that perhaps some consideration should be given to providing a weekend service to Adelaide, perhaps departing Whyalla on the Friday evening and returning on the Sunday evening. I am sure that such a service would prove very popular with patrons in the three Iron Triangle cities, and I hope that serious consideration is given to extending the service in the future. I am pleased that the Minister appears to be sympathetic to this and to my discussions with him. I must commend him for giving me a good hearing on the expansion of the service. It is indeed pleasing to see that Australian National is introducing a new service which has been embraced by the travelling public in the region. This is especially so when one considers that not too many years ago the whole future of passenger rail services looked very bleak indeed. However, one should not forget that the vast majority of AN's business is freight. In fact 85 per cent of its business is freight. Even with the remarkable advances made in the passenger rail services, it is freight that provides AN with its bread and butter. Australian National competes in the freight business against what many consider to be the world's most successful road transport industry. It is estimated that Australian National is now covering 90 per cent of full costs for its long distance freight services, with the aim of covering full costs by the end of 1988. This improvement has come about as a result of AN's recognising that railways are not exempt from economic realities and that they cannot expect governments to fund their ever-increasing deficits. The rail unions have played a major role in assisting the restructuring of AN. During 1985-86 only 218 person days were lost through industrial disputes, which is the lowest level since the formation of Australian National in 1978. Added to this marvellous industrial relations record has been a dramatic increase in productivity amongst AN's employees involved in the freight side of its business activities. In fact, there has been a 115 per cent increase in output per employee engaged in freight transport since 1978-a remarkable achievement. These two figures are indeed impressive: the lowest number of days lost through industrial disputes since 1978 and the 115 per cent increase in output per employee. This is an impressive record which shows what can be achieved with the right attitude. Railway workers have accepted the challenge and they are producing the results. I am sure that honourable members from both sides of this House will agree that the record of the railway unions involved with AN has been a record worthy of credit. The management of Australian National also deserves credit for many of the innovative approaches it has taken towards increasing its share of the market in both passenger and freight services. This Bill is an example of some of the innovative thinking aimed at improving the performance of the passenger services. On the freight side, in 1986 Australian National introduced the super-freighter concept, which is a non-stop containerised freight express service with fixed schedules for departure and delivery times. The super-freighter concept operates only point to point between modern container terminals, with no shunting or marshalling required. This service operates between most of the major trade centres in Australia, Adelaide-Perth, Adelaide-Sydney, Adelaide-Melbourne, Sydney-Brisbane, and Melbourne-Sydney. By the end of 1986 alone, super-freighters in and out of Adelaide were carrying 7,000 tonnes of freight a week. This is only one example of innovation in the freight areas which has assisted Australian National to maintain a competitive position in the long distance freight business. In October 1986 this Government announced a package of measures to improve further Australian National's competitiveness. This addressed passenger services, staffing initiatives, management and operating practices and revitalisation of workshops. Australian National can be proud of its record in staff relations. While its work force has declined by 3,000 or by 30 per cent since its inception, no one has yet lost his job. The entire reduction in staff has been achieved through natural attrition and voluntary early retirement, and with the minimum of industrial disruption. Australian National has engaged in vigorous competition in the market-place; for example, its improved performance in piggy-back traffic, which includes its recently developed multimodal facilities at its Keswick barracks. This innovation was assisted by a government grant of $2.3m to improve terminal facilities and purchase high speed rolling stock. Australian National now has most of the freight traffic from Adelaide to Perth, and 95 per cent between Adelaide and Alice Springs. These initiatives have begun to turn Australian National into a more commercial organisation able to compete in the transport market-place. Let me reiterate: this has been achieved only by fully involving all parties in the process-government, management, employees and unions-and it clearly demonstrates this Government's willingness to achieve more efficient performance in all areas in the public arena. The Federal Government is committed to the continued development of a reliable and efficient national land transport system with each mode, rail and road, performing the task to which it is best suited. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(9.25) —I rise to support the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill. I have to claim that I am not a great expert on the railways of Australia. I am a bit of a ring-in in this debate to fill out our numbers. But I speak in this debate with great pleasure because I have always had a bit of a passion for railways. The Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), who is at the table, will be interested and amused to hear that I once owned my own railway-he may not be surprised to hear that-and in fact I still do own my own railway, although it sits in a box in the shed at the back of my house today. Of course, railway construction was part of the process of nation building in Australia, as it was in many of the New World nations. I suppose that in ways it helped to pull our infant nation together. Federation would not have been easily attainable in the late nineteenth century if it had not been for the fairly extensive network of railways that we had then. As everybody knows, railways in 1987 are no longer as important as they were in the last century, but they do remain a very visible government-owned trading enterprise, or series of trading enterprises. Also, because large quantities of national resources are still tied up in them, they do need significant thought to be given to them in the context of their role in the development of our nation. We have a substantial asset in our railways, at both the State and national level. From time to time we have to think what we will do with that asset. It is ironic that, while in the early days of our railways the challenges that faced the management as well as the employees of our railways were engineering challenges, today the real challenges are nothing but financial. Engineers may have been the heroes of our infant railways, but today it is the accountants, the managers and others who are really behind the drive for greater efficiency. This is largely because the advance of technology has created a new competitor for railways far more than it has changed the face of the railways. In the haulage of both freight and passengers, road transport competes fiercely and very effectively with the railways. It would be wrong to assume that this competition is not still evolving and becoming fiercer, because it most certainly is. For example-the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) referred to this-the recent completion of the sealing of the Stuart Highway between Adelaide and Alice Springs will mean that road operator costs in servicing the Alice Springs to Adelaide route will fall fairly significantly. That will be reflected in their rates, and that will put further pressure on the railways and on rail freight rates. Rail freight is already struggling on that route between Adelaide and Alice Springs. Two years ago I was in the north of South Australia and I was surprised to find that many of the graziers who lived on the railway line were very concerned about what they regarded as the inefficiency of the Australian National Railways Commission freight service. At that time they were looking forward to the completion of the Stuart Highway so that they could use road transport instead. Of course, that presents a very real challenge to Australian National. As well as this, the increasing size of road transport vehicles, which enables them to carry larger loads at proportionately less cost, the liberalisation of permissible road transport axle loads and the widespread introduction of B-double combination vehicles are further manifestations of the fierce competition with which railways have to deal. All of these make road transport relatively more attractive compared with rail transport. The railways either have to respond to this or else see their market share continue to decline. If their market share continues to decline, they will continue to become less relevant and in the end we will have little choice but to abandon these national assets. It is not good enough for rail managers to lamely point out, as some do, that the axle load of a 38-tonne pantechnicon is equivalent to that of about 2,200 motor cars and that the Government ought to legislate to protect roads from this sort of assault and so, incidentally, protect the position of rail transport. That approach will doom Australia to an increasingly high cost transport system that, in the long term, will destroy our ability to get products, whether they are rural produce, mineral ores or manufactured goods, on to the world markets at a competitive price. Transport is fundamentally important to Australia not just externally-we often talk about the problems with external transport-but also internally. Rail managers must accept and confront that challenge that these changing circumstances present to them. Railways either adapt to these changing circumstances or, as I have said, eventually they will be left to die. I hope that does not happen. One of the greatest problems we have in our national rail system both at the Australian National level and in our State railways is the problem of work practices. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) referred at some length to this. Those work practices grew up in an age when rail enjoyed a monopoly on freight and people had to be moved, and could only be moved, by rail. As I pointed out pretty clearly, the situation has changed and those work practices simply cannot be allowed to continue. The available evidence indicates that, although not at the State level, Australian National is making efforts to eliminate a lot of these extraordinarily expensive work practices, its expectation of full cost recovery in 1988 is proof of the fact that it has addressed, among other cost problems, work practices. It is, of course, an enormous improvement on Australian National's 1983 position when it made a record $106m loss. The fact that the State rail systems are still incurring annual total losses of a quite incredible $2.5 billion is more than a casual indication of how much remains to be done in those systems. The problems in the State rail systems are obviously not being tackled with the same vigour that Australian National is exhibiting. It remains a problem that, to some extent, the progress Australian National is making is being held back by these underperforming State railway systems. Australian National, for example, has from time to time complained that the Brisbane to Adelaide corridor and, more specifically, the Sydney to Brisbane link, are being inhibited by the lack of proper infrastructure investment by the States. There is a series, I understand, of height restrictions, there is a lack of effective terminals provided by the States and, in some instances, there is a shortage of suitable rolling stock. Despite some co-ordination that exists through the Railways of Australia organisation, the State railway systems we have are managed quite differently from Australian National, in some cases with differences in objectives and relative priorities. In a way, that is understandable because they have to deal with the most difficult of all rail services-commuter rail services. This lack of co-ordination detracts from the ability of the railways to function as components in a national railway network. That is something that Australian National seeks to achieve. As Australian National mentioned in its September 1986 publication AN News, relatively low priority continues to be given to intersystem freight and passenger business by the other railway systems, that is, the State railway systems. For example, intermodal services to the eastern States are slow, outmoded and congested. There are other aspects of State railways that I think are quite incoherent. The Government in my State of South Australia has undertaken a program, in the interests of the economy, of closing a number of rail services. I do not object to the fact that it is looking for increased economies; it must do that in a difficult economic climate. In any case, it is economically irrational to continue to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars-indeed, billions of dollars-of taxpayers' money into services that the communities apparently do not want. Certainly, in the case of South Australia, the State Government has given no clear criteria for its closure of railway lines. It has no sense of direction in the future of its rail policy. That creates a problem for Australian National which has to do its best to integrate with State rail systems, including the very important railway system in South Australia. I think the honourable member for Grey would agree with me that South Australia is the capital of railways in Australia. We had an instance recently in my electorate of the closure of the Bridgewater to Belair railway. It was said that this railway was making a loss-it certainly does make a substantial loss-but we did not hear whether its loss was considerably greater or less than the loss made by other commuter railway services. All we heard was that it was going to close. Those amongst us who are perhaps not cynical but a little sceptical of the commitment of the South Australian Government would have to say that it may have been closed because it was convenient to close a railway into a Liberal held State electorate-it is also a Federal electorate-rather than arouse the wrath of Labor members of parliament. So it is important that States have coherent rail policies which integrate with a national policy and which give some direction to a community and to community priorities. Let me return to Australian National. Part of the response of Australian National to the changed modern circumstances is to look at the services it generally provides. It is not just looking at cutting costs; it is looking at improving services. This is a very encouraging thing. It is very wise because mere concentration on costs and their containment would doom Australia's travellers to a standard of facilities that were completely incompatible with the great distances and long travel times that rail travel on the Australian National network invariably involve. The legislation before the House not only is important but also comes out of the review by Australian National of the service it offers to travellers on its long distance passenger services. Its intention is to enable those people who travel on those services to be provided with entertainment, including gambling-rather controversial perhaps-provided passengers have travelled on, or are booked to travel on, a rail journey of more than 24 hours duration. There is some controversy about whether gambling should be allowed on a national train running through South Australia to the Northern Territory, the excellent service known as the Ghan, but I think it would be a naive person who would believe that this service actually introduced gambling to passengers. Anybody who has travelled on Australian National's excellent trains-and I like to travel on them when I can-knows that that practice exists already. One does not have to be brought up on a diet of American westerns featuring card sharps travelling that country's frontier railways and whiling away the hours between Indian attacks, playing a few hands of poker, to suspect, naturally, that on our own long train journeys some informal gambling does take place. However, this legislation will make available a wider range of those facilities. It will also provide other kinds of entertainment of perhaps a less controversial nature. That will have the obvious effect of encouraging more people who have time on their hands to travel on railways rather than to take the air trip. It would be easy merely to focus on that aspect of the legislation, but it would be missing the real significance of what Australian National is trying to do. The real initiative on the part of Australian National is to provide its customers with an altogether higher quality of service so that train travel itself becomes part of Australian National's attraction in the market rather than just being something that has to be endured in getting from one place to another, in this case specifically from Adelaide to Alice Springs. So it is doing something to attract tourists to the rail system; perhaps one could go further and say, `attract tourists to Australia'. Those of us who travel regularly in aeroplanes-that would be every member of this House, I would imagine, other than the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) and perhaps the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow)-are used to the efforts the airlines make to satisfy their customers. It is perhaps a little surprising that it has taken the rail system so long to offer its own special services such as, dare I say it, gambling-we do not get that on planes yet-video booths, video games, souvenir shops, hair salons and so on. But, as I have said, it is a good thing that it has done that. These rail-liner or entertainment cars will greatly improve the attractiveness of rail travel and help to make some of the great train journeys that Australian National offers, such as on the Ghan, which I enjoyed travelling on two years ago, more memorable and, of course, of much greater interest to tourists. I think that Australian National has in a way-very slowly, one would have to admit-learnt a lesson from the investment in modern, high speed, efficient and attractive trains that has been made by the Europeans. I refer, for example, to the famous Mistral train which runs from Paris to the south of France, to Marseilles and beyond, I think, to the town of Menton. It is a brilliant and fast train which has high quality facilities, which, as a result, attracts an enormous number of passengers and which is, rather surprisingly, one of the few railways in the world which are actually profitable. I know that the West Germans also have introduced many magnificent trains of that kind. Anybody who has been to Europe and had the opportunity to buy Eurail passes and all those sorts of things will know about the TEE network in Europe, the trans-European expresses, which are very much a part of the tourist appeal of going to Europe. As with Australian National's vision for its railways, people do not travel by train between Paris and Rome, Paris and Milan or wherever just because they want to get from one place to the other; they travel by train because of what they can see and the facilities of the train-the enjoyment of the actual experience of going by train. So, those lessons from Europe-faster trains, trains with better facilities, good promotion of those train journeys and, of course, the wide range of fares that are offered in Europe, which is something Australian National is also picking up on-have very much been taken on board by Don Williams and his team at Australian National. There is also a proposal around at the moment for a high speed train to run between Sydney and Melbourne, stopping at Canberra on the way. That will be of interest to the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, I am sure. This high speed train concept, I suspect, is being based on similar trains that operate in the United Kingdom where those trains are profitable, in Germany where a new high speed train is soon to be introduced, and in France where a very high speed train was introduced very recently. The proposal in Australia is frankly, I think, a fairly heroic one. My recollection is that the investment needed will be in the vicinity of an incredible $4 billion and the operators will be looking at an annual gross return of some $500m. I think that is pretty heroic. They will need about three million passengers to make it pay. Their expectation, though, is that they can lure these passengers into the train service by making the journey between Sydney and Melbourne via Canberra extremely fast, and the cost of the travel will be about half the cost of an air fare. One of the advantages of this project-if it goes ahead-for me, as a South Australian, is that the town of Whyalla will be an enormous beneficiary. It will get about four years of continuous work simply making the rails for the new railway that would be built between Sydney and Melbourne via Canberra. Although I think, frankly, that it is a rather heroic project and it is a little hard to see that it will actually work and be profitable, it is a great example of private sector initiative. It is interesting that it has gone to such an extensive stage of planning. I do not know whether it will go ahead or not. That is up to the people who are proposing to invest in it-and there are several companies that are proposing to do that. I only hope that the State and Federal governments, when they look at this proposal, will not stand in the way of these private sector entrepreneurs. It is a very exciting concept and if it does not become a reality in the next five or six years it may be the sort of railway we will move to in the next 20 or 30 years. In conclusion, in the last few seconds I have, I say that this is good legislation, and I would like to congratulate particularly the General Manager of Australian National, Don Williams, on the outstanding job he has done for that railway system. It is interesting that he lives in the State of South Australia. It is probably the air, the wine and the good quality of life there which have encouraged him to do such a good job. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(9.45) —The Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill lapsed at the end of the last Parliament because of the double dissolution. If one reads the Hansards of that debate it is evident that at the time there was a high degree of bipartisanship. I see no reason why things should be different on this occasion, although the somewhat churlish remarks of the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) might lead one to doubt that. I would like to pay tribute to the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). I think he always tries to make an objective contribution and on that occasion he certainly did. This Bill seeks, firstly, to enable Australian National (AN) to act to improve the performance of its passenger services and, secondly, to restore the previously existing workers compensation entitlements for Australian National employees who transferred from the South Australian railways in 1978. The workers compensation amendment is very straightforward and, I hope, not controversial, and I do not intend to devote any more time to it. The amendments to allow AN to improve its passenger services performance are very sensible. I assume that the proposal to allow a limited number of poker machines is the most controversial aspect of these proposals, especially considering the high proportion of Methodists in South Australia. However, in this respect the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) is right: gambling has always taken place on these trains. I remember with great relish my brother taking several hundred pounds from some card sharps on the trans-Australia train in about 1963. The proposal to establish a video library and viewing facilities, video games for children, tables for card and board games, a hairdressing salon and a souvenir shop are all to be applauded. I notice that, initially at least, it is intended to confine these initiatives to the Ghan running between Adelaide and Alice Springs. I hope that it will not be long before the same services are included on the trans-Australia train and the Indian Pacific. It is my view that railways in Australia would be much more efficient if we had a truly national service. Certainly, the Indian Pacific should be run by a single operator between Sydney and Perth. That single operator should be Australian National. I understand that talks are well advanced with Westrail in respect of having a single operator in South Australia and Western Australia, and I thoroughly commend this. Fortunately, the second reading speech of the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) opens the way for a rather more wide-ranging coverage of our rail system than otherwise would be allowed within the very narrow confines of this Bill. I applaud the initiatives of this Bill and suggest to Australian National that it also consider the employment of a recreational officer on the trains who is able to play the piano, point out places of interest and get people interacting. I also suggest that a searchlight be installed on the roof of the observation car so that people could see the abundant wildlife that exists across the Nullarbor at night time. Such a device could be mechanically limited in its traverse so that it could not shine up or down the train, and it could be controlled electrically so that it could not operate in towns or built-up areas. I also think that Australian National should consider a system whereby passengers could leave the train to explore points of interest and rejoin it on a later day or even at another point. This, I believe, would have an appeal across the Nullarbor, but I acknowledge that it is something that would need private sector participation and some consideration at a future date. In discussing railways I think we have to decide just what we want from them. It is my belief that they have a community function that is not constrained by pure economics. This is not to say that they should provide totally uneconomic services. For instance, there are short lines that would be better serviced by road, and it is sensible to do this. People who live in remote areas such as the north-west of South Australia or across the Nullarbor Plain, however, have no other options and I believe that Australian National has an absolute obligation to service these people. I am pleased to say that I have been assured by Dr Williams, the General Manager of Australian National, that this obligation is recognised. The cost of providing these community services should be separately identified by the rail systems, but I would prefer to see this obligation enshrined in their operational charters in a similar way to what was done with Telecom, rather than have AN rely on government handouts-for I have often said that the greatest danger facing this country is the growing dichotomy between city and rural Australia. I see evidence that we are growing apart, and if this trend continues it presents a grave danger. I do not think that we can survive as a nation with such a division and I do not believe that any political party fully comprehends this danger. I would certainly not like to put my faith in government maintaining subsidies in times of economic downturn. The comments of the honourable member for Murray about the cost recovery figures produced by the Inter-State Commission were somewhat defective. I believe this occurred because the Inter-State Commission did not take into account the very high level of inter-system freight carried by Australian National. Had it done so, its figures would have been more comparable with those of the Bureau of Transport Economics and would have shown a cost recovery for freight carried on all Australian railways of 72 per cent rather than 66 per cent. The honourable member, in using the raw figures, did not differentiate between the various services. For instance, Westrail has achieved a cost recovery on freight of up to 119 per cent. Westrail is a success story, and I pay tribute to the previous Minister for Transport in the Western Australian Government, Mr Julian Grill, for it was he, not the management, who took the initiatives and the risks. The present Minister for Transport, Mr Gavin Troy, is very ably carrying on the good work, but I am sure that he would not deny the credit that I have given to Mr Grill. Today Westrail and Australian National are without doubt the best rail services in Australia. They should look at amalgamating to show the nation the benefits of a truly national railway. Australian National has performed very well indeed by any criteria that we can use. It has achieved a cost recovery rate across its entire operations of 80.3 per cent. Its freight operations between Perth and the east have achieved a cost recovery rate of better than 92 per cent. I have no doubt that some honourable members opposite will draw attention to the Queensland railway system that has also achieved a good cost recovery rate and a substantial deficit reduction. However, this result was achieved by a massive cost increase and by operating in an atmosphere of total regulation. Australian National carries over 80 per cent of all freight transported between the east and the west compared with about 15 per cent carried by rail between Sydney and Melbourne. This is interesting to note because Australian National operates in a totally deregulated environment, and has done since its inception. There are absolutely no regulations at all to prevent anyone from trucking goods to or from Perth. So Australian National has done very well indeed to have achieved this level of freight carriage. It should also be remembered that road freight from east to west achieves only about 30 per cent cost recovery. Every six-axle truck that operates across the Nullarbor costs the Australian taxpayer $50,000 per year. One only has to see the enormous damage done to the edges of the roads by these heavy vehicles to know that these costs are a reality. It is rather amusing to hear the honourable member for Mayo say that we should not hold road transport to the same rigorous cost recovery criteria that we impose on rail. He talked blithely of the fact that it is estimated that a heavy truck does something like 2,000 times the damage to roads as do motor cars. He pretends that this does not matter. Of course it matters; it matters in the overall context of the cost to the Australian public. I see no reason why the private sector should be able to operate under more generous terms than the government sector. Of course that is the way of the Opposition-one seeks to nationalise all one's losses. We should be looking at getting the remaining trucks that run across the Nullarbor on to the rail. I would have no hesitation in imposing a substantial toll on the Eyre Highway. This would be justified, for sooner or later we will have a truck and bus collision or even a bus and bus collision because of the deteriorating state of that highway. It must be remembered that overall in Australia there is about $1.2 billion lack of cost recovery from road transport. In other words, the road transport system in this country is costing the taxpayer $1.2 billion a year. This is more than the aggregate deficits of the Victorian and New South Wales railways. That figure should be kept in mind, but I would not in any way like that to be seen as any justification of the Victorian or New South Wales railways. I will come to that matter later. Let us look at some of the other criteria. Let us look at industrial relations. In 1980 employment in the railways for all the States was 111,452. By 1986 this figure was down to 102,279, a job loss of 9,173. However, the losses were overwhelmingly on Australian National and the Western Australian railway system. In 1980 Westrail had 9,727 employees and in 1986 that figure had been reduced to 6,599. In 1980 Australian National had 11,756 employees and by 1986 that figure was down to 8,137. Westrail and Australian National combined shed a total of 6,747 workers or over two-thirds of all the jobs shed. This represents a massive increase in productivity and I suggest that the honourable member for Deakin would be hard pressed to find any private sector achievement of this magnitude. The large reduction in the work force was achieved with minimal industrial disputation and without any sackings as natural attrition and early retirements were the strategies used. This result is of enormous credit to both the rail systems and the unions involved. If lack of industrial action is a measure of morale, Australian National and Westrail are on the right track. Last year, for instance, AN had the lowest level of industrial troubles since its inception in 1975-76. Another interesting aspect of the relative performance is the level of capital expenditure, for it must be remembered that if one accepts the Australian Railway Research and Development Organisation definition of deficit equals revenue less operating costs plus capital costs, then capital is a significant component of accumulated deficit. Westrail and Australian National had the lowest percentage of capital expenditure, which demonstrates that they gave more care and consideration to this matter than did the State systems. I did have quite a bit more to say but I understand one of my colleagues would also like to speak on this Bill. Therefore, I will confine my further remarks to the committee stage. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(9.57) —I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) for his consideration in concluding his remarks a little earlier than he otherwise would have. I will follow his good example in order to allow the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) to make a contribution prior to this debate being adjourned. I rise to speak to the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill, which incorporates a debate on changes to Australian National (AN). I want to make some references to Australian National that I believe have to date been overlooked in the debate that has occurred in this chamber. Those references are particularly about the changes that have occurred to rural Australia and farmers as a result of the changed structure of Australian National. The impact of farmers on the total transport facilities available to Australian National and the impact of AN on the capacity of farmers to cart their grain is enormous. I draw the attention of honourable members to the simple truth that of the total production cost that any wheat farmer faces, 16 per cent is made up of transport costs. Land transport costs take up 16 per cent of the total wheat production costs facing any farmer. Of that 16 per cent, 3 per cent is road costs and 13 per cent is rail costs. In using that figure I do not in any sense belittle-quite the contrary-the role of AN in the movement of grain, particularly from silo to port. The Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport Discussion Paper No. 4 highlighted the fact that the role of road transport in moving grain is relatively small compared with the role of rail transport. For example, the paper states: The distance travelled from farm to local silo ranges from an average of 8 kilometres in Victoria to 48 kilometres in Queensland. Compare this with an average of 150 kilometres in South Australia and 500 kilometres in New South Wales, the distance travelled by rail. So rail has an enormous impact on the capacity of farmers to get their grain from the silo to the port, although obviously road transport is the major form of getting grain from the farm to the silo. I want to refer briefly to the attempts made to cut the costs currently faced by AN. The honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie have referred to the cost cutting program AN has been involved in. This same cost cutting program has effectively isolated a number of rural communities from the AN rail services they once took for granted. I refer to two tiny towns in my own electorate of Wakefield, Hamley Bridge and Riverton. Both of these towns once enjoyed a regular rail service that is now denied them. Instead, those who wish to use public transport have to travel by bus to the nearest town that has a regular bus service. While the need to move from their town to the nearest sight of a bus depot causes inconvenience, I want to tell the House that I find that rural people generally accept this measure of inconvenience. They are not pleased about it, but they recognise that there is no such thing as a free lunch; they recognise that the cost overrun that was once characteristically a part of AN and is now being pruned, can be pruned only if they are denied some of the services they once took for granted. They accept that there will be changes in their communities as a result of the changed rail service; they accept that there will be instances in which railway stations will no longer be manned, and they will be obliged to leave parcels-you would be familiar with this, Mr Deputy Speaker-in stations that are unattended, to be picked up at a later date. These people accept that. But they find it more difficult to accept that there has been so little consultation between the Minister and their communities. My plea tonight is that there be additional consultation between the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), the farmers and these rural communities in an effort to ensure that the Minister and AN are aware of the difficulties these farmers and these communities are facing. I have referred to the royal commission set up specifically to look into the sort of disadvantages that some rural communities face, and particularly to look into what were seen as inadequacies in the rail transport system. I refer to comments made by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). He applauded the work done in South Australia by Don Williams and by AN generally in achieving efficiencies in rail transport. The Opposition applauds that. It simply makes the plea on behalf of what is the major part of its constituency that both the Minister and AN increase the level of consultation they have with rural communities. I thank the House for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(10.03) —in reply-I want to make only a few points. In particular I want to refer to a couple of matters raised by the shadow Minister. I think he was concerned to ensure that the proposal to put poker machines in entertainment cars would not lead in any way to an increase in staff. I understand that that is the case. There will be a reorganisation of the staffing arrangements on the trains but there will not be any additional staffing as a result of this-although there will be different skills, if that is the correct term, involved. I have some information on the concerns he expressed in relation to poker machines on trains and in Australian National facilities. The South Australian Government and the Northern Territory Government have both been consulted in relation to the proposal, and although the South Australian Government initially had some concerns, I am told that it now agrees with the proposal as gambling, of course, would be introduced under Federal legislation. It was concerned at one stage that that would not be the case. The Northern Territory Government has no objection to the proposal at all. In closing the debate I simply thank members of the Parliament for the co-operative and constructive way they have approached the debate tonight. I, too, share some of the concerns expressed by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) in relation to the rail services run by some of the State governments, but I am just a bit disappointed that in making those by and large useful comments about the need for greater efficiencies and productivity, particularly in the New South Wales and Victorian systems, he did not mention Queensland, which in my view is in a similar situation. I think he was playing politics by not doing that, and it is a bit of a pity that he introduced such an element into what was otherwise a reasonably constructive contribution in relation to the problems that exist in the State systems. I thank honourable members for their support of the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill and hope that it can be passed into law very quickly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(10.07) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 2, page 1, line 12, omit `1 October', substitute `30 September'. (2) Clause 4, page 2, line 39, omit `1 October', substitute `30 September'. (3) Clause 4, page 3, line 12, omit `1 October', substitute `30 September'. Essentially these amendments are designed to ensure that workers compensation provisions applying in South Australia will be available to Australian National workers from 30 September, not 1 October as is presently provided for in the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill. I understand the reason this was not picked up before was that we did not realise, as we had no information at the time, that 4 p.m. on the effective date was to be the time when the South Australian legislation was to expire. As a result of that we have had to make this amendment. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.08) —I rise on behalf of the Opposition as I have a particular interest in tourism, being the shadow Minister for that area. I believe that this legislation will have a significant impact on our tourist potential. I say that because we are talking about Australian National's administration of some of the better known train rides in the world. I speak of the Indian Pacific and also the Ghan. I want to keep my comments specifically to the Ghan, which operates between Alice Springs and Adelaide. Just a couple of months ago, my wife and I had the opportunity to travel on this train from Alice Springs to Adelaide. We found it was very comfortable, the food was good and the service was reasonable. But from my point of view Australian National is missing a golden opportunity to cash in on Australia's tourism boom. We all recognise that tourism is multiplying so rapidly that sometimes people do not appreciate just how many chances they have to make some extra dollars for themselves and for Australia. Particularly in the Northern Territory at the moment tourism is going ahead at a great pace, and of course Alice Springs is in the heart of that. The Ghan starts its journey in Alice Springs, and I believe that Australian National ought to be promoting it not only within Australia but overseas as one of the great train rides of the world. I would put it in the same category as, say, the Orient Express, which is considered to be one of the great train rides of the world. I believe the potential for the Ghan to be considered-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! I take it that the honourable member will get shortly to the specifics of the Bill rather than make a second reading stage speech. Mr SHARP —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I return to the amendments before the Committee. Australian National Railways can make its operations far more profitable and lucrative and, at the same time, help Australia's tourism by ensuring that the quality of services, carriages and food can be upgraded to a high standard so that it is of international class. In this way international tourists can be attracted to travel on the Ghan rather than taking a flight from Alice Springs to Adelaide or Alice Springs to Perth. They can go on an Australian National Railways train like the Ghan and find it equal to any train service in the world. I believe that many people travelling to Australia would jump at the opportunity to travel through the heart of Australia on a train with a standard of service equal to any in the world. I believe that by upgrading services on the Ghan we can make a useful addition to Australia's tourist attractions. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.12) —I thank the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) for his assurances in response to certain matters I raised in the second reading. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that he did not realise the difficulties with time in relation to the amendment in this Bill. I repeat what I said in my second reading stage speech, that I would have thought that the Minister, as a former South Australian Attorney-General who has had the carriage of quite a number of such Bills, at least would have been able to focus on the time involved. I am delighted to hear that the Minister is as concerned about the railways in New South Wales and Victoria as we all are and, indeed, if any other of the State railways need to have the Minister's attention, the Opposition would welcome that happening. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) said that I had been rather churlish and had overlooked the general bipartisan level of this debate. The Minister, however, said that he appreciated the Opposition's support on this Bill. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duncan)-by leave-read a third time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.15) —Over recent months many constituents, and others who are not constituents, but who are nevertheless taxpayers, have brought to my attention a series of complaints about treatment they have received at the hands of some personnel in the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in Perth. Each of those who has felt the need to complain can be accurately described as a fairly ordinary or average pay as you earn taxpayer. It is necessary to mention that point, if only to avoid the accusation that critics of any aspect of the administration of tax laws are somehow friends of tax cheats. Indeed, there seems to be some justification for believing that there has been a complete role reversal in that the behaviour of some ATO personnel has assumed the mantle once perceived to be the sole property of those who were regarded as tax cheats. Mr Cobb —They have gone right overboard. Mr ROCHER —Yes, and this extends beyond the boundaries of Western Australia, but certainly my experience is confined to that State. The extend of and possible reasons for that deplorable development will be the subject of a more detailed submission from me to the House on an appropriate future occasion. Tonight, I am content to give an example of my long held concerns by referring to a recent experience of a constituent. I can do no better-and I rarely do this-than quote verbatim a letter that awaited me when I returned to Canberra only this week. I shall not mention the writer's name because I do not have the authority of the gentleman concerned to do so. The letter reads: I have not written to you before, mainly because I have not felt strongly enough about any topic of public interest to do so. I am writing in anger on the topic of tax investigations. Like everyone else, I pay tax, 35-40% of my salary. I accept the necessity for this. I do not accept that in a democratic society, we should receive `threatening' letters from taxation bureaucrats, 3 months after our tax return, demanding documentary evidence to justify our claim for a rebate, these letters couched in terms which assume us to be guilty of fraud until we can prove our innocence! Moreover, as my study leave was a complex exercise, it took a whole week to prepare my tax return for presentation via an accountant. Three months later, it has taken me ten to twelve hours of hard work to find and organise all the documents, receipts and other pieces of paper the tax man requires to prove my innocence (he takes three pages of his missive to threaten me with dire penalties if I don't)-at a time when I am busy with several important research projects involving two important visitors from Canada and Sweden; I am also trying to prepare an important lecture on back pain for a conference in Brisbane, and have a heavy teaching load instructing medical students!! He continues: The tax bureaucracy requires me to present the evidence in a detailed way cross-referencing various documents for their convenience; this occupies days of my time in non-productive effort in tasks I am not trained for, and distracts me from the job I am good at, hindering my work with my distinguished guests by giving me deadlines for submission of my documented proof of innocence. There is little point in my writing to the tax man, as he does what government tells him. What is required, in my opinion, is more respect for the rights of individuals- Amen to that- more respect for their integrity and less interference with or deflection from their legitimate productive work by bureaucracy gone mad! In conclusion, I have been until now, a labor voter, on the grounds that social justice is a high ideal to be admired and supported, but there appears to be conflict between this ideal as labor sees it and individual freedom from bureaucratic restraint and intrusion. I am coming to value the latter more and more the longer the present government is in office. I seek your advice. . . That gentleman will have my advice when I return home tomorrow, but I regret to say that I will not be able to give him favourable advice because of abuses of the type I have outlined. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(10.20) —I wish to address an issue of ecological significance which, although not glamorous like the Daintree wilderness, is of immense importance to a local community and has broader ramifications for the Australian coastline. The issue relates to the decision of the Landsborough Shire Council which proposes to construct a sewerage outlet at Kawana Waters on the Queensland Sunshine Coast. For honourable members who are unfamiliar with the area, I will tell them a bit about it. The region stretches roughly 50 miles from Caloundra at its southern point to Noosa in the north. The two main industries are tourism and fishing. Tourism in particular generates millions of dollars for the local economy when each year thousands flock from cooler climes to the golden beaches and crystal waters for which the Sunshine Coast is famed. It is these same beaches and unpolluted waters that are now under threat from the prospect of an 800-metre long sewerage pipe pumping out partially treated effluent into local waters. The Landsborough Shire Council plans to go ahead with the proposal despite massive community opposition. Less than two weeks ago a demonstration of more than 400 people took place on a wet morning in a local park to voice sentiment against the outlet plan. A local community group, the Concerned Residents Acting Against Pollution, has collected 15,000 signatures condemning the project. The petition has been presented to the Queensland Parliament by the sitting National Party member for the State electorate, who also happens to be the heir apparent to the Queensland throne. In sharp contrast to the standard Queensland Government practice, there has been no move to intervene in the Council's decision. I bring the matter to this House because it is one example of an environmental issue which affects every Australian living along a coastline. Along our eastern coastal boundary there has been established a network of sewerage discharge systems, stretching from a secondary system, emptying into the Barron River and Trinity Inlet at Cairns to one proposed at Geelong. Everyone is now familiar with the Bondi experience which has transformed a world-renowned surfing beach into an infamous home for floating colonies of human waste. The Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board's answer to Bondi's problem is longer outfall tunnels. However, overseas experience indicates that pumping sewage further and further off-shore is not a long term solution and I believe the possibility of establishing alternative land-based systems of minimal environmental impact is a matter deserving of thorough, independent study. The problems of outfall are obvious. First, the injurious effects on surrounding marine life; secondly, health risks, including eye, ear, nose and throat infections caused by swimming in polluted waters; and, thirdly, contamination of shellfish, which are acutely sensitive to toxic materials. The Kawana Waters outfall is planned in an area in close proximity to juvenile prawn grounds. Understandably, concern has been expressed by local fishermen that chemicals associated with the treatment, such as chlorine and ammonia, may present themselves in such quantities as to be fatal to the prawns at such a delicate stage in their life cycle. Furthermore, the outlet is proposed to be built in an established trawler fishing ground. Apart from the physical obstruction that the pipeline will present to boats and nets, there will most likely be strong public reaction against seafood caught in local waters for fear of contamination. Hence the Landsborough Shire Council's proposal should be questioned because of the destructive environmental impact that such a discharge system poses to marine life. Equally, the resultant downgrading of the area's allure as a tourist destination will translate into further economic loss to the region. I call on the Landsborough Shire Council to undertake a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the alternative land-based systems as I am advised by local residents that the assessment already made did not comprehensively canvass the range of different systems available. An unspoilt environment is fast becoming a rare and precious resource and it is therefore of vital importance that such resources be safeguarded, particularly when they are coupled with the spectacular geographic beauty that the Queensland Sunshine Coast has to offer. Such an environment is an investment in all our futures and we must take care not to allow its value to be diminished by ill-considered bargain hunting planning propositions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.25) —Not only is the Hawke Government raising the Medicare levy from one per cent to 1.25 per cent for families with a total income over $15,090 and single earners with incomes over $8,980, but also it plans to decrease its service to those Australians who have private health insurance cover. It claims that this will save $1.5m in a full year. Twelve regional Medicare agencies are to be abolished in Victoria and many thousands of Victorians will be seriously inconvenienced. Since the introduction of Medicare, those Australians with private health insurance living in areas outside capital cities-in areas such as Colac and Geelong-have been able to present their Medicare claims at their fund office where their private health fund has been a sub-agent for Medicare. Regional Medicare agencies were established in the first place for the convenience of clients and to maintain the level of service they had been used to prior to the introduction of Medicare. It has been a great help to people in regional areas who have had access to a one-stop shop for medical refunds. If the Government goes ahead with its plan to discontinue the service it will mean that many rural Australians will have to travel to major centres to lodge their Medicare claims or rely on the postal system. Currently Medicare agencies receive a proportion of the fee in return for assessing the claim. They handle more than 200,000 claims in Victoria each year and more than 900,000 throughout Australia. The savings estimated in the Budget Papers amount to the commission paid to the agencies for servicing the claims only-all the accompanying work is done free of charge to the Government. The private funds, which double as Medicare agencies, not only are providing a service to Medicare customers, but also are actually saving the Government money. The paltry amount that the Government would save by cutting out the Medicare agencies would disappear in a flash if Medicare were to be saddled with the processing of an additional 900,000 claims. Medicare would need to increase its staff dramatically and probably increase its premises. This would undoubtedly mean increased government spending. It is quite obvious that the Government's real intention is to open up Medicare-Medibank Private offices in regional areas where the agencies are currently operating. This would greatly advantage Medibank Private over the private health insurance funds. The Health Insurance Commission (HIC) has never been in favour of Medicare agencies being operated by private health insurance funds. Quite clearly the idea behind the Government's decision is to squeeze private funds out altogether and promote the one-stop Medicare-Medibank Private shop. If the Government were realistic about cutting health costs, it would seriously consider the proposal put forward by the Voluntary Health Insurance Associations of Australia (VHIAA) that all private health funds become Medicare agencies. They provide the service to the customers, do the job far better at less cost and such a proposal would allow for the immediate closure of 264 Medicare offices. In 1985-86 only 27 million Medicare claims out of a total of 121 million-or 22.83 per cent-were over-the-counter cash transactions. These could be handled by the private health insurance funds as Medicare agents. The Health Insurance Commission could administer the large majority of cheque and bulk-billing transactions. According to the HIC's annual accounts, it costs around $130m to administer the refund component of Medicare. Even under this so-called free and equitable health system, 50 per cent of Australians prefer to take out private health insurance. By making private health insurance funds Medicare agents and closing all existing medicare offices, the VHIAA estimates an immediate saving of $65m. Half the population already has private health cover so it is absurd to double up on administrative costs at the expense of the taxpayer. The VHIAA proposal has great merit. It would mean a more efficient administration, it would use existing resources and it would save the Government an immediate $65m. Medibank Private would be forced to stand on its own feet and any hidden advantage currently enjoyed through sharing office facilities with Medicare would no longer exist. Private health funds would have greater incentives to provide a better service and free market forces would prevail. Above all, the customer would benefit from a better service at no extra cost to the taxpayer. The Government's claim to save $1.5m by cancelling Medicare agencies is meaningless. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.30) —The passage of time and, indeed, the beneficial art policies of this Government have enabled many entertaining biographies from that of Phar Lap's strapper to that of the doyen of the Australian Labor Party, Arthur Calwell, to gain prominence amongst the general public. However, the champion of one long life drama that should inspire the nation's scriptwriters remains incarcerated in a broom cupboard of the Commonwealth Bank in Melbourne-or at least his ghost and portrait do. Alas, it seems that perpetual obscurity is to be the fate of the man who tried to champion the currency of banking in Australia, who was 50 years ahead of his time in working for the introduction of pensions, who moved successfully to prevent barmaids from pulling a beer until 1967, who wisely saw smoking as detrimental to the health and intelligence of all Australians, who helped to get under way a trans-continental railway, and who was a major architect of the decision to site the national capital in Canberra, having previously suggested his own State of Tasmania, patently because history has shown that all the brains and diligent workers came from frigid climates. This celebrity brought such wit and charm to the politician's vernacular and possessed such unceasing energy that one is puzzled to determine whether his life was one extremely entertaining story-undoubtedly guaranteeing its commercial success today-or a concoction of the colonial capers that characterised the day. Nonetheless, from the moment and place of birth, his life has been shrouded in fascinating controversy and many honours. This character is probably the first person to erect a tent outside the Federal Parliament, when in 1901 he chose this course of action to underscore his point to the Speaker about the inadequate salaries of parliamentarians. He was certainly the first member for Darwin, a largely rural electorate, and was elected upon a promise to `ring-bark the cockies by putting an excise on their spuds'. It was he who proposed that Caucus, rather than the Prime Minister, select all Labor Ministers. This action precipitated our leading light's entry into a future Cabinet, although an oversight still allows the Prime Minister to distribute portfolios. However, the real mark of the man was his all consuming desire to establish the Commonwealth Bank. He called for it more than anyone else. He even wore two guns to a Cabinet meeting to emphasise his determination over the project. He saw clearly that Australia needed a central bank of issue, deposit, reserve, and exchange, and that there was much advantage to be gained from having a government bank actively compete with the private banks. His proposals were largely innovative. His actions in gaining approval for the bank were purely ingenious. He assembled a group of factional colleagues under the banner of the `torpedo brigade' to support his plans and once sat in the parlour car of a Sydney-bound train, quietly reading a newspaper, to overhear the discussions of a delegation of private bankers opposed to the Commonwealth Bank. He even flouted legalities, when he used the signature on a letter from a colleague who was away on leave of absence, to force a proxy vote on the Bank. Whilst the Bank opened its doors on 15 July 1912, it was only a pale shadow of the vision this far-seeing, forceful and stubborn hero had. His life should serve as an inspiration to all Australians to better this great nation. I just hope that the Commonwealth Bank trustees soon see fit to extricate his regal portrait from its broom closet in Melbourne's Collins Street and reposition it where a more appreciative audience can pay its respects to the father of our biggest bank. Moreover, I hope that those in search of a worthy story soon throw light upon this most captivating character's life. The story of King O'Malley is worth telling. Indeed, it is worth telling well. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.35) —In the town of Peak Hill in my electorate of Parkes lives a constituent, a Mr Dudley Francis. He has been a general foreman of the Parkes Shire Council for many years and has always carried out his job in a conscientious and thoroughly professional manner. Back in the 1970s he decided to join the Federated Municipal and Shire Employees Union of Australia. However, the union only came near him when they wanted his union dues, so he withdrew from the union by not rejoining the following year. Needless to say, the union hassled him to rejoin to get his money in all the unsubtle ways that unions usually resort to. Most workers would succumb to this sort of pressure, and I do not necessarily blame them for that, but Mr Francis is a man of unusual fortitude and, believing it was his right to do so, resisted all such attempts at coercion. After all, this was Australia, `the land of the free', and he was under the impression that compulsory unionism did not exist in this country. How wrong he was. There is a clause in the rules and regulations of this union, as there is with most trade unions in this country, that one can only resign from a union if one does so in writing to the secretary of the union. The rules also stipulate that one must give three months notice of resignation and, further, one is only allowed to resign if one is a fully paid-up member of the union. This comes about because of section 145 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act with which unions must comply if they are to be registered. If honourable members think about those stipulations for a moment I think they will agree that they are quite outrageous. Imagine if they applied to other organisations such as golf clubs or Rotary clubs. If, for example, one decides one wants to give up golf and take on lawn bowls for whatever reason, one simply lets one's membership lapse and joins the bowling club. Think of the outcry if one had to give three months notice in writing while still a member to every organisation one belonged to before one could pull out of it. This requirement by trade unions which they eagerly enforce is totally unreasonable and un-Australian. It is indicative of the draconian means trade unions resort to in trying to keep their unwilling memberships. Because of this unjust clause, earlier this year Mr Francis was served a summons demanding that he pay union dues back for the last eight or nine years for which he was not a member. Fortunately the `statute of limitations' restricts the union to collecting only six years back dues. In the end, after considerable argument and legal fees, Mr Francis was forced by mounting costs into making an out-of-court settlement of three years union dues, plus the current year's union dues, plus legal fees, plus the union's annual picnic day fee for the last six years. He also had to sign a deduction authority for future membership to be deducted from his wages. So Mr Francis, who after trying for nigh on a decade to get out of a union, is still forced, by law, to be a member of that union. Three shearers that I know of found themselves in a similar situation. They decided to drop out of the Australian Workers Union after 1983 because of their dissatisfaction with that union. However, again because of this ridiculous resignation clause, they were summonsed. But these three Australians had the guts, like Mr Francis, to stand up and fight, and took their case to the Goulburn court. On 4 September 1987, the Chief Industrial Magistrate, Mr George Miller, determined that the shearers had not correctly resigned and forced them to pay their 1986 subscriptions of $115. He also hit them with the $3,600 legal costs of the trade union. However, he determined that the union must summons its members within six months of their subscriptions falling due so he waived the unpaid dues for 1984 and 1985 and awarded legal costs of $750 against the union. However, the shearers were also up for overall legal costs approaching $10,000. I therefore alert all trade unionists that if their subscriptions fall due on, say, 1 August, the union can prosecute them any time after the end of that month and before 1 February the following year. One also cannot resign from a union during the months of May, June or July unless one pays the following year's dues. The point should be made that when one joins a union, one is not given a copy of the union rules which would alert one to section 145. This should be rectified. One is also not given a reminder notice that next year's fees are due, which again is unreasonable. The whole subject has many unsatisfactory areas that I believe the Minister should investigate, and as well section 145 should be deleted from the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is nothing more nor less than a clause that leads to extortion within the trade union movement. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.39) —The Anglo American Corporation is a very large company by any standard of judgment. It is a very large company in world terms. It is a massive company in terms of its native South Africa. I therefore feel somewhat uneasy about what appears to be the course the Western Australian Government has set upon in giving the Kalgoorlie tailings dumps to the Anglo American Corporation to treat. This Corporation has had an annual lease on these dumps for eight years. A tailings lease requires one to remove and treat the dumps within the terms of the licence. If there are more dumps than can be treated in one year it is the usual policy of the Government to extend the licence. However, in eight years Anglo American has not treated one ounce of these dumps but it has had its licence renewed annually. Recently Anglo American was taken to court by a local company which had been seeking for some time to treat these dumps, but the warden did not make a decision. He said that he was not in a position to take the tailings dumps from Anglo American because it did not have them. I would have thought that was clear evidence that other people could apply for the licence, but it looks like the Western Australian Government, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Goldcorp, is going to enter into a joint venture with Anglo American, taking a 15 per cent position. The people of Kalgoorlie have endured the dust and the inconvenience of those dumps for 80 years, and I believe the people of Kalgoorlie are entitled to get at least something back from the treatment of those dumps. They are an enormous resource. Anglo American admits that there is close to half a billion dollars worth of gold contained within the dumps, although it says that it expects to get out only about $200m worth at today's prices. There is one company, a local company called Goult Pro Partners, entirely Australian-owned, which treated in fact 186,000 tonnes of those dumps when they belonged to the previous owner. It was able to extract more gold from those dumps than Anglo American said was in them, which is not a bad effort, and it certainly indicates that there is no technological transfer from Anglo American to Australian interests. I doubt whether there is any part of the whole of this nation that has contributed as much to the common weal as the gold fields. They are areas of great historical significance and they have made a great contribution to our export earnings over many years. But this area is one of the greatest areas of poverty in terms of public facilities. Kalgoorlie is now a town of some 30,000 people, I would estimate, which does not have a venue where visiting groups can perform, so denying the people of Kalgoorlie these advantages. The Anglo American Corporation says that as it is operating under its Australian subsidiary, Anglo American Pacific, it is only 62 per cent South African-owned, and it intends to water this down by allowing the Western Australian Goldcorp, which is presently a subsidiary of the Western Australian Development Corporation, to take out 15 per cent. The reality is that Anglo American will retain 49 per cent and management, and that, in anyone's terms is control; it is total control. Not only that; the institutions which it elects to sell to are always institutions in which it has very strong interests. Honourable members might have noticed recently that the Newmont operations in America have been successfully taken over by the British company, Consolidated Goldfields, which in turn is owned by Anglo American. So we can see how incestuous this whole thing is. Anglo American is probably responsible for 70 per cent or more of South Africa's gold production, and it is clearly trying to establish itself as the controller of Australia's gold mining industry. I think there is an enormous amount of hypocrisy in this situation. I think it is something that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Foreign Investment Review Board ought to be looking at, and it is something that the West Australian Government must examine its conscience about. As a member of parliament, I abhor hypocrisy. I believe that the sanctions we impose on South Africa do far more damage than good, for I am aware that in terms of economic downturn, there are no advances for democracy. In fact, democracy cannot survive in that climate. It cannot survive in South Africa any more than it can survive anywhere else in the world. So while we go down this rather fruitless and pointless path, yet hand the Anglo American Corporation $200m on a plate, I think we must really examine our consciences. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(10.44) —As we all know, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has, over the last few days, been in Ireland lauding the contribution of the Irish to the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and Australia. In one address, according to reports, he highlighted the influence of Irish Australians who have provided, as he said, his Party's spirit, principles, philosophy and leadership. Tonight I want to talk about one Irish-born Australian in my electorate who is keen to influence ALP principles and philosophy in 1987. His name is Jim Dunlop. Jim lives with his family in the Hawkesbury area of my electorate of Macquarie. He migrated to Australia in 1969 from Banbridge, County Down, in Ireland. For nearly 20 years he has contributed to his new country by the hard work he has put into a machine operating business in Sydney. At the moment, however, Jim is unable to run his business on building sites in Sydney. The reason? He opposes compulsory unionism and has spoken out against the damage union militancy is doing to workers and small businesses. Because of his stand and the subsequent union black ban, employers are effectively locking him out. The Prime Minister told us in this place in April that there is no such thing as compulsory unionism. There are closed shops, but not compulsory unionism. According to the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), closed shops are voluntary agreements which suit unions and employers. The euphemism and semantic dishonesty of this Government on the question of this coercion, which is compulsory unionism, is quite shameful. As the Australian editorialised on the Minister's views on closed shops, compulsory unionism arises from the weakness or duplicity of employers who sacrifice individual rights and freedoms for industrial peace. It said: . . . closed shops neglect the fundamental rights of the workers the unions represent: under the closed shop they have the freedom either to join a union or to join the dole queue. This is as compulsory as unionism can be. Jim Dunlop and the livelihood of his family have been sacrificed for the sake of industrial peace. I am not sure which is the more reprehensible: the cowardice and/or duplicity of employers, or the standover tactics and contempt for freedom which characterise some unionism in this country. I want to commend Jim Dunlop. He is refusing to give in to the unions. He and his family are giving the principles upon which this country was built the honour they are due. Jim Dunlop's determined defence of his rights and the principles involved represent the real contribution Irish men and women have made to this great country. His case highlights the discrepancy between the image the Prime Minister projects overseas, and the reality of his policies for the average worker such as Irishman Jim Dunlop. Perhaps when the Prime Minister returns to Australia he might redirect his respect for the Irish in general towards one particular Irish-born Australian whose circumstances reflect all that is wrong with our economy but whose spirit we will be celebrating in 1988. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.47) —Tonight I would like to acquaint the House with a significant event that occurred today in Wollongong, and that was the meeting of the board of directors of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP). As part of the meeting of the board of directors, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was also invited to attend and officially to recommission a major refurbishment of a section of BHP's Port Kembla steelworks. I say that it is significant because BHP's board of directors attendance in Wollongong was the subject of a great degree of scepticism on the part of a number of people. The reason for that was the decision that was announced a couple of weeks ago, that due to economic circumstances in the steel industry, BHP would find it necessary over the next 15 months to retrench upwards of 4,000 steel workers from its major steel plants around Australia. The sad part about that is that as part of that plan, upwards of 2,600 steel workers are to be retrenched in BHP's operations at Port Kembla. I say it is sad because, if we look at the history of the plant at Port Kembla over the last six or seven years, we see that it is indeed a sorry history. And it is so simply because, in the early 1980s the work force at BHP's plant at Port Kembla numbered about 23,000. By the end of the 1986 that work force had dwindled to about 13,000, and as I understand at the moment, about 12,600 workers are associated with BHP's works at Port Kembla. Clearly this announcement that a further 2,600 workers are to be retrenched over the next 15 months means that steelworks employment at Port Kembla will be down to around 10,000. The reason being advanced by BHP is a need to increase productivity. It says that it has done all it possibly can in terms of refurbishment and reinvestment in the industry at Port Kembla and right around Australia. I commend BHP for its investment program under the terms of the steel industry plan. In Wollongong alone BHP has invested upwards of $800m on new plant and equipment. In other parts of its steel works at Newcastle and Whyalla it has invested an additional $250m, taking its investment totally right around Australia to well in excess of $1 billion. That is way in excess of the commitment it gave under the steel industry plan when it was put in place. I reiterate that I commend BHP for that initiative. I believe it was long overdue. The practices that it followed in the 1950s, 1960s, and indeed the 1970s, of trying to increase steel production in Australia by increasing its workforce obviously was something of a short-sighted approach. It did not take into consideration the massive technical advances that were being made overseas. But what does concern me is the way in which this approach to increases in productivity is being tackled in view of the refurbishment that has gone on. I understand that golden handshakes and voluntary retirement schemes will be offered to many of these people. But what we will find, as we have found over the last six or seven years in the Illawarra community-I know it is also the case in Whyalla and the Hunter district-is a very sad lack of skills development associated with the steel industry and that will translate into the general community in all of these areas. The sad fact is that places such as Wollongong have for many years been economically dependent upon the steel industry and the coal industry. If we are to see these retrenchments take place, there has to be concern by not only the Federal Government but also the State and local governments for the future of these areas. I ask BHP to look very carefully at the need for those retrenchments of the magnitude that it has suggested. I have had discussions with the company and I understand its point of view. I have had discussions with the trade union movement and I sympathise entirely with the views that it has, representing the views of its workforce. I hope that some compromise position can be reached. I pledge my support for that, and the support of my colleagues, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), who represent the south coast as we look towards that solution. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.52) —I open my remarks by congratulating the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) for a very entertaining adjournment speech tonight. I am here tonight to raise a matter regarding a phone call I received last week from a gentleman naming himself to me as Kieran Murphy. Kieran Murphy said to me that he is a reporter from the Northern Guardian, a newspaper that I know to be published in the town of Carnarvon, where I lived for many years. He was seeking my comments on some circumstances he had observed in Carnarvon and in particular the visit, he claimed, to his office, the Northern Guardian newspaper office in Carnarvon, of a Mr David Cox. Mr Cox went to his office, requesting the opportunity to go through back issues of the paper for as far as possible and inferred that the reason for his visit was to get information on one Wilson Tuckey, or in fact, a company which is the property of Wilson Tuckey. David Cox told Murphy that he had also visited the Carnarvon court house and a Mr Frank Baxter, a known enemy of Wilson Tuckey and a person who is prepared at any time to hand out information, probably erroneous, on Mr Tuckey. In fact, Mr Baxter has a number of files which, as I have said, are quite erroneous and which get him into trouble at times. Mr Cox had also visited Mr Baxter. I am not sure what he learned, even at the Carnarvon court house, although I am aware of a by-election about to be conducted there and that the clerk of the court is the candidate for the Australian Labor Party. David Cox also claimed that he was the Canberra Press Secretary of Senator Peter Walsh. Consequently, Mr Murphy rang Senator Walsh to query him on this matter and Mr Murphy tells me that Senator Walsh dropped the phone in his ear. Mr Cox then rang Mr Murphy at a later date, claiming to be back in Canberra, and said that in fact he had not been in Carnarvon for the purposes he mentioned to Mr Murphy but had in fact been there on constituent work for Senator Walsh. I do not know why Senator Walsh, if he had some genuine constituent work in Western Australia in the town of Carnarvon-600 miles north of Perth, and I guess some 3,000-odd miles from Canberra-did not send one of his specially trained electorate staff to Carnarvon to undertake that work. Rather he chose to send his Press Secretary from Canberra. What is more, I am not complaining about his dirt digging. Anybody who wants to check on Wilson Tuckey and who starts turning over stones with his name on them will find that they are all round on the edges. If anybody wants to go out in the fields and plough them again, seeking information on Wilson Tuckey, he will be up to his knees in dust because so many have been there before. In fact, in recent times, through the activities of the State Government, we saw the shire, of which I had been a member for 16 years, sacked after I had left it, on the grounds that it had somehow failed to administer properly the health legislation. A commissioner was put in there for six months. I do not know what he looked for, but he did not find anything. Certain members of the Trades and Labour Council took what was, in fact, a very erroneous report to the police and had the police look into it. That did not work so they went to the Ombudsman and told him that the police had to work harder. That did not work either. There is a simple reason for all of this; the information that people have dreamed up in their imaginations just does not exist. But I am not complaining about that. It is all fair game with me. But I am concerned about the cost for the Australian taxpayers. Having looked at the recent declaration of travelling allowances and such relating to consultants and staff of Ministers, we find that Senator Walsh's staff consumed $12,913 of the public's money, and I think that probably another $2,000 has been added on what obviously was a failed venture. When Senator Walsh previously mentioned his Carnarvon file, I begged him to produce it. I gave him the opportunity to do it under parliamentary privilege; I did not even make that rather spurious statement, `Take it outside'. But he has failed to do that. It is now a week since he sent his emissary at taxpayers' expense all the way to Carnarvon, but he has failed to do it. I disagree with that. When I want to rake up a bit of evidence on Senator Walsh, I just go down to the non-members' bar and check up on what he used to do with Harriet-- Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member is a bit late. I do not put the cost to the taxpayer. The point about it is-- Mr Cunningham —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am not quite sure what remarks the honourable member for O'Connor was attempting to make there, but they probably should be withdrawn. Mr TUCKEY —Well, I do not think they should be withdrawn, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will do so in your interest, but I have not insulted the honourable senator in any way. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.57) —I want to raise a matter which in turn has been raised with me by two correspondents. I have received two letters on the subject. It relates to the fact that in the Hall of Memory at the Australian War Memorial there is no reference on the many plaques in the cloisters to the contribution that Australian defence forces made in Burma, particularly in the period 1941-45. It seems that there was an oversight or that some decision was made and, when the 30 or so plaques in those cloisters were established, the theatre of war and campaign area of Burma was omitted. All of us here are familiar with the contribution that Australians made to the liberation of Burma and to the defence of Australia and the end of World War II in that area. My father, a member of parliament for Victoria, died on the Burma railway and was in fact the only Australian member of parliament in our history to die at war. It seems incongruous and wrong that he and his colleagues, his comrades in arms-some 1,500 or so of them-who died on the infamous Burma railway are not remembered in some way on a plaque in those cloisters. I understand that originally some 275 or so theatres of war, areas of combat, were considered by the Council of the Australian War Memorial but that, as it so happened, in the first instance only 60 were selected and, after further consideration, only 30 remained. It is also unfortunate that the Council would have to consider removing one of those plaques relating to one of those theatres of war in order to include the Burma theatre. However, the Council agrees that the omission of Burma was an oversight and that it should be recognised. I do not envy the Council's task. It seems to me that all sacrifices for this country, all those who have died, have an equal place in our memories and that no single plaque should be sacrificed in order to include Burma. I do not know the solution. The Council has my sympathy and I wish it well at one of its future meetings when it has to consider this dilemma of how to recognise the contribution of the people in the Burma campaign without displacing plaques to the memory of others who have died for this country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 11 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Monday, 26 October. The following notices were given: Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of new telephone exchange building at Charlotte Street, Brisbane. Mr Braithwaite to move- That this House deplores the Government's ad hoc and retrogressive policy on uranium mining and its detrimental effect on the economy of the Northern Territory. Mr Braithwaite to move- That this House expresses its concern at the Government's neglect of adequate transport and communication facilities for northern Australia. Mr Braithwaite to move- That the Government promotes a co-operative approach to Commonwealth-State relations in preference to the confrontational tactics that highlighted the rainforest dispute in Queensland. Mr Braithwaite to move- That this House express its concern at the Government's administration of northern Australian affairs. Mr Braithwaite to move- That the Government liaise with the appropriate States of northern Australia and the Northern Territory with the intention of properly developing its many resources and providing adequate services to the people of this region. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 22 October 1987: Acts Interpretation Act-Statement relating to failure to furnish periodic report within specified period-Merit Protection and Review Agency-Report for 1985-86.